Office Bearers

GS 2025 Article 8 – Format of the Acts

1.   Materials

  • 1.1    Letters from: Glanbrook (Trinity) (8.4.4), Hamilton (Cornerstone) (8.1.8), Flamborough (Redemption) (8.1.4), Ancaster (8.1.2), Attercliffe (8.1.3).
  • 1.2    Appeal from Chilliwack (8.6.6).

2.   Admissibility

  • 2.1    The submissions were declared admissible
  • Grounds: These submissions interact with GS 2022 art. 7.8 and were received on time.

3.   Observations

  • 3.1    The above submissions express concern over GS 2022 art. 7.8 to change the format of synodical decisions from the traditional structure:
    • Materials – Admissibility – Observations – Considerations – Recommendations
  • to the structure:
    • Materials – Admissibility – Decisions – Grounds.
  • 3.2    The churches argue that the previous format:
    • Better reflected the content of overtures, appeals, and the thoughts of the churches through the “Observations” section.
    • Explained the reasoning of a Synod more fully through “Considerations.”
    • Provided a clearer basis for accountability and understanding, especially for future assemblies and local office-bearers.
  • 3.3    The Glanbrook (Trinity) CanRC overture notes that a similar proposal was already rejected by GS 2013 after full interaction with the churches. GS 2022 adopted the new format without reference to this prior decision and without receiving an overture from the churches.
  • 3.4    Several submissions (Glanbrook, the Chilliwack CanRC, the Hamilton (Cornerstone) CanRC) express concern that the change in 2022 was adopted via an informal letter and motion, with no clear procedural justification or transparency for the churches.
  • 3.5    Chilliwack notes that decisions are now harder to interpret and appeal.
  • 3.6    The Flamborough (Redemption) CanRC and Cornerstone highlight how the observations and considerations serve a distinct ecclesiastical purpose, making synodical reasoning both transparent and logically traceable. They argue that brevity should not come at the cost of ecclesiastical clarity and accountability.
  • 3.7    The submissions uniformly request that Synod 2025 restore the previous format and codify it in the Guidelines to ensure consistent, transparent recording of synodical decisions.

4.   Considerations

  • 4.1    The churches raise valid concerns. The previous format supported an ecclesiastical manner of decision-making (CO art. 30) by:
    • Summarizing the voices of the churches (Observations),
    • Articulating the logic of Synod’s evaluation (Considerations), and
    • Stating the actual action (Recommendations).
  • 4.2    The new format lacks transparency. Without observations and considerations:
    • Readers must cross-reference other documents to understand Synod’s response to the churches.
    • Churches cannot easily see whether their concerns were heard or how their arguments were weighed.
    • Future appeals become more difficult to formulate due to insufficient published reasoning.
  • 4.3    The manner in which the GS 2022 change was adopted—via an informal letter and in-session motion—did not meet the standards normally expected for structural decisions. It also bypassed prior synodical precedent (GS 2013).
  • 4.4    A uniform format, clearly stipulated in the Guidelines for Synod, would serve the churches by providing consistent expectations and strengthening trust in the decision-making process.

5.   Recommendations

That Synod decide:

  • 5.1    To return to the previously used format for all synodical decisions:
    • Materials – Admissibility – Observations – Considerations – Recommendation(s)
  • 5.2    To revise the Guidelines for General Synod to specify this format as the standard for all future Synods.

ADOPTED

For the Guidelines as revised by GS 2025, see Appendix 25.