GS 2025 Article 38 – Days of Prayer
1. Material
- 1.1 Report from the Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth) CanRC and the Edmonton (Providence) CanRC responsible for calling Days of Prayer (CO art. 54 (8.2.3.1).
- 1.2 Letters from: Grassie (Covenant) (8.3.3.1), Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth) (9.8.1).
2. Admissibility
- 2.1 The report was declared admissible.
- Grounds: It was mandated by the previous synod and was received on time.
- 2.2 The letters were declared admissible.
- Grounds: They interact with a report to GS 2025 and were received on time.
3. Observations
- 3.1 GS 2022 (art. 31) appointed Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth) and Edmonton (Providence) to proclaim Days of Prayer as per CO art. 54.
- 3.2 These appointed churches report that no Day of Prayer was proclaimed during their term. They received three requests (from Cloverdale, Ancaster, and Grassie (Covenant)), all of which were declined on the grounds that the matters raised did not meet the threshold of a “general calamity or other great affliction” as outlined in CO art. 54 and interpreted in GS 2004 art. 40.
- 3.3 The churches explained that a Day of Prayer is not intended for general ecclesiastical reflection or unity but is meant to be a response to acute and immediate crises with direct impact on the churches or nation.
- 3.4 Grassie (Covenant) submitted a letter to GS 2025 expressing concern that the current application of CO art. 54 may be too narrow. They argue that biblically, days of prayer often precede calamity and are acts of priestly intercession on behalf of the nation. They suggest that legislative changes (e.g., Bill C-4) are, in themselves, spiritual calamities that may warrant a Day of Prayer.
- 3.5 Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth) reports that it is in the process of merging with Burlington (Ebenezer) and suggests that the responsibility for proclaiming Days of Prayer be transferred to the merged entity, with the consent of Ebenezer’s council.
4. Considerations
- 4.1 The churches appointed under CO art. 54 acted within the scope of their mandate, using precedent from previous synods and the clear language of CO art. 54 to guide their decisions.
- 4.2 While letter of Grassie (Covenant) reflects a commendable zeal for prayer and national repentance, it expands the intent of CO art. 54 beyond what the Church Order appears to contemplate. Nonetheless, Grassie raises a valid question regarding whether our current interpretation of “general calamities and other great afflictions” should remain as stringent as defined in 2004.
- 4.3 Synod notes the good cooperation between Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth) and Burlington (Ebenezer) councils in planning for the continuity of this task post-merger. There is no need to appoint a new church if Synod reaffirms the task to the Rehoboth church with the understanding that it will transfer seamlessly to the merged church.
5. Recommendations
That Synod decide:
- 5.1 To thank the Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth) CanRC and the Edmonton (Providence) CanRC for their faithful execution of their mandate under CO art. 54.