Office Bearers

GS 2025 Article 121 – Overtures RSE 2024: CO art. 49, 44, 47 (Delegation to General Synod)

1.   Material

  • 1.1    Overture of RSE 2024 regarding Article 49, 44, 47 CO (CCO) (8.4.2.4).
  • 1.2    Overture of RSE 2024 regarding Article 49, 44, 47 CO (CNO) (8.4.2.5).
  • 1.3    Letters from the following churches: Ancaster (8.5.4.1), Brampton (Grace) (8.5.4.2), Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth) (8.5.4.3), Caledonia (8.5.4.4), Calgary (8.5.4.5, 8.5.4.6), Carman East (8.5.4.7, 8.5.4.8), Chilliwack (8.5.4.9), Cloverdale (8.5.4.10, 8.5.4.11), Coaldale (8.5.4.12, 8.5.4.13), Edmonton (Immanuel) (8.5.4.14, 8.5.4.15), Edmonton (Providence) (8.5.4.16), Fergus (Maranatha) (8.5.4.17), Fergus North (8.5.4.18), Grand Rapids (8.5.4.19), Lincoln (Vineyard) (8.5.4.20), Neerlandia (8.5.4.21), Niagara South (8.5.4.22), Orangeville (8.5.4.23, 8.5.4.24), Ottawa (Jubilee) (8.5.4.25), Sardis (8.5.4.26), St. Albert (8.5.4.27, 8.5.4.28), Willoughby Heights (8.5.4.29), and Winnipeg (Redeemer) (8.5.4.30).

2.   Admissibility

  • 2.1    The overtures were declared admissible.
    • Grounds: They were submitted by regional synod and were received on time.
  • 2.2    The letters from the churches were declared admissible.
    • Grounds: They interact with overtures submitted to GS 2025 and were received on time.

3.   Observations

  • 3.1    The Overtures
    • 3.1.1    Two overtures, one from Classis Central Ontario (via Flamborough (Redemption)) and one from Classis Northern Ontario (via Brampton (Grace)), propose revisions to CO art. 49 to broaden representation at general synod.
    • 3.1.2    Both overtures request that the current regional synod-based delegation (6 ministers and 6 elders from each region) be replaced with classis-based delegation: each of the eight classes would delegate two ministers and two elders, increasing the total from 24 to 32 delegates.
    • 3.1.3    The overtures cite the growth of the federation (16 net new churches since 2004), geographic dispersion, lack of familiarity among delegates, and concerns over equitable classis-based representation.
  • 3.2    Supporting Grounds of the Overtures
    • 3.2.1    The current system may result in entire classes being overlooked and the new system would ensure “that each classical region is represented at general synod” (p. 4) which in turn would lead to “representing the concerns of a classis region at general synod” (p. 5).
    • 3.2.2    Delegates are often unfamiliar with candidates, potentially compromising voting quality.
    • 3.2.3    Classis-based selection would reduce overlap between regional synod and general synod delegates, especially in appeals.
    • 3.2.4    Broader local input would foster a greater sense of ownership of general synod decisions and ecclesiastical unity.
    • 3.2.5    Other federations (URCNA, OPC) already use proportionally broader or classis-based systems.
  • 3.3    Churches Supporting the Overtures
    •          (Brampton (Grace), Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth), Caledonia, Chilliwack, Edmonton (Providence), Fergus North, Lincoln (Vineyard), Ottawa (Jubilee), Sardis, Willoughby Heights)
    • 3.3.1    Key themes include improved engagement, stronger representation of all regions, greater sense of commitment to synod decisions, and the principle that involvement breeds ownership.
  • 3.4    Churches Opposing the Overtures
    •          (Ancaster, Calgary, Carman East, Cloverdale, Coaldale, Edmonton (Immanuel), Fergus (Maranatha), Grand Rapids, Neerlandia, Niagara South, Orangeville, St. Albert, and Winnipeg (Redeemer).
    • 3.4.1    Objections include: perceived shift to proportional representation, risk of regionalism, lack of compelling benefit, potential logistical and financial burdens, strain on small classes with limited personnel, departure from deliberative assembly ethos, and lack of evidence that the current system is broken.
    • 3.4.2    Others point out logistical burdens (e.g., travel, costs, facilities) or note that any issues with familiarity could be resolved via improved communication (e.g., bios of nominees).
  • 3.5    Churches Offering Qualified Support or Nuanced Views
    • 3.5.1    The Willoughby Heights CanRC and the St. Albert CanRC affirm the need for broader representation but are hesitant about abandoning regional synod as the delegating body.
    • 3.5.2    Willoughby Heights rejects a six-month delegation requirement; the Winnipeg (Redeemer) CanRC echoes concerns about small classis limitations.

4.   Considerations

  • 4.1    The overtures do not demonstrate that the current system is in need of improvement.
    •          No examples are given of classes being overlooked in choosing delegates to general synod. No compelling evidence is provided that the present system of regional delegation has failed to serve the churches well in either principle or practice.
  • 4.2    The overtures shift the nature of delegation toward proportional representation.
    •          Historic Continental Reformed polity works with the principle of delegation—not of direct representation. Those delegated are appointed to represent all the churches. Each general synod is convened not to replicate much less to promote regional interests but to exercise delegated judgment on behalf of the federation as a whole. The shift to classis-based delegation moves toward a model where every classical region has its own “voice” at general synod. This approach subtly imports a narrow representative expectation foreign to the historic Continental Reformed understanding of delegated, deliberative assemblies.
  • 4.3    Numerical growth of churches does not materially affect the concept of delegation.
  • 4.4    The concern about delegates voting for unfamiliar candidates is exaggerated.
    •          Ecclesiastical delegation has never assumed necessary personal acquaintance with every delegate. Nonetheless, bios, ecclesiastical records, and recommendations are possible means for more informed voting. Minor assemblies are free to establish their own procedures for these matters.
  • 4.5    The overtures minimize the practical burdens their proposal would impose.
    •          A small classis forced to rely repeatedly on a handful of ministers and elders is a realistic concern.
  • 4.6    Expanding the number of delegates may weaken—not strengthen—the deliberative character of Synod.
    •          Increasing numbers do not automatically improve deliberation. Larger bodies often become less nimble, more procedural, and leave less time for contributions by each delegate.
  • 4.7    Every church already has the greatest reason to take ownership of general synod decisions.
    •          By means of the Church Order, every church has entered into a covenant with all the other churches in the federation, pledging also to consider as “settled and binding” all decisions of the broader assemblies (under the condition of Art 31 CO). Keeping one’s promises is a sacred duty commanded by the Lord (3rd Comm; see LD 37).
  • 4.8    The overtures draw inexact analogies with the URCNA and OPC.
    •          These federations operate under different ecclesiastical assumptions, particularly concerning the representative nature of assemblies. Their practices are coherent within their systems but can’t be readily transplanted into the CanRC structures of governance.

5.   Recommendation

That Synod decide:

  • 5.1    Not to adopt the overtures.

ADOPTED

with one abstention.