Author: Roelf Janssen

5. Tangles (1) The need for the “ecclesiastical route” for proposals has been a point of debate in our churches. GS 2010 sought to clarify things but GS 2013 considered itself compelled to undo what GS 2010 had decided to. There is some evidence of uncertainty at GS 2016 regarding overtures, but not really of…

4. The fix undone Adherence to the ecclesiastical route has proven confusing in our churches. The confusion may even be considered a “bureaucratic mess”, to quote one church. Thus far we have reviewed what the issue is about, how GS 2010 acknowledged and described the inconsistency of practice over the years and decided to a…

3. A fix adopted GS 2010 admitted that, where the ecclesiastical route is concerned, there was a dilemma. There had been a “back-and-forth battle of opinions at subsequent general synods” which was “extremely unhelpful in establishing equity and fairness”. Decades earlier a church had predicted this “bureaucratic mess” could happen. (GS 2010 art. 62) Thus…

2. Inconsistency Acknowledged In the previous article I noted that a church once predicted a “bureaucratic mess” would ensue in our churches. While “mess” is might seem too strong a term, confusion is certainly present. It relates to the so-called “ecclesiastical route”. Last time I described the factors somewhat, concluding that it all seems neat…

Part of a series of articles on the origins and function of the ecclesiastical route in the Canadian Reformed Churches