GS 1974 ARTICLE 115 – Appeal Orangeville

The Report of Advisory Committee II on the appeal of the Church at Orangeville is further discussed.

It reads:

MATERIAL:

Agenda N 17 – Appeal of the Church at Orangeville.

OBSERVATIONS:

• 1. The Consistory of the Church at Orangeville “urges General Synod to state that Regional Synod should have revoked Classis’ answer to Burlington West as stated in sub article 8 “Admissibility of Remarriage of a divorced member”. (Classis Ontario North March 21, 1974)”
• 2. The decision of Classis Ontario North of March 21, 1974 reads as follows: “The Church at Burlington West requested advice in a special case. Classis sum­marized the received information in the letter to the following question: “Whether someone who is divorced, not on the base of adultery, but for reasons of breach of promise, refusal to let the partner serve the Lord, and persecution for the sake of Christ and His Church, can be allowed to re-marry”. Classis answered this question in the affirmative.”
• 3. In an appeal to the Regional Synod of Smithville 1974 against this decision of Classis the Consistory brought forward two objections, namely that Classis did not give Scriptural grounds; and that “though only advice was asked by the Church at Burlington West of the major assembly in a specific case, Classis, nevertheless, adopted a general rule.”
• 4. The Regional Synod adopted the following motion:
  • “Regional Synod having read and discussed the appeal of the Church at Orangeville concludes that it cannot deal with this appeal because
    • 1. Classis Ontario North of March 21, 1974 did not record Scriptural grounds;
    • 2. The Church at Orangeville did not offer Scriptural arguments to the contrary.”
• 5. In its appeal to this Synod the Consistory objects against the decision of the Regional Synod, that Regional Synod should have made a “positive decision on the appeal”, because the ground sub 2. (“The Church at Orangeville did not offer Scriptural arguments to the contrary”) is not pertinent to the appeal of the Church at Orangeville, since “Classis is duty bound to give grounds, when making a decision of this magnitude”.

CONSIDERATIONS:

• 1. Where a major assembly cannot “revoke” a decision of a minor assembly, the word “revoke” is to be read as “declare unjustified”.
• 2. While advice was asked in a specific case, Classis Ontario North made a general rule in starting the wording of its decision with “Whether someone”.
• 3. Regional Synod dealt only with the first objection of the Church at Orangeville’s appeal, that no Scriptural grounds were given, but should have taken into account also the second objection, that a general rule was made.
• 4. Where a general rule of such a great importance was made and recorded in the cts, Classis should have given Scriptural grounds.
• 5. Where Classis should have given Scriptural grounds for such a general statement, Regional Synod was not justified in basing its decision (not to deal with the appeal of the Church of Orangeville) on the fact that Scriptural grounds were not given by Classis.
• 6. The Church at Orangeville rightly states that she did not have to “offer Scriptural arguments to the contrary”, correctly objecting that Classis should have given Scriptural grounds.

RECOMMENDATION:

Synod declare:

Regional Synod should have dealt with the appeal, and have declared that Classis should not have recorded its decision without Scriptural proof.

A motion is discussed, reading: “CONSIDERATIONS:

• 1. Classis Ontario North March 1974 gave an advice to a Consistory “in a specific case”.
• 2. If the Consistory of Orangeville, having read the Acts of Classis, could not agree with this advice in good conscience, it should have gone to next Classis to prove the advice was wrong.
• 3. Regional Synod 1974 concluded that this matter could not be dealt with because:
  • a.  Classis had not recorded Scriptural grounds for its advice;
  • b. Orangeville had not offered Scriptural grounds to the contrary.
• 4. General Synod should, therefore, uphold the decision of Regional Synod, “that it could not deal with this appeal” (i.e. of Orangeville) on the grounds mentioned sub 3, a and b.

RECOMMENDATION:

Synod declare the appeal of the Church at Orangeville against the decision of Regional Synod East, 1974, inadmissible.

• Ground:
  • a. Regional Synod was right in stating that it could not deal with this appeal;
  • b. Orangeville has not proven that this matter “could be finished in the minor assembly”, i.e. Regional Synod, 1974 (Church Order Article 30b).”

This motion is rejected.

The Recommendation of Advisory Committee II is adopted.