Office Bearers

GS 1974 ARTICLE 122 –  Appeal br. A.J. Ytsma at Chatham

Advisory Committee II presents:

MATERIAL:

Agenda N 10 – Appeal of br. A.J. Ytsma against the decision of the Regional Synod at Smithville, Ontario, 1974, Acts Article XI.

OBSERVATIONS:

  • 1. Br. Ytsma appeals against the decision of Regional Synod at Smithville, 1974, which reads:
    • “Regional Synod is not convinced by the arguments brought forward by brother Ytsma that the Classis Ontario South of June 12, 1974, erred in its decision that the Consistory did have the freedom to make a rule as the one against which brother Ytsma appealed to that Classis; however, Synod is of the opinion that this Classis did not do full justice to brother Ytsma’s appeal against the contents of that rule.”
  • 2. Br. Ytsma complains:
    • a. “that the Regional Synod confirmed (bekrachtigde) the Consistory-hierarchy in the Church of Chatham.”
    • b. that he does not understand at all what Regional Synod means, when it states: “however, Synod is of the opinion that this Classis did not do full justice to brother Ytsma’s appeal against the contents of that rule”, for Regional Synod did not give “any short explanation and information, why I was wrong.”
  • 3. Br. Ytsma requests Synod “to do away with the hierarchy in the Church of Chatham, regarding the change in the election rules for office-bearers.”
  • 4. The decision of Classis Ontario South, June 12, 1974 reads: “In the opinion of Classis the reply of the Consistory of Chatham wrongly referred to the end of Article 22 of the Church Order, which gave the impression as if Article 22 compels the voting members under any circumstances to vote one half of the nomination. However, the first part of Article 22 leaves to a Consistory the freedom to make such a rule”.

CONSIDERATIONS:

  • 1. Regional Synod confirmed – in the first part of its decision – the decision of Classis, namely, that the Consistory has the freedom to make rules with regard to the voting procedure.
  • However, Regional Synod did not give any explanatory ground in its decision.
  • 2. Regional Synod declared in the second part of its decision that “Classis did not do full justice to brother Ytsma’s appeal against the contents of that rule”.
  • However, again Regional Synod did not give any ground in which it explained to br. Ytsma in what respect Classis did not do justice to br. Ytsma’s appeal against the contents of that rule.
  • 3. Br. Ytsma’s complaint about hierarchy is caused by wrongly reasoning from Article 22 C.O., namely, that choosing the third method of nominating candidates eliminates that rule for voting procedures to which he objects.
  • However, the first part of Article 22 C.0., namely, that elders shall be chosen “according to the regulations that are in use locally or that are for that purpose established by the Consistory” does not only leave the freedom for a Consistory to choose any of the methods for nomination mentioned in the second part of Article 22, but also leaves the freedom for a Consistory to make or change certain rules for the voting procedures, regardless of the method chosen for nomination.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Synod declare:

  • 1. That Regional Synod rightly concluded that Classis did not do full justice to br. Ytsma’s appeal. Classis should have dealt with br. Ytsma’s objections “against the contents of that rule”.
  • 2. That Regional Synod should have indicated:
    • a.  why “the Consistory did have the freedom to make a rule as the one against which brother Ytsma appealed to that Classis;”
    • b. in what respect Classis failed to do justice to brother Ytsma’s appeal against the contents of that rule; and therefore decide to declare that it is not in the jurisdiction of this Synod to comply with the request of brother A.J. Ytsma.

ADOPTED

The Rev. M.C. Werkman does not take part in the voting according to Article 33 of the Church Order.