GS 1974 art 123 – Office Bearers

GS 1974 ARTICLE 123 – Appeal Rev. A.H. Dekker at Lincoln

Committee III presents:

1. Classis Ontario South of September 12, 1973 had declared an appeal of Rev. A.H. Dekker inadmissible on the grounds that he had not proven that he himself had been wronged.
2. Rev. A.H. Dekker appealed to the Regional Synod Smithville, 1974 that this ground should not have been given by Classis, and requested the Regional Synod to state that “a person who appeals should not have the duty to prove that he himself has been wronged.”
3. The Regional Synod declared that the Classis’ ground itself was not proven.
4. Rev. A.H. Dekker, in his appeal to the General Synod, states that the point of issue is the interpretation of Article 31 C.O., and that he believes that a person can always appeal if a decision is contrary to the Word of God, the Confessions or the Church Order.
5. Rev. A.H. Dekker requests General Synod to declare:
- “Regional Synod Smithville, 1974 should have made the decision:
  - ‘Regional Synod declares that Classis Ontario South of September 12, 1973, should not have declared the appeal of the Rev. A.H. Dekker inadmissible on the ground given’ on the ground that a person who appeals should not have the duty to prove that he himself has been wronged.”

1. It is clear that the Rev. A.H. Dekker holds that the Classis’ decision introduces the rule that an appeal can be declared inadmissible merely if the appellant has not himself (personally) been wronged.
2. It should be admitted that Article 31 of the Church Order does not prevent any Church member from appealing if a decision of a minor assembly is contrary to the Word of God, the Confession, or the Church Order, even if the matter does not pertain to his own person. However, he may not meddle in something that does not concern him.
3. Classis Ontario South did not give reasons to substantiate that Rev. Dekker has not proven that he himself has been wronged.

Synod decide not to grant the request.

Grounds:

1. Appellant’s request contains an exact wording which, if adopted, introduces the rule “a person who appeals should not have the duty to prove that he himself has been wronged”, which could open the way for appeals and complaints that are not substantiated.
2. Appellant’s concern that Classis introduced a rule as in Consideration 1, has been sufficiently answered by the Regional Synod’s declaration that Classis did not give any proof for its own ground.