GS 1974 ARTICLE 49 – Article 70 Church Order
Advisory Committee IV presents:
MATERIAL:
- Agenda N2 • A Letter from sr. A. Leistra of Chatham, Ontario.
- N5 • The Proposal from the Church at Hamilton, Ontario.
Synod considers:
- 1. The fact that the maintenance of Article 70 Church Order was left in the freedom of the Churches is to be explained from the reasons given by the Synod Homewood, 1954, namely, that various ministers received a “marriage license”, which evidently means “not all of them”, so that the possibility should remain for a Consistory to continue the practice followed thus far.
- 2. The Church at Hamilton states, but does not prove that “a wide variety of different practices in our Church life with respect to the solemnization of marriages” is the result of the decision of the Synod Homewood, 1954 “to leave the maintaining of Article 70 of the Church Order to the discretion of the Churches”.
- 3. Reinstatement of the original Article 70 C.O., even with the changing of “confirmed” into “solemnized”, as proposed by the Church at Hamilton, would not render it impossible for ministers to solemnize a marriage in a manner which differs from what the Churches have agreed upon in their liturgical forms, nor would it render it impossible for ministers to solemnize marriages without the knowledge or consent of the Consistories; and thus it would not solve the problems which the Church at Hamilton sees.
- 4. In the Churches the words “before Christ’s Church” were and are commonly understood as meaning “in an official worship service”; it does not appear to be the intention of the Church at Hamilton to have such practice re-instated.
- 5. The statement of the Synod Homewood, 1954 “that it cannot be proven from the Word of God that it is proper that the blessing of the Lord on the matrimonial state be asked from the Lord in the presence of Christ’s Church, or that it is proper that the matrimonial state be confirmed in the presence of Christ’s Church” evidently is to be explained from what is mentioned under 4; and for that reason the arguments which the Church at Hamilton brings forward in support of the word “proper” do not apply in this case.
- 6. The importance of members of Christ’s Church marrying “in the Lord”, as pointed out by the Church at Hamilton, was not denied by the Synod Homewood, 1954 when it left the maintenance of Article 70 C.O. in the freedom of the Churches; neither was the obligation of the office-bearers to see to it that members marry “in the Lord” thereby denied.
Synod decides:
- a. not to accede to the proposal of the Church at Hamilton.
- b. to instruct the Committee on Revision of the Church Order to include in their revision of the Church Order such a draft of Article 70 that therein the main thrust of the proposal of the Church at Hamilton is assimilated, namely, that the members of the Church marry “in the Lord” and that the office-bearers are to see to it that they do so.
Synod concludes:
that hereby also the letter of Sr. Leistra has been sufficiently dealt with.