Office Bearers

GS 1974 ARTICLE 65 – Appeal of hrs. R. Jager and P. Ravensbergen

Advisory Committee IV presents:

MATERIAL:

N 12 – Appeal R. Jager and P. Ravensbergen at Smithville, against a decision of Regional Synod Ontario, 1974 (with two appendices)

THE ISSUE:

Regional Synod concluded that Classis Ontario South, June 1973 did not deal improperly with the appeal of these brethren, dated April 1973, when this Classis decided that it could not accede to their request to declare that the Consistory of Smithville did wrong by nominating for special office brethren who, though living in the territory of the Church at Lincoln, had decided to stay in Smithville, when the Church at Lincoln was about to be instituted.

THE APPEAL:

The brethren submit three requests to this Synod:

  • 1. Synod declare that Regional Synod 1974 should not have changed the answer from Classis,
    • “The Church of Smithville has officially declared on July 14, 1970, that it was the responsibility of each member to decide to join either the Church of Lincoln or stay in Smithville” into: “Classis Ontario-South of June 20, 1973 stated that the brethren were free to choose either to join or not to join the to-be-instituted Church at Lincoln” without any grounds for this change.
  • The Committee ADVISES Synod,
    • 1. Synod cannot accede to this request to state that Regional Synod Ontario 1974 has “changed the answer of Classis … without any grounds for this change.”
  • Grounds:
    • a. The Consistory of Smithville did not “officially declare that it was the responsibility of each member (living in the territory assigned to Lincoln) to join the Church at Lincoln” when instituted, but, “that it was the responsi­bility of each member to decide to join either the Church of Lincoln, or to stay in Smithville.”
    • b. By this wording the Consistory of Smithville gave at that moment (July 14, 1970 • the institution took place August 16, 1970) a measure of freedom to choose (“either – or”) to those members who lived in the territory assigned to the Church at Lincoln, but had not signed the request for instituting a new Church.
    • c. Regional Synod stated essentially the same: “that the brethren were free to choose either to join or not to join the to-be-instituted Church at Lincoln.
    • d. Not making any essential change, the Regional Synod did not have to give grounds for this change”.
  • Request 2:
    • “Regional Synod 1974 should have stated that Classis Ontario-South did not have the right to make such a statement without giving any proof.”
  • The Committee ADVISES Synod:
    • 2. Synod cannot accede to this second request either.
  • Grounds:
    • a. the brethren did not prove that the letter read in Classis, did not give official information about the official position of the Consistory of Smithville in this matter.
    • b. the fact that Classis in its answer to the brethren did not give (i.e. mention) any proof, does not mean that the Classis did not have proof (N.B. a Consistory letter re. the matter was read in Classis).
  • Request 3:
    • “Regional Synod 1974 should have complied with the request of the brothers in which they asked, The Regional Synod 1974 of the Canadian/ American Reformed Churches decide to request Classis Ontario-South to give a proper answer to the brs. R. Jager and P. Ravensbergen, regarding their appeal dated April 20, 1973, for they indeed never received an answer, whether or not those brothers living on Lincoln’s territory can become office-bearers of the Church of Smithville.”
  • The Committee ADVISES Synod,
    • 3. Synod agree that Regional Synod Ontario 1974 should have judged that Classis Ontario South June 1973 should have given an answer to the question “whether or not those brothers … can become office-bearers of the Church of Smithville”.
  • Ground:
    • Classis had the information needed for giving an answer to this question, namely:
      • a. the official information of the Consistory of Smithville that these brethren before the date of the institution of Lincoln had the freedom to choose to “stay in Smithville”;
      • b. the admission of the brethren Jager and Ravensbergen that these brethren were “members with full rights.”

ADOPTED

An amendment intended to replace No. 2 of the Advices of the Advisory Committee reads thus:

2. Synod answer:

  • a.  Classis gave indeed proof (Acts June 20, 1973, Article 14: “The Church of Smithville has officially declared on July 14, 1970 that it was the responsi­ bility of each member to decide to join either the Church at Lincoln or stay in Smithville”).
  • b. Classis did not state where this proof could be found.
  • c.  Regional Synod should have stated that Classis should not have made this statement without indicating where this proof could be found.

This amendment is rejected.

The brs. Rev. P. Kingma and R.J. Oosterhoff do not vote, according to Article 33 of the Church Order.