GS 1974 ARTICLE 98 – Appeal of brs. K. Stam and G. Dam a.o. at New Westminster
A letter of appeal of brs. K. Stam and G. Dam and others at New Westminster (Agenda N 18) is read.
Committee IV presents:
MATERIAL:
- Agenda N 18 – Letter of Appeal from Mr. K. Stam and 5 co-appellants, New Westminster, B.C.
INFORMATION:
- 1. The brethren appeal a decision of Regional Synod West, May 8/9, 1974 (Acts Article 23),
- 2. This decision reads: “Concerning the request of the brs. G. Dam and K. Stam for the Regional Synod to consider the matter and to advise the Consistory … in this issue, the Regional Synod declared that it is not within the province of this Synod to decide on the matter because the Regional Synod should not do what Classis should have done. (Article 30 C.O. part b.),
- 3. The appellants ask General Synod to decide:
- A. That the Regional Synod … was wrong in declaring “that it is not in the province of this Synod to decide on this matter because Synod should not do what Classis shoud have done”.
- B. “that the matter had come on the Agenda of Synod by way of appeal in the ecclesiastical way, via Classis and that Synod therefore had the right to deal with it”.
OBSERVATIONS:
- 1. The brethren adduce as ground for their request that “this matter had come on the Agenda of Regional Synod in the way of Article 31. the way of appeals … ” and “that Synod therefore had the right to deal with it”.
- 2. The brethren complain “that the Regional Synod erred in its “interpretation” of our Church Order (which in effect nullifies “the right of appeal”) particularly its confusing Article 30 and 31″.
CONSIDERATIONS:
- 1. Regional Synod West, 1974 did indeed receive the appeal of the brethren Stam, Dam in the way of Article 31 C.O. and the Regional Synod did deal with this appeal and made a decision on it. (Acts Article 23),
- 2. By deciding not “to advise the Consistory of the Church at New Westminster in this issue” referring to Article 30, sub b. – (“In major assemblies only such matters shall be dealt with as could not be finished in minor assemblies … “) – Regional Synod did not “confuse Article 30 and 31”,
- 3. Regional Synod West, 1974 had come to the conclusion “that Classis (of April 17, 1974) failed to deal with the issue at stake and to judge the arguments of council/consistory and appellants in this matter … ” (Acts Article 23),
- 4. Regional Synod West, 1974 was therefore correct in stating that it should not do what Classis should have done, since it was still in the province of Classis to judge the arguments of Council/Consistory and appellants, if appellants had felt bound to again approach Classis.
General Synod decide: Not to grant the request of the brethren K. Stam, c.s.