02 Feb GS 1977 art 27

GS 1977 ARTICLE 27 – Committee III presents a (revised) majority and minority report. (See Acts, Article 23)

A. Majority Report

Material – Agenda 8, I, 1

–   The Church at Edmonton expresses its disappointment with the decision of Synod 1974, Acts, Article 84, and requests that a committee be appointed to study the matter of women’s voting rights.

Agenda 8, I, 3 Observations

–   The Church at Toronto expresses its agreement with the proposal of Edmonton.

• 1.  The Church at Edmonton has expressed its disappointment with the decision of Synod 1974 not to grant the request of the Church at Toronto to give women voting rights on the ground that the information supplied was “not sufficient to lead to a responsible, clear decision which takes all biblical (as well as church-political) aspects into account.”
• 2. Article 84 of the Acts of Synod 1974 indicates that the Church at Toronto has submitted considerable material in support of its request.
• 3. The same article indicates that a study-committee was recommended on the consideration that the material was not sufficient to come to a responsible decision.
• 4. Synod 1974 rejected the recommendation to appoint a study-committee.
• 5. The Church at Edmonton states that the Synod of 1974, by rejecting the request on the basis of the insufficiency of the material, established a criterion which an average consistory cannot meet.
• 6. The Church at Edmonton requests the appointment of a committee as was originally proposed by the advisory committee of Synod 1974.
• 7. The Church at Toronto expresses its support for the proposal of the Church at Edmonton to appoint a committee.

Considerations

• 1. Article 22 Church Order does not stipulate anything positive or negative about women’s voting rights but refers only to “the congregation.”
• 2. By not ad Article 30 Church Order refusing to deal with women’s voting rights, Synod 1974 has in fact admitted that this is a matter of common concern.
• 3. From the observation of Synod 1974, Article 84, it becomes apparent that the arguments of the Church at Toronto were not considered erroneous, but that their submission did not suffice in view of the complexity of the matter. The use of the words “all aspects” both in the considerations and in the decision underlines this complexity.
• 4. At Synod 1974 a strong case was made for the appointment of a special committee to study the matter, but then it was decided not to do so. Instead Synod 1974 rejected the request of the Church at Toronto without passing judgment on its validity or on the validity of its supporting material.

Conclusions

• 1.  The question as to whether women may vote involves Biblical and Church­ political principles. Since unity of practice is desirable, the introduction of women’s voting rights by a particular Church on its own would be regrettable.
• 2. By declaring the substantial submission of the Church at Toronto insufficient, Synod 1974 has indeed in this case established a criterion which an average consistory can hardly be expected to meet.
• 3. Synod 1974, by deciding that “no responsible decision can be made” has not properly completed its agenda. After rejecting the recommendation to appoint a committee for further studies, Synod itself had the duty to continue until it could make a “responsible clear decision.”
• 4. The matter of women’s voting rights has been left undecided, while some consistories have expressed concern over the matter.
• 5. Under these circumstances the Church at Edmonton and the Church at Toronto supporting Edmonton have properly requested the establishing of a study committee.

Recommendation

Synod appoint a committee with the mandate:

• a. To make a thorough study of all Biblical and Church-political aspects regarding the question of women’s voting rights.
• b. To forward the results of their studies to the Churches one year prior to the next General Synod and to invite comments to be submitted within six months after publication of the study.
• c. To submit their report with recommendations to the next General Synod.

B. Minority Report

Material – same as in Majority Report.

Observations – same as in Majority Report.

Considerations

• 1. Article 22, Church Order does not stipulate anything positive or negative about women’s voting rights but refers only to the “congregation.”
• 2. The question as to whether women can vote involves Biblical and Church­ political principles. Since unity of practice is desirable, the introduction of women’s voting rights by a particular Church on its own would be regrettable.
• 3. That Edmonton considers it impossible to present this matter again to a General Synod is incorrect. Synod 1974 did not judge the grounds of the request of Toronto but only stated that the materials were insufficient. In which points the material was insufficient is not stated, nor are the arguments found in­ valid. Therefore any church could present this matter again even including the same grounds.
• 4. To justify appointing a committee to study women’s voting rights Synod must be convinced that this matter of common concern is too broad or complicated for the local churches. Edmonton is of this opinion. But as Edmonton points out, considerable material is available on this matter. The Church at Edmonton or Toronto could digest this available literature and then present it (again) to a General Synod.

Recommendation

Synod decide not to grant the request of Edmonton and Toronto to appoint a committee to study the matter of women’s voting rights, since the churches themselves are competent to study this matter and to bring it to the General Synod.

Both reports are discussed. The recommendations of the Majority Report are

ADOPTED

Consequently the Minority Report is not voted on.