09 Nov GS 1989 art 113

Posted at 14:36h in CanRC, GS 1989 by

GS 1989 ARTICLE 113

MOTION

The following motion is made and duly seconded.

A. MATERIAL:

Letter from C. J. Burger

B. INTRODUCTION:

Since C.B. is appealing a decision of Regional Synod October 1987, this appeal is admissible.

C. OBSERVATIONS:

C.B. appeals a decision of Regional Synod East of October 1987 by requesting the following:

  • 1. That my letter of Sept. 13, 1986 does not contain “unproven accusations.”, but “factual criticism” which is not “in conflict with the ninth commandment as confessed in Lord’s Day 43.”
  • 2. That it is not true that the Consistory of Grand Rapids in her phone call to me on Saturday, Sept. 13, 1986 at 8:00 P.M. stated “Herein you were asked to receive the elders to discuss the Consistory’s letter with you.”
  • 3. That the Consistory of Grand Rapids should not have censured br. C.J. Burger since his letter of Sept. 13, 1986, does not contain “unproven accusations.”
  • 4. That the Regional Synod of Oct. 1987 erred in its judgment “you make judgments concerning matters with which the Consistory is dealing in closed session,” as it was Rev. Kingma himself who stated “this will put your membership of the church in a different light.” This statement shows that the matters regarding the church membership of the family Spaanderman was dealt with in the open and not as the Regional Synod states “in closed session”.
  • 5. That the Consistory of Grand Rapids had no valid reason to put me under censure. Therefore the censure should be lifted. Furthermore the Consistory of Grand Rapids has to publicly make this known to the congregation.

C. CONSIDERATIONS

C.B. does not prove:

  • 1. that he was wronged by Regional Synod which showed that C.B. was bringing forward “unproven accusations”.
  • 2. that he was wronged by Regional Synod which upheld C.B.’s suspension from the Lord’s Supper.
  • 3. that he was wronged by Regional Synod which upheld the Classis judgment that C.B. was involving himself in consistory matters that belonged in closed session.

D. RECOMMENDATION

Synod decide:

  • 1. C.B. does not prove that he has been wronged by the Regional Synod.
  • 2. Regional Synod has shown that C.B.’s accusations are unproven.
  • 3. General Synod cannot declare concerning the censure applied to C.B. that it was unsound.

DEFEATED

(see Article 122)

Print page