06 Jul GS 1995 art 53
GS 1995 ARTICLE 53 – Appeal Winnipeg re: General Synod 1986, Art. 85
Committee IV presents: Agenda item VIII. A. 1
A motion to change in consideration E the words “. . . the fact that such a procedure has been adopted and implemented by the churches in Regional Synod East . . .” to: “. . . the fact that such a procedure has been adopted by General Synod 1986 and implemented by the churches in Regional Synod East and Regional Synod West” is DEFEATED
Letter from the church at Winnipeg re: Art. 85, ACTS 1986.
- A. The church at Winnipeg appeals to General Synod 1995 to rescind Art. 85 III, Acts 1986 because it questions the validity of Consideration 1, namely, that admitting other churches to the federation has always been a matter of local churches with the judgments of classis and the concurring advice of Deputies of Regional Synod.
- B. The church at Winnipeg states that Classis Ontario South “dealt with Denver’s request in several classis meetings without the deputies” and asks, “why did our classis do the same before its October 1993, even denying the request without the presence of the deputies?”
- C. The church at Winnipeg also states that the reference in Art. 85 to “concurring” advice says too much, seeing that the Church Order and the church political commentaries do not give Deputies ad Art. 48 C.O. such “importance.”
- D. The church at Winnipeg is of the conviction that if rules are needed for admit- ting other churches than a “minor meeting itself must come with clear propos- als” and that in the case of Ottawa’s request, that church should have come with a clear recommendation(s).
- A. The church at Winnipeg is correct when it questions Consideration 1 which states that the admission of local churches into the federation has always been a matter of classis and the concurring advice of the Deputies ad Art. 48 C.O., seeing that prior to 1986 no clear procedures had ever been adopted by the churches requiring the concurring advice of the Deputies ad Art. 48 C.O. in these matters.
- B. The church at Winnipeg is wrong when it states that Classis Ontario South dealt with Denver’s request “without the deputies” seeing that the deputies were pre- sent but were not asked for concurring advice because Classis referred the matter to Classis Alta-Man. Furthermore, Regional Synod East 1987 ruled that in the admission of the church at Laurel to the federation, Classis Ontario South should have followed the procedure mentioned in Consideration 1 and requested the concurring advice of the deputies (Acts Regional Synod East 1987). In addition, Classis Ontario North of March 12, 1987, followed this same procedure when it admitted the church at Lower Sackville.
- C. The church at Winnipeg is correct when it says that the Church Order and the Church Polity commentaries of Bouwman and Rutgers are silent on this matter.
- D. The conviction of the church at Winnipeg that a “minor meeting itself,” such as the consistory of the church at Ottawa, must come to Synod with recommendations on this matter, would have been helpful but was not required seeing that it can be argued that such recommendations belong to the churches in common (Art. 30 C.O.).
- E. Although General Synod 1986 neither proved that there was an established procedure for admitting churches into the federation nor that the Church Order requires “concurring” advice, the fact that such a procedure has been adopted and implemented by the churches in Regional Synod East must be given serious consideration. Furthermore, it cannot be said that the adoption and use of such a procedure is in conflict with the Church Order.
Synod decide not to grant the appeal of the church at Winnipeg.