GS 2004 art 20

GS 2004 Article 20 – Right of Individuals to Appeal

Committee 2 again presented its report on the appeals of the churches at Attercliffe and Grand Rapids re: the right of individuals to appeal decisions of a general synod.  After several rounds of discussion, the following was adopted:

1.    Material

  • 1.1.    Appeal from the church at Attercliffe
  • 1.2.    Appeal from the church at Grand Rapids

2.    Admissibility

The appeals from these churches are declared admissible.

3.    Observations

  • 3.1.    Synod Neerlandia stated that “individuals who wish to interact with decisions of Synod should begin by addressing their consistories (articles 30 & 31)” (cf. Acts of Synod Neerlandia Art. 45, Admissibility 2.2; Art. 87, Admissibility 2.2).
  • 3.2.    The church at Attercliffe:
    • 3.2.1.     Requests Synod to rescind the decision of Synod Neerlandia claiming, “Synod has changed the previous understanding of Article 30 & 31 of our Church Order and applied a new interpretation without any explanation.”
    • 3.2.2.     Finds “no evidence that this decision was based on a request from any individual or any of the Churches.”
    • 3.2.3.     States that “History has taught reformed people the importance and the necessity of the individual’s right to appeal.”  It is claimed that “the right to appeal has been denied to individuals whereas in the past this was an accepted practice.”
    • 3.2.4.     Questions how individuals in the future will be able to appeal a Synod decision.
  • 3.3.    The church at Grand Rapids:
    • 3.3.1.     Appeals the decision of Synod Neerlandia to declare letters and/or appeals from individual church members inadmissible.
    • 3.3.2.     Reminds Synod that the “Acts of Synod are public decisions, decisions which every member of the federation is duty-bound to study, examine, and test according to the Word of God, confessions and church order.” The church at Grand Rapids makes a connection between the Acts of Synod and the reports of the various Synod committees. It considers them to be public reports, similar to the press releases these committees publish.
    • 3.3.3.     Believes that by declaring letters from individuals inadmissible, “all possibility for an appeal to the broadest assembly, which made the decision in the first place, is ruled out of order for these brothers.”
    • 3.3.4.     Warns Synod against the potential of hierarchy of a broader assembly lording it over individual members in the churches. Requests Synod to rescind the decision of Synod Neerlandia claiming, “Synod has changed the previous understanding of Article 30 & 31 of our Church Order and applied a new interpretation without any explanation.”
    • 3.3.5.     Finds “no evidence that this decision was based on a request from any individual or any of the Churches.”
    • 3.3.6.     States that “History has taught reformed people the importance and the necessity of the individual’s right to appeal.”  It is claimed that “the right to appeal has been denied to individuals whereas in the past this was an accepted practice.”
    • 3.3.7.     Questions how individuals in the future will be able to appeal a Synod decision.
  • 3.4.    The church at Grand Rapids:
    • 3.4.1.     Appeals the decision of Synod Neerlandia to declare letters and/or appeals from individual church members inadmissible.
    • 3.4.2.     Reminds Synod that the “Acts of Synod are public decisions, decisions which every member of the federation is duty-bound to study, examine, and test according to the Word of God, confessions and church order.” The church at Grand Rapids makes a connection between the Acts of Synod and the reports of the various Synod committees. They consider them to be public reports, similar to the press releases these committees publish.
    • 3.4.3.     Believes that by declaring letters from individuals inadmissible, “all possibility for an appeal to the broadest assembly, which made the decision in the first place, is ruled out of order for these brothers.”
    • 3.4.4.     Warns Synod against the potential of hierarchy of a broader assembly lording it over individual members in the churches.

4.    Considerations

  • 4.1.    The appellants claim Synod Neerlandia has applied a new interpretation to Articles 30 and 31 of the Church Order. Other than stating a historical perspective, the church at Attercliffe provides no evidence that the application of Articles 30 and 31 by Synod Neerlandia was incorrect. A review of previous Acts of Synods does give evidence of letters and/or appeals from individuals directed to general synods that have been declared admissible.  However, this historical evidence in itself does not necessarily establish a clear understanding or precedence for the correct understanding of Articles 30 & 31 of the Church Order.  Rather, it demonstrates an inconsistency in the practice of the admissibility of submissions from individuals, which became a cause of concern at Synod Abbotsford 1995. In various articles of the Acts, Synod Abbotsford states:
    • Several letters are from individuals and not from churches. This raises the question whether individual members have the right to address their concerns and views about a report directly to a General Synod, without first addressing them to their local consistory/council for consideration. However, it would be unfair to declare the personal submissions mentioned above invalid for this Synod because past Synods have been inconsistent on this (cf. Acts of Synod Abbotsford 1995, Art. 72, II. Admissibility; Art. 86, II. Admissibility).
  • 4.2.    The church at Attercliffe is correct that there is no evidence of a request from an individual or one of the churches to change the application of Article 30 & 31 C.O.  However, this presupposes that a change of application has actually occurred. The underlying question is whether or not Synod Neerlandia’s application is correct as it relates to two distinct matters. The first deals with an individual’s right to submit letters or overtures directly to a general synod concerning the reports of various synodical committees. The second relates to an individual’s right to appeal a decision of a general synod directly on matters such as those pertaining to the churches in common.
  • 4.3.    The first matter deals with the individual’s right to make submissions to a general synod concerning the various reports from the synodical committees. Synod Neerlandia is correct in stating that an individual member cannot forward their comments or concerns directly to a general synod. The reason for this is that the reports from the various committees are for general synod to engage in a discussion and make the appropriate decisions. A synod does so representing all the churches within the federation. (cf. W.W.J. Van Oene, With Common Consent, pp. 133, 139; G. Van Rongen and K. Deddens, Decently and in Good Order, p. 58). Consistories have the opportunity to respond to these reports, as the local churches have ultimately placed these common matters on the agenda of a general synod (Art. 30).  Synod Neerlandia was not consistent in this particular matter (cf. Acts of Synod Neerlandia 2001, Art. 96, p. 107).  Individual members have opportunity to interact with these reports through their consistories. The way of the Church Order requires individuals to wait until a general synod actually makes decisions on the committee recommendations before they may begin an appeal process.
  • 4.4.    The second matter relates to an individual’s right to appeal a decision of a general synod directly on matters pertaining to the churches in common. Synod Neerlandia was correct in stating that an individual member cannot forward his appeals regarding matters that concern the churches in common directly to a general synod. This does not mean that Synod Neerlandia has taken away the right of individuals to appeal.  Rather, Synod Neerlandia shows the appellants the correct way of appeal according to the Church Order.  Individual members must follow the way of the Church Order by addressing their concerns to their local consistory who, should they concur with the concerns, direct an appeal to a general synod. Consistory, unlike individual members, has the right to deal directly with the matters that belong to the churches in common. Consistory may do so because these decisions are to be considered settled and binding by the consistory.  A consistory cannot appeal a decision of a major assembly to a minor assembly.  If the local consistory does not take over the individual’s appeal, he can appeal the local consistory’s decision to classis and thus begin the appeal process in accordance with Article 31 of the Church Order.
  • 4.5.    Article 30 of the Church Order provides clarity as to what is to be considered an ecclesiastical matter and what should be dealt with at the broader assemblies. Article 31 of the Church Order deals exclusively with the appeal process. Article 31 states clearly that “if anyone complains that he has been wronged by the decision of a minor assembly, he shall have the right to appeal to the major assembly.”  For the individual, his local consistory is to be considered the minor assembly. When the consistory accepts a decision of a general synod, the individual’s appeal is against the consistory and, therefore, Article 31 directs his subsequent appeal to the broader assembly of classis, and then regional synod and general synod.
  • 4.6.    The church at Attercliffe asks how individuals in the future will be able to appeal a synodical decision. While this has been addressed in the considerations above, it is important to note the intent of Article 31.  Individual church members have the duty to consider whatever may be agreed upon by majority vote in the church assemblies as settled and binding. If someone feels concerned about a decision of an assembly, then he ought to first engage in reflection with the consistory and commit to study the matter further. There is a possibility that an ecclesiastical assembly may make a wrong decision. Yet, in general, decisions of the major assemblies ought to be held in high esteem. After all, the ecclesiastical assembly is not a discussion partner for individuals, but rather it is through these assemblies that the churches have spoken according to their rightful responsibility. With this in mind, the individual should reconsider whether he may have come to the wrong conclusion.
  • 4.7.    The church at Grand Rapids correctly notes that the Acts of Synods are provided as public information and that the reports of the various committees may be made available to the membership via the local consistory. This does not automatically mean that individual members have the right to interact with these reports by going directly to general synod. Once a general synod has made its decision on these reports, and an individual member has concerns about it, he is obliged to interact with his local consistory and convince it of the need to begin the appeal process.
  • 4.8.    The church at Grand Rapids is incorrect by stating that all possibility for an appeal to the broadest assembly is ruled out.  Individual members do have the opportunity to appeal; however, they must do so by following the way of the Church Order outlined above.
  • 4.9.    The church at Grand Rapids is incorrect by claiming that Synod Neerlandia’s application of Articles 30 and 31 may amount to incipient hierarchy. Since an individual member still has the right to appeal decisions of a general synod, in the prescribed way of the Church Order, the church at Grand Rapid’s fear of hierarchy is unfounded.

5.    Recommendation

Synod decide to deny the appeals of the churches at Attercliffe and Grand Rapids.