GS 2004 art 96

GS 2004 Article 96 – Appeal of the church at Chatham against Art. 73 of Synod Neerlandia re: Phase Two

Committee 2 presented its proposal on the appeal from the church at Chatham against Art. 73 of Synod Neerlandia 2001 re: Phase Two. After several rounds of discussion, the following was adopted:

1.     Material

Appeal from the church at Chatham against Art. 73 of Synod Neerlandia 2001 re: Phase Two

2.     Admissibility

The appeal from the church at Chatham is admissible since it appeals a decision of Synod Neerlandia 2001.

3.     Observations

  • 3.1.   The church at Chatham appeals Article 67, Considerations 4.6.1 and 4.6.2 as well as Article 73, Considerations 4.6.3 and 4.6.4. These considerations represent two components of implementing Phase Two on the way towards federative unity with the URCNA, and read as follows:
    • 3.1.1. The churches shall accept each other’s attestations admitting such members to the Lord’s table;
    • 3.1.2. The churches shall open the pulpits to each other’s ministers, observing the rule of the respective churches.
  • 3.2.   The church at Chatham considers it wrong “‘to accept each other’s attestations, admitting such to the Lord’s Table’ and ‘open the pulpits to each other’s ministers’ when Sister Church or Ecclesiastical Fellowship has not yet been proclaimed.’” However, the church at Chatham does not have objections to the other parts of Phase Two.
  • 3.3.   The church at Chatham claims that “by Synod Neerlandia not defining Phase 2 in terms of Ecclesiastical Fellowship or Sister Churches it has left the churches confused. Is it Ecclesiastical Fellowship or is it not?” The fact that calling each other’s ministers is excluded from the list of what is involved in Phase Two, brings the church at Chatham to the conclusion that Phase Two is not to be considered an Ecclesiastical Fellowship/sister church relationship.
  • 3.4.   The church at Chatham believes that Synod Neerlandia erred when it implemented Phase Two of the relationship with the URCNA, while not clearly defining the nature of the relationship as Ecclesiastical Fellowship/sister church relationship.
  • 3.5.   The church at Chatham requests to “reverse the recommendation to ‘accept each other’s attestations, admitting such members to the Lord’s Table’ and ‘open the pulpits to each other’s ministers’ until Ecclesiastical Fellowship/Sister Church relationship or full Church Union has been declared.”

4.     Considerations

  • 4.1.   Synod agrees with the church at Chatham that Synod Neerlandia did not explicitly define the relationship with the URCNA in terms of Ecclesiastical Fellowship/sister church relationship.
  • 4.2.   Synod acknowledges that the lack of clarity as to the nature of the relationship with the URCNA has the potential of creating confusion within the church community.  It would have been prudent of Synod Neerlandia to make clear that the Phase Two relationship with the URCNA is equivalent to Ecclesiastical Fellowship and, therefore, the rules of Ecclesiastical Fellowship would apply.
  • 4.3.   Synod Neerlandia did, for the sake of clarity, provide an outline of what Phase Two comprised (cf. Acts of Synod Neerlandia 2001, Article 73, Consideration 4.6, pg. 83).  Phase Two is terminology that originates from the URCNA, and its criteria are consistent with the CanRC’s rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship (cf. Acts of Synod Lincoln 1992, Article 50, IV.B.1-7).
  • 4.4.   In Article 73, Consideration 4.6, Synod Neerlandia refers to “Appendix 3” of the report of the CPEU.  Unfortunately, this was not appended to the Acts of Synod Neerlandia 2001. In this appendix, entitled “Guidelines for Ecumenicity and Church Unity of the URCNA,” Phase Two of the relationship is called “Phase Two – Ecclesiastical Fellowship.” This document is now added as an appendix to the Acts of Synod Chatham 2004.  However, the Acts of Synod Neerlandia 2001 do not indicate the reason why the terminology of Ecclesiastical Fellowship or sister church relationship was not used in the description of our relationship with the URCNA.
  • 4.5.   Synod believes that it would be beneficial to the churches and for the implementation of our relationship with the URCNA to provide clarity with regard to the exact nature of the relationship with the URCNA during this second phase.
  • 4.6.   Although the practice of Ecclesiastical Fellowship allows for the calling of each other’s ministers, it is not specified as one of the adopted rules. Likewise, Phase Two (i.e. Ecclesiastical Fellowship) does not prevent the churches from calling ministers from each other’s federation.
  • 4.7.   The argument of the church of Chatham is based solely on the question of definition or declaration. If Synod Neerlandia had offered the URCNA a relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship/sister church relationship, then the concerns of the church at Chatham would no longer hold.

5.     Recommendations

Synod decide:

  • 5.1.   To deny the appeal of the church at Chatham.
  • 5.2.   To declare that Phase Two is the equivalent of Ecclesiastical Fellowship as it is maintained under the adopted rules (Acts of Synod Lincoln 1992, Article 50, IV.B.1-7).  At the same time, Phase Two clearly includes the purpose that the churches involved move forward from Phase Two (Ecclesiastical Fellowship) to Phase Three (federative union).