23 Sep GS 2007 art 136

Posted at 11:07h in CanRC, GS 2007 by

GS 2007 Article 136 – Request from Hamilton re Women voting

The advisory committee presented its third draft for consideration:

1.      Material

  • 1.1     Letter from Hamilton

2.      Admissibility

  • 2.1     This item is not admissible.

3.      Observations

  • 3.1     Hamilton requests synod to appoint deputies “to resolve the outstanding matter of women’s voting rights.”
  • 3.2     General Synod 1974 was asked by the church at Toronto to “recognize the rights of active participation of women in the life of the churches of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to acknowledge their privilege to take part in the election of office-bearers.” Synod, however, decided to reject the recommendation to appoint a committee with the mandate to study the matter. It also declared that synod was not convinced by the material presented (see: Acts 1974, Art. 84).
  • 3.3     General Synod 1977 in granting the request for a committee stated in one of its Considerations “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” (Acts, Art. 27, Cons. 2). It then proceeded to state in Conclusion 1 that “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” (Acts, Art. 27, Concl. 1).
  • 3.4     General Synod 1980 in rejecting the report of the Study Committee, which denied sisters the right to vote, stated that “the Committee has not been able to convince [synod] of the validity of its conclusion and recommendation.” It also stated in one of its Considerations that “since Synod is unable to arrive at a well-founded decision in this matter, because of the inconclusive evidence presented, it is wise to retain the existing practice, but at the same time to continue working towards a warranted conclusion” (Art. 83, VI. B. 3).
  • 3.5     General Synod 1983, which decided not to adopt the report of the Study Committee appointed by Synod 1980, declared that “there is an obvious lack of consensus on this matter” (Art. 160, C. 1) and decided “not to appoint a new Committee on this matter” (Art. 160, D. 3). Under its Observations, Synod 1983 refers to a brother who favoured the recommendation of the study committee giving as one of the reasons: “the recommendation leaves it to the wisdom of the local Churches whether or not the prohibition of voting be female members be lifted” (Art. 160, B. 5.2).
  • 3.6     General Synod 1995 was approached to establish a new committee to study the matter of women’s voting. Synod declared these requests “inadmissible on the grounds: A. that according to Art. 33 CO matters once decided upon may not be proposed again unless they are substantiated by new grounds; B. a new matter which has not been previously presented to that major assembly may be put on the agenda only when the minor assembly has dealt with it (Art. 30 CO).”
  • 3.7     General Synod 1998 received appeals from the Ebenezer church at Burlington, the Fellowship church at Burlington, as well as overtures from the church at Aldergrove and the Fellowship church at Burlington. The appeals challenged the decision of Synod 1995 and called for a new committee. The overtures go the route of arguing that this matter should not have been declared inadmissible on the ground of Art. 30 CO (see Acts 1998, Arts. 109, 110, 111, 112).
  • 3.8     General Synod 2001 was again confronted with the issue. Regional Synod East requested synod to “revisit the matter of women’s voting rights and serve the churches with a complete report.” As one of the grounds for its request Regional Synod East states, “the matter of women’s voting rights has been dealt with as a matter of the churches in common (Synod 1980, 1983, 1986, 1995, 1998)” (see Acts, Art. 101, 3.2.1). Synod 2001 states in Consideration 4.2 that “this is true. However, this in itself does not constitute a ‘new ground.’ It only confirms that this request is at the right address, namely, General Synod” (Acts, Art. 101).

4.      Considerations

  • 4.1     It is a foundational principle of Reformed church government that in the Church Order the churches voluntarily agree to bind themselves to certain principles and practices. They promise to uphold these principles and practices by implementing them in their church life.
  • 4.2     When it comes to practices that are not in the Church Order, the churches are not bound.
  • 4.3     With respect to women voting or not in the election of office-bearers, there is no article in the Church Order that deals with this matter.
  • 4.4     Article 3 of the Church Order states that “the election to any office shall take place with the cooperation of the congregation, after preceding prayers, and according to the regulations adopted for that purpose by the consistory with the deacons.” This means that it is the task of the consistory with the deacons to formulate, adopt and implement local election regulations.
  • 4.5     The past history of the Canadian Reformed Churches in this matter indicates that the question of whether or not this matter belonged to the local church or to the churches in common has never been addressed. Synod 1977, in appointing a committee, speaks of women’s voting as “a matter of common concern” and speaks about “unity of practice” but nowhere proves that what belongs to the consistory with the deacons also belongs to the “churches in common” (Art. 30 CO) and thus should be regulated by the general synod.
  • 4.6     The request of Hamilton to appoint deputies to study the matter of women’s voting rights is inadmissible because it is not within the jurisdiction of the synod to appoint committees and to regulate matters that belong within the jurisdiction of the local church.

5.      Recommendation

Synod decide:

  • 5.1     That the submission of Hamilton is inadmissible.

DEFEATED

A motion was presented and seconded as follows:

Women Voting

1.      Observations

  • 1.1     Hamilton requests synod to appoint a committee with the mandate to study various aspects of women’s participation in the election of office-bearers.

2.      Considerations

  • 2.1     Synod Fergus received overtures from two churches “regarding the matter of Women’s Participation in Election of Office Bearers.” Synod ruled that these overtures came “directly to General Synod and consequently it is inadmissible on the ground that ‘a new matter which has not previously been presented to that major assembly may be put on the agenda only when the minor assembly has dealt with it’” (Arts. 111, 112). The church at Hamilton, then, ought to have had their request brought to synod’s agenda via the minor assemblies.
  • 2.2     There is no article in the Church Order that deals with this matter of women participating in the election of office-bearers. Nevertheless, many synods of the Canadian Reformed Churches have expressed categorically that the subject of whether the sisters of the congregation should cast a vote in the election of office bearers is not a subject for the local consistories to decide upon, but a matter that belongs to the churches in common (e.g., 1974, Art. 27, Cons. 2; 1977, Art. 27, Cons. 2; 1986, Art. 120, Cons. 2 & 3; 1995, Art. 51, II. B; 1998, Arts. 111, 112; 2001, Art. 101, Cons. 4.2). No church has appealed the position the churches held for many years, namely, that the subject belongs to the churches in common.

3.      Recommendation

Synod decide to deny Hamilton’s request. This motion was defeated.

Another motion was moved and seconded. An amendment to this motion was moved and seconded to replace Recommendations 5.1 and 5.2 in such a way that the total decision of synod is:

  • 5.1     To accede to the request of the Cornerstone Canadian Reformed Church at Hamilton to appoint a committee to finish the mandate extended by Synod Smithville 1980.
  • 5.2     Specifically, the committee should do the following:
    • 5.2.1    Examine the biblical teaching on headship and voting and also study the following questions:
      • 5.2.1.1  With regard to headship: What is the position of widows and single female communicant members?
      • 5.2.1.2  With regard to headship: What is the relationship between husband and wife when they discuss who to vote for – doesn’t the husband therefore show and practice equality as joint heirs of the grace of God?
      • 5.2.1.3  With regard to voting: What do the Bible and our Church Order say about congregational participation in electing office bearers?
    • 5.2.1.4  With regard to voting: What is the relationship between congregational (a) nomination, (b) election process, (c) ratification/approbation, and (d) the final appointment by council?
  • 5.2.2 Present its conclusions on this matter to the churches six months before the next general synod. The amendment carried.

The proposal as amended was

adopted

as follows:

1.      Material:

  • 1.1     Letter from Hamilton

2.      Admissibility

  • 2.1     This item is admissible because it comes from one of the churches and deals with a matter that has been perceived as one belonging to the churches in common.

3.      Observations

  • 3.1     The Cornerstone Canadian Reformed Church at Hamilton is asking synod to appoint deputies to study the matter of women’s voting in the churches. Specifically, they ask that deputies be appointed to finish the mandate extended by Synod 1980.
  • 3.2     The Cornerstone Council asserts that Synod 1980 did not see voting as “governing” but had difficulty in the way in which the “role relationship” of man and woman was presented.
  • 3.3     Synod 1980 gave this mandate to the deputies: “To re-examine the matter, including the study report presented to Synod in light of the criticism voiced in letters to Synod and in the report of the Advisory Committee; to give more consideration available in other study reports re the place and task of women in the church; to submit a report with recommendations to the next General Synod with a sufficient number of copies to the churches.”
  • 3.4     Synod 1983 did not accept the Report of the deputies appointed by Synod 1980 on the grounds that this report was based on a view already rejected by Synod 1980, namely, that voting is a matter of “prophesying.”
  • 3.5     Synod 1983 did not appoint further deputies to study the matter of women’s voting in the churches.
  • 3.6     Despite requests by various churches and also by Regional Synod East, subsequent Synods (1986, 1995, 1998 and 2001) have decided not to appoint study committees on the basis that there were no “new grounds” that would warrant revisiting the decision of Synod 1983 to not appoint a study committee.
  • 3.7     The Cornerstone Council is asking synod to appoint a committee with the mandate to examine biblical teaching on headship and to determine how this teaching impacts voting in the church.

4.      Considerations

  • 4.1     The Cornerstone Council is correct in stating that the matter of women’s voting rights has not been dealt with in a conclusive way by any general synod.
  • 4.2     General Synod 1980 rejected certain arguments against women’s voting but did not take the further step of affirming women’s voting among the churches.
  • 4.3     The Cornerstone Council has indeed brought forward new elements to this synod that could warrant the formation of new study committee. The agenda set by a previous synod (1980) has not been completed.

5.      Recommendation

Synod decide:

  • 5.1     To accede to the request of the Cornerstone Canadian Reformed Church at Hamilton to appoint a committee to finish the mandate extended by Synod Smithville 1980.
  • 5.2     Specifically, the committee should do the following:
    • 5.2.1    Examine the biblical teaching on headship and voting and also study the following questions:
      • 5.2.1.1  With regard to headship: What is the position of widows and single female communicant members?
      • 5.2.1.2  With regard to headship: What is the relationship between husband and wife when they discuss who to vote for – doesn’t the husband therefore show and practice equality as joint heirs of the grace of God?
      • 5.2.1.3  With regard to voting: What do the Bible and our Church Order say about congregational participation in electing office bearers?
      • 5.2.1.4  With regard to voting: What is the relationship between congregational (a) nomination, (b) election process, (c) ratification/approbation, and (d) the final appointment by council?
    • 5.2.2    Present its conclusions on this matter to the churches six months before the next general synod.

ADOPTED

Br. DeBoer requested that his opposing vote be recorded.

Print page