GS 2007 art 95

GS 2007 Article 95 – Appeal from Aldergrove re Art. 114 of Synod Chatham

The advisory committee presented its proposal:

1.      Material

  • 1.1     Appeal from Aldergrove against the decision Art. 114 of Synod Chatham 2004

2.      Observation

  • 2.1     Aldergrove requests synod to decide that Synod Chatham wronged the consistory of Aldergrove by making an unsubstantiated and unproven judgment concerning its pastoral wisdom and care. (see Acts, Synod Chatham, Art. 114, 4.2)
  • 2.2     Aldergrove requests synod to consider that Synod Chatham found fault with Aldergrove consistory for allegedly not providing the appellants with proof “concerning why it appeals the decision of classis.” However, the appellants were not contending that Aldergrove consistory has not shared with them their justification for appealing the decision of classis, but rather that the justification provided to them does not, as they see it, prove that the decision of classis went contrary to either the Word of God or the Church Order (i.e., the requirement of Art. 31 CO).

3.      Consideration

  • 3.1     Synod Chatham 2004 found fault with Aldergrove consistory in Consideration 4.2 of Art. 114 in the Acts, for something the appellants were not contending and therefore made an unsubstantiated and unproven judgement concerning the pastoral wisdom and care of the consistory of Aldergrove.

4.      Recommendation

Synod decide:

  • 4.1     To sustain the appeal of Aldergrove.


Rev. Holtvlüwer and Rev. Schouten abstained according to Art. 32 CO.