13 Aug GS 2010 art 110

GS 2010 Article 110 – Appeals from Mr. M. Vantil

1.         Material

Appeals from Mr. M. Vantil (8.5.o, 8.5.p, 8.5.q).

2.         Observations re: Admissibility

• 2.1        Synod Winnipeg 1989 (Article 34, C.2) states that “When members withdraw from the federation of churches they indeed disrupt the way of appeal as accepted in Article 31 CO. However, special circumstances may allow dealing with an appeal to a major assembly.”
• 2.2        The “special circumstances” in view in the Acts of Synod Winnipeg 1989, Article 34, are identified in Article 34, Observations 2. There it is stated that a previous synod had declared an appeal from a withdrawn member admissible “in the hope that it might lead to reconciliation with the consistory.”

3.         Considerations re: Admissibility

• 3.1        The right to appeal the decisions of church assemblies is a privilege of membership in the church.
• 3.2        It is clear from the materials that Mr. Vantil withdrew himself from the church at Aldergrove while he was under church discipline. 3.3              Mr. Vantil’s decision to withdraw himself from the church at Aldergrove terminated the process meant to lead to reconciliation; hence the “special circumstances” of Synod Winnipeg 1989 do not apply in this case.

4.          Recommendation

That Synod decide to declare Mr. Vantil’s appeals inadmissible.

ADOPTED

In accordance with Article 32 CO, two members of Synod abstained from voting.