03 Aug GS 2010 art 57
GS 2010 Article 57 – Appeal from Mr. Theodore Kingma
Appeal from Mr. Theodore Kingma dated March 23, 2010 (8.5.z).
2. Observations re: Admissibility
- 2.1 Mr. Theodore Kingma appeals his deposition (March, 2003) and excommunication from Lynden American Reformed Church.
- 2.2 Mr. Kingma states that he is “appealing his deposition and excommunication from the Lynden ARC understandably denied or declared inadmissible at all previous assemblies of the CARCs in that Article 91 of General Synod 1977 and a strange doctrine of Christ…was by all our assemblies not yet refuted as doctrine that conflicts with the Word of God and Church Order of the CARCs per its Article 31” (Appeal, p. 1).
- 2.3 In 2007, the appellant submitted an appeal to Synod Smithers. Synod Smithers declared the appeal inadmissible (Article 19).
- 2.3 The appellant states that he now gives a “new ground” for appealing his deposition and excommunication, namely that “his person was locally both deposed and excommunicated (or crucified) for ‘exerting’ himself in holding fast (Rev. 3:11) the Scriptural Subscription Form of the CARCs…” (Appeal, p. 2).
3. Considerations re: Admissibility
- 3.1 The prose of the appeal lacks clarity to the point that much of it is beyond understanding.
- 3.2 It appears that the appellant himself admits that his appeal of his deposition and excommunication from the Lynden was “denied or declared inadmissible at all previous assemblies of the CARCs…” (see Observation 2.2 above). Hence he himself must realize that his appeal contravenes Article 33 of the CO.
- 3.3 When someone has been excommunicated, then his right of appeal pertains only to the excommunication.
- 3.4 While the appellant states that he appeals on new grounds, he prefaces this statement by saying, “Brothers…, you may know that this your brother…. ha[s] appealed Article 91 of General Synod 1977 since 1980 without his… arguments quoted from the Subscription Form of the CARCs… being heeded by a previous General Synod. He therefore (emphasis ours) herein… again appeals his case yet once more…” In line with this, his appeal argues extensively with Article 91 of General Synod 1977. Hence he does not come with new grounds (contra Article 33 of the CO).
That Synod decide to declare the appeal inadmissible.
Synod was then adjourned for further committee work.