GS 2010 art 99

GS 2010 Article 99 – Appeal from Hamilton-Cornerstone re: Article 110 of Synod Smithers 2007

1.         Material

Appeal from Hamilton-Cornerstone against Article 110 of Synod Smithers (8.5.b).

2.         Observations

  • 2.1        Hamilton appeals the decision of Synod Smithers 2007 to repeal the decision of Synod Chatham to mandate the SCBP to restore the Apostles’ Creed to the Forms for Baptism (Infant and Adult).
  • 2.2        Hamilton states that Synod Smithers overturned a settled and binding decision of the previous Synod on grounds lacking substance and without providing proof that Synod Chatham had erred according to Scripture or the Church Order. Synod Smithers went against Article 31 of the Church Order.
  • 2.3        Hamilton indicates that the proposal to insert the Apostles’ Creed into the baptismal Forms came from the Cornerstone Council and was endorsed by both Classis Ontario West (Sept. 10, 2003) and Regional Synod East (Nov. 12, 2003).
  • 2.4        The grounds provided by Hamilton, Classis Ontario West and Regional Synod East for inserting the Apostles’ Creed into the baptismal forms were taken over by Synod Chatham 2004 (Acts, Article 115, par. 4.1.1.3). The grounds were as follows:
    • 2.4.1 A renewal of the catholic connection of baptism and the  Apostles’ Creed.
    • 2.4.2    A return to the original Form of Baptism as found in the Church Order of Heidelberg 1563.
    • 2.4.3.   A restoration of parallelism with the Form for the Lord’s Supper.
    • 2.4.4    The use of the Apostles’ Creed at baptism in the early Christian Church and in the Middle Ages is well known and generally documented.
  • 2.5       Synod Chatham 2004 instructed the SCBP to present a proposal with the inclusion of the Apostles’ Creed in the baptismal forms to the next General Synod, keeping in mind Consideration 4.1.2.2, which states: “Synod agrees that the SCBP ought to consider the most suitable place in the forms for this insertion, keeping in mind that the structure of the Form for the Baptism of Adults is different from the Form for the Baptism of Infants.”
  • 2.6       The SCBP presented to Synod 2007 a proposal for the inclusion of the Apostles’ Creed into the baptism Forms. The proposal was as follows:
    • In regard to the Form for the Baptism of infants, the SCBP proposed:
      • 2.6.1    That the congregation profess its faith between the first prayer and the address to the parents, and that the profession of faith be introduced with the words, “Let us now together profess our faith in God in whose Name this child will be baptized.” (The Apostles’ Creed may be recited by the minister, said in unison, or sung by the congregation.)
      • 2.6.2    In addition, the SCBP proposed that the rubric in the margin beside the Apostles’ Creed should read “Profession of Faith.”
    • In regard to the Form for the Baptism of Adults, the SCBP proposed that:
      • 2.6.3    The congregation profess the faith after the administration of the baptism and before the prayer of thanksgiving, and that the profession of faith be introduced with, “Let us now together profess our faith in God in whose Name this brother (sister) was baptized.” (The Apostles’ Creed may be recited by the minister, said in unison, or sung by the congregation.)
      • 2.6.4    The rubric in the margin beside the baptizant’s public profession of faith should stay as “Public Profession of Faith.”
      • 2.6.5    The rubric beside the Apostles’ Creed should read “Profession of Faith.” Rationale: The person baptized first professes his/her faith. Note that the first question speaks about the Triune God and the baptizant’s faith in Him. Once the baptizant professes his/her faith and is baptized, it is natural and fitting for him/her to join in with the whole congregation professing the Christian faith. Likely the Apostles’ Creed would be sung.
  • 2.7       Hamilton notes that the decision of Synod Chatham (Article 115) was overturned by Synod Smithers not on the basis of an appeal(s) but on the basis of letters from several churches interacting with the proposal of the SCBP to Synod 2007.
  • 2.8       Hamilton argues that it was illegitimate for Synod Smithers to use letters reacting to a proposal of the SCBP to undo a lawful decision of the previous Synod.
  • 2.9       Hamilton notes that even if the letters from the churches to Synod Smithers were appeals (which they were not), they ought not to have been used as a basis to undo the decision of Synod Chatham to insert the Apostles’ Creed into the baptismal forms, since none of the letters prove or even attempt to prove that the stated grounds for the decision of Synod Chatham were in conflict with the Word of God or with the Church Order. Hamilton therefore considers that the decision of Smithers is in violation of Article 31 of the Church Order.
  • 2.10          Even though Hamilton considers the procedure used by Synod Smithers 2007 unlawful, it provides interaction with the reasons given by this assembly to undo the decision of Synod Chatham 2004.
    • 2.10.1 In Consideration 3.2.1, Synod 2007 stated that “the orders of worship are not mandatory but suggested: therefore it should be left in the discretion of the churches where to place the profession of faith.”
    • In response, Hamilton writes: There is no compulsion in having two professions of faith in one service. Synod Smithers itself stated this in 3.2.1 “The orders of worship are not mandatory but suggested: therefore it should be left in the discretion of the churches where to place the profession of faith.” Consequently our original overture to incorporate the profession of faith into the form for baptism need not generate any redundancy. The form for baptism, especially if conducted in the pm service provides a natural context for this vital component of our liturgy. This wonderful link between Profession of Faith and baptism was endorsed by Synod Chatham.
    • 2.10.2 In Consideration 3.2.2, Synod 2007 stated that “the profession of faith is already part of our liturgy, and as such there already is adequate ‘connection’ between baptism and the congregational profession of faith in the Triune God.”
    • In response, Hamilton writes: This “connection” will be even more effective when this profession of faith occurs in the
    • immediate context of the sacrament of baptism, see proposal A above.
    • 2.10.3 In Consideration 3.2.3, Synod 2007 stated: “Synod Chatham did not prove that the 1563 form is more scriptural than our present form. Therefore to depart from our current forms would be unwise.”
    • Hamilton responds by writing: This is an impossible demand, since there are no grounds that can be gathered from Scripture either in favour or opposed to this proposal. However historical analysis can demonstrate that the early church did link the Apostles’ Creed to the sacrament of Baptism.
    • 2.10.4 In Consideration 3.2.4, Synod 2007 stated: “The fact that the Apostles’ Creed is part of the Form for the Lord’s Supper does not that mean that it should be included in the baptismal forms.”
    • Hamilton responds with: Nor does it make it inadvisable, and in light of the arguments made earlier that support the restoration of the parallelism with the Form for the Lord’s Supper, the proposal to include it rather than not include it naturally follows.
    • 2.10.5 In Consideration 3.2.5, Synod 2007 stated: To incorporate the Apostles’ Creed in the baptismal forms would lead to undue repetition.”
    • Hamilton responds with:
    • Proposal A: There is no compulsion in having two professions of faith in one service. Synod Smithers itself stated this in 3.2.1 “The orders of worship are not mandatory but suggested: therefore it should be left in the discretion of the churches where to place the profession of faith.” Consequently our original overture to incorporate the profession of faith into the form for baptism need not generate any redundancy. The form for baptism, especially if conducted in the pm service provides a natural context for this vital component of our liturgy. This wonderful link between Profession of Faith and baptism was endorsed by Synod Chatham.
    • Proposal B: This concern for redundancy in the worship service is mitigated by proposal A, especially given that in our experience most baptisms are performed in the PM service.
    • 2.10.6 In Consideration 3.3, Synod 2007 stated: “The Apostles’ Creed is not found in the baptismal forms of our sister churches. This element of catholicity should be kept in mind.”
    • Hamilton responds with: The concept of catholicity is not only bound to the contemporary church, but also the church of all ages. This larger consideration for catholicity was part of the proposal contemplated and recommended by Synod Chatham.
  • 2.11     Hamilton recommends that Synod 2010 decide that “since the grounds for the decision of Synod Chatham to mandate the SCBP to restore the Apostles’ Creed to the Forms for Baptism remain valid, the original proposal of the SCBP to Synod Smithers ought to be considered.”

3.         Considerations

  • 3.1       Hamilton’s argument against Article 110 of Synod Smithers 2007 has two components. One refers to a perceived procedural injustice while the second concerns content. In regard to procedure, Hamilton argues that Synod Smithers failed to uphold Article 31 of the Church Order. In regard to content, Hamilton provides responses to the Considerations which led Synod Smithers to its decision to rescind Article 115 of Synod Chatham.
  • 3.2       Concerns about procedural injustice:
    • 3.2.1    Hamilton’s concern about procedural injustice arise from its interpretation of Article 31 of the Church Order. According to Hamilton, a synod may only revise or overturn a decision of a previous synod if it is proved that the original decision went against Scripture or the Church Order. Churches of the federation are bound by the decisions of the major assemblies unless they are proven to be against the Word of God or the adopted Church Order. Article 31 does not prevent churches from approaching the major assemblies with a request to revise or revoke a decision of a synod on grounds other than the Word of God or the adopted Church Order.
    • 3.2.2     Article 33 of the Church Order makes provision for the churches to approach subsequent assemblies with a request to revisit decisions on the basis of new grounds. It is not necessary that these new grounds prove the original decision to be in conflict with the Word of God or the adopted Church Order. It might be enough to show that the original decision was unwise or unhelpful or was made without due consideration of all the implications.
  • 3.3.      Concerns about content:
    • 3.3.1    Hamilton has provided meaningful responses to the grounds used by Smithers 2007 to rescind Article 115 of the Acts of Synod Chatham 2004. It is clear that the practical concerns raised by several churches in regard to inserting the Apostles’ Creed into the baptismal forms are not insurmountable. However, Hamilton has not given convincing reasons as to why the place of public profession of faith in the worship service should not be left to the discretion of the churches. Given that several churches expressed strong discomfort to Synod 2007 with regard to linking profession of faith with baptism, it would not be wise to make this change mandatory by including it in the baptismal forms. Local churches are free to make this change at their own discretion.

4.         Recommendation

That Synod decide to deny the appeal of the church at Hamilton-Cornerstone.

ADOPTED