24 Jul GS 2013 art 109
GS 2013 Article 109 – Appeal of Attercliffe re: NAPARC
Committee 4 presented its second draft and this was the result:
Letter of appeal from the church at Attercliffe against decision to join NAPARC (8.5.23)
- 2.1. Attercliffe appeals the decision of Synod Smithers 2007 (Acts, Article 140) and Burlington 2010 (Acts, Article 52) to join and maintain membership in NAPARC and appeals the denial of Attercliffe’s appeal to Synod Burlington 2010 (Acts, Article 43) against the same decision of Synod Smithers.
- 2.2. Attercliffe claims that Synod Burlington 2010 failed to interact substantively with any of the points in Attercliffe’s appeal and injected “the unwarranted assumption that the ‘Golden Rule Comity Agreement’ and the ‘Agreement on Transfer of Members and Congregations’ were new matters.
- 2.3. Attercliffe suggests that NAPARC membership makes it difficult for the CanRC to refuse members from churches that havenot been recognized as true and faithful and that the CCCNA should be given the mandate “to deal with the problem of the differing ecclesiastical positions and the unscriptural doctrine of the ‘pluriformity of the church.’”
- 2.4. While Synod Burlington 2010 stated that the ‘Golden Rule Comity Agreement’ and the ‘Agreement on Transfer of Members and Congregations’ were new matters, Attercliffe contends that they were available to Synod Smithers 2007, but were overlooked by the CCCNA, as they formed part of a publicly accepted membership agreement.
- 2.5. Attercliffe asks that Synod Carman 2013 acknowledge that Synod Smithers 2007 and Synod Burlington 2010 erred in not considering all the facts and implications of having a membership in NAPARC with churches whom we have not recognized as true and faithful and request that Synod Carman 2013 rescind the decision of Synod Smithers to join NAPARC and to withdraw from this organization.
- 3.1. Though appealing the decision of Synod Burlington 2010 to deny Attercliffe’s appeal against Synod Smithers 2007and referring to this material throughout the present appeal (see Attercliffe’s considerations #1-6 and 9), Attercliffe does not provide any of this supporting documentation for synod’s judgment. Therefore this aspect of the appeal should be declared inadmissible.
- 3.2. Synod Burlington 2010 described as “new matters” the two agreements which came to light after Synod 2007and it is with this topic that Attercliffe also interacts in its present appeal (see Attercliffe’s considerations #7, 8).
- 3.3 Attercliffe does not reckon adequately with the fact that Synod Burlington 2010 mandated the CCCNA to investigate the status and implications of the “Golden Rule Comity Agreement” and the “Agreement on Transfer of Members and Congregations.” Synod Burlington 2010 fully agreed with the churches that more information was needed on the two agreements (see Acts 2010, article 52, Consideration 3.3). But until more information was available, a withdrawal of membership from NAPARC would have been premature.
That Synod decide:
- 4.1. Insofar as the present appeal touches on the decision of Synod Smithers 2007 to apply for membership in NAPARC, the appeal be declared inadmissible
- 4.2. Insofar as the present appeal touches on the decision of Synod Burlington 2010 to investigate the two NAPARC membership agreements, the appeal be denied.