16 Jul GS 2016 art 128
Posted at 18:32h
, GS 2016
by Roy Janssen
GS 2016 Article 128 – Appeal of Burlington-Fellowship re: GS 2013 Art. 128
- 1.1 Appeal from the Burlington-Fellowship CanRC (18.104.22.168)
- 2.1 GS 2010 Art. 177 Rec. 4 states, “That Synod decide to sustain the appeal of Burlington-Fellowship against Article 10, Appeal 1, Ground c of Regional Synod East 2008” was defeated.
- 2.1.1 RSE 2008 Art. 10 Appeal 1 Ground C reads, “Broader assemblies have determined that the issue of women’s voting is a matter of the churches in common and a number of General Synods have admitted the issue to their agendas, evidencing the same.”
- 2.2 The chairman ruled on the floor of GS 2010 “that by the fact that the Advisory Committee report was defeated, the appeal was denied.”
- 2.3 Burlington-Fellowship submitted its denied appeal to GS 2013 asking that GS 2013:
- [1.] Judge that Synod Burlington 2010 (Art. 177) erred when it denied Burlington-Fellowship’s appeal without providing observations, considerations, nor adopting a recommendation;
- [2.] Judge that Synod Burlington 2010 failed to do justice to the appeal of Burlington-Fellowship in the manner in which it disposed of the appeal;
- [3.] Accept the re-submission of Burlington-Fellowship’s Appeal of 2010 (attached to its letter) for judgment in 2013 on the basis of Article 31 of the Church Order, unencumbered by Article 33.
- 2.4 GS 2013 in Art. 128 adopted a two-part decision as follows:
- [4.1.] That Burlington Synod 2010 (Article 177) erred when it denied Burlington-Fellowship’s appeal without providing observations, considerations, nor adopting a recommendation;
- [4.2.] That Synod Burlington 2010 failed to do justice to the appeal of Burlington-Fellowship;
- [4.3.] To declare the resubmission of Burlington-Fellowship’s appeal against Article 10 in the Acts of Regional Synod East 2008 admissible.
- [3.1.] That Regional Synod East 2008 was correct in stating that “broader assemblies have determined that the issue of women’s voting is a matter of the churches in common”;
- [3.2.] To deny the appeal of Burlington-Fellowship.
- 2.5 Burlington-Fellowship appeals a number of considerations of GS 2013 Art. 128 as follows:
- 2.5.1 That GS 2013 wronged Burlington-Fellowship by giving weight to a defeated motion (Cons. 2.3);
- 2.5.2 That GS 2013 wronged Burlington-Fellowship by not giving examples to support its claim that past synods have made binding decision beyond those regulated by the Church Order (Cons. 2.5);
- 2.5.3 That GS 2013 wronged Burlington-Fellowship when on the one hand it judged the idea that women’s voting was a matter for the churches in common while on the other hand in a prior decision it concluded that no such decision had ever been made and that this was simply a commonly accepted practice (GS 2013 Art. 110, Cons. 2.2);
- 2.5.4 That GS 2013 wronged Burlington-Fellowship when it used a previously held position of Burlington-Fellowship as part of its considerations (Cons. 2.4).
- 3.1 Defeated motions have no weight.
- 3.2 While it would have been helpful if GS 2013 had given examples to substantiate its claims, the provision of such examples is not required.
- 3.3 The stated contradiction identified by Burlington-Fellowship does appear to be present in the acts of GS 2013.
- 3.4 GS 2013 was wrong to judge Burlington-Fellowship’s appeal using as a consideration their previously held position.
- 4.1 That Synod decide to send the above considerations as an answer to the appeal of Burlington-Fellowship.