06 Jul GS 2019 art 62
GS 2019 Article 62 – Appeal of Chilliwack re: RSW 2018 Art. 5 & 19 (treating an “appeal” as a “submission”)
1. Material
- 1.1 Appeal to GS 2019 from the Chilliwack CanRC re: RSW 2018 Art. 5 & 19 (8.6.9.1)
2. Observations
- 2.1 Chilliwack believes that:
- 2.1.1 RSW erred in its decision to change Chilliwack’s appeal into “Expressions of Sentiment” (see RSW 2018 Art. 5) even though Chilliwack had clearly submitted an appeal and the agenda of RSW was adopted with Chilliwack’s letter noted as an appeal (see Acts of RSW Art. 4, 5.5). When RSW 2018 reclassified Chilliwack’s appeal as an ‘expression of sentiment’, RSW 2018 took away Chilliwack’s right to appeal the decision of a minor assembly to a major assembly as per CO Art. 31.
- 2.1.2 RSW 2018 erred in its decision to deal with proposals that had not been circulated to the churches ahead of time. Chilliwack did not receive a copy of the overture of Classis Pacific East or the overture of Classis Manitoba prior to RSW, and thereby did not receive opportunity beforehand to interact with these proposals going to RSW.
- 2.1.3 After RSW 2018 changed Chilliwack’s appeal into an ‘expression of sentiment’, RSW 2018 then erred in its decision to pass on the appeal of the Chilliwack CanRC to GS 2019 for its consideration, without RSW 2018 dealing with it first (RSW 2018 Art. 19, Rec. 3.2, 3.3).
- 2.2 Chilliwack requests that:
- 2.2.1 GS 2019 rule that RSW 2018 erred in the way that RSW 2018 dealt with Chilliwack’s appeal against a decision of the minor assembly.
- 2.2.2 GS 2019 decide that the overture from RSW 2018 regarding the Trinity Psalter-Hymnal is wrongfully on the agenda of GS 2019.
- 2.2.3 The overture from RSW 2018 be sent back to RSW to be dealt with first in an orderly way.
3. Considerations
- 3.1 It is evident that Chilliwack did submit an appeal against the decision of classis to RSW 2018, which was deemed admissible by RSW 2018. RSW 2018 treated the appeal as an ‘expression of sentiment’ related to two overtures, and thereby did not consider or make a ruling on what was in reality Chilliwack’s appeal against a decision of the minor assembly, Classis Pacific East (CPE), Feb 2018 (CO Art. 31). RSW 2018 did not give any grounds for not dealing with Chilliwack’s appeal nor for redesignating Chilliwack’s appeal as an ‘expression of sentiment’.
- 3.2 It is the expectation (cf. RSW Regulations I.C.) with an overture that copies of overtures / proposals be sent to the churches of the region in which an assembly of churches is held, prior to the convening of such an assembly. According to the RSW regulations, RSW should have determined that Chilliwack and the other churches had received the proposals prior to RSW dealing with the matter.
- 3.3 RSW should have dealt with the appeal of Chilliwack as an appeal which was rightly on its agenda and should not have sent the appeal as an “expression of sentiment” on to GS 2019. An appeal to a regional synod against the decision of a classis should receive a clear response and not be forwarded by a regional synod to a general synod.
- 3.4 RSW 2018 erred in not responding to the appeal of Chilliwack against CPE. However that does not mean that the overture should be removed from the agenda of GS 2019, for the fact is that the overture was passed on to GS 2019 and several churches have interacted with it in good faith. Now to remove it from the agenda due to an error at RSW 2018 would not do justice to the churches who took this overture seriously.
4. Recommendations
That Synod decide:
- 4.1 To sustain the appeal of the Chilliwack CanRC that RSW 2018 erred in the way that RSW 2018 dealt with Chilliwack’s appeal against a decision of the minor assembly.
- 4.2 To deny the request of the Chilliwack CanRC that the overture from RSW 2018 be sent back to RSW (cf. consideration 3.4.).