GS 2022 art 108

GS 2022 Article 108 – CRCA-CCCNA Study Reports on the Execution of CO Art. 50

1.   Material

  • 1.1    CRCA-CCCNA Majority Report (8.2.12.1).
  • 1.2    CRCA-CCCNA Minority Report (8.2.12.2).
  • 1.3    Submissions from the following CanRC and ARC: Dunnville dd. Oct 19, 2021 (8.3.12.1); Burlington Waterdown-Rehoboth (8.3.12.2); Orangeville (8.3.12.3); Carman-West (8.3.12.4); Ancaster (8.3.12.5); Attercliffe (8.3.12.6); Niagara South (8.3.12.7); Lynden (8.3.12.8); Elora (8.3.12.9); St. Albert (8.3.12.10); Fergus-North (8.3.12.11); Guelph-Emmanuel (8.3.12.12); Willoughby Heights (8.3.12.13); Aldergrove (8.3.12.14); Smithville (8.3.12.15); Yarrow (8.3.12.16); Cloverdale (8.3.12.17); Owen Sound (8.3.12.18); Vernon (8.3.12.19); Chilliwack (8.3.12.20); Tintern Spring Creek (8.3.12.21); Coaldale (8.3.12.22); London-Pilgrim (8.3.12.23); Flamborough-Redemption (8.3.12.24); Fergus-Maranatha (8.3.12.25); Fergus-Maranatha (8.3.12.26); Fergus-Maranatha (8.3.12.27); Calgary (8.3.12.28); Chatham-Ebenezer (8.3.12.29); Glanbrook-Trinity (8.3.12.30); Glanbrook-Trinity (8.3.12.31); Glanbrook-Trinity (8.3.12.32); Hamilton-Cornerstone (8.3.12.33); Burlington-Fellowship (8.3.12.34); Winnipeg-Redeemer (8.3.12.35); Neerlandia (North) (8.3.12.36); Edmonton-Immanuel (8.3.12.37); Langley (8.3.12.38); Hamilton-Providence (8.3.12.39); Toronto-Bethel (8.3.12.40); Langley-Refuge (8.3.12.41); Grassie-Covenant (8.3.12.42); Burlington-Fellowship (8.3.11.4); Ancaster (8.3.1.1).
  • Points raised by the churches:
    • Churches generally expressed favour for either the majority or minority report.
    • Federative unity is not always the goal of efforts to seek ecclesiastical relationships; rather the goal, as stated by CO Art. 50, is that of a sister-church relationship (Ecclesiastical Fellowship).
    • Diversity of opinion and practice in our federation should not drive our decision-making with respect to changing our current practice.
    • The Proposed Joint Church Order (PJCO) 2012 has no official standing and thus should not be used to determine our direction.
    • The direction of the Majority Report could be adopted with additional safeguards such as the approbation of classis and the concurring advice of deputies of Regional Synod. Such safeguards both agree with the principles of our Church Order and is a sound check and balance to independentism.
    • There are concerns about the danger of independentism.
    • Membership in NAPARC and ICRC should not determine our ecclesiastical relationships.
    • Local experience strongly confirms that the recommendations of the Majority Report will function well.
    • Pulpit and table fellowship should be possible only when there is official contact at a federative level.
    • Different classes in our federation acting differently when it comes to interchurch relationships has the potential of creating disunity in our own federation.
    • There is concern that the Minority Report binds the conscience of the local consistory.
    • Input regarding the proposed change to CO 50:
      • a proposed change to the CO must come by way of a submission by the churches following the ecclesiastical route;
      • the proposed addition of the phrase “minor points of doctrine” is concerning.
      • The 12-year term is too long as it has the potential pitfall of ministers becoming too invested in this work.
      • The proposed change to the committee’s makeup will not necessarily lighten the workload.
      • The level of involvement and access to General Synod material that fraternal delegates and observers are granted is concerning.
      • The phraseology of “transfer of membership” instead of “attestations” is concerning.
      • To characterize our current approach to ecclesiastical relationships as top-down or hierarchical is inaccurate.
      • The phraseology “element of spectrum to our relationships” can inadvertently lead to losing sight of the scriptural norm of church unity.

2.   Admissibility

  • 2.1    The reports were declared admissible.
  • 2.2    The submissions from the churches were declared admissible.

3.   Decisions

Synod decided:

  • 3.1    To receive the reports and correspondence with gratitude;
  • 3.2    To thank the members of the Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA) and Committee for Contact with Churches in North America (CCCNA) for their work;
  • 3.3    To appoint one committee to be mandated to oversee all aspects of ecumenical relations, and to name this committee the Committee on Ecumenical Relations (CER) (Report Recommendation 4. Single Committee);
  • 3.4    To appoint twelve members to the CER from across the federation, one of whom should be convenor (Report Recommendation 5. Size of Committee);
  • 3.5    To set the length of time on the committee to be three years, renewable three times (Report Recommendation 6. Number of Consecutive Terms on the Committee);
  • 3.6    To give to the CER the following general mandate (Report Recommendation 7. General Mandate):
    • a) To continue contact with churches with whom we are in ecumenical relations;
    • b) To send an appropriate number of delegates to represent the CanRC churches at the International Conference of Reformed Churches (ICRC) and North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC);
    • c) To work in consultation with individual CanRC churches and classes that maintain contact with churches for which the CER also has a mandate;
    • d) Upon request, to advise CanRC churches regarding the identity of other churches and our relationship with them;
    • e) To report on any contact with a church with whom we are not in an ecumenical relationship;
    • f) To appoint one of its members to validate and submit to the treasurer of the General Fund all expenses being submitted for committee work;
    • g) To submit its report to the churches six months prior to the convening of general synod (a supplementary report can be submitted if necessary);
    • h) To facilitate hospitality support for fraternal delegates and observers, in consultation with the convening church, at each general synod;
  • 3.7    To adopt the following protocols for hosting fraternal delegates and observers to general synod (Report Recommendation 8. Protocols for Hosting at General Synods).
    • a) Invitations: It is the responsibility of the Committee on Ecumenical Relations (CER) to send invitations to all churches in Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF). The CER may also send invitations to any other church when they deem it would be beneficial to our ecumenical relations. The CER shall inform the convening church of these invitations.
    • b) Hospitality: It is the responsibility of the CER, in consultation with the convening church, to facilitate the transport of invited delegates and official observers between a nearby airport, the location of the synod meetings, and their place of accommodation, and to provide lodging and meals for all those invited (and spouses if applicable) for the duration of their attendance at the general synod. Costs associated with this hospitality shall be paid out of the general fund. The CER will assist the convening church and synod in hosting invited delegates and official observers from other churches, explaining procedures, ensuring delegates have the materials they are entitled to, etc., especially as some delegates will be from foreign (church) cultures.
    • c) Fraternal Delegates: (delegates from churches with whom we have EF)
    • Fraternal delegates shall:
      • i.    have access to all internal synod documents;
      • ii.   be invited to participate in deliberations in meetings of advisory committees;
      • iii. be given an opportunity to address the synod;
      • iv.  be given the privilege of the floor (entitled to deliberate and advise, but not vote).
    • d) Fraternal Observers: (delegates from other churches)
    • Fraternal observers shall:
      • i.    be given an opportunity to address the synod;
      • ii.   be invited to be present at meetings of advisory committees;
      • iii. be given the privilege of the floor during the time of their bringing greetings to the synod on behalf of the churches that sent them;
      • iv.  be given other privileges if synod executive deems that to be of benefit.
  • 3.8    To request the CER to further consider the mandate of GS 2019 (Art. 149 Rec. 4.1.1), specifically taking into account the input received from the churches in response to the majority and minority reports regarding the matters of:
    • 3.8.1   Categories of Ecumenical Relationships (Recommendation 1);
    • 3.8.2   Rules for Ecumenical Relationships (Recommendation 2);
    • 3.8.3   Revision of Church Order Article 50 (Recommendation 3):
      • 3.8.3.1   To consider, if a change to CO Art. 50 is deemed necessary, whether this should be initiated by a local church;
  • 3.9    To request the CER:
    • 3.9.1   To ensure that rule 6 of our Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship is honoured;
    • 3.9.2   To demonstrate in its report the consistency of its proposals with Scripture, Confession, and Church Order.

4.   Grounds

  • 4.1    Re 3.2: there is complete agreement between the Majority and Minority reports regarding recommendations 4-8. The implementation of these recommendations will serve the churches well.
  • 4.2    Re 3.8, 3.9:
    • 4.2.1   Opportunity was not afforded to the members of the committees to fully interact with both the Majority and Minority Reports before they were submitted to GS 2022.
    • 4.2.2   Though much work has been done, there are matters in the report that appear unfinished and could lead to unintended consequences. For example, see letter of Ancaster (8.3.1.1) which indicates that there may be unintentional loss of pulpit fellowship for foreign churches who had an EF relationship but have been moved to Corresponding Relationship.
    • 4.2.3   Adopting a new structure for ecclesiastical relations is very significant for the churches. Though some churches speak of a local urgency, the weightiness of this matter and the significant amount of feedback received from the churches calls for prudence.
    • 4.2.4   Re 3.9.1: it was ascertained that the adopted Rules for EF were not fully followed. Rule 6 states “When major changes or additions are being considered to the confessions, church government or liturgy, the churches shall be informed in order that as much consultation can take place as possible before a final decision is taken”.
    • 4.2.5   Re 3.9.2: it is important that the churches understand the rationale of any proposed changes.