Office Bearers

GS 2025 Article 119 – Appeal against GS 2022 art. 142: Days of Commemoration

1.   Material

  • 1.1    Appeal of Dunnville West against the decision of GS 2022 art. 142 (8.6.2).

2.   Admissibility

  • 2.1    The appeal was declared admissible.
    • Grounds: it is an appeal of a decision of a general synod and was received prior to the deadline.

3.   Observations

  • 3.1    The Dunnville West CanRC is appealing the decision of GS 2022 (art. 142) which sustained the appeals of the Flamborough (Redemption) CanRC and the Toronto (Bethel) CanRC and overturned the judgement of RSE 2019 regarding commemorative services.
  • 3.2    Dunnville West asserts that the reasoning of GS 2022 — that CO art. 52 and 53 must be read as “distinct for a reason” — is unconvincing and creates a false dilemma. They argue that these articles, being in the same section of the Church Order (“Worship, Sacraments and Ceremonies”), must be read in conjunction and seen as complementary rather than isolated from one another.
  • 3.3    The appeal highlights the historical context and usage of these articles, noting that the broader Reformed tradition does not distinguish between “commemorative services” and “worship services,” and often refers to special services (e.g., Good Friday) simply as worship services.
  • 3.4    Dunnville West objects to the implication of GS 2022 that a commemorative service is not an official worship service but rather an informal gathering, stating that if such were actually the case it would no longer be an ecclesiastical matter under the authority of the consistory (see CO art 30). Dunnville West also cites as an example of the commemorative service being long considered the equivalent of a formal worship service the Church Order of the Reformed Churches of The Netherlands (1905) art. 67 which states, “the congregations shall keep besides Sunday, also Christmas, Easter, Pentecost and Ascension Day.”
  • 3.5    Dunnville West maintains that distinguishing a commemorative service from a worship service is disingenuous because “the sacrament of baptism and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper can and have been held in a commemorative service.” This “. . . underscores the fact that they are official services.”
  • 3.6    The appellants argue that the reasoning of GS 2022 relies too heavily on semantics (e.g., “shall call” vs. “invite,” “worship” vs. “commemorate”) rather than the broader ecclesiological and liturgical context.
  • 3.7    They express concern that the practice of Flamborough (Redemption) Church “inviting” members and visitors to a commemorative service rather than “calling” them to worship undermines the authority of the consistory and creates confusion about the nature of the gathering. This, in their view, sets a precedent that weakens the Reformed principle of worship and the simplicity of Reformed liturgy.
  • 3.8    The appellants therefore request GS 2025 to judge that GS 2022 erred in sustaining the appeals of Flamborough (Redemption) and Toronto (Bethel) and that RSE 2019’s original decision be upheld.

4.   Considerations

  • 4.1    The appeal correctly emphasizes that CO art. 52 and 53 belong to the same section of the Church Order and must be interpreted in relation to one another. While the articles are distinct, their proximity and shared focus on public worship indicate a complementary, not disjunctive, function. CO art. 1 also indicates that CO art. 52 and 53 both fall under the heading of “worship, sacraments and ceremonies.”
  • 4.2    The CanRC have historically understood the “days of commemoration” stipulation of CO art. 53 in the context of worship services. This understanding is supported by the reference supplied by the appellant to the 1905 Church Order of the Reformed Churches of The Netherlands. A commentary on the Church Order states: “The first category mentioned Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension Day, and Pentecost. These are all days or events which stand related to events of Christ’s life and activity. Some of these events always fall on Sunday. But whether they fall on Sunday or not, the Church Order here specifies that worship services shall be held in observance of these days or events. Such as fall on Sunday shall be remembered in the Sunday sermon. Such as fall on weekdays call for a special worship service in commemoration of the day or event” (M. Monsma, The New Revised Church Order Commentary, 1967, p.201-2).
  • 4.3    The appeal highlights that services which include the elements of public worship are generally understood to be worship services under consistory oversight (cf. Lord’s Day 38, Heidelberg Catechism; see also CO art. 52). When such services are referred to by alternate terminology, this can lead to uncertainty about how they are governed and what expectations apply.
  • 4.4    The Dunnville West CanRC has not provided evidence that the sacraments were administered during commemorative events other than worship services.
  • 4.5    Churches are free to organize events for the commemoration of Christ’s birth, death, resurrection, ascension and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. However, if such events are not worship services, they do not, in themselves, satisfy the directions of CO art. 53. Strictly speaking, they are not ecclesiastical matters (CO art. 30; see also art. 65). As an example, a church might have a “lessons and carols” event to commemorate and celebrate the birth of Christ. Such an event, however beneficial, would not fulfill the expectations of CO art. 53.

5.   Recommendations

That Synod decide:

  • 5.1 To sustain the appeal of the Dunnville West CanRC.

ADOPTED

G. Boot, R. Bremer, and J. Torenvliet abstained as per CO art. 32.