Office Bearers

GS 2025 Article 132 – Appeal against GS 2022 art. 60 & 81

Synod went into closed session.

1.   Material

  • 1.1    Appeal from Willoughby Heights (8.6.8.1).
  • 1.2    Letter from Lincoln (Vineyard) (8.6.8.5).

2.   Admissibility

  • 2.1    Synod declared the appeal from Willoughby Heights admissible.
    • Grounds:
      • 2.1.1    Willoughby Heights complains that it has been wronged by a decision of GS 2022 which they assert has compromised the welfare of the churches.
      • 2.1.2    A church has a right to appeal a decision of an ecclesiastical assembly and is not limited to cases of personal injury but may also properly include the welfare of the churches (CO art. 31).
  • 2.2    Synod declared the letter from Lincoln (Vineyard) admissible.
    • Grounds: Lincoln (Vineyard) urges GS 2025 not to entertain the appeal from Willoughby Heights, citing previous deliberations and the passage of time in which their congregation has found peace and former members have moved on. They suggest that re-opening this matter will not serve the cause of justice or peace and suggest that “a more beneficial approach would be for Synod to consider an overture aimed at reforming the appeals process.”

3.   Observations

  • 3.1    Willoughby Heights appeals the decisions of GS 2022 (Confidential Acts, Articles 60 & 81) alleging that GS 2022 failed to judge the substance of appeals of GS 2019 submitted by Lincoln (Vineyard) and Dunnville.
  • 3.2    Willoughby Heights maintains that GS 2022, by refusing to address the content of Articles 98 and 141 of GS 2019, compounded injustice and left the appellants “in the dark” concerning future procedural steps.
  • 3.3    Willoughby Heights is concerned that in this matter the Canadian Reformed Churches are failing in exercising mercy, justice, and faithfulness.
  • 3.4    Willoughby Heights alleges that the failure to examine all sides at the various assemblies led to decisions which were considered procedurally improper by GS 2022 (cf. Proverbs 18:17).
  • 3.5    The appeal of Willoughby Heights is focused on the procedural pathway, not the original discipline cases, and it builds its case on perceived irregularities in the handling of appeals from 2017 to 2022.
  • 3.6    Lincoln (Vineyard) in a letter to GS 2025 acknowledges the procedural breakdowns but urges GS 2025 not to reopen the matter, advocating instead for reform.
  • 3.7    The appeal of Willoughby Heights does not include the full original appeals to GS 2022. Willoughby Heights could not do so as the original appeals were not fully archived (see GS 2022 art. 154).
  • 3.8    GS 2022 sustained the jurisdictional concerns raised by Lincoln (Vineyard) and Dunnville, but declined to judge the remaining grounds, citing the compounded irregularities.
  • 3.9    GS 2022 explicitly stated that a judgement on the merits was not possible due to the procedural confusion and incomplete record.
  • 3.10  Willoughby Heights offers no clear path forward except to demand that GS 2025 issue a substantive ruling, even though key documents and parties are absent.
  • 3.11  Currently, there are no regulations or guidelines to guide the appeals process at general synods.

4.   Considerations

  • 4.1    The appeal of Willoughby Heights raises valid concerns about procedural errors. Done in human weakness, these errors have, at times, created confusion and hindered the pursuit of justice, mercy, and faithfulness. Such failures give rise to sorrow and humble reflection.
  • 4.2    The appeal of Willoughby Heights underestimates the difficulty GS 2022 faced in trying to resolve such a tangled matter.
  • 4.3    GS 2022 acted within its rights under the Church Order to refrain from issuing a judgment in a situation where jurisdiction, evidence, and appeal pathways were unclear.
  • 4.4    The absence of key materials and the withdrawal or silence of primary parties means GS 2025 would face similar if not worse constraints than GS 2022.
  • 4.5    Reopening the case at this stage risks further instability, confusion, and harm to those who have since moved on.
  • 4.6    While highlighting problems, the appeal does not offer a constructive solution other than critiquing GS 2022.
  • 4.7    The best response at this stage is not to re-judge but to reform: to acknowledge systemic weaknesses and take steps to prevent such failures in future appeal processes.
  • 4.8    The record shows multiple procedural failures at various levels, but GS 2022 exercised caution, not indifference to the pursuit of mercy, justice, and faithfulness.
  • 4.9    GS 2025 should focus instead on learning from the procedural breakdowns and improving its process moving forward.

5.   Recommendation

That Synod decide:

  • 5.1    To deny the appeal of the Willoughby Heights CanRC re GS 2022 (art. 60 & 81);
  • 5.2    To appoint a three-member ad hoc committee (including one alternate) with the following mandate:
    • 5.2.1    To analyze the procedural failures surrounding previous appeals to general synod, using the events highlighted by the appeal of the Willoughby Heights CanRC as a case study;
    • 5.2.2    To study existing appeal protocols used both within the Canadian Reformed Federation and other federations with whom we have Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF), as well as further resources the committee deems relevant;
    • 5.2.3    To propose establishing a General Synod Appeals Committee, including regulations for consistent standards of admissibility, rules for evidence, jurisdiction, and record handling in the future processing of appeals to general synod;
    • 5.2.4    To include in its proposal guidelines on how confidential acts should be distributed to consistories and how consistories should deal with these;
    • 5.2.5    To submit its report to the churches no later than six (6) months prior to the convening of the next general synod.
    • 5.2.6    This committee shall be known as the Committee to Propose Guidelines for Appeals at General Synods (CPGA).

ADOPTED

K. Janssen abstained as per CO art. 32.