Office Bearers

GS 2025 Article 166 – Appeal against GS 2022 art. 155: Pulpit Access

1.   Material

  • 1.1    Appeal from Coaldale (8.6.3.2).

2.   Admissibility

  • 2.1    The appeal was declared admissible.
    • Grounds: It was submitted before the deadline and is against a decision of a previous general synod.

3.   Observations

  • 3.1    The Coaldale CanRC supports the decision of GS 2022 found in art.155 but appeals the validity of art. 155 gr. 4.4 which reads:
    • [4.4]    Re 3.2: Our current church order does not have a specific provision regarding pulpit access for guest ministers from non-sister churches. Toronto-Bethel acknowledges this in Consideration 6, speaking of this as a “gap.” At the same time, it argues in Consideration 7 that the onus for closing that “gap” lies with those who desire to ensure that present practice is codified. The other appellants make similar statements about where the onus lies, while RSE 2019 in turn places the onus on those who wish to change current practices. In line with the practices of our sister-churches (see 4.3 above), the churches could decide to adopt an article or provision in the church order specifically regulating local pulpit access. In this way our practices will explicitly reflect our church order.
  • 3.2    Coaldale provides four grounds for their appeal
    • 3.2.1    When GS 2022 writes, “In line with the practices of our sister-churches (see 4.3 above), the churches could decide to adopt an article or provision in the church order specifically regulating local pulpit access”, it effectively is giving advice where none is sought.
    • 3.2.2    It understands the phrase, “In this way our practices will explicitly reflect our church order” to be saying that our practices determine our church order rather than our church order determining our practices.
    • 3.2.3    It considers that Synod’s even making the suggestion that churches could adopt an article or provision in the church order regulating local pulpit access undermines the grounds articulated in GS 2022 Art.155 dec. 4.1 and 4.2.
    • 3.2.4    It believes that rather than we conforming to how other federations “apply the first mark of the true church (Belgic Confession Art.29),” we need to be influencing these other federations.

4.   Considerations

  • 4.1    Re 3.2.1: Coaldale argues that GS 2022 gave advice where none was sought. However, the contested remark in GS 2022 art. 155 dec. 4.4 (“the churches could decide…”) was not unsolicited guidance but an observation arising directly from the appeals placed before GS 2022. GS 2022 was responding to the appellants themselves, who had identified a “gap” in the Church Order and proposed contrasting ways of addressing it. GS 2022 did not initiate this subject independently; it responded to what was properly before it. Therefore, the reference to a potential Church Order provision was procedurally legitimate and does not violate CO art. 30.
  • 4.2    Re 3.2.2: Coaldale reads the phrase “in this way our practices will explicitly reflect our church order” as if it reverses the normative relationship between Church Order and practice. This is a misreading. GS 2022 did not say that practice should determine the Church Order, but that a Church Order provision could clarify and formalize the basis for current practice. The statement assumes that Church Order should govern our practices and suggests a path to bring greater consistency (see CO art. 76).
  • 4.3    Re 3.2.3: The suggestion of GS 2022 that the churches could adopt an article or provision in the Church Order regulating local pulpit access is in keeping with CO art. 76, that if the interest of the churches demand such, these articles can be “changed, augmented or diminished.”
  • 4.4    Re 3.2.4: The blessing of enjoying Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF) with other federations is that there can be a mutual influencing of each other, not simply one influencing the other.

5.   Recommendation

That Synod decide:

  • 5.1    To deny the appeal.

ADOPTED

G. Boot abstained as per CO art. 32.