GS 2025 Article 177 – PCA (Presbyterian Church in America)

1.   Material

  • 1.1    Letter from Guelph (Emmanuel) (8.3.10.11).

2.   Admissibility

  • 2.1    The letter was declared admissible.
    • Grounds: It was received on time and the letter pertains to the CER report to GS 2025.

3. Observations

  • 3.1    In its letter, the Guelph (Emmanuel) CanRC:
    • 3.1.1    Expresses surprise that the CER has no contact with the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA);
    • 3.1.2    Notes that Hamilton (Cornerstone) and Flamborough (Redemption) brought this to the attention of GS 2013 and GS 2019 respectively;
    • 3.1.3    Requests GS 2025 mandate the CER to take up contact with the PCA.

4. Considerations

  • 4.1    A similar request was made by Hamilton (Cornerstone) to GS 2013 (art. 81), and the consideration of GS 2013 stated:
    • While Hamilton-Cornerstone’s suggestion may have merit, it would be appropriate and also helpful for Hamilton (or some other congregation so inclined) to first investigate the PCA further. If after investigation and evaluation of the PCA there is an apparent potential for fruitful ecclesiastical contact, the issue should be brought from the minor assemblies to the broader, where it may be placed on the agenda of the CCCNA for its attention. This course of action would be similar to that taken, e.g., by the church of Aldergrove with respect to the Free Reformed Churches of North America (see Acts of Synod Fergus 1998, Article 98, Consideration III.A).
  • 4.2    GS 2025 has changed CO art. 30 to read, “A new matter which has not previously been presented to that major assembly and is common to its churches may be put on the agenda by one of its churches.” It is no longer required to bring the matter through the minor broader assemblies in order to put it on the agenda a general synod.
  • 4.3    It remains incumbent on the local church to do an investigation and evaluation of any other church before approaching general synod.

5.   Recommendation

That Synod decide:

  • 5.1    That the above consideration serves as answer to the Guelph (Emmanuel) CanRC.

ADOPTED