Office Bearers

GS 2025 Article 179 – Overture RSE 2024: Shortening Duration of General Synod

1.   Material

  • 1.1    Overture of RSE 2024 (8.4.2.3).
  • 1.2    Letters from the following churches: Ancaster (8.5.6.1), Attercliffe (8.5.6.2), Brampton (Grace) (8.5.6.3), Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth) (8.5.6.4), Caledonia (8.5.6.5), Calgary (8.5.6.6), Carman West (8.5.6.7), Chilliwack (8.5.6.8), Coaldale (8.5.6.9), Edmonton (Immanuel) (8.5.6.10), Edmonton (Providence) (8.5.6.11), Elm Creek (8.5.6.12, 8.5.6.13), Fergus (Maranatha) (8.5.6.14, 8.5.6.15), Fergus (North) (8.5.6.16), Grand Rapids (8.5.6.17), Grassie (Covenant) (8.5.6.18, 8.5.6.19), Neerlandia (8.5.6.20), Niagara South (8.5.6.21), Ottawa (Jubilee) (8.5.6.22), Smithville (8.5.6.23), St. Albert (8.5.6.24), Willoughby Heights (8.5.6.25).

2.   Admissibility

  • 2.1    The overture was declared admissible.
    • Grounds: The overture was submitted by RSE 2024 and was received on time.
  • 2.2    The letters from the churches were declared admissible.
    • Ground: These letters interact with an overture to GS 2025 and were received on time.

3.   Observations

  • 3.1    The overture notes that the duration of general synod poses a challenge for working elders and tends to favour participation by retired or independently wealthy elders.
  • 3.2    Appealing to the principle of equity implicit in CO art. 49, the overture suggests that equitable access should extend not only to ministers and elders alike, but also to elders across different ages, occupations, and socioeconomic backgrounds. The overture presents two practical proposals to address these concerns:
    • 3.2.1    Proposal One: The first proposal is to adopt a hybrid model for synod meetings, combining virtual and in-person sessions. The overture cites online ecclesiastical meetings during COVID-19 pandemic and a hybrid model used by Synod 2024 of the Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRCNA). Specifically, it proposes convening synod virtually at least one month in advance of in-person meetings to elect officers and assign advisory committees, thereby reducing the length of time delegates must be physically present.
    • 3.2.2    Proposal Two: The second proposal addresses the time-consuming nature of drafting, editing and reviewing the daily acts. To improve efficiency, the overture proposes that the convening church hire a clerical support team.
  • 3.3    From the letters from the churches:
    • 3.3.1    A number of churches express unqualified support for Proposal One while others, though supportive, provide the following comments:
      • 3.3.1.1   The deliberative nature of synods must be maintained.
      • 3.3.1.2   Hybrid sessions should be limited to the election of officers and the appointment of advisory committee members.
      • 3.3.1.3   The proposal may not improve the availability of delegates.
      • 3.3.1.4   The importance of testing the hybrid model prior to implementation.
    • 3.3.2    A number of churches do not support Proposal One for the following reasons:
      • 3.3.2.1   Adopting a hybrid model would change the deliberative character of our assemblies.
      • 3.3.2.2   Comparisons to the CRCNA model are not helpful, citing differences in the character and frequency of their assemblies.
      • 3.3.2.3   Pre-populating the advisory committees could adversely affect delegate readiness to interact with all synod material.
      • 3.3.2.4   There is insufficient evidence that current synod length is limiting elder participation.
      • 3.3.2.5   Concerns are expressed about confidentiality and fairness, particularly the risk of lobbying or undue influence if advisory committees are announced in advance.
      • 3.3.2.6   Concerns are expressed about technical and logistical impediments, including the additional burden on the convening church, effective online engagement, and reliable internet access.
      • 3.3.2.7   Skepticism is expressed that a hybrid model will reduce the duration of synod.
    • 3.3.3    A number of churches express unqualified support for Proposal Two. Others, though supportive, provide the following comments:
      • 3.3.3.1   Decisions about clerical support should be left to the convening church.
      • 3.3.3.2   Clerical support should be enlisted from the vicinity of the convening church. Individuals must be trustworthy and qualified to deal with confidential material.
    • 3.3.4    A number of churches do not support Proposal Two for the following reasons:
      • 3.3.4.1   Concerns are expressed about materials of a sensitive nature being accessed by non-delegates.
      • 3.3.4.2   They remain unconvinced by the proposal’s assertion about the time spent preparing and reviewing the Acts.
      • 3.3.4.3   The convening church already has the option of hiring a non-delegate for clerical support or, alternatively, a Deputy Clerk could be considered.

4.   Considerations

  • 4.1    Both the overture and many of the letters are right to express concern about lengthy meetings of general synods and their consequences on the availability of certain elders to serve as delegates.
  • 4.2    Changes to the current general synod procedure will require thoughtful engagement on many of the issues raised by the churches.
  • 4.3    The overture fails to present any meaningful details concerning the practical implications of changes to the present system, nor does it engage with the existing guidelines for general synod. It is incumbent on the local church to put forward a proposal that provides the details necessary for consideration by general synod. Such an overture may still be presented at a future general synod.

5.   Recommendations

That Synod decide:

  • 5.1    Not to adopt the overture.

ADOPTED

Synod was adjourned for committee work.