Office Bearers

GS 2025 Article 90 – Appeals against GS 2022 art. 108 dec. 3.5: Length of Appointments

1.   Material

  • 1.1    Appeal of Ancaster CanRC against the decision of GS 2022 art. 108 (8.6.10).
  • 1.2    Glanbrook’s “overture” regarding GS 2022 art. 108 (8.4.5).
  • 1.3    Letter from Attercliffe expressing support for Glanbrook’s overture (8.5.2.1).

2.   Admissibility

  • 2.1    The appeal from the Ancaster CanRC is admissible as it is an appeal of a decision of a general synod and was received prior to the deadline.
  • 2.2    The “overture” from the Glanbrook CanRC is, in effect, an appeal of GS 2022 art. 108 and, since it was received on time, is thus admissible.
  • 2.3    The letter from Attercliffe comments on the matter raised by Glanbrook. Because Glanbrook’s submission is essentially an appeal, such a submission ought not to have been available for comment by the churches. Hence, the letter of Attercliffe is declared inadmissible.

3.   Observations

  • 3.1    The Ancaster CanRC appeals GS 2022 art. 108 dec. 3.5, which set the length of appointments to the Committee for Ecumenical Relations (CER) at twelve years (four three-year terms), rather than the previously standard nine years (three three-year terms).
  • 3.2    Ancaster points out:
    • 3.2.1    No reason was given by GS 2022 for the change in term length, either in its grounds or in the committee report recommendation.
    • 3.2.2    Prior to GS 2022, there was no precedent for a 12-year maximum for committee appointments in the Canadian Reformed Churches.
    • 3.2.3    GS 1995 (art. 116) established, as a general rule, a maximum term of nine consecutive years for synodical committee members, balancing continuity with regular turnover.
  • 3.3    Ancaster argues that:
    • 3.3.1    Decisions of earlier synods should be respected unless compelling reasons are provided for change;
    • 3.3.2    In this case, no compelling reason was offered to justify departing from the nine-year standard.
  • 3.4    Ancaster requests that GS 2025:
    • 3.4.1    Rescind GS 2022 art. 108 dec. 3.5;
    • 3.4.2    Reinstate the maximum of three, three-year terms (totaling nine years) for appointments to the CER, in line with GS 1995.
  • 3.5    The Glanbrook CanRC shares the same basic concerns as Ancaster but adds the following points:
    • 3.5.1    The committee appears to have recommended an increase of term length based in part on a suggestion from only one other federation;
    • 3.5.2    The CER’s proposal of a 12-year term was noted as a concern by some churches writing to GS 2022 but “Synod did not interact with this concern”;
    • 3.5.3    While personal relations of committee members with their counterparts are important, “these personal relations, however, must always remain subservient to the ecclesiastical relations themselves.” The potential is there over a longer span of time that such personal familiarity actually “gets in the way” of ecclesiastical relations.

4.   Considerations

  • 4.1    Concerning Synodical Continuity and Authority:
    • 4.1.1    GS 1995 decided on a nine-year maximum for committee appointments to promote both stability and healthy turnover.
    • 4.1.2    CO art. 31 requires respect for settled and binding decisions unless proven to be in conflict with Scripture, the Church Order, or unless causing evident harm.
    • 4.1.3    GS 2022 did not provide any grounds or rationale for altering the standard to twelve years and thus failed to meet the necessary threshold for changing established practice.
  • 4.2    Concerning Transparency and Responsibility:
    • 4.2.1    Significant changes to standing rules or practices should be made with clear, public reasoning.
    • 4.2.2    The absence of any recorded justification for extending committee terms undermines good order and transparency in church governance.
  • 4.3    Concerning Good Governance Principles:
    • 4.3.1    Nine years already represents a significant period of service.
    • 4.3.2    As the Glanbrook CanRC states, a longer term runs the risk of personal relations getting in the way of ecclesiastical relations. It also reduces opportunities for broader participation in church governance, and diminishes the benefit of fresh perspectives.
    • 4.3.3    Regular turnover helps maintain accountability, energy, and responsiveness within committees.
  • 4.4    Concerning the Proper Response to Appeals:
    • 4.4.1    The appeal of the Ancaster CanRC rests on a previous synodical decision and highlights real procedural deficiencies.
    • 4.4.2    Upholding the appeal will correct an irregular decision and restore coherence to the church’s standard practices.
  • 4.5    Because the CER was counting on a twelve-year term as per GS 2022, an immediate application of the nine-year term limit would be very disruptive to the committee’s work due to a large number of immediate retirements that would need to take place. For this reason, the CER should be exempt from the nine year limit until the next general synod. This should be sufficient time for the CER to internally work out an equitable retirement schedule and plan for continuity within the nine-year term limit.

5.   Recommendations

That Synod decide:

  • 5.1    To uphold the appeal of the Ancaster CanRC and the appeal of the Glanbrook CanRC regarding GS 2022 art. 108 and thus return to the decision of GS 1995 art. 116;
  • 5.2    To not apply the nine-year limit to the appointments to be made by this Synod to the CER;
  • 5.3    To mandate the CER to work out an equitable retirement schedule and plan for continuity within a nine-year term limit, to be sent to the churches as part of their report at least six months in advance of the next general synod.

A motion to divide the question into voting on 5.1 and 5.2-3 separately was duly moved and seconded. This motion to divide was DEFEATED.

The proposal as presented above was then

ADOPTED