Office Bearers

GS 2025 Article 92 – Appeal against RSW 2022 art. 12: In-person Worship

1.   Material

  • 1.1    Appeal of A. & D. Doornbos of the decision of Regional Synod West 2022 (art 12) (8.6.9).

2.   Admissibility

  • 2.1    The appeal was declared admissible.
    • Ground: it is an appeal of a decision of a regional synod and was received prior to the deadline.

3.   Observations

  • 3.1    A. and D. Doornbos appeal the decision of Regional Synod West 2022 (art 12) which upheld a decision of Classis Alberta denying their appeal against the consistory of the Barrhead CanRC.
  • 3.2    The original issue concerns the consistory’s temporary suspension of in-person worship during the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to government health regulations, the consistory moved services to a livestream-only format for a limited time and prohibited in-person attendance at the church building.
  • 3.3    A. and D. Doornbos assert that:
    • 3.3.1    The consistory acted beyond its authority under CO art. 52 by suspending in-person worship.
    • 3.3.2    The decision constituted an unscriptural binding of conscience, since they believed God requires physical gathering and that livestreaming cannot fulfill the command to worship corporately.
    • 3.3.3    The consistory wrongly prioritized obedience to civil authority over obedience to God.
    • 3.3.4    RSW 2022 erred in upholding the consistory’s actions and in failing to recognize this as a matter of moral and theological concern.
  • 3.4    RSW 2022 found the appeal admissible but denied it on several grounds, including:
    • 3.4.1    That the consistory acted within its lawful authority under CO art. 52;
    • 3.4.2    That in times of extraordinary circumstances, consistories must make prudential judgments for the safety and spiritual care of the flock;
    • 3.4.3    That the appellants had not demonstrated that the consistory’s actions were contrary to Scripture or confession;
    • 3.4.4    That while more could have been done pastorally, the decision to suspend in-person worship temporarily was not a violation of conscience, or of the limits of ecclesiastical authority.

4.   Considerations

  • 4.1    The consistory acted within its lawful ecclesiastical authority when it temporarily suspended in-person services in response to the government declaring a public health emergency. Under CO art. 52, consistories are charged with calling the congregation to worship and determining how this is best carried out in specific contexts. In the best judgment of the consistory, the COVID-19 pandemic and related government health regulations constituted an extraordinary circumstance requiring prudential judgment.
  • 4.2    The decision to suspend in-person services was a temporary and circumstantial measure. The consistory did not deny the biblical necessity of corporate worship but sought, under exceptional conditions, to continue the ministry of the Word in the best way it could at the time.
  • 4.3    The claim that the consistory bound the conscience of the appellants is not substantiated. In Reformed ethics, the binding of conscience occurs when human authorities impose practices in worship that are not grounded in Scripture and require them as necessary acts of obedience to God (cf. Belgic Confession art. 32). In this case, the consistory did not command anything contrary to God’s Word, nor did it elevate livestream worship to a normative or divinely required practice. Rather, it made a temporary and prudential decision, under extraordinary public health circumstances, to suspend physical gatherings for a limited time. Examples of such exceptions to the ordinary application of God’s law are found in Holy Scripture (see, e.g. 1 Samuel 21:1-6; 2 Chronicles 30:18-20). The decision of the consistory to temporarily suspend corporate, in-person worship did not deny or redefine the biblical obligation of corporate worship, but sought to uphold it in a constrained form during a time of emergency. While the appellants experienced the suspension as a burden on their conscience, the consistory neither denied the biblical mandate to gather nor prohibited future gathering beyond necessity. Therefore, no actual binding of conscience, in the Reformed or confessional sense, took place.

5.   Recommendation

That Synod decide:

  • 5.1 To deny the appeal of A. and D. Doornbos.

ADOPTED

Synod was adjourned for committee work.