GS 2013 – Article 160
In regard to both requests of Burlington-Ebenezer, Synod Carman 2013 only received Burlington-Ebenezer’s letter of appeal and none of the actual documents that are important for the entire appeal process. Burlington-Ebenezer requests Synod Carman 2013 to come to a judgment based only on its own version of the entire situation. Although Burlington-Ebenezer did copy and paste several decisions of minor assemblies into its own letter, it did not provide copies of the material relevant to its appeal. It would not be appropriate to come to a judgement based on this letter from Burlington-Ebenezer only. In order to come to a full understanding of what is at stake Synod requires complete documentation to make a proper determination.
That Synod declare the appeal of Burlington-Ebenezer inadmissible.
GS 2013 – Article 174
3.1. It is not clear which decision Fergus-Maranatha is appealing, nor is there interaction with actual decisions of Synod Burlington 2010.
3.2. Using quotes from historical figures does not provide new evidence that the introduction of hymns is against Scripture or Church Order.
3.3. The quotes from Scripture do not speak about the use of hymns and are taken out of context. Fergus-Maranatha does not provide new Scriptural evidence which shows that the introduction of hymns is unbiblical (Article 31 CO)
That Synod deny the appeal of Fergus-Maranatha.
GS 2010 – Article 27
3.1 Synod Smithers 2007 indeed did not deal with the issue of confessional membership. However, this matter was dealt with extensively by Synod Chatham 2004. Attercliffe did not bring up any new grounds for revisiting this decision.
3.2 To simply state that the Acts of Synod Fergus contain the scriptural and confessional proof for both amended insertions is not an interaction with the considerations of Synod Chatham 2004, and thus cannot be considered “new grounds.”
3.3 To speak about a “historic continental Reformed position” is nebulous and not helpful. While Attercliffe speaks about the “burden of proof” lying with others, the decisions of Synod Neerlandia were based on lengthy considerations with which Attercliffe did not interact.
3.4 Using quotations from authors has its place but does not negate the necessity to interact with the lengthy considerations of Synod Neerlandia.
That Synod decide to declare the appeal inadmissible on the basis of Article 33 of the Church Order.
GS 2010 – Article 94
3.3 Regional Synod West has addressed these concerns, and Rev. Boersema should be able to work with them in his further interaction with the consistory in these matters. He gives no evidence that he has interacted with his consistory in light of the decisions of Regional Synod West.
That Synod decide to deny this appeal.
GS 2007 – Article 55
2.1 Lincoln “requests a reconsideration of appeals addressed to General Synod Chatham 2004 from the following churches: Attercliffe, Abbotsford, Grand Rapids, Owen Sound and Blue Bell.” Lincoln feels that the divergencies mentioned in these appeals “need to be dealt with since they remain in violation of our scriptural principles.”
2.2 Lincoln also states that “the process to affect positive change is flawed at Synod,” so that “Synods’ failure to give clear answers on these matters… contribute to a suppression of Reformed thinking.”
3.1 Though Lincoln requests reconsideration of appeals on grounds that “these divergencies need to be dealt with since they remain in violation of our scriptural principles,” Lincoln does not demonstrate how they violate the principles of Scripture.
3.3 Though Lincoln states that the “process to affect positive change is flawed at Synod,” Lincoln does not demonstrate its case.
4.1 To deny Lincoln’s request to reconsider the five appeals.
GS 2004 – Article 99
The following was adopted:
4.1 The church at Grand Rapids’ appeal is, in fact, an appeal against Synod Lincoln 1992, Art. 72, Recommendation B.
4.2 Both Synod Abbotsford 1995 (Art. 106, pg. 69) and Synod Fergus 1998 (Art. 130) denied appeals concerning the same matter. The church at Grand Rapids does not interact with these decisions.
Synod decide to deny the appeal of the church at Grand Rapids.