GS 2010 – Article 35

3. Considerations

3.1       There is currently no regulation that requires that overtures adopted by a regional synod be distributed to all the churches of the federation.

3.2       Since the matters on the agenda of general synod involve the churches in common, it would be appropriate for regional synods to distribute copies of adopted overtures to all the churches in the federation.

3.3       Since regional synods meet in November, six months prior to the convening of a general synod, it would be appropriate to require that the overtures be sent to all the churches no later than five months prior to the convening of a general synod.

4. Recommendation

That Synod decide:

4.1       That Synod Smithers 2007 did not err in dealing with and deciding on the overture in question.

4.2       That any overture adopted by a regional synod for submission to a general synod be distributed to all the churches no later than five months prior to the general synod.

4.3       To add this provision to the Guidelines for Synod under the new heading, Overtures, between sections 3 and 4.

4.4       To instruct the clerk of Synod to notify the next Regional Synod East and Regional Synod West of this change in the Guidelines for Synod.

ADOPTED

GS 2016 – Article 55

3. Consideration

3.1    A synod is an assembly of the churches and does not deal with proposals from individuals, but only from churches (CO 30).

4. Recommendation

That Synod decide:

4.1    To declare the letter inadmissible.

ADOPTED

GS 2007 – Article 136

4. Considerations

4.1   The Cornerstone Council is correct in stating that the matter of women’s voting rights has not been dealt with in a conclusive way by any general synod.

4.2   General Synod 1980 rejected certain arguments against women’s voting but did not take the further step of affirming women’s voting among the churches.

4.3   The Cornerstone Council has indeed brought forward new elements to this synod that could warrant the formation of new study committee. The agenda set by a previous synod (1980) has not been completed.

5. Recommendation

Synod decide:

5.1   To accede to the request of the Cornerstone Canadian Reformed Church at Hamilton to appoint a committee to finish the mandate extended by Synod Smithville 1980.

ADOPTED

GS 2016 – Article 112

3. Considerations

3.1    “Overture 1” is incomplete:

3.1.1     The Overture does not contain a clear request for action, nor a statement that can be adopted or taken over by Synod. Neither the statement of proposal, nor the paragraphs under the heading “Overture”, could be adopted by synod in their current form.

3.1.2     The specifics of how such an overture would be implemented have not been spelled out. This is evident in the concerns raised by the letters from the churches. Implementation of the proposal would require amending the Support Guidelines, published in Appendix 16 to the Acts GS 2013 for the CNSF. The Overture does not include a proposal for such an amendment, nor does it propose how such guidelines could be constructed. In fact, there is no interaction with the current guidelines at all.

3.2    “Overture 2” is incomplete:

3.2.1     The Overture does not contain a clear request for action, nor a statement that can be adopted. Neither the statement of proposal, nor the paragraphs under the heading of “Overture”, could be adopted by synod in their current form.

3.2.2     The specifics of how such an overture would be implemented have not been spelled out. This is evident in the concerns raised by the letters from the churches. The Overture requests that CO 4B be changed. However, implementation of the proposal would also require:

3.2.2.1    Interaction with GS 1958 Art. 188. This article stipulates the guidelines for ecclesiastical examinations in the federation. These guidelines would need to be changed;

3.2.2.2    Direction for local classes, whose regulations would need to be changed to accommodate this overture;

3.2.2.3    A recommendation regarding possible funding needed to cover the extra cost of travel for the students. This, in turn, could require further amendments to the Support Guidelines of the CNSF;

3.2.3.4    A recommendation for how to deal with foreign students.

3.3    Although there may be merit to the ideas contained in the Overture, neither part of the Overture can be adopted in its current form.

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide:

4.1    Not to adopt the Overture of Regional Synod West 2015.

ADOPTED

GS 2010 – Article 99

3. Considerations

3.2      Concerns about procedural injustice:

3.2.1    Hamilton’s concern about procedural injustice arise from its interpretation of Article 31 of the Church Order. According to Hamilton, a synod may only revise or overturn a decision of a previous synod if it is proved that the original decision went against Scripture or the Church Order. Churches of the federation are bound by the decisions of the major assemblies unless they are proven to be against the Word of God or the adopted Church Order. Article 31 does not prevent churches from approaching the major assemblies with a request to revise or revoke a decision of a synod on grounds other than the Word of God or the adopted Church Order.

3.2.2 Article 33 of the Church Order makes provision for the churches to approach subsequent assemblies with a request to revisit decisions on the basis of new grounds. It is not necessary that these new grounds prove the original decision to be in conflict with the Word of God or the adopted Church Order. It might be enough to show that the original decision was unwise or unhelpful or was made without due consideration of all the implications.

4. Recommendation

That Synod decide to deny the appeal of the church at Hamilton-Cornerstone.

ADOPTED