GS 2013 – Article 71

3. Considerations re: Admissibility:

3.3.      In her third request the appellant is basically expressing her disagreement with the Hamilton consistory’s acceptance of General Synod’s decision regarding membership in NAPARC and the implications of that membership. She requested both Classis and Regional Synod to direct Hamilton consistory to appeal General Synod’s decision to retain membership in NAPARC. Classis already pointed out to her, “It is not within the jurisdiction of a classis to direct a local consistory to appeal a decision of a general synod (for example, in the matter of inter-church relations), but such an action would have to originate from the consistory” (Article 8, Consideration 3). Regional Synod showed her the proper route to follow, “If the appellant is not able to convince the Hamilton consistory of the need to appeal the decision regarding NAPARC, the way is open for her to take up the matter with the major assemblies (see Synod 2001 Article 45; Synod 2004, Article 20).

GS 2013 – Article 148

3. Considerations:

3.12.    The suggestion of Guelph-Emmanuel and Edmonton-Immanuel that Ecclesiastical Fellowship be severed now cannot be adopted because a process needs to be followed. It would be inappropriate for Synod Carman 2013 to dictate what a following synod should do. On the other hand, the subcommittee should be mandated to give recommendations concerning whether or not we continue in Ecclesiastical Fellowship.