20 Jul The Ecclesiastical Route 1
A “Bureaucratic Mess”
There’s a “bureaucratic mess” in our churches (the Canadian Reformed Churches). A church once predicted it could happen. So don’t take offense at the phrase, it is that church’s, not mine. Maybe “mess” is saying it too strongly. However, there’s certainly confusion within our churches when it comes to “the ecclesiastical route”.
What is this “ecclesiastical route” (aka “the way of the church order”)? What evidence is there for a “bureaucratic mess”? How did this all come to be? And what might be done to clear up the confusion and clean up the mess? Those are matters I intend to address in a series of articles.
CO article 30
The ecclesiastical route is articulated in the last line of CO art. 30 as follows: “A new matter which has not previously been presented to that major assembly may be put on the agenda only when the minor assembly has dealt with it.”
What this means is that a major assembly – a classis, a regional synod, or a general synod – can only deal with items that have been placed on its agenda by the minor assembly. Note the definite article “the” in “the minor assembly”. Only the assembly that is minor to the major one can put things on the agenda of the major assembly.
In other words, only a church council can put things on the agenda of a classis, individual church members or office bearers cannot. Only a classis can put things on the agenda of a regional synod. Only a regional synod can put things on the agenda of a general synod. And, since in some ways a previous general synod is a minor assembly with a view to a next general synod, also a general synod can put things on the agenda of a next general synod.
Appeals
This “ecclesiastical route” applies to the two types of submissions listed in our church order: appeals (CO art. 31) and proposals (CO art. 33). There is a difference here that should be noted.
Where appeals are concerned, only the two parties in the original conflict (usually a local church assembly and a church member) can submit a matter to the major assembly once the minor assembly has dealt with it. For example, if Jeffrey is placed under church discipline by a consistory, only Jeffrey can appeal this consistory decision to classis. If classis rejects the appeal, Jeffrey can then appeal to regional synod. If regional synod upholds the appeal, Jeffrey’s consistory can appeal to general synod. Classis does not appeal the decision of regional synod to general synod, for classis is simply a meeting that exists only for the duration of its agenda.
Proposals
Where proposals are concerned, the ecclesiastical route applies specifically to “new matters”.
For example, if the Yellowknife is feels the CanRC should consider a relationship with another church (a “church abroad” as per CO art. 50) that proposal will have go the ecclesiastical route. Yellowknife will overture classis to overture regional synod to overture general synod to explore a relationship with that particular church abroad. A proposal to have the church order prescribe mid-week worship services would have to go the same way. The same is true for a proposal to add a question and answer to the Heidelberg Catechism defining marriage.
However, if the matter is not new, the ecclesiastical route need not be followed. For example, GS 2019 mandated the committees for interchurch relations (CRCA and CCCNA) to reflect on how CO art. 50 might best be executed. The churches had this report well before GS 2022 convened and had opportunity to reflect on it and submit their thoughts on it to GS 2022. Their submissions did not have to follow the ecclesiastical route. Do realize, only churches may respond in this way to reports to synods, not individuals.
(GS 2019 art. 149; GS 2022 art. 108)
The “mess”
It seems all neat and tidy, until one sees the rubber of the church order hit the road of church practice. This “route” is causing confusion, some would even call it a “mess”. We will next look at recent general synods for evidence of confusion and mess.