22 Dec The Ecclesiastical Route 12
12. Some Reflections (2)
We in the middle of some reflections on the principles and purpose of the ecclesiastical route. Thus far we have seen that the ecclesiastical route does not align well with the fact that in Doleantie Dort polity, major assemblies are assemblies of churches, not of minor assemblies. We have also noted that the ecclesiastical route allows minor assemblies to lord it over churches that are not “its churches”.
Principles: Support
Ecclesiastical assemblies are to be swayed by arguments, not by numbers. Nevertheless, there is wisdom in garnering support for a proposal before considering a proposal. With respect to the ecclesiastical route, the assumption has been that it is a means to create broader support for a proposal.
The fact that GS 2022 rejected similar overtures submitted by both regional synods makes clear that this is not how the ecclesiastical route actually works.
Why does it not work? Part of the problem seems to be that churches join the discussion too late. When an overture is submitted to a classis for forwarding on to regional synod and eventually general synod, the churches of that classis should all participate in the discussion. It is rather odd that a church in the classis where the overture is considered does not interact with the overture until it comes to regional synod or general synod. I know from experience this has happened, I even once asked at a synod whether the failure of a church to interact with the overture in classis impacted the admissibility of its submission to the synod.
The failure of churches to engage in a timely fashion with an overture may explain how overtures make it through classes and regional synods, only to falter at general synod.
Now, one might say, let the churches get their act together. However, that’s the response of a bureaucrat who understands how the system should work.
Purpose: involve the churches
Given that broader assemblies are assemblies of churches, not of church members and not of minor assemblies, and given that all the churches of a major assembly should have had an opportunity to interact with a proposal to the major assembly regarding something common to those churches, the purpose of the ecclesiastical route is to involve all the churches.
The issue at bottom is that a broader assembly should not deal with anything that its churches have not had an opportunity to interact with. This was the point which GS 2010 recognized and tried to catch in its Synod Guideline. GS 2013 recognized it too, when it created a new guideline determining that overtures adopted by regional synods have to be submitted, not only to general synod, but also to all the churches well in advance of general synod convening. This was reiterated by GS 2022 when it determined that, once an appeal has been sustained against an overture not being forwarded to a general synod, a church is free to submit that overture directly to the broadest assembly that should deal with it, provided all the churches receive a copy in a timely manner.
(GS 2010 art. 62; GS 2013 art. 99; GS 2022 art. 78)
Purpose: efficiency
It has been said at times that the ecclesiastical route also exists to keep frivolous proposals away from general synod. If an overture fails to proceed from a classis, only five to twelve churches will have considered it, and one broader assembly of 10 to 24 delegates. Regional synod (16 delegates and roughly 23-30 churches) and general synod (24 delegates and roughly 48-65 churches) have been spared the trouble of reviewing it. If a church could submit an overture directly to a general synod, it would be dealt with by 70 churches and one general synod (24 delegates).
One should realize, as church councils have a turn-over of 1/3 of their members each year, and the ecclesiastical route can take 2.5 years to complete, a church may change its position as an overture travels the route. It happened recently that a church which overtured a general synod to overturn a previous decision was the same (and only) church which had originally requested that (previous) decision to be taken.
(GS 2004 art. 115 6.1.4; GS 2022 art. 62 mat. 1.1)
This reasoning of efficiency also fails to take into account that a church may appeal the decision of a minor broader assembly not to forward an overture along the ecclesiastical route. Further, as an overture is forwarded to the next broader assembly, a church has to reconsider it (especially if the overture has been tweaked). The church that originally drafted the overture will actually have to deal with it three times: when drafting it, when it is before regional synod, and when it is before general synod.
Further, this reasoning does not reckon with the reality that overtures which stall in the ecclesiastical route tend to do so at a regional synod, not at a classis. This reality means that in practice the efficiency is not as large as it may seem.
Finally, in practice most overtures submitted to a regional synod are forwarded to a general synod. This means one should weigh the efficiency gained when overtures do not make it to general synod against the efficiency lost by having an overture go the ecclesiastical route rather than directly to general synod. The higher the “pass rate” along the ecclesiastical route, the less efficient it becomes.
My hypothesis is: if all the churches did due diligence with respect to all overtures at all major assemblies they are part of, there is hardly any efficiency gain. That hypothesis can be tested by crunching some numbers.
We’ll do that next time.