24 Jul The Ecclesiastical Route 2
2. Inconsistency Acknowledged
In the previous article I noted that a church once predicted a “bureaucratic mess” would ensue in our churches. While “mess” is might seem too strong a term, confusion is certainly present. It relates to the so-called “ecclesiastical route”.
Last time I described the factors somewhat, concluding that it all seems neat and tidy. However, when the rubber of the church order hits the road of church practice things do get messy. In this article I will give evidence of this messiness.
A new matter
The argument is that new matters must follow the ecclesiastical route and old matters need not. An old matter is a matter that has already been dealt with by the major assembly or is to be dealt with by the major assembly.
Matters already dealt with by the major assembly are primarily matters concerning which major assemblies commission reports. Alternative proposals to recommendations made in reports to synod do not need to go the ecclesiastical route. For example, a synod committee proposed to GS 2019 to end contact with a certain church abroad and a CanRC proposed to GS 2019 to continue contact with that certain church abroad. The church’s proposal did not need to travel the ecclesiastical route.
For the sake of efficiency, some matters are assigned a certain route that does not follow the ecclesiastical route. For example, the proposal to adopt a certain song for use in worship can be submitted by a church directly to general synod (via the Standing Committee for the Book of Praise). It hasn’t always been so, there was a time when every new hymn proposal had to go the ecclesiastical route.
(GS 2019 art. 145 rec. 4.2.5; GS 2013 art. 125 rec. 4.5)
However, a proposal by a CanRC to enter into a relationship with a specific church abroad does have to go the ecclesiastical route . That CanRC cannot submit its request directly to general synod (via the Committee on Ecumenical Relations). This is considered a “new matter”.
There is a measure of inconsistency here, and inconsistency creates confusion. This confusion was acknowledged by what transpired in the course of GS 2007 through GS 2013.
Evidence of Confusion
GS 2010 received an appeal against the decision of GS 2007 to consider a certain letter from a certain church admissible. The appeal to GS 2010 argued that the 2007 letter addressed a matter which should have followed the ecclesiastical route. Because it did not, the letter should have been declared inadmissible.
Among others the appeal indicated: “we also believe that the lack of consistency in practice when declaring material admissible/inadmissible is unwise and does not give clarity in proper procedure to other congregations and members for making overtures to General Synod.”
In this sentence we already have a first indication of existing confusion. While this appeal emphasized the need to follow the ecclesiastical route, it speaks of “congregations” and “members” making “overtures” to “general synod”.
However, where the ecclesiastical route is practiced, only regional synods can make overtures (proposals) to general synods.
GS 2010 responds
GS 2010 carefully reviewed acts of past synods and agreed with the appeal that past synods had been inconsistent. By way of example GS 2010 pointed out that GS 1998, in its insistence upon the ecclesiastical route for submissions, “worked with a certain interpretation of Article 30 CO” which “is clearly a reversal of how previous synods, particularly 1974, 1977, and 1992, understood this Article.”
GS 2010 described how GS 2007 had struggled with the question of when “the ecclesiastical route” applies. There had been a majority and minority position at GS 2007. The majority allowed churches greater freedom in placing matters on the synod agenda. The minority emphasized the need for churches to go the ecclesiastical route. In line with CO art. 31, the majority view prevailed.
Still…
GS 2010 recognized there was a problem here. One of its considerations ends with: “This back-and-forth battle of opinions at subsequent general synods is extremely unhelpful in establishing equity and fairness among the churches as to how matters are received and dealt with at the broadest assembly. A solution to this dilemma must be found.”
The term was not used by GS 2010, but “confusion” is appropriate. I wonder if GS 2010, having had knowledge of what a church had once said in the past, would have used the words “bureaucratic mess”.
Next time we’ll review more of what GS 2010 considered and the fix it adopted.