09 Aug The Ecclesiastical Route 6
6. Tangles (2)
Last time we began considering tangles in following the ecclesiastical route. We’ve considered who submits an overture to the major assembly (the minor assembly, with one exception) and whether a broader assembly can tweak an overture as it travels the ecclesiastical route (yes). This time some more tangles, and as we progress, things will get messier, and tangles prove to be knots.
Appeals against adoption to forward
Is it possible to appeal the substance of the decision of an assembly to forward an overture along the ecclesiastical route? With the word “substance” we are indicating the question is not about the “procedure” that is being followed. (The legalese for this is the distinction between substantive justice and formal justice.)
One might think, surely all assembly decisions are appealable, so isn’t the answer “yes”?
The issue is that an appeal against the substance of a decision by an assembly to forward an overture on the ecclesiastical route could be considered an interaction with the overture by the major assembly that should next consider the overture.
This is how RSW 2018 treated three appeals against the overture submitted by Classis Pacific East. As these appeals were not concerned with procedure but with the substance of the overtures, these submissions were appended to the overture and passed on to general synod to consider as challenges to the overture.
(RSW 2018 art. 19)
One of these churches appealed this decision of RSW 2018 to treat its appeal as a submission on the appeal; GS 2019 upheld the appeal.
GS 2022, however, decided otherwise. When considering an appeal against the adoption of an overture, one of the grounds stated for denying the appeal said: “Churches may interact with overtures by means of letters, but by their very nature, overtures cannot be appealed.”
What makes this particular decision extra remarkable is that the 2022 appeal was submitted by the same church that submitted the 2019 appeal.
Is it possible to appeal the substance of the decision of an assembly to forward an overture along the ecclesiastical route? According to GS 2019, yes, for every appeal should be considered. According to GS 2022, no, because it belongs to the very nature of an overture that it cannot be appealed.
This is messy. And we’re not done yet….
Assume GS 2019 was right…
At GS 2019 this matter was rather hypothetical. For (to the best of my knowledge) RSW 2018 was the first broader assembly to be confronted with an appeal against the substance of a decision to forward an overture along the ecclesiastical route. What would dealing with such a submission as an appeal look like? What should RSW 2018 have done?
Should it have done what GS 2016 did, when, regarding a certain matter, it received a report from a committee appointed by GS 2013, three submissions from churches in response to that report, an overture(!) from a church on that matter, and an appeal regarding that matter? GS 2016 considered all these submissions in one act and, in having dealt with the report, “consider the above as answering the appeal.”
If it had done so, RSW 2018, in deciding to forward the overture on to GS 2019, would have “answered the appeal” by that decision. The issue for RSW 2018 was, though, the question whether it was within the jurisdiction of a regional synod to judge the substance of an overture; RSW 2018 was of the opinion that the jurisdiction of a regional synod is limited to judging whether the issue warrants the attention of the churches. For the rest, it is for a general synod to judge the substance of the overture. Remember: RSW 2018 also decided not to tweak overtures itself, but simply make recommendations for tweaks to GS 2019. (We’ll come back to this yet.)
As an indication of how confusing (messy) things are, the same church that felt wronged by RSW 2018 and saw its appeal regarding this wrong sustained by GS 2019 wrote in to GS 2019 regarding an appeal submitted by another church to GS 2019 and shared with all the churches, that this submission “does not constitute an appeal but is actually an overture”. This suggests that while it is not okay to judge that an appeal against an overture is an interaction with the overture, it is okay to judge that an appeal against an overture is an overture.
And finally, this same church is also caught between the decisions of GS 2019 and GS 2022 on whether a decision to forward an overture down the ecclesiastical route can be appealed.
Personally I believe the decisions of RSW 2018 and GS 2022 make more sense than GS 2019.
Can one appeal the substance of a decision by a minor assembly to forward an overture down the ecclesiastical route? In my opinion the answer should be “no”. Instead, the church should submit its substantial concerns via a letter interacting with the overture.
Appeals against refusal to forward
Is it possible to appeal the substance of the decision of an assembly to refuse to forward an overture along the ecclesiastical route?
GS 2019 had to consider four such appeals against RSE 2017 refusal to forward two overtures. GS 2019 considered all four appeals admissible.
The three appeals regarding the refusal by RSE Nov 2017 to forward an overture regarding the Trinity Psalter-Hymnal were considered “answered” by the decision of GS 2019 in response to two overtures from RSW 2018 on the same matter. There is no evidence that GS 2019 actually considered the substance of these appeals.
There is more to this. GS 2019 recorded its considerations and decision regarding the two overtures forwarded by RSW 2018 in one act and its consideration and decision regarding appeals against the overture, on the same matter, refused by RSE Nov. 2018, in the next article. Procedurally, GS 2019 did as figured RSW 2018 should have done: treat an overture as an overture and an appeal as an appeal. Substantially, however, GS 2019 did as RSW 2018 had done: answer appeals against an overture as it answered submissions on an overture with the same topic.
The fourth appeal was denied. In denying the appeal, GS 2019 considered the arguments presented against the reasoning used to reject the overture. This means that GS 2019 dealt with many substantial elements of the original overture, even though RSE Nov. 2018 had determined GS 2019 should not consider it (spend time considering it).
This implies that the ecclesiastical route does not necessarily prevent something from being considered by a major assembly. If the path of an overture is obstructed, a church can turn to the path of appeal. (There’s more, I’ll get to it soon.)
Is it possible to appeal the substance of the decision of an assembly to refuse to forward an overture along the ecclesiastical route? Yes.
In summary
Can one appeal the substance of a decision to forward an overture? GS 2019 said yes, GS 2022 said no. Can one appeal the substance of a decision not to forward an overture? Yes.
That second question has a follow up. What if the appeal against the substance of a decision not to forward an overture is sustained? Should the major assembly then consider the overture? As we’ll see next time, we’ve already been there…