10 Aug The Ecclesiastical Route 8
8. Tangles (4)
We’re in the middle of considering tangles that exist in applying the ecclesiastical route. Some have been resolved. On one issue (appealing the substance of a decision to forward an overture) there is contradictory jurisprudence. It sure is looking messy.
There are two more tangles we will review. By then I trust you’ll be convinced, we need to clean the mess up.
When to consider
What if a major assembly sustains an appeal against a decision of a minor broader assembly not to forward an overture along the ecclesiastical route? Should that major assembly then consider the overture? This was the request of appellants in 2019 and 2022. Both times requests were denied.
(GS 2019 art. 130; GS 2022 art. 78)
If a major assembly does consider the overture, then the minor assembly has been circumvented and the point of having an ecclesiastical route is moot. Moreover, not all the churches in the federation will have had a chance to interact with the overture. For example, if an RSW refuses to forward an overture, and a church successfully appeals this decision at a GS, if that GS then deals with the overture, the churches of RSE will have never seen it. This suggests a major assembly should not deal with the matter.
If the major assembly cannot deal with the overture, then the ecclesiastical route has slowed down the process. Given that the ecclesiastical route mostly applies to matters common to all the churches of the federation and thus belonging to the jurisdiction of general synod, the delay is at least three years.
The question should also be asked, if the major assembly cannot deal with the overture, who would place the overture on the agenda of a next general synod and how does it get there? Does this overture have to travel the ecclesiastical route all over again? Or does it simply go back to the type of minor broader assembly that refused to adopt it?
GS 2022 very firmly answered this question. It was asked to consider amending a motion from reading “Since this overture has already been considered by a Regional Synod, a church can take over this exact same overture and submit it directly to GS 2025 at least six months prior to the synod” to reading “To be considered, the overture should be sent to the next RSE, which can then decide whether to submit the overture to the next general synod as per Synod Guidelines.” This motion to amend was defeated.
Now, there is an answer. However, this is not clear. We’re getting to the point where a flow chart would be helpful.
Here’s the path we’re seeing. Church A overtures Classis B ## to forward an overture. Classis B decides to forward the overture to RSW ####. RSW #### refuses to forward the overture to GS ####. Church A appeals the decision of RSW #### to GS ####. GS #### sustains the appeal of Church A. Church A (or B or C or…) submits the overture to the next GS.
Simple? Maybe. But what if there is also an appeal from Church Z to the next GS against the decision of GS #### to sustain the appeal of Church A against the decision of RSW ####? We haven’t had enough synods for that yet, but it is bound to happen.
New or old?
Permit me one more question, an issue that has also complicated things. It’s the question: when is a matter a “new matter”.
One could argue that any matter addressed in the church order is a matter common to the churches that has been dealt with by the churches, is thus not “new”, and thus the ecclesiastical route does not apply. Rather, CO art. 33 comes into play: “Matters once decided upon may not be proposed again unless they are substantiated by new grounds.”
The issue here is: that is not happening right now.
For example, GS 2019 had on its agenda a proposal to change the moment at which a theological student can seek permission to speak an edifying word. The first decision on this by a CanRC general synod was taken, initiated by an overture sent to the general synod directly by a church, though it does seem there was an attempt to involve classis and regional synod (GS 1971 art. 76). The overture considered by GS 2019, however, traveled the ecclesiastical route.
(GS 1971 art. 76; GS 2019 art. 85)
Nevertheless, GS 2019 also received a request from a local church to take another look at a decision taken by GS 1983. It decided that this matter had to travel the ecclesiastical route as 1983 was so long ago, the matter should be considered “new”.
GS 2022 has kind of answered the question. It received an appeal from a church regarding a decision of GS 2004. It also received an overture from a regional synod regarding that decision; that overture had originated with the church that submitted the appeal. Clearly the church was not sure which procedure to follow, so it did both.
(GS 2022 art. 62; GS 2022 art. 105)
GS 2022 decided regarding the appeal: “previous decisions can be revisited as proposals substantiated by new grounds (CO Art. 33).” GS 2022 acknowledged that the appeal contained “new grounds”. But GS 2022 did not, therefore, consider the “appeal” a “proposal”. Rather, GS 2022 dealt with the matter via the overture that was submitted.
Did GS 2022 figure that all proposals need to travel the ecclesiastical route? It would seem so. However, CO art. 30 very specifically speaks of “a new matter”. If the ecclesiastical route applies to both “new matters” and “old matters with new grounds”, why not say so? Is it because CO art. 33 implies that “old matters with new grounds” do not need to travel the ecclesiastical route?
Stock take
Is all this merely “confusing” or is one justified in calling this “a bureaucratic mess”? I figure that, given how complicated this is, it’s definitely a “mess” and we’re coming close to “chaos.”
So what caused this? And, more importantly, what can be done to clean things up and ensure that things are done “decently and in order” (1Cor. 14:40)?
That still lies before us.