Tag: Ecclesiastical Route

14. A Better Way We’ve come to the conclusion that the ecclesiastical route as regulated in CO art. 30 and regulated by GS 2013 is not necessarily the proper way in which to have proposals reach the table of a broader assembly. It is certainly not the most efficient way. Having reviewed principles and practice,…

13. Efficient? We concluded the previous article noting that it is claimed the ecclesiastical route creates efficiency. I hypothesized: 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. In this article we’ll crunch the numbers on this. Not…

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…

11. Some Reflection (1) Before I embark on suggesting how the CanRC could free themselves from the bureaucratic mess that has come to be, some reflection on our recent past. On 2007-2010-2013 First, a thought on what happened in 2007, 2010, and 2013. In my opinion, the broadest interpretation of CO art. 30, referred to…

10. The Dutch Revision of 1978 The change adopted by the CanRC into CO 1983 is based on a change made in The Netherlands. The Reformed Churches in The Netherlands (liberated) (hereafter, GKv) had begun revising their church order in the early 1970s and adopted a new church order in 1978. The thought process leading…

9. First Regulated In previous articles we have seen how general synods of the Canadian Reformed Churches in 2007, 2010, and 2013 struggled with the procedure called “the ecclesiastical route”. GS 2013 settled on a procedure and so we surveyed the general synods of 2016, 2019, and 2022 to observe how well this procedure has…

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…

7. Tangles (3) Two tangles resolved. One tangle is a knot, with GS 2019 saying one thing and GS 2022 the opposite. And the fourth tangle is resolved as well, but creates another tangle. What if an appeal against the substance of a decision not to forward an overture along the ecclesiastical route is upheld?…

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,…

5. Tangles (1) The need for the “ecclesiastical route” for proposals has been a point of debate in our churches. GS 2010 sought to clarify things but GS 2013 considered itself compelled to undo what GS 2010 had decided to. There is some evidence of uncertainty at GS 2016 regarding overtures, but not really of…