The Process of Appeals

There can be more than one stage of appeal concerning a decision. Since each assembly judging an appeal can uphold or deny an appeal, there are many possible scenarios.

This article attempts to describe the most prevalent scenarios. It assumes knowledge of other articles on appeals on this site, in particular: Who and What, Stay of Execution, and Possible Responses.

Stages

It is generally argued that there are three stages of appeal: from local to classis, from classis, to regional synod, from regional synod to general synod. In the light of CanRC GS 2010, article 93, consideration 3.2 it could be argued there are at least four stages of appeal, also from general synod to general synod.

We wonder whether the number of assemblies determines the number of possible appeals. In our opinion, wisdom suggests that once a decision has been rejected or maintained by three assemblies (including the assembly that originally took the decision), the matter should be considered closed. To continue the appeals process would be evidence of a spirit of litigiousness. There can then be as few as two stages of appeal and as many as four.

In this article we presume general Canadian Reformed practice. This means a minimum of three stages of appeal. Strictly speaking there is no maximum number of stages of appeal.

Terms

In an attempt to keep things clear this article speaks of assemblies A, B, C, D, and E. Assembly A is the assembly taking the original decision. Assembly B judges appeals against A. Assembly C judges an appeal once B has considered an appeal concerning the matter. Assembly D judges an appeal once C has dealt with it, and Assembly E once Assembly D has dealt with it. In most situations A would be a consistory or council, B a classis, C a regional synod, D a general synod, and E the next general synod. If A is a classis, B would be a regional synod, C a general synod, and D & E following general synods. If A is a general synod, B would be the following general synod, etc.

  • WARNING: in what follows the terminology will be confusing. The implications of upholding or denying an appeal with respect to the disputed decision depends on who the author of the appeal is. Hence we will be rather verbose, indicating not only whether an appeal was upheld or denied, but also whether this means the decision was maintained or rejected.
  • REQUEST: As author I admit writing this article has not been easy. Should you feel something is unclear or wrong, please email me so that I can address the matter by clarifying or correcting it.

Scenarios

Since the Canadian Reformed appeals process generally has three or four stages, there are 8 to 16 possible scenarios. The most prevalent once are described below. Clicking on the scenario will expand the list item into a description of the process.

The scenarios are theoretical. It would be a sign of lack of wisdom if one assembly decided one way, and the next the other way, and the next a third way. The sad reality of church practice is, though, that this at times does happen. Also church practice is tainted by sin and weakness.

It is easy to get lost in the detail of a theoretical description. In the attempt to make things clearer, each scenario is accompanied by an illustration. All illustrations work with a situation where Consistory A has decided to withhold Br. Z from the Lord’s Supper for hardening himself in a particular sin. The process begins with Br. Z submitting an appeal to Classis B. Thus Consistory A is Assembly A and br. Z is the original appellant. For the duration of br. Z’s appeal to classis, the suspension is changed from a silent suspension to a simple suspension.

Decision rejected by B, C, & D

If Assembly B upholds the appeal thus rejecting the decision, the decision is to be reconsidered by Assembly A. If Assembly A disagrees with the decision of Assembly B, it may then appeal this decision of Assembly B to the next assembly of appeal (Assembly C). While the disputed decision remains, execution of the decision in any form is to be stayed.

Illustration: Br. Z appeals the decision of Consistory A to Classis B. B upholds the appeal, thus rejecting the decision. Consistory A disagrees with Classis B and decides to appeal to Regional Synod C. The silent suspension of br. Z continues to be stayed. The simple suspension of br. Z may even be lifted pending the appeal of Consistory A to Regional Synod C.

If Assembly C then denies this appeal it concurs with Classis B that the original decision of Assembly A was wrong and thus to be rejected. Assembly A now has the right to submit a second appeal to the next assembly of appeal (Assembly D).

Illustration. Regional Synod C denies the appeal, thereby rejecting the decision of Consistory A. Consistory A disagrees and decides to appeal the decision of Regional Synod C to General Synod D.

If Assembly D, like Assembly C, denies the appeal of Assembly A, it too declares the original decision in error. If Assembly A continues to disagree it may do one of two things: it may acquiesce in the decision of Assembly D or if, in its view, the bond of churches has sinned grievously against the Lord, it may withdraw from the bond of churches.

Note: some will argue that Assembly A may yet appeal to Assembly E, in the case of the illustration being the first general synod following General Synod D. We do not, as three assemblies (B,C,D) have now rejected the disputed decision.

Decision maintained by B, C, & D

If Assembly B denies the appeal the decision of Assembly A is upheld. The appellant now has the right to appeal the decision of Assembly A to Assembly C. For the duration of that appeal the decision can be (but need not be) executed.

Illustration. Br. Z appeals the decision of Consistory A to Classis B. Classis B denies the appeal of Br. Z, thus maintaining the decision. If Br. Z is not convinced he may acquiesce or he may appeal the decision to Regional Synod C. Simple suspension can be lifted and silent suspension can be imposed upon br. Z.

If Assembly C also denies the appeal the decision of Assembly A is again upheld. It is commonly assumed that the appellant has the right to appeal the decision of Assembly A to Assembly D. We would argue he should not as three assemblies (A, B, and C) have already maintained the disputed decision.

Illustration. Regional Synod C denies the appeal of Br. Z. If Br. Z is not convinced he may acquiesce or he may appeal the decision to General Synod D. For the duration of the appeal he continues to be withheld from the Lord’s Supper. If silent suspension was not yet imposed, it should be.

If Assembly D also denies the appeal the decision of Assembly A is again upheld, now for the fourth time. If the appellant continues to disagree he may do one of two things: he may acquiesce in the decision of Assembly D or he may withdraw from the church as, in its view, the church has sinned grievously against the Lord.

We doubt anyone would consider it proper for the appellant to be allowed to appeal to Assembly E: doing so would prove that he is litigious.

Decision rejected by B, maintained by C & D

If Assembly B upholds the appeal thus rejecting the decision, the decision is to be reconsidered by Assembly A. If Assembly A disagrees with the decision of Assembly B, it may then appeal this decision of Assembly B to the next assembly of appeal (Assembly C). While the disputed decision remains, execution of the decision in any form is to be stayed.

Illustration: Br. Z appeals the decision of Consistory A to Classis B. B upholds the appeal, thus rejecting the decision. Consistory A disagrees with Classis B and decides to appeal to Regional Synod C. The silent suspension of br. Z continues to be stayed. The simple suspension of br. Z may even be lifted pending the appeal of Consistory A to Regional Synod C.

If Assembly C now upholds the appeal of Assembly A the original decision of Assembly A is maintained. The wronged individual now has the right to appeal the decision of Assembly A  to Assembly D. For the duration of that appeal the original decision continues to be stayed.

Illustration. Regional Synod C upholds the appeal of Assembly A. If Br. Z is not convinced he may acquiesce or he may appeal the decision to General Synod D. For the duration of the appeal it is wisest for silent suspension to be imposed on br. Z.

If Assembly D denies the appeal of the wronged individual the decision of Assembly A is upheld. If the wronged individual continues to disagree he may do one of two things: he may acquiesce in the decision of Assembly D or he may withdraw from the church as, in his view, the church has sinned grievously against the Lord.

Note: some will argue that there may yet be appeal to Assembly E by the wronged individual. In the case of the illustration it would mean br. Z submitting an appeal to the first general synod following General Synod D. In our opinion this is not wise, as three assemblies (A,C,D) have maintained the disputed decision.

Decision maintained by B, rejected by C, D & E

If Assembly B denies the appeal the decision of Assembly A is upheld. The appellant now has the right to appeal the decision of Assembly A to Assembly C. For the duration of that appeal the decision can be (but need not be) executed.

Illustration. Br. Z appeals the decision of Consistory A to Classis B. Classis B denies the appeal of Br. Z, thus maintaining the decision. If Br. Z is not convinced he may acquiesce or he may appeal the decision to Regional Synod C. Simple suspension can be lifted and silent suspension can be imposed upon br. Z.

If Assembly C upholds the appeal it declares the original decision in error. Assembly A has the right to submit an appeal to the next assembly of appeal (Assembly D). For the duration of that appeal execution of the decision is halted.

Illustration. Br. Z appeals the decision of Consistory A (and, by implication, Classis B) to Regional Synod C. Regional Synod C upholds the appeal of Br. Z, and thus rejects the decision of Consistory A (and Classis B). If Consistory A disagrees it may decide to appeal the decision of Regional Synod C to General Synod D. While that happens, Br. Z is no longer under silent suspension. There could be reason to place him under simple suspension again.

If Assembly D denies the appeal by Assembly A it too declares the original decision in error. If Assembly A continues to disagree it may appeal the decision to Assembly E. At this point in time, given the three year time gap between general synods, the decision should be rescinded.

Illustration. Consistory A appeals to General Synod D. General Synod D denies the appeal of Consistory A and thus rejects the decision of Consistory A. If Consistory A disagrees it may decide to appeal the decision of General Synod D to General Synod E. While that happens, Br. Z is no longer suspended from the Lord’s Supper.

If Assembly E denies the appeal it also declares the original decision in error. At this stage, five assemblies have considered the disputed decision. Two (A,B) have maintained the decision, three (C,D,E) have rejected the decision.

If Assembly A continues to disagree it may do one of two things: it may acquiesce in the decision of Assembly E or it may withdraw from the bond of churches as, in its view, the bond of churches has sinned grievously against the Lord.

Decision maintained by B, rejected by C & D, maintained by E

If Assembly B denies the appeal the decision of Assembly A is upheld. The appellant now has the right to appeal the decision of Assembly A to Assembly C. For the duration of that appeal the decision can be (but need not be) executed.

Illustration. Br. Z appeals the decision of Consistory A to Classis B. Classis B denies the appeal of Br. Z, thus maintaining the decision. If Br. Z is not convinced he may acquiesce or he may appeal the decision to Regional Synod C. Simple suspension can be lifted and silent suspension can be imposed upon br. Z.

If Assembly C upholds the appeal it declares the original decision in error. Assembly A has the right to submit an appeal to the next assembly of appeal (Assembly D). For the duration of that appeal execution of the decision is halted.

Illustration. Br. Z appeals the decision of Consistory A (and, by implication, Classis B) to Regional Synod C. Regional Synod C upholds the appeal of Br. Z, and thus rejects the decision of Consistory A (and Classis B). If Consistory A disagrees it may decide to appeal the decision of Regional Synod C to General Synod D. While that happens, Br. Z is no longer under silent suspension. There could be reason to place him under simple suspension again.

If Assembly D denies the appeal by Assembly A it too declares the original decision in error. If Assembly A continues to disagree it may appeal the decision to Assembly E. At this point in time, given the three year time gap between general synods, the decision should be rescinded.

Illustration. Consistory A appeals to General Synod D. General Synod D denies the appeal of Consistory A and thus rejects the decision of Consistory A. If Consistory A disagrees it may decide to appeal the decision of General Synod D to General Synod E. While that happens, Br. Z is no longer suspended from the Lord’s Supper.

If Assembly E now upholds the appeal of Assembly A, it declares the original decision correct. At this stage, five assemblies have considered the disputed decision. Two (C,D) of them have rejected the decision, three (A,B,E) have maintained it.

Br. Z may do one of two things: he may acquiesce in the decision of Assembly E or he may withdraw from the church as, in its view, the bond of churches has sinned grievously against the Lord.

Decision rejected by B, maintained by C, rejected by D & E

(See CanRC GS 2007 article 109 for an example (though excluding E).)

If Assembly B upholds the appeal thus rejecting the decision, the decision is to be reconsidered by Assembly A. If Assembly A disagrees with the decision of Assembly B, it may then appeal this decision of Assembly B to the next assembly of appeal (Assembly C). While the disputed decision remains, execution of the decision in any form is to be stayed.

Illustration: Br. Z appeals the decision of Consistory A to Classis B. B upholds the appeal, thus rejecting the decision. Consistory A disagrees with Classis B and decides to appeal to Regional Synod C. The silent suspension of br. Z continues to be stayed. The simple suspension of br. Z may even be lifted pending the appeal of Consistory A to Regional Synod C.

If Assembly C now upholds the appeal of Assembly A the original decision of Assembly A is maintained. The wronged individual now has the right to appeal the decision of Assembly A  to Assembly D. For the duration of that appeal the original decision continues to be stayed.

Illustration. Regional Synod C upholds the appeal of Assembly A. If Br. Z is not convinced he may acquiesce or he may appeal the decision to General Synod D. For the duration of the appeal it is wisest for silent suspension to be imposed on br. Z.

If Assembly D upholds the appeal of the wronged individual it declares the original decision in error. If Assembly A continues to disagree it may appeal the decision to Assembly E. At this point in time, given the three year time gap between general synods, the decision should be lifted.

Illustration. General Synod D upholds the appeal of Br. Z. If Consistory A is not convinced it may acquiesce or it may appeal the decision to General Synod E. While that happens, Br. Z is no longer suspended from the Lord’s Supper.

If Assembly E denies the appeal of Assembly A it too declares the original decision in error. At this stage, five assemblies have considered the disputed decision. Two (A,C) have maintained the decision, three (B,D,E) have rejected the decision.

If Assembly A continues to disagree it may do one of two things: it may acquiesce in the decision of Assembly E or it may withdraw from the bond of churches as, in its view, the bond of churches has sinned grievously against the Lord.

Decision rejected by B, maintained by C, rejected by D, maintained by E

(See CanRC GS 2007 article 109 for an example (though excluding E).)

If Assembly B upholds the appeal thus rejecting the decision, the decision is to be reconsidered by Assembly A. If Assembly A disagrees with the decision of Assembly B, it may then appeal this decision of Assembly B to the next assembly of appeal (Assembly C). While the disputed decision remains, execution of the decision in any form is to be stayed.

Illustration: Br. Z appeals the decision of Consistory A to Classis B. B upholds the appeal, thus rejecting the decision. Consistory A disagrees with Classis B and decides to appeal to Regional Synod C. The silent suspension of br. Z continues to be stayed. The simple suspension of br. Z may even be lifted pending the appeal of Consistory A to Regional Synod C.

If Assembly C now upholds the appeal of Assembly A the original decision of Assembly A is maintained. The wronged individual now has the right to appeal the decision of Assembly A  to Assembly D. For the duration of that appeal the original decision continues to be stayed.

Illustration. Regional Synod C upholds the appeal of Assembly A. If Br. Z is not convinced he may acquiesce or he may appeal the decision to General Synod D. For the duration of the appeal it is wisest for silent suspension to be imposed on br. Z.

If Assembly D upholds the appeal of the wronged individual it declares the original decision in error. If Assembly A continues to disagree it may appeal the decision to Assembly E. At this point in time, especially given the three year time gap between general synods, the decision should be lifted.

Illustration. General Synod D upholds the appeal of Br. Z. If Consistory A is not convinced it may acquiesce or it may appeal the decision to General Synod E. While that happens, Br. Z is no longer suspended from the Lord’s Supper.

If Assembly E upholds the appeal of Assembly A it declares the original decision correct. At this stage, five assemblies have considered the disputed decision. Two (B,D) have rejected the decision, three (A,C,E) have maintained the decision.

If the original appellant continues to disagree he may do one of two things: he may acquiesce in the decision of Assembly E or he may withdraw from the bond of churches as, in his view, the bond of churches has sinned grievously against the Lord.

Decision maintained by B, rejected by C, maintained by D

(See CanRC GS 2010 article 93 for an example.)

If Assembly B denies the appeal the decision of Assembly A is upheld. The appellant now has the right to appeal the decision of Assembly A to Assembly C. For the duration of that appeal the decision can be (but need not be) executed.

Illustration. Br. Z appeals the decision of Consistory A to Classis B. Classis B denies the appeal of Br. Z, thus maintaining the decision. If Br. Z is not convinced he may acquiesce or he may appeal the decision to Regional Synod C. Simple suspension can be lifted and silent suspension can be imposed upon br. Z.

If Assembly C upholds the appeal it declares the original decision in error. Assembly A has the right to submit an appeal to the next assembly of appeal (Assembly D). For the duration of that appeal execution of the decision is halted.

Illustration. Br. Z appeals the decision of Consistory A (and, by implication, Classis B) to Regional Synod C. Regional Synod C upholds the appeal of Br. Z, and thus rejects the decision of Consistory A (and Classis B). If Consistory A disagrees it may decide to appeal the decision of Regional Synod C to General Synod D. While that happens, Br. Z is no longer under silent suspension. There could be reason to place him under simple suspension again.

If Assembly D upholds this appeal the decision of Assembly A (and by implication of Assembly B) is maintained. If the wronged individual continues to disagree he may do one of two things: he may acquiesce in the decision of Assembly D or he may withdraw from the church as, in its view, the church has sinned grievously against the Lord.

Note: some will argue that Br. Z may yet appeal to Assembly E, in the case of the illustration being the first general synod following General Synod D. (Cf. CanRC GS 2010, article 93, consideration 3.2). In our opinion this is not wise as three assemblies (A, B, & D) have maintained the original decision and only one has rejected it. If an appeal to E should be granted and E upholds the appeal, thus disagreeing with the original decision, there would still be three assemblies in favour of the decision and only two against. That would imply the right for an appeal to Assembly F…

Decision rejected by B & C, maintained by D & E

If Assembly B upholds the appeal thus rejecting the decision, the decision is to be reconsidered by Assembly A. If Assembly A disagrees with the decision of Assembly B, it may then appeal this decision of Assembly B to the next assembly of appeal (Assembly C). While the disputed decision remains, execution of the decision in any form is to be stayed.

Illustration: Br. Z appeals the decision of Consistory A to Classis B. B upholds the appeal, thus rejecting the decision. Consistory A disagrees with Classis B and decides to appeal to Regional Synod C. The silent suspension of br. Z continues to be stayed. The simple suspension of br. Z may even be lifted pending the appeal of Consistory A to Regional Synod C.

If Assembly C then denies this appeal it concurs with Classis B that the original decision of Assembly A was wrong and thus to be rejected. Assembly A now has the right to submit a second appeal to the next assembly of appeal (Assembly D).

Illustration. Regional Synod C denies the appeal, thereby rejecting the decision of Consistory A. Consistory A disagrees and decides to appeal the decision of Regional Synod C to General Synod D.

If Assembly D upholds this appeal the decision of Assembly A is maintained. The wronged individual may now appeal the decision of Assembly A (and by implication D) to Assembly E. If Assembly E denies the appeal, the original decision is maintained.

At this stage, five assemblies have considered the disputed decision. Two (B,C) have rejected the decision, three (A,D,E) have maintained the decision.

If the appellant continues to disagree he may do one of two things: he may acquiesce in the decision of Assembly D or he may withdraw from the church as, in his view, the church has sinned grievously against the Lord.

Decision rejected by B & C, maintained by D, rejected by E

If Assembly B upholds the appeal thus rejecting the decision, the decision is to be reconsidered by Assembly A. If Assembly A disagrees with the decision of Assembly B, it may then appeal this decision of Assembly B to the next assembly of appeal (Assembly C). While the disputed decision remains, execution of the decision in any form is to be stayed.

Illustration: Br. Z appeals the decision of Consistory A to Classis B. B upholds the appeal, thus rejecting the decision. Consistory A disagrees with Classis B and decides to appeal to Regional Synod C. The silent suspension of br. Z continues to be stayed. The simple suspension of br. Z may even be lifted pending the appeal of Consistory A to Regional Synod C.

If Assembly C then denies this appeal it concurs with Classis B that the original decision of Assembly A was wrong and thus to be rejected. Assembly A now has the right to submit a second appeal to the next assembly of appeal (Assembly D).

Illustration. Regional Synod C denies the appeal, thereby rejecting the decision of Consistory A. Consistory A disagrees and decides to appeal the decision of Regional Synod C to General Synod D.

If Assembly D denies this appeal the decision of Assembly A is rejected. Assembly A may now appeal the decisions of Assembly D to Assembly E. If Assembly E denies the appeal, the original decision is rejected. At this stage, five assemblies have considered the disputed decision. Two (A,D) have maintained the decision, three (B,C,E) have rejected the decision.

If Assembly A continues to disagree it may do one of two things: it may acquiesce in the decision of Assembly D or it may withdraw from the bond of churches as, in its view, the church has sinned grievously against the Lord.

Decision maintained by B & C, rejected by D, maintained by E

If Assembly B denies the appeal the decision of Assembly A is upheld. The appellant now has the right to appeal the decision of Assembly A to Assembly C. For the duration of that appeal the decision can be (but need not be) executed.

Illustration. Br. Z appeals the decision of Consistory A to Classis B. Classis B denies the appeal of Br. Z, thus maintaining the decision. If Br. Z is not convinced he may acquiesce or he may appeal the decision to Regional Synod C. Simple suspension can be lifted and silent suspension can be imposed upon br. Z.

If Assembly C also denies the appeal the decision of Assembly A is again upheld. It is commonly assumed that the appellant has the right to appeal the decision of Assembly A to Assembly D. We would argue he should not as three assemblies (A, B, and C) have already maintained the disputed decision.

Illustration. Regional Synod C denies the appeal of Br. Z. If Br. Z is not convinced he may acquiesce or he may appeal the decision to General Synod D. For the duration of the appeal he continues to be withheld from the Lord’s Supper. If silent suspension was not yet imposed, it should be.

If Assembly D upholds this appeal it declares the original decision in error. If Consistory A continues to disagree it may appeal the decision to Assembly E. If Assembly E upholds the appeal it maintains the original decision. Five assemblies have now considered the decision, four (A,B,C,E), including the last, judging in favour and one (D) against.

If the appellant continues to disagree he may do one of two things: he may acquiesce in the decision of Assembly A or he may withdraw from the church as, in his view, the church has sinned grievously against the Lord.

Decision maintained by B & C, rejected by D & E

If Assembly B denies the appeal the decision of Assembly A is upheld. The appellant now has the right to appeal the decision of Assembly A to Assembly C. For the duration of that appeal the decision can be (but need not be) executed.

Illustration. Br. Z appeals the decision of Consistory A to Classis B. Classis B denies the appeal of Br. Z, thus maintaining the decision. If Br. Z is not convinced he may acquiesce or he may appeal the decision to Regional Synod C. Simple suspension can be lifted and silent suspension can be imposed upon br. Z.

If Assembly C also denies the appeal the decision of Assembly A is again upheld. It is commonly assumed that the appellant has the right to appeal the decision of Assembly A to Assembly D. We would argue he should not as three assemblies (A, B, and C) have already maintained the disputed decision.

Illustration. Regional Synod C denies the appeal of Br. Z. If Br. Z is not convinced he may acquiesce or he may appeal the decision to General Synod D. For the duration of the appeal he continues to be withheld from the Lord’s Supper. If silent suspension was not yet imposed, it should be.

If Assembly D upholds this appeal it declares the original decision in error. If Consistory A continues to disagree it may appeal the decision to Assembly E. For the duration of this appeal the execution of the decision is stayed.

Illustration. General Synod D upholds the appeal of Br. Z. If Consistory A is not convinced it can appeal this decision to General Synod E. For the duration of the appeal Br. Z’s silent suspension is lifted. Given the history of this case, placing him under simple suspension would seem wise.

If Assembly E denies the appeal it rejects the original decision. Five assemblies have now considered the decision, three (A,B,C) judging in favour and two (D,E), including the last, against.

If Assembly A continues to disagree it may do one of two things: it may acquiesce in the decision of Assembly D or it may withdraw from the bond of churches as, in its view, the church has sinned grievously against the Lord.

A case could also be made for encouraging Assembly A to appeal the decisions of Assemblies D & E to Assembly F in view of the fact that three assemblies had already maintained the decision. However, should that appeal succeed, should not the original appellant have the right to appeal to Assembly G?

Litigiousness

The possible scenarios are complex and confusing. This article has outlined the theoretical possibilities. What is not being considered is the wisdom of allowing such lengthy appeal processes. A factor that should also be considered is whether a spirit of litigiousness is manifesting itself once an appeal reaches the fourth stage. Litigiousness is sin against the fifth and ninth commandments.

In our opinion one may say that once three assemblies have expressed agreement or disagreement with a certain decision, the appeals process should end. After all, the final judgment is not that of a church assembly but that of the throne of God.

In Short

The appeals process can be a complex one. This article has outlined many possible scenarios. We have also suggested that, once three assemblies have concurred concerning a decision, the appeals process should cease.

One should remember that appeals challenge the truth of a necessary ground for a decision and/or the validity of a decision. Challenging the truth of a decision involves introducing new grounds. That happens via the process of submitting a request. For the distinction between appeals and requests see the article Assemblies: Appeals, Requests, and Overtures.