WAS JUSTICE DONE? III

Proper Procedures Were Not Followed: Responsible Record-Keeping Was Not Executed.

In 1989, Langley church appealed the changes to the questions in the forms adopted by the 1983 synod. Among other arguments put forward, this church pointed out that proper procedures were not followed, and that responsible record-keeping was not executed.

All Recommended Changes to the Church Book Are Subject to Prior Review by the Churches

Langley wrote:

the basic rule governing the translations and revisions of the Creeds, Forms and Prayers for the complete Book of Praise in our churches has been that these translations should be accurate and that any recommendations for change be only considered after proper study has been made, and after the churches have been allowed to study the recommended changes and the reasons for making them;

Langley’s position is based on the long-standing tradition of not introducing and adopting changes to our Church book (The Book of Praise) without the churches receiving a report in a timely manner (6 months is the present standard) allowing the churches to study the recommended changes and evaluating the reasons for those recommendations.

The ‘89 Synod noted Langley’s concern in its Observations 4.f. The basic rule is that change be considered only after proper study.    

Furthermore, grounds for a decision must be given so that the decision can be tested by the Word of God or the CO.

The 1989 Synod responded in a very interesting way.

1. The brs. are correct in stating that the Committee for Liturgical Forms [w]as given the mandate by the General Synod of 1977 to “update the language” and therefore the General Synod of 1983 had no right to change the meaning of the forms.  But from the above (2), it is evident that the meaning of the forms is not changed by the linguistic revision which was made.

The 1989 synod excused the 1986 Synod’s position on the way the 1983 synod made the changes by arguing the meaning of the forms didn’t change. Implied in that response is the following: Because the meaning of the forms was not changed (ie. The questions in the forms always meant that a positive response was about giving allegiance to the Reformed Confessions) the synod was not obligated to first propose the change to all the churches for study and evaluation. But why then have a committee draft a report with linguistic updates for review by the churches in the first place. The very fact that the 1977 Synod appointed a committee with a mandate to update the language of the forms and report to the churches in a timely manner clearly demonstrates the fallacy in the 89 Synod's response.

The 1989 Synod could not with integrity say, “the meaning didn’t change, so it need not have been proposed to the churches for discussion ahead of time.” That would mean that the 1977 Synod appointed the committee to propose a linguistic update was worthless. However, it is clear from the Acts of Synod that the churches took the duty of reviewing the proposed linguistic updates seriously. This is evident in Art 171 of Synod 1983 on the revision of the Canons of Dort where the Acts report that 8 churches interacted with The Committee report. Art 132 reports 10 churches provided significant disagreement and feedback on the proposed linguistic updates to the Prayers. Art 145 records the suggestions of the Australian sister churches, 9 local churches, and 4 individuals on updates on the liturgical forms. The very fact that there was lively disagreement on the meaning of the proposed changes in the linguistic update proves that the synod should not have implied “that since the meaning did not change, there was no wrong done by the 1983 synod’s revisions” and thus deny the appeals on that basis.

This interpretation of the meaning behind the synod’s decision is underlined by the fact that they provide no answer to Langley’s concern that the basic rule is that change be considered only after proper study. The synod noted this protest but did not answer it! That is grounds for appeal

Not Properly On The Agenda

In 1992 the Church at Abbotsford appealed to General Synod. They argued that the changes to the forms were illegally made by previous synods. This church presented as grounds that the changes in the forms had never been dealt with by any minor assembly, as is required in the last paragraph of Church Order Article 30. This synod denied this appeal with the following consideration:

Subsequent Synods have maintained that the resulting change from “articles of the Christian faith” to “confessions” was a linguistic revision.  This is not a matter which has to be initiated at the minor assembly.[i]

We wonder why Blessings church of Hamilton was told by the 2019 Synod that it had to initiate discussion at the minor assemblies in order to have a general synod consider a request to revert the questions to previous formulations.[ii] It can’t be both, can it?

Responsible Reporting Was Not Executed

No Grounds; No Authority

The Regional Synod East 2017 sustained an appeal because no grounds were given in a classis decision. The classis had judged that a practice of a local church was “not in agreement with the Church Order” but failed to provide any reasons why it had made this judgment.  The church asked Regional Synod to judge that the decision of the classis was deficient in that it did not provide any considerations or grounds. RSE 2017 recorded in its Considerations that “A decision gains its authority from the grounds that have been provided.” Decisions without grounds are untenable and should not stand.

In 1989 Langley Church argued that

None of the Acts of 1980 or 1983 or 1986 give any reason or grounds as to why the specific reference to the Apostles’ Creed was changed to a more general reference to all the creed/confessions;

Maranatha Church in Surrey argued:

Synod 1980 did not give any grounds for bringing about change in the first place. It is rather striking that in all the discussions that have taken place at various synods about this matter, we are never given any indication as to why the original wording had to be altered…  Likewise, there is no reason given whatsoever for not accepting the considered advice of the synod committee which suggested adopting the wording "summarized in the Apostles' Creed.”

Though Langley and Surrey’s appeals predate the RSE 2017 decision by nearly 30 years, it is evident that the churches expected the broader assemblies to provide considerations or grounds for its decisions. “A decision gains its authority from the grounds that have been provided.”

The 1989 Synod responded to the appellants this way:

Synod 1980 and 1983 may not have given grounds for this specific revision, but to consider the previous Synods’ decisions for this reason as “inconse­quent” and “poorly considered and impulsive” is an overstatement. Synod 1983 responded to a specific question with a clear answer, “in order to avoid misunderstanding ...” (Acts 1983, Art. 145 Cons. C 4 A 8).

Remarkably the 1989 synod grants that no grounds were given and yet denied the appeal. A travesty of justice.

The 1980 synod provisionally adopted the change from “Articles of the Christian Faith” to “Creeds” without providing grounds.  The 1983 Synod, when adopting the final text of the forms, changed the questions again. “Creeds” became “confessions.” Now they read, “summarized in the confessions” instead of “summarized in the creeds.” No grounds were given why The Committee’s recommendation was rejected. Nor were grounds were given for the subsequent change. The only word from the 1983 synod was “in order to avoid misunderstanding…” What misunderstanding isn’t clear. No observation or consideration mentions misunderstanding.  The 1989 synod suggests that this was done by the 1983 synod in order to “[respond] to a specific question with a clear answer.” But no reference is made to what the question is or why this change provides a clear answer.

The 1989 synod did not answer Langley or Surrey’s concern that no grounds were given for the 1980 provisional change. Nor were their concerns answered about why no grounds were given for not adopting the recommendation of the committee in the first place. (which we note was reviewed by the churches.)

We can, perhaps, gain some insight from the letter from Smithers Church. In its Art 145  Observations the 1989 Synod recorded the following:

The Church at Smithers urges Synod to maintain the present formulation.

Grounds:

a. “It states more accurately what persons, making a profession of faith in the Canadian Reformed Churches, are subscribing to”

b. the expression “taught here in this Christian Church” is clarified when connected to the word “confessions”

c. by maintaining the present formulation “we remove all thought of making an unwarranted distinction between clergy and laity”

However, the Synod in its Considerations did not reflect on these Observations. In denying the appeals and its silence on the position of Smithers, we begin to understand the reasons for the changes made by the synods. By not rejecting Smithers’ arguments and by its rejection of Langley and Surrey’s arguments the synod implicitly supported Smithers’ position: That 1. making a public profession of faith is equivalent to subscription. 2.“taught here in this Christian church, modifies the word confessions and not “the doctrine of the Old and New Testament,” and 3. there should be no clergy / laity distinction.

Major Error

We also note that the 1983 Acts contain an egregious error. In Acts 1983: Art 145 (page 107) we can find, following the provisional adoption of the Marriage Form, a non-sequential list of comments: # 2, 5 & 6. #2 refers to a discussion on male headship and likely was meant to refer to a point in the Marriage Form. #5 refers to Synod’s changes to the forms (from ‘creeds’ to “confessions’) as the synod’s answer to W. Vanderkamp’s question. #6 pertains to the printing of the Book of Praise. It is not clear how these three points function in the Acts or if their appearance on the tail end of the Marriage Form is actually a major typographical error! Clearly, something went seriously wrong in the final edit of Art 145!

These three do not fall under any rubric and are not recorded as adopted. Therefore, they cannot be accepted as part of the Acts. They are not Observations, Considerations or Recommendations. They lie between the provisionally adopted marriage form and the Final Recommendations of Art 145.

Conclusion

Proper Procedures Were Not Followed

All recommended changes to the Church Book are subject to prior review by the churches

We have clearly demonstrated that the 1980 and 1983 Synods did not follow proper procedures. The 1977 Synod mandated a committee to provide a linguistic update for the forms, confessions and prayers, that the churches could study and improve if necessary. Clearly, when language is updated, meaning will change. Not every reader will agree on the recommended changes. When subsequent synods received protests, the synods said, “the meaning didn’t change, so the revisions need not be subject to prior scrutiny.” However, the fact that all the edits to the confessions, forms, and prayers were language updates that were not intended to change the original meaning, and yet were subject to the scrutiny of the churches exposes the fallacy of this position. All language updates were subject to scrutiny. This error is grounds for appeal.

A Broader Assembly Cannot Put Matters On Its Own Agenda

Abbotsford rightly pointed out that this change should have come from the churches via the assemblies. The 2019 Synod rejected Blessings’ request for a revision of the 1980/83 decisions and revert to the original. Historically the CanRCs have not accepted the legitimacy of ‘revisions” and directed Blessings to approach the next synod via the minor assemblies. By adopting this recommendation, the 2019 synod exposed the illegitimate actions of the 1980/83 Synods. This decision by the 2019 synod is grounds for appeal.

Responsible Reporting Was Not Executed

No Grounds; No Authority

The Regional Synod East 2017 judged that “A decision gains its authority from the grounds that have been provided.” Decisions without grounds are untenable and should not stand.

Langley and Surrey presented their case that the 1980 and 1983 Synod’s failed to give clear grounds or considerations for rejecting the recommended revisions (1980) and without grounds inserted a completely untested revision (1980). These churches went on to protest that the subsequent synod (1983) again with no clear grounds or consideration made new untested revisions to the forms.

The 1986 synod granted the appellants position when in its considerations said

Synod 1980 and 1983 may not have given grounds for this specific revision, but to consider the previous Synods’ decisions for this reason as “inconse­quent” and “poorly considered and impulsive” is an overstatement. Synod 1983 responded to a specific question with a clear answer, “in order to avoid misunderstanding ...” (Acts 1983, Art. 145 Cons. C 4 A 8).

The Synod conceded the point that thought the previous Synods had not given grounds, the 1983 synod was responding to a specific question with a clear answer. However, it is not clear what the specific question was, nor why it considered the revision to be a clear answer. No synod described what misunderstanding was in view.

Though the errors of the synods predate the 2017 RSE decision by several decades, it is clear that churches expected the broader assemblies to provide proper transparent grounds for their decisions. “A decision gains its authority from the grounds that have been provided.” The decision of RSE 2017 clearly articulates grounds for appeal. 

Major Error

The egregious error at the end of Acts 1983 Art 145 makes the reference to Walter Vanderkamp’s letter void of any authority. It cannot stand as part of the Acts. It is not part of any activity of the Synod. The three completely disconnected comments have no place in the official record. Walter Vanderkamp was taken to the Lord many years ago, but the synod recorded no response to his letter!