Free Reformed Churches of Australia
 FRCA navigation
. home
. synod
 
 Synod 2006
. synod 2006
. deputy reports
. acts of synod
. agenda
 
The final (published) version of the Acts of Synod 2006 is available as a single PDF file here.
The Acts available in HTML format are an "Approved Draft", and contain spelling mistakes, grammatical errors and typos.
These draft acts are being retained online for convenience and ease of access. Quotes should not be taken from these draft acts.
 
Friday 14th July 2006 - Afternoon Session


Article 62 - Article Admissibility of Appeals re RCNZ

I. Material:

Agenda Item 8j - Letter FRC Darling Downs Appear re Articles 44, 62, 67, 68, 69, 72 Acts 2003
Agenda Item 8n - Letter Br P 'tHart Appeal Article 72 Acts 2003

II. Admissibility:

Proposal 1:

Synod declares the appeals from FRC Darling Downs admissible.

Grounds:
  1. This appeal was submitted according to Article 31 of the Church Order and the rules for Synod.

  2. Even though this appeal addresses decisions of appeals made by others, it argues that a proposal regarding interchurch relations that affects all the churches was dealt with contrary to Article 30 CO.
DEFEATED

Proposal 2:

Synod declares the appeal from Br P. 'tHart against Article 72 admissible.

Ground:

This appeal was submitted according to Article 30 of the Church Order and the rules for synod.

DEFEATED

Proposal 3:

Synod declares the appeals from FRC Darling Downs against Article 72 inadmissible.

Ground:

It is the duty of the appellants to demonstrate that there are new grounds. They have not done this.

DEFEATED

Proposal 4:

Synod declares the appeal of Br P 't Hart against Article 72 inadmissible.

Grounds:
  1. While it is true that past synods considered the sister relations of the RCNZ as an impediment or obstacle to reaching sister relations with the RCNZ, there is also a development in this regard. For instance, the 1994 Synod, Article 78, specifically the amendment and the decision, shows this. From then on deputies had to study how the relation of the RCNZ with the RCA should impact our relation with the RCNZ, and this in the light of the changes occurring on the ecclesiastical scene, earlier expectations needed to be reconsidered (ground). From then on it is to be investigated. Deputies could still argue that the past conclusion was valid or they could come to a new conclusion (as some deputies did in their 1998 report).

  2. It is wrong to argue that no one appealed against the past conclusion (that their relation with the RCA is an impediment) at a classis or synod. In the first place it is the jurisdiction not of a classis but of the synod. Moreover, churches did make submissions about deputies' reports and have tried to argue against recognition of the RCNZ and against the offer of sister relations to the RCNZ.

  3. The matter of recognition and the offer of sister relations was not a new matter, but concerned the handling of our contacts with the RCNZ. In process of doing so synods use policies (cf Article 67 of the 1985 Synod) and rules for entering sister relations.
DEFEATED

Proposal 5:

Synod declares the appeals from FRC Darling Downs against Articles 44, 62, 67, 68 and 69 are inadmissible.

Ground:

It is the duty of the appellants to demonstrate that there are new grounds. They have not done this.

ADOPTED

Proposal 6:

Synod declares the appeal from FRC Darling Downs against Article 72 inadmissible.

Ground:

The triangular relationship is not a new matter.

DEFEATED

Proposal 7:

Synod declares the appeal from FRC Darling Downs against Article 72 inadmissible.

Ground:

Darling Downs' appeal against Article 72 occurs within a collection of different appeals against various articles. The other appeals have been declared inadmissible. This appeal refers to grounds found in the other appeals. Hence this appeal is unsubstantiated.

DEFEATED

Proposal 8:

Synod declares the appeal from FRC Darling Downs against Article 72 admissible.

Grounds: The appeal comes from one of the churches and deals with a decision of the previous Synod (Article 31 CO)

ADOPTED

Proposal 9:

Synod declares the appeal of Br 'tHart against Article 72 admissible.

Grounds:

The appeal comes from a member of one of the churches and deals with a decision of the previous synod (Article 31 CO).

ADOPTED


Article 63 - Appeal from Br 'tHart re RCNZ

I. Material:

Agenda Item 8j - Letter FRC Darling Downs Appeal re Articles 44, 62, 67, 68, 69, 72 Acts 2003

Agenda Item 8n - Letter P 'tHart Appeal Article 72 Acts 2003

II. Recommendation:

Not to accept the appeal of Br P 't Hart against Article 72, of the 2003 Synod.

Grounds:
  1. While it is true that past synods considered the sister relations of the RCNZ as an impediment or obstacle to reaching sister relations with the RCNZ, there is also a development in this regard.

    1. For instance, the 1994 Synod, Article 78, specifically the amendment and the decision, shows this. From then on deputies had to study how the relation of the RCNZ with the RCA should impact our relation with the RCNZ, and that in the light of the changes occurring on the ecclesiastical scene, earlier expectations needed to be reconsidered (ground). From then on it is to be investigated.

    2. In 1996 synod stated that this investigation has not come to a resolution (ground 2, Article 53).

    3. In 1998 Synod phrased the triangular relations as a "difficulty" (Article 89, Dec 3.a) and again mandates deputies to strive for sister relations.

    4. Deputies could thus still argue that the past conclusion was valid or they could come to a new conclusion (as some deputies did in their 1998 report, cf pp 189-191). Synods 2000, 2003 and especially 2006 indeed wrestle with this matter.

  2. It is wrong to argue that no one appealed against the past conclusion (that their relation with the RCA is an impediment) at a classis or synod. In the first place it is the jurisdiction not of a classis but of the synod. Moreover, churches did make submissions about deputies' reports and have tried to argue against recognition of the RCNZ and against the offer of sister relations to the RCNZ.

  3. The matter of recognition and the offer of sister relations was not a new matter, but concerned the handling of our contacts with the RCNZ. In process of doing so synods use policies (cf Article 67 of the 1985 Synod) and rules for entering sister relations.
DEFEATED

Decision:

Synod denies the appeals against Article 72 from Br 'tHart and from FRC Darling Downs.

Grounds:
  1. The triangular relationship is not a new matter. The ongoing discussion whether the RCNZ's relationship with the CRCA is an impediment has been recorded by deputies and synods (cf. Acts 94, Article 78 / Acts 96, Article 53, Ground 2 / Acts 98 Deputies report).

  2. Past synods and also Synod 2003 have upheld that the relationship between the RCNZ and CRCA has been regarded as an impediment for the relationship between the RCNZ and the FRCA.

  3. The relationship of the RCNZ and CRCA is in constant flux and the possibilities for closer approximation change. At the time of the decision the RCNZ placed its relationship with the CRCA under strain and Synod Rockingham saw the opportunity for closer relations.

  4. It is within the scope of the authority of Synod to mandate deputies to investigate this.

  5. Synod Kelmscott 1996 Article 53 Decision 2 and based on Grounds 1 (p32-34) expresses with gratitude the faithfulness deputies have found in the RCNZ (p102-104).
ADOPTED




last updated 19 Jul 2006
 
copyright © 2002-2017   all rights reserved.  maintained by   web by mpot.
.