The Aquila Report has received permission from the coordinator of a Web Log that is reporting on the URCNA synod now underway in London, Ontario, Canada on the campus of the University of Western Ontario.

Resolution to the “open meeting”

Editor’s Note: On Tuesday, the reporter for the Blog from which The Aquila Report is drawing its information was instructed by a member of the synod about the Blog reports on Committee meetings. Here is the blogger’s description:

I have been asked not to report on the goings-on in the advisory committees. I had very carefully read the Regulations for Synodical Procedures which state that all advisory committees are open, unless voted into executive session or strict executive session. Because the committees I visited yesterday and this morning were not held in executive session, I did observe and wrote about my observations yesterday, with the assumption that “open” and “public” meant I could write about them. I had informed the Stated Clerk before Synod that I would be writing about what would happen. However, it appears that having me write about the discussions in committeeshas made some delegates uncomfortable.

Later in the day, this issue – which involved at least 2 other bloggers at the Synod meeting – came to the attention of the Synod Leadership. Following is the blogger’s report of what happened concerning the issue of “Open Committees”

I want to express my sincere gratitude and thanks to Dr. Scott Clark, Dr. Brian Lee, Elder Eric Akiyoshi, and Rev. Danny Hyde, most of which I have never even met nor known until today. Each of these men served to bring forward the case of the inconsistency regarding open meetings and brought about resolution, most importantly, on behalf of upholding the standing rules of Synod, and less importantly on my behalf. For this, I am thankful.

This evening, thanks to these men, the chair of the Synod did, as you may have already read, affirm that meetings, both committee and plenary, are indeed open to the public and explained that new technology is something that the URCNA will need to adjust to. He offered an apology before the Synod this evening regarding the matter that occurred this morning. The open meeting policy being followed is the important matter and while I appreciate the apology and recognize it was likely not easy to make in front of an assembly, what was vital was that Synod was on record as upholding its own regulations instead of the inconsistent statement of this morning. And it is.

I should add that the chair of a committee that also asked me to “cease and desist” and not return to committee was very gracious with an apology and extended to me an invitation to sit in the committee should they be sent back to reconvene.

Thanks, too, for the support of so many readers of URCNASynodReports who also were involved in wanting to see the judgment of this morning overturned. It is much appreciated. I am amazed at the efficacy of the “new media!”

July 28, 2010, Afternoon and Evening

One point of clarification before moving forward on the afternoon plenary session.

The question was asked: What does the word “will” mean regarding the Psalter Hymnal Committee Report 3, recommendation 3? This word was debated quite a bit last night. Other options were “may” and “ought.” They ultimately chose to stick with “will,” knowing it is vague. “May” was ordered out of order because it was judged by the chair as being contrary to the intent of the recommendation. What does “will” mean? No one exactly knows, but “will” tends to fall somewhere between “should” and “shall” in terms of binding, closer to “shall.” This was of concern to a handful who spoke last night – that they would be bound to purchase and use the Psalter, whether they sing the Psalms or not, and whether they like the old Psalter better or not.

Psalter Hymnal Committee Reports: Committee 9 opened business with their recommendations on Report 3 of the Psalter Hymnal Committee. (Editor’s Note – Full copies of these reports are available on the blog website; link at bottom).

The committee’s recommendations on Report 3 were:
Synod receives the work of the committee to date.

1. Synod grant the privilege of the floor to members of the Psalter Hymnal Committee when this report is being discussed.
2. Synod 2010 affirms that the official songbook will be purchased and used by all URCNA.
3. Synod augment the current Psalter Committee with one member from each classis not yet represented on the committee (i.e. Classes Central US, Easter US, Michigan, Western Canada), and that these classes be mandated to appoint a qualified member for the committee.
4. That Synod approve the following process for evaluation and approval of the hymn section:

a. That each consistory evaluate the proposed hymn section in light of the synodically approved “Principles and Guidelines” (included in this report) and send their recommended changes in the form of an overture to its classis. The overtures should follow this format: “The consistory of ___ Church overtures Classis ___ to approve the following changes to the proposed hymn section and communicate its decision to the Psalter Hymnal Committee… ” The overture should include grounds. (Note: The consistory may appoint musically gifted and theologically astute members of their congregation to help evaluate the hymns.)
b. That classis deliberates the merits of the overture in light of the synodically-approved “Principles and Guidelines.” If classis agrees with the overture or a portion thereof, classis shall send an official communication regarding the recommended changes to the Psalter Hymnal Committee for its consideration and written response. Such communication must be received by the Psalter Hymnal Committee no later than March 31, 2012.
c. That the Psalter Hymnal Committee categorizes and prints these communications, along with the written response, in a “master report.” This report will also include the final proposed hymn section and be distributed to all the consistories at least six months before the next meeting of Synod.
d. That the to the Psalter Hymnal Committee or in the “master report” from the Psalter Synod which will decide upon the hymn section for the new songbook shall not consider other hymns or changes to the hymns beyond those contained in the previously submitted communications from classes Hymnal Committee.

Recommendations 1-3 were dealt with Tuesday night. This afternoon took up items 4 a-d. All were approved without much discussion.

Next was Report 4 of the Liturgical Forms and Confessions Committee:

The committee’s recommendations were as follows:

1. Synod receive the work of the committee thus far.
2. Synod 2010 encourages the churches to utilize these forms and prayers and continue to give feedback to the committee. (Feedback from the churches has been very helpful in clarifying and refining the issue.)
3. Three current members of our committee (including our chair) have requested to be released from service (Dr. Kim Riddlebarger, Dr. W. Robert Godfrey, Dr. Michael Horton). Rev. Al Bezuyen and Dr. J. Mark Beach wish to remain on the committee. The committee will need three new members to remain at its current size, including a new chairman to be appointed. Committee 9 further recommends that

a. Synod offer gratitude to the Drs. Riddlebarger, Horton, and Godfrey
b. Synod appoint Rev. Danny Hyde to chair this committee (he has already agreed to serve if appointed)
c. Synod approve the names of Rev. Brian Lee, Rev. William Vanderwoerd, Rev. Patrick Eduard and Rev. Scott Swanson (two to be chosen) to fill the other two positions.

4. Concerns regarding Form Number 1 for the Baptism of Infants . . . we note that there are concerns in some of our churches about the current form (form 1) for infant baptism (i.e. that it implies baptismal regeneration, or that it does not emphasize sufficiently the solemnity of the sacrament.) The Liturgical committee does not think that these concerns are sufficient to jettison its current form which has served the Reformed churches quite well since the time of Dort. Furthermore, it is our belief that any new or substitute form for infant baptism should come about in the context of a broader discussion of the nature and theology of baptism (especially the doctrine of baptism as found in our confessions and catechisms). This falls well beyond the current mandate of our committee. Committee 9 recommends that Synod instruct concerned consistories overture their respective classis about undertaking as per issues with the present Form 1 for Baptism, and that such a study ought to determine whether or not the production of a new form for infant baptism is warranted. If Synod then so desires the liturgical form committee would be instructed to write a new form.

The committee chair stressed that what were NOT up for debate were the forms themselves as that would be out of the mandate of the advisory committee, but only the work of the Liturgical Forms committee was up for debate.

Recommendation 1 was ordered by the chair.
Recommendation 2 was approved.
Recommendation 3 was approved, the Synod thanked Drs. Riddlebarger, Horton, and Godfrey, and Hyde was approved as the chair without objection. A clarification was made that the two of four members were not to be chosen by a vote but by those who would agree, in order of preference.
Recommendation 4: there was a concern expressed about the recommendation being confusing. After a short debate, a motion was brought forward to table this recommendation indefinitely. The motion carried; this last recommendation is tabled (that is, is basically dropped).

Committee 7: PJCO/Overtures 13/18/3: Committee 7 had struggled in committee quite a bit in trying to find common ground and unity on these matters during at least the first day of committee meetings. Recommendations on the PJCO (Proposed Joint Church Order – Plan of Merger):

1. That Synod thank the committee for the work it has completed.
2. That Synod receive the committee report and the PJCO 2010 (with the two-column document comparing PJCO 2007 and PJCO 2010 as an appendix as well as the Majority and Minority reports on PJCO Art 36).
3. That Synod accept for continued study the PJCO 2010 as the Church Order for a united federation of the URCNA and CanRC.
4. That Synod instruct the churches that changes to the PJCO 2010 should be directed to the Synod by way of overture through the classes.
5. That Synod take note of and act on the need to develop Forms of Discipline for a united federation.
6. That Synod reappoint the current committee for the sake of continuity, with the mandate to continue working closely with the church order sub committee of the address matters yet unfinished (such as PJCO Art 4).
7. That Synod declare this be our answer to Overture 18.

Those were the committee’s recommendations. Now let’s get to what the Synod assembly decided upon. The protocol in general session here at Synod appears to be to go through each recommendation, one after another instead of taking the package as a whole. This ended up causing some confusion.

Rec 1: So ordered.
Rec 2: So ordered.
Rec 3: Adopted. A question was asked if the committee intentionally used the word “accept” instead of “adopt.” The presenter said yes, but there would be opportunity for input by consistories and classes.
Rec 4: Adopted as amended. Background: There were questions as to how much business this would create for future Synods, if there was a deadline for timing, that the URCNA is working towards accepting this report far before a merger, and that the URCNA and CanRC may be completely two different denominations by then, so expressed confusion why there seemed be a sense of urgency in the committee now to accept the PJCO for continued study. The last concern was hesitantly answered that this is what is before the Synod now, so should be voted upon. A carried amendment was made making the ultimate adopted recommendation to be: Synod instruct churches that changes to the PJCO 2010 should be directed to synod by way of overture through classes.
Rec 5: Adopted with amendment. Background: An amendment was adopted that states: Synod has taken note of and ask the church committee to develop forms for the joint church. This amendment was adopted. The author of the overture rose to speak in favor of the motion: “To clarify, in asking the committee to do this work, the intention was not to stop the unity process but arose out of what our consistory and the classis perceived as a tendency of that unity process to create animosity because it compromises consistories . . . we are seeking to remove that animosity to allow for the growth we believe we needs to happen. One of our goals was to have a discussion such as this”

Another delegate rose to speak against the amendment: “We’re not against unity. . . I do think (and speak against) that the overture brings before us that this process has been divisive to our churches. We leave with iniquity and have received as fraternal relations the brothers in the OPC, RCUS. The way we’ve welcomed them is different than the way we treated the CanRC. The question is why this significant difference in our approach, and some consistories have felt exactly that unity here is, in a way, driven and it does not rise organically. A wise pastor told me in one of my first classis meetings – our chair – not to drive the sheep but gently lead the sheep and in a way, I think this is harming the churches. Synod is moving way ahead of the churches and I think it would serve as well to not accede to the recommendation to this overture. I think our brothers last night revealed there is a different approach the Canadian brothers have than the URC, and I think that’s helpful. When we do this and enter into unity and confederation, we want to do it as the United Reformed Churches and not as a group of some united churches.”

There were procedural points of information, and it was clear delegates were confused at to what they were voting on and what the consequences would be of their votes. Ultimately, recommendation 5 was tabled temporarily and a motion was made to move to Committee 10, but not before there were impassioned speeches on both sides of the issue — stating that there is a “sense of distrust, even with what is going on here . . . slow down,” and strong concerns regarding the wisdom and foolishness of pushing church growth too quickly, at a high cost, as well as “We should not be discouraged when suspicious arise and just go home. We should be patient and pray. This call for unity is coming out of the grassroots and is rising as organic.”

By the time the Synod got to recommendation 6, many were confused. Many did not understand that what they had been previously voting on were then going to become the answer to Overture 18. Once they did recognize that, several procedural attempts were made to divert the track the Synod had taken, but ended up out of order.

There was a short break, and afterward, the chair of the Theological Educational Committee rose to state “If comm. 7b, rec 5 passes, it will make the motion to dismiss the Theological Education Committee out of order. I am the chair of the Theological Education Committee and declare that they (the TE committee) would like their mandate to be completed instead of what comm. 7 wants. I move that Rec 5 is tabled temporarily and we move to 10b (Theological Education Committee business).” The motion carried.

The writer of this blog was not in the hall during much of the business regarding the Theological Education Committee (10b) for necessary reasons, but returned in time to learn that, despite a failed motion to table this, the Theological Education Committee’s mandate has been fulfilled and its work is at an end, and that a model of two independent seminaries in the US and one federationally-controlled seminary in Canada is not viable and therefore should not be sent to seminaries. Basically, this means that Synod has concluded that the Theological Committee has gone as far as they can go with dialogue with the CanRC regarding theological education, and at this point, the Synod is declaring that their work has been completed and they have reached a reasonable conclusion that there is not a forward specifically regarding theological education at this time.

Turning back now to Committee 7 (PJCO/Overture 13/18, etc), there was a motion to reconsider recommendations 1-5 of the committee in response to the PJCO. The chair ruled it to be in order, but was challenged from a member on the floor stating it was not in order. The chair reversed his ruling, but was challenged again later and a voice vote was not decisive so a show of hands was called for. The chair was upheld and the reconsideration was denied.

A motion was then made to take recommendation 5 (which is not to accede to Overture 13) of the committee’s recommendation in response to the same overture off the table.

At this point, the area in question of Overture 13 was surrounding whether or not to continue working towards a joint songbook or not. The recommendation was to not accede to the overture (meaning: the committee recommended continuing working toward a joint songbook). After a minor amendment was adopted, there was a motion to table the item before Synod for the purpose of reconsidering points 1-7 of Committee 7′s response to the PJCO, but that motion failed. There was considerable debate regarding this but ultimately, the recommendation of the committee failed.

Now before the assembly would have to be Overture 13, but there was a quick motion to recommit this overture to committee, and the motion was adopted.

The work of the committee on Overture 5 was also sent back to the committee (amending the PJCO, articles 44 and 45).

The committee on Web Oversight presented very quickly (the presenter speed-read the report). All recommendations were adopted with a minor amendment on one. In a nutshell, the Synod has declared that the webmaster and Stated Clerk may not be the same person, that the webmaster is overseen by the Web Oversight Committee, that a webmaster may be appointed by the Website Oversight Committee if Synod does not, that the webmaster sits on the Oversight committee, that Synod set remuneration for the webmaster at $3,000, not to be taken from the website fund, that no term limits are set for the Oversight committee positions, that Synod reappoint the same consistory to oversee the oversight committee, that Synod decrease the amount requested per classis from $200/year to $100/year, that an annual yearbook is still made available for download, that the committee not be renamed, that the Oversight Committee for the Website Oversight Committee is a legal entity when necessary and an ecclesiastical entity when necessary, and that the Synod refer the creation of new introductions for the Canons of Dort , Heidelberg Catechism, and Belgic Confession to the Liturgical Forms Committee.

At least one committee (7 – PJCO/Overtures 13, 18, etc) will need to reconvene yet again tomorrow to work on what was sent back to them. There is quite a bit of work ahead of Synod to accomplish in the next two days since proceedings were slow-going today.

Some issues that will be brought to the floor in the next two days include: Justification, CERCU recommendations, Financial and Healthcare Matters, CECCA and Overture 4.

These are edited extracts from the Blog. For more details visit: http://urcnasynodreports.wordpress.com/