NR #1995-078: Change in Church Order Revision Process Will Ease Future Revision Attempts Synod has voted to change the process for revising the church order in a way that will effectively remove most major synodical changes in the church order from the need for ratification by a subsequent synod. According to the new procedure, a church order requirement that churches have "sufficient time to consider the advisability" of a church order change will be met if a denominational study committee submits its proposed change to the churches in sufficient time for classes to respond to the change via overtures. However, changes proposed for the first time through an overture in the Agenda for Synod will still require ratification on the grounds that many classes do not schedule a meeting after the Agenda for Synod is published at which they could respond to the proposed church order change. NR #1995-078: For Immediate Release Change in Church Order Revision Process Will Ease Future Revision Attempts by Darrell Todd Maurina, Press Officer United Reformed News Service GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (June 21, 1995) URNS - The Christian Reformed synod voted today to change the process for changing of church order changes and to "commend Classis Lake Erie for its thorough study" of the matter, noting that "we do not believe that a synodically appointed study committee will improve upon the report before us" and encouraging "other classes to do the same instead of requesting synod to appoint study committees." Disputes over the process by which the church order is to be changed have plagued the women in office debate for over a decade, dating at least back to the 1984 synodical decision to ratify a 1978 proposal to allow women deacons. The 1984 decision produced a flood of overtures to the next year's synod arguing that synod had violated the church order, and the 1995 decision to allow classes to declare part of the church order inoperative is likely to generate similar protests. Unlike almost all other Reformed and Presbyterian denominations, the CRC does not have a clear-cut and unambiguous process by which changes proposed by the denomination's broadest assembly are ratified by a subsequent assembly or by a majority of the classes or presbyteries. The lack of a clear ratification procedure dates back to the church order first adopted by the Synod of Dordt in 1619, which was intended to be amended only on rare occasions and remained unchanged for almost two centuries. Article 95 of the original Dordt church order, a provision retained by the CRC in a slightly modified form until 1965, stated that "these Articles, relating to the lawful Order of the Churches, have been so drafted and adopted by common consent, that they, if the profit of the Churches demand otherwise, may and ought to be altered, augmented, or diminished. However, no particular Congregation, Classis, or Synod shall be at liberty to do so, but they shall show all diligence in observing them, until it be otherwise ordained by the General, or National Synod." After adopting a modified form of the Dordt church order at its organization in 1857, the Christian Reformed synod made only a few changes in the church order until a revised church order was adopted in 1965. The only relevant language in the current Christian Reformed church order is Article 47, stating that "the task of synod includes the adoption of the creeds, of the Church Order, of the liturgical forms, of the Psalter Hymnal, and of the principles and elements of the order of worship, as well as the designation of the Bible versions to be used in the worship services. No substantial alterations shall be effected by synod in these matters unless the churches have had prior opportunity to consider the advisability of the proposed changes." However, a church order supplement adopted by Synod 1989 stated that "prior opportunity to consider the proposed change(s) by the churches is defined as 'the time between the adoption of the proposed change by one synod and its ratification by a following synod.'" Classis Lake Erie argued that the concept of ratification "did not enter our discussion as a result of a careful study or a deliberate proposal. Ratification has been defined, for the most part, on the fly. Not surprisingly questions have arisen almost yearly about what it means in a given instance. Hours of synodical time have been spent debating these issues. We believe it is time to take a careful look at what has come to be known as ratification, to define our terms, and to agree on the basic dimensions of the process." In nine pages of documentation, the classis tracked 88 changes and attempted changes made to items governed by Article 47 by 26 synods during the years following adoption of the 1965 revised church order to the present. In its summary of the data, the classis notes that the first case of ratification occurred in 1974 and the process only became standard in 1982. The classis also notes that the same synod which defined the term "substantial alternations" and "prior opportunity" in 1989 gave immediate ratification to three church order changes proposed by Synod 1987 which Synod 1988 chose not to ratify. The classis alleged that Article 47 of the church order "has been used in this way primarily because of the influence of one issue with which the church has wrestled since 1970, the issue of women in office." As a result, Classis Lake Erie proposed to synod that the Article 47 supplement be revised to allow synod to immediately adopt any change in the church order made on the basis of a study committee report which is received by November 1 of the year before synod meets, but to submit all changes made on the basis of an overture or standing committee report in the synodical agenda to a following synod which will consider its advisability. The synodical advisory committee on church order recommended that synod adopt Classis Lake Erie's proposal with only one minor change. Advisory committee reporter Rev. Lambert Sikkema asked Pastor George Vander Weit, stated clerk of Classis Lake Erie and a member of the advisory committee, to explain the proposal to synod. Although expressing concerns that having him explain the proposal might result in delegates "looking for an agenda," Vander Weit consented to do so at the request of the advisory committee reporter and chairman. "Could we have ratified the change in the church order on women in office under the form you have here?" asked Classis Central California delegate Rev. Bruce Persenaire. Vander Weit gave a one-word answer: "Yes." Classis California South delegate Dr. W. Robert Godfrey strongly objected to the proposed changes in the process. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," said Godfrey. "I'm not convinced by anything brother George has said." "I'm not persuaded that the church has gotten in trouble with the present procedure, and in our busy age I don't think it hurts to slow down and make sure we know what we're doing," Godfrey continued. Calvin Seminary professor of church polity Dr. Henry De Moor also expressed concerns about the proposed process. "I don't have anything up my sleeve here, I just want to serve synod," said De Moor. "The heart of the issue is what does 'prior opportunity' mean. A prior synod has said that 'prior opportunity' means the time between one synod and another." While synod adopted most of Classis Lake Erie's proposal, it rejected one portion by an 86-92 roll call vote. The portion had been modified by the advisory committee and would have specified that "a proposed change not adopted by one synod remains available for three years for adoption by a following synod when two conditions are men: 1) the available change is substantially the same as the change earlier proposed. 2) the available change is a response to a matter legally on the agenda for synod." Based on the synodical decision - which does not itself require ratification because it is only a church order supplement change - synod now defines "prior opportunity" in such a way that changes in the church order proposed in sufficient time for churches and classes to respond via overtures can be adopted without a two-year ratification process and all changes in the church order supplements can be adopted without that requirement. While the results of the synodical action will not become clear for several years, one result is certain: church order changes will now be much easier. Contact List: Mr. Tim Penning or Mrs. Bonny Wynia, Christian Reformed Synodical News Office Calvin College, 3201 Burton St. SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49546 * O: (616) 957-8652 * FAX: (616) 957-8551 To Reach Delegates During Synod: (616) 957-6000 Pre-Recorded CRC Synod Hotline: (616) 957-8654 ------------------------------------------------ file: /pub/resources/text/reformed: nr95-078.txt .