From time to time a local church puts forward a proposal for change that is intended to find its way to the agenda of a general synod. These proposals are usually called “overtures” and have to do with matters that have been designated by the Church Order as being for the whole federation or, more technically, matters for the “churches in common” (Church Order, Art. 30). Some examples of such issues are the songs we sing in church (Art. 52), training students for the ministry (Art. 19), and how we interact with faith­ful churches abroad (Art. 50). Changing something in the Church Order itself would be another example (Art. 76).

Suppose, then, that a church wishes to change an article in the Church Order. A general synod is the assembly that would have to decide on this matter, but how does the local church place its overture on the agenda of the next general synod? In the history of our federation, this has been a sometimes hotly debated point. Two different options have vied for supremacy based on an interpretation of Article 30:1) churches are to present such an overture directly to a general synod for its consideration; 2) churches are to present such an overture first to the minor assemblies (classis, then regional synod) in order to be assessed and passed along if the minor assemblies are in agreement with said proposal.¹ After a kind of see-saw battle between these opinions at vari­ous general synods over several decades, a hybrid of the two approaches was tried by General Synod (GS) 2010. However, this was appealed by various churches and overturned by GS 2013, which clarified that option 2 is the proper way to under­stand Article 30.²

Mailman?⤒🔗

It seems that since GS 2013 this issue has been more or less settled in our federation, since there have been no appeals against the decision made then. Also, at the two general synods since that time (2016 and 2019), several overtures from both regions of our federation (east and west) have wended their way from consistory to classis to regional synod to general synod. So far so good. But as this process becomes more settled and commonplace in our federation, the question has come up: what is the role of classes and regional synods in reviewing overtures generated by a consistory and bound for general synod? Is it just to certify that the subject matter of the overture indeed properly belongs on the agenda of general synod, or is it more hands-on and in-depth than that? Are classis and regional synod essentially like a mailman?

To ask it differently: is the work of these ecclesiastical assem­blies basically to forward valid overtures on to general synod without much ado (or decline to do so for matters which don’t belong at a general synod)? Or should a classis and region­al synod carefully examine the overture on its merits and see whether each can support the overture? Does the overture from a consistory get taken over by a classis and then by a regional synod? Are those latter assemblies free to make changes to a consistory’s proposal? By the time it comes to the table of a general synod, whose proposal is it: the consistory’s or the regional synod’s?

←⤒🔗

Consider and evaluate←⤒🔗

A review of what our synods have said makes it clear that the classes and regional synods are much more than mailmen. The very purpose of having overtures work their way through the various assemblies is to weed out unsupported overtures and send along only what is agreeable to each assembly. Already at GS 2004 we find this concept put forward in the proposed joint church order (with the URCNA). Regarding agenda items for general synod it states, “All such matters must originate with a consistory and must first be considered by a classis and a regional synod before they may be considered by a gener­al synod” (Acts, p. 218). This was further clarified by GS 2010 when it adopted the following revision of this same point, “All matters that pertain to the churches in common must originate with a consistory and must receive the support of the narrower assembly before being considered by the broader assembly.”

The idea is clear: if classis or regional synod does not endorse the proposal, it has every right to decline to pass it along.

But there is more involved. Aside from “considering” and simply voting “yes” or “no” on the proposal as it stands, the broader assemblies may – and are intended to – sift through the arguments of the overture and evaluate them. GS 2010 spoke in this manner when considering the benefits of having an overture go through the minor assemblies: “The desire to have submissions first be tested, evaluated and filtered by the minor assemblies is beneficial in that it will ensure that only proposals which have won the support of a large number of churches reaches the broadest assembly” (Acts, Art. 62. Cons. 3.6). "Tested," "evaluated," and "filtered" are active verbs indicat­ing that the proposal may be trimmed or augmented in order to strengthen it.³ Essentially, the proposal becomes the “property” of the classis (and later the regional synod, if supported) and each assembly, by evaluating (and possibly amending) it, adopts the overture as its own before sending it along (or, conversely, rejects it and does not forward it). The broader assemblies serve in this respect as a filter, not a funnel.

Fair play←⤒🔗

All of this naturally raises the question: how much of the overture can a classis or regional synod change? The original authors of the proposal (consistory with the deacons of a local church) may wonder about this because it started out as “their” proposal. They may feel a little protective. However, the local church must realize that it seeks a change that will affect all the churches (i.e. it’s a matter for the “churches in common”) and thus all the churches have the duty to consider it carefully and the right to weigh in on the issue. For those reasons, an overture that is submitted to a classis is first sent around to all local churches in that district for their evaluation and input. The same is done when classis submits a proposal to regional synod. And when a regional synod sends a proposal to the next general synod, it must first send the overture to all the churches in the feder­ation for their consideration, evaluation, and possible input to the next general synod.⁴

With that in mind, it is good and right that a classis and a regional synod take time to evaluate and possibly amend the overture. If adopted, it does become that assembly’s overture. Yet, fair play dictates that care should be taken to maintain the integrity of the original proposal. The broader assemblies should not be callous or cavalier in making just any change but should carefully honour the work of the originating church as much as feasible. Each broader assembly should first decide whether it supports the thrust of the proposal (i.e. whether it’s essentially sound and acceptable) and, if yes, then decide if any details need to be adjusted to make it a better proposal.

←⤒🔗

No bail out←⤒🔗

On the other hand, the broader assembly should not be expected to fix all the problems with a shaky overture either. The originating church’s idea and proposal needs to be able to stand on its own two feet, so to speak. If the proposal is too weak to withstand scrutiny or leaves too many unanswered ques­tions or contains other difficulties, then the classis or regional synod should not take it upon itself to do the legwork to patch it up and “redeem” it. That’s not the task of those assemblies. There’s a big difference between tweaking an essentially sound proposal and bailing out a troubled one, and broader assem­blies should avoid the latter. Otherwise, they run the risk of imposing something that was never intended by the original church and never seen by the other area churches in advance of the current assembly. That kind of tinkering would open the door for a hierarchical approach to creep in at the broader assemblies. Instead, the overture should simply not be adopted and the reasons for that spelled out. In that way the originating church can know what the issues are and, if desired, have an opportunity to correct the overture’s shortcomings and submit a revised one to a subsequent classis.

The idea in all of this is that the overtures reaching a general synod will arrive there in their strongest form and with as much support in the churches as possible. Good filtration will help us reach that goal.