re: "in essential agreement" implications
The court use of "in essential agreement" has no articulation, reducing discussion to shadow boxing.
The previous editorial displacement of article 9.4 resulting in extensive changes to 10 pages of the Basis of Union per "The General Secretary of the General Council has ruled that the General Council or its Executive has the power to approve editorial changes to the Basis of Union as long as they do not affect any existing rule or law" [rop 1990 p. 390] and 64 pages of bylaws extends the shadow to include polity.
If that is the way one court of the church functions, then as a logical extension to the court use of "in essential agreement" the church needs to consider.....
and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice... MIC 6:8 RSV
|.||the conciliar system gives each court specific powers and functions not assumable by another court|
|.||the courts of the church are defined as:
In these By-Laws:
"Court" means a body established by The United Church of Canada Act, the Basis of Union, or the General Council, which body has both deliberative and decision-making powers, subject to the appeal provisions set out herein. The Courts of the United Church are: the Session and the Official Board, or the Church Board, or the Church Council, which are the Courts of the Pastoral Charge; the Presbytery; the Conference; and the General Council." [001 Definitions]
|.||the General Council finds fit to act "in essential agreement" with respect to matters within its powers and functions as a court|
|.||the other courts are not permitted to act "in essential agreement" with respect to matters within their respective powers and functions|
|.||the principle of unreasonableness would question rules which did not apply equally in all cases|
|.||this inequity represents an injustice within our church|
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the bylaws be amended to provide for each court of the church acting "in essential agreement" within their respective powers and functions.