On Friday, the Synod finalised the report by the Deputies for Representation and approved their work. During the meeting, we continued our discussion on the role of the pre-advisers. Previously, professors at the TUA were automatically advisers to the Synod, but this arrangement is no longer in line with how the TUA has developed into a comprehensive university, where the professorship is no longer a church office. The input from the TUA as churches is still valued just as much as before. However, from now on, it will be the task of the Moderamen to assess on a case-by-case basis whether the TUA will be asked for advice.
Finally, five requests were discussed to review the decision taken by the previous synod to adjourn the synod early. There was some debate as to whether it was wise to deal with these requests for review at this stage, but it was ultimately decided that it was, so that we, as a synod, would know where we stand by the second week. The requests for review were granted on the basis of thorough preparatory work, which means that the synod recognised that the premature closure had not been carried out in accordance with its own rules and principles. It was emphasised in connection with the decision that the aim is not to disqualify the delegates to the previous synod or to detract from the deadlocked situation. Nor does the decision imply any judgement on the intentions of the churches which, on the basis of the decision of the premature synod, have gone their own way.
Two important issues are linked to this. Firstly, there are a number of churches which, following the synod’s decision on early closure and amidst the confusion of the time, joined together to form a General Assembly of churches centred on Rijnsburg. Now that this decision has been revised, the question is what the future holds for these churches. This question will certainly be discussed during the second week of the meeting. In anticipation of this, the assembly has already instructed the moderamen to maintain contact with these churches, should they express a need for such contact.
Secondly, the granting of the requests for review certainly does not mean that the impasse in which we find ourselves as a church federation has been resolved. Perhaps the granting of the requests for review will prompt some churches to consider whether they wish to send delegates to the church assemblies once again. They are warmly invited to do so, so that together we may seek to restore the bond of love. However, an answer will still need to be found to the fundamental question of what it means to be a church federation whilst there are churches that deviate from jointly taken decisions. That question, too, will be addressed during the second week of the meeting.
