A Godly Decision-Making Apparatus

The events at the Church of England Synod have had my flock pondering. Not over the rights and wrongs of male headship as against a direct disobedience of Scripture. No, to Frisby Independent Baptist Church that much is clear.

But just let us suppose that, against the clear teaching of Scripture, somebody in the chapel congregation wanted to try to get the rules changed so there could be a female pastor. What would happen next? What mechanisms does our constitution provide?

My first step would be to attempt - in love - to get him (or more likely her) defellowshipped. This would take place within a meeting of the Holy Obedience Sub-Committee, which meets quarterly to determine who has been ungodly lately.

But if the Holy Obedience Sub-Committee decided that the case against the proposer was not proven, then I would have to act against the Holy Obedience Sub-Committee. My first step would be to refer them to themselves. That would take place at their next quarterly meeting, of course. And being as sunk in sin as they clearly would be, we can assume that they would refuse to decide against themselves.

At which point I would be obliged to let the proposer take his (or her) case to the Ecclesiastical Order Sub-Committee.

The EOSC meets six-monthly, directly before the HOSC. So it would be at least three - and possibly six - months before the EOSC could meet. If they met and decided the proposer had a case to answer, I'd refer the EOSC in turn to the HOSC. But although the HOSC meets straight after the EOSC the matter would not be on the agenda. So it would be another three months before the HOSC met.

If the HOSC then decided that the EOSC had no case to answer, then the proposer could refer it to the Church Meeting proper.

The Church Meeting could agree to approve the suggestion straight away. But for such an important matter it would be more likely to propose setting up a Constitutional Matters Sub-Committee to report back. In line with the chapel constitution, sub-committees can only be set up by the Annual General Church Meeting. However once this had happened, things would happen quite quickly.

Supposing the CMSC, having been set up then want on to approve the proposal, I would of course refer it to the HOSC. Supposing they were not defellowshipped at this point, they would then refer the proposal to the Church Meeting for consideration. At which point the constitution is quite clear - it would have to be referred to the AGCM for full approval.

If - and I have to emphasise this is all conjectural - the AGCM heard the proposal (at its three-yearly "special" meeting, not the annual "ordinary" meeting which does not have the same constitutional powers) - then it could approve the proposal.

This is where it gets complicated.

I could not refer the AGCM to the HOSC to attempt to have them defellowshipped, as the HOSC is a sub-committee of the AGCM. So I would have to refer each member of the AGCM - individually - to the HOSC. Assuming none of them were at this point disfellowshipped, and bearing in mind that the HOSC meets quarterly and can only consider one proposal for unfellowshipment (individual or corporate) at each meeting, then it could take up to six years for this to happen.

If after all this no member of the AGCM had been counterfellowshipped, we would have to refer the whole matter to the trustees for approval. Which they would consider at their quinquennial meeting, which, unusually, happens every four years.

Clearly if they approved the proposal as well, I would have to refer myself to the HOSC. And if they disfellowshipped me, the process would be at an end.

Although I could, of course, appeal.

I hope this makes the matter clear, and everyone can see how the streamlined decision making process enabled by congregationalist governance is far superior to the Byzantine complexity of synodo-episcopal rule.