URCNA Synod Escondido 2024: The Synod on Synodality

While the URCNA was gathering for synod in Escondido, California (June 17 – 21, 2024), the Roman Catholic Church was also meeting in synod, the so-called “Synod on Synodality.” These two synods don’t have a lot in common… the Roman Catholic synod has already lasted three years! Yet, without irony, URCNA Synod Escondido 2024 could likewise bear the title, “The Synod on Synodality.” 

I say this because one of the highlights of Synod Escondido was a discussion about how the churches should be represented at synod. Overture 6 proposed that the URCNA move to a classically delegated synod, wherein each classis would select twelve delegates, six elders and six ministers. Currently, synod is made up of two delegates from each church. Among other things, this proposal would result in a smaller gathering (96 vs. 240 delegates), savings in cost, and greater flexibility in which churches could host the gathering.

This discussion of this overture — ultimately defeated — gave birth to a rather profound conversation about the character of synod, and of our federation, and the important function that synod serves in knitting us together as a body of Christ. In my opinion, the most moving part of synod was when a number of elders rose and spoke about how meaningful synod is to them, and the contribution they make. It became clear that our current synod serves as a training ground of sorts, where first time delegates — including many elders and young ministers — learn about the common interests of our churches and grow in appreciation for our united labors. Almost a third of delegates in Escondido were attending their first synod.

Likewise significant was a discussion that resolved some lingering disagreement over the manner in which individual members of URCNA churches can appeal decisions with which they disagree. This debate was triggered in part by the adoption of a new Appendix 7 to the church order in 2018. Synod agreed to affirm the traditional understanding that individuals may appeal decisions of their own consistories when they are wronged (CO Article 31). However, synod rejected the view that every individual has a right to appeal any consistory or classis anywhere in the URCNA. Synod instead affirmed the view that assemblies, not individuals, are best equipped to evaluate the decisions of other assemblies and appeal if necessary (CO Article 29). Synod affirmed that every individual member may play an important role in this process: 

If an individual member alleges error(s) in a decision of a consistory, classis, or synod regarding a matter pertaining to the churches in common, he shall bring the matter to his consistory, urging it to appeal the decision of synod the assembly in question (Newly revised Appendix 7, 4.c).

While this issue inspired some passion among proponents on both sides, the discussion reflected the high degree of civility and charity that characterized all the proceedings at this synod. It was beautiful to see brothers contending for the truth, expressing distinct visions, yet also speaking from a common love for the unity we share in our federation.

Seemingly far more prosaic, but promising far reaching consequences, was the formation of a committee to explore the establishment of a URCNA Building Loan Fund. Such loan funds currently exist in a number of sister NAPARC churches, where they enable individuals and churches to invest their savings (with a market rate of return) in a fund that provides capital to sister churches for the purchase, construction, and expansion of their properties.

As usual, Wednesday evening’s presentations from foreign and domestic missionaries was once again a highlight of synod. It was encouraging to hear directly from many of our missionaries, to see the fruit the Lord has granted their labors, and to be reminded that God calls the church into a wide range of unique circumstances in which we may bear witness to the Good News of Jesus Christ. On an important and practical note, Synod also decided to create a new part-time position to serve as a domestic Missions Clerk, selecting elder Paul Lawton of Salem URC of Bowmanville, Ontario.

Synod also created a new Synodical Organizing Committee (The SOC?), to provide organizational assistance for consistories which convene future meetings of synod. The formation of this committee reflected a desire to bring greater order and efficiency to the planning of synod, and to assist churches in finding the most suitable and convenient venues for synodical gatherings. Interestingly enough, even this somewhat mundane logistical discussion raised interesting issues related to the very nature and being of our assemblies, thus Synod Escondido was to the end concerned with its own “synodality.”

One informal proposal floated over lunch in the dining hall was a future “Synod at Sea,” during which meetings would be conducted on a cruise ship, potentially lowering costs and attracting greater family participation. Perhaps the new Synodical Organizing Committee can report back on that when synod next meets in Western Canada — or Glacier Bay.

An edited version of this article appeared in Christian Renewal magazine.