Office Bearers

GS 1968 ARTICLE 155

Committee II on the Implementation of Article 19 C.O. presents: (See also Art. 172)

I. Re Appointment of Deputies

Materials:

  • a.       Report of Deputies, 1,2 sub 7; (Supplement 11-A)
  • b.       Overture of the Church at Coaldale, Alta, IIl,4;
  • c.        Overture of the Regional Synod Ontario 1968, III, 27 sub 5.

Observations:

  • 1.        Deputies come to the conclusion that, in order to work effectively, they should live close together.
  • 2.        Deputies recommend that therefore a Church be appointed instead of deputies, since this is the most effective solution and the least expensive one.
  • 3.        The Regional Synod of Ontario and the Church at Coaldale, Alta, for the same reason advise Synod to appoint as deputies brethren who live close together.

Considerations:

  • 1.        The reasons given for having deputies who live dose together are valid.
  • 2.        Although the appointment of a church would be the least expensive course, it may not be desirable to entrust this matter to one body.

Recommendation:

In order to facilitate the work of Deputies, Synod appoint brethren who live close to each other.

II. Re Financial Statement

ADOPTED

Materials:

Report of Deputies, I, 2 and 2b (See Supplement 11-A, 11-8).

Observations:

Deputies point out that by May 1968 there were still four Churches which did not send the one collection for 1967. On October 15, 1968, there were still nine Churches which did not yet pay anything in 1968. The result was that payments to the brother involved had to be delayed.

Recommendation:

Synod take note of this communication and the information contained in it.

ADOPTED

III. Re Contribution by the Churches

Material:

Request of the Church at London, Ont., IV, 12, “dat de kerken wordt verzocht alleen collecten ad Art. 19 K.O. te houden voor het General Fund”.

Recommendation:

Synod act not upon the request of the Church at London, Ont.

Ground: It is not in the jurisdiction of General Synod to advise the Churches what collections should or should not be held (Art. 30 C.O.).

ADOPTED

IV. Re Implementation of Article 19 C.O. by Deputies

Materials:

  • a.        Report of Deputies, 1,2 (See Supplement 11-A);
  • b.       Appeal of Mr. R. F. Boersema, Chestnut Hill, Pa, 11,2;
  • c.        Overture of Regional Synod Ontario 1968, IIl,27 sub 7;
  • d.       Communication Classis Ontario North of December 6, 1967, V,1;
  • e.        Request Classis Ontario North of September 4, 1968, IV,4.

Observations:

  • 1.     Deputies decided not to support students of theology who did not study at our own Seminary.
  • 2.       Classis Ontario North of December 6, 1967, was of the opinion that Deputies have read certain restrictions into their mandate which General Synod 1965 did not explicitly insert.
  • 3.       Mr. R. F. Boersema appeals this decision of Deputies by stating that “it does not appear from the Acts that Synod ever considered the problem which students they would support”.

Considerations:

  • I. General Synod 1965 considered that the manner in which the training for the Ministry is organized at present causes special difficulties in determining the costs, because the students have to travel from one place to another.
  • 2.  General Synod 1965 decided to set up a general fund for needy students until the time that our own training institute has been established at a certain place.

Conclusions:

  • 1.        From the consideration and decision of General Synod 1965 it appears that only students are meant to be supported from this fund who study at our own training institute.
  • 2.        Deputies ad Article 19 C.O. therefore did not go against their mandate when refusing to support those students who did not study at our own training institute.

Recommendation:

Synod inform Mr. R. F. Boersema that on the basis of the observations, consider­ations, and conclusions, mentioned above, Deputies ad Article 19 C.O. acted in accordance with their mandate when refusing support to those students who do not study at our training institute.

ADOPTED

V. Re Appeal of Mr. R. F. Boersema, Chestnut Hill, Pa, (II,3) Observation:

This brother states that he appeals a decision of Classis Ontario South of September 11, 1968, since the Regional Synod of Ontario 1968 was not able to come to a decision.

Consideration:

General Synod is allowed to deal only with appeals against decisions of a Regional Synod.

Recommendation:

Synod inform Mr. R. F. Boersema that it is not allowed to deal with his appeal.

ADOPTED