Office Bearers

GS 1971 ARTICLE 86 – Article 19 Church Order

Committee I presents:

Materials – Agenda 8 

  • F, 1 – Financial Statement of Deputies ad art. 19 C.O., and proposal of Depu­ties.
  • F, 2 – Overture from Church at Neerlandia, Alta.
  • S, 4 – Appeal against Art. 172 of Acts Ge­neral Synod Orangeville 1968 by br. R. F. Boersema, Toronto, Ont.

Observation

Deputies ad art. 19 C.O. request Synod to decide what should be done with the balance of the. Fund as of April 1, 1971.

Considerations

  • 1.  No rule about the remaining funds, in case of liquidation has been established by any Synod.
  • 2.  Funds should be used for some cause connected with the purpose for which these monies were given.

Recommendations

Synod decide

  • 1.  To accept the financial report as submitted, with thankfulness and to discharge Deputies of their duties.

ADOPTED

  • 2. To transfer the balance of the funds to the Canadian Reformed Theological College at Hamilton, Ont. 

ADOPTED

Observations

1.   The consistory  of  the  Church  at  Neerlandia  overtures  that  a general regulation be made for the support of indigent students.

2.  Br. R. F. Boersema does not believe that the fund of art. 19 should be restricted to specifically “needy” students but interprets art. 19 in such a way that all theological students should receive a certain amount of money regardless of need.

3.  Br. R. F. Boersema believes that the overtures from Barrhead and Edmonton (Acts art. 172 B, Synod Orangeville 1968) should be reconsidered.

Considerations

  • 1.  Synod Homewood 1954 decided a.o. “dat de Synode niets aan de kerken heeft op te dragen naar art. 19 K.O.”. (Acts, art. 87)
  • 2.  Synod Homewood-Carman 1958 decided “de nitspraak van de Synode van Homewood 1954 Acta a:rt. S7, betreffende de uitvoering van art. 19 K.O. vervallen te, verklaren. aangezien de wijze van uitvoe­ring van art. 19 K.O. in dit artikel zelf, in de vrijheid der kerken gelaten is.” (Acts, art. 94.)
  • 3.  Synod Edmonton 1965 gave specific reasons for establishing a general regulation for helping indigent students.
  • ”De Synode is van oordeel dat het billijk is, dat tot de tijd dat de opleiding op een bepaalde plaats zal gevestigd zijn, de hulp­ verlening aan studenten generaal wordt geregeld” (Acts, art. 147).
  • 4. Synod Orangeville decided: “to continue the operation of this fund in accordance with the mandate of Synod 1965 Acts art. 147 until the College becomes operational.” (Acts, art. 172C, recom­mendations a). This decision shows that Synod 1968 agrees with Synod 1965 that this general fund should be a temporary one.
  • 5.  The Church al Neerlandia does not give valid reasons for changing previous Synodical decisions regarding this matter, because Neer­landia simply gives as its arguments for changing those decisions, the opposite of what previous Synods have decided, in the mean­ time failing to make clear that they have considered the deci­sions taken by the Synods mentioned under “Considerations, 1-4”, in accordance with art. 46 Church Order.
  • 6.  Br. R. F. Boersema fails to prove that Synod 1968 has added any­ thing to art. 19 C.O. He also fails to prove that art. 19 C.O. demands from the Churches that they financially support all theological students, regardless of their needs.
  • 7.  Br. Boersema incorrectly bases his reasoning on the presupposition that the study of a theological student “is to be considered an aspect of” “living off (he Gospel”. Therefore his grounds for appeal against art. 172 of Synod Orangeville 1968 are irrelevant.

Recommendations

Synod decide

  • 1.  Not to accede to the request of the Church at Neerlandia, Alta.

ADOPTED

  • 2. Not to accede to the request of br. R. F. Boersema.

ADOPTED