GS 1974 art 89 – Office Bearers

GS 1974 ARTICLE 89 – Request of Br. J. Werkman, and Appeals oi br. J. Huizinga, and Hrs. K. Visscher and J. Merkus

Committee IV presents:

MATERIAL: –

Three communications:
- N 7 – J. Werkman, complains about the lack of cooperation of the Consistory,
  - Edmonton, in establishing Canadian Reformed School Education and asks Synod for advice.
- N 8 – J. Huizinga, re: the same matter, requests Synod to make five declarations that, as a binding decision, are needed to solve the school problems and to establish a Canadian Reformed School in Edmonton, Alta.
- N 9 – K. Visscher/J. Merkus request Synod to do “justice against the decision of the Regional Synod West, 1974”, by making three declarations:
  - a. Regional Synod West “erred in its interpretation of General Synod 1958, Article 134, 3 b (cf. Synod 1962, Article 223, p. 59)”.
  - b. “the desirability that we have our own schools” is a correct interpreta tion of the Acts of Classis Alta./Man. 1970.
  - c. “Regional Synod 1974, Classis 1974 should have admonished Consistory of Edmonton to follow the advice of Church Visitors to ‘work for our own school”.
- (In asking this K.V./J.M. refer to Classis Canada 1951.)

OBSERVATIONS:

1. The three documents, though different in form (appeals and requests), pertain to the same matter, i.e. a division among the membership in Edmonton re: school education.
- They can therefore be dealt with collectively.
2. The heart of the matter is that these members expect from major assemblies, in casu this Synod such binding decisions that the Consistory of Edmonton’s Church instead of “opposition” should render “cooperation” that Canadian Reformed parents can establish a Canadian Reformed School; therefore they appeal against certain judgments and decisions of Regional Synod-West, 1974, while calling decisions of other major assemblies to their help, especially that of Classis Canada 1951, with which, according to them, Regional Synod 1974 was in conflict.
3. These members are convinced that it is in the jurisdiction of major assemblies to take binding decisions on this local conflict regarding “the desirability of a Canadian Reformed School”, in order to solve from outside Edmonton what the Canadian Reformed community in Edmonton till now could not or has not solved by itself.
4. Regional Synod West 1974 judged,
- a. that it is the task of the believers to execute their mandate with respect to the education of their children in accordance with their promise made at the baptism of their children;
- b. that it is the task of the Consistories to see to it that the members are faithful in the execution of this mandate;
- c. that it is not within the jurisdiction of a Classis or major assembly to judge or advise with respect to the practical execution of this mandate in a local situation (compare similar judgment by the General Synod of Homewood Carman, 1958 in Acts, Article 134, 3b); and decided “to declare that it is not within the competence of the Regional Synod to judge on this question in view of judgment c.”
5. The brethren state that Regional Synod 1974 did not have the right to refer to Synod 1958, because the decision of 1958 has to be read in the light of Synod 1962, Article 223, page 59, where a ground was added for the declaration that Classis was not competent in this case, namely that there was not a Consistory decision against which an appeal was submitted.

CONSIDERATIONS:

1. Regional Synod 1974 did only refer to General Synod 1958, Article 134, 3b, not using it as a ground;
- – General Synod 1962 did indeed say that in the case under consideration Classis had no jurisdiction, because there was no Consistory decision in this matter which indeed implies that Classis would have had jurisdiction, if there had been a Consistory decision.
(The case under consideration was also a school issue, though a different one)
- – General Synod 1958, however, gave no ground for its declaration that Classis was incompetent in this case.
  - – General Synod 1962 had no right to put a ground under a decision of its predecessor.
Consequently Regional Synod 1974 did not err in only referring to Synod 1958, Article 134, 3b.
2. Classis Canada 1951 expressed an opinion rather than making a decision which from then on should have bound the churches.
- It received a proposal of the Church at Neerlandia to appoint a classical committee which should study the possibilities with respect to Article 21 C.O., to attain Christian education for covenant children.
- However, this proposal was rejected, although everyone was fully aware of the need of Christian education.
- This Classis considered as the only right way the establishment of Reformed schools, i.e. not in cooperation with, for example, the Christian Reformed Church.
- The first step was regarded, not to appoint a classical committee, but that local school societies should be established by the parents and that Consistories activate the congregation.
3. Classis Alberta/Manitoba 1970 and Regional Synod 1974 rightly decided that a major assembly is not entitled to judge and make binding decisions concerning the question when the time for “an own school”, somewhere, has arrived.
4. If the Consistory of Edmonton’s Church lives up to its “Statement on Reformed or Christian Education”, it cannot and may not be accused of opposing Reformed school education, if only the same Consistory remains aware of its own warning against the dangers of cooperation with others, and if it remains faithful to what it said in the same “Statement”: “if possible at a Canadian Reformed School”.
5. Church Visitors gave indeed on January 23, 1970 a specific advice to the Consistory of Edmonton –
- (“the Consistory would be wise to promote the cause of the own school” although “it is possible that such a school cannot immediately be realized”) – but this advice may not play any role in Synod’s considerations and decisions, because it was an oral advice at a specific time to a specific Consistory and – although it was later written down – was not reported to nor adopted by any major assembly as a binding rule for the Churches.
6. The Communion of the Saints in Edmonton themselves can and must, under the blessing of the Lord, solve its problems by –
- first of all stopping to unduly criticize, to accuse and to blame each other, but rather edify each other, Congregation as well as Consistory, in fulfilling their duty and responsibility to educate the children of the covenant and have them educated in the complete doctrine of salvation as confessed and taught in The Canadian Reformed Churches.
Such a solution cannot be reached by a decision of this General Synod but only by the peace of Christ, the Head of the Body, being the Arbitrator between the members of the Body in Edmonton. (Colossians 3:15)

DECISION:

Although General Synod, unanimously agrees with the brethren on the “desir ability of Canadian Reformed Schools”, it declares that it is not within its juris diction to grant the requests of the brethren Huizinga, Merkus, Visscher and Werkman, to judge, advise and direct Consistory and parents in Edmonton re: the practical realization of this goal in the local situation in Edmonton.

ADOPTED

An amendment to the proposed “Decision”, reading:

“Although General Synod unanimously agrees with the brethren on the “desirability of Canadian Reformed Schools”, and the duty of the elders of the flock to give the congregation Scriptural guidance in this direction, it is convinced that it is not in the province of Synod to grant the requests of the brethren Huizinga, Visscher, and Werkman, to judge, advise, and direct the Consistory and the parents in Edmonton regarding the practical realization of this goal in the local situation in Edmonton”

is rejected.