14 Mar GS 1977 art 99

Posted at 19:47h in CanRC, GS 1977 by

GS 1977 ARTICLE 99 – Admission Requirements – Theological College

Committee II presents:

Material

  • – Agenda 8, A, 6 – A letter of the Church at Smithers, B.C., proposing a change in the admission requirements of the Col­lege.
  • A, 11 – A letter from the Church at Hamilton, Ontario, also proposing to change the admission requirements.
  • A, 12 –  A letter of the Church at Toronto. Ontario, inform­ing Synod that it is not in favour of the proposal of the Church at Smithers.

Information

  • 1.   The Church at Smithers proposes to Synod “to drop the requirements of a B.A. de­gree and change Article XXIII, sub 1, as follows: ‘A person who is a member of one of the Churches, who presents a good attestation of confession and life, and who has a High School diploma plus a Certificate of a two-year course in Philoso­phy, Latin, Greek and Hebrew, or if he has reached an equivalent level of educa­ tion, and if he successfully passes an entrance examination. The requirements for such an examination shall be set by the Senate and approved by the Board of Gov­ernors’ ” ( the proposed change is in bold print).
  • 2. The first ground for this proposal is that the university education is “totally secu­lar” and “of an extremely poisonous nature.”
  • 3. The consistory adds that this situation has become more serious during the 15 years after “the unanimous decision of the Synod of 1962 concerning the Admis­sion to the College upon a B.A. degree.”
  • 4. The consistory, therefore, deems this university education “inadequate for the principal preparation for the Ministry.” Smithers adds: “The Churches are pri­marily in need of Reformed ministers,” who know the Scriptures and related sub­ jects; and secondarily of ministers who are scientifically educated in the “wis­doms of this world.”
  • 5. The second ground for this proposal is that the great need for more ministers of the Word can be more easily filled if the B.A. degree requirement is dropped, since there are parents “who cannot take the responsibility of sending their chil­dren to a secular University.”
  • 6. The consistory adduces as its third ground that “the present Senate which pro­ vides both Scriptural and scientific education … is capable of safeguarding the degree of scientific education.”
  • 7. The consistory of the Church at Hamilton proposes to Synod to alter Article XXIII.
  • sub 1, through an addition as follows:
    • ” … who has a Bachelor of Arts or equivalent degree from a recognized Uni­versity or who successfully followed a three-year course offered at our Theo­ logical College, qualifies for admission to the College … ” (the proposed addi­tion is in bold print)
  • 8. The consistory of the Church al Hamilton expresses its agreement with the pro­posal of the Church at Smithers, although with an amendment.
  • 9. Hamilton states that Synod 1974, when arguing that parents. not Churches. must acquaint the students with the Holy Scriptures, is not to the point. The point at is­ sue is the teaching of classic languages, philosophy, etc., which teaching cannot be expected from the parents. Hamilton therefore asks whether the College could not provide such training for the time being for those who do not feel free to attend a secular university.
  • 10. a. Over against the statement of Synod 1974 that ii is not proven that the B.A. re­quirement is wrong, Hamilton argues that the B.A. degree is not a necessity re­quired by the Scriptures. Hamilton asks: “Is it then good and right to make (it) an absolute requirement?”
    • b. Since the B.A. requirement is a barricade for some. and can “cause some to stumble” Hamilton proposes to open two ways for admission: the way of the B.A. degree, and a three-year course to be given at the College.
  • 11. Hamilton adds that some universities do not offer courses in Biblical Hebrew or Greek, which has handicapped some students.
  • 12. The consistory of the Bethel Canadian Reformed Church at Toronto informs Synod that it is not in favour of the proposal of Smithers and states that “no Church should just come up with this matter again, without refuting the arguments of Synod 1974.” It adds that acceptance of Smither’s proposal would change the char­acter of the Theological College “into some kind of extended Bible School.”

I.  ADMISSIBILITY

Observations

  • 1. The proposal of Smithers is basically the same as the one submitted by the Church at Smithville to Synod 1974 !see Acts, Article 171. sub C). It differs in that it does not propose that a two-year preparatory course should be given at our College, but the main point in both proposals is to drop the requirement of a B.A. degree (see Information l J.
  • 2. Smithville gave as grounds that the “Churches need faithful men who shall be able to teach others also the pure doctrine of the Scriptures.” while the require­ ment of a B.A. degree will not “contribute to the required faithfulness, nor to the ability to teach others also.”
  • 3. The Church at Smithers adduces as ground that the secular university educa­tion, today even worse than 15 years ago, is inadequate for the principal prepa­ration for the ministry (see Information 2, 3, 4).
    • Consideration ad Observations 1-3
    • When Smithers says that the study at a secular university is “inadequate for the principal preparation for the ministry,” it uses in fact the same argument as Smithville, which Church said that the B.A. requirement does not “contri­bute to the required faithfulness, nor to the required ability to teach others also.” So both Churches adduce the same ground for dropping the B.A. re­quirement.
  • 4. Smithers adds as a second ground that the requirement of a B.A. degree is a hindrance for some parents to let their children study for the ministry. This same ground is adduced by the Church at Hamilton for its proposal, when it says that that requirement can be a barricade and can “cause some to stumble” (see Information 5, 10b).
    • Consideration ad Observation 4
    • This ground of both Smithers and Hamilton is a new ground, which was not adduced by Smithville and was not dealt with at Synod 1974.
  • 5. The third ground of Smithers is that the Senate “provides both Scriptural and scientific education,” and is “capable of safeguarding the degree of scientific education” (see Information 6).
    • Consideration ad Observation 5
    • This is also a new ground.
  • 6. Hamilton argues against consideration 2, b of the Acts, Article 171, sub C, of Synod 1974: “Not the Churches are called to provide training from childhood to become acquainted with the Holy Scriptures, but the parents.” Hamilton says that this consideration is not to the point. It argues that the point at issue is an education in classic languages, philosophy, etc., as preparation for the study of Theology (see Information 9, 10a).
    • Consideration ad Observation 6
    • Hamilton has the right to introduce this, since Synod 1974 did not clearly ex­ press itself on this aspect of the preparatory training necessary for admission to the theological studies at our College, namely, whether providing for this preparatory education is included in the task of the parents.
  • 7. The proposal of the Church at Hamilton is: for the time being to open a way for admission to the College besides the way of the B.A. degree, namely, the way of a preparatory course of three years at the College.
    • Consideration ad Observation 7
    • In its proposal to Synod 1974 the Church at Smithville proposed also a two­ year or three-year preparatory course at the College to replace the B.A. re­quirement. The difference between Hamilton and Smithville is, that Hamilton proposes to have that preparatory course as an alternative besides the B.A. requirement. However, there appears to be a similarity in this respect, that no longer the B.A. requirement is the only way for admission to the College.
    • Consideration ad Information 11
    • Hamilton’s third consideration that “some universities do not offer courses in Biblical Hebrew and Greek” adds a new element to the grounds.
  • 8. The Church at Toronto rightly states that “no Church should just come up with this matter again without refuting the arguments” of the previous Synod (see Information 12l.
    • Consideration ad Observation 8
    • It can be concluded that the proposals of the Churches at Smithers and Hamil­ton, though dealing with a matter which has been decided on at General Syn­od 1974, are admissible insofar as new arguments are adduced.

Recommendation

Synod decide

To declare the proposals of Smithers and Hamilton admissible insofar as new arguments are adduced.

ADOPTED

II. THE ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Observation

The Churches at Smithers and Hamilton propose to change the standards of ad­ mission to the College as the Churches in General Synod 1974 have adopted them in Article XXIII, sub I, of the Constitution: “A person who … has a Bachelor of Arts or equivalent degree from a recognized University, qualifies for admission to the College  “

Consideration

The Churches, desiring to have q good scholarly education for the Ministry, have for that reason decided that our Theological College should meet generally accept­ed scholarly standards, so that the degrees conferred by our College can also be recognized according to generally accepted standards.

Observation

The Churches at Smithers and Hamilton want to change the B.A. requirement as the only way for admission to the College, because:

  • A. The requirement of a B.A. degree is a hindrance for some parents to let their children study for the ministry 1Smithers), and can be a “barricade land) can cause some to stumble” I Hamilton).
  • B. “Some universities do not offer courses in Biblical Hebrew and Greek, which has handicapped some students” I Hamilton).
  • C. The Senate provides and safeguards both Scriptural and scholarly education (Smithers).
  • Considerations ad A.
    • I. The proposed change, as is clear from the adduced grounds, will mean for those students who would be admitted without a B.A. degree, that they – even if they would have passed an admission exam – do not meet the generally accepted academic standards, while studying at our College; and consequently will not meet the same standards either when receiving a B.D. or M.Div. degree from our College. This is so in spite of the fact that the theological education at our College in itself would be in accordance with generally accepted scholarly standards.
    • 2. This also applies to those students for whom the proposal of Hamilton creates the alternative of a three-year course at the College, unless this course would be changed into an Arts College which confers a B.A. degree that is according to generally accepted academic standards. However, this would mean that the Churches as Churches start an Arts College which confers B.A. degrees.
    • 3. In accordance with Acts, Synod 1974, Article 171 C. Considerations 2b, “Not the Churches are called to provide training from childhood to become acquainted with the Holy Scriptures, but the parents” (which also applies to the teaching of classic languages, philosophy. etc., for a B.A. degree), it is good to stress the calling of the parents and other Church members that they seek for ways and means to provide for such a Reformed Arts College on the basis of the Scrip­tures and in accordance with our Reformed Confessions and which meets gen­erally recognized academic standards.
    • 4. The adduced ground that the B.A. requirement is a hindrance and can be a barricade and a stumbling-block for some, does not show that the present require­ment is wrong. II means, however, that the Churches will be bound by the con­ sciences of some, if the Churches have to change the requirement for admission on this ground.
    • 5. As to Hamilton’s argument that the B.A. requirement is not a necessity re­quired by Scripture and that therefore we must be careful not to put up a barri­cade for some or cause some to stumble, it should be kept in mind that accord­ing to Article 31, Church Order, also the decisions of previous Synods regarding the requirements for admission to the College are to be considered “settled and binding, unless ii be proved to conflict with the Word of God  “Moreover, al­though the objections against the B.A. requirement, insofar as it brings along the necessity of attending a secular university, are understandable, to follow such a secular university training is as such not a sin against the Word of God, otherwise no Christian should attend any secular university.
  • Consideration ad B.
    • The argument of the Church at Hamilton that “some universities do not offer courses on Biblical Hebrew or Greek” is not a valid ground, since it does not take existing alternatives into account, e.g., attending McMaster University at Hamil­ton with the possibility of the guidance by the professors at our College.
  • Consideration ad C.
    • The argument of the Church at Smithers that the Senate provides and safeguards scholarly education is true for the theological studies. However, it cannot make up for the lack of scholarly preparation as offered in the study for a B.A. degree.

Recommendation

Although Synod agrees on the desirability of establishing a Canadian Reformed Arts College, Synod decide

  • Not to adopt the changes in Article XXIII, sub 1, of the Constitution of the College as proposed by the Churches at Smithers and Hamilton at this time.

REJECTED

The following motion, duly seconded, is discussed:

Synod decide

  • Not to adopt the changes in Article XXIII, sub 1, of the Constitution of the College as proposed by the Churches at Smithers and Hamilton, since it does not belong to the task of the Churches to provide for such instruction as may prepare students so that they can meet the standards of admission set for our Theological College.

ADOPTED

Print page