01 Apr GS 1980 art 57

GS 1980 ARTICLE 57 – Appeals – Article 19, Church Order.

Committee I presents:

A. Material –  Agenda VIII,

• I, 14 –  Appeal from the Church at Chatham against the decisions of the Regional Synod East, June 1980. re: Article 19, Church Order.
• I, 15 – Appeal from the Church at London, re: the same matter.

B. Observations:

• 1. The Church at Chatham requests Synod to declare: “that R.S. Ontario of June 1980 should have granted Chatham’s request by pronouncing that Classis Ont-South of May 28, 1980 made a wrong decision when it decided to give support ad Article 19, Church Order to a needy student, not only for his theological studies, but also for his needy family; on the grounds:
  • 1.   that Chatham’s request was in accordance with previous decisions of major assemblies re: the interpretations and application of Article 19, Church Order;
  • 2.   a. that the basis of the decision of Classis Ont-South of May 28, namely that excluding the family of a needy student renders Article 19, Church Order “too restrictive,” is not valid, since ad Article 19, Church Order speaks only about the student, and, accordingly, major assemblies wanted the support just to be restricted to the actual cost of the theological studies (Classis Ont-South April 1968 and General Synod, Orangeville 1968); and since
    • b. supporting a needy family in the Church, including that of a student ad Article 19, Church Order, is more on the way of a local church to which his family belonged before the time of the application for enrollment at the Theological College, as pointed out by Class is Ont-South of December 2, 1970.
• 2. The Church at London appeals the decision of Regional Synod, Acts, Article 7 as incorrect and based on faulty grounds; it expresses its concern about “a careless and indiscriminate use of Church funds and pleads for proper restrictions with regard to the support of needy students ad Article 19, Church Order.”
• 3. The Church at London adduces the following grounds:
  • a. there is no principal difference between a special temporary fund as it existed in 1968 and the present situation. If there is, it should have been pointed out. As long as this has not been done, we should abide by the advice of Synod Orangeville 1968 “to restrict this assistance to the actual cost of their theological studies,” Article 172, Acts.
  • b.  While Article 19, Church Order speaks “neither exclusively nor inclusively of married or unmarried students,” it does state that support should be restricted to “as far as necessary,” both with a view to the churches and their theological students. The inclusion of these words reminds ecclesiastical assemblies to lay no greater burden on the churches than is necessary.
  • c. The addition of the Synod Utrecht 1905 (the words “as far as neces­sary”) also makes clear that the primary responsibility for bearing the cost of theological study rests upon the student and his family (cf. Meulink and de Wolff, pp. 60-61). This implies that in general full sup­ port of families of theological students falls outside the jurisdiction of Article 19, Church Order.
• 4. As long as there is no principal change, we should abide by the previous decisions of Classis Ont-South December 2, 1970 (Acts, Article 6) and Synod Orangeville 1968 (Acts, Article 172), which maintain a limitation of the support given to the actual costs of the program of study.

C.  Considerations

• 1. Article 19, Church Order leaves it in the freedom of the churches to decide in which way the support of needy students in theology be arranged.
• 2.  The words “as far as necessary” in Article 19, Church Order are a sufficient guideline for the churches to set the standards for their support all according to the lesser or greater need in the churches for ministers of the Word.
• 3. The principal difference between a general fund (like the temporary fund of 1968) and the classically operated funds (the present situation) lies in the different instances which are in authority over these funds: General Synod over the general fund, Classis over the other. A rule made by one authority re: the funds under its jurisdiction is not binding on another authority re: the funds under its jurisdiction.
• 4. The recommendation of Synod Orangeville (Article 172A) “to instruct its deputies to restrict the financial assistance to the needy students at our own Theological College to the actual cost of their theological studies,” was based on the “character and set-up of this General Fund” (Consideration 3), not on the character of Article 19, Church Order, and therefore cannot be understood as a generally binding interpretation of Article 19, Church Order for all the churches and their deputies ad Article 19, Church Order.
• 5. To understand the recommendation of General Synod Orangeville Acts, Article 172 otherwise than as an application of Article 19, Church Order for the funds under Synod’s jurisdiction and as a rule binding on its depu­ties only, would lead to the conclusion that Synod Orangeville had changed the Church Order of the churches, by giving a binding rule where Article 19, Church Order itself gives freedom to the churches.

D. Conclusion

Since the fund under discussion is not a general fund, it is not in the province of General Synod to decide whether the classically cooperating churches should set restricted or less restricted standards for their support.

E. Recommendation

Synod decide: not to grant the requests of the churches at Chatham and London.

ADOPTED