GS 1992 art 27

GS 1992 ARTICLE 27Theological College: Appeals

Committee II presents: Agenda item VIII A3,4 D1


  • A. Letter from the church at Burlington East, ON.
  • B. Letter from the church at Brampton, ON.
  • C. Letter from the Senate of the Theological College.


The letter from the Senate of the Theological College is admissible as its appeal pertains to a matter which involves the members and mandate of Senate (Act, By- Law 1, Section 9.01 (a)).


  • A. Synod Winnipeg 1989 decided “to instruct the Board of Governors that in the event of future appointments to the Faculty at the Theological College, the Board of Governors will make available to the delegates to General Synod the confidential report including curriculum vitae of proposed new professors for an available faculty vacancy one month before the convening of General Synod” (Acts, Art. 132).
  • B. The church at Burlington East, ON is of the opinion that Synod 1989 made the decision on insufficient grounds. They also adduce that a church seeking a change in a long established procedure must provide proof that the current practice is wrong.
  • C. The church at Brampton, ON states that the decision lacks any kind of proof that this change was necessary or even advantageous.
  • D. The Senate of the Theological College is of the same opinion regarding the absence of grounds. It also alleges that this decision “greatly reduces the margin of confidentiality.”


  • A. Synod 1989 considered that delegates to General Synod should be provided with the proper information in order that they can “prepare themselves adequately for their work at General Synod” (Acts, Art. 132, Cons.C).
  • B. The matter of preparation for the appointment of a new professor is a task assigned to the Senate and the Board of Governors (Theological College Act, Section 5.11(d); By-Law No.1, 9.01(a)).
  • C. The Senate states that “The Board of Governors is normally always available to provide further information on any proposed candidate to the Synod. Advance knowledge of the confidential report including curriculum vitae of any candidate is thus not an essential prerequisite for a well considered and responsible decision regarding appointment.”
  • D. The churches at Brampton, ON and Burlington, ON are correct in stating that the burden of proof lies with the church proposing a change in the long-established procedure. From the Acts of 1989 it is evident that, though Synod gives a reason for its recommendation, no proof is given why the existing procedure should be changed.


Synod decide to rescind the decision of Synod Winnipeg 1989, Acts, Art. 132.