GS 2010 art 95

GS 2010 Article 95 – Proposal from Langley re: A Fifth Professor at the

Theological College

1.         Material

  • 1.1       Proposal from the church at Langley re: a fifth professor (8.1.h).
  • 1.2       Letters of interaction from the churches at Burlington-Ebenezer (8.1.i), Flamborough (8.1.q), Guelph-Emmanuel (8.1.l), HamiltonProvidence (8.1.n), Hamilton-Providence (8.1.o), Cloverdale (8.1.u), Willoughby-Heights (8.3.L.7), Winnipeg-Redeemer (8.1.t), and Abbotsford (8.3.L.10).
  • 1.3       Letter from the Board of Governors (8.1.m).
  • 1.4       Report from the Board of Governors (8.2.l).

2.         Observations

  • 2.1       The church at Langley has made a direct proposal to Synod 2010 regarding the curriculum of our Theological College as well as to increase the number of professors
  • 2.2       Burlington-Ebenezer and Flamborough agree in principle with Langley’s proposal but feel that Synod is the wrong address for this proposal.
  • 2.3       Guelph-Emmanuel sees merit in the Langley proposal but notes that this new material has not gone through the minor assemblies.
  • 2.4       Hamilton-Providence and Cloverdale endorse Langley’s proposal.
  • 2.5        Winnipeg-Redeemer feels that the Langley proposal has merit, but needs to go through the minor assemblies. Should the proposal be admitted, then Winnipeg-Redeemer has more suggestions.
  • 2.6       Willoughby Heights expresses reservations about adding a fifth professor.
  • 2.7       Abbotsford supports the proposal to add a fifth professor and also that the Missiology department be strengthened.
  • 2.8       In its letter to Synod, the Board of Governors endorses the letter of Dec. 24, 2009, from the Senate of the College. The Senate suggests “that the Board of Governors communicate to Synod 2010 our appreciation for Langley’s desire to improve things at the College, but at the same time, request that Synod 2010 would leave it in the discretion of the Board of Governors, along with the Senate, to determine the specifics of how things should be improved, and in particular, how the teaching load would be divided in the event that a fifth professor is appointed at our College.”
  • 2.9       In its report to Synod, the Board of Governors indicates that it plans to come to Synod 2013 (D.V.) with a proposal to “seek approval for the appointment of a fifth faculty member.”

3.         Considerations

  • 3.1       There has been confusion and inconsistency in the past as to whether a church can directly address general synod on a matter of the churches in common (Article 30 CO), such as the Theological College (Article 19 CO), or whether such proposals must first be examined and supported by the minor assemblies. Inconsistency, however, is not a valid reason to refuse admission of Langley’s proposal. Langley also wisely sent a copy to all the churches and also to the Board of Governors, allowing for their interaction at this general synod.
  • 3.2       The Theological College is governed by a synod-appointed Board of Governors. It would be prudent if churches would first interact directly with the Board of Governors on proposals under their governance. Letters can always be sent to general synod later, interacting with the report that is submitted by the Board to every succeeding general synod.
  • 3.3       According to the report from the Board of Governors, the Board is in the process of undertaking a thorough review of a number of matters, including the number of professors. The Board plans to come to Synod 2013 with a proposal for a fifth professor. It would be good for the Board to consider not only Langley’s proposal, but also input from the other churches.

4.         Recommendation

That Synod decide:

  • 4.1       To instruct the Board of Governors, as it prepares its proposal regarding a fifth professor to Synod 2013, to continue to take into consideration the proposal of Langley, and also to take into consideration the suggestions and ideas of the other churches who wrote to Synod.
  • 4.2       To instruct the second clerk of Synod to forward the correspondence interacting with Langley’s proposal received by Synod to the Board of Governors for their consideration.