GS 2013 – Article 90

3. Considerations:

3.1.      Synod agrees with the committee that good stewardship is important.

3.2.      There is an overwhelming consensus in the churches that a loan program is not the best way to achieve our goal of promoting stewardship. Lincoln captures this concern well when it writes, “[The ministry] is an office, not a job. It is a service, not a career or a profession. We are concerned, most of all, that the rationale put forward by the committee for this requirement reflects a misunderstanding of the uniqueness of the work of the ministry. Theological students are not studying with an eye to financial return on their investment, but are investing their lives in the life and well-being of the churches. Their tuition and other costs should be seen in that light.” The guidelines should be re-written in this spirit.

3.3.      There may be circumstances when a student should be required to make repayment (e.g. withdrawal, dismissal). Since circumstances could vary in such situations, a nuanced approach is necessary which allows the Committee discretion in those cases. Normally, no repayment will be required of anyone who enters the ministry in the Canadian Reformed Churches or a sister church.

3.4.      Three churches have expressed the desire to revert the funding of needy theological students back to classis, while a significant number of other churches have indicated a desire that the system be fine-tuned. Since the centralized fund was only introduced three years ago, it would be premature to discontinue it already.

3.5.      Normally it would be good for the churches to be assessed a moderate amount for budgeting purposes every year rather than widely varying amounts.

3.6.      It could be helpful if the committee would consider the government guidelines for student grants and loans as some of the churches suggest.

3.7.      It is not necessary for a minister to be appointed to the committee, but a minister could serve the committee in an advisory capacity. When the appointed church is vacant, the counsellor could serve in the same way.

3.8.      Synod does not consider it necessary to provide the committee with an outline of what the committee is expected to pay for on an item by item basis. The committee works under the auspices of council and if council is unable to give the necessary assistance, classis can be consulted.

4. Recommendations

4.4.      To mandate this church [Grassie]:

4.4.1.   To review and modify the current guidelines and procedures in light of the considerations mentioned above, with a special focus on Considerations 3.2 and 3.3 mentioned above.

ADOPTED

GS 2010 – Article  91

3. Considerations

3.1       Article 20 of the Church Order states, “The churches shall endeavour that there be students of theology, extending financial aid to those who are in need of it.” It would be beneficial for each local church to nurture and generally support suitable students of theology in their midst. Presently, the financial aspect of that support is handled collectively by the churches in each classis. However, the Church Order does not specify any particular method of financial support and therefore different options are possible.

3.2       It is a fact that certain classes deal regularly with requests for needy students and other classes only rarely. While it is an honour to support those who aspire to be labourers in the Lord’s harvest, it is financially inequitable when some churches pay significantly more for a benefit which accrues to all the churches in common. Appointing a committee to set up a fund administered on behalf of and supported by all the churches in the federation would eliminate this inequity.

3.3      With so many different classes existing across the federation of churches it is inevitable that the various classical funds for assisting needy students of theology will be administered in different ways. Such a situation is quite vulnerable to give rise to the inequitable treatment of students. Appointing one committee to deal with all such students throughout the federation would help avoid this.

3.4       When students of theology encounter a financial need, it is highly desirable to address that need in an efficient and timely manner. Having a student interact with a committee that is in close proximity to the Theological College would allow for this to occur more easily.

3.5       A committee in close proximity to the College would better be able to identify the living expenses for students of theology who are enrolled there and consequently live in that area, than a committee based further away.

3.6       A fund established by and supported by all the churches to assist needy students of theology would be the manner in which each local congregation addresses such needs. Therefore it is inconsistent to, as Classis Ontario West proposes, insist that the “responsibility for short-fall rests first of all with that local church.” Each local church would be contributing to one central fund. Therefore all requests for help on the part of eligible students should, from the start, be directed to a synod-appointed committee. The Committee would be free to contact the home church of the student should it desire verification or further information. The historical origins of the Canadian Reformed Churches demonstrates that there is precedent for establishing one general fund among all the churches. After a time when this task was divided among the churches according to classical districts, it appears to be wise to return to the original model for all the reasons listed above.

3.7       On the model of the PTP, which appears to be working well, it would be best to appoint a local church in the area of Theological College to serve as this Committee for Needy Students of Theology. This church would then be free, at its discretion, to appoint a committee (which would be under the supervision of the consistory with the deacons) to administer this fund.

4. Recommendation

That Synod decide to appoint a church in proximity to the Theological College as Committee for Needy Students of Theology to look after extending financial aid to those students of theology who are in need of it.

To mandate this church:

4.1       To advise each classis in the federation of its existence and synodical mandate and to seek their cooperation in setting up and maintaining one general fund.

4.2       To request each classis to share with the Committee the mandate they as classis currently have for their fund for needy students of theology.

4.3       To solicit additional input from each classis toward the particulars of their Committee’s own internal guidelines and then to develop such guidelines for the support of theological students in need.

4.4       To request each classis to consider sending their existing funds (currently set aside for needy students) to the Committee to be pooled together into one general fund.

4.5       To assess the churches annually as per number of communicant members in the current Yearbook based on the anticipated funding required for the year ahead.

4.6       To report annually to each church of the federation on its activities and to report triennially to each general synod on the same.

A motion to delete the line “Such a situation is quite vulnerable to give rise to the inequitable treatment of students” in section 3.3 was defeated.

The proposal as a whole was then ADOPTED.

GS 2016 – Article 108

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide:

4.1.   To thank the Grassie-Covenant CanRC and the committee for their work;

4.2    To discharge Grassie-Covenant for the duties completed during the period January 1, 2012 – December 31, 2014;

4.3    To re-appoint Grassie-Covenant as the Committee for Needy Students’ Fund (CNSF) to look after extending financial aid to those students of theology who are in need of it;

4.4    To mandate the CNSF:

4.4.1     To review the current guidelines and procedures in light of Cons. 3.2 above;

4.4.2     To assess the churches annually as per the number of communicant members in the current Yearbook based on the anticipated funding required for the year ahead;

4.4.3     To report annually to each church of the federation on its activities and to report triennially to each general synod on the same and to conclude this report to synod with appropriate recommendations.

ADOPTED

GS 2013 – Article 90

4. Recommendations:

That Synod decide:

4.1.      To thank the church at Grassie and the committee for its work.

4.2.      To discharge the church at Grassie for the duties completed during the period October 2010 to December 2011.

4.3.      To re-appoint the church at Grassie as the Committee for Needy Students of Theology to look after extending financial aid to those students of theology who are in need of it.

4.4.      To mandate this church:

4.4.1.   See “Texts of Implementation”

4.4.2.   To assess the churches annually as per the number of communicant members in the current Yearbook based on the anticipated funding required for the year ahead.

4.4.3.   To report annually to each church of the federation on its activities and to report triennially to each general synod on the same.

ADOPTED