Jump to navigation
Welcome! Ask your questions and let some of the CRC's church order buffs lend a hand.
Sorry, there are currently no posts in this topic.
Ha, Rod, that reminds me of Numbers 12:3 where Moses (most likely) under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote...now the man Moses was very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth... it was probably an interesting discussion between Moses and God with Moses possibly saying "Do I have to write that?"
Bill. Interesting you would focus on that. :) One way to find out what others read isn't it? :) Yes, you are right of course, and good for you to point it out. I realized it also after I'd written that, but intended to correct that later. What I really meant by that was that the church order seemed to be designed to accomodate or provide for eligibility for the pension fund. Am I totally off base on that?
In any case, this is not the main issue in this particular discussion. I wanted to mention it as an indication of a different sort of honoring, and this is true whether it is specifically in the church order or not. But the main thing perhaps is that we don't, or maybe no one knows what the phrase "equal in honor" really means? It doesn't seem to mean what it appears to say.
John, there is no reference in the Church Order itself to the Ministers Pension Fund.
Thanks, Dr. DeMoor, for your helpful input. I remember being challenged to attempt the Article 7 route to ministry and being shut down by Synodical deputies because there was 'no need' for more Ministers of the Word. That requirement was subsequently removed.
The fun part for me was that after being encouraged to attempt the Article 7 route, I was asked to send a letter outlining my qualifications to my church council. I objected to having to write in a letter to a church council that I possessed qualities of humility since the mere writing of such a letter would disqualify me from the position. :)
As a denomination we only fully honor those with formal theological training via seminary. No other form of education--self, street, mentoring--is as fully recognized. It is obviously because those other forms of education are tough to evaluate or critique and are often a bit 'holely'.
I liked when I became an evangelist. It suits me. Having planted a church and having helped build it to the place where it owns its own building and leads many to relationship with Christ and to deep healing of brokenness, I am content that I am doing what God has called me to do. I might do it better had I gone to Calvin Seminary at that time, but that was not a path open to a middle aged guy who was highly ADD and had classroom specific learning disabilities.
As more and more churches are planted out of local initiative using leaders gleaned from the harvest, it will be fascinating to see how we deal with formal education vis a vis education in its other forms. God used both a fisherman, Peter, and a university trained theologian, Paul, to build his kingdom. One suspects he continues to use both the formally and informally trained to serve him and his church.
Rob, I think it's helpful to resist looking at this on a two dimensional scale. "higher/lower", etc.
A credential is a tool that affords a community to grow beyond a "face to face" size. It is a piece of paper that allows a group of people outside of a natural, relational network to trust and afford authority upon someone to serve in their context.
Subscription to doctrinal standards are one element of that matrix of trust. There are many who can subcribe but who should not lead because they don't not have the gifts, training, experience necessary.
In our traditional system Seminary is more than just a school, it is a vetting process. Professors get to know students, students get to know each other, a community is formed where at least to a degree people know and are known. These multi-purposed arrangements are helpful but complicated. Some people are vetted because there are competency issues, others for character issues, others for content concerns. The broader credential (Art 6) is afforded because of hopefully the elongated vetting process. It is always a risk, of course.
The central question with respect to credentially is how can the community establish a tool that builds trust and affords authority beyond personal experience and face to face knowledge.
A second concern that you raise is how the broader church does discipleship, of which theological education and doctrinal subscription are an element. Our system suffers not only from point leaders that are wobbly theologically but also elders, deacons and members that are not always able to discern and lead from the positions they occupy. These are deep and complex issues. The Faith Formation Committee undertook a multi-year effort to address some of it, especially with respect to sacraments, but the issues run deeper and are intertwined with deep cultural and practical issues.
The Art. 7 conversation is a grappling with how we trust and invest authority for the important work of the church. Do we believe so much in the academy for ministrial preparation and vetting? Our "regular" process says "yes". It's track record isn't bad and there are good reasons for it. Your comments here also highlight that our system must also focus on what happens after the credential is awarded. That tends to be the work of classes and its work too is uneven.
The RCA West has done some good work with their "Credentialed Pastor" program. We can learn something from what they've done. pvk
I think you are giving a very good explanation of why things developed in the church order the way they did. Thankyou. However, these church order articles simply were not written well, and should have used different words, IMHO. Instead of using the term exceptional or singular gifts, which would always require some type of explanation (and apology), the article should have used the words that you used in your explanation, "gifts required to serve in the office..." or "gifts appopriate to....".
Article 6 and 7 combined below.
a. The completion of a satisfactory theological training shall be required for
admission to the ministry of the Word.
b. Graduates of the theological seminary of the Christian Reformed Church
who have been declared candidates for the ministry of the Word by synod
shall be eligible for call.
c. Those who have been trained at a seminary elsewhere shall not be eligible for call
unless they have met the requirements stipulated in the synodical regulations
and have been declared by synod to be candidates for the ministry of
d. Those who have not received the prescribed seminary training but who
give evidence that they are appropriately gifted as to godliness, humility, spiritual
discretion, wisdom, and the native ability to preach the Word, may, by
way of exception, be admitted to the ministry of the Word, provided they complete the Modified Ecclesiastical Program for
Ministerial Candidacy (MEPMC).
Professors of Calvin Theological Seminary and the denominational Candidacy Committee look for the exact same gifts in those entering the ministry of the Word via Article 6 as the Candidacy Committee and the Classis look for in those who apply to enter the ministry of the Word via Article 7.
The words "exceptional gifts" are used to distinguish between the gifts of all believers to be about their kingdom living and the additional gifts required to serve in the office of minister of the Word.
There is no "higher standard" for Article 7 than Article 6. The church simply looks at those who do not have the prescribed theological training (which includes communal discernment of gifts appropriate to the office of minister) and decides whether by God's "sovereign leading" they indeed have the gifts required to serve as ministers.
Article 7 was always meant to be a highly exceptional avenue into the ministry since most people benefit greatly from training provided for in Article 6. These are different avenues which is exactly why they are separate articles in the Church Order.
Thanks for your response. I quickly read article 6(and the supplements), and found no reference to exceptional or singular gifts in article 6. I might be having a problem with using the word "exceptional", since it is such a relative term. When we speak of having "gifts", we are already referring to something that is "different", are we not? Is not then the term "exceptional gifts" a redundancy? Or are we to assume that if you cannot preach like Billy Graham or Charles Price, or have not written several books on christian living, or do not spend four hours a day in prayer, that these gifts are not exceptional?
If we find for example that a non-seminary grad is an exceptional preacher, while a seminary grad is not quite so exceptional, does that mean the seminary grad is disqualified from being ordained?
My point is that the gifts do not need to be exceptional. They merely need to be gifts, to be there. The article 7 use of "exceptional" implies that we have a higher standard for article 7 than for article 6. Was this the intention?
Otherwise we should use the same type of terminology for article 6, in my opinion. Or simply combine the two articles into one article.
Another understanding of the word "gifts" has sometimes been given as "opportunities". Sometimes a God-given opportunity turns a rather ordinary gift into something rather spectacular and exceptional.
Historically, "exceptional gifts" -- or the earlier "singular giftedness" -- meant: qualities of godliness, humility, spiritual discretion, superior intellect, wisdom, and a greater than average ability as a public speaker. Today we're still in the same ballpark with this definition, meaning to apply the same range of giftedness and personal readiness for ministry that we use for Article 6's seminary graduates to those who seek to enter by way of Article 7.
Oh, and I've wanted to ask this question for some time now. What does "exceptional gifts" mean? How do these gifts differ from non-exceptional or ordinary gifts? How few people have to have them for them to be exceptional? or conversely, how many people are not permitted to have them for them to be exceptional? And what gifts are we talking about? Do all preachers have to have these exceptional gifts?
Personally, I don't think the term should be used, but I'm waiting to be convinced otherwise.
Okay, I agree with Paul... I appreciate your input, David.
Two separate points are being discussed. One is whether there should be other pathways to ministry and service. The second is how do we honor those who serve.
As to the first point, obviously there should be various pathways to ministry and service. For that reason it is good that we have a ministry associate path, although the "title" designates a lower honor, just like an associate professor vs a full (tenured) professor distinction. We'll get to that point in a minute.
The possibility of different pathways enables those with varying gifts and interests to use those gifts in a more beneficial and useful way. There are those who have taken the seminary route who barely qualified, and as soon as they finished, promptly ignored or forgot a great deal of what they learned academically. While they may have continued to upgrade and maintain their education in the fields of pastoral care and counselling and dramatic preaching, they were not interested in theological distinctions very much, nor in the classical languages, nor in history, nor in philosophy.
There are those who never went to seminary, who have read more and studied greatly on their own, and continue to upgrade their theological understandings, although they may not be particularly strong in counselling or other aspects of ministry. (Rob Braun raises some interesting points from his perspective; perhaps we need to evaluate that).
Then there are those whose main focus is evangelism, and all their theological study and pastoral care upgrading and counselling courses are geared specifically to evangelism. It would seem that various paths might be very beneficial to the different goals and objectives of our various faith ministries. A certain degree or pathway of education might actually in some cases hurt the actual goals of some ministries, simply because it is a diversion and delay to the calling put on some people.
Although various pathways are beneficial, we do need to ensure that the right level of education is maintained and encouraged. We need to be aware that Jesus taught his disciples for three years before He left them, and that they learned from him daily. Although we also need to be more aware of what Jesus really did teach them. I don't think there was much teaching of philosophy or psychology or counselling, other than what Jesus modelled, for example.
What we need more of is an understanding of what elders need in terms of education. If elders are to supervise the preachers, then how can they be trained to do that? If elders are to pastor, to lead, to exercise authority, then how are they trained to do that? And if elders, being equal in honor to preachers, pastors, deacons, ministers, and associates, then how are they to exercise that equality in honor? Should they be taught the basic contents of a sermon? Should they be able to write at least one acceptable sermon in their lifetime? Should they be able to feel confident about leading the sacraments? Should they learn how to make a productive and uplifting family visit?
And then, for those elders who want to learn more, how do we enable that learning? How do we recognize that learning?
Now to the second point, about equality of honor. I would suggest that other than the title, ministry associates have virtually equal honor to ministers. They are able to perform the same functions and are given the same general titles of preacher or pastor. The honor is given where it really counts, which is in the local church. When it comes to serving in the other classical churches, those churches can make that request, even if the process is a bit circuitous. When it comes to serving in classis itself, then they merely need to be delegated by their church as an elder; this would be similar for serving at synod.
The problem of equal honor is really at the elder level, and also the deacon level. But I will concentrate on the elder level. I want to concentrate on the elder level particularly because the designation of elder is particularly that of a ruling elder. And therefore it is unseemly (and not in good order) for a ruling elder to be perceived as somehow not having the honor and authority that a preacher or pastor may have. Obviously preachers and pastors have received specific training and calling for their task. However, the authority and honor of elders to preach, administer sacraments, give benedictions and blessings, should not be denied. Rather it should be encouraged. A seminary degree is not required to preach a basic elementary gospel message, nor to understand the sacraments. Nor is a seminary degree required to convey some particular ability to understand what the giving of a blessing is or means. Since elders are ordained in God's service according to the prescription of scripture, we ought not to distinguish in things that ought not to be distinguished in.
The church order makes too many distinctions based on honor, and not on function. For that reason, it deals with deposition of a minister, or loaning of a minister, while it does not do that for other offices. It deals with a pension fund for ministers, and not for other local church staff. It has numerous articles for ministers that could be relatively easily amalgamated with the content of the articles for ministerial associates, article 7 ministers, and elders and deacons. The distinctions that the church order makes both in the amount of attention to preachers, and in the manner of the attention, is contrary to its own injunction that the offices are equal in honor, while differing in function.
One example is the delegation of consistories to classis, and of classis to synod. The reasonable assumption would be that two elders, or three elders should be delegated, of which no more than one can be a pastor. This would be reasonable because of the normal fact that most councils have one or two pastors while having between four to twenty or more elders. So if a church should decide to send two elders who are not preachers, classis ought not to upbraid them. While this is not likely to happen too often, recognizing the possibility as a legitimate possibility is a way of recognizing the equality of honor. Classis is not a pastor's conference; it is a delegated church governance mechanism.
This is just one example; I could provide many more, but this is enough to chew on for now.
Thanks Dave, that's a very helpful answer. pvk
I find your discussion ironic concerning Article 7 candidates yet all the while we as a denomination are attempting to lower our standards for officers of the church in general by not requiring them to sign and endorse our church confessions. I agree that we went too far when it came to Article 7 but sadly in the dozen or so seminary graduate examinations I’ve witnessed here in my Classis over the last twenty years very few of them have shown their theological competency equal to the many brothers and sisters I’ve seen examined as Licensed Exhorters. In fact I’ve often raised my deep concern over the seeming lack of basic theological knowledge of many of these Calvin Seminary graduates. They rarely did very good when asked basic doctrinal and biblical questions and yet Classis would simply rubber stamp them through because, well, they are our Seminary graduates.
Again, perhaps I’m going off track here on the discussion concerning Article 7 but I believe our requirements of theological education for all officers of the church generally has fallen on hard times. It does concern me very deeply and makes me wonder about the nature of sermon writing going on in our denomination with our doctrinal and biblical standards seemingly being lowered in general.
Sorry to be late to the party -- this is a conversation I am living into with regularity in my role as coordinator of the ordination processes for the CRC.
Church Order Article 7 has been in the books for decades -- historically it was a way, in emergencies, to allow the church to proceed with an ordination of a person not theologically trained, but gifted --- and exceptional gifts was always a criteria. In the 1980s--2000's the CRC started using Art 7 with greater regularity (i.e. instead of once every other decade, there were mutiple cases each year, and growing). This trend fed into the agenda for the "Routes to Ministry" reports, studies done over an 8 year period that resulted in the creation of the denominational Candidacy Committee (initially called the SMCC)
One of the concerns is how the denomination can affirm the ministry (or potential ministry) of a person not theologically trained while still keeping a "high bar" on the value of theological education. Paul is correct that many other denominations do not have a bar as high as the CRC (though many do have as high a bar -- the MDiv is a standard bar in many denominations in North America). I am fully supportive of the thought that we need to learn from other denominations, and I seek to do so with eagerness. I'll observe, though, that is some cases we learn from practices that bless a group and may bless us, and we also learn from practices that don't work so well -- so as to avoid them,... The CRC is in the midst of deciding how these "lessons" from other denominations apply in the area of ordination/theological education/sequence....
The change of synod 2007 to go back to the "historical usage" of Article 7 was done in part to protect the value of theological education. (as Art 7s were happening more and more, students in seminary were naturally asking, "What am I doing suffering through these hard coruses and going into debt....?) It is important and significant to note, though, that part of the decision re Art 7 was tied to a decision regarding Article 23, which regulates the usage of Evangelists/Ministry Associates. The mantra that was adopted was "more use, more honor, more support" for this office. It is functionally, more and more, very similar to Minister of the Word (or at least it can be), and varies (or at least it can vary) in the "particular focus" of the ordination. A Minister of the Word is ordained for minsitry throughout the denomination; a Ministry Associate is ordained for a particular ministry. Of course, should the Ministry Associate seek to take a new ministry assignment, the process for transfer from one ministry to another is easier/more smooth than ever before... And for the record, we're on the continuum of change here, so there are some constrictions on use of Ministry Associate that remain.
One element of our current strategy (more use/more honor/more support) is that it is new and experimental: we're living into it, and we'll see how it serves us as we practice it. The barrier of "equal honor" is most strategically carried out at the regional and local level. In Classis GLA where I served, there has really been a longer history of equality of honor given to Ministry Associates and Ministers of the Word -- they serve together, respect and learn from one another. I have been seeing, in the 3 years I have been doing this job, that other classes are moving toward living out this "equality of honor" also. As I hear complaints from some who say "Ministry Associates are 2nd class", I challenge them to treat and speak of Ministry Associates as equal class -- it is the way we can help create this new culture.
Practically, the church is certainly enlisting the support of more and more Ministry Associates (doing ministry just like the formerly growing number of Art 7 persons was doing ministry). In fact, the last statistics I had showed that synod 2010 approved 40 positions of new Ministry Associates, and that same synod approved reports for classis exams for 40 new candidates for Ministrry of the Word. As the trend continues, we're not far from having close to half of our ordained pastors serving with minimal theological education -- and rather, serving with the informal education that John is suggesting, and serving with the "post-ordination" educaton Paul has suggested. It might be that as a system we more and more ordain people earlier (with Ministry Associate ordination) and then when they finish their theological education (doing education on the job, as life long learners) we ordain them into the Minister of the Word office.
Some denominations have done it this way for decades. We, the CRC, are in the midst of an experiment that could lead to this. I'm wondering if Paul and John support the experiment, or if they are more traditional (I doubt it, having had interchange with both of them), or if they are desirous of even more experimentation (I am guessing this may be, but I won't speak for them.) I will say that whatever our perspective on this experiment and change in practice, we need to function as a community, a community of Christ -- which means a lot of respectful conversation as we discern how best to serve the church.
I'm all ears (after I'm now out of breath...)
Just one little point I want to make, Paul, if you permit me, is this: just because something is debated at Synod, doesn't mean it didn't slip under the radar. Perhpas we ought to ask whose radar we are talking about. IMHO
Paul, I appreciate your comments. I agree we should be creative and diligent. Motivations are perhaps important, and thus useful, however, since they may help us to understand our goals and objectives.
For example, if one motivation is to have an educated leadership, how do we do that? Is it by ensuring jobs for graduates? perhaps. But another motivation may be to have more of the leadership educated. Which is a different way of looking at it. And to enable that, we need to make the education fit the situation.
We also need to realize that there is not an automatic correlation between giftedness (in the spiritual sense) and education. The two are not synoymous. While we would like to have both in every pastor, preacher, elder, teacher, we need to realize the limitations of education.
However, we do not need to be fearful that we will lose the value of education for preachers. A crass way of saying it, is that the cream will rise to the top. But that education should begin to have more value for the leadership (elders) of the church than it does today. That education should not be hoarded and boxed up like old university textbooks, but it should be shared to enable others (elders in particular) to carry out their tasks of teaching, preaching, encouragement, and leadership.
We have elders who potentially have listened to hundreds or thousands of sermons, read dozens of books on spiritual life, and attended hundreds of bible studies and many catechism classes. They are not uneducated. And then, we have preachers who are educated, but how do they pass on this education to others? Is it a matter of credential only that they know some Greek or Hebrew or have read some philosophers, medieval and ancient history, and have several volumes of several commentaries sitting on their shelves. Are they merely scholars? Or are they teachers too? If they are preachers only, then do they require the knowledge and background to become teachers? And who do they teach? Do the elders learn anything at all, so that the elders in turn can also preach and teach?
A ministry associate is generally in a church planting situation, right? at least that was the original intent. They will tend to be there on their own with some other planters perhaps (elders maybe). They will want a mentor (not a supervisor), just as any new pastor or preacher will want a mentor. If they need a supervisor, they will likely not be a good church planter, and they should stick to working in established churches. They need to get some elders as soon as possible to be the supervisors, who are there on a weekly or daily basis.
I abbreviated the process in my description. Another key piece to this was a synodical study committee that proposed "alternate paths to ministry" that tried to employ some of the thinking you just articulated. What came out of that was the Candidacy Committee that oversees the process by which people enter ministry through Articles 6, 7 and 8. What came as a result of all of these conversations was ironically (in my opinion) a more restrictive approach to the office of Minister of the Word. It's easy to imagine people's motivations in that but unhelpful generally. The result I think has been more focus on Article 23 (ministry associates) and how and whether they should be able to lead congregations without a supervising local Minister of the Word. I know of at least one overture that will come perhaps to Synod 2012 working from that angle.
I believe that all parties involved want the CRC to have the best equipped and gifted leadership it can have. Given the bubble of retiring ministers and the need to plant new congregations there is a shortage of ordained leadership. It will take all of our best efforts and wisdom to address these challenges. I hope we are not fearful but rather creative and dilligent in pursuing these goals. pvk
Hmmm, someone had a "feeling" that article 7 was becoming a new rule? or imposing on article 6? It was a new rule, after all. Exceptional gifts, does not suppose that they are required to be exceptional circumstances. I did not get the "feeling" that article 7 was suggesting that education was not important. Just that the method and pathway and content of the education might be different.
The most important part of education is experience. Every minister, preacher, teacher, agrologist, accountant and mechanic knows that they learn more in the first couple of years of actual work, than they ever learned in college or university. To equate elders with ten or more years of actual experience with a fresh seminary grad does a big disservice to both the value and the experience of these "elders". There might be value to suggesting that no one can be a "minister/pastor/preacher" unless they first have some elder experience, perhaps a minimum of six years.
We have to try to understand whether this is about job security for seminary graduates, or whether it is about service in the kingdom of God, within the body of Christ. And we also have to try to understand whether this "professionalization" of service is separating the body of christ from service and from the word, and is ridiculing the notion of the equal honor of all the offices.
The concern that lead to the closing off of Art. 7 was maintaining a standard of an educated clergy. Currently if you want to be a Minister of the Word in the CRC and you are not already ordained in another denomination (Article 8) you need a college education and an M.Div from CTS or an M.Div from another accredited seminary + fulfilling requirements set by the Credential committee. It's a high bar compared to many evangelical churches. We hope that this high bar creates a better church but there is also a recognition that there are many people who might not have an M.Div but with education and life experience can function well as a Minister of the word. The difficulty is figuring out how a system can figure this out.
A seminary education is a terrific preparation for ministry, but it is not the only way. If you go through CTS the faculty gets to have a multi-year look at you and they can speak to the church. There is a situation of "quality control" that hopefully helps the church. At the same time the church needs leadership and how do you process the "exceptions"? There was a feeling that the number of persons brought into ministry through Article 7 was making it a "rule" rather than the exception. pvk
Thanks for your reply. I think the term exceptional gifts should never have been used. It seemed to imply that Article 7 required exceptional gifts while article 6 did not. Ironic.
I agree it seems to provide a credential of some type of blanket approval. It does not in essence prevent someone from preaching or pastoring in my view, since they can receive approval from any local church which requests their service. However the onus would be on the responsibility of the local church. And there would be generally reduced request or acceptance of their service in churches where they are not a direct member.
And now we have the ministry associate category as you say.... where along with elders and deacons we have them treated as lesser individuals with lesser honor, which is contrary to the church order (which is contrary to itself). This is a great failing in our denomination, and it is a failing in the spiritual life of the membership.
Do you have an example of the abuse of article 7 (names not required)?
I understood your post, Micah :)
Thanks for brining this up. The method of our disagreement says a lot about who we are and whether we love each other - through speaking the truth in love and in submission to the authorities God has placed over us. Blog posts are a dangerous trap for us all.
Article 7 is in the church order. It allows someone to become a "Minister of the Word" because of "exceptional gifts". There was an increasing number of "exceptional gifts" coming through the classes. Synod determined that the article was being abused. The notion of "exceptional" was a victim of "grade-inflation". In order to reinforce Article 6 the candidacy committee (mandated by Synod) essentially "shut the door" on article 7 and there have been very few coming through. Word has gotten out to the classes (where the process generally began) that the door was closed. This didn't slip under any radar, it was publicly debated at Synod and it is enforced by the Candidacy Committee. Maybe David Koll could give more background on the subject.
I think Synod swung too far in the opposite direction on this. In the debate it was noted that historically Article 7 had been used by people like college professors to obtain a credential because they wanted to serve more broadly and freely in the church, traditionally in a day when barriers to the pulpit were higher than they are today. In my opinion Article 7 is not an article that affords opportunity to individuals but is rather a tool that the church needs to recognize individuals whose exercise of their gifts is needed by the churches.
Was there abuse? Yes. Is it also abuse to impoverish the church of ministers who are truly exceptional by refusing to render them a credential that would bless the church? Yes.
What has happened as a result of Synod "closing the door on Article 7" is that many who would have previously entered ministry by that path now become Ministry Associates (Article 23) and hold a classical credential. This opens up yet another conversation about office and "equal in honor". pvk
Henry, your first comment i agree with completely. Your second comment is unclear. But I do think a distinction needs to be made between the importance of the confessions and the flexibilities of church order and elements of worship.
This thread makes a VERY IMPORTANT observation. Without "a demand that our people assent to the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed and the three historic Reformed confessions" the CRC is a branch of the generic US civil religion.
I hear you loud and clear, Dutchoven. And I might even agree if it were limited to creeds, confessions, and amendments thereof. If the overture had done that, perhaps it would have been acceded to. Instead, the overture asked for all the "matters" referred to in Article 47: "adoption of creeds" but also "Church Order" and "principles and elements of worship." I don't know why the overture included these as well, but I'm convinced that's what led synod not to accede to the request.
At the same time, I still like our current system better because instead of ratifying changes at our classis meetings all by ourselves, we give classes lots of opportunity to "weigh in" and have their delegates come to synod so that classes remain accountable to one another in a deliberative setting when trying to make final decisions on major matters.
Henry, perhaps a "lemming footrace" to the edge of the cliff regarding doctrinal and polity change would have been tempered by the Overture that also was refused which called for a vote by Classes regarding major change in the way we do church?
Now you notice I emphasized "major," I don't think every Synod decision needs to be voted on by the "bush;" but a major decision on doctrine or polity would get a "check and balance" of sorts by the Classis.
The context of "submitting to the judgment" of the assemblies is the person's coming to the assemblies with an expression of disagreement with the CREEDS or CONFESSIONS and doubts whether he or she can fully assent to a part thereof. The Form of Subscription then says that after a judgment is made, presumably upon appeal by synod, the person must "submit to the judgment" of synod or face suspension from office or, if there is no change of heart, deposition.
We have always held that nobody may disagree with or criticize Scripture. It is possible to disagree with the creeds or confessions -- they are human documents -- but the individual must agree that the creeds belong to the church as a whole and that we are bound to uphold the doctrine contained therein. It is even more possible to disagree with or criticize a synodical decision. We must respect synodical decisions, and we may certainly appeal from them or ask a following synod to reconsider and revise a matter, but such decisions are not at the same level as the creeds and confessions.
Sorry about the formatting. It looked fine as I was writing it and now I don't know how to edit it.
That last chunk of writing was actually supposed to be several paragraphs. I'm not sure how that happened...
I want to add one other thing. I have a number of times heard sermons about what it means to be an elder, some of them after some elders finished their terms. One of the number one themes expressed was that you don't stop being an "elder" just because your term is up. This means that while you may stop attending so many meetings, and may not make official family visits, etc. the spiritual leadership does not end. As a retired or non-serving elder you may still lead services, read sermons, teach catechism, teach bible studies, and provide spiritual consolation and instruction. In fact, you should not stop doing these things, because these things are the essence of eldership, just as you don't stop being a deacon just because you are not attending deacon meetings.
While term limits may be a good idea, it is not a good idea to suggest that somehow elders and deacons have lost the ordination of the spirit and lost the blessing of the church when their terms are up, without having been disciplined or deposed. (As far as I know, there is no article 17 for elders or for deacons.)
Article 25 says that elders and deacons shall 'serve" for a limited time, "as designated by the council". So first, what does it not say? It does not say that that they shall "be" for a limited time. Presumably elders and deacons could "not serve" at other times, when they are not "serving" or when they are "retired".
Secondly, article 25 says those re-elected shall be reinstalled, not re-ordained, presumably because they have already been ordained previously. This assumes a lack of a break between one term and the next; however the principle is that terms can be extended even individually, and that limits are arbitrary, and that ordination is not magically lost at the end of an arbitrary term limit of two years or three years or five years. There is also the correct principle involved here that it is the local church through the council or consistory that sets the limited time. Theoretically this limited time could be limited until the age of 75, rather than a specified term of a particular number of years.
So, if a council designates an elder (previous elder or retired elder or non-serving elder) to "serve", by acting as a delegate to classis or synod, it can in so doing extend the limited time of service of that elder, since council has the authority to do so. (Much the same as an elder delegate to synod may be serving at the time he is chosen, and "not serving" when he actually "serves" at Synod). And, if the elder in question is not re-elected, but rather appointed for this specific purpose without an election, then a re-installation would not technically be required. If council decides that a re-election is advisable, then a re-installation would also be advisable.
Bottom line principle is that it is the local church that must decide whether the retired elder can fill that role or not.
As I see it.
It is probably a good idea to involve the existing deacons in the nomination of new deacons. However it is important to realize that in general, the difference in roles between elders and deacons is that elders are called ruling elders. Deacons are not given that mandate or task. When the church order fails to recognize that distinction, the order fails as a point of good order. In small churches it may be that the deacons are also given the responsibility of elders. In other words they are elders who focus on diaconal tasks, but are not limited to them.
In a sense the church order here has illegitimately usurped the authority of the local congregation to decide what portion of the council or consistory would be involved in nominations. The fact is that in most cases the entire congregation is involved anyway, while the final decisions ought to be left to the elders unless they choose to delegate that decision.
If both elders and deacons are listed as members of the board of trustees of the local church, then I would agree that both would have to be involved in the final decision for nominating new members of the board of trustees.
It's a good question you raise, Dutch. What the 2008 Revision of the Manual of CRC Government says is actually not the way I remember we used to do this in the classes I have served. We used to say, instead, and actually have in our written rules that elder delegates to synod must be in the office of elder at the time that classis chooses them; they are eligible even if their term comes to an end before synod actually meets; but they must be available to the first classis meeting to follow upon synod's meeting. What this different judgment on what's permissible points out for all of us is that this is truly an "extension" of what the Church Order says in Article 45. It is said there only that the classis must send two elders.
Before someone now concludes that therefore those currently not in office may be elected by the classis as far as the Church Order is concerned, let me point out two important things. The first is that Article 34 insists that "major assemblies are composed of officebearers." The second is that Article 25 does establish the practice of "limited tenure" and that therefore we do not have the polity that characterizes Presbyterian denominations and even the Reformed Church in America, namely, that there is "permanent tenure" so that you have active and inactive elders. By such a polity one might more readily come to a position that inactive elders may be called into action for the purpose of a synodical gathering. But we don't have that. We still have "limited tenure" and for some very good reasons. You may find them at Article 25 of my commentary.
So we can certainly give classes some freedom to have their own rules for delegating elders to synod, but I think that sending someone who is not in office at the time classis chooses does conflict with our Church Order and therefore should not be done unless we first revise the Church Order to that effect.
Is a move towards permanent tenure unbiblical, then? No, I don't think that case can be made. But history's wisdom is that limited tenure is desirable. How limited? Well, I have pointed out previously that in our system, when you review all the articles, you could be a deacon for ten years in a row .......... But that's another issue.
While I respect John's view here expressed, I must point out that Article 4 uses the word "council" for the assembly that is responsible for nomination procedure. It uses that word upon deliberate decision of the synod that carefully chose either "council," "consistory," or "diaconate" throughout the Church Order. I think that nomination of new deacons procedures should not neglect the input of hte deaons.
I would agree with Ken but say it in a slightly different way. Banner covers, like the covers of any magazine out there, are designed for only one purpose: to arouse interest in the reader to open up and read. Since the denomination has studied and is continuing to study whether children may be included in one way or another, under whatever conditions, the Banner chose a picture to put in an image where we are probing, not where we have been in the past.
Henry, is there room for change regarding Elder delegates to Synod- finding a way to utilize non-office holding Elders? Or would this be too much of a threat and diminish the authority of current officeholders, changing our polity model in an undesirable, or non-reformed way?
Eligibility of officebearers is ultimately the responsibility of the elders. According to the example of scripture, they chose or made the final decision on nomination of office bearers. If they choose to involve the deacons, then they may do that. If they choose to ask the advice of the congregation, then they may do that as well. In smaller churches, it is advisable to involve the deacons in decision making matters about church governance for the purposes of adding more "heads" to the discussion. In larger churches, this would not be necessary, and would relieve the deacons to carry out their own particular tasks and roles more adequately.
I totally agree with your point here, Dutch. But there should be a motion of acceptance by the elder's local church, as well as by the classis, to approve his nomination as delegate.
It is a magazine cover. It is moot to any issue on the Lord,s supper in most peoples minds. That is why you are not raising interest with the question.
I've asked the question before and no one seems to want to touch it. Are we supposed to use the front cover of the Banner some time ago which depicted an infant being given the bread & wine in celebration of the Lord's Supper as being age appropriate. One might think this is an official endorsement from our demonination's leadership.
Loretta, getting to your original question of changing governance, it would be helpful if you identified just what changes are needed and why they are needed. There is lots of flexibility to adjust governance to allow churches to manage their affairs. But it seems to me you will need a council and or consistory regardless. The deaconate work can be delegated to the deacons, and a frame of reference can be developed for the deacons. The context of their authority would be defined: how and when can they raise funds, and how they can spend it.
Then there are committees. They can be established, given a terms of reference, and a budget, or they can be asked to come back to council with all decisions, or just larger decisions over a certain amount of money.
There are lots of ways of doing things within the general and over-riding authority of the council, which is ultimately responsible, but can delegate some of that day-today responsibility to others.
Are you only concerned about the internal church matters, or also about the relationship of the church to classis?
Karl, you asked two questions. So first, about movers and seconders. The guidelines I provided are general guidelines. I think if you have a larger council or a congreg mtg, then they are good to follow. If you have a small council, say five or less people, then you could assume consensus for many motions if you like, since it will almost always be the same people making and seconding the motions. This is assuming that the meeting minutes identify who attended the meeting. It is also important to identify if someone comes later to the meeting, and when they entered. This will clarify if they were part of the discussion on a particular issue or not. For some issues, particularly money issues or changing bylaws or annual meeting or other governance issues, the formal motion would be required, especially by the Societies Act. It verifies that the motion was actually presented properly and voted on.
Second, yes, adding a who and when is a good procedure, and documenting it in the minutes ensures/encourages that a decision will be acted upon. The person responsible can be a part of the motion, or can be a consensus agreement after the motion. We often call them action items. This ensures accountability. This is not solely the job of the secretary/clerk to make sure that someone is accountable, but the clerk needs to record it and should remind the meeting that someone should be responsible for an action item.
For some items, detailing the "when" is essential, so that subsequent events and activities can take place when they need to. This may involve some timeline planning. For other items, the timeline planning will be left to the person/persons responsible for the action.
John, that's a pretty good set of guidelines! Thanks for it. It reminds me of the old wisdom that a decision is not really made unless it is accompanied by a WHO and a WHEN. Clerks and secretaries can often be helpful to the process by asking the mover (or the group) to include those pieces in a decision so they can be on the record. What do you think about that?
I've always been curious as to why minutes should include the names of movers and seconders of motions. Got any thoughts on that? Is it about accountability? Thanks.
Thanks for sharing this Dutch. I'd love to hear more about how the chairman set it up and how it all worked - maybe a topic for the Classis page! Is this going to become a regular thing for you in Classis Yellowstone?
That makes sense. I am sure that I will have more questions as things come up. The book should arrive tomrrow! (That in itself may generate more!) Thank you for your thoughts..
It worked! Yes, it appears "mutual censure" worked at our last Classis meeting as we hoped it would; whether it will in the future we will see.
Mutual Censure was put in the Agenda identified as a "time of unity and accountability," and placed as the last item prior to "Closing Remarks and Prayer,"
it was clearly defined by the Chairman as a tool that was designed to allow any comment on the table that would be helpful to bring closure to this session of Classis for the delegate- both if it addressed a problem, or merely praiseworthy. A "round Table" open discussion format was utilized, starting with the first person to the left of the Chair. If no comment was necessary, a simple "pass" could be used and the opportunity for comment would move on to the next individual.
It was rather interesting, few chose the "pass" option. The comments from the new delegates to Classis were most enlightening and helpful- and rather positive. Oh we had a couple of pointed comments to individual members, some sitting right next to each other- but interestingly enough, reconciliation began- if not flourished between the participants. That is not to say, things were left unsaid; but it was an opportunity to begin a "process" that may have been left undone, and later become unmanageable.
We actually had two sessions of Classis, a shorter one the night before that ended in a "concert of prayer" organized by "prayer and praise" worksheets. All delegates gathered around each church's delegation in succession, laid their hands on their shoulders- and prayed earnestly for each of the church's item(s) of praise or concern. Then throughout the next day session, time was set aside to pray together. Perhaps the atmosphere of group prayer helped "level the plain" for Mutual Censure at the session's end...perhaps not, but it worked this time.
Too often in the past we may have taken ourselves too seriously and become blinded to the "shoes" of another; walking together in prayer prior to the "path of censure" may have allowed for a different journey. There remain skeptics I am sure to this plan, but this time group mutual censure worked.
May we continue to find ways to build "unity and accountability," and if this works- we will continue our journey together...gracefully.
Thanks Dutch, That is good to hear in a time of polarization that is becoming too toxic.
"Bringing new members into the body" is covered in Article 59 of the Church Order and you will note the use of the word "consistory" in that article. That, again, is deliberately chosen because this falls clearly within the responsibility of the minister(s) and the elders, not the deacons. Conditions of membership are also the responsibility of the consistory, although if this is discussed not with reference to any particular person joining but with reference to membership conditions in general, it would be wise for the consistory to ask for and receive council approval.
Historically, none of our churches that I know of have asked those wanting to be full members to sign anything, but profession of faith, if that's what's done, involves a liturgical form where the person, in a worship service, promises to submit to the government of the church. Even if such a promise where made in an earlier congregation and the person is now transferring membership to another, that promise made in a public worship remains.
Thanks for the encouraging note about my commentary being helpful to you.
I will assume that the director of your preschool is not ordained to any office in your church, i.e., that he or she is not a minister, elder, or deacon. Note that I have a response to a similar question about an unordained person attending council meetings as the second Q&A attached to Article 35.
The short answer here is that everything depends on what "sitting in" means in your question. If it means that he or she attended but just observed, did not participate and did not vote, there is no violation of Article 35 because, in principle, all meetings of council are open to the public. The only exception is when the council must meet in executive session. If "sitting in" actually meant that he or she participated in the discussion but did not vote, then there might still be no violation. Councils are free to grant the "privilege of the floor" to unordained visitors, especially on issues that concern such visitors directly. If it meant that he or she participated in all discussion on every issue, that would start to be a violation of a sort: it would be a matter of common courtesy to defer to the regular members of council on most issues except where you yourself are definitely involved. You'd be exceeding the boundaries of just having the "privilege of the floor" for a reason. If, finally, it meant that he or she voted on issues while not ordained, that would most definitely be a violation of Article 35. The council, says the Belgic Confession, is made up of ministers, elders and deacons, not the unordained.
Hope that helps a bit. Blessings in the EPMC program.
I am new to the CRC as of 7/2010 and an applicant to the EMPC program. As a participant in David Koll's "Welcome to the CRC" week, I was encouraged to purchase and read your commentary. So, I am half way through and finding it to be very helpful! I appreciate your experience and clear writing style. I have especially have benefitted from your responses to the questions at the end of each section. Thank you for investing in this project and the Lord’s work here at Hope Community Church, Flagstaff.
Our previous pastor allowed the director of our preschool to sit in on the entirety of our council meetings on a regular basis. Is this a violation of Article 35?