Okay, I just heard something about article 7. What happened there, and how many people knew about it, and how did that slip through the radar?

How has the Article 7 change affected those seeking to become Ministers of the Word?
Posted On
June 21, 2011Updated On
November 29, 2011Let's Discuss…

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
- Log in or Register to post comments

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
- Log in or Register to post comments

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
- Log in or Register to post comments

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...)
- Log in or Register to post comments

Thanks Dave, that's a very helpful answer. pvk
- Log in or Register to post comments

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.
- Log in or Register to post comments

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
- Log in or Register to post comments

John, there is no reference in the Church Order itself to the Ministers Pension Fund.
- Log in or Register to post comments

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.
- Log in or Register to post comments

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.
- Log in or Register to post comments

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.
Rod
- Log in or Register to post comments

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?"
- Log in or Register to post comments