Why Aren't We Using Article 7?

Synod Surprises

If you’ve ever been to synod, you know that plenary sessions can take all kinds of interesting and unexpected turns. This year, I experienced one of those fun twists during the presentation of our advisory committee’s recommendations regarding article 24 of our Church Order (this is the article that describes how, and under what conditions, a commissioned pastor may serve in solo/lead positions in an organized church). In many cases, it was already required for a commissioned pastor serving in such a role to commit to completing the prescribed training for ordination as Minister of the Word as they serve. Our recommendation was that the requirement should apply to all but one of the exceptional scenarios. But the proposed amendment from the floor introduced an option for the commissioned pastors serving in these solo/lead roles to forgo seminary training and be ordained as a Minister of the Word through article 7.

Article 7 of the Church Order, if you’re not familiar with it, allows for someone to bypass the usual prescribed theological training based on “evidence that they are singularly gifted as to godliness, humility, spiritual discretion, wisdom and the native ability to preach the Word”. This article for ordination was intended to be used in very rare, exceptional cases.

On the synod floor, the amendment seemed to gain a bit of steam as delegates came to the mic singing the praises of one beloved commissioned pastor who had made a tremendous impact through his ministry and proposing that article 7 be employed in his case. Some questioned why it had been so long since article 7 was employed. A general excitement for resurrecting article 7 seemed to be emerging.

Since I had come prepared to talk about our recommendation for article 24, not article 7, my first response was something like, “uh…uh…uh…” (it felt like I said nothing but that for a solid 30 seconds, but hopefully it wasn’t actually that long), before I managed to eke out a very brief explanation of our historical troubles with article 7.  But there is, of course, much more that should be said on this topic. And since this synod session has raised my awareness that interest in article 7 seems to be on the rise in some parts of our denomination, I thought it would be helpful to offer a more thorough explanation of what it’s about and why it’s been a long time since we’ve used it.

A Brief History of Article 7

Synods over the years have been quite clear about how article 7 should and shouldn’t be used. Synod of 1947 warned that “this article should never be used as a means to ordain all layworkers who may desire such, and whose prestige would be increased by such action”. They also added that this article should “function only in the case of great need” (Acts of Synod 1947, pg 93-94).  

In 1965, synod officially added into article 7 the phrase “especially when the need is urgent”. This inadvertently resulted in an increased focus on the rationale of “need” instead of the main criteria, which was “singular giftedness”. As you might imagine, a wide variety of “needs” to forgo seminary training began to surface from within the classes. And over the next several decades, the number of article 7s began to skyrocket.

In the 70s, 1 of the 366 ministers of the word were ordained through article 7. 

In the 80’s, 17 of the 362 ministers of the word were ordained through article 7 (5%). 

In the 90’s, 21 of the 303 ministers of the word were ordained through article 7 (7%)

And from 2000-2010, a whopping 49 out of the 356 (14%) ordained ministers of the word had come through article 7.

In an attempt to curtail this trend, Synod 2004 decided to “return to the historical usage of article 7”, removing the need clause. And once again, the CRCNA aligned itself to the understanding that only very rare occasions of “singular giftedness” could justify overriding the usual prescribed training for Ministers of the Word. 

An alternative option was offered. Classes should encourage “more use, more status and more support” for the office of Ministry Associate (now “Commissioned Pastor”) for individuals who were gifted but not seminary trained. This synod also decided that it would be necessary to develop a Synodical Ministerial Candidacy Committee (now known as the Candidacy Committee) and task them with overseeing the denominational standards and processes for all routes to ordination, which would include making informed fair judgements about the appropriate use of article 7.

Since this standing committee of synod has been in place, article 7 has basically fallen out of use for reasons that I will attempt now to explain.

Why Aren’t We Using this Route to Ministry?

1. Because “exceptional giftedness” is subjective. As I was fielding pleas for resurrecting article 7 from the synod platform, I looked out at the many incredibly gifted, godly, humble, discreet, wise ministers of the Word represented in that room, all of whom had completed an MDiv before ordination. I thought to myself, “who would want to try to contend that they were more exceptionally gifted than all of these impressive people?”. There is a wealth of wisdom, knowledge, pastoral experience and godly character in the ministers of our denomination. Many probably already possessed those exceptional gifts when they entered seminary and surely those gifts were also developed through the formation they received at seminary. In either case, it is evident to me that God has blessed our denomination with a great abundance of giftedness.

Could there be some who are more gifted than all of these? Sure. And perhaps some objective way of measuring whether someone is “singularly gifted” could be developed…a test of theological knowledge, an evaluation of exceptional preaching… But how would one objectively measure the other important characteristics mentioned in article 7–“godliness, spiritual discretion, wisdom and humility” (wouldn’t the simple fact that the individual deems themselves “singularly gifted” lower their humility score?). My point is that as long as “singularly gifted” is the sole synodical criteria for article 7, it would be very challenging to maintain a fair process for determining which individuals are so extraordinarily gifted they should be allowed to enter through this route (and if we were to find such a gifted individual, why wouldn’t we encourage the development of those gifts in a seminary context, where they would surely excel?!)

2. Because the path of least resistance tends to become the one most trodden.  Our history has proven that when there is a pathway to avoid seminary training, people will find all kinds of reasons to take it. It’s human nature to want to follow the path of least resistance (I’ll admit that if this option had been open to me back when I was considering seminary, I’m quite sure I would have jumped on it. But after benefitting so much from my seminary education I am very thankful that my classis didn’t consider me “singularly gifted”).

Case in point: Just a few weeks have passed since this discussion came up on the floor of synod and I’ve already received emails from several current seminary students asking if they might be candidates for article 7. If we begin to accede to requests for article 7 entry for reasons other than true exceptional giftedness, the floodgates will surely open and all those who don’t want to go through the work of seminary training will come pouring in. To quote a church member who lived through the article 7 debacle of the early 2000’s, “everyone and their canary became a minister through article 7”. I appreciated the honest, humble confession of one synod delegate after he heard our floor discussion. He said, “I wanted to be granted a special exception but I’ll admit now that I was just too lazy to do the work.” 

The Candidacy Committee has received only a couple of article 7 requests over the last 4 years, and most have involved “exceptional situations”, not “exceptional gifts”. Valid reasons that seminary training would be difficult were presented: disabilities, age, busyness, etc. and we will continue to work on even greater support and accessibility for individuals in these sorts of situations. However, for every one of these reasons, I could tell you a story of a candidate who persevered through similar difficulties to complete their MDiv, and that perseverance produced good fruit in their lives and ministries (as the Apostle Paul noted, perseverance through suffering produces character, Rom. 5:4). I could also tell you stories of others who decided that seminary wouldn’t work for them and took the commissioned pastor pathway, finding it just as fitting for their ministry goals. The commissioned pathway has accomplished exactly what it set out to do, providing ministry opportunities for gifted people who aren’t in a situation that allows them to attend seminary.

3. Because theological training does actually matter. Our denomination has always believed this to be true, and despite our terrible habit of referring to theological training as “jumping through hoops”, I believe that we still do. Before I came to the CRC, I was ordained in another denomination that didn’t require much more than a few easy correspondence courses before approval for ordination. The positive side of this was that we grew quickly to be a huge denomination with a lot of ministers. But the negatives were also obvious. So many ministers taught faulty doctrine, exhibited ungodly character, and fell into abuses of power and other harmful sins. Sure, someone who has received theological training can fall into similar patterns, but it is my observation that they tend to be much less likely to–especially when they choose a seminary that drills into them the need for good exegesis and is intentional about teaching spiritual practices and good formation. Seminary is not just about training the mind anymore. CTS seeks to train the whole person and help them become truly ready for one of the most emotionally-difficult careers that exists. The candidacy process rigorously requires background checks, a psychological evaluation, abuse of power training and many documented references and reports of someone’s abilities. We believe that all of this is valuable and contributes to the health of the churches in our denomination.  

Doctors are required to get an advanced degree before they practice, and if they weren’t, surely people wouldn’t trust them with the care of their bodies. I wouldn’t want to find out that the doctor I trust has an honorary “MD”. I want to know that she has studied the subject thoroughly before she prescribes treatment for me. People (especially those who have had bad experiences with ministers in the past) want to feel confident that the CRCNA doesn’t issue honorary titles. When someone is called a “Minister of the Word” it’s because they have been thoroughly trained in exegeting and preaching the Word through seminary training. Ministers are entrusted with the care of people’s souls and representing God accurately to people through their teaching. Why wouldn’t we want to equip our ministers as thoroughly as possible for that work?

4. Because seminary training is now very accessible for all. Back when pursuing a seminary education at CTS required moving away from home and job to attend in person in Grand Rapids, there were a lot more valid reasons for people to feel this was impossible for them. Ever since Calvin Seminary started offering their MDiv in distance learning format, a whole new world of accessibility has opened up. This has rendered article 7 (even for the exceptionally gifted!) much less necessary.

5. Because the title “Minister of the Word” is not about honor. Since synods past have specifically stated that article 7 is never be used as a means to increase someone’s prestige, and since most arguments for using it lately seem to be based on a desire to give special honor, perhaps we need to stop talking about resurrecting article 7 and start thinking about creative new ways to honor our amazing commissioned pastors. After much ado was made about advocating for a particular long-term commissioned pastor to go through article 7, this man told me privately, “I don’t even want a different title! I was ordained an evangelist and that’s what I am.” So maybe we should ask these beloved commissioned pastors what forms of honor they would most desire, and then propose some good alternative ways to accomplish that. Perhaps there is some kind of distinction or benefit that could be issued to those who have demonstrated exceptional long-term service? I think there are many options that could be explored.  But let’s also become more intentional about honoring all of our commissioned pastors day in and day out, recognizing their valuable contribution, treating them with the respect they deserve and welcoming their perspectives on all matters of ministry. 

For all of these reasons the CRC has made the decision to continue to apply article 7 only in very rare and exceptional cases. The Candidacy Committee exists to serve the Church and we will continue to do our best to honor the intentions and expectations of synod for all the pathways to ministry you have tasked us to oversee.