Ronald VanAuken

Perhaps this shortage is a good thing. Too many congregations seem to be pastor-dependent. Not only so but if one takes the scriptures seriously, the ministry has been placed in the hands of all the people. Read 1 Corinthians and then all of the "one another" passages of Paul. Some 35 years ago I knew a congregation that intentionally did not seek a pastor when its pastor accepted a call to another church. Reason: they wished to build up the congregation. It's time we returned to our biblical roots. 

le we may "give to Caesar" our true citizenship is "in heaven," i.e. the Kingdom of God. I would not wish to even tacitly suggest that there is a correspondence between earthly kingdoms and the eternal kingdom. We are seeing too much unhealthy "Christian" nationalism. Looking back at the last congregation I served, over a period of years we removed the flag and removed the picture of former pastors from the wall. In place we put small flags the represented all the nations from which our people came (some 26 at last count) and a small plaque with the words from Revelation 7:9 & 22:2. I say this as one who is a dual national (U.S. and Canada) and who set aside a deferment to join the U.S. Marine  Corps during the Vietnam era. So while a proud American and Canadian, a national flag in the sanctuary is no appropriate. Communities offer ample opportunities to celebrate national holidays.

It is a rather Hasidic way of thinking! :) While the Hasidim acknowledge the future and the world to come, their focus is present and how they can embody God's chesed or divine love in the present. What we do in the present helps to form the future. Hence Paul's "pray constantly." If he was drawing on his Jewish background and the word customarily translated as "prayer" he was actually saying that we are to be in constant communion with the Lord, not simply during scheduled times of devotion. The whole of our lives are to be an act of worship. This is not to mention that the present is all that we have. Tomorrow and all its plans are guarenteed to no one.

The idea came to me some 46 years ago when I was pastoring in Edmonton. The congregation had always done a VBS, and it was the usual one-week program. I made the suggestion that we try something just a bit different. Rather than 1 week, we would run it for 6, and rather than every day we would do it for 3 days, M-W-F, but the Friday program would be a field trip of some sort.

It was in the years when the CRC had SWIM (Summer Workshop in Mission) teams for teens and we signed up for one, usually 5-6. We spent a week or so orienting and training the SWIM team members who would then be largely responsible for running the program. (At the end of the summer I would always take them to Jasper National Park as a “Thank you” for their work.)

The first day of the program was always a “carnival.” It was a time to get to know one another, learn about the summer, and generate excitement. We would have a number of fun activities which might include and ice cream stand, a jumping castle, a cotton candy machine, face painting . . . just about anything. The goal of the entire summer was to acquaint participants with the Christian faith and to communicate that faith can be fun. Trying to dispel the old notion pf an angry God just waiting to drop the bombshell on unsuspecting sinners.

When we moved to Ontario, we did VBS in a similar fashion and despite being church plant with not a whole lot of members and the SWIM programs being no longer, we managed to pull it off with adult staff, using individuals according to their gifts and moving the children from one activity center to the next. Our average enrollment for the programs was about 80 with a waiting list of similar size.

I enjoy trying new things and this was one that caught on.

There has been considerable discussion over several years on the matter, it is not just recently that it has come before Synod. Discussions of the HSR within congregations, from what I have heard, is quite a different matter. At some point a decision needs to be made and the reality is that which ever party sees said decision as being contrary to their position will suggest that they have not been heard or their views taken seriously. That is not necessarily true, simply that a contrary decision has been made. Listening and listening and understanding and  even empathizing with another's perspective does not equate with agreeing of compromising. 

I write this as one who has a granddaughter who is now unable to serve as an officebearers, should she be approached, and I am endeavoring in my comments to be objective.

First, the topic has been before us for some time. Sadly, there are several Councils who have avoided it, not bringing it before the congregation for a respectful conversation. It is rather like, despite warning, not moving until the tsunami wave reaches the beach.

Second, we do not have an episcopalian polity, but a presbyterian. Synod is made up of delegates from each Classis and, for the most part, those delegates change from year to year. So, one might well say that we are Synod as every Classis delegate participates in selecting the delegates to Synod.

Third, I would suggest, considering the above, that the real discussions should have taken place on the congregational and Classical level.

Fourth, I find it sad that we tend to see it as a win/lose issue rather than a seeking and hearing the will of the Lord for the CRCNA. Any process of decision making will be flawed and there will always be some degree of questioning unless the Lord comes down with an unrolled scroll clearly visible to all. Should a different set of decisions have been made, it would simply be a different set of individuals troubled by them. 

Fifth, the definition of "unchastity" that we have adopted is consistent with what the church has held to be true for some 1900 years. It was simply a matter of clarification. Nothing new.

Sixth, the issue itself was a societal issue before it became a church issue. Hence one could say either that the church is ceasing to the ecclesia (called out of the world) of God and we're just a reflection of the world or that we're just slow to recognize injustice in our own midst, or perhaps both.

Seventh, perhaps we can learn something from Jewish debates. Hillel and Shammai come to mind here. The debate was how the Menorah candles should be lit: one each day until all were lit (Hillel), or all lit and ne extinguished each day (Shammai). With excellent arguments on each side, it was impossible to decide but one had to be made. So, they asked which rabbi had the larger group of followers and it was Hillel. It was essentially a vote. So, some 2,000 years later they are still it one each day until the full Menorah is lit. Though a decision was made, it was not seen as a win/lose nor was Hillel's argument seen to be better, Shammai's inferior. They were both acknowledged as being equal, both respected. The discussion reflected the Jewish saying, "Disagreeing for the sake of Heaven." That attitude, sadly, is difficult for many of us.

As difficult and perhaps flawed as they are, the decisions have been made. The question now is, "How do we move forward and even "Can we move forward together?" 

The topic is a fascinating one and our theology around it presumes a great deal. 

Assuming we truly wish to be scriptural, we would need to ask the origin of what we do. There is no agreement amongst scholars here; but if we trace it to the Passover meal, then our Lord's words, "Whenever you eat . . " would clearly indicate that he was speaking of the Passover bread and cup and thus we would celebrate annually. Regardless, the "officiant" was not a priest or a rabbi; but the host or head of the household. That we have limited it to clergy and a few select others is clearly a departure. It was also clearly a meal. So once again we have departed. Note that it was also in homes, not in the synagogue, let alone the temple. So it seems to me that, setting an understanding that developed over decades of church history, what we do today is clearly a departure from the practice of the first gatherings of Jesus' followers.

I would suggest that the place to start would be to sketch out what is required of elders by our Church Order—assuming that we are concerned about Church Order, and then what is wanted or expected of them by council and the congregation at large to be an effective community of faith. It is the old “form follows function” thing.

In many respects our Church Order tacitly assumes day long gone. By that I mean an ear when fewer people commuted, and era when the church was the center of life for most Christians and even for the community, an ear when there were far fewer activities available for both children and adults. So individuals were home more for pastoral visits and elders had more time to make them. For many these are, indeed, days gone by.

In the last congregation I pastored we had the usual districts but faced with a similar challenge we did a few things. First, we asked each member whether they would value a regular (at lest annual) visit from the pastor and an elder or whether they would opt for a “If we have a need, we will call” approach. The vast majority opted for the latter. So right away the number of expected/required visits were reduced.

We then prioritized. Those who still desired would have them. Those who were experiencing difficulties, loss, grief, etc. would be prioritized for a visit “immediately.” The second priority would be individuals who seemed to be drifting away from the faith or the church.  Visitors and those seeking membership would be a third priority. I would suggest that this probably reduced the “obligation” by about 75%. The last thing that we did was to encourage each elder to have a district gathering over a meal once a year. Some would host this in their home, some at the church building. It would be a time of community building, sharing, encouragement, and prayer. The elders, as well as myself as pastor, would still make other visits, but this allowed us to focus on needs and relieve the pressure.