Ronald VanAuken

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.

I am not sure there is a simple scriptural/biblical response to this. I say this because the nature of the church changed during the apostolic era and continued to change after.

"Church" is a very poor translation of the word ecclesia which literally means "those called out" and came to refer to a community of individuals who were, in some manner, separate and distinct from others. Contrary to what we have been lead to believe, the ecclesia/church was not founded on the day of Pentecost. It was founded by Jesus when he called the first disciples and they essentially left everything to follow him, both literally and figuratively.  There was no particular requirement, simply that they tag along, learn from him, and seek to model themselves after him. This was what it meant to be a disciple.

That was when Jesus was out and about. Once he was (physically) no longer present, others essentially took on his teaching and when they passed, others took on their teaching. This meant that individual thoughts and responses came into play and the simple following of Jesus was lost to an increasingly complex and bureaucratic organization where the ministry of the many became the ministry of the few, namely the clergy. It also necessitated or at least invited a distinction between membership in the ecclesia/church universal and membership in a particular congregation or denomination with its distinctive beliefs and practices. 

Some congregations have addressed this by acknowledging everyone as members but requiring an understanding and commitment to their particular beliefs and governance before assuming a leadership position.

How do we wish to see the church? o we wish to see it primarily as a building and a highly organized structure, or do we wish to see is as an assembly of believers, which the biblical word we translate as "church" actually means? If we desire to be what the gathering of believers was, and which our Lord formed, then we must begin with the ecclesia, the assembly, and for that I would suggest that "best practices" begins with what has traditionally been called mutual censure. By this I mean that in my idea congregation, leaders would have a bond between them that is more than superficial. They would meet to "confess their sins and pray for one another," tio build one another up, to bear each others burdens, weeping with those who weep and rejoicing with those who rejoice. Having behind me nearly 50 years of ministry in 3 denominations as both pastor and in executive positions, and now with the CRC, it is my conviction that a truly spiritual or godly congregation cannot be effectively led if its leadership is not seeking to exemplify a life of faith. It is fundamentally not the talk; but the walk. And no, I am not a fundamentalist, just trying to get on board with what I her my Lord teaching.

I will not offer up reading material nor will I go into an exegesis or explanation. I will suggest, however, that both election and predestination are misunderstood more often than not and this does no service to either our ministry or mission and certainly does not enhance our relationship to the Lord. Beware of who is being addressed and who is not being addressed when each of the subjects is raised. Use good logic when seeking to understand them, being aware of arriving at false conclusions. And, of course, context and the whole counsel of God is critical.

As one who thrives on discussions, I find this one rather intriguing, especially as it impacts on what we do every Lord’s Day. Allow me to make a few observations.

Typically, regulative does stand against normative as polar opposites. Can we accept that there is a spectrum, or at least that neither of these is wholly acceptable?

The phrase in the catechism is “has been commanded.” Much of what we read in the scriptures, however, is illustrative, not instructive. Said differently, what we actually have is a record of how the church did worship, not how they were commanded to worship.

Even commandments require considerable interpretation, which, of course, for the Jews eventually led to the Talmud. Oran music is not commanded, neither are guitars. There is no command, much less precedent, for only an ordained minister to administer the Lord’s Supper and baptism and the practice actually goes against any understanding of scriptural worship. How about the announcements that most congregations have during worship? We could go on; but I hope the point is made.

If we were to draw on what we are actually told in scripture (1st Corinthians 14:26) about worship in at least this one apostolic congregation, we are certainly far removed from it, unless we relegate it to a small group or house church gathering. It certainly is not a Sunday morning pattern.

I have done this; but only during Lent . . . and the congregation was Presbyterian. We did it on Shrove Tuesday (Pancakes!) and then on Maundy Thursday.

The meal wold be prepared; but served buffet style. We began with a welcome and short but relevant scripture, oft paraphrased or pout in a story form, then the bread ws blessed, using the Jewish blessing over bread, broke the bread and passed it. A thanks to God was followed by the meal itself. After everyone had eaten we had a short devotional/meditation followed by the blessing of the cup--Jewish blessing again, and then the benediction.

Shrove Tuesdays were always preceded by an explanation of the origin and meaning. This was done during Lord's Day worship preceding. We tried to stick to the meaning of the day. Maundy Thursday we tried--sometimes more successfully than others, to guide table conversation around themes of fellowship, love, caring, personal commitment and sacrifice, and the like.

I have personally come to believing that the Jews and the Salvation Army have a better understanding of what we refer to as communion or the Lord's Supper than we do. By this I mean that ever meal has a "sacramental" quality to it, though we may give a special recognition via liturgy to Passover or the drastically paired down meal that we refer to as Communion/Lord's Supper.

I might add that when we started the Maundy Thursday meal, it was a Chinese buffet! :) Then we moved to alternating Chinese with a variety of other foods.

If there is a genius in our Reformed tradition it is found i the unofficial motto, "ecclesia reformata semper reformanda" (the reformed church (must) always be reformed). Perhaps this present crisis will cause us to look back at scripture and tradition and bring us into accord with the teaching of the former. My own historical take, not wholly divergent with the thinking of those of the "radical reformation" is that Luther, Calvin, Knox and others did not go far enough. It may have been a sensibility at the time as people can accept only so much change. To have rejected too much of developed tradition may well have brought the reformation to a standstill. So clergy/priestly prerogatives were still maintained.  

Of course, we could also be "sneaky" about the whole affair. What if we simply blessed the bread, broke it and shared it, and then blessed the cup and shared it, saying no more. After all, Jesus said, "Where two or three are gathered together . . . " So just physically we would have communion with one another and with the Lord, and blessing each of the elements we would have Eucharist or the giving of thanks. What would be left out? 

Hi Rob,

You will, I trust, pardon me for laughing at the question. I want to emphasize, laughing at the question and not at you nor at you for asking it. It is a good question. Here is my answer.

We have deviated significantly from the way Communion/Breaking iof Bread/Eucharist/The Kord’s Supper was first “celebrated.” Let me explain.

If we see its roots in Passover, then it would only be celebrated once a year. It would be, most likely, in a home. It would be part of a full meal. The “officiant” would be the head of the household, not a priest or a rabbi, or a pastor, unless they were also the head of the household. I we see the roots in a more simply communal meal or agape, then , it too, would be part of a full meal and the individual offering the blessing would be the host . So to think we are doing what the first believers did . . or even what Jesus did, is pure deception.

If you follow the early history of the church, all manner of acts became gradually transferred from the community as a whole to those who would become priests. Everything became sacramentalized and formalized, losing much of its original context and meaning. Anointing, as an example, was simply the application of a healing balm. It was rudimentary medicine. Then then oil became holy. Then it had to be blessed by the priest. Then only the priest could anoint. I hope to see the drift of this.

The Reformation challenged and corrected some things; but not all. Much of the evolution (or devolution) of practice still remained and is with us today. But, of course, because we cling to it, we must defend it. It is difficult for us to ask hard questions of a sacrament that dates back 500 years. And then, of course, if we simply allowed everyone to baptize, serve communion, and preach, people like me would be out of a job! J

(Largely off the top of my heard; but not totally without merit)

Ron VanAuken

Pastor for 45 years and now and Elder within the CRC

This is a side note to Henry DeMoor's comment, which I appreciate.

For a short period of time I served with The Anglican Diocese of Canada. Their view of the Eucharist is somewhat "higher" or more formal thn is ours, so only the priest can consecrate the elements. Once consecrated, however, deacons, and in some instances others who are not ordained Anglican priests, can take what is referred to as the "reserve sacrament" to homes, shut-ins, etc. The point is, the bread and the wine have already be consecrated, so it really is not a separate celebration, but an extension to those members of the community not able to be present.

Ron VanAuken

I have bothered Kathy Smith more than once with questions about Church Order, and value her responses.

Let me add that as a (former?) pastor within the Presbyterian Church in Canada and now an Elder within a CRC congregation, that most PCC congregations would likely accept said letter without hesitation and welcome you. Most would simply want to know that you have been baptize and have made a profession of faith. From a pastoral perspective, unless you have changed residences mailing it difficult to worship in your CRC congregation, I would encourage you tpo share with the pastor or an elder the reason for you leaving the congregation. We can all learn and grow from one another,

Ron VanAuken