Colin Vander Ploeg

Church Order 2010, articles 66-68 especially the supplement to article 67 concerning lapsing memberships is very helpful.  You can see that online at the CRC website, follow "Resources" to "Synod" and then second one in the list is Church order, click on English or Korean :)  You need page 90 of the church order.

Historically, (as I understand it) the core of membership is a willingness to submit to the spiritual oversight of the elders in a particular congregation.  When you change churches, your old church asks your new church if they are willing to take over that oversight.  However, we have put that request into the hands of the individual member and end up waiting on them sometimes for a decade.  Thankfully we may also lapse in some specific situations.

Here is what lapsing is in a nut shell: if person has moved away, does nothing about their membership then after 2 years, you can lapse their names off your membership list.

if the person is still local to your congregation, claims to be Christian and claims to be worshipping elsewhere, and is not doing anything worthy of discipline,  but they do nothing about their membership, you may after 2 years also lapse their membership off you membership list. 

Elder and pastor contacts should be made etc. but in some cases it just goes nowhere.  Lapsing makes no judgment about their relationship to the Church universal nor about their salvation status, but simply recognizing they no longer are a part of your congregation in  any meaningful way.

this does not apply to shut-in ins, or students or military personel temprorily away from your congregation .

If a person resigns their membeship in the process of you trying to minister to them, then Council may choose to acquiesce to their resignation and remove them from your membership.  We have normally informed persons of their membership being lapsed but on occasion people move away and then move again and we have no idea where they have gone. 

We also do not wait for the 2 year period for people who move away permenantly but let them know before they leave to find a church home in a few months to which we might send their membership and offer anyhelp we can in that search.  If they are into a church that doesn't accept such things we offer to send them a statement of membership documenting their history with our congregation as a member and then lapse their membership  here.

 

All this is not intended to replace admonition and discipline of willful waywardness but keeping up with people movements and comings and goings is begging the question here about what we mean by membership and why we have such a protracted system of dealing with it. 

Perhaps it is time to re-visit a parish model of a church community, who we are responsible for, churched or not,  rather than our club model with membership fees and insiders and outsiders. 

Perhaps we have to stop viewing people as being here for the church, so that we look for people to join us, as if people in the community are a resource for our church and instead view the Body as a resource for the community, we are here to serve them.  What would that do to "membership"  ideas?  Just a thought.

 

Colin

Check out International Renewal Ministries for stuff on coorporte prayer that moves in the direction of listening prayer.  I agree this is pretty new for many of our congregants, and myself.  I also read Dallas Willard's "Hearing God".  Good for people new to listening prayer and who have the normal objections.  I attended a few IRM's prayer summits for pastors.  Three days of group, small group and individual prayer and worship times guided by a seasoned facilitator.  It is truly renewing!  I will be attending again.   

Good thoughts Phillip.  Of course knowing how much a person or household gives is still just part of the equation.  You would also need to know approximately what their income is, since biblical giving is in proportion to income, not the inherently unjust per member assessment the CRC has for so long been trying to do.  I have preached on giving but never on per member or per household amounts, always giving in proportion. Takes a while for churches and their leaders to shift away from the old pattern of thinking.  Takes even longer for Classes to approach a tithing model of congregations giving in proportion to their resources, rather than simply number of members.

I think this could be looked at an example of ministering in the vernacular (a Reformed principle?) 

We too add "regional church body" to any printed mention of Classis in our communications.  Whatever word or phrase we come up with needs to work as an adjective as well as a noun (e.g. Classical Appointment). 

Being part of a town clergy fellowship with 10 different denominations represented, it is interesting to hear how much we all use our own denomination lingo with the assumption that others know what we mean, even at a clergy level.  In learning from fellow clergy about church polity structures we concluded that we all have complicated and historical structures whose names in themselves don't actually communicate their function in todays post-Christian society.  In other words, it is insider language for sure.  I'm good with "local church" "regional church" "bi-national church".  Then add whatever thing or event you are talking about (meeting, leadership, decision, etc) At least that might actually say what we mean. 

I think this discussion is an extension of what many churches have already worked through locally.  The word "Council" still communicates in our context as we have town councils here.  Other churches have "board of elders" and such.  People sort of get that it means, those leading etc.  We don't use the word "consistory" any more either.  We use, "the elders" "the deacons" "the council."    I don't think any of this is a matter of dumbing down or treating people like children etc.  I also think that our sports monikers communicate exactly what they are: NBA is National Basketball Association.  It says what it is.  It is National; it is the game of Basketball; and it is an Association.  Same for Major League Baseball,  National Hockey League.  Classis and Synod say nothing of what it is except to those who memorize that detail.  We have more important faith content for people to master than archaic lingo.  In an information overload society, let's keep it clear.

Incedentially, in the old sci fi series Earth Final Conflict, the Taelon ruling body was called a "Synod" (pronounced "sin awed").  Seems the show writers felt that word to be sufficiently strange to the viewers that it sounds like something from outerspace ;)

Thanks all!

Along with James D. I wonder how prevalent this reluctance is?

When I compare the ministry practices of my first pastoral mentor (now deceased) as he shared them with me, over against what ministry is like for me today, I think there is more to this perceived reluctance to visit than simply pastoral unwillingness. 

There is also a growing reluctance to be visited in congregations.  My old mentor talked about the days when the list of households going to be visited by the pastor (and by elders for that matter) was printed each week in the bulletin.  So people made sure they were home and ready to receive the pastor.  That's a far cry from today, where pastors are regularly being rescheduled or receive replies of "will have to get back to you".  Seniors generally are available to visit, though even that age group is changing and far more mobile than in the past.  But church households with families ... wow are people ever busy compared to when I grew up.  

We did a congregational survey a number of years ago to get some input from people about pastor (and elder) visits.  There was a marked indication that the younger the respondent the more likely they appreciated meeting the pastor and getting to know him a bit but felt no need to have regular visits happening.  They just wanted to know who to call in an crisis or with church questions.  In fact, it is not uncommon today, that when attempting to visit a family, one has to indicate that "nothing's wrong, just want to get to know you better."  

I had a recently retired pastor once come to me to "instruct me" in how to do visiting (I believe he felt I was not doing enough of them).  I listened to his approach ... and was a bit appalled that he truly believed that knocking on a door and leaving a calling card if no one answered as well as  not staying longer than 15 min to half hour, constituted pastoral care.  Apparently he used to report all such activities as "his visits."  Not the old industry standard I hope.

I also echo James D's comments that there is a growing administrative and leadership development area of ministry that is calling on pastors to lead and do things they are often not trained or well-equipped to do.  Just read church vacancy ads these days.  And if I think of the church era I grew up in, previously pastors only stayed in place for about 4-5 years at a time and then moved on to a new congregation.  In my experience it seems that 4-5 years is about the time that the reality of what is really going on in households is coming out to the pastor.  The hard stuff starts piling up and the pastor moves on. 

And I am pretty sure many pastors, when moving on to the next church, no longer wrote one or both new sermons each Sunday but used the "barrel" and so freed up more time to visit.  When one stays longer in one church, the barrel gets used up or needs to be spread over a longer time.  And the need to stay fresh and renewed in preaching becomes a part of the journey.  And what congregations expect now from a preacher is plagued more and more with the comparisons with popular preachers online and nearby megachurches.   Cranking out "three points and a poem" (as we used to characterize it) just doesn't cut it anymore.  

Also doing actual pastoral counseling (not simply check in/social visits ) increases exponentially with the length of stay in a congregation.  This work cannot simply be measured in hours put in or number of households visited but also in the emotional toll this takes when pastors are wading around in difficult situations when they are only generalists not specialists in these situations.  

I think if someone is concerned that their pastor is reluctant to visit, grace-filled, supportive conversation needs to happen to find out what is actually going on.  Yes pastors can be introverts for whom visiting requires much more effort and energy than for a natural extrovert.  That doesn't mean an introvert pastor can say, "visiting is not my strength so I avoid it" but it does mean that such a pastor may need more encouragement and support to do visitation ministry well.  Extroverts head out the door to visit with gusto.  Introverts with intrepidation.  This does not equal " I don't care to know the people."  Pastors are not all things to all congregations but have strengths and weaknesses and need to be ministering with the elders and the congregation.  

Whenever I come across a member who says something like, "I don't get any visits from my elder" I follow up with "would you like to have that?" and "have you called them up and invited them over?"  Yet I do find most households are welcoming to a pastor visit.  It is less expected as generations come and go and is even experienced as something novel especially for newcomers to the faith. 

It is an important component of ministry but may not be of the same priority or status as it has been in the past.  One pastor said to me, "I would rather use my time to disciple a newcomer to the faith, than to do tea with a mature believer simply because they like that."  There is some truth to that, though I don't think the two are mutually  exclusive.  Familiarity with members is the foundation for pastoral care in situations of need.  Ticking off numbers of visits is not the only way to do that, nor are many visits necessarily an indication of effective pastoral ministry.  

The Lord lead us in His ways. 

Colin.

Thank you for the article.  Much wisdom here which can be a challenge to follow through on given some contexts.  Pornography is one of those elephants in the room for the entire congregation, including the leadership.  

What I would like to note, (perhaps for a future article?) is that our CRC Art 17 process says very little about churches and pastors dealing with the issues leading up to these painful separations.  All those important supplements to Art 17 are about after the fact.  In the example scenario given it is the 2nd paragraph that is particularly problematic to me, the idea, so prevalent, that if a congregation is struggling, then get a new pastor to fix it.  It is my anecdotal observations of the CRC and other denominations that a healthy vibrant congregation engaged in ministry does not implode with a struggling pastor in their midst while a dysfunctional, self focused congregation concerned mostly with maintaining their same ways continues to decline regardless of what pastor they have.

So yes, have in place good support structures for the pastor but even more important is for congregations to face up to and deal with their own dysfunction.  Too many elephants in the collective room!  I am glad for the efforts of Pastor Church Resources to move ahead of the curve so to speak on these matters.   

Keep up the good work the the Lord will bring to completion as it is His work within us.

I read the sad news as well.  Learnings?  Someone else has said somewhere on this network(?) that it is amazing that persons who do counseling professionally always do so under the supervision of another.  But pastors, who spend part of their work counseling, have no such supervision in place.  Perhaps we need to change this reality, not just voluntarily but professionally, that is, pastors be required to have some kind of supervisory relationship that supports and watches over their interpersonal ministry work or something like that.  Our church polity has the Council or Elders overseeing the pastor, however, most likely there is no expertise on that body to oversee in the ways needed for closer accountability in personal and occupational boundaries and so forth.  

Colin.

Willow leadership stated they failed in the accountability department.  I wonder what they will do differently moving forward?

I think there is a need for pastors to have in place regular evaluative processes that can cover their ministry work but also how they are relating to staff and parishioners.  I have found this to be new ground for many churches even though there often are well skilled HR people in the congregation for whom this rhythm of work, evaluation, reflection, growth plan are a regular part of their careers.  Such evaluation work should include an opportunity for any in the congregation to bring forward (through evaluation survey or in person) any concerns or incidents of a pastor crossing a boundary or acting wrongly including of course any abusive situation.  The HR Team we recently formed in this church in part to conduct staff evaluations (including pastor, and that's where we have started) incudes three persons with HR and supervisory experience, as well as one person who is a professional counselor.  What a blessing to have such a group help guide myself and our Council through this process.  

As said earlier, pastors, because they do pastoral counseling need to have a supervisor with whom they debrief on some regular schedule concerning the care given and the effect of the events dealt with on the pastor as well as the keeping of boundaries.  

There is still way too much isolation for pastors; too much going it alone and congregations and Councils expecting that to be the norm and proper way.

Thanks for keeping this moving forward Bonnie & team.

Thanks for sharing and starting this conversation.  I assume you are running a program right after the worship service? 

I am sure our contexts will differ, however, I would think that generally, North Americans are busy with many other plans on Sundays after a worship service.  That's the world we live in.  Perhaps it is unrealistic to expect the kids and youth to remain after a service for another hour?  What about a sit down with them and their parents to listen to where they are all at?  You may need some actual input/data as to what is going on rather than assuming things.  You might have to listen between the lines as people give what you might feel are lame excuses why they are not coming.  Also be sure to have listen to the youth themselves, giving them full permission to say whatever is on their hearts and minds about your Sunday School programs.  Hey if they come up with alternative suggestions, let them run with it and lead as much of it as possible.  Sometimes the different content we wish to teach for faith formation we offer at the wrong ages, or it tends toward faith information, rather than formation (not mutually exclusive of course).  What are your congregation's kids at different ages hungering and thirsting for, faith-wise, at their levels?  Perhaps identify what have been the goals in learning and formation for each age group?  Are those goals in tune with what parents strive for with their kids, faith-wise?  Is faith growing at home or have families also farmed it out to the Sunday School?  If their faith formation is happening in Christian schools, can you leverage that, connect with that. participate in that in some way?  Don't compete with or duplicate it, partner with it.

We are living in a largely post-Christian culture.  Perhaps the approach may have to be more about engaging your congregation households in living out their faith in their weekly contexts, neighborhoods, schools, businesses and so forth, and then "teach" during times of debriefing what people are doing and experiencing in following the Lord in these places.  And it sounds like perhaps the leadership of your local church needs to have some frank and prayerful conversations around the idolatry of certain styles of worship music?  We have a number of local churches from a variety of denominations nearby us who do a lovely job of worshipping like it's 1955.  But then again, in nearly all those churches, the "young people" are in their 60's and 70's.  

The good news I hear in your story is that the Spirit has woken you up to some new direction through the non-attendance.  And you are responding to His leading even if you don't know yet where that is going.  Praying for His guidance to become clear in due time.

Colin.

Thanks Stan for getting this conversation back on the table. 

In my experience the resistance to celebrating communion more frequently is often based in "the way we always have done it, so changing that must be wrong somehow."  in other word, people have never really pondered this question.   

People also say things like " Won't it get ordinary? If we have to read the preparatory the week before every time and then go through the same form every time, that will get real old real fast!"  There also seems to be among some a fear that somehow this would be drifting toward being Roman Catholic somehow. 

There is also the older tradition that the elders would be tracking if you are partaking of the sacrament so that you have to be at worship on that particular Sunday and if you have it more often that gets even harder to be consistent.  The tradition is that the elders would meet after the service to go through the membership list to see who missed communion.  At the church I serve the elders have moved in the direction of simply tracking church attendance generally, each Sunday, since we celebrate communion more frequently and people are way more mobile on Sundays than in the past.  

I think rooted behind a lot of this is also an old fear (fed by some of the wording in our traditional forms) that one has to be "ready enough" to partake of the Lord's Supper, and that would take a lot of self-examination if we celebrated it more often.  We presently celebrate Lord's Supper about once a month, but even that is sometimes a stretch for people.

The Lord be with you.

Colin

   Seems to me part of the quandary is the way in which we in the CRC view church membership in these situations.  It tends at these times to look like a club membership rather than a living engagement with a local congregation.  Members move away or move on to another congregation/denomination and yet their  membership remains in the CRC of which they are no longer a part for all practical purposes.  Henry DeMoor in the suggested reference mentions the need to "maintain some contact from time to time" (CRCO Commentary p.314).  There's the rub for me.  Are they still connected in some way to your congregation?  If not, then I think there is a matter of integrity for the Council and the members in question.  If they are (e. g. occasional attendance, financial support, participation in some aspect of your church's ministry work, etc) you may wish to honor their request and continue your discipling work with them concerning the nature of being in the actual Body of Christ.  If they are not, and just have their names still on your membership list, and that's it, I think you need to have a conversation with them about that.  You do so graciously and patiently of course with pastoral tact but also with honesty about what membership is in the Body of Christ means.  I think these situations arise because we constantly wait for members to do something with their memberships after they leave.  I'm a proponent of being way more intentional and proactive as a Council if you know people are moving on.  Meet with them before they leave, or very soon after they stop attending and ascertain what their plans are.  Of course encourage them to re-engage or deal with problems if that is why they have moved on.  If they choose to be worshipping elsewhere, help them understand what that choice means as far as their place in the congregation they have left.  I have found that waiting for people to do something with their CRC membership often takes years of waiting as they have no need to care about that as they are already on to their next congregation, whether they join or not (many congregations don't have "membership" the way the CRC traditionally has).  What seems key to me in your situation is that they have already functionally joined the community church they have become a part of.  Unless they are planning to return to the CRC, seems they have already made their choice of which part of the Body of Christ they are joined to, formalities not withstanding.  They may just need to come to terms with that or make a change back to the CRC or some other denomination that practices baptism of infants also.  For what it's worth, that's my thoughts on your situation.

May the Spirit guide you.

yeah not so accessible as past years.  Tried a few of the webcast links (not facebook but the other links) and the web site just shuts down when you press play.  :(