As I have tried to understand the issue and the proposed changes, what I think is the essential change is that the discernment of faith that has historically been the task of the elders is being shifted to being the responsibility of the parents. Is that accurate?
I guess when I think of mercy there seems to be an inward and an outward part of it. The inward part is compassion, learning to feel as God does, being moved by the things that move his heart in terms of human brokenness. The outward part is the action taken. I think that it's important to have a a goal not just of relief but of restoration when being merciful, however. I think that unifies some of the tasks of the deacon. So for instance, "stewardship" is not something that you do inside the church and "benevolence" something for a different type of person...instead, all of our benevolent efforts should in the end be pointing towards stewardship, towards a place where the person being helped can claim their identity as a steward, using their own resources for the good of others and God's kingdom. The goal in both is shalom.
In terms of the teaching, I guess I think of the adage, "the deacons are not there to do the work of the people, the deacons are there to put the people to work!" A thread will not make it through a peice of fabric unless its attached to a needle. In the same way, the deacons are often the people who draw others into works of benevolence, taking the lead but not taking over.
But that's the wonderful thing about God. He uses ordinary people in the process. From Nathan saying "You are the man", to a tired old shepherd crying "Let my people go!" to a Samaritan walking by, he brings us into the story and gives us the incredible dignity of being used as his instruments. Ordinary people. Extraordinary God. Amen?
Excellent thoughts...there are many topics that come out of this! The relationship between "paper membership" and I guess what we could call "real" membership seems to have been at the center of the discussion so far. As you note, Nick, paper membership seems to have functioned as a "sacrament" of sorts of a person's commitment to and union with a particular body of believers. My original question, though, was not so much about eliminating or preserving paper membership, but rather something along these lines...when it comes to membership transfers, is there a way of preserving the importance of membership (and by extension, "paper" membership) while highlighting the volitional aspect of membership in an increasingly transient (and, one might add, postdenominational) age? Does Monstma and Van Dellen's observation of the Dutch practice, properly hedged in by pastoral oversight and due diligence, point to an alternative that already has precedent in our tradition? H. Bouwman also notes this practice in his work on church order, of "a person, after having moved to a new place of residence is supposed to hand in his "attestatie" to the church of his choice in his new home town." Or, here is an excerpt from a classical overture from the 1990s:
"A crucial component of membership is the willing commitment or choice that a person makes. It is that choice that constitutes a covenant with the local church to be a living member. When memberships are "transferred" from one church office to another, the choice of the member is often bypassed and the nature of church membership degraded. Since it is the commitment and not the paper that constitutes the membership, the papers the give a testimony of true membership in the previous congregation ought to be given to the person who is leaving. This person needs to bring it to the "new" church community and by that act makes a new covenant. He or she then becomes a member of this new communty of faith.
"Membership cannot really be transferred from one church to another. it is not like a club membership or a credit rating. Neither is it the property of the church. Membership papers are letters of testimony about the person's faith life in the previous church. Ideally they should not be form letters, but testimonies about faith commitments, spiritual gifts and participation in the previous church.
"The volitional aspect of membership has been recognized in reformed church policy by requiring: that membership transfers should be requested, that membership papers must be given to persons who insist on it, that membership can be kept in a church where one is not attending upon request. Even when a member is under discipline and insists on withdrawl as member it must be granted. However, we have not been consistent with this principle in our practice of transfering membership.
"We deem the Dutch method of transference of membership to be more effective if not more scriptural than the method of our own denomination, where transference is mainly an administrative act of the church office in which all too often the member plays a minor role. It seems that a personally expressed indication of the desire of membership in a local congregation is a confessional act which is far to be preferred above the merely passive and administrative transfer often practiced in our denomination."
Fairly strongly worded, but plenty of food for thought.
It's a good question. A friend of mine told me about a practice that they had in their EV Free church--when a child/young person decided that they wanted to partake of communion, all that they had to do was reach out and take the wine and bread when it passed by them, and let someone know afterwards. I thought at first, hey, that's pretty neat, but at the same time, there was something unsatisfying about it...something was missing.
Thinking about it in light of your question, I think that the thing that was missing was that it was very much a "me and Jesus" mindset, which didn't really take into account the organic community that the person was a part of. That organic community has within it spiritual guides and leaders--elders--that help people discern and live by God's word. Among other things, the Belgic confession says that the church should be marked by "proper administration of the sacraments", and this falls under the calling of the elders...not so much to restrict and hold back people from the table, as to help people understand the meal, and come to appreciate it. To paraphrase Philip the Evangelist talking to the Ethiopan, to ask "Do you understand what you are eating?"
Historically this time of discernment has taken place through the confirmation/profession of faith process. Once again, I don't see it as restricting so much as showing that this faith this is not just between you and Jesus, but in taking this step towards the table you are also taking a step towards the living community around the table...what it means to be a part of this community, to walk in the Way of Jesus.
Children were allowed to partake of the Passover meal, yes. But even in this celebration, the requirement was also that the child would ask the question about why this was being done so that they could be taught--so that it would not be simply a ritual moment but a catechetical moment.
I think that we do need new forms, new models, but at the same time I love the element of *guidance* that takes place through profession of faith. How can we hold on to that?
The whole report is on pp. 232-255 of the Acts of Synod, 1967. Its interesting that even though the recommendation was not followed, there was a long string of re-applications and requests in the 70s and 80s by those who were convinced of the larger role of deacon.
Also interesting are the other sources that they quote for the delegation of deacons to broader assemblies...like Herman Bavinck, Abraham Kuyper, who said in 1884 that the diaconal office "ought to be interwoven in the ruling organism of the Churches (that is, of Classes and Synods)", William Heyns who in 1928 had an entire chapter in his Handbook on Elders and Deacons called "The Unsatisfactory Condition of the Diaconate", and others.
We've been talking about this issue in our denomination for a long, long time.
What a great opportunity this motion could be, to look back as well as look forwards, and see what God might be calling us towards.
William Heyns, writing in 1910 about the concerns and limitations of diaconal conferences, said this "without a doubt, the ideal solution is the delegation of deacons to the major assemblies with the power to deal with all matters brought before them that concern the ministry of mercy."
Synod 2010 is only a week away, and one of the issues that they will take up is the overture mentioned earlier. I wonder what the result will be.
In 1982, Prof. De Moor wrote in his "The Office of Deacon at the Crossroads", that "the proportion of representation (to major assemblies) soon proves to be an issue that uncovers one's deepest convictions concerning ecclesiastical office." He also wrote "somewhere along the way this denomination must do what Calvin couldn't--grant it's dedicated diaconate an appropriate place in all assemblies of office--bearers that rule and equip the body in Christ's name. It certainly must not reverse whatever has already grown in that direction. *This* is the lesson of history."
I'm excited about the opportunity before this Synod to reflect on the truth of these words.
I've always interpreted the use of the word in hymns in the sense that Bill lays out, the idea of "rapturous delight" and not speaking about an end times event. But it dovetails with the whole question of theology in song. I for one cringe a little when I sing at Christmas "the little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes." Why shouldn't he cry?
Your post reminded me of a quote from Bernard of Clairvaux on reasons why we learn. He says:
"For there are some who long to know for the sole purpose of knowing, and that is shameful curiosity; others who long to know in order to become known, and that is shameful vanity. To such as these we may apply the words of the Satirist: "Your knowledge counts for nothing unless your friends know you have it." There are others still who long for knowledge in order to sell its fruits for money or honors, and this is shameful profiteering; others again who long to know in order to be of service, and this is charity. Finally there are those who long to know in order to benefit themselves, and this is prudence.
Of all these categories, only the last two avoid the abuse of knowledge, because they desire to know for the purpose of doing good. People with sound judgment act in this way. Let all others heed the warning: he who knows what he ought to do and fails to do it, commits sin; just as food eaten but not digested is injurious to one's health. Food that is badly cooked and indigestible induces physical disorders and damages the body instead of nourishing it. In the same way if a glut of knowledge stuffed in the memory, that stomach of the mind, has not been cooked on the fire of love, and transfused and digested by certain skills of the soul, its habits and actions - since, as life and conduct bear witness, the mind is rendered good through its knowledge of good— will not that knowledge be reckoned sinful, like the food that produces irregular and harmful humors? "
We are often a "head heavy" denomination, and may be accused of posessing at times a "glut of knowledge". Christian reflection, I think, is part of the process by which that knowledge is "cooked on the fire of love and transfused and digested by certain skills of the soul."--integrated into the heart and into the patterns of every day life.
Good thoughts and questions. I think that the key passage in Hayford's quote is "I have found, although difficult at times, it's possible to do both." The best place to be in other words, is to live in the tension between the two and not try to "simplify" things by choosing to be either/or. Circumstances usually force a pastor to wear both hats, simply because many pastors are GPs who are the only full time employed person on a church staff and don't have the ability to specialize. True, some pastors lean too far in the direction of being a pastoral presence. But I have also seen some who lean too far in the other direction, and for whom the congregation becomes a means to an end.
It seems to me that a quality that connects both the pastor/visitor and the "visionary" leader is the capacity of listening. The older I get the more cautious I am of the Barna style "pastor goes into the desert and gets a vision that everyone should fall behind" model, and more open to the idea that the Holy Spirit is truly working through the entire people of God and that it is the pastors task to be listening (through visitation?) for where the Spirit is already at work. If we take it seriously that Jesus is the real pastor of our church, this will always be taking place somewhere...but we have to be faithful to lead by listening.
Your mentioning gift mixes brings in a whole other aspect of leadership formation that I have a divided mind about. On the other hand, we are supposed to lead from our strengths. At the same time, leadership growth, it seems, requires that we "play against type". Roy Oswalt, of Alban Institute, talks about how his research findings showed that one of the marks of vital long term pastorates was "minding your growing edge"...that is, leaning the hardest into the area that you are the weakest at, and devoting good effort at improving at that. How do we balance the two?
Posted in: 2011 Report: Faith Formation
As I have tried to understand the issue and the proposed changes, what I think is the essential change is that the discernment of faith that has historically been the task of the elders is being shifted to being the responsibility of the parents. Is that accurate?
Posted in: mercy
I guess when I think of mercy there seems to be an inward and an outward part of it. The inward part is compassion, learning to feel as God does, being moved by the things that move his heart in terms of human brokenness. The outward part is the action taken. I think that it's important to have a a goal not just of relief but of restoration when being merciful, however. I think that unifies some of the tasks of the deacon. So for instance, "stewardship" is not something that you do inside the church and "benevolence" something for a different type of person...instead, all of our benevolent efforts should in the end be pointing towards stewardship, towards a place where the person being helped can claim their identity as a steward, using their own resources for the good of others and God's kingdom. The goal in both is shalom.
In terms of the teaching, I guess I think of the adage, "the deacons are not there to do the work of the people, the deacons are there to put the people to work!" A thread will not make it through a peice of fabric unless its attached to a needle. In the same way, the deacons are often the people who draw others into works of benevolence, taking the lead but not taking over.
Posted in: mercy
I hear what you're saying, kelib.
But that's the wonderful thing about God. He uses ordinary people in the process. From Nathan saying "You are the man", to a tired old shepherd crying "Let my people go!" to a Samaritan walking by, he brings us into the story and gives us the incredible dignity of being used as his instruments. Ordinary people. Extraordinary God. Amen?
Posted in: Membership Transfers in a Modern Age
Excellent thoughts...there are many topics that come out of this! The relationship between "paper membership" and I guess what we could call "real" membership seems to have been at the center of the discussion so far. As you note, Nick, paper membership seems to have functioned as a "sacrament" of sorts of a person's commitment to and union with a particular body of believers. My original question, though, was not so much about eliminating or preserving paper membership, but rather something along these lines...when it comes to membership transfers, is there a way of preserving the importance of membership (and by extension, "paper" membership) while highlighting the volitional aspect of membership in an increasingly transient (and, one might add, postdenominational) age? Does Monstma and Van Dellen's observation of the Dutch practice, properly hedged in by pastoral oversight and due diligence, point to an alternative that already has precedent in our tradition? H. Bouwman also notes this practice in his work on church order, of "a person, after having moved to a new place of residence is supposed to hand in his "attestatie" to the church of his choice in his new home town." Or, here is an excerpt from a classical overture from the 1990s:
"A crucial component of membership is the willing commitment or choice that a person makes. It is that choice that constitutes a covenant with the local church to be a living member. When memberships are "transferred" from one church office to another, the choice of the member is often bypassed and the nature of church membership degraded. Since it is the commitment and not the paper that constitutes the membership, the papers the give a testimony of true membership in the previous congregation ought to be given to the person who is leaving. This person needs to bring it to the "new" church community and by that act makes a new covenant. He or she then becomes a member of this new communty of faith.
"Membership cannot really be transferred from one church to another. it is not like a club membership or a credit rating. Neither is it the property of the church. Membership papers are letters of testimony about the person's faith life in the previous church. Ideally they should not be form letters, but testimonies about faith commitments, spiritual gifts and participation in the previous church.
"The volitional aspect of membership has been recognized in reformed church policy by requiring: that membership transfers should be requested, that membership papers must be given to persons who insist on it, that membership can be kept in a church where one is not attending upon request. Even when a member is under discipline and insists on withdrawl as member it must be granted. However, we have not been consistent with this principle in our practice of transfering membership.
"We deem the Dutch method of transference of membership to be more effective if not more scriptural than the method of our own denomination, where transference is mainly an administrative act of the church office in which all too often the member plays a minor role. It seems that a personally expressed indication of the desire of membership in a local congregation is a confessional act which is far to be preferred above the merely passive and administrative transfer often practiced in our denomination."
Fairly strongly worded, but plenty of food for thought.
Posted in: Looking at Acts 6
It's true that elders are often weathered deacons. However, if the offices are truly equal there could also be deacons who are weathered elders.
Posted in: Children at the Lord's Supper
Clay,
It's a good question. A friend of mine told me about a practice that they had in their EV Free church--when a child/young person decided that they wanted to partake of communion, all that they had to do was reach out and take the wine and bread when it passed by them, and let someone know afterwards. I thought at first, hey, that's pretty neat, but at the same time, there was something unsatisfying about it...something was missing.
Thinking about it in light of your question, I think that the thing that was missing was that it was very much a "me and Jesus" mindset, which didn't really take into account the organic community that the person was a part of. That organic community has within it spiritual guides and leaders--elders--that help people discern and live by God's word. Among other things, the Belgic confession says that the church should be marked by "proper administration of the sacraments", and this falls under the calling of the elders...not so much to restrict and hold back people from the table, as to help people understand the meal, and come to appreciate it. To paraphrase Philip the Evangelist talking to the Ethiopan, to ask "Do you understand what you are eating?"
Historically this time of discernment has taken place through the confirmation/profession of faith process. Once again, I don't see it as restricting so much as showing that this faith this is not just between you and Jesus, but in taking this step towards the table you are also taking a step towards the living community around the table...what it means to be a part of this community, to walk in the Way of Jesus.
Children were allowed to partake of the Passover meal, yes. But even in this celebration, the requirement was also that the child would ask the question about why this was being done so that they could be taught--so that it would not be simply a ritual moment but a catechetical moment.
I think that we do need new forms, new models, but at the same time I love the element of *guidance* that takes place through profession of faith. How can we hold on to that?
Posted in: Deacons: Priests or Kings?
The whole report is on pp. 232-255 of the Acts of Synod, 1967. Its interesting that even though the recommendation was not followed, there was a long string of re-applications and requests in the 70s and 80s by those who were convinced of the larger role of deacon.
Also interesting are the other sources that they quote for the delegation of deacons to broader assemblies...like Herman Bavinck, Abraham Kuyper, who said in 1884 that the diaconal office "ought to be interwoven in the ruling organism of the Churches (that is, of Classes and Synods)", William Heyns who in 1928 had an entire chapter in his Handbook on Elders and Deacons called "The Unsatisfactory Condition of the Diaconate", and others.
We've been talking about this issue in our denomination for a long, long time.
What a great opportunity this motion could be, to look back as well as look forwards, and see what God might be calling us towards.
Posted in: Deacons: Priests or Kings?
William Heyns, writing in 1910 about the concerns and limitations of diaconal conferences, said this "without a doubt, the ideal solution is the delegation of deacons to the major assemblies with the power to deal with all matters brought before them that concern the ministry of mercy."
Synod 2010 is only a week away, and one of the issues that they will take up is the overture mentioned earlier. I wonder what the result will be.
In 1982, Prof. De Moor wrote in his "The Office of Deacon at the Crossroads", that "the proportion of representation (to major assemblies) soon proves to be an issue that uncovers one's deepest convictions concerning ecclesiastical office." He also wrote "somewhere along the way this denomination must do what Calvin couldn't--grant it's dedicated diaconate an appropriate place in all assemblies of office--bearers that rule and equip the body in Christ's name. It certainly must not reverse whatever has already grown in that direction. *This* is the lesson of history."
I'm excited about the opportunity before this Synod to reflect on the truth of these words.
Posted in: Theology in Song: The Rapture
I've always interpreted the use of the word in hymns in the sense that Bill lays out, the idea of "rapturous delight" and not speaking about an end times event. But it dovetails with the whole question of theology in song. I for one cringe a little when I sing at Christmas "the little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes." Why shouldn't he cry?
Posted in: Reflection in the Christian Life
Kyle,
Your post reminded me of a quote from Bernard of Clairvaux on reasons why we learn. He says:
"For there are some who long to know for the sole purpose of knowing, and that is shameful curiosity; others who long to know in order to become known, and that is shameful vanity. To such as these we may apply the words of the Satirist: "Your knowledge counts for nothing unless your friends know you have it." There are others still who long for knowledge in order to sell its fruits for money or honors, and this is shameful profiteering; others again who long to know in order to be of service, and this is charity. Finally there are those who long to know in order to benefit themselves, and this is prudence.
Of all these categories, only the last two avoid the abuse of knowledge, because they desire to know for the purpose of doing good. People with sound judgment act in this way. Let all others heed the warning: he who knows what he ought to do and fails to do it, commits sin; just as food eaten but not digested is injurious to one's health. Food that is badly cooked and indigestible induces physical disorders and damages the body instead of nourishing it. In the same way if a glut of knowledge stuffed in the memory, that stomach of the mind, has not been cooked on the fire of love, and transfused and digested by certain skills of the soul, its habits and actions - since, as life and conduct bear witness, the mind is rendered good through its knowledge of good— will not that knowledge be reckoned sinful, like the food that produces irregular and harmful humors? "
We are often a "head heavy" denomination, and may be accused of posessing at times a "glut of knowledge". Christian reflection, I think, is part of the process by which that knowledge is "cooked on the fire of love and transfused and digested by certain skills of the soul."--integrated into the heart and into the patterns of every day life.
Posted in: Pastor and Visionary Leader?
Good thoughts and questions. I think that the key passage in Hayford's quote is "I have found, although difficult at times, it's possible to do both." The best place to be in other words, is to live in the tension between the two and not try to "simplify" things by choosing to be either/or. Circumstances usually force a pastor to wear both hats, simply because many pastors are GPs who are the only full time employed person on a church staff and don't have the ability to specialize. True, some pastors lean too far in the direction of being a pastoral presence. But I have also seen some who lean too far in the other direction, and for whom the congregation becomes a means to an end.
It seems to me that a quality that connects both the pastor/visitor and the "visionary" leader is the capacity of listening. The older I get the more cautious I am of the Barna style "pastor goes into the desert and gets a vision that everyone should fall behind" model, and more open to the idea that the Holy Spirit is truly working through the entire people of God and that it is the pastors task to be listening (through visitation?) for where the Spirit is already at work. If we take it seriously that Jesus is the real pastor of our church, this will always be taking place somewhere...but we have to be faithful to lead by listening.
Posted in: Pastor and Visionary Leader?
Chris,
Your mentioning gift mixes brings in a whole other aspect of leadership formation that I have a divided mind about. On the other hand, we are supposed to lead from our strengths. At the same time, leadership growth, it seems, requires that we "play against type". Roy Oswalt, of Alban Institute, talks about how his research findings showed that one of the marks of vital long term pastorates was "minding your growing edge"...that is, leaning the hardest into the area that you are the weakest at, and devoting good effort at improving at that. How do we balance the two?