Daniel Zylstra
Now into my second pastorate, but in my 42nd year of life, I have been doing the pastoral ministry thing for just over 7 and a half years now. I've been married for almost 20 years and have three beautiful children who (disobediently) keep growing like weeds. I love God and love His church.
When I first felt the call to head in to pastoral ministry, I initially thought that youth ministry would be the thing: "Then I can start with fresh, young minds and hearts who either don't have a lot of church baggage, or who are more than willing to shed it to try new things." I thought.
But then God said to me, "Dan, you know I love people of all ages, right?"
So I said to myself, "Okay, I'll go in to church planting then. That way I can reach and disciple people of all ages and backgrounds, and we still will hopefully either have people who don't have much church baggage, or who are more than willing to shed it."
And God said to me, "Dan, you know I love people in established churches too, right?"
So I said, "Okay, okay, just not the CRC, okay God?"
And, wouldn't you know it, He said, "Dan, you DO know that I love the CRC too, right?"
And so, what else could I do but fall in love with young and old, of all nationalities and backgrounds, from all kinds of churches (yes, I love those in church plants too) and even CRC's?
Now I've been in love in this way for 8 or nine years and counting... God is good.
Posted in: How Helpful are Disagreements?
Our church is currently working on becoming a "conflict friendly" church. We're working on this with the good people at the Shalem Mental Health Network, using their program "FaithCARE" (Communities Affirming Restorative Experiences). Their motto for this program is "Conflict is inevitable. The response is up to us.", and they have been very helpful to us as we seek to grow in this area.
The truth is that you are both absolutely correct, Ron and Al: disagreements are not only inevitable, when carried on and dealt with effectively they can be a real benefit to all concerned.
Of course, the key is learning how to deal with conflict effectively. There are several points, I think, that many of us need to learn in this area (we're discovering these as we walk along in the process of becoming a restorative congregation):
<ol>
<li>We need to learn how to truly <em>listen</em> to others. This means that we learn how to <em>not</em> be thinking of our response, or our next "point" in the argument as the other person is speaking, but that we really take the time to listen, and to reflect back to the other person(s) what we think we've heard so that we can be sure that we've heard them correctly.</li>
<li>We need to start from a perspective of being on the same "team" whenver possible. This is true in marriage, and it's true in the church too, I believe. Disagreements are far more effective in helping us if we all work from the same basis: that we're all on the same team. If I am on a team that is against your team, then I'll fight against you until we win. If you and I are on the same team against an outside problem, then we will work together till our common enemy is defeated.</li>
<li>We need to recognize that some of our societal structures are inherently adversarial and prone to emphasizing disagreements in an unhelpful way. Sometimes these structures are so unhelpful that they become exclusionary, especially to those who have a different cultural background to our own. For example, when we run all our meetings using "Robert's Rules", we are buying into an essentially western european adversarial/legal melieu. This framework is very difficult for people who come from a collaborative/consensus building culture to wrap their heads around, let alone for them to stick their necks out into what they feel is quite often a highly charged, risky, antagonistic setting.</li>
<li>We need to encourage transparency, humility, and vulnerability among all our people, but especially among our leadership. Not humility in the sense of false humility, or humility that immediately says "sorry" in order to avoid a confrontation, but humility that approaches the other with a willingness to walk alongside, and to learn, and to grow together.</li>
</ol>
If we can learn some of these key lessons, then I really believe that, though conflict will still be hard, uncomfortable, and something we'd rather avoid, we will learn to see the value in it, and we'll learn how to hear God's voice through it. Not only that, but we'll have healthier congregations, and a healthier witness of the Love of Christ to the world around us.
Blessings, all.
Posted in: An Open and Shut Case
[quote=Chad Werkhoven]
Our Confessions ought to determine the essential tenents of our faith. It's puzzling that ministers and elders in the church can signify their agreement that the Three Forms of Unity "fully agree" with the Word of God in their summaries of scripture's teaching on fundamental issues of the faith, yet still come to such contradictory conclusions on core issues such as baptism or Sabbath rest.
As a denomination, we've agreed that we have clear, concise answers to nearly every hypothetical question listed in this post. These answers are listed in a logical, orderly fashion complete with scriptural references so that the context and rationale for each answer is plain to the reader.
Officers in our churches who don't like these answers have an obligation: convince the rest of us that we're wrong by using the prescribed means, or refrain from teaching their differing views. Why is there such a desire to create disunity in the body by continuing to debate issues that are so clearly settled?
[/quote]
I hear your points, Chad, but I'd like to follow up with a couple other questions, if I may:
1) Even within our confessions there is a tacit (and sometimes explicit) admission that some doctrines are more "essential" than others. As a very simple example we just have to look at the fact that we hold the Bible to be more authoritative than the creeds and confessions, which are in-turn, more essential than the Contemporary Testimony. Just because we believe that the Creeds and Confessions "fully agree" with the Word of God, does not mean that we believe that everthing held within those creeds and confessions is of an equally essential nature. Our doctrine teaches us that the Bible is most essential, the creeds and confessions next, and then other things. So, my question is, then: HOW do we know which of the doctrines WITHIN those creeds and confessions are more essential, and which less?
2) Even when we totally agree with our denomination's doctrines (which office bearer's should, seeing as they've committed to that), there's the question of ecumenical relations: and I guess that's the more important question for me here: HOW do we know WHICH issues/doctrines are important enough to break fellowship with others who claim to be Christ followers?
Just a couple of other thought-provokers, I hope.
Blessings, all.
Posted in: An Open and Shut Case
Thank you, Chad, for your thoughtful responses! I think so far, we're actually pretty much on the same page. Certainly I have no qualms with agreeing with everything you've said in your last comment, but here are my follow-up questions:
If we believe ecumenical relations should be significantly rooted in the clear marks of the true church, so-far-so-good. BUT what should those relationships look like? Should we be constantly trying to "merge" with other like-minded denominations in an attempt to undo hundreds of years of schisms? Should we strengthen existing associations like the World Alliance of Reformed Churches-- if it still exists), so that they're almost like a meta-denomination? Should we work extra hard at building relationships in local ministerials--even to the neglect, perhaps, of closer ties with the CRCNA? Should we be working at abolishing denominations altogether?
Should we be "making room" for the increasing number of folks coming into our churches who believe almost as we do, but not quite (like those whose only issue is with infant baptism)? If so, what would that look like? How would it not look?
All questions that boggle my mind, at least. If you have insights, I'd seriously LOVE to hear them!
Blessings, all!
Posted in: Baptism - Unity and Division
I think it would be very sad if Synod (now or later) decided to outright "ban" infant dedication in our churches. Despite the fact that the committee has done some admirable work in backing up the practice of infant baptism, the fact remains that a very good argument can be made for believer's baptism only.
See, we can cling to a so-called "reformed distinctive" to the detriment of our local congregations and/or the denomination as a whole, and to the detriment of greater unity in the body of Christ throughout the world.
OR
We can recognize that, as is the case with the debate surrounding women in ecclesiastical office, that:
1) Infant baptism vs. Believers' baptism is NOT a central salvation issue (in this particular debate).
2) That a good, biblical argument can be made for either standpoint.
If we do this, we could continue to teach infant baptism as the de facto way for our churches/congregants, and we could continue to encourage people to take that route, BUT we wouldn't be forcing anyone into a rock and a hard place when their consciences lead them to one viewpoint or another.
This would still be faithful to the Reformed way of thinking on this matter, but would still be generous enough to allow things like what Henry talks about with their church plant.
LET'S BE GENEROUS, PEOPLE!
Dan.
Posted in: What Does Our Language Communicate?
Does anyone have a digital copy of the 1997 report on gender inclusive language that they could send me? Please?
Posted in: Relevant or Irrelevant?
<p>
<p>Thanks for starting this thread, Elizabeth. Also thanks for your comments, Karl.<br>
<p>I too would like to say that, while I'm not really familiar with what is going on in other Classes, our (Quinte) is one that I value tremendously. The classical ministries are vital and important and recognized to be so by most of the people in our churches (as far as I can tell). There's a lot of resource sharing and wisdom pooling going on at classis meetings. People seem to be positive and upbeat about the church in the area and the differences God is making in their communities. Classis meetings are collegial and helpful. Classis is good at connecting pastors and churches with one another, and supports new leaders coming up through the churches through classical funding and through training and discipleship programs. Meetings are run well and go smoothly and disagreements are handled incredibly well.
<p>
<p>There is genuine concern at classis meetings for local congregations and for how classis can help, and the churches seem to respond by contributing their own resources to the cause. Also, classis is gratefully acknowledged to have a strong healthy hand in helping with church planting, social justice and mission causes in our area.
<p>
<p>Each year the pastors and spouses from classis get together for a 3-day retreat to reenergize and renew. We have nearly 100% participation in those events and everyone seems to feel that they are a significant contributor to the health of classis as a whole.
<p>
<p>In short, from what I've seen our classis is a vital and vibrant part of our church. I for one appreciate it extremely.
Posted in: Relevant or Irrelevant?
<p>
<p>By the way, I'm sorry about the "<p>" tags. I don't know why they keep showing up--I'm not writing them in there!
Posted in: A Wrap of a Rap on the Heidelberg Catechism
For what it's worth, I thought that the rap was great!
Certainly, this seems to have turned into a bit of a discussion, though, hasn't it? I just thought I'd weigh in with a couple little comments, if I might.
<ol>
<li>The question of whether the CRC/RCA is "moribund" or relevant, or part of the revitalization of the reformed movement that's happening in the US and Canada is really, to me irrelevant. Here's why: There's always a temptation for a church and/or denomination to want to be "relevant" to the world and to be up on the latest trends--even better--to be part of those latest trends, but the truth is (in my opinion) that being "relevant" in the sense of keeping up with popular trends (in or out of the church) is highly overrated. Jesus instead calls us to focus on the weak, the ostracized, the outcast, the poor and the oppressed--and that (to most of the "popular" world most of the time) is profoundly irrelevant. Personally, I could care less if we're on the cutting edge of anything, to be blunt, unless it is on the cutting edge of ministering to the poor, the needy, the outcast, etc., in both words and in deeds. I'd rather have our church and denomination be totally unknown to most of the popular world, but have them do "closet" service to those who really need it (again in deeds <em>and</em> in words.</li>
<li>You mentioned that the CRC is moving towards more mainline churches in Canada, and frankly I don't see that at all. The CRC in Canada has always been a denomination (one of the very few, if not the only) that is a member of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, and is a member of the Canadian Council of Churches. That is because the CRC in Canada has always been on the "middle-ground" between churches that have a tendency to emphasize deeds (social justice, etc.,--like some of the "mainline" denominations) sometimes to the detriment of sharing the gospel in words, and the churches that have a tendency to be more "evangelical" (focusing on sharing the gospel in words--sometimes to the detriment of the deeds). I personally think this is a very good place to be--grasping both the ministry of the gospel in words and in deeds--and though we're no where near perfect at it (far from it) ideologically, it's great to be here, and I personally don't see any real movement away from that stance.</li>
<li>Last, you mention, Dave, this revival of the reformed movement as if it is something that is really reaching into the heart of the lost and those who have not heard the gospel, in contrast to the CRC/RCA which you claim does not. But the truth is that statistics (a la George Barna and others) indicate that there are very few churches at all that are truly reaching totally "new" people for Christ. There is a very limited demographic that almost all churches seem to be able to reach in this day and age, and these churches of the new reformed movement are no different, for the most part. What we really need to do as Christ-followers (and not just reformed people), in my opinion, is to recognize that Christ's ministry, and the ministry of the early church, and almost all other successful "revivals" in history were movements that ministered in words and in deeds to the poor and outcast. That's not a comfortable place to be, but it's the truth. All other attempts at revival that focus on marketing, or celebrating and/or repackaging a particular faith (or branch thereof) will be destined to "fail" in the sense that they only suck Christians, or nominal Christians from one group to another, for the most part. If we truly want to revitalize the CRC (and the Church as a whole) we need to be missionaries where we probably least want to be.</li>
</ol>
Anyway, I'm sure I've said more than my share, and I apologize for all the run-on sentences, and so on. I also want to emphasize again, that this is only my opinion as a young (36) pastor with very limited experience (only been ordained for 2 years-ish).
I really do wish God's blessings on you all.
in His service,
Dan
Posted in: The Abide Project
Note that these valuable resources only really share one viewpoint. If you would like to also look at other viewpoints, you will need to look elsewhere. You can, for example, check out the "Hesed Project" (https://crcsexuality.wordpress.com/) for a kind of "open dialogue"/middle ground sort of conversational space. You can also check out All One Body (https://www.allonebody.org/) for a more "liberal" (for lack of a better word) perspective. FWIW, I recommend checking out all three, plus checking out the Hekman library's collection of documents relating to the HSR (https://libguides.calvin.edu/CRC-SexualityReport). Doing so will make anyone far more well-informed than just checking out the one perspective offered by the Abide Project.
Posted in: What Would You Like to See on This Site?
The BIG thing that I'm struggling with right now is finding a good, and INEXPENSIVE (read: "free is best") resource (software or online) that I can use to plan worship services in a collaborative way. I'm a pastor at a church of about 100 families in an area hit relatively hard by the economic times we live in. I would love, love, LOVE access to a CRC-hosted worship planning sight that actually allows people from our church to work together on planning, scheduling, etc.
Something like http://www.planningcenteronline.com, except for CRCs especially, and free (or really cheap!).
Posted in: What Would You Like to See on This Site?
THANKS for your suggestions, guys! :-)
Truth be told, we've been pretty disappointed with SongSelect. We very much are a "Blended Worship" congregation and we've been consistently disappointed on a couple of levels:
.
Anyway, I guess that's a bit beside the point (and I'm not really a musician, so I'm probably not describing the issues properly anyway!).
I do appreciate all your suggestions, especially the GoogleDocs & Calendars ones.
Questions for you: Is there a way that I could look at your church's set-up for using these things so I can get ideas for organizing our own "bundle" (at least the Google stuff)?
Also, we'd like to be able to coordinate not just praise teams, but Sound and A/V people, Ushers, Greeters, Nursery Workers, Coffee servers--in short: everyone involved in a Sunday service. Do you do that? If so, how's that working for you? If not, why not?
Thanks again. I'm already appreciating "The Network" big-time!
Dan.
Posted in: What Would You Like to See on This Site?
Thanks for the comments, everyone. I do think this should perhaps be moved to a new thread, seeing as it doesn't have much to do with what we want to see on the website anymore, but is rather doing what we wanted to do instead of just talking about doing it (what a great problem!).
I will talk to our worship people tonight about this thread and hook them into this website. I think the advice to make sure that there's no "doubling", as you call it, and to make sure that there's one strong lead vocalist carrying the melody line is fantastic.
All very helpful. Thanks so much.
By the way, I would agree wholeheartedly that enjoying, or not, worship in a more "concert-like" fashion is mostly a matter of perspective. My tendency, however, is to say that there's a bit of a theological perspective that needs to be considered beyond just doing what people like (I know that's been said already). My take on it, though, is that:
Anyway, that was a tangent too, I guess. What I really meant to say when I started all this was just "Thanks! You've all be soooooo helpful! I will definitely take this back to the worship folks to see what they think.
By the way, I've been checking out http://worshipplanning.com and I think it will maybe suit our needs for coordinating ALL our Sunday morning worship people.
Thanks again!
Dan.