Del VanDenBerg

Silly:-)

Ken, beautifully put...and you might add- those who are humbled are the "servant leaders" of our denomination, seek them out...

Henry, perhaps a "lemming footrace" to the edge of the cliff regarding doctrinal and polity change would have been tempered by the Overture that also was refused which called for a vote by Classes regarding major change in the way we do church?

Now you notice I emphasized "major,"  I don't think every Synod decision needs to be voted on by the "bush;" but a major decision on doctrine or polity would get a "check and balance" of sorts by the Classis. 

Always speak the truth, think before you speak, and write it down afterwards.-Lewis Carroll

 

In any analysis, caution is the word.

For instance, while the RCA did approve the Belhar Confession as a "forth," it did so with a rather significant group of Classes dissenting: 32 for and 13 against adoption.  So don't throw the baby out with the wash- perhaps you would find the same number of dissenters when you raise gender issues.

The CRC is fairing about the same, and it wouldn't surprise me if you find a 2/3 for and 1/3 against any changes in the recent "hot button polity issues."

Even the authors of Divided by a Common Heritage indicated in their final "what if" analysis- out of a potential 400,000 plus in a "new" denomination, there could be about 100,000 that dissent and vote with their feet and choose another route.

Then there are those who perhaps would simply drift away...

There are definitely pluses and minuses in any speculation on the recent "date" between the denominations; but do we find a "fit" to go together, or go it alone?  Could the denominations be good for each other- really now!  Think, have we not learned a lot over  the 154 years, both good and bad?

Of course, it is quick and easy to cite items like the church in New York.  If you read some news reports today...all of New York is going to (excuse me) "hell in a hand basket" with odd gender court decisions.  However, again- look carefully and see if there are those who in that very church continue to fight quietly for the "sonshine" of the infallibility of God's Word.

What lessons have we learned or are learning?

I think I have fallen in love with Carroll's writings- blame that fellow who wrote in the Banner- of Cabbages and Kings, what was his name- Eppinga. 

Non-the-less, I will leave you with just one more "carrollism,"

That's the reason they're called lessons, because they lesson from day to day.

 

Henry, is there room for change regarding Elder delegates to Synod- finding a way to utilize non-office holding Elders? Or would this be too much of a threat and diminish the authority of current officeholders, changing our polity model in an undesirable, or non-reformed way?   

Classis Yellowstone (classisyellowstone.org) has been moving toward increased web based connectivity b/c geography in our classis is a unique barrier- not unlike many of the classes "west of the Mississippi" & in the "rain shadow" of the west coast mountain ranges. I still send a few paper based mailings to technologically challenged members; but I strongly encourage all our member churches to use email for communication, and to gather information from our classis website. I have observed, during the 10 years as stated clerk, the web grow from a novelty to an essential communication tool. Today, around classis session time, email activity turns into a frenzy...but in actuality that is not bad because (1) of geography, and (2)schedules- we all keep different timeframes and email and the website allow us to pursue and consume information within our individual life framework. I really believe the web has & will continue to draw us closer together...now to bring on virtual meetings via web based tools- the next frontier to conquer:-)

The bottom line with Article 17 is (heaven forbid I mention this) sin.

Now the Church is actually the place for sinners; and it is no secret- sinners abound in a church.  It is really tragic we should find Article 17 so awful; it was originally designed (imperfectly perhaps) to help sinners negotiate an environment that was created by them!

While it seems we have sinning down to a science, and pretty well understand its function in the article; we really don't have a good handle on the other key facet of Article 17, and it should go hand-in-hand: forgiveness.

We come by sinning so natural, and perhaps that is a reason for an epidemic of "17s" in whatever shape or form.  But it is in forgiving that Article 17 lives in such a graceful manner; therein is its greatest strength!

Article 17 indeed serves a necessary purpose in this sinful world made up of imperfect congregants, pastors, and churches; but 17 also leads us to the precipice of forgiveness...are we ready to take the next step?

Maybe the best advice is not to step...but to leap!

Once we discover the healing power that is delivered by forgiveness and grace- all those "flags and tongues will quit flappin’!"

Healing may, yes will take place for both pastor & church.

Perhaps with Article 17 it is time now to focus more earnestly on forgiveness and grace.

So much to read...so much to contemplate, and shucks- Article 17 takes up such a small place in the Church Order!

Can we "can" 17- no, I don't think so.  "Should we can" 17- no, I don't think so!

Article 17 is there for a good reason, so why all the bad publicity?  For those that have used it with a spirit of understanding it has seemed to work; but for those who perceive it as an "end to a means"...they are terrified by it.

Does it create a stigma, it most certainly does- especially for those who are clergy in this denomination; what about the laity- from my experience with council people, and pew sitters if you ask them their feelings on 17, one of their immediate responses is: "SAY WHAT?"

One of the reasons we need Article 17 is contained in the Letter of Call (excerpts only- emphasis mine)-

"...we extend to you this letter of call and urge you to come and help us...should it please the Lord to send you to us...that you may arrive at a decision that is pleasing to him..."

This is what makes a minister different than one who is "hired and fired," and what confuses the average disenchanted pew sitter that figures if you just don't like the minister- "out with the bum!"

We take this "Calling" business in our denomination rather seriously, and the church is not just run like a business with a transient worker that is looking for upward mobility; even when "upward mobility" may be one of the desired ends for all that enter the house of God.

We need 17 in order to negotiate the troubled waters of pastor and congregation seeking a separation; after all these are the same people who at one time said "this is God's will."

I’m sorry…God does not make a whiff; he does not make a miss; so therefore without proper disengagement, how are we going to seek an amiable, and sometimes a necessary separation and departure?

When Article 17 is explained and understood, most laity say- "OK, let's move on"; however, I have yet to find a minister to rally around the call for 17.  That number for "people of the cloth" is anathema- it is avoided by all means and by all costs because it equals the number of failure- especially when you factor in "the Call!"

So how are we going to make it work like it should; because folks, if we do take the Calling process seriously we really can't get along without- the number 17?

Henry, thanks for joining this thread regarding Art. 17!

Now herein lies a problem that "voices a load"-

Where is the dedication to ministry, successful communal ministry, even if to be successful I (the minister, or council person[my add]) may have to step aside for the good of this congregation. 

Changing church order, rephrasing with kinder more gentle language, initiating a new approach all deal with the symptoms- but not the problem!

Issue here is either a minister or council(individually or whole) that refuse to see beyond the forest; the church is not about me, it is about the ministry that has been given us...once we start to figure out this, while Art 17s may not become extinct- but at least understood with more compassion.

Start with the heart of the minister, or with the hearts of the council...the correct words will fall into place once that happens; IMHO. 

Ken, follow this link and you shall see:-)

http://www.calvinseminary.edu/aboutUs/facultyStaff/cooj.php 

OK...back to the Belhar folks!

One of the most prevalent offshoots of our denominational heritage is a lack of civility when it comes to doctrinal issues that spell "culture."

While we are on the subject, can we all spell "schism"?

You know, that word from Greek: σχίσμα, skhísma- from σχίζω, skhízō, "to tear, to split;" refers to a division between people, usually belonging to an organization or movement religious denomination; most frequently applied to a break of communion between two sections of Christianity that were previously a single body, or to a division within some other religion.(Wikepedia)

Yes, once again the CRCNA as discovered a way to tear itself apart- you know, just like it has done in the past.

CRCNA begat the Free Reformed Church, Protestant Reformed Church, Orthodox Christian Reformed Church, United Reformed Church in North America...but that's how we do business as "Reformed Churches;" right- we keep "reforming" ourselves when we can't agree with each other to get along.

Perhaps one of the most contentious issues of late was women in ecclesiastical office: first we discussed, then we became at odds, then some simply walked out! Even more churches and people than the big split over common grace!

This past Synod we had a couple of churches that said. "Folks, we just can't square yet this issue of women in office with our theology- so let us stay with the CRCNA fellowship and go to another Classis- it was done before." The originating Classis of each church said "fine;" Synod at first said "fine"...then a bunch of delegates who just couldn't figure out how to live with someone that thinks differently said: "no you can't do that," and convinced Synod to retract it's initial thinking. Now that is a sure way to say, "just get out!" "Follow the historical template!"

Are we now going to do the same with the Belhar? It seems the church is split on how to handle this...can't we come up with a compromise for all those folks that want our denomination to stick together- follow the great commission, and agree to disagree- CIVILLY? So we start calling each other names...now that is adult! And this is the same church that is talking "faith formation" of our children?

No, from what I have read on this blog, Network, and in other printed material, the" lines in the sand are being drawn." And it isn't even 2012 yet!

Of course...we probably will do what we know how to do best from history: discuss, cuss(more or less), then "reform" into another "reformed church."

Good thing we all go by the "grace of God"...and aren't we fortunate with that!

So now let's get back to the Belhar, and work this out- and just maybe by the time we turn 175 years old as a denomination we will not have added to that list of "reformed churches" that seems to keep growing!

Then again…perhaps we just can‘t help ourselves, if we miss breaking apart with this one- we sure won’t on the next one; what’s that going to be… 

Fascinating...all of a sudden, with a blink of a "nationalist eye", our brothers and sisters to the north of the border wish "freedom."  Just a short while ago I'm sure there was a great deal of relief when those south of the border decided to help the Canadian Pension Fund out- that was fine.  So if there is a split, is that reimbursed, or adjusted to fit needs both north and south of the line?  Shame on you...shame on us...if we are seeing ourselves as distinct political entities within a collaborative denomination.  How better will Christ be served?  However, I'm sure this imagined split will eventually happen, hopefully amiably.  After all, we are big into equity in our cultures- it's more important to highlight what is mine, what is yours...and who cares about what is ours.  The CRCNA is unique, it has been a lovingly managed by those who see the congregations all over as "one"...and isn't that unity Biblical?  Too bad now for the sake of a few the majority must be denied; all for the sake IMHO of "flag waving."