Del VanDenBerg

OK, yet another resignation...you wonder if Synod will have enough time: http://www.thebanner.org/news/article/?id=3360 

First Synod where the BOT has taken the place of Synod, and many other denominational leadership roles; and is consequently making rather than suggesting decisions.

Two questions: (1) are we a denomination that is ruled by committee, or where social and political agendas take precedence to our Reformed heritage?  (2) Is the BOT an interim committee, or something else?

In my humble opinion- we have a wonderful church and there are many that are full of the Spirit of God leading the church in many wonderful ways, and God will be praised!

However, just recently it seems "the denominational ship is making some mournful sounds of bulkheads breaking, and slowly beginning to slip beneath the waves!"

George, I really hesitated to put these thoughts in writing; but recent events have struck me as this is exactly what is happening. 

I think we all must be careful in how we assess this situation; but I do stand by my assessment of we have "a first."

George, I do know one member on the BOT rather well.  I assume the other individuals who represent their regions are of the highest caliber as that individual. Each is doing his or her best...prayerfully I would presume and with the utmost care and thought.

However, there is a perception beyond the BOT and its members, that all is not well with our leadership at this time. Somehow that perception must be corrected- I would presume it will be when Synod meets, so we all need to be patient.

If we review the landscape of or church's history, we see it littered with issues and events that today are rather insignificant to us...perhaps all this will fall into that category 25, or 50 years from now.  However, "we are who we were," and whether we are talking race, politics, or religion, "we are who we are today"- by unmeasured grace.

Still, as that wonderful poem goes...we must take a stand and not leave butt prints in the sand.

May our loving heavenly Father surround the members of the BOT, our church, you and me with his loving arms...and carry us through, this I am confident that he will. 

Classis- the word itself is a literal "classic" handed down from the ancients. However archaic the word, it is part of our unique "church speak" setting us apart in a way that is really not all bad in a world where conformity is a guise for "unity or sameness"- think McDonalds, or Tim Hortons.

I rather like this word's flamboyant heritage- "sails whipping and snapping in the wind as a vessel jostles over waves and dives through deep swells, traveling from port to port bringing supplies to isolated outposts where people eagerly await a visit with the supplies brought from exotic places and communication that is enlightening."

A romantic allusion to the purpose of a Classis today- perhaps; but when you put Classis in the context of churches often more than a day's drive from each other West of the Mississippi and due East of the Sierra Nevada's- it makes sense.

Those scattered churches, for sure their leaders, are isolated and the twice or more a year Classis meeting is eagerly sought out for the collegiality and spiritual uplift that is brought. Delivered with each Classis "renewal" there is spiritual gain, thoughtful discussions, prayer and praise, and yes...nourishment from verbal sparring as Classis closes.

Often today, Classis preparation begins with a collective sigh by those who anticipate the "short straw" requiring a mandatory trip to a faraway place; but it ends with each delegate experiencing a transformation that is really hard to describe, and once returned to their church- changed. This is no illusion, it really happens.

So does that mean all Classis meetings are uplifting and edifying- hardly so...we could only wish.

However we need to keep working at making Classis a viable exercise that truly draws the delegates and their churches closer together, reinvigorating their ministries and extending the vision provided by the Word of God to each community they touch.

Is a Classis an unfinished work with room for more "renewal"...by all means.  Still a need for asking "What is Classis"...you bet!

VanGelder raises a thoughtful challenge Elizabeth: "Can a church polity (how we govern our church, i.e. the Church Order) that was developed in a time when the Christendom world view was fully operational still be relevant in our multi-faith world, where Christianity is just one of many faiths seeking people’s attention? "

"Looking back...seeing forward..." is but one of VanGelder's interesting writings on desired change for denominations and their institutions moving toward a more missional church.  In fact, in his book, The Missional Church & Denominations: Helping Congregations Develop a Missional Identity.  2008, he raises that question directly- what does it take to make a "settled denomination" move toward becoming a "missional denomination?"

Part of his answer speaks to church organization as it would be found in Church Order, p.282:

“…it is essential to have continuity in leadership.  The issue of turnover in leadership is one of the major problems we have in Reformed polity.  It affects all of our assemblies. Is that because we don’t trust anyone?  We constantly change the leadership of our assemblies, and that constantly makes maintaining a consistent direction very difficult.  It requires what I would call, “community of change agents” to become what some have called a “guiding coalition.”  Some stable group needs to carry the vision of change forward over time.  In the RCA case, we’ve been able to get our regional synod executives and senior staff to come together and say, “We will be the guiding coalition for missional change.”  You have to develop such ongoing vision in some way.” 

Then perhaps it takes a stable assembly, a Classis, to help articulate vision for the churches of a region- becoming a key agent for change.  So do we "throw the baby out with the wash" as it may, or do we find a way to allow regional Classis articulate a vision, utilizing a strong framework, a Church Order, to move the church in a "missional" direction?

I would think so.

In fact, I have read in nearly every commentary from the early 1900s to the present authored by DeMoor- Church Order is to be dynamic document, reflecting our understanding of the Word of God as we seek prayerfully how it applies to our church and culture today, via the template of wisdom gained through the ages.

Classis meetings then may, and should become the one of our "incubators" allowing churches to develop a vision, albeit not a real flashy way- two meetings a year at least; but giving churches opportunity to share, create, and articulate vision; all because a Church Order, imperfect as it may be, requires them to meet.     

True John, imposed visions are rather onerous...no one like them, unless of course it "comforts" an individual or organization's thinking.

Classis, unlike Synod is a mechanism that is designed to do what a council requests, or seeks; its mandate is limited to what the delegates deliberate and decide as "churches." Synod is different in many ways, check the church order as it has developed which I am sure you have because you comments are rather thoughtful and seeking.

A Classis must be an enabler to function correctly in my mind; of course it must too follow Church Order and Synodical decisions- but it can challenge those items if the member churches request it do so.

No "man is an island" as it may, nor a church.  We often try it, but it seldom works.

Together we support, carry, and help one another succeed.  Perhaps that is why we encourage fellowship on personal, church, and institutional level as a denomination.

The "rubber hits the road" in the work and ministry of the congregation- true; however, with the limited resources of many churches, especially small ones, it is the support of their Classis that provides the “umph” to keep the “rubber” moving successfully.  

Thanks Ken...you too are intelligent, but perhaps too humble to say so, but your "opins" reflect that:-)

Dialogue is not all bad, change...we will see. Our Church Order is a document of collective wisdom, imperfect as it may be, but has as much potential for good as those who write it...or interpret it. History has demonstrates that more people "leave" our Church Order, than Church Order "leaving" them. Yet, I think recent changes have struck a nerve, and perhaps "anticipated changes" imagined certainly are not doing it any favors.

I do agree with Elizabeth on one thing(she asks this in one of her other blogs), perhaps we need to explore another "conversation," is there a third way we are overlooking- neither "left or right," "wrong or right," or whatever...our family history of Reformed church is littered with offspring that are "reforming" because it is perceived there is no middle ground or any other way.  There are things we cannot compromise- one is the Word of God...but that has really been up for interpretation, and misinterpretation of late.

Right now I tend to agree with DeMoor in his most recent commentary(p.10): "May all our ways be fitting to who we are in Christ, by grace, as a people of Christian and Reformed persuasion in twenty-first century North America."(italics mine)

That will be the challenge for us as we continue the dialogue...gracefully.  

OK, some personal observations based on my limited knowledge that continues to seek wisdom...

First, the Church Order is a human construction…perhaps a point that everyone can agree with.  When it was contrived a long time ago, it was no doubt created to preserve a status quo that was perceived in the best interest of everyone- particularly those in who created it; giving all benefit of the doubt- without malice.  Now this last observation is not one everyone agrees with I’m sure.

Second, the Church Order continues to change, yes…actually a lot since it was revised in 1965.  It is not a static document, and while many see it as oppressive- it provides minimum cohesion in keeping the denomination in a state of order allowing those who desire change to enact it; and those who embrace status quo to preserve it; I find this rather fascinating.

Third, I really don’t think anyone really wants an environment without rules…chaos would not allow this dialogue at all; this dialogue is necessary to bring about desired or needed revision.

Now as to purpose of Church Order- it is to give a framework to an organization, the outline or table of contents displays this.  Too much about ministers- perhaps that was perceived where the most abuse could arise.  Too little on Elders, well that leadership element at the time of Church Order creation was still developing and hardly seen as a threat to order…some would not think they are today yet, but given too much power- abuse can happen from any quarter.

Now as to “church speak,” that mysterious language that is created to exclude the uninformed…ministers do not have a corner on that, laity creates its own; nor can it fool the informed.  Is it an exclusive code, hardly…can it be used to create exclusiveness, of course it can!

Perhaps what the church needs is “order” not to create exclusiveness by those perceived to be in control, or by those who desire to control the “controllers.”  It needs servant leaders who put Christ first, and self or personal agendas second; is this possible within the scope of human sinfulness- that is a good question.

As to creating an environment where Elders speak up, that really is in the control or hands of the Elders; from my experience in Council, often it is easier to sit on your hands rather than raising them for action.  Ministers go to every Classis meeting, and Classis is demystified to them while an Elder at best may volunteer to go to one meeting in his term or lifetime.  Is it because they are afraid of ministers- perhaps once, but that is become less and less as time and knowledge, or wisdom is gained.  No longer do you find a “dominee aurora” blinding Elders- this fact is demonstrated by more Elders becoming “presidents of councils.”

We need to get Elders to show the same passion for their office as they show in their businesses- they are not shy there, and should not be in Councils, or Classes.  However, that will also require a paradigm change on their part enabling a servant heart.

Maybe I overly optimistic, but our Church Order is just a tool- to be used for Christ’s glory, or unfortunately otherwise.  

John, I really don't know where to begin...seems like we keep talking "apples and oranges;" but be it as it may- we are getting a lovely salad with our discussion!

OK, let's reduce it...nobody ever said we can't. That's the beauty of our Church Order- it's our covenant with each other.  Take the time to read it, I know you have, but others too.  Start with p.7 of the most recent edition- purple cover book, fourth paragraph:

"It's important to remember that the Church Order is a document of the churches, and what it says and how it changes is determined by the churches together.  It is our book; in a sense, we all are its authors.' (bold letters- my emphasis:-)

So...get busy, change it.  Place to do it is Synod, meets in June- the only place were we all get together...or borrowing one of your images from your last rather intuitive comment- "flush it out!" 

No John, just cleaning the "desktop of life" lately and haven't found time to respond fully!  However, I want you to know I have learned a couple of things in my journey on this "blue marble:" (1) never take yourself too seriously, and for sure what I say- I may have to re-evaluate later; (2) never...never ASSUME anything- the word may become an acronym and turn around on you!

OK, do something for me- define congregationalism, and "the priesthood of all believers." Both of these are presenting a healthy challenge to our church- denomination, today. Not bad words, but certainly a change in traditional thinking.

As for Elders getting more actively involved in worship services, that is happening more today then ever before including the Lord's Supper, and other functions of the service(Church Order sanctions this). I think the church as a whole is more accepting to laity involvement then you like to realize. That perhaps is because the congregation's knowledge level of things temporal and spiritual is increasing, once upon a time- the preacher was the only one who had learning beyond the 8th grade, not anymore. That can be challenging for ministers and congregation too," too many cooks often spoil the broth," but before you jump on that- it can also be healthy!

As for Classis and its relationship to local churches- my Classis still takes the local church very seriously- elder or minister. 

So go back to the second paragraph and let's dialogue on those items, because once we solve those two, Church Order will follow along since we are the authors of it- even if you would like to think otherwise.

Too uncomfortable to respond- nah, just busy; but you got me thinking and I presume a few more folks too. 

Karl- this is a critical question, one that I keep asking myself as a Stated Clerk...who but is a servant of this creation.

Perhaps the one thing I see that a Classis is responsible is to be an "enabler" of the churches and people of "its fold."

Unfortunately many times, and I'm sure we are not unique, we get bogged down with the things we must accomplish or feel need to be accomplished as middle management- appointments, financial challenges, procedural rules and the like.  The fact we only meet a couple times and most often 50% of those in attendance see the faces for the first time- which often brings a different dynamic.  Then there are the 50% who have guarded expectancies of those in attendance b/c of agendas and the like.

However, recently I have seen a change- perhaps that is a result of a new spirit fostered by attempting to find a commonality among the attendees, prayer has that affect you know- breaks down barriers and the like.

I do think that if Classis does not seek to enable churches and congregations it will cease to be an effective tool, and become a wedge that is only used for leverage by those who seek a means to make our denomination "walk lockstep" without a sense of creativity or direction unique to each Classis.  If that is the case- Classis will not be an "enabler," but simply a "conduit."