Henry DeMoor

It may be prudent depending on what the (unusual) circumstances might be.  For example, the elders might have discovered something post-council meeting that demands new action that cannot await the next meeting of council.  That is an outside the normal bounds possibility.  But in most circumstances it would be inappropriate for the elders to do this.  According to the Church Order, both elders and deacons report to and are accountable to the full council and only the council may reconsider an issue and reverse a previous decision.

Hi Michael,

Article 37 of the Church Order talks about requiring the congregation's "judgment" (you can substitute "vote") with regard to "major matters."  Articles of Incorporation and By-laws are clearly in that realm.  In fact, when the article goes on to talk about council having the "authority to [make] and [carry out] final decisions," it excludes "those matters stipulated otherwise in the articles of incorporation or by law."  If you now look at the "model articles of incorporation" in the Supplement to Article 32-d of the Church Order, you will notice that Article VIII there indicates that amendments can only become effective when "at least two thirds of the members of the church who are present and entitled to vote" approve of them.  The model for Canadian churches has similar language.  It is actually the state or province that requires such congregational approval.  Not to call for a congregational vote on changes to the Articles of Incorporation is a violation of the law!

I do hope this helps.

Craig,

Article 59-f applies here.  if it were a church in ecclesiastical fellowship with us, it would be 59-e.  Note that 59-f gives the consistory a responsibility to examine the persons concerning doctrine and conduct.  Then the consistory determines whether this be a "direct admission," a public reaffirmation, or a profession of faith.  One of these three that fits most appropriately with the conclusion of the examination.  If they're PRC, I would probably lean towards the first category of direct admission and so advise the consistory (if there's no problem in the conduct area).

Absolutely, for as long as the pastor continues to be eligible for call. While the new “external call” is sought, the pastor has authority to perform official acts of ministry (preaching and administering the sacraments included) in all Christian Reformed congregations. This denomination-wide authority to do so is withdrawn only if and when a final release from office is implemented by the classis.

Thanks for a great question. I looked in my Psalter Hymnal copy (1987 printing) and verified what you're telling me. I checked the index of synodical decisions and discovered that Synod 1989 did, in fact, adopt changes in the forms of ordination of ministers, elders, and deacons (Acts of Synod, 1989, p. 469). These changes can be found in the Agenda for Synod, 1989, p. 62. It is not surprising, therefore, that Psalter Hymnals printed in 1987 do not reflect these changes. The liturgical forms for the ordination of elders and deacons and ministers on the CRCNA website have been updated to reflect this decision.

It is very important that we recall the need for confidentiality in the work of officebearers at the moment they are installed. The congregation can be assured and those in office reminded, publicly, at least once a year. This will not only encourage parishioners to feel free in sharing necessary information with their pastoral leaders, but also function as a powerful defense against any possible lawsuits.

Your church is certainly not alone in such a disposition toward the deacons. It is also true that many other churches have redefined what ordination and leadership are really all about and militate against what you’re experiencing. It’s been that way for as long as the CRCNA has existed. The tensions have never been totally resolved.

Just for the fun of it, I’ll give you a taste of both sides in our historical narrative.

The minutes of Classis Holland, meeting on April 30, 1851, tell of a certain Mr. Paul Van Vulpen of Grand Haven who “declined the election to the office of deacon, being angry that the office of elder had not been entrusted to him.” Four years after the CRCNA came into existence, Classis Michigan ruled that a deacon presently serving a term could be placed on nomination for the office of elder; if elected, nominations for a new deacon would follow; if not, he would simply serve out his term (February 6, 1861, p. 15). You hear nothing, of course, about an elder being nominated to the office of deacon. It sounds a whole lot like what you call “elders in waiting.” H. Beuker, seminary professor, taught that elders may do the work of a deacon, but not vice versa, based on the theory that the diaconate finds its roots in the “seven” of Acts 6. And the spin on that text was that the ruling offices (apostles) are focused on the “spiritual,” the serving offices (deacons) on the “material” (Wenken over Kerkrecht en Kerkregeering, p. 25).

On the other hand, William Heyns, also a seminary professor, once applauded the formation of diaconal conferences, but insisted that these were “insufficient solutions” because they had no authority to act on behalf of the churches. The ideal solution, he said, would be to delegate deacons to major assemblies with the power to deal with all matters brought before them that concern the ministry of mercy (Gereformeerde Amerikaan, January, 1909, pp. 54-57; September, 1909, pp. 484-88; October, 1909, pp. 497-502; December, 1913, pp. 542-58). More recently, Trinity CRC of Iowa City admitted to a “long-standing practice” of having “the elders conduct annual home visitation accompanied by deacons.” The consistory flatly denied that in this way the deacons were doing the work of the elders. On the contrary, “in a congregation with a large number of students in which there is rapid turnover and [there are] cases of acute, short-term financial need,” such an arrangement actually helped the deacons “in fulfilling their office.” Upon hearing of it, Classis Pella declared that this practice was “in violation of the Church Order” since Church Order Article 65 “assigns the task only to ministers and elders” and the council promptly appealed. Synod 1981 was perplexed enough to “withhold action on the appeal” even though it hinted that, technically speaking, deacons on home visitation might well constitute a “deviation” (Acts of Synod, 1981, pp. 101-02).

There are many more such stories recorded in the annals of our denomination, some of them quite delightful. Very notable is the unauthorized “experiment” on the part of Classis Muskegon in the 1970s to have its churches delegate deacons to a governing assembly, and the subsequent recommendation of a minority report to the Synod of 1980 to carry that experimentation into the rest of the denomination. That recommendation was ruled out of order (Acts of Synod, 1980, pp. 105-06) and twenty-two delegates had their negative votes recorded. Just seventeen years later, synod changed course and permitted the delegation of deacons to classis (Acts of Synod, 1997, p. 621). I could go on and on.

Instead, I’ll just remind you that the offices do not differ in “dignity and honor” (Article 2) and that by our common consent, “no officebearer shall lord it over another officebearer” (Article 85). I would hope that a greater sense of that parity might penetrate the walls of your church.

Older versions of the Church Order spoke of credentials and instructions (e.g., pre-1965, Article 33), and some people have indeed chosen to interpret those last two words to mean that such “binding” of votes is therefore appropriate. I emphatically disagree.

These “instructions” (litterae mandati, i.e. letters of mandate) referred to the specific matters on the agenda of the broader assembly that the delegates were being authorized to deliberate and vote upon. Often they indicated a matter or two that were to be added to the assembly’s already established agenda: last-minute overtures, communications, or requests. Reformed churches have always made a sharp distinction between these litterae mandati and the so-called mandat imperatif to clarify that this has nothing to do with the latter: binding delegates to a particular vote. The “instructions” involved what they were to do, not how they were to do it.

Even Van Dellen and Monsma, known for their insistence on the priority of local congregations, make it quite clear that such binding would disallow true deliberation and ultimately reduce the role of delegates to that of “voting machines” (Revised Church Order Commentary, 1965 ed., p. 146).

Even in our democratic forms of government, members of congress or parliament are not deemed in principle to be bound on any given issue. They are sometimes forced to vote a certain way by their party, but that never seems to happen on issues that involve a moral position. In such sensitive matters, they are allowed to vote as their conscience dictates, even if a majority within their home constituency thinks differently on the matter.

It is understood, however, and probably worth repeating, that delegates to broader assemblies of the CRCNA are bound to transact all business within the framework of their obedience to the Scriptures, subscription to the creeds and confessions, and attachment to the Church Order (see Article 5).

Article 14a leaves no doubt that they can do that. The last time this rarity occurred, the minister confided in me that he had apologized for not consulting the elders sufficiently and that relationships were actually much improved after the run-in. He served with great effect for another three years before moving on, this time with the council’s blessing.

The Church Order specifically gives you the right, at the local level, to select whomever you wish as officers of the council, the consistory, and the diaconate (Article 36). Typically, these are officebearers. Selecting a deacon to be clerk of council is certainly possible. Most councils prefer to have the clerk serve for both council and consistory. That would make the selection of a deacon a bit more problematic since deacons don’t serve on the consistory. But it is entirely your prerogative. 

My other suggestion would be to indicate that it is also possible to appoint a capable person not serving in office to do the actual work of recording and correspondence under the guidance of the selected elder clerk. For example, I have seen retired persons who once served as elders now serve in this capacity with great joy and enthusiasm. You could ask such a person to make a “vow of confidentiality,” and use their time and energy to everyone’s benefit.

Members are free to request a special church visit.  If the council says "yes," which I often advise (again, see my Commentary - it's available on the crcna.org website) for the sake of amicable solutions, the visit can happen and wisdom might well prevail.  If the council says "no,"  members are free to appeal from that decision to the classis and then it can order a special church visit.  This need not be "beyond repairable."  Let's at least assume that brothers and sisters in Christ can be humble, grateful for wisdom, and not constantly pugilistic.

No, not automatically. The Christian Reformed Church has always held that rebaptism constitutes a denial of the doctrine of infant baptism. Thus, on the level of membership status, the denomination regards those who have themselves rebaptized as being “in error”; they violate our confession. The council must ask such a person if he or she still wishes to be a member of our denomination. If so, it must “faithfully and persistently admonish such an erring member” (Acts of Synod, 1973, p. 78). If the unity and wellbeing of the congregation requires it, council may even bar such a member from the Lord’s table. Indeed, it must exercise further discipline if he or she “actively disturbs the unity and peace of the congregation.” But the clear implication is that the person may well “repent of the error” after such admonition. Then, while rebaptism cannot be undone, full-fledged membership must be gladly given.

This is especially important with respect to those who come to the Christian Reformed Church from a church that routinely rebaptizes its members. Their current views, their desires for their own newborn children, and their ability to celebrate infant baptism with the rest of the congregation must all be considered by council in evaluating their membership status.

With respect to holding office, it seems to me that something similar applies. A person who “errs” on this important matter should under no circumstances be allowed to hold office in the church (Acts of Synod, 1973, p. 78). But a person who has “repented of the error” and no longer teaches the necessity of rebaptism should be eligible for office, even if he or she has in fact been rebaptized at an earlier stage in life. If elected, such a person must be expected faithfully to uphold, teach, and defend the church’s official doctrine.