Retired from the seminary on August 31, 2010. Served 24 years as Professor of Church Polity, eight of those with the additional responsibility of VP for Academic Affairs. Served at Synod of the CRCNA for two years as a delegate and for twenty years as an adviser.
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.
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!
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).
Historically, churches in the Reformed tradition including ours have always held the position that approval for and making a profession of faith gave persons the right to "adult membership" and therefore also to vote at congregational meetings. We call them "confessing members" (Article 59-b, CO) who have "the right to vote" (Article 59-c). Synod currently leaves it up to the local congregations to determine "the appropriate age at which a confessing member shall receive such privileges and responsibilities" (Supplement, Article 59-c). If no age is mentioned in any congregational decisions or by-laws, the age of 18 doesn't apply. A person could make a profession at age 16, for example. The only reason why for a time the CRCNA had a provision in the Church Order that actually mentioned the age of 18 was due to synodical decisions on children at the Lord's Supper. For a time, synod decided that our members could make an "early profession of faith" and be admitted to the Lord's table -- the typical age was somewhere between 9 and 12. They would then meet with council again, somewhere around their 18th birthday, be interviewed regarding their understanding of privileges and responsibilities of confessing membership, and be granted the right to vote. Sometimes this was done in the council room, sometimes it was celebrated in public worship and those who had shared communion with us could then be officially welcomed before the congregation and its Lord. Synod later decided that "all baptized members who come with age- and ability-appropriate faith in Jesus Christ are welcome to the Lord's Supper ..." (Article 59-a). It then went on to say that "baptized members shall be encouraged to make a public profession of faith ..." (Article 59-b). What that means in practice is that the age for making profession was once again moved to "somewhere around 18" without any definitiveness about that number, just like it had been the case for centuries. So now, in my congregation, children are prepared for participation in the Lord's Supper in their children's worship centers -- at the time where they no longer leave half-way through the service, usually at age 7 or thereabouts -- and thereafter take communion with us. Then, at around the time of high school graduation, the church prepares them and encourages them to make public profession of faith (which they now haven't done at a younger age). So with regard to the right to vote at congregational meetings, we're right back where we started centuries ago. [☺] Though now they can have communion based only upon their baptism and some initial instruction. The only caveat to all this is that churches not only need to follow the Church Order but they also adopt their own Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. Synod has a model for that (Supplement, Article 32-d), but what is legally operative is what the individual congregation has adopted and filed(hopefully it follows synod's model). It is possible that a given congregation might spell out an age where a person is granted the right to vote. It is not likely, but it is possible, and that should be investigated. The congregation could always change that again, but one must go by what's on file currently in the province or state in which the church is located. The model Articles say in Article VII only that a congregational vote is obtained "at a meeting of the members present and entitled to vote." So that leaves it to the Church Order and local council to decide ecclesiastically rather than the more legal route of Articles of Incorporation. Typically provinces and states allow congregations to decide this matter in its own way without dictating any particular voting age. That is, of course, unlike the voting age in the political sense.
Well, Alejandro, I'm not sure I can quickly save you from all confusion. This is an important discussion. Its focus should be on who is eligible to hold office in the CRC, on whether a rebaptism in and of itself makes one ineligible, on whether views on rebaptism must be in agreement with the doctrine and practice of the CRC in order to serve in office.
I understand that people often "broaden the focus" of a thread like this by also dwelling on related issues. One of such related issues is the validity of infant baptism that, in the view of the person baptized, has been administered in a wrongful manner or in the wrong spirit (such as a belief that the baptism will "magically" save a person). On this score we follow Augustine's view, not that of the Donatists, as you can read in my Commentary under Article 58. The other related issue is whether the sacrament of baptism finds its meaning and significance in our feelings and emotions or in God's action toward us. The CRC has never said the former but always said the latter. Baptism is only a sign and seal of the promises found in the Word of God. It is called for because God wants us to lay those promises on infants as soon as possible after their birth. This is true regardless of whether we feel that we were "wrongly" baptized or now feel that our faith has taken a huge turn for the better, etc.
We should ask of all officebearers that they speak and act according to our confessions -- what they say about baptism, about our regeneration and about our sacraments. And since I was asked whether someone rebaptized is then "automatically excluded" from officebearing, I focused on that and said: No, that fact should not in and of itself prevent it. But we do all need to subscribe to our church's confessions. That's our covenant together.
Most large congregations that have a council as large as yours handle this matter by recognizing, first off, that all the ordained (ministers, elders, deacons) form the council of the church. This is a creedal basis found in Article 30 of the Belgic Confession. Next, if this council is too large and has long meetings, they often split up the elders by having administrative elders and pastoral elders, and the deacons by having administrative deacons and "pastoral" deacons who attend specifically to diaconal issues. The administrative elders and deacons then gather to form an "Executive of Council," the pastoral elders meet as a consistory (Art. 35) and the "pastoral" deacons meet as a diaconate (Art. 35). The Executive of Council meets monthly and takes care of routine responsibilities. The full council meets only two or three or four times a year. This is time for mutual censure. the broad vision of the congregation's ministry, the final adoption of the church budget that reflects that broad vision, and other matters of major concern like calling a minister, choosing new officebearers, etc. The full council then often receives reports of the consistory and the diaconate. This works well because the pastoral elders and "pastoral" deacons do not feel disenfranchised (they're in on full council meetings too and get to vote on major matters) and the administrative elders and deacons that form the Executive of Council have smaller meetings on a monthly basis.
I do not find this in conflict with Article 35 and Article 36 of the Church Order. I am afraid that in the structure you mention there is an issue of disenfranchisement since pastoral elders and deacons don't vote on the annual budget etc. I also think it is better to speak of Council and an Executive of Council rather than council with a line through it and council without a line through it.
As for times of meeting, Article 36 says monthly but we have always interpreted that to mean that all these meetings should be held often enough to meet all the needs of the congregation and its governance. There is some flexibility, but as long as an Executive, a consistory, and a diaconate meet monthly, it's fine if full council meets only three or four times a year.
The key, actually, to avoiding problems here is that there must be good communication all around. And our current technological advances (group e-mails, etc) make that more possible than ever before.
I would make sure, again, that we follow the creedal impulse: all the ordained are the council. It may then increase its efficiency through a structure such as I suggest above, and in practice your structure doesn't seem that far removed from what I propose.
In our congregation we have "remembrance of baptism" or "renewal of baptismal vows" from time to time, perhaps twice a year depending on the occasions for it, and then we do not apply water to anyone's head or hand. Instead, the minister has a big cup of water that he/she visibly pours into the baptismal font. We then say the renewal liturgy together: Do you renounce sin and do you desire to follow Christ, etc. and the congregation says "We do." Since it is not applied, there is no doubt that this is NOT a rebaptism of any kind.
Elections for officebearers are governed by local articles of incorporation, bylaws, or any other rules adopted by the local council. If they say nothing about tie votes, my advice would be to decide between two options: (1) have the congregation vote a second time to see if that breaks the tie, or (2) have the council exercise its right to have final authority in such matters (Article 37) and, by its vote, break the tie. If the vote by the council is a tie, the chair of council (who should not be voting in the first round) may break the tie and choose. The only local article governing this that I have seen that does not call for a reelection is one whereby a tie is broken by having the older person serve. That too is the council’s prerogative. But it’s probably best not to exercise that option in this case. You must never change the rules during the game. Change them after the game.
No, it does not. Synod has seen to the preliminary testing of the internal call and the required gifts and training, and now announces that these persons are eligible for a call to one of our churches. This is referred to as the “external call.” If that is forthcoming and the candidate accepts, he or she will first be subjected to yet another examination by the classis in which that calling church finds itself (Article 10). While the candidate’s biblical and theological position is still probed, the exam concentrates on service in that particular region within the CRCNA and that particular congregation, paying attention to local issues and concerns. When that exam is sustained, the classis gives permission to the calling church to ordain the individual to the office of ministry in its midst. Only when that ordination occurs, complete with the “laying on of hands,” has the person actually become a minister of the Word.
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.
Posted in: Reversing Decisions of Council?
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.
Posted in: Should the Congregation Vote on By-Laws and Articles of Incorporation?
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.
Posted in: Membership Transfer From Protestant Reformed Church?
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).
Posted in: Do Congregational Members Under 18 Vote?
Historically, churches in the Reformed tradition including ours have always held the position that approval for and making a profession of faith gave persons the right to "adult membership" and therefore also to vote at congregational meetings. We call them "confessing members" (Article 59-b, CO) who have "the right to vote" (Article 59-c). Synod currently leaves it up to the local congregations to determine "the appropriate age at which a confessing member shall receive such privileges and responsibilities" (Supplement, Article 59-c). If no age is mentioned in any congregational decisions or by-laws, the age of 18 doesn't apply. A person could make a profession at age 16, for example.
The only reason why for a time the CRCNA had a provision in the Church Order that actually mentioned the age of 18 was due to synodical decisions on children at the Lord's Supper. For a time, synod decided that our members could make an "early profession of faith" and be admitted to the Lord's table -- the typical age was somewhere between 9 and 12. They would then meet with council again, somewhere around their 18th birthday, be interviewed regarding their understanding of privileges and responsibilities of confessing membership, and be granted the right to vote. Sometimes this was done in the council room, sometimes it was celebrated in public worship and those who had shared communion with us could then be officially welcomed before the congregation and its Lord. Synod later decided that "all baptized members who come with age- and ability-appropriate faith in Jesus Christ are welcome to the Lord's Supper ..." (Article 59-a). It then went on to say that "baptized members shall be encouraged to make a public profession of faith ..." (Article 59-b). What that means in practice is that the age for making profession was once again moved to "somewhere around 18" without any definitiveness about that number, just like it had been the case for centuries. So now, in my congregation, children are prepared for participation in the Lord's Supper in their children's worship centers -- at the time where they no longer leave half-way through the service, usually at age 7 or thereabouts -- and thereafter take communion with us. Then, at around the time of high school graduation, the church prepares them and encourages them to make public profession of faith (which they now haven't done at a younger age).
So with regard to the right to vote at congregational meetings, we're right back where we started centuries ago. [☺] Though now they can have communion based only upon their baptism and some initial instruction.
The only caveat to all this is that churches not only need to follow the Church Order but they also adopt their own Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. Synod has a model for that (Supplement, Article 32-d), but what is legally operative is what the individual congregation has adopted and filed(hopefully it follows synod's model). It is possible that a given congregation might spell out an age where a person is granted the right to vote. It is not likely, but it is possible, and that should be investigated. The congregation could always change that again, but one must go by what's on file currently in the province or state in which the church is located. The model Articles say in Article VII only that a congregational vote is obtained "at a meeting of the members present and entitled to vote." So that leaves it to the Church Order and local council to decide ecclesiastically rather than the more legal route of Articles of Incorporation. Typically provinces and states allow congregations to decide this matter in its own way without dictating any particular voting age. That is, of course, unlike the voting age in the political sense.
Posted in: Does rebaptism automatically disqualify that person from holding office in the Christian Reformed Church?
Well, Alejandro, I'm not sure I can quickly save you from all confusion. This is an important discussion. Its focus should be on who is eligible to hold office in the CRC, on whether a rebaptism in and of itself makes one ineligible, on whether views on rebaptism must be in agreement with the doctrine and practice of the CRC in order to serve in office.
I understand that people often "broaden the focus" of a thread like this by also dwelling on related issues. One of such related issues is the validity of infant baptism that, in the view of the person baptized, has been administered in a wrongful manner or in the wrong spirit (such as a belief that the baptism will "magically" save a person). On this score we follow Augustine's view, not that of the Donatists, as you can read in my Commentary under Article 58. The other related issue is whether the sacrament of baptism finds its meaning and significance in our feelings and emotions or in God's action toward us. The CRC has never said the former but always said the latter. Baptism is only a sign and seal of the promises found in the Word of God. It is called for because God wants us to lay those promises on infants as soon as possible after their birth. This is true regardless of whether we feel that we were "wrongly" baptized or now feel that our faith has taken a huge turn for the better, etc.
We should ask of all officebearers that they speak and act according to our confessions -- what they say about baptism, about our regeneration and about our sacraments. And since I was asked whether someone rebaptized is then "automatically excluded" from officebearing, I focused on that and said: No, that fact should not in and of itself prevent it. But we do all need to subscribe to our church's confessions. That's our covenant together.
Posted in: We Are a Large CRC Congregation. This Means That?
Henry,
Most large congregations that have a council as large as yours handle this matter by recognizing, first off, that all the ordained (ministers, elders, deacons) form the council of the church. This is a creedal basis found in Article 30 of the Belgic Confession. Next, if this council is too large and has long meetings, they often split up the elders by having administrative elders and pastoral elders, and the deacons by having administrative deacons and "pastoral" deacons who attend specifically to diaconal issues. The administrative elders and deacons then gather to form an "Executive of Council," the pastoral elders meet as a consistory (Art. 35) and the "pastoral" deacons meet as a diaconate (Art. 35). The Executive of Council meets monthly and takes care of routine responsibilities. The full council meets only two or three or four times a year. This is time for mutual censure. the broad vision of the congregation's ministry, the final adoption of the church budget that reflects that broad vision, and other matters of major concern like calling a minister, choosing new officebearers, etc. The full council then often receives reports of the consistory and the diaconate. This works well because the pastoral elders and "pastoral" deacons do not feel disenfranchised (they're in on full council meetings too and get to vote on major matters) and the administrative elders and deacons that form the Executive of Council have smaller meetings on a monthly basis.
I do not find this in conflict with Article 35 and Article 36 of the Church Order. I am afraid that in the structure you mention there is an issue of disenfranchisement since pastoral elders and deacons don't vote on the annual budget etc. I also think it is better to speak of Council and an Executive of Council rather than council with a line through it and council without a line through it.
As for times of meeting, Article 36 says monthly but we have always interpreted that to mean that all these meetings should be held often enough to meet all the needs of the congregation and its governance. There is some flexibility, but as long as an Executive, a consistory, and a diaconate meet monthly, it's fine if full council meets only three or four times a year.
The key, actually, to avoiding problems here is that there must be good communication all around. And our current technological advances (group e-mails, etc) make that more possible than ever before.
I would make sure, again, that we follow the creedal impulse: all the ordained are the council. It may then increase its efficiency through a structure such as I suggest above, and in practice your structure doesn't seem that far removed from what I propose.
Hope this is somewhat helpful.
Posted in: We Are a Large CRC Congregation. This Means That?
Good stuff, Jim. We use Dropbox. At council meetings we project everything on the white wall. At home, everything's just a few clicks away.
Posted in: Post Baptismal Use of Waters of Baptism?
Jeff,
In our congregation we have "remembrance of baptism" or "renewal of baptismal vows" from time to time, perhaps twice a year depending on the occasions for it, and then we do not apply water to anyone's head or hand. Instead, the minister has a big cup of water that he/she visibly pours into the baptismal font. We then say the renewal liturgy together: Do you renounce sin and do you desire to follow Christ, etc. and the congregation says "We do." Since it is not applied, there is no doubt that this is NOT a rebaptism of any kind.
Just as cheerfully yours,
Posted in: What Should One Do in the Case of a Tie Vote When Electing Officebearers?
Elections for officebearers are governed by local articles of incorporation, bylaws, or any other rules adopted by the local council. If they say nothing about tie votes, my advice would be to decide between two options: (1) have the congregation vote a second time to see if that breaks the tie, or (2) have the council exercise its right to have final authority in such matters (Article 37) and, by its vote, break the tie. If the vote by the council is a tie, the chair of council (who should not be voting in the first round) may break the tie and choose. The only local article governing this that I have seen that does not call for a reelection is one whereby a tie is broken by having the older person serve. That too is the council’s prerogative. But it’s probably best not to exercise that option in this case. You must never change the rules during the game. Change them after the game.
Posted in: Does Synod’s Declaration of Candidacy Make Official That These Graduates of Our Seminary Are Now Ministers of the Word?
No, it does not. Synod has seen to the preliminary testing of the internal call and the required gifts and training, and now announces that these persons are eligible for a call to one of our churches. This is referred to as the “external call.” If that is forthcoming and the candidate accepts, he or she will first be subjected to yet another examination by the classis in which that calling church finds itself (Article 10). While the candidate’s biblical and theological position is still probed, the exam concentrates on service in that particular region within the CRCNA and that particular congregation, paying attention to local issues and concerns. When that exam is sustained, the classis gives permission to the calling church to ordain the individual to the office of ministry in its midst. Only when that ordination occurs, complete with the “laying on of hands,” has the person actually become a minister of the Word.
Posted in: Is a Pastor Released by Way of Article 17 Still Authorized to Preach and Administer the Sacraments?
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.
Posted in: During the Installation Service for Elders and Deacons, Should There Be a Vow of Confidentiality?
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.