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.
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.
Article 30 is about formal appeals, not about church visiting. The appropriate article is Article 42. As I indicated on page 247 of my CRC Church Order Commentary classical church visitors do not have the freedom to meet with members of the congregation without the presence of at least a delegation of the council. The entire council must give its blessing on such a meeting and needs a report from the church visitors about the content of the meeting. So such meetings are possible but an "end run" around the council is not permitted.
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.
Yea, verily, it is played frequently and with much gusto. For what I take to be mysterious, yet, upon reflection, excellent or even ingenious reasons, the emotional level of CRCNA members that attends the issues involved tends to wane as the study takes its time and toll. This in direct contrast to the way you raucous Maple Leaf fans increasingly explode as the season on ice progresses. Why do you approach it so fanatically anyhow? Here in the U.S. we just have hockey teams for commercial reasons. Fodder for a new study committee? Wait, no, Article 28, “ecclesiastical matters only”!
For the long answer, please consult with our professors at Calvin Theological Seminary. You might sense first-hand in what they tell you that they would not describe the training our synod insists on in such drastic terms. But I’ll give you the short answer.
There is no way to live into the meaning of the ancient text for the first hearers without reading and hearing that text in its original shape and context, and, therefore, no way to apply that Word with its inherent relevance accurately and reliably to our contemporary world. Without this direct access you will forever be dependent on translators and commentators without any assurance that they actually “got it right.” That can’t provide much in the way of your being utterly comfortable in what you’ll be saying from the church’s pulpits.
I am not aware of any official position taken by the CRCNA. It's true that there was this custom remaining in Geneva for a time. But the earliest of Reformed synods in the 16th century continental Reformed tradition left the use of godparents ("doopgetuigen" - literally, baptismal witnesses) as one of the diaphora (indifferent things). There was a rejection of earlier Roman Catholic practices in this regard, and the use of godparents fell into disuse fairly quickly. In general, later assemblies insisted that one of the (natural or adopting) parents must be a confessing member and present for the sacrament, taking upon him- or herself the responsibility to lead the child in the way of the Covenant.
Since it is an indifferent matter, some churches have re-introduced this phenomenon, but never as a replacement for one or both parents. In our congregation, we've had "mentors" stand with the parents as those who agree to be more especially involved than most members in the task of the entire congregation to bring up this particular child in the Christian faith.
I'd be interested in knowing about other instances of use of godparents in our denomination.
I don’t know how good they’ll be, but this is what I’ve heard and seen. What I do not recommend is that the second service be almost exactly like the morning service. In some cases, the difference has involved no more than substituting the call to confession and assurance of pardon with a recitation of the Apostles’ or Nicene Creeds. Our increasingly diverse denomination needs to consider variety.
Consider the teaching service. Early Reformed “second services” were educationally focused. That’s one reason why our Catechism is divided into 52 Lord’s Days and why ministers are asked “each Lord’s Day . . . ordinarily [to] preach the Word as summarized in the creeds and confessions of the church, especially the Heidelberg Catechism” (Article 54b). In the past, synod has even encouraged the use of the contemporary testimony (“Our World Belongs to God”) for this purpose. I sometimes think that members in our churches are confessionally illiterate. Teaching services, creatively planned and well executed, might be just the ticket.
Consider other possibilities as well. A contemporary music service once a month that truly appeals to the young and the youngminded. Perhaps a service in the style of Taizé with its contemplative stillness. A service focused on healing. An “end of the year” service on the Sunday evening before the 31st to remember those who passed on, those who were born or adopted or brought into the church membership, and/or the cardinal moments in nation and world. An intergenerational worship service of one kind or another. For great ideas check with the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship or consult back issues of Reformed Worship magazine (both with a rich online presence). Or arrange for smaller gatherings in homes where people either form a community and tackle each other’s challenges with biblical insights and shared prayer or deliberately disciple new members into our fellowship—or both of these together. In that case, be sure that “such alternatives are part of a strategic ministry plan with full accountability to [your] classis” (Supplement, Article 51a).
All this is not radically new territory. Synod 2005, for example, decided to “remind the churches that the second worship service may be a teaching service, employing models such as small groups, house churches, and various congregational gatherings characterized by learning together, dialogue, and interaction” (Acts of Synod, 2005, p. 720).
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.
Posted in: Shouldn't Deacons Be More Than "Elders in Waiting"?
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.
Posted in: Is It Appropriate for Council or Classis to Instruct Their Delegates How to Vote?
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).
Posted in: Can My Church Council Prevent Me From Accepting a Call to Another Church?
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.
Posted in: Could a Deacon Be Clerk of Council?
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.
Posted in: We Are a Large CRC Congregation. This Means That?
Article 30 is about formal appeals, not about church visiting. The appropriate article is Article 42. As I indicated on page 247 of my CRC Church Order Commentary classical church visitors do not have the freedom to meet with members of the congregation without the presence of at least a delegation of the council. The entire council must give its blessing on such a meeting and needs a report from the church visitors about the content of the meeting. So such meetings are possible but an "end run" around the council is not permitted.
Posted in: We Are a Large CRC Congregation. This Means That?
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.
Posted in: Does rebaptism automatically disqualify that person from holding office in the Christian Reformed Church?
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.
Posted in: Is the favourite sport of the CRC shoving all important issues into study committees?
Yea, verily, it is played frequently and with much gusto. For what I take to be mysterious, yet, upon reflection, excellent or even ingenious reasons, the emotional level of CRCNA members that attends the issues involved tends to wane as the study takes its time and toll. This in direct contrast to the way you raucous Maple Leaf fans increasingly explode as the season on ice progresses. Why do you approach it so fanatically anyhow? Here in the U.S. we just have hockey teams for commercial reasons. Fodder for a new study committee? Wait, no, Article 28, “ecclesiastical matters only”!
Posted in: Why Must We Endure the Torture of Learning the Hebrew and the Greek?
For the long answer, please consult with our professors at Calvin Theological Seminary. You might sense first-hand in what they tell you that they would not describe the training our synod insists on in such drastic terms. But I’ll give you the short answer.
There is no way to live into the meaning of the ancient text for the first hearers without reading and hearing that text in its original shape and context, and, therefore, no way to apply that Word with its inherent relevance accurately and reliably to our contemporary world. Without this direct access you will forever be dependent on translators and commentators without any assurance that they actually “got it right.” That can’t provide much in the way of your being utterly comfortable in what you’ll be saying from the church’s pulpits.
I promised a short answer so, enough said.
Posted in: Does the CRC Have an Official Position on Godparents?
Jeff,
I am not aware of any official position taken by the CRCNA. It's true that there was this custom remaining in Geneva for a time. But the earliest of Reformed synods in the 16th century continental Reformed tradition left the use of godparents ("doopgetuigen" - literally, baptismal witnesses) as one of the diaphora (indifferent things). There was a rejection of earlier Roman Catholic practices in this regard, and the use of godparents fell into disuse fairly quickly. In general, later assemblies insisted that one of the (natural or adopting) parents must be a confessing member and present for the sacrament, taking upon him- or herself the responsibility to lead the child in the way of the Covenant.
Since it is an indifferent matter, some churches have re-introduced this phenomenon, but never as a replacement for one or both parents. In our congregation, we've had "mentors" stand with the parents as those who agree to be more especially involved than most members in the task of the entire congregation to bring up this particular child in the Christian faith.
I'd be interested in knowing about other instances of use of godparents in our denomination.
Posted in: Do you have any good ideas for a meaningful and better-attended second service?
I don’t know how good they’ll be, but this is what I’ve heard and seen. What I do not recommend is that the second service be almost exactly like the morning service. In some cases, the difference has involved no more than substituting the call to confession and assurance of pardon with a recitation of the Apostles’ or Nicene Creeds. Our increasingly diverse denomination needs to consider variety.
Consider the teaching service. Early Reformed “second services” were educationally focused. That’s one reason why our Catechism is divided into 52 Lord’s Days and why ministers are asked “each Lord’s Day . . . ordinarily [to] preach the Word as summarized in the creeds and confessions of the church, especially the Heidelberg Catechism” (Article 54b). In the past, synod has even encouraged the use of the contemporary testimony (“Our World Belongs to God”) for this purpose. I sometimes think that members in our churches are confessionally illiterate. Teaching services, creatively planned and well executed, might be just the ticket.
Consider other possibilities as well. A contemporary music service once a month that truly appeals to the young and the youngminded. Perhaps a service in the style of Taizé with its contemplative stillness. A service focused on healing. An “end of the year” service on the Sunday evening before the 31st to remember those who passed on, those who were born or adopted or brought into the church membership, and/or the cardinal moments in nation and world. An intergenerational worship service of one kind or another. For great ideas check with the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship or consult back issues of Reformed Worship magazine (both with a rich online presence). Or arrange for smaller gatherings in homes where people either form a community and tackle each other’s challenges with biblical insights and shared prayer or deliberately disciple new members into our fellowship—or both of these together. In that case, be sure that “such alternatives are part of a strategic ministry plan with full accountability to [your] classis” (Supplement, Article 51a).
All this is not radically new territory. Synod 2005, for example, decided to “remind the churches that the second worship service may be a teaching service, employing models such as small groups, house churches, and various congregational gatherings characterized by learning together, dialogue, and interaction” (Acts of Synod, 2005, p. 720).