Henry DeMoor

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.

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.

My sense is that you are not the only one yearning for greater continuity. There’s a great deal to be said for longevity in office when gifted people are making ministry happen. The chairperson of a nearby diaconate complained to me recently that her deacons never seem to grow out of apprenticeship status. No business corporation, she said, would  ever tolerate such inefficiency. What’s the use of casting visions for true diaconal outreach in the community only to have your hopes for it dashed in the Christian Reformed council room version of musical chairs? Elders tell me discipline just doesn’t work when there’s always a “stranger” attempting the outreach.

As I pondered your question for a while, I began to appreciate your honesty about the one whose exit gave you joy. At the very least it is a glimmer of appreciation for limited tenure. A slated retirement is certainly less traumatic than a resignation or dismissal for lack of performance. The truth is that the practice of limited tenure has certain advantages. The more frequent the rotation, the more people we can use to serve in office. The gifted should have that opportunity. And if terms are reasonably short, more will be willing. Fresh insights and approaches sometimes enliven the council room as well as our congregational life. We avoid all semblance of hierarchy or domination by a particular group and lay no particularly heavy burdens on relatively few. You will counter immediately, of course, with the disadvantages you point to. Practice makes perfect, and the earlier we release from office, the less perfection we attain. Pastoral bonds are important and take time to be developed. Gaining a vision for particular ministries doesn’t happen overnight. Growing in confidence doesn’t either. This phenomenon is especially noticeable at our broader assemblies where ministers generally rule the roost simply because they have the experience. Practical considerations alone cannot settle this issue among us. But the fact that Scriptures do not address the issue directly and that fear of hierarchy is at the root of our choice has made us somewhat cautious about binding the church’s practice in the extreme, about becoming “ultra-Reformed” in the matter. This caution, I suppose, is what I would like especially to bring to your attention as you ponder what’s to be done in your congregation. The fact is that Article 25a does not bind us half as much as our established customs do. And we must never equate those two. Please note carefully that Article 25a does not spell out exactly how long the “limited time” must be. Such a time must be “designated by the council.” It could be two years, three years, four years, or even five years. It could be half of council, a quarter of council, or even an eighth. Thus, in a twenty-member council, you could have two elders and two deacons retiring every year, while the other sixteen members continue on their five-year terms. The article indicates that “the retiring officebearers shall be succeeded by others,” but goes on to say that exceptions are possible if “the circumstances and the profit of the church make immediate eligibility for reelection advisable.” Those reelected must then “be reinstalled.” But as you can see, one person could serve for ten years straight. At the heart of our limited tenure provision is not the detail but the principle that the congregation must remain meaningfully empowered to choose its officebearers. This, it seems to me, is what we must hang on to at all cost because it appears to be the lesson of Scripture, Reformed history, and Reformed polity. At the same time, the Church Order provides far more room in these matters than the local rules most of us have adopted as our own. What’s to be done? We should review them.

There have been some serious debates or controversies about this matter in the early stages of our denomination’s life. Followers of Abraham Kuyper argued that his approach of teaching theology as one discipline among many at a Christian university should be our guiding principle. But those who traced their heritage to the earlier Secession of 1834 in the Netherlands, Professor Foppe ten Hoor, for example, argued that the church must itself train its future ministers and that professors of theology are nothing other than ministers of the Word with a special task. Proponents of this position even sought to base their arguments on biblical texts such as 2 Timothy 2:1-2, where Paul was said to be giving that charge to his “son” in the faith. I must say I have considerable difficulty interpreting the text that way.

Personally, I believe that even if it were preferable, the Ameri- can environment makes the realization of Kuyper’s vision a terribly difficult one to implement. I also believe that the CRCNA is com- mitted to both “principles” or concerns: a seminary that is under no other control than that of its own synod and, at the same time, a seminary that does not teach theology in seclusion from what its students have already absorbed in other subjects such as the natural sciences and psychology.

I agree with you, Daniel, but would nuance the second handshake after the service.  It is to thank the person for preaching, indeed, but it is more than that.  It is taking back the authority given so as to have the whole council accountable for what occurred during the service.  To put it differently, elders are not to make an individual decision as to whether the sermon was faithful to Scripture, etc., but only to "take back the authority" and make that judgment together with all other elders and deacons.  For a story about misinterpretation, you might want to check my Christian Reformed Church Order Commentary, page 290-291.

That is correct. The principle remains in place but the practice is optional.

This is a question that keeps nagging at many a local council in our denomination. It often rises to the surface when new elders and deacons are to be nominated and elected. So many have wonderful gifts to bring, it is said, but they’re ruled out of the process without any deliberation simply because of the fact that their children attend a public school.

Article 71 of the Church Order insists that the council must “diligently encourage the members of the congregation to establish and maintain good Christian schools in which the biblical, Reformed vision of Christ’s lordship over all creation is clearly taught,” and “urge parents to have their children educated in harmony with this vision.” It is hard to know how ministers, ministry associates, elders, and deacons who do not support Christian day school education can persuasively and with integrity “encourage” and “urge” members to do these things. So they must certainly embrace the vision. Its specific application is another matter.

A council on which I had the privilege to serve once nominated a person to be an elder who sent his son to public school. We could do this because the child had special needs that Christian schools could not supply. The elder shared the vision of Christ’s lordship, but its application was for him no simple matter. He was even willing to bow to legalism, had we chosen to go down that road, but we insisted he could “encourage” and “urge” in good conscience.

What councils cannot do is to nominate people who simply don’t share the vision and actually oppose all Christian day school education. That would lead to intolerable tensions. But so, in my experience, did the constant and insistent demand of a “prophetic preacher” I became acquainted with years ago. His sermons frequently insisted that his parishioners establish and maintain a separate Christian school when, in fact, that was totally and demonstrably beyond the resources of the community. When the pressures mounted, the lid finally blew off: an exasperated council went to the classis and requested release from his call. It would have been so much better, I believe, had this preacher focused instead on enriching his congregation’s educational programs until such time as resources were sufficient. A significantly enhanced church education curriculum is exactly how the institutional church can still uphold the vision of Christ’s lordship over all creation in such a situation.

My recommendation to councils is that they straightforwardly embrace the vision, do what they can in their context to see to its implementation, and studiously avoid the kind of legalism in application, one way or another, that can stifle our fellowship in Christ. As for those who don’t share that vision, avoid nominating them as officebearers; instead, seek to disciple them into owning what we hold dear.

First things first: Synod 1934 considered the possibility, but rejected it as “impractical” and not in keeping with Reformed polity. Previous cases in the Reformed tradition, it said, were not good precedent because they were events that occurred under “abnormal conditions” (Acts of Synod, 1934, pp. 64-65). In other words, this would be an illegitimate excursion into an episcopal form of church government.

Synod 1976 apparently had no such reservations. A report of the Ministerial Information Service indicated that many had requested the possibility and proposed a procedure that kept any inquiries in confidence. It envisioned two “single nomination calls” to be approved at congregational meetings of two churches held at approximately the same time, and suggested that if one such vote were to fail, the other church’s call would be “nullified.” The consideration that this might be an “episcopal detour” was pushed aside by the committee’s insistence that these were legitimate calls, not “placements” such as those a bishop would make. Synod agreed. So did Synods 1978 and 1980, when called upon to “review the arrangements.” Apparently, there had been only one attempt at an exchange that did not materialize and was “canceled by partial resolution of conditions” (Acts of Synod, 1980, p. 363).

The Ministerial Information Service reported to Synod 1983 that it had “worked with the concept” on three different occasions since 1976, but had “not been able to complete any of them.” The “concept has many built-in problems,” it observed, “and does not seem to have much chance of success at the present time.” Synod agreed that no further extension was in order (Acts of Synod, 1983, pp. 192, 620). The current Pastor-Church Relations Office that later absorbed the Ministerial Information Service into its operations has never requested a formal renewal of the experiment. What’s fascinating is that the episode did not end with the 1934 objection on the basis of principle, but with the pragmatic judgment that it simply wasn’t workable. So the answer to your question, I suppose, is that there is currently no synodically authorized way to do what you suggest, but also no inherent reason why you couldn’t ask the denomination to revisit the matter with yet another experiment. Are you intrigued enough to draft an overture?