Henry DeMoor

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.

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.

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.

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?