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.
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?
No, it does not. Our rules seek to ensure that minor assemblies have sufficient time to consider important matters before synod meets and to present any viewpoints they may have by way of overture or communication. Any item in the printed Agenda for Synod is “fair game” in this respect. Once synod is constituted, of course, the minor assemblies are all present by way of delegation to make a final decision.
If your church does not currently ordain women as elders, deacons, pastors, the following answer applies, as you can read in my Church Order Commentary (2nd Ed., p. 73):
"May unordained church members participate in the laying on of hands ceremony associated with installation/ordination?
No, I don't think so. A congregation elects but a council ordains to office. This is the clear lesson of Scripture and of church history."
Synod 1973 provided a clear answer to this when it decided that “to invite only ministers, and not elders also, to participate in the laying on of hands is a departure from biblical example” (Acts of Synod, 1973, p. 64). Since a minister receives the call of God through the congregation, and since that minister’s work will be supervised by the council, it seems right and fitting to have the local elders and deacons involved. This would also reinforce our belief in the parity of the offices (Article 2) and our determination that “no officebearer shall lord it over another officebearer” (Article 85). So when this Article 10 uses the words “by the officiating minister,” we understand it to be referring to a minimal requirement and not to an absolute rule that forbids the involvement of other officebearers.
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).
Indeed, in Reformed polity the classis and the synod are referred to as “major assemblies,” and the council and classes are referred to as “minor assemblies,” even in the Church Order itself. The intent is not so much that classis and synod have a higher authority than that of the council of the local church, although that is secondarily and derivatively true. It is higher only because it is cumulative. The primary intent is to honor the principle of catholicity: the greater the geographical spread of churches represented, the more significance we attach to the decisions made.
In the classis and in the synod we are dealing with the phenomenon of accumulated authority. For the local council, there is accountability to the broader church. It is for this reason that you will often hear the expression “broader assemblies” in our circles. I admit that we don’t often hear the term “narrower assembly.” But the adjective “broader” does say more precisely what “major” refers to.
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 is no rule on that. Having six elders and four deacons is perfectly acceptable. It all comes down to a judgment of the local council as to the needs that have to be attended to and whether the officebearers' work gets done efficiently and effectively. Peace.
...meetings of officebearers are in principle open to the membership unless they are declared to be in executive session. The latter happens routinely at meetings of the consistory and the diaconate (when particular members and their circumstances are discussed each time) and it happens occasionally when a council feels the need. A good example of that would be a discussion on nomination for elders and deacons. Nonetheless, meetings of council, certainly, are typically open, and it is good when members of the congregation take an interest and attend as visitors
(p. 216, Christian Reformed Church Order Commentary)
Posted in: Can Two Pastors Exchange Pastorates?
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?
Posted in: Does the CRCNA Use a System of "Ratification" Like Other Denominations?
No, it does not. Our rules seek to ensure that minor assemblies have sufficient time to consider important matters before synod meets and to present any viewpoints they may have by way of overture or communication. Any item in the printed Agenda for Synod is “fair game” in this respect. Once synod is constituted, of course, the minor assemblies are all present by way of delegation to make a final decision.
Posted in: Who Should Participate in the "Laying on of Hands"?
Jay,
If your church does not currently ordain women as elders, deacons, pastors, the following answer applies, as you can read in my Church Order Commentary (2nd Ed., p. 73):
"May unordained church members participate in the laying on of hands ceremony associated with installation/ordination?
No, I don't think so. A congregation elects but a council ordains to office. This is the clear lesson of Scripture and of church history."
Posted in: Who Should Participate in the "Laying on of Hands"?
Synod 1973 provided a clear answer to this when it decided that “to invite only ministers, and not elders also, to participate in the laying on of hands is a departure from biblical example” (Acts of Synod, 1973, p. 64). Since a minister receives the call of God through the congregation, and since that minister’s work will be supervised by the council, it seems right and fitting to have the local elders and deacons involved. This would also reinforce our belief in the parity of the offices (Article 2) and our determination that “no officebearer shall lord it over another officebearer” (Article 85). So when this Article 10 uses the words “by the officiating minister,” we understand it to be referring to a minimal requirement and not to an absolute rule that forbids the involvement of other officebearers.
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).
Posted in: How Should We Define “Minor” and “Major” Assemblies?
Indeed, in Reformed polity the classis and the synod are referred to as “major assemblies,” and the council and classes are referred to as “minor assemblies,” even in the Church Order itself. The intent is not so much that classis and synod have a higher authority than that of the council of the local church, although that is secondarily and derivatively true. It is higher only because it is cumulative. The primary intent is to honor the principle of catholicity: the greater the geographical spread of churches represented, the more significance we attach to the decisions made.
In the classis and in the synod we are dealing with the phenomenon of accumulated authority. For the local council, there is accountability to the broader church. It is for this reason that you will often hear the expression “broader assemblies” in our circles. I admit that we don’t often hear the term “narrower assembly.” But the adjective “broader” does say more precisely what “major” refers to.
Posted in: What can be done about the high turnover rate for elders and deacons?
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.
Posted in: Is there any rule about having an equal number of elders and deacons?
Ron,
There is no rule on that. Having six elders and four deacons is perfectly acceptable. It all comes down to a judgment of the local council as to the needs that have to be attended to and whether the officebearers' work gets done efficiently and effectively. Peace.
Posted in: Who can attend council meetings?
...meetings of officebearers are in principle open to the membership unless they are declared to be in executive session. The latter happens routinely at meetings of the consistory and the diaconate (when particular members and their circumstances are discussed each time) and it happens occasionally when a council feels the need. A good example of that would be a discussion on nomination for elders and deacons. Nonetheless, meetings of council, certainly, are typically open, and it is good when members of the congregation take an interest and attend as visitors
(p. 216, Christian Reformed Church Order Commentary)