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.
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 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.
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?
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.
First, you should take careful note that these four possible declarations were not invented by Synod 1998. This assembly was the first to apply them to ministers resigning in order to serve in another denominational context or in an independent congregation. But the declarations actually functioned in practice much before that year. All along, there have been those, for example, who resigned by reason of a growing conviction that they could no longer assent to the church’s confessions (“honorably released”) or those who resigned under the pressure of special discipline instead of following the process through and looking toward repentance and restoration. In the case of the latter, it is better to declare such persons to be “in the status of one deposed” than to depose them after a resignation has been submitted (something the courts would not judge to be appropriate). Next, as you suggest, we need to acknowledge that vindictiveness has no place in making these declarations. In fact, it is not so much a declaration to and about the person involved as it is a signal to the church at large. Congregations need to know whether they should ever invite such a person to mount a Christian Reformed pulpit again. If the assemblies have said that a person is “dismissed” or “in the status of one deposed,” congregations would normally not extend such an invitation. If it was an “honorable release” or just a “release,” the broader assemblies might allow for a preaching visit or even a possible reentry into the denomination. We should also observe that it is primarily the classis that makes the determination with respect to the kind of declaration that is appropriate. The reason for this is that the classis is in a far better position to make these judgments than the synod would be. Even if, for example, a resigning minister has made some problematic statements in the news media that perturbs synodical delegates, the classis would still have a much clearer and more balanced view of that minister’s past service. Synod 1998 acknowledged that fact in an action with respect to one such resigning minister by attaching the following note: “In the broader context of denominational life a declaration of ‘released’ might have been more appropriate than that of ‘honorably released’” (Acts of Synod, 1998, p. 431). Still, it approved the work of synodical deputies who concurred in the judgment of the classis that, on balance, the person should be given an “honorable release.”
A minister is an elected officebearer, set aside by the congregation as Christ’s representative to exercise spiritual oversight and to equip members of the congregation to fulfill their calling in the church and in the world. As our Belgic Confession makes clear in Article 30, ministers of the Word together with the elders and deacons “make up the council of the Church.” This confessional basis must translate into organizational/administrative reality. I am not fussy about ministers having to chair council meetings. That requirement is more common in Presbyterian polity and in the RCA. For the CRCNA, there is a selection process in Article 36, recognizing that certain elders or deacons may be more gifted for that position. Broadly speaking, churches may never exclude ministers from membership in the council. I fully understand that certain tax regulations or other government regulations applying to nonprofit corporations or charitable institutions may suggest or state outright that this amounts to a clear instance of conflict of interest: a “paid employee” on the board. This, however, should not lead us to the extreme of forbidding ministers from being seated on the council in clear violation of the confessional basis and the text of our Church Order. In most cases, it is possible to exclude the minister from all decision-making that involves ministerial salary and benefits and other agenda items that such government regulations clearly envision. In fact, this has been our traditional practice at both council and congregational meetings. Local articles of incorporation could even spell out that the church has a council (all officebearers) and also a board (all officebearers minus employees, including ministers). The latter would be responsible for all matters relating to the remuneration or employment of staff, if not the entire budget.
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: CRC Principle for Having a Separate Seminary
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.
Posted in: What Is the Significance of the Handshake Between the Elder and Minister Before and After the Sermon?
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.
Posted in: What Is the Significance of the Handshake Between the Elder and Minister Before and After the Sermon?
That is correct. The principle remains in place but the practice is optional.
Posted in: Must officebearers in the CRCNA send their children to Christian day schools?
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.
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: What is proper for a classis to declare when a minister resigns?
First, you should take careful note that these four possible declarations were not invented by Synod 1998. This assembly was the first to apply them to ministers resigning in order to serve in another denominational context or in an independent congregation. But the declarations actually functioned in practice much before that year. All along, there have been those, for example, who resigned by reason of a growing conviction that they could no longer assent to the church’s confessions (“honorably released”) or those who resigned under the pressure of special discipline instead of following the process through and looking toward repentance and restoration. In the case of the latter, it is better to declare such persons to be “in the status of one deposed” than to depose them after a resignation has been submitted (something the courts would not judge to be appropriate). Next, as you suggest, we need to acknowledge that vindictiveness has no place in making these declarations. In fact, it is not so much a declaration to and about the person involved as it is a signal to the church at large. Congregations need to know whether they should ever invite such a person to mount a Christian Reformed pulpit again. If the assemblies have said that a person is “dismissed” or “in the status of one deposed,” congregations would normally not extend such an invitation. If it was an “honorable release” or just a “release,” the broader assemblies might allow for a preaching visit or even a possible reentry into the denomination. We should also observe that it is primarily the classis that makes the determination with respect to the kind of declaration that is appropriate. The reason for this is that the classis is in a far better position to make these judgments than the synod would be. Even if, for example, a resigning minister has made some problematic statements in the news media that perturbs synodical delegates, the classis would still have a much clearer and more balanced view of that minister’s past service. Synod 1998 acknowledged that fact in an action with respect to one such resigning minister by attaching the following note: “In the broader context of denominational life a declaration of ‘released’ might have been more appropriate than that of ‘honorably released’” (Acts of Synod, 1998, p. 431). Still, it approved the work of synodical deputies who concurred in the judgment of the classis that, on balance, the person should be given an “honorable release.”
Posted in: Should ministers (who are essentially "paid employees" of the church) chair council meetings or be members of the council?
A minister is an elected officebearer, set aside by the congregation as Christ’s representative to exercise spiritual oversight and to equip members of the congregation to fulfill their calling in the church and in the world. As our Belgic Confession makes clear in Article 30, ministers of the Word together with the elders and deacons “make up the council of the Church.” This confessional basis must translate into organizational/administrative reality. I am not fussy about ministers having to chair council meetings. That requirement is more common in Presbyterian polity and in the RCA. For the CRCNA, there is a selection process in Article 36, recognizing that certain elders or deacons may be more gifted for that position. Broadly speaking, churches may never exclude ministers from membership in the council. I fully understand that certain tax regulations or other government regulations applying to nonprofit corporations or charitable institutions may suggest or state outright that this amounts to a clear instance of conflict of interest: a “paid employee” on the board. This, however, should not lead us to the extreme of forbidding ministers from being seated on the council in clear violation of the confessional basis and the text of our Church Order. In most cases, it is possible to exclude the minister from all decision-making that involves ministerial salary and benefits and other agenda items that such government regulations clearly envision. In fact, this has been our traditional practice at both council and congregational meetings. Local articles of incorporation could even spell out that the church has a council (all officebearers) and also a board (all officebearers minus employees, including ministers). The latter would be responsible for all matters relating to the remuneration or employment of staff, if not the entire budget.