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.
The Christian Reformed Church Order does not know of an "inactive elder." The Presbyterian churches do and so does the RCA, but not the CRC. An elder whose term has ended has no more authority of office than any other member. In practice, we sometimes bend things a little. When I became an elder recently and the communion schedule came out, I realized I would be on vacation the first time out. So I asked the elder whom I replaced to do it for me. Nobody takes anybody to classis or synod with a protest over such. But we do see it as an exception and the elder whom I replaced would rather "rest" from his labors for a while anyhow. So I don't keep asking him to do this. Strictly speaking, you may not participate as an elder when your term has ended. You are unordained. I do not know how to say this any more clearly and hope this is back on the path you set out on.
Come on, everybody, Article 25 of the Church Order uses the term "retire from office." We all know what that means. If we want to change that, fine, let's have an overture and we'll consider it. In the meantime, these words mean exactly what they say.
Voting delegates come to synod with credentials signed by the classis they represent. As an opening ceremony, synod uses a "Public Declaration" and delegates rise to express their agreement with the Reformed confessions. This public declaration is currently under review with a possible modern version in the works. In addition, these delegates must be officebearers and they have been obliged to sign the Form of Subscripton, now known as the Covenant for Officebearers, in the church they serve as ministers or elders.
The Church Order's latest version of Article 71 concerning Christian Education was fashioned after a thorough synodical study of the matter and reads as follows: "The council shall 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. The council shall also urge parents to have their children educated in harmony with this vision according to the demands of the covenant."
So, elders must encourage establishment and maintenance of "good Christian schools." Elders do that in view of their own context. Sometimes it is simply not feasible, financially. Sometimes it is not necessary (I think of the public school in one town that was explicitly Christian and Reformed without anyone objecting). When no Christian education is available and establishment is impossible, the church should "amp up" its Church Education program so that this can supplement the public education being received. In any case, it is clear that the elders together in consistory make a judgment call as to how in their own context this "encouragement to establish and maintain" plays out. If good Christian schools are available, I do not doubt that the Church Order and synod basically asks elders to urge parents to have their children educated there and I understand people who say that the elders' urging is meaningless if they do not model what they urge.
What should be observed, however, is that eligibility for the office of elder is a judgment call on the part of every council. Article 3 of the Church Order indicates only that the person must be an adult confessing member and meet the "biblical requirements" for office. As we all know, such a requirement is not explicit in Scripture in the context of eligibility for office. Councils may wish to appeal to the "ruling your household well" and especially to the eminently clearer direction in our baptismal theology, Church Order and denominational ethos (including past studies and conclusions). But then they must also go on to decide in their own context on whether a person who does not send children to a good Christian school but, for example, to a public school, is nonetheless eligible to serve as an elder. I recall a situation in my own ministry career where an elder did that purely and entirely because services for his special needs child were not available in the Christian school system and where he and his wife as well as the church were "supplementing" what was happening in the public school in question. We made the judgment that the man was behind the principle of the CRCNA but had a legitimate "exemption" from the "requirement." A synodical study recently pointed out that home schooling is also a legitimate option. That would be an example of another "exemption." My point is that these judgments are never simple. If they are made to be simple, they are usually legalistic in character. An example of that is a recent decision of the Protestant Reformed synod that one who homeschools his children and does not send them to the Protestant Reformed school (only that one, not a CRC-related "good Christian school," because it doesn't meet the standard, presumably) may not serve in the office of minister of the Word.
My plea is twofold: one, that we respect the right of local councils to make judgments about eligibility for office and, two, that we respect the denomination's stance on Christian education as much as we possibly can.
The Church Order is really remarkably silent on the question you
raise. The number of elders required in a given church is really left
to the judgment of the consistory and council. The only functioning
principle is that the needs of the congregation must be met. In other
words, there should be a sufficient number of elders so that the
pastoral care "gets done." Family visiting once a year is another
goal in the Church Order, of course, and many churches can't even
manage that -- so they find other solutions. It still seems like a
laudable goal to me as long as elders can also be creative about it --
have lunch with somebody instead of insisting on meeting at their
home, for example. If indeed you are truly feeling that more folks
are needed to do the work of the elders properly, perhaps you should
increase the number of officebearers. Another possibility is to
reduce every district by a half -- if, indeed, you still work with
districts. In that case it's not really an issue of "job sharing" but
of being more realistic about how many folks are assigned to one
pastoral elder.
The only consequence of involving more people is that they really
should all be ordained and that ordination gives them the right to be
a member of the council and of the consistory. I don't know whether
you have administrative elders and pastoral elders distinguished in
your church, so I also don't know precisely how you configure the
council and the consistory. But the principle in the Reformed
tradition is definitely that anyone functioning as an elder should be
ordained. The only thing I've seen in other churches that departs
from that principle is to have, in addition to the elders, so called
associate elders or elders' assistants. They are people who are not
ordained but "commissioned" to their task and they do much of the
routine visiting under the guidance and supervision of the elders.
This might include visiting the shut-ins and elderly, having lunch
with young people, even joining an elder at a more traditional home
visit, and looking after birthday wishes, well-wishes for the sick,
return visits for the bereaved, etc. In that case people are not
officially ordained and therefore do not have a right to be seated at
the council or consistory table.
Much of this, in other words, is left to the discretion of the local
church and not regulated by the Church Order.
What should be added here is that the Church Order of the CRCNA leaves the matter of making judgments about the eligibility for office to the local council. Article 3 only specifies that it must be an adult confessing member who meets "the biblical requirements." It is not surprising, therefore, that synod has only rarely addressed the matter of who might be ineligible for the office of elder by reason of that person's vocation or career or job. The only discussions I have seen are those held years ago about Sunday labor and whether or not such Sunday labor is a "work of necessity." This was about nurses and milk delivery folk, etc. I have never run into any synodical statement on a person selling life insurance or doing network marketing.
The CRC Church Order mandates ministers and elders to "exercise pastoral care" (Art. 12, 25, 65). The term "pastoral care" is meant to be much broader than counseling per se and it should not be read to indicate certain types or modalities of professional counseling such as nouthetic or integrationist or any other such method. The broader assemblies of the CRC have never expressed themselves on this matter either. Typically, seminarians are taught the principles of good pastoral care and, within that, pastoral counseling (which is to be distinguished from professional or psychological counseling though that may be done to some extent before the boundaries of professional competency are hit, at which point referral is in order). We trust that ministers help the elders to their part and that both ministers and elders participate in continuing education or professional enrichment seminars to increase their skills in pastoral care. Bottom line: seminarians see the alternatives, choose their method of ministering, and do so, hopefully, in responsible fashion when they enter into the ministry of the Word. But there is no "mandate" from either Church Order or synod and no official position of the CRC.
While I respect John's view here expressed, I must point out that Article 4 uses the word "council" for the assembly that is responsible for nomination procedure. It uses that word upon deliberate decision of the synod that carefully chose either "council," "consistory," or "diaconate" throughout the Church Order. I think that nomination of new deacons procedures should not neglect the input of hte deaons.
Synod 1989 discouraged the use of the lot. The reason for that is the precious good given to the early church and re-gained at the time of the Reformation: meaningful participation in the selection of officebearers by the congregation as opposed to a top-down imposition of leadership upon the people in the hierarchical forms of church government.
Synod 2004 lightened up on that just a little and said that the lot might be included in the process of selecting officebearers as long as it is used in addition to an election. So, for example, one could conceive of four nominees for one elder position, have the congregation vote after the morning service, narrowing it down to two, then using the lot prior to the evening service (or the following Sunday or weekday congregational meeting) to determine which of the two is selected. Synod 2004 also maintained the principle that there must be meaningful input on the part of the congregation which is a bit more than just suggesting some names to the council. This is all rooted in a theology that says that the Holy Spirit is as much present in such congregational participation and the fruit of their informed decision-making as He is in the casting of lots.
When my commentary on the Church Order is published this fall, be sure to look for the commentary on Article 4 of the Church Order. There I have listed many different models for choosing officebearers, some of which are acceptable and some not. I suspect that a majority of folk in our denomination still hold to what these synods have said.
The context of "submitting to the judgment" of the assemblies is the person's coming to the assemblies with an expression of disagreement with the CREEDS or CONFESSIONS and doubts whether he or she can fully assent to a part thereof. The Form of Subscription then says that after a judgment is made, presumably upon appeal by synod, the person must "submit to the judgment" of synod or face suspension from office or, if there is no change of heart, deposition.
We have always held that nobody may disagree with or criticize Scripture. It is possible to disagree with the creeds or confessions -- they are human documents -- but the individual must agree that the creeds belong to the church as a whole and that we are bound to uphold the doctrine contained therein. It is even more possible to disagree with or criticize a synodical decision. We must respect synodical decisions, and we may certainly appeal from them or ask a following synod to reconsider and revise a matter, but such decisions are not at the same level as the creeds and confessions.
Posted in: Once an elder, always an elder?
Steve,
The Christian Reformed Church Order does not know of an "inactive elder." The Presbyterian churches do and so does the RCA, but not the CRC. An elder whose term has ended has no more authority of office than any other member. In practice, we sometimes bend things a little. When I became an elder recently and the communion schedule came out, I realized I would be on vacation the first time out. So I asked the elder whom I replaced to do it for me. Nobody takes anybody to classis or synod with a protest over such. But we do see it as an exception and the elder whom I replaced would rather "rest" from his labors for a while anyhow. So I don't keep asking him to do this. Strictly speaking, you may not participate as an elder when your term has ended. You are unordained. I do not know how to say this any more clearly and hope this is back on the path you set out on.
Posted in: Once an elder, always an elder?
Come on, everybody, Article 25 of the Church Order uses the term "retire from office." We all know what that means. If we want to change that, fine, let's have an overture and we'll consider it. In the meantime, these words mean exactly what they say.
Posted in: Once an elder, always an elder?
......Argh.........
Posted in: Validating voting members at Synod
Harry,
Voting delegates come to synod with credentials signed by the classis they represent. As an opening ceremony, synod uses a "Public Declaration" and delegates rise to express their agreement with the Reformed confessions. This public declaration is currently under review with a possible modern version in the works. In addition, these delegates must be officebearers and they have been obliged to sign the Form of Subscripton, now known as the Covenant for Officebearers, in the church they serve as ministers or elders.
Hope this helps.
Posted in: Do Church Elders Need to Send Their Children to Christian Schools?
The Church Order's latest version of Article 71 concerning Christian Education was fashioned after a thorough synodical study of the matter and reads as follows: "The council shall 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. The council shall also urge parents to have their children educated in harmony with this vision according to the demands of the covenant."
So, elders must encourage establishment and maintenance of "good Christian schools." Elders do that in view of their own context. Sometimes it is simply not feasible, financially. Sometimes it is not necessary (I think of the public school in one town that was explicitly Christian and Reformed without anyone objecting). When no Christian education is available and establishment is impossible, the church should "amp up" its Church Education program so that this can supplement the public education being received. In any case, it is clear that the elders together in consistory make a judgment call as to how in their own context this "encouragement to establish and maintain" plays out. If good Christian schools are available, I do not doubt that the Church Order and synod basically asks elders to urge parents to have their children educated there and I understand people who say that the elders' urging is meaningless if they do not model what they urge.
What should be observed, however, is that eligibility for the office of elder is a judgment call on the part of every council. Article 3 of the Church Order indicates only that the person must be an adult confessing member and meet the "biblical requirements" for office. As we all know, such a requirement is not explicit in Scripture in the context of eligibility for office. Councils may wish to appeal to the "ruling your household well" and especially to the eminently clearer direction in our baptismal theology, Church Order and denominational ethos (including past studies and conclusions). But then they must also go on to decide in their own context on whether a person who does not send children to a good Christian school but, for example, to a public school, is nonetheless eligible to serve as an elder. I recall a situation in my own ministry career where an elder did that purely and entirely because services for his special needs child were not available in the Christian school system and where he and his wife as well as the church were "supplementing" what was happening in the public school in question. We made the judgment that the man was behind the principle of the CRCNA but had a legitimate "exemption" from the "requirement." A synodical study recently pointed out that home schooling is also a legitimate option. That would be an example of another "exemption." My point is that these judgments are never simple. If they are made to be simple, they are usually legalistic in character. An example of that is a recent decision of the Protestant Reformed synod that one who homeschools his children and does not send them to the Protestant Reformed school (only that one, not a CRC-related "good Christian school," because it doesn't meet the standard, presumably) may not serve in the office of minister of the Word.
My plea is twofold: one, that we respect the right of local councils to make judgments about eligibility for office and, two, that we respect the denomination's stance on Christian education as much as we possibly can.
Posted in: Job Sharing Elder Position?
The Church Order is really remarkably silent on the question you
raise. The number of elders required in a given church is really left
to the judgment of the consistory and council. The only functioning
principle is that the needs of the congregation must be met. In other
words, there should be a sufficient number of elders so that the
pastoral care "gets done." Family visiting once a year is another
goal in the Church Order, of course, and many churches can't even
manage that -- so they find other solutions. It still seems like a
laudable goal to me as long as elders can also be creative about it --
have lunch with somebody instead of insisting on meeting at their
home, for example. If indeed you are truly feeling that more folks
are needed to do the work of the elders properly, perhaps you should
increase the number of officebearers. Another possibility is to
reduce every district by a half -- if, indeed, you still work with
districts. In that case it's not really an issue of "job sharing" but
of being more realistic about how many folks are assigned to one
pastoral elder.
The only consequence of involving more people is that they really
should all be ordained and that ordination gives them the right to be
a member of the council and of the consistory. I don't know whether
you have administrative elders and pastoral elders distinguished in
your church, so I also don't know precisely how you configure the
council and the consistory. But the principle in the Reformed
tradition is definitely that anyone functioning as an elder should be
ordained. The only thing I've seen in other churches that departs
from that principle is to have, in addition to the elders, so called
associate elders or elders' assistants. They are people who are not
ordained but "commissioned" to their task and they do much of the
routine visiting under the guidance and supervision of the elders.
This might include visiting the shut-ins and elderly, having lunch
with young people, even joining an elder at a more traditional home
visit, and looking after birthday wishes, well-wishes for the sick,
return visits for the bereaved, etc. In that case people are not
officially ordained and therefore do not have a right to be seated at
the council or consistory table.
Much of this, in other words, is left to the discretion of the local
church and not regulated by the Church Order.
Posted in: Where can I find pastor job descriptions?
And let's not forget Articles 11 and 12 of the CRC Church Order (:-).
Posted in: Is network marketing an appropriate business for an Elder to engage in?
What should be added here is that the Church Order of the CRCNA leaves the matter of making judgments about the eligibility for office to the local council. Article 3 only specifies that it must be an adult confessing member who meets "the biblical requirements." It is not surprising, therefore, that synod has only rarely addressed the matter of who might be ineligible for the office of elder by reason of that person's vocation or career or job. The only discussions I have seen are those held years ago about Sunday labor and whether or not such Sunday labor is a "work of necessity." This was about nurses and milk delivery folk, etc. I have never run into any synodical statement on a person selling life insurance or doing network marketing.
Posted in: What are the guiding principles for Christian counseling?
The CRC Church Order mandates ministers and elders to "exercise pastoral care" (Art. 12, 25, 65). The term "pastoral care" is meant to be much broader than counseling per se and it should not be read to indicate certain types or modalities of professional counseling such as nouthetic or integrationist or any other such method. The broader assemblies of the CRC have never expressed themselves on this matter either. Typically, seminarians are taught the principles of good pastoral care and, within that, pastoral counseling (which is to be distinguished from professional or psychological counseling though that may be done to some extent before the boundaries of professional competency are hit, at which point referral is in order). We trust that ministers help the elders to their part and that both ministers and elders participate in continuing education or professional enrichment seminars to increase their skills in pastoral care. Bottom line: seminarians see the alternatives, choose their method of ministering, and do so, hopefully, in responsible fashion when they enter into the ministry of the Word. But there is no "mandate" from either Church Order or synod and no official position of the CRC.
Posted in: Which office discusses and decides who is eligible for call to Elders and Deacons?
While I respect John's view here expressed, I must point out that Article 4 uses the word "council" for the assembly that is responsible for nomination procedure. It uses that word upon deliberate decision of the synod that carefully chose either "council," "consistory," or "diaconate" throughout the Church Order. I think that nomination of new deacons procedures should not neglect the input of hte deaons.
Posted in: What is the CRC position on the casting of lots in church elections?
John,
Synod 1989 discouraged the use of the lot. The reason for that is the precious good given to the early church and re-gained at the time of the Reformation: meaningful participation in the selection of officebearers by the congregation as opposed to a top-down imposition of leadership upon the people in the hierarchical forms of church government.
Synod 2004 lightened up on that just a little and said that the lot might be included in the process of selecting officebearers as long as it is used in addition to an election. So, for example, one could conceive of four nominees for one elder position, have the congregation vote after the morning service, narrowing it down to two, then using the lot prior to the evening service (or the following Sunday or weekday congregational meeting) to determine which of the two is selected. Synod 2004 also maintained the principle that there must be meaningful input on the part of the congregation which is a bit more than just suggesting some names to the council. This is all rooted in a theology that says that the Holy Spirit is as much present in such congregational participation and the fruit of their informed decision-making as He is in the casting of lots.
When my commentary on the Church Order is published this fall, be sure to look for the commentary on Article 4 of the Church Order. There I have listed many different models for choosing officebearers, some of which are acceptable and some not. I suspect that a majority of folk in our denomination still hold to what these synods have said.
Eager to hear from others...............
Posted in: What does it mean "to submit to the judgment of the council, classis, or synod?"
The context of "submitting to the judgment" of the assemblies is the person's coming to the assemblies with an expression of disagreement with the CREEDS or CONFESSIONS and doubts whether he or she can fully assent to a part thereof. The Form of Subscription then says that after a judgment is made, presumably upon appeal by synod, the person must "submit to the judgment" of synod or face suspension from office or, if there is no change of heart, deposition.
We have always held that nobody may disagree with or criticize Scripture. It is possible to disagree with the creeds or confessions -- they are human documents -- but the individual must agree that the creeds belong to the church as a whole and that we are bound to uphold the doctrine contained therein. It is even more possible to disagree with or criticize a synodical decision. We must respect synodical decisions, and we may certainly appeal from them or ask a following synod to reconsider and revise a matter, but such decisions are not at the same level as the creeds and confessions.