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.
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.
I am being encouraged to contribute to this discussion. I will do so shamelessly by asking you all to read pages 133-135 of my Christian Reformed Church Order Commentary to gain some historical perspective on this issue of limited or permanent tenure and to read pages 136-138 of that commentary to see what can be done about a "high turnover rate" that sometimes impedes our ministry. You will be amazed, when you read the latter part, how flexible our Church Order really is on this issue of how long a term might run........ (No, I do not make royalties on the sales of this commentary, but your buying it if you haven't done it already will definitely support our Faith Alive Resources agency).
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.
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 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.
Historically, "exceptional gifts" -- or the earlier "singular giftedness" -- meant: qualities of godliness, humility, spiritual discretion, superior intellect, wisdom, and a greater than average ability as a public speaker. Today we're still in the same ballpark with this definition, meaning to apply the same range of giftedness and personal readiness for ministry that we use for Article 6's seminary graduates to those who seek to enter by way of Article 7.
Thanks to Steve and John for pointing out at least two legitimate "exceptions" to what appears to be a hard and fast rule. If I were a legalist, I'd sing a different tune, but I'm not, to wit:
I consider the matter of pastors and elders serving the elements of communion to shut-ins to be an extension of the public worship service. We should encourage them to make use of the latest technology. Take a DVD or even just a CD so that these folks can be a part of the entire service and then serve the elements at the appropriate moment "along with all the others in the pews."
As for wartime and soldiers in the midst of constant battles taking a brief respite -- that is certainly something that no Reformed person should frown upon. One would hope for chaplains in place, but church order cannot be maintained in such situations in the way that it can be in a war-free society. In fact, the new Church Order of the three denominations that recently united to form the Protestant Church in the Netherlands has the following as a final article:
"If and insofar as extraordinary circumstances in the nation make the normal functioning of the life of the church impossible, the respective assemblies of the church or its members make such arrangements as are necessitated by these circumstances even if they should deviate from the accepted polity of the church."
Perhaps other readers can contribute with more exceptions and let us know whether they think it's "out of line."
Professors of Calvin Theological Seminary and the denominational Candidacy Committee look for the exact same gifts in those entering the ministry of the Word via Article 6 as the Candidacy Committee and the Classis look for in those who apply to enter the ministry of the Word via Article 7.
The words "exceptional gifts" are used to distinguish between the gifts of all believers to be about their kingdom living and the additional gifts required to serve in the office of minister of the Word.
There is no "higher standard" for Article 7 than Article 6. The church simply looks at those who do not have the prescribed theological training (which includes communal discernment of gifts appropriate to the office of minister) and decides whether by God's "sovereign leading" they indeed have the gifts required to serve as ministers.
Article 7 was always meant to be a highly exceptional avenue into the ministry since most people benefit greatly from training provided for in Article 6. These are different avenues which is exactly why they are separate articles in the Church Order.
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: Once an elder, always an elder?
Steve (and others),
I am being encouraged to contribute to this discussion. I will do so shamelessly by asking you all to read pages 133-135 of my Christian Reformed Church Order Commentary to gain some historical perspective on this issue of limited or permanent tenure and to read pages 136-138 of that commentary to see what can be done about a "high turnover rate" that sometimes impedes our ministry. You will be amazed, when you read the latter part, how flexible our Church Order really is on this issue of how long a term might run........ (No, I do not make royalties on the sales of this commentary, but your buying it if you haven't done it already will definitely support our Faith Alive Resources agency).
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: 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: 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: How has the Article 7 change affected those seeking to become Ministers of the Word?
Historically, "exceptional gifts" -- or the earlier "singular giftedness" -- meant: qualities of godliness, humility, spiritual discretion, superior intellect, wisdom, and a greater than average ability as a public speaker. Today we're still in the same ballpark with this definition, meaning to apply the same range of giftedness and personal readiness for ministry that we use for Article 6's seminary graduates to those who seek to enter by way of Article 7.
Posted in: What are the guidelines for serving communion at weddings?
Thanks to Steve and John for pointing out at least two legitimate "exceptions" to what appears to be a hard and fast rule. If I were a legalist, I'd sing a different tune, but I'm not, to wit:
I consider the matter of pastors and elders serving the elements of communion to shut-ins to be an extension of the public worship service. We should encourage them to make use of the latest technology. Take a DVD or even just a CD so that these folks can be a part of the entire service and then serve the elements at the appropriate moment "along with all the others in the pews."
As for wartime and soldiers in the midst of constant battles taking a brief respite -- that is certainly something that no Reformed person should frown upon. One would hope for chaplains in place, but church order cannot be maintained in such situations in the way that it can be in a war-free society. In fact, the new Church Order of the three denominations that recently united to form the Protestant Church in the Netherlands has the following as a final article:
"If and insofar as extraordinary circumstances in the nation make the normal functioning of the life of the church impossible, the respective assemblies of the church or its members make such arrangements as are necessitated by these circumstances even if they should deviate from the accepted polity of the church."
Perhaps other readers can contribute with more exceptions and let us know whether they think it's "out of line."
Posted in: How has the Article 7 change affected those seeking to become Ministers of the Word?
Professors of Calvin Theological Seminary and the denominational Candidacy Committee look for the exact same gifts in those entering the ministry of the Word via Article 6 as the Candidacy Committee and the Classis look for in those who apply to enter the ministry of the Word via Article 7.
The words "exceptional gifts" are used to distinguish between the gifts of all believers to be about their kingdom living and the additional gifts required to serve in the office of minister of the Word.
There is no "higher standard" for Article 7 than Article 6. The church simply looks at those who do not have the prescribed theological training (which includes communal discernment of gifts appropriate to the office of minister) and decides whether by God's "sovereign leading" they indeed have the gifts required to serve as ministers.
Article 7 was always meant to be a highly exceptional avenue into the ministry since most people benefit greatly from training provided for in Article 6. These are different avenues which is exactly why they are separate articles in the Church Order.