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.
Thanks for the encouraging note about my commentary being helpful to you.
I will assume that the director of your preschool is not ordained to any office in your church, i.e., that he or she is not a minister, elder, or deacon. Note that I have a response to a similar question about an unordained person attending council meetings as the second Q&A attached to Article 35.
The short answer here is that everything depends on what "sitting in" means in your question. If it means that he or she attended but just observed, did not participate and did not vote, there is no violation of Article 35 because, in principle, all meetings of council are open to the public. The only exception is when the council must meet in executive session. If "sitting in" actually meant that he or she participated in the discussion but did not vote, then there might still be no violation. Councils are free to grant the "privilege of the floor" to unordained visitors, especially on issues that concern such visitors directly. If it meant that he or she participated in all discussion on every issue, that would start to be a violation of a sort: it would be a matter of common courtesy to defer to the regular members of council on most issues except where you yourself are definitely involved. You'd be exceeding the boundaries of just having the "privilege of the floor" for a reason. If, finally, it meant that he or she voted on issues while not ordained, that would most definitely be a violation of Article 35. The council, says the Belgic Confession, is made up of ministers, elders and deacons, not the unordained.
Hope that helps a bit. Blessings in the EPMC program.
"Bringing new members into the body" is covered in Article 59 of the Church Order and you will note the use of the word "consistory" in that article. That, again, is deliberately chosen because this falls clearly within the responsibility of the minister(s) and the elders, not the deacons. Conditions of membership are also the responsibility of the consistory, although if this is discussed not with reference to any particular person joining but with reference to membership conditions in general, it would be wise for the consistory to ask for and receive council approval.
Historically, none of our churches that I know of have asked those wanting to be full members to sign anything, but profession of faith, if that's what's done, involves a liturgical form where the person, in a worship service, promises to submit to the government of the church. Even if such a promise where made in an earlier congregation and the person is now transferring membership to another, that promise made in a public worship remains.
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.
Yes, I apologize. I meant 2003 when I wrote my comment back in March. I'd be very interested in hearing from all of you exactly what is being cited as the reason(s) for making use of the lot (again). I have summarized some in my commentary that will appear before the end of the year, but it's always good to hear from each other what motivates our interest in it.
I'm truly sorry about the mistake in my referring to 2004 instead of 2003. I promise to mend my ways.
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.
Thanks for your comment. I appreciate it when folks chime in. I need you to explain what you write just a bit more. You seem to indicate that you would want the Lord's Supper to be "more open" than what I have advocated in this thread but then you give the example of Jesus celebrating the Passover with his disciples "in a closed room," as you put it. I'm having difficulty understanding what you mean. Are you saying that Jesus actually had an "open door policy" that night before his crucifixion or do you really mean a "closed room"? I am not arguing -- just wanting to make sure what you're suggesting here.
We, of course, need also to consider over 2000 years of history. How the Western Church eventually "corrupted the celebration and practices of the Lord's Supper" so that Reformers had to get back to biblical practices not polluted with idolatry of any kind. But I'm certainly curious as to exactly what you mean. Perhaps you'd be willing to write just a bit more to help us understand.
No problem, Ken. This clarifies what you're after well enough. My immediate response to you would be to say that in I Corinthians 11:17-34 Paul gives the early church specific instructions to celebrate the supper in remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice and as a proclamation of his life-giving death. This is being done already, in the early church throughout Palestine and Asia Minor, and also in Corinth, and this same Scripture passage makes it very clear that early Christians were already "abusing" the sacrament, eating and drinking, as Paul says, "in an unworthy manner." So the need for some rules is evident there already. Paul's rule is: examine yourself before you eat and drink. Exercise some self-discipline. And know who you are as a church: one united body of Christ in which there should be no divisions. There are other such passages in the New Testament.
And then comes the "history lesson" in the years beyond the times of the Bible being written. This lesson comes in many forms of how people misused the celebration of the Supper that was soon recognized as an official sacrament, one of the two prescribed by Jesus himself (the other, of course, being baptism in his name). Church officials were to supervise the celebration in public worship. Sometimes they didn't do this and things got out of hand. At other times they did, but did it wrongly, so that the plain truth of the sacrament as an assurance of our salvation was not being experienced any longer.
That's why the Reformers spent much time with the sacrament. You could read in our Belgic Confession of Faith and in the Heidelberg Catechism the sections on the sacrament, and you would soon see how the sixteenth-century Reformation sought to restore the sacrament to its rightful place in the worship of the church. What these Reformers tried to accomplish in this way was also incorporated in the rules for worship: what we now call the Church Order. Since then, we have from time to time added some rules, subtracted some rules, revised some rules, but always and only to keep the church celebrating the Lord's Supper with dignity and in true biblical fashion.
Like you, I think from what you have written, I sometimes wish that we could start it all over again, reset history, as it were, but that is futile. We need now always to examine what Christians are doing and whether their practices are in keeping with the Scriptures. That's the point of our rules: an ongoing Reformation, if you will.
Posted in: Should we still practice "mutual censure" at Classis meetings?
Dave,
Thanks for the encouraging note about my commentary being helpful to you.
I will assume that the director of your preschool is not ordained to any office in your church, i.e., that he or she is not a minister, elder, or deacon. Note that I have a response to a similar question about an unordained person attending council meetings as the second Q&A attached to Article 35.
The short answer here is that everything depends on what "sitting in" means in your question. If it means that he or she attended but just observed, did not participate and did not vote, there is no violation of Article 35 because, in principle, all meetings of council are open to the public. The only exception is when the council must meet in executive session. If "sitting in" actually meant that he or she participated in the discussion but did not vote, then there might still be no violation. Councils are free to grant the "privilege of the floor" to unordained visitors, especially on issues that concern such visitors directly. If it meant that he or she participated in all discussion on every issue, that would start to be a violation of a sort: it would be a matter of common courtesy to defer to the regular members of council on most issues except where you yourself are definitely involved. You'd be exceeding the boundaries of just having the "privilege of the floor" for a reason. If, finally, it meant that he or she voted on issues while not ordained, that would most definitely be a violation of Article 35. The council, says the Belgic Confession, is made up of ministers, elders and deacons, not the unordained.
Hope that helps a bit. Blessings in the EPMC program.
Posted in: Which office discusses and decides who is eligible for call to Elders and Deacons?
David,
"Bringing new members into the body" is covered in Article 59 of the Church Order and you will note the use of the word "consistory" in that article. That, again, is deliberately chosen because this falls clearly within the responsibility of the minister(s) and the elders, not the deacons. Conditions of membership are also the responsibility of the consistory, although if this is discussed not with reference to any particular person joining but with reference to membership conditions in general, it would be wise for the consistory to ask for and receive council approval.
Historically, none of our churches that I know of have asked those wanting to be full members to sign anything, but profession of faith, if that's what's done, involves a liturgical form where the person, in a worship service, promises to submit to the government of the church. Even if such a promise where made in an earlier congregation and the person is now transferring membership to another, that promise made in a public worship remains.
Blessings,
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.
Posted in: What is the CRC position on the casting of lots in church elections?
Yes, I apologize. I meant 2003 when I wrote my comment back in March. I'd be very interested in hearing from all of you exactly what is being cited as the reason(s) for making use of the lot (again). I have summarized some in my commentary that will appear before the end of the year, but it's always good to hear from each other what motivates our interest in it.
I'm truly sorry about the mistake in my referring to 2004 instead of 2003. I promise to mend my ways.
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.
Posted in: What are the guidelines for serving communion at weddings?
Hi Ken,
Thanks for your comment. I appreciate it when folks chime in. I need you to explain what you write just a bit more. You seem to indicate that you would want the Lord's Supper to be "more open" than what I have advocated in this thread but then you give the example of Jesus celebrating the Passover with his disciples "in a closed room," as you put it. I'm having difficulty understanding what you mean. Are you saying that Jesus actually had an "open door policy" that night before his crucifixion or do you really mean a "closed room"? I am not arguing -- just wanting to make sure what you're suggesting here.
We, of course, need also to consider over 2000 years of history. How the Western Church eventually "corrupted the celebration and practices of the Lord's Supper" so that Reformers had to get back to biblical practices not polluted with idolatry of any kind. But I'm certainly curious as to exactly what you mean. Perhaps you'd be willing to write just a bit more to help us understand.
Peace,
Posted in: What are the guidelines for serving communion at weddings?
No problem, Ken. This clarifies what you're after well enough. My immediate response to you would be to say that in I Corinthians 11:17-34 Paul gives the early church specific instructions to celebrate the supper in remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice and as a proclamation of his life-giving death. This is being done already, in the early church throughout Palestine and Asia Minor, and also in Corinth, and this same Scripture passage makes it very clear that early Christians were already "abusing" the sacrament, eating and drinking, as Paul says, "in an unworthy manner." So the need for some rules is evident there already. Paul's rule is: examine yourself before you eat and drink. Exercise some self-discipline. And know who you are as a church: one united body of Christ in which there should be no divisions. There are other such passages in the New Testament.
And then comes the "history lesson" in the years beyond the times of the Bible being written. This lesson comes in many forms of how people misused the celebration of the Supper that was soon recognized as an official sacrament, one of the two prescribed by Jesus himself (the other, of course, being baptism in his name). Church officials were to supervise the celebration in public worship. Sometimes they didn't do this and things got out of hand. At other times they did, but did it wrongly, so that the plain truth of the sacrament as an assurance of our salvation was not being experienced any longer.
That's why the Reformers spent much time with the sacrament. You could read in our Belgic Confession of Faith and in the Heidelberg Catechism the sections on the sacrament, and you would soon see how the sixteenth-century Reformation sought to restore the sacrament to its rightful place in the worship of the church. What these Reformers tried to accomplish in this way was also incorporated in the rules for worship: what we now call the Church Order. Since then, we have from time to time added some rules, subtracted some rules, revised some rules, but always and only to keep the church celebrating the Lord's Supper with dignity and in true biblical fashion.
Like you, I think from what you have written, I sometimes wish that we could start it all over again, reset history, as it were, but that is futile. We need now always to examine what Christians are doing and whether their practices are in keeping with the Scriptures. That's the point of our rules: an ongoing Reformation, if you will.