Henry DeMoor

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.

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...............

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.

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,

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.

The idea that assemblies should conduct some form of mutual censure regarding the conduct of delegates at their meetings is indeed praiseworthy.  i commend "dutchoven" for raising it.  I would love to hear from a variety of folk how this could be accomplished on a regular basis.  So, by all means, let us hear your opinions.

I will now only address the factual question as to why this pre-1965 Art. 43 was dropped.  When the first draft of the proposed revised Church Order was presented in the denominational publications and in the Agenda of Synod, 1957, this article was omitted and these Agenda do not indicate why it was now omitted.  At least, I can't find it addressed there.

So "dutchoven" has answered the question well.  The only clue comes from Van Dellen and Monsma's commentary (note: it is the third edition of 1954 that has this, not their Revised Church Order Commentary of 1965): "We may note with gratitude that we have really outgrown the need of Article 43, at least as far as its first provision is concerned.  Yet the article does no harm in our Church Order ...."  This observation comes after they relate some narratives about the kinds of "atrocious behaviors" that occurred in this respect in the sixteenth century.

Frankly, I think officers of classis and officers of synod have a pretty good handle on the continued need for this when we occasionally still bend in that direction and often urge assemblies in closing exercises to find unity in the Lord and to encourage the same when they return to their home congregations.  But if there's a good way to reinstate this more formally, I doubt anyone would truly object.

So let's hear from you on the way we do our business at classis and synod and how we mutually keep each other accountable.

Erik,

Your post was attached to a earlier posts on this.

You need to contact Darren Roorda at the CRC's Burlington, Ontario office.  I believe he can help you get a license which you will definitely need in order to do this legally.

No, Henry, it is not permitted.  Article 53 says that even those who are licensed to exhort or otherwise given permission by elders to lead in worship (but not ordained) must "refrain from all official acts of ministry."  The greeting or salutation is considered to be such an official act.   This was recently confirmed by Synod 2001 when it said that "certain acts of ministry -- among them ... the pronouncement of blessings for the people, ... -- are part of the ministry of Christ to his followers and are entrusted to the church and, within the church, to its ordained leaders ...."  You may wish to read up on this in my new CR Church Order Commentary at both Article 53 and Article 22.

If an unordained person leads in worship, it would be entirely permissible for such a person to change the greeting to a prayer.  "May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with us all."  It is then not a pronouncement from Christ to his people, but a prayer of the people to Christ.

I hope this helps you.