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 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.
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.
On the matter of mutual censure at council meetings and the "mumbles" that people "have nothing," perhaps the following paragraph taken from my new Commentary on the Church Order (Article 36b) may be of assistance:
"There are ways in which councils could make mutual censure a more edifying experience. Councils could change the emphasis from scrutiny of the individual to communal self-examination. Doctrine and life still have a bearing, but the focus is on the performance of official duties. Councils could arrange for regularity of discussion but do away with the link to the Lord's Supper. Mutual censure is more appropriate, say, after the reading of elders' and deacons' minutes and the pastor's report. Councils could ask in what ways their fellow officebearers are meeting or not meeting the needs of the congregation. They could use the time to adjust present goals and objectives, if necessary. Councils could structure each occasion thematically. They could focus on, say, evangelism, pastoral care, proclamation, benevolence, political awareness, church education, stewardship, or discipline, and discuss these matters in depth. In preparing for a classis meeting or for the arrival of church visitors, councils could use the appropriate guides for these events to launch the discussion. Councils could use this slot on the agenda to discuss needs of the congregation when a pastor leaves and a mandate for the search committee is to be drafted. In any case, councils should never place the matter toward the end of a meeting. They should take sufficient time for meaningful dialogue and focus on the positive as well as the negative."
Looks like there's no "takers" so far. So I'll respond and see if others want to join in on it. Indeed, Article 4 provides that the council must provide the names of nominees and then the congregation chooses. There are models other than election. My commentary contains quite a number of them, but in all these models it is the council that nominates. Council means: the minister(s), elders, and deacons combined. This is confirmed in Art. 35a where approval of nominations is also said to be a part of the common administration of the church to be dealt with by the council. Neither the consistory (minister and elders only) nor the diaconate has the right to "trump" the council's responsibility in any way. So eligibility for office is also decided upon by the council (all local officebearers together). So whether women are eligible in that local church or whether drinking alcohol is tolerated, etc. -- this is all up to the council. The only thing some councils have done at times is to leave such an issue up to the congregation at a congregational meeting where adult confessing members vote. They decide that eligibility issues like this is a "major matter" as Article 37 has it so they let the congregation decide it after they've recommended something like this. Other councils have argued that this should not be decided "democratically" by the congregation (even though there may be an opportunity for members to express themselves on it) but by council that is ultimately responsible for the issue and this, says Article 37 also, is possible because the "authority for making and carrying out final decisions remains with the council as the governing body of the church."
Faith Alive Resources would appreciate it if you ran out and bought the commentary or your church decided to buy a copy for anybody to consult. I don't make any $ on royalty, so this is strictly a matter of charity to your favorite publishing house!
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.
Posted in: Should we still practice "mutual censure" at Classis meetings?
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.
Posted in: Does a US pastor need a license to officiate at a Canadian wedding?
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.
Posted in: Should we still practice "mutual censure" at Classis meetings?
On the matter of mutual censure at council meetings and the "mumbles" that people "have nothing," perhaps the following paragraph taken from my new Commentary on the Church Order (Article 36b) may be of assistance:
"There are ways in which councils could make mutual censure a more edifying experience. Councils could change the emphasis from scrutiny of the individual to communal self-examination. Doctrine and life still have a bearing, but the focus is on the performance of official duties. Councils could arrange for regularity of discussion but do away with the link to the Lord's Supper. Mutual censure is more appropriate, say, after the reading of elders' and deacons' minutes and the pastor's report. Councils could ask in what ways their fellow officebearers are meeting or not meeting the needs of the congregation. They could use the time to adjust present goals and objectives, if necessary. Councils could structure each occasion thematically. They could focus on, say, evangelism, pastoral care, proclamation, benevolence, political awareness, church education, stewardship, or discipline, and discuss these matters in depth. In preparing for a classis meeting or for the arrival of church visitors, councils could use the appropriate guides for these events to launch the discussion. Councils could use this slot on the agenda to discuss needs of the congregation when a pastor leaves and a mandate for the search committee is to be drafted. In any case, councils should never place the matter toward the end of a meeting. They should take sufficient time for meaningful dialogue and focus on the positive as well as the negative."
Posted in: Which office discusses and decides who is eligible for call to Elders and Deacons?
David,
Looks like there's no "takers" so far. So I'll respond and see if others want to join in on it. Indeed, Article 4 provides that the council must provide the names of nominees and then the congregation chooses. There are models other than election. My commentary contains quite a number of them, but in all these models it is the council that nominates. Council means: the minister(s), elders, and deacons combined. This is confirmed in Art. 35a where approval of nominations is also said to be a part of the common administration of the church to be dealt with by the council. Neither the consistory (minister and elders only) nor the diaconate has the right to "trump" the council's responsibility in any way. So eligibility for office is also decided upon by the council (all local officebearers together). So whether women are eligible in that local church or whether drinking alcohol is tolerated, etc. -- this is all up to the council. The only thing some councils have done at times is to leave such an issue up to the congregation at a congregational meeting where adult confessing members vote. They decide that eligibility issues like this is a "major matter" as Article 37 has it so they let the congregation decide it after they've recommended something like this. Other councils have argued that this should not be decided "democratically" by the congregation (even though there may be an opportunity for members to express themselves on it) but by council that is ultimately responsible for the issue and this, says Article 37 also, is possible because the "authority for making and carrying out final decisions remains with the council as the governing body of the church."
Faith Alive Resources would appreciate it if you ran out and bought the commentary or your church decided to buy a copy for anybody to consult. I don't make any $ on royalty, so this is strictly a matter of charity to your favorite publishing house!
Grace and peace,
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.