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.
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.
Well, I can try to explain it. VanDellen and Monsma, in their Revised Church Order Commentary, limited performing "official acts of the ministry" to ministers of the Word -- not laypersons, but also not students or exhorters or elders reading sermons. Synod 2001, however, broadened this permission to "ordained leaders," as you can see in my previous post on this topic. I don't think that this decision of Synod 2001 has truly found its way into our routines and practices, but it should. The correction would have to go by way of reminding the council or consistory of this decision.
In the very same breath with the salutation or "pronouncement of blessing," Synod 2001 names the administration of the sacraments as an official act of ministry. We've held that position from our beginnings as a denomination.
Article 55 of the Church Order says that the Lord's Supper shall be administered ... by a minister of the Word, a ministry associate, or, in the case of need, an ordained person who has received the approval of classis ...." The Supplement indicates that "ordinarily the ordained person should be an elder." As Synod 2001 put it, "no long-standing, organized congregation of Christians should be deprived of these liturgical acts simply because it cannot provide for the presence of an ordained minister or ... ministry associate."
There is no similar provision for elders to preach sermons, however. Any council that wishes to have an elder preach a sermon must have that person examined by the classis and receive licensure to exhort even if the elder will only preach in his or her own church.
All this is written up in my Christian Reformed Church Order Commentary published by Faith Alive Resources. Support our dear publishing arm, won't you? [I do not receive royalties] Great birthday present!
No, it is not a matter of original intent. How Ursinus thought about these things is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the Christian Reformed Church's synods have said about the Q&A of the Heidelberg Catechism. We are not bound by Ursinus' thoughts. We are bound by the confessions we have adopted and the interpretation of the confessional statements in them. So it is whether the synod of the CRCNA has ever insisted that "unchastity" includes homosexual activity. My point is that it has not, even though it has had every opportunity to do so. Instead, the synods have gone the way of a position and of pastoral advice for the churches. If synod did so decide, then we would have to discipline members in a homosexual relationship right up to the point of excommunication and officebearers who tolerated the activity right up to the point of deposition from office. This should be very clear to everyone. But I guess it's not.
Yes, Paul, thanks. That is exactly how this thread began. My challenge on the church political dimension of the much larger issue. Because, again, synod itself declares how authoritatively it speaks. In the case of homosexuality, everything has been "pastoral advice." Deliberately so.
If you believe and express the belief that all people are saved, your belief would be in conflict with our confessions, namely, the Canons of Dort (e.g. II, 6) and the Heidelberg Catechism (Q&A 20) and thus would no longer be affirming our Covenant for Officebearers. The only exception would be for you to file a "confessional difficulty gravamen" and ask your council and the broader assemblies to allow you not to believe in limited atonement and be granted that privilege. That request would almost certainly not get a positive response. So if you persisted in this you would have to be suspended and/or deposed from office.
Yes, Dan, but only if a synod of the CRCNA has made this a confessional issue. Currently it is a position that we have adopted and synod has called that "pastoral advice" to the churches. So the signing of the Covenant for Officebearers by said deacon did not involve confessional status. If, however, Synod 2021 were minded to interpret our confession by insisting that "unchastity" includes same gender sexual relations, that deacon might have to send such a confessional difficulty gravamen unless they are both chaste in their marriage. And if that is sent, I doubt that the broader assemblies would grant the request. In that case she would likely have to resign.
It looks like we will need to agree on what "respecting" a decision means. It does not mean obeying what a synod has declared. If it did, our having a negative vote recorded means very little. Let me give you an example out of my own past. I was interviewed by Synod 1988 after the Calvin Seminary board nominated me to serve as an assistant professor of church polity. The delegates already knew, by way of prior overtures and the public press, that I favored the nomination of women to serve as ordained officebearers. So a number of delegates wondered how I could possibly hold that view and yet respect the synodical decisions not to allow it. My response was that seminary students were adults and clever enough to be able to distinguish between what the CRC held as its position on the matter and my own views on it. So in all the years I taught church polity I always presented what the CRC held and why, and I also presented what those who didn't agree with that position held and why so that said students could make up their own minds. The same is true of synodical delegates who had their negative vote on a decision recorded. They went back to their classis, reported on what synod decided (respectfully) and why they voted against it. There's no problem with that in our system. Of course, no synod allows a negative vote on a matter that is obviously a confessional issue. Women in office, as Synod 1987 declared, was and is not a confessional issue.
As for Classis Toronto, I have enough awareness of their actions to know that not only did the council of that congregation respectfully differ on a matter that was at that point not a confessional issue, but that the council also held their belief so forcefully that it didn't leave much of a choice for classis to act as it did. Those actions reflected a response to one council's approach. There were many other councils that dealt pastorally with those who professed to be homosexual in orientation and sought to help them live with the synodical decisions of 1973. Elders may even have differed with synod's position, but respecting synod's decisions means that they would be obliged to accurately report what its position was and is.
On this Thanksgiving weekend I want to express to all of you my gratitude for your insightful contributions responding to my "challenge."
I believe that what we need from synod now is clarity. People differ on how we understand "pastoral advice." Some say it's just a matter of allowing elders to do their own thing, even with a denominational "position" in place. Others think it means that synod is asking us to minister in a specific way, i.e., we are not to go outside of the bounds that synodical decisions have put in place, and we should be telling those with homosexual orientation to be chaste. But we also need synod to affirm our church political history. As a matter of fact, nobody has thus far demonstrated that synod has wanted to raise this issue to a confessional status, i.e., it has never specifically indicated what in today's world and culture the word "chaste" in the Heidelberg Catechism actually condemns.
So what I believe should happen is that Synod 2021 should consider a declaration that with the increasing pressure of our culture we believe that sexual activity among persons of the same gender has now brought us to a "status confessionis." Synod should then deliberate on that proposal. If it winds up then, secondly, approving it, synod should make clear what is expected of the churches. Specific answers to questions like: may we ordain homosexual persons? Only if they are chaste? Should we then expect chastity in the lives of all persons who experience this orientation? Should we ask them not to marry since their doing so shows a lack of repentance for sexual activity among persons of the same gender? If, on the other hand, synod does not approve of such a declaration, it should indicate why it is not a confessional issue and make it clear that officebearers at the local level are free to minister to their members with that in mind. It should then also make it clear whether persons with a homosexual orientation may be nominated for office in spite of our 1973 decision ("incompatible with the will of God").
So rather than framing everything in the context of "pastoral advice," it is now time to decide one way or the other even though this may well sow division among us and force possible loss of membership or even our denominational makeup.
I wish it didn't have to be this way because I feel like we should be uniting around even this issue. But I find that no amount of new hermeneutic can convince us that the Scriptures are actually quite tolerant of homosexual acts, and, as opposed to the women in office issue, doesn't speak in favorable terms about it, whatever the cultural expression of this was at the time, different from ours or not. (I suspect not, but will trust good exegetes.)
In any case, to boil it right down to the basis of my "challenge," I win that one and synod should not declare that this is already a "confessional issue" as the study committee proposes. That's simply not speaking truth.
May God bless our delegates in preparation and, hopefully, Spirit-filled deliberation in June (if we're out of the woods of Covid-19).
No, I don't believe that was the point in 1975. The point was that whatever authority synod claims on a particular issue, the wording of the decision should speak for itself. So it's not as if something has to be in any one of the specific categories mentioned and as if it can only be in one. I think Synod 1975 was just "exemplifying" options that synods have in making sometimes difficult decisions.
In asserting that all decisions in 1973 were framed as "pastoral advice" synod deliberately avoided "principial stance" or "confessional status," call it what you will. But because we disagree on what that essentially means and because we seem to be drifting in a congregationalist approach again, Synod 2020 should probably discuss the issues now in terms of the "interpretation of the Heidelberg Catechism" to clarify its relevance for the day. Any such interpretation, of course, then becomes part of the confessional binding for all who sign the Covenant for Officebearers.
I do not know where that will lead, but I have what is typical of those in their mid-seventies: some anxiety about losing each other.
Posted in: Can a lay person bring God's greeting at the start of a worship service?
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.
Posted in: Can a lay person bring God's greeting at the start of a worship service?
Well, I can try to explain it. VanDellen and Monsma, in their Revised Church Order Commentary, limited performing "official acts of the ministry" to ministers of the Word -- not laypersons, but also not students or exhorters or elders reading sermons. Synod 2001, however, broadened this permission to "ordained leaders," as you can see in my previous post on this topic. I don't think that this decision of Synod 2001 has truly found its way into our routines and practices, but it should. The correction would have to go by way of reminding the council or consistory of this decision.
Posted in: Can a lay person bring God's greeting at the start of a worship service?
In the very same breath with the salutation or "pronouncement of blessing," Synod 2001 names the administration of the sacraments as an official act of ministry. We've held that position from our beginnings as a denomination.
Article 55 of the Church Order says that the Lord's Supper shall be administered ... by a minister of the Word, a ministry associate, or, in the case of need, an ordained person who has received the approval of classis ...." The Supplement indicates that "ordinarily the ordained person should be an elder." As Synod 2001 put it, "no long-standing, organized congregation of Christians should be deprived of these liturgical acts simply because it cannot provide for the presence of an ordained minister or ... ministry associate."
There is no similar provision for elders to preach sermons, however. Any council that wishes to have an elder preach a sermon must have that person examined by the classis and receive licensure to exhort even if the elder will only preach in his or her own church.
All this is written up in my Christian Reformed Church Order Commentary published by Faith Alive Resources. Support our dear publishing arm, won't you? [I do not receive royalties] Great birthday present!
Posted in: Status Confessionis
An old man making space for sin.
Just a tad ad hominem and slightly overboard among brothers in Christ, don't you think?
Let's keep this respectful please.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
No, it is not a matter of original intent. How Ursinus thought about these things is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the Christian Reformed Church's synods have said about the Q&A of the Heidelberg Catechism. We are not bound by Ursinus' thoughts. We are bound by the confessions we have adopted and the interpretation of the confessional statements in them. So it is whether the synod of the CRCNA has ever insisted that "unchastity" includes homosexual activity. My point is that it has not, even though it has had every opportunity to do so. Instead, the synods have gone the way of a position and of pastoral advice for the churches. If synod did so decide, then we would have to discipline members in a homosexual relationship right up to the point of excommunication and officebearers who tolerated the activity right up to the point of deposition from office. This should be very clear to everyone. But I guess it's not.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
Yes, Paul, thanks. That is exactly how this thread began. My challenge on the church political dimension of the much larger issue. Because, again, synod itself declares how authoritatively it speaks. In the case of homosexuality, everything has been "pastoral advice." Deliberately so.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
Dan,
That is not my premise.
My premise is that no synod thus far in CRC history has insisted that officebearers at the local level apply discipline.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
No, Dan, I'm not saying that at all.
If you believe and express the belief that all people are saved, your belief would be in conflict with our confessions, namely, the Canons of Dort (e.g. II, 6) and the Heidelberg Catechism (Q&A 20) and thus would no longer be affirming our Covenant for Officebearers. The only exception would be for you to file a "confessional difficulty gravamen" and ask your council and the broader assemblies to allow you not to believe in limited atonement and be granted that privilege. That request would almost certainly not get a positive response. So if you persisted in this you would have to be suspended and/or deposed from office.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
Yes, Dan, but only if a synod of the CRCNA has made this a confessional issue. Currently it is a position that we have adopted and synod has called that "pastoral advice" to the churches. So the signing of the Covenant for Officebearers by said deacon did not involve confessional status. If, however, Synod 2021 were minded to interpret our confession by insisting that "unchastity" includes same gender sexual relations, that deacon might have to send such a confessional difficulty gravamen unless they are both chaste in their marriage. And if that is sent, I doubt that the broader assemblies would grant the request. In that case she would likely have to resign.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
Josh,
It looks like we will need to agree on what "respecting" a decision means. It does not mean obeying what a synod has declared. If it did, our having a negative vote recorded means very little. Let me give you an example out of my own past. I was interviewed by Synod 1988 after the Calvin Seminary board nominated me to serve as an assistant professor of church polity. The delegates already knew, by way of prior overtures and the public press, that I favored the nomination of women to serve as ordained officebearers. So a number of delegates wondered how I could possibly hold that view and yet respect the synodical decisions not to allow it. My response was that seminary students were adults and clever enough to be able to distinguish between what the CRC held as its position on the matter and my own views on it. So in all the years I taught church polity I always presented what the CRC held and why, and I also presented what those who didn't agree with that position held and why so that said students could make up their own minds. The same is true of synodical delegates who had their negative vote on a decision recorded. They went back to their classis, reported on what synod decided (respectfully) and why they voted against it. There's no problem with that in our system. Of course, no synod allows a negative vote on a matter that is obviously a confessional issue. Women in office, as Synod 1987 declared, was and is not a confessional issue.
As for Classis Toronto, I have enough awareness of their actions to know that not only did the council of that congregation respectfully differ on a matter that was at that point not a confessional issue, but that the council also held their belief so forcefully that it didn't leave much of a choice for classis to act as it did. Those actions reflected a response to one council's approach. There were many other councils that dealt pastorally with those who professed to be homosexual in orientation and sought to help them live with the synodical decisions of 1973. Elders may even have differed with synod's position, but respecting synod's decisions means that they would be obliged to accurately report what its position was and is.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
Everyone,
On this Thanksgiving weekend I want to express to all of you my gratitude for your insightful contributions responding to my "challenge."
I believe that what we need from synod now is clarity. People differ on how we understand "pastoral advice." Some say it's just a matter of allowing elders to do their own thing, even with a denominational "position" in place. Others think it means that synod is asking us to minister in a specific way, i.e., we are not to go outside of the bounds that synodical decisions have put in place, and we should be telling those with homosexual orientation to be chaste. But we also need synod to affirm our church political history. As a matter of fact, nobody has thus far demonstrated that synod has wanted to raise this issue to a confessional status, i.e., it has never specifically indicated what in today's world and culture the word "chaste" in the Heidelberg Catechism actually condemns.
So what I believe should happen is that Synod 2021 should consider a declaration that with the increasing pressure of our culture we believe that sexual activity among persons of the same gender has now brought us to a "status confessionis." Synod should then deliberate on that proposal. If it winds up then, secondly, approving it, synod should make clear what is expected of the churches. Specific answers to questions like: may we ordain homosexual persons? Only if they are chaste? Should we then expect chastity in the lives of all persons who experience this orientation? Should we ask them not to marry since their doing so shows a lack of repentance for sexual activity among persons of the same gender? If, on the other hand, synod does not approve of such a declaration, it should indicate why it is not a confessional issue and make it clear that officebearers at the local level are free to minister to their members with that in mind. It should then also make it clear whether persons with a homosexual orientation may be nominated for office in spite of our 1973 decision ("incompatible with the will of God").
So rather than framing everything in the context of "pastoral advice," it is now time to decide one way or the other even though this may well sow division among us and force possible loss of membership or even our denominational makeup.
I wish it didn't have to be this way because I feel like we should be uniting around even this issue. But I find that no amount of new hermeneutic can convince us that the Scriptures are actually quite tolerant of homosexual acts, and, as opposed to the women in office issue, doesn't speak in favorable terms about it, whatever the cultural expression of this was at the time, different from ours or not. (I suspect not, but will trust good exegetes.)
In any case, to boil it right down to the basis of my "challenge," I win that one and synod should not declare that this is already a "confessional issue" as the study committee proposes. That's simply not speaking truth.
May God bless our delegates in preparation and, hopefully, Spirit-filled deliberation in June (if we're out of the woods of Covid-19).
Blessings, everyone! And thanks again.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
Jeff,
No, I don't believe that was the point in 1975. The point was that whatever authority synod claims on a particular issue, the wording of the decision should speak for itself. So it's not as if something has to be in any one of the specific categories mentioned and as if it can only be in one. I think Synod 1975 was just "exemplifying" options that synods have in making sometimes difficult decisions.
In asserting that all decisions in 1973 were framed as "pastoral advice" synod deliberately avoided "principial stance" or "confessional status," call it what you will. But because we disagree on what that essentially means and because we seem to be drifting in a congregationalist approach again, Synod 2020 should probably discuss the issues now in terms of the "interpretation of the Heidelberg Catechism" to clarify its relevance for the day. Any such interpretation, of course, then becomes part of the confessional binding for all who sign the Covenant for Officebearers.
I do not know where that will lead, but I have what is typical of those in their mid-seventies: some anxiety about losing each other.