Henry DeMoor

It's a good question you raise, Dutch.  What the 2008 Revision of the Manual of CRC Government says is actually not the way I remember we used to do this in the classes I have served.  We used to say, instead, and actually have in our written rules that elder delegates to synod must be in the office of elder at the time that classis chooses them; they are eligible even if their term comes to an end before synod actually meets; but they must be available to the first classis meeting to follow upon synod's meeting.  What this different judgment on what's permissible points out for all of us is that this is truly an "extension" of what the Church Order says in Article 45.  It is said there only that the classis must send two elders.

Before someone now concludes that therefore those currently not in office may be elected by the classis as far as the Church Order is concerned, let me point out two important things.  The first is that Article 34 insists that "major assemblies are composed of officebearers."  The second is that Article 25 does establish the practice of "limited tenure" and that therefore we do not have the polity that characterizes Presbyterian denominations and even the Reformed Church in America, namely, that there is "permanent tenure" so that you have active and inactive elders.  By such a polity one might more readily come to a position that inactive elders may be called into action for the purpose of a synodical gathering.  But we don't have that.  We still have "limited tenure" and for some very good reasons.  You may find them at Article 25 of my commentary.

So we can certainly give classes some freedom to have their own rules for delegating elders to synod, but I think that sending someone who is not in office at the time classis chooses does conflict with our Church Order and therefore should not be done unless we first revise the Church Order to that effect.

Is a move towards permanent tenure unbiblical, then?  No, I don't think that case can be made.  But history's wisdom is that limited tenure is desirable.  How limited?  Well, I have pointed out previously that in our system, when you review all the articles, you could be a deacon for ten years in a row ..........  But that's another issue.

Thanks, Todd.  You're very kind.  And I do love discussion on the contents, so thanks for the critique.

Yes, I'm sorry, I do realize that my commentary on council, consistory and diaconate contradicts the 2008 Manual, first paragraph on Article 52, and that's because that paragraph directly contravenes the Article itself.  This comment was not in any of the Manuals that preceded it.  It suggests that "consistory" is really just an antiquated reference to what we now call council.  But the truth is that Synod 1988 made deliberate decisions on what is "council's" and what is "consistory's" responsibilities so that "consistory" in Article 52 was intentionally chosen.  Note my comments on this development under Article 35.

It remains true, of course, (and perhaps that reduces your "trouble") that consistory and diaconate both report to the council and it is entirely possible and legitimate for a council to weigh in on an issue, including a worship issue, and overturn what the consistory has decided.  It also remains true that some churches have never truly "obeyed" the 1988 decisions and still do not operate with a "consistory" separate from the "council."

Well, Gayla, one does have to make choices with regard to what's interesting to a more general public than just one individual, as you well know in your journalistic capacity.  And speaking of that, of course, there are some pieces of advice and consultation that need to remain strictly confidential or people wouldn't ask me any more.  I need to keep my office a "safe place" for people to speak freely.  Just so you readers understand I don't blab ......... (:-).

At this time, the CRC Church Order allows "members by baptism" to be admitted to the Lord's Supper "upon a public profession of faith." This is an age-appropriate profession indicating an Apostles' Creed-like faith awareness and sufficient understanding of the sacrament. Children in many congregations do this anywhere between the ages of 9 and 12. Other churches still operate according to the older model or tradition that has people doing profession of faith at approximately age 18 or older.

Everyone is invited to go to www.crcna.org and view the latest discussions on the matter provided by the Faith Formation Committee, a study committee of synod that will present a final report to Synod 2012.

So while we currently do not believe that people are welcome by reason of their baptism, we do allow for children 9-12 at communion and we are continuing the discussion of whether to make new changes in the future.

Clay,

I don't believe that the doctrine of transubstantiation and the fear of children dropping the "body" and spilling the "wine" are the initial cause here. They have probably contributed, as you say. However, the original impulse for the making of an age-appropriate profession of faith is the difference between the two sacraments: baptism and the Lord's Supper. Baptism is meant to be "passive" but the Lord's Supper is about active participation -- eating and drinking and, as has now been pointed out, having at least some understanding of the "body of Christ" that is the community of God's people.

I do hope that people have read in the 1995 and 2006 and 2007 Acts of Synod the denomination wrestling with this issue and are continuing to follow the current discussions of the Faith Formation Committee.

Grace and peace,

John,

I would agree with Ken but say it in a slightly different way.  Banner covers, like the covers of any magazine out there, are designed for only one purpose: to arouse interest in the reader to open up and read.  Since the denomination has studied and is continuing to study whether children may be included in one way or another, under whatever conditions, the Banner chose a picture to put in an image where we are probing, not where we have been in the past.

Josh,

I don't think we need any church order change here.  The reason for the word "weighty" is that we are talking here, theologically, about a person being called to a specific ministry in a specific place and a minister cannot just ignore or reject that calling without really good reasons nor can a council "go back on" what was an indefinite call channeled through that local assembly without really good reasons.  My contention is that if the reasons are clearly stated, we'll be able to "differentiate conflict and non-conflict."

On Paul's question about experiencing more conflict:  the situations of conflict I most meet in my conversing with people in different places throughout the continent are those that involve a minister who keeps denying that he/she is part of the problem.  Our society is getting incredibly narcissistic, in my view, and this doesn't leave us untouched in our church roles.  Where is the dedication to ministry, succesful communal ministry, even if to be successful I (the minister) may have to step aside for the good of this congregation.  Ministers can be so un-servantlike sometimes .........  Ah, just a "cri de coeur," as the French would say it ....

I have one suggestion for alleviating the "stigma" somewhat, namely, to be absolutely specific and accurate in the minutes of the classis that approves the Article 17 request, stating in straightforward terms why the separation is sought: like "entering a Th.M. program longer than what the congregation can afford to give in terms of sabbatical," or "the council believes that a change is needed after x number of years in order to enliven the ministry to the congregation: or "spouse has received a ministry position in another province or state," etc.

Stated Clerks of classis, council clerks, ministers all have a copy.  One should also be furnished to Pastor-Church Relations so that it can become more specific about what was involved in the separation.

Why not, in other words, be specific and speak the truth in love.