I agree with Jeff on the use of 'conservative" vs whatever. It is overused in so many contexts that it is virtually meaningless unless specifically defined, in which case it is better just to not use the term. Scriptural vs unscriptural is generally a better context. Some conservatives are very scriptural, while other conservatives are very unscriptural - so it is not helpful to use the term 'conservative', since the issue is not about being traditional, nor conservative, but rather about honoring God and responding to God completely, whether in a traditional or charismatic fashion, or in some blend of the two.
The working of the spirit does not respond to labels, and is not limited to certain personality types. Obedience to Christ is primarily a matter of the heart first, and outward results second. One man's quiet tears of joy may be as heartfelt and responsive and spirit filled than another man's jumping and shouting in praise, and God knows the truth of both of them.
Alejandro, first, let me say that I think that denying the validity of infant baptism for covenant children of believers is wrong.
However, the other side of the coin is this. Our forms and theology indicates that it is wrong to baptize your children out of custom or superstition. We also believe that baptism does not save, nor is some magic key to salvation, but rather a symbol and recognition of God's grace and our repentance.
We have a problem when children are baptized superstitiously by those who do not truly believe, and who do not teach or bring up their children in the instruction of the Lord. We also have a problem when infants who were baptized are clearly living and thinking as pagans and non-believers when they become adults. I've been in a reformed PKN church in Netherlands where a child was baptized, whose parents never or rarely attended church. The pastor said he was hoping by this practice to encourage the parents to attend. This is a scandal, in spite of any "good" motives the pastor may have had. So we even have the problem in reformed churches sometimes.
The Bible is clear that not all Israel is Israel, meaning that not all who were circumcised as Israelites were truly Israel because they did not worship God, and were not obedient to God but rebelled against Him and worshipped idols. Their circumcision was of no-effect and no significance, and in fact counted against them.
If baptism is understood as an expression of covenant and God's faithfulness, then it might be useful to have an expression of that in the sacrament, joining it to committment and repentance. When an unbeliever comes to Christ, why is his previous infant baptism more significant than the lack of infant baptism of another unbeliever coming to Christ? If the Rom Cath church in latin america generally or often treats baptism as custom and superstition and magical endowment, then we might say that it is not a true baptism in any sense of the sacrament. While it may be difficult to judge every instance, we can say for certain that this often happens. Whether anabaptists have additional aversions to infant baptism is not relevant to our perspective on this. However, it is significant that part of their aversion to infant baptism is based on the hypocrisy and meaninglessness and paganism imbedded in the application of baptism in cases where true faith and repentance is non-existent. In other words, the large numbers of non-christians who have been baptized as children do not add weight to the validity of infant baptism. We do not do ecumenism any favors by falling into the same trap as the Rom Catholic church in terms of applying this sacrament. If we respect the one denomination in spite of theologic differences, we do not have grounds for not respecting other denominations in spite of theology differences.
This is a discussion worth having, because I believe it is an indicator of how we live christian lives in obedience to Christ. It is also a form of witness to those who are considering attending or joining a church community.
Prayer may be the best teaching moment of the whole class. If you think you are squeezing prayer in, that will send a subliminal message about the importance of prayer. So I would suggest that prayer is as much of a priority as anything, and therefore the rest of the class can fit around the prayer. Don't squeeze in the prayer; squeeze in the rest.
Communal worship is different than individual.... I like almost everything, in its context, and in a good proportion. I like clapping with some songs, although I tend not to do it myself-I don't mind if others do it, but clapping would often be better if people learned to clap on the off-beat so that we can still hear the words of the songs. I don't mind people raising their hands, and I don't mind people assenting to certain statements and prayers with an "Amen" or clapping of praise agreement, but I have also sometimes found it distracting, and sometimes disturbing or removing the train of thought. When you get more used to it, it is less distracting. I love the various instruments, but sometimes the brass drowns out the words too much, and even sometimes drums and electric guitars are too loud, and thus destroy the worship and the message of the song. These are mere outward things, and sometimes the Spirit simply moves people in ways they cannot really control, but in other situations these outward vibrant actions and sounds simply become part of the cultural norm of a church worship, at times better, and at times worse than a more reserved quiet intense participation.
When clapping, and dancing, and bands, and "Amens" become part of the normal church culture, will they retain the joy and purpose they originally had?
As you hinted, reverence is also important... how we maintain a joyful, exhuberant, vibrant reverence.... witness to God, not first of all to ourselves.... God gave us His Spirit, and our emotional capacity... which should witness to God, to his grace, to his commands, to his awesomeness. Sometimes that means to let go, other times to hold back.
We should not limit what God does not limit.
One person's joy is sometimes another person's sorrow.... One person rejoices in a new birth, which reminds the next person of a recent death and loss....
Consider also family worship time as a time to "let go"! A time when there will be less conflict of emotions, and more control of distractions... more opportunity to demonstrate joy and sorrow.
Is there a place in worship for destroying the "four hundred prophets of Baal"? (as elijah did?)
Lou, in some way, I am finding your comment somewhat offensive. Just so you know. I am curious as to what is a generic evangelical church compared to non-generic? I have also always placed the crc within the evangelical camp in terms of its emphasis on missions and the significance of repentance and faith. I know that you are probably using different nomenclature or categories, but I find it offensive to think that the crc is not evangelical in its attitude towards unbelievers. I also find it offensive that we would put more energy into accomodating erroneous catholic beliefs about baptism than we do for evangelical beliefs about baptism. In spite of the fact they deny infant baptism (which I also find sad), I often find a closer synergy of theology with some of them than with the romcatholic theology and romcath practice. You also ought to be aware of what is called the "Reformed Baptist" camp, in terms of understanding so-called "generic evangelicalism".
Second, you are taking for granted that anti-catholic attitudes should be overcome, yet seem to be displaying an anti-evangelical attitude yourself. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is the impression you are leaving with me.
This is ironic in the sense that during the reformation in Europe, the RomCatholics would persecute the protestants, and then the protestant state churches would persecute the anabaptists. Pray that that attitude has died several centuries ago.
Generally agree, but interesting that the Liberal (opposition) leader in Canada has recently said he would not permit candidates who disagreed with abortion rights, which it would seem is a moral issue. In any case, would not a common sense approach be that generally delegates should be able to participate and be persuaded by discussion at the assembley, while in certain instances where a tremendous amount of discussion has already ocurred, the council may feel obligated to bind their delegates to a particular position, especially if they have put in an overture, or if their perception of an issue is such that they are concerned that delegates might be persuaded in the moment and come to regret it later?
This decision should be left up to the confidence of the church council. While it is true that a person's opinion could change, or, that the church could change its confessions, this is not limited to that magic period between periods of service, and could potentially happen at any time, including six months after signing such document. Therefore, the agreement as originally signed should continue to stand until otherwise noted. It should also be remembered that the profession of faith is also a covenant very similar to this, since it assumes agreement with the confessions of the church as well as agreement to living a life of faith in agreement with the confessions which indicate scripture as ultimate authority (superior to the confessions). The primary issue is not even whether one signs, but whether one demonstrates agreement in statements, life, sermons, etc. Whether one has signed or not, any professing member would be subject to similar agreement.
Ken P, I shouldn't really respond to this, because I don't think it is that important... but, do you really think that whether elders are elders for life is relevant to this question? At Classis, we don't ask everyone to sign everytime, even though they may not have attended for awhile; only those who have not attended before are asked to sign. An elder who moves from one church to another in the same classis is not asked to sign again if he has attended before. I am fine with your expectations, but as I said, the requirement should be left to the local body to decide.
I would like you to have the last word on this, Ken, but in courtesy to your question... regardless of the answer, whether he wants to or doesn't, isn't the issue. But perhaps, "let your yes be yes", do not swear, (or over ligitize). I suppose we could baptize people over and over too, why wouldn't we want to? why not make profession of faith on a regular basis, why wouldn't anyone want to? Again, we are spending too much time on something of relatively small importance. Protocols, posturing, priorities?
To "protecting victims", I agree with Bonnie's comment above. A truly repentant wife beater will respect and honor the desire of the wife and the church to maintain distance and he should seek another church. While true repentance may eventually lead to reconciliation and change of behaviour, as it should in all cases of sin, in this case some clear evidence of change needs to be demonstrated. That evidence would need to be a fairly significant time of distance apart, as well as other clear indications of a new life. Taking the abuser out of his comfort zone would be the first step, and leaving the abused in control would be important. By significant time apart, away from the church grounds and away from the wife, I mean perhaps a year, before there is a re-evaluation. In the case of a repeat offender as above, two years or more would likely be more appropriate, from the time of the last incident, and then only if elders are convinced he has become a new person. This is not based on personal experience in our church, although I am well aware of some abuse cases within my circle of acquaintences. It would be difficult to assess if the person has become new, with a new heart and new attitude, if he is an experienced liar, so a variety of assessments should be made. It would be difficult to shut the door entirely forever, since this would indicate that God doesn't have the power to restore, or mend, or heal. On the other hand, the healing and mending and newness ought to be clear and evident, and the abused person needs to be comfortable with the decision.
Now perhaps some others may weigh in. We can not all operate in this out of experience, but need to be psychologically and intellectually prepared to deal with this if it happens and we are confronted with it.
In the interests of not making this quite so easy, I would like to point out that a license to exhort was originally so-named in order to distinguish it from preaching. It was thought that those qualified to exhort, were not really qualified to preach, so we would call them exhorters who exhorted, but did not preach. We distinguished three types of service/sermon leaders; those who preach, those who exhort, and those who "read". Of course, in some rare cases, we have preachers and exhorters who mostly read their sermons..... And it is hard sometimes to distinguish between an exhorter who seems to be preaching, and a preacher who seems to be reading, or exhorting.
The church order including the supplements, itself does not specify the origin of the sermons that the council may approve. The reason for council approving the sermons was to prevent heresy or personal attacks, mostly, but the church order does not say that. Nor does the church order indicate how it is to approve sermons or by what method. The thought is that a crc committee approving reading sermons should be good enough, but the church order does not say that. There is no direct indication in the church order as to the possibility of the range of the origin of a sermon that it might approve.
Article 43 seems to deal with a student fund, and the license to exhort (strange that they are put in the same article). There does not seem to be an indication in the article itself that 43b only applies to those who have no intention of entering the ministry.
Article 53 indicates that others (non-preachers and non-exhorters) may be asked by consistory to lead a service. They should refrain from official acts of ministry, including preaching, but may read a sermon approved by consistory. There is no indication as to the method of approval of the sermon. The acts of ministry are "entrusted to the church and its ordained leaders and not to a specific office..."(supplement). Therefore it would seem that consistory could approve someone (presumably an elder) to lead a service, and read a sermon. It would also seem that consistory could approve a sermon. If the "sermon" is written by an ordained elder, there does not seem to be any direct prohibition for approval. The reader cannot preach nor exhort by virtue of not being a preacher or exhorter; therefore he must only "read", thus fulfilling the requirements of the church order as read. Do you have a reference for a decision on this issue?
I have a question for Dr. Henry DeMoor. In an earlier discussion, you indicated that elders could lift their hands for the blessing and benediction when leading a service, even though the church order did not so indicate. I was not able to find a reference for that. Could you refresh us as to when and where that was decided? It's also interesting that your commentary seems to have no difficulty with ordained elders ordaining new elders("laying on of hands"), even though that is indicated to be an "official act of ministry" as well(page 119).
I think this is sometimes a touchy issue for a whole bunch of reasons (I have read your entire church order commentary). Just wondering if it is permissable to sometimes disagree with some of the comments in your commentary?
Henry, I would by no means call what you say in the commentary a bunch of hokey; I think you are expressing some very common understandings. Nor do I hold you responsible for the way the church order is written, or for what it says or doesn't say, nor for what people think it says (when it doesn't). And in this your comment, I would agree with you in any case. But in the issue of whether an ordained elder could write a (pre-approved) sermon, the church order itself does not directly seem to forbid it, if the consistory gives permission. You seem to agree that ordained elders could raise their hands in the blessing, or conduct ordination of elders, which are considered to be official acts of ministry (sort of). Therefore official acts of ministry are permissable for ordained elders, though not often done. The church order does not specify chair of elders for these tasks, so it would seem not restricted to that, although that would be a reasonable way of doing it without restricting another elder if the circumstances seem to advise it under the approval of the consistory.
I agree we should attempt to guide ourselves by the church order, but I suspect you are also aware of the sometimes arbitrary selection of church order articles to live by. The range of options within the parameters of the church order are also larger than many people realize, do you agree? I would also suggest that it is permissable to express some disagreement with the church order and the way it is written, even while respecting the intents of it, and living with it in the meantime.
Could you tell me when synod decided that it was okay for ordained elders to raise their hands and pronounce the blessing/benediction?
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
I agree with Jeff on the use of 'conservative" vs whatever. It is overused in so many contexts that it is virtually meaningless unless specifically defined, in which case it is better just to not use the term. Scriptural vs unscriptural is generally a better context. Some conservatives are very scriptural, while other conservatives are very unscriptural - so it is not helpful to use the term 'conservative', since the issue is not about being traditional, nor conservative, but rather about honoring God and responding to God completely, whether in a traditional or charismatic fashion, or in some blend of the two.
The working of the spirit does not respond to labels, and is not limited to certain personality types. Obedience to Christ is primarily a matter of the heart first, and outward results second. One man's quiet tears of joy may be as heartfelt and responsive and spirit filled than another man's jumping and shouting in praise, and God knows the truth of both of them.
Posted in: Does rebaptism automatically disqualify that person from holding office in the Christian Reformed Church?
Alejandro, first, let me say that I think that denying the validity of infant baptism for covenant children of believers is wrong.
However, the other side of the coin is this. Our forms and theology indicates that it is wrong to baptize your children out of custom or superstition. We also believe that baptism does not save, nor is some magic key to salvation, but rather a symbol and recognition of God's grace and our repentance.
We have a problem when children are baptized superstitiously by those who do not truly believe, and who do not teach or bring up their children in the instruction of the Lord. We also have a problem when infants who were baptized are clearly living and thinking as pagans and non-believers when they become adults. I've been in a reformed PKN church in Netherlands where a child was baptized, whose parents never or rarely attended church. The pastor said he was hoping by this practice to encourage the parents to attend. This is a scandal, in spite of any "good" motives the pastor may have had. So we even have the problem in reformed churches sometimes.
The Bible is clear that not all Israel is Israel, meaning that not all who were circumcised as Israelites were truly Israel because they did not worship God, and were not obedient to God but rebelled against Him and worshipped idols. Their circumcision was of no-effect and no significance, and in fact counted against them.
If baptism is understood as an expression of covenant and God's faithfulness, then it might be useful to have an expression of that in the sacrament, joining it to committment and repentance. When an unbeliever comes to Christ, why is his previous infant baptism more significant than the lack of infant baptism of another unbeliever coming to Christ? If the Rom Cath church in latin america generally or often treats baptism as custom and superstition and magical endowment, then we might say that it is not a true baptism in any sense of the sacrament. While it may be difficult to judge every instance, we can say for certain that this often happens. Whether anabaptists have additional aversions to infant baptism is not relevant to our perspective on this. However, it is significant that part of their aversion to infant baptism is based on the hypocrisy and meaninglessness and paganism imbedded in the application of baptism in cases where true faith and repentance is non-existent. In other words, the large numbers of non-christians who have been baptized as children do not add weight to the validity of infant baptism. We do not do ecumenism any favors by falling into the same trap as the Rom Catholic church in terms of applying this sacrament. If we respect the one denomination in spite of theologic differences, we do not have grounds for not respecting other denominations in spite of theology differences.
This is a discussion worth having, because I believe it is an indicator of how we live christian lives in obedience to Christ. It is also a form of witness to those who are considering attending or joining a church community.
Posted in: How do you handle prayer time in Sunday school?
Prayer may be the best teaching moment of the whole class. If you think you are squeezing prayer in, that will send a subliminal message about the importance of prayer. So I would suggest that prayer is as much of a priority as anything, and therefore the rest of the class can fit around the prayer. Don't squeeze in the prayer; squeeze in the rest.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Communal worship is different than individual.... I like almost everything, in its context, and in a good proportion. I like clapping with some songs, although I tend not to do it myself-I don't mind if others do it, but clapping would often be better if people learned to clap on the off-beat so that we can still hear the words of the songs. I don't mind people raising their hands, and I don't mind people assenting to certain statements and prayers with an "Amen" or clapping of praise agreement, but I have also sometimes found it distracting, and sometimes disturbing or removing the train of thought. When you get more used to it, it is less distracting. I love the various instruments, but sometimes the brass drowns out the words too much, and even sometimes drums and electric guitars are too loud, and thus destroy the worship and the message of the song. These are mere outward things, and sometimes the Spirit simply moves people in ways they cannot really control, but in other situations these outward vibrant actions and sounds simply become part of the cultural norm of a church worship, at times better, and at times worse than a more reserved quiet intense participation.
When clapping, and dancing, and bands, and "Amens" become part of the normal church culture, will they retain the joy and purpose they originally had?
As you hinted, reverence is also important... how we maintain a joyful, exhuberant, vibrant reverence.... witness to God, not first of all to ourselves.... God gave us His Spirit, and our emotional capacity... which should witness to God, to his grace, to his commands, to his awesomeness. Sometimes that means to let go, other times to hold back.
We should not limit what God does not limit.
One person's joy is sometimes another person's sorrow.... One person rejoices in a new birth, which reminds the next person of a recent death and loss....
Consider also family worship time as a time to "let go"! A time when there will be less conflict of emotions, and more control of distractions... more opportunity to demonstrate joy and sorrow.
Is there a place in worship for destroying the "four hundred prophets of Baal"? (as elijah did?)
Posted in: Does rebaptism automatically disqualify that person from holding office in the Christian Reformed Church?
Lou, in some way, I am finding your comment somewhat offensive. Just so you know. I am curious as to what is a generic evangelical church compared to non-generic? I have also always placed the crc within the evangelical camp in terms of its emphasis on missions and the significance of repentance and faith. I know that you are probably using different nomenclature or categories, but I find it offensive to think that the crc is not evangelical in its attitude towards unbelievers. I also find it offensive that we would put more energy into accomodating erroneous catholic beliefs about baptism than we do for evangelical beliefs about baptism. In spite of the fact they deny infant baptism (which I also find sad), I often find a closer synergy of theology with some of them than with the romcatholic theology and romcath practice. You also ought to be aware of what is called the "Reformed Baptist" camp, in terms of understanding so-called "generic evangelicalism".
Second, you are taking for granted that anti-catholic attitudes should be overcome, yet seem to be displaying an anti-evangelical attitude yourself. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is the impression you are leaving with me.
This is ironic in the sense that during the reformation in Europe, the RomCatholics would persecute the protestants, and then the protestant state churches would persecute the anabaptists. Pray that that attitude has died several centuries ago.
Posted in: Is It Appropriate for Council or Classis to Instruct Their Delegates How to Vote?
Generally agree, but interesting that the Liberal (opposition) leader in Canada has recently said he would not permit candidates who disagreed with abortion rights, which it would seem is a moral issue. In any case, would not a common sense approach be that generally delegates should be able to participate and be persuaded by discussion at the assembley, while in certain instances where a tremendous amount of discussion has already ocurred, the council may feel obligated to bind their delegates to a particular position, especially if they have put in an overture, or if their perception of an issue is such that they are concerned that delegates might be persuaded in the moment and come to regret it later?
Posted in: Do Previous Elders Need to Re-Sign the Covenant for Office Bearers If Serving at a New Church?
This decision should be left up to the confidence of the church council. While it is true that a person's opinion could change, or, that the church could change its confessions, this is not limited to that magic period between periods of service, and could potentially happen at any time, including six months after signing such document. Therefore, the agreement as originally signed should continue to stand until otherwise noted. It should also be remembered that the profession of faith is also a covenant very similar to this, since it assumes agreement with the confessions of the church as well as agreement to living a life of faith in agreement with the confessions which indicate scripture as ultimate authority (superior to the confessions). The primary issue is not even whether one signs, but whether one demonstrates agreement in statements, life, sermons, etc. Whether one has signed or not, any professing member would be subject to similar agreement.
Posted in: Do Previous Elders Need to Re-Sign the Covenant for Office Bearers If Serving at a New Church?
Ken P, I shouldn't really respond to this, because I don't think it is that important... but, do you really think that whether elders are elders for life is relevant to this question? At Classis, we don't ask everyone to sign everytime, even though they may not have attended for awhile; only those who have not attended before are asked to sign. An elder who moves from one church to another in the same classis is not asked to sign again if he has attended before. I am fine with your expectations, but as I said, the requirement should be left to the local body to decide.
Posted in: Do Previous Elders Need to Re-Sign the Covenant for Office Bearers If Serving at a New Church?
I would like you to have the last word on this, Ken, but in courtesy to your question... regardless of the answer, whether he wants to or doesn't, isn't the issue. But perhaps, "let your yes be yes", do not swear, (or over ligitize). I suppose we could baptize people over and over too, why wouldn't we want to? why not make profession of faith on a regular basis, why wouldn't anyone want to? Again, we are spending too much time on something of relatively small importance. Protocols, posturing, priorities?
Posted in: How Do We Handle a Domestic-Violence Husband Whose Restraining Order Is Expiring?
To "protecting victims", I agree with Bonnie's comment above. A truly repentant wife beater will respect and honor the desire of the wife and the church to maintain distance and he should seek another church. While true repentance may eventually lead to reconciliation and change of behaviour, as it should in all cases of sin, in this case some clear evidence of change needs to be demonstrated. That evidence would need to be a fairly significant time of distance apart, as well as other clear indications of a new life. Taking the abuser out of his comfort zone would be the first step, and leaving the abused in control would be important. By significant time apart, away from the church grounds and away from the wife, I mean perhaps a year, before there is a re-evaluation. In the case of a repeat offender as above, two years or more would likely be more appropriate, from the time of the last incident, and then only if elders are convinced he has become a new person. This is not based on personal experience in our church, although I am well aware of some abuse cases within my circle of acquaintences. It would be difficult to assess if the person has become new, with a new heart and new attitude, if he is an experienced liar, so a variety of assessments should be made. It would be difficult to shut the door entirely forever, since this would indicate that God doesn't have the power to restore, or mend, or heal. On the other hand, the healing and mending and newness ought to be clear and evident, and the abused person needs to be comfortable with the decision.
Now perhaps some others may weigh in. We can not all operate in this out of experience, but need to be psychologically and intellectually prepared to deal with this if it happens and we are confronted with it.
Posted in: License to Exhort -- May a council use an approved lay person lead in worship, including preaching?
In the interests of not making this quite so easy, I would like to point out that a license to exhort was originally so-named in order to distinguish it from preaching. It was thought that those qualified to exhort, were not really qualified to preach, so we would call them exhorters who exhorted, but did not preach. We distinguished three types of service/sermon leaders; those who preach, those who exhort, and those who "read". Of course, in some rare cases, we have preachers and exhorters who mostly read their sermons..... And it is hard sometimes to distinguish between an exhorter who seems to be preaching, and a preacher who seems to be reading, or exhorting.
The church order including the supplements, itself does not specify the origin of the sermons that the council may approve. The reason for council approving the sermons was to prevent heresy or personal attacks, mostly, but the church order does not say that. Nor does the church order indicate how it is to approve sermons or by what method. The thought is that a crc committee approving reading sermons should be good enough, but the church order does not say that. There is no direct indication in the church order as to the possibility of the range of the origin of a sermon that it might approve.
Article 43 seems to deal with a student fund, and the license to exhort (strange that they are put in the same article). There does not seem to be an indication in the article itself that 43b only applies to those who have no intention of entering the ministry.
Article 53 indicates that others (non-preachers and non-exhorters) may be asked by consistory to lead a service. They should refrain from official acts of ministry, including preaching, but may read a sermon approved by consistory. There is no indication as to the method of approval of the sermon. The acts of ministry are "entrusted to the church and its ordained leaders and not to a specific office..."(supplement). Therefore it would seem that consistory could approve someone (presumably an elder) to lead a service, and read a sermon. It would also seem that consistory could approve a sermon. If the "sermon" is written by an ordained elder, there does not seem to be any direct prohibition for approval. The reader cannot preach nor exhort by virtue of not being a preacher or exhorter; therefore he must only "read", thus fulfilling the requirements of the church order as read. Do you have a reference for a decision on this issue?
I have a question for Dr. Henry DeMoor. In an earlier discussion, you indicated that elders could lift their hands for the blessing and benediction when leading a service, even though the church order did not so indicate. I was not able to find a reference for that. Could you refresh us as to when and where that was decided? It's also interesting that your commentary seems to have no difficulty with ordained elders ordaining new elders("laying on of hands"), even though that is indicated to be an "official act of ministry" as well(page 119).
I think this is sometimes a touchy issue for a whole bunch of reasons (I have read your entire church order commentary). Just wondering if it is permissable to sometimes disagree with some of the comments in your commentary?
Posted in: License to Exhort -- May a council use an approved lay person lead in worship, including preaching?
Henry, I would by no means call what you say in the commentary a bunch of hokey; I think you are expressing some very common understandings. Nor do I hold you responsible for the way the church order is written, or for what it says or doesn't say, nor for what people think it says (when it doesn't). And in this your comment, I would agree with you in any case. But in the issue of whether an ordained elder could write a (pre-approved) sermon, the church order itself does not directly seem to forbid it, if the consistory gives permission. You seem to agree that ordained elders could raise their hands in the blessing, or conduct ordination of elders, which are considered to be official acts of ministry (sort of). Therefore official acts of ministry are permissable for ordained elders, though not often done. The church order does not specify chair of elders for these tasks, so it would seem not restricted to that, although that would be a reasonable way of doing it without restricting another elder if the circumstances seem to advise it under the approval of the consistory.
I agree we should attempt to guide ourselves by the church order, but I suspect you are also aware of the sometimes arbitrary selection of church order articles to live by. The range of options within the parameters of the church order are also larger than many people realize, do you agree? I would also suggest that it is permissable to express some disagreement with the church order and the way it is written, even while respecting the intents of it, and living with it in the meantime.
Could you tell me when synod decided that it was okay for ordained elders to raise their hands and pronounce the blessing/benediction?