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?)
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.
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?
Alejandro, the form for baptism on Hymnal page 958 in the address to the parents, first paragraph, clearly says this: "We must therefore, use the sacrament for the purpose that God intended and not out of custom or superstition..." In the third point there it also says, "Do you promise to do all you can to teach these children, and to have them taught, this doctrine of salvation?"
Second, I agree that the significance of baptism does not depend on the character of the elder who baptizes, nor on the personal purity of the parents. But its significance does depend on obedience of believers, since it is supposed to be an act of obedience by believers in God's covenant . God said a number of times in the old testament that he did not want the sacrifices of Israel, even though He himself had commanded these sacrifices. God denied the significance of these sacrifices because they were done in disobedience, they had become superstitious rituals rather than acts of worship. Baptism is a form of worship and obedience. If it is done in disobedience, what should we attribute to it? If it is done by unbelievers, or done in the form similar to believing in four leaf clovers or superstitiously not walking under a ladder, what should we attribute to it?
As far as differences between North American and South American romCatholicism, or that in Indonesia, or southern europe vs northern europe, that is a much more complicated topic, which I will not address now. Other than to say that to some degree I agree with you, but yet I leave that judgement to those who have more experience. I myself have had many conversations with a former romcath converted to reformed faith here in north america, and she is more insistent that the Rom Cath church is idolatrous than I would tend to be. I have been in a Rom Cath church in Cuernevaca, and seen a couple in Mexico City, and talked to converts there, as well as having spent an hour talking to a retired RomCath priest from Ontario who enlightened me about a number of attitudes with their hierarchy. And I know a number of RomCath in our town, finding them generally pleasant, and some of them very committed and likeable and sincere.
I believe that we should not condemn missionaries nor preachers who pastorally understand why former RCs would want to break all ties with any baptism performed in such a church environment. This might apply not only to RCs but also potentially to some episcopalian situations or united church situations. As I mentioned before, I once attended a service in the Netherlands in a reformed church where the pastor baptized a child whose parents never attend church. Now if that child grows up as a pagan, which he is likely to do (although God can work marvelous exceptions), and then the child when he is 35 years old, becomes converted and a Christian, then it is possible that his former baptism by non-practising christians may leave him quite cold and disillusioned. We can make absolutes about baptism being once for all and only once, but it will be undeniable that his baptism had not been done in obedience, but rather merely as a peace offering to grandparents or a purchase into "respectability". God does not delight in such disobedience.
I will address your other points in a second post.
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.
Accountability ends up being a pretty negative way of looking at any ministry, including pastors. If the report dealt more primarily with looking at the impact of the work with regard to the goals of the church, perhaps it wouldn't seem so business oriented. Perhaps yes there could be a brief record of the number of visits, hours counseling, times spent on sermons, but maybe the majority of the report could be on activities and progress related to major church goals in which the preacher plays a pivotal role. For example, if one goal is that children learn the heidelberg catechism, then how is that going? Are they excited? Are they confused? Do they get support from parents? Is theire relationship with the Lord growing? etc.
Or if a major church goal is prison ministry, then is that coasing along? Are there spiritual rewards? Are there needs for more help? Does it take too much time? Is God providing encouragements? etc.
If a major goal is ministring to the elderly, then how is that going? Where is there room for improvement? Could they experience more contact with the church? Do they need different facilities? a companion program? Someone to write to? Someone to mentor? Can they find those who want mentors? Can they find penpals, etc.
It's not an evaluation about whether a pastor is making eight home visits per week, and putting in 3.2678 hours of educational updating, or visiting 5 people in the hospital 2.3 times. But its an evaluation about whether the pastor has purpose, direction, passion, success, and hope. About whether the blessing of the spirit shines thru. And whether the word of God flows and accomplishes its purpose. Its an evaluation of whethere the pastor is spending too much time on "business", and not enough time fulfilling the calling of pastor, or preacher, or evangelist.
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'?
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: 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: 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: Does rebaptism automatically disqualify that person from holding office in the Christian Reformed Church?
Alejandro, the form for baptism on Hymnal page 958 in the address to the parents, first paragraph, clearly says this: "We must therefore, use the sacrament for the purpose that God intended and not out of custom or superstition..." In the third point there it also says, "Do you promise to do all you can to teach these children, and to have them taught, this doctrine of salvation?"
Second, I agree that the significance of baptism does not depend on the character of the elder who baptizes, nor on the personal purity of the parents. But its significance does depend on obedience of believers, since it is supposed to be an act of obedience by believers in God's covenant . God said a number of times in the old testament that he did not want the sacrifices of Israel, even though He himself had commanded these sacrifices. God denied the significance of these sacrifices because they were done in disobedience, they had become superstitious rituals rather than acts of worship. Baptism is a form of worship and obedience. If it is done in disobedience, what should we attribute to it? If it is done by unbelievers, or done in the form similar to believing in four leaf clovers or superstitiously not walking under a ladder, what should we attribute to it?
As far as differences between North American and South American romCatholicism, or that in Indonesia, or southern europe vs northern europe, that is a much more complicated topic, which I will not address now. Other than to say that to some degree I agree with you, but yet I leave that judgement to those who have more experience. I myself have had many conversations with a former romcath converted to reformed faith here in north america, and she is more insistent that the Rom Cath church is idolatrous than I would tend to be. I have been in a Rom Cath church in Cuernevaca, and seen a couple in Mexico City, and talked to converts there, as well as having spent an hour talking to a retired RomCath priest from Ontario who enlightened me about a number of attitudes with their hierarchy. And I know a number of RomCath in our town, finding them generally pleasant, and some of them very committed and likeable and sincere.
I believe that we should not condemn missionaries nor preachers who pastorally understand why former RCs would want to break all ties with any baptism performed in such a church environment. This might apply not only to RCs but also potentially to some episcopalian situations or united church situations. As I mentioned before, I once attended a service in the Netherlands in a reformed church where the pastor baptized a child whose parents never attend church. Now if that child grows up as a pagan, which he is likely to do (although God can work marvelous exceptions), and then the child when he is 35 years old, becomes converted and a Christian, then it is possible that his former baptism by non-practising christians may leave him quite cold and disillusioned. We can make absolutes about baptism being once for all and only once, but it will be undeniable that his baptism had not been done in obedience, but rather merely as a peace offering to grandparents or a purchase into "respectability". God does not delight in such disobedience.
I will address your other points in a second post.
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: What are best practices for doing the monthly Pastors' reports to the Elders?
Accountability ends up being a pretty negative way of looking at any ministry, including pastors. If the report dealt more primarily with looking at the impact of the work with regard to the goals of the church, perhaps it wouldn't seem so business oriented. Perhaps yes there could be a brief record of the number of visits, hours counseling, times spent on sermons, but maybe the majority of the report could be on activities and progress related to major church goals in which the preacher plays a pivotal role. For example, if one goal is that children learn the heidelberg catechism, then how is that going? Are they excited? Are they confused? Do they get support from parents? Is theire relationship with the Lord growing? etc.
Or if a major church goal is prison ministry, then is that coasing along? Are there spiritual rewards? Are there needs for more help? Does it take too much time? Is God providing encouragements? etc.
If a major goal is ministring to the elderly, then how is that going? Where is there room for improvement? Could they experience more contact with the church? Do they need different facilities? a companion program? Someone to write to? Someone to mentor? Can they find those who want mentors? Can they find penpals, etc.
It's not an evaluation about whether a pastor is making eight home visits per week, and putting in 3.2678 hours of educational updating, or visiting 5 people in the hospital 2.3 times. But its an evaluation about whether the pastor has purpose, direction, passion, success, and hope. About whether the blessing of the spirit shines thru. And whether the word of God flows and accomplishes its purpose. Its an evaluation of whethere the pastor is spending too much time on "business", and not enough time fulfilling the calling of pastor, or preacher, or evangelist.
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?