First, I think that the supplement and the original article 17 ought to be amalgamated, and placed in sequence so that confusion is greatly reduced. Then it also becomes more obvious how convoluted it is, and how it attempts to do two contradictory things at once, which is hinted at in article 17d. On the one hand, no blame, just a disharmony of purpose. On the other hand counseling and therapy. And possibility of discontinuation of ordination/ministry.
The essence of ordination is ministry. This applies to all offices. If ministry is not engaged in, then offices are not exercised, regardless of title. The essence of pastoral/preaching ministry is that a church is required to be served. If such a church does not manifest, and if duties or tasks of office are not exercised/performed then the ministry is absent. Thus article 17 becomes a process of relatively little significance. If it releases someone under article 17, then it is possible to request re-instatement, upon the request of a church who wishes to call the individual, since no blame or fault has been assessed.
But then we have this whole business about counseling and therapy, implying some kind of problem. And the article and supplement suggests that classis may simply declare the preacher ineligible for call, and declare him released, without indicating any reasons. Thus we have a contradictory scenario within this article/supplement, which is not clarified as well as it should be.
But, the article ought to be eliminated. If counseling and therapy lead to the determination that the man is unsuitable for office in the opinion of classis, then this should be mentioned, and should not be so ambiguous. It should become part of article for deposition.
In our present society, we so often have people who resign, or are laid off, rather than fired for cause, that the practice has entered the church as well. I don't know if this practice is speaking the truth in love, although I admit the intention is to cause the least possible hurt.
If article 17 was not voluntarily requested (which might be self-discipline) then certainly it is a form of discipline by others.
An article in the Halifax Herald points out the hypocrisy of the United Church of Canada in its stand against Israel and its settlements, and its call for a boycotte With all the other bad situations in the middle east, the United Church, and Kairos, often choose to focus solely on Israel. Why? because they are so bad? no, but because they are perhaps vulnerable to western opinions. In the meantime....
"....Palestinians in Jordan face serious repression, including having their citizenships revoked by authorities. It’s worse still in Lebanon, where Palestinians have faced apartheid conditions for decades, expressly denied economic, social and political equal rights. Palestinians in other Arab countries also face injustices.
Meanwhile, Christian Copts in Egypt have been under assault by Muslim fundamentalists for years. Thousands have reportedly fled the country in fear for their lives. In Syria, a brutal regime has massacred its own citizens for daring to ask for political rights that members of the United Church of Canada take for granted."
Hello? Will the United Church of Canada now work up reports calling for boycotts of products from those countries?
Don’t hold your breath.
I’ve heard the boycott against Israeli settlement goods defended on the grounds that Israel is a democracy and so should be held to a higher standard. In other words, I guess, you shouldn’t “expect” better from places like Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Syria. If you’re suffering injustice in those places, too bad, so sad, but if it’ll make you feel better, I’m boycotting Israeli settlement wine, don’t you know.
The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics released data last month showing the number of Palestinians employed within Israeli settlements climbed to 15,000 from 13,000 in the second quarter. I guess the United Church of Canada wants to put those Palestinians out of work.
I don’t mean to smear church-going, rank-and-file members of the United Church of Canada, by the way. This boycott was approved by the church’s general council, despite a recent survey showing 76 per cent of their own membership thought they should stay out of or remain neutral about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sixty-five per cent blamed both sides — Israelis and Palestinians — equally for the dispute....." (by schneidereit)
In the context you are indicating, I wonder if perhaps the biggest benefit of the confessions, is to use them as a way of teaching about scripture. In other words, the confessions are really about scripture; they do not exist unto themselves. Often we seem to go the other way around, to use scripture as a way of justifying or defending the confessions; many people would want to bypass this approach, since ultimately the confessions themselves are not the issue. They want to get directly to what scripture says about God, about Jesus, and about their relationship to God. The confessions help in this, but are not an end in themselves.
What does it mean to be prophetic in our current culture? I think of prophets like Nathan who spoke to King David, Elijah who spoke to Ahab, Jeremiah who spoke to Israel, John the Baptist who was beheaded. Maybe Stephen was also a prophet before he was stoned to death. Generally their messages were unpopular, although sometimes, like John the Baptist, they gathered large crowds before they were put in prison. But the essence of their prophecy was that they spoke the word of the Lord, and brought people to repentance, and back to God.
Do you remember the story of the prophet who was deceived by another prophet, and yet was held responsible for his disobedience, and died as a result? Prophecy does not guarantee perfection, and prophetic position does not guarantee purity or a prophetic word in all cases.
In general, the significance of prophecy was that it countered the prevailing notions of the day, and yet was found to be true. It was often unpopular because it stressed the supremacy of God at the expense of the popular opinions and current authorities. The prophets stressed that Israel and Judah would suffer severely and be decimated because of the actions of most of the Israelites and Judaites and their kings in worshipping false gods on the high places. John the Revelator prophecied first about several churches in terms of warnings and encouragements, as well as proclaiming the promised future of God's kingdom.
I have difficulty calling someone a prophet when they merely follow the conventional and popular wisdom of the day. A true prophet was a leader, not a follower. Except for being a follower of God, of Christ, of His Word.
What comes to mind is the difference between several prophets. Nathan convinces king David of his need to repent. Elijah prays for, or prophecies three years of drought, then prays for rain, after slaughtering 400 men (also called prophets, but false prophets). Jeremiah only prophecies doom and destruction, is cast into a well, imprisoned, but proven that his word is true. Jonah the reluctant prophet, needed to be taught as much as the people of Nineveh did.
Prophecy is not equivalent to earthly, nor even an institutional church type of authority. We did not hear often of priests (institutional church) being called prophets, other than possibly Ezra. Perhaps it is not an office conferred by men, nor even validated by men, but rather directly by God.
Following is the link to the article written by John Cotter. The article is actually found in several media outlets, particularly Vancouver Sun and other B.C. papers.
Perhaps it is in the terminology. When a person resigns from ministry, then the classis attempts to "release" him at his request. As if they could compel him to unresign. I just see inconsistencies, and words that do not follow logically or consequentially from previous words in the articles.
So we have in article 14c " a minister may not forsake the office..." and then ..."may however be released..." and then in 14d "shall be released", and then article 14e "may be declared eligible for call" and "re-ordained".
Lots of procedure etc. He may not forsake, but if he does..... But of what substance is this article?
If for example, this article was not there, what would be the effect? A minister would take up another occupation. The church would make an announcement of information: that so and so has left the pastorship and has become a teacher at the local school. Four years later, a church in a neighboring town calls the former preacher, and installs him as pastor/preacher. All this can also happen with classis "releasing and not forsaking and declaring eligible and re-ordaining", but what is the difference? It could presumably also happen without all this procedure. What is the benefit and significant difference this article makes?
Even if the teacher were to ocassionally preach a sermon and perform a baptism, what would be the harm? What great scriptural principle would be broken?
The same question applies to article 17. If the article was not there, what would be the effect?
If the purpose was to highlight a benefit in having classis or a classical committee interview someone who has not been in active pastorship/preachership for three or more years, then why is the article not written in that way?
(Just a note: you seem to exist within the procedural box, while I am looking at it from outside of it and thus looking at the larger picture...it seems to me. Maybe that explains why the question is confusing. Hopefully I've made the question clearer. If not, I will be willing to try again. )
Not to preempt your reply, Henry, but following are concerns I have with the church order. And I will make you a deal: if you can promise me that your book answers all of these concerns, then I promise to buy your book.
I wrote this in September, 2008.
I've been perusing the church order today, to see what I could find out about installing elders, and begin to realize how ridiculous it is in so many ways.
(( these are personal comments for edification, not vetted through the council of our church, which is a small church and has many other things of greater importance to deal with, so I’ve not bothered them with this )
Perhaps my recent reading of the book, "Pagan Christianity" has colored my mind somewhat, but most of my thoughts are not new, just coalesced into an overall perspective.
1. For example, do you realize how absurd and unscriptural it is to name a church as "vacant"? (which the church order does). First of all, if it really was vacant, then it would not be a church. Second, to suggest that a lack of a minister makes a church vacant, is no more valid, than to say a church is vacant because there is no pianist, or no janitor, or no child on the third pew. The term "vacant" brings to mind a bunch of blank-eye zombies on the pews, and a zombie elder leading the service, etc. The term reduces the greater membership of that church to a matter of no consequence. It also minimizes the presence of the Lord among His people. It emphasizes the centrality of the pastor at the expense of the Spirit. So not only is it unscriptural, it is also unChristian to use that type of phraseology.
2. Second, article 3 says all who meet biblical requirements can fill any of the offices, but the bible does not indicate any academic requirements for holding any of the offices, and later the church order adds academic training requirements for ministers, which is a contradiction in requirements, an extra-biblical requirement.
3. Third, the church order requires classis to meet four times a year, and my impression is that most only meet twice a year? (Which is probably okay, but there it is in the church order...)
4. The church order requires two services per Sunday, and a very sizeable number only have one service per week.
5. The church order requires ministers to conduct worship services, and in a very sizeable number of cases, churches have others conducting half or more of the service. (Not that I necessarily have a problem with that, but ....)
6. An elder is appointed for a fixed term, and must be "re-installed" and considered unordained, which has no biblical grounds, while a teaching elder, or pastor, or minister of the word has no fixed term. This puts to ridicule the church order notion that these various offices are equal in dignity and honor, but different in function.
.
7. In addition, the amount of attention paid to office of ministers, preachers, etc. in the church order is incredible (24 articles), compared to that paid to elders and deacons(one article), if you simply look at the table of contents to get an overview. If they are equal in theory, they are not equal in practice, which puts the lie to the statement, or disobedience to the practice.
8. Another example of this unequal treatment is the fact that ministers supposedly require classical approval to be ordained, while elders and deacons do not.
9. Another example is the expectation that preachers, or ministers of the word, may administer the sacraments, while supervising elders do not. I have not discovered any biblical grounds as justification for this. Certainly, if there is dignity and honor attached to this, then this implies a difference in dignity and honor. Some elders can do it, but others, who do not happen to be preachers, can not? Certainly one would not suggest academic training as a requirement for such a simple task?
10. Using the term "organized" vs "unorganized" church in the CRC context, is a misuse of the English language, and also leads to an emphasis on paper, and forms, rather than on the spiritual organization that should be the focus of any church . Perhaps it is a small thing, I admit, but the use of derogatory terms to describe various worshipping groups which are part of the body of Christ, and for that reason alone are already "church", is not a Christian thing to do. (Using the term "emerging" for a church that has been around and functioning for ten years, is also an anachronism.)
11. The church order supplements in the table of contents, probably ought to have titles, not just numbers, in order to provide a quicker reference as to their pertinence or relevance. (I appreciate the recent change where the supplements are printed within the relevant articles.)
12. Classis declaring a terminated minister’s eligibility for call on a yearly basis, or for whatever term, implies that the simple lack of a call makes a pastor ineligible, until of course, when he receives a call, which would make him eligible. What business does classis have with the eligibility, unless there are specific reasons that make the individual unsuitable? (supp article 8)
13. 13.The use of terms such as "practica", "gravamen", "colloquium doctum", "mission deo" or "approbation" and "abrogated", hearkens back to the ancient desire of ancient priests and bishops to remove itself from regular people, rather than to improve communication with them. These terms should not be used in such documents.
14. For classis or synod to require a demonstration of need, from a local church, before that church can call anyone, is in direct violation of the principle of equality of church-classis-synod, with the local church having original authority. The local church obviously has a need, or they wouldn’t call a pastor, and they obviously believe that the person they desire to call will satisfy that need. Unless the one they call can be shown to be a detriment to their Christian life and growth, why should classis try to override their decision?
15. When classis or synod stipulates certain requirements for candidacy, why should that preclude or forbid local churches or classis from addressing these same requirements? (Supp art 8E8) (Supp art 10,6) Classis has no right, nor does Synod, to forbid any questions that might be asked by Council or Classis.
16. It is absurd to request permission from classis for any church to establish a new ministry position. (supp article 12c) That should be solely the decision and discretion of the local church.
17. It is absurd to establish governance on the issue of a minister serving in another denomination, or a non-denominational church. If this has only to do with how the pension fund works, then establish criteria for the pension fund specifically without all the window dressing around these positions. If the church chooses to fund pensions in a secular fashion, as it has done, then it ought to use the same provisions and options, such as funding by years of service, paying into the plan as part of the compensation package, opting into or out of the plan, and purchasing retirement benefits for years of contract work or for time spent in other churches/denominations.
18. Supp art 15 imposes a definition of "proper" support on local congregations that implies that these congregations are not responsible, or that the pastors are part of a union. As a suggestion, these may be good guidelines, but the wording implies no exceptions, and also implies a derogatory attitude towards congregations who have made alternate arrangements for support, which synod would deem "improper". This is an uncharitable attitude and un-Christian attitude towards those congregations.
There are some good points in the church order, 2008, including an attempt to protect the spiritual welfare of the churches, but there is also often a spirit of following form rather than function, of ordering the congregations about, of hierarchy, of "requirements" rather than suggestions or advice, and of contradictions. There is a preponderance of attention paid to synod, and classis, which should have separate working documents. (I appreciate that the the articles relating to synod have recently been removed into a separate document.)
There is a preponderance of attention paid to ministers, which detracts from the idea that all offices are equal in dignity and honor. There is a lack of scriptural reference for administration of the sacraments by ordained preachers, vs other ordained elders.
There is more pretentiousness within the church order, which maybe uses the biblical admonition to "do things in good order" as a kind of excuse to heap precept upon precept, far beyond what is necessary or advisable.
Perhaps the Spirit will allow you to understand my comments, which are intended for the benefit of the CRC as a whole.
Posted in: The Loophole: Losing Your Ordination Without Cause
First, I think that the supplement and the original article 17 ought to be amalgamated, and placed in sequence so that confusion is greatly reduced. Then it also becomes more obvious how convoluted it is, and how it attempts to do two contradictory things at once, which is hinted at in article 17d. On the one hand, no blame, just a disharmony of purpose. On the other hand counseling and therapy. And possibility of discontinuation of ordination/ministry.
The essence of ordination is ministry. This applies to all offices. If ministry is not engaged in, then offices are not exercised, regardless of title. The essence of pastoral/preaching ministry is that a church is required to be served. If such a church does not manifest, and if duties or tasks of office are not exercised/performed then the ministry is absent. Thus article 17 becomes a process of relatively little significance. If it releases someone under article 17, then it is possible to request re-instatement, upon the request of a church who wishes to call the individual, since no blame or fault has been assessed.
But then we have this whole business about counseling and therapy, implying some kind of problem. And the article and supplement suggests that classis may simply declare the preacher ineligible for call, and declare him released, without indicating any reasons. Thus we have a contradictory scenario within this article/supplement, which is not clarified as well as it should be.
But, the article ought to be eliminated. If counseling and therapy lead to the determination that the man is unsuitable for office in the opinion of classis, then this should be mentioned, and should not be so ambiguous. It should become part of article for deposition.
In our present society, we so often have people who resign, or are laid off, rather than fired for cause, that the practice has entered the church as well. I don't know if this practice is speaking the truth in love, although I admit the intention is to cause the least possible hurt.
If article 17 was not voluntarily requested (which might be self-discipline) then certainly it is a form of discipline by others.
Posted in: When Churches Start Becoming Experts on Pipelines, Does That Mean Oil Companies Can Become Experts on Theology?
An article in the Halifax Herald points out the hypocrisy of the United Church of Canada in its stand against Israel and its settlements, and its call for a boycotte With all the other bad situations in the middle east, the United Church, and Kairos, often choose to focus solely on Israel. Why? because they are so bad? no, but because they are perhaps vulnerable to western opinions. In the meantime....
"....Palestinians in Jordan face serious repression, including having their citizenships revoked by authorities. It’s worse still in Lebanon, where Palestinians have faced apartheid conditions for decades, expressly denied economic, social and political equal rights. Palestinians in other Arab countries also face injustices.
Meanwhile, Christian Copts in Egypt have been under assault by Muslim fundamentalists for years. Thousands have reportedly fled the country in fear for their lives. In Syria, a brutal regime has massacred its own citizens for daring to ask for political rights that members of the United Church of Canada take for granted."
Hello? Will the United Church of Canada now work up reports calling for boycotts of products from those countries?
Don’t hold your breath.
I’ve heard the boycott against Israeli settlement goods defended on the grounds that Israel is a democracy and so should be held to a higher standard. In other words, I guess, you shouldn’t “expect” better from places like Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Syria. If you’re suffering injustice in those places, too bad, so sad, but if it’ll make you feel better, I’m boycotting Israeli settlement wine, don’t you know.
The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics released data last month showing the number of Palestinians employed within Israeli settlements climbed to 15,000 from 13,000 in the second quarter. I guess the United Church of Canada wants to put those Palestinians out of work.
I don’t mean to smear church-going, rank-and-file members of the United Church of Canada, by the way. This boycott was approved by the church’s general council, despite a recent survey showing 76 per cent of their own membership thought they should stay out of or remain neutral about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sixty-five per cent blamed both sides — Israelis and Palestinians — equally for the dispute....." (by schneidereit)
http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/128501-schneidereit-united-church-of-canada-marching-with-the-hypocrites
Kairos and United Church stand on pipelines is also very selective. And as lacking in perspective.
Posted in: Young, Restless, Reformed, and ... Disgruntled?
In the context you are indicating, I wonder if perhaps the biggest benefit of the confessions, is to use them as a way of teaching about scripture. In other words, the confessions are really about scripture; they do not exist unto themselves. Often we seem to go the other way around, to use scripture as a way of justifying or defending the confessions; many people would want to bypass this approach, since ultimately the confessions themselves are not the issue. They want to get directly to what scripture says about God, about Jesus, and about their relationship to God. The confessions help in this, but are not an end in themselves.
Posted in: So What Is "Prophetic"?
What does it mean to be prophetic in our current culture? I think of prophets like Nathan who spoke to King David, Elijah who spoke to Ahab, Jeremiah who spoke to Israel, John the Baptist who was beheaded. Maybe Stephen was also a prophet before he was stoned to death. Generally their messages were unpopular, although sometimes, like John the Baptist, they gathered large crowds before they were put in prison. But the essence of their prophecy was that they spoke the word of the Lord, and brought people to repentance, and back to God.
Do you remember the story of the prophet who was deceived by another prophet, and yet was held responsible for his disobedience, and died as a result? Prophecy does not guarantee perfection, and prophetic position does not guarantee purity or a prophetic word in all cases.
In general, the significance of prophecy was that it countered the prevailing notions of the day, and yet was found to be true. It was often unpopular because it stressed the supremacy of God at the expense of the popular opinions and current authorities. The prophets stressed that Israel and Judah would suffer severely and be decimated because of the actions of most of the Israelites and Judaites and their kings in worshipping false gods on the high places. John the Revelator prophecied first about several churches in terms of warnings and encouragements, as well as proclaiming the promised future of God's kingdom.
I have difficulty calling someone a prophet when they merely follow the conventional and popular wisdom of the day. A true prophet was a leader, not a follower. Except for being a follower of God, of Christ, of His Word.
Posted in: So What Is "Prophetic"?
What comes to mind is the difference between several prophets. Nathan convinces king David of his need to repent. Elijah prays for, or prophecies three years of drought, then prays for rain, after slaughtering 400 men (also called prophets, but false prophets). Jeremiah only prophecies doom and destruction, is cast into a well, imprisoned, but proven that his word is true. Jonah the reluctant prophet, needed to be taught as much as the people of Nineveh did.
Prophecy is not equivalent to earthly, nor even an institutional church type of authority. We did not hear often of priests (institutional church) being called prophets, other than possibly Ezra. Perhaps it is not an office conferred by men, nor even validated by men, but rather directly by God.
Posted in: When Churches Start Becoming Experts on Pipelines, Does That Mean Oil Companies Can Become Experts on Theology?
Following is the link to the article written by John Cotter. The article is actually found in several media outlets, particularly Vancouver Sun and other B.C. papers.
http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/money/pulpits+and+the+pipeline+more+churches+speaking+out+on+northern+gateway+project/6442692223/story.html
Posted in: Together Again? Word and Deed
Dan, I really appreciate your comments and perspective. It should become a starting point for discussions about CRWM and CRWRC.
Posted in: Theologian or Entrepreneur?
Excellent comments, Keith (and Rod too.)!
Posted in: DeMoor Sept 9 Banner Article on Order.
Perhaps it is in the terminology. When a person resigns from ministry, then the classis attempts to "release" him at his request. As if they could compel him to unresign. I just see inconsistencies, and words that do not follow logically or consequentially from previous words in the articles.
So we have in article 14c " a minister may not forsake the office..." and then ..."may however be released..." and then in 14d "shall be released", and then article 14e "may be declared eligible for call" and "re-ordained".
Lots of procedure etc. He may not forsake, but if he does..... But of what substance is this article?
If for example, this article was not there, what would be the effect? A minister would take up another occupation. The church would make an announcement of information: that so and so has left the pastorship and has become a teacher at the local school. Four years later, a church in a neighboring town calls the former preacher, and installs him as pastor/preacher. All this can also happen with classis "releasing and not forsaking and declaring eligible and re-ordaining", but what is the difference? It could presumably also happen without all this procedure. What is the benefit and significant difference this article makes?
Even if the teacher were to ocassionally preach a sermon and perform a baptism, what would be the harm? What great scriptural principle would be broken?
The same question applies to article 17. If the article was not there, what would be the effect?
If the purpose was to highlight a benefit in having classis or a classical committee interview someone who has not been in active pastorship/preachership for three or more years, then why is the article not written in that way?
(Just a note: you seem to exist within the procedural box, while I am looking at it from outside of it and thus looking at the larger picture...it seems to me. Maybe that explains why the question is confusing. Hopefully I've made the question clearer. If not, I will be willing to try again. )
Posted in: DeMoor Sept 9 Banner Article on Order.
Not to preempt your reply, Henry, but following are concerns I have with the church order. And I will make you a deal: if you can promise me that your book answers all of these concerns, then I promise to buy your book.
I wrote this in September, 2008.
I've been perusing the church order today, to see what I could find out about installing elders, and begin to realize how ridiculous it is in so many ways.
(( these are personal comments for edification, not vetted through the council of our church, which is a small church and has many other things of greater importance to deal with, so I’ve not bothered them with this )
Perhaps my recent reading of the book, "Pagan Christianity" has colored my mind somewhat, but most of my thoughts are not new, just coalesced into an overall perspective.
1. For example, do you realize how absurd and unscriptural it is to name a church as "vacant"? (which the church order does). First of all, if it really was vacant, then it would not be a church. Second, to suggest that a lack of a minister makes a church vacant, is no more valid, than to say a church is vacant because there is no pianist, or no janitor, or no child on the third pew. The term "vacant" brings to mind a bunch of blank-eye zombies on the pews, and a zombie elder leading the service, etc. The term reduces the greater membership of that church to a matter of no consequence. It also minimizes the presence of the Lord among His people. It emphasizes the centrality of the pastor at the expense of the Spirit. So not only is it unscriptural, it is also unChristian to use that type of phraseology.
2. Second, article 3 says all who meet biblical requirements can fill any of the offices, but the bible does not indicate any academic requirements for holding any of the offices, and later the church order adds academic training requirements for ministers, which is a contradiction in requirements, an extra-biblical requirement.
3. Third, the church order requires classis to meet four times a year, and my impression is that most only meet twice a year? (Which is probably okay, but there it is in the church order...)
4. The church order requires two services per Sunday, and a very sizeable number only have one service per week.
5. The church order requires ministers to conduct worship services, and in a very sizeable number of cases, churches have others conducting half or more of the service. (Not that I necessarily have a problem with that, but ....)
6. An elder is appointed for a fixed term, and must be "re-installed" and considered unordained, which has no biblical grounds, while a teaching elder, or pastor, or minister of the word has no fixed term. This puts to ridicule the church order notion that these various offices are equal in dignity and honor, but different in function.
.
7. In addition, the amount of attention paid to office of ministers, preachers, etc. in the church order is incredible (24 articles), compared to that paid to elders and deacons(one article), if you simply look at the table of contents to get an overview. If they are equal in theory, they are not equal in practice, which puts the lie to the statement, or disobedience to the practice.
8. Another example of this unequal treatment is the fact that ministers supposedly require classical approval to be ordained, while elders and deacons do not.
9. Another example is the expectation that preachers, or ministers of the word, may administer the sacraments, while supervising elders do not. I have not discovered any biblical grounds as justification for this. Certainly, if there is dignity and honor attached to this, then this implies a difference in dignity and honor. Some elders can do it, but others, who do not happen to be preachers, can not? Certainly one would not suggest academic training as a requirement for such a simple task?
10. Using the term "organized" vs "unorganized" church in the CRC context, is a misuse of the English language, and also leads to an emphasis on paper, and forms, rather than on the spiritual organization that should be the focus of any church . Perhaps it is a small thing, I admit, but the use of derogatory terms to describe various worshipping groups which are part of the body of Christ, and for that reason alone are already "church", is not a Christian thing to do. (Using the term "emerging" for a church that has been around and functioning for ten years, is also an anachronism.)
11. The church order supplements in the table of contents, probably ought to have titles, not just numbers, in order to provide a quicker reference as to their pertinence or relevance. (I appreciate the recent change where the supplements are printed within the relevant articles.)
12. Classis declaring a terminated minister’s eligibility for call on a yearly basis, or for whatever term, implies that the simple lack of a call makes a pastor ineligible, until of course, when he receives a call, which would make him eligible. What business does classis have with the eligibility, unless there are specific reasons that make the individual unsuitable? (supp article 8)
13. 13.The use of terms such as "practica", "gravamen", "colloquium doctum", "mission deo" or "approbation" and "abrogated", hearkens back to the ancient desire of ancient priests and bishops to remove itself from regular people, rather than to improve communication with them. These terms should not be used in such documents.
There are some good points in the church order, 2008, including an attempt to protect the spiritual welfare of the churches, but there is also often a spirit of following form rather than function, of ordering the congregations about, of hierarchy, of "requirements" rather than suggestions or advice, and of contradictions. There is a preponderance of attention paid to synod, and classis, which should have separate working documents. (I appreciate that the the articles relating to synod have recently been removed into a separate document.)
There is a preponderance of attention paid to ministers, which detracts from the idea that all offices are equal in dignity and honor. There is a lack of scriptural reference for administration of the sacraments by ordained preachers, vs other ordained elders.
There is more pretentiousness within the church order, which maybe uses the biblical admonition to "do things in good order" as a kind of excuse to heap precept upon precept, far beyond what is necessary or advisable.
Perhaps the Spirit will allow you to understand my comments, which are intended for the benefit of the CRC as a whole.
All the best, and God's blessings.
John Zylstra, President of Church Council
Posted in: How Can a Service Team Connect With Host Community?
Dan, I really appreciate your comment on this.
Posted in: Spiritual Discernment at Ecclesiastical Assemblies
Good thoughts!!