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.
It's reassuring that at least you read what I had to say. It's confusing that of all the points I made, you were able to find only two small discrepancies, and thus avoid addressing all the rest, and avoiding the still legitimate points made even within the two supposed discrepancies.
Of your two points, to distinguish between the supplements and the church order, is diverting and technical. It does not address the real issue of churches being referred to as "vacant", which term the article 8 supplement uses. Most consider the supplement to be part of the order, since most of the supplement articles are written in a similar fashion and with a similar effect, and which is why the supplement has now been inserted in its relevant locations within the order. However, even if the order did not use it, the perception and common usage of the term still relates to my valid point, and even without using the word, the church order still seems to leave the impression (IMHO).
Your second discovery on my behalf, that the church order only prescribes three times per year for classis to meet is correct, my mistake, but still does not invalidate my main point; classes usually don't meet every four months in my experience.
In this vein, I'm surprised that you did not draw attention to my point number 7, about the 24 articles for ministers vs one for elders and deacons combined, since it is actually 18 articles for ministers vs one for elders and deacons combined (plus at least five for combined offices of deacons, elders, ministers). But even so, whether 18 or 24, the point of the huge difference is still the same.
You should be aware that in critiquing the church order, I am speaking the truth in love, and that we are all corporately responsible. The fact that I never really studied the church order seriously until 2008 does not make me less culpable, since I have been a serving elder at least five times.
My language is deliberately superlative, because that is how I feel. And it is not just a matter of some intellectual disagreement; it is to me a matter of a spiritual problem, and a lack of reliance on scripture and scriptural principles.
Most young people do not read the church order until they become old, and even then most have not read it, and particularly not the supplements.
Okay so we each think the other is in the small box, and we each think we see the larger picture..... Either way, you have not really addressed or answered anything on what I have raised, and my deal is still that if your book addresses all these issues, then I promise to buy it (and read it). You have not affirmed that yet, and so I am led to believe that your book does not address these issues.
But I do not want to be unkind. If you think I am missing part of the larger picture you may tell me what I am missing. It is possible that I am only seeing half of it. And of course it is possible that I have not missed the larger picture, but simply see it differently.
I think it is a good practice, but should not be left only to council meetings. It is also better to refer to preachers preaching and pastors pastoring, since different aspects of spiritual leadership are involved.
Henry, your first comment i agree with completely. Your second comment is unclear. But I do think a distinction needs to be made between the importance of the confessions and the flexibilities of church order and elements of worship.
Perhaps your comment about "originally the CRC stood for purity of doctrine and scripture for the sake of unity; while the RCA stood for unity in the face of fights over doctrine and scripture..." is very significant. While we are asked and commanded to be unified as Christians in the body of Christ, it seems that unity at the expense of truth always leads to the lowest possible denominator. Somehow that is not true unity either is it? Now we have a church in the RCA supporting homosex marriage. How can you be unified with that? Doesn't it rather demand the same sort of response that Paul gave us when he talked in Corinthians about " I hear that one of you is sleeping with his father's wife, and you are proud... rather cast that person out...." or another place in Corinthians, "when you gather together, you are not really celebrating the Lord's Supper (because you are selfish and don't share or wait for others)...." Paul was interested in unity around the truth, but it could not be sullied by approval of immoral and ungodly conduct.
It is better to find unity in Christ among denominations, which denominations can share with each other (or better - which individual members of different denominations can share with each other), and to distinguish the disunity of untruth and immorality in the distinctions between denominations.
We have had an individual who attends our church for more than two years, who when asked if he wanted to become a member, said that he thought he was already a member. In his case, just asking him seemed to diminish him somewhat, taking the wind out of his sails. So I didn't push the official membership too much. I may bring it up again later sometime....
In another case, we have the wife of a baptized member and the baptized member himself who participate in many ways, including leading song services and teaching sunday school. While they should be ineligible for official office, does that mean that consistory does not have the right to let them vote when they feel it is appropriate?
I agree, Daniel that the unity is metaphysical, functional, and contains elements and possibilities of fellowship. It must be in spirit and in truth. Which is sometimes the difficulty. To maintain unity without truth, or with a divergence in truth is also a false unity. However, understanding that our divergences are part of our sinful nature and understandings, and are not greater than God's spirit, and are not greater than God's truth, is what unites us in thought, word and deed. Therefore, for example, while I believe that infant baptism for the children of believers is a better expression of God's love for us, I can yet work with christians who believe that infant baptism should not be practiced, but that only believers who profess should be baptized.
In a sense, this unity is natural, but it also requires hard work sometimes, including the desire both to be true, and the desire to forgive, and the willingness to be forgiven by others.
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!!
Posted in: DeMoor Sept 9 Banner Article on Order.
It's reassuring that at least you read what I had to say. It's confusing that of all the points I made, you were able to find only two small discrepancies, and thus avoid addressing all the rest, and avoiding the still legitimate points made even within the two supposed discrepancies.
Of your two points, to distinguish between the supplements and the church order, is diverting and technical. It does not address the real issue of churches being referred to as "vacant", which term the article 8 supplement uses. Most consider the supplement to be part of the order, since most of the supplement articles are written in a similar fashion and with a similar effect, and which is why the supplement has now been inserted in its relevant locations within the order. However, even if the order did not use it, the perception and common usage of the term still relates to my valid point, and even without using the word, the church order still seems to leave the impression (IMHO).
Your second discovery on my behalf, that the church order only prescribes three times per year for classis to meet is correct, my mistake, but still does not invalidate my main point; classes usually don't meet every four months in my experience.
In this vein, I'm surprised that you did not draw attention to my point number 7, about the 24 articles for ministers vs one for elders and deacons combined, since it is actually 18 articles for ministers vs one for elders and deacons combined (plus at least five for combined offices of deacons, elders, ministers). But even so, whether 18 or 24, the point of the huge difference is still the same.
You should be aware that in critiquing the church order, I am speaking the truth in love, and that we are all corporately responsible. The fact that I never really studied the church order seriously until 2008 does not make me less culpable, since I have been a serving elder at least five times.
My language is deliberately superlative, because that is how I feel. And it is not just a matter of some intellectual disagreement; it is to me a matter of a spiritual problem, and a lack of reliance on scripture and scriptural principles.
Most young people do not read the church order until they become old, and even then most have not read it, and particularly not the supplements.
Okay so we each think the other is in the small box, and we each think we see the larger picture..... Either way, you have not really addressed or answered anything on what I have raised, and my deal is still that if your book addresses all these issues, then I promise to buy it (and read it). You have not affirmed that yet, and so I am led to believe that your book does not address these issues.
But I do not want to be unkind. If you think I am missing part of the larger picture you may tell me what I am missing. It is possible that I am only seeing half of it. And of course it is possible that I have not missed the larger picture, but simply see it differently.
In any case, thankyou kindly for your response.
Posted in: Routine Feedback to Pastors on Preaching
I think it is a good practice, but should not be left only to council meetings. It is also better to refer to preachers preaching and pastors pastoring, since different aspects of spiritual leadership are involved.
Posted in: Article 59 Assent to Creeds
Henry, your first comment i agree with completely. Your second comment is unclear. But I do think a distinction needs to be made between the importance of the confessions and the flexibilities of church order and elements of worship.
Posted in: Through the Looking Glass...
Perhaps your comment about "originally the CRC stood for purity of doctrine and scripture for the sake of unity; while the RCA stood for unity in the face of fights over doctrine and scripture..." is very significant. While we are asked and commanded to be unified as Christians in the body of Christ, it seems that unity at the expense of truth always leads to the lowest possible denominator. Somehow that is not true unity either is it? Now we have a church in the RCA supporting homosex marriage. How can you be unified with that? Doesn't it rather demand the same sort of response that Paul gave us when he talked in Corinthians about " I hear that one of you is sleeping with his father's wife, and you are proud... rather cast that person out...." or another place in Corinthians, "when you gather together, you are not really celebrating the Lord's Supper (because you are selfish and don't share or wait for others)...." Paul was interested in unity around the truth, but it could not be sullied by approval of immoral and ungodly conduct.
It is better to find unity in Christ among denominations, which denominations can share with each other (or better - which individual members of different denominations can share with each other), and to distinguish the disunity of untruth and immorality in the distinctions between denominations.
Posted in: Membership - Again
We have had an individual who attends our church for more than two years, who when asked if he wanted to become a member, said that he thought he was already a member. In his case, just asking him seemed to diminish him somewhat, taking the wind out of his sails. So I didn't push the official membership too much. I may bring it up again later sometime....
In another case, we have the wife of a baptized member and the baptized member himself who participate in many ways, including leading song services and teaching sunday school. While they should be ineligible for official office, does that mean that consistory does not have the right to let them vote when they feel it is appropriate?
Posted in: We Can Answer Jesus' Prayer — and Article 3 of the Belhar
I agree, Daniel that the unity is metaphysical, functional, and contains elements and possibilities of fellowship. It must be in spirit and in truth. Which is sometimes the difficulty. To maintain unity without truth, or with a divergence in truth is also a false unity. However, understanding that our divergences are part of our sinful nature and understandings, and are not greater than God's spirit, and are not greater than God's truth, is what unites us in thought, word and deed. Therefore, for example, while I believe that infant baptism for the children of believers is a better expression of God's love for us, I can yet work with christians who believe that infant baptism should not be practiced, but that only believers who profess should be baptized.
In a sense, this unity is natural, but it also requires hard work sometimes, including the desire both to be true, and the desire to forgive, and the willingness to be forgiven by others.