The elders are elected, not just once, but over and over again. Hard to get more democratic than that. But they have a ruling and specific leadership function which goes to a much earlier time than the middle ages. They answer to God before they answer to the "membership". But God uses the membership to authenticate or validate their leadership as well.
If the democratic and human rights principles that the world has adopted is in agreement with scripture, and with God's desire and will, then well and good. If those human rights principles are in disagreement, then not so good for those "principles". In any case, within the operation of the church, which is the body of Christ, the idea of "international acceptance" is not a good parameter for how the church should operate. Imagine for example if international principles said that no organization could discriminate on the basis of religion; hmmm, do "international principles" say that? So a hindu or buddhist could be a board member for a christian church? ......? Or a die-hard hutterite could be a board member for a roman catholic mission? ....?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
While I believe the Belhar confession has too many problems and too much baggage with it to be adopted as a testimony or confession within the nacrc, I do agree with Richard's comments on unity and denominations. Practicing a practical unity of believers, whether between races, denominations, ethnicities, is more valuable than just writing about it or professing it. The Belhar does not solve the problem, and will likely lead to other problems. This unity is not only between reformed churches of similar historical backgrounds, but between all believers everywhere in all places. The unity must be in spirit and in truth, which transcends structural, procedural, political, and functional barriers and differences.
Our confessions are quite clear that those who confess Jesus as Lord and Saviour are all members of the one body of Christ.
This was a good discussion, and difficult. It needs to continue if we are to get at why the membership of the denomination is declining, since this is part of the issue, although not the entire cause of it. When we make peripheral issues more important than issues which are more clear in scripture, then perhaps this is one of our problems. For example, whether you believe in infant baptism or adult baptism, if you treat repentance and obedience cavalierly with no respect, then the issue of infant or adult baptism is not really the issue at all. Scripture says much less about baptism (whether at youth or maturity, whether once or twice), than it does about true repentance and obedience. Scripture says much more about adultery, idolatry, homosex, and telling falsehoods, than it does about infant baptism or about speaking in tongues. The very fact that we have a number of churches in North America which refer to themselves as Reformed Baptists, adopting many reformed doctrines while still maintaining adult baptism, should tell us that our conclusions about the relation of election and predestination to infant baptism are not so obvious to all, and certainly not inevitable. Scripture's promise to our children is exactly the same promise to those who "are afar off", and so is somewhat of a stretch to apply to infant baptism. So I appreciate Daniel's comments in this regard, and also Bev's comments.
Having thought some more about this issue, I would like to disagree with the concept of core and peripheral. I think that is the wrong way of looking at how we as christians can live with one another in spite of differences of perspective. For example, Christ being divine as the Son of God, and dying for us, and our sinful nature needing redemption is core. God having originally made man good is core. God choosing us before we choose him is also a core concept. But, other issues which may not seem to be core issues, such as what constitutes sexual immorality, or what constitutes theft, adultery, or murder, are still in many cases clearly indicated by scripture. When differences on these things are dismissed because they are assumed not to be core issues, then we lose the guidance of scripture as our basis. It is not legitimate to say that we simply have different interpretations of scripture. On the basis of different interpretations of scripture, core doctrines are also sometimes neglected or perverted. So I would suggest something different.
How about being realistic about what scripture is clear on and what scripture is not so clear on? I know this can involve debate and discussion before a consensus is reached. But in reality, some doctrines are extrapolated doctrines, and not directly or clearly given in scripture; this includes the practice of infant baptism. We say one Lord, one faith, one baptism as if it means to forbid a repeat baptism. Yet, scripture clearly indicates that John the Baptist baptized with the baptism of repentance, and Jesus would baptize with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Clearly different baptisms. Why are we so adamant then?
Also, what is the significance of the fact that Jesus was not baptizing, and the apostle Paul also did not hardly baptize anyone? Why do we assume then that this sacrament is such that only "priests" can do it, when scripture gives no such indication? Is it possible for us to separate worldly ideologies of power and ceremony from the real life of the people of God? I don't know if I have an answer for this, but the question should be asked.
Scripture clearly indicates that women should not have authority over men in the church, in several passages. Why are some of us so adamant then that a church is regressive or ancient if it follows this injunction? Is this not the same scripture? Is this not the same writer that we claim supports "there is neither male nor female"?
Scripture gives no indication of a theological understanding equivalent to our requirements for participating in Lord's supper, yet we have made rules about it. Why? (and we have reduced these rules lately which seems to make sense.)
Scripture clearly indicates that the church was to cast out the immoral man (I Cor 5), until he repents. Why do we look down our noses at those churches who impliment discipline? Why are we more relaxed about those things that scripture is more clear about, and stricter about those things that scripture is less clear on?
We know that Annanias and Sapphira died for merely telling a lie in order to gain acceptance, while we also do not read in scripture anywhere that anyone died for baptizing or not baptizing an infant. Nor did anyone die for preaching without a license. So which practice then is more relevant to our doctrine?
If we used the criteria of things that are more clear in scripture, to reduce our reliance on those man-made rules and things which are outside of scripture, perhaps more unity and harmony would be possible. It would not solve all issues and problems, but it would seem to help.
I totally agree with your point here, Dutch. But there should be a motion of acceptance by the elder's local church, as well as by the classis, to approve his nomination as delegate.
"If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this." - CS Lewis.
Article 25 says that elders and deacons shall 'serve" for a limited time, "as designated by the council". So first, what does it not say? It does not say that that they shall "be" for a limited time. Presumably elders and deacons could "not serve" at other times, when they are not "serving" or when they are "retired".
Secondly, article 25 says those re-elected shall be reinstalled, not re-ordained, presumably because they have already been ordained previously. This assumes a lack of a break between one term and the next; however the principle is that terms can be extended even individually, and that limits are arbitrary, and that ordination is not magically lost at the end of an arbitrary term limit of two years or three years or five years. There is also the correct principle involved here that it is the local church through the council or consistory that sets the limited time. Theoretically this limited time could be limited until the age of 75, rather than a specified term of a particular number of years.
So, if a council designates an elder (previous elder or retired elder or non-serving elder) to "serve", by acting as a delegate to classis or synod, it can in so doing extend the limited time of service of that elder, since council has the authority to do so. (Much the same as an elder delegate to synod may be serving at the time he is chosen, and "not serving" when he actually "serves" at Synod). And, if the elder in question is not re-elected, but rather appointed for this specific purpose without an election, then a re-installation would not technically be required. If council decides that a re-election is advisable, then a re-installation would also be advisable.
Bottom line principle is that it is the local church that must decide whether the retired elder can fill that role or not.
Posted in: Representative Government?
The elders are elected, not just once, but over and over again. Hard to get more democratic than that. But they have a ruling and specific leadership function which goes to a much earlier time than the middle ages. They answer to God before they answer to the "membership". But God uses the membership to authenticate or validate their leadership as well.
If the democratic and human rights principles that the world has adopted is in agreement with scripture, and with God's desire and will, then well and good. If those human rights principles are in disagreement, then not so good for those "principles". In any case, within the operation of the church, which is the body of Christ, the idea of "international acceptance" is not a good parameter for how the church should operate. Imagine for example if international principles said that no organization could discriminate on the basis of religion; hmmm, do "international principles" say that? So a hindu or buddhist could be a board member for a christian church? ......? Or a die-hard hutterite could be a board member for a roman catholic mission? ....?
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: 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: 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: 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.
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
While I believe the Belhar confession has too many problems and too much baggage with it to be adopted as a testimony or confession within the nacrc, I do agree with Richard's comments on unity and denominations. Practicing a practical unity of believers, whether between races, denominations, ethnicities, is more valuable than just writing about it or professing it. The Belhar does not solve the problem, and will likely lead to other problems. This unity is not only between reformed churches of similar historical backgrounds, but between all believers everywhere in all places. The unity must be in spirit and in truth, which transcends structural, procedural, political, and functional barriers and differences.
Our confessions are quite clear that those who confess Jesus as Lord and Saviour are all members of the one body of Christ.
Posted in: The Reformed Distinctive, or the Reformed "Stink"?
This was a good discussion, and difficult. It needs to continue if we are to get at why the membership of the denomination is declining, since this is part of the issue, although not the entire cause of it. When we make peripheral issues more important than issues which are more clear in scripture, then perhaps this is one of our problems. For example, whether you believe in infant baptism or adult baptism, if you treat repentance and obedience cavalierly with no respect, then the issue of infant or adult baptism is not really the issue at all. Scripture says much less about baptism (whether at youth or maturity, whether once or twice), than it does about true repentance and obedience. Scripture says much more about adultery, idolatry, homosex, and telling falsehoods, than it does about infant baptism or about speaking in tongues. The very fact that we have a number of churches in North America which refer to themselves as Reformed Baptists, adopting many reformed doctrines while still maintaining adult baptism, should tell us that our conclusions about the relation of election and predestination to infant baptism are not so obvious to all, and certainly not inevitable. Scripture's promise to our children is exactly the same promise to those who "are afar off", and so is somewhat of a stretch to apply to infant baptism. So I appreciate Daniel's comments in this regard, and also Bev's comments.
Posted in: The Reformed Distinctive, or the Reformed "Stink"?
Having thought some more about this issue, I would like to disagree with the concept of core and peripheral. I think that is the wrong way of looking at how we as christians can live with one another in spite of differences of perspective. For example, Christ being divine as the Son of God, and dying for us, and our sinful nature needing redemption is core. God having originally made man good is core. God choosing us before we choose him is also a core concept. But, other issues which may not seem to be core issues, such as what constitutes sexual immorality, or what constitutes theft, adultery, or murder, are still in many cases clearly indicated by scripture. When differences on these things are dismissed because they are assumed not to be core issues, then we lose the guidance of scripture as our basis. It is not legitimate to say that we simply have different interpretations of scripture. On the basis of different interpretations of scripture, core doctrines are also sometimes neglected or perverted. So I would suggest something different.
How about being realistic about what scripture is clear on and what scripture is not so clear on? I know this can involve debate and discussion before a consensus is reached. But in reality, some doctrines are extrapolated doctrines, and not directly or clearly given in scripture; this includes the practice of infant baptism. We say one Lord, one faith, one baptism as if it means to forbid a repeat baptism. Yet, scripture clearly indicates that John the Baptist baptized with the baptism of repentance, and Jesus would baptize with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Clearly different baptisms. Why are we so adamant then?
Also, what is the significance of the fact that Jesus was not baptizing, and the apostle Paul also did not hardly baptize anyone? Why do we assume then that this sacrament is such that only "priests" can do it, when scripture gives no such indication? Is it possible for us to separate worldly ideologies of power and ceremony from the real life of the people of God? I don't know if I have an answer for this, but the question should be asked.
Scripture clearly indicates that women should not have authority over men in the church, in several passages. Why are some of us so adamant then that a church is regressive or ancient if it follows this injunction? Is this not the same scripture? Is this not the same writer that we claim supports "there is neither male nor female"?
Scripture gives no indication of a theological understanding equivalent to our requirements for participating in Lord's supper, yet we have made rules about it. Why? (and we have reduced these rules lately which seems to make sense.)
Scripture clearly indicates that the church was to cast out the immoral man (I Cor 5), until he repents. Why do we look down our noses at those churches who impliment discipline? Why are we more relaxed about those things that scripture is more clear about, and stricter about those things that scripture is less clear on?
We know that Annanias and Sapphira died for merely telling a lie in order to gain acceptance, while we also do not read in scripture anywhere that anyone died for baptizing or not baptizing an infant. Nor did anyone die for preaching without a license. So which practice then is more relevant to our doctrine?
If we used the criteria of things that are more clear in scripture, to reduce our reliance on those man-made rules and things which are outside of scripture, perhaps more unity and harmony would be possible. It would not solve all issues and problems, but it would seem to help.
Posted in: Time for an Alternative Option for Elder Delegates to Synod?
I totally agree with your point here, Dutch. But there should be a motion of acceptance by the elder's local church, as well as by the classis, to approve his nomination as delegate.
Posted in: Neglecting Evangelism in Your Passion for Social Justice?
"If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this." - CS Lewis.
Posted in: Time for an Alternative Option for Elder Delegates to Synod?
Article 25 says that elders and deacons shall 'serve" for a limited time, "as designated by the council". So first, what does it not say? It does not say that that they shall "be" for a limited time. Presumably elders and deacons could "not serve" at other times, when they are not "serving" or when they are "retired".
Secondly, article 25 says those re-elected shall be reinstalled, not re-ordained, presumably because they have already been ordained previously. This assumes a lack of a break between one term and the next; however the principle is that terms can be extended even individually, and that limits are arbitrary, and that ordination is not magically lost at the end of an arbitrary term limit of two years or three years or five years. There is also the correct principle involved here that it is the local church through the council or consistory that sets the limited time. Theoretically this limited time could be limited until the age of 75, rather than a specified term of a particular number of years.
So, if a council designates an elder (previous elder or retired elder or non-serving elder) to "serve", by acting as a delegate to classis or synod, it can in so doing extend the limited time of service of that elder, since council has the authority to do so. (Much the same as an elder delegate to synod may be serving at the time he is chosen, and "not serving" when he actually "serves" at Synod). And, if the elder in question is not re-elected, but rather appointed for this specific purpose without an election, then a re-installation would not technically be required. If council decides that a re-election is advisable, then a re-installation would also be advisable.
Bottom line principle is that it is the local church that must decide whether the retired elder can fill that role or not.
As I see it.