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.
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 God having originally made man good is core.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.
Re-reading your original comment/request, I gave it some more thought, David Koll. And I thought you have provided an excellent synopsis of the difficulties of title.
So to your proposition 1.: I looked at scripture. Typed in "Peter". And I did not find a case where Peter was addressed as, pastor Peter or apostle Peter. Sometimes, it was, "Peter, the apostle", or "Peter, an apostle", but even this was rare. I doubt there was less respect because of this lack of title. Nor would the formalized or reluctant use of it denote respect where it was not due. I'm reminded where Jesus says to call no one father because God is our Father only. Implying that title and honor belong to God alone.
Proposition 2: It would good to remember that the same difficulties that occur in the use of honorific titles apply to elders and deacons, and indeed to christian brethren. How often do you hear people call each other "brother Dave" or "brother John" in the christian context? Do we commonly refer to "elder Jack" or "deacon Jake" when we address each other? So why would it be surprising that we do not address as often in conversation "pastor Dave" or "preacher Ron" or "servant John"?
Proposition 3: If you stop learning, pinch yourself, because you are probably dead.
Rod, you say so nicely, and so much better, with so much more diplomacy, what is true regarding this issue than I ever do. And I appreciate that. But bottom line is that the difference between what the church order says about equal honor, and what it does in terms of paying attention to the offices, is inconsistent and contradictory. And this inconsistency plays out not only in the treatment of ministerial associates and evangelists, but also in the treatment of elders and deacons. It is a huge inconsistency, and it is hypocritical. While elders bear some of the blame for this, it is largely the "ministers of the word" who are responsible for the hypocrisy and inconsistency and protectionism. I think they have generally improved over the last twenty years in this regard, but there are still tendencies to perpetuate this inconsistency. I recently noted two alternate forms for ordination for ministers in the back of the hymnal, and I believe the second one, being 6.5 pages long, and being newer (I believe) is another indication of this inconsistency, when compared to the form for evangelist or the form combined for elders and deacons. There is no way that the denomination can claim it is following the church order on this point. The church order doesn't even follow itself.
Do we pray for our teachers, preachers, elders and deacons enough? It occurs to me, that we ought to do that more often, and that I have not been doing enough of that lately, including in congregational prayer.
Greg, in our church we have an adult bible study every Sunday before church. Most adults who are not teaching sunday school will attend this, while some do not attend and just drink coffee in the hall. Various topics in the past have included the Book of Romans, Parables of Jesus, Ezra/Nehemiah, Heidleberg Catechism(two years), videos of various reformers, and John Piper on video, just to name a few. This adult bible study lasts about 45 minutes, and provides opportunity to discuss and learn about what the bible says to our lives. This group has often been held in the sanctuary, but in some years held in a larger classroom.
I know this is two years after you posted this, but in case you are still curious, I thought I'd let you know what we do.
Yeah, while I largely agree with Rod, I take a slightly different approach towards honor. While applause is nice, it is somewhat arbitrary and in itself can be applied to any position, even to those of lesser "honor". My feeling is that the church order itself sets up the lesser honor of other offices in the way it deals with them respectively speaking. If a "minister of the word" is worthy of numerous articles of calling, examination, deposition, re-installation, ordination, lending, retirement, etc., etc., why are the other "equally honorable" offices not worthy of such consideration and deliberation?
If a "minister of the word" preacher is worthy of a pension, why is the same consideration not given to other equally honorable offices of paid preachers, evangelists, pastors? Are they preaching something "other" than the word? What makes an evangelist less significant or less able or less gifted, or less worthy than a preacher of an established congregation? Why not the other way around, for example? Why does the "evangelist" not receive the pension fund and the preacher or pastor in an established congr not left to fend for themselves, or rely on the mercy of the church?
Why does the church order not emphasize and stress that all offices(and particularly the elders) are equally able to administer the sacraments, since we know already that a seminary degree is not required to understand or teach these sacraments, or to give the Lord's blessing and benediction, and that all office bearers are apt to teach and ought to be able to teach what these sacraments mean. Is this really about function or is it about allocating a different degree of honor?
Why is the idea of "a profession" mixed up in the calling and function of the office? Is this what the problem is? Is there a biblical warrant for this?
I agree the doors are more open, except perhaps for article 7. As far as calling ministry associates elders, yes, that would be honorable, provided they are indeed elders. You might say, 'elder so and so" who is a pastor in his church. Or 'elder so and so" who often preaches in several churches. Could you say, "pastor so and so" who however is not an elder nor deacon in his church? But what you call them is not so much the issue as how you treat the office. For eexample, every elder should have authority to preach, and be encouraged to preach at least once or twice, or maybe more if they agree or are able. It is a shame when 98% of elders who are supposed to be leaders, have never ever preached or taught even a basic simple message from the word of God (even if this may not be their main gift). We are all communally culpable for such a poor state of affairs. It either means too many of our elders should not be elders, or the elders are not being trained, or we do not really believe in the biblical qualifications of elders. IMHO.
It should be possible perhaps to offer some on-line correspondence style courses? In other words, notes from a course, reading materials, assignments, and tests. If it is non-credit, then the tests would not be required, but could be optional, for self-assessment. For Hebrew or Greek perhaps there are already some introductory on-line or correspondence courses which would serve as an introduction before the historical Hebrew and Greek are attempted? Some of these courses might attract people who are not contemplating a "ministerial" position other than the local ministries they are already involved in.
The function of elders is supposedly to lead, guide and rule. As such, it seems odd, and at variance with the ordinance of the church order towards equal honor, that ministers are singled out for delegation to classis and synod. To be more consistent with the spirit of this equal honor, as well as the role of the elders, it should probably state that every church should designate two elders to classis, of which at least one should not be a pastor (hired staff). And something similar for classical delegates to Synod. IMHO. (Still lots of room for observers).
I think the reason you are confused, is that there is a lot of worldliness embedded in the distinctions of roles and offices in the church. There is a lot of hierarchy still there, in spite of the reformation. There is an aspect of worldly "professionalism" attached to certain roles, and a not -so- well-hidden elitism based on academic credentials. Not by everyone, but by most.
There is no significant reason why ministry associates couldn't be ordained under the same article as 'ministers of the word" with some minor rewording of the church order. Ministers, like ministry associates, are also supposed to be elders, and can also be solo pastors, just as 23: a,c,d indicate. The distinction is psychological and academic, and not based on actual function, in my opinion.
David, hey yeah, I appreciate your comments. I am assuming that you are connected with CTS, and whatever you can do to increase the education of leadership is always beneficial and appreciated, I would think. (And that applies to Henry Reyenga as well.) Any argumentation on my part is simply to open up the pores of the brain cells (and the heart cells) to reduce complacency, and to prod us on to understand our goals and our service to God. I appreciate Rod's comments and perspective as well (and I've heard many of his comments elsewhere :) )
My earlier comment was not to relegate pastors to observers at classis. It was to increase the respect and responsibility for the office of elder. And it was to take away the requirement (for a minister delegate) and leave it as an option. I believe that is more scriptural in terms of respect for an actual office, vs a calling to preach or to serve (minister) others. I believe that as pastors and preachers encourage this, that the church will become more spiritual and more mature. I don't hear too often the desire of preachers or pastors to work themselves out of a job, meaning that they have been able to train and encourage elders to carry on the work of ministry within their churches so successfully that those offices are truly respected in terms of their spiritual leadership, and not just as a governing board of trustees or administration of business affairs.
The interesting thing about the church order is that it does not forbid elders from administering sacraments, necessarily. But it makes an approval process unnecessarily onerous and convoluted, even though there is no (read NO) scriptural warrant for doing so. And the culture (which goes beyond the church order) frowns on such things, while scripture takes a back seat. And so we find an unneccessary and unbiblical reduction in honor for the office of elder. When we find a preacher who insists that one of the elders should read the form for lord's supper and break the bread and pour the wine, then I think that preacher will be doing his job of explaining the word as it relates to the sacrament, and to the office of elder.
Pastors and preachers and elders may have different roles. But elders are supposed to be apt to teach (and I don't think this means teaching about math or how to cook or how to change the oil in the car). When I read scripture, I read pastors being people within a church who care for the lost sheep and for the other sheep, and who lead their group to serve the lord. In other words, they are people who are part of that group, that take on that role. It seems to me there are several or even many pastors in a group, local church, local congregation, some of whom are chosen perhaps to become elders or preachers. I know there might be perhaps different ways of understanding that passage about pastors, but that is how I read it, and it would be good to at least entertain that possibility. Or at least we should assume that every elder ought to be considered to be a pastor to some degree? Practice saying that to the elders you come into contact with, or have a meeting with. Start calling them pastor so and so for six months. They will protest. Don't let that bother you. See if that gets them thinking differently.
I'm just trying to increase the participation and spiritual leadership of elders. And while there are several ways of doing this as I've suggested above, one way in terms of education, is to focus on educating leaders (elders and pastors), rather than only on the one path of trying to create leaders (I mean educating young seminarians and hope they become leaders). I like Henry's statement "we need to cutlivate Christian Leaders everywhere and in everyway possible."
So why has there been no discussion on proposed changes to Article 7? And how do we deal with a situation where a church planter is more qualified than a trained seminary graduate, to do the actual work of ministry, whether it is preaching, teaching, or leading? Does it matter? Or is it all about a paper certificate?
Legally, the government does not require a denominational certificate to verify or authenticate a minister's status when requested by a church, or does it? Or if it does, would this only apply to marriage and funeral certificates? Wouldn't stop a church from authorizing an elder to administer sacraments, preach, etc. Of course, it makes interactions with other churches more complicated, but if they authorize preaching, then it seems to me it would be their decision, though they would have to recognize that classis or synod has not authorized blanket approval, so they would be responsible for their own mistakes in that regard.
In this day and age, long distance education should be facilitated, and men over 40 should be eligible for it.
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: 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: Pastor Rodney Dangerfield
Re-reading your original comment/request, I gave it some more thought, David Koll. And I thought you have provided an excellent synopsis of the difficulties of title.
So to your proposition 1.: I looked at scripture. Typed in "Peter". And I did not find a case where Peter was addressed as, pastor Peter or apostle Peter. Sometimes, it was, "Peter, the apostle", or "Peter, an apostle", but even this was rare. I doubt there was less respect because of this lack of title. Nor would the formalized or reluctant use of it denote respect where it was not due. I'm reminded where Jesus says to call no one father because God is our Father only. Implying that title and honor belong to God alone.
Proposition 2: It would good to remember that the same difficulties that occur in the use of honorific titles apply to elders and deacons, and indeed to christian brethren. How often do you hear people call each other "brother Dave" or "brother John" in the christian context? Do we commonly refer to "elder Jack" or "deacon Jake" when we address each other? So why would it be surprising that we do not address as often in conversation "pastor Dave" or "preacher Ron" or "servant John"?
Proposition 3: If you stop learning, pinch yourself, because you are probably dead.
Posted in: Pastor Rodney Dangerfield
Rod, you say so nicely, and so much better, with so much more diplomacy, what is true regarding this issue than I ever do. And I appreciate that. But bottom line is that the difference between what the church order says about equal honor, and what it does in terms of paying attention to the offices, is inconsistent and contradictory. And this inconsistency plays out not only in the treatment of ministerial associates and evangelists, but also in the treatment of elders and deacons. It is a huge inconsistency, and it is hypocritical. While elders bear some of the blame for this, it is largely the "ministers of the word" who are responsible for the hypocrisy and inconsistency and protectionism. I think they have generally improved over the last twenty years in this regard, but there are still tendencies to perpetuate this inconsistency. I recently noted two alternate forms for ordination for ministers in the back of the hymnal, and I believe the second one, being 6.5 pages long, and being newer (I believe) is another indication of this inconsistency, when compared to the form for evangelist or the form combined for elders and deacons. There is no way that the denomination can claim it is following the church order on this point. The church order doesn't even follow itself.
Posted in: Ministry Leader Appreciation
Do we pray for our teachers, preachers, elders and deacons enough? It occurs to me, that we ought to do that more often, and that I have not been doing enough of that lately, including in congregational prayer.
Posted in: Biblical and Theological Literacy
Greg, in our church we have an adult bible study every Sunday before church. Most adults who are not teaching sunday school will attend this, while some do not attend and just drink coffee in the hall. Various topics in the past have included the Book of Romans, Parables of Jesus, Ezra/Nehemiah, Heidleberg Catechism(two years), videos of various reformers, and John Piper on video, just to name a few. This adult bible study lasts about 45 minutes, and provides opportunity to discuss and learn about what the bible says to our lives. This group has often been held in the sanctuary, but in some years held in a larger classroom.
I know this is two years after you posted this, but in case you are still curious, I thought I'd let you know what we do.
Posted in: Online Classes From Calvin Seminary
Yeah, while I largely agree with Rod, I take a slightly different approach towards honor. While applause is nice, it is somewhat arbitrary and in itself can be applied to any position, even to those of lesser "honor". My feeling is that the church order itself sets up the lesser honor of other offices in the way it deals with them respectively speaking. If a "minister of the word" is worthy of numerous articles of calling, examination, deposition, re-installation, ordination, lending, retirement, etc., etc., why are the other "equally honorable" offices not worthy of such consideration and deliberation?
If a "minister of the word" preacher is worthy of a pension, why is the same consideration not given to other equally honorable offices of paid preachers, evangelists, pastors? Are they preaching something "other" than the word? What makes an evangelist less significant or less able or less gifted, or less worthy than a preacher of an established congregation? Why not the other way around, for example? Why does the "evangelist" not receive the pension fund and the preacher or pastor in an established congr not left to fend for themselves, or rely on the mercy of the church?
Why does the church order not emphasize and stress that all offices(and particularly the elders) are equally able to administer the sacraments, since we know already that a seminary degree is not required to understand or teach these sacraments, or to give the Lord's blessing and benediction, and that all office bearers are apt to teach and ought to be able to teach what these sacraments mean. Is this really about function or is it about allocating a different degree of honor?
Why is the idea of "a profession" mixed up in the calling and function of the office? Is this what the problem is? Is there a biblical warrant for this?
I agree the doors are more open, except perhaps for article 7. As far as calling ministry associates elders, yes, that would be honorable, provided they are indeed elders. You might say, 'elder so and so" who is a pastor in his church. Or 'elder so and so" who often preaches in several churches. Could you say, "pastor so and so" who however is not an elder nor deacon in his church? But what you call them is not so much the issue as how you treat the office. For eexample, every elder should have authority to preach, and be encouraged to preach at least once or twice, or maybe more if they agree or are able. It is a shame when 98% of elders who are supposed to be leaders, have never ever preached or taught even a basic simple message from the word of God (even if this may not be their main gift). We are all communally culpable for such a poor state of affairs. It either means too many of our elders should not be elders, or the elders are not being trained, or we do not really believe in the biblical qualifications of elders. IMHO.
Posted in: Online Classes From Calvin Seminary
It should be possible perhaps to offer some on-line correspondence style courses? In other words, notes from a course, reading materials, assignments, and tests. If it is non-credit, then the tests would not be required, but could be optional, for self-assessment. For Hebrew or Greek perhaps there are already some introductory on-line or correspondence courses which would serve as an introduction before the historical Hebrew and Greek are attempted? Some of these courses might attract people who are not contemplating a "ministerial" position other than the local ministries they are already involved in.
Posted in: Online Classes From Calvin Seminary
The function of elders is supposedly to lead, guide and rule. As such, it seems odd, and at variance with the ordinance of the church order towards equal honor, that ministers are singled out for delegation to classis and synod. To be more consistent with the spirit of this equal honor, as well as the role of the elders, it should probably state that every church should designate two elders to classis, of which at least one should not be a pastor (hired staff). And something similar for classical delegates to Synod. IMHO. (Still lots of room for observers).
Posted in: Rev? Pastor? Ministry Associate?
I think the reason you are confused, is that there is a lot of worldliness embedded in the distinctions of roles and offices in the church. There is a lot of hierarchy still there, in spite of the reformation. There is an aspect of worldly "professionalism" attached to certain roles, and a not -so- well-hidden elitism based on academic credentials. Not by everyone, but by most.
There is no significant reason why ministry associates couldn't be ordained under the same article as 'ministers of the word" with some minor rewording of the church order. Ministers, like ministry associates, are also supposed to be elders, and can also be solo pastors, just as 23: a,c,d indicate. The distinction is psychological and academic, and not based on actual function, in my opinion.
Posted in: Online Classes From Calvin Seminary
David, hey yeah, I appreciate your comments. I am assuming that you are connected with CTS, and whatever you can do to increase the education of leadership is always beneficial and appreciated, I would think. (And that applies to Henry Reyenga as well.) Any argumentation on my part is simply to open up the pores of the brain cells (and the heart cells) to reduce complacency, and to prod us on to understand our goals and our service to God. I appreciate Rod's comments and perspective as well (and I've heard many of his comments elsewhere :) )
My earlier comment was not to relegate pastors to observers at classis. It was to increase the respect and responsibility for the office of elder. And it was to take away the requirement (for a minister delegate) and leave it as an option. I believe that is more scriptural in terms of respect for an actual office, vs a calling to preach or to serve (minister) others. I believe that as pastors and preachers encourage this, that the church will become more spiritual and more mature. I don't hear too often the desire of preachers or pastors to work themselves out of a job, meaning that they have been able to train and encourage elders to carry on the work of ministry within their churches so successfully that those offices are truly respected in terms of their spiritual leadership, and not just as a governing board of trustees or administration of business affairs.
The interesting thing about the church order is that it does not forbid elders from administering sacraments, necessarily. But it makes an approval process unnecessarily onerous and convoluted, even though there is no (read NO) scriptural warrant for doing so. And the culture (which goes beyond the church order) frowns on such things, while scripture takes a back seat. And so we find an unneccessary and unbiblical reduction in honor for the office of elder. When we find a preacher who insists that one of the elders should read the form for lord's supper and break the bread and pour the wine, then I think that preacher will be doing his job of explaining the word as it relates to the sacrament, and to the office of elder.
Pastors and preachers and elders may have different roles. But elders are supposed to be apt to teach (and I don't think this means teaching about math or how to cook or how to change the oil in the car). When I read scripture, I read pastors being people within a church who care for the lost sheep and for the other sheep, and who lead their group to serve the lord. In other words, they are people who are part of that group, that take on that role. It seems to me there are several or even many pastors in a group, local church, local congregation, some of whom are chosen perhaps to become elders or preachers. I know there might be perhaps different ways of understanding that passage about pastors, but that is how I read it, and it would be good to at least entertain that possibility. Or at least we should assume that every elder ought to be considered to be a pastor to some degree? Practice saying that to the elders you come into contact with, or have a meeting with. Start calling them pastor so and so for six months. They will protest. Don't let that bother you. See if that gets them thinking differently.
I'm just trying to increase the participation and spiritual leadership of elders. And while there are several ways of doing this as I've suggested above, one way in terms of education, is to focus on educating leaders (elders and pastors), rather than only on the one path of trying to create leaders (I mean educating young seminarians and hope they become leaders). I like Henry's statement "we need to cutlivate Christian Leaders everywhere and in everyway possible."
Posted in: Online Classes From Calvin Seminary
So why has there been no discussion on proposed changes to Article 7? And how do we deal with a situation where a church planter is more qualified than a trained seminary graduate, to do the actual work of ministry, whether it is preaching, teaching, or leading? Does it matter? Or is it all about a paper certificate?
Legally, the government does not require a denominational certificate to verify or authenticate a minister's status when requested by a church, or does it? Or if it does, would this only apply to marriage and funeral certificates? Wouldn't stop a church from authorizing an elder to administer sacraments, preach, etc. Of course, it makes interactions with other churches more complicated, but if they authorize preaching, then it seems to me it would be their decision, though they would have to recognize that classis or synod has not authorized blanket approval, so they would be responsible for their own mistakes in that regard.
In this day and age, long distance education should be facilitated, and men over 40 should be eligible for it.