There are different perspectives on what it means to be an elder. I have heard sermons for retiring elders that advised these elders that in one sense they were still elders; they still provided spiritual leadership, they still had a responsibility to use their eldership talents to teach, to provide guidance and advice and leadership. They have been ordained, and not deposed, (and no article 17 for elders) so their qualifications and calling still stands. However, since the term is over, they are not officially part of the governing body. The tasks they might carry out are subject to the requests and approval of the elders who are serving their terms. What they can do is regulated by their council. Ultimately council also has the ability to determine the length of the terms of office as well. At the request of council, they could help to serve Lord's supper, or be part of the laying on of hands, or visit the sick, or be delegated to some organization or committee, or lead a service, or assist with some visits. But they are not responsible to attend council meetings, nor to initiate certain activities as council members are. They are not part of the board of directors aspect while they are past their term, and should not be voting on council matters.
At least this is how I would interpret the calling and tasks of "non-serving" elders, within the general description and limitations indicated by the church order. "Non-serving elders" is a misnomer, a poor term to use, and "retired" elders is also a poor term, an unscriptural term. Can anyone come up with a good term to use? Maybe we have to be satisfied with using poor terms for this?
It would be nice if we did not regard the primary task of elders to attend meetings and vote on things. Instead, we should regard their primary task as one of providing spiritual leadership; this would relate better to the qualifications as outlined in scripture, and would contribute more to the spiritual health and growth of the body of Christ.
I agree we shouldn't blame any confession, statement, declaration, testimony, creed, or discussion of it, for our own misbehaviour. But I am not sure why you made the statement. I have not seen anyone doing that. Other than one of the authors of it attempting to use the Belhar as justification for behaviour which is contrary to scripture. And it doesn't seem as if this co-author believes that the behaviour is actually "misbehaviour". Which merely demonstrates the lack of clarity of the Belhar.
Perhaps Mike your judgement that people have slipped into picking sides too quickly, is a bit misplaced. People will obviously have opinions on the appropriateness of a proposed new confession or testimony. That is as inevitable as the opinions of those who wrote and proposed it. It is during the discussion that these opinions either change or are confirmed. Usually the difference in opinions is not primarily based on the facts of the document itself, since often there is agreement on that. The difference in opinions is usually based on the standards applied to the facts, and the insights applied to the longterm impacts of the wording, and whether the wording is sufficiently appropriate and clear not to cause problems in the future, and whether adopting a particular statement in such an official way is appropriate in the context of need for other similar types of statements on different issues.
Mike, unity in Christ is a tenuous thing. Unity is in truth, and there is no real unity in untruth. Unity is in Christ, and there is no real unity in the trappings of religion. I can have unity with believers from various denominations, even if I do not have complete unity with them in their confessions, or practices, or interpretations of scripture. I can have unity with members of SDA, if they confess Christ as Saviour and Lord, even if I do not attend church with them, and even if they rest on Saturday and work on Sunday. But not unity in some of their ecclesiastical practice. I can have unity with a RC priest in understanding Christ's sacrifice, but not in his administration of the sacraments, or partial works righteousness. I can have unity with an RCA member in Christ's lordship and claim, but not in rca de-emphasis of christian education, or in their denominational positions on bearing "office", or on some other issues. I have unity with Baptists, Pentecostals, Alliance, in their dedication to scripture and their service to Christ, but not in their denial of the sacrament of baptism to infants of believers. ETC, etc. As individuals, we are all united in Christ, even when we are not united in a common "confession" or statement of faith (although the Creeds are pretty universal for Christians). Statements of faith divide at least as much as they unite. Therefore, adding more of them ought to be done very carefully, or preferably, not at all. Each one is a potential minefield. And to us, scripture is not inaccessible. Scripture itself provides our profession of faith, and our guide for living. Do we need to replace it with more official "faith statements"?
See? Steve, I told you there were different perspectives. Kathy's perspective is related to Synod. My perspective is related to council. But Kathy is correct in the sense that a "non-serving elder" cannot be a delegate, or have voting privileges, unless re-appointed as an elder by council, or having the term extended by council. So "non-serving" elders are not members of council.
But there is much more to being an elder than simply having voting privileges or delegation responsibilities. And these other tasks are the tasks of greater significance. The office of elder is much more than a mere administrative task. It is a calling by God to lead and teach spiritual truths and Godly living to the people of God, to demonstrate christian service, exercise admonition, promote evangelism, and supervise the preaching. This calling is confirmed by God's people but it is ultimately God's call. The "legal" part of it means that when the term is up, there is no more voting. But the general service and leadership part does not end. For that reason, elders can still lead services, even when they are not on council, provided they have the approval of council. They can still assist council with the supervision of preaching. They can still provide council with counsel and advice. And because council has the authority to make decisions, council can ask them as previously ordained "called" elders to carry out certain elder tasks or duties such as serving or supervising communion, laying on of hands, making a specific visit, or supervising preaching, or supervising a worship service when official elders are absent due to vacation or illness. Some of these things are rare circumstances. But there needs to be certainty about what council/consistory is asking them to do, or about approving their actions.
So don't totally discount your eldership. But recognize it needs to be subject to specific council decisions. Bu
Article 25 of the church order recognizes the principle that elders can be re-installed without requiring re-ordination, since they have been ordained previously. Article 25 also confirms that the council designates the term (or limited time) that elders shall serve. Presumably council can also change or extend this term from time to time as it sees fit, as appropriate to the circumstance and profit of the church. So councils have a couple options available to make delegation to official bodies possible if necessary.
Rod, I think your idea is a good one. You could volunteer to be the first guide for such a network forum. There are a variety of issues relating to planting churches, as well as to the significance of the role of commissioned pastors, which would be useful to discuss and come to an understanding or illumination upon.
Covenant CRC church in west Edmonton has had a community garden for several years. I have seen it a couple of times, and it looks nice. But I have no idea how they run it.
In future, it would be avisable to give all or part of such a gift in a later year, if the person is retiring, in order to reduce the impact on income taxes payable.
I wonder if the biggest issue sometimes is whether parents can find respite sometimes for their children when they need a break from constant daily care. Also what will happen to the child when the parents are too old or incapable of caring for them. I would suggest that churches or classis consider finding a way to provide an assisted living residence or facility that can provide a place for these situations. It might be particularly nice if such a facility is near or adjacent to the church, so that visiting and attending church is made much easier. Just a thought.
The irony and stupidity of such a 25% "visible" minority requirement becomes obvious, when you are working with minorities who are not obviously visible. I work with and have meetings with a variety of people who display a variety of appearance. Some are aboriginal or part aboriginal or metis who do not look significantly different than some old german or ukranian farmers, while others are more obvious. One individual seemed to be certainly aboriginal, but I discovered he was only about 1/8th aboriginal, 7/8 european ancestry. The child of a Japanese preacher and a Norwegian pianist; will this child satisfy the visible minority requirement based solely on appearance, or will he only half satisfy the 25% requirement? To really mess with the english language, I assume that we are not looking solely for those who are 1/4 blood visible minorities?
No matter how you slice it, this particular target makes ridicule of the notion that in Christ there is neither Greek nor Jew. If the best preachers, and the most spiritual and most biblical are all from India or Nigeria or Korea, then let the staff be 100% visible minority. But don't pick them for their color or lack of it.
Posted in: When a young person who's living a sinful lifestyle wants to make profession of faith; what's an appropriate response?
Colin, thanks for your comment. It is sometimes a difficult issue. Your comments are appreciated.
Posted in: Once an elder, always an elder?
There are different perspectives on what it means to be an elder. I have heard sermons for retiring elders that advised these elders that in one sense they were still elders; they still provided spiritual leadership, they still had a responsibility to use their eldership talents to teach, to provide guidance and advice and leadership. They have been ordained, and not deposed, (and no article 17 for elders) so their qualifications and calling still stands. However, since the term is over, they are not officially part of the governing body. The tasks they might carry out are subject to the requests and approval of the elders who are serving their terms. What they can do is regulated by their council. Ultimately council also has the ability to determine the length of the terms of office as well. At the request of council, they could help to serve Lord's supper, or be part of the laying on of hands, or visit the sick, or be delegated to some organization or committee, or lead a service, or assist with some visits. But they are not responsible to attend council meetings, nor to initiate certain activities as council members are. They are not part of the board of directors aspect while they are past their term, and should not be voting on council matters.
At least this is how I would interpret the calling and tasks of "non-serving" elders, within the general description and limitations indicated by the church order. "Non-serving elders" is a misnomer, a poor term to use, and "retired" elders is also a poor term, an unscriptural term. Can anyone come up with a good term to use? Maybe we have to be satisfied with using poor terms for this?
It would be nice if we did not regard the primary task of elders to attend meetings and vote on things. Instead, we should regard their primary task as one of providing spiritual leadership; this would relate better to the qualifications as outlined in scripture, and would contribute more to the spiritual health and growth of the body of Christ.
Posted in: Can unity be established under constraint?
I agree we shouldn't blame any confession, statement, declaration, testimony, creed, or discussion of it, for our own misbehaviour. But I am not sure why you made the statement. I have not seen anyone doing that. Other than one of the authors of it attempting to use the Belhar as justification for behaviour which is contrary to scripture. And it doesn't seem as if this co-author believes that the behaviour is actually "misbehaviour". Which merely demonstrates the lack of clarity of the Belhar.
Perhaps Mike your judgement that people have slipped into picking sides too quickly, is a bit misplaced. People will obviously have opinions on the appropriateness of a proposed new confession or testimony. That is as inevitable as the opinions of those who wrote and proposed it. It is during the discussion that these opinions either change or are confirmed. Usually the difference in opinions is not primarily based on the facts of the document itself, since often there is agreement on that. The difference in opinions is usually based on the standards applied to the facts, and the insights applied to the longterm impacts of the wording, and whether the wording is sufficiently appropriate and clear not to cause problems in the future, and whether adopting a particular statement in such an official way is appropriate in the context of need for other similar types of statements on different issues.
Posted in: Can unity be established under constraint?
Mike, unity in Christ is a tenuous thing. Unity is in truth, and there is no real unity in untruth. Unity is in Christ, and there is no real unity in the trappings of religion. I can have unity with believers from various denominations, even if I do not have complete unity with them in their confessions, or practices, or interpretations of scripture. I can have unity with members of SDA, if they confess Christ as Saviour and Lord, even if I do not attend church with them, and even if they rest on Saturday and work on Sunday. But not unity in some of their ecclesiastical practice. I can have unity with a RC priest in understanding Christ's sacrifice, but not in his administration of the sacraments, or partial works righteousness. I can have unity with an RCA member in Christ's lordship and claim, but not in rca de-emphasis of christian education, or in their denominational positions on bearing "office", or on some other issues. I have unity with Baptists, Pentecostals, Alliance, in their dedication to scripture and their service to Christ, but not in their denial of the sacrament of baptism to infants of believers. ETC, etc. As individuals, we are all united in Christ, even when we are not united in a common "confession" or statement of faith (although the Creeds are pretty universal for Christians). Statements of faith divide at least as much as they unite. Therefore, adding more of them ought to be done very carefully, or preferably, not at all. Each one is a potential minefield. And to us, scripture is not inaccessible. Scripture itself provides our profession of faith, and our guide for living. Do we need to replace it with more official "faith statements"?
Posted in: Once an elder, always an elder?
See? Steve, I told you there were different perspectives. Kathy's perspective is related to Synod. My perspective is related to council. But Kathy is correct in the sense that a "non-serving elder" cannot be a delegate, or have voting privileges, unless re-appointed as an elder by council, or having the term extended by council. So "non-serving" elders are not members of council.
But there is much more to being an elder than simply having voting privileges or delegation responsibilities. And these other tasks are the tasks of greater significance. The office of elder is much more than a mere administrative task. It is a calling by God to lead and teach spiritual truths and Godly living to the people of God, to demonstrate christian service, exercise admonition, promote evangelism, and supervise the preaching. This calling is confirmed by God's people but it is ultimately God's call. The "legal" part of it means that when the term is up, there is no more voting. But the general service and leadership part does not end. For that reason, elders can still lead services, even when they are not on council, provided they have the approval of council. They can still assist council with the supervision of preaching. They can still provide council with counsel and advice. And because council has the authority to make decisions, council can ask them as previously ordained "called" elders to carry out certain elder tasks or duties such as serving or supervising communion, laying on of hands, making a specific visit, or supervising preaching, or supervising a worship service when official elders are absent due to vacation or illness. Some of these things are rare circumstances. But there needs to be certainty about what council/consistory is asking them to do, or about approving their actions.
So don't totally discount your eldership. But recognize it needs to be subject to specific council decisions. Bu
Article 25 of the church order recognizes the principle that elders can be re-installed without requiring re-ordination, since they have been ordained previously. Article 25 also confirms that the council designates the term (or limited time) that elders shall serve. Presumably council can also change or extend this term from time to time as it sees fit, as appropriate to the circumstance and profit of the church. So councils have a couple options available to make delegation to official bodies possible if necessary.
Posted in: When a young person who's living a sinful lifestyle wants to make profession of faith; what's an appropriate response?
Thanks Dave and Jeff for your comments.
Posted in: Is Commissioned Pastor a separate office?
Rod, I think your idea is a good one. You could volunteer to be the first guide for such a network forum. There are a variety of issues relating to planting churches, as well as to the significance of the role of commissioned pastors, which would be useful to discuss and come to an understanding or illumination upon.
Posted in: How does a church successfully implement a Community Garden?
Covenant CRC church in west Edmonton has had a community garden for several years. I have seen it a couple of times, and it looks nice. But I have no idea how they run it.
Posted in: Is a Pastor's Retirement Gift Taxable?
In future, it would be avisable to give all or part of such a gift in a later year, if the person is retiring, in order to reduce the impact on income taxes payable.
Posted in: How do I prepare for the future for my child?
I wonder if the biggest issue sometimes is whether parents can find respite sometimes for their children when they need a break from constant daily care. Also what will happen to the child when the parents are too old or incapable of caring for them. I would suggest that churches or classis consider finding a way to provide an assisted living residence or facility that can provide a place for these situations. It might be particularly nice if such a facility is near or adjacent to the church, so that visiting and attending church is made much easier. Just a thought.
Posted in: Pastor Reimbursement of meals-Should his portion be a taxable benefit? (Canadian)?
Overtime Meals and Allowances Provided to
Employees
The CRA’s current administrative policy allows for a
non-taxable status of certain overtime meals or
reasonable allowances for overtime meals. This is the
case if the employee worked three or more hours of
overtime right after his or her scheduled hours of work;
and the overtime was infrequent and occasional in nature
(less than three times a week).
Concerns have been raised to indicate the economic
benefit received by the employee are often minor, the
meaning of a “reasonable allowance” is not always clear,
employer policies often allow for meal allowances after
two hours of overtime and the strict application of the
limitation of “less than three times in a week” sometimes
leads to certain inequitable results.
In order to address these issues, effective for the 2009
year, the CRA will consider no taxable benefit to arise
if:
• the value of the meal or meal allowance is
reasonable; a value of up to $17 will generally be
considered reasonable,
• the employee works two or more hours of overtime
right before or right after his or her scheduled hours
of work, and
• the overtime is infrequent and occasional in nature.
Less than three times a week will generally be
considered infrequent or occasional. This condition
may also be met where the meal or allowance is
provided three or more times per week on an
occasional basis to meet workload demands such as
major repairs or periodic financial reporting.
If overtime occurs on a frequent basis or becomes the
norm, the CRA considers the overtime meal allowances
to be a taxable benefit since they start taking on the
characteristics of additional remuneration. (CRA website). (CRA website(
Posted in: Diversity in Leadership Planning Group II report. What is the meaning of 'diversity'?
The irony and stupidity of such a 25% "visible" minority requirement becomes obvious, when you are working with minorities who are not obviously visible. I work with and have meetings with a variety of people who display a variety of appearance. Some are aboriginal or part aboriginal or metis who do not look significantly different than some old german or ukranian farmers, while others are more obvious. One individual seemed to be certainly aboriginal, but I discovered he was only about 1/8th aboriginal, 7/8 european ancestry. The child of a Japanese preacher and a Norwegian pianist; will this child satisfy the visible minority requirement based solely on appearance, or will he only half satisfy the 25% requirement? To really mess with the english language, I assume that we are not looking solely for those who are 1/4 blood visible minorities?
No matter how you slice it, this particular target makes ridicule of the notion that in Christ there is neither Greek nor Jew. If the best preachers, and the most spiritual and most biblical are all from India or Nigeria or Korea, then let the staff be 100% visible minority. But don't pick them for their color or lack of it.