I rather agree with Paul Boice on this, although I understand Eric's concern. Paying attention to the youth does not mean pandering to them; it means treating them as a gift and responsibility from God. God is not a special God of the youth, just like He is not a special god to the poor. God is special to everyone. But God gives the elders, olders, and more mature a responsibility to ensure that they are providing the education and instruction and welcome and respect for the youth and youngers who are God's treasure, loved by God. We must allow these children of whatever age, to come to Christ and sit on his lap, and receive His love. This should be part of the wisdom of the elders and the tradition we create. If we do not do that, then we do not deserve the respect for either the elders, nor for the traditions.
It is not that the youth are more important than the elders. But they are not less important either, to Christ.
As far as a council goes, if there is no distinction in governance between deacons and elders, then there is no need for classes to make a distinction either. But some churches do make a distinction. Still it is interesting that the same word we have translated as deacon comes from diakonos, which is also the word that is often translated as "minister". The term elder as used in the church comes from the greek term presbyteros, although the word episkopos (overseer) also is used to describe the task of the elders. In our church, the elders have the dual roles of elder and deacon, somewhat similar to the very early church. This is mostly because we are a small church.
I don't know why anyone would be upset by being a junior elder. Or a junior pastor. Or a junior deacon. Unless pride gets in the way. I get more upset by elders being restricted from fulfilling their roles. I get upset when elders want to pay someone else to do their jobs.
Lots of good comments in this article, Neil. But perhaps too many things at once. What would you focus on? What would you see as the priority at this time? What takes us beyond the normal kind of common sense things, such as small vs large groups, technology, training, etc. to the significance of structural impediments or opportunities that we ought to focus on?
Doug, you have made some very good points which made me think. Dollars as votes is an interesting and valid concept, for example. I agree with your summary of things we do badly and things we do well.
I would just like to add one concept, and that is to discover the difference between spending and investing. Buying things for oneself to simply consume and enjoy (although yes we can share these things with our neighbors), compared to investing in innovation and employment opportunities. Both aspects have an influence on what is produced (due to dollar votes), but in one case you can be pro-active, having a greater influence on the outcome. Buying siding for your house is different than investing in a company that produces siding, and buying movies is different than investing in a Christian movie company.
I particularly like your point that spending can be too much when it is irresponsible and beyond your means. If you spend so much on consumer goods that you have nothing left for retirement, that is probably not a good way to balance your financial life.
Doug, your story is encouraging and uplifting. I also attended Dordt for a couple years, Philosophy/English, prior to your stay there. It was a great way to begin the educational journey that ended at secular university. It provided a lot of analytical tools.
Your story shows the possibilities of urban living, of making an impact, instead of just being impacted upon. Of letting God use you, rather than us using God for our own purposes. In my case, I haven't done anything near what you have done. We live in a rural area, and people are quite self-sufficient, where the municipality even plows out rural driveways in winter for free (after the roads are cleared). Other than ocassionally taking my snow blower to the local outdoor ice-rink, and taking my 80 inch mower to the church lot (2.5 acres), we have not done a lot. We did put a new roof on a low-income neighbor's house recently with donated labor, but that's all I can recall. Okay, I just remembered that I use my snow-blower to clean out a neighbor's drive last winter so that the water truck could bring in water. And this fall, I sprayed another neigbor's garden since she had surgery and could not keep the thistle controlled last summer. Can you imagine Canada Thistle about seven feet tall?
Sometimes it seems easier to just do things yourself. But I am thinking more lately about how we might make an impact by actually employing people, especially people who do not always have highly employable resumes, or accomodating schedules and personalities. I'm finding this a much more complicated and tricky endeavor; I really appreciate the business people who seem to do this so easily and automatically. I wish I had learned to do this. Employment is in many ways the best way of helping some people, but is often more difficult than just doing things for them. And then maybe for us to find ways of making employment more holistic, so that people do not just get paid some low wage for providing a certain number of hours of work, but rather that we can become interested in their whole life, giving some guidance and extra assistance where it is needed (and presumably appreciated).
I think the last paragraph says it all. People, including young people, are attracted to churches that mean what they say, that really believe in something and are not just going thru the motions. They are attracted to churches that look for sacrifice, that are more concerned about serving God than about serving themselves. For churches that look outward towards God and others, rather than towards a comfortable pew. For alive people, not for half-dead people. A church filled with the Spirit, will be able to share that same Spirit. And the Spirit is irresistable.
While synod may at times have a broader focus than the local churches, thus leading to a different perspective on some issues, it may also lack a perspective on the local issues, churches, real people on the ground. Because of this, it sometimes focusses on organizational issues rather than witness, on structure rather than on spirit, on paper and words rather than action. The Belhar is a clear example of this. To be clear on this, adopting the Belhar sounds like "action", but it is not action. It is words on paper. Will adoption of the Belhar change anything in the life and worship of the crc believer? Will it impact the north american christian in any way? Have any examples of these proposed changes in our daily life (as a direct result of these words on paper) been given?
While I appreciate your attention to perseverance, and the need for it for elders and deacons during their terms , I would suggest that the analogy of the seventh inning would be better used to apply to the life of office bearers when they have finished their terms, and they feel they can relax, have a beer, and sit back and let someone else do the work. The real game is not that of bearing "office" for a limited term, but the real game is life itself, given by God, of which a term in office is just one part. The seventh inning probably applies more appropriately to the time when elders become older and think they can retire and relax and let someone else do it. That is the time when the game can be lost, if not for themselves, then for their children and grandchildren and for their neighbors. That is the seventh inning that has probably most impacted the lack of growth in the church, and the lack of spiritual maturity in many of those whom they have potential influcence on and witness to. My thoughts.
Preaching the gospel will have an influence on community. If there is no influence on community, then perhaps the gospel has not been truly and comprehensively preached. While a church as an institution does not vote, a sermon distinguishing on the biblical distincitions and significance attached to human life vs animal life might influence the voting of its members.
Preaching the gospel might influence the relative importance the members of a church place on sending money to foreign missions, vs spending time and money on poor nearby neighborhoods.
Preaching the gosple might influence the energy of church members directed towards establishing christian schools and colleges and summer christian bible camps.
But the church elders may not be the school board members, and the church pastor will not go to the foreign missions, and the church elders may not be the ones who set up a help center for the destitute next door.
Thus the distinction between the institutional authority of the church elders, vs the influence of the church on its members to live Godly lives in their community. In some cases, there may be a seemless blend between the two, and in other cases, clear distinctions need to be made.
Terry, I agree with your comments. I think I was merely elaborating on the consequences of the changes... Even while the flexibility of terms is possible under the proposed changes, most people would not likely consider it. As I mentioned previously, I think the proposed wording is much better than the old. However, my point is a bit different, and perhaps can be summarized as this: Why is it necessary to combine the offices of elder and deacon into one sole article in the church order while there are 18 articles relating to pastors/preachers, and while articles for evangelist and other preacher pathways must be separate? If we can combine this flexibility into one article, why can we not do the same for preachers? And if we cannot do it for preachers, then what is the implication of not doing this for elders and deacons? Are these roles somehow less important, less significant, less defined? I maintain that the roles and qualifications of elder and deacon are more specifically described in scripture than the roles of preacher and pastor.
Some suggested changes however: "
“The elders and deacons shall serve for lengths of termsas determined by council or consistory, which is appropriate and flexible for both continuity and succession of ministry leadership, accountability for ministry outcomes and the regular infusion and flourishing of gifts as the Spirit endows each generation."
The article 25b does not need to include the phrase, "with the minister(s)" since the ministers are deemed to be an elder, so it is a redundancy. The minister does not do this in proxy for the other elders, which is sometimes assumed to be the case, and so this implication should be removed.
I don't have a problem in a way with this article combining elders and deacons, but it is totally inconsistent with the way 18 articles are put together for ministers, associates, evangelists, and thus does not follow the principle that the offices are equal in honor. Therefore, unless and until the articles for ministers, evangelists and associates are combined in a much more comprehensive fashion, this article should be divided into two articles: one for elders and one for deacons.
Article 25c should have one small change: The deacons shall be leaders in representing and administering the mercy of Christ......
The reason is that we should all do that, including pastors, and evangelists and prophets and elders, but the deacons have a specific role to lead in it.
"That elders (and deacons-separate article) who have finished their specific term on consistory/council will retain their titles and calling unless deposed, and can be called on in specific instances to assist council with elder and deacon related official and unofficial tasks when council determines a need for such assistance."
Posted in: The Most Important Members of Our Congregation
I rather agree with Paul Boice on this, although I understand Eric's concern. Paying attention to the youth does not mean pandering to them; it means treating them as a gift and responsibility from God. God is not a special God of the youth, just like He is not a special god to the poor. God is special to everyone. But God gives the elders, olders, and more mature a responsibility to ensure that they are providing the education and instruction and welcome and respect for the youth and youngers who are God's treasure, loved by God. We must allow these children of whatever age, to come to Christ and sit on his lap, and receive His love. This should be part of the wisdom of the elders and the tradition we create. If we do not do that, then we do not deserve the respect for either the elders, nor for the traditions.
It is not that the youth are more important than the elders. But they are not less important either, to Christ.
Posted in: Deacons: An Elder Training Ground
As far as a council goes, if there is no distinction in governance between deacons and elders, then there is no need for classes to make a distinction either. But some churches do make a distinction. Still it is interesting that the same word we have translated as deacon comes from diakonos, which is also the word that is often translated as "minister". The term elder as used in the church comes from the greek term presbyteros, although the word episkopos (overseer) also is used to describe the task of the elders. In our church, the elders have the dual roles of elder and deacon, somewhat similar to the very early church. This is mostly because we are a small church.
I don't know why anyone would be upset by being a junior elder. Or a junior pastor. Or a junior deacon. Unless pride gets in the way. I get more upset by elders being restricted from fulfilling their roles. I get upset when elders want to pay someone else to do their jobs.
Posted in: Leadership and Organizational Structure
Lots of good comments in this article, Neil. But perhaps too many things at once. What would you focus on? What would you see as the priority at this time? What takes us beyond the normal kind of common sense things, such as small vs large groups, technology, training, etc. to the significance of structural impediments or opportunities that we ought to focus on?
Posted in: An Anthem for Black Friday
Doug, you have made some very good points which made me think. Dollars as votes is an interesting and valid concept, for example. I agree with your summary of things we do badly and things we do well.
I would just like to add one concept, and that is to discover the difference between spending and investing. Buying things for oneself to simply consume and enjoy (although yes we can share these things with our neighbors), compared to investing in innovation and employment opportunities. Both aspects have an influence on what is produced (due to dollar votes), but in one case you can be pro-active, having a greater influence on the outcome. Buying siding for your house is different than investing in a company that produces siding, and buying movies is different than investing in a Christian movie company.
I particularly like your point that spending can be too much when it is irresponsible and beyond your means. If you spend so much on consumer goods that you have nothing left for retirement, that is probably not a good way to balance your financial life.
Posted in: An Anthem for Black Friday
Doug, your story is encouraging and uplifting. I also attended Dordt for a couple years, Philosophy/English, prior to your stay there. It was a great way to begin the educational journey that ended at secular university. It provided a lot of analytical tools.
Your story shows the possibilities of urban living, of making an impact, instead of just being impacted upon. Of letting God use you, rather than us using God for our own purposes. In my case, I haven't done anything near what you have done. We live in a rural area, and people are quite self-sufficient, where the municipality even plows out rural driveways in winter for free (after the roads are cleared). Other than ocassionally taking my snow blower to the local outdoor ice-rink, and taking my 80 inch mower to the church lot (2.5 acres), we have not done a lot. We did put a new roof on a low-income neighbor's house recently with donated labor, but that's all I can recall. Okay, I just remembered that I use my snow-blower to clean out a neighbor's drive last winter so that the water truck could bring in water. And this fall, I sprayed another neigbor's garden since she had surgery and could not keep the thistle controlled last summer. Can you imagine Canada Thistle about seven feet tall?
Sometimes it seems easier to just do things yourself. But I am thinking more lately about how we might make an impact by actually employing people, especially people who do not always have highly employable resumes, or accomodating schedules and personalities. I'm finding this a much more complicated and tricky endeavor; I really appreciate the business people who seem to do this so easily and automatically. I wish I had learned to do this. Employment is in many ways the best way of helping some people, but is often more difficult than just doing things for them. And then maybe for us to find ways of making employment more holistic, so that people do not just get paid some low wage for providing a certain number of hours of work, but rather that we can become interested in their whole life, giving some guidance and extra assistance where it is needed (and presumably appreciated).
Posted in: Psalms, Elders and Pastoral Care
Psalm 103, Psalm 46, Psalm 100, Psalm 95, Psalm 127, Psalm 24, Psalm 1. Especially Psalm 46.
Posted in: Young Adults in the CRC
I think the last paragraph says it all. People, including young people, are attracted to churches that mean what they say, that really believe in something and are not just going thru the motions. They are attracted to churches that look for sacrifice, that are more concerned about serving God than about serving themselves. For churches that look outward towards God and others, rather than towards a comfortable pew. For alive people, not for half-dead people. A church filled with the Spirit, will be able to share that same Spirit. And the Spirit is irresistable.
Posted in: A Classis Embodies What the Belhar Points To
While synod may at times have a broader focus than the local churches, thus leading to a different perspective on some issues, it may also lack a perspective on the local issues, churches, real people on the ground. Because of this, it sometimes focusses on organizational issues rather than witness, on structure rather than on spirit, on paper and words rather than action. The Belhar is a clear example of this. To be clear on this, adopting the Belhar sounds like "action", but it is not action. It is words on paper. Will adoption of the Belhar change anything in the life and worship of the crc believer? Will it impact the north american christian in any way? Have any examples of these proposed changes in our daily life (as a direct result of these words on paper) been given?
Posted in: The Seventh Inning Stretch
While I appreciate your attention to perseverance, and the need for it for elders and deacons during their terms , I would suggest that the analogy of the seventh inning would be better used to apply to the life of office bearers when they have finished their terms, and they feel they can relax, have a beer, and sit back and let someone else do the work. The real game is not that of bearing "office" for a limited term, but the real game is life itself, given by God, of which a term in office is just one part. The seventh inning probably applies more appropriately to the time when elders become older and think they can retire and relax and let someone else do it. That is the time when the game can be lost, if not for themselves, then for their children and grandchildren and for their neighbors. That is the seventh inning that has probably most impacted the lack of growth in the church, and the lack of spiritual maturity in many of those whom they have potential influcence on and witness to. My thoughts.
Posted in: Church as Gift for Neighborhood Transformation
Preaching the gospel will have an influence on community. If there is no influence on community, then perhaps the gospel has not been truly and comprehensively preached. While a church as an institution does not vote, a sermon distinguishing on the biblical distincitions and significance attached to human life vs animal life might influence the voting of its members.
Preaching the gospel might influence the relative importance the members of a church place on sending money to foreign missions, vs spending time and money on poor nearby neighborhoods.
Preaching the gosple might influence the energy of church members directed towards establishing christian schools and colleges and summer christian bible camps.
But the church elders may not be the school board members, and the church pastor will not go to the foreign missions, and the church elders may not be the ones who set up a help center for the destitute next door.
Thus the distinction between the institutional authority of the church elders, vs the influence of the church on its members to live Godly lives in their community. In some cases, there may be a seemless blend between the two, and in other cases, clear distinctions need to be made.
Posted in: Diakonia Remixed: Terms for Deacons
Terry, I agree with your comments. I think I was merely elaborating on the consequences of the changes... Even while the flexibility of terms is possible under the proposed changes, most people would not likely consider it. As I mentioned previously, I think the proposed wording is much better than the old. However, my point is a bit different, and perhaps can be summarized as this: Why is it necessary to combine the offices of elder and deacon into one sole article in the church order while there are 18 articles relating to pastors/preachers, and while articles for evangelist and other preacher pathways must be separate? If we can combine this flexibility into one article, why can we not do the same for preachers? And if we cannot do it for preachers, then what is the implication of not doing this for elders and deacons? Are these roles somehow less important, less significant, less defined? I maintain that the roles and qualifications of elder and deacon are more specifically described in scripture than the roles of preacher and pastor.
Some suggested changes however: "
“The elders and deacons shall serve for lengths of terms as determined by council or consistory, which is appropriate and flexible for both continuity and succession of ministry leadership, accountability for ministry outcomes and the regular infusion and flourishing of gifts as the Spirit endows each generation."
The article 25b does not need to include the phrase, "with the minister(s)" since the ministers are deemed to be an elder, so it is a redundancy. The minister does not do this in proxy for the other elders, which is sometimes assumed to be the case, and so this implication should be removed.
I don't have a problem in a way with this article combining elders and deacons, but it is totally inconsistent with the way 18 articles are put together for ministers, associates, evangelists, and thus does not follow the principle that the offices are equal in honor. Therefore, unless and until the articles for ministers, evangelists and associates are combined in a much more comprehensive fashion, this article should be divided into two articles: one for elders and one for deacons.
Article 25c should have one small change: The deacons shall be leaders in representing and administering the mercy of Christ......
The reason is that we should all do that, including pastors, and evangelists and prophets and elders, but the deacons have a specific role to lead in it.
I hope this makes it more clear.
Posted in: Diakonia Remixed: Terms for Deacons
One other possible addition:
"That elders (and deacons-separate article) who have finished their specific term on consistory/council will retain their titles and calling unless deposed, and can be called on in specific instances to assist council with elder and deacon related official and unofficial tasks when council determines a need for such assistance."