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.
Paul, its unfortunate that you used the term "bishop" in your article. I believe the term sometimes translated as bishop is usually translated as "overseer", and attributed to the office of elder. I believe the greek word was translated into "bishop" because it suited the church structure of the time, otherwise it would have simply been translated as overseer. It would have been better that you used the term "leader" to make your point, since it is true that not all overseers or elders are leaders; or at least that there are also leaders of leaders. It would seem that for an improved classis, what is really needed are not administrators, nor even overseers, but rather leaders. These leaders might be overseers, or they might be deacons, or they might simply be those who encourage and stimulate a new approach.
In organizational parlance, it is common to realize that there are managers, and then there are leaders, and then ocassionally there are those who are both. Forcing the concept or (even unofficial) title of bishop on such a leader may be a disincentive to take up a leadership role.
However, your general encouragement to look with fresh eyes is a good thing.
The revised re-wording is better than the old, but I would suggest separating the elders and deacons into separate articles. There may be benefits in treating them somewhat differently in terms of roles, appointments, etc.
Paul, maybe the solution is in the mindset. Changing the focus and atmosphere of classis from an approval or hierarchical mindset to a cooperative venture mindset might bring about much of what you are looking for. To do that, classes need to eliminate as much as possible all the unnecessary approvals and formal processes that distract from the focus on a cooperative venture. If bringing a city to Christ, or Christ to the city is the focus, then 90% of the time should be spent on that, including prayer for it.
The reason for splitting these offices into two articles is simply to highlight their significance, and the fact that they might be treated differently. Something like having different articles for evangelists and preachers/pastors. Their tasks are different, thus the titles, and since the tasks are different, the terms might also be different, as decided by the local church. One of the possibilities that churches should consider, is that elder terms and deacons terms could be flexible, so that terms are not always fixed, but might range between three to five years depending on the projects or involvement of particular elders or deacons. Thus there would be a discussion near the end of the year as to whether an elder or deacon would resign his active duty or continue on for another year. This might be a useful policy for some churches to consider in order to benefit from the activities of particular office-bearers. There are also other mechanisms, such as designating certain office-bearers as contributors and workers but non-voting, which could also be used. Flexibility is the key, and the tasks done by them rather than the strict adherence to the arbitrary terms ought to be the focus and determining factor.
In our church our office bearers are both elders and deacons; they serve a dual role and this is another way to be flexible.
I should point out that the principle for the congregation to be meaningfully empowered (per deMoor's commentary) to choose its leaders/officebearers does not appear to be applied to the position of pastor/preacher in the same way, as the church order apparently does not have term limits for that? It's a good principle to some degree but we do seem to apply it in an adhoc fashion rather than be consistent with it.
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."
In actual fact, the flexibility is already there, since the councils can designate the length of the terms and there is no absolute requirement that all terms be the same length. There also does not seem to be anything preventing councils from designating indefinate terms, or ten year terms, etc., nor stopping them from making a distinction between serving elders and deacons on council, and those who are not serving on council. For example, having deacons on ten year terms, but serving on council for only three years... the point is even though there is lots of flexibility, it is hidden in the text and thus reduces the apparent options or considerations. It would seem more transparent just to highlight how much flexibility the councils really have to work with this as needed.
I think that the church order does not prohibit the assist council concept, but it implies a special process is required, or that "former" elders merely assist and can not function as elders in the sense that they can be designated with elder authority to carry out certain tasks and delegations and representations. This implication is mixed and can be overcome by convolutions, but why not just make it plain and simple?
Thanks to those involved in setting up the network, the technical management as well as the guides and the contributors. It is particularly valuable to those who are busy, who are far from GR, far from the center of activities, and yet are interested in the contribution of the CRC to the walk of faith in the body of Christ. It provides a way for unfiltered and relatively unfettered discussion and sharing on the issues that are on the hearts. Thankyou. God Bless you. May you enjoy this Christmas time.
Delbert, your comments were very enlightening and encouraging. Also highlighting the vast difference between LDS growth in the millions, and CRC yellowstone in the thousands. We seem so often to be willing to adopt the practices of other cultures that do not lead to growth; perhaps we should adopt some of the practices of the LDS and use them to lead others to the Jesus of the Bible. Wow!! wouldn't that be something?!
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: Bishops in the CRC
Paul, its unfortunate that you used the term "bishop" in your article. I believe the term sometimes translated as bishop is usually translated as "overseer", and attributed to the office of elder. I believe the greek word was translated into "bishop" because it suited the church structure of the time, otherwise it would have simply been translated as overseer. It would have been better that you used the term "leader" to make your point, since it is true that not all overseers or elders are leaders; or at least that there are also leaders of leaders. It would seem that for an improved classis, what is really needed are not administrators, nor even overseers, but rather leaders. These leaders might be overseers, or they might be deacons, or they might simply be those who encourage and stimulate a new approach.
In organizational parlance, it is common to realize that there are managers, and then there are leaders, and then ocassionally there are those who are both. Forcing the concept or (even unofficial) title of bishop on such a leader may be a disincentive to take up a leadership role.
However, your general encouragement to look with fresh eyes is a good thing.
Posted in: Diakonia Remixed: Terms for Deacons
The revised re-wording is better than the old, but I would suggest separating the elders and deacons into separate articles. There may be benefits in treating them somewhat differently in terms of roles, appointments, etc.
Posted in: Fat Bureaucracies vs Flat and Fluid Networks
Paul, maybe the solution is in the mindset. Changing the focus and atmosphere of classis from an approval or hierarchical mindset to a cooperative venture mindset might bring about much of what you are looking for. To do that, classes need to eliminate as much as possible all the unnecessary approvals and formal processes that distract from the focus on a cooperative venture. If bringing a city to Christ, or Christ to the city is the focus, then 90% of the time should be spent on that, including prayer for it.
Posted in: Diakonia Remixed: Terms for Deacons
The reason for splitting these offices into two articles is simply to highlight their significance, and the fact that they might be treated differently. Something like having different articles for evangelists and preachers/pastors. Their tasks are different, thus the titles, and since the tasks are different, the terms might also be different, as decided by the local church. One of the possibilities that churches should consider, is that elder terms and deacons terms could be flexible, so that terms are not always fixed, but might range between three to five years depending on the projects or involvement of particular elders or deacons. Thus there would be a discussion near the end of the year as to whether an elder or deacon would resign his active duty or continue on for another year. This might be a useful policy for some churches to consider in order to benefit from the activities of particular office-bearers. There are also other mechanisms, such as designating certain office-bearers as contributors and workers but non-voting, which could also be used. Flexibility is the key, and the tasks done by them rather than the strict adherence to the arbitrary terms ought to be the focus and determining factor.
In our church our office bearers are both elders and deacons; they serve a dual role and this is another way to be flexible.
I should point out that the principle for the congregation to be meaningfully empowered (per deMoor's commentary) to choose its leaders/officebearers does not appear to be applied to the position of pastor/preacher in the same way, as the church order apparently does not have term limits for that? It's a good principle to some degree but we do seem to apply it in an adhoc fashion rather than be consistent with it.
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."
Posted in: Diakonia Remixed: Terms for Deacons
In actual fact, the flexibility is already there, since the councils can designate the length of the terms and there is no absolute requirement that all terms be the same length. There also does not seem to be anything preventing councils from designating indefinate terms, or ten year terms, etc., nor stopping them from making a distinction between serving elders and deacons on council, and those who are not serving on council. For example, having deacons on ten year terms, but serving on council for only three years... the point is even though there is lots of flexibility, it is hidden in the text and thus reduces the apparent options or considerations. It would seem more transparent just to highlight how much flexibility the councils really have to work with this as needed.
I think that the church order does not prohibit the assist council concept, but it implies a special process is required, or that "former" elders merely assist and can not function as elders in the sense that they can be designated with elder authority to carry out certain tasks and delegations and representations. This implication is mixed and can be overcome by convolutions, but why not just make it plain and simple?
Posted in: Give Some Christmas Cheer!
Thanks to those involved in setting up the network, the technical management as well as the guides and the contributors. It is particularly valuable to those who are busy, who are far from GR, far from the center of activities, and yet are interested in the contribution of the CRC to the walk of faith in the body of Christ. It provides a way for unfiltered and relatively unfettered discussion and sharing on the issues that are on the hearts. Thankyou. God Bless you. May you enjoy this Christmas time.
John
Posted in: Life in the Candidate Waiting Room
Good points, Brian Tebben.
Posted in: What's a Classis for Anyhow?
Delbert, your comments were very enlightening and encouraging. Also highlighting the vast difference between LDS growth in the millions, and CRC yellowstone in the thousands. We seem so often to be willing to adopt the practices of other cultures that do not lead to growth; perhaps we should adopt some of the practices of the LDS and use them to lead others to the Jesus of the Bible. Wow!! wouldn't that be something?!