The original deacons were appointed because a badly needed job was being neglected, and needed doing. There was no question about purpose, or about what they needed to do next. Do you ever wonder whether sometimes, in some churches, deacons are just looking for something to do...? Just going through formalistic motions? Rather than knowing and seeing the need right in front of them, long before even becoming deacons? So the question should be asked, if deacons were not appointed, how much difference would it make to your church? could you operate fairly easily without them? If all your widows and orphans are taking care of themselves, or being cared for by their family, and if there are no definably poor people in the church, are deacons necessary? Is making an offering list and collecting spontaneous offerings enough justification for the existence of the office of deacons? Just asking....
And I'm reminded of the great and extensive sermon preached by the deacon Stephen, as he preached Christ, rather than defending or protecting himself or concentrating only on material distributions. Are the deacons in your church prepared to do the same thing as Stephen?
So I'm hoping that deacons are writing the devotionals for the deacons....
From an elder's point of view, there is too much a sense of entitlement by pastors, when it comes to classis. Vanderlught's comments point out some of the tendencies, which are problems. And de Ruiter's comment highlights the sense of obligation, which is related to the entitlement of preachers. . Classis is not a meeting of a professional association or club. Classis is not a pastor's conference, but it is often treated that way This is wrong.
Classis is a delegated church government function. Therefore it should highlight the role of the elders. They should receive the pre-eminence, and should be held responsible for the results; not the pastors/preachers. Consideration should be given to having pastors there as advisors, not as voters. Consideration should be given to having non-pastors as chairs of classis, as happens at most similar types of association/organization meetings, where hired staff are not given the roles of chair, vice chair, etc.
It should not be necessary for pastors to be concerned about hospitality towards elders; rather it could perhaps be the other way around. It is a sad thing to assume that pastors have so much control over classis that they need as a group to worry about hospitality towards elders. The church order should not stipulate that each church needs to delegate a minister and an elder to classis, but rather that two elders should go. If one of those happens to be a pastor/preacher, fine, but if not, that's fine too. And then a bored preacher such as deRuiter could just as well concentrate on those things where his gifts lie, rather than trying to be a business administrator in classis. He might prefer to attend a pastor's conference, rather than an elders classis.
And if they want to attend a classical examination, they can always do that without being a delegate.
Next week, I will be entering another term of eldership, my third in this church, my fifth term in all. When I think of an installation or ordination service, I do not think of this as an ordination service for myself, but rather a re-instatement, a re-installation, going back on active duty, officially as opposed to unofficially. But for another younger person who will be a new elder, who will be ordained, I would like some special consideration; a laying on of hands of previous elders, a special prayer perhaps by several elders; maybe a song of his choice. Maybe a special bible passage read, chosen by him. A special blessing conveyed by the other elders. That would make his ordination meaningful.
Good post, Neil. I would add that the authority of the elders to be involved in worship ought to be recognized, encouraged, and increased. If they regulate the worship, then it should also be possible for them to lead worship. That means that elders should often be encouraged to at least do some of the simple symbolic things such as pronounce the blessing, lead in prayer, make the special announcements, lead the sacraments, perform the installations and ordinations. And more elders should be encouraged to make and present their 'once-in-a-lifetime" sermon, the sermon that becomes their testimony as well as a direct encouragement to the church that they are leading.
Their main function is not regulation, but leading, as well as ruling. "Regulation" is merely one part of that leadership.
Some of that leadership continues even when they are presently not "serving" elders. Although they may not be attending council meetings when not on "active duty", they are still called to be spiritual leaders.
Perhaps there is less a sense of entitlement than there was thirty years ago. But what I mean by entitlement, includes the idea that it is pastors rather than elders who chair classis. It includes the fact that pastors/preachers are distinguished from elders, even though they are elders. At classis, pastors are not treated as elders, but as pastors. The real legitimacy of pastors at classis, as voting members, is the fact that they are elders. So why are they not treated as elders then? Why make a requirement that one delegate must be a preacher, and the other an elder? This is from an organizational and regulatory point of view. I know that the intent sometimes in this is to get more elder involvement, but ....
The other thing is that preachers have usually been trained at seminary. How much effort do they put into training elders, or assisting elders to take responsibility for their roles? Even though preachers may be capable of leading, why do they not enhance the leadership of the other elders, by guiding, modelling, teaching, and letting go?
The entitlement of preachers at classis is imbedded in the inconceivability of most pastors if not all pastors to decide not to attend classis as a delegate. Even though 90% of elders do not attend classis, it would not be conceivable if 90% of preachers did not attend classis. That is entitlement. Is it a lack of confidence in the elders? Is it laziness by the elders (condoned or encouraged by the preachers)?
The idea that used to prevail that the preacher/minister/pastor had to preach two sermons every Sunday, teach all the catechism classes, chair the consistory meetings, lead the entire service from beginning to end, still has some vestiges lingering in the idea that classis could not function without preachers leading and running it.
I certainly agree that often the elder and deacon delegates allow the "clergy" to dominate. But if the "clergy" are truly pastoral pastors, they will not permit this to happen. They will find ways of ensuring that pastors do not usurp their roles, and that elders take on their responsibility seriously.
(Yes the conflict of interest is interesting, even though usually the general welfare is considered by all.)
One possibility is simply that pastors do not vote at classis. That they act as advisors, and not as delegates. This means they speak at the request of the elders, when requested.
I do agree that at candidate examinations the preachers should take on a leading role. But considering that candidates have already passed their seminary exams, it might also be fruitful to consider having non-preacher elders taking on some of the lead in the classical exam as well. While not all elders are capable, we ought still to consider trusting the elders more. And it would help to change the impression that there are two different and separate clubs existing within classis.
Well Richard, your comment carries it further than I intended, I think. I didn't really say that pastors (in general or always) should stay home from classis. I merely indicated the possibililty that pastors should not be designated as delegates with the same intensity that they are today, and this might be a good thing. The fact that pastors are not delegates does not prevent them from attending classis, just as other elders who are not delegates may also still attend. And if a pastor does not attend at all, there is no need for an inquisition on the matter at classis, just as there is no need for all kinds of questions about why elder A did not attend while elder B did attend.
The only reason that a pastor can actually be delegated is that he must be an elder first. Yet, we still instill a feeling of two classes of elders in our psyche. We need to work to change this. And the only way to change this, is by having more churches send pastors as advisors or observers rather than as delegates, and sending two other elders as delegates. (By advisors, I mean giving advice to their elders when requested by their elders, not by classis as a whole.)
To encourage more elder participation, make sure either 1. that the same elders attend classis for two or three years. 2. that pastors do not attend classis every time. 3. That if pastors attend, they do not have a vote 4. That when pastors speak on a topic, they must first be requested to speak by their elders on a particular topic. 5. That it is the elders who are expected to speak generally first on the issues.
These policies would force the elders to become conversant with the issues, and it would ensure that the elders would discuss issues that are relevant to the congregations. It would also encourage the role of the elders in leadership.
Oh, one more thing. do not use the terms "lay" and "clergy". Elders do not lay down on the job, or should not. Clergy is not a term that should be used in reference to church governance; it simply means hired preachers. It is not because they are hired that they are involved in governance; they are involved in governance in their role as elders.
Posted in: Why Your Pastor Hates Classis
This (by vanderlught) is the best synopsis of classis I have ever seen. congratulations and thanks!
Posted in: Deacon Training Curriculum - Is It A Good Idea?
The original deacons were appointed because a badly needed job was being neglected, and needed doing. There was no question about purpose, or about what they needed to do next. Do you ever wonder whether sometimes, in some churches, deacons are just looking for something to do...? Just going through formalistic motions? Rather than knowing and seeing the need right in front of them, long before even becoming deacons? So the question should be asked, if deacons were not appointed, how much difference would it make to your church? could you operate fairly easily without them? If all your widows and orphans are taking care of themselves, or being cared for by their family, and if there are no definably poor people in the church, are deacons necessary? Is making an offering list and collecting spontaneous offerings enough justification for the existence of the office of deacons? Just asking....
And I'm reminded of the great and extensive sermon preached by the deacon Stephen, as he preached Christ, rather than defending or protecting himself or concentrating only on material distributions. Are the deacons in your church prepared to do the same thing as Stephen?
So I'm hoping that deacons are writing the devotionals for the deacons....
Posted in: Why Your Pastor Hates Classis
From an elder's point of view, there is too much a sense of entitlement by pastors, when it comes to classis. Vanderlught's comments point out some of the tendencies, which are problems. And de Ruiter's comment highlights the sense of obligation, which is related to the entitlement of preachers. . Classis is not a meeting of a professional association or club. Classis is not a pastor's conference, but it is often treated that way This is wrong.
Classis is a delegated church government function. Therefore it should highlight the role of the elders. They should receive the pre-eminence, and should be held responsible for the results; not the pastors/preachers. Consideration should be given to having pastors there as advisors, not as voters. Consideration should be given to having non-pastors as chairs of classis, as happens at most similar types of association/organization meetings, where hired staff are not given the roles of chair, vice chair, etc.
It should not be necessary for pastors to be concerned about hospitality towards elders; rather it could perhaps be the other way around. It is a sad thing to assume that pastors have so much control over classis that they need as a group to worry about hospitality towards elders. The church order should not stipulate that each church needs to delegate a minister and an elder to classis, but rather that two elders should go. If one of those happens to be a pastor/preacher, fine, but if not, that's fine too. And then a bored preacher such as deRuiter could just as well concentrate on those things where his gifts lie, rather than trying to be a business administrator in classis. He might prefer to attend a pastor's conference, rather than an elders classis.
And if they want to attend a classical examination, they can always do that without being a delegate.
Food for serious thought.
Posted in: Multiply Your Ministry
Okay, what's an example of self promoting vanity and infectious pretension that pervades the internet, and how does your article differ from that? :o)
Posted in: Ordination and Installation Services
Next week, I will be entering another term of eldership, my third in this church, my fifth term in all. When I think of an installation or ordination service, I do not think of this as an ordination service for myself, but rather a re-instatement, a re-installation, going back on active duty, officially as opposed to unofficially. But for another younger person who will be a new elder, who will be ordained, I would like some special consideration; a laying on of hands of previous elders, a special prayer perhaps by several elders; maybe a song of his choice. Maybe a special bible passage read, chosen by him. A special blessing conveyed by the other elders. That would make his ordination meaningful.
Posted in: The Elder, Worship and the Church Order
Good post, Neil. I would add that the authority of the elders to be involved in worship ought to be recognized, encouraged, and increased. If they regulate the worship, then it should also be possible for them to lead worship. That means that elders should often be encouraged to at least do some of the simple symbolic things such as pronounce the blessing, lead in prayer, make the special announcements, lead the sacraments, perform the installations and ordinations. And more elders should be encouraged to make and present their 'once-in-a-lifetime" sermon, the sermon that becomes their testimony as well as a direct encouragement to the church that they are leading.
Their main function is not regulation, but leading, as well as ruling. "Regulation" is merely one part of that leadership.
Some of that leadership continues even when they are presently not "serving" elders. Although they may not be attending council meetings when not on "active duty", they are still called to be spiritual leaders.
Posted in: Why Your Pastor Hates Classis
Perhaps there is less a sense of entitlement than there was thirty years ago. But what I mean by entitlement, includes the idea that it is pastors rather than elders who chair classis. It includes the fact that pastors/preachers are distinguished from elders, even though they are elders. At classis, pastors are not treated as elders, but as pastors. The real legitimacy of pastors at classis, as voting members, is the fact that they are elders. So why are they not treated as elders then? Why make a requirement that one delegate must be a preacher, and the other an elder? This is from an organizational and regulatory point of view. I know that the intent sometimes in this is to get more elder involvement, but ....
The other thing is that preachers have usually been trained at seminary. How much effort do they put into training elders, or assisting elders to take responsibility for their roles? Even though preachers may be capable of leading, why do they not enhance the leadership of the other elders, by guiding, modelling, teaching, and letting go?
The entitlement of preachers at classis is imbedded in the inconceivability of most pastors if not all pastors to decide not to attend classis as a delegate. Even though 90% of elders do not attend classis, it would not be conceivable if 90% of preachers did not attend classis. That is entitlement. Is it a lack of confidence in the elders? Is it laziness by the elders (condoned or encouraged by the preachers)?
The idea that used to prevail that the preacher/minister/pastor had to preach two sermons every Sunday, teach all the catechism classes, chair the consistory meetings, lead the entire service from beginning to end, still has some vestiges lingering in the idea that classis could not function without preachers leading and running it.
Is this the role of preachers?
Posted in: Why Your Pastor Hates Classis
I certainly agree that often the elder and deacon delegates allow the "clergy" to dominate. But if the "clergy" are truly pastoral pastors, they will not permit this to happen. They will find ways of ensuring that pastors do not usurp their roles, and that elders take on their responsibility seriously.
(Yes the conflict of interest is interesting, even though usually the general welfare is considered by all.)
One possibility is simply that pastors do not vote at classis. That they act as advisors, and not as delegates. This means they speak at the request of the elders, when requested.
I do agree that at candidate examinations the preachers should take on a leading role. But considering that candidates have already passed their seminary exams, it might also be fruitful to consider having non-preacher elders taking on some of the lead in the classical exam as well. While not all elders are capable, we ought still to consider trusting the elders more. And it would help to change the impression that there are two different and separate clubs existing within classis.
Posted in: Why Your Pastor Hates Classis
Yeah, me too. Although my son is trying to teach me to play the violin.
Accapella is my best bet. Good thing its not about me.....
Posted in: Why Your Pastor Hates Classis
Well Richard, your comment carries it further than I intended, I think. I didn't really say that pastors (in general or always) should stay home from classis. I merely indicated the possibililty that pastors should not be designated as delegates with the same intensity that they are today, and this might be a good thing. The fact that pastors are not delegates does not prevent them from attending classis, just as other elders who are not delegates may also still attend. And if a pastor does not attend at all, there is no need for an inquisition on the matter at classis, just as there is no need for all kinds of questions about why elder A did not attend while elder B did attend.
The only reason that a pastor can actually be delegated is that he must be an elder first. Yet, we still instill a feeling of two classes of elders in our psyche. We need to work to change this. And the only way to change this, is by having more churches send pastors as advisors or observers rather than as delegates, and sending two other elders as delegates. (By advisors, I mean giving advice to their elders when requested by their elders, not by classis as a whole.)
Elders learn by doing. Let them do.
Posted in: Why Synod Needs Classis
To encourage more elder participation, make sure either 1. that the same elders attend classis for two or three years. 2. that pastors do not attend classis every time. 3. That if pastors attend, they do not have a vote 4. That when pastors speak on a topic, they must first be requested to speak by their elders on a particular topic. 5. That it is the elders who are expected to speak generally first on the issues.
These policies would force the elders to become conversant with the issues, and it would ensure that the elders would discuss issues that are relevant to the congregations. It would also encourage the role of the elders in leadership.
Posted in: Why Synod Needs Classis
Oh, one more thing. do not use the terms "lay" and "clergy". Elders do not lay down on the job, or should not. Clergy is not a term that should be used in reference to church governance; it simply means hired preachers. It is not because they are hired that they are involved in governance; they are involved in governance in their role as elders.