Elizabeth, I appreciate your comments. They express a common perspective held by many. The problem is that we often seem to be "explaining' away the language of the church order. We turn good intentions into rules and regulations rather than suggestions and advice. This displays a lack of respect for individual congregations, and for local councils.
Certainly there are many reasons for congregations working together. Although in reality there also appear many reasons for some congregations to cut ties with a larger body. We need to be aware of when the congregations can work together, and when they need and require their individual ability to carry out their responsibilities.
We have a conundrum in our language when we describe ministry shares. We don't want to use the term "suggested contribution", and yet, that is what it is, since some churches meet it, others do not, and others exceed it. We implicitly admit they are not taxes or membership dues, but sometimes fail to be polite or considerate or respectful of the local church's responsibility to decide how to allocate its resources to various ministries, including ministry shares.
Elders and deacons will participate in classis when items are not couched in incomprehensible language, when shop talk and the club atmosphere that many pastors engender in classis and synod is eliminated, and when pastors encourage elders to speak, rather than pastors trying to imitate lawyers in their admittedly sometimes humorous and witty repartee. Classis is not a forum for pastors to outdo one another in their procedural acumen, or verbal gymnastics.
Over protection of our churches leads to churches without leaders, and to sick dependency on organizational structures, rather than on the Lord. I am not aware of an eleventh commandment anywhere that commands us to protect churches from trouble. We should provide the opportunity to help one another. We should also realize that rules initially intended to help and protect one another have unintended consequences to the spiritual maturity of the congregations. Too many rules makes the congregations progressively less mature in their spiritual lives. Eventually too many just live by the man-made rules and forgo making any significant decisions on their own.
I am not saying that common goals or hymnals or missions or relief organization is a bad thing. But we are always looking to add rules, rather than remove them, and we have professionalized the calling of the preacher, too much. We have created class distinctions and occupational distinctions that do not serve the cause of Christ.
Am I wrong or is it really true that we could not have classis and synod without the local churches? In other words, it is at the local church level that the huge majority of activity and life happens. This is where the word is preached, where catechism is taught, where songs are sung, where prayers are done, where people worship, where money is gathered. This is where communion happens, and where baptism happens, and sunday school reaches the children, and where bible studies, and choir, and cadets, and gems. This is where the grass is cut, where toilets are cleaned, and cookies are served with coffee and juice, where bulletins are printed, and where potlucks and visiting occurs.
This is where real governance happens on a weekly and daily basis. Where elders decide who will preach next, who will do the nursing home and senior's lodge services, and which community events the church will participate in. Where the church decides what preacher to call, which deacons to install, the carpet in the hall, the ministry in the mall. Where they decide which properties to buy, which mortgage to sign, which contractor to hire, which preacher to resign.
So does the church order reflect this? Or is the church order not really a church order at all, but a denominational order, a denominational guide? If you looked at the church order, and divided it by topics, would these topics be an accurate reflection of what a church should be focussing its attention on. Or is it telling us something about the health of our denomination because of the focus of the document.
Again I say, find a way to reduce the document length by half, by consolidating, removing, reducing. You will be amazed how much healthier the whole denomination will become.
As far as baptism and weddings, these are separate issues. If a justice of the peace can perform a wedding, then it is obvious that the ability to preach is not required in order to perform a wedding. This is a separate issue from the issue of elder leadership. However, there is no legal requirement even in the church order to prevent an elder from giving a message or preaching at a wedding, is there? And in a cursory look at the church order, I did not even see a reference there to ministers conducting weddings in the tasks section, but I probably missed it?
Baptism should be understood well by every elder. It is a basic sacrament. It does not require a PHD or a degree to understand it or explain it. If an elder does not understand it, how did they become an elder? Is it made more sacred by preventing elders from administering baptism? Does scripture demand that elders be ipso facto prevented from administering baptism?
I understand we want to make sure that preaching, and baptism, and communion meals do not become misused or abused. At one time, we did not allow people from other denominations to participate in lord's supper (we "guarded" the table, which some reformed churches still do). Then we examined people briefly before the communion service. Today, it is mostly a matter of a warning from the pulpit that goes along with the invitation for born again christians to participate. It is unlikely that preaching or baptism or lord's supper will be abused simply because elders do it, no more than when pastors do it today, as long as there is reasonable supervision by church councils.
In general, you will get better visions from individual churches, than you will from Classis. It is because churches are where the rubber meets the road. Classis may have some benefit also as a vision, and for some common activities, but will often be limited by the general requirement for consensus or agreement. Visions imposed from on high are usually not nearly as effective as those which are owned by the congregations and people who will impliment them and develop the groundwork.
Just as synod gets distracted with Belhar and other esoteric activities, classis also might get distracted by non-productive activities. This is less likely at a church level, in my opinion.
Every congregational meeting we have is conducted in a circle seating arrangement. This usually involves about 20 people. It works well. And it worked quite well on the one occasion when we had a very stressful special congregational meeting. Even when people don't talk, you can better read their expressions and body language.
Absolutely a good point. We want to normalize stuff often to the point of idolizing it. It's not about being normal, its about being worshipful, scriptural, obedient, trusting and loving. It is possible that our normal is very good, or very bad.
Some of classis collective efforts are very admirable and useful. Sometimes however too much perennial support can provide the umpt to keep the rubber spinning in circles. Not that I don't appreciate the support of classis at times. But just like children who are not encouraged to make their own decisions often not developing their initiative, innovation, and responsibilities, so sometimes churches seem to abdicate responsibility for their own actions based on the requirement of the "rules". Fellowship is one thing, but hierarchical rules in the churches is another thing entirely, even when imposed under the guise of democracy.
As a small church, we have generally stopped having elections for elders and deacons. Rather, we have affirmation votes by the congregation. We do not seem to have difficulty finding elders even though we have never had females for nomination. I think possibly the reason, is that elders are seen to be leaders, and are respected for their work. The fact that they are elders does not mean that they stop being sunday school teachers, lead services in the seniors home, join in with the band or choir, or whatever else they are doing. As elders and deacons, they are expected to be leaders, to teach, to pray, to lead services, to decide on offerings and promote mission efforts, to take responsibility for various activities, to make decisions. They may or may not make home visits, but their decision is basically respected. Perhaps the role of elders and former elders in leading services, reading or preparing sermons also helps to highlight the role of elders, as this happens often in our church; between 25-50% of services are led by elders/deacons.
More respect for the office of elder might help. For example, there is no biblical reason why elders could not administer Lord's supper without the help of a paid pastor. There is no biblical reason for not encouraging more elders to lead bible studies and prepare sermons (under guidance of consistory). There is an overabundance of distinctions made between the role of pastors/ministers and the role of elders, and this is unscriptural, and leads to an abandonment of christian leadership responsibility.
One of the distinctions is that "miniisters' have a lifelong calling while 'elders" do not. This is artificial, unbiblical, elitist, and makes it seem that elders can barely carry out their duties for two or three years before begging for relief. While there may be some benefit to having on-duty and off-duty elders, there is no scriptural basis for removing them from office simply because time has run out or they will not be required to attend meetings, or re-installing them as if being re-ordained, simply because they are again attending meetings.
I've been at churches where the preachers do not administer the Lord's Supper, but elders do that instead. And at churches where as many as four or five other people (possibly elders/deacons) will lead in prayers and where elders give the blessing and benediction, rather than the pastor. This reinforces the respect for the office of elder, which is really the office that receives the most attention in scripture in the new testament. (Not the office of pastor.) And all offices are referred to as ministries (service), not just the preacher/pastor.
Ken, wow! You are replying to a pretty old post. But that's okay. My main point was that legal laws of consent cause major problems for Christians. Often people assume that if something is legal, it is therefore okay. Okay with God, they think. This is far from the truth. When the government suggests that the age of 14 or 16 is the legal age of consent for sex, they are contradicting the whole idea of keeping sex in marriage. Thru the legal consent idea, they also promote the idea of sex without marriage, and they promote the idea of sex for young teenagers, as long as they do it with each other.
Christians too often get blindsided by this message, and the law does not support the authority and responsibility of parents who want to protect their children, and who want to respect sex and marriage. Sex becomes like something that tastes good in a grocery store, and the children have to have it. And the law says they can buy it when they become 14 or 16. The parental ability for involvement in things like abortion, or birth control, or managing sexual activity of their young children, is often not honored at all in the school system, or by the legal system.
I don't think Beth was wrong to point it out what the law says. But it needs to be put in the right context. Nor does it deserve the priority of attention. Government standards are not always biblical, christian standards, and we need to be aware of that.
Steve you didn't say whether the 200 members were adults or included all the children. If it is 200 total, with about 100 adults, then you could probably expect about 25 or so to be able to serve as leaders, (elders/deacons). This might depend on the maturity of the church. Some younger churches are more mature than some older churches... Anyway, if you have six elders, they could rotate every four years and you would be okay. Occasionally a new elder would come in, and an older elder would pass away, or would simply be a "retired" elder, helping only on specific occasions when requested.
The twelfth apostle to replace Judas was elected, but it seems other elders were appointed, although scripture does not indicate what methods were used to appoint them.
Training happens partly at congregational meetings, where procedures and leadership are demonstrated. Then it happens also at the initial consistory meetings. But the real training for the spiritual leadership, must be a lifelong thing, starting while children are learning about scripture and participating in a relationship with their Lord and Saviour. It is then that they learn about caring for others, initiating projects that build up the community of faith, as it builds up their family in their christian response. The training should occur in sunday school, catechism classes and boys and girls clubs, where they learn about leadership and responsibility and learn about the significance of the practices of their church, and about the various aspects of worship.
The building of relationships also ought to occur before, perhaps long before an individual is appointed as a leader/elder. Then the responsibility of eldership will naturally outflow from the previous roles and relationships.
Posted in: Classis and Church Order
Elizabeth, I appreciate your comments. They express a common perspective held by many. The problem is that we often seem to be "explaining' away the language of the church order. We turn good intentions into rules and regulations rather than suggestions and advice. This displays a lack of respect for individual congregations, and for local councils.
Certainly there are many reasons for congregations working together. Although in reality there also appear many reasons for some congregations to cut ties with a larger body. We need to be aware of when the congregations can work together, and when they need and require their individual ability to carry out their responsibilities.
We have a conundrum in our language when we describe ministry shares. We don't want to use the term "suggested contribution", and yet, that is what it is, since some churches meet it, others do not, and others exceed it. We implicitly admit they are not taxes or membership dues, but sometimes fail to be polite or considerate or respectful of the local church's responsibility to decide how to allocate its resources to various ministries, including ministry shares.
Elders and deacons will participate in classis when items are not couched in incomprehensible language, when shop talk and the club atmosphere that many pastors engender in classis and synod is eliminated, and when pastors encourage elders to speak, rather than pastors trying to imitate lawyers in their admittedly sometimes humorous and witty repartee. Classis is not a forum for pastors to outdo one another in their procedural acumen, or verbal gymnastics.
Over protection of our churches leads to churches without leaders, and to sick dependency on organizational structures, rather than on the Lord. I am not aware of an eleventh commandment anywhere that commands us to protect churches from trouble. We should provide the opportunity to help one another. We should also realize that rules initially intended to help and protect one another have unintended consequences to the spiritual maturity of the congregations. Too many rules makes the congregations progressively less mature in their spiritual lives. Eventually too many just live by the man-made rules and forgo making any significant decisions on their own.
I am not saying that common goals or hymnals or missions or relief organization is a bad thing. But we are always looking to add rules, rather than remove them, and we have professionalized the calling of the preacher, too much. We have created class distinctions and occupational distinctions that do not serve the cause of Christ.
Posted in: Classis and Church Order
Am I wrong or is it really true that we could not have classis and synod without the local churches? In other words, it is at the local church level that the huge majority of activity and life happens. This is where the word is preached, where catechism is taught, where songs are sung, where prayers are done, where people worship, where money is gathered. This is where communion happens, and where baptism happens, and sunday school reaches the children, and where bible studies, and choir, and cadets, and gems. This is where the grass is cut, where toilets are cleaned, and cookies are served with coffee and juice, where bulletins are printed, and where potlucks and visiting occurs.
This is where real governance happens on a weekly and daily basis. Where elders decide who will preach next, who will do the nursing home and senior's lodge services, and which community events the church will participate in. Where the church decides what preacher to call, which deacons to install, the carpet in the hall, the ministry in the mall. Where they decide which properties to buy, which mortgage to sign, which contractor to hire, which preacher to resign.
So does the church order reflect this? Or is the church order not really a church order at all, but a denominational order, a denominational guide? If you looked at the church order, and divided it by topics, would these topics be an accurate reflection of what a church should be focussing its attention on. Or is it telling us something about the health of our denomination because of the focus of the document.
Again I say, find a way to reduce the document length by half, by consolidating, removing, reducing. You will be amazed how much healthier the whole denomination will become.
Just thinking.
Posted in: Classis and Church Order
As far as baptism and weddings, these are separate issues. If a justice of the peace can perform a wedding, then it is obvious that the ability to preach is not required in order to perform a wedding. This is a separate issue from the issue of elder leadership. However, there is no legal requirement even in the church order to prevent an elder from giving a message or preaching at a wedding, is there? And in a cursory look at the church order, I did not even see a reference there to ministers conducting weddings in the tasks section, but I probably missed it?
Baptism should be understood well by every elder. It is a basic sacrament. It does not require a PHD or a degree to understand it or explain it. If an elder does not understand it, how did they become an elder? Is it made more sacred by preventing elders from administering baptism? Does scripture demand that elders be ipso facto prevented from administering baptism?
I understand we want to make sure that preaching, and baptism, and communion meals do not become misused or abused. At one time, we did not allow people from other denominations to participate in lord's supper (we "guarded" the table, which some reformed churches still do). Then we examined people briefly before the communion service. Today, it is mostly a matter of a warning from the pulpit that goes along with the invitation for born again christians to participate. It is unlikely that preaching or baptism or lord's supper will be abused simply because elders do it, no more than when pastors do it today, as long as there is reasonable supervision by church councils.
Food for thought.
Posted in: Classis and Church Order
In general, you will get better visions from individual churches, than you will from Classis. It is because churches are where the rubber meets the road. Classis may have some benefit also as a vision, and for some common activities, but will often be limited by the general requirement for consensus or agreement. Visions imposed from on high are usually not nearly as effective as those which are owned by the congregations and people who will impliment them and develop the groundwork.
Just as synod gets distracted with Belhar and other esoteric activities, classis also might get distracted by non-productive activities. This is less likely at a church level, in my opinion.
Posted in: What's Normal
Try to use the opposites, antonyms in the same way? Are abnormal and extraordinary also synonyms? or do they carry different connotations?
Posted in: Restorative Practices at Classis
Every congregational meeting we have is conducted in a circle seating arrangement. This usually involves about 20 people. It works well. And it worked quite well on the one occasion when we had a very stressful special congregational meeting. Even when people don't talk, you can better read their expressions and body language.
Posted in: What's Normal
Absolutely a good point. We want to normalize stuff often to the point of idolizing it. It's not about being normal, its about being worshipful, scriptural, obedient, trusting and loving. It is possible that our normal is very good, or very bad.
Posted in: Classis and Church Order
Some of classis collective efforts are very admirable and useful. Sometimes however too much perennial support can provide the umpt to keep the rubber spinning in circles. Not that I don't appreciate the support of classis at times. But just like children who are not encouraged to make their own decisions often not developing their initiative, innovation, and responsibilities, so sometimes churches seem to abdicate responsibility for their own actions based on the requirement of the "rules". Fellowship is one thing, but hierarchical rules in the churches is another thing entirely, even when imposed under the guise of democracy.
Posted in: Why be an Elder? In Response to Wendy
As a small church, we have generally stopped having elections for elders and deacons. Rather, we have affirmation votes by the congregation. We do not seem to have difficulty finding elders even though we have never had females for nomination. I think possibly the reason, is that elders are seen to be leaders, and are respected for their work. The fact that they are elders does not mean that they stop being sunday school teachers, lead services in the seniors home, join in with the band or choir, or whatever else they are doing. As elders and deacons, they are expected to be leaders, to teach, to pray, to lead services, to decide on offerings and promote mission efforts, to take responsibility for various activities, to make decisions. They may or may not make home visits, but their decision is basically respected. Perhaps the role of elders and former elders in leading services, reading or preparing sermons also helps to highlight the role of elders, as this happens often in our church; between 25-50% of services are led by elders/deacons.
More respect for the office of elder might help. For example, there is no biblical reason why elders could not administer Lord's supper without the help of a paid pastor. There is no biblical reason for not encouraging more elders to lead bible studies and prepare sermons (under guidance of consistory). There is an overabundance of distinctions made between the role of pastors/ministers and the role of elders, and this is unscriptural, and leads to an abandonment of christian leadership responsibility.
One of the distinctions is that "miniisters' have a lifelong calling while 'elders" do not. This is artificial, unbiblical, elitist, and makes it seem that elders can barely carry out their duties for two or three years before begging for relief. While there may be some benefit to having on-duty and off-duty elders, there is no scriptural basis for removing them from office simply because time has run out or they will not be required to attend meetings, or re-installing them as if being re-ordained, simply because they are again attending meetings.
I've been at churches where the preachers do not administer the Lord's Supper, but elders do that instead. And at churches where as many as four or five other people (possibly elders/deacons) will lead in prayers and where elders give the blessing and benediction, rather than the pastor. This reinforces the respect for the office of elder, which is really the office that receives the most attention in scripture in the new testament. (Not the office of pastor.) And all offices are referred to as ministries (service), not just the preacher/pastor.
Posted in: Con-cent: When Your Consent Isn't Worth a Penny
Ken, wow! You are replying to a pretty old post. But that's okay. My main point was that legal laws of consent cause major problems for Christians. Often people assume that if something is legal, it is therefore okay. Okay with God, they think. This is far from the truth. When the government suggests that the age of 14 or 16 is the legal age of consent for sex, they are contradicting the whole idea of keeping sex in marriage. Thru the legal consent idea, they also promote the idea of sex without marriage, and they promote the idea of sex for young teenagers, as long as they do it with each other.
Christians too often get blindsided by this message, and the law does not support the authority and responsibility of parents who want to protect their children, and who want to respect sex and marriage. Sex becomes like something that tastes good in a grocery store, and the children have to have it. And the law says they can buy it when they become 14 or 16. The parental ability for involvement in things like abortion, or birth control, or managing sexual activity of their young children, is often not honored at all in the school system, or by the legal system.
I don't think Beth was wrong to point it out what the law says. But it needs to be put in the right context. Nor does it deserve the priority of attention. Government standards are not always biblical, christian standards, and we need to be aware of that.
Posted in: Con-cent: When Your Consent Isn't Worth a Penny
Hello Ken. Actually, common law does reflect moral law in most cases.
Government laws forbid theft, murder, fraud (lying), which are all part of
common law. It also upholds marriage, although presently it does so very
poorly and minimalistically, by treating adultery and abuse as grounds for
divorce. However, in today's easy ability to get divorce, and in
someplaces permitting homo"marriage" there is also a denigration of
marriage, so it is a mixed bag.
Actually, I don't blame the law itself. I blame government and society,
even including myself for our lack of maintaining reasonably good laws.
However, we also need to find a balance between freedoms and laws in
society. I do not think we ought to make laws about church attendance for
example, nor forcing people to pray. On the other hand, it is good for us
to make laws about shutting down most stores one day a week, or having not
more than one wife.
Posted in: Why be an Elder? In Response to Wendy
Steve you didn't say whether the 200 members were adults or included all the children. If it is 200 total, with about 100 adults, then you could probably expect about 25 or so to be able to serve as leaders, (elders/deacons). This might depend on the maturity of the church. Some younger churches are more mature than some older churches... Anyway, if you have six elders, they could rotate every four years and you would be okay. Occasionally a new elder would come in, and an older elder would pass away, or would simply be a "retired" elder, helping only on specific occasions when requested.
The twelfth apostle to replace Judas was elected, but it seems other elders were appointed, although scripture does not indicate what methods were used to appoint them.
Training happens partly at congregational meetings, where procedures and leadership are demonstrated. Then it happens also at the initial consistory meetings. But the real training for the spiritual leadership, must be a lifelong thing, starting while children are learning about scripture and participating in a relationship with their Lord and Saviour. It is then that they learn about caring for others, initiating projects that build up the community of faith, as it builds up their family in their christian response. The training should occur in sunday school, catechism classes and boys and girls clubs, where they learn about leadership and responsibility and learn about the significance of the practices of their church, and about the various aspects of worship.
The building of relationships also ought to occur before, perhaps long before an individual is appointed as a leader/elder. Then the responsibility of eldership will naturally outflow from the previous roles and relationships.