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.
Dutch, your earlier comment about the difference between classis and synod.... the difference is mainly in that synod is supposed to act according to the direction of the classis reps, and thus operates at a different scale than classis. So it is not really that much different in governance, other than the scale and scope. Even the Board of Trustees is supposed to operate under the guidance and direction of the group of classical reps, ultimately .
The problem is not so much the process, but the degree to which congregational freedoms are lost, or congregational responsibilities are abdicated under the application of hierarchy, etc. For example the language of forms used for calling a pastor requires a classical approval. This is not advice for a church to seek classical approval, but rather it is a requirement for a church to have the signature of a counselor appointed by classis. Invariably the counselor will be a pastor, rather than an elder, and will change from a counselor to an "approver". It is not wrong to suggest the opportunity of a counselor, but it is wrong for classis (or synod) to demand such a thing.
Classis has its opportunity for approval at ordination examinations. No one understands the needs of a local church as well as the elders who govern it. When the elders are unsure, they will ask for assistance.
This is just one example of the misuse of a church order, and the inappropriate language and demands of our church order.
There is also an inordinate proportion of attention paid to 'ministers" compared to elders and deacons in the church order, most of which relates to a minister's position, rather than a minister's ministry. So there is much concern about procedure to become a minister, about when a minister can be "let go", or called, or retired, or whether he can still be called a minister if preaching in another denomination, etc., etc. I suspect much of this is because people are trying to determine eligibility for the pension fund. But if we were to use the same logic and apply it to elders, we would realize the irony of all these articles in the church order. There is an aspect of "professionalism" of ministers imbedded in the church order, which leads to an inappropriate distinction from minsterial associates and elders.
We talk about the need for Belhar to make us aware of racism, but perhaps we need a "Belhar" to help us deal with the innappropriate hierarchies and elitism and class structure which the church order promotes between its various ministries and offices and governing bodies. This goes far beyond doing "everything in a fitting and orderly way", and is not consistent with scripture in its description of ministries and offices.
Elizabeth is suggesting further conversation on this might be useful. So I thought I would reply to you in more detail.
My perspective lately, is that we seem to sometimes be more attached to the church order, and follow it more rigorously, than we do our confessions. I may be wrong, but this is an impression. It should be the other way around, if we believe in our priorities. So I agree, it is a human construct for practical purposes.
Yes, this order changes. But it changes by adding rules or revising rules, never by condensing or coalescing or reducing rules. We all need some rules. But how many? I suggest it would be an admirable goal to attempt to reduce the length of the church order by 50%. That process would have an amazing concentrating effect, and would weed out some of the weeds in the order.
The purpose of the church order? A framework? Perhaps. But the real purpose should be to glorify God through the worship and working of his people. When you say that the opportunity for abuse is greater for ministers, do you mean to ministers or by ministers? Is the order then just a safe church policy? And why would elders be a threat to order?
I think the reasoning is wrong. The church order is to guide, not to protect. A pension fund should follow the church order, not direct the church order. The nomenclature about ministers being ministers or not when they do not have a congregation, or when working in another denomination is inappropriate. Being a minister, is really about doing ministering, not just about being something. The scriptures, and common sense, tells us that gifts are only recognized in christians when they are used and operating; but we have turned the church order into a credentials document for preachers (among other things). Do not misunderstand; I appreciate preachers and pastors very much. But from a governance point of view, it should be the elders that are the essence of the governance, according to scripture.
The symbolism that goes with a 'minister of the word and sacraments" has mystified the pastor/preache/minister. The original itent of the word minister was "servant" or service, but practice has changed this idea and this word in its connotation.
It is improper and unscriptural in my opinion, to restrict the giving of blessings and benedictions to pastors, for example. The elders ought to be doing this as well. And perhaps doing this instead of the preachers, just to emphasize their role. It is improper for councils to think that only pastors can lead the congregation in the sacrament of Lord's Supper. It would be advantageous for the entire body of Christ, if the preacher sat down with the rest of the people, and the elders adminstered this sacrament. I've seen this done in other churches, and a light-bulb turned on in my head.
One church I attended once had no pastors identified. It identified only elders on its bulletin. And the elders would preach; they were preachers. But the nomenclature followed their understanding of authority and scripture. The term minister was supposed to apply to almost every Christian, anyone who would minister to others, whether by preaching, admonishment, providing food, clothing, comfort or prayer. So pastor is a better term. But again, scriptures talks of pastors, not pastor, implying that the term applied to people who were pastoral, leaders, shepherds, caring for the flock, and not to a particular official position.
Our church order has become baggage that is difficult to shed. This is most evident in the philosophy that when collective wisdom decides a certain process would prevent a possible future problem, a rule must be established. Much like the government forcing everyone to wear a helmet when riding a bicycle, the church order begins to prescribe hierarchical procedures for individual churches under the guise of preventing apostasy, and invoking the principle of "decently and in good order". But the irony is that when two professors decide to invoke their academic freedom to talk about evolution, which impinges more on the confessions than on the church order, it is often the church order and procedures and academic freedom that becomes the topic of discussion more than the actual issue of the interpretation of Genesis 1.
I know that pastors do not have a corner on "shop talk". But they and everyone else, including some elders need to respect the office and duty of all the elders to participate and carry out their responsibility, and to use language that is comprehensible, and to leave space. Some pastors treat classis as a retreat and an opportunity to meet people who do what they do. If they worked in their congregations with the other elders in the proper way, they would not feel this great need, since it would be met more in their congregations.
Picking on pastors only, is not really fair. Preachers and official pastors have a great calling, and have much to offer. Elders must be eager to serve the Lord and demonstrate their own leadership. A few different things in classis and worship would help this to happen. Open the box and think differently. Make a rule that ministers should never serve as president of classis. If you can't find an elder to lead it, then don't have it. Make a rule that preachers should never proclaim the blessing or the benediction. Make a rule that elders, not pastors, administer Lord's supper. Make a rule that elders, not pastors, should install new elders and deacons. Make a rule that elders, not pastors, should proclaim the ordination of a new preacher. Make a rule that every elder should preach at least one sermon in his life, or teach one bible study (with some assistance, perhaps). Give it a thought. And if you have objections, ask yourself why you would object to this. Is it because of order? Is it fear? Or because of the human tendency to want to follow mystified human beings?
The church order does not do what it says, in some cases. It wants to be all things to all people sometimes.
So it says that the authority of classis and synod is delegated. But then in the process of that delegation of authority, it allows the larger body to dictate to the congregations. It makes sense to have a delegated authority to deal with the confessions, and some joint projects, such as missions or a seminary. It does not make sense to remove the authority of congregations to choose its own pastors, wage scales, pension plans, services, ministries. It does not make sense to require congregations to do things that they should decide on their own to do. Suggestions and advice should not be turned into requirements, since that means that the authority of the congregations is removed; they have lost the authority to decide. Just because it is a joint document, doesn't mean that it should contradict itself. So the language of the church order should be cleaned up to reflect that the authority is delegated and that classis and synod should not be lording it over the congregations in terms of their policies and procedures.
The church order also says that the offices are equal in honor. However, this is mere lip service, and the church order contradicts itself here also. Again, the church order should be cleaned up to reflect that the offices are equal in honor. The great distinctions between pastors, elders, preachers, evangelists, associates etc., should be removed. Elders should be made responsible for pronouncing the blessing before services, and benedictions after. Elders should be ordaining the pastors and evangelists. Elders should be leading the lord's supper. More elders should be preaching a sermon ocassionally, which the church order could encourage rather than hinder. This is not to take anything away from the pastors and preachers, but to emphasize the significance of the other offices.
The roles of pastors, preachers, evangelists and associates could all be combined into one description, since they all do pretty well the same thing. Some pastors are more similar to some associates than they are to other pastors, who do not even pastor at a particular church, for example. Some pastors are evangelists, and some evangelists are really pastors. The distinctions are superfluous and artificial, and are usually not based on function but on academic credentials or other artificial ordination criteria.
The demand by classis that a certain split for elders or pastors ought to exist as representatives. Why not take that out of there? Why not honor the authority of the local church to make that decision? If they want to send two elders or two pastors, or two deacons, or two evangelists, or two associates, let them. Make them responsible for their own choices.
Find a way to reduce or remove the endless articles about when a minister is a minister or is not, or can be loaned or not, and find a way to remove the stigma of article 17. Reduce, remove, consolidate. It will make for a healthier church.
So here is a small place to start. Work at eliminating the contradictions.
I realize that I raise some very uncomfortable issues for some people. For example, when I suggest that elders rather than preachers should pronounce the blessing and benediction, I am certain that many people are uncomfortable. The reason I suspect they are uncomfortable, is that I have not yet heard anyone disagreeing with that statement, nor agreeing with it either. So my guess is that they know that I am right, that there is no reason why elders could not do so; yet, they do not want to state their agreement either, because they somehow "feel" that a preacher should do those things. There is little knowledge, and much custom and superstition attached to some of these practices. We live in a way as to contradict our confessions and our church order (which contradicts itself). We do so in ignorance and superstition, which is tolerated and encouraged by many preachers and pastors, because they want the trappings and aura that our human customs brings. I believe that has reduced the strength and witness of our churches, and has encouraged the "dumbing down" of our membership.
I would be surprised that I will get a significant response to even this single point. Even though I am willing to consider other perspectives.
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.
Sometimes people give legal consent when they shouldn't be giving consent. It is all nice to figure out what the government says about consent, but what does scripture say about consent. Is it okay to give consent to fornication? to pre-marital sex? To pornography? At any age? I'm amused by those stores that advertise "adult" videos, which means not just restricted, but actual porn. A more accurate label would be "immature adult" videos.
Too much preocuppation with things like the laws of consent, when you are speaking in the context of the body of Christ, means that you will treat the laws of consent with more authority than they deserve. Rather than becoming restrictive, these laws become permissive, allowing young unmarried girls and boys to consent to stuff even though Christ would want them not to consent to it.
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: Classis and Church Order
Dutch, your earlier comment about the difference between classis and synod.... the difference is mainly in that synod is supposed to act according to the direction of the classis reps, and thus operates at a different scale than classis. So it is not really that much different in governance, other than the scale and scope. Even the Board of Trustees is supposed to operate under the guidance and direction of the group of classical reps, ultimately .
The problem is not so much the process, but the degree to which congregational freedoms are lost, or congregational responsibilities are abdicated under the application of hierarchy, etc. For example the language of forms used for calling a pastor requires a classical approval. This is not advice for a church to seek classical approval, but rather it is a requirement for a church to have the signature of a counselor appointed by classis. Invariably the counselor will be a pastor, rather than an elder, and will change from a counselor to an "approver". It is not wrong to suggest the opportunity of a counselor, but it is wrong for classis (or synod) to demand such a thing.
Classis has its opportunity for approval at ordination examinations. No one understands the needs of a local church as well as the elders who govern it. When the elders are unsure, they will ask for assistance.
This is just one example of the misuse of a church order, and the inappropriate language and demands of our church order.
There is also an inordinate proportion of attention paid to 'ministers" compared to elders and deacons in the church order, most of which relates to a minister's position, rather than a minister's ministry. So there is much concern about procedure to become a minister, about when a minister can be "let go", or called, or retired, or whether he can still be called a minister if preaching in another denomination, etc., etc. I suspect much of this is because people are trying to determine eligibility for the pension fund. But if we were to use the same logic and apply it to elders, we would realize the irony of all these articles in the church order. There is an aspect of "professionalism" of ministers imbedded in the church order, which leads to an inappropriate distinction from minsterial associates and elders.
We talk about the need for Belhar to make us aware of racism, but perhaps we need a "Belhar" to help us deal with the innappropriate hierarchies and elitism and class structure which the church order promotes between its various ministries and offices and governing bodies. This goes far beyond doing "everything in a fitting and orderly way", and is not consistent with scripture in its description of ministries and offices.
Posted in: Classis and Church Order
Dutchoven (are you a baker? :) )
Elizabeth is suggesting further conversation on this might be useful. So I thought I would reply to you in more detail.
My perspective lately, is that we seem to sometimes be more attached to the church order, and follow it more rigorously, than we do our confessions. I may be wrong, but this is an impression. It should be the other way around, if we believe in our priorities. So I agree, it is a human construct for practical purposes.
Yes, this order changes. But it changes by adding rules or revising rules, never by condensing or coalescing or reducing rules. We all need some rules. But how many? I suggest it would be an admirable goal to attempt to reduce the length of the church order by 50%. That process would have an amazing concentrating effect, and would weed out some of the weeds in the order.
The purpose of the church order? A framework? Perhaps. But the real purpose should be to glorify God through the worship and working of his people. When you say that the opportunity for abuse is greater for ministers, do you mean to ministers or by ministers? Is the order then just a safe church policy? And why would elders be a threat to order?
I think the reasoning is wrong. The church order is to guide, not to protect. A pension fund should follow the church order, not direct the church order. The nomenclature about ministers being ministers or not when they do not have a congregation, or when working in another denomination is inappropriate. Being a minister, is really about doing ministering, not just about being something. The scriptures, and common sense, tells us that gifts are only recognized in christians when they are used and operating; but we have turned the church order into a credentials document for preachers (among other things). Do not misunderstand; I appreciate preachers and pastors very much. But from a governance point of view, it should be the elders that are the essence of the governance, according to scripture.
The symbolism that goes with a 'minister of the word and sacraments" has mystified the pastor/preache/minister. The original itent of the word minister was "servant" or service, but practice has changed this idea and this word in its connotation.
It is improper and unscriptural in my opinion, to restrict the giving of blessings and benedictions to pastors, for example. The elders ought to be doing this as well. And perhaps doing this instead of the preachers, just to emphasize their role. It is improper for councils to think that only pastors can lead the congregation in the sacrament of Lord's Supper. It would be advantageous for the entire body of Christ, if the preacher sat down with the rest of the people, and the elders adminstered this sacrament. I've seen this done in other churches, and a light-bulb turned on in my head.
One church I attended once had no pastors identified. It identified only elders on its bulletin. And the elders would preach; they were preachers. But the nomenclature followed their understanding of authority and scripture. The term minister was supposed to apply to almost every Christian, anyone who would minister to others, whether by preaching, admonishment, providing food, clothing, comfort or prayer. So pastor is a better term. But again, scriptures talks of pastors, not pastor, implying that the term applied to people who were pastoral, leaders, shepherds, caring for the flock, and not to a particular official position.
Our church order has become baggage that is difficult to shed. This is most evident in the philosophy that when collective wisdom decides a certain process would prevent a possible future problem, a rule must be established. Much like the government forcing everyone to wear a helmet when riding a bicycle, the church order begins to prescribe hierarchical procedures for individual churches under the guise of preventing apostasy, and invoking the principle of "decently and in good order". But the irony is that when two professors decide to invoke their academic freedom to talk about evolution, which impinges more on the confessions than on the church order, it is often the church order and procedures and academic freedom that becomes the topic of discussion more than the actual issue of the interpretation of Genesis 1.
I know that pastors do not have a corner on "shop talk". But they and everyone else, including some elders need to respect the office and duty of all the elders to participate and carry out their responsibility, and to use language that is comprehensible, and to leave space. Some pastors treat classis as a retreat and an opportunity to meet people who do what they do. If they worked in their congregations with the other elders in the proper way, they would not feel this great need, since it would be met more in their congregations.
Picking on pastors only, is not really fair. Preachers and official pastors have a great calling, and have much to offer. Elders must be eager to serve the Lord and demonstrate their own leadership. A few different things in classis and worship would help this to happen. Open the box and think differently. Make a rule that ministers should never serve as president of classis. If you can't find an elder to lead it, then don't have it. Make a rule that preachers should never proclaim the blessing or the benediction. Make a rule that elders, not pastors, administer Lord's supper. Make a rule that elders, not pastors, should install new elders and deacons. Make a rule that elders, not pastors, should proclaim the ordination of a new preacher. Make a rule that every elder should preach at least one sermon in his life, or teach one bible study (with some assistance, perhaps). Give it a thought. And if you have objections, ask yourself why you would object to this. Is it because of order? Is it fear? Or because of the human tendency to want to follow mystified human beings?
Food for thought.
Posted in: Classis and Church Order
The church order does not do what it says, in some cases. It wants to be all things to all people sometimes.
So it says that the authority of classis and synod is delegated. But then in the process of that delegation of authority, it allows the larger body to dictate to the congregations. It makes sense to have a delegated authority to deal with the confessions, and some joint projects, such as missions or a seminary. It does not make sense to remove the authority of congregations to choose its own pastors, wage scales, pension plans, services, ministries. It does not make sense to require congregations to do things that they should decide on their own to do. Suggestions and advice should not be turned into requirements, since that means that the authority of the congregations is removed; they have lost the authority to decide. Just because it is a joint document, doesn't mean that it should contradict itself. So the language of the church order should be cleaned up to reflect that the authority is delegated and that classis and synod should not be lording it over the congregations in terms of their policies and procedures.
The church order also says that the offices are equal in honor. However, this is mere lip service, and the church order contradicts itself here also. Again, the church order should be cleaned up to reflect that the offices are equal in honor. The great distinctions between pastors, elders, preachers, evangelists, associates etc., should be removed. Elders should be made responsible for pronouncing the blessing before services, and benedictions after. Elders should be ordaining the pastors and evangelists. Elders should be leading the lord's supper. More elders should be preaching a sermon ocassionally, which the church order could encourage rather than hinder. This is not to take anything away from the pastors and preachers, but to emphasize the significance of the other offices.
The roles of pastors, preachers, evangelists and associates could all be combined into one description, since they all do pretty well the same thing. Some pastors are more similar to some associates than they are to other pastors, who do not even pastor at a particular church, for example. Some pastors are evangelists, and some evangelists are really pastors. The distinctions are superfluous and artificial, and are usually not based on function but on academic credentials or other artificial ordination criteria.
The demand by classis that a certain split for elders or pastors ought to exist as representatives. Why not take that out of there? Why not honor the authority of the local church to make that decision? If they want to send two elders or two pastors, or two deacons, or two evangelists, or two associates, let them. Make them responsible for their own choices.
Find a way to reduce or remove the endless articles about when a minister is a minister or is not, or can be loaned or not, and find a way to remove the stigma of article 17. Reduce, remove, consolidate. It will make for a healthier church.
So here is a small place to start. Work at eliminating the contradictions.
Posted in: Classis and Church Order
I realize that I raise some very uncomfortable issues for some people. For example, when I suggest that elders rather than preachers should pronounce the blessing and benediction, I am certain that many people are uncomfortable. The reason I suspect they are uncomfortable, is that I have not yet heard anyone disagreeing with that statement, nor agreeing with it either. So my guess is that they know that I am right, that there is no reason why elders could not do so; yet, they do not want to state their agreement either, because they somehow "feel" that a preacher should do those things. There is little knowledge, and much custom and superstition attached to some of these practices. We live in a way as to contradict our confessions and our church order (which contradicts itself). We do so in ignorance and superstition, which is tolerated and encouraged by many preachers and pastors, because they want the trappings and aura that our human customs brings. I believe that has reduced the strength and witness of our churches, and has encouraged the "dumbing down" of our membership.
I would be surprised that I will get a significant response to even this single point. Even though I am willing to consider other perspectives.
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.
Posted in: Con-cent: When Your Consent Isn't Worth a Penny
Sometimes people give legal consent when they shouldn't be giving consent. It is all nice to figure out what the government says about consent, but what does scripture say about consent. Is it okay to give consent to fornication? to pre-marital sex? To pornography? At any age? I'm amused by those stores that advertise "adult" videos, which means not just restricted, but actual porn. A more accurate label would be "immature adult" videos.
Too much preocuppation with things like the laws of consent, when you are speaking in the context of the body of Christ, means that you will treat the laws of consent with more authority than they deserve. Rather than becoming restrictive, these laws become permissive, allowing young unmarried girls and boys to consent to stuff even though Christ would want them not to consent to it.