I'm sorry, but that's not the same thing at all. Are you really lumping together women who have been victims of violence - through no fault of their own - with those who choose to have an abortion?"
Wendy, why do you think I am lumping them together? Actually, I am lumping together those who are encouraging women to have abortions, with abusers. And I am lumping together those women who are victims of abuse, with the victims of abortion, the unborn who died.
Abortion is also violence against women. About half the unborn aborted are females. They are not just beaten. They are killed. Therefore it is not a separate issue. Secondly, in many, many cases, abortion is part of the abuse of women by males who persuade or encourage or threaten the woman into getting the abortion. Therefore it is not a separate issue. In a few cases, the opposite happens, where a woman gets an abortion and it is in effect a form of abuse against the father, to destroy his child. I personally think that violence against women is worse than violence against men, because men are often expecting or living in expectation of a higher degree of violence, whether it is in sport such as football or car derbies, or in work such as wrestling calves or riding bulls. But the abuse of the vulnerable by the more powerful is much the same. I think that abortion is part of that violence, and that the mentality of abortion is the same as the mentality of abusing women, because both are centered around abusing those who are less powerful. Unborn females are the least powerful of all.
While I appreciate both comments by Wendy and Bonnie, as long as abortion is put on the sidelines or separated from abuse issues, then solving the problem of abuse of women is only an issue of dealing with outward symptoms, and not of the heart of the disease. The abuse of women also happens by women who happen to be more powerful than other women who have caught the disease of using power to abuse and manipulate and attain selfish desires at the expense of the less powerful and more vulnerable. Therefore I think KW has a very valid point.
Wow, Wendy, you are quick. Well, to answer your simple question which has so many possible situations, "someone" would have to have an identity first. And the "beater" would also have to have an identity. If it was one of my sons who did the beating of his wife or child for example (can't see that happening), then they would be in big trouble.... likely get a serious talking to by my wife with my full support, and perhaps being physically restrained or even punished by my other sons and myself, for example. Simply not acceptable. Okay... what if it is a stranger? or a friend? Do they have a "protector"? every situation requires examination of circumstances, was it once in a lifetime, or is it habitual, or somewhere in between. The woman would simply be supported; either given a place to live, or security of protection, or opportunity to prosecute, or opportunity to forgive provided true repentance (meaning no recidivism) occurs.
The same general concern for a man or boy who has been beaten. Depending on cause, severity, repetition. Given a safe place and a remedy to prevent reoccurence, which may or may not include legal action. Of course, beaters are human beings as well, perhaps sometimes also victims of abuse, and God provides grace and redemption for the worst of sinners. So, consequences with grace.
A small child beating another small child might get a spanking, or be isolated, or something else, depending on what has the biggest impact.
A child who was beaten(abused) by a mother - a different situation again. Depends again on how well we knew the child and mother, the circumstances, the likelihood of re-offending, etc. But in no case is it acceptable beyond a simple spanking in appropriate circumstances which would not be considered to be a beating. Protection of the life and health and emotional well-being of the child would be paramount.
In the same way, we adopt children, support single mothers, and maintain the value of the unborn female child, and the ability of the mother to give birth, as a response to those who would kill the unborn females.
Well, you possibly knew you wouldn't get a short answer to a short question? :)
No, they don't need a spouse who plays the piano. They need to train their children to play the piano. Even a child who only plays the melody, is still a greater gift than "buying" a pianist, because that child will grow and develop and improve. And when that imported pianist leaves, then what? Back to square one. While the child who learns will be there longer. Even in a small church with less than 100 people, it is possible to have six children learning to play, and others can play different instruments. Music is a gift from God; a gift to be used, not just to be listened to.
Not that there's anything wrong with having a "spouse" who plays the piano, but concentrate on the children first.
There is another aspect to the youth program that could help to bring in the entire congregation. The most successful youth program is one that enlists the help and support of every single adult in the church. By that I mean that the congregation needs to pray for the youth, teach the youth, encourage the youth in coming to Christ, and encourage the youth in faithful living for Christ. No youth pastor or any other pastor can do that all by himself. Every parent and grandparent needs to be taught how to do that, to help with that at home, on vacation, at school activities, in evening discussions, shared meals, and at every opportunity. The preaching of the lead pastor should also be mentioning that from time to time. The youth are the closest and most neighborly mission field, in which everyone can be a missionary.
Al, you have raised a very good point. Often the church order seems to be adjusted to practices that are already happening. While there are things that should probably be adjusted in the church order, it has quite a bit of flexibility, much of which has been added over the years. For example, in some articles, using the word "normally" or "ordinarily", seems to leave room for practices which are different from the norm. However, since "ordinarily" is not defined, it can lead to the exceptions becoming the norm as things change over the years.
I think this is interesting to raise this issue in the elders section, since the church order gives so little actual attention to the role of elders specifically. It is difficult to point to an article other than article 25 as to what the specific role of elders is, and the article is shared with deacons. Since elders ultimately have the authority to appoint, delegate, supervise, it is surprising that so little attention is paid to how that is done. The whole relationship of elders to pastors (who are supposed to be elders as well) seems to be skewed, particularly when you have 18 or more articles dealing specifically with various aspects of pastordom/ ministry/preacherhood, and only one specifically mentioning elders.
Of course, it is obvious that only synod can change the church order, since that is where it originated. But it is also obvious that individual councils can selectively apply the church order within their locality, since it is the elders who are ultimately responsible for those decisions.
While the church order may be a good thing to have, in many aspects of spiritual life within the church, more will be gained by convincing and teaching the benefits of certain practices, than by simply highlighting the fact that some distant body made some rules which should be followed. For example, I have read or heard of some churches substituting some works of service, such as environmental cleanup, or visiting sick in hospital in place of holding a worship service. The church order did not seem to stop them. But I believe they have lost the understanding of our relationship to God. The reverence and worship we display for God is the underpinning for the value of doing any good works. Good works cannot substitute for our direct worship. God does not want our sacrifices (works); God wants our hearts. Faith without works is dead, but works without faith are not pleasing to God. A comparison might be made to parents who supply food and clothing and toys for their children but never take time to talk with them or play with them. Our worship services are valuable simply because they do not seem to have any physical earthly purpose for us the way food and clothing do. They are dedicated to concentrating on God, and on our fellowship in our Lord. Skipping this will lead to a breakdown in communication with God. Understanding this is more important than memorizing some rules.
Maybe that illustrates my point about merely following rules. If as Tom mentioned, a group has a "short" worship service briefly before some particular environmental activity, activity which others might regard as "not resting on the sabbath", then that shows how mere rules can be interpreted however one wants. If the short service is held merely to satisfy some "rule", then another rule which is often read on the sabbath as part of our grateful response for our salvation in Christ, is completely ignored. And in both cases we miss the point.
Yes, Christian service is important. But again, compare it to being in a family. Your wife wants you to spend some quality time with her. She wants you to listen. She wants you to contribute to her understanding. And you agree, but you have one eye on your watch. Basically, you limit her time, make it briefer than usual, with the very "legitimate" excuse that you are going to fix her dishwasher and cut the grass so that "her" yard will look nicer, and maybe you will even go to town to buy her some new dishes, or a a new vacumn cleaner. Surely she will be happy? And when she is not happy, you will not have a clue as to why not.
Cheating God on your spiritual connection cannot be paid for with good works. Was it Judas who said our time could be better spent on helping the poor.... no, that was the ointment "wasted" on the dusty feet of our Lord.... hmmn.
I am not talking about helping people desperately in trouble. Every action in that regard is a sermon in action. But "community needs" and environmental concerns merely leads to people justifying their working in Macdonald's or Walmart or Exxon on Sundays to serve the community, After all, why is that less "community needs" than picking up papers in the gutters? And if you pick up garbage on Sundays as service to God and community, then what is the meaning of garbage picked up on Monday or Tuesday? I'm not buying it. And it has nothing to do with the church order. It has to do with spiritual priorities.
“Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, 42 but only one thing is needed.[f] Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.” Luke 10.
The advantage of a church order which everyone follows, is that you don't spend a lot of time discussing policies and procedures everytime something administrative or governmental is done in the church. The disadvantage is that you don't spend much time discussing policies when you practice churchly activities. Taking things for granted often results in people not knowing why certain practices are better than others.
Tom's statement that "We rest in his completed sacrifice. Sabbath is fulfilled in a person, not a day." is true, but is still a non-sequitor. All of the law is fulfilled in Christ, not just the Sabbath. We know that Christ is the true image of God, therefore we don't need idols or images. We know that Christ kept the law perfectly, but that doesn't mean we don't have to keep it; it doesn't give us license to murder or cheat or lie or covet. Why does it give us license to disregard a sabbath rest?
If we don't keep the Sabbath, we begin to lose the sense of what it means to rest in Christ; we will lack understanding of what it means to rest in the sacrifice of Christ, to rest in Christ himself. The Sabbath was given as a gift to man. Disregarding that gift shows a lack of respect and honor and love for God. is
I've wondered for many years about why Christ did not emphasize this commandment the way He mentioned murder, theft, adultery, false witness. honoring parents, coveting. But today I realized that Christ also did not mention taking God's name in vain, nor idol worship. Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 18, Romans 13. The Sabbath is part of our direct worship and honor to God. It is part of our love for God; loving God with our heart, soul, mind, and strength. The sabbath is a gift from God, which when we receive it, becomes sweet incense to God.
In my previous post, I did not mention a slippery slope, but Tom did. However, I will note that it is very difficult to slide uphill unless you have a lot of momentum. The reality is that sliding downhill was common in the old testament when Israel so often slid into the practice of worshipping false gods, and it is common today in the life of Christians who forget to or refuse to stand up for their spiritual priorities. But a church order does not solve that problem, obviously. Romans and Galatians 5 talks about being free from the law. But only if you live in the spirit. If you don't live in the spirit, then the law will have its consequences. The slippery slope is only one of those consequences.
In 2010, Neil DeKoning identified two articles, 25 and 35, that spoke to the office of elder. The 2008 church order identifies section D. article 25 as the only article speaking specifically to the office of elder (and this article also throws in the office of deacon for good measure). On the other hand, we see articles 6-24 dealing with "ministers" and minister associates (now called "commissioned pastors". Nineteen articles.
So what does that tell us about the responsibility of elders?? well.... yeah, they are there, but they fill a kind of functionary, perfunctory role. Kind of a necessary requirement, but not so significant... Certainly not so honorable. Certainly not so essential. Placeholders are okay. If they don't work out, it's only a short term, after all. Then the dustbin. Don't worry, be happy.
That's the church order. It's not a total reality. Elders do make significant decisions, especially financial and structural. They do often get really involved, and do often provide significant spiritual leadership. But without honor. Often without respect. Without a sense of calling, often. Desiring the greater gifts? Having the ability to teach?
The fact is that the church order does not define the official acts of ministry, but custom often denies these to ordained elders. The fact is that the term vacant is used to define a church without a minister, but not a church with a missing elder. The fact is that the term "ordination" is often used in an unqualified sense, creating confusion as to whether it applies to to ordained preachers, ordained elders, or ordained deacons. Thus creating the potential for confusion in the the way it is used in the church order, and in various synodical studies, such as 1995 and 2001, as to what it is actually referring to. The fact is that when customs are not identified or dealt with in the church order, they sometimes become even a stronger tradition than the church order itself, ironically. Yet, some of these customs have no scriptural grounds, no scriptural basis, which is partly why they are not in the church order to start with.
The church order contradicts itself in some places. For example saying in article 3 that all who meet scriptural requirements may fill an office, but then later adding academic achievement as an "extra-scriptural" non-biblical requirement.
The church order could be revised to respect the office of elder. It could respect the ability and responsibility of elders to make local decisions, by having classis provide advice instead of approvals. It could respect the office of elder by indicating it is a life-long calling with terms of service. It could respect the office of elder by recognizing that as spiritual leaders, teachers, and pastoral elders, they have been ordained, annointed, appointed, and chosen to serve the congregation in providing the word of God, providing spiritual leadership, providing a blessing to the congregation, and carrying responsibility for the sacraments, with or without a specialized preaching elder (minister or pastor) presiding.
When elders do not have the ability to lead on the assumption of the church order, they will only carry out certain expected tasks, instead of searching for the leading of the Lord, and as a result the church will suffer.
It would be interesting to have an article in the church order that specifically states: The congregation shall respect and honor the office of elder as an office of spiritual leadership and authority within their church, giving respect and honor within the context of scripture as guide.
We should recognize that we do not need so many articles about ministers...eg. eligibility for call of a terminated minister, loaning a minister, requirement for a demonstration of need to classis before extending a call or establishing a new ministry, trying to forbid a local church from asking certain questions to a candidate, or discussing "proper" support. This would actually improve the honor and respect to local elders in recognizing their ability and responsibility to make decisions on these issues, without babysitting by classis or synod. Much better would be for classis or synod to provide advice and information and guidance, and realize the decisions need to be made by the elders.
Al, you are right that other articles also include tasks of elders. However, the articles mention "consistory", not "elders". Consistory consists of elders, but includes ministers, commissioned pastors. There is a distinction made on the one hand, and then in the process of referring to "consistory" rather than "elders", the church order puts the onus on a group, on an elder collective, rather than on the calling of elders individually. While this is sometimes valid, it is done virtually exclusively to the elimination of significance of individual callings of elders.
In other articles, we see a reference to council. Elders are assumed included in that too, but again, there is not a specific reference to elders, and of course, ministers or pastors are also included in that, assuming they are members of the church in question, and thus this really identifies a decision making process, rather than a specific calling of the elders.
So, we have two specific articles dealing with the function and calling and task of ministers, but I do not see any articles dealing in the same specificity and directness, about the function of elders, and the calling and task of elders. Article 99 talks about equal honor of the offices, but the church order itself does not honor the offices equally.
The fact that they are not honored equally has an impact on the spiritual growth or lack of spiritual growth of the congregations, since the responsibility and potential impact of the office of elder is not perceived nor observed by many.
There is an article 17 dealing with termination of office of ministers. But the church order spends no time delineating the significance of a term of office for elders, nor providing an understanding of lifetime spiritual service and leadership in the context of specific terms of office. Again, this is directly contrary to the spirit of article 99.
With such a lack of respect for these offices, we should perhaps not be surprised that the church order does not always receive the respect it should perhaps have?
I want to apologize a bit for a comment I made yesterday about "official acts of ministry" not being defined in the church order. They are half-defined in the supplement to article 53 and article 18.. The article/supplement says these official acts are entrusted to the church, and to ordained leaders (including elders) and not to a specific office. Yet the article says that they should not be performed by someone delegated to lead a service or to read a sermon. The article does not deal with elders vs non-elders reading a sermon. It does not make clear in the end whether an ordained elder therefore could be proclaiming a blessing, although Henry deMoor in another conversation indicated this was deemed "approved".
The supplement to article 55 indicates that an ordained person could administer the sacraments, but should be approved by classis, and should be an elder. Presumably, the council would recomment someone, and classis would approve. But the need for classis to approve such an elder, since they do not approve other elders, is not made clear. Since the church order speaks to the fact that the sacraments are entrusted to the church and ordained leaders, not to classis, nor to a specific office, it seems a bit strange to require classis approval for a consistory to appoint someone who is already ordained, to lead in the sacraments in the local church.
In any case, does it seem that classis approval is not required for elders to install other elders, since installation is not identified as requiring that approval?
Posted in: V-Day, What Would Jesus Do?
I'm sorry, but that's not the same thing at all. Are you really lumping together women who have been victims of violence - through no fault of their own - with those who choose to have an abortion?"
Wendy, why do you think I am lumping them together? Actually, I am lumping together those who are encouraging women to have abortions, with abusers. And I am lumping together those women who are victims of abuse, with the victims of abortion, the unborn who died.
Posted in: V-Day, What Would Jesus Do?
Abortion is also violence against women. About half the unborn aborted are females. They are not just beaten. They are killed. Therefore it is not a separate issue. Secondly, in many, many cases, abortion is part of the abuse of women by males who persuade or encourage or threaten the woman into getting the abortion. Therefore it is not a separate issue. In a few cases, the opposite happens, where a woman gets an abortion and it is in effect a form of abuse against the father, to destroy his child. I personally think that violence against women is worse than violence against men, because men are often expecting or living in expectation of a higher degree of violence, whether it is in sport such as football or car derbies, or in work such as wrestling calves or riding bulls. But the abuse of the vulnerable by the more powerful is much the same. I think that abortion is part of that violence, and that the mentality of abortion is the same as the mentality of abusing women, because both are centered around abusing those who are less powerful. Unborn females are the least powerful of all.
While I appreciate both comments by Wendy and Bonnie, as long as abortion is put on the sidelines or separated from abuse issues, then solving the problem of abuse of women is only an issue of dealing with outward symptoms, and not of the heart of the disease. The abuse of women also happens by women who happen to be more powerful than other women who have caught the disease of using power to abuse and manipulate and attain selfish desires at the expense of the less powerful and more vulnerable. Therefore I think KW has a very valid point.
Posted in: V-Day, What Would Jesus Do?
Wow, Wendy, you are quick. Well, to answer your simple question which has so many possible situations, "someone" would have to have an identity first. And the "beater" would also have to have an identity. If it was one of my sons who did the beating of his wife or child for example (can't see that happening), then they would be in big trouble.... likely get a serious talking to by my wife with my full support, and perhaps being physically restrained or even punished by my other sons and myself, for example. Simply not acceptable. Okay... what if it is a stranger? or a friend? Do they have a "protector"? every situation requires examination of circumstances, was it once in a lifetime, or is it habitual, or somewhere in between. The woman would simply be supported; either given a place to live, or security of protection, or opportunity to prosecute, or opportunity to forgive provided true repentance (meaning no recidivism) occurs.
The same general concern for a man or boy who has been beaten. Depending on cause, severity, repetition. Given a safe place and a remedy to prevent reoccurence, which may or may not include legal action. Of course, beaters are human beings as well, perhaps sometimes also victims of abuse, and God provides grace and redemption for the worst of sinners. So, consequences with grace.
A small child beating another small child might get a spanking, or be isolated, or something else, depending on what has the biggest impact.
A child who was beaten(abused) by a mother - a different situation again. Depends again on how well we knew the child and mother, the circumstances, the likelihood of re-offending, etc. But in no case is it acceptable beyond a simple spanking in appropriate circumstances which would not be considered to be a beating. Protection of the life and health and emotional well-being of the child would be paramount.
In the same way, we adopt children, support single mothers, and maintain the value of the unborn female child, and the ability of the mother to give birth, as a response to those who would kill the unborn females.
Well, you possibly knew you wouldn't get a short answer to a short question? :)
Posted in: My Best Friend's Nightmare
No, they don't need a spouse who plays the piano. They need to train their children to play the piano. Even a child who only plays the melody, is still a greater gift than "buying" a pianist, because that child will grow and develop and improve. And when that imported pianist leaves, then what? Back to square one. While the child who learns will be there longer. Even in a small church with less than 100 people, it is possible to have six children learning to play, and others can play different instruments. Music is a gift from God; a gift to be used, not just to be listened to.
Not that there's anything wrong with having a "spouse" who plays the piano, but concentrate on the children first.
Posted in: From The Shadows
There is another aspect to the youth program that could help to bring in the entire congregation. The most successful youth program is one that enlists the help and support of every single adult in the church. By that I mean that the congregation needs to pray for the youth, teach the youth, encourage the youth in coming to Christ, and encourage the youth in faithful living for Christ. No youth pastor or any other pastor can do that all by himself. Every parent and grandparent needs to be taught how to do that, to help with that at home, on vacation, at school activities, in evening discussions, shared meals, and at every opportunity. The preaching of the lead pastor should also be mentioning that from time to time. The youth are the closest and most neighborly mission field, in which everyone can be a missionary.
Posted in: Leading From Behind
Al, you have raised a very good point. Often the church order seems to be adjusted to practices that are already happening. While there are things that should probably be adjusted in the church order, it has quite a bit of flexibility, much of which has been added over the years. For example, in some articles, using the word "normally" or "ordinarily", seems to leave room for practices which are different from the norm. However, since "ordinarily" is not defined, it can lead to the exceptions becoming the norm as things change over the years.
I think this is interesting to raise this issue in the elders section, since the church order gives so little actual attention to the role of elders specifically. It is difficult to point to an article other than article 25 as to what the specific role of elders is, and the article is shared with deacons. Since elders ultimately have the authority to appoint, delegate, supervise, it is surprising that so little attention is paid to how that is done. The whole relationship of elders to pastors (who are supposed to be elders as well) seems to be skewed, particularly when you have 18 or more articles dealing specifically with various aspects of pastordom/ ministry/preacherhood, and only one specifically mentioning elders.
Of course, it is obvious that only synod can change the church order, since that is where it originated. But it is also obvious that individual councils can selectively apply the church order within their locality, since it is the elders who are ultimately responsible for those decisions.
While the church order may be a good thing to have, in many aspects of spiritual life within the church, more will be gained by convincing and teaching the benefits of certain practices, than by simply highlighting the fact that some distant body made some rules which should be followed. For example, I have read or heard of some churches substituting some works of service, such as environmental cleanup, or visiting sick in hospital in place of holding a worship service. The church order did not seem to stop them. But I believe they have lost the understanding of our relationship to God. The reverence and worship we display for God is the underpinning for the value of doing any good works. Good works cannot substitute for our direct worship. God does not want our sacrifices (works); God wants our hearts. Faith without works is dead, but works without faith are not pleasing to God. A comparison might be made to parents who supply food and clothing and toys for their children but never take time to talk with them or play with them. Our worship services are valuable simply because they do not seem to have any physical earthly purpose for us the way food and clothing do. They are dedicated to concentrating on God, and on our fellowship in our Lord. Skipping this will lead to a breakdown in communication with God. Understanding this is more important than memorizing some rules.
Posted in: Leading From Behind
Maybe that illustrates my point about merely following rules. If as Tom mentioned, a group has a "short" worship service briefly before some particular environmental activity, activity which others might regard as "not resting on the sabbath", then that shows how mere rules can be interpreted however one wants. If the short service is held merely to satisfy some "rule", then another rule which is often read on the sabbath as part of our grateful response for our salvation in Christ, is completely ignored. And in both cases we miss the point.
Yes, Christian service is important. But again, compare it to being in a family. Your wife wants you to spend some quality time with her. She wants you to listen. She wants you to contribute to her understanding. And you agree, but you have one eye on your watch. Basically, you limit her time, make it briefer than usual, with the very "legitimate" excuse that you are going to fix her dishwasher and cut the grass so that "her" yard will look nicer, and maybe you will even go to town to buy her some new dishes, or a a new vacumn cleaner. Surely she will be happy? And when she is not happy, you will not have a clue as to why not.
Cheating God on your spiritual connection cannot be paid for with good works. Was it Judas who said our time could be better spent on helping the poor.... no, that was the ointment "wasted" on the dusty feet of our Lord.... hmmn.
I am not talking about helping people desperately in trouble. Every action in that regard is a sermon in action. But "community needs" and environmental concerns merely leads to people justifying their working in Macdonald's or Walmart or Exxon on Sundays to serve the community, After all, why is that less "community needs" than picking up papers in the gutters? And if you pick up garbage on Sundays as service to God and community, then what is the meaning of garbage picked up on Monday or Tuesday? I'm not buying it. And it has nothing to do with the church order. It has to do with spiritual priorities.
Posted in: Leading From Behind
“Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, 42 but only one thing is needed.[f] Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.” Luke 10.
Posted in: Leading From Behind
The advantage of a church order which everyone follows, is that you don't spend a lot of time discussing policies and procedures everytime something administrative or governmental is done in the church. The disadvantage is that you don't spend much time discussing policies when you practice churchly activities. Taking things for granted often results in people not knowing why certain practices are better than others.
Tom's statement that "We rest in his completed sacrifice. Sabbath is fulfilled in a person, not a day." is true, but is still a non-sequitor. All of the law is fulfilled in Christ, not just the Sabbath. We know that Christ is the true image of God, therefore we don't need idols or images. We know that Christ kept the law perfectly, but that doesn't mean we don't have to keep it; it doesn't give us license to murder or cheat or lie or covet. Why does it give us license to disregard a sabbath rest?
If we don't keep the Sabbath, we begin to lose the sense of what it means to rest in Christ; we will lack understanding of what it means to rest in the sacrifice of Christ, to rest in Christ himself. The Sabbath was given as a gift to man. Disregarding that gift shows a lack of respect and honor and love for God. is
I've wondered for many years about why Christ did not emphasize this commandment the way He mentioned murder, theft, adultery, false witness. honoring parents, coveting. But today I realized that Christ also did not mention taking God's name in vain, nor idol worship. Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 18, Romans 13. The Sabbath is part of our direct worship and honor to God. It is part of our love for God; loving God with our heart, soul, mind, and strength. The sabbath is a gift from God, which when we receive it, becomes sweet incense to God.
In my previous post, I did not mention a slippery slope, but Tom did. However, I will note that it is very difficult to slide uphill unless you have a lot of momentum. The reality is that sliding downhill was common in the old testament when Israel so often slid into the practice of worshipping false gods, and it is common today in the life of Christians who forget to or refuse to stand up for their spiritual priorities. But a church order does not solve that problem, obviously. Romans and Galatians 5 talks about being free from the law. But only if you live in the spirit. If you don't live in the spirit, then the law will have its consequences. The slippery slope is only one of those consequences.
Posted in: Leading From Behind
In 2010, Neil DeKoning identified two articles, 25 and 35, that spoke to the office of elder. The 2008 church order identifies section D. article 25 as the only article speaking specifically to the office of elder (and this article also throws in the office of deacon for good measure). On the other hand, we see articles 6-24 dealing with "ministers" and minister associates (now called "commissioned pastors". Nineteen articles.
So what does that tell us about the responsibility of elders?? well.... yeah, they are there, but they fill a kind of functionary, perfunctory role. Kind of a necessary requirement, but not so significant... Certainly not so honorable. Certainly not so essential. Placeholders are okay. If they don't work out, it's only a short term, after all. Then the dustbin. Don't worry, be happy.
That's the church order. It's not a total reality. Elders do make significant decisions, especially financial and structural. They do often get really involved, and do often provide significant spiritual leadership. But without honor. Often without respect. Without a sense of calling, often. Desiring the greater gifts? Having the ability to teach?
The fact is that the church order does not define the official acts of ministry, but custom often denies these to ordained elders. The fact is that the term vacant is used to define a church without a minister, but not a church with a missing elder. The fact is that the term "ordination" is often used in an unqualified sense, creating confusion as to whether it applies to to ordained preachers, ordained elders, or ordained deacons. Thus creating the potential for confusion in the the way it is used in the church order, and in various synodical studies, such as 1995 and 2001, as to what it is actually referring to. The fact is that when customs are not identified or dealt with in the church order, they sometimes become even a stronger tradition than the church order itself, ironically. Yet, some of these customs have no scriptural grounds, no scriptural basis, which is partly why they are not in the church order to start with.
The church order contradicts itself in some places. For example saying in article 3 that all who meet scriptural requirements may fill an office, but then later adding academic achievement as an "extra-scriptural" non-biblical requirement.
The church order could be revised to respect the office of elder. It could respect the ability and responsibility of elders to make local decisions, by having classis provide advice instead of approvals. It could respect the office of elder by indicating it is a life-long calling with terms of service. It could respect the office of elder by recognizing that as spiritual leaders, teachers, and pastoral elders, they have been ordained, annointed, appointed, and chosen to serve the congregation in providing the word of God, providing spiritual leadership, providing a blessing to the congregation, and carrying responsibility for the sacraments, with or without a specialized preaching elder (minister or pastor) presiding.
When elders do not have the ability to lead on the assumption of the church order, they will only carry out certain expected tasks, instead of searching for the leading of the Lord, and as a result the church will suffer.
It would be interesting to have an article in the church order that specifically states: The congregation shall respect and honor the office of elder as an office of spiritual leadership and authority within their church, giving respect and honor within the context of scripture as guide.
We should recognize that we do not need so many articles about ministers...eg. eligibility for call of a terminated minister, loaning a minister, requirement for a demonstration of need to classis before extending a call or establishing a new ministry, trying to forbid a local church from asking certain questions to a candidate, or discussing "proper" support. This would actually improve the honor and respect to local elders in recognizing their ability and responsibility to make decisions on these issues, without babysitting by classis or synod. Much better would be for classis or synod to provide advice and information and guidance, and realize the decisions need to be made by the elders.
Posted in: Leading From Behind
Al, you are right that other articles also include tasks of elders. However, the articles mention "consistory", not "elders". Consistory consists of elders, but includes ministers, commissioned pastors. There is a distinction made on the one hand, and then in the process of referring to "consistory" rather than "elders", the church order puts the onus on a group, on an elder collective, rather than on the calling of elders individually. While this is sometimes valid, it is done virtually exclusively to the elimination of significance of individual callings of elders.
In other articles, we see a reference to council. Elders are assumed included in that too, but again, there is not a specific reference to elders, and of course, ministers or pastors are also included in that, assuming they are members of the church in question, and thus this really identifies a decision making process, rather than a specific calling of the elders.
So, we have two specific articles dealing with the function and calling and task of ministers, but I do not see any articles dealing in the same specificity and directness, about the function of elders, and the calling and task of elders. Article 99 talks about equal honor of the offices, but the church order itself does not honor the offices equally.
The fact that they are not honored equally has an impact on the spiritual growth or lack of spiritual growth of the congregations, since the responsibility and potential impact of the office of elder is not perceived nor observed by many.
There is an article 17 dealing with termination of office of ministers. But the church order spends no time delineating the significance of a term of office for elders, nor providing an understanding of lifetime spiritual service and leadership in the context of specific terms of office. Again, this is directly contrary to the spirit of article 99.
With such a lack of respect for these offices, we should perhaps not be surprised that the church order does not always receive the respect it should perhaps have?
Posted in: Leading From Behind
I want to apologize a bit for a comment I made yesterday about "official acts of ministry" not being defined in the church order. They are half-defined in the supplement to article 53 and article 18.. The article/supplement says these official acts are entrusted to the church, and to ordained leaders (including elders) and not to a specific office. Yet the article says that they should not be performed by someone delegated to lead a service or to read a sermon. The article does not deal with elders vs non-elders reading a sermon. It does not make clear in the end whether an ordained elder therefore could be proclaiming a blessing, although Henry deMoor in another conversation indicated this was deemed "approved".
The supplement to article 55 indicates that an ordained person could administer the sacraments, but should be approved by classis, and should be an elder. Presumably, the council would recomment someone, and classis would approve. But the need for classis to approve such an elder, since they do not approve other elders, is not made clear. Since the church order speaks to the fact that the sacraments are entrusted to the church and ordained leaders, not to classis, nor to a specific office, it seems a bit strange to require classis approval for a consistory to appoint someone who is already ordained, to lead in the sacraments in the local church.
In any case, does it seem that classis approval is not required for elders to install other elders, since installation is not identified as requiring that approval?