Just a thought here. If everyone had the same "gifts" would that mean that some needs would not be met? Perhaps the greatest gifts are always centered around meeting the needs of others, rather than the expectation of self?
George, sorry, yes, Randy did bring it up first. He seemed to be a bit more balanced on it, while you referred to 2/3 requirement as rule by minority as a blanket concern, relating mostly to synodical decisions; in any case, selecting elders is a bit different than making a confessional change at a denominational level. Perhaps a better comparison might have been with deposing an elder, or with a single nomination. Would a simple majority be sufficient for this?
It is probably a good idea to involve the existing deacons in the nomination of new deacons. However it is important to realize that in general, the difference in roles between elders and deacons is that elders are called ruling elders. Deacons are not given that mandate or task. When the church order fails to recognize that distinction, the order fails as a point of good order. In small churches it may be that the deacons are also given the responsibility of elders. In other words they are elders who focus on diaconal tasks, but are not limited to them.
In a sense the church order here has illegitimately usurped the authority of the local congregation to decide what portion of the council or consistory would be involved in nominations. The fact is that in most cases the entire congregation is involved anyway, while the final decisions ought to be left to the elders unless they choose to delegate that decision.
If both elders and deacons are listed as members of the board of trustees of the local church, then I would agree that both would have to be involved in the final decision for nominating new members of the board of trustees.
It would be good for the local council to make the decision, given that technically the congregational votes are advice to council. However, in practical terms, if the council has not decided otherwise ahead of time, it would generally feel obligated to follow a simple majority.
Thanks for your reply. I think the term exceptional gifts should never have been used. It seemed to imply that Article 7 required exceptional gifts while article 6 did not. Ironic.
I agree it seems to provide a credential of some type of blanket approval. It does not in essence prevent someone from preaching or pastoring in my view, since they can receive approval from any local church which requests their service. However the onus would be on the responsibility of the local church. And there would be generally reduced request or acceptance of their service in churches where they are not a direct member.
And now we have the ministry associate category as you say.... where along with elders and deacons we have them treated as lesser individuals with lesser honor, which is contrary to the church order (which is contrary to itself). This is a great failing in our denomination, and it is a failing in the spiritual life of the membership.
Do you have an example of the abuse of article 7 (names not required)?
Summary of discussion - exact detail is usually not necessary
Outline of agenda
Any record of business for next meeting
Minutes should be approved as read and signed by the president and secretary
Correspondence
It is important for the secretary to distribute information to the proper committee or person
The secretary does not have to respond to all letters but should direct others to provide a copy of any correspondence written or sent on behalf of the agricultural society, for your records
Agenda preparation
The agenda can be presented at the first of the meeting or distributed prior to the meeting
The secretary should ensure that any tabled motions or discussion be listed under old business
Facility operating information
The secretary should maintain original copies of all legal documents such as land title documents, lease agreements, operating agreements and insurance policies
If there is cooperative agreement to operate a facility, all current details should be maintained
The operating grant application should be filed annually
The secretary should share some of the reading and writing responsibilities with other directors, which will make for a more enjoyable volunteer position
The secretary's position requires a high commitment of time and enthusiasm. In most cases, next to the president, the secretary represents the agricultural society to others.
Ideas on writing and recording minutes
Minutes - Meeting minutes are the only record of a committee, board or organization. They should be considered the history of the group. Without accurate records, the group will not have an official record of decisions, past actions, important dates, events and policies.
Minutes should be a reliable reference for the President and Committee Chair. They are essential for continuity and provide information for future committees and executives
Encourage all directors to submit written reports which can become part of the minutes
Minutes should be accurate and brief; a summary of outcomes
Motions - All motions should be noted and recorded
Discussion on the motion does not need to be recorded; the statement "Discussion followed the motion" is enough. If major discussion points are desired, this can be requested by the group. However, it is difficult for the secretary to interpret discussion in general, therefore, it is best left out
All motions should be recorded along with the names of the person moving it and the seconder, an underlined notation of either motion carried or motion defeated and the names of those who opposed the motion, if they so desire
Following the passing of a motion, the name(s) of the person(s) responsible for the takes or action should be recorded
For further references, motions referring to policy and procedure or committee terms of reference should be filed in those sections
Motions for By-Law changes should be attached to existing by-laws and the amended by-laws updated yearly
(This is procedure for Ag societies, but would apply quite well. The only other issue for churches that likely needs elucidation is the issue of recording minutes for confidential issues. This should be clarified with any new recorder/secretary/clerk when they begin in their first meeting.)
Okay, I agree with Paul... I appreciate your input, David.
Two separate points are being discussed. One is whether there should be other pathways to ministry and service. The second is how do we honor those who serve.
As to the first point, obviously there should be various pathways to ministry and service. For that reason it is good that we have a ministry associate path, although the "title" designates a lower honor, just like an associate professor vs a full (tenured) professor distinction. We'll get to that point in a minute.
The possibility of different pathways enables those with varying gifts and interests to use those gifts in a more beneficial and useful way. There are those who have taken the seminary route who barely qualified, and as soon as they finished, promptly ignored or forgot a great deal of what they learned academically. While they may have continued to upgrade and maintain their education in the fields of pastoral care and counselling and dramatic preaching, they were not interested in theological distinctions very much, nor in the classical languages, nor in history, nor in philosophy.
There are those who never went to seminary, who have read more and studied greatly on their own, and continue to upgrade their theological understandings, although they may not be particularly strong in counselling or other aspects of ministry. (Rob Braun raises some interesting points from his perspective; perhaps we need to evaluate that).
Then there are those whose main focus is evangelism, and all their theological study and pastoral care upgrading and counselling courses are geared specifically to evangelism. It would seem that various paths might be very beneficial to the different goals and objectives of our various faith ministries. A certain degree or pathway of education might actually in some cases hurt the actual goals of some ministries, simply because it is a diversion and delay to the calling put on some people.
Although various pathways are beneficial, we do need to ensure that the right level of education is maintained and encouraged. We need to be aware that Jesus taught his disciples for three years before He left them, and that they learned from him daily. Although we also need to be more aware of what Jesus really did teach them. I don't think there was much teaching of philosophy or psychology or counselling, other than what Jesus modelled, for example.
What we need more of is an understanding of what elders need in terms of education. If elders are to supervise the preachers, then how can they be trained to do that? If elders are to pastor, to lead, to exercise authority, then how are they trained to do that? And if elders, being equal in honor to preachers, pastors, deacons, ministers, and associates, then how are they to exercise that equality in honor? Should they be taught the basic contents of a sermon? Should they be able to write at least one acceptable sermon in their lifetime? Should they be able to feel confident about leading the sacraments? Should they learn how to make a productive and uplifting family visit?
And then, for those elders who want to learn more, how do we enable that learning? How do we recognize that learning?
Now to the second point, about equality of honor. I would suggest that other than the title, ministry associates have virtually equal honor to ministers. They are able to perform the same functions and are given the same general titles of preacher or pastor. The honor is given where it really counts, which is in the local church. When it comes to serving in the other classical churches, those churches can make that request, even if the process is a bit circuitous. When it comes to serving in classis itself, then they merely need to be delegated by their church as an elder; this would be similar for serving at synod.
The problem of equal honor is really at the elder level, and also the deacon level. But I will concentrate on the elder level. I want to concentrate on the elder level particularly because the designation of elder is particularly that of a ruling elder. And therefore it is unseemly (and not in good order) for a ruling elder to be perceived as somehow not having the honor and authority that a preacher or pastor may have. Obviously preachers and pastors have received specific training and calling for their task. However, the authority and honor of elders to preach, administer sacraments, give benedictions and blessings, should not be denied. Rather it should be encouraged. A seminary degree is not required to preach a basic elementary gospel message, nor to understand the sacraments. Nor is a seminary degree required to convey some particular ability to understand what the giving of a blessing is or means. Since elders are ordained in God's service according to the prescription of scripture, we ought not to distinguish in things that ought not to be distinguished in.
The church order makes too many distinctions based on honor, and not on function. For that reason, it deals with deposition of a minister, or loaning of a minister, while it does not do that for other offices. It deals with a pension fund for ministers, and not for other local church staff. It has numerous articles for ministers that could be relatively easily amalgamated with the content of the articles for ministerial associates, article 7 ministers, and elders and deacons. The distinctions that the church order makes both in the amount of attention to preachers, and in the manner of the attention, is contrary to its own injunction that the offices are equal in honor, while differing in function.
One example is the delegation of consistories to classis, and of classis to synod. The reasonable assumption would be that two elders, or three elders should be delegated, of which no more than one can be a pastor. This would be reasonable because of the normal fact that most councils have one or two pastors while having between four to twenty or more elders. So if a church should decide to send two elders who are not preachers, classis ought not to upbraid them. While this is not likely to happen too often, recognizing the possibility as a legitimate possibility is a way of recognizing the equality of honor. Classis is not a pastor's conference; it is a delegated church governance mechanism.
This is just one example; I could provide many more, but this is enough to chew on for now.
Oh, and I've wanted to ask this question for some time now. What does "exceptional gifts" mean? How do these gifts differ from non-exceptional or ordinary gifts? How few people have to have them for them to be exceptional? or conversely, how many people are not permitted to have them for them to be exceptional? And what gifts are we talking about? Do all preachers have to have these exceptional gifts?
Personally, I don't think the term should be used, but I'm waiting to be convinced otherwise.
Karl, you asked two questions. So first, about movers and seconders. The guidelines I provided are general guidelines. I think if you have a larger council or a congreg mtg, then they are good to follow. If you have a small council, say five or less people, then you could assume consensus for many motions if you like, since it will almost always be the same people making and seconding the motions. This is assuming that the meeting minutes identify who attended the meeting. It is also important to identify if someone comes later to the meeting, and when they entered. This will clarify if they were part of the discussion on a particular issue or not. For some issues, particularly money issues or changing bylaws or annual meeting or other governance issues, the formal motion would be required, especially by the Societies Act. It verifies that the motion was actually presented properly and voted on.
Second, yes, adding a who and when is a good procedure, and documenting it in the minutes ensures/encourages that a decision will be acted upon. The person responsible can be a part of the motion, or can be a consensus agreement after the motion. We often call them action items. This ensures accountability. This is not solely the job of the secretary/clerk to make sure that someone is accountable, but the clerk needs to record it and should remind the meeting that someone should be responsible for an action item.
For some items, detailing the "when" is essential, so that subsequent events and activities can take place when they need to. This may involve some timeline planning. For other items, the timeline planning will be left to the person/persons responsible for the action.
Hmmm, someone had a "feeling" that article 7 was becoming a new rule? or imposing on article 6? It was a new rule, after all. Exceptional gifts, does not suppose that they are required to be exceptional circumstances. I did not get the "feeling" that article 7 was suggesting that education was not important. Just that the method and pathway and content of the education might be different.
The most important part of education is experience. Every minister, preacher, teacher, agrologist, accountant and mechanic knows that they learn more in the first couple of years of actual work, than they ever learned in college or university. To equate elders with ten or more years of actual experience with a fresh seminary grad does a big disservice to both the value and the experience of these "elders". There might be value to suggesting that no one can be a "minister/pastor/preacher" unless they first have some elder experience, perhaps a minimum of six years.
We have to try to understand whether this is about job security for seminary graduates, or whether it is about service in the kingdom of God, within the body of Christ. And we also have to try to understand whether this "professionalization" of service is separating the body of christ from service and from the word, and is ridiculing the notion of the equal honor of all the offices.
Posted in: How does a church shift from "needs-based" to "gifts-based" ministry?
Just a thought here. If everyone had the same "gifts" would that mean that some needs would not be met? Perhaps the greatest gifts are always centered around meeting the needs of others, rather than the expectation of self?
Posted in: What are the guidelines for establishing minimum pass vote percentages?
George, sorry, yes, Randy did bring it up first. He seemed to be a bit more balanced on it, while you referred to 2/3 requirement as rule by minority as a blanket concern, relating mostly to synodical decisions; in any case, selecting elders is a bit different than making a confessional change at a denominational level. Perhaps a better comparison might have been with deposing an elder, or with a single nomination. Would a simple majority be sufficient for this?
Posted in: Which office discusses and decides who is eligible for call to Elders and Deacons?
It is probably a good idea to involve the existing deacons in the nomination of new deacons. However it is important to realize that in general, the difference in roles between elders and deacons is that elders are called ruling elders. Deacons are not given that mandate or task. When the church order fails to recognize that distinction, the order fails as a point of good order. In small churches it may be that the deacons are also given the responsibility of elders. In other words they are elders who focus on diaconal tasks, but are not limited to them.
In a sense the church order here has illegitimately usurped the authority of the local congregation to decide what portion of the council or consistory would be involved in nominations. The fact is that in most cases the entire congregation is involved anyway, while the final decisions ought to be left to the elders unless they choose to delegate that decision.
If both elders and deacons are listed as members of the board of trustees of the local church, then I would agree that both would have to be involved in the final decision for nominating new members of the board of trustees.
Posted in: How does a church shift from "needs-based" to "gifts-based" ministry?
Sometimes the greatest gifts are not talents or abilities. Sometimes opportunities are the greatest gifts.
If you are the only one who can play the piano, it is a gift. If everyone can play the piano, you may not have the opportunity.
Posted in: What are the guidelines for establishing minimum pass vote percentages?
It would be good for the local council to make the decision, given that technically the congregational votes are advice to council. However, in practical terms, if the council has not decided otherwise ahead of time, it would generally feel obligated to follow a simple majority.
Posted in: How can a church make changes to structure while staying within the church order guidelines?
Just a suggestion, Theresa.... break your comments into paragraphs. A run-on paragraph is a bit hard to digest. Lots of good ideas though.
Posted in: How has the Article 7 change affected those seeking to become Ministers of the Word?
Thanks for your reply. I think the term exceptional gifts should never have been used. It seemed to imply that Article 7 required exceptional gifts while article 6 did not. Ironic.
I agree it seems to provide a credential of some type of blanket approval. It does not in essence prevent someone from preaching or pastoring in my view, since they can receive approval from any local church which requests their service. However the onus would be on the responsibility of the local church. And there would be generally reduced request or acceptance of their service in churches where they are not a direct member.
And now we have the ministry associate category as you say.... where along with elders and deacons we have them treated as lesser individuals with lesser honor, which is contrary to the church order (which is contrary to itself). This is a great failing in our denomination, and it is a failing in the spiritual life of the membership.
Do you have an example of the abuse of article 7 (names not required)?
Posted in: How can a church make changes to structure while staying within the church order guidelines?
The minutes of regular meetings should include:
Correspondence
Agenda preparation
Facility operating information
The secretary's position requires a high commitment of time and enthusiasm. In most cases, next to the president, the secretary represents the agricultural society to others.
Ideas on writing and recording minutes
Minutes - Meeting minutes are the only record of a committee, board or organization. They should be considered the history of the group. Without accurate records, the group will not have an official record of decisions, past actions, important dates, events and policies.
Motions - All motions should be noted and recorded
(This is procedure for Ag societies, but would apply quite well. The only other issue for churches that likely needs elucidation is the issue of recording minutes for confidential issues. This should be clarified with any new recorder/secretary/clerk when they begin in their first meeting.)
Posted in: How has the Article 7 change affected those seeking to become Ministers of the Word?
Okay, I agree with Paul... I appreciate your input, David.
Two separate points are being discussed. One is whether there should be other pathways to ministry and service. The second is how do we honor those who serve.
As to the first point, obviously there should be various pathways to ministry and service. For that reason it is good that we have a ministry associate path, although the "title" designates a lower honor, just like an associate professor vs a full (tenured) professor distinction. We'll get to that point in a minute.
The possibility of different pathways enables those with varying gifts and interests to use those gifts in a more beneficial and useful way. There are those who have taken the seminary route who barely qualified, and as soon as they finished, promptly ignored or forgot a great deal of what they learned academically. While they may have continued to upgrade and maintain their education in the fields of pastoral care and counselling and dramatic preaching, they were not interested in theological distinctions very much, nor in the classical languages, nor in history, nor in philosophy.
There are those who never went to seminary, who have read more and studied greatly on their own, and continue to upgrade their theological understandings, although they may not be particularly strong in counselling or other aspects of ministry. (Rob Braun raises some interesting points from his perspective; perhaps we need to evaluate that).
Then there are those whose main focus is evangelism, and all their theological study and pastoral care upgrading and counselling courses are geared specifically to evangelism. It would seem that various paths might be very beneficial to the different goals and objectives of our various faith ministries. A certain degree or pathway of education might actually in some cases hurt the actual goals of some ministries, simply because it is a diversion and delay to the calling put on some people.
Although various pathways are beneficial, we do need to ensure that the right level of education is maintained and encouraged. We need to be aware that Jesus taught his disciples for three years before He left them, and that they learned from him daily. Although we also need to be more aware of what Jesus really did teach them. I don't think there was much teaching of philosophy or psychology or counselling, other than what Jesus modelled, for example.
What we need more of is an understanding of what elders need in terms of education. If elders are to supervise the preachers, then how can they be trained to do that? If elders are to pastor, to lead, to exercise authority, then how are they trained to do that? And if elders, being equal in honor to preachers, pastors, deacons, ministers, and associates, then how are they to exercise that equality in honor? Should they be taught the basic contents of a sermon? Should they be able to write at least one acceptable sermon in their lifetime? Should they be able to feel confident about leading the sacraments? Should they learn how to make a productive and uplifting family visit?
And then, for those elders who want to learn more, how do we enable that learning? How do we recognize that learning?
Now to the second point, about equality of honor. I would suggest that other than the title, ministry associates have virtually equal honor to ministers. They are able to perform the same functions and are given the same general titles of preacher or pastor. The honor is given where it really counts, which is in the local church. When it comes to serving in the other classical churches, those churches can make that request, even if the process is a bit circuitous. When it comes to serving in classis itself, then they merely need to be delegated by their church as an elder; this would be similar for serving at synod.
The problem of equal honor is really at the elder level, and also the deacon level. But I will concentrate on the elder level. I want to concentrate on the elder level particularly because the designation of elder is particularly that of a ruling elder. And therefore it is unseemly (and not in good order) for a ruling elder to be perceived as somehow not having the honor and authority that a preacher or pastor may have. Obviously preachers and pastors have received specific training and calling for their task. However, the authority and honor of elders to preach, administer sacraments, give benedictions and blessings, should not be denied. Rather it should be encouraged. A seminary degree is not required to preach a basic elementary gospel message, nor to understand the sacraments. Nor is a seminary degree required to convey some particular ability to understand what the giving of a blessing is or means. Since elders are ordained in God's service according to the prescription of scripture, we ought not to distinguish in things that ought not to be distinguished in.
The church order makes too many distinctions based on honor, and not on function. For that reason, it deals with deposition of a minister, or loaning of a minister, while it does not do that for other offices. It deals with a pension fund for ministers, and not for other local church staff. It has numerous articles for ministers that could be relatively easily amalgamated with the content of the articles for ministerial associates, article 7 ministers, and elders and deacons. The distinctions that the church order makes both in the amount of attention to preachers, and in the manner of the attention, is contrary to its own injunction that the offices are equal in honor, while differing in function.
One example is the delegation of consistories to classis, and of classis to synod. The reasonable assumption would be that two elders, or three elders should be delegated, of which no more than one can be a pastor. This would be reasonable because of the normal fact that most councils have one or two pastors while having between four to twenty or more elders. So if a church should decide to send two elders who are not preachers, classis ought not to upbraid them. While this is not likely to happen too often, recognizing the possibility as a legitimate possibility is a way of recognizing the equality of honor. Classis is not a pastor's conference; it is a delegated church governance mechanism.
This is just one example; I could provide many more, but this is enough to chew on for now.
John Z
Posted in: How has the Article 7 change affected those seeking to become Ministers of the Word?
Oh, and I've wanted to ask this question for some time now. What does "exceptional gifts" mean? How do these gifts differ from non-exceptional or ordinary gifts? How few people have to have them for them to be exceptional? or conversely, how many people are not permitted to have them for them to be exceptional? And what gifts are we talking about? Do all preachers have to have these exceptional gifts?
Personally, I don't think the term should be used, but I'm waiting to be convinced otherwise.
John Z
Posted in: How can a church make changes to structure while staying within the church order guidelines?
Karl, you asked two questions. So first, about movers and seconders. The guidelines I provided are general guidelines. I think if you have a larger council or a congreg mtg, then they are good to follow. If you have a small council, say five or less people, then you could assume consensus for many motions if you like, since it will almost always be the same people making and seconding the motions. This is assuming that the meeting minutes identify who attended the meeting. It is also important to identify if someone comes later to the meeting, and when they entered. This will clarify if they were part of the discussion on a particular issue or not. For some issues, particularly money issues or changing bylaws or annual meeting or other governance issues, the formal motion would be required, especially by the Societies Act. It verifies that the motion was actually presented properly and voted on.
Second, yes, adding a who and when is a good procedure, and documenting it in the minutes ensures/encourages that a decision will be acted upon. The person responsible can be a part of the motion, or can be a consensus agreement after the motion. We often call them action items. This ensures accountability. This is not solely the job of the secretary/clerk to make sure that someone is accountable, but the clerk needs to record it and should remind the meeting that someone should be responsible for an action item.
For some items, detailing the "when" is essential, so that subsequent events and activities can take place when they need to. This may involve some timeline planning. For other items, the timeline planning will be left to the person/persons responsible for the action.
Posted in: How has the Article 7 change affected those seeking to become Ministers of the Word?
Hmmm, someone had a "feeling" that article 7 was becoming a new rule? or imposing on article 6? It was a new rule, after all. Exceptional gifts, does not suppose that they are required to be exceptional circumstances. I did not get the "feeling" that article 7 was suggesting that education was not important. Just that the method and pathway and content of the education might be different.
The most important part of education is experience. Every minister, preacher, teacher, agrologist, accountant and mechanic knows that they learn more in the first couple of years of actual work, than they ever learned in college or university. To equate elders with ten or more years of actual experience with a fresh seminary grad does a big disservice to both the value and the experience of these "elders". There might be value to suggesting that no one can be a "minister/pastor/preacher" unless they first have some elder experience, perhaps a minimum of six years.
We have to try to understand whether this is about job security for seminary graduates, or whether it is about service in the kingdom of God, within the body of Christ. And we also have to try to understand whether this "professionalization" of service is separating the body of christ from service and from the word, and is ridiculing the notion of the equal honor of all the offices.