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.
Loretta, getting to your original question of changing governance, it would be helpful if you identified just what changes are needed and why they are needed. There is lots of flexibility to adjust governance to allow churches to manage their affairs. But it seems to me you will need a council and or consistory regardless. The deaconate work can be delegated to the deacons, and a frame of reference can be developed for the deacons. The context of their authority would be defined: how and when can they raise funds, and how they can spend it.
Then there are committees. They can be established, given a terms of reference, and a budget, or they can be asked to come back to council with all decisions, or just larger decisions over a certain amount of money.
There are lots of ways of doing things within the general and over-riding authority of the council, which is ultimately responsible, but can delegate some of that day-today responsibility to others.
Are you only concerned about the internal church matters, or also about the relationship of the church to classis?
Paul, I appreciate your comments. I agree we should be creative and diligent. Motivations are perhaps important, and thus useful, however, since they may help us to understand our goals and objectives.
For example, if one motivation is to have an educated leadership, how do we do that? Is it by ensuring jobs for graduates? perhaps. But another motivation may be to have more of the leadership educated. Which is a different way of looking at it. And to enable that, we need to make the education fit the situation.
We also need to realize that there is not an automatic correlation between giftedness (in the spiritual sense) and education. The two are not synoymous. While we would like to have both in every pastor, preacher, elder, teacher, we need to realize the limitations of education.
However, we do not need to be fearful that we will lose the value of education for preachers. A crass way of saying it, is that the cream will rise to the top. But that education should begin to have more value for the leadership (elders) of the church than it does today. That education should not be hoarded and boxed up like old university textbooks, but it should be shared to enable others (elders in particular) to carry out their tasks of teaching, preaching, encouragement, and leadership.
We have elders who potentially have listened to hundreds or thousands of sermons, read dozens of books on spiritual life, and attended hundreds of bible studies and many catechism classes. They are not uneducated. And then, we have preachers who are educated, but how do they pass on this education to others? Is it a matter of credential only that they know some Greek or Hebrew or have read some philosophers, medieval and ancient history, and have several volumes of several commentaries sitting on their shelves. Are they merely scholars? Or are they teachers too? If they are preachers only, then do they require the knowledge and background to become teachers? And who do they teach? Do the elders learn anything at all, so that the elders in turn can also preach and teach?
A ministry associate is generally in a church planting situation, right? at least that was the original intent. They will tend to be there on their own with some other planters perhaps (elders maybe). They will want a mentor (not a supervisor), just as any new pastor or preacher will want a mentor. If they need a supervisor, they will likely not be a good church planter, and they should stick to working in established churches. They need to get some elders as soon as possible to be the supervisors, who are there on a weekly or daily basis.
Thanks for your response. I quickly read article 6(and the supplements), and found no reference to exceptional or singular gifts in article 6. I might be having a problem with using the word "exceptional", since it is such a relative term. When we speak of having "gifts", we are already referring to something that is "different", are we not? Is not then the term "exceptional gifts" a redundancy? Or are we to assume that if you cannot preach like Billy Graham or Charles Price, or have not written several books on christian living, or do not spend four hours a day in prayer, that these gifts are not exceptional?
If we find for example that a non-seminary grad is an exceptional preacher, while a seminary grad is not quite so exceptional, does that mean the seminary grad is disqualified from being ordained?
My point is that the gifts do not need to be exceptional. They merely need to be gifts, to be there. The article 7 use of "exceptional" implies that we have a higher standard for article 7 than for article 6. Was this the intention?
Otherwise we should use the same type of terminology for article 6, in my opinion. Or simply combine the two articles into one article.
Another understanding of the word "gifts" has sometimes been given as "opportunities". Sometimes a God-given opportunity turns a rather ordinary gift into something rather spectacular and exceptional.
I would suggest that the congregation ought to be heavily consulted, not just informed. While indeed it is council who must make the decision, it is also the type of issue involving a large segment of the annual budget, and involving the calling or dismissal of pastors and other staff which is normally voted on by the congregation. It would be out of place for council to make such a decision without consulting or conferring with a congregational meeting. (regardless of whatever C.O. article is used.)
It is also important to realize that while some consultation with classis will occur that it is the local congregation under the authority of its office bearers who bear the responsibility for making the final decision with regard to the relationship of a pastor to the congregation. This is because the pastor was called and hired by the local congregation, not by the classis, and also because the pastor serves primarily the congregation, not the classis. (Although of course the pastor, the council, and each individual person ought to be serving Christ first, and serving Christ thru service to the congregation and to others.)
Just one little point I want to make, Paul, if you permit me, is this: just because something is debated at Synod, doesn't mean it didn't slip under the radar. Perhpas we ought to ask whose radar we are talking about. IMHO
I think you are giving a very good explanation of why things developed in the church order the way they did. Thankyou. However, these church order articles simply were not written well, and should have used different words, IMHO. Instead of using the term exceptional or singular gifts, which would always require some type of explanation (and apology), the article should have used the words that you used in your explanation, "gifts required to serve in the office..." or "gifts appopriate to....".
Article 6 and 7 combined below.
a. The completion of a satisfactory theological training shall be required for
admission to the ministry of the Word.
b. Graduates of the theological seminary of the Christian Reformed Church
who have been declared candidates for the ministry of the Word by synod
shall be eligible for call.
c. Those who have been trained at a seminary elsewhere shall not be eligible for call
unless they have met the requirements stipulated in the synodical regulations
and have been declared by synod to be candidates for the ministry of
the Word.
d. Those who have not received the prescribed seminary training but who
give evidence that they are appropriately gifted as to godliness, humility, spiritual
discretion, wisdom, and the native ability to preach the Word, may, by
way of exception, be admitted to the ministry of the Word, provided they complete the Modified Ecclesiastical Program for
When bylaws and constitution of many organizations are up for change it is common to require a two-thirds majority for substantial change. This is the same reason why Canadian and US governments also have a senate to balance off a mere majority rule by a democratically elected House of Commons or Representatives. For smaller organizations this is particularly important so that the initial intent of an organization cannot easily be subverted by a change in its population or membership. That is why consensus is often the practice for many substantive decisions, in order to maintain peace and order and good government, and a sense of ownership of the decision by all.
In terms of supposed rule by minority, this ignores the previous decisions made in an opposite direction by several or numerous previous bodies. If those were legitimate decisions, then they should carry some weight. If a present differing approach/decision is legitimate, then it should not be difficult to achieve a two-thirds majority to overcome the historic weight of previous contrary decisions.
But the argument will be on what is substantive and what is not.
Obviously the adoption of a confession or "testimony" is substantive. Other things may or may not be.
Whether synodical decisions on this have been wise since 1957 is a matter of opinion.
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.
Posted in: How can a church make changes to structure while staying within the church order guidelines?
Loretta, getting to your original question of changing governance, it would be helpful if you identified just what changes are needed and why they are needed. There is lots of flexibility to adjust governance to allow churches to manage their affairs. But it seems to me you will need a council and or consistory regardless. The deaconate work can be delegated to the deacons, and a frame of reference can be developed for the deacons. The context of their authority would be defined: how and when can they raise funds, and how they can spend it.
Then there are committees. They can be established, given a terms of reference, and a budget, or they can be asked to come back to council with all decisions, or just larger decisions over a certain amount of money.
There are lots of ways of doing things within the general and over-riding authority of the council, which is ultimately responsible, but can delegate some of that day-today responsibility to others.
Are you only concerned about the internal church matters, or also about the relationship of the church to classis?
..John.
Posted in: How has the Article 7 change affected those seeking to become Ministers of the Word?
Paul, I appreciate your comments. I agree we should be creative and diligent. Motivations are perhaps important, and thus useful, however, since they may help us to understand our goals and objectives.
For example, if one motivation is to have an educated leadership, how do we do that? Is it by ensuring jobs for graduates? perhaps. But another motivation may be to have more of the leadership educated. Which is a different way of looking at it. And to enable that, we need to make the education fit the situation.
We also need to realize that there is not an automatic correlation between giftedness (in the spiritual sense) and education. The two are not synoymous. While we would like to have both in every pastor, preacher, elder, teacher, we need to realize the limitations of education.
However, we do not need to be fearful that we will lose the value of education for preachers. A crass way of saying it, is that the cream will rise to the top. But that education should begin to have more value for the leadership (elders) of the church than it does today. That education should not be hoarded and boxed up like old university textbooks, but it should be shared to enable others (elders in particular) to carry out their tasks of teaching, preaching, encouragement, and leadership.
We have elders who potentially have listened to hundreds or thousands of sermons, read dozens of books on spiritual life, and attended hundreds of bible studies and many catechism classes. They are not uneducated. And then, we have preachers who are educated, but how do they pass on this education to others? Is it a matter of credential only that they know some Greek or Hebrew or have read some philosophers, medieval and ancient history, and have several volumes of several commentaries sitting on their shelves. Are they merely scholars? Or are they teachers too? If they are preachers only, then do they require the knowledge and background to become teachers? And who do they teach? Do the elders learn anything at all, so that the elders in turn can also preach and teach?
A ministry associate is generally in a church planting situation, right? at least that was the original intent. They will tend to be there on their own with some other planters perhaps (elders maybe). They will want a mentor (not a supervisor), just as any new pastor or preacher will want a mentor. If they need a supervisor, they will likely not be a good church planter, and they should stick to working in established churches. They need to get some elders as soon as possible to be the supervisors, who are there on a weekly or daily basis.
Posted in: How has the Article 7 change affected those seeking to become Ministers of the Word?
Thanks for your response. I quickly read article 6(and the supplements), and found no reference to exceptional or singular gifts in article 6. I might be having a problem with using the word "exceptional", since it is such a relative term. When we speak of having "gifts", we are already referring to something that is "different", are we not? Is not then the term "exceptional gifts" a redundancy? Or are we to assume that if you cannot preach like Billy Graham or Charles Price, or have not written several books on christian living, or do not spend four hours a day in prayer, that these gifts are not exceptional?
If we find for example that a non-seminary grad is an exceptional preacher, while a seminary grad is not quite so exceptional, does that mean the seminary grad is disqualified from being ordained?
My point is that the gifts do not need to be exceptional. They merely need to be gifts, to be there. The article 7 use of "exceptional" implies that we have a higher standard for article 7 than for article 6. Was this the intention?
Otherwise we should use the same type of terminology for article 6, in my opinion. Or simply combine the two articles into one article.
Another understanding of the word "gifts" has sometimes been given as "opportunities". Sometimes a God-given opportunity turns a rather ordinary gift into something rather spectacular and exceptional.
Posted in: What Steps Does a Church Take When It Needs to Dismiss a Pastor It Cannot Afford?
I would suggest that the congregation ought to be heavily consulted, not just informed. While indeed it is council who must make the decision, it is also the type of issue involving a large segment of the annual budget, and involving the calling or dismissal of pastors and other staff which is normally voted on by the congregation. It would be out of place for council to make such a decision without consulting or conferring with a congregational meeting. (regardless of whatever C.O. article is used.)
It is also important to realize that while some consultation with classis will occur that it is the local congregation under the authority of its office bearers who bear the responsibility for making the final decision with regard to the relationship of a pastor to the congregation. This is because the pastor was called and hired by the local congregation, not by the classis, and also because the pastor serves primarily the congregation, not the classis. (Although of course the pastor, the council, and each individual person ought to be serving Christ first, and serving Christ thru service to the congregation and to others.)
Posted in: How has the Article 7 change affected those seeking to become Ministers of the Word?
Just one little point I want to make, Paul, if you permit me, is this: just because something is debated at Synod, doesn't mean it didn't slip under the radar. Perhpas we ought to ask whose radar we are talking about. IMHO
Posted in: How has the Article 7 change affected those seeking to become Ministers of the Word?
I think you are giving a very good explanation of why things developed in the church order the way they did. Thankyou. However, these church order articles simply were not written well, and should have used different words, IMHO. Instead of using the term exceptional or singular gifts, which would always require some type of explanation (and apology), the article should have used the words that you used in your explanation, "gifts required to serve in the office..." or "gifts appopriate to....".
Article 6 and 7 combined below.
a. The completion of a satisfactory theological training shall be required for
admission to the ministry of the Word.
b. Graduates of the theological seminary of the Christian Reformed Church
who have been declared candidates for the ministry of the Word by synod
shall be eligible for call.
c. Those who have been trained at a seminary elsewhere shall not be eligible for call
unless they have met the requirements stipulated in the synodical regulations
and have been declared by synod to be candidates for the ministry of
the Word.
d. Those who have not received the prescribed seminary training but who
give evidence that they are appropriately gifted as to godliness, humility, spiritual
discretion, wisdom, and the native ability to preach the Word, may, by
way of exception, be admitted to the ministry of the Word, provided they complete the Modified Ecclesiastical Program for
Ministerial Candidacy (MEPMC).
Posted in: What are the guidelines for establishing minimum pass vote percentages?
When bylaws and constitution of many organizations are up for change it is common to require a two-thirds majority for substantial change. This is the same reason why Canadian and US governments also have a senate to balance off a mere majority rule by a democratically elected House of Commons or Representatives. For smaller organizations this is particularly important so that the initial intent of an organization cannot easily be subverted by a change in its population or membership. That is why consensus is often the practice for many substantive decisions, in order to maintain peace and order and good government, and a sense of ownership of the decision by all.
In terms of supposed rule by minority, this ignores the previous decisions made in an opposite direction by several or numerous previous bodies. If those were legitimate decisions, then they should carry some weight. If a present differing approach/decision is legitimate, then it should not be difficult to achieve a two-thirds majority to overcome the historic weight of previous contrary decisions.
But the argument will be on what is substantive and what is not.
Obviously the adoption of a confession or "testimony" is substantive. Other things may or may not be.
Whether synodical decisions on this have been wise since 1957 is a matter of opinion.