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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
Yes George, your example of synodical decisions was quite diversionary and inappropriate. Your assumption or defintion of "wise leadership" is also merely an assumption, as in the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Wise leadership would assume some agreement or buy-in, but you seem to assume it stands on its own, and that 51% agreement implies wise leadership. That can also be perceived as tyranny by the majority.
As far as how elders, deacons and preachers are elected or appointed, there appear to be various scriptural precedents and methods. It is important that the method to be used is understood and accepted ahead of time, with the understanding and trust that God can use whatever method he chooses to bring about a result that He desires and that is edifying to the church and glorifying to His name. And the council and church ought to do this in prayer and seeking and trusting.
Are blog posts a dangerous trap? I would suggest that they are not as dangerous a trap as an individual preacher or teacher making certain statements or pushing positions in an individual church or council meeting or college classroom. At least blog posts can be accessed by more people and can be addressed by people not under the local influence. They will tend to achieve a much broader perspective and response, which hopefully will provide illumination about the path of truth that God wants us to follow.
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.)
Bill. Interesting you would focus on that. :) One way to find out what others read isn't it? :) Yes, you are right of course, and good for you to point it out. I realized it also after I'd written that, but intended to correct that later. What I really meant by that was that the church order seemed to be designed to accomodate or provide for eligibility for the pension fund. Am I totally off base on that?
In any case, this is not the main issue in this particular discussion. I wanted to mention it as an indication of a different sort of honoring, and this is true whether it is specifically in the church order or not. But the main thing perhaps is that we don't, or maybe no one knows what the phrase "equal in honor" really means? It doesn't seem to mean what it appears to say.
Eligibility of officebearers is ultimately the responsibility of the elders. According to the example of scripture, they chose or made the final decision on nomination of office bearers. If they choose to involve the deacons, then they may do that. If they choose to ask the advice of the congregation, then they may do that as well. In smaller churches, it is advisable to involve the deacons in decision making matters about church governance for the purposes of adding more "heads" to the discussion. In larger churches, this would not be necessary, and would relieve the deacons to carry out their own particular tasks and roles more adequately.
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?
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: 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.
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?
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: 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?
Yes George, your example of synodical decisions was quite diversionary and inappropriate. Your assumption or defintion of "wise leadership" is also merely an assumption, as in the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Wise leadership would assume some agreement or buy-in, but you seem to assume it stands on its own, and that 51% agreement implies wise leadership. That can also be perceived as tyranny by the majority.
As far as how elders, deacons and preachers are elected or appointed, there appear to be various scriptural precedents and methods. It is important that the method to be used is understood and accepted ahead of time, with the understanding and trust that God can use whatever method he chooses to bring about a result that He desires and that is edifying to the church and glorifying to His name. And the council and church ought to do this in prayer and seeking and trusting.
Posted in: What does it mean "to submit to the judgment of the council, classis, or synod?"
Are blog posts a dangerous trap? I would suggest that they are not as dangerous a trap as an individual preacher or teacher making certain statements or pushing positions in an individual church or council meeting or college classroom. At least blog posts can be accessed by more people and can be addressed by people not under the local influence. They will tend to achieve a much broader perspective and response, which hopefully will provide illumination about the path of truth that God wants us to follow.
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?
Bill. Interesting you would focus on that. :) One way to find out what others read isn't it? :) Yes, you are right of course, and good for you to point it out. I realized it also after I'd written that, but intended to correct that later. What I really meant by that was that the church order seemed to be designed to accomodate or provide for eligibility for the pension fund. Am I totally off base on that?
In any case, this is not the main issue in this particular discussion. I wanted to mention it as an indication of a different sort of honoring, and this is true whether it is specifically in the church order or not. But the main thing perhaps is that we don't, or maybe no one knows what the phrase "equal in honor" really means? It doesn't seem to mean what it appears to say.
Posted in: Which office discusses and decides who is eligible for call to Elders and Deacons?
Eligibility of officebearers is ultimately the responsibility of the elders. According to the example of scripture, they chose or made the final decision on nomination of office bearers. If they choose to involve the deacons, then they may do that. If they choose to ask the advice of the congregation, then they may do that as well. In smaller churches, it is advisable to involve the deacons in decision making matters about church governance for the purposes of adding more "heads" to the discussion. In larger churches, this would not be necessary, and would relieve the deacons to carry out their own particular tasks and roles more adequately.