AKA Dr. Raymond A. Blacketer. Reformation scholar, sometime professor, native Californian, lover of the Reformed confessions, brought into the Christian Reformed Church through evangelism. Formerly pastor of Neerlandia CRC in Northern Alberta, Canada, and First Cutlerville CRC, Byron Center. Currently working as a theological editor and translator.
The same as when two individuals who have (or haven't, for that matter) made profession of faith and then decide to shack up. First, lots of patient, pastoral care. If a couple continues to openly and publically disregard the covenant of marriage, then warn, then move to formal discipline. People in our society grossly underestimate the harmful effects of cohabitation, particularly on women and children who most often end up abandoned and impoverished, and in serial cohabitation, the risks of child abuse from boyfriends rises dramatically. The church is the last institution to stand up for marriage, and there is pressure for us to cave on this issue and go with the flow of our godless and self-gratifying culture. Therefore discipline in this kind of case would serve to keep the integrity of the church's witness to the shape of Christian discipleship. To fail to act sends a message to the young people of the congregation that it's all fine and dandy; those appointed to disciple and shepherd the church may not do nothing. Finally, and most pastorally important, carefully and wisely applied discipline is intended to serve as a witness to those persons who are not walking in the way of Christ and leadinging others to stumble as well; it is ultimately more loving to disciple (which is what discipline is) than to look the other way. These, by the way, are the three purposes of church discipline in the Reformed tradition: To protect the reputation of Christ's church; to remove potential stumbling blocks for others; and most of all to bring the erring parties to repentance and back to the way of following Christ. There is a great resistance to church discipline in our churches, partly, perhaps, because of the unloving way in which it has allegedly been practiced on some occasions in the past, and partly because our culture sends a powerful message that what I do is my own business and no one can tell me what to do. Discipling is very counter-cultural. But it also requires sensitivity, patience, and wisdom.
As for the profession of faith part, a new issue now arises because young persons can be communicant members without having made an adult profession of faith. I'm not sure how the church will procede in that case, except that the initial pastoral care and warnings will be the same. Can a communicant but non-professing member be placed under silent censure? My initial thought is to say, yes, but I'm not sure if this issue has been addressed. That might be a good topic for the Church Polity Forum. (Is there a Church Polity Forum?)
You should consult with the church visitors of your classis before going the article 17 route. Article 17 is associated primarily with pastor-congregation relationships that don't work out. It might turn out to be the correct course of action, but despite efforts to remove the stigma of an article 17 release, the stigma is still there, both for the church and for the pastor who is so released; thus it is not a step to be taken lightly. The congregation must be appropriately informed of the process, but it is primarily a matter of the council and the classis.
Theresa, you should write a book: Governance for Dummies. We need all the governance geekiness we can get. People don't understand just how crucial good process is! The refrain is: we should care about people, not the process or policy; but the fact is that having good policy and following good process are the best way to serve people, and ignoring those things ends up creating unnecessary confusion and non-constructive conflict.
Now, here is my real question for you:
Do you have any good resources I can use to help train elders to take minutes? We seem to either get minutes that are too vague to be of any use, or so overly detailed that they are inappropriate. What we need are minutes that are concise, professional, and to the point, recording motions and actions and actions yet to be done, by whom and by what time. Any resources you have would be appreciated! Many thanks.
I want a good resource so that I, too, know what good minutes are supposed to look like and what are some good principles and tips for taking minutes, from some "governance geeks," as Theresa styles herself. Just because I know what not-so-great minutes look like doesn't mean I know how they should be done; I also want to educate myself. I also want something written down for successive clerks to be able to use as a resource. I have found some (rather limited) resources on the web, including Roberts Rules of Order, which is helpful. But the dragon stuff I don't think will help, because first of all I don't speak Dragonese (sorry, I was just reading How to Train Your Dragon with my kids for bedtime), and more seriously, because minutes are specifically not a blow-by-blow account of everything everyone said. As I found on the robertsrules.com website FAQ:
Question 15
Isn't it necessary to summarize matters discussed at a meeting in the minutes of that meeting in order for the minutes to be complete?
Answer:
Not only is it not necessary to summarize matters discussed at a meeting in the minutes of that meeting, it is improper to do so. Minutes are a record of what was done at a meeting, not a record of what was said. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 451, l. 25-28; see also p. 146 of RONR In Brief.] {RONR = Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised}
But that's probably not what you had in mind anyway. I'm probably better at typing than I am talking to a computer, so the Dragon software probably wouldn't be that helpful. I do have a writer friend who uses it. I'm going to keep looking and asking.
Councils set their own rules about this based on their own discernment of what is best. In our council, we have had members complain that a motion did not pass by a 2/3 majority, and they thought that the issue was important enough to require such a majority, but the fact of the matter is that the council has to decide beforehand if a larger majority than 50% +1 is required to pass any particular motion. The complaint was invalid for that reason. In addition, abstentions do not count toward the total number of votes in a congregational meeting; abstentions by definition are non-votes. This should also be made clear, because persons can (invalidly) claim that an abstention really is a vote for (or against) a candidate. Council can set whatever percentage it deems best for the affirmation / approbation of candidates. Making council's policy clear and clearly communicating it are essential for avoiding or at least reducing grumblings and conflict over controversial votes.
The matter is quite debatable, and is not black and white. Unity is a key factor that is missing, I suggest, from George's suggestion that simple majorities should always be the norm. How much ownership of a confession, for example, would be reflected if it were adopted by 50.5% of the church, and rejected by 49.5%? I was just speaking with one of my colleagues in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, which adopted by just over 50% a report on human sexuality which, in the view of a number of leading North American Lutheran theogians, was seriously lacking in biblical-theological reflection, and which defines "family" in terms of whatever an individual chooses to call a family. Now that the door is opened to ordaining homosexual and bisexual couples, Lutherans are facing the painful prospect of leaving that denomination--which is already happening in their American counterpart, the ELCA. Requiring a two-thirds majority would have at least allowed the church to continue dialoging together, but now schism is inevitable, and a new denomination has come into being, the North American Lutheran Church. I am not at all convinced that insisting on a simple majority is wise, discerning, or pastoral, or that it is good leadership. But I don't think everything has to be 2/3 either. In matters of great import, such as confessions or major issues of change, it may be wise to go that route. Trying to build consensus among God's people is the route of wisdom, not power politics. On the other hand, if a Synod or council does not agree to the 2/3 majority, there is really no room to object to any vote that is made, though the results may be divisive and potentially alienating those those who may feel their voice is not being heard. Also, it should be pointed out that Synod does have something like this in place, in that certain decisions have to be ratified by a subsequent synod. It's good to have checks and balances.
My meeting went quite well, by the way. The expectations in my post reflect what I have often felt, but I was heard and understood in this meeting, and while some measures were below what I expected, others were above the classical average, and I was satisfied that we were at the right place. The important thing for me is that there was some communication, and the respect and understanding that comes from that communication. Also, when I wrote this post rather quickly, I did not specify that what the finance committee thinks is actually my fear or my past perception of what they think, which thankfully did not turn out to be the case... so, if there's a way to edit that, I would like to do that.
Todd, it is definitely a thing. I finally remembered where it comes from. The letter of call.
"We also promise and oblige ourselves to review with you annually in the light of the synodical Ministers’ Compensation Guidelines the adequacy of this compensation prior to the adoption of the church budget."
That's a good question and an interesting topic. I find that most of the time, a sermon title is something I have to "come up with so that the church secretary has something to type in the bulletin." I have to plan my sermons some months in advance, and it's more than a bit backwards to give a sermon a title before one has studied the text and meditated on its meaning for one's congregation. I often find that the title I came up with doesn't really fit the sermon that I later write and deliver. But I don't have a problem with changing it at the last minute, even if it doesn't match the bulletin. That's just the nature of preaching Sunday to Sunday. There are a few sermons where the title was right on and intriguing, but the majority have just been serviceable. I'm not sure any were alluring enough to bring in someone from the neighborhood on the strength of the title alone.
Posted in: When a young person who's living a sinful lifestyle wants to make profession of faith; what's an appropriate response?
The same as when two individuals who have (or haven't, for that matter) made profession of faith and then decide to shack up. First, lots of patient, pastoral care. If a couple continues to openly and publically disregard the covenant of marriage, then warn, then move to formal discipline. People in our society grossly underestimate the harmful effects of cohabitation, particularly on women and children who most often end up abandoned and impoverished, and in serial cohabitation, the risks of child abuse from boyfriends rises dramatically. The church is the last institution to stand up for marriage, and there is pressure for us to cave on this issue and go with the flow of our godless and self-gratifying culture. Therefore discipline in this kind of case would serve to keep the integrity of the church's witness to the shape of Christian discipleship. To fail to act sends a message to the young people of the congregation that it's all fine and dandy; those appointed to disciple and shepherd the church may not do nothing. Finally, and most pastorally important, carefully and wisely applied discipline is intended to serve as a witness to those persons who are not walking in the way of Christ and leadinging others to stumble as well; it is ultimately more loving to disciple (which is what discipline is) than to look the other way. These, by the way, are the three purposes of church discipline in the Reformed tradition: To protect the reputation of Christ's church; to remove potential stumbling blocks for others; and most of all to bring the erring parties to repentance and back to the way of following Christ. There is a great resistance to church discipline in our churches, partly, perhaps, because of the unloving way in which it has allegedly been practiced on some occasions in the past, and partly because our culture sends a powerful message that what I do is my own business and no one can tell me what to do. Discipling is very counter-cultural. But it also requires sensitivity, patience, and wisdom.
As for the profession of faith part, a new issue now arises because young persons can be communicant members without having made an adult profession of faith. I'm not sure how the church will procede in that case, except that the initial pastoral care and warnings will be the same. Can a communicant but non-professing member be placed under silent censure? My initial thought is to say, yes, but I'm not sure if this issue has been addressed. That might be a good topic for the Church Polity Forum. (Is there a Church Polity Forum?)
Posted in: When a young person who's living a sinful lifestyle wants to make profession of faith; what's an appropriate response?
That's Dominee Randy. ;)
I like to say I'm Dutch by marriage and religion, but I won't go so far as to change my name to Van Blaaketersma.
Posted in: What Steps Does a Church Take When It Needs to Dismiss a Pastor It Cannot Afford?
You should consult with the church visitors of your classis before going the article 17 route. Article 17 is associated primarily with pastor-congregation relationships that don't work out. It might turn out to be the correct course of action, but despite efforts to remove the stigma of an article 17 release, the stigma is still there, both for the church and for the pastor who is so released; thus it is not a step to be taken lightly. The congregation must be appropriately informed of the process, but it is primarily a matter of the council and the classis.
Posted in: How can a church make changes to structure while staying within the church order guidelines?
Theresa, you should write a book: Governance for Dummies. We need all the governance geekiness we can get. People don't understand just how crucial good process is! The refrain is: we should care about people, not the process or policy; but the fact is that having good policy and following good process are the best way to serve people, and ignoring those things ends up creating unnecessary confusion and non-constructive conflict.
Now, here is my real question for you:
Do you have any good resources I can use to help train elders to take minutes? We seem to either get minutes that are too vague to be of any use, or so overly detailed that they are inappropriate. What we need are minutes that are concise, professional, and to the point, recording motions and actions and actions yet to be done, by whom and by what time. Any resources you have would be appreciated! Many thanks.
Posted in: How can a church make changes to structure while staying within the church order guidelines?
Hi, Ken, thanks for the reponse.
I want a good resource so that I, too, know what good minutes are supposed to look like and what are some good principles and tips for taking minutes, from some "governance geeks," as Theresa styles herself. Just because I know what not-so-great minutes look like doesn't mean I know how they should be done; I also want to educate myself. I also want something written down for successive clerks to be able to use as a resource. I have found some (rather limited) resources on the web, including Roberts Rules of Order, which is helpful. But the dragon stuff I don't think will help, because first of all I don't speak Dragonese (sorry, I was just reading How to Train Your Dragon with my kids for bedtime), and more seriously, because minutes are specifically not a blow-by-blow account of everything everyone said. As I found on the robertsrules.com website FAQ:
Question 15
Isn't it necessary to summarize matters discussed at a meeting in the minutes of that meeting in order for the minutes to be complete?
Answer:
Not only is it not necessary to summarize matters discussed at a meeting in the minutes of that meeting, it is improper to do so. Minutes are a record of what was done at a meeting, not a record of what was said. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 451, l. 25-28; see also p. 146 of RONR In Brief.] {RONR = Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised}
But that's probably not what you had in mind anyway. I'm probably better at typing than I am talking to a computer, so the Dragon software probably wouldn't be that helpful. I do have a writer friend who uses it. I'm going to keep looking and asking.
Posted in: What written emergency evacuation plans are available for church preparedness?
Air marshalls randomly attending worship?
Posted in: How can a church make changes to structure while staying within the church order guidelines?
http://www.ehow.com/how_3815_minutes-business-meeting.html
Posted in: What are the guidelines for establishing minimum pass vote percentages?
Councils set their own rules about this based on their own discernment of what is best. In our council, we have had members complain that a motion did not pass by a 2/3 majority, and they thought that the issue was important enough to require such a majority, but the fact of the matter is that the council has to decide beforehand if a larger majority than 50% +1 is required to pass any particular motion. The complaint was invalid for that reason. In addition, abstentions do not count toward the total number of votes in a congregational meeting; abstentions by definition are non-votes. This should also be made clear, because persons can (invalidly) claim that an abstention really is a vote for (or against) a candidate. Council can set whatever percentage it deems best for the affirmation / approbation of candidates. Making council's policy clear and clearly communicating it are essential for avoiding or at least reducing grumblings and conflict over controversial votes.
Posted in: What are the guidelines for establishing minimum pass vote percentages?
The matter is quite debatable, and is not black and white. Unity is a key factor that is missing, I suggest, from George's suggestion that simple majorities should always be the norm. How much ownership of a confession, for example, would be reflected if it were adopted by 50.5% of the church, and rejected by 49.5%? I was just speaking with one of my colleagues in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, which adopted by just over 50% a report on human sexuality which, in the view of a number of leading North American Lutheran theogians, was seriously lacking in biblical-theological reflection, and which defines "family" in terms of whatever an individual chooses to call a family. Now that the door is opened to ordaining homosexual and bisexual couples, Lutherans are facing the painful prospect of leaving that denomination--which is already happening in their American counterpart, the ELCA. Requiring a two-thirds majority would have at least allowed the church to continue dialoging together, but now schism is inevitable, and a new denomination has come into being, the North American Lutheran Church. I am not at all convinced that insisting on a simple majority is wise, discerning, or pastoral, or that it is good leadership. But I don't think everything has to be 2/3 either. In matters of great import, such as confessions or major issues of change, it may be wise to go that route. Trying to build consensus among God's people is the route of wisdom, not power politics. On the other hand, if a Synod or council does not agree to the 2/3 majority, there is really no room to object to any vote that is made, though the results may be divisive and potentially alienating those those who may feel their voice is not being heard. Also, it should be pointed out that Synod does have something like this in place, in that certain decisions have to be ratified by a subsequent synod. It's good to have checks and balances.
Posted in: Annual Compensation Review: Support for Pastors?
My meeting went quite well, by the way. The expectations in my post reflect what I have often felt, but I was heard and understood in this meeting, and while some measures were below what I expected, others were above the classical average, and I was satisfied that we were at the right place. The important thing for me is that there was some communication, and the respect and understanding that comes from that communication. Also, when I wrote this post rather quickly, I did not specify that what the finance committee thinks is actually my fear or my past perception of what they think, which thankfully did not turn out to be the case... so, if there's a way to edit that, I would like to do that.
Posted in: Annual Compensation Review: Support for Pastors?
Todd, it is definitely a thing. I finally remembered where it comes from. The letter of call.
"We also promise and oblige ourselves to review with you annually in the light of the synodical Ministers’ Compensation Guidelines the adequacy of this compensation prior to the adoption of the church budget."
Boom! ;)
Posted in: What's in a [Sermon] Name?
That's a good question and an interesting topic. I find that most of the time, a sermon title is something I have to "come up with so that the church secretary has something to type in the bulletin." I have to plan my sermons some months in advance, and it's more than a bit backwards to give a sermon a title before one has studied the text and meditated on its meaning for one's congregation. I often find that the title I came up with doesn't really fit the sermon that I later write and deliver. But I don't have a problem with changing it at the last minute, even if it doesn't match the bulletin. That's just the nature of preaching Sunday to Sunday. There are a few sermons where the title was right on and intriguing, but the majority have just been serviceable. I'm not sure any were alluring enough to bring in someone from the neighborhood on the strength of the title alone.