Randy Blacketer

Ken, that was an inappropriate comment about Dr. Cooper. To suggest that he is knowledgeable but not wise is inappropriate, since you do not know him, even though you claim to have researched him extensively, whatever that means. Stick with the issues he raises, and debate them if you will, but don't presume to judge his wisdom, particularly not in such a patronizing way.

Excellent post. I witnessed misuse of the SDs when they engaged in the debate over a ministerial candidate. They did not concur in our decision, though not on grounds of procedure, but because they didn't like the candidate's performance. Some of us responded that we would file a complaint of misconduct against the deputies. They reconsidered their decision, and relented, concurring contingent upon some remedial action. Most drama I've ever seen at a classis meeting, and I was right in the middle of it all, as the sermon critic.

Now I'm a synodical deputy. Got a good lesson on how *not* to conduct that office.

I think the churches do in fact need to know, at least in general. There is a troubling amoung of opacity at the "top," compounded now by the resignation of the director of denominational ministries. Transparency is in order. Otherwise, the chasm between the churches and the head office and agencies will only widen. The stakeholders in the CRCNA are the congregations; we have a right to know, and a right to make decisions based on what we know. If it is a difference of vision, we need to participate in the defining and affirming of that vision. The agencies and boards have been operating in a way that is both too independent of and opaque to the congregations and classes of the church. Too much power has drifted to the top.

Note the important editorial by Bob DeMoor and Gayla Postma:

http://www.thebanner.org/departments/article/?id=3296

I have to agree with PDR on this one. I appreciate James Dekker's comments, as reported at Synod:

Initially, synod discussed going into executive session to talk about the resignation. But Rev. James Dekker, president of Synod 2011, said he urged delegates not to discuss the issue behind closed doors.

Dekker said it was important for synod to be transparent, since a seeming lack of transparency had already caused concern in the denomination and led to rumors and gossip.

“I would like to deal with this report in candor and appropriate love and remain in full session as long as possible,” said Dekker. Should the discussion get too personal, he said, he would call for an executive session, but both he and the advisory committee thought it would not be necessary.

Although we still have no idea what's broken in our denominational leadership, and we have a right to know, because we are stakeholders in this church.

"We have an obligation to trust those who are called and appointed by God and through the affirmation of the body of Christ. In this case the Board of Trustees and the Advisory Committee of Synod are the one who have been called and appointed to deal with this painful situation."

In other words, the boards are not really accountable to the churches. I don't think so. It sounds like you are describing the Vatican. Our councils (where church authority is original, according to our Church Order, art. 27) and Classes need to hold those at the top accountable,and to be aware of how institutions (including church institutions) tend to be come dysfunctional. We have the responsibility to hold our leadership accountable, not to follow in blind trust. And we need enough information to do so. Moreover, we are stakeholders in the ministry of the denomination; this idea is not the incursion of some democratic ideal, but the basic principle of presbyterian and reformed polity.

With all the talk of a dysfunctional "culture" that is coming out of the BOT and the Synod, it is obvious we need some serious intervention with our agency leadership. Agencies that are battling each other over turf (which is widely reported, even in The Banner) have not earned our trust, and again, need to be held accountable. Simply demanding people follow in blind faith (faith in agencies, not faith in God) is neither responsible nor effective in creating denominational awareness and loyalty, which is seriously eroded among the membership, who are indeed the stakeholders of the denomination. The widening gap between congregations and the denomination is a matter of serious concern.

I hope the task force set up to review the denominational structure will take seriously Bob De Moor and Gayla R. Postma's editorial in The Banner, "Denominational Governance: Time to Get Back to Reformed Basics."

They report that former Calvin College president Anthony Diekema spoke to the BOT and observed that the CRC structure  was “ 'the most bizarre organization I’ve ever seen. . . . The governance is redundant, competitive, independent. Administrative authority is shared at best, nonexistent at worst.' Diekema said the agencies would need to shift from a culture of independence to one of common cause."

http://www.thebanner.org/departments/article/?id=3296

Ken, I would forward this to the director of mentored ministries at Calvin Seminary.

Also, would a "spiritual director," as we find in other traditions, help to fill this role?

I really appreciate and resonate with these reflections. Even though I don't use the TULIP acronym (because I don't think it does a good job of communicating what the Canons of Dordt actually teach) I really find that young adults have a hunger for the Reformed faith that sometimes we find stale or irrelevant. I'm glad to see signs that the tide is turning. I am a product of Home Missions evangelism myself, and it was the depth of the Reformed faith by which God grabbed us and held us.

My former professor H. Evan Runner was not a theologian; in fact he had a certain disdain for theology and was disappointed in me when I chose theology over philosophy, which in the "Reformational" tradition is the de facto "Queen of the Sciences." By the way, the Greeks separated body and soul, but the Hebrews distinguished them and did not fall into the monism or denial of the intermediate state (which is heresy) that Vollenhoven and some of his followers did.

The seminary cannot do all those things; its primary job is to train pastors to preach, teach, lead worship, and provide pastoral care. That's why there are broad PRE-seminary requirements which we had to go through (and at least in my day they were substantial, even burdensome). But I agree that pastors must continue to be learning as much as they can about their parishioners' lives. Pastors must always be learning and experiencing new things in order to practically and relevantly apply what they learn in seminary.

 

Jim, who has ever heard of Georgetown, ON? That's why we didn't show up. It's a long drive from Neerlandia. :)

But more seriously, I think the Seminary is excelling in this regard: witness the volume that we received, Delight in Creation, put out by the Center for Excellence in Preaching, and Scott Hoezee, whose office happens to be at CTS.

Pastors, moreover, I think also do their best to keep up with all kinds of aspects of everyday life; but we cannot literally be all things to all people, even if the apostle Paul could. Pastors regularly face questions about the relation of their faith to science, work, politics, economics, labor and/or labour, the recent resurgence in aggressive atheism, etc., especially, in my experience, among youth and young adults. When I was in seminary I might have been tempted to think that my courses in philosophical theology and apologetics were a hoop I had to jump through; now with the resurgence in atheism, those courses seem to be exceptionally relevant, and directly connected with pastoral care and discipleship, again, particularly with young adults and college/university students, who are asking, or being asked, tough philosophical and existential questions about God and the Christian faith.

I think John van Sloten's work is a reminder and encouragement for us pastors, not to become scientists, but to remain engaged with our people, for one thing, and secondly, to be lifelong learners, if we expect our parishioners to also continue to learn the ways of Christ (i.e. discipleship). We won't all do it the same way John does, but we don't have to, which is a good thing, because we can't all be as cool as John is (and he really is; I recently watched an interview on YouTube that John did with a young man who is married to one of my former parishioners about online gaming addiction--it was very good). But we all have our strengths and God can use all of us in different ways.

One challenge, I think, is that the pastoral ministry requires us to be extroverts, but it tends to attract introverts. (Also, you should never make generalizations! :) ) But this can be to our advantage, as long as we use that introverted part of ourselves (if that applies) to learning and growing; and then also make the effort to really engage in the lives of the people whom God has entrusted to our pastoral care.

I'm glad you're keeping this conversation going. Your point that "Synod is a poor type of body to govern agencies" seems right  on. With all due respect to the individuals involved, the recent appointment of the deputy Executive Director is puzzling if in fact the denomination is seeking change. It seems like more of the same for the foreseeable future. We have an entrenched system that is manifestly dysfunctional and highly resistant to change.

By the way I want one of those cultural shirts, size M. Oh, sorry, you meant cultural shift. ;)