Jay Van Groningen

When I entered Broadway UMC a few years ago, I was struck that the hallways were lined with photos. Not of previous Pastors, but of neighbors. Each photo had the person's name and listed their contribution/gifts to neighborhood improvement. The church really celebrated neighbors' Kingdom contributions. Beautiful!

How about:

1. Money is the currency of charity

2. Once a Deacon then an Elder

3. Benevolence is for members of the congregation

4. Only Deacons can make decisions about benevolence disbursements

5. A Deacon visit is an annual event.

6. Deacons have to make widow/widower visits

7. A deacons business meeting means someone has asked the church for charity. 

8. No deacon should make a visit alone

9. Its not a Deacons visit if there is no deacon on the visit

10. Deacons don't run programs

11. Stewardship is the Deacons business

12. If the church is not meeting budget, the deacons aren't doing their job.

and so many more...

I am a lay leader in the church.  – “I wish Calvin Seminaryprepared students more in ….?  Another way of phrasing the focus might be – “I hope that Calvin Seminary provides training in ….”

It is no surprise that Synod was not ready to act on the "Diaconia Remixed" recommendations. I wish pastors and churches were evaluated on their ability and willingness to attend to two score cards: 1. How they are attending to and improving the health of the church. 2. How they are attending to and contributing to the health of the community (neighborhood) they occupy (both as church and where members live).  The latter is the broader calling of deacons. What will you teach so that Pastors start preparing, supporting and demanding that kind of leadership from their deacons? When will Calvin Seminary add a training track for Diaconal leadership? Maybe the seminary could open another revenue stream stream by preparing part-time and full-deacons. Individual and community development is not an option for churches today.

Hi Rod, its been too long... 

I appreciate the love and care the letter shows. There are three other possible dimensions to this that I want to suggest:

1. This woman and her family members are at the end of their rope - and most likely very alone (isolated). People who are at the end of their rope have either burned bridges, or had no  bridges to burn. Either is a sad predicament. They do not have networks working for them to open an employment door. The kind of community that bears one another's burdens is a rarity in American culture today. Clearly this woman is showing initiative, taking personal responsibility. Should we add a prayer of repentance for the church's inability or unwillingness to multiply the kind of community that breaks through her isolation and wraps her in our arms? Can we get to a scenario in which we can say: You may suffer, but you will not suffer alone!

2. An asset based community development approach suggests that we act on what we care about. I have an income, I have a house, with spare rooms, I have a job, I have equity, I have.... So do my neighbors and so do my congregational members. Do I care enough to act? Should we repent for the limits on our willingness and ability to be our neighbor's keeper?

3. It is totally radical and crazy, but God has what is needed in your and my community to love and care for this family and others like her. The tragedy is that we are waiting for an institution to provide the solution and all too often we take ourselves out of the equation. The church does not see herself in the business of harnessing social, economic and other kinds of capital to be our sister's keeper. We can't even imagine that kind of stewardship... We say that all we can do is pray...  that is a denial of God's good gifts present in every community to act and work together for my neighbor's needs. I am not suggesting the good gifts are easy to access, they are not. I want to make the point that prayer is not the only solution. Prayer and harnessing God's abundance in the neighborhood for this woman and her family through her time of suffering should go hand in hand. Is not this the high calling of deacons in a Reformed tradition?

Blessings,

Jay Van Groningen

The second edition is an improvement. Chalmer's is learning from the feedback and addressing the readers concerns.

Seems like a church (institute) can feel pretty good about itself as agent of "pure preaching" even if members do not engage in the redemption of the neighborhoods or cities they occupy using this distinction - right? 

As far as God's redemptive purposes are concerned in His world, that is up to individuals then and not the church? The church does not take responsibility for what members do or do not do, it is up to each member to hear and respond as they are led? Do I understand your position on this?

The reputation of the church in the community as an institution that serves members is really quite pleasing in this scenario. As long as members are satisfied with the preaching, teaching, fellowship etc its all good?

Seems like that could lead to institutional isolation of church - a church (institution) without influence beyond its capacity to influence her own members, without ascribed, planned contribution to God's redeeming work in a place. Sound at all like a present reality?

How many neighborhoods and cities have many churches and no discernable or measurable influence in the places they occupy? There is no stain on the church for their irrelevance to their community in those places?

What would your community miss if your church was taken out of the picture? That seems really quite irrelevant if the church has only to preach and teach members and be a loving bubble community... not accepting responsibility for the condition of the community.

How many neighborhoods once had churches that were active in community, and as the community changed, the members up left? The commitment was to members...and not the community.

Who benefits from the distinction? Those who do not want to be held accountable for the role of church as great neighbor - agent of redemption? That is for individuals...