Pete VanderBeek

Keith, I hear both your frustration and your agonized concern, though the frustration came through kinda loud and made your concern not so evident at first.

I have thought or keyboarded many such expressions of frustration myself. The guy in me that does that wanted to write one back saying 'The biggest problem in the church is reactionary, single symptom focused outbursts that keep us from really talking.' But that would be doing the very thing I was trying to decry. So I'm just admitting I was tempted to make it a CRC issue hockey fight, but am going to keep the gloves on and talk it out.

I too am very concerned and am gathering facts (so many of us speak out of perception) where I can find them to see if my perceptions are in line with reality. I am also gathering stories.

Quality of preaching can of course really never be measured. And there are zillions of factors, such as the zillions of variation of expectations of the people you spoke with and the multiplicity of ways of communicating gospel truth a particular preacher may use. If they don't line up, you will hear the things you did. Who is teaching the people in the pew what fitting expectations are? Their Television? Why do you not explore or challenge their expectations with them?

What you are naming is, I have come to believe, simply one symptom of an unhealthy system. To declare it the one cause of imminent demise comes across as narrow minded. A system such as our denomination and it's institutions is a complex web of causes and effects. As such then, at least in my view, poor preaching by itself cannot be the thing that is "killing" a denomination. It might be the medical equivalent of a raspy throat that is a sign of a deeper problem. Sure, meds can be taken to bring the voice back, but the root ailment remains.

I do believe we are unwell as a denomination, and I do believe this is a great opportunity to stop and do some deep reflection, individually, and collectively. I believe it is a God given opportunity. But if we don't get beyond expressing fear and frustration and singular category accusations, the decline will continue.

Keith, there was something else niggling at me from what you wrote, and I think I have some clarity on it now. To fully understand my abbreviated describing of it, it will help if you know a bit about the writings of Edwin Friedman (A failure of Nerve) and Peter Steinke's follow up work. They are making us aware that we do well to pay attention to the emotional dynamics in a system, be it a family or a congregation or denomination. And within that, especially watching the negative and destructive power of anxiety. (See also Bert Witvoet's article in the Christian Courier "A History of Conflict") Anxiety can rule the roost and run things even as leaders are trying to do a good job of leading. Until it is 'outed' and named and begun to be addressed, solutions will not be found easily. In my own reading, interacting with people and thinking on what I observe, I have come to believe that our Immigrant History has left us with a lot of people who are emotionally immature in our churches as a result of emotional stunting from traumas like WWII, immigration itself, and beginning a hardscrabble new life in Canada. To name just three biggies. Maybe church battles would be a fourth. I find that these folks tend to be the wellspring of the anxiety I encounter in my work as a Specialized Transitional Minister. It is hard to immunize oneself to it. It is hard to attenuate the effect of anxiety in a church. It works like yeast. Often I have found myself in the past jumping on a soapbox to make declarations about some symptom or another of some problem or another. But I have come to learn it was a mix of the anxiety of others and of my own that was primarily energizing that. Not calm considered leading. And it was not effective to any real good.

So here's where I think I see it in your post. It's right at the beginning when you write:

It comes in the form of a question and it is always asked with considerable anxiety: "Why is there such poor preaching in the CRC?"

I put in the bolding. There is anxiety in the CRC system, possibly more so in Canada than in the south. Anxiety is a more important thing to notice and address than the thing(s) it wants to point fingers at. Anxiety makes us accusatory, and does not let us see big pictures, and networks of causality. It wants simple linear blameability. It scapegoats. (See Rene Girard)

Notice I am not denying some poor preaching might exist. But I do not see it as the sole biggie in our mix of challenges. Anxiety is of more concern in that regard.

"Could you cook all the meals that have nourished you in your life?" I asked, somewhat defensively, as a rookie preacher, when a man said in a group of people that he had heard enough sermons in his life that he could probably write and present one himself. I think it is a fair analogy, and I hear hints of it in what Scott wrote. Fair, minus the defensiveness.

My sister and I did a highly appreciated skit at a event celebrating our father's x number of years in the ministry, years ago. In the skit, our punchline was that we as kids would watch and test-taste the pan of soup Dad made on Saturday as he was finishing up his sermon. If it was spicy, watch out on Sunday! If it was bland, be ready as well.

I suppose I like food-nutrient analogies for sermons. 

This article has revealed to me that I have simply carried on accepted or passed-on understanding of Censura Morum rather than paying attention to the original intent of the Church Order. I welcome that! Particularly because I much prefer the original intent as described here to what I had learned and have been experiencing.

I vividly remember the first time I encountered the term as a new Deacon, sitting as the youngest and freshest face in a room of about 23 men, some of whom were smoking. (It was the last meeting burnt offerings were allowed during the meeting. After that, we first went to having two breaks in meetings so smokers could get their fix.)

Oh yes, much to observe for a rookie! Including "Rook break."

Near the end of the meeting, the pastor/chair announced it was time for Censura Morum, words I had not even heard in the semester of Latin I took in High School before dropping out of that class. My limited translational abilities turned it into the "Censorship of Death" and this interpretation sure fit the sudden intensification of the already severe mood in the place. Then, without further explanation, the chair turned to the man on his right, and the man said "No." This started moving around the room as the chair's gaze fell on people. It was fairly easy to appear understanding when his gaze fell on me and add my my own rejection of the Censorship of Death with a "No" of my own.

As time went on, I learned it was associated with upcoming Lord's Supper, and when I finally asked someone for more information I was told it was about whether officebearers thought the other officebearers were ok to share communion with. I fear I may have passed on a version of that belief, even as a pastor, though I used the language of accountability rather than worthiness.

So I am glad to have the original meaning clarified. I will no longer spread falsehoods.

I have one question though. From what you write, Louis, it does seem to have an intent of creating a discussion about job performance as Elders Deacons and Pastors. Is that a correct understanding? In some situations it is an awkward thing if for instance one Elder does not get visits done...

To those who run the network. I would have liked to have this posted under the topic of "Transitional Ministry" or, fitting what we call it in the CRC, "Specialized Transitional Ministry." If that can be done then my intent will have been fully achieved.

Hey Randy and Sandy, congratulations! I was just logging on to update my saga, which you should probably read in preparation. It will strike the fear of paperwork (wrt coming from Canada into the US) into you if you didn't have it already.

http://network.crcna.org/forums/pastors/pastors-general-discussion/r-1-us-non-immigrant-religious-worker-visa-delay-canadians

One quick thing to mention, I know our chair of council has had contact with an immigration lawyer who helps CRCers out in such situations. Consulting someone like that can save a LOT of time and hastle.

By the way, I wrote a reflective blog about the original delay, but neglected to link to it from here. Here it is: http://network.crcna.org/content/pastors/stopped-and-stranded-border/stopped-and-stranded-border

On Friday Aug 3, 2012 we spoke to a representative from USCIS asking if there were reasons for the length of time it was taking to process our extension application that we could do anything about - missing information etc. We were told that the application was still in 'staging' and that the way things looked an agent would be getting it on their desk in the next 30-35 days sometime, and if there were no concerns a decision would be coming soon after.

In calls like this Greg Westra, the chair of council, has learned you need to learn what kind of terminology they are using. For instance he once called to ask a question stating he was a 'representative' of the church ("petitioner") which leads them to assume you are a lawyer and he felt he was treated differently (more carefully) in that call than the one we made Friday. I was present for the call, as they are very concerned to only be speaking to people named in the documents. Again, this might be useful reference material for anyone else in the R-1 process.

The person we spoke to also spoke of new regulations and expectations being what has been bogging the system down while staffing levels remain unchanged.