The "elders rule" and "deacons serve" is a false and misleading statement. Elders and deacons both rule and both serve within their calling and office. Each office has a unique mandate which requires leadership, ruling and serving within that sphere.
The phrase became popular during the women in office debate because it helped some people get around "headship". In effect they were saying, that the elders are given spiritual authority by Christ to oversee and "rule" the body on His behalf. They wanted to compartmentalize the ruling aspect to the elders to allow for women deacons so they would not violate their ideas of male headship in the deacon office.
Personally I have always thought this was a false distinction to make. The Bible teaches clearly that Christ is head of the church. I think we should be careful about assuming a title for ourselves that the Bible only gives to Christ. There is no place that says "The elders are the head of the church."
So let us all look to Christ, our head, as we rule and serve within our respective offices. Jon Westra
We do not have the right to know because we are stakeholders in the church. It seems to me that such rights come from an idea of democratic governance. We are a part of a spiritual body called a church. In that body the Lord Himself is the head and He delegates authority to elders. The elders are not accountable to us, "the stakeholders". They are accountable to the Lord. As members of the body we too are accountable. 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. I am grateful for their work and pray for God's blessing and peace on all involved. Signed Jon Westra
This is not the Vatican, nor a democracy, nor a corporation. It is a Spiritual body. Perhaps it would be helpful to describe who is meant when we use pronouns like "we". I get the impression that sometimes folks as individuals think they have a right to knowledge about the inner workings of a board. They want to demand openness and transparency or they will pull up their stakes. Isn't this the implied threat when we use words like "stakeholder"? Perhaps I am reading too much into things.
I understand Reformed church governance to be not so much based on the individual, but rather to be based on elder leadership.
God appoints elders through congregations to form a consistory, consitories appoint delegates to make up a classis, classis appoints delegates to make up a synod, synod appoints members to various boards. Synod reports it's work back to the councils and members.
My point is that I personally, as a member, have voice only through respecting and engaging the Spiritual Authority of the eldership. This is not the Vatican, neither is it a democracy. Jesus is the head of the church and He delegates authority to the elders. I, as an idividual, am not a stakeholder in this institution, but rather I am a member of it, the body. I as a member of the body do not have individual rights nor do I demand an explanation or I will pull up my stakes. Does the toe say to the mouth, give me an accounting or I will walk off? The toe may ask the elders for wisdom and guidance, and if they won't take up its casue, it can make a personal appeal to classis, and if they won't take up the casue, it can make a personal appeal to synod.
Posted in: Deacons in Leadership
The "elders rule" and "deacons serve" is a false and misleading statement. Elders and deacons both rule and both serve within their calling and office. Each office has a unique mandate which requires leadership, ruling and serving within that sphere.
The phrase became popular during the women in office debate because it helped some people get around "headship". In effect they were saying, that the elders are given spiritual authority by Christ to oversee and "rule" the body on His behalf. They wanted to compartmentalize the ruling aspect to the elders to allow for women deacons so they would not violate their ideas of male headship in the deacon office.
Personally I have always thought this was a false distinction to make. The Bible teaches clearly that Christ is head of the church. I think we should be careful about assuming a title for ourselves that the Bible only gives to Christ. There is no place that says "The elders are the head of the church."
So let us all look to Christ, our head, as we rule and serve within our respective offices. Jon Westra
Posted in: The 'Resignation' of Our Executive Director
We do not have the right to know because we are stakeholders in the church. It seems to me that such rights come from an idea of democratic governance. We are a part of a spiritual body called a church. In that body the Lord Himself is the head and He delegates authority to elders. The elders are not accountable to us, "the stakeholders". They are accountable to the Lord. As members of the body we too are accountable. 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. I am grateful for their work and pray for God's blessing and peace on all involved. Signed Jon Westra
Posted in: The 'Resignation' of Our Executive Director
This is not the Vatican, nor a democracy, nor a corporation. It is a Spiritual body. Perhaps it would be helpful to describe who is meant when we use pronouns like "we". I get the impression that sometimes folks as individuals think they have a right to knowledge about the inner workings of a board. They want to demand openness and transparency or they will pull up their stakes. Isn't this the implied threat when we use words like "stakeholder"? Perhaps I am reading too much into things.
I understand Reformed church governance to be not so much based on the individual, but rather to be based on elder leadership.
God appoints elders through congregations to form a consistory, consitories appoint delegates to make up a classis, classis appoints delegates to make up a synod, synod appoints members to various boards. Synod reports it's work back to the councils and members.
My point is that I personally, as a member, have voice only through respecting and engaging the Spiritual Authority of the eldership. This is not the Vatican, neither is it a democracy. Jesus is the head of the church and He delegates authority to the elders. I, as an idividual, am not a stakeholder in this institution, but rather I am a member of it, the body. I as a member of the body do not have individual rights nor do I demand an explanation or I will pull up my stakes. Does the toe say to the mouth, give me an accounting or I will walk off? The toe may ask the elders for wisdom and guidance, and if they won't take up its casue, it can make a personal appeal to classis, and if they won't take up the casue, it can make a personal appeal to synod.