Sam Hamstra

Darren, I hope I did not suggest that "repair" was a judgment, and hence fair or unfair.  The reject, repair, reform triad is simply a typology that helps us interpret history. As types they do not describe reality, they simply approximate it.  And institutional responses can be a mix but seem to land in one of the three categories. For me, the primary indicator that one has taken the repair option is that efforts are made to repair or, as you put it, reform current structures. The reform option tends to operated from ground zero and builds up from there (ECO or ARC as examples). Again, they are simply typologies that help us understand the ecclesiastical landscape we live in.  While I have a preference, I meant no moral judgment to those who choose the reject option or the repair option.

Thanks much for taking the time to weigh in on this important conversation. 

Thank you, Eric, for your post.  In my initial post I noted that the fundamental purpose of most denominations has been "to do more together."  With your comment, and that of Doug, I more clearly see that such a purpose may produce denominational advocacy groups, such as the Office of Social Justice (CRCNA). Perhaps it is my own insecurities, but these groups feel patronizing and paternalistic to those of us in the trenches serving local congregations. Plus, and more importantly, the very existence of advocacy groups at a denominational level suggests that the prophetic function of the church lies with the denomination and not within the local church which has been gifted by the Spirit with the prophetic.     

Me, too ... Still working on it, Wendy! 

But I will add that when I served as a pastor of a local CRCNA congregation, the denomination supplanted the ministry of my congregation, and the congregation would have loved to do more but couldn't because of ministry shares. Just two days ago, I received two personal phone calls from CRCNA pastors who, while thanking me for starting this conversation, shared the same experience.  

On a similar note, I find broad support from CRCNA pastors, including this one, for the work of World Renew. Your agency meets congregations in their context, walks alongside of them, and provides opportunities to extend their witness.  Keep up the good work.

Amen on the need for more listening and fewer surveys.

Darren, thank you for your contribution to this conversation.  You encouraged me to do "some double checking and write in such a way as to how you see your hopes and dreams being realized in the context of the CRCNA."  I found that suggestion interesting and. perhaps, telling. Here's what I mean: I am a pastor in the field, serving local congregations (from several denominations, including the CRCNA) where I am not seeing the denomination serve the mission of the local church. But I am to do research to be convinced that the denomination is, in fact, advancing the mission of the local church? 

I am reminded of a basic principle that love is determined by the beloved, not the lover. The wife who tells her husband, "I don't think you love me." And he offers a litany of things he does that he perceives as loving. The problem being that she doesn't perceive those same acts as loving. To remedy the problem, the husband must ask his wife, "How can I love you?"  In other  words, he must do far less communicating and far more listening -- and then respond accordingly. 

I wonder is that dynamic exists between congregations and their denominations. Could that explain the thread-like connection between the two? The denomination may think it is supporting the mission of the local church but the local congregation is not feeling that support. The denomination ramps up its communication to convince the congregation that it is supporting her, when the remedy is for the denomination to listen to its congregations. Perhaps it is time for denominational officials to sit down with each congregation and ask, "How can we help you better fulfill your mission?" (An opportunity that has never been afforded the congregations I have served.) And, then, respond accordingly.   

Wendy, I am helped by the distinction between the church gathered (the local church) and the church scattered (individuals living in obedience to Christ in their homes, workplaces, neighborhoods, and world). In this scenario, the scattered Christians are attached to the Church gathered because they serve while under the spiritual authority or covering of the local church.  At this very moment, for example, we blog as scattered Christians.  If, God forbid, our blog got nasty, our local congregations would/should hold us accountable for our behavior. Granted, such action doesn't happen as often as, perhaps, it should. 

I wonder if that option was considered?

But trying to find a way to address a significant problem in the American Protestant Church.  How do we encourage pastors to be faithful to their promises and committed to unity?  Perhaps one way is to talk about it.  Hence, my post.

You are right on.  I just learned of a situation where a pastor spent six months working behind the back of the leadership on his departure. I concur that mentoring and visitation could help. Perhaps those practices could speak to the deceit and duplicity in the heart of those who sow dissension and divide the church. 

THanks for feedback, Tim.  I can see where my use of the non-compete clause led you to conclude that I was addressing competition between churches. Sorry about that.  My point, however, was not about competition and, therefore, I agree with your statement. We all need to keep our eye on the priize and seek first the kingdom.

My concern is with pastors who break their vows/promises and, in the process, divide congregations. (It is hard for me to see God at work in such behavior.) Plus, as you know, the unfortunate fruit of such actions is often divisions which, as Jesus warned, hinder, rather than advance the witness of Christ to the communities they seek to reach. 

Tongue in cheak, for sure.