Keith Knight

... and there's the rub. Yes, those pastors who are 'caught' being addicted to pornography are dealt with in a pastoral manner, as are all church members who are 'caught' being addicted to pornography.

But what about those who have not been caught, those who are struggling with the temptation? There needs to be a safe place to seek help and to share their struggles. That, it seems to me, is the challenge.

Should this become a task of a classis' Safe Church Committee?

The most logical place for such a discussion is within a local congregation .... provided you have a healthy, open, pastoral, honest congregation.

The church is full of hypocrites: members who sin. The pastor serves among them as one of them.

Very few churches have the intestinal fortitude to deal with these kinds of struggles, much less confess them to each other.

The notion of having missionaries -- or anybody involved in Christian ministry -- raise the majority of their support is apalling. It is valid to have folks seek prayer support and even a bit of personal support from friends, local church or family. That is tied in to an affirmation of the sense of 'calling' to the ministry.

That's the point: being called. Firstly, we're ALL called to the ministry, and for some that ministry is the pulpit; for others it is business or carpentry or teaching or collecting garbage.

Why is it that when a seminary graduate is called to the ministry, he/she is given at least a modest salary and a house or housing allowance. When a seminary graduate is called to serve as missionary ... and has the gifts of teaching, leadership, cultural awareness, we suddenly expect that person to have the gift of fundraising.

Fundraising is a specific talent. Some are very good at it; many cringe at the thought of having to ask for money.

World Missions has a highly qualified staff in the denominational office: men and women gifted to serve in administration, leadership development, communication, etc. Hire an employee who feels called to raise funds. That allows those who feel called to serve on a mission field to use their God-given gifts in preaching, teaching,leadership, etc.

If there is a World Missions missionary who regularly delights in asking for an increasing percentage of fnancial support every year, peraps he/she is called to that task. My hunch is that most overseas staff cringe at the thought of having to raise tens of thousands of dollars. They may even be paralysed by the notion and it may severely impact the effectiveness of their ministry.

I have had the privilege of working in the denominational offices of a few mainline denominations where those missionary staff were expected to raise a good portion of their own support. The CRC was always held up as an ideal model: If you feel called, the Church sends you. No strings attached.

Well, today, missionaries must feel the burden of that financial chain around their necks.

The CRC has always avoided that archaic notion of having to raise your own support for ministry. We don't do it for pastors, college professors, worship directors. Why do we pick on mission staff, domestic or overseas? Are they not worthy of denominational support? Why do they need to 'affirm their sense of calling' by raising their own support? Try that with our next crop of Calvin Seminary graduates: If you can raise $50,000 then we'll consider you for our pulpit. Nonsense!

If you feel called to serve as a missionary, the Church needs to send a strong message of encouragement: Go! No strings attached.

This discussion is both a healthy one and a necessary one, and it points to a great diversity in thought about how we treat those involved in sin. As has been rightly pointed out, we are all involved in sin and there should not be a separate standard for church leaders involved in pornography and for church members involved in pornography.

The statistics just cited point to the widespread use of pornography, both within society and within the church community.

Question is: What are we as Church doing about it? Even though I began this discussion around the notion of creating a support group for pastors dealing with pornography, it seems as though the discusison needs to be broadened considerably.

What kind of study materials could/should be developed for youth groups, adult education and small groups to help local congregations deal with pervasive 'silent sin' within the body of believers?

Or do we deal with pornography as we deal with pre-marital sex, common law relationships, drug addiction, homosexuality, alcoholism; namely, sweep it under the rug or, at best, deal with each 'case' as they come up?

The Church has a natural tendency to react to issues when it is almost too late. It would be both innovative and creative to proactively develop resources and create suitable safe places where these issues can be discussed.

This response is several months after that September meeting in Classis Chicago South. It is my hope and prayer that all those in attendance underscored the importance of elder visitation. That's foundational to being an elder: loooking after the spiritual life of their members. If elders are too busy or not equipped to engage in an elder visit, he/she shouldn't be an elder ... or he/she needs to be equipped.

In the 'olden days', elders came armed with a legalistic check list: Do you attend church twice on Sunday? Do your kids go to catechism, Christian school? etc.

Today, the focus needs to be on one's spiritual life: how is their devotional life? How is their connection with God? How do they disciple their children? What is our connection between your Sunday worship and your Monday work?

I can't imagine a more important exercise for elders or for the families under their charge.

With all due respect, George, the system is 'broke'. As a well-known pastor, even a recently-retired one, you would stand a very good chance of being elected as one of the officers of synod if you were to be so delegated next year.

Synod just a few months ago passionately spoke about the need to have deacons attending and being intimately involved in synod. Under our present 'system', the notion of having a minister, an elder and a deacon as officers of synod is remote at best.

The system is 'broke' as long as the leadership of the denomination's broadest assembly remains firmly in the hands of ministers. There needs to be a way to identify, acknowledge, and recognize the gifts among lay leadership as officers of synod. I, for one, don't consider that discussion a waste of 'good minds'.

We can theoretically re-elect the same president or officers year after year under our present system, as long as classes send them as delegates. A scan through Acts of Synod will point out that we've had a few presidents who served at least two consecutive years. Synodical rules would need to be put in place to limit the number of consecutive times a person can serve as president.

There is, I admit, a potential problem in trying too hard to 'control' the make-up of the officers of Synod. We are doing that currently when it comes to the kinds of advisors we delegate to synod: ethnic advisors, youth advisors. I hope that we never see the day coming when delegates are encouraged to choose an ethnic minority lay person to serve as an officer.

Let me stress that we need qualified officers to facilitate the work of synod. Historically, those qualified officers come from the pool of ministers... and they have done an excellent job.  We simply need to find a way to identify qualified lay leadership. There are undoubtedly elder delegates whose day job involves managing large staffs, or multinational corporations, or providing leadership training within the corporate world, but who at the same time have a passion for Church Order, Synodical Rules, and a passion for the church.

I initially raised this question because Synod decided to study how deacons can become more intimately involved in the work of synod. That question could be extended to the one-half of delegates who are elders.

I recently spent a couple of weeks in India where their fastest-growing denomination (17 new church plants per DAY!) does exactly that. All pastors are on a five-year term, and that five-year term ends at the same time for all churches within the denomination. Then The Bishop reassigns them and moves them around.

Imagine the strength and wisdom of doing that in a binational denomination! Ministers no longer necessarily stay within a specific state or province. They may get moved from Minnesota to Florida, from Iowa to British Columbia, from Grand Rapids to New Jersey.

Ministers and church councils can find comfort in knowing that they will be working together for five years. Together they can create five-year ministry plans, knowing that at a specific time they will enter the next chapter in their ministry.

Having read Norm's comments and Daniel's, perhaps the use of the term 'bishop' is confusing. I certainly don't advocate a hierarchical structure under a bishop or a series of bishops as is the case with the Hungarian Reformed Church in Eastern Europe. I love our flat CRCNA structure way too much.

We need to find a way to inject a Person of Authority into our structure, sort of like a Multi-Classis Regional Pastor with clout.

A number of our denominational boards have regional representation. Perhaps the expansion of Pastor-Church Relations as a denominational board, with regional representation where each of those regional directors had the kind of authority that P-C Relations can only 'suggest'. Perhaps a Regional Pastor who has the skills to mediate, articulate, suggest and decide when a pastor needs to be moved. This team of regional pastors would need to be well-trained and highly skilled. (This shouldn't be some hobby for a retired pastor)

Today's regional pastors serve as confidantes to pastors. They don't report to classis. They provide a listening ear and they advise the pastor.

So, forget the notion of a bishop. Give Pastor-Church Relations the authority to step in and make significant decisions. Maybe it's as 'simple' as that.

Ah, and there's the rub, John. Local councils have the authority. They usually make wise decisions. Sometimes, especially when there are power struggles, they make the wrong decisions. And when they make wrong decisions, despite the 'right advice', the pastor is ousted via Article 17, a congregation may become split over the issue, and a few instigators within a congregation delight in having that power.  I speak generically, without any specific reference to any specific case.

I've chaired a council during a vacancy where one of the first things the new, wise council did was to sit down and write letters of apology to past pastors, confessing that those pastors were mistreated.

If we are content to celebrate the notion that final authority rests with the local council -- and I respect that -- and that nothing needs fixing, then we need to accept that we'll be seeing an avalanche of Article 17s whenever a majority of a local council feels that their minister has been there long enough.

There was a time when the pastor was seen as the shepherd of the local flock, and the sheep followed. We are increasingly witnessing rebellious sheep -- whether justified or not. We are also increasingly seeing pastors who fancy themselves as CEOs of the local church corporation. All of this has the makings of increased conflict. The growth in demand of services from Pastor-Church Relations is witness to that.

The denomination needs to respond with a stronger approach towards pastoral care -- for the health of both pastor and congregation. That needs to happen before we need to become deeply involved in crisis management.

Thanks, Ron, for that clarification. I stand corrected. Dynamic Youth Ministries oversees Cadets, GEMS and Youth Unlimited.

It is listed in the CRC Yearbook as a "denominationally related or affiliated ministry", much like Friendship Ministries, Diaconal Ministries Canada, Partners Worldwide and Partners Worldwide Canada.

It is both interesting and tragic that fully one-third of our total CRC membership -- children, young people and young adults -- have no denominational board or office that provides leadership, resources or oversight of their spiritual development beyond the formal church school program.

The March issue of The Banner points out cultural differences, and otherwise, between American and Canadian churches. Because the 'tough economic times' have hit YU, this may be an appropriate time for the denomination -- and the Canadian side of the denomination in particular -- to re-examine and perhaps re-invent the nature of youth ministry. 

An intriguing discussion. Here is a variation on the theme: It seems to me that we are increasingly training ministers to become CEOs rather than pastors. It would be interesting to find out how many second-career pastors have that entrepreneurial or CEO bent.

It seems to me that CTS should be training ministers to be pastors: a solid theological education and a passion for visiting people and preaching. I am coming across an increasing number of ministers who fancy themselves as CEOs. They want to run the show, call the shots, set the church's vision, take a few intriguing courses, and preach a wonderfully generic sermon.

We need ministers who preach well. That happens when they have oratorical gifts, a theological education, and a heart to listen to his/her parishioners.

Do we need ministers who posess an entrepreneurial spirit to plant churches? Perhaps. There is a sense of adventure and risk in planting a church. More importantly, we need theologically trained men and women who have extraordinary people skills, a strong sense of humility, and compassion for the community.

Rod, you speak of the 'professionalization of ministry'. I cringe somewhat when I read that. You're right; ministry has become a profession, a career with wonderful job security (unless you fall victim to Article 17). The Christian Reformed Church is the highest paid denomination (at least in Canada) when it comes to ministers' salaries. There is a sense of pride that we take care of our own. But there is something to be said for those denominations where salaries are one-half of what the CRC pays, where 'salary' is called a 'stipend', where the stipend is paid at the beginning of the month as a church council's indication of good faith, rather than a salary paid at the end of the month as a reward for work done. Have we lost the sense of servanthood by paying our ministers extremely well? Is the minister's salary and related job security attracting those to the ministry who perhaps shouldn't be?

Okay. Call these questions a digression. It's all related to the kinds of men and women who are entering the CRC ministry in the 21st century, church plant, chaplaincy, regular parish.