Keith Knight

I deeply appreciate your profound thoughts, Richard. You must be family!

I like the notion of two separate denominations -- the US and Canada -- with a partnership agreement covering the overseas work of CRWRC, World Missions, Back to God, etc.

These are two separate nations, two unique cultures, each with their unique perspectives on ministry and opportunities for ministry. But we're united when it comes to overseas mission opportunities.

It is not surprising that we don't hear much from the "Canadian leadership" about the notion of two separate structures. As it stands, the Canadian leadership is accountable to the American leadership, ad it just wouldn't do to complain to the 'boss' about going on your own. When I last checked -- a few years ago -- the Canadian CRCs account for one quarter of the delegates at synod. Any suggestion to part ways will need considerable American support and that hasn't happened in past attempts to raise the issue at synod.  That notion therefore needs to come from BOT as part of its structural review.

I acknowledge that creating two denominations won't solve the larger issues around authority and accountability, but it may help shape the response to those issues.

I think the task force would miss an excellent opportunity if it did not address the binational nature of our country. We are the only denomination that covers both sides of the border. Presbyterian denominations have split down geographic lines and so did the Reformed Church in America with the creation many years ago of the Reformed Church of Canada. If the CRC continues to talk with the Reformed Church in America about eventual union, would we leave out their Canadian counterpart -- the Reformed Church of Canada .... a more conservative wing of the RCA?

Everything needs to be put on the table, including the value of our binationalism.

This denominational structure issue just won't go away ... and Synod's decisions (or indecisions) didn't help the situation. There is, more than ever, a cultural divide along the U.S.-Canada border. We are bound together in overseas ministry but our 'kingdom response' ... within Canada and the United States ... is and needs to be different. The Canadian regional office and committees are more politically engaged and are more ecumenical than the U.S. counterpart. Each country has specific needs and focii (Canadian churches can't get their heads around the need for quotas to guarantee racial equality within boards)

There is value in remaining together as one binational denomination for the time being, but operating as two separate and equal regional synods. Each has an executive director and each has a board of trustees. Each holds its own biennial synod (The CRCNA is one of a very few denominations still meeting annually) and sets its own agenda. Both should continue to share joint ministries overseas such as World Renew, World Missions, Back to God International and others.

We can try the two-region approach -- U.S. and Canada -- for a decade, each legally autonomous to meet IRS/CRA standards. By then we will be in essence two separate denominations.

The problem is -- and here's the rub -- no denominational task force will ever recommend that kind of separation and no synod will ever approve such a plan because three-quarters of the delegates are American and they simply don't understand what all the fuss is about.

I can't envision an amicable separation, even though I am a deeply loyal Christian Reformed member. I envision some future synod, when confronted with a reasonable proposal for Canadian autonomy, to once again turn down the recommendation. But then I also envision Canadian classes refusing to send delegates to the subsequet synod as a 'final straw' .. the ultimate protest that we've had enough. Sadly, I think it may come to that.

Lastly, and this also has to do with the future structure, I think it's time for Canadian churches and classes to hold one of those Canadian Ministry Forums such as we had in Edmonton many years ago. A properly called, delegated meeting (four from each classis, if I recall correctly), where we identify what makes us uniquely Canadian when it comes to a Christian Reformed presence in Canada.

We had a hastily called conference in Toronto a few months ago, called by one classis, that seemed more political than visionary. That won't  do. Let's do it right; have the Canadian Director of Ministries call the meeting, set the agenda, and moderate the discussion. And give each classis the time to properly choose and send their delegation to this national conference.

The Christian Reformed Church (in Canada?) has a prophetic word for Canada. That kind of message cannot be crafted and sent from a synod meeting held in Iowa or Illinois or Grand Rapids. Semantics? Not at all.

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.

What happens to your ministry calling when you can't find a ministry job?

Perhaps you're looking in the wrong place. Not everybody who is ordained to the ministry belongs in the pulpit. The late Rev. Carl Tuyl used to say, 'We recycle ministers', when he referred to pastors who left the pulpit to become chaplains.

We seem to be missing the notion that we are all engaged in ministry, whatever the profession or occupation. When someone leaves a career in business to 'enter the ministry', it's seen as a step up; a noble gesture.  When a minister leaves the pulpit -- even after an Article 17 separation -- for a career in business, or agriculture, or teaching, it's seen as a demotion.

I think that we as a denomination need to re-examine the notion of 'call'. A medical doctor undoubtedly experiences the same sense of call as a minister does. Same with teachers, police officers, secretaries, entrepreneurs and actors.

I am most troubled by those men and women who feel a sense of call to the ministry but who don't really exhibit any special gifts, and their friends and church councils don't want to discourage their spiritual enthusiasm. I am wondering if Pastor Church Relations has any statistics on Article 17 separations that could be traced back to a lack of giftedness. 

How is that initial sense of call to the ministry affirmed ... even before one enrolls in college to pursue the theological track? And I wonder how many seminary graduates make it by the skin of their teeth, eager to spend the next 40 years in The Ministry?

The classsis which I serve as stated clerk recently dealt with three Article 17 'incidents'. One of the immediate actions by classis was to appoint a pastor to provide pastoral care for the person involved. and a three-person ad hoc committee was also appointed to work with the congregation in question and to determine what next steps the church should take and when the congregation is deemed ready to consider calling another pastor.

Pastoral care for the pastor who has been released according to Article 17 is a classis' response to the pain that exists in those situations. It's the least a classis can do. It is, however, a two-way street. Some pastors are open to pastoral care from a respected colleague. Some -- perhaps those who need it most -- move away or close their door to any offers of pastoral assistance.  And this pastoral care needs to happen apart from any work being carried out by the regional pastor.

It is unfortunate that Article 17 has received such a 'bad rap'. It is increasingly being used by churches as a valid and reasonably painless way for congregation and pastor to part ways without pointing blame at anyone.

Much of the discontent within churches today comes from our involvement in, and flirtation with, the corporate world. We have some ministers who view themselves as CEOs, bent on imposing their vision for the church upon a church council. We also have some church councils who view themselves as the corporate boardroom and the parishioners as shareholders. If they don't like what their pastor -- viewed as employee -- is doing, he is first of all given some time to shape up but invariably told to ship out.

Many CRCs -- both congregation and pastor -- have lost that sense of calling. Churches don't often view their pastor as 'a man of God, called to lead this flock', rightly or wrongly. He is often called to fill a position for a period of time.

Our church moved from three-year terms to four-year terms for both elders and deacons, but have returned to three-year terms ... for very practical reasons.

I have served several terms as elder and I much prefer the longer, four-year term. It gives one more time to build connections with districts and, for brand new office-bearers, time to understand the role and task of office.

There are/were two problems with the four-year term. Firstly, it led to burnout because you had passionate elders and deacons who put in considerable hours, passion and energy into their tasks as elders and deacons. That fourth year, for some, proved to be tough. Secondly, we found that it was more difficult to 'recruit' new elders and deacons because people didn't want to commit to a four-year term.

There seems to be a perception in the Diakonia Remixed report that the role, task and expectations of the deacon is much different (ie lighter?) than that of the elder ... hence the desire to have longer terms for deacons.

There is anechdotal evidence that the role and tasks of deacons in Canada and the United Stated are markedly different. Canadian deacons are certainly as busy and as involved as Canadian elders; elders, in the pastoral care of their members and deacons in the pastoral (to a certain degree) and practical care of their members as well as community members and agencies.

I've served seven or eight terms as an elder. I hope one day to 'graduate' to serve as a deacon. I'll need to clear my calendar first.

Is there anything about today's technology that is NOT helpful .. for the church or the body of Christ or our faith formation?

I led a seminar about a decade ago for Christiann communicators, called Technology Unplugged, which allowed communication types to step back from the latest technology and to critically analyse their impact upon our lives. The Church rarely does that. In fact, the Church has historically embraced technology, though pointing out now and then that there are television programs and internet websites that are not conducive to Christian living.

I wrote a decade ago about the Virtual Church, wondering out loud if, "where two or three are gathered online", that can be called a church. Is it the 'body of Christ' when three 'minds' come together for a theological discussion in a chat room or, for that matter, in the CRC Network?

Is an email or text message a suitable substitute for a pastoral visit? I know of churches that actually consider 'an email connection' as a pastoral visit.

The Church, and more specifically the CRC, has not yet developed a theology of technology. I know of at least one church council that has developed its own set of guidelines about when emails may or may not be used when discussing church business. This came about after a lot of misinterpretation of email messages. The church is a relational body and there are times when technology is best left turned off so that individuals can meet face to face.

Conversely, solar-powered radios with prepackaged gospel messages are being dropped by the thousands into remote areas across South America and Africa ... so there are profoundly efficient ways to spread the gospel.

It is, however, high time that North America's Christian community became unplugged long enough to determine just what is helpful and what is hurtful, technologically-speaking, in order to live the Christian life.

I love the idea of a Synod blog. Problem is, I didn't realize it existed until well after Synod ended.

I must have missed the promotional pieces along the way: notices in the Banner, correspondence to stated clerks or church clerks or church bulletins.

Should you do it again next year? By all means ... and let's get the word out to all the churches so that they can follow the various forms of synod coverage provided by The Network, The Banner, Whoever.

For just a few moments, I thought that George Vander Weit was back. I just saw this as one of the 'latest' articles in the Network. It took a while to realize that the piece is three years old and that, to my knowledge, he is still missing.

Is this piece's inclusion in The Network intentional, or is it a painful omission on the part of Network editors to archive this piece.

If we were to record -- and make publicly available -- those who voted for or against any recommendation, that would politicize and polarize our synod.

Synod is a deliberative body. Classes send their delegates and, collectively and prayerfully, make decisions. Some of those decisions are minor in nature and some are rather significant.

With respect to the HSR report, we can say with all integrity that "Synod (ie the Church) has spoken". Collectively, it's one voice and one decision.

To discuss and debate who voted for or against the report would be to politicize the process. I firmly believe that this was a prayerful, Holy Spirit-led process. If I can't believe that, then Synod and the CRCNA have lost its integrity.

Human nature is tempted to break down the stats: ie how did Canadian/American delegates vote? How did the younger demographic vote compared to the older demographic? That's a dangerous and fruitless game to play. Hopefully, we didn't meet as a group of individual delegates determined to get our way. But rather, as church-sent delegates to discern God's will around the issues.