Good point about elder visits. I clearly recall being installed as an elder the first time at age 23. Newlywed, young kid. I made my first 'home visit' to a seasoned elder. He sat me down in his living room, pulled out a blank sheet of paper and drew three concentric circles ... like a target.
He said that the bulls eye was one's relationship with Christ. Circles that moved away from that involved one's relationship with family, involvement in 'church life' and in Christian organizations.
He said that sometimes folks like to talk about their faith right away; their devotions and their love of God. But sometimes they're reluctant to talk about how their faith impacts their other relationships: family, church, community.
He said that sometimes folks like to talk about everything BUT their relationship to Christ. They can talk about church involvement, chairing various committees, heavily involved in organizing 'churchy' things, but have a difficult time articulating their personal relationship to Christ and their personal devotional life.
That one-word comment also sums up the kind of teaching, training and mentoring that I received when I was first elected an elder some 40 years ago.
With the benefit of hindsight, I was probably chosen to be an elder because
1. I seemed like a nice Christian guy.
2. I went to church twice on Sundays (back when they had two morning services).
3. I displayed leadership skills.
4. I loved the Church (ie its structure, Church Order, systems, etc.)
I was never interviewed for the position of elder; never asked for doctrinal positions on matters before the church's assemblies; never grilled -- or even asked -- about my devotional life and my knowledge of Scripture. It was 'assumed'.
I was probably asked if I loved the Church -- and I would have responded enthusiastically.
I was never asked if I loved Jesus, if I was striving to live a holy life, if I felt comfortable talking to parishioners under my pastoral care about their faith and my faith.
My view of elders today? Many aren't qualified to provide spiritual direction to those under their pastoral care simply because they aren't steeped in the Word and their daily devotional life is lacking.
Elders today (and undoubtedly for the past generation or two) seem to be administrative leaders more than they are spiritual mentors over the congregation.
That's absolutely not true, Carol. I wasn't selected because I was a male. Gender wasn't an issue back then. All elders and all deacons were men; no debate and no discussion.
In fact, the opposite began to happen in the 1970s with the advent of 'women in office'; women were chosen because they were women AND because they were qualified.
It is my hope and prayer that elders are never selected because of their gender but because they're qualified as spiritual leaders who lead godly lives.
Interestingly, at least for me, we have five married daughters. Four of them attend a PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) where men, and men only, serve as elders. For life. While they initially resented the fact that there were no women as elders, 'gender' has not become an issue. What is even more impressive that that those men who are chosen to be elders are incredibly godly men. The church takes the role of men as spiritual heads very seriously.
So, when they select new elders, 'gender' is never an issue. That's all they have ever known.
In the same way, when I first became an elder 40 years ago, gender was not an issue. Men were elders and deacons. Period. There was no thought, no desire to have women serve as elders.
During my early years in journalism, I used a typewriter with carbon paper. That's all I knew. I never longed for a laptop, desktop or anything digital.
I used to go to church twice on Sunday and I always wore a shirt and tie.
Times have changed. That applies equally to technology and church culture.
We shouldn't dismiss those earlier years in church when we 'only' had men as elders (in fact, there are undoubtedly hundreds of CRCs that still do) as something archaic ... where women were longing for the day when they could speak to a pastoral elder who was a woman.
The Church, and I speak of the CRC here, has often been too sensitive to the culture around us. Feminism led to the demand for women in office (though many denominations such as the PCA have resisted that).
I think I signed in with my "hello " almost a year ago. I don't think that much has come of the conversation, discussion or dialogue over the past year.
After serving numerous terms as an elder, usually as chair of council, I have discovered recently that I wasn't really qualified.
Sure, I checked all of the boxes, especially gifts of administration and organization, but I didnt have a sound biblical foundation. I couldnt easily quote scripture to parishioners when it came to providing wise counsel to families.
I readily proclaimed my love for the church and its institutions but, on hindsight, I didnt have a living, breathing relationship with Jesus.
So, the number 1 criterion for serving as an elder: have an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ and be immersed in scripture.
... just a quick note about time limits on speeches at Synod.
We have fallen victim to a Twitter society where everything needs to be said in a very few words.
I served as Synod delegate back in the early 1980s. Synod lasted two weeks and we'd spend hours ... hours .. in heated, wonderful debate on several major issues. Synod back then was indeed a 'deliberative body', filled with thoughtful dialogue and arguments.
We have lost that for the sake of efficiency and expediency ... and that is a shame. I cringe at the thought of having a meaningful debate in 2021 when the gender issues comes to the floor of synod. With speeches being confined to a two-minute soundbite, very little of substance will be raised.
When it comes to a meaningful discussion on things that shape the future of this denomination, what's the rush? Turn off your cell phones, shut down your Twitter account and become engaged in a robust, thoughtful debate. It takes time to listen, it takes time to be heard, it takes time to form a reasoned opinion before a decision can be made.
There is something almost 'holy' about bringing your offerings to the Lord on Sunday during worship. This isn't archaic or old-fashioned.
I think that a blend of technology and stewardly giving might accomplish both the church's need for regular giving and the worshipper's need to give ... and to be seen to give.
Using PAR or some similar form of electronic automatic withdrawal gives the church treasurer the assurance that the budget is being met (more or less). Parishioners are encouraged to tithe and to make that regular commitment each week or each month.
But when the offering plate is passed down the pew and it remains empty, what message is that sending to our children and grandchildren? That the offering is an option.
I suggest that the bulk of our offering be given electronically but that our true giving (as the Lord has blessed us that week) goes into the offering plate. Furthermore, our children should also be actively involved in the offering, giving a portion of their weekly allowance or income to the church. Unless children get into the habit of giving to the church, they will grow up with the view that passing an empty offering plate down the pew is some sort of archaic ritual. For many it has become precisely that.
Electronic giving fulfills the church treasurer's desire to have regular, guaranteed cash flow. It's a corporate response to what should be a very personal exercise; ie. giving unto the Lord.
This function has absolutely nothing to do with the notion of 'bringing our offerings' to church.
There is something humbling and deliberate about sitting down in the kitchen before heading off to worship and actually writing a physical check payable to the church.
I think that we need to have both: giving a portion of what we'd normally give via PAR or some other electronic plan, but then also topping that up, so to speak, with the physical exercise of putting something into the offering plate.
It is indeed a great question -- How do we properly welcome a new pastor?
Something else suddenly springs to mind: How does the church and council prepare itself before it even contemplates calling a pastor?
When a job relocation caused my family and I to move to a new town, we ended up renting the parsonage because the recently retired pastor had just moved out. New families -- especially with a gaggle of girls -- were a rare occurrence in the church so we were warmly received.
I was almost immediately elected elder and -- being a fresh face -- became chair of council. The council was blessed with several wise men, both young and old. Council determined that, before they consider calling their next pastor, they needed to review their relationships with past pastors. Over the next six months or so, council ended up writing letters of confession to their former pastors; confessing how badly they had treated them and in some cases virtually drove them out of town.
It was an incredible lesson in grace as I observed these veteran elders relive some of those painful moments in their past.
Once those letters were sent off, council was ready to deal with more pertinent issues at hand: church growth and the need to either expand their existing building or build an entirely new structure. They decided to relocate and build a brand new church. They rallied the congregation, hundreds volunteered to help with construction, and when it was all done, council declared that they were ready to call their next pastor.
Writing letters of confession to former pastors; it was like an emotional/spiritual house-cleaning. Perhaps more like "taking out the garbage" before starting afresh.
From a church's perspective, it's only once past sins have been acknowledged that they can truly welcome their new pastor, determined to begin afresh and not to repeat history.
If one is determined to streamline our organizational language, then using General Assembly instead of Synod and Regional Assembly instead of Classis may make sense. So you'd have Regional Assembly Wisconsin (RAW), for example, or Regional Assembly Toronto (RAT). Or you'd preferably put the emphasis on the location, such as Grand Rapids North Regional Assembly or Holland Regional Assembly.
As I continue to read this thread, and take part in discussions now and then, I am struck by the fact that we are making every effort to make our church language palatable for those who may be new to the church or to the faith.
As we 'water down' our language, is there a subsequent desire to water down the Gospel? Will the time come when we find the terms 'sin' or 'hell' or 'damnation' offensive to the pew-sitter? I certainly hope not. And I hope that we continue to speak of justification, sanctification, propitiation and the notion that, unless we believe that Christ died for our sins, we're going to hell.
It's one thing to be stuck on our structural language as long as we don't attempt to rewrite the creeds and doctrines to make it more palatable.
I've made the ecumenical rounds, serving as director of communication for the CRCNA, The Presbyterian Church in Canada and The Anglican (Episcopal) Church of Canada. Talk about structural language, try figuring out what a primate, a diocese, a presbytery or the eucharist is.
I just don't get it. Why do we consistently insist on a rebranding? We change the names of our mission agencies -- okay, CRWRC was cumbersome.
"Classis" has been our signature designation for the group of churches for more than a century. Every knowledgeable CRC person knows what a classis is. And yet, The Banner invariably insists on adding an identifier whenever it uses the term (ie Classis is a group of churches within a specific region).
We seem to be under the mistaken notion that there are tens of thousands of new Christians flocking into our churches and picking up The Banner and then becoming absolutely stymied when they stumble across "classis".
Can you imagine any sports league -- NFL, CFL, NHL, NBA -- changing their terminology so that fans can better understand the game? No. Fans learn the lingo.
Similarly, we should refrain from treating pew-sitting CRC folk like children. They/we KNOW the language. We know what a classis is, or a synod, or an overture, or an NIV translation.
Don't dumb down our church language. It won't attract one new convert. And that, after all -- proclaiming the gospel -- is what it really should be all about.
Posted in: What Do You Wish You Had Known When You Were First Installed?
Good point about elder visits. I clearly recall being installed as an elder the first time at age 23. Newlywed, young kid. I made my first 'home visit' to a seasoned elder. He sat me down in his living room, pulled out a blank sheet of paper and drew three concentric circles ... like a target.
He said that the bulls eye was one's relationship with Christ. Circles that moved away from that involved one's relationship with family, involvement in 'church life' and in Christian organizations.
He said that sometimes folks like to talk about their faith right away; their devotions and their love of God. But sometimes they're reluctant to talk about how their faith impacts their other relationships: family, church, community.
He said that sometimes folks like to talk about everything BUT their relationship to Christ. They can talk about church involvement, chairing various committees, heavily involved in organizing 'churchy' things, but have a difficult time articulating their personal relationship to Christ and their personal devotional life.
Posted in: Any Current or Past Elders?
"Hello."
That one-word comment also sums up the kind of teaching, training and mentoring that I received when I was first elected an elder some 40 years ago.
With the benefit of hindsight, I was probably chosen to be an elder because
1. I seemed like a nice Christian guy.
2. I went to church twice on Sundays (back when they had two morning services).
3. I displayed leadership skills.
4. I loved the Church (ie its structure, Church Order, systems, etc.)
I was never interviewed for the position of elder; never asked for doctrinal positions on matters before the church's assemblies; never grilled -- or even asked -- about my devotional life and my knowledge of Scripture. It was 'assumed'.
I was probably asked if I loved the Church -- and I would have responded enthusiastically.
I was never asked if I loved Jesus, if I was striving to live a holy life, if I felt comfortable talking to parishioners under my pastoral care about their faith and my faith.
My view of elders today? Many aren't qualified to provide spiritual direction to those under their pastoral care simply because they aren't steeped in the Word and their daily devotional life is lacking.
Elders today (and undoubtedly for the past generation or two) seem to be administrative leaders more than they are spiritual mentors over the congregation.
Thus endeth my 'Hello'.
Posted in: Any Current or Past Elders?
That's absolutely not true, Carol. I wasn't selected because I was a male. Gender wasn't an issue back then. All elders and all deacons were men; no debate and no discussion.
In fact, the opposite began to happen in the 1970s with the advent of 'women in office'; women were chosen because they were women AND because they were qualified.
It is my hope and prayer that elders are never selected because of their gender but because they're qualified as spiritual leaders who lead godly lives.
Posted in: Any Current or Past Elders?
Interestingly, at least for me, we have five married daughters. Four of them attend a PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) where men, and men only, serve as elders. For life. While they initially resented the fact that there were no women as elders, 'gender' has not become an issue. What is even more impressive that that those men who are chosen to be elders are incredibly godly men. The church takes the role of men as spiritual heads very seriously.
So, when they select new elders, 'gender' is never an issue. That's all they have ever known.
In the same way, when I first became an elder 40 years ago, gender was not an issue. Men were elders and deacons. Period. There was no thought, no desire to have women serve as elders.
During my early years in journalism, I used a typewriter with carbon paper. That's all I knew. I never longed for a laptop, desktop or anything digital.
I used to go to church twice on Sunday and I always wore a shirt and tie.
Times have changed. That applies equally to technology and church culture.
We shouldn't dismiss those earlier years in church when we 'only' had men as elders (in fact, there are undoubtedly hundreds of CRCs that still do) as something archaic ... where women were longing for the day when they could speak to a pastoral elder who was a woman.
The Church, and I speak of the CRC here, has often been too sensitive to the culture around us. Feminism led to the demand for women in office (though many denominations such as the PCA have resisted that).
Posted in: Any Current or Past Elders?
I think I signed in with my "hello " almost a year ago. I don't think that much has come of the conversation, discussion or dialogue over the past year.
After serving numerous terms as an elder, usually as chair of council, I have discovered recently that I wasn't really qualified.
Sure, I checked all of the boxes, especially gifts of administration and organization, but I didnt have a sound biblical foundation. I couldnt easily quote scripture to parishioners when it came to providing wise counsel to families.
I readily proclaimed my love for the church and its institutions but, on hindsight, I didnt have a living, breathing relationship with Jesus.
So, the number 1 criterion for serving as an elder: have an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ and be immersed in scripture.
Posted in: Synod 2019 Top Tweet(s) - Wednesday, June 19
... just a quick note about time limits on speeches at Synod.
We have fallen victim to a Twitter society where everything needs to be said in a very few words.
I served as Synod delegate back in the early 1980s. Synod lasted two weeks and we'd spend hours ... hours .. in heated, wonderful debate on several major issues. Synod back then was indeed a 'deliberative body', filled with thoughtful dialogue and arguments.
We have lost that for the sake of efficiency and expediency ... and that is a shame. I cringe at the thought of having a meaningful debate in 2021 when the gender issues comes to the floor of synod. With speeches being confined to a two-minute soundbite, very little of substance will be raised.
When it comes to a meaningful discussion on things that shape the future of this denomination, what's the rush? Turn off your cell phones, shut down your Twitter account and become engaged in a robust, thoughtful debate. It takes time to listen, it takes time to be heard, it takes time to form a reasoned opinion before a decision can be made.
Posted in: Electronic Giving and YOUR Church
There is something almost 'holy' about bringing your offerings to the Lord on Sunday during worship. This isn't archaic or old-fashioned.
I think that a blend of technology and stewardly giving might accomplish both the church's need for regular giving and the worshipper's need to give ... and to be seen to give.
Using PAR or some similar form of electronic automatic withdrawal gives the church treasurer the assurance that the budget is being met (more or less). Parishioners are encouraged to tithe and to make that regular commitment each week or each month.
But when the offering plate is passed down the pew and it remains empty, what message is that sending to our children and grandchildren? That the offering is an option.
I suggest that the bulk of our offering be given electronically but that our true giving (as the Lord has blessed us that week) goes into the offering plate. Furthermore, our children should also be actively involved in the offering, giving a portion of their weekly allowance or income to the church. Unless children get into the habit of giving to the church, they will grow up with the view that passing an empty offering plate down the pew is some sort of archaic ritual. For many it has become precisely that.
Posted in: Electronic Giving and YOUR Church
Electronic giving fulfills the church treasurer's desire to have regular, guaranteed cash flow. It's a corporate response to what should be a very personal exercise; ie. giving unto the Lord.
This function has absolutely nothing to do with the notion of 'bringing our offerings' to church.
There is something humbling and deliberate about sitting down in the kitchen before heading off to worship and actually writing a physical check payable to the church.
I think that we need to have both: giving a portion of what we'd normally give via PAR or some other electronic plan, but then also topping that up, so to speak, with the physical exercise of putting something into the offering plate.
Posted in: Getting off to a Great Start: Welcoming Your New Pastor
It is indeed a great question -- How do we properly welcome a new pastor?
Something else suddenly springs to mind: How does the church and council prepare itself before it even contemplates calling a pastor?
When a job relocation caused my family and I to move to a new town, we ended up renting the parsonage because the recently retired pastor had just moved out. New families -- especially with a gaggle of girls -- were a rare occurrence in the church so we were warmly received.
I was almost immediately elected elder and -- being a fresh face -- became chair of council. The council was blessed with several wise men, both young and old. Council determined that, before they consider calling their next pastor, they needed to review their relationships with past pastors. Over the next six months or so, council ended up writing letters of confession to their former pastors; confessing how badly they had treated them and in some cases virtually drove them out of town.
It was an incredible lesson in grace as I observed these veteran elders relive some of those painful moments in their past.
Once those letters were sent off, council was ready to deal with more pertinent issues at hand: church growth and the need to either expand their existing building or build an entirely new structure. They decided to relocate and build a brand new church. They rallied the congregation, hundreds volunteered to help with construction, and when it was all done, council declared that they were ready to call their next pastor.
Writing letters of confession to former pastors; it was like an emotional/spiritual house-cleaning. Perhaps more like "taking out the garbage" before starting afresh.
From a church's perspective, it's only once past sins have been acknowledged that they can truly welcome their new pastor, determined to begin afresh and not to repeat history.
Posted in: Time to Rename Classis?
If one is determined to streamline our organizational language, then using General Assembly instead of Synod and Regional Assembly instead of Classis may make sense. So you'd have Regional Assembly Wisconsin (RAW), for example, or Regional Assembly Toronto (RAT). Or you'd preferably put the emphasis on the location, such as Grand Rapids North Regional Assembly or Holland Regional Assembly.
Posted in: Time to Rename Classis?
As I continue to read this thread, and take part in discussions now and then, I am struck by the fact that we are making every effort to make our church language palatable for those who may be new to the church or to the faith.
As we 'water down' our language, is there a subsequent desire to water down the Gospel? Will the time come when we find the terms 'sin' or 'hell' or 'damnation' offensive to the pew-sitter? I certainly hope not. And I hope that we continue to speak of justification, sanctification, propitiation and the notion that, unless we believe that Christ died for our sins, we're going to hell.
It's one thing to be stuck on our structural language as long as we don't attempt to rewrite the creeds and doctrines to make it more palatable.
I've made the ecumenical rounds, serving as director of communication for the CRCNA, The Presbyterian Church in Canada and The Anglican (Episcopal) Church of Canada. Talk about structural language, try figuring out what a primate, a diocese, a presbytery or the eucharist is.
Posted in: Time to Rename Classis?
I just don't get it. Why do we consistently insist on a rebranding? We change the names of our mission agencies -- okay, CRWRC was cumbersome.
"Classis" has been our signature designation for the group of churches for more than a century. Every knowledgeable CRC person knows what a classis is. And yet, The Banner invariably insists on adding an identifier whenever it uses the term (ie Classis is a group of churches within a specific region).
We seem to be under the mistaken notion that there are tens of thousands of new Christians flocking into our churches and picking up The Banner and then becoming absolutely stymied when they stumble across "classis".
Can you imagine any sports league -- NFL, CFL, NHL, NBA -- changing their terminology so that fans can better understand the game? No. Fans learn the lingo.
Similarly, we should refrain from treating pew-sitting CRC folk like children. They/we KNOW the language. We know what a classis is, or a synod, or an overture, or an NIV translation.
Don't dumb down our church language. It won't attract one new convert. And that, after all -- proclaiming the gospel -- is what it really should be all about.