Your welcome. Church Order, Article 27-a may also have some relevance in this matter: "Each assembly exercises, in keeping with its own character and domain, the ecclesiastical authority entrusted to the church by Christ; 'the authority of councils being original, that of major assemblies being delegated'."
The question I struggle with is whether the Vision 21 Report submitted and adopted by Synod 1987 upended the ecclesiastical governance model set out in Church Order, Article 27-a where CRCNA administrative bodies are speaking on behalf of church councils and congregants without their authorization and outside their sphere of sovereignty. In particular, the Manual for Christian Reformed Government in the commentary states,
"1. The assemblies of the church exercise the ecclesiastical authority entrusted to the church by Christ. This is a basic principle in Reformed polity. The church is not based on the principle of hierarchy but on shared authority that flows from the head of the church: Jesus Christ. From that principle flows the following:
a. Ecclesiastical: The essential authority in the church is ecclesiastical—it is limited by the nature of the church as the body of Christ. The Bible speaks of various other types of authority, such as the authority of parents over their children and the authority of rulers and judges over a nation. Each type of authority must be exercised within its own sphere and in accord with its own structural purposes....
b. Entrusted by Christ: The first principle of all ecclesiastical authority is the headship of Christ. The mandates he gives to his church are based upon Christ’s own authority. The church has no ecclesiastical authority other than that of Christ. In other words, 'the authority of the council is not delegated to it by the classis or the denomination.'...
2. The relationship of the assemblies: Each assembly exercises its own peculiar authority in keeping with its own character and domain—the council in relation to the congregation, the classis in matters relating to its member congregations, and the synod for the denomination as a whole.
a. The authority of councils: The authority of councils is original; the authority of the major assemblies is delegated. Each congregation as a unit is a complete expression of the body of Christ in its particular setting. Congregations are the basic units of the church, comprising all of its members in a given community of faith.
b. The authority of major assemblies: To express and maintain the broader unity of the church and to reach out beyond the local boundaries, councils (minor assemblies) unite in broader (major) assemblies called “classes.” The churches of the classes (as minor assemblies) unite in a still broader (or major) assembly called the “synod” of the church....
3. Movements that undermine the authority of the assemblies: The ecclesiastical assemblies must be guarded against actions that, knowingly or unknowingly, undermine the authority and threaten the unity of the church. On various occasions synod has warned against the circulation of petitions and against pressure movements within the church that circumvent the decisions of the assemblies and cause disunity in the church."'
I hear, more and more, the "narrative of fear" as an explanation for people not stepping up to a challenge, and/or not helping out and have come to wonder whether this is really a misnomer for something else. There is a "meta-narrative that runs deeper in our post modern world, i.e. "disengagement" from institutions and community life that has been evolving over the last 20-30 years that is likely at odds with the vision of communal life set out in scripture.
Are there really that many fearful/inadequate people out there? It is troubling in today's society and churches to find that many people consider themselves inadequate in engaging in social institutions, etc. when they operate quite "competently" in the work and family world, skills that can be carried over to the former. Yet, having seen the results of a recent Building Blocks of Faith Formation survey, only confirms the inadequacy explanation for not engaging. Think we need to dig deeper.
Question: Is "fear" a mask "cover-up" for something else?
Question: Why is it that in today's church, rather than volunteer, the preference is to hire/pay someone else to do the task?
Not withstanding the fact this is a troubling societal issue, it is even more troubling when the courts need to enter the dialogue to ensure justice is done.
Those are all good ideas, yet are premised on insiders looking outside the box. The underlying assumption is people outside the box would unreservedly want to join them in the box knowing the benefits.
Yet they are not.
How do we put ourselves in their shoes, see things through their eyes, engage where they are at to understand why the disengagement, disaffiliation, etc. How does scripture speak into this issue?
Agreed. Having the previous interim Executive Director and deputy Executive Director still in place sends conflicting messages to staff as to who is in charge.
In reading the Agenda for Synod 2014, I noted the highlighted point below:
"A large part of the Board of Trustees’ work relates to the ministry programs, personnel, and finances of the denomination. The program and personnel details are reported to synod by way of the reports of the agencies and this section of the BOT’s report in this agenda. Additional information regarding financial matters is contained in Appendix H to this Board of Trustees Report as well as in the Agenda for Synod 2014—Financial and Business Supplement that is distributed at synod. The final budget and the ministry share request will be presented to synod by way of synod’s finance advisory committee.” Agenda for Synod 2014 – Board of Trustees Report, page 33
QUESTIONS:
1. By not publishing the proposed budget and ministry share request in the Agenda of Synod, is BOT/Synod forgoing it’s fiduicary and due diligence obligations to the local church of the business to be dealt with at the CRCNA AGM?
2. By not including the proposed budget in the Agenda of Synod are legislated notice requirements for not-for-profit non-government organizations being overlooked?
I am not certain that labeling things as left, centre or right is helpful to a fruitful conversation, let alone making the charge that "Canadian" Banner editors "liked" to be provocative. That individuals may disagree with the arguments laid out in some of the articles that were published is one thing and an opportunity for an ongoing dialogue, however, we always need to ask ourselves whether our comments occasionally slip into ad hominem attacks.
The comment, "It's also worth asking whether we should have such Canadian dominance of the Banner editorship when a large majority of CRC members are U. S. citizens," raises an important question. Why does citizenship in a nation state trump membership in the Body of Christ? Does civil religion take precedence to following Jesus Christ?
Paul VanderKlay raises some important points above regarding the mandate given the Banner by Synod over the years in contrast to other writers who feel that mandate needs to be revised. The question that needs to be asked is whether there has been shift within the CRC "not" to a more conservative outlook on issues, but a shift from it's Reformed roots to realignment with North American fundamentalism.
Regardless, the Banner and it's editors are an easy targets for what are ongoing pastoral and ecclesiastical discussions on various topics at annual Synods. That these topics are on the table at all, is a reflection of what local churches are struggling with in ministering to their flock. If pastoral care is to be extended that means both dialogue and engagement with scripture and God's creation is required rather than mounting the ramparts.
Though I can understand Hamstra and Sikkema's point about furthering the kingdom, I feel they have both missed the point on "stewardship" by focusing purely on the monetary aspect of the transaction. Both congregations in the relationship are involved in tilling the fields of the Lord and contributing to the upkeep of his flock. The landlord church may or may not need the rent, nontheless the hope would be that whatever is collected would go to furthering the Kingdom. Secondly, the tenant church may or may not be able to pay rent, nonetheless we are called to give of our gifts to further the the Kingdom. Should the landlord church decide to forgo the rent to further the Kingdom, that is also a gift.
There is a Foucaultian post-modern tendency to view relationships with suspicion when it comes to the matter of power.
Though I can understand that "power" might be an issue, nonetheless a landlord / tenant relationship is usually premised on a contractual relationship with obligations and responsibilities similar to the concept of a covenantal relationship. Secondly, that contractual relationship is regulated by legislation and civil authorities where recourse for remedies can be pursued even though it may not always work effectively.
Moreover, quite apart from the state ensuring that the interests of the respective parties being protected there are also other matters which need to be addressed that are raised by Harry Bossenkool and Brian Tebben.
As I've indicated in previous posts, I can understand the desire to further Kingdom work.
What I don't understand is the avoidance to engage in the notion that these congregations operate within civil and legislation frameworks as two distinct corporate entities.
Framing the matter as purely a monetary / power imbalance ignores both the biblical stewardship relationship between the parties, as well as the civil / legal issues that arise when two parties jointly agree to share in the use of a facility. What Hanford CRC has offered the other church meeting in it's space may "feel good" but may also be problematic in the eyes of the civil authorities, as well as, other parties such as insurance companies, e.g. what binds the other church to abide by CRCNA Safe Church policy.
The article above does not provide a lot of detail on the Hanford CRC relationship, however, the Brian Tebben example is more helpful and moves in the right direction. Harry Boessenkool also alludes to the complexity of legal constraints that exist in Canada, and probably also the United States, on providing services and facilities on the same equity terms to both church members and non-church members.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Hi Doug...
Your welcome. Church Order, Article 27-a may also have some relevance in this matter: "Each assembly exercises, in keeping with its own character and domain, the ecclesiastical authority entrusted to the church by Christ; 'the authority of councils being original, that of major assemblies being delegated'."
The question I struggle with is whether the Vision 21 Report submitted and adopted by Synod 1987 upended the ecclesiastical governance model set out in Church Order, Article 27-a where CRCNA administrative bodies are speaking on behalf of church councils and congregants without their authorization and outside their sphere of sovereignty. In particular, the Manual for Christian Reformed Government in the commentary states,
"1. The assemblies of the church exercise the ecclesiastical authority entrusted to the church by Christ. This is a basic principle in Reformed polity. The church is not based on the principle of hierarchy but on shared authority that flows from the head of the church: Jesus Christ. From that principle flows the following:
a. Ecclesiastical: The essential authority in the church is ecclesiastical—it is limited by the nature of the church as the body of Christ. The Bible speaks of various other types of authority, such as the authority of parents over their children and the authority of rulers and judges over a nation. Each type of authority must be exercised within its own sphere and in accord with its own structural purposes....
b. Entrusted by Christ: The first principle of all ecclesiastical authority is the headship of Christ. The mandates he gives to his church are based upon Christ’s own authority. The church has no ecclesiastical authority other than that of Christ. In other words, 'the authority of the council is not delegated to it by the classis or the denomination.'...
2. The relationship of the assemblies: Each assembly exercises its own peculiar authority in keeping with its own character and domain—the council in relation to the congregation, the classis in matters relating to its member congregations, and the synod for the denomination as a whole.
a. The authority of councils: The authority of councils is original; the authority of the major assemblies is delegated. Each congregation as a unit is a complete expression of the body of Christ in its particular setting. Congregations are the basic units of the church, comprising all of its members in a given community of faith.
b. The authority of major assemblies: To express and maintain the broader unity of the church and to reach out beyond the local boundaries, councils (minor assemblies) unite in broader (major) assemblies called “classes.” The churches of the classes (as minor assemblies) unite in a still broader (or major) assembly called the “synod” of the church....
3. Movements that undermine the authority of the assemblies: The ecclesiastical assemblies must be guarded against actions that, knowingly or unknowingly, undermine the authority and threaten the unity of the church. On various occasions synod has warned against the circulation of petitions and against pressure movements within the church that circumvent the decisions of the assemblies and cause disunity in the church."'
Posted in: Our Deepest Fear...Rising to the Top and Staying There
I hear, more and more, the "narrative of fear" as an explanation for people not stepping up to a challenge, and/or not helping out and have come to wonder whether this is really a misnomer for something else. There is a "meta-narrative that runs deeper in our post modern world, i.e. "disengagement" from institutions and community life that has been evolving over the last 20-30 years that is likely at odds with the vision of communal life set out in scripture.
Are there really that many fearful/inadequate people out there? It is troubling in today's society and churches to find that many people consider themselves inadequate in engaging in social institutions, etc. when they operate quite "competently" in the work and family world, skills that can be carried over to the former. Yet, having seen the results of a recent Building Blocks of Faith Formation survey, only confirms the inadequacy explanation for not engaging. Think we need to dig deeper.
Question: Is "fear" a mask "cover-up" for something else?
Question: Why is it that in today's church, rather than volunteer, the preference is to hire/pay someone else to do the task?
Posted in: Crying Rape
Not withstanding the fact this is a troubling societal issue, it is even more troubling when the courts need to enter the dialogue to ensure justice is done.
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/15/00/2015BCCA0047.htm
and
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/12/b-c-man-wins-right-to-sue-rape-accuser-for-defamation-after-he-was-cleared-of-charge/#__federated=1
Posted in: Activating the Inactive
Hi Louis...
Those are all good ideas, yet are premised on insiders looking outside the box. The underlying assumption is people outside the box would unreservedly want to join them in the box knowing the benefits.
Yet they are not.
How do we put ourselves in their shoes, see things through their eyes, engage where they are at to understand why the disengagement, disaffiliation, etc. How does scripture speak into this issue?
Posted in: Long Goodbye
Agreed. Having the previous interim Executive Director and deputy Executive Director still in place sends conflicting messages to staff as to who is in charge.
Posted in: "Five Streams" Revisited
They are good points! However, it is also "the tail wagging the dog."
Posted in: New Annual CRCNA Budget Process
In reading the Agenda for Synod 2014, I noted the highlighted point below:
"A large part of the Board of Trustees’ work relates to the ministry programs, personnel, and finances of the denomination. The program and personnel details are reported to synod by way of the reports of the agencies and this section of the BOT’s report in this agenda. Additional information regarding financial matters is contained in Appendix H to this Board of Trustees Report as well as in the Agenda for Synod 2014—Financial and Business Supplement that is distributed at synod. The final budget and the ministry share request will be presented to synod by way of synod’s finance advisory committee.” Agenda for Synod 2014 – Board of Trustees Report, page 33
QUESTIONS:
1. By not publishing the proposed budget and ministry share request in the Agenda of Synod, is BOT/Synod forgoing it’s fiduicary and due diligence obligations to the local church of the business to be dealt with at the CRCNA AGM?
2. By not including the proposed budget in the Agenda of Synod are legislated notice requirements for not-for-profit non-government organizations being overlooked?
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
I am not certain that labeling things as left, centre or right is helpful to a fruitful conversation, let alone making the charge that "Canadian" Banner editors "liked" to be provocative. That individuals may disagree with the arguments laid out in some of the articles that were published is one thing and an opportunity for an ongoing dialogue, however, we always need to ask ourselves whether our comments occasionally slip into ad hominem attacks.
The comment, "It's also worth asking whether we should have such Canadian dominance of the Banner editorship when a large majority of CRC members are U. S. citizens," raises an important question. Why does citizenship in a nation state trump membership in the Body of Christ? Does civil religion take precedence to following Jesus Christ?
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
Paul VanderKlay raises some important points above regarding the mandate given the Banner by Synod over the years in contrast to other writers who feel that mandate needs to be revised. The question that needs to be asked is whether there has been shift within the CRC "not" to a more conservative outlook on issues, but a shift from it's Reformed roots to realignment with North American fundamentalism.
Regardless, the Banner and it's editors are an easy targets for what are ongoing pastoral and ecclesiastical discussions on various topics at annual Synods. That these topics are on the table at all, is a reflection of what local churches are struggling with in ministering to their flock. If pastoral care is to be extended that means both dialogue and engagement with scripture and God's creation is required rather than mounting the ramparts.
Posted in: Why We Don't Want To Rent Space
Though I can understand Hamstra and Sikkema's point about furthering the kingdom, I feel they have both missed the point on "stewardship" by focusing purely on the monetary aspect of the transaction. Both congregations in the relationship are involved in tilling the fields of the Lord and contributing to the upkeep of his flock. The landlord church may or may not need the rent, nontheless the hope would be that whatever is collected would go to furthering the Kingdom. Secondly, the tenant church may or may not be able to pay rent, nonetheless we are called to give of our gifts to further the the Kingdom. Should the landlord church decide to forgo the rent to further the Kingdom, that is also a gift.
Posted in: Why We Don't Want To Rent Space
There is a Foucaultian post-modern tendency to view relationships with suspicion when it comes to the matter of power.
Though I can understand that "power" might be an issue, nonetheless a landlord / tenant relationship is usually premised on a contractual relationship with obligations and responsibilities similar to the concept of a covenantal relationship. Secondly, that contractual relationship is regulated by legislation and civil authorities where recourse for remedies can be pursued even though it may not always work effectively.
Moreover, quite apart from the state ensuring that the interests of the respective parties being protected there are also other matters which need to be addressed that are raised by Harry Bossenkool and Brian Tebben.
Posted in: Why We Don't Want To Rent Space
As I've indicated in previous posts, I can understand the desire to further Kingdom work.
What I don't understand is the avoidance to engage in the notion that these congregations operate within civil and legislation frameworks as two distinct corporate entities.
Framing the matter as purely a monetary / power imbalance ignores both the biblical stewardship relationship between the parties, as well as the civil / legal issues that arise when two parties jointly agree to share in the use of a facility. What Hanford CRC has offered the other church meeting in it's space may "feel good" but may also be problematic in the eyes of the civil authorities, as well as, other parties such as insurance companies, e.g. what binds the other church to abide by CRCNA Safe Church policy.
The article above does not provide a lot of detail on the Hanford CRC relationship, however, the Brian Tebben example is more helpful and moves in the right direction. Harry Boessenkool also alludes to the complexity of legal constraints that exist in Canada, and probably also the United States, on providing services and facilities on the same equity terms to both church members and non-church members.