Jeff Fisher

Thanks Kathy, Ken, and Al for pointing out some of the glaring omissions from this post on Article 17.  In the interest of “full disclosure,” I am a minister who was released under Article 17 (gasp!)… to go back to school for further studies (whew!).

And while I agree that we should use kinder, more inclusive, and more accurate language, the fact that the primary post about Article 17 on the CRC’s Network site refers to Article 17 as equivalent to a “red flag,” “a divorce,” and a “car accident” shows that whatever anyone might want to claim, there is most definitely a stigma associated with Article 17.

Unfortunately, the perception of Article 17 is far more powerful (and prevalent) than its actual usage or “original intent.”  According to the church order, Article 17 is not “our flagging system” nor is it a “no fault divorce” between the pastor and congregation.  Obviously there is sin involved (there is sin involved everywhere!), but Article 17 is supposed to be for those cases that are “weighty” but not to the point of requiring “discipline” (that’s Articles 82 and 83).  But, that’s not the way Article 17 is perceived—and in some cases, is not how it has been used.

And while churches should investigate more fully why a pastor has been released under Article 17, I think that because many pastors and Classis delegates do see this is a “flagging system,” there needs to be much more work done at the synodical level on how Article 17 should and should not be used (particularly in the cases of ordained ministers going back to school for further studies and those who actually should be released under Article 83 because they were “guilty of neglect or abuse of office”).

So I'll be very interested to see what the future posts have to say about Article 17 and how it should be employed.

Paul,

In my experience most of the time Article 17 was also because of conflict between the pastor and the church--until I decided to go back for my Ph.D.  That's the very reason why several of us who have gone back to school over the last few years first attempted to avoid Article 17 and its stigma by seeking any other possible route (e.g. Article 12 or 16).  But, there is no other way. 

There's no question that based on Classis experience, the disclosure requested by the Ministerial Information service,  and the prescribed roles of the regional pastor and the classical committee, that Article 17 is primarily (and almost exclusively) used to  address a situation of conflict.  But even where it is not used that way, it is still perceived (at least, in general) as a "red flag."

I think the sheer fact that from 2000-2009 the use of Article 17 went from 3-4 per year in the previous two decades to 17 per year(!) should call for Synod to re-evaluate how it is being used and why this drastic spike happened.