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.
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.
While, in theory I agree that we shouldn't need a change in the Church Order, it seems to me that the language (jargon) of Article 17 and its supplements functionally operates as if the article is primarily for cases of conflict.
The word "weighty" has come to have the connotation of “heavy, serious, grave, solemn, or burdensome" rather than something that is "sufficiently significant" for a minister of the Word to be released from the specific calling to this congregation.
The questions from the Ministerial Information Service which refer to this as a "termination" also carry a negative connotation, which undoubtedly perpetuates the associated stigma (hopefully, at Kathy's request, the committee can remedy this).
I definitely think we must keep Article 17 and its reason for existence. And I agree that it is good that such releases are only for very significant reasons. It makes us take seriously our theology of calling.
But, as this original post (and many Classis meetings) show, there is somethingwrong with the way Article 17 is understood. As much as it is applied correctly in a wide variety of cases, it is still assumed/perceived that Article 17 is for irreconcilable problems (and thus, the comments that wording changes would only deal with symptoms and not the root problems).
I'm not sure exactly what that somethingis, but it seems to me that if the Church Order is "wisdom literature" meant to help the church function in healthy and wise ways, then it may be wise of us to consider ways to clarify and more accurately communicate in Article 17 (and/or its supplements) the purposes and cases for which it is to be used.
Posted in: The Article 17 Flag
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.
Posted in: The Article 17 Flag
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.
Posted in: The Article 17 Flag
Where's the "like" button on here? This is definitely the best solution in the current situation.
Posted in: The Article 17 Flag
Thanks. But that is for the whole article, isnt't it? I wanted to "like" Dr. DeMoor's comment.
Posted in: The Article 17 Flag
While, in theory I agree that we shouldn't need a change in the Church Order, it seems to me that the language (jargon) of Article 17 and its supplements functionally operates as if the article is primarily for cases of conflict.
The word "weighty" has come to have the connotation of “heavy, serious, grave, solemn, or burdensome" rather than something that is "sufficiently significant" for a minister of the Word to be released from the specific calling to this congregation.
The questions from the Ministerial Information Service which refer to this as a "termination" also carry a negative connotation, which undoubtedly perpetuates the associated stigma (hopefully, at Kathy's request, the committee can remedy this).
I definitely think we must keep Article 17 and its reason for existence. And I agree that it is good that such releases are only for very significant reasons. It makes us take seriously our theology of calling.
But, as this original post (and many Classis meetings) show, there is something wrong with the way Article 17 is understood. As much as it is applied correctly in a wide variety of cases, it is still assumed/perceived that Article 17 is for irreconcilable problems (and thus, the comments that wording changes would only deal with symptoms and not the root problems).
I'm not sure exactly what that something is, but it seems to me that if the Church Order is "wisdom literature" meant to help the church function in healthy and wise ways, then it may be wise of us to consider ways to clarify and more accurately communicate in Article 17 (and/or its supplements) the purposes and cases for which it is to be used.