In 2009 I worked out an amicable separation agreement with the church I pastored. After submitting it to Classis, 17a was administered. I went to a counselor who gave me a clean bill of health after six sessions and recommended that I return to the ministry. It was not what Classis wanted to hear. They removed my ordination at the end of the year without even reporting my counselor's findings.
Because 17a does not require any due diligence or any hearing or any witness of wrong doing as required by Scripture, I could not defend myself. I asked for what I had done that was worthy of the discipline of removal of my ordination, and I was simply told that I was not being disciplined - that would have required a hearing and charges and witnesses.
I was at a loss. How could our denomination allow for a loop hole that allowed ordination to be removed without "discipline"?
God is so good. I came to understand further the errors I made as a pastor and have grown immeasurably from this process, but it has been over a year now and no one from my Classis has contacted me. There has been no effort made to disciple me or walk along side me. I love the CRC, having come into it through a Home Mission church. I love Calvin Seminary for what it taught me. I love my CRC church and the healing I have found there. But I am confounded by the cold shoulder and lack of love I have experienced from my classis, my brother pastors, and my denomination.
The church is broken, but it is also the bride of Christ. I will not leave the ministry and the calling God placed on me. I love the church and will serve her. If the CRC does not want me as one of its ordained pastors, I can live with that. My only question is why have the pastors of the CRC allowed this loophole for the removal of their ordination without cause to remain in the church order?
John, thanks for your response. I have spoken of 17a which is an error. It is Supplement, 17a. After all this time we have shortened it to 17a and that can be confussing.
In 17a.4) the church order states: "If classis does not declare the minister eligible for call, it shall, with concurrance of synodical deputies, release the minister from office."
Be careful to not that the minister is being released from office - the removal of the ordination - not the same as a release from service where the minister maintains the ordination. This removal of the ordination does not require cause. Where there is cause, Article 82-84 applies, and in this case the minister has the opportunity to address witnessess and the charges as Scripture requires.
How can anyone claim that the removal of a minister's ordination, that required four years of seminary to obtain, is not a form of discipline? Surely the minister did something wrong, surely there were witnesses, and the Bible requires that two or more of these come forward. I am suggesting that Supplement 17a is in violation of Scripture. What do you think?
John, you make a convincing arguement. Classis holds all the cards on the "released from office". They are not obligated to follow the recommendation of counselors, they are not obligated to prove cause, they are not obligated to follow any agreement between the minister and the church the minister is leaving. They must have the approval of synodical deputies, but the way the Church Order is worded, the deputies cannot withhold approval. One would assume that a classis would never do such a thing, but mine did.
Please understand that I made mistakes as a pastor, as did the elders of the church I served. I do not fault the elders, we are human and live in depravity - we make mistakes. This is why establishing sufficient cause is so important to being released from office in Supplement Art. 17a.; and it is why the Bible requires in both the OT and NT that two or more witness are required before disciplining a person for an offense. The arguement that being released from office is an act of grace and not discipline (though discipline should always be done with grace) is the foundation of the loophole and is a bucket that holds no water.
Posted in: What has been your experience with Article 17 A?
In 2009 I worked out an amicable separation agreement with the church I pastored. After submitting it to Classis, 17a was administered. I went to a counselor who gave me a clean bill of health after six sessions and recommended that I return to the ministry. It was not what Classis wanted to hear. They removed my ordination at the end of the year without even reporting my counselor's findings.
Because 17a does not require any due diligence or any hearing or any witness of wrong doing as required by Scripture, I could not defend myself. I asked for what I had done that was worthy of the discipline of removal of my ordination, and I was simply told that I was not being disciplined - that would have required a hearing and charges and witnesses.
I was at a loss. How could our denomination allow for a loop hole that allowed ordination to be removed without "discipline"?
God is so good. I came to understand further the errors I made as a pastor and have grown immeasurably from this process, but it has been over a year now and no one from my Classis has contacted me. There has been no effort made to disciple me or walk along side me. I love the CRC, having come into it through a Home Mission church. I love Calvin Seminary for what it taught me. I love my CRC church and the healing I have found there. But I am confounded by the cold shoulder and lack of love I have experienced from my classis, my brother pastors, and my denomination.
The church is broken, but it is also the bride of Christ. I will not leave the ministry and the calling God placed on me. I love the church and will serve her. If the CRC does not want me as one of its ordained pastors, I can live with that. My only question is why have the pastors of the CRC allowed this loophole for the removal of their ordination without cause to remain in the church order?
Posted in: The Loophole: Losing Your Ordination Without Cause
John, thanks for your response. I have spoken of 17a which is an error. It is Supplement, 17a. After all this time we have shortened it to 17a and that can be confussing.
In 17a.4) the church order states: "If classis does not declare the minister eligible for call, it shall, with concurrance of synodical deputies, release the minister from office."
Be careful to not that the minister is being released from office - the removal of the ordination - not the same as a release from service where the minister maintains the ordination. This removal of the ordination does not require cause. Where there is cause, Article 82-84 applies, and in this case the minister has the opportunity to address witnessess and the charges as Scripture requires.
How can anyone claim that the removal of a minister's ordination, that required four years of seminary to obtain, is not a form of discipline? Surely the minister did something wrong, surely there were witnesses, and the Bible requires that two or more of these come forward. I am suggesting that Supplement 17a is in violation of Scripture. What do you think?
Posted in: The Loophole: Losing Your Ordination Without Cause
John, you make a convincing arguement. Classis holds all the cards on the "released from office". They are not obligated to follow the recommendation of counselors, they are not obligated to prove cause, they are not obligated to follow any agreement between the minister and the church the minister is leaving. They must have the approval of synodical deputies, but the way the Church Order is worded, the deputies cannot withhold approval. One would assume that a classis would never do such a thing, but mine did.
Please understand that I made mistakes as a pastor, as did the elders of the church I served. I do not fault the elders, we are human and live in depravity - we make mistakes. This is why establishing sufficient cause is so important to being released from office in Supplement Art. 17a.; and it is why the Bible requires in both the OT and NT that two or more witness are required before disciplining a person for an offense. The arguement that being released from office is an act of grace and not discipline (though discipline should always be done with grace) is the foundation of the loophole and is a bucket that holds no water.