I would fully agree that every ministry benefits from a different voice from time to time. However, I think the real issue here is intentionality about that different voice. It is confusing to me why a church without a pastor would simply ascent to random and diverse pastors coming to preach and lead in their worship gatherings. It is assumed that simply because it is "in house" that the Word brought will be helpful, encouraging, insightful and of a certain quality. That is an assumption I would challenge. At the church I serve we desire and are working toward being very intentional about who comes in to preach and lead. This actually means going outside of the denomination from time to time (an even greater reminder that we are indeed part of a greater body).
On the other side of the coin: for those churches/pastors fulfilling classical appointments, there is the question of how often is it healthy for the primary pastor to be gone (especially if there is only one pastor...who is probably gone 8-10 weeks already for vacation, etc). How many additional times a year do you want to be gone for classical appointments? Classical appointments can also be disruptive for the sending churches/pastors when Sunday morning preaching is done in both liturgical and thematic series and suddenly the pastor is expected to preach elsewhere.
I agree that denominationalism is likely to be weakened if the classical appointment goes extinct, but I'm not convinced that is a bad thing. I'm not a congregationalist, but I'm not a denominationalist. I proudly speak with a reformed accent and am proud to be a part of the reformed heritage, but clinging to denominationalism may actually hinder God's big mission in the world. There are probably better and more creative and innovative ways to support our sisters and brothers in our classis and denomination who are without a pastor than through classical appointments.
Posted in: Classical Appointment, an Endangered Species?
Thanks Norm for the thoughtful reflection.
I would fully agree that every ministry benefits from a different voice from time to time. However, I think the real issue here is intentionality about that different voice. It is confusing to me why a church without a pastor would simply ascent to random and diverse pastors coming to preach and lead in their worship gatherings. It is assumed that simply because it is "in house" that the Word brought will be helpful, encouraging, insightful and of a certain quality. That is an assumption I would challenge. At the church I serve we desire and are working toward being very intentional about who comes in to preach and lead. This actually means going outside of the denomination from time to time (an even greater reminder that we are indeed part of a greater body).
On the other side of the coin: for those churches/pastors fulfilling classical appointments, there is the question of how often is it healthy for the primary pastor to be gone (especially if there is only one pastor...who is probably gone 8-10 weeks already for vacation, etc). How many additional times a year do you want to be gone for classical appointments? Classical appointments can also be disruptive for the sending churches/pastors when Sunday morning preaching is done in both liturgical and thematic series and suddenly the pastor is expected to preach elsewhere.
I agree that denominationalism is likely to be weakened if the classical appointment goes extinct, but I'm not convinced that is a bad thing. I'm not a congregationalist, but I'm not a denominationalist. I proudly speak with a reformed accent and am proud to be a part of the reformed heritage, but clinging to denominationalism may actually hinder God's big mission in the world. There are probably better and more creative and innovative ways to support our sisters and brothers in our classis and denomination who are without a pastor than through classical appointments.