"Parity of Office" --- Paging Inigo Montoya

In the discussion at Synod '11 about including deacons in the greater assemblies (see my previous blog post), I heard two words used quite often: "parity" and "equality." They were always used in a way that showed that the speaker believed that these had some substantial meaning, that they were highly relevant to the issue at hand.

As I said online in that other post, the paper that the delegates were given to discuss did not, in fact, argue for the inclusion of deacons based on some notion of "equality of ministry" or "parity of office." It really doesn't. The paper makes a different argument, one well worth considering.

I could speculate as to why delegates thought that the paper did turn on those notions of "equality of ministry" and "parity of office." Instead, I'd like to consider here what those terms really mean. For I can't help but recall those immortal words of Inigo Montoya to Vizzini (from The Princess Bride): "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

It would probably help to quote the paragraph from the BCO that is thought to be the source of these terms:

The Equality of the Ministry. The Reformed Church in America uses the term "parity" to describe its concept of the equality of ministers. It is not meant that authority can never be exercised by one over the other. But in every instance this authority will be delegated by the proper body, and the authority will cease to be exercised when the need for it is no longer demanded. The principle of equality pertains also among churches, among elders, and among deacons. The principle of the equality of the ministry, conceived now in its broadest sense as including the functions of the elder and the deacon, is based upon the fact that the entire ministerial or pastoral office is summed up in Jesus Christ himself in such a way that he is, in a sense, the only one holding that office. Every ministerial function is found preeminently in him. By his Holy Spirit he distributes these functions among those whom he calls to serve in his name.

Now, there are a few things to note about this paragraph. First of all, the concept originally applies to ministers. Ministers are equal in status, and when authority must be exercised over a minister it must be in the right way by the right body. By extension, the concept is then applied to assemblies and to the holders of other offices: one classis is not greater than others, nor is one elder superior to others. By further extension still, we may see an equality between all the offices insofar as they exercise ministry that is grounded in the one ministry of Christ.

I find it striking that nowhere in this paragraph do those beloved and oft spoken words appear: "parity of office." The word "parity" occurs only once. Instead, we find "equality of ministry" as the governing concept, and the paragraph grounds this on a thoroughly Reformed understanding of the offices having their basis and justification in the person of Jesus Christ.

So, here's my point: I don't think "parity of office" means what people think it means. The same thing with the proper term, "equality of ministry."

It does not mean that the offices are in all respects equal. To assert that they must be thus equal would be fairly meaningless. We don't help ourselves by holding up our practice against some abstract and ill-defined concept such as "equality," without significant definition and qualification.

It does not mean that there should be no separate boards of elders and deacons. Nor does it mean that deacons must be included or consulted in all the work the elders do, or vice versa. If you think it does, good luck with that.

It does not mean that there must be an equal number of each office in any assembly. Consistories never have as many ministers as deacons or elders, some classes always have more ministers in attendance than elders, and there is no BCO requirement for the consistory to have an equal number of elders and deacons.

The equality of ministry is an equality of status and mutual dependence. The church needs the functions of each office to be exercised, for those functions in their fullness reflect the breadth of the ministry of Christ himself. For that reason, too, each office needs the other offices. And so it is that each office holder needs called and gifted individuals ordained to the other offices as well as her own.

Deacons as Delegates

I've had a few days for the events of Synod to sink in, although I don't have complete clarity, and I probably never will! Yet I think that maybe I'm in a place where I can make a few comments on a major issue that was discussed at Synod: the question of the inclusion of deacons in the "greater assemblies," that is, in classis, regional synod, and general synod.

The focus of that question was provided by discussion of a paper from the Commission on Theology (COT). Full disclosure: I'm a member of that commission. The work of COT was directed by '07 General Synod, which asked COT to explore whether there is, from a reformed and missional perspective, theological warrant for including deacons in the greater assemblies.

The paper we presented to this Synod argues that there is, in fact, such theological warrant. There are good reasons, we said, biblical and theological reasons, for such inclusion.

I didn't always accept this view. In fact, I once wrote to the COT (it was before I was a member) telling them why, theologically, I thought this was a bad idea. I dismantled arguments that had little substance, and I provided substantive arguments of my own. (If you're interested, what I had to say then may be found here.)

I changed my mind not because my arguments were wrong. I changed my mind because there were other arguments for the inclusion of deacons in the greater assemblies that I had not considered. And I found those arguments convincing. (In short, this is the case it makes: the office of deacon should be represented in all assemblies because of the missional imperative of those assemblies and the missional nature of that office.) Just as important, this argument on which the paper turns, that is, the core of the case for inclusion of deacons, does not touch on issues of fairness or equality or parity. I have never found such arguments convincing. This paper does not present such a rationale.

Yet a sizable number of delegates appears to believe that the paper does make such an argument. And this bothers me. That many would understand the paper to be saying what it does not say, ... well, I suppose that kind of thing happens a lot, but I don't have to like it.

The thing that bothers me more, however, is the fact that plenty of delegates clearly had an understanding of the office of deacon that is, um, inadequate. (I'm sorry to be so blunt.) For these delegates, deacons are viewed as junior elders or elders in training. Or delegates see no difference between the offices of elders and deacons. Or delegates see the fundamental work of deacons as counting the money and balancing the books.

This is a problem, one that has nothing to do with vague notions of fairness or equality or parity. The problem is that so many elders and ministers operate with an understanding of the offices that is unformed and uninformed by our constitution (particularly, by the Government and the Liturgy). It all shows me that before the office of deacon can be represented in all the assemblies, the Reformed Church has a lot of work to do in getting to a point where something like an adequate understanding of the offices and the assemblies is common. Until that happens, I'm not sure there's much point.

The Authority of the Synod

Yesterday we voted to approve the selection of Tom DeVries as the RCA's next general secretary. Most of you know that, but I state it in case some (from my congregation, for instance) are following only my blog.

I am fully in support of that action. I think Tom is a warmhearted, generaous, wise, and gifted follower of Jesus. I believe this selection is worthy of our approval.

Some might question that. For yesterday, I offered a motion to amend that would have put in place the requirement that the General Synod review and approve Tom's employment in six years.

I did this for a very simple reason.

It was not because I questioned Tom.

It was because of the authority of the Synod.

I believe that over the years, Synod has given away so much of its authority to the General Synod Council and to the general secretary. The indeterminate term of this position, with little or no consultation with the Synod, seems to have lead to an expanding scope of the position.

Some may point to Carver Policy Governance as justification for the methods of employment and contract review. I would offer, however, that although the GSC is bound by Carver, the Synod is not. Furthermore, the GSC is to be accountable to the Synod, not the other way around.

The motion to amend was defeated. But the issues I was trying to raise will not go away. I am glad that they at least received an airing.

Encountering the Holy

I've been unable to contribute any blog postings for awhile. Synod keeps me very busy! My fellow bloggers have given a good sense of the feeling of Synod. This is good, that no one person needs to feel obliged to relate everything about the meetings.

Although it has been several days, I want to note here the opening worship of Synod, which took place on Thursday. This was a joint service of worship, with the Reformed Church in America and the Christian Reformed Church in North America gathered together.

In short, it was amazing.

There are some few occasions in my life when, in worship, I have been singing a hymn along with everyone else there, and then I have to stop, so overwhelmed am I. My voice catches. My eyes well up with tears. This happened to me several times in that service.

I suspect I was not the only one.

Yes, the music was well lead by the fine musicians. Yes, there were many people there. Yes, the event was historic (as we were celebrating a small yet signficant sign of our unity. Those all helped. But there was more, some things identifiable, some unnameable.

I felt sincerity by those gathered, and I heard it in their voices as they raised them clear and loud and strong and hopeful.

I felt reconciliation and forgiveness, as I looked across the worshippers at a man from whom I felt some uncertainty and even estrangement, and was overwhelmed with love for him.

I felt like a sinner in need of redeeming, a patient in need of healing, a prodigal in need of welcoming. And there I felt that I was offered, and I received, all those things.

As Moses said to Joshua, "Oh, that all the Lord's people would be prophets, and that God would pour out God's spirit on them."

Would that all the Lord's people have such an encounter with the Holy, in their own congregations on regular Sunday mornings of no particular historical significance.

An Observation

Why do many RCA and CRC ministers have goatees? (Just the men, of course.) Is it a Dutch thing? A Rick Warren wannabe thing? A forgotten line from the Doctrinal Standards?