The question may then be asked, “Why are not women permitted to be ruling elders within the Body of Christ?” Women, like men, obviously become elders due to their age and accumulated wisdom, however, that alone does not constitute a valid reason for becoming a ruling elder, that is, someone with authority over another Christian man. Simply put, a Christian woman has not been given that authority by Christ. Neither by Christ Himself nor any of His Apostles is it ever implied directly or indirectly in all the New Testament Scripture. A woman can have power and influence over a man but she has not the authority granted to her by Christ to overrule or discipline a man. As a mother or Sunday School teacher she has the authority over children. As a police officer or other governmental position ordained by God to rule the land she has authority over a man, however, in the Church, the Body of Christ, she is not permitted even to speak (1 Timothy 2:12) especially when it comes to admonishing or rebuking a man. “As iron sharpens iron so does one man sharpen another.” (Proverbs 27:17)

A woman has authority in Christ to resist the devil (Jas.4:7b) and can be engaged in spiritual struggles as intense as any man might. (Ephesians 6:11-18) She has authority over Satan but not over a Christian man and for that main reason the ruling eldership in a local church must be comprised of men. Men need discipline to become disciples and it takes other men to do that. Young boys need discipline from both parents but men need it from other men.

Therefore, Scripture clearly teaches that Spirit-filled Christian men are given the responsibility and accountability for the oversight “of the house of God, which is the church of the living God” (1 Timothy 3:15) through the commission of Christ given to His disciples.

I hope Barbara, that this helps you to understand the spiritual conflict and dynamics that exist when a denomination that professes scripture to be the rule of faith, resists putting people in places of authority that they were not ordained to be in. Whether something is allowed in the world does not automatically mean it ought to be incorporated into the life of the Church and vise versa. May the love of God keep us faithful to Jesus Christ and to obey His command to love one another as He has loved us.

Klaas Detmar, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

The approach at the General Synod should had been how could the Church Herald be improved? What it appears to me is the discussion was rushed without longer-term consideration of options. And where was the advertising of its existence? I saw nothing going out to the churches of that variety.

The greatest concern I have is that a communication organ of this type is desperately needed. You desperately need some periodical type publication that can both provide a common platform for discussions that goes across the denomination, as well as to feed a sense of unity, that what a church in New York, Michigan, Illinois, or Iowa is going through is similar to the challenges our church is addressing here in California. Yes, some of these communication needs could be accomplished through a website version (but even this option wasn't proposed), but in the flow of information, a magazine can communicate much more effectively, and can have a much longer and wider impact (being physically printed rather than being just a on-screen option). A printed version is also important for those who do not have access to the internet.

I pray that there would be a way found that the magazine, perhaps in a limited independent state, could still survive. As in other places in my life, I will put my faith in the resurrection.

Richard Nordahl
Christ Community Church
Carmichael, California

The reason I believe that I am right not only stems from the fact that people do not want to support the magazine through subscriptions (however you want to interpret, people simply are not subscribing), but also the fact that it went to a subscription format in the first place. Many people did not want the Church Herald when it was assessment based, but did not voice their opinion loud enough until an entire Classis chose not to pay their assessment of the Church Herald. Then more voices began speaking out about this magazine. They decided to go to a subscription basis and when that happened the Church Herald's days were numbered. The Church Herald was a magazine that people simply did not want to read because they were not writing articles or commentaries that interested people. You can disagree with that statement, but again the numbers speak for themselves (I'm sure you're sick of hearing that statement, but it speaks volumes).

The problem I have with your argument for keeping the Church Herald is that you want EVERY member in the RCA to pay for a magazine that obviously only a few read. I do not understand your reasoning. Why should each member have to pay for something only a few want? If the Church Herald wrote articles that interested people and drew them in, they would not have a problem getting subscribers and the magazine would still be around.

You even said yourself that you are tired of swimming against the current; I take that to mean you are one of a few who are upset that the Church Herald is going away. I have not heard one member of my church ask me why the Church Herald is being canceled, not one. And I serve a congregation of predominately older members, many of whom you would not consider tech savvy and therefore not be able to get this information on-line. The large outcry is not there because the want for the Church Herald is not there. It is too bad that there are some out there who are truly grieving the loss of the Church Herald, and for those that are I pray that something else will come out of the RCA that meets there want and speaks to others in the denomination.

One interpretation: The readership of The Church Herald is down. Therefore it must be a bad magazine.

Other interpretations: The readership of The Church Herald is down. Therefore the quality of our members has declined. Or, Therefore the culture of the readership has changed. Or, Therefore the leadership has changed, or our quality as leaders has declined. Or, Therefore our readership has gotten poorer. Or, Therefore our members have gotten more materialistic.

There are host of interpretations of the fact that the readership is down.

What disturbed me was that I believe the deeper matters regarding the continuation of the Church Herald were not gotten to at Synod.

Most disturbing to me was the way we hide behind people complaining about the cost.
I repeat.... five dollars per person per year is a negligible expense.

Here is something I have a problem interpreting. The advisory committee said "well over thirty-five voices...alluded to the impact of cost as influencing their advice." Why did they weight that so heavily? Doesn't that mean that for well over 200 (or however many other delegate there were) cost was not a factor? Could we not say "only thirty-five voices...."

Let me try once more to make something clear. We choose our response to the numbers. The advisory committee wrote: "If there is a single observation to be made about the outcome of the process, it is the nearly universal concern about the cost of continuing the publication of both the Church Herald and RCA today." They chose their response in the recommendations.
Let me suggest another response and recommendation they might have made:

"To instruct the Commission on discipleship to include teachings about the value of communication in it's stewardship materials." Or whatever.

As an example of what I mean, Wes chose to urge us in his address to do better as a denomination in our mission giving. If giving for missions goes down, we do not necessarily conclude that missions must be a bad idea, or that our missionaries are doing a bad job. Rather, we urge more vision and generosity. In a similar way, Wes or someone else could have urged us to do better in supporting our magazines. If I recall correctly, it was when Lou Lotz was president of Synod one year that he recommended that the Church Herald be funded through assessments.

The other main substantive idea that I felt was not well considered was the value of The Church Herald as a TYPE of communication, as opposed to whether it is a good magazine.
Have we thrown out the baby with the bath water?

Ah well. I tire of swimming against the current.

I often wonder if the National Counsel of Churches and the World Counsel of Churches are not on track with the One World Religious system ( government) to the point of political correctness rather then biblical correctness.

I don't know if you're talking about the General Synod Assessments or the Classis Assessments. The way I read your post, it sounds like you're talking about the raise in your Classis assessments - that you'll have to contact the clerk of your local Classis for.

I don't know what Classis you're in, but if you let us know someone can probably get you contact information for him/her.

Hope that helps :-)

Grace and Peace,
`tim

I appreciate Paul J.'s perspective on how the decision came about.