Here's an idea (inspired by the Commissioned Pastor concept)
Friday, May 29, 2009 at 7:56AM I've essentially lost the argument in Zeeland Classis, I think. By the end of the year, if not the end of June, it is possible that Zeeland Classis will have taken upon itself the privilege of ordaining Elders for the position of Commissioned Pastor. My concern, as I've already noted quite publicly, is that it sidesteps our whole polity - Congregations elect (call) and ordain elders through a specific process, not Classes.
Having said that, if the RCA is going to ignore the means by which we traditionally have called, prepared and supervised people for the office of Elder, why not Deacon, Minister and Professor of theology?
How about we create Deacons for our Small groups or our Classes? The office of Deacon is a good office, why should only congregations get to elect (call) and ordain them?
Can we create a regional minister office? In other words, set up a program (outside of the normal ordination track) by which the Regional Synod ordains people the office of Minister of Word and Sacrament? Or maybe we could go the CRC route and make ministers denominationally? This way the Regional Synod or Denomination could "step in" where local Classes might have not be willing to ordain someone and make sure they nonetheless get ordained.... After all, if they seem fit why not? Quite frankly, there are some Classes I don't agree with, why should the people who live there "bounds" be punished by their local standards and the experiences of those who know them best?
Perhaps it could go the other way too... Classes could make people Professors of Theology... or Regional Synods maybe? I realize this is a little more awkward, but if a Classis made a Professor of Theology, that person wouldn't have to be accountable to the Synod. S/he could simply choose a Classis they agree with and not worry about the larger church...
Ok, perhaps all of that is a bit "tongue in cheek" (or maybe even a smidge sarcastic), but seriously... I believe there is a certain wisdom in the traditional separation of powers and that side-stepping them is problematic (although certainly convenient in some situations). In the end, though I don't ever buy "the ends justify the means" argument.
How about you?
Grace and Peace,
`tim
Reader Comments (10)
I'm reminded of the anonymous quote,"If the ends don't justify the means, what does?"
Not that this advances either argument very far, I guess I'm just feeling a bit cheeky myself.
Tim:
I share some of your frustration. I am intrigued by the idea of deacons, and their ordination, being the track to Commissioned Pastor.
Let's keep thinking about this...
Cor
Brion...
I know cheeky... but your comment raises a serious answer (which I'm fairly certain you'd agree with): I don't believe Christian faithfulness is an "outcome based" reality.
It's the difference between a pilgrimage and a trip. Christianity is a pilgrimage (the process itself has importance) not a trip (where the end is all that matters and how we get there is irrelevant).
By the way, publicly: Congratulations!
Grace and Peace,
`tim
Isn't the "end justifies the means" the argument for torture?
Tim et al,
From where I sit, here's the whole problem (at least as I think about it initially)
Having Classes ordain elders (or for that matter deacons) in order to have them enter a "commissioned pastor" track COMPLETELY severs the offices from the Lord's Table. Doing this is ALMOST as bad as re-baptizing people; then again it may be much worse. What in the world are people thinking of? Sorry this is a bit of a rant, but I am not in the least being sarcastic or cheeky. Why don't we just give up every single last shred of polity we ever had? (On the matter of ministers being trained by other than the Classis, however, I do believe this idea has precedent; I think Particular Synods used to do this.) Do people have no sense of how this affects others? I have heard of some people being ordained by congregations, just so they can become commissioned pastors. At least they're being congregationally elected and ordained, but again, there is no intent to serve the office in order to exercise the discipline of Word and Sacrament. The office is being abused, just completely and utterly abused, so that people can enter this 'commissioned' pastor track. Years ago WIlliam Willimon proposed that Methodists baptize dogs in order to boost the numbers of their denomination (he was tongue in cheek of course). This idea is just about comparable. Just when you think you've heard the latest nonsense, another one comes up. You'd think it was a joke, except that people are actually doing this. You are telling the truth, right, Tim? This isn't a joke?
Paul,
You've caught me. What I wrote was both joke... and yet.. not joke. This is happening. What I was writing was the natural (and maybe even likely) extrapolation...
On one hand almost laughable. On the other tear-inducing.
Grace and peace,
`tim
There's an interesting history to this, Tim. I served on the original task force that drafted the BCO language for commissioned pastors. When we drafted that language, the requirement that commissioned pastors be elders was part of a carefully crafted compromise. At the heart of that compromise were two convictions: 1. that commissioned pastors needed to be part of the threefold office of the church, and (even more importantly), 2. that part of the case for commissioning those with less formal education was that they would have more experience in the life of the church--hence the requirement that they must be elders before being commissioned.
The Synod already bent this a bit, a couple of years ago, by requiring only that commissioned pastors be ordained before their commissioning (not before they enter the cp process).
Zeeland classis has essentially thumbed its nose at this compromise. Clearly the BCO does not give authority to classes to ordain elders. It would be interesting to see this debated at the General Synod level, if someone in the Zeeland classis were to complain against the classis' action in ordaining an elder. While it's hard to know what the Synod would do, I think that Zeeland classis would have a tough time getting its action supported at the Synod.
Actions like this break down trust, and further divide the denomination on the commissioned pastor issue. I hope Zeeland classis reconsiders.
Jim is absolutely right on this one. I don't really think it can be taken up at GS this year. For one thing, it's not clear anything has happened. The other thing is, the Commission on Church Order is a commission, but it's just a commission. It doesn't make policy, and certainly not on the fly. In order for this constitutional matter to be handled constitutionally, the orderly process would be for a complaint to be issued and heard in judcatory, following which it would be in order to write an overture. Of course, overtures could be made without the whole judicial thing first, but I'd think that the Commission on Order would be more likely to advise the Synod in a robust way if it (the Synod) has already heard a case on the matter.
I share a deep concern here. In the context my classis, there is some strong and intentional talk about ways to "get a commissioned pastor certified" while adhering only legalistically to the most basic letter of the BCO. This disregard for the spirit and intention of our polity (and theology) seems to be manifesting itself in two concrete ways:
1.) Just find some church (any church) who will ordain Person X as an elder
2.) Get "Person X" through the most expedient (basic) training
While not circumventing the BCO like the example Tim has provided, I think the end result is very much the same.
Blessings,
David Vandervelde
I heard about this "rumor" just tonight at the clerk's dinner and had a similar reaction to Paul, "What? But they can't... there really are classes doing this?!!" I would add, where is the accountability? The function of the office of elder demands participation in a group of fellow elders as a part of the check and balance accountability; how can a classis "be" this body without any connection to the local congregation?
Secondly, let me speak to the other side in a situation we currently have in our classis which has raised questions. We in the East use the term "preaching elder," but for now let's not point out the very slight differences between the two and just say they are basically interchangeable.... We have a person who have been involved in various capacities in the synod, assists with worship, lead children's ministries and has otherwise exihibited genuine spiritual maturity and leadership who has never served as an elder and is frankly not interested in serving on consistory. This individual is sensing a call to ministry as a preaching elder, however, is not an elder. Yes, it is important for the congregation to recognize the person's gifts for spiritual leadership. Yes it is important for the person to serve in a spiritual oversight capacity alongside other elders. However, why must we require they sit on a "board?" Let's be realistic and not solely theological about the percent of meetings occupied with non-spiritual matters... I'll stop there with the question, what needs to change with the way we currently do things in order so that we can truly unleash our spiritual leaders (deacons and elders) as such instead of occupying their time with counting money, reviewing investments, and any other fill in the blank board responsibility "changing the lightbulb" type activities?