A New Pastor Comes to Town⤒🔗

It took some time but the Canadian Reformed Church at Mildville finally received its new pastor. He had come from out of the province and was looking forward to a new challenge. At the same time the church was optimistic that in the Rev. C. Kantwin they had found a man with just the right gifts and talents to meet the needs of the congregation.

All went well during the first number of months. The pastor preached clear, biblically sound sermons. His instruction of the church youth received positive feedback. He did his pastoral work with due diligence. The future looked bright.

Only as time went on, things started to happen. A few members had a comment or two to make about Pastor Kantwin’s sermons. The pastor himself was not above making the odd contentious remark.

Controversy!←⤒🔗

In the meantime the elders were dealing with some controversial issues. These issues were of the “what-to-do” variety. If they decided to go this way there would be disagreement and unrest from these members in the congregation, and if they decided to go a different way, other members would voice their disapproval. In the middle of it all, the Rev. Kantwin was trying to give leadership as best as he knew how.

His best, however, was not good enough. Over time his words and actions alienated some important members. They did not take it lightly, and before anyone realized it, the fight was on. Unkind things were said. Sermons seemed to be directed at certain members. Criticism mounted and the pastor caught most of it.

One day the cry went up, “The pastor has to go!” He ignored it at first, resisted it for a good while, but in the end the handwriting was on the wall. The elders slowly came to the realization that as long as the Rev. Kantwin remained the pastor, there would be conflict. Reluctantly they decided that he should be released from his ministry in the Church at Mildville.

Dismissed!←⤒🔗

Now, such a step is never taken lightly. Mildville, being a church in the Reformed tradition and operating under the Church Order of Dort, had to go through various hoops. Most of them had to do with getting the classis to agree, as well as the regional deputies. All in all, it took various attempts, but in the end Rev. Kantwin was dismissed.

It was all done under the heading of Article 11 CO. This part of the Church Order was applied to him and said that he was “judged unfit and incapable of serving the congregation fruitfully and to its edification.” Such was the bad news! The good news was in the following clause: “without there being any reason for church discipline.” Small consolation!

Still, there was more. For the Classis not only dismissed him; it also made sure that a proper severance package was put in place. It would last for three years, and include a declining salary scale (year one: 100%, year two: 60%, year three: 40%). In this way the Rev. Kantwin was given time to lick his wounds, assess his situation, receive another call, or find other work.

Released!←⤒🔗

Now, you might think that this would be the end of the matter. Such, however, was not the case. For from the time that the Rev. Kantwin was dismissed, the clock started ticking. What do I mean? Well, Article 11 CO contains a second paragraph. It states that if you do not receive a call within three years, your ministerial status is history. The Rev. Kantwin would become simply Mr. Kantwin. For him there will be no more preaching, no more administering the sacraments, no more pastoral leadership. His service would be over.

Commentary←⤒🔗

You may have guessed by now that the above story is fictional. It has not been written with a view to any particular person or congregation. Still, those who are no strangers in Jerusalem know that fiction happens. In the federation of Canadian Reformed Churches the use of Article 11 CO is not a rarity. There have been congregations who have suffered controversy and division. Ministers too have been dismissed. No doubt this sad trend will continue in the days to come. As long as this fallen world remains and people are sinful, there will be Article 11 situations.

The Wording←⤒🔗

And yet, I have a problem. As a matter of fact, I have a number of problems with this Article, both in terms of its wording and contents. In the first place, it is clear that Article 11 has to do with a situation in which a minister and a congregation are no longer getting along and something has to be done. Whose fault is it? In many of these situations, a classis will steer clear of pointing fingers and assigning blame. After all, it takes two to tangle. Here we have a case of human incompatibility. Oh, and remember, Article 11 says that there are no reasons for the dismissed minister to be on the receiving end of church discipline. So he is dismissed without prejudice.

Or is he? For imagine being that minister and now Article 11 CO is part of your resume. In it the statement is made that you have been “judged unfit and incapable of serving the congregation fruitfully and to its edification.” What is that but a huge blot on your reputation?

Besides, and in all fairness, where does it say anything in the Church Order about the congregation being, “judged unfit and incapable of supporting a minister fruitfully and to his edification”? You will not find it!

So what is the impression and result? It is that in its present wording Article 11 expresses a severe judgment on the minister but remains silent about the role and conduct of the congregation.

Now, that is what I would call “unfair!” This Article badly needs to be revised. It needs to use language that is more carefully chosen and not so one-sided. In a conflict situation where blame needs to be spread around, it is not right to single out the minister as if all the blame is his and his alone.

The Contents←⤒🔗

In addition to unfortunate wording, this Article of the Church Order suffers from another problem, and it has to do with content. Specifically, I am referring to the fact that after a period of three years a dismissed minister who does not receive and accept a call is considered released. His office is terminated and he can no longer perform the duties of the pastoral ministry.

Now, I know the reasoning behind this part of the Article. It has to do with the fact that a minister needs to be tied to a congregation. No call, no tie, no office! As such there is an important principle here, namely that Reformed church polity does not want to legitimize freewheeling pastors of the Word.

Fine, but what about the pastor? Every Lord’s Day he may be asked to preach the Word of the Lord. At times he is also requested to administer the sacraments. Churches may well invite him from hither and yon. They may appreciate his homiletical efforts. At the same time, his lifestyle and conduct may all be beyond reproach. But then three years pass, the clock strikes midnight, and the pastor is no more.

Surely something is not right with this picture. Perhaps this explains why our sister churches in The Netherlands never made this change to their edition of the Church Order. The Canadian Reformed Churches altered the original version of Dort in 1983. It was done in reaction to a specific situation. Should it have been done?

A Different Route←⤒🔗

Let me be open with you and say that the writer of this editorial was party to that decision back in 1983. I, along with the other members of Synod Cloverdale, thought that it was an improvement. Since then I have recanted! Now I think that it was an overreaction.

Not only that, but now I wish that we had taken a different tact. What kind? How about letting a dismissed minister retain his ministerial status for the rest of his life, as the Synod of Dort intended? In other words, no three-year limit. Once a minister always a minister, provided, of course, that one’s doctrine and life remain uncontested.

But then, will this not result in “unattached pastors”? At present it would, but not if we changed the Church Order and left the dismissed minister’s ministerial status with the last congregation that he served.

But then his status would remain with the church that dismissed him? Yes! Of course, I realize that this will not be a popular solution. When a minister and a congregation part company there are usually hurt feelings all around. I realize that, but over time that too will abate. Also, such a continued linkage need not be problematic seeing that doctrine and life were not an issue in the dismissal. In addition, how much contact is there between a retired minister and his last congregation or between a professor and his last congregation?

At the same time, such a linkage also addresses another problem that we now have. For under the current Article 11 and during the three year period, the dismissed minister is not tied to any church. Should such a minister be asked to do something that pertains to his office and be in need of advice, he has nowhere to turn. His former church has washed its hands of him. His current church may hold his membership, but it has nothing to do or say when it comes to his office.

Suggestion←⤒🔗

So how about revising Article 11? I would suggest for your reflection and reaction something along the following lines: “If, for reasons other than such as warrant ecclesiastical discipline, either a minister of the Word or the congregation he is serving desires to end their current pastoral relationship, such dissolution shall occur only upon mutually satisfactory conditions and only with the concurring advice of the deputies of regional synod. It shall include proper arrangements regarding the support of the minister and his family for a reasonable period of time. In the event that the minister does not receive a call, he shall remain bound to the church that he served last with respect to his ministerial status.” (The first part of this revision is based on the wording that can be found in the Church Order of the United Reformed Churches of North America.) I would also give the revamped Article 11 the name “Dissolution” instead of “Dismissal.”

This is how I see it. What about you?