A Sketch of the Situation⤒🔗

In most congregations the church councils dread the moment that the agenda of the meeting once again lists the “nomination of (new) office-bearers.” Replacing the brothers who have completed their term is a strenuous and responsible task, and this shows in various respects: in terms of time, because much energy is invested by church councils, but also spiritually, because an effort is made to form an opinion as to who might serve in the office of elder or deacon, and who should not be nominated. Hopefully, it is different than in 1981, when Rev. K.J. Velema pointed out that the meetings in which the nominations were conducted often extended until late at night (Ambtelijk Contact 1981, page 680). In such a case, the chances of making mistakes are greater than the chance of being successful. By keeping track of ecclesiastical news, one can notice that filling these vacancies is increasingly more challenging.

Sometimes only a single nomination is made, and not only to fill special task assignments such as a scribe or a similar function. It is true that sometimes there may be more candidates than there are vacancies, yet it rarely reaches a double figure. In the latter case, the rules for the election to the office must make it clear when someone has a majority of votes. If the rule is simply with “more than half,” the odd case may present itself that everyone is elected. The easiest thing is to put it this way: when there are an x-number of vacancies, and a y-number of candidates nominated by the church council, then someone is elected if he has obtained more than x/y part of the votes (for instance, in the case of three vacancies and five candidates, the majority would therefore be 60%.)

Sometimes church councils use the exception of Article 27 of our Church Order as a rule to resolve the difficulty. Article 27 prescribes that replacement after a number of years in office should be the rule in the churches, unless “in the interest of a situation in the church… re-election would be advisable.” The latter (a re-election) therefore should always take place! There are church councils that, because they cannot find a substitute (one may assume), have the same brothers serve in their midst for many years, not only in small but also in (very) large congregations.

And Then the Church Council Thinks They Are Done with It…←⤒🔗

However things may stand, at some point the elections for office-bearers are held and the church council is ready to appoint those who were elected. They assume to “be done with it,” but unfortunately… not all of the brothers who were elected believe they can accept their appointment. What grounds can there be for this, and which grounds are acceptable to the church council? This article deals with such questions. Are we mistaken when we state that asking for exemption from an appointment is more common than in the past? And if this is the case (and the reality shows that it is), how can this be changed? Are we always dealing with spiritual motivations that cause elected and (accordingly) appointed brothers to request such an exemption?

What Is Fundamentally at Stake?←⤒🔗

First of all, it is important to get a clear picture of what is actually happening when someone is appointed as office-bearer within the congregation where he is a member. The form for ordination speaks very clearly about this: the brother to be ordained is asked whether he is convinced in his heart that God himself has called him to this holy service through his church. The older form put it even more strictly: “called legitimately through God’s church, and consequently by God himself.” The intention is the same: that the Lord God himself calls people to his service, also in the special offices, and to this end he uses his church. The grounds of this principle are highlighted in, among others, Acts 1:16-26, where it deals with the replacement in the “vacancy of Judas.” It is therefore self-evident (or in any case it should be self-evident) that one does not deal with an appointment to the office of elder or deacon as one would with all kinds of other functions that one may hold in one’s leisure time: the office is on a higher level than being on the board of an association or something similar. The latter can be accepted or declined; for the former one can request an exemption or not. And when a church council notices that this understanding is subject to being depreciated in the church; it would do well to pay attention to it in the preaching. All sorts of worldly thoughts threaten the church and its members, not least also in this respect.

Dealing with the Appointed Brother in Concrete Terms←⤒🔗

This means that if a brother believes he cannot accept his appointment, he will inform the church council of the reasons that led him to that position and that the church council will assess those reasons. Following strict reasoning this also means that a church council has the right to refuse a request to be exempted. It only happens very rarely that things get that far. However, it is known from the time of the Reformation that at that time very far-reaching measures were taken against “refusing” brothers, even denying them the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. I mention this as an illustration of what I wrote under the previous heading: that it is about a high calling from God; a matter which one cannot easily ignore!

But what could constitute legitimate reasons to request and to obtain an exemption?

Suitability←⤒🔗

Sometimes a person does not think he is really “suited” for the office to which he is appointed. Such an objection may not be raised too soon. We know from Scripture about the example of Moses, who, at the moment he himself thought he was ready for the great work, was halted by the Lord God, and at the moment when God actually called him, came with all kinds of objections that were not recognized as legitimate by the One who sent him (Exodus 2 and 3). But on the other hand, everyone knows an example from practice, of a brother who fulfilled his term of office with great difficulty, of which he and the church council needs to conclude: the burden was too great. Or they know of someone who is indeed a very good deacon through the gifts given to him by the Lord God, but who will not be a good elder by virtue of those same gifts. It is up to the concerned brother to consider these things and especially to consider them before God. This also applies to all reasons for requesting an exemption: Can I justify them before God with prayer and thanksgiving? It could also be the “test case” of whether or not the arguments might be decisive: Do I find peace and quiet with this request?

We should also take into account that these days a great deal is being done to equip office-bearers. This may be seen as one of the ways the Lord God wants to make us more competent; also in this regard he makes use of our human possibilities.

Family Situations←⤒🔗

When an appointed brother has a family (and I share the opinion of those who say that this is already the case when he is married), the question may arise whether the time required for being an elder or a deacon would not drastically affect family life. Here, too, the following applies: it can never be said too easily; it is about a sacred calling for which the other family members may also need to make sacrifices from time to time (for that reason alone church councils should try to avoid as much as possible extending the terms of office). But situations are conceivable that the brother involved needs to “invest a lot of spare time in the family.” Here are a few examples: the health condition of his wife; some children may be in a phase where they need more attention than in general; major tensions that may occur in the family because of these things. Sometimes—indeed also for God—it is not justifiable to, on top of these difficulties, have to go out into the ward a few evenings every week or to have to attend a church council meeting.

The following example is of a sensitive nature: it happens that brothers think they cannot serve in an office because their children have chosen a way of life that is contrary to the spiritual direction their parents have shown them. They refer to 1 Timothy 3:4-5, where it is said of the overseer that he “keeps his children submissive with all dignity.” Otherwise he cannot take care of the church of God… I believe that based on this passage no one can serve as an office-bearer when, as long as the children are at home and under the authority of the parents, he cannot control those children. At the same time, I believe that no one can be held responsible for the fact that children, when they get older (which is considerably earlier than thirty years ago) choose different ways than what is prayed for. It does happen that office-bearers too will notice that their children, from age sixteen and upward, sometimes choose paths from which the parents cannot bring them back. The question is then whether we have raised them in full responsibility. When that question—with all the inherent flaws and shortcomings—can be answered in a positive way, then the children’s choices are their own responsibility. We are talking about very painful issues. And it is not just elders and deacons who are confronted with it; ministers, too, must sometimes conclude that “grace is not a heritage.” Nevertheless, that is generally not a reason to use Article 11 of the Church Order to request dismissal from the office as a minister for being “unfit and incapable to serve fruitfully in the congregation.” The words of the office-bearer, Samuel, are revealing in the Holy Scriptures when he says to the congregation, “And behold, my sons are with you. I have walked before you from my youth until this day” (1 Samuel 12:2). And of those sons, unfortunately, there was not much good to say in a spiritual sense (1 Samuel 8:3). Yet that was no reason not to accept Samuel as a prophet; although there were problems with his succession (1 Samuel 8:5).

An Illegitimate Matter←⤒🔗

For a long time, I have hesitated whether I should include the following. The current practice as it reveals itself in the life of the church, forces me to add this.

Occasionally it can happen that office-bearers may behave very differently in their personal and domestic life than might be expected on the basis of their office. I am thinking of situations of mental and sexual/physical abuse of children; of being a tyrant toward the spouse; of alcohol or substance abuse outside of the framework given by the Lord God; even living a double life. And all of this is happening until at a certain point the matter comes to light. Do not let anyone think that this could not be that bad among us; practice has—unfortunately—taught me differently and otherwise one should just pay attention to what some caregivers and other related organizations generally have to say or write on this matter. When a person is appointed as a member of the church council and secretly leads a life that is contrary to God’s command, and thus tarnishes the office, he cannot accept that office. I need to write about this so openly because those involved sometimes think that the office might help them get over it (as a protective cover or something like that); or one deceives himself because he sees the office as some way of recognition by the congregation, while he finds himself caught up in a situation through whatever complexity. Really, that is not how the Lord God works, and neither is it how things work out.

The damage that occurs within the congregation when such things become public knowledge cannot be foreseen. To name just one thing: it can be an enormous shock for young people who have trusted their ward elder and in him had perceived something of God’s attention for them.

It goes without saying that such reasons to request exemption cannot be submitted to the entire church council. It would be great if the brother (who actually lives in sin) shares his secret with his pastor; the Holy Spirit could use this as the beginning of a path to repentance and humiliation. The minister concerned then needs to inform the church council that exemption is being sought for reasons that are known to him only, and the church council accepts the professional confidentiality of the minister in the presence of the group of brothers. And then of course the problem needs to be worked on!

Requesting an Exemption Because of Working Conditions←⤒🔗

We return to something that is more often the case than what we dealt with before, namely that someone asks for exemption because of certain circumstances in the job that he has. If I am not mistaken, this is more often the case than it was in the past. There are various reasons for this.

In the first place there is the increase in irregular working hours, even affecting nights and weekends. This makes it impossible for some members of the congregation to regularly attend church council meetings and to engage in their work in the ward in a responsible manner.

In our society we also have to deal with the fact that people are increasingly confronted with changing functions that require (re)training. Precious evenings have to be spent on following courses; otherwise the employment, and therefore the financial situation, of the employee are at stake. This plays a role in almost all age groups.

It is legitimate when these things are taken into consideration of whether exemption should be requested or not. For younger brothers, for example, who are elected as office-bearers, a future course can be of great importance in view of their future perspective in the labour market. And is it not scriptural to take this into account (2 Thessalonians 3:10)? At the same time, the person concerned needs to ask himself in his deliberation to what extent this is perhaps a convenience for him, because in fact it serves to cover up other, less noble purposes. Nor can one continue to rely on such reasoning. That, in turn, fits in with the high spiritual level that may be demanded in our consideration.

Furthermore, it is conceivable that participation in the job processes requires so much energy from the brother involved that participation in the work of the church counsel would place too much of a burden on his health. It goes without saying that the effects of other family members must also be taken into account. Then it may be that one has to come to the conclusion that the sacrifice that may be asked under normal circumstances exceeds the mental and spiritual capacity in concrete situations. That will then also become clear before God’s face.

What Can the Church Council Do?←⤒🔗

Now that we have looked at the elected and appointed candidate for the elder or deacon position, the question arises as to how the church council can take these factors into account in its deliberations. This is what the next part of the article will focus on.

Becoming an Office-Bearer: Yes or No? (Part 2)←⤒🔗

The Other Side of the Coin←↰⤒🔗

We have seen that the emphasis was placed on the calling originating from God to an appointed office-bearer through the election by the congregation. That is why he will not treat this appointment lightly. When he has grounds to request an exemption, he will consider it in prayer and thus seek God’s way in his life and eventually also in that of his family. The close connection between the way here on earth of nomination by the church council and election by the church on the one hand, and the heavenly calling through the guidance of the Holy Spirit on the other hand, involves a respectful consideration of all this.

But there is another side to this matter, and this concerns the task of the church council and the congregation as a whole. On the one hand, when the candidate for the position of office-bearer is instructed to process these things in a spiritual way, then on the other hand the church council concerned can also be expected to consider carefully, in a spiritually balanced way, how to deal with the procedure of nominations in advance.

How Does the Procedure Work?←↰⤒🔗

When at some point the church council is due for “the changing of the guard” (in most congregations nowadays after the end of the “visiting season”) then some time has preceded it that led to the new brothers to be ordained.

In any case, there has been a meeting of the church council in which a definitive determination has been reached of the double nominations (or single nominations, if the need arises). We may assume that this meeting was opened with Scripture reading, meditation and/or reflection and prayer. The members of the congregation who are entitled to vote were also convened for a special church council meeting in which the election took place that led to the appointment of one or more brothers, again with calling on the name of the Lord.

It is not unusual that when there are requests for exemption that in a conversation in which the reasons are communicated and weighed, the minister or another member of the church council will point especially to the latter aspect: “But we did pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit!” A church council can rightly bring this to the attention of the appointed brother. But with equal rights the person concerned may also ask whether the church council—in the way that led to the appointment—has exercised the necessary care that belongs with invoking God’s name.

I attach great importance to this, especially because there is such a close connection between God’s guidance and the designation via the election by the church (“God himself, through his congregation, has called you…”; see the previous section of the article). Nothing is as damaging for continuing to see this connection than the fact that after the election, the church council and the congregation are confronted with several requests for exemption. In the long run this irrevocably erodes the awareness of that spiritual connection. Here too, just as in all other things, our prayers and our actions should not form a contradiction.

The Procedure within the Church Council←↰⤒🔗

Unpleasant surprises in this area can of course never be completely prevented. For example, no one can do anything about it if a candidate for the position of office-bearer, in the week after the election by the congregation, is unexpectedly informed by his doctor or specialist that he needs to restrict his activities on medical grounds. Everyone understands that a nomination cannot always be followed up. But there are other reasons for lawful exemption that the church council can certainly gauge in advance. And that is certainly not wrong; it is even advisable, provided it is practiced with care.

For this it is in any case necessary to start compiling the list of candidates well before the time of the election. Spreading the entire procedure over two or three meetings also prevents having one very long meeting. It ensures less stress during the whole process, and that always benefits the work of a church council.

Usually, names have been put forward by the congregation following a request from the church council. The church council complements this list and proceeds to (confidentially!) discuss the brothers whose names are on the bigger list. It is rightly said that this work is one of the most challenging tasks that a church council has to conduct during the year. There will be careful consideration, weighing of pros and cons, with the constant thought: Which way does the Lord want to go with our church and how does his guidance become public through our deliberations?

And then there usually comes a time that for some of those, with whom it may be assumed that we notice specific gifts of the Holy Spirit to help them serve as an elder or deacon, a question is asked:

• Does he not have to follow a course in connection with the reorganization of the company where he is employed?
  There are quite a few problems with the eldest son, who demands a lot of attention from the parents.
   
• Aren’t they planning to move soon?
   
• I believe he does not know how to handle stressful situation; also, having a good conversation does not come easy for him.
   
• He will never want to be an office-bearer!

The reader will understand that the value of these five examples is different and that the church council will respond differently to the last example than to the middle one. My purpose here is to outline the situation. What to do now?

There are small congregations in which the church members, and therefore also the members of the church council, know a lot about each other. But certainly, in larger congregations not everything can be known at a council meeting and therefore the danger is present that someone is nominated who subsequently has a legitimate reason to request release.

How to Gauge Matters?←↰⤒🔗

It is therefore a good thing that after the first church council meeting about the vacancies, the brothers involved receive a visit from a member of the church council. That may not be necessary for everyone, but it may be desirable for those to whom the aforementioned questions apply, if not even necessary. At that moment a problem does arise: What question should one ask the brother involved?

Experience shows that the proper wording is very important here. After all, there is still no definitive nomination. Expectations may be raised that will not be met; this in turn can lead to dissatisfaction or surprise. In my opinion, one cannot go any further than the question “Are there any objective circumstances that would cause you to decline a possible appointment as office-bearer?” or “Are there any objective issues that would prevent a possible ordination from proceeding?” The church council should have as much room as possible before its next council meeting.

Of course, it cannot be avoided that there may then be reasons expressed of which one may wonder whether they are objective or subjective matters. But the gain from this round through the congregation is so significant that one must just endure the downsides. One should never ask the probing question: “Would you like to become an elder or a deacon?” That question is not appropriate at this time and, when we again take into consideration the guiding principle of this inquiry, it is never an appropriate question. It concerns a calling that one will surely heed, unless there are serious counterarguments.

Sometimes the minister is involved with such conversations. That may be wise, because he “comes from outside” and in some congregations, people experience more authority in his words than in those of the other office-bearers. Whether this is justified is another matter, yet this is often the case… In a larger congregation the minister will not always be able to visit with the brothers. Given the sensitivity of such a conversation, it is not self-evident to me that the ward elder should “by definition” always be the one to do this. Let people realize their own gifts and limitations and embrace this in one another! It may be advisable to ask a few brothers specifically to accomplish this.

Distribution of the Work and the Method of the Church Council←↰⤒🔗

Sometimes it happens that candidates indicate that they want to take the calling very seriously, but at the same time they are very concerned about certain aspects of council work. They always have to get up early and therefore cannot stay up too late: given the extent of other activities, the available time may not be sufficient for their work in the ward or district; they cannot stand smokers; they face tensions in the meetings… Here too, a church council must know its responsibilities. Some problems can be solved very quickly: various church buildings are smoke-free (and I think that is a very good thing); it can be agreed that the church council meetings will not last for more than three hours (always a good rule of thumb, and everyone must take this into account with their own input; meeting-discipline is also a brotherly duty); if there are tensions among the brothers, there will be several who cannot cope with it, and spiritually speaking, that is also a bad thing—it can paralyze the church.

All this must become negotiable and people are to accept each other in Christ. This may mean a very deep spiritual exercise that people go through together! Providing spiritual guidance to the congregation should be an “attractive” cause—by this I mean that the church should be able to notice that serving the Lord, despite everything that sometimes needs to be overcome, is serving with joy (Psalm 100:2a). And if a ward is really too large for a particular brother, then it is not wrong when part of it is handed over to another brother who has more time available; in a given congregation sometimes the ward can be taken care of by two elders, each taking care of half of it. As life becomes more complicated for people, church councils will become more creative in such matters.

Sometimes the Church Council Has its Back against the Wall…←↰⤒🔗

I would like to mention one more thing. It is not inconceivable that a church council, when acting in the aforementioned manner, in responsibility towards the Lord and the church that it has to care for, will face a rather difficult deliberation at the meeting where the arguments of the brothers on the list are evaluated. On the one hand, they want to take into account weighty circumstances. They also do not want to overburden people; there are quite a few members of the congregation who do a great deal in their “free” time for education or for Christian politics; and therein also is a calling from God! And let us be honest: often there is not much choice in the church, however one may think about this.

There are church councils that, even when they seek only a single nomination, still cannot resolve the issue. That would then mean there is a real spiritual need. Then it may happen that the church council, under the leadership of God, arrives at nominating one or more brothers, of whom they say: we would have liked to spare them, but we really do not see another option. In any case this needs to be discussed honestly and openly with those brothers. It is also necessary that the congregation is aware of this (in a general sense); these things are not always dealt with spiritually in every church… It will be remembered in prayer.

It may be that, after the choice is made for that brother, things will turn out differently for him. May we not say: the Lord paves the way forward? Those who have been thorough with the nomination process can also expect a blessing. And if an exemption request is submitted after all, one can still find peace and tranquility in this. After all, wasn’t everything in the process accomplished before God?

Then the congregation faces the need of a vacancy once more. And this too, however difficult it may be, can have a strengthening effect.

In Conclusion←↰⤒🔗

This topic, both for a church council and for a candidate for the position of office-bearer, concerns very delicate matters. This article has attempted, as much as possible, to emphasize this and to write with this in mind. It is of great importance, especially in our confusing times, that brothers who have received wisdom from the Lord to lead and thus to build his church receive a position in their church council. In 1 Timothy 3:1 Paul speaks about a “noble task” regarding this.

Fortunately, there are also congregations where the things discussed in this article do not play a significant role, if any. That is a great blessing; something that should be treasured. However, our conjecture is that many church councils are confronted with this issue in one way or another. In any case, let there be lots of prayer for God’s strength and guidance of the Spirit to display some of that aspiration to a “noble task.” If this happens or thrives again, the congregation will be ignited by it. That is some of the flame of the Spirit. Not only the church councils but all church members are to pray fervently for it, so that God’s work may progress well.