Over the last number of years a certain development has taken place among the Canadian Reformed Churches in the Province of Ontario. If I have it right then the government passed a number of laws dealing with conflict of interest rules that also have a bearing on churches. What it means is that a minister, who is in the employ of a church, may not at the same time be the chairman of the governing body of that church. In other words, an employee cannot also act as an employer. Sounds logical!

Now, a number of churches have reacted to this by changing their structure in such a way that the minister is no longer the chairman of the church council (or the meeting of the deacons, the elders, and the minister). Instead the church council elects as chairman a member from its ranks who is not the minister or pastor. At the same time the minister remains the chairman of the consistory (or the body of elders), who supervise the doctrine and life of the members of the church.

Looking at all this as an outside observer (seeing that I serve in a different Canadian province which has not adopted the same rules that apply in Ontario), I am, however, still left to wonder. It is my understanding that biblically-speaking the real ruling body of the church is the consistory, or the elders. This means that actually the minister should resign as the chairman of the consistory, and not the church council.

A Problem⤒🔗

Only there is a problem here. It has to do with Article 38 of the Church Order which states that "as a rule the ministers of the Word shall preside."

Hence it appears that the civil government of Ontario is saying that a minister, who is in the employ of the church, cannot be the presiding officer of the church. On the other hand, the Church Order requires that the minister has to hold that position and exercise it prerogatives.

Hence, what should be done? Should the churches approach the government and request it to amend the law? Or should the churches consider changing the Church Order to comply with the law? (By the way, I do not think that making the minister the chairman of one governing body (the consistory) and not the other (the council), really solves the problem.)

So what to do?

A Suggestion←⤒🔗

My suggestion would be that we consider making the minister the chairman of neither. In short, let us change the Church Order and remove the stipulation that the minister has to chair the consistory meetings.

Now, why would I propose such a change? Actually, it has to do with my own experience as a minister for more than thirty-five years. During all of those years I have always functioned as the chairman of both council and consistory. But then when my present congregation became too large and it was decided to call a second minister, things had to change.

The Church Order speaks about equality among the ministers of the Word (see Article 17 CO). What this means is that Dort does not look with favour on the North American approach of having a senior minister and a junior minister in one and the same church. Instead, we opted for a co-pastoring model in which all the duties are shared, and that includes the duties connected to the chairing of meetings. In the new year my colleague will take over the reins of the church council for six months and I will preside over the consistory for the same length of time. Once that time period is over, we will switch chairs.

What this has meant is that for six months at a time I have not been chairing the consistory meetings but attending in the capacity of a fellow elder, albeit an elder who has been set aside for preaching and teaching. Hence for the first time in my ministry I have had the luxury of sitting back, listening, and participating, without the responsibility of being the chairman.

Assessing a New Experience←⤒🔗

What has it been like? In short, it has been an eye-opener. It has allowed me the opportunity to prepare for a meeting without the burden of having to plan and organize the meeting. During the meeting, it has also allowed me to sit back quietly, listen carefully, and speak objectively. No longer did I have to introduce the matters to be discussed, direct the verbal traffic, urge the brothers to keep it short, and prod them to come to a conclusion. On the whole I looked forward to the meetings more, and when I came home, I could relax better.

And something else, no longer was I the lightning rod for those in the congregation who did not agree with a particular decision. And indeed, that is often what the minister becomes. A consistory makes a decision in a controversial matter and whose phone is ringing off the hook? A minister may be part of a larger decision-making body but who is deemed to be in charge and most responsible for a controversial decision?

More than once in my ministry a consistory has made a decision on a certain matter, even a decision that I personally did not favour, and members of the congregation held me responsible for it and roundly castigated me for not doing my duty. As some put it, "You as the minister should have overruled the elders. You should knock a few heads together in that consistory room. You should make sure that that brother never serves as an elder again." In Reformed circles, we do not have the office of pope, but at times there are members who expect the minister to act in a decidedly papal manner.

Remove the Sentence←⤒🔗

As the result of all this, I really do think that the sentence in Article 38 CO about the minister having to preside should go. Let the body of elders elect their own chairman. Long gone are the days when the minister was the only or even the most educated person in the room. If a particular consistory wants its minister to preside and he does not mind, then it should allow him to do so (and the churches in Ontario should lobby for a change of the law). On the other hand, if the minister would rather not preside and there are other brothers who are both willing and able, let them do so.

A Further Benefit←⤒🔗

In addition to this being a course of action that will take some pressure off the minister, it will also do something else. It will help to foster the idea that the church is not the private preserve of one man or a "domin(ee-)ocracy." It will also highlight the fact that the church is ruled by a body of men called "elders" who together discuss, weigh, and decide on matters that maintain and promote the well-being of the church. At least that's my view.