“UNIFORMITY IN DISCIPLINE”
One does not have to be too familiar with ecclesiastical procedure in the Chr. Ref. Church to realize that there is no uniform practice of discipline in that church. Oh, we all follow the steps outlined in the church order for excommunication—if it ever gets that far. But such cases arc few and far between. I am referring to all kinds of discipline cases that never reach that stage. What one church deems worthy of discipline may not appear so in the eyes of another church, and the method that one church follows is not followed by another. This not only causes confusion among the members but makes the work of discipline very difficult for the consistory. What is allowed in one church, so goes the argument, should also be allowed in another. And there is a point to such argumentation. Let me illustrate.
Rev. De Jager states in his booklet (a booklet all our members would do well to read), Our Financial Contributions to Christ’s Church and Kingdom, that persons who arc financially able to contribute to the church but fail to do so after repeated admonition, ultimately become the objects of discipline. I believe Rev. De Jager is right. But how often is this done in practice? When does a consistory ever come before Classis with such a matter? And yet it is a well-known fact that in many churches there are families (sometimes more than a few) whose records show a blank at the end of the year as far as contribution is concerned. Do we just allow this to go on? Or is our practice not consistent with our theory here? Rev. De Jager is right when he says: “Our giving is the barometer of our spiritual life.”
Take the matter of resignation. The 1969 Yearbook shows that we lost 361 members through resignation, while only 49 were excommunicated. That figure of 361 disturbs me. I wonder: Is resigning becoming too easy in our church? Monsma says in his revised C.O. Commentary: “Very often we fear consistories have accepted resignations rather quickly in order to be free from the sad duty of excommunicating the party in question.” When I look at the above figures, I wonder whether this is not the case. The practice in the Chr. Ref. Church has been that if one determinately persists in breaking his relationship with the church, the consistory acquiesces in the matter, though Schaver in his The Polity of the Churches takes the position that the relationship should not be severed except by an act of the church. I am inclined to agree with the latter. Be that’ as it may, resignation ought never to be an easy or automatic thing. Monsma states that “resigning one’s membership is a very grievous sin and a consistory should proceed with censuring such a one unless he determinately persists in breaking his relationship with the church.” I doubt whether we hold to this practice. My reason for saying this arc the following announcements which appeared recently in the bulletins of two different churches: “Regretfully dismissed at his own request, ………………………” “With regret the consistory accepts the resignation of ………………………. (baptized member) and …………………….. (confessing member).” “Mr. ………………………………. requested to be dismissed as a baptized member of the Chr. Ref. Church, and that his papers be sent to ……………………… United Church in …………………………. The consistory has granted this request.”
My question is: Is that the way it ought to be done? Is that Reformed church-orderly procedure? Monsma says that in persistent cases an announcement ought to be made from the pulpit, and according to a synodical decision re this matter, “expressions like ‘accepting the resignation’ should not be used in the announcement, because the full responsibility for his sinful act must remain with the person who withdraws himself from the church.”
It seems to me that this is the only proper procedure in such cases, and that all our churches should follow it. I realize full well that in the difficult area of discipline every case is a case by itself and must be judged on its own merits. I am not contending for a methodic application of rules. But I believe we could work for a bit more uniformity in the application of discipline in our church.
J. TUININGA
Rev. J. Tuininga is pastor of La Glace Christian Reformed Church, Grande Prairie, Alta. Canada.
One does not have to be too familiar with ecclesiastical procedure in the Chr. Ref. Church to realize that there is no uniform practice of discipline in that church. Oh, we all follow the steps outlined in the church order for excommunication—if it ever gets that far. But such cases arc few and far between. I am referring to all kinds of discipline cases that never reach that stage. What one church deems worthy of discipline may not appear so in the eyes of another church, and the method that one church follows is not followed by another. This not only causes confusion among the members but makes the work of discipline very difficult for the consistory. What is allowed in one church, so goes the argument, should also be allowed in another. And there is a point to such argumentation. Let me illustrate.
Rev. De Jager states in his booklet (a booklet all our members would do well to read), Our Financial Contributions to Christ’s Church and Kingdom, that persons who arc financially able to contribute to the church but fail to do so after repeated admonition, ultimately become the objects of discipline. I believe Rev. De Jager is right. But how often is this done in practice? When does a consistory ever come before Classis with such a matter? And yet it is a well-known fact that in many churches there are families (sometimes more than a few) whose records show a blank at the end of the year as far as contribution is concerned. Do we just allow this to go on? Or is our practice not consistent with our theory here? Rev. De Jager is right when he says: “Our giving is the barometer of our spiritual life.”
Take the matter of resignation. The 1969 Yearbook shows that we lost 361 members through resignation, while only 49 were excommunicated. That figure of 361 disturbs me. I wonder: Is resigning becoming too easy in our church? Monsma says in his revised C.O. Commentary: “Very often we fear consistories have accepted resignations rather quickly in order to be free from the sad duty of excommunicating the party in question.” When I look at the above figures, I wonder whether this is not the case. The practice in the Chr. Ref. Church has been that if one determinately persists in breaking his relationship with the church, the consistory acquiesces in the matter, though Schaver in his The Polity of the Churches takes the position that the relationship should not be severed except by an act of the church. I am inclined to agree with the latter. Be that’ as it may, resignation ought never to be an easy or automatic thing. Monsma states that “resigning one’s membership is a very grievous sin and a consistory should proceed with censuring such a one unless he determinately persists in breaking his relationship with the church.” I doubt whether we hold to this practice. My reason for saying this arc the following announcements which appeared recently in the bulletins of two different churches: “Regretfully dismissed at his own request, ………………………” “With regret the consistory accepts the resignation of ………………………. (baptized member) and …………………….. (confessing member).” “Mr. ………………………………. requested to be dismissed as a baptized member of the Chr. Ref. Church, and that his papers be sent to ……………………… United Church in …………………………. The consistory has granted this request.”
My question is: Is that the way it ought to be done? Is that Reformed church-orderly procedure? Monsma says that in persistent cases an announcement ought to be made from the pulpit, and according to a synodical decision re this matter, “expressions like ‘accepting the resignation’ should not be used in the announcement, because the full responsibility for his sinful act must remain with the person who withdraws himself from the church.”
It seems to me that this is the only proper procedure in such cases, and that all our churches should follow it. I realize full well that in the difficult area of discipline every case is a case by itself and must be judged on its own merits. I am not contending for a methodic application of rules. But I believe we could work for a bit more uniformity in the application of discipline in our church.
J. TUININGA
Rev. J. Tuininga is pastor of La Glace Christian Reformed Church, Grande Prairie, Alta. Canada.