This is a list of Frequently Asked Questions and answers about the Bylaw revision, provided by the Board of Elders and Deacons. It is to help the congregation to better understand the Bylaw revision as well as provide some preliminary responses to the questions and feedbacks collected so far. Some of the questions and feedbacks need to be further discussed in the Board of Elders and Deacons before there is a decision about what is necessary to do in the Bylaw revision. At the same time, there is a series of communication meetings ongoing with different fellowship groups to facilitate the whole process. Once if there are any new questions or feedbacks raised up, this list may be further updated. If you have anything to ask and cannot find answers in this list, please send your question to: bylaw2020feedback@hoc3.org. Thank you!
Bylaw Revision Process
Is it correct that the elder board is responsible for interpreting the bylaw if there is any ambiguity that needs to be clarified?
Yes. per VIII(B)(8) of existing bylaws, and VIII(B)(9) of the new bylaws.
Since the Bylaw revision is still in progress, if the question/ambiguity is related to the changes, it can be clarified by the representatives assigned by the E/D board. But once the Bylaw is approved (by amendment meeting), then all following questions should be answered by the Elder board.
How was the current Bylaw revision completed? What is the next step?
The current Bylaw revision process was started since March 2019. It was based on the feedbacks/suggestions collected by the Bylaw Revision Committee as well as the 2006 Bylaw Study Report. Then it went through many reviews, discussions, and modifications by the E/D board members, until it was approved by the E/D board meeting on Sep 13th, 2020 and published on Sep 27th, 2020.
The E/D board has assigned a communication committee to explain the Bylaw changes and communicate with the congregation for more feedbacks/suggestions. The E/D board will carefully review all the feedbacks/suggestions and decide what changes need to be made to the final revision. The target Bylaw amendment meeting is planned to be Dec, 2020. Any confirmation or change of the plan will be published in time.
Name of our Church
Do we change the name of our church?
Based on the feedbacks from the brothers and sisters as well as the suggestions from multiple elders, E/D Board had a discussion on this and made the decision to keep the original Chinese name as “基督之家第三家(福立蒙教會)” in our Bylaw.
Church History
Do we remove the history of the church?
Based on the feedbacks from the brothers and sisters as well as the suggestions from multiple elders, E/D Board had a discussion on this and made the decision to keep the original wording about the church history, except adding the names of HOC6 & 7 in Chapter II of our Bylaw.
The Board of Elders (VIII)
Do we change the elder’s term from lifetime (till 70 years old) to 3-year term with two terms limit?
As a clarification, an ordained Elder at our church is called to serve the church for life (per 2006 Bylaw Study Report, Proposal 6B). There is no term or term-limit for being an elder in the proposal. There is only a term for serving on the Elder Board. Elders do not necessarily have to serve as the member of Board of Elders (per 2006 Bylaw Study Report, Proposal 6A).
Elders at 70 years old will be released from duties serving at the Joint Board of Elders and Deacons but can continue to participate serving in ministries, just not in a leadership role, since raising younger new ministry leaders is essential for the sustainability of this church.
Serving at the Board of Elders is an additional & special assignment for church elders/pastors, focusing on long-term direction and overall strategy. For the members of the Board of Elders, we are implementing a 3-year term with a 2-term limit, so that they can take some time off to rest or focus on other needed ministries/trainings. After that, they may come back to the Board with affirmation process. The term (limit) can help members to stay spiritually healthy and orderly rotate, which is aligned to the team-work and check-and-balance principles (per Rev. Kou, “Ministry Sharing”, 5.8).
If all board members can only serve up to 6 years consecutively, how to keep the stability of the Elder board and set the long-term mission of the church?
Since there are 5 ~ 7 members in the Board of Elders, we can impose a “staggering” mechanism to ensure the continuity of the church integral direction and ministry stability. For short, only one or two Board of Elders members will exit out of the Board of Elders each year, that also means other elders/pastors would have the opportunity to join and serve in the Board of Elders every year.
The elders who are not in the Elder board still have the duties of church administration and ministry, without the burden of the Elder Board meetings. Their presence is necessary so that the Elder board members can focus on the long-term planning and decisions that are unique to the Elder board.
In practice, the Elder Board is difficult to address the long-term mission of the church because it is too busy on other matters requiring immediate attention. On the other hand, governing boards of much larger organizations are able to focus on long term mission planning even with terms and term limits. The key is: the Elder Board must delegate and empower others to handle the business which is routine, yet also critical to the operation of the church. (per Rev. Kou, “Ministry Sharing”, 25.3)
Why do we choose 3-year term for the Board of Elders board?
The 3-year term was chosen because it is the same duration as the term of a pastor.
In the suggested bylaw revision, we respect and recognize ordained Pastors serving at HOC3 as our church Elders, thus, they are eligible to be elected to serve at the Board of Elders (per 2006 Bylaw Study Report, Proposal 6D, and The Home of Christ: Vision and Ministry, pp. 32).
How does the 2-term limit work? After finishing the service at the elder board for 2 terms, when will they become eligible again?
Per VIII(B)(2), an elder board member is not permitted more than 2 consecutive terms. Except per X(B), which specified that the senior pastor is a necessary member of the elder board. If we use a “staggering” mechanism to affirm 1-2 Elder Board members every year, Elders who are not currently on the Elder Board are eligible to be the candidate in a year.
Is it correct that the 2-term limit serves as an additional gatekeeper to guarantee rotation among eligible elders/pastors, while there is already a mechanism in place for the rotation to take place via periodic re-affirmation?
There are several reasons why the E/D board chose this 2-term limit after extensive discussions. To adopt the 2-term limit on top of the periodic affirmation can help the smooth and healthy rotation of the board members.
Is the senior pastor also subject to the 2-term limit in the Board of Elders? If the answer is “no”, why not?
No. The distinctive function of the Senior pastor is to shepherd the church in cooperation with the Elder Board. This makes it necessary for the Senior Pastor to be permanently on the Elder Board (except for Sabbatical leave). In addition, unlike Elders and other pastors who could decline the nomination for Elder Board member candidacy, the Senior pastor must accept this responsibility.
Is it guaranteed that the empty seat(s) will be filled? How to fill the deficiency of the Elder board?
Per VIII(A)(3) and VIII(B)(3), the empty seat should be filled.
If there is any exceptional case that we cannot fill the empty seat(s), there could be other back-up options to deal with this situation, e.g. 1) allow existing Elder Board members to temporarily extend their terms; 2) invite honorary elders to temporarily serve at the board; 3) wait for another year to fill the empty seat(s), etc.
The details of implementation about how to fill the deficiency will be further discussed and determined by the E/D board.
According to the current situation, we only have 5 elders (one of them is going to retire soon). Is it too early to talk about the term for Elder Board?
We currently have 5 elders and 3 ordained pastors (including senior pastor). Thus, we shouldn‘t have a shortage in the near future.
We do need to raise up new elders. The change in the bylaws is designed to make it easier to do this, e.g. changing the unanimous agreement requirement for initiating the new elder process to “at least 2/3”. The separation of the Elders and Elder Board members, and the term limit of Elder Board members can help to raise and encourage younger generation coworkers to grow into church elders more quickly.
How do we decide the size of the Elder board to be 5-7 members? Is it enough?
The range of 5-7 was originally proposed by the Elders based on their experiences and studies (per 2006 Bylaw Study Report, Proposal 6C). We discussed this further within the E/D Board and voted to set this range because it is a good balance between the efficiency for operation and representation of all elders/pastors.
This size limit only applies to the Elder Board, not the number of Elders in this church.
About VIII(B)(2), can we clarify that the stepped down elders/pastors can come back to serve at the Elder Board after certain period of time?
We will discuss about how to specify that properly in VIII(B)(2).
Can we change the name of the Elder Board to be something like Decision Board or Development & Arbitration Committee?
This is a good suggestion. We can spend more time to collect related suggestions and discuss about them in the Board of Elders and Deacons.
Can we defer the changes to the Elder Board or even the whole Bylaw revision?
We would like to keep moving forward with the Bylaw revision process based on the momentum that has been built up since 2006 (Bylaw Study). The E/D board will carefully review and discuss about all the feedbacks and make the final decision on the next step.
Others
Page 3 – The sentence that says “the church attracts new members from local communities to serve in the church. I suggest: ”The church attracts new members from local communities for the church body to bless and love on, and in turn help them to spread God‘s love in the church and in all communities.“ The reason for this change is I think the wording should focus first on loving new members and I think this new wording would help to expand and make clear what the church’s heart for new members is.
The statement as is could certainly be improved on. It added some good thoughts, but we would want to see it refocused on Jesus.
May we ensure that all of the pronouns in the document say “she / he”? To put “she” first would be a very inclusive and powerful statement. The Elders section only uses the male pronoun currently.
This church has a range of opinions that we usually group together as “complementarian” vs “egalitarian”. It has been a source of controversy in our church in the past. The bylaw committee did not take a deep look into this, since there were enough issues to deal with already. We would prefer that we leave it for a future study.
Based on XI(B)(1), it says the chairman of the Board of Elders can be female. Does that mean woman can be eligible for eldership?
This is a typo in XI(B)(1), which is not consistent with the wording in other related sections (e.g. Chapter VII). Regarding to the gender of elders, it was not brought up in the feedbacks collected in 2019. We would like to further discuss about it inside of the Board of Elders and Deacons.
Can we change the retirement age for elders to be above 70? In the 2020 US president election, both candidates are over 70.
This was not brought up in the feedbacks collected in 2019. We will further discuss about the retirement age for elders in the Board of Elders and Deacons if time permits.
The retired elders become the Honorary elders and they can continue to contribute their wisdom and experiences by serving in different ministries and attending meetings per invitation. At the same time, we want to raise more younger generation coworkers to become church leaders.
Can we allow absentee’s vote?
This was discussed by the Board of Elders and Deacons before and got denied. We can further discuss about it if time permits or specify it outside of the Bylaw (e.g. The Handbook of Ministry Operation Guideline).
The newer technologies (e.g. Zoom) can set a different context for absentee voting.