Esteemed brothers,

This report is an attempt to evaluate where this Classis stands at the beginning of our 2011 spring classis meeting, as well as a summary of the parochial reports from our ministers.

We begin by considering the state of our membership. Looking at the statistics, our communicant membership has dropped again this year from 479 to 460, a loss of about 4 percent. Herreid gained one member, and Ashley, Hosmer, and Watertown held their own. Every other church showed a loss. There were only three baptisms in classis this past year, down from eleven the year before. In 2009 there were four students confirmed, but in 2010 there was not a single person confirmed.

I asked myself why this should be the case. Going back to the statistics, I saw that we had 264 families in classis and 523 baptized members. That means the average family had 1.8 members. Therefore, we must have a large number of single members in our churches-both very young and very senior.

I believe the numbers show that we have an aging membership with fewer families with two parents and children. If this is true, there is only one alternative for our Classis, and that is evangelization. Of course, we should never seek to turn the preaching of the Gospel into a membership drive to boost our numbers On the other hand, unless we have an infusion of new members, our membership will continue to decline.

Turning to the parochial reports, we are thankful to learn that Rev. Phil Poe is settling in well at Minot. He refers to his first year there as a "honeymoon period." May this honeymoon last far longer than twelve months. After a protracted period of time without a minister, it is a great blessing to see Harvest Reformed Church once more with their own pastor.

Rev. James Grossmann continues his labors in Ashley and Hosmer. In addition to his pastoral duties, he continues to preach on Start the Week, the second oldest continuous radio ministry in our Classis (only the Eureka church service has been broadcasting longer). He has also been sharing the teaching duties in Dickinson, where the Classis is attempting to form a mission congregation. He does mention the problem of members of churches who do not attend. This matter is not unique to Ashley and Hosmer. All our Spiritual Councils need to take note.

Rev. Stetler reported on his ministry in Eureka. Along with faithfully carrying out the work of the pastorate, he has begun writing for the local paper. He has also been preaching in Dickinson, as has Rev. Grossmann. Also, for the second year in a row, the Eureka church held a conference taught by the faculty of the Heidelberg Theological Seminary. Rev. Stetler did mention another pastoral problem, the neglect of the Lord's Supper by the membership of the church. Article 6 of the RCUS constitution says, "Every member shall attend faithfully the public services of the Church and shall engage diligently in private devotions; and those who have been confirmed shall partake regularly of the Lord's Supper." Therefore, this is a serious negligence on the part of those who do not properly use the sacrament.

Rev. McGee reports progress in the Watertown work. Although their membership has not increased, there have been more regular visitors this year than before. In addition to his activities as Stated Clerk, he has been involved in activities organized by the ministerial association, including newspaper articles and opening city council meetings with prayer. They also held a conference and intend to hold another one this year on the subject of evangelism. Rev. McGee has an enthusiasm for outreach that finds him involved in activities that reflect the ability to think outside the box.

It should be noted that, as a mission work, Watertown receives financial assistance from Classis. For 2011, they are requesting $11,600, a reduction of $1,600 over 2010. This is a positive sign that the congregation is seriously supporting this church. This is a real encouragement.

As for myself, I pastor the First Reformed Church in Aberdeen. The most significant event of the year was the completion of our new addition to the church building. We thank God for providing both the labor and the funds for this project and pray that the fruit of this work will glorify God. I, too, have a pastoral concern that I would add to those mentioned in other reports. I am concerned that there is a tendency in our churches not to support activities other than the morning worship service. I have mentioned this from time to time from the pulpit. I think, in the long run, only the Lord can move people to fellowship with each other.

And then there is Rev. William Haddock. Rev. Haddock has resigned as pastor of Hope Reformed Church of Pierre. The burden of working a full time job at the state capitol and serving the church has become too much. Therefore, he has been led by the Lord to retire from the full-time ministry.

Rev. Haddock's tent-making ministry in Pierre has allowed the church there to retire the debt on the parsonage and to remodel the church building. Without Rev. Haddock's willingness to make this sacrifice for the church, they would not have been able to accomplish these goals. Thanks in large part to Rev. Haddock's willingness to work at the capitol, the Pierre church is now in a position, with its debts cleared, to call a man full time to the pastorate.

Rev. Haddock has been used by the Lord significantly in our Classis over the twenty-five years of his ministry, barring only a few years in Hamburg, MN. He has led the Classis as its President during really difficult days and, later, as Stated Clerk. His knowledge of the RCUS constitution and the proper procedures to be used in Classis are comprehensive. This President has repeatedly asked for his advice over the years, and has, as a result, gotten into less hot water than would have otherwise been the case. So we wish Rev. Haddock God's richest blessing as he settles down in Ft. Pierre and seeks to assist the church in finding a new minister. May the Lord lead him into new fields of labor, and may they be within the bounds of the Northern Plains Classis!

Meanwhile, the Pierre congregation continues to struggle, having taken a loss in membership this past year. Still, they are looking to the future as they seek to find a new pastor. Let us pray that God will prosper the ministry of the Word in Pierre. May this be the beginning of a new and bright chapter in the history of that congregation.

As we read over the permanent committee reports, potentially the most significant matter to be considered will be our attempt to establish a mission work in Dickinson, ND. The classical Home Missions Committee has recommended that we employ a home missionary in that town. Their report details the attendance at the Bible studies held there, and which would become the core group for a mission church. If a mission's pastor is hired, the budgeted cost of this mission work would be $23,600. Of this amount, Synod would be asked to contribute $12,600. Classis would provide $10,000 (I calculate this to come in at just under $22.00 per communicant member.)

The questions Classis needs to ponder include the following: 1. Is the core group described in the Missions report sufficient to justify hiring a missionary? 2. Can the Classis sustain the additional financial commitment? Does the calling of only a part-time missionary justify the extent of our proposed investment? 3. Who would the classis call as a missionary who has demonstrated the gifts necessary to this project? (Rev. Stetler and Rev. Clark have expressed an interest.) Should we erect a committee aggressively to find the best candidates with proven gifts and "track record," so we would have the largest possible talent pool to choose from (without precluding either Rev. Clark or Rev. Stetler)? May the Lord give our Classis real wisdom as it debates this issue.

This report has sought to detail the state of the classis as we begin our 2011 spring meeting. We look back and see the good hand of God prospering us this past year. Let us be in prayer that the Lord will guide us into His will as we chart our future.

Respectfully submitted,
Rev. David A. Dawn, President

I want to talk about one sensitive subject that seems to raise its head from time to time, especially-but not exclusively-among our younger members. You might hazard a guess that I must be thinking of something to do with sex or money. You'd be right. It has to do with sex, but on this occasion we can be a little more genteel and call it romance or marriage.

One of the temptations the younger members of our denomination face is relationships with members of the opposite sex who do not belong to the RCUS. Over the years I have been in the ministry, it has been amazing to see how many fellows and girls have left the denomination in order to marry or sometimes just live together with someone outside the church.

Now certain things can be said flat out. For one thing, living together outside of marriage is a sin. Period. Ephesians 5:3-5 says, "But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God."

We also know that believers should not marry unbelievers. 2 Corinthians 6:14 commands us, "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?"

Well, that's the easy part. Maybe not easy, but clear anyway. Now we enter a grey, murky area. Suppose one of our members decides to marry a member of another denomination? I do not mean a cult such as Mormonism or Seventh Day Adventism. I mean a denomination which, though not Reformed, contains genuine Christians and teaches the Bible in a broadly evangelical way.

The problem here is that we cannot condemn an interdenominational romance as an "unequal yoke" with an unbeliever. It would also be wrong to say that the Reformed Church has a monopoly on the truth and that every other denomination is nothing but an incubator of heresy.

Five Daughters

As far as I can see, the Bible does not directly address this subject. However, I do find one incident recorded in the Bible that I believe can be instructive on the subject. Allow me to present for your consideration five young ladies: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. Never made their acquaintance? Their address is Numbers 27. These girls were sisters, the daughters of Zelophehad, who had recently died. Here is their story.

We read in Numbers 27:1-11:

"Then came the daughters of Zelophehad the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, from the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph; and these were the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. And they stood before Moses, before Eleazar the priest, and before the leaders and all the congregation, by the doorway of the tabernacle of meeting, saying, our father died in the wilderness; but he was not in the company of those who gathered together against the Lord, in company with Korah, but he died in his own sin; and he had no sons. Why should the name of our father be removed from among his family because he had no son? Give us a possession among our father's brothers. So Moses brought their case before the Lord. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, the daughters of Zelophehad speak what is right; you shall surely give them a possession of inheritance among their father's brothers, and cause the inheritance of their father to pass to them. And you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying, if a man dies and has no son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter. If he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers. If he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father's brothers. And if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to the relative closest him in his family, and he shall possess it. And it shall be to the children of Israel a statute of judgment, just as the Lord commanded Moses."

Let me try to explain this briefly. These five girls came to Moses with a complaint. Their father had died without having any sons. They did not think it was fair that they should lose their inheritance because they were women. Moses took this matter to the Lord, who told him that Zelophehad's daughters should have their inheritance.

The matter of inheritance in Israel was important. First of all, Israel was about to enter the Promised Land. At that time each tribe would be given a portion of land which would then be divided up among the families of that tribe. If Zelophehad's estate was divided up among his nearest male relatives, there would be no land, and his branch of the family would cease to exist. This is why the girls said to Moses in Numbers 27:4, "Why should the name of our father be removed from among his family because he had no son? Give us a possession among our father's brothers."

This physical inheritance was the fulfilment of the Lord's promise to give his people the Promised Land. It was each covenant family's part in the promise. It represented the spiritual inheritance which God promises His covenant people-to believers and their believing children after them. These girls did not want their father's family to lose their share of the promise.

Now a different problem arose. Zelophehad's family was part of the tribe of Manasseh. The leaders of the tribe feared that these girls would marry into other tribes, causing part of the tribe of Manasseh's inheritance to transfer to another tribe.

We read their complaint and Moses' reply in Numbers 36:1-12:

"Now the chief fathers of the families of the children of Gilead the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near and spoke before Moses and before the leaders, the chief fathers of the children of Israel. And they said, the Lord commanded my lord Moses to give the land as an inheritance by lot to the children of Israel, and my lord was commanded by the Lord to give the inheritance of our brother Zelophehad to his daughters. Now if they are married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then their inheritance will be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and it will be added to the inheritance of the tribe into which they marry; so it will be taken from the lot of our inheritance. And when the Jubilee of the children of Israel comes, then their inheritance will be added to the inheritance of the tribe into which they marry; so their inheritance will be taken away from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers. Then Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of the Lord, saying, what the tribe of the sons of Joseph speaks is right. This is what the Lord commands concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, let them marry whom they think best, but they may marry only within the family of their father's tribe. So the inheritance of the children of Israel shall not change hands from tribe to tribe, for every one of the children of Israel shall keep the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. And every daughter who possesses an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel shall be the wife of one of the family of her father's tribe, so that the children of Israel each may possess the inheritance of his fathers. Thus no inheritance shall change hands from one tribe to another, but every tribe of the children of Israel shall keep its own inheritance. Just as the Lord commanded Moses, so did the daughters of Zelophehad; for Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married to the sons of their father's brothers. They were married into the families of the children of Manasseh the son of Joseph, and their inheritance remained in the tribe of their father's family."

The Lord's answer to the tribal leaders of Manasseh was very wise of course, as we would expect. The solution would be that the daughters of Zelophehad were commanded to marry within their tribe. This they did, and, in the words of verse 12, "their inheritance remained in the tribe of their father's family."

Bear in mind that Christians are God's people today just as the children of Israel were God's covenant people in the Old Testament. That's why, in Galatians 3:29, Christians are described as "Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Therefore, we should be able to find lessons from the story of Zelophedad's daughters that can be instructive for the church today.

Tribes and Denominations

One of the interesting similarities between the Old Testament Church and the New Testament Church is that, in God's providence, both are divided within themselves. The children of Israel in the Old Testament were divided into different tribes and, in a similar way (I think, anyway), the New Testament Church is divided as well-not into tribes, but into denominations.

In the providence of God, the Lord has allowed His Church to be divided up into different denominations. It is clear that each denomination has a different history with a different heritage: Reformed, Wesleyan, Anglican, etc. I'm not talking about liberalism here. I'm talking about the different heritages found among true believers.

I am comparing these various heritages and histories of the denominations to the different inheritances of the tribes of Old Testament Israel. As we saw, if an Israelite changed tribes, he lost an inheritance. In the same way, when a Christian changes denominations, he exchanges one heritage for another.

At this point, I want to pause and make a personal observation. I believe denominations are a good thing. If all Christians belonged to the same denomination, imagine the turf wars. For instance, you couldn't even celebrate the sacraments (and some would not even approve of that word!) without conflict as to the method and significance of them. You can use your imagination and easily think of other ways in which there would be controversy around every corner.

Denominations allow those of different persuasions to worship the Lord according to their convictions without constant debate and disunity. This also allows different persuasions to work together to some degree, such as in the Right To Life movement, without feeling threatened or defensive.

After all, as someone once said, "good fences make good neighbours." Isn't it interesting that when people forgive or are reconciled, this is described as "mending fences," and not "tearing down fences." People of different denominations can work together because no one feels threatened. They can work together on the things they have in common and then return to their own churches with their own convictions.

I am not saying that one church's doctrine is just as good as another's. I am saying that the existence of denominations allows us some degree of fellowship with other members of the Holy Catholic Church (composed of all the Lord's chosen from the beginning to the end of the world) without constant temptations to conflict or compromise concerning our beliefs.

Keep Your Inheritance

These next two paragraphs spell out what I'm trying to say. Here is the bottom line. If you want to sound clever, you could say that all true Christians share in God's covenant promises, but belong to different tribes. In the case of Zelophehad, all the Israelites were God's covenant people, but each tribe had their own inheritance. In the Church today, all true believers have a part in the covenant promises, but their history, heritage, and theology (their "inheritance," if you will) is different.

What is our inheritance? It's the Reformed Faith. It's the Heidelberg Catechism. It's a precious inheritance, not to be discarded lightly. What is a Reformed guy or gal going to do if he or she finds romance in the air with a good Christian, not only of the opposite sex, but of an "opposite" denomination as well? This causes practical problems if they get married. I could compare it to a three-legged race, like you used to play at camp-but with all the fun removed.

There really are only three possible outcomes to such a situation-well, four, if you think not going to church is an option. The other three are: both go to the husband's church, both go to the wife's church, or each one goes to his own church.

For starters, unless there is a genuine change of religious convictions, if either the fellow or the girl agrees to join a church whose doctrines they do not really believe, this is living a lie. In a similar way, suppose they decide to belong to their own separate churches? That's not any better. Where's the intimacy and unity of marriage in that? What kind of a covenant family would that be?

All these solutions destroy the intimacy of marriage. Genesis 2:24 says, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Not only that, but the husband becomes the spiritual head, the spiritual leader of his wife. We are taught in 1 Corinthians 11:3, "But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." Ephesians 5:22 adds, "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord."

How can a husband be the spiritual head of his wife if they do not believe the same things? Amos 3:3 asks, "Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?" How can a wife submit to her husband as her spiritual head without being willing, at the very least, to join his church? How can a husband take true spiritual leadership of his wife and allow her to attend the church of her choosing which teaches doctrines with which he disagrees?

Real-Life Wisdom

There is real wisdom in not marrying a Christian from a different "tribe." This, indeed, can ruin a believer's spiritual inheritance. One thing that really saddens me is how little it takes for our younger members to throw over all that their parents have painstakingly taught them. Esau sold his birthright for a bowl of soup. You can read about it in Genesis 25. In the same way, if someone is prepared to sell his Reformed birthright-for which men have fought and died-in exchange for a handsome guy or a gorgeous gal truly shows how little importance one places on his faith. Commenting on Esau's expensive bowl of soup, Moses writes in verse Genesis 25:34, "Thus Esau despised his birthright."

Let me use an obvious example. Suppose a Reformed girl met and married a respectable conservative devout Baptist boy, whose honest convictions were loyal to his denomination. Suppose he had the integrity to say that they only way they could get married is if she joined his church. And suppose she does.

Then, here come babies. Suddenly, the girl realizes her husband would not permit his children to get baptized. The bottom line is that her babies are denied covenant baptism all because she put her own romantic desires above her religious convictions. What has she done? What has she sacrificed? And for what?

Of course you can turn this example on its head. A Reformed man marries a Baptist girl who truly loves the Lord according to how she has been trained. Can you imagine the heartache that Reformed fellow has brought into his life and his wife's when children come? He will insist on covenant baptism for his children, over his wife's objections, and the result will be a great rift in marital unity. Or he might cave in, and that would be worse.

This is only an example, not an attempt to beat up on one particular denomination. You could easily make up other examples regarding conflicts with other denominations as well. I cringe every time I hear some young person say, "Our differences don't matter as long as we both love the Lord." I mentally think to myself, "Your differences don't matter now?"

What does it say about the depth of your faith if you are prepared to discard your religious heritage just to get a really cute guy or gal? What it says is that you place your desire for a particular person above your Reformed heritage.

Now, if a person changes denominations because his convictions change, this is honorable. I was brought up in a kinda/sorta evangelical church which was not Reformed. Now that my convictions have been changed by the Holy Spirit, I thank God from the bottom of my heart that I am Reformed, or, better put, that the Lord lead me to the Reformed faith. This is my inheritance and that of my family. I hope none of us will ever toss it away. I will never go back. Some of our older church members will remember that old Taryton cigarette slogan, "I'd rather fight than switch." That about sums it up.