It seems that whenever I come across arguments about the authority of scripture, they have nothing to do with the way scripture is used in discernment or apology.  Perhaps the term “authority” is not at all what I am after.  Perhaps “hermeneutic” gets closer to it.  But I’m not all that interested in arguments of interpretation, rather over a fundamental difference in the approach to scripture.  For some, “it says what it says.”  For others, “it says this, but what does it mean?”  Is this an authority issue, or a hermeneutical issue, or is there another term/option that I am not considering?

As we approach a season of discernment of the future of the RCA, and we devote time and resources to a discernment process, I wonder how well we listen to all of the voices that are speaking to us, not only from all parts of the church, but from God's word, from our Reformed tradition, and from all the saints, giants of faith on whose shoulders we stand.

I guess what I am looking for the most is some help with terms.  When I raise the above issues, am I talking about the authority of scripture, or is it something else?

For example, when I talk to my colleagues in New Jersey about our decision to have a prolonged conversation about the full inclusion of deacons in the higher assemblies of the church, they don't know what there is to talk about.  To them, it seems like a waste of time to talk more.  For them, the matter is settled.  Deacons should be fully included.  It's only a matter of implementation that is holding us back.  Without having gone to General Synod, I might have agreed.  But I heard some important perspectives, especially in my advisory committee, on some deep theological issues that there might be in having deacons involved in governance at the classis, regional synod, and general synod assemblies.  Spending the majority of my time in New Jersey, it is easy to forget about my brothers and sisters in other parts of the country that bring different problems and perspectives to the table.

If we are to be one church, then we must find meaningful ways to gather around tables and have frank conversations.  While voluntary opportunities such as the upcoming discussion in Orlando in February are nice, and might cost less to the denomination with attendees footing the bill themselves, there is great value in having a meeting where it is mandatory that every classis and synod be at the table, every year.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say our future unity depends upon it.

As we head into the afternoon session, we'll be hearing from our Vice Presidential candidates and hearing some information about Our Call. I don't think we'll have any votes (other than the election) so the discussion will probably be at a minimum. It was suggested to me that perhaps it is a waste of money to bring all of us to Grand Rapids to "rubber stamp" the business that has already been decided for us. That is a strong statement, and I'd like to hear what some other of you readers have to say about that.

One minor disappointment I had was with the failure of an amendment that was offered on the floor: for the General Synod to approve the extension of Tom's contract after 6 years, or two of the "super reviews" that the GSC conducts of the general secretary. This would have been an important opportunity to affirm Tom's work from time to time, in much the same was that the synod was asked to affirm his selection in the first place. The BCO places responsibility for review of the general secretary in the hands of the GSC, which is where it belongs. But the BCO also places the responsibility of choosing the general secretary with the GSC, yet the Synod is asked to officially approve the appointment. What would be the harm in allowing the gathered delegates of the church the opportunity to hear a recommendation from the GSC about continuing the general secretary's contract, and then to either approve or disapprove? It would seem that is a responsibility that should be the General Synod's, not the GSC.

That being said, much gratitude should go to the GSC and the search committee for the time and energy that was spent on discerning the right candidate for the job. They have done tremendous work, and today we are celebrating the fruit of their labor and the affirmation of God's call. Congratulations, Tom. I look forward to working with you!

His response seemed to suggest that we are somewhere in between. Some of our churches have been around for over 300 years. They are a gathered congregation, an institution, an organization by any definition of the world. On the other hand, some of our churches exist as house churches, gathered informally in living rooms watching church services streaming from 1000 miles away. At this early stage, these churches would seem to be defined as "organism." This is often found in the "emergent" church movement, following patterns that the institutional church would usually not recognize as "church" per say.

But the house church does not stay the house church forever. It grows, it changes, it adapts, and it organizes. The early church met in houses and synagogues. And over time, by many cultural and political influences, it became institutionalized. Movements do not stay movements forever. Institutionalization is a natural process that every movement should undergo, especially if it wants to have any staying power. In 20 years, the emergent church movement might be known as the Emergent Church of Christ in North America. If we haven't forgotten about the emergent church by then.

Wes also raised the point that this generation tend not to join organizations, the church included. The current generation may not be "joiners," but they still belong. The line between member and adherent is being blurred every day. If I am asked how many people are in the Reformed Church of Freehold, I don't respond with the number of members we have on the books. And I don't respond with our worship attendance. Neither number accurately reflects who "belongs" to the church. In my mind, the people that are present belong. I don't know how many that is. I could give a rough estimate, but it really isn't all that important. What matters more is that their lives are being transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit.

So are we an organism or an organization? I think we are both. And as long as we are both, we will be exactly who God wants us to be.

Unfortunately, this lack of trust has spilled over into the church, into this church, the church that we love, the RCA.  We don't trust that our leaders have the best interest of the church in mind.  We believe that they have hidden agendas that would advance the things that they care about, without keeping in mind the whole church.  We are afraid that we will be forgotten, that we will be left out of the decision-making process, and that is somehow scary for us.

What will it take to invest our trust in our leaders?  They are us.  We are leaders.  Ministers, elders, deacons, congregation members.  Each of us has a role to play.  When we trust, there is a chance that we might get hurt.

Ultimately, there is only one who we can put our complete trust in, and that is the God who loves us, cares for us, and is the head of the church that we love.

Many thanks to our President for a great report!

Can the General Synod assess individual classes for their churches being behind in their BOBS insurance payments?

While I have some thoughts on the legality of such an assessment, I'll save those thoughts for later in the Synod when the overtures have been dealt with.  But a greater issue in my mind is how major issues get chosen.  The General Synod Council no doubt sets the schedule of Synod and tries to predict which topics are most in need of discussion.  But what if they guess wrong?  While last year's delegates spent a lot of time dealing with BOBS stuff as a major issue, a new group of delegates lack the background of the discussion and probably will not be given ample opportunity to study the issues involved.

I think it is a good thing that all of the delegates to GS have an opportunity to discuss the major issues.  That is one strength of having major issue advisory committees instead of the subject-based committees of the past.  But a major drawback is that there are issues that are important to some people that will get swept under the rug, all based on the decision of the GSC.

Part of me thinks that the election of a new General Secretary, while an important event in the life of the church, does not necessarily need the time of a "major issue" in advisory committees.  Perhaps insurance assessments, or some other major issue, could take its place.  Sadly, it is probably too late to change things now.

This is the first Synod that I will be attending as a voting delegate.  In the past, I've attended as a corresponding delegate from Northwestern College and with the Seminarian Seminar.  I'm one of those people who really enjoys General Synod, and given the opportunity, I would attend every year.  There is something exciting about seeing the Spirit moving through a group of people that are gathered from many contexts, who don't always agree, who don't always get along.  And yet God's will is still accomplished.  God must have a sense of humor!

Join me in praying for the Reformed Church in America and its delegates to GS, for traveling mercies, for focus in preparation, and for wisdom and grace in our conversations.  We're a week away.  I can't wait!