Walking Wounded
Thursday, June 11, 2009 at 9:40AM What a sad, disturbing, and painful Synod this was. I thought the processes and the outcomes were often wounding. Some on the blogs are tired already of hearing the Belhar invoked. But there does seem to be some question as to how the Belhar was relevant to this Synod's actions. Bear with me as I make the tie-in's I see.
The RCA Synod of 2009, it seems to me, painfully told our Church Herald staff that their gifts were no longer needed. We did not give the editors much of a hearing, and no chance to defend themselves or argue their case. I think the intent of asking them to leave was well meant, to spare their feelings. But I regret that I did not challenge the chair on this, and feel now that I failed our editors. The discussion should have been about the future of the Church Herald. But somehow the dismissal from the room made it seem like it was about them and not about the magazine. Did we not fail to live out the Belhar’s call to justice?
We also told the Classis of the Canadian Prairies that we had no need of their gifts. An attempt to introduce an amendment to the Belhar was summarily dismissed. I do not fault our president for this. It was her understanding that our procedure required this. I do fault the procedure. And I fault myself again for not challenging the chair, for I am not convinced this was necessary procedure. Then the spokesman for the Canadian Prairies was given a mere five minutes to defend their overture. There is something wrong with the procedure that so stifles the voice of a Classis. Then we told the Classis of the Canadian Prairies that the gift of their overture was not welcome. Furthermore, we told them that their support of the Belhar, which they offered to support as a statement of faith, despite their reservations, was not valued. Did we not fail to live out Belhar’s call to unity? (I hope to say more about that in a future blog.)
And we told the elderly they are not that important either. It was noted by Lee DeYoung of Words of Hope that in fact many people, especially the elderly, rely on print media. But the print version of the Church Herald seems to be on the fast track out. And then we decided that pastors over 70 were needed, but not quite as much as younger pastors. So did we not fail to live out Belhar by discriminating against the elderly? I think so.
But most disturbing, did we not fail to live up to the Word of God we profess to bow before?
Consider these words: "The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I don't need you!' And the head cannot say to the feet, 'I don't need you!' On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body but that its parts should have equal concern for each other." (I Corinthians 12:21-26)
I think these words apply. If so, the proper response to the decisions alluded to above are not celebration, but repentance. Did we not reject some precious gifts that God Himself brought to Synod?
If so, be it resolved that Synod of 2009 reconvene at it's earliest opportunity to undo these things and reconcile the wounded members. But of course, no one takes resolutions seriously.
So for what it is worth, I ask the Church Herald staff, member of the Classis of the Canadian Prairies, our elderly readers, and our elderly pastors, to forgive us for what we have done. The Lord knows we have need of you, even if the church body doesn't always recognize it.
Joe Veltman
Calvary Community Church
New Berlin, Wisconsin
Reader Comments (11)
Amen brother!
Today I weep with those who weep. I'm not ready to rejoice.
What a sad, disturbing, and painful Synod this was - I couldn't agree more. Reflecting on the actions of this year's synod, I have come to the conclusion that I have already left the RCA in mind, just not in body. I will most likely finish out my term as elder. How long my family and I will stay after that remains to be seen.
You see, we love our local congregation. As a life long RCA member, it is difficult and pains me to admit to myself that the RCA has strayed and continues to stray further from biblical truth. Our local congregation is strong but is still an RCA church. If they were to start to talk of succession from the RCA I would certainly stay, but the ties to the parent are strong so I don't see that happening, at least not in the near term.
It is certainly a conflict. Stay and worship with the family that I love and ignore the straying of the RCA, or leave and align myself with a denomination that has stronger theology and values and is not so in love with the things of this world. I'm sure I am not alone in these thoughts and the decisions that face me.
I am *very* saddened to hear about the Synod's decision to cease publication of The Church Herald. I do not know the reasons for this, but I have thought that the RCA's printing of RCA Today seemed like an expensive duplication of services that The Church Herald already provided and a slap in the face to The Church Herald. I *value* the importance of having a venue that allows differing opinions to be expressed. This value is important not only to the Constitution of the US but also to the health of *any* organization. So, I would like to say to The Church Herald a heartfelt "Thank you" for your years of service to promote the diversity and the health of the RCA. I will miss you. Sincerely, Carolyn Otterness
It grieves me to say this -- but I think that if the Synod had taken another direction with the Belhar, we would have seen people who are just as dedicated, just as committed to the Scriptures and the RCA, and just as Christlike, who might have felt similar grief to the grief expressed in this thread. Actually, I don't just think it. I know it to be the case. I believe we all need to lay down our mutual suspicion of one another, our characterizations and (sometimes) accusations. I have been on the "losing side" many times at General Synod. I have been on the "winning side" sometimes, too. I have known the feeling of "I'm outta here." But I haven't left, though often the RCA doesn't feel like "my tribe." My not leaving doesn't make me any better than those who have (like I'm a loyalist and they're separatists); and it doesn't make me any worse than those who've stayed (as if I'm selling out my convictions and they're a bunch of lemmings). I would hope that we all, like Calvin, would cross a thousand seas for the sake of unity with my brothers and sisters in Christ, even though we do not always agree with one another. Can we all -- 'liberals' and 'conservatives' alike -- find some way to find ourselves in Jesus' prayer that we all be one, not for the sake of some humanistic ideal, but 'that the world may believe?'
Joe V.: Amen and Amen
Karl: I could not agree with you more. I am thankful the pastor we have, in spite of the direction of the denomination as a whole, loves our reformed heritage. I posted this section below in another blog and it rings so true to what you are saying.
Fear is not a Christian motivator, but concern is. I believe we, as a denomination have forgot about the antithesis we so proudly confessed and lived at one time. Scriptures show this antithesis between the people of God and the world to be an eternal truth. We have taken the Rodney King motto of 'Why can't we all just get along" and molded it as a nose of wax from the truth of caring for every part of God's creation, into a postmodern humanism and relativism. The antithesis is no more between the people of God and the world. "You believe that, what about where the scriptures says it is not true? Well it is OK, you're a nice person, let's fellowship together."
The Social Gospel and Theology of Liberation are completely at odds with Scripture and our Heidelberg and Belgic confessions which state: "Son of God gathers...out of the whole human race, a church chosen to everlasting life." "we are received into the Church of God, and separated from all other people and strange religions, that we may wholly belong to him, whose ensign and banner we bear...."
Do not the words of the CRC synod in 1924, almost 100 years ago still ring true within the RCA today? "If we observe the spiritual tendencies of the present time, we cannot deny that there exists much more danger of world conformity than of world flight. The liberal theology of the present time actually wishes to eradicate the boundary between the church and the world.... The idea of a spiritual-moral antithesis is weakening in large measure in the consciousness of many, and gives way to a vague feeling of general brotherhood.... The doctrine of special grace in Christ is more and more driven to the background.... Through the press and through all sorts of inventions and discoveries, that in themselves should be valued as gifts of God, a great part of the sinful world is intruding into our Christian homes. Against all these and more pernicious influences, which press upon us from all sides, there is a crying necessity that the church mount a guard on principle; that she...also fight tooth and nail for the spiritual-moral antithesis.... Without ceasing may she hold fast to the principle that God's people is a special people, living from its own root, the root of faith.... And with holy seriousness may she call...her people and especially her youth not to be conformed to the world."
Very well said, Paul.
Also coming from a perspective of wondering if this is really my tent...I wonder if this holds me accountable to grappling with all sides of the Kingdom and not just the parts I feel at home in.
For many this is clearly a time to grieve. Through that process comes frustration and anger at the loss we feel over these changes. In a real way, I also wonder if the grief is for something much deeper that hasn't been identified yet...which is grief over the loss of church as many have known it.
It is my conviction that the institutional church along with its accoutrements is slowly but surely giving way to a movement that reflects the kind of revolution seen in the 1st century...one not bound by buildings and establishment but instead defined by authentic community, power in prayer, and the kind of marketplace Christianity that reaches out in ways yet unseen. This will define all aspects of the way we "do church", including the way we communicate with each other. The message remains the same but the methods change. This is a drastic change and bound to cause a great sense of loss and, along with it, a sense of woundedness in those who have connected with God in the ways we used to celebrate God's presence.
If the Church Herald (or something along these lines) is a necessary part of our community, then I believe we would see a groundswell of support that would lead to this being available. But as we have seen, subscriptions have dwindled to an unsustainable level. Blame the readers, blame the Herald, blame GSC, blame General Synod...it is what it is. It's kind of like what happens when a business is hemorrhaging money or a church is losing people. You have to put aside the emotional attachments and move forward in a way that honors the past, takes care of those affected, and builds a future based on the lessons we learned from our errors.
I would like to respond to a few comments.
Karl, you refer to the RCA straying from Biblical norms. Can you be specific? My concern in my post is not with any particular denominational statements, but with the actions of Synod.
Paul, in a similar vein, let me clarify. I am not opposed to the Belhar confession. It has some weaknesses I would have liked addressed, but I do not grieve over its passing. In some ways if feel I might even be more passionate about living out its principles than the champions. I wanted the principles lived out immediately, in the meeting of Synod.
What grieves me is not that Belhar passed. After listening to the debate, for example, I do not think that the Belhar will particularly influence the outcome of our debate on the homosexual issue. Nor is the Church Herald precious to me in and of itself. I do not have the history with it that some folks in our congregation do. (I do lament the loss of its function in the denomination, but that is a different matter.) Nor do I personally grieve over the mandatory retirement age....I have no desire to hang on that long.
I will say that as a former member of the Church Herald Council, the staff are precious to me, and I do grieve of the way they have been treated. And having pastored for some 28 years in Canada, I grieve over the way that the representatives from the Classis of the Canadian Prairies were treated.
What grieves me is the PROCESS by which Synod arrived at the decisions, and the wounds inflicted on people in the process.
To use the mantras of our time, I think Synod as it now function needs to be restructured. What concerns me is not so much that we are adopting unbiblical positions. What grieves me is the WAY this Synod conducted its business. The processes we used, I think, embed unbiblical principles. As I watched the meeting of Synod unfold, I thought that the norms we were given by which to conduct ourselves were repeatedly violated by the very body, and the very leadership, that urged these norms upon us. I do not ascribe to them any particular malice in saying this. I believe the problem is systemic, and that the structures, the procedures, engender harmful behavior.
Another way to put it is this:. As I see it, the Synod should act as the corporate pastor and teacher of the denomination. But the Synod did not behave very pastorally,
I will try to address some of these things further in future blogs, though I may grow weary of the effort soon.
For now, this observation about the process, just on an intellectual level, regarding the Belhar. As of Sunday night, I was inclined to vote for the Belhar in some form. I was at that point convinced that not to adopt it would do more harm than good. But then the debate started on Monday. I believe it was Mr. Spaans who wanted to make an amendment. He was ruled out of order. And worse, when he presented the overture from the Canadian Prairies, he was cut off. I felt that he had more and perhaps different things to say. I never felt that we found out in subsequent debate whether there was anything else on his mind. In the words of our norms, those with concerns about the Belhar were not given equal air time. Not even close. The process there, and at other times, showed partiality. And you know what the Lord says about that in the book of James.
The net result of the way things were handled, it seems to me, was that the champions of Belhar were quick to speak, and slow to listen. Our leaders gave lengthy speeches promoting it. In like manner I felt that the motion to cease debate was repeatedly invoked prematurely. And then there was the time clock!!! And so I did not get to listen. Without the confidence that I knew what the members of the Classis of the Canadian Prairies and others with concerns had to say, I could not in good conscience vote for the Belhar. The deliberative process was short-circuited for me, and the consequence was that the Belhar lost the support I was ready to give it. I could not.
So I abstained.
This is only the intellectual side. The process was very hurtful to me. I am preparing another blog which I am still praying over to convey that pain.
On last thing. I did talk to one of our denominational leaders on Sunday night, sharing my concerns about the process, and the difficulties I was already having then. I think he genuinely cared about my concerns. I think he too was victimized by the process.
I could not disagree more with the tone of this chain of blogs. I'm saddened and sorry to hear that anyone would feel this way about all that happened. I saw so much good happen. There are times when difficult decisions need to be made, and we made them, always expressing hope in Holy Spirit's guidance. I am so thankful that the RCA is not one where decisions are handed down from someone "at the top". I much prefer a process such as this where elders and pastors from congregations throughout North America gather, bathed in prayer, with decisions made after much prayerful discussion and seeking guidance from "On High". In that faith I cannot share your dour outlook on this historic General Synod.
Having witnessed the work of my local classis, I couldn't agree more with the earlier posts from the walking wounded. The leadeship, when in favor of an issue, certainly
goes into full marketing mode. My goodness, the RCA wesite has the Belhar Center section which is certainly biased. How about a same gender attraction recovery section on the website?
Friends,
I've found over the years that it serves the process of honest dialogue, discussion, and debate to speak openly and clearly about what precisely we mean. I'm not sure what people are meaning when they speak of "the leadership." I do have a sense of "the full court press," as I have heard it referred to. You do understand, of course, that the Belhar has been repeatedly endorsed for almost 10 years, and that it was provisionally adopted 2 years ago? So it's not just that people were voicing their personal opinions; they were standing on pretty solid ground, in my opinion. But back to the point -- when we speak of "leadership," do we have someone, or some particular decision, in mind? If there is something specific, please bring it up, and offer a name. (I've criticized policies and decisions of people over the years, from Wes and right on 'down', and have never felt recriminations. I've also tried to make sure to praise them when I thought they did well.) I don't find the generalized "they" to be helpful. This is in response to several instances of this sort of thing, not any single one.