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