A Tale of Two Gifts
Friday, June 12, 2009 at 2:45PM Why I abstained from voting on the Belhar
In a comment on my earlier blog entry, I have commented on the intellectual side of why I abstained from voting on the Belhar. This entry describes the emotional/spritual dimension of it for me.
By Monday morning, when we actually began debating the Belhar on the floor of Synod, I found my emotions were a bit raw. I kept tearing up. Fatigue was taking its toll, but something seemed to be going on in my spirit too.
We had been asked, the previous evening, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth? Can anything good come out of South Africa?" Yes, I thought, the Belhar is good, though maybe not very good. It was conceded that one of the strengths of our particular tradition is the gift of verbal craftsmanship. In the back of my mind a thought was forming...that maybe they would like some help then, so that we could offer the very best to the church. As the presentations unfolded, it became clear that our reception of the gift of the Belhar mattered a great deal to the bearers of that gift, and to many others gathered in Holland. On the verge of tears, I thought, "How can I vote no? How could I hurt them so?"
And then the Canadian Prairies came with a gift. An offer, in the form of an amendment, to help with the wording. And they came with the gift of an overture to accept the Belhar as a statement of faith. I first saw the overture as a companion gift. Like a dust jacket for a book, or a frame to hold the document. Admittedly, it was a humbler gift than the Belhar. But as I listened it became clear that the reception of their gift mattered a great deal to the bearers of the gift, and many others gathered for the Synod. "Can anything good come from Nazareth? Can anything good come from the Canadian Prairies?" I ask. On the verge of tears I felt "Yes, this too is good. Perhaps not very good, but good." Unfortunately, a vote to accept the Belhar was a vote to refuse their overture. How could I refuse their gift? How could I hurt them so?
I had been reflecting on the Hippocratic oath Sunday evening..."First do no harm." When we were wisely called to prayer before voting on the Belhar, I asked the Lord what I should do. And my clear sense of the Lord's leading for me was that I was to abstain. I was to do no harm. For how could I chose between them? How could I hurt the bearers of either gift so? And the tears flowed.
In those few minutes of prayer, I did proceed to argue with the Lord. "But Lord," I said, "I don't understand. If I don't vote, what is the point of my being here?" And I think I heard the Lord say, "You are here to cry." An odd message, and I understand if you wonder whether I heard right. I wonder too.
After the Belhar was accepted, and the Synod as a whole rejected the gift from the Canadian Prairies, those who had prevailed applauded—and I was aghast. In sports, excessive celebration is called a foul. With tears in my heart, I wonder, "How could we hurt them so?" Do the sisters and brothers from the Canadian Prairies, and others like them...do they not bleed as others do?
The more I reflect on the gift of the overture from the Canadian Prairies, the more significant I think it was. The adoption of their overture, the adoption of the Belhar as a statement of faith, would have gone far to preserve the unity of the Synod of 2009. The adoption of the Belhar as a statement of faith instead of a confession would have allowed us to walk the talk, to actually live out our call to be one, not just talk the talk.
With the offer to accept the Belhar as a statement of faith, the bearers of the gift from the Canadian Prairies, I think, were offering to give up their insistence on a better crafted document. Had we adopted the Belhar as a statement of faith, the champions of Belhar would have lost some of the strength of making it a confession, but they would have gained their brothers and sisters. Each would have had to sacrifice something. But we would have gained much.
The significant gift of the overture from the Canadian Prairies, I think, was an opportunity to live the truth of God's call together. It seems to me that, sadly, Synod 2009 said that the gift of the Belhar as a document was a gift to be cherished more than the actual unity it speaks of, that talking is more important than doing, and that the status of a document is more important than people. We said we had no need of the profound gift the Canadian Prairie folk offered. Can nothing good can come from the Nazareth of the north? How could we hurt them so?
I'm not sure whether we tried the Belhar and found it wanting, or whether the Belhar tried us and found us wanting. In either case, I believe the test was failed.
The bearers of the Belhar gift cry from a long history of pain. But the bearers of the gift from the north cry too, I think. Oh, how could we hurt each other so? We all cry, and the Lord bottles up our tears....to what mysterious end, I know not.
Joe Veltman
Calvary Community Church
New Berlin, Wisconsin
Reader Comments (4)
Joe...
You seem to place a lot of emphasis on the rejection of the Canadian Prairies' desire to change the Belhar. Denying an overture, however, doesn't mean rejecting, whole-scale, the gifts, offerings, abilities, skills, talents, or resources of a particular Classis. As a member of Zeeland Classis, I can speak from the perspective of a Classis whose overtures are regularly denied by Synod. An overture is a request for action; sometimes Synod responds by turning those overtures into recommendations (which sometimes pass); other times, those overtures are denied.
Your rhetoric suggests that it is somehow unusual for overtures to be denied, and anyone who hasn't been to Synod might buy into it, but quite the opposite is true.
Secondly, but equally as importantly, the question of changing the Belhar was never on the table. The overture might have wanted it to be on the table, but it wasn't. I saw an attempt to pull it into the discussion when talking about whether or not to adopt the Belhar, but that was out of order - the recommendation was to adopt or not to adopt, not whether or not to change whatever parts of it we don't happen to like as much as others.
I'm a 30-something, white male. I know what it's like to be a person whom the RCA cares increasingly LESS about; indeed, as a straight, 30-something, married, white male, father, I know what it's like to be not only less listened to, but to be presumed to hold a perspective that is unimportant - increasingly so. If I though there was any chance that your argument here held water I'd get on board; but in this case, It simply doesn't float. That the Synod didn't see fit to respond favorable to the Canadian Prairies' overture is simply not a whole-scale rejection of some "significant gift."
Grace and Peace,
`tim
Hi Tim.
I know overtures get denied all the time. I have been to dozens of Classis meetings and three Synods now. My point in this blog was to make a comparison.
The Belhar was constantly referred to as a gift.
I think that the overture was a gift too.
As I recall the overture, the overture was not about changing Belhar, but about adopting it as a statement of faith instead of a confession. That is the main gift I refer to.
You say the rejection of their overture "doesn't mean rejecting, whole-scale, the gifts, offerings, abilities, skills, talents, or resources of" their classis.
Then I would say that the rejection of the Belhar "doesn't mean rejecting, whole-scale, the gifts, offerings, abilities, skills, talents, or resources" of the authors of the Belhar.
Notwithstanding, it was made clear to us that it mattered a lot to some people whether it was rejected. I think its rejection would have been painful for some people. That was my perception. I think it would have hurt them. Am I right?
In this post I am reporting my perception, my feeling, that it mattered to the the people who brought the overture whether it was rejected. I think its rejections was in fact painful for some people. Maybe they didn't care. That was my perception. I think it hurt them. And at any rate, it hurt me, for some reason. It bothered me. Not only that the overture was rejected, but even more, the way in which it was dispatched.
So let me say it again. Whatever content you put into describing the Belhar as a gift, you can put into desribing the Overture to adopt it as a statement of faith as a gift. However you understand the nature of the "gift" for one applies to the other. I am making a comparison of two things, and the reactions of two groups.
Think literally of giving a gift you made to someone for their birthday. How would you feel if they rejected your gift? I could imagine it might be done...for some reason the person can't accept it. This would have to be done very sensitively not to hurt you. The way the overture was handled felt hurtful, at least to me.
I know that amending the Belhar was not on the table. I think that was a mistake. You may say that those are the rules of order we were using. Precisely. I think the rules are wrong.
Blessings
Joe,
I guess, in the end, I simply don't accept that the overture in question was, in any way, a "gift," nor do I believe the Belhar was adopted merely because of it's "gift" status. It is unfortunate that several of the "movers and shakers" spent a lot of time talking about the fact that it had been given to us and that it would be rude not to accept it. Had I been given the opportunity to vote, that wouldn't have played at all into my decision. As I'm sure you will agree, not all gifts are created equal and some will never be destined to take an important role in the recipient's life.
As I see it, the Belhar is important and suitable as a confession regardless of it's "gifted" status. Indeed, that ought to play no role in the decision making process - and, although I'm sure it played a role for some, I do know it didn't for others.
It would have mattered greatly to me had the Belhar not been adopted - but not because it was a "gift," rather, because it expresses a part of the Christian faith that, though fundamental and biblical, is sorely lacking in our other three standards.
I hope that makes sense. :-)
Grace and Peace,
`tim
Re: gift.
(not regift -- haha)
The language of gift was language from South Africa. Was it overused, becoming rhetoric rather than description? Perhaps. But please remember that the 'gift' language did not originate from strategy meetings. It arose from South Africa itself.
Second, there is a qualitative difference between a statement of faith and a standard of unity. (Remember, that's what we're talking about here. Yes, the Belhar is a confession, but the Heidelberg isn't, nor are the Canons of Dort.) A statement of faith is sort of, well, a nice thing to say. It's observations about God and the world. It's more or less instructive, if you choose to be instructed by it. If not, well, then let those who choose to be instructed by it make that choice. Otherwise, forget about it and move on. A standard of unity proposes that this is a way we agree to read the scriptures together -- in this case, identifying that we are (potentially) one in saying that unity, reconciliation, and justice are essential to our reading of the Scriptures. Take them out of our reading, and we're not, well, US anymore. A standard of unity is constitutional; it constitutes us, is a part of our DNA; it's in our blood. A statement of faith is a piece of paper we pick up and read from time to time, then set down.
Thus, in my opinion, the overture from the Canadian Prairies was not a compromise. It was a completely different idea. Once you adoopt the Belhar as a fourth standard of unity, (again in my opinion) it makes no sense at all to then speak of it as anything less.
And, remember, if you will -- when the three actions (Christian Unity, Theology, and the overture) were presented, the fellow from Canada was cut off because he was well over time, with no end in sight. In my opinion, our President was not rude in cutting him off, but was, if anything, very gracious in letting him go on for as long as he did. Frankly, I thought it was very accommodating to let a Classis stand and address the body in a fashion that was parallel to that of Commissions (whose sole purpose is to give advice to the General Synod).
The body heard the overture. An advisory committee recommended denial of the overture. The classis had an opportunity to make its case on the floor, just like everyone else who is there has an opportunity to argue for or against amendments, etc. The body accepted the recommendation to deny. I regret that peoples' feelings got hurt. If that is the case (haven't heard directly from anyone in Classis Canadian Prairies yet), some healing needs to be done, sure. But surely we're not going to enjoin every action that causes hurt feelings. If that were the case we'd never get much of anything done. If that were the case, then a vote the other way would have caused just as much (if not considerably more) hurt feelings.
I believe the Spirit speaks through the body, even though I, personally, have a very, very tough time matching my feelings to that statement sometimes. I only hope that the denial of the overture won't be seen per se as cause for rejection of the Belhar. That, to me, would be a rather unfortunate misinterpretation of the vote to deny the overture.