In light of this article, I’m interested to see what you think about your future use of and response to this classic phrase.

Article: http://www.ligonier.org/blog/2009/10/semper-reformanda.html
 
A fellow servant,
Jeremy Visser
Hudsonville, MI
Jeremy.rts@gmail.com
(616) 340-2881

A goodly number, mostly younger folks, said they read their Bibles online. And imagine with me that an advisory committee recommended to General Synod of the RCA that we implement an orderly cessation of printing the Bible. What would a General Synod probably do?

The Church Herald is not the Bible. But the fact that many do not read it and that many do not want to pay the cost of producing it is not sufficient reason for discontinuing it.

If we were talking about the Bible, I hope we would say "Let's figure out how to get people to read their Bibles. Let's make every effort to get them to see the value of it. Let's disciple them." I think we would challenge our leaders to lead instead of following.

Imagine with me. What if we survey the denomination and discover that only about 40,000 read RCA today. (I would not be surprised if the readership of RCA today is lower.) Will some advisory committee recommend the orderly cessation of the RCA today? And will we quietly acquiesce and say, "The non readers have spoken?" That would be consistent.

It may be that the Church Herald is a bad magazine and not worthy of reading. I know that is the contention of some. But let's be clear.....that should be the focus of the conversation. Is it a good magazine? If not, the demise of the Church Herald is a failure of the magazine. But if it is a good magazine, the demise of the Church Heraldmay be a failure of leadership, perhaps a failure of discipling.

The leader of our Adult Sunday School regularly engages us in discussing matters of interest in the Church Herald. Our consistory has decided that every member should receive the Church Herald. They lead. In fact, they disciple me. I need it.

Imagine with me. Imagine that at this year’s General Synod, the commission on Christian Education and Discipleship had a section on "The Church Heraldand Discipleship," urging us to use the magazine as part of our discipling. Imagine that the Commission on Christian Unity stressed the importance of having a denominational magazine to hold us together. And what if the keynote speaker had been a Christian journalist, highlighting the value of independent denominational magazines? And what if we had had the Editor of the Christian Reformed Church’s The Banner say a few words, along with representatives of several other denominational magazines? And what if our General Secretary had made a plea for the full funding of the Church Herald, and urged us to set a 10-year goal of raising the readership? And what if the president of this year’s Synod had sung the praises of the Church Herald? Imagine that. And imagine what the outcome of our discussion on the Church Herald would have been.

That none of this happened tells us that the Church Herald was not high on the list of valued things for our commissions and leadership. Maybe they were even right to ignore the Church Herald. My point is this: The demise of the Church Heraldas an independent magazine has only a little to do with the cost of the magazine, and a lot to do with our leadership. And I include myself in that. I wonder if I should have done more. But let’s not hide behind the cost, which per member would have been less than the price of a dinner out. Instead of leading, have we followed the reader (or non reader) in this case?

Joe Veltman
Calvary Community Church
New Berlin, Wisconsin

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

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

The Synod will also receive the report of the task force created by the General Synod Council on the instruction of last year's General Synod "to develop a plan for greater inclusion of women and people of color at all levels of staffing within the RCA and to develop leadership training opportunities consistent with this goal; and to develop and implement a process to recruit and train leaders who represent the array of the ethnicities and races that make of God's world with particular attention to gender inclusion, so that in the future the pool of qualified candidates for denominational staff positions, particularly at executive staff levels, better reflects the denomination's commitment to a multicultural and multi-racial future, and further to have such processes ready for report to the 2009 General Synod and for implementation no later than 2010."

These recommendations were adopted in response to the detailed findings of the Commission for Women in its report with respect to "the continued marginalization of RCA women" from leadership positions in the administration of the RCA in spite of the fact that women comprise 63 percent of all RCA members. (See page 252, Acts and Proceedings of the 202nd Regular Session of the General Synod.) The report states that of the 148 positions of leadership and decision making, 51 are held by women and 97 by men. In the Office of General Secretary (3 persons) none are women; often denominational directors, 1 person is a woman and 12 are men. Membership on commissions and boards are similarly one-sided, two-thirds men to one-third women (as of June 2008), just the reverse of the percentage of denominational membership.

In the light of this instruction of last year's General Synod it is curious that the General Synod Council this year decided to defund the position of coordinator of Women's Ministries, a seeming contradiction—in spirit at least—to the vote of General Synod. (The office was funded by a Women's Fund Drive, which raised $220,000 out of a goal of $500,000. Women's ministries in the RCA have historically been self-funded!)

It is critical that all who understand the importance of full inclusion of women in the leadership of our denomination demand the processes proposed be serious, concrete and comprehensive with an implementation plan that is specific. The RCA has an educated female laity, many of them products of our three excellent colleges. Moreover, the numbers suggest that the skills and spiritual commitment of ordained women have not been fully appreciated by RCA congregations or Board Office leadership. This is long overdue.

One small suggestion to start the process of inclusion would be to move toward full equity on all boards and commissions as current members complete their terms by naming qualified women to fill vacancies until the ratios are 50-50. Since twice as many women as men comprise the denomination's membership, this should be quite doable. With the denomination not growing in size, the fact that 2/3 of its membership has been marginalized or excluded entirely from leadership and decision-making means that a vast resource has been untapped.

How can a denomination continue to be vibrant and effective if the voices of its majority are unheard?

Barbara Harris
Classis of Rocky Mountains
Denver, Colorado