Leon Fikse - Comments

Sherri Meyer-Veen comments on Life goes on...

Sherri Meyer-Veen — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:05:27 +0000

Amen Leon! Reformed and always reforming according to the Word of God.... In the world, but not of it....

It was great to have a chance to chat with you some at General Synod, and yes, it was a long time ago.... I appreciate you and look forward to a long growing friendship whenever our paths may cross.

I meant to follow up with you on the phone in regards to your post about me as an "angry woman," but life went on... it just wasn't that important and I didn't get to it. We should talk outside of blogger world if you would like, we could also follow up on our brief conversation about "white privilege" at Synod as I think they are related....

Blessings brother and praise God for continuing the good work in Redlands!

Stacey Midge comments on Last Thoughts

Stacey Midge — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:22:49 +0000

As the person who gave the report of the Commission for Women, I feel somewhat obligated to respond here.

First of all, it's not quite accurate to characterize the entire body of synod as reacting with discomfort to the report. I spoke with people afterward who felt uncomfortable with it; I also spoke with people (both men and women) who were cheering because some of those things had been said. Our recommendations also passed by a considerable margin, which suggests to me that we weren't written off as "angry feminists" by the entire body.

That said, my part of the report (which was, as Lynn suggests, a summary of the Commission's total report from the workbook) was not really intended to be nice. It was intended to be pointed. It's part of my responsibility as moderator of the Commission for Women to report on the state of women in the RCA. If the statistics made you uncomfortable, well, they make me uncomfortable too. While I tried to be gracious and recognize the progress our denomination has made, please understand that it's difficult to say with love, care, and sensitivity, "We've been ordaining women as long as I've been alive, and there are significant parts of the church that still think I have no business being here." I was not angry when I gave the report, but it is possible that you heard some of the pain that comes from taking vows to a body of the Church, pouring your life into it, and then being repeatedly told that you have no place there.

Thank you, by the way, for your love, care and sensitivity on this matter.

Lynn Japinga comments on Last Thoughts

Lynn Japinga — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:18:54 +0000

A clarification re the Commission for Women report at Synod. (from a member of it) Stacey Midge is the moderator and it is her responsibility to make a report. She basically repeated the substance of the written report, I think. While we would all hope that people have read every page of the workbook, in reality this is unlikely. The moderator of the advisory committee who then gave the very lengthy commentary did so apparently on her own. It was NOT a part of the CfW report and the moderator of the CfW was as surprised as anyone to hear it. So if you didn't like that, please don't blame the Commission. :)

The question of women's anger is always a difficult one. Yes, we've made a lot of progress. Yes, we have a long way to go. There's always plenty of anger expressed at Synod, but when women are angry it can be perceived as offensive in a somewhat different way. Maybe because women are supposed to be nice? Grateful for the smallest opportunity to be present?

At a General Synod in the 1970s, three ethnic councils presented reports. The Native American representative threw open his arms and greeted the Synod with "You are my friends." The delegate from the Hispanic Council described plans for evangelizing and church growth. The representative from the African-American Council included some rather pointed comments about the extent of the racism that still persisted within both the RCA and broader American culture. The editor of the Church Herald praised the first two and criticized the third.

Leon raised a good question. The deeper issue worth exploring is what makes something sound angry to us? And what is it about the anger of women and ethnic groups that is so difficult to hear? Are there ways anger at injustice can be expressed without automatically alienating people?

Lynn Japinga

Paul Janssen comments on Last Thoughts

Paul Janssen — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:53:21 +0000

Just another 2 cents. I think the only concern should be the health of the body. So here are a couple of 'pointers.'
When a committee (or task force or commission, etc.) that has been committed to make a recommendation to the Synod comes forward, let the committee offer its recommendations. If it needs to give a bit of historical context, fine. But the time for advocacy was in the advisory committees. [This is rather difficult in the consensus-building model} (You have to assume that people did their reading, no matter how far that assumption may be from reality. People who show by their comments that they didn't read quickly discredit themselves.) Then, let the advisory committee stand up and make their recommendation, short and sweet. If the advice is "we recommend adoption," nothing more needs to be said. Put it into the hands of the body to deliberate. If the advice is "amend" or "not adopt" or whatever, give them up to, but not more than, 3 minutes to state their reasons. Assume that the body can follow along. But NO ADVOCACY at this point! NONE! Let the body decide.
But let people be fair, and do not -- I repeat, DO NOT -- put the chair of the body in the position of cutting you off. People don't like that to happen, and being cut off usually wins you some sympathy. But it shouldn't. The chair has a duty to guard the whole body, not necessarily to indulge every speaker for as long as he/she wants to speak. The key word here is courtesy, and respect for the body.
I felt that respect was violated a few times along the way by speakers, both from the floor and from the platform -- not so much by advocating (though that annoys me, which is obvious) but by going over time.

David Vandervelde comments on Last Thoughts

David Vandervelde — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:46:20 +0000

Since we're talking about it, I didn't find the report necessarily "angry". But I did call it "biting", while in the Live Streaming chatroom. The others in the room, agreed with that assessment. I have no issue with the report or the commission, but if I was a part of the commission I would seriously push for a more measured tone in any future reports.

Blessings,

David Vandervelde

Scott Kooiman comments on Last Thoughts

Scott Kooiman — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:16:52 +0000

I agree with numero cuatro, Leon. As a pastor who has more women than men in positions of leadership in every area of my own church except the pastorate (and like I said previously, if someone wants to hook me up with a grant, I'll fix that!) and with a female Vice President and female deacon chair, I felt attacked along with everyone else. Most of us are on the side of the women, the others I am not sure are going to budge.

I am a firm believers that emotional appeals do no benefit in the long term. While there are people who disagree with the idea of women in ministry in the RCA, I see them to be in the minority. I think the larger picture is not in the RCA but in our communities, where clearly a majority of people prefer a male pastor, or at least THINK they do. I personally was that way until I was exposed to a quality female preacher out in Los Angeles. I fear that many think there is only one style of "female minister" and fail to see the kaleidescope of styles, callings, and skills out there. I would have preferred the presentations to be along a more positive lift than negative. We were not celebrating 30 years of women in ministry but angrily decrying the fact that the majority or minister delegates were not women yet.

I saw a lot of emotional appeals with guilt ties throughout the synod. Such appeals send a cynic like myself in the opposite direction from the one intended from the stage as a natural response.

my two cents. you asked.

Tom Stevens comments on Last Thoughts

Tom Stevens — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:24:16 +0000

Cindi: As you seek equality, perhaps you need to be angry or firm on this position to persons like me who believe equality for women has caused confusion.
Many women were brought up with the viewpoint that God was not calling them to have spiritual authority over men in the church. They also believed that they were not called to have spiritual leadership over their husbands in the home. So as you work toward equality, it would benefit men and women of the RCA if you could clearly inform us what equality should look like besides simply women as pastors and women in the consistory.

Leon Fikse comments on Last Thoughts

Leon Fikse — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:02:21 +0000

Cindi,
Thank you for your thoughtful and passionate response to my comment(s). I'm shocked anyone really saw it, however, I'm glad you did. I made the comment about women because it seemed to me to be the huge elephant in the room that everyone is winking at and at the same time ignoring. I would love to sit down with you (and others, if they want to) and share both feelings and thoughts about this topic. I am fully supportive of women in ministry and recognize the uphill struggle you are still in within the RCA. I honor you in continuing that ongoing challenge with the grace you muster.
The specific report at synod that I referenced, however, was not offensive in its content, necessarily, but there was something in the tone and the demeanor that conveyed something deeper than just the words. I quickly took a straw poll at my table, asking, "Does this seem to you like 'angry women'?" Each person nodded their agreement.
I can not and will not try to explain how the report was received across the synod floor, but it does seem that a continued dialogue is in order. Let me say: I believe that you belong; I believe that we are better because you are there; I believe that where women have come can be looked at two ways, i.e. one way indicates how far you still need to go to achieve equality; the other way rejoices in how far you have come. While women at synod were only 20% (or so), yes that is not representative of women in the RCA; also yes, that is 20% more than 40 years ago. Our polity moves slowly; if we had the bishop system, like the Methodists, we could have equal representation tomorrow; however, like the Catholics, we could have no representation for some time to come. Our way is better and will eventually result in what you desire.
Most of the changes I have made at Bethany in style or music or expectation in my 14 years here have been changes that were adopted by the next generation of congregant. Those steeped in the old traditions held firmly to what they knew. I think that what you strive for will need time for us all to arrive at, simply because some resist change or bring different biblical interpretation to the table. (As with so many things, people use the Bible to prove and solidify their position--on both sides of this issue.)
Cindi, I love you in Christ; I welcome you as a fellow pastor in the RCA right alongside of me; I am always willing to sit down and share exactly what I am experiencing and what I believe to be true. Honest discussion, while painful sometimes, truly produces understanding.
Continuing on the Journey together,
Leon

Cindi Veldheer DeYoung comments on Last Thoughts

Cindi Veldheer DeYoung — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:25:15 +0000

Dear Leon,
I appreciated being able to read your reflections--and the ongoing character of reflecting on General Synod. I "hear" your kindness toward the Church Herald staff, and have lots of befuddlement about that myself, but for a host of reasons that bridge my personal affiliation with lots of those folks, as well as my desire for us to be a denomination that talks to each other. I see the Church Herald's demise as a huge blow for conversation as a denomination.

The main focus of my response, however, relates to the Commission for Women report. I am quite surprised...really!...that the report was interpreted as being angry. I do have my moments, mind you, of being an angry feminist. But as the primary author of that report this year, I wrote the report with very strong intentions of pastorally addressing differences of opinion with kindness and respect. I'm sorry to see you indicate that the tone I was working very hard to demonstrate--respect and clarity--comes across as angry. As I wrote that report, I visualized some of the folks who would take issue with advocacy for women--and tried to remember that there's a strong component of our denomination that resists just about anything from the Commission for Women.

I do appreciate your desire for full inclusion of women. Thank you for saying that.

Reading your blog on this does make me wonder if my attempts to be clear in the report--and to offer some recommendations--seems like anger. I tried to spell out with statistics and specific examples some of the advocacy work we face. Consequently, yes, sometimes when women speak with clarity it is perceived to be anger. That's unfortunate.

Since my six years on the commission is now concluded, I have reflected on my time with the Commission for Women...and as the past moderator, I know I might have--and some would say "should have" been more forthright and vociferous about the advocacy work of the commission. I chose, however, not to demonize the denomination, the staff, or the men (or women who disagree), mostly because that's way too easy to do, and I don't think an adversarial tone wins friends very well. Other moderators and commissioners choose their own tones and voices.

I can tell you I have banged my head against the wall on numerous occasions when I hear or experience the biases against women. And yes, I've been angry, and yes, I've not always said things in the best fashion. Part of me wants to say, Leon, "hey, if you think this is angry, you ain't seen nothing yet!" There are voices in the denomination---and in feminism--that have told the commission to be the radical feminists with blazing voices. Frankly, I don't think we have been all that radical. After all, lots of us are still here.

As I think about the Belhar and the themes of justice and reconciliation, I need to regularly evalutate how I display injustice and reinforce stereotypes and benefit from privilege. Part of the continuing work of the Commission for Women will be to help the denomination live up to these themes of justice and reconciliation, and to help evaluate or assess our progress. If that's perceived as anger, then there may very well be good reason for the anger. The question is, then, can we hear what's being said--and acknowledge that anger may be the most appropriate response? Further, how does the energy from such anger help us change the church and the world to more fully embrace God's creation and summons to live out God's image in us?
thanks for hearing me out on this...

Mick Nienhuis comments on Winding Down

Mick Nienhuis — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:11:37 +0000

Thanks Leon, for your conversation during General Synod! And the Church Herald, the only continuing conversation within the RCA between General Synods - we need It to continue! In my opinion the RCA Today is no more than a glossy self-promotion of a few voices in high places.