Safety Versus Sacrifice

The story of Marie Colvin reminds me of my safe approach to life.  Colvin was a British Sunday Times foreign correspondent, who, while covering the conflict between government and rebel fighters in Syria, was killed by rocket fire.  Having previously lost an eye to shrapnel in Sri Lanka, Colvin persisted in the dangerous work of reporting the horrors of both war and oppressive regimes.  Of her, newspaper mogul Rupert Murdoch said, “She put her life in danger on many occasions because she was driven by a determination that the misdeeds of tyrants and the suffering of the victims did not go unreported.”

I have no idea if Colvin was a woman of faith, but in many ways, she and the Apostle Paul had much in common in that both risked their lives so that the masses would see truth.  Colvin put her life on the line so that others would be changed by seeing world events—good and bad; Paul put his life on the line so that others would be changed by seeing the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  This is how the apostle put it, “As servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses; in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger; in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love; in truthful speech and in the power of God; with weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left (II Corinthians 6:4-7).

This kind of courage and tenacity for truth inspires and encourages me.  Praise God for the brave among us, for those who make sacrifices for reasons of bringing improvement to both the temporal and eternal.  At the same time, however, I confess conviction.  Colvin took risks unto death for a cause.  So did Paul.  So do many others.  Especially with the season of Lent upon us, I feel compelled to ask myself, “Am I just going to play it safe, or am I ready to discover what sacrifice for God and others really means?”

When Politics and Morality Battle

This is my first foray into blogging since General Synod and I’m going to touch on the hot button topic of politics and religious freedom.  Putting it right out front, I believe that the Obama administration’s attempt at mandating contraceptive coverage is an assault on religious freedom.

About seven years ago while en route to the airport, I found myself inadvertently in the same car with a young devout Roman Catholic man.  He was delightful, and in our conversation, it came out that he and his wife traveled around to various Roman Catholic churches giving presentations on the importance of natural birth control.  We had a kind-spirited debate of sorts—I don’t see anything wrong with contraceptives preventing conception—but in the end, we respectfully disagreed with each other and parted amicably.

In the recent political discussion about mandating coverage of contraceptives (as well as abortifacients), I couldn’t help but think about this young man and his wife.  Religiously, they are opposed to what is being required by the new healthcare law.  Yes, there are exemptions for churches, and now also a so-called compromise for church-related institutions, but let’s say, for the sake of argument, that this young couple owns a business which is non-religious by nature.  The day is coming soon when, by law, they will have to provide coverage for a product that is spiritually contemptible to them.  It would be one thing if they said to their employees, “You may not use contraceptives in order to work here,” but that’s not the issue being discussed.  That would be unlawful coercion and no one is pushing employers into that direction.  On the contrary, the coercion is being placed upon those with moral principles with which I happen not to agree (I do oppose abortifacients), but which I believe other people are allowed to have.  Let’s get it straight.  By denying contraceptive coverage, no employer is denying the rights of any employee.  Anyone of age can still procure a prescription or buy some over-the-counter product that will inhibit conception.  The freedom is still there.  In short, a constitutional right (religious freedom) is being compromised for a non-constitutional privilege (free birth control).  Religious liberty is being eroded, and while the crosshairs may not be focused on our particular freedoms today, tomorrow may be a different story.

Amen Trgyve!

Every morning session begins with worship which includes music, prayer, and preaching.  Our preacher this Synod is Pastor Trygve Johnson, the Dean of Chapel at Hope College in Holland, Michigan.  He’s been leading us through Psalm 1 and has spoken a great deal about trees.  “Lord, make us like trees,” is his prayer.  This morning (Monday) I was particularly blessed by his message.  Paraphrasing, he said, “What the church needs is not another playbook on how to do this and how to do that.  Rather, we need to be like trees sending down roots deeply into the Word of God.  This will make and keep us green no matter how the winds of change blow.”  Amen Trygve!

A New General Secretary

General Synod is one of those bittersweet type experiences.  On the one hand, there is the perceived glamorous side.  Friends back home eye you with a bit of envy, saying, “Cool, you get to fly, see old friends, meet new friends, and do all that stuff.”  Because it’s a break from the routine of every day, it has some appeal.  On the other hand, “doing all the stuff” of General Synod is work!  It’s pretty much meetings all day, including evenings if you’re on a committee that has extra work to do, and the result can be a bit of weariness.

Friday was a day of smaller meetings.  General Synod isn’t just a time of everyone in the same room all the time; we also break into small “advisory” groups to discuss various items on the agenda.  This year, our small groups centered on two issues before the synod, the election of a new general secretary and a paper from the Theology Commission giving theological credence for deacons being part of larger assemblies such as classis and General Synod.

Regarding the first of the issues discussed in our advisory committees, the General Synod went on to elect Tom De Vries as our new general secretary.  Tom is a dynamic pastor who has been involved in church planting, developing structures for helping people in need, and also church work at a denominational level.  Personally, I believe he will make a very good general secretary and I look forward to his leadership.  In fact, at our ecumenical dinner, Tom and his wife Laura were entering and a number of us at a table invited him to come join us.  He readily accepted the invitation and sat down with us (in the back row).  Unfortunately, however, he got yanked from us as he was retrieved by someone in power to come sit at a place reserved for him.  I tell this story because I think it reveals something good about Tom.  He didn’t enter the room looking for a place “up front.”  Instead, he assumed a position of humility and sat down with some of us “lesser-known” delegates.  I think I’m going to like this guy.

President's Report

A couple of comments about the trivial.  First, the food is pretty good here.  Hey, it’s not Famous Dave’s like I had with my wife and daughter on the way to the airport, but no complaints.  The cafeteria even had chopsticks for our Asian food.  Secondly, attire standards have certainly changed over the years.  Twenty-five years ago, most men were dressed in jackets and ties.  Casual has now become the new standard, but not just khakis and polos—jeans and shorts are commonplace on the floor of synod.

I forgot to mention that at one of our opening assemblies, the president of General Synod, Don Poest, gave an interesting and stirring report.  His main point was that while we often use the imagery of family to describe the church, he felt more inclined to use the body.  The reasoning goes like this: whereas family members can get disgruntled and leave, body parts can’t.  Even though we may disagree about things, we have to live together.  Therefore, don’t look with disdain on those who have different passions, interests, and viewpoints, thank God that they’re part of the body.  We need each other!  Perhaps, if I would have added anything to the address, it would have been with regard to disease.  Don did mention that sometimes the body has diseases that we have to deal with—we have to work to heal the body—but regrettably sometimes the body has outsiders—cancers of false teachings, hatred, racism, and immorality.  II Peter and Jude  give us medical counsel regarding what to do with these.