Can We Trust Each Other?

I've listened to and participated in all sorts of conversations this week, and despite the diversity of topics and opinions, one theme seems to hover over many of the discussions: distrust.

In my usual crowds, the distrust is mostly directed toward staff and GSC, and revolves around the sense that our way of doing business is becoming increasingly centralized, top-down, disrespectful of the authority of the classes, and intolerant of dissent.  We look around at some of the things happening around the RCA in regards to baptism, church-planting, and commissioned pastors, and wonder, "Who moved my denomination?"  There is also some talk about what we cannot say for fear that it will hurt the Belhar's chances of passing.  We can't talk too much about equality or inclusion, and God help us if we use the now-suspect word "justice," for fear that someone will interpret it as a clear sign that we will use the Belhar to force affirmation of homosexuality.  

In other circles, the distrust is aimed toward, well, people who believe what I do about the gospel's call to love and welcome all people.  They fear the adoption of the Belhar because of how it might be used to affirm homosexuality.  In a broader sense, I think they are also worried about another agenda usurping their priority on evangelism.

I think these are all legitimate concerns and necessary topics of conversation.  We need to be able to question the motives, tactics, and direction of our leadership.  We need to be able to talk about whether practices adhere to our standards for doctrine and polity.  But there is a fine line between expressing sincere concern in the interest of working out our life together, and operating in a state of paranoia about what "they" might do.

I have to remind myself sometimes that it is completely reasonable for someone who believes that affirmation of LGBT persons is not a biblically faithful position to question whether I will push them to embrace something they believe is sin.  I also have to remind myself that the fact that they ask this does not mean that they can't or won't be able to think of the Belhar in a broader way and discern whether it should be adopted based on something bigger than fear of this possible use of it.  I have to hope that they can and will.  I have to trust that our commonalities can help us work out how to live together in our differences.  And I have to hope as well that those who disagree with me can find some measure of trust that I, too, seek to be faithful to the gospel, and that I, too, make decisions about my beliefs and practices that are based out of a sincere desire for us to follow Christ.  If we can't get to at least that basic level of trust in one another, it will be less and less possible for us to even speak to each other, let alone be a witness to God's work in the world.

The View from the Platform

As moderator of the Commission for Women, it fell to me to play hostess for the 30th anniversary celebration of the ordination of women, and so I have just descended from my very first journey onto the GS platform.  I have a new sympathy for those who sit there all week.  It is HOT up there.  The lights are in your face.  When you're speaking, your own face is flashing on a screen in front of you, which makes it a tidge difficult to focus on what you're saying.  When you're not speaking, you have to pretend you have an attention span and try not to fidget or make strange faces while you try to decide whether to look at the actual person who is speaking or one of the many screens.  There are tables upon tables of people, most of whom look terribly bored, or in some cases angry.  You wonder if you're wasting people's time, if they'd rather be at the New Holland Brewery or in their beds.

Boy, am I excited to give the Commission report on Monday.

Truthfully, it wasn't that bad - once I remembered to breathe.  But it did give me a different perspective on what it means to be leadership in this denomination.  These are people who stand up there and look into the bored/angry faces and know that their words are being dissected and ripped to shreds.  Of course, I am one of those who generally has my verbal scalpel well in hand, and I'm certainly not going to stop critiquing what is said by our leadership.  But tonight reminded me that they're human too, and also that maybe "they" sort of includes me.

Is the Money Worth It?

I am a bit shocked: the recommendation to skip GS in 2010 just passed, and with far less of a fight than I expected.  I am wondering whether this will pass at the classis level (I don't think it will), and if so, what it will mean.  I do not think this is a good idea.  It's not expensive enough ($1 per member) for the savings to be worth what we will lose - our annual gathering, where the classes communicate with one another, where we're forced to get together with people who do not live where we live or think the way we think, where we have to be the church in a bigger sense across our differences.  I realize we're all worried about finances right now, but in this case, I just don't think the money is worth the change we've proposed.  I'd rather pay the extra $1 per member.

Women

I have been here less than a day, General Synod has not yet begun, and already it is becoming evident to me that there is some confusion around "the women's issues."  One basic point of befuddlement seems to me to be that many people do not entirely understand the Commission for Women or the Office of Women's Ministries - what they do, who they are, or what they have to do with each other.  Hence, I keep getting the question, "You're with the Commission for Women?  Haven't they been disbanded?"  Ack, no.  So, a brief start at an explanation...

I am the moderator for the Commission for Women.  This is a group of people who report to the General Synod, and are charged with advocating for the inclusion and participation of women.  Our focus has historically been mostly on women ministers, but has also broadened to include elders and deacons.  We work primarily on issues related to women in ordained office, not because we aren't concerned with the rest of the women, but because our sphere of influence is within denominational polity and governance.

The Women's Ministries is an office within the staffing structure of the RCA that works with supporting and resourcing women across the denomination.  They do programming aimed broadly toward women, both ordained and unordained, such as the women's conferences and Sister Share.  They also work with individuals, congregations, and classes desiring education and resources related to women.

We are related in that we both work with and for women, and because the coordinator for the Office of Women's Ministries has been the staff support for the Commission.  The situation is rather unsettled right now because the coordinator position is about to come to an end - although the Office itself will continue to exist through part-time administrative support.  What will come of the Office is up in the air right now; several overtures ask for the reinstatement of the coordinator position, and a consultation has been working on envisioning the future of women's ministries in the RCA.  One of the advisory committees will address these overtures before they come to the floor of GS.  I'm not sure what will happen, and at this point, I'm not sure I even have strong opinions about what should happen.  Perhaps that is for the best; it seems to me that we're going to have to come at this question from a different angle to find a solution that continues to support and advocate for women and is financially viable.    

BBQ and Belhar

"BBQ - it's not just what we do, it's who we are."

I have to admit that my first reaction to this restaurant marquis was, "Ew, who would want to be BBQ?"  But then, I've never been a huge fan of barbeque, so maybe I just don't get it.

However, there are some things that I'd be willing to say go beyond just something I do, down to the core of my being, to who I am.  It also seems to me that there are some things that we as a denomination don't just do; we are.

This week we will take one more step in the process of approving the Belhar Confession as one of our standards - not the last step, but very, very close.  As I thought about this idea of doing vs. being, I realized even more how much I hope that the Belhar passes.  It is one thing to say that we're going to do what we can to eliminate racism in the RCA.  It's yet another to confess that part of our identity lies in being a people who hope and work for a future of justice.

Someday, I'd like us to be able to put that on a sign: "Justice - it's not just what we do, it's who we are."