George Vander Weit

Mark, I don’t think you’re uncompassionate.  I think you and I are both compassionate people who have different perspectives on this matter.  I understand how this impacts you differently than it does me because of your daughter and also because of the agency that you administer.

While we must take the sixth commandment seriously, there are exceptions to it.  Most would argue that a just war is one.  Some would argue that capital punishment is another.  Others would argue that the “hard cases” in terms of fetal development is another.  We know there are those who disagree with some or all of these.

The “slippery slope” argument is used very frequently by those who oppose something, It’s not a convincing argument.  An action has to be judged on its own merits, not on what someone thinks might possibly result somewhere down the line if a particular action is taken. 

This morning I went to my local Kroger to return some bottles.  While there, a lady came in and said to me, “I haven’t done this before and don’t know how to do it.  My dear husband always did this and he recently died.”  I expressed my sympathy, showed her how to use the machines and asked if her husband had cancer.  She said, “Yes, bone and lung cancer.”  I told her I had just written about another person who had the same and asked her a bit about her husband’s condition.  She said, “Initially, he always said, “I’m not going to leave you, but things really got bad at the end and he continually said he wished he could die.  The pain was terrible.  He was on a morphine pump.  He went blind.”

I asked: “If it were legal, would he have wanted a physician to give him an injection to end his life?”  She replied, “Oh yes.”  I asked, “What about you?  Would you have wanted the same.”  Again she replied, “Oh, yes.”  I told her I had a friend who thought that if we permitted this it would be a slippery slope and soon people would be calling for the death of those who had various disabilities.  A man who was also returning bottles said, “It hasn’t happened in Europe.”

I don’t know if that’s true or not.  I suppose some statistics are available, and I also suppose that like statistics from Kevorkian’s prosecutor, one has to consider the source of the statistics.  I also understand that your concern goes beyond identifiable statistics to a subtle and not so easily identifiable pressure because of a ”climate of death.” That’s a legitimate concern, but it can’t be the determining factor.

I wasn't thrilled with the way Jerry's "resignation" was announced and almost immediately communicated with the Board of Trustees about that.  However, it's a stretch to say that the BOT "lied to the membership."  The recent posting of synod's dealing with this matter indicated “The BOT and Rev. Dykstra mutually agreed to inform the denomination that Rev. Dykstra resigned 'for personal and family reasons'. The Board appropriately honored this agreement in its limited communications about the matter.”  

For whatever reasons all parties agreed that this wording would be best.  I think a different wording would have been better, but I'm not prepared to accuse the Board and Jerry of lying.

If everyone of us had to resign because of an error in judgment, none of us would be able to serve the church.

All of us agree that a motion projected on a screen is a good thing.  That way delegates address the real motion, not what they think the motion is.  Apparently, the computers of Synod 2011 were a good step in the right direction, a benefit that Synod 2010 did not have. 

But how do we deal with a motion that comes when a speaker standing in line gets an idea from something a previous speaker has just said?  Do we tell the delegate to go back to his/her computer and type it out so we can consider it when it’s ready?  Or do we take the time to get the motion typed out when the delegate makes it so we consider it in the flow of the discussion?   I vote for the latter.

You talk about experience.  Dee Recker, the Director of Synodical Services, has more experience than anyone on synod’s floor.  She can get a motion down faster than any of the officers of synod.  For her it’s no big deal.  (You can tell me if I’m wrong, Dee!!)  We shouldn’t restrict the delegates with this new rule, which is not in the Rules for Synodical Procedure and which has not been approved by synod. 

The former Director of Ministries said to me, “George, don’t write an overture about some stuff, especially editorial stuff.   Let the synodical office know your concerns because there are some things we can do.” I’ll talk to the new executive director (he and I served in the same classis for a number of years) and if this same procedure will be used at Synod 2012, I'll write an overture to that synod asking that it not be used.  

You also talked about the high percentage of first-time delegates.  That concerns me, too.  It’s nice that people are willing to go to synod, but I wonder why some people are not interested in returning to synod.  Some classes have a silly (in my opinion) policy of delegating a ministerial delegate by rotation so everyone gets a chance to attend synod. I wonder if this sends a message that attending synod is some kind of honor.  It strikes me that we need to send our most capable and most interested people to synod.  I was in a classis where a delegate said, “Rev. So and So has been in this classis over 10 years, and he’s never gone to synod.  Even after that speech classis did not elect him because he never participated in the discussions at classis meetings.  Another minister fell asleep during our classis meetings.  Should we delegate him to synod?

It’s interesting that in our discussions about ethnic diversity we are quick to say, “We want the most capable people, not someone who’s appointed because of skin color or ethnic origin.  However, when it comes to synodical delegates it seems that we are sometimes  interested in following a rotation or filling a spot, not in asking “Who’s the most qualified to attend synod this year, given the matters that are under discussion?”

I know such comments open me up to attack.  People will say, “George thinks he ought to go every year because he’s experienced."  That’s not what’s I’m saying.  I’m wondering what criteria we use when electing synodical delegates.

The high number of first time delegates gives me pause.  What gives me even more pause is the number of synodical agendas lying on delegates’ tables that look as if they’ve never been opened—fresh out of the box.  They could belong to first or fifth time delegates, but do delegates actually read the agenda (at least the portion that’s assigned to their advisory committee) or do they decide to vote with the most persuasive speaker?  Or is everything now done on line and I’m just an old fart who doesn’t understand the new reality?

In terms of a two-week synod, synod has a policy about reimbursement for delegates who must take time off work to attend synod.  It’s probably antiquated, but it  can be revisited or classes can make their own policies.  Our synodical delegation  ought not be limited by financial issues.

I believe this was done as part of a contest to create interest in synod among young people.  Perhaps someone ought to sponsor a contest to create similar interest among the "old guard."  Lately, we've been moving synod a bit --Dordt College, Trinity College, Redeemer College, etc.--so it's not merely a "Grand Rapids thing."  It's a good thing to move it even though it's more expensive than having it in Grand Rapids because it does give people in other places opportunities to attend if they wish.  I've been to synods in all three places and only a handful of folks attend.  So...young guard or old guard, there's not a whole lot of interest in this gathering.

Fernando, is there anything specific that makes you say "Could it be this 'people of color' issue is aggravating leadership & political dynamics in our spiritual church body?"

Fernando, you did more than wonder.  You led us in a specific direction when you said, '"Could it be this 'people of color' issue is aggravating leadership & political dynamics in our spiritual church body?"  That's why I asked if you had anything specific that made you say this.   It sounds as if you're playing the race card.

It sounds so wonderful to say "Scripture alone should be our guide."  Would any Christian deny that?   Difficulty arises because various people say, "This is what Scripture says."   The result is that there are multiple assertions about what Scripture says.  In the face of that reality, it's pretty meaningless to say, "Scripture alone should be our guide."  What Scripture are  we then talking about--interpretation A, B, C, D or my own interpretation?

Some folks object to creeds and say, "No creed but Christ!"  When you ask them what they believe about Christ, they say: He is the divine Son of God who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, buried, resurrected, sits at God's right hand and is coming again."  In other words they construct what we know as the Apostles' Creed.

The church adopts creeds and confessions, not to supplant Scripture, but to say, "We believe this is what Scripture says."The Belgic Confession says that Scripture is the supreme authority in a Christian's life.  To say "I subscribe to that" in no way takes away from the authority of Scripture.

The committee that designed the one-week synod recommended that the 12 people who received the highest nominating votes of the delegates be placed on the ballot.  In an overture to synod Classis Lake Erie observed that this would almost certainly guarantee that all the officers would be ministers since ministers are more well known denomination wide than are elders.  The overture asked that three elders be placed on each ballot no matter how their vote totals compared to those of ministers.  Thus, three elders who receive the highest number of nomination votes are placed on each ballot.  If three elders are not nominated by the delegates, ministers are added so each ballot has 12 names.  This has made a big difference in the leadership of synod because since this provision has been in place elders have served regularly as one of synod's officers.