Delegates from classis voting opposite from classis' vote on an issue ... Briantebben mentioned this in another thread. This was in reference to a vote on whether to accept the Belhar or not. Classis voted no, but Briantebben said the delegates would vote yes. My question is this, if the delegates would vote yes, opposite to the vote of classis, then what is the point of classis voting on it at all? My other question is whether this makes the whole issue, and issues like it, mere political footballs, not decided by discussion and voting, but by the number of committed delegates an issue can win to the convention. To me, it stinks. The discussion might be nice and cute and sincere, and full of the spirit, but maybe that is simply a judgement based on the fact that people are apathetic and don't get mad at one another and don't treat confessions with that much respect? How do we know?
If those delegates are really delegates, and not just politicians, then they ought to represent their classis on issues that classis has voted on, and not presuppose that they will vote in an opposite direction even before they have arrived at synod to hear arguments that they have never heard before. Otherwise they are not really delegates on behalf of classis but merely independent individuals. In that case it really wouldn't matter if they came from that classis ... why not just select all delegates from one classis and save a lot of transportation and lodging costs. What do you think?