James Dekker

Thanks, Randy. Quite frankly, I am much relieved not to have that annual conversation any more. In my second to last year of pastoring full-time (and more?), there was no conversation, in fact. Rather the Chair of Finance made a an off-hand comment to me on the way out of another meeting that support staff would be getting a 1% raise, but the pastor none. Budget contributions were down at that point in the year, blah, blah, blah. I was so stunned I couldn't even think bad words.

So, come January when expenses were all paid, turned out there was a $20K (OK, it was Canadian $$) surplus. Whoops, too late to reconsider; the budget was already approved for that year.The $20K went to pay down the mortgage. (Btw, how and why a 30+ year-old congregation still had a large mortgage on its original building always escaped me and most folks simply didn't seem concerned, despite the interest charges accruing.) Not conducive to feeling good about Council. And they didn't get it when I brought up the issue civilly; uncivilly would have been worse, I'm sure.

The next year, a new Personnel and Finance Committee had taken over and a new climate was clearly evident. They were stunned, embarrassed when at "the meeting" I said there'd been no meeting the year before, no raise, no consideration of compensation guidelines. That was corrected and I thanked them.

Still, it makes for unpleasant memories plus temptations to cynicism. So, more power to you. You are NOT alone.

Twenty-five years ago, while leading morning worship in a CRC in Canada, I simultaneously officiated at a wedding. In the early days of post-World War 2 immigration to Canada among the Dutch CRCs, weddings in worship were widely practiced. I've been told that the reason was not particularly to follow an un-worldly path. Rather, people were often widely scattered around the cities or towns where they settled. Since Sunday was the only day off for most people, they used the day to gather from morning till after the second service--usually early afternoon--to worship and eat together and, when requested, to celebrate a wedding.

This practice certainly did serve a worthy spiritual purpose of placing the ceremony in the community of witnesses, who usually were asked to support the newly married couple. (There was also the possibility that someone might object to the couple marrying, as that question was routinely asked as the wedding portion of the service began.) 

Although I too would encourage re-introduction of this practice, in many--especially large--congregations in which people are no longer closely tied by nearly daily personal encounters at work or in social occasions, the promise of support might ring a bit hollow. Still, I'd be eager to see what others are thinking about this subject.

(Although I regret to note that the particular marriage mentioned above lasted only four years, the thoughtful re-introduction of Sunday weddings in worship is well worth exploring.

Richard--I was finally scanning some forum topics and noticed your query that has gone unanswered for some time. I wonder if you have considered the fine publication by Sustaining Pastoral Excellence called Marriage and Ministry. I received this a couple of years ago and assume you did too, but possibly not. It's not a "book,"  but it certainly is discussible by pastoral couples.

Two dandy books, albeit a bit old (both still available at Amazon for sure) are Mike Mason's The Mystery of Marriage and Walter Wangeriin's As for Me and My House.

I have never read The Five Love Languages by Gary Chapman, but several friends and couples I know have really appreciated that one.

Good reading!

Tim: Thanks for explaining that. At LAST someone tells me what that annoying thingy is. Why didn't I ask you before? Now that I know it serves a useful function, I will more eagerly and committedly use it not only for Network comments, but for the many other internet sites that use Captcha. Thanks again. (But sometimes these old eyes have trouble reading the script--not your problem, I guess.)

Thank you, Friends, for the thoughtful comments on my admittedly unpleasant blog. Your observations are helpfully provocative and appropriate for this difficult discussion. I, though now have an addition—really correction—to make. The examples I noted show that there were rules and careful processes to re-store and ordain once again Christian Reformed officebearers. I can name at least five Christian Reformed colleagues, living and late, who followed that rigorous process of submission and discipline. After years that included repentance, forgiveness, regular spiritual direction and peer accountability, they re-entered ministry and served faithfully, albeit imperfectly like all of us forgiven sinners.

You’ll notice, however, that above I said “were rules and processes.” Those changed in 2004. Perhaps I should have looked in my apparently not well-enough-used Church Order and Its Supplements--2013. A colleague phoned me after reading my original blog, recalling that he had been on a synod advisory committee in 2004 in which this very situation was at issue. In brief, at that point, supplements to Article 84 of the Church Order were added, forbidding re-entry to church office for office bearers who had been deposed because of sexual offenses.

I had probably known that nine years ago, but had forgotten. In one case I recalled, the pastor was deposed after sexual offenses. He then entered lay status with no anticipation of entering ecclesiastical office of any kind again, lay or clergy. That is, he submitted to punitive discipline--deposition--but not to the restorative spiritual discipline and rebuilding necessary to re-enter ministry.

Although some say time heals all wounds, more than 20 years later a local the church ordained a deposed pastor as elder in 2006, two years after Synod’s decision. Victims’ wounds hadn’t properly healed, but were rather cruelly scraped open. 

I personally believe that a boundary once broken can be re-crossed after a careful, even long process of remorse, repentance, equitable restitution for victims by the offender, penitential time, forgiveness given and gratefully and graciously received. Our broader church community has decided such a process is not wise or prudent.

I understand and accept that. As Gospel believers we often live with tensions that appear contradictory. They are more readily called glorious, gracious, mysterious paradoxes of Grace and justice, in this case forgiveness, but not re-entranc into ministry. Our Lord Jesus declared truly at the end of his homily not to worry because “Each day has enough trouble of its own” (Matt. 6:34). I firmly believe that he could also have added “and enough Grace as well,” even though full Grace might have to await eternity.

Well, friends, thanks to all for this continuing growing conversation. There is engagement here--even though only five or six different people have posted on it. It looks from my count that I see on my Guide's Page that 460 people have read this in just over a week. Hardly viral (which is "sick"!), but rather healthy.

Now I'll dip my oar in again. Aren't oars supposed to guide boats?! And I'm a guide after all. So here's my dip:

I'm seeing a few interesting things in this discussion. It reminds me of synod conversations and debates that tend to drift and sway in several always interesting, if not pertinent, directions. First of all, there are several different viewpoints about the content and place of Belhar. That doesn't surprise me. But what does surprise me are the distractions we are experiencing even in our small dialogues from what I think are the central points of the Belhar discussion. I am fully in sympathy with Randy Blacketer's sense of current limitation because of local stresses and problems, but that is not everyone's case--and besides, the rest of us have to pray for congregations and leaders dealing with such stresses that can pull us away from deeper gospel work and life.

A few folks have commented that Belhar doesn't have anything to do with their congregation. Others have looked more broadly and said that the issues go far beyond a given congregation's ministry or limits. That's heading in the right direction. Belhar is NOT merely a congregational issue. It is a covenantal and ecumenical issue that surely has to bear on attitudes that affect in some way of other all congregations--unless yours is a perfect one, perfectly and completely reconciled to God in all forms. Mine isn't. Nor am I perfectly reconciled to God--except through the work of Jesus, but I don't always show that perfectly. Just ask my wife and kids. No; don't, please.

Although ever more we Christian Reformed folk are acting and living congregationally, it is extremely important from a communal and covenantal perspective to think, live, pray and fellowship beyond the hopes and limits of our local, even regional and national areas of ministry and interest. A few blogs ago I confessed to the racism that was part of the air I breathed in my birth community in Chicago.  Apartheid was happening right there in Roseland and Englewood neighbourhoods and I was part of it.

Maybe if something like Belhar had been on our confessional and ecclesiastical radar, there would have been some kind of ethical, spiritual and moral impact on our lives, churches and communities. Instead, in the space of seven years six Christian Reformed congregations fled Englewood and Roseland for the southern and western suburbs of Chicago. Now some of those suburbs are "turning black." Guess what? Some of those suburban churches are now fleeing to northwest Indiana to whiter pastures. Apartheid in North America, not racial reconciliation. Belhar speaks to that. 

Furthermore, Belhar offers us an opportunity to embrace a timely, passionate contribution to the ministry of reconciliation that originates with people who might have left Reformed fellowships in South Africa, but--unlike our white Chicago CRCs--chose to stay. Some say Belhar is not a comprehensive gospel statement. Neither are the Canons of Dort. But I can still preach on 'em (carefully, with limitations of time) and do. I'd love to be able to preach on Belhar, not because it's Belhar, but because it's profoundly biblically based and contextually fruitful--kinda like the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed and Heidelberg Catechism were, as is Our World Belongs to God today.

We are members of a local, regional, national and international body called the church and can be enriched by the sufferings and lessons of our sisters and brothers. I will never forget hearing from a Lebanese Christian who was listening to the BBC World Service as the bombs were falling one Sunday morning in Beirut. He had tuned into the regular Sunday morning worship at an unnamed Anglican congregation in England. During the prayers of intercession, the leader lifted up to God "our brothers and sisters in Beirut." For a moment the Lebanese heard no more bombs and shelling. He heard only the voice of God: "I am with you."

Belhar gives us a chance for the Lord to be with us in the voice of people whose voices we need to hear and give thanks to God for.

Well, if this sounds like a sermon, that's what it is. It's Sunday, after all!

Keep writing, thinking, praying, confessing, thanking God.

I'm going on two weeks of holidays, but will probably check in on the Network now and again. Blessings. 

Thanks, John and Randy. CTS is not involved directly in scientific education, of course, but even when I was there about 6 million years ago special lectures were offered on a wide variety of subjects other than theology. One I still recall was a packed astronomy lesson by Howard Van Til before The Fourth Day was published. At that time Van Til was just beginning to speak publicly about his views on the creation based on his studies. Only later did he get into hot water for views about creation and age of earth that didn't really seem all that radical--and certainly not heretical--to most of us or the faculty at that time.

These days I think there is a far greater awareness of the need for inter-disciplinary study and opportunities. I recall that a few years ago CTS received a large grant to promote such work in science and relation to Scripture and theology. Last November I attended very fine one-day symposium sponsored by CTS in Georgetown, ON that presented 3 speakers (one was Rudy Eykelboom who writes for Christian Courier) that explored evolution as dealt with from neuro-science, anthropology (and archaeology) and astronomy. While I said I think there is greater awareness of the need, I must also say that I was disappointed that only 43 people attended and only four were preachers. 

Mark--Thanks for your response (and your compliment). If you're a grandson of two ministers, you probably shouldn't be naive anymore, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Naivete is probably OK most of the time; it's closely akin to idealism--which should not be confused with or miscontrued as utopianism. Maybe I'll think of another blog for first-timers. But in a way I already tried to cover that base by asking my friend and young colleague Chris de Winter to post a blog, He did and maybe you've read it too.

Anyway--where was I? Oh yes, you asked a question that you said went to CRC Pastors FB page. I did see that several weks ago. But Rose and I were in The Gambia doing a spiritual retreat. Though I could infrequently get on-line and check emails and postings, it was impossible with the intermittent service to respond. Hence I forgot about you question till now.

I'll try to respond, without remembering in detail our program committee discussion about the separation of the two overtures. There are a couple of things I recall about that brief discussion. You're right: Overtures 3 & 6 are related. But if I recall correctly, we considered that they should go to different committees because they asked different things. Overture 3 requests a broader course of action--a study committee on a large, significant issue of ecclesiastical definition and polity.  If granted, that overture could require the normal three year period for study committee work. Overture 6, on the other hand requests specific and presumably, immediate synodical action to BOT and agencies. Thus, while the topics are related, their scope and range are different. 

Additionally, the Program Committee tries to consider balance of work load, resulting in dividing up what some might consider united. That does not, however, preclude changing workloads as the deliberations of committees proceed. Officers are always in touch with committee chairs and reporters about how their work is going and asking if there are materials that might readily be passed on to a committee whose work is nearing completion. Still more: it is not unheard of for committee chairs and reporters to kibitz among themselves and request re-alignment of assignments and documents. We won't exactly call that horse-trading or lobbying, now, will we? Seriously: there is some flexibility and the Program Committee's work prior to synod is able to be changed by synod itself. I hope that's sufficient (and accurate--from my memory).

Friends--though it's getting hard to tell. I haven't flagged anything yet, but we are getting close to the bounds of "Flagistan" according to the guidelines to which Network guides have to sign their names in blood to hew to. Please start watching the tone. I hear voices rising. I'm all for freedom of speech, but I also like to see significant effort not merely at winning arguments, but also at practicing some spiritual virtues of respect, kindness and self-control. Thanks.  jcd

After reading all the comments over the last few days, I'll take the opportunity to make a multi-faceted one of my own.

Thanks to all who are engaging in this issue of Belhar. Things got a little heated a few days ago, but I am grateful for the renewed tone and efforts at listening and working through this thing together, if not always in agreement.

In response to Jim Panozzo: I'm a veteran of lots of synods and my "prediction" is based on experience of the process. What I described is pretty much was I've seen happen with almost every significant issue over several days of committee meetings and plenary. I firmly believe that such an odd process is actually how people of faith make decisions. What's more, I believe that the Holy Spirit is mysteriously working in almost all of those decisions and processes, regardless of whether I personally agree with the outcomes or not. I have seen some remarkable--miraculous?--things happen at synods even when the process looked mightily flawed, whether that had to do with accepting Bible translations or discussion of language and doctrines in confessions (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism)  restructuring, women in office (that over many years) and more. Mr. Panozzo--I applaud your faith and am delighted in your trust. The Lord will work mightily. And, by the way, thank you for your overture. I wish your own congregation and classis had endorsed it.

Doug Vande Griend, Harry W., John Zylstra, Allen K-D and others: I to am almost constantly wondering how people who share and love the same tradition and clearly hold to many of the same values and interpretation can still disagree pretty strongly. I have the following idea about it: We all respond not always rationally to the environments in which we live and develop over many years. I was raised in Chicago during the time of racial discrimination and fear that soaked deeply into our communities. Figuring I knew everything about everything in the late 1960s, I was almost on my way out of the faith and surely the CRC when two pastors knocked on my door as I was starting graduate study. They were and are faithful servants of God who agreed heartily that we were hypocrites to our confession of Jesus' work for the world and its people, regardless of colour or class or brains. They also heartily agreed with each other that I, of all self-righteous people, also had a pretty wide streak of hypocrisy and were not afraid to point that out. They helped point me into experiencing and believing more deeply than ever the power of forgiveness that I needed as much as or more than the people I was raised with and trying to run from. 

Then I lived and worked in Latin America where, as I said, documents like Belhar, even Liberation Theology, resonated deeply in that climate. I know LT's shortcomings and also its significant contribution. Belhar does not breath LT nearly as much as some assert. What I find remarkable, Doug, is that the very things you wisely propose in your post of yesterday sound a whole lot like a lot of the language of Belhar. So maybe that's why I don't understand your own articulate opposition to it. Do your proposals not have a confessional ring to them (even though there is lawyer tone to them)?

Again, Doug: I did a little bit of searching in the on-line Index: Synodical Decisions 1857-2000 (http://www.crcna.org/site_uploads/uploads/resources/Index%201857-2000.pdf  and found pioneer references to decisions on race in Acts of Synod 1959  http://www.calvin.edu/library/database/crcnasynod/1959agendaacts.pdf , pages 82 ff. and 258 ff. These things are a little tedious to look through on-line, but they are readable and interesting. The RC as Eric N wrote HAS written and done a lot of pretty good stuff on race relations.

Now, from MY perspective as an old Chicago kid and a missionary to Latin America, I see a pretty straight line from 1959's Acts to 2012's Agenda and Belhar. I know! Not all will agree with me. Let's continue this discussion and keep praying for Synod. So, on the Belhar: Confession? Testimony? Statement? Or dismissal entirely? I pray nothing of the last.