James Dekker

Steve: This is the second time you have written in response to FOS blogs on the Synod Network. In both instances you have been needlessly contentious. Your tone has hardly been encouraging of charitable, yet rigorous, collegial conversation (which is the stated purpose of The Network). That disappoints me and, I know, has alienated not a few private readers and correspondents. Thus I am called to respond, which I shall try to do with courtesy, respect and needed reproof and instruction. (Sometime old guys like me are required to do that.)

If you don't know what I mean by "needlessly contentious," I shall explain--because at the end of the discussion you should realize we (I personally and our FOS 2 committee) are pretty much on the same page. Yet in both your responses you made potentially hurtful personal comments about our committee gutting the FOS, about the unanimity and enthusiasm of Synod not being at all a resutl of our committee work, but only a result of the advisory committee's work. 

I realize I open myself up to such comments by owning the responsibility of being study committee chair for four years. But your responses clearly show that either you don't understand the rigours and processes of denominational and committee work or you don't consider such subtle and complex dynamics important pieces in the way the Spirit works in synods or other deliberative ecclesiastical bodies. Charitable, respectful debate is the sort of thing that should also happen on congregational and classical levels, though I have seen that deteriorate at congregational council meetings when the chair did not hold the reins of debate as tightly as he should have.

Here is the "deal." (Yes, I will use a card-playing metaphor.) In study committee work before and with advisory committees, we work hard for our position. There are demanding discussions that last sometimes for four or five hours on a phrase, a word or placement of a paragraph. (The section of the Covenant for Officebearers best exemplifying that process was hammered out over a two-day session in which our twelve study committee members debated about including Our World Belongs to God and later WHERE and HOW to include it.) 

In other words, all players (committee, advisory committee, plenary) play some cards. We all hope we have some aces we can use to "win" some hands, in the spirit of finding the best, most biblically and confessionally faithful language for any given point. We also realize we are probably not going to win every hand--"get our way." But that is not the point; playing fair is.

So, sometimes that means people play a pair of twos if that's all they have left. Sometimes we "hold our aces" for as long as possible, hoping not to have to play them. Withal, we pray that we then trust the Spirit to put the cards together in a better combination for all.

That is what, more or less, happened this year at Synod--as it did NOT happen last year. Advisory Committee worked intelligently and wisely with the overtures. A few were simply out of order. Others reflected respected positions that had not "won the hands" played by the majority of our FOS 2 Committee. Our committee was finally united, but never, ever we were uniform. (At one point during our committee deliberations I commented to a colleague, "I feel like a traffic cop in Bangkok." He responded, "Get used to it!")

Thus what happened at Synod this year was simply not a major revision. We expected the responses articulated in vertures and preferred to let the Advisory Committee and later whole body of Synod deal with them once they were published in the Agenda. Our conversations with the Advisory Committee were respectful, friendly, candid and vigorous. We "played our ace" of arguing strongly for including Our World Belongs to God. THAT was major. Also, "whose doctrines fully agree with the Word of God" is by no means close to saying that the particular articulations of those doctrines in the confessions themselves fully agree with that Word. In all at least 90% of our work was included without change in the new Covenant. Yes, we consider 10% "minor." 

So, we WERE stunned and, only incidentally, pleased personally about the final decision. It is never "about us." I did gladly sign the Covenant for Officebearers last Sunday, June 24, along with new incoming elders and deacons and thos who were continuing in Council. I hope you and your Council members in Lucas, McBain and surrounding spectacular parts of God's World can the same. We ARE on the same page and I thank God for that.

Rob: Thanks for your heartfelt comment. Having known you for about 15 or more or your 20 years in the CRC, I would have expected no less than deep heart from you. That--among other good things--is why I always loved attending meetings of Classis Lake Superior so we could rub each other as iron sharpens iron.

Now, don't go feeling sorry for yourself that you're in a minority. I'm not sure that you are, but if you are, I'm right there with you in most places. I think you're right that preachers bear the burden of not using the confessions in preaching and teaching. I signed on to preaching in the CRC almost 35 years ago precisely because I could have "a place to stand," as Neal Plantinga has written eloquently--and a place to move around in and from, but without getting lost. To this day, I still teach and use creeds, confessions and testimony in at least 1/3 of my sermons. I believe that their appearance in liturgies that our congregation uses approaches 1/2. 

Now, I thought you would have known the reasons why this issue came to synod. We thought it was clear in the several reports presented to synods by both FOS 1 and FOS 2. Briefly to repeat: In short, the FOS was being used less and less, being read and signed not at all by some 25% of CRCs--not just church plants and ethic churches, but in many long-established congregations. Some officebearers just didn't care--for which some preachers bear fault. Some couldn't sign it because they felt it bound their consciences (despite the exhaustive Supplement 5 in the Church Order). The conversation about amending FOS began more than 60 years ago, as I've mentioned before Synod. The 400 year old document certainly functioned for many years when a clearly hierarchical, even authoritarian form of social organization held sway in the Western world. 

As times changed, though, our thinking patterns changed as well. The creeds and confessions could continue to function, but the FOS had, we believed, help stagnate ongoing, lively, vigorous confessional and creedal thought and living. What is more, the FOS was considered to be needlessly binding on such conversation and thought. Some called it "puntive"--a word I consider misused--though it certainly did not leave a lot of "wiggle room' (a highly technical term in confessional history!) to explore either Scripture or the doctrines articulated in the confessions.

Thus over several decades more than a dozen synods dealt in some fashion with the urgings from the grassroots to revise the FOS. The latest seven-year process amounted to the most complete and surely longest kick at that particular can. And finally Synod 2012 agreed. I hope personally and vocationally that the new Covenant does what it is intended to do: help liven up confessional thought and living--more or less along the lines YOU are encouraging us to do with your Banner articles, which I hope keep coming.

Meanwhile, Rob, I miss our interaction at classis meetings. If you ever feel like taking a trip to Niagara Falls, you and your wife are cordially invited to our occasional B&B a mere 30 kilometres (figure that out in miles on your own) from the Falls. If you show up, we can talk the night away.

Steve--Thanks for your more expanded comments. Now this is finally getting to be fun! In fact the latest string of comments from Bev and Chad deepen and broaden the discussion--so thanks to both of you as well.

No, you don't sound as contentious as I alleged you to be in earlier comments. You are now articulating your points with some detail. Earlier you were, say, a bit terse. Not now. That is good. What's better is that your comments seem surely to point out to me at least something I've always expected when debating issues w/ people w/ whom I rarely or ever agree. And the point is this: It is clear that you and I are pretty deeply committed the the Scriptures, creeds, confessions and (in my case at least) Contemporary Testimony. I am more than happy to say that you and I will agree to disagree about major changes in the Covenant of Officebearers.

You read me rightly when you say that I have up to this point argued or discussed significantly about process. Here's why: the late great Calvin Sem prof Marion ("Spud") Snapper pounded it into our heads over and over: "Process IS content." That's why I emphasized the marvel of the process of deliberation and cafreful negotiation at advisory committee and in plenary at Synod that developed so splendidly this year--especially in comparison w/ several other synods I attended or paid attention to closely. I believe that the Spirit guides such processes or we ignore the Spirit to our peril and content deteriorates.

Thus when I alleged "contentiousness," I was referring to the tone and relative terseness of the first two comments you wrote. Your tone changed in your latest comment. You were engaged, passionate, but more understanding--even though we will continue to disagree. And now: I am sorry you felt unduly attacked. I did not mean to attack. I did intend gently to reprove. If you took it the way I did not mean it, I take responsibility. I recognize fully that Chad and John Z and you generally are saying the same thing, but they were more complete in their earlier responses--as you have been more complete in your latter respone.

Now, I'm not sure how to respond to your comment about doctrines and the articulations of doctrines. Let me try with this: Let's say we're discussing the DOCTRINE of infant baptism. I know at least five or six different articulations of that doctrine outside the Reformed tradition. They are all the same doctrine, but articulated differently. I know which one I defend (I know you'll like that word!!!); I know which ones I do not agree with and have argued against them.

Similarly, I think within our Reformed confessions themselves we have the doctrines of ecclesiology, baptism, atonement and many others. But the Belgic Confession goes on at great length about ecclesiology, whereas the Heidelberg Catechism spends only a couple of questions and answers on it. Thus the same doctrines are articulated differently--and I would argue more accurately and less accurately in different confessions.

I hope that is helpful--not because it gives a loophole to anyone. Rather, saying "whose doctrines fully agree with the Word of God" keeps reminding us all of the hierarchy of writings: The writings start with the Scriptures--"pasa graphe theopneustos." Those Scriptures are then interpreted by humans who are devout, dedicated, intelligent, but not theopneustoi.  That's why confessions can contain errors--as we have confessed in both the Belgic Confessions and the Heidelberg Catechism.

Regardless, those confessions do define where we stand  within the traditions of Christianity and in God's world. Those are the confessions I teach, preach and significantly defend. As I wrote to Rob Braun yesterday, my sermons and our services refer to or directly teach confessions and creeds very frequently. I signed the FOS 35 years ago. I signed the Covenant for Officebearers last Sunday with more understanding and gratitude that I was capable of 35 years ago. The Covenant (with or without the changes made) would for me have had the same binding character as the FOS did. Others did not agree and we found out way in community together. 

Someday I'd like to talk to you one on one--face to face or over the phone? Maybe that'll happen sooner rather than later. 

Blessings.

Thanks, Ken, for your comments, thoughts. You always stimulate readers! 

I guess there IS a theme of  "pastoral oppression," as you call it. I admit some of that comes from my own personal experiences, but at least as much from hearing colleagues over the years sharing--and rarely whining--about the sheer difficulty of the calling of being pastor. We are often confidants to each other. 

I fully realize every profession-calling has its own difficulties and I make no special case for overburdened preachers and pastors. We live in a fallen world, but one heading to complete redemption. There are so often tensions in trying to follow Jesus faithfully, no matter what the calling. I believe that in this fallen and recovering world, the tensions have to be kept in perspective. The pastoral calling has its own tensions and struggles. From your contributions to the Network, it is clear you have suffered and continue to suffer your own struggles; you have been courageous in describing some of them. I also believe you find support for the most part from this Network project--all while you contribute generously, thoughtfully, even provocatively.

When I find a dandy little book like Stan Mast's I am grateful for one more course correction that I'm offered to help keep me on the path of faithful preaching. The crass comments from sisters and brothers have to be lived with, dealt with fairly, patiently, looking for helps within them, even though some of them might hurt ("oppress") at the moment. And I must also remember that there surely have been times when I have made less than immediately helpful comments to colleagues, parishioners, family, friends. They still love me and I love them. Who has the harder task? Well, I'd rather not speculate on that one! 

Anyway, thanks again. May our little interchange help not only preachers of the Word, but also listeners and above all doers!

Thanks, Kim. I'll do that pronto.

Thanks much, Rich, for your candor and vulnerability. It had not occured to me immediately whe I wrote that a divorce is also "losing a family member." Your thoughts have deepened and broadened the blog thread. Thanks again--and blessings.

Ken--This is the first time I recall you being rendered speechless since you've joined the Network. You've put up lots of varied comments in lots of places on lots of topics. And now this silences you????? Could you try to find some words and tell us what caused this? I'm sure there must be a good reason and I'd love to know!  Meanwhile, Blessings and have a good search for words.  jcd