I'll set my "establishing a broad consensus" against your "minority rule." When you were a pastor would you have moved forward with a major building program on a 51%-49% vote? I hope not, unless you wanted a split church that couldn't pay its mortgage. If you got a call on a solo nomination in which 45% of the people voted they did not want you to come, would you accept that call because you got a majority of the vote or would you decline and let the "minority rule?" Some things are too important to decide by a small majority. I'll contend that our confessional foundation is one of them.
Regarding the overtures, a classis is an interesting thing. Those two overtures came independently from different churches with different purposes. And the fact they came from the same classis doesn't mean everyone agrees. We have four overtures before synod this year. I support one and a half of them, am neutral on another one and a half, and oppose one.
You know enough about synodical procedure to know that a major change in the church order is not in effect until ratified by a subsequent synod. If Synod 2011 adopts the overture to amend Article 47, as I hope, it clearly would be a major change and would not be in effect unless ratified by Synod 2012. Thus it would have no effect on the vote this year to approve the three new translations of the confessions. We explicitly talked about this when we voted in January. It is neither our intent or expectation that a vote on the three translations would require classical ratification. The suggestion that we are conniving in that way is insulting. It would have been nice to have been asked rather than to have the worst assumed about our motives.
By the way, if it were required, as it would be in the RCA and PSUSA, I would expect easy ratification by 2/3 of the classes for the new translations. In spite of the overture this year, I suspect it would even get a majority vote in my classis. Classes don't always make consistent decisions.
We would hope it would apply to adopting the Belhar Confession as a fourth standard. Adopting a new confession is on an entirely different plane than approving a new translation of an existing confession. For a matter of that weight, classical ratification as required in the RCA and PCUSA is warranted. If it can't get an affirmative vote in 2/3 of the classes, there is no consensus and adoption risks further fracturing of the denomination. If it does get 2/3, those who have serious reservations are more likely to accept the decision.
I agree with almost everything in Ron's nicely written piece, but this made the hair on my neck stand up:
Many clearly were not interested in even considering the Belhar as a confessional document. In the end that held sway. The issue of climate change and the role of the CRC was also very controversial. It is difficult to see the diversity in action at times because there will be times when you can become very frustrated with some of the seemingly shortsighted opinions of some churches and delegates.
With all due respect, suggesting that someone who disagrees with you on things like the Belhar and climate change are therefore shoetsighted strikes me as a bit presumptuous.
I served 40 years in CRC ministry before retirement five years ago, all but ten of them in a parsonage. We never had a written agreement. Rather, the letter of call outlined what the church would provide (housing, utilities, etc.) and that was that. I'm curious what a formal parsonage agreement would need to include. Who is responsible for repairs and damage? Promise to vacate when leaving service to the church? Has trust so broken that we need something like this now?
Posted in: Like a Mighty Turtle...
I'll set my "establishing a broad consensus" against your "minority rule." When you were a pastor would you have moved forward with a major building program on a 51%-49% vote? I hope not, unless you wanted a split church that couldn't pay its mortgage. If you got a call on a solo nomination in which 45% of the people voted they did not want you to come, would you accept that call because you got a majority of the vote or would you decline and let the "minority rule?" Some things are too important to decide by a small majority. I'll contend that our confessional foundation is one of them.
Regarding the overtures, a classis is an interesting thing. Those two overtures came independently from different churches with different purposes. And the fact they came from the same classis doesn't mean everyone agrees. We have four overtures before synod this year. I support one and a half of them, am neutral on another one and a half, and oppose one.
You know enough about synodical procedure to know that a major change in the church order is not in effect until ratified by a subsequent synod. If Synod 2011 adopts the overture to amend Article 47, as I hope, it clearly would be a major change and would not be in effect unless ratified by Synod 2012. Thus it would have no effect on the vote this year to approve the three new translations of the confessions. We explicitly talked about this when we voted in January. It is neither our intent or expectation that a vote on the three translations would require classical ratification. The suggestion that we are conniving in that way is insulting. It would have been nice to have been asked rather than to have the worst assumed about our motives.
By the way, if it were required, as it would be in the RCA and PSUSA, I would expect easy ratification by 2/3 of the classes for the new translations. In spite of the overture this year, I suspect it would even get a majority vote in my classis. Classes don't always make consistent decisions.
We would hope it would apply to adopting the Belhar Confession as a fourth standard. Adopting a new confession is on an entirely different plane than approving a new translation of an existing confession. For a matter of that weight, classical ratification as required in the RCA and PCUSA is warranted. If it can't get an affirmative vote in 2/3 of the classes, there is no consensus and adoption risks further fracturing of the denomination. If it does get 2/3, those who have serious reservations are more likely to accept the decision.
Posted in: Advice for First-Time Delegates
I agree with almost everything in Ron's nicely written piece, but this made the hair on my neck stand up:
Many clearly were not interested in even considering the Belhar as a confessional document. In the end that held sway. The issue of climate change and the role of the CRC was also very controversial. It is difficult to see the diversity in action at times because there will be times when you can become very frustrated with some of the seemingly shortsighted opinions of some churches and delegates.
With all due respect, suggesting that someone who disagrees with you on things like the Belhar and climate change are therefore shoetsighted strikes me as a bit presumptuous.
Posted in: Sample Parsonage Agreement?
I served 40 years in CRC ministry before retirement five years ago, all but ten of them in a parsonage. We never had a written agreement. Rather, the letter of call outlined what the church would provide (housing, utilities, etc.) and that was that. I'm curious what a formal parsonage agreement would need to include. Who is responsible for repairs and damage? Promise to vacate when leaving service to the church? Has trust so broken that we need something like this now?