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.

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.

Hi, Bill.  

If the real concern is that we have "a broad denominational discussion,” perhaps I’d be a bit sympathetic to it.  I’d still have difficulty with that because the churches received the first report of the committee in November 2009 and the revised report in November 2010.  That means that even classes that only meet twice a year could discuss the original report at their Spring or Fall 2010 meeting or the revised report at their Spring 2011 meeting.  (Remember that the committee is asking that Synod 2011 make no changes to the report so all of us received the “final” report in November 2010.)  Classes like yours, which meet three times a year, would have even more opportunities to discuss this.  If classes aren’t interested in discussing this when the changes are being proposed, I suspect they would be less (perhaps not at all) interested in discussing this when the revisions have been approved by synod.

I also think that "broad denominational discussions," as opposed to individual classical discussions, happen at synod where representatives from all our classes are present to discuss denominational concerns.

But that’s not the only factor.  Your classis doesn’t only say, “We’d like a broad denominational discussion.”  It also says, “We want two-thirds of the classes to approve synod’s decision before the revised confessions are accepted.”  That’s rule by minority, and I’m opposed to that no matter what the issue is. 

But there’s more. Does this request come from a classis that supports the proposed revisions and wants a “broad denominational discussion” so people can become more familiar with these positive changes?  That’s not the case.  In Overture 6 your classis is asking synod to “reject the proposed revisions to the three forms of unity…” (Agenda 2011, p. 655).  In my blog I mention that synod defeated twenty overtures asking for something more than a majority vote.  The majority  (perhaps all) of those were submitted by churches/classes opposed to the direction synod was taking.  Their request was designed, not to ensure a  “broad denominational discussion,” but to make change more difficult.

This is how I see it:  First, your classis asks synod to reject the proposed revisions.  And in case synod approves the revisions, your classis still hopes the proposed revisions will be rejected if synod requires approval by two-thirds of the classes.  It's a nice job of covering the bases, but I hope synod doesn't buy it.

Hi again, Bill.

You say, “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 still am a pastor—an old, retired one, but a pastor nonetheless!! :-)  In one of the churches I pastored the council recommended that the congregation call a second pastor so our ministry could increase.  That passed by 1 vote!  We went ahead, a little slower than we originally intended and spent more time building support for the proposal.  But we went ahead.  And the congregation was pleased and supportive.

I could say more about this, but this is really not the forum for that. The April 10, 1993 Banner contains an article I wrote entitled, “A Strong Church Council Takes Charge.”  It doesn’t precisely address this issue, but it raises some of the dynamics.

You also say, “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.”

You and the overture from your classis are mistaken when you say, “The CRC Church Order (Article 47) …requires approval by two subsequent synods…” (Agenda for Synod 2011, p. 677).  This is a common mistake.  The supplement to Article 47 says that changes submitted by a study committee may be adopted by one synod without submission to a second synod because the committee’s report is submitted to the churches by November 1 of the previous year, thereby giving the churches “prior opportunity to consider the advisability of the proposed changes” (Church Order Article 47).

You were a delegate to Synod 2010.  Perhaps you remember that I made and synod adopted the following motion: “That synod instruct the Faith Formation Committee to submit any Church Order changes it will propose according to the study committee schedule so that those changes may be adopted at Synod 2011 instead of being proposed at Synod 2011 for adoption at Synod 2012” (Acts of Synod 2010, p. 812).   Only one synod is necessary for the Church Order changes proposed by the Faith Formation Committee.

What’s also true about Article 47 is that changes to Church Order Supplements need not meet the “prior opportunity” requirement that changes to the Church Order must meet.  That has relevance in terms of the overture from your classis.   One of the difficulties with the overture is that it asks synod to amend Church Order Article 47 but, though it publishes the Article and its Supplement, it doesn’t state specifically how and where it wants it amended.

If the actual Church Order Article is amended, you are correct when you say the change would have to be submitted to Synod 2012 for adoption because an overture, available only to the churches when the Agenda is received in April, does not give the churches “prior opportunity to consider the advisability of the proposed changes” (Church Order Article 47).

However, it’s the Supplement that spells out the proposal/adoption process, and it’s the Supplement to which your overture seems to refer.  Thus, if synod decided to change the Supplement to include approval by two-thirds of the classes, that change could be effective immediately unless synod declared otherwise.

You also say, “The suggestion that we are conniving in that way is insulting.”

I’m sorry about that.  I didn’t mean to insult your classis.

John asks, "You indicate you are a retired pastor, and then say you are a pastor still.   Can you be both?  Or do you only wish to retain the title?   Or is the title only validated by an accompanying salary"

In the Reformed system pastors are ordained for life while elders are not.  Pastors don't lose their ordination when they retire.     In my case I am under the supervision of the Han Bit Korean Church where my wife and I are members and where I serve as an associate pastor.  I preach twice a month in our English service as part of my contribution to the ministry of our congregation.  I also preach in other churches and am paid for that.  Thus, I'm even a pastor with a salary!! :-)