George Vander Weit

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!! :-)

I already apologized to Bill Vis, the stated clerk of Classis Grand Rapids North, for what he considered an "insult to his classis," but I need to do it again--a double apology!!  I know you're sick of retired people telling you how busy they are, but I've attempted to do these posts in a schedule that's already pretty full. Last night on a plane back from Texas I reread Overture 20 which is asking for an amendment of Church Order Article 47.  It's obvious that this refers  to the Belhar Confession. I missed that and broadened the reference to the revision of the three Confessions.  Mea culpa.

I still believe that synod should defeat this overture, but it's obvious that its sole reference is to the Belhar (and to any other confessional matters).

On the plane I also read something that is relative to another post I wrote.  The post was online for a half day or so, but I asked that it be pulled so I could revise it.  Credibility is enhanced  when it's evident that you're accurate about  what you're talking about!! :-)