Sojourner

Regular readers will recall my earlier assignment to write a pantoum. A pantoum is a formal poem of quatrain stanzas that repeats the second and fourth lines of each stanza in the first and third lines of the next. The concluding quatrain contains the first and third lines of the first stanza as its second and fourth lines, only in reverse order. Sound complicated? It isn't really complicated, but it is difficult to write repetitive poems that work. Especially if you like to match content to form, as I do.

My pantoum follows. Comments or questions welcome.

Sojourner

He stiffly bows his six-foot frame
Begins his eastern race to run
By folding legs to play the game
That fits the form of rising sun

Begins his eastern race to run
With tea, sashimi, table low
That fits the form of rising sun
Which burns upon a field of snow

With tea, sashimi, table low
And gold tatami bathed in light
Which burns upon a field of snow
From Fujiyama’s sloping height

And gold tatami bathed in light
Glows on the floor when sunset falls
From Fujiyama’s sloping height
And lava flows down mountain walls

Glows on the floor when sunset falls
While tremors rumble far below
And lava flows down mountain walls
As kamikaze starts to blow

While tremors rumble far below
He seeks for sleep through endless night
As kamikaze starts to blow
And prayers ascend for morning light

He seeks for sleep through endless night
While lonely ghosts disturb his rest
And prayers ascend for morning light
And peace within his troubled breast

While lonely ghosts disturb his rest
They leave faint imprints in his mind
And peace within his troubled breast
With soul at last becomes entwined

They leave faint imprints in his mind
As in the east, sun rises red
With soul at last becomes entwined
He slowly rises from low bed

As in the east, sun rises red
And falls upon the open page
He slowly rises from low bed
Ascends the steps and gains the stage

And falls upon the open page
Recites the script he knows by heart
Ascends the steps and gains the stage
With strength enough to play the part

Recites the script he knows by heart
While hope and cherry blossoms bloom
With strength enough to play the part
And fragrance fills the empty room

While hope and cherry blossoms bloom
Soft breezes drift across the sea
And fragrance fills the empty room
Of miso soup and steaming tea

Soft breezes drift across the sea
By folding legs to play the game
Of miso soup and steaming tea
He stiffly bows his six-foot frame.

© Glenda Mathes 2007

Synod: Wrap Up

Rev. Ralph Pontier, who served Synod as Vice Chair, and Rev. Peter Kloosterman (RCNZ)

(Photo Credit: Glenda Mathes)

It's been more than two weeks since I returned from Synod, and it's time to wrap up this series of reports. This post will finish federative unity issues with the remaining CERCU-related matters, then move into ecumenical relations with CECCA-related matters, and conclude with brief reports on several other issues.

CERCU

The URCNA is now a member of NAPARC, and Synod Schererville 2007 approved the memberships of the Free Reformed Churches of North America and Heritage Reformed Congregations in NAPARC.

Synod also voted to begin "Ecumenical Dialogue" with the Heritage Reformed Congregations as well as the Korean American Presbyterian Church. "Ecumenical Dialogue" is a precursor to the first formal step of federative unity, Phase One, Corresponding Relations.

The second step of federative unity is Phase Two, Ecclesiastical Fellowship, and Synod voted to enter into Phase Two with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). The URCNA has been in Phase One with the OPC since 1997. This move requires ratification from the majority of URCNA consistories.

CECCA

CECCA is the Committee for Ecumenical Contact with Churches Abroad. Synod adopted its recommendations for entering into Phase One, Ecumenical Contact, with the GKN(v) and the RCNZ.

Rev. Peter Kloosterman was present at Synod as the fraternal observer from the RCNZ and, although he's a relative newcomer to New Zealand, he spoke like a Kiwi.

In the course of his address to Synod, he said, "...RCN Zed."

Classis Pacific Northwest

Although Synod Calgary 2004 flip-flopped on the matter of forming a new classis and eventually decided against it, Synod Schererville 2007 had no problem deciding the time was right to form a new Classis Pacific Northwest.

The new classis consists of 12 churches: the three U.S. churches understandably removed from Classis Western Canada and nine former Classis Southwest U.S. churches. With the reorganization, Classis Western Canada and Classis Southwest U.S. now each contain 13 churches.

Bellingham URC (Bellingham, WA), URC of Lynden (Lynden, WA), and Immanuel's Reformed Church (Salem, OR), were formerly in Classis Western Canada. Classis PNW churches formerly in Classis Southwest are: Cloverdale URC (Boise, ID), Grace URC (Kennewick, WA), URC of Nampa (Nampa, ID), URC of Magic Valley (Twill Falls, ID), Belgrade URC (Belgrade, MT), Zion URC (Ripon, CA), Emmanuel URC (Lemoore, CA), Covenant URC (Fresno, CA), and Trinity URC (Walnut Creek, CA).

Website

The website committee had presented 42 recommendations to Synod, but Classis Central's recent adoption of a classical website helped Synod speed the website process.

One of the thorniest issues facing the development of a website is the approval of content. The Advisory Committee dealing with website matters suggested that a consistory is the "proper ecclesiastical authority" to approve content and changes.

Synod appointed Grace URC of Waupun, WI, the same church overseeing Classis Central's website, to oversee the federational site.

Chaplaincy

URCNA members are becoming interested in the military chaplaincy and Synod approved a proposal to seek Associate Membership in the Presbyterian and Reformed Joint Commission on Chaplains and Military Personnel (PRJC). Faith URC of Beecher, IL, will send observers to the next three meetings of the PRJC and report to the next Synod. The PRJC will also be asked to include the Three Forms of Unity as an alternative to the Westminster Standards in its policy statements.

Church Polity

Overture #9, from Classis Central, asked that a separate "Church Polity" section be added to candidacy exams. Currently "Church Polity" is listed as one of the subjects to be covered during the Practica portion of the exam.

Noting that the overture was "well-written and concise", the Advisory Committee recommended its adoption. Synod quickly and unanimously passed the overture. Since this is a change to the Church Order, it will require ratification by a majority of consistories before January 1, 2008.

Article 11

Another suggested change to the church is in regard to Article 11, which deals with the dissolution of the pastoral relationship.

The revised language is intended to impress the seriousness of such a separation and to ensure that church visitors and classis assist with reconciliation attempts.

Although there was discussion about wording, especially the suggested mandate for two years' support, the revised article was adopted and must now be approved by a two-thirds majority of the churches.

Financial

Treasurer's reports and a synodically-apointed report from Covenant Reformed Church in Pella made it clear that not all churches are contributing adequately to the suggested "askings" for federational support.

The Advisory Committee dealing with financial issues addressed concerns with several recommendations, most of which Synod adopted. Synod approved the use of an expenditure form for committee expenses and asked committees to project expenses for a three-year period. Federational treasurers will be required to submit quarterly reports tracking the budget. And churches will be asked to submit "askings" early, preferably during the first three quarters of the year. Synod stopped shy; however, of adopting a recommendation to change the word "askings" to "dues", and it balked at adding a question regarding federational contributions to the credentials form.

Synod approved a joint venture agreement that would facilitate the flow of funds between Canadian and American churches of the URCNA. Synod also appointed a new U.S. Board of Directors and appointed Bethany URC of Wyoming, MI, to implement the new agreement.

Synodical Regulations

Synod Schererville 2007 operated provisionally under the new regulations developed by the Synodical Regulations Ad Hoc Committee. The work of the Committee was approved by Synod and the regulations must now be reviewed and approved by the churches.

Conclusion

Many, many actions of Synod Schererville require ratification by the majority of URNCA consistories. Each office bearer will need to take seriously his responsibility to become familiar with suggested Church Order changes as well as large documents such as the Proposed Joint Church Order and the Synodical Regulations.

The URCNA is growing up and becoming more organized. Whether or not it approaches Synod 2010 in London, Ontario, as a mature steed will depend on how well URCNA office bearers take up the reins and provide direction.

Synod: Church Order Changes & OCRC

In addition to the five previous posts dealing with federative unity, Synod adopted some Church Order changes that clarify the ratification process. But, among all the actions Synod took to clarify and slow the unification process, it took sudden action when it invited the Orthodox Christian Reformed Churches (OCRC) to join with the URCNA in church unity.

Article 36
Overtures 1 & 6 suggested clarifications in Article 36, which deals with the majority needed to ratify entering into ecumenical relationships. Appeal 1 was also related to Article 36.

The appeal asked Synod to reverse a decision of Synod Calgary 2004, so that "majority of consistories" would be defined as "majority of consistories voting in the ratification process." The Advisory Committee recommended and Synod voted not to sustain the appeal.

The Advisory Committee noted that Overtures 1 & 6 were very similar and found "compelling" grounds in each. The Committee added a phrase from Overture 1 to the recommendation of Overture 6 and suggested adopting grounds from each overture.

Peter Moen, Sr. moved an amendment to change the "two-thirds" majority required for both the synodical and consistorial votes to "three-fourths" majority.

Speaking against that motion, Rev. Rand Lankheet said, "A professor of church polity once said, 'There's such a thing as a majority, but there's also such a thing as tyranny of the minority.'"

The amendment for "three-fourths" failed.

The Advisory Committee motions passed and Synod declared them as its answer to Overtures 1 & 6.

The Article 36 revision now reads: "The federation may enter into ecumenical relations with other federations by synodical decision. Such a decision with respect to Ecclesiastical Fellowship shall require ratification by a majority of the synodically approved consistories in the federation. Such a decision with respect to Church Union shall require a two-thirds vote of a synod and shall require ratification by two-thirds of the synodically approved consistories in the federation."

Since this is a change to the Church Order, it must be approved by the consistories, who have until May 1, 2008, to submit their responses.

Article 66
Overture 2 requested a similar change to Article 66, which deals with ratification of changes to the Church Order. The addition of the phrases "synodically approved" and "of the federation" help clarify what is meant by "majority of consistories."

With little discussion, Synod quickly adopted the overture. Consistories have until May 1, 2008, to respond to the change.

OCRC
In what may have been a surprise to many delegates, Synod Schererville 2007 re-extended to the OCRC the invitation of Synod Hudsonville 1999 for federative union.

The adopted recommendation was to invite the OCRC to unite with the URCNA in federative union on the basis of the Three Forms of Unity and the Church Order. It listed six grounds for the action.

Should the OCRC accept the invitation, it will be received without its ministers being required to undergo colloquia docta.

Since this invitation relates to Church Order Article 36, it requires ratification from the URCNA consistories before January 1, 2008.

CERCU's report in the Synod agenda noted the difficult situation in which the OCRC finds itself, having recently been reduced to only five congregations.

In his earlier address to the delegates, the OCRC's fraternal delegate, Rev. Martin Overgaauw, spoke movingly about the close relationship between the two federations.

Synod: CERCU Guidelines

Another federative unity issue that relates to the merger with the CanRC was revision to CERCU's guidelines. Overtures 3 & 15 requested the removal of the phrase "and in preparation for and commitment to eventual integrated federative church unity" from the Phase 2 definition. Each overture also suggested dividing Phase 3 into specific steps.

Advisory Committee 5 examined these overtures and made slight amendments to the changes proposed in Overture 15 before recommending its adoption.

More amendments were offered during the discussion on the floor of Synod. The amendment that occasioned the most debate was the phrase "in preparation for and commitment to," which had been described as "problematic." The Advisory Committee had suggested "with a view and commitment toward possible..."

Rev. James Sinke expressed his concern with the word "possible."

"The reality is that we have a commitment," he said, using the analogy of engagement. "When I asked my wife seven years ago if she would marry me and she said, 'yes'; I did not say, 'We may possibly get married.'"

Eventually, Phase 2's "in preparation for and commitment to eventual integrated federative church unity" was changed to "in acknowledgement of the desirability of eventual integrated federative church unity."

The Advisory Committee recommended Overture 15's plan to divide Phase Three into a two-step process: Step A (developing a plan for ecclesiastical union) and Step B (implementing the plan).

Rev. Phil Vos continued Rev. Sinke's analogy: "Phase 2 is dating. Step A would be the engagement; Step B would be the wedding."

There was a great deal of discussion about the changes to Phase 3. Rev. Wybren Oord made a motion to postpone the matter indefinitely, which Rev. Bill Pols spoke against, saying, "That would send a rather sad message to our Canadian Reformed brothers."

Rev. Oord asked, "If the majority of our consistories do not want to be in Stage 3A, isn't that exactly what we want to know?"

The motion to postpone indefinitely failed. After more discussion, the changes to Phase 3 were approved and Synod declared its actions as its answer to Overtures 3 & 15.

These changes created a practical problem because the work of the existing "unity" committees with the CanRC now properly belong under Step A of Phase 3; however, the URCNA is only in Phase 2 relations with the CanRC.

Later in the proceedings, Advisory Committee 5 brought an "exception" recommendation before Synod:

“By way of exception to the adopted guidelines for Ecumenical and Church Unity, Synod allow the current unity committees of the URCNA Federation (whose work properly belongs to Phase 3A) to continue working with their corresponding CanRC committees while the two federations continue to function in Phase 2.”

That exception was adopted.

When the Canadian Reformed fraternal delegates were ready to leave Synod 2007, Mr. Gerry Nordeman was given the privilege of the floor to say a few words of farewell:

"We are not leaving with bitterness or disappointment," he said. "In fact, we are encouraged by your commitment to federative unity. We have heard the dating analogy often used and the comment made that now we are engaged. We prefer another analogy. We were one at one time and have become estranged or separated, and now are working toward becoming one again."

Synod: Theological Education

As noted in my previous post, the third of the URCNA "unity" committees had reported to Synod that its work with the Canadian Reformed committee was "at an impasse."

The impasse was due to disagreement over whether a federationally-controlled seminary is biblically mandated. The CanRC committee had entered discussions with a synodical mandate that it was. The URCNA committee believed that the Bible taught no such mandate, but that each consistory should ensure that seminarians under care received solid Reformed instruction.

Due to this impasse, the two committees had not met since November of 2005. Position papers had been offered on both sides, but the committees were not able to resolve this issue.

Then the CanRC General Synod met for two weeks in May of this year. It adopted recommendations to seek agreement with the URCNA committee based on the principle of 2 Timothy 2:2, "taking into consideration" the joint statements made by the committees, "while expressing the strong preference for at least one federational seminary."

One of the considerations listed for these recommendations states that 2 Timothy 2:2 "does not necessitate the conclusion of a 'federational' seminary" and that Art. 19 of the CanRC Church Order "also does not necessitate a 'federational' seminary." It continues, "Therefore, it would be best, for clarity's sake, to realize that 'federational' seminary is terminology that has arisen...out of current practice and is not itself the Reformed theological education principle." Another consideration notes, "It is not acceptable in the course of dicussions and agreements leading to federative unity that...the way to unity, should reach an impasse on a matter of practice only." Synod also replaced two members of the committee who work at the Theological College in Hamilton.

The decision was hailed by many as a major concession; however, the most conciliatory language is found in the considerations, while the actual recommendations reflect only a slight positional shift.

The analysis of the URCNA Synod Advisory Committee is instructive: "We should point out that this statement is given in the context of an extensive discussion of the matter and that even though it appears to clear the way for the two committees to continue their work, the Canadian Reformed Churches concluded their remarks by saying that they still express "a strong preference for at least on federational seminary."

The issue generated brief discussion on the floor of Synod Schererville 2007. Rev. Rand Lankheet expressed his concern about the lack of face-to-face meetings and stressed the need to reinvigorate the committee. Rev. John Bouwers expressed concern about "implications" for the Canadian Reformed Churches. Peter Moen, Sr. made an unsuccessful motion to conclude the work of the Theological Education Committee. The Advisory Committee recommended and Synod approved the addition of Rev. Joel Dykstra as a committee member, even though the committee had not requested additional members.

What was not contested was Synod's affirmation of the URCNA Theological Education Committee's position that a federationally-controlled seminary is not biblically mandated.

Delegates were also united on Synod's ruling that the churches should continue to follow URCNA Church Order Article 3, requiring a man's consistory to assure that he receive a thoroughly Reformed theological education.

Synod encouraged the URCNA Theological Education Committee to continue its work with the CanRC committee, reiterating the committee's original mandate "to draft proposals for theological education to our respective synods in preparation for an eventual plan of union."

Another federative unity issue with implications for the URCNA relationship with the CanRC was that of revising CERCU's (Committee for Ecumenical Relations and Church Unity) guidelines. The Lord willing, the next post will deal with that.

Synod: Joint Church Order

My previous post detailed some of the lively debate on the floor of Synod Schererville 2007 concerning the songbook. But in addition to the Songbook Committee, the URCNA has two other "unity" committees working with their Canadian Reformed counterparts: the Joint Church Order Committee and the Theological Education Committee.

The Joint Church Order Committee has made great progress, while the Theological Education Committee reported that its work with the CanRC committee was "at an impasse."

Joint Church Order
The Joint Church Order Committee presented Synod with a Proposed Joint Church Order (PJCO) and appendices comprising 63 pages of the agenda. This included a 27-page chart comparing the proposed Church Order to the Church Orders of Dort, the Canadian Reformed Churches, and the URCNA.

Synod voted to give the PJCO and comparison chart to the churches for "discussion." The Joint Church Order Committee will now become the PJCO Committee. It will handle all correspondence from the churches related to the PJCO, present no more than eight regional conferences regarding the PJCO, and prepare a report for Synod 2010.

It's important to note that Synod did not deal with the PJCO content; that review is the responsibility of each consistory. Synod dealt only with procedural recommendations regarding the PJCO. And the only matter that occasioned debate was the minority report on a single item, Article 35.

The PJCO Art. 35 emphasizes the principal place of the Psalms in "the singing of the churches" and states that in "worship services, the congregation shall sing faithful musical renderings of the Psalms, and hymns which faithfully and fully reflect the teaching of Scripture in harmony with the Three Forms of Unity, provided they are approved by general synod."

The minority report proposed changing "approved by general synod" to "approved by the consistory in accord with a synodically adopted standard."

Synod's Advisory Committee recommended adoption of the minority report, but there was some discussion about its adoption. Dr. Nelson Kloosterman, one of the minorty report's authors, spoke against its adoption.

"I believe there's a better way," he said, mentioning the use of language expressing a "strong preference" instead of adopting the minority report at this Synod. "I think this confuses the matter of the status of the PJCO." He went on to say that "we can trust" the Synod of 2010 to deal with this, but it is not a decision that should be made "here and now."

The motion to adopt the minority report failed, and a second motion to present both reports "without prejudice" to the churches also failed. A third motion that "Synod express a strong preference for the Minority Report" regarding Article 35 of the PJCO passed handily.

Consistories must communicate any suggestions or concerns regarding the PJCO to the PJCO Committee before March 1, 2009, so that a summary of all communications may be sent to the consistories by June 1, 2009.

Synod: Songbook

Media moguls at Synod:

John Van Dyk, editor, and Glenda Mathes with Christian Renewal;

Rev. Wybren Oord, editor of the Outlook

(Photo and information credit: Glenda Mathes and Christian Renewal)

Some of the liveliest debate on the floor of Synod Schererville 2007 concerned the development of a songbook.

Even the possible appointment of another person to the committee generated a level of discussion that eventually resulted in calling for the question. The debate led Rev. Rand Lankheet, a member of the committee, to plead against appointments from the floor of Synod. Another committee member, Rev. Dick Wynia, acknowledged that the committee might have failed to "communicate adequately" with the churches, but that the committee is functioning well with its current composition. Although the committee has lost two members, Synod acceded to the committee's recommendation not to appoint additional members.

But the request to clarify the songbook committee's mandate, which appeared both in Overture 4 & Overture 17, escalated the conversation.

The songbook committee itself had recommended that Synod maintain the goal for a common songbook, but establish that a common songbook not be a condition for federative unity. Synod's Advisory Committee 9 agreed that "substantial work has been done by the committee...which we expect will be of benefit to the URCNA, regardless of whether we ever merge with the Canadian Reformed Churches."

It was apparent from financial reports submitted to Synod 2007, that funding for the songbook has been minimal. U.S. Treasurer Peter J. Moen was permitted to address the assembly and noted that 87% of the US churches "chose not to submit any funding toward the songbook" last year. Funding from Canadian churches appeared to be even less.

Rev. Wybren Oord said, "I'm becoming more and more convinced that the finances are not coming because people do not perceive the need."

When Rev. Larry Johnson asked when the committee projected the hymnal would be completed, Rev. Wynia answered, "Approximately eight years," explaining the process and current procedures.

Rev. Dennis Royall reminded delegates of the "United" in our federation's name and said the discussion made his "heart very heavy."

"We have a name," he said, "and that name desired to draw all of us under the same precious banner."

The Advisory Committee had recommended that Synod not accede to Overture 17, but that recommendation failed, even with a subsequent show of hands.

Synod then voted to adopt Overture 17, clarifying "this song book" in the committee's mandate as focusing on a songbook that "will serve the churches of our federation" regardless of whether the URCNA is in ecclesiastical fellowship with other federations. Again a show of hands was called.

The chair was then asked to determine if further clarification was needed. After a break, the chair ruled that Overture 17 includes the necessary clarification. His ruling was challenged, but upheld by vote. There was a further motion to rescind the vote, but that motion failed.

It was later reiterated that clarifying the committee's mandate to focus on a songbook for the URCNA does not preclude its continued work with the CanRC Book of Praise Committee.

Synod: Federative Unity

Photo credit: Glenda Mathes for Christian Renewal

The number of overtures related to federative unity at Synod Schererville 2007 indicated the level of concern among the churches.

If the adoption and speedy implementation of URCNA unity committees was viewed as running to embrace the Canadian Reformed Churches with open arms, Synod Schererville's actions could be viewed as the URCNA slowing to a walk and dropping its arms.

The URCNA may have dropped its arms, but it did not drop the ball.

Although the songbook committee's mandate was clarified as focusly on a songbook for the URCNA, regardless of any possible mergers, it was noted that does not preclude continuing work with the Canadian Reformed Book of Praise Committee.

And although CERCU's guidelines for Phase 2 and Phase 3 of federative relations were revised to slow down the unification process, Synod adopted an exception to the adopted guidelines allowing the unity committees to continue working with the corresponding committees of the Canadian Reformed Churches.

The Proposed Joint Church Order will be going to the churches of the federation for their review.

Synod affirmed the Theological Education Committee's position that a federationally-controlled seminary is not biblically mandated, and encouraged it to continue its work with the Canadian Reformed Committee in order to draft "proposals for theological education to our respective synods in preparation for an eventual plan of union."

Synod additionally voted to re-extend an invitation for unification to the small Orthodox Christian Reformed Churches.

The pace of the game may have slowed, but the ball remains in play.

Synod: Membership

(Photo and information credit: Glenda Mathes and Christian Renewal)

Rev. Paul Murphy, URCNA church planter in New York City, and Rev. Phil Grotenhuis, church planter in Springfield, MO, enjoy a lighter moment during a break in Synod action

Most of the information contained in these Synod posts, as well as other articles and pictures, will be available in the August issue of Christian Renewal. To subscribe, contact Alma at christianrenewal(at)hotmail.com. If using pictures from this blog, I prefer that you first ask persmission, but please at least give appropriate credit such as: Photo courtesy of Glenda Mathes and Christian Renewal.

As far as I am aware, the URCNA Synod had never appointed study committees before this year. Not only did Synod Schererville 2007 appoint the justification study committee (see previous post), but Synod also appointed a committee to study "the level of doctrinal commitment advisable for communicant membership." (N.B. - The use of the word "advisable" seems to indicate something less binding than "required" would have conveyed.)

The overture requesting this study committee arose in a church planting context, specifically Springfield, MO. Many "friendly evangelicals" in the Bible belt are coming to an understanding of the Reformed faith. Some, particularly Baptists (but those from other backgrounds as well) find it difficult to embrace all of the tenets of the Reformed faith all at once.

Overture 8 lists grounds citing diversity in history, understanding, and practice among Reformed churches. Grounds also note that increased "church plant initiatives and a renewed commitment to outreach" have resulted in an increasing number of membership requests from those "who do not fully agree with our doctrinal standards." The overture expresses the desire of church leaders "to shepherd these brothers and sisters in Christ without compromising the Reformed character of the church."

Discussion on the floor of Synod regarding this overture was lively.

Rev. Daniel Hyde, a church planter in Oceanside, CA, spoke against the overture. "The first [profession of faith] form and the second form, along with the confessions, speak to this," he said. "In our church, only two people grew up as Reformed. All others have come to the Reformed faith, including belief in infant baptism."

Speaking in favor of the overture, Rev. Jacques Roets said, "As a federation, we have a lot of work to do in burgeoning areas with new churches. I speak in favor of a study committee, to help our young churches to stand firm, and also to come up with alternative ways of dealing with this issue."

Rev. Harry Zekveld said, "This overture really calls into question the first vow. This would be putting the cart way before the horse; it's undermining the vow. We require a confessional membership."

Although most delegates were thinking of persons desiring admittance to the table, Rev. Larry Johnson presented a problem from the opposite perception: persons denying themselves admittance to the table.

"In our area, people come into our church with the perspective that they may not come to the table of the Lord because they think they're too sinful," he said. "This study committee would affect how we would address that issue. Can we not allow these people to join our church until they feel that they can partake of communion?"

The voice vote on the proposed study committee was too close to call and necessitated a show of hands, but the motion carried.

The related motion appointing six men to the study committee carried easily. Those appointed are: Rev. Tom Morrison (chair), Dr. Nelson Kloosterman, Elder Will Postma, Rev. Mitch Persaud, Rev. Rich Kuiken, and Rev. Daniel Hyde.

The study committee is asked to report to the next Synod.

Another membership issue surfaced in Overture 12, which requested a change in Church Order Article 44. This is the article dealing with procedure for accepting membership transfers.

The current article states: "Persons coming from other denominations shall be admitted to communicant membership only after Consistory has examined them concerning doctrine and life." It goes on to state: "The Consistory shall determine in each case whether public profession of faith shall be required."

The overture proposed changing the first sentence to: "Persons coming from denominations other than those with which we have ecclesiastical fellowship shall be admitted to communicant membership only after Consistory has examined them concerning doctrine and life."

The Advisory Committee dealing with this overture recommended that Synod not accede to the overture on the grounds that this CO amendment would "undermine consistorial freedom" to exercise "authority in determining" how members are received. The grounds also stated that the present wording of Article 44 "provides sufficient freedom of practice, as determined by the local consistory."

Elder Tom Kooienga (Bethel URC, Wyoming, MI) spoke against the motion and in favor of the overture, saying that this was a matter of "housekeeping" and "not a change in policy."

Dr. Kloosterman also spoke against the motion, saying that what the overture "rightly emphasizes" is "the nature of our relationship to churches in the federation and with churches with which we have ecclesiastical relationships."

The advisory committee recommendation not to accede to the overture was defeated. A motion was then placed on the floor to adopt Overture 12. The voice vote was too close to call, but the show of hands indicated that the motion was adopted.

Since this is a change to the Church Order, it will need to be ratified by a majority of the churches. The churches are to respond to the Stated Clerk regarding this issue before May 1, 2008.

Synod: Justification

(Photo and information credit: Glenda Mathes and Christian Renewal)

Delegates to Synod Schererville 2007

Since justification is a hot-button issue, I'll begin my posts on specific Synod topics with it. Much of what is written here will appear in the August issue of Christian Renewal, along with several other articles detailing the actions of Synod 2007.

Yesterday's post explained the function of advisory committees at Synod, and it's important to bear that in mind regarding the justification issue. There was actually very little discussion regarding this overture on the floor of Synod, with most of the debate taking place in the advisory committee.

A bit of background: Overture 5 came from Classis Michigan and asked that Synod Schererville "adopt as our own" a study committee report adopted by the RCUS (Reformed Church in the United States) at its 2004 Synod.

This overture was of great interest to me since I observed the 2004 RCUS Synod at which the report was adopted, I observed the 2004 URCNA Synod at which the justification statement was adopted, and I observed the October of 2006 Classis Michigan meeting at which the overture (now known as Overture 5) was adopted.

At the RCUS Synod in 2004, delegates were united in their commitment to making a strong statement regarding justification by faith, but there was extensive debate regarding the wording in a couple of the report's resolutions. Debate centered around the use of the word "heresy" and the propriety of "admonishing" someone outside the RCUS fold. It took some time to work out the wording in these resolutions. (The term "grevious errors" was eventually substitued for "heresy" while the phrase "we admonish" was retained.) But the report itself--with amended resolutions--passed unanimously and without dissent.

Classis Michigan was another story. Four churches presented the overture asking for adoption of the RCUS report. It is not an overstatement to say that the overture barely squeaked by. The voice vote was too close to call and the show of hands appeared tied. The hands were counted and recounted before it was finally determined that the overture had passed by one vote.

When Overture 5 came to Synod, it was assigned to Advisory Committee 6, chaired by Rev. Christo Heiberg and reported by Rev. Paul Ipema. Two men from Classis Michigan were on the committee, as well as men from other parts of the federation.

The Advisory Committee began its work by discussing what options were available as a response, and quickly decided to deal definitively with the overture. In the course of discussion, it was noted that one of the four churches originally bringing the overture to Classis Michigan has since withdrawn its support for the overture (Dutton URC).

Advisory Committee 6 held several meetings and brought multiple reports to Synod. The initial report dealing with Overture 5 had four recommendations, the first of which was that Synod Schererville not accede to Overture 5.

This recommendation was supported by four grounds. The first cited a failure of evidence to substantiate the overture's allegations. The second states that "rendering ecclesiastical judgments" regarding a minister outside the federation "does not fall within" Synod's "purview." The third noted that the RCUS has accepted the URCNA as a faithful federation and has not requested our adoption of their report. The fourth questioned the wisdom of adopting lengthy reports on theological or confessional matters from another denomination.

On the floor of Synod, this recommendation passed quickly and unanimously.

The next recommendation on the Advisory Committee's initial report asked Synod Schererville to "reaffirm" the statement made by Synod Calgary 2004 that the scriptures and confessions "teach the doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, based upon the active and passive obedience of Christ alone." This recommendation was adopted unanimously and without dissent.

The third recommendation asked Synod to affirm that the scriptures and confessions teach "that faith is the sole instrument of our justification apart from all works" and included the answer from Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 61: "Not that I am acceptable to God on account of this worthiness of my faith, but because only the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ is my righteousness before God, and I can receive the same and make it my own in no other way than by faith only." It also referenced Belgic Confession Articles 22 & 24. This recommendation was also adopted unanimously and without dissent.

The fourth recommendation asked Synod to "remind and encourage individuals and churches" that, if office bearers are "suspected of deviating from or obscuring the doctrine of salvation as summarized in our confessions," they are "obligated to follow the procedure prescribed" in Articles 29, 52, 55, 61 & 62 of the Church Order "for addressing theological error." This recommendation also carried unanimously.

Two more pertinent reports from the Advisory Committee were distributed to delegates: Report C and Report D. Report C asked for the appointment of a study committee; however, the Advisory Committee requested consideration of Report D first. Report D recommended the adoption of a nine-point statement "as pastoral advice."

Rev. Derrick Vander Meulen spoke in favor of the statement saying, "When we discussed Overture 5 at Classis Michigan, I was not in favor of the overture because I wished we had something like this--and now we do. I think it would serve the churches well."

"We haven't had time to study this," said Rev. Ralph Pontier. "Are we going to regret having hastily adopted this? We haven't even voted on a study commitee and we are already dealing with something like the fruit of a study committee."

When the question was raised regarding the status of this "pastoral advice," Dr. Cornel Venema (who served on Advisory Committee 6) noted that the language of "pastoral advice" is "clearly intended to say this is not a confession."

"We are not adding to our Three Forms of Unity," he said. "We're not even calling this an affirmation of Synod, but these affirmations are set in the framework of advice. We are offering...some clarifying, some succinctly stated applications of our confessions. It's a way of serving the churches and the people of God with what we regard to be the key and clear affirmations of the confessions as they relate to this issue."

Synod overwhelmingly adopted the recommendation of the statement as pastoral advice as well as a second recommendation that this be considered Synod's answer to Overture 5.

Synod next considered Report C's recommendation to appoint a study committee "to examine by the Word of God and our Confessions the teachings of the so-called Federal Vision and other like teachings on the doctrine of justification; and present a clear statement on these matters to the next Synod for the benefit of the churches and consistories."

Speaking in favor of a study committee, Dr. Cornel Venema pointed out that, while reports generated by other NAPARC federations address the same issue, it is important for our federation to examine the issue from the standpoint of the Three Forms of Unity.

"One of the principal claims of those identified as Federal Vision has been that what might be true in the Presbyterian confessions is not clearly taught in the Three Forms of Unity," he said. "Synod Calgary and now Synod Schererville have stated that our Three Forms of Unity clearly teach these doctrines. We would be well served, not merely to adopt affirmations like beads that fall off a string and lie on the floor, out of context, but to show how our affirmations fit within the bounds of our confessions. There is not one iota of difference between the Westminster Confessions and the Three Forms of Unity."

Rev. Doug Barnes spoke against the motion, saying, "I'm in favor of a study committee. I think it's a wonderful idea, but not this one. I think we've done a good thing in answering an overture with a series of resolutions, but a study committee should be assigned on the basis of an overture."

Rev. Ed Marcusse (pastor of one of the Michigan churches bringing the original overture to Classis) strongly urged the recommendation's adoption, reiterating what he had said in the Advisory Committee meeting: "When the overture was discussed on the floor of Classis Michigan, the hope was expressed that this overture might result in Synod appointing a study committee."

The vote in favor of appointing a study committee carried overwhelmingly.

Finally, Synod also approved the study committee's composition of 14 men, two from each classis (including Classis Pacific Northwest, which had been formed earlier in Synod action):

From Classis Eastern U.S. –

Rev. Mark Stewart and Rev. Steve Arrick;
From Classis Southern Ontario –

Rev. Dick Wynia and Rev. Christo Heiberg;
From Classis Michigan –

Rev. Brian Vos (secretary) and Rev. Rick Miller;
From Classis Central U.S. –

Dr. Cornel Venema and Rev. Patrick Edouard (chair);
From Classis Pacific Northwest –

Rev. Chris Gordon and Rev. Kevin Efflandt;
From Classis Western Canada –

Rev. Bill Pols and Rev. Eric Fennema;
From Classis Southwest U.S. –

Dr. Mike Horton and Rev. Marcelo Souza.

The study committee is to submit its report to the URCNA Stated Clerk by July 1, 2009, to allow the churches time for study prior to the report’s consideration at Synod 2010, which will be convened by Cornerstone URC in London, Ontario.

Synod: Personal Observations

(Photo and information credit: Glenda Mathes and Christian Renewal)

Rev. Karlo Janssen (right), fraternal delegate from the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands(liberated) visits with delegates during a coffee break at Synod 2007

I had promised my many readers more news from the floor of Synod, but I discovered that I had little time for writing or posting while at Synod. Most of the time, it took all my concentration to take accurate notes.

It's true that there are times when the discussion gets bogged down and seems to make no progress, but I've long since discovered that just about the time I think it's safe to go get a drink, I come back to hear an announcement that "the motion passes" and I have no idea what motion. Because the debate can quickly change to another topic, it's difficult to multi-task while observing Synod.

After I return from one of these major ecclesiastical assemblies, I closet myself in my office and spend the next few days generating thousands of words in reports on decisions.

Those comprehensive reports will appear, along with John Van Dyk's reports, in the August issue of Christian Renewal. But I wanted to let readers know something of what happened as well as my personal observations.

The URCNA is growing up. It was an adolescent at Synod 2004, and it was a teenager at Synod 2007. It's still in an awkward stage, but it's closer to becoming an adult.

I'm not referring to its decisions or its theological stance, but to the way it conducts business. A general fear of hierarchy and structure has created resistance to rules and regulations, but the URCNA has learned that some are necessary for smooth functioning. Synod 2004 appointed a committee to draft synodical rules, and the committee brought its report to Synod 2007.

I'm not sure how many delegates actually read this lengthy document, and I'm not sure how much they thought it would impact this year's Synod. The rules will be presented to the churches for approval, but they were provisionally utilized during this year's deliberations.

At times, it was obvious that not everyone was thoroughly acquainted with these rules. In fact, it was sometimes apparent that not everyone was acquainted with basic rules of parlimentary procedure. I am not speaking of the officers, who handled things well, but of men who stood up to speak to issues that were not on the floor, or of men who spoke to directly to other delegates or mentioned them by name. I've observed quite a few major ecclesiastical assemblies of different denominations, and I've seen how basic parlimentary rules facilitate smooth and appropriate debate.

I believe (and hope!) that, as the federation determines and adopts synodical rules and as delegates become more familiar with them, the URCNA will grow out of this awkward stage and we will see less time wasted on the floor of Synod.

Readers who have never attended a major ecclesiastical assembly may wonder how Synod manages to accomplish, in just a few days, all the work that has accumulated over three years.

Part of the answer is that much of the work of Synod takes place in committees, before matters are addressed on the floor of Synod.

Overtures, appeals, and reports in the agenda are assigned to these advisory committees, generally according to topics. The advisory committees are mandated with the task to discuss the issues and bring recommendations to the entire Synod.

This year the compostion of advisory committees was determined by the convening consistory, and delegates received their advisory committee assignments when they registered at Synod on Monday afternoon.

Advisory committees met on Tuesday. Some were able to complete their work during the morning, some during the afternoon, and some needed more time on Wednesday.

But once the committee reports to Synod, its work is not always finished. Frequently, Synod asks for further clarification or additional work that is better handled in an advisory committee meeting than on the floor of Synod. An advisory committee; therefore, may meet several times and may submit several reports to Synod.

If one has never observed a major ecclesiastical body in action, one may be under the impression that Synod merely addresses each matter in a chronological manner. The reality is that Synod addresses advisory committee reports that deal with the matters in the agenda, each of which may have several related recommendations, and that Synod often recommits a matter to committee or temporarily postpones discussion until the committee has done further work.

It takes astute officers to always keep in mind where the discussion stands on each particular issue, and delegates need to keep their committee reports and notes organized in order to stay on top of dicussions.

The nature of advisory committee work makes it seem as if little gets accomplished during the initial plenary sessions of Synod, and that most major decisions are made during the final sessions. But one has to recognize the huge amount of effort put into each decision on the advisory committee level, before the issue even reaches the floor of Synod.

I hope to post more later on specific issues at Synod Schererville 2007.

Historic Moment

Although I've written articles for Christian Renewal for six and a half years and gave up a full time position to devote more time to writing five and a half years ago, I had never met Christian Renewal's editor, John Van Dyk.

On the first day of Synod last week, we finally met.

I had hung around the registration area for some time, watching for him, and kept my eyes peeled while I waited out a rainstorm in the snack bar. But by the time dinner was served, I still hadn't seen him.

I sat by Bill De Jong (Kansas City) and Herman Van Stedum (RCUS fraternal delegate) and enjoyed a delicious meal. Rev. De Jong finished his meal, stood up, and said he was going to get a cup of coffee.

A man came up to the table, pushed Rev. De Jong's tray aside, saying, "Is anyone sitting here?" and began to sit down.

I was flustered and was saying, "Well, actually..."

About that time, I realized who he was and we both said at about the same time, "John Van Dyk."

I couldn't believe that, after all those hours of my being on high alert watching for him, he had caught me off guard. It was hilarious.

I quickly handed my camera to Rev. Van Stedum and asked him to take a picture of the historic moment.

And here it is:

(Photo and information credit: Glenda Mathes and Christian Renewal)

Synod

I'm sitting in the chapel at Trinity Christian College in Palos Heights, IL, for Synod 2007 of the URCNA.

Synod began with registration on Monday afternoon and a worship service in the evening. Between the two, delegates were drenched in a sudden, torrential downpour. Volunteers of the organizing church ran between buildings, escorting delegates under wide Trinity umbrellas.

Yesterday was taken up primarily with committee meetings. I observed the committee considering the justification overture. The overture, coming from Classis Michigan, requests adopting "as our own" the justification report adopted by the RCUS Synod in 2004. Since I was present at the RCUS Synod that adopted the report, present at the 2004 Synod of the URCNA, and present at the Classis Michigan meeting that adopted the overture, I was interested to hear the discussion.

Last evening, Synod dealt with a few issues--none of great significance.

More later.

Literacy

I'd like to be
less technically
challenged,
and more
technically
literate.

As I wrote in my last post, my old IBM ThinkPad has given up its electronic ghost. I get error messages that look like they're from the 80s with a funny little bird fluttering its wings instead of a blinking cursor.

What I'd like is a sleek Sony, weighing about four pounds, with Windows XP. All the new models I've seen have VISTA, and I've heard some less than favorable opinions that make me leery of it. I'd prefer to have an operating system with which I'm familiar and one that doesn't take a ton of memory to run.

But this is mere dreaming since I have neither the time nor money to purchase a laptop right now, which is too bad, since I hope, the Lord willing, to observe the URCNA Synod next week. And this Synod comes around only once in three years.

I managed the OPC GA with pen and paper, so I guess I can get through the URCNA Synod the same way.

If I were more technically literate, I'd know just what speed and memory I need. But the array of choices and the bidding process on uBid intimidate this technically challenged soul.

If I were more technically literate, I could figure out how to fix my mom's computer so it doesn't disconnect as soon as she tries to send a message.

If I were more technically literate, I could fix the church's web server, so we could update current information and construct a new site.

There are a lot of things I could do, if I were more technically literate.

But I'm thankful that I'm literate, that is, able to read and write. There are people I love who cannot do that. But that makes them no less valuable in God's sight.

The Day the Laptop Died

For some time, I've been thinking that my old IBM laptop was on its last diode. It had been starting sporadically; sometimes it would boot up and sometimes it wouldn't.

Last week we spent some time comparing different models at various big box stores. And we went back to one store on Saturday (after we got paid) to see if a couple of Sony demos might still be available. One had been sold, but we were talking to the salesman about the other and were ready to say, "We'll take it," when his manager came by and told him that the computer had just been sold by their Wisconsin store.

Last night I decided I would just try to get by with my old laptop for Synod next week. This morning, I plugged it again and tried once more to start it. In spite of repeated efforts, I cannot get it to boot up at all. It has given up its electronic ghost.

Looks like I'll be taking notes the old fashioned way at Synod next week: pen and paper.