Synod Report VI

Yesterday the General Synod ended. The final morning spent most of its energies on the Church Herald and the assessments (assessments are the only way the synod gets to the budget). The debate was spirited. The result was to cease denominational financial support of the every member reception of the Herald. Where then does that money go? The synod accepted the proposal from the GSC that would have some go to reduce assessments, and the rest to fund “Our Call.”

In this observers opinion, this was the issue least amenable to the new way of doing business through major issue advisory groups. The way the choice was put was difficult to get hold of in the short time available. And it was difficult to get clear information to all the groups. But so the synod ended.

In general the new process worked very well. And it worked well because the decision was made not to have staff present in the groups — nor with the moderators as they convened to write a common report. That allowed the delegates to work through the issues thorougly. Several elders told me that when staff is present, they tend to defer to the staff. That’s natural. Without them present elders felt freer. The point for this church order person is that the offices themselves were active and participating.

Throughout the synod the theme of trust emerged. I heard it uttered even from folk who supported the MSTF report. I must say that some have been raising this issue for a long time, including CI. The last day Wes spoke of the need to work on trust. Well, well…

It is too early to assess the impact of this one synod. That it adopted Belhar is a matter of significance. We can’t begin to know that significance, and we can’t because it is confession. This has begun a conversation. The Dutch church had a phrase that has always struck me. In their church order they said (and still do) that “we confess in communion with our fathers [and mothers].” Now with our sisters and brothers, too. But it is “in communion.”

Advertisements

One thought on “Synod Report VI

  1. With the vote on the Church Herald assessment sending some money to Our Call, we need a more thorough read on what the actual status of Our Call is. Jim Reid quoted Wes from 2(?) years ago saying that 110 churches had signed up and 55 of them were from Michigan. Do we have any statistics that are current? If the money is going to go there, we need to know whether the Church is actually engaging Our Call or whether it remains a staff idea that the Church is not using.In my Classis, I am not aware of any congregation that has signed up. Another of Arie Brouwer’s aphorisms fits here – Pastors and staff spend too much time serving the church they would like to have and not enough serving the one they’ve got. As we go forward, we need a better handle on the church we’ve got.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s