UGH!
I just had a long (and, if I say so myself, exceptional!) overview of today’s business at synod and accidentally deleted the whole thing (UGH!) Anyhow…I’m not re-writing it. Here’s the highlights.
Changes this year:
- Delegates are seated at round tables. The idea behind this is, I presume, to foster better small-group discussion. I think it’s a good concept but have heard mixed reviews from the delegates.
- Votes will be taken electronic using gizmos like:
I like the idea although, a) I wonder how much we spent on them, and b) I hope they work as well as they’re supposed to. If they work, and weren’t horrifyingly expensive, they’ll be worth their weight in gold the first time they avoid a standing-count.
New Business:
Two items of new business were brought up. It’s important to remember that, at Synod, “New Business” has to meet several criteria, one of which is the requirement that it could not have gone through “normal” channels. Because of that, 1 of the two was accepted (and referred to an advisory committee to be, potentially, changed into a recommendation) and the other was denied (it could have gone through the normal channels.)
The one that was accepted had to do with a commendation for Rev. Allen T. Baker (a Navy Chaplain who recently was promoted). The one that was denied had something to do with the 3-year dialogue on homosexuality.
Reports:
Three key reports were given today:
1) the Presidents Report (by President, Rev. Irving Rivera)
Available for download at:
http://www.rca.org/news/archives/20060609wes.html
2) update on the progress and status of the 10-year goal (by Rev. Steve Vander Molen, former president)
3) the General Secretary’s report (by Rev. Wesley Granberg-Michaelson)
Wes noted the recent emphasis on translating “key materials into other languages” which I think is great…it’s just too bad that key materials includes the Book of Church Order and RCA Today, but doesn’t include the liturgy — shame on us!
There’s more, of course…check it out if you’re interested.
Available for download at:
http://www.rca.org/news/archives/20060609wes.html
Other things:
Here’s a picture of the round tables so you can imagine the setting a little better:
Also, I promised a picture of the processional cross. Here you go (although I didn’t get to talk to Paul about who carved it…I’ll get that for you eventually):
Good night.
Grace and Peace,
`tim
4 Responses to “UGH!”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 14th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Bob DeYoung carved the cross, or so I’m told.
As for the new “clickers,” I have one problem: the presumption used to be that votes were public and open UNLESS there was a request for secret balloting. NOW the presumption is that our votes are secret. That seems a bit odd for a group that is supposed to be a covenant community.
June 15th, 2006 at 6:36 am
James,
You make a good point. It would seem that anyone secure enough in their faith/opinions/office to be a delegate to synod ought to be certain enough of their votes for them to be public - especially with an Abstain option (which, in the past, seemed rare and only upon request but this year was chosen by a few people at every vote).
I’m not saying they should put up a map and mark all the tables “red” and “blue” depending on their votes, but it seems reasonable that each individual’s votes out to be viewable by those interested.
On the other hand, we have “delegates” not “representatives” at synod … maybe it’s less important…. nope, I think a record of votes would be fine. (That, from one whose votes may very well not coincide with the majority of his classis on a number of issues.)
Grace and Peace,
`tim
June 15th, 2006 at 6:48 am
As I think about it a little more…I can see a problem though. There are those, in our denomination, who would use a record of votes to judge their colleagues and perhaps even attempt classical discipline for a vote inconsistent with the “commonly held opinion” of their Classis or region. Similiary, I could see some churches/Classes/individuals looking back at a record of synod votes during the candidating process and using particular votes as litmus tests of an individual’s orthodoxy (taking the votes, of course, completely out of context.)
For example, there are those in my Classis (Zeeland) that would attempt formal discipline of a minister for certain votes/opinions/decisions that would be perfectly acceptable in Schenectady (to just pull something out of the air). It’s disturbing, but true.
I’m comfortable with my congregation knowing how I’d vote on practically any matter (they know me and understand my view of biblical interpretation and theological make-up). I couldn’t say that for many of the people in my Classis.
Open voting (by voice) is public but it’s also set in time - it’s not possible for one’s vote to come back and “bite them in the backside” one, two…even three decades later.
And so I continue arguing with myself…
Grace and Peace,
`tim
June 16th, 2006 at 11:28 am
I would say two things.
First, since most of the public votes were voice, riased hands, or standing (I tried for a roll call vote a few years ago, and went down in flames), it would take some awfully determined and anal-retentive spies to get a real record of most of anybody’s votes.
Second, while it is sad that the body of Christ has become a place where we, as office-bearers are at risk for acting on our faith, Scripture tels us that every faithful act comes with a potential risk. Are we disciples or not?