What General Synod Decided, Why It Was Bad, and How Bad It Was

A few days ago, the Reformed Church in America concluded its annual assembly, the General Synod.

The above image nicely conveys the result.

What has always been the best thing for me about synod continues to be what gives me joy: the deepening of old relationships and forging of new ones with gifted and loving colleagues.

But this synod will be remembered for three decisions that, from my perspective, were very poor. Indeed, they were deeply bad decisions.

In the wake of those decisions, social media lit up Monday evening. And as the blaze has continued even as I write this, I have seen a number of replies from people who were not at synod asking, “What’s going on?” Just this morning a friend of mine called me to ask for details.

After all, it isn’t easy to intuit the underlying specifics when all you read is lament, protest, and expressions of profound loss.

Many people also are asking, “What does this mean?” Because it really isn’t clear what these decisions do. We know it’s bad. But how bad is it?

Here I will describe each of those three bad decisions, and I will say why they are bad. I will also try to indicate the degree to which they are bad decisions, and suggest that they may not mean the imminent demise of the RCA — although they may have made its eventual demise more certain.

I will not describe the origin of these decisions. The question of how we got here (the convening of a “Special Council,” etc.) has been thoroughly covered elsewhere. Answering that question is not of immediate help in my intended task in this post, and that is to explain what Synod actually decided and why those decisions are regrettable.

Decision 1: Liturgy

The first of these bad decisions was to make the 2002 marriage liturgy “constitutional.”

R 16-43 – Approved

To adopt the “Order for Christian Marriage” that was approved and commended for use in the church by the 2002 General Synod (MGS 2002, pp. 181-192) for recommendation to the classes for approval as part of the Liturgy of the Reformed Church in America.

What this means is that the classes will vote on whether to include this particular order of worship for a wedding service in our collection of liturgies that are part of our constitution. If enough of them do, then it will.

Why this liturgy? Quite simply, it’s because it contains this sentence: “Christian marriage is a joyful covenanting between a man and a woman.” This is important to some because it describes marriage as taking place between a man and a woman. And so it appears (again, to some) to define marriage in a way that would exclude a similar covenanting between two women or two men.

Why make it part of the RCA’s constitution? The reason why is that it appears (to some) to make binding upon ministers the above affirmation in this liturgy, that marriage is (properly?) between a man and a woman, excluding unions of same-sex couples. And this is important because then there would be a way, it is thought, for a disciplinary action to be brought against a Reformed Church minister who officiates at such a service.

There are a few reasons why this is a bad decision.

First, R 16-43 (the decision) makes the whole marriage liturgy “constitutional.” But the intent is really to enshrine and to make binding only one part of that liturgy, the part that says “Christian marriage is a joyful covenanting between a man and a woman.” But because R 16-43 does not specify this (how could it?), and because intent usually does not easily remain attached to church law, then this decision appears to suggest (although it really doesn’t, as we shall see) that ministers must use this marriage liturgy without alteration. And that is patently ridiculous.

Are ministers really supposed to tell their pre-marriage counselees that they must use these prayers, and vows, and blessings, and scriptures, excluding all others?

Second, to include a marriage liturgy, and I mean any marriage liturgy, in The Constitution of the Reformed Church in America advances the clearly un-Reformed notion that marriage is somehow essential to the church, that it in some way “constitutes” us. But marriage is not part of the essence of the church. It is not one of those things that constitutes the church. Only those things constitute the church that are given by Christ to create, sustain, nurture, and discipline the church: the means of grace, Word and sacrament, by which Christ joins us to himself and feeds us. To make marriage another of these “marks of the church” would be to make a sacrament of marriage and to make lesser citizens of single persons.

Third, making this liturgy constitutional would, by itself, be unenforceable. Just because an order of worship or a liturgy is included (by the constitutional process of approval by the classes) in The Liturgy does not in itself make its use mandatory. What makes use of a liturgy mandatory is a statement in the Book of Church Order (BCO) requiring its use. This goes for the liturgies for communion, baptism, ordination, and installation. For each of these acts of worship, there is a provision in the BCO requiring the use of a constitutional liturgical form. Yet this synod did not send to the classes any such proposed change to the BCO. Without it, the marriage liturgy, if made part of the constitution, would in effect be just a specimen. (h/t Daniel Meeter)

Besides, as I said earlier, it isn’t really this liturgy that others want binding, but only one sentence of it.

So, if it is without force, how would this change solve anything? Before long, won’t we still be on the verge of schism anyway?

Decision 2: Order

The second bad decision on these matters came in approval of “R 16-16 (Second Substitute).” This sends to the classes for approval a change to our order adding to the requirements of the consistory in providing services of worship the following:

  1. The consistory or governing body shall assure that marriages solemnized in a church or congregation are between a man and a woman.

This action would put into the BCO a requirement that consistories make sure that no weddings other than those between heterosexual couples are taking place in their churches or congregations.

Yes, I have problems with this, too.

Let me start with a point worthy of the most annoying grammar pedants (like me). “Assure” is a transitive verb, which means that it requires a direct object. In the proposed change, “assure” is incorrectly used without a direct object.

(I told you I was annoying.)

BysHTBlIMAE_lYL.jpg

But this grammatical error indicates a deeper problem with the proposed change. Who or what body is the consistory/governing body to “assure”? Are they to assure the classis? Their members? The General Synod Council? Tom DeVries? Themselves?

Or perhaps “ensure” is the proper word. But that doesn’t really solve the problem. It still is not clear who or what body is to receive the word from some elders and deacons to the effect of, “Nope, no gay weddings here” or “Oops, we did it again.”

But actually it is certain who is to be assured. Because the consistory’s requirements in providing services of worship are one of the things the classis is to ask about each year: “Does the consistory or governing body provide for worship, including the celebration of the sacraments, in accordance with the requirements of Chapter I, Part I, Article 2, Section 11 of the Book of Church Order?”

In other words, the classis is already supposed to ask each consistory about whether they follow the requirements concerning worship as laid out in the BCO. Adding the requirement concerning “assuring” that no “gay-marriages” are performed would mean that this, too, would be among the things reported yea or nay to the classis.

But only as bundled with other items. A consistory would not be able to say, “We’re good with everything except the gay weddings” just as there’s no way currently for them to report “Thumbs up on almost all items, but we never use the baptism liturgy.” It really is all or nothing.

If a consistory does say “No” to this annual question, it’s up to the classis whether to issue a follow-up and ask the ministers or the elder delegate for more information. But there is no requirement for them to do so. And if they do, it might not go anywhere.

In the end of all such scenarios, the classis would need to be concerned enough about this issue to pursue it. Some classes would not. And those that would, do they really need this change to the BCO in order to discipline pastors who officiate at weddings not deemed acceptable?

Yet my deepest problem with this proposed change are these: it takes out of the hands of the consistory, and particularly the board of elders, their proper authority to decide a matter of pastoral significance; and it binds the consciences of deacons, elders, and ministers in a matter very much in dispute, biblically and theologically.

Such overreach by the 2016 General Synod is based on a faulty understanding of the authority of General Synod. It is grounded in a false and untenable separation of cultural, ethical, and personal matters from biblical and theological matters, with the former assigned to classes and consistories and the latter given to the General Synod. And it was advanced on the floor of synod with flimsy and tendentious interpretations of scripture, biblical ignorance parading as biblical knowledge, and a piously dressed anti-intellectualism.

One good thing is that this bad decision was affirmed by only 59% of those voting. This gives me hope that it will not get the necessary support of 2/3 of the classes.

But if it does not, what will the purists do next year?

Decision 3: Spirit, Assemblies, and Office

The third bad decision of the 2016 General Synod was a decision not to approve something.

James Brumm offered the following truly brilliant and entirely praiseworthy motion:

To declare that the General Synod of 2016, trusting in the sovereignty of God and the power of the Holy Spirit to work in and through all assemblies of the RCA, affirms the authority of every classis over the formation and care of all churches and ministers within its bounds, and the local authority of every consistory over the worship and life of the congregation entrusted by God to its care.

Understand, there is nothing objectionable here. At least, there shouldn’t be, if we’re talking about the Reformed Church. A distinctive affirmation of the Reformed tradition (but not exclusive to it) is that the Holy Spirit does indeed choose to work, not only through inspired individuals, but also through assemblies. Moreover, the RCA, with other Reformed and Presbyterian modies, has affirmed that the Spirit’s activity is not limited only to the “highest” assembly but is given, graciously, to all, even to the consistory. It’s also deeply part of our church order (which is biblically and theologically grounded) that classes do have authority over the formation an care of their churches and ministers, and that the consistories have authority over the worship and life of their own congregations.

These are not in dispute.

Or, they shouldn’t be.

But apparently they are.

This General Synod showed that most delegates don’t accept historic Reformed convictions about the Holy Spirit, the means of grace, and the nature of the church that are grounded in our confessions.

That’s appalling.

The one bright spot is that only a slim majority of those voting, 52%, rejected this motion. Which perhaps means that things are not so far gone as it might have appeared.

From Here

I suggested this above: there’s no guarantee that anything has really changed, or even will change. I believe that it is uncertain that the change to the Liturgy will be approved by 2/3 of the classes, and that it is unlikely that the change to the order will get such approval.

If either of them does get approved, I don’t see how this will really satisfy the purists, some of whom really want, it seems, to purge the RCA of LGBTQ persons and, especially, their allies among the clergy.

And if either of them does not get approved, then it becomes highly likely that all those purist ministers and congregations who, prior to this Synod, were threatening to bolt if things didn’t go their way will be threatening the same thing next year. There may be no stopping them.

Last year’s GS president set in motion the process that led to this result. It’s the gift that keeps giving.

Advertisements

Author: Dan Griswold

A good life is motivated by love. My loves: the Triune God, family, music, friends, parishioners, theology.

13 thoughts on “What General Synod Decided, Why It Was Bad, and How Bad It Was”

  1. Well it’s been a long time since I had a Gridwold in a cabin at Camp Fowler.
    As a ordanined Elder in the RCA who was told by a PASTOR that if I could not sign the call of a new pastor I was expected to leave. And I did because one of the essential part of the goal of faith is a clear conscience and it appears to me that the RCA has yet to appreciate that part of faith. My hope is that you will put first things first and also realize that the gift is the Holy Spirit who distributes the gifts according to the need.
    Simul Justus et Peccator
    David G McKeon

  2. Hi, Dan,
    Thank you for posting this. I came away from the 2016 General Synod with the general awareness that things went awry, but your explanation of how the RCA constitution and BCO are intended to function have helped me to understand much more clearly the issues at stake. I especially appreciate the point you make about marriage not being one of the things that constitutes the church. This point is one that I would think needs to be strongly emphasized in the on-going debate given that there are many of us in the church (and many of us as officeholders at that) who are either single or divorced.

    Derek DeJager

  3. Dan,
    Your analysis exposes the weakness of Special Council offering, which was limited by it’s procedure and makeup. Let’s remember the mandate given to Special Council, ” constitutional way forward”. The makeup of the council was not constitutionally minded. It was all about experience. So many there were only there to tell “their story”. They “demanded” to be heard. This to the exclusion of order, theology, and hermeneutics, which were considered “way too difficult to understand” and out of bounds in the case of hermeneutics. Procedurally it was only to seek “guided” consciences, not sound “law”. Proposers were guided to start with the “ridiculous” and then we were “told” what “we” hear you saying. This only resolved to a request for three offerings that were to be none prescriptive. The way I have described the three possibility’s is 1)Nothing2)Do3)Don’t.
    1)Nothing; Do nothing which is the fruit of affirming that classis and consistories do as they see fit. That is a no change choice.
    2) Do; Proclaim that the RCA pastors are allowed to officiate same sex weddings.
    3)Don’t; Proclaim that RCA pastors are to only officiate weddings for one man and one woman marriages.

    I don’t think GS needed a Special Council to tell them that you have three options. And that is why 16-16s ends up so weak. GS ask for it, didn’t get it and even was delayed in considering it. Then ends up writing it’s own law without COO. Image what it would look like if GS wrote it’s own COT papers on the floor of GS.

    I think your characterization that purist “who really want, it seems, to purge the RCA of LGBTQ persons and, especially, their allies among the clergy.” is unfortunate and untrue.

    tonyc

    1. Thank you for your insights, Tony. I do think that the Special Council was given an impossible task, and that much of what they tried to convey to the Synod was not accepted or heard. I was at all points during Synod, and before, quite careful to avoid any criticism of the Special Council. I believe that I kept that intention in my post. The burden of the post was to explain what Synod did, not what the Special Council did, not because the latter is unimportant but because of what I sense is the current need among a good number of people.

      I am very sorry that you were offended by that one comment of mine. Perhaps I overstated it, and for that I sincerely apologize. I should have qualified it, and made clear that this was my impression of some purists at Synod. Yet I do think that a good number of people will find it difficult to live with a situation in which there is profound disagreement on this issue, such that they would prefer for the differences simply to go away.

  4. I appreciate your explanations very much, Dan. They will help many elders and other church members understand what happened. Thank you for taking the time to produce these comments!

  5. Dan Griswald: Thank you for clarifying these actions; I have read and heard several comments about them, but they have not clearly stated what was done. I was almost afraid that the actions did something really terrible like denying membership to LGBT people. As a long time member of the RCA, I am disgusted that Gensyn decided to ban LGBT marriage, regardless of the subterfuge used. But then, I am from the Eastern wing of the church, not the western.

    I cannot see any biblical justification for it. Not in the New Testament, not in the words of Jesus, or of Paul. To find any justification, people have to go back to the Old Testament. And if they are going to accept one law from there, they must also accept all laws from there. If they accept one or maybe a few, but not all, then they are accepting a bastardized Christianity that is a matter of personal choice and not of God inspired choice. (God has never told me that he is anti-LGBT. In fact, from a medical standpoint, it seems that God created the possibility of there being LGBT people, as well as LGBT animals.

    In fact, a few years ago in our yard and pond, we had a trio of male mallard ducks who always hung out together. In fact they tended to walk closer to each other than the male-female pairs. Maybe that was because the others discriminated against them. Can any Christian argue that God did not have a hand in creating this trio?

  6. Hey Dan … good post. In my estimation, you have stated some of the key issues quite clearly … esp. matters related to constitutionality and limits of reporting.

    AND, I would also push back in a couple of ways. I will mention only one item here. I’ll throw it out there and I’d love to know what it stirs up in you:

    I think I would offer a different interpretation of the voting numbers. Based on the slim margins by which some measures passed, you seem hopeful. I would caution against such hope. The only reason some of the votes were so close is because our representational system works more like the US Senate and less like the House of Representatives. If it worked more like the latter and we used avg. Sunday attendance as the barometer (because I think butts-in-the-pews are better numbers than membership numbers), these votes would have been extremely lopsided. For instance, if Central Iowa and Illiana-Florida were allocated reps at the same rate as the Synod of Albany, then they would have had 61 voting members at GS. As it was, they had 16 while the Synod of Albany had 24. This example makes use of only TWO Classes. You can imagine how different GS would be if the same were true of Wisconsin, California, East Sioux, Southwest Michigan, etc. etc. I know, I need to be careful about the inference I am making: not everyone in the East is ‘liberal’ and not everyone in the West is ‘conservative,’ but even so … I would hold to my point: people looking at the voting numbers might think the split in our denomination is nearly 50/50. It’s not. It’s not even close.

    And I admit, it still may be true that some of these measures will fail to receive 2/3 vote from Classes. As you know, the representation for this vote is also skewed. All by itself, Illiana-Florida is larger than the smallest EIGHT Classes combined. (same could be said for Central Iowa) Yet, those smallest eight classes get 8 votes (1 each) while Illiana-Florida gets only one. In my estimation, this spells only doom for the RCA. Why? Because if 16-16s does not pass, many of these churches/classes are gone. If they leave, there will be no more RCA. The low membership in the East cannot sustain it. (is that too much doom and gloom????)

    Moreover, I find it troubling that both methods of voting (at GS and via the Classes) work against the largest segment of the population. Maybe that’s because I live in California! As a CA resident, I can appreciate the representational system of the Senate, but I also love the check-and-balance of the House. In this case, we have no House. If the roles were reversed, people back East would be crying out for voting justice within the RCA. As it is, I hear a deafening silence.

    1. Hi Drew. My use of the vote tallies was not to suggest anything about the relative support for particular positions across all members of RCA congregations. Rather, it was merely to suggest that passage of these measures by 2/3 of the classes is by no means certain, and might even be seriously in doubt. Arguments about equity and fairness in our current system of representation at General Synod and of constitutional change, even if sound and compelling, do not touch my points: that a GS vote with such close margins places in doubt passage of that measure by 2/3 of the classes, and that next year we’ll still be looking at the disintegration of the RCA

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