Blogging from the Floor #4.2

Wow, it's taking three posts to cover the whole of Wednesday at Synod 2008. Just a couple of more things:

The Board of Trustees had recommended that only one name be required to be presented to Synod for the various board positions throughout the denomination. This would mean that a simple yes or no vote would happen rather than voting between two persons. The rationale was that it is difficult to get people to commit themselves to the long process of nomination. The Advisory Committee ended up actually going against the B.O.T. on this saying it would give the impression of more centralization (I would argue that it would actually be more centralization). I was glad to see they recognized that in principle at least. Synod passed the committee's recommendation and will be voting between two nominees in the future. Granted, just going through this yesterday, there were many individuals I did not know and had to make a prayerful decision based on what information had been given to me so far. But if the agencies, committees and B.O.T. give names of appropriately gifted, qualified persons to Synod, then it at least gives the churches input into which way they would want these agencies to go. The other related item of business was that Synod approved the B.O.T.'s recommendation to eliminate the alternate positions - just for the B.O.T. itself.

It's amazed me how just-below-the-surface the whole issue of women-in-church-office is. Now, I said this before, but personally I have found the tenor here to be very respectful - maybe even cautious. Particularly, women delegates have been gracious. Some of the men seem to think they need to be the knight in shining armor though. There was a recommendation from the B.O.T. to eliminate the Women Advisers now that women can be delegates directly. They gave a straight forward recommendation which the advisory committee felt compelled to amplify with celebratory language. This, of course, was binding on the consciouses of several delegates and led to another lengthy discussion - but one that continues to be needed. How can delegates who have a complementarian view vote that their classes should encourage the full participation of women at Synod. That was the first recommendation, which passed.

The next recommendation dealt specifically with eliminating the women advisers. Again, the committee added some unnecessary language - which this time was eliminated after the motion was defeated. A pared down version was approved, thereby eliminating the position of women advisers (by the way - 8 women advisers have served Synod for many years, en lieu of delegates - a compromise from years back). I spoke against the motion from a different angle. I know women from a complementarian perspective will never serve as elders and deacons - not because they are being held down, but because of their own godly, biblical convictions. Yet, I think in an advisory role, they could be a beautiful light for truth at Synod meetings. Interestingly, many came up to me afterwards and thanked me for that perspective. There seems to be an assumption that all women who are serious about their service to God's church aspire to be deacons and elders - oh, we have some wonderful ladies for them to meet! Maybe more on this as Synod approaches next year.

Well - off to another day... possibly the last, but those things can never be predicted.

Chad Steenwyk
delegate from Classis Holland