Leadingchurch.com

https://network.crcna.org/topic/leadership/crcna-and-synod/crucial-conversations-synod-part-i

Quotes from part 2 (all the way to the link, not just the block quote, can’t seem to get that to work right on the blog…)

So, here’s my proposal: I mean to convince you, if you are not convinced already, that these types of difficult, “crucial conversations” need to be had more frequently on a micro scale (in coffee shops, homes, or offices) talking about worldviews while humanizing the person with whom we disagree, far more than on a macro scale (behind microphones, or on social media, pontificating to the world) talking about moral issues. We need to spend far more time and energy talking about our worldviews, which leads to different authorities, which results in different assumptions…which then, and only then, leads to different answers to questions about moral issues we all face. 

One such story that highlights this principle is the number of men and women who professed that, while in their advisory committee sessions at Synod 2022 and 2023 there was such a strong rapport among delegates who had strong disagreements with one another. They prayed together, cried together, worshipped together, and were able to humanize one another in their unique perspectives. There was even a recent Banner Article highlighting one such advisory committee that took this posture. One member states, “[We] were primarily concerned with the need for us to examine our own hearts in this, not the need to go out with a bigger stick. I saw that posture, and I believe it.”

But, both last year and the year prior, there were a number of instances in which advisory committees had rich experiences much like what is shared above, but then, when their majority/minority reports hit the floor of synod, it felt like they stepped into another world where all the wonderful experiences they just had together were suddenly undone. Why? How is that possible? Consider:

• One of the reasons is because the advisory committees were nuanced micro conversations, and the floor of synod is a linear macro argument about moral issues.
• Another is the fact that the stakes were lower since their job is to give recommendations to Synod (and can even have a majority/minority report), rather than to be the final decision makers.

Perhaps all of this is obvious. Perhaps you’re thinking, ‘So, you’re saying it is easier to have a nuanced conversation with one person in a coffee shop than it is with 196 people at Synod. You’re a genius! What are you saying, Justin? Should we just tear down Synod and not meet like that anymore?’ 

Some days I might feel that way (I joke), but that is not what I am proposing here. We will also look at that question more fully in the corresponding Part II post (coming soon!). What I am saying here is this: 

We ought to resolve in our mind that, wherever possible, our goal is to have to have micro conversations on worldviews first and most, and to have macro arguments on moral issues least and last. 

https://network.crcna.org/topic/leadership/crcna-and-synod/crucial-conversations-synod-part-ii

something I wrote for Voices

I agree that “deliberation” is difficult in the plenary sessions. In
many ways the business end of Synod IS done in the dark. The advisory
committee meetings ARE where most of the real work of Synod is done.
Those meetings are not recorded. They are in fact under some semblence
of executive session. They are done “in the dark”.

Synod speeches are mostly self-expression. People step up to the mic
to tell their stories, express their displeasure often. It’s sort of
like the Internet and YouTube. If it is emotive it gets attention.

The chair has a great deal of responsibility for trying to make Synod
work. Last year Paul DV, a veteran of this if we have one, tried to
allow more storytelling. He tried to NOT edit with too strong a touch.
In the end I think that experiment was a failure on some levels. I
think we need the chair to be an editor but that’s a very difficult
job in a time of conflict. Likely both sides will feel dissatisfied.

So we are left with the question of “what are the plenary sessions for?”

that’s I think a fruitful question to pursue. Obviously votes need to
be taken. The mixing that the advisory system accomplishes is never
100%. The plenary sessions are checks on that. In my watching of Synod
over the last number of years some of the tells were when the plenary
session overturns a majority advisory report. The advisory system
isn’t perfect.

Perhaps, the plenary session IS for the spectacle and the viewership
of the church. Perhaps the church needs to see itself through that
delegated body even if deliberations there are difficult.

Again, the role of the chair in helping the body deliberate is key.
The rules are key, but most of what happens there isn’t deliberation,
it’s presentation. It’s presentation to the body. MUCH of Synod is
presentation to the plenary and through them out to the broader
element of the church paying attention. Look at the “exams” of
Seminary profs and denominational functionaries. The aren’t really
exams. The votes really aren’t votes. This is theater. The Koreans of
course know something of this. They mostly do backroom deals and then
present a unified facade to the world.

When the church was mostly a regional church, or a small network of
Dutch churches, and Synod was 2 weeks, this was the same. Now we live
in the age of YouTube and the Internet. The plenary sessions are
theater and spectacle, not unlike the US House of Representatives. The
real deliberations deal making happens in the dark, and people both
hate that and take advantage of it. pvk

https://www.mercyonall.org/posts/the-last-farthing

• https://calvinchimes.org/2024/04/12/wiebe-and-joanna-boer-sue-calvin-for-breach-of-contract-defamation/
• https://calvinchimes.org/2024/03/28/board-releases-details-about-boer-resignation-in-response-to-due-process-concerns/
• https://www.scribd.com/document/722500206/ECF-1-Complaint