Calvin Synod Herald, 2002 (103. évfolyam, 1-10. szám)
2002-03-01 / 3-4. szám
CALVIN SYNOD HERALD 7 church was led off by supply pastor Diehl, we then informed Connecticut Conference that their reception would insult our covenantal responsibilities. Since they left us and became ‘independent’, did that make them fair game? The churches we turned away could have done the same, leaving their conferences and joining with Calvin Synod as ‘independents.’ The letter of the law would have been kept, but the spirit ignored, and we must ask what is more important to New Haven Association, Connecticut Conference, and - while we’re at it - the Illinois and Indiana conferences?” Territory and Polity The President concludes that any congregation can do whatever it pleases, “in our UCC polity, they are allowed to make that decision.” He also asserts that the Constitution only requires approval of “geographic boundaries.” Does that mean Calvin Synod operates under a second class of rules, and that all of its churches may be enticed elsewhere, but Calvin Synod is obliged to respect the territory of everybody else? Couldn’t churches from Maine and Pennsylvania have left their area Association to join Calvin Synod, since they would not have “adjusted” the boundaries? Further, in respect to “UCC polity,” this body affirms that it was and still is a Synod in historical continuity, as when it entered into the UCC (a merger it voted to oppose), and properly so according to the Basis of Union and The Interpretations. Its congregations are bonded by their common confessions and, as Reformed, never “independent” churches, neither members nor ministers. The church at Wallingford was totally out of order in its actions! This Synod affirms a higher sense of covenant and essential unity, not mere contract, with its own Constitution and Bylaws binding upon all in it. Actually, the UCC’s is so ambiguous that anyone can do anything at anytime. Section 3 of the Constitution says that it only defines and regulates the General Synod and Instrumentalities - period. For all others - Local Churches, Associations, Conferences and ministers - it is limited to only “describe the free and voluntary relationships... with each other.” It therefore requires nothing. That’s UCC polity! It is unfortunate Rev. Thomas chose to personalize the letter, a copy sent to the Conference Minister’s office for circulation if desired. In fact, she aided the transfer of the Los Angeles Hungarian congregation to Calvin Synod several years before. But Connecticut Conference and New Haven Association, from their earliest involvement, have corporate culpability in Calvin Synod’s loss. Where Next? The e-mail concluded: “So much for ‘covenant.’ I believe that Calvin Synod must proceed on its own to gather together those confessional churches adhering to the theological standards of the ‘Evangelical and Reformed Church,’ and consonant with its presbyterial polity. I believe it can do so without any need for approval and certainly without apology. What is good for the goose is good for the gander!!! For decades the question was pursued as to when the Magyar or Calvin Synod would die. Liberals and anarchists force the issue at every General Synod. Listen up! We are here and we intend to live on. “If God is for us, who is against us?” “Ha Isten velünk, kicsoda ellenünk?” Response of President Thomas Dear Albert: You have included me in the cc: line of your e-mail and I want to respond briefly to your note. First, I have watched the developing situation in the Wallingford church for some time and have spoken with a number of people about it over the past three years. In each of those conversations I consistently encouraged a variety of participants to find ways for the Wallingford Church to strengthen its ties to the Calvin Synod while at the same time draw on the resources and assistance that might be available from the Connecticut Conference. It is my belief that Conference officials made good faith efforts in this direction, including consultation with at least one member of the Calvin Synod council. I am sorry that the solution was apparently not received by the local church. Apparently the members of the local church determined that their ministry and their participation in God’s mission would be most effectively served by membership in the conference in which they reside geographically. Since I was, appropriately, never part of any of those congregational deliberations, I cannot comment on the wisdom of that decision or their motives. However, in our UCC polity, they are allowed to make that decision, which leads to my second part. The Constitution of the United Church of Christ was not, in my opinion, violated by this action. The General Synod is required to approve the adjustment of boundaries between conferences, but this refers, in my judgement, to geographic boundaries. Since the Wallingford church’s action does not adjust geographic boundaries of the Connecticut Conference, the Constitution is not violated. Having said that, I recognize that the more important issue is one of covenant, not constitutionality. Third, I am grateful that the Calvin Synod chose not to seek the establishment of a new “classis” in the early 1990’s that would potentially receive as members churches of the Biblical Witness Fellowship, as well as others. I say that not only because I think that would have dangerously fragmented our whole church, but even more because I think that would have damaged the historical, theological and cultural identity of the Calvin Synod itself. I am fully aware that that on some important matters of theology and ethics there are significant differences between the perspective of the Calvin Synod and our General Synod. I know this is a source of tension for many. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that the Calvin Synod is a rich and important dimension of our church and that we would be diminished without it. I have tried to nurture close relationships with you and other members of the Calvin Synod, and have been please by the strong participation of its Boards and Executive Council. More broadly, I have sought to appreciate the Hungarian Reformed heritage which it represents. In fact, I have just this week returned from four days in Debrecen and Budapest, at the invitation of the Reformed Church in Hungary, and can report that they were significant days marked by very warm conversations with Bishop Bosekei and others. I was also able to spend an evening with Dr. and Mrs. Medyesi who are serving the Karoly Gáspár Theological College through the support of our UCC Common Global Ministries Board. It is inspiring to see what they are doing on behalf of all of us. For all this, and more, I am disheartened to read your final paragraph with its suggestion, as I read it, that local churches in the Calvin Synod reconsider their membership in the United Church of Christ. Even if the decision of the Wallingford Church, and the subsequent action of the New Haven Association was a breach of covenant - and I am not convinced that it was - I do not believe that further fragmentation of our church serves the well being of any of our congregations or the mission to which we are called. Finally, let me say, with respect, that in this week of profound national sorrow, I do not appreciate your use of the word “highjacked!” in the in the subject line of your message. Davida Foy Crabtree, whom you include in your address list, has spent the last days caring for the pastors of Fairfield County who are dealing with unspeakable loss in their communities. She presided at the funeral of the son, daughter-in-law, and grandchild of a member of the Conference Board of Directors who were passengers on one of the hijacked airliners. She deserved greater sensitivity from colleagues in ministry. Albert, I have tried to be candid in my response. I trust such honesty will not add to alienation, but may become the basis for a reconciling way forward. ÖÖÖ John Thomas (9-20-2001)
