It has been said by those who know the game of football that the game is won or lost “in the trenches,” that is, on the line where the guards, tackles, and centers fight it out seeking to gain the advantage over the opponent. If the offensive line succeeds, they open up areas for the running backs to get through, or they protect the quarterback to get off a completed pass. If the defensive line prevails, they shut down the running back or sack the quarterback. Most people watching the game of football think in terms of the quarterback passing to the ends, or the running backs. They think in terms of the most visible and outstanding plays.

Much of what happens in football and the way people watch the game is also true of the church. People watch the actions of a synod like they watch the star running back. Synod is the focus of attention. There the big decisions are made. Issues win or lose at Synod. When a synod convenes, everyone is wondering how this or that issue will turn out, and each eagerly waits for the debate and the outcome.

Having been a delegate to synod at various times, including last year, I have come to see that the synod is not really the place where the issues are decided. The issues are won or lost “in the trenches.” I do not mean by that, in committees or in political maneuvering behind the scenes at the synod. I mean by that that issues are won or lost already on the classical level. The classes choose the delegates to the synod and these delegates vote their own views at the sy nod. If a person could tally those views before the synod meets, one would know the outcome of the issue before the synod meets.

What I am saying here is overly simplified, of course. There are convincing speeches at the synod and people are convinced to vote differently through debate. But most delegates, especially on an issue like putting women in office, know their position before they get to the synod and they vote that position.

If the decisions at the synod are really already determined at the classes, their election of delegates to attend the synod becomes extremely important. The point has been made by others that some of the traditionally conservative classes in our denomination contributed several votes in favor of women as deacons. How does that happen? Is this the position of these classes and the membership of the churches in these classes? Did these classes knowingly send these votes to the synod? The answer is probably, “No.” How then did this come about?

This happens especially because delegates to a Classical meeting do not know how ministers stand on these issues. Ministers sometimes know the position of other ministers, and some elders may know the position of some ministers, but, by and large, there is no knowledge of this. Some ministers are good leaders on the floor of classis and therefore get votes, and the minister who is chairing the meeting, if he is doing a good job, will probably be elected. There is confusion on major issues in the c lasses, and one does not win by confusion.

What obviously needs to happen is that the delegates at a classical meeting must be given an opportunity to ask certain questions to which all ministers, as well as elder nominees, must reply. This is the only sensible approach to the problems. We do not elect representatives to government positions without hearing their position on various issues. Consistories seek to learn the position of ministers on issues before they place them on a duo or trio. We do not appoint people to Calvin Seminary without an interview at the synod to reveal their connections. It is ironic that we want to hear the positions of people who teach at our seminary, but we do not want to interview and know the positions of the people that we send to the synod to elect them. Someone at Classis, before voting begins, ought to move that delegates be given the opportunity to learn the positions of prospective delegates to Synod on issues. This should also be done when a classis votes for representatives to denominational boards.

Most people reading this article are probably thinking about women in the office of deacon which is the hot issue right now. That is one issue into which delegates at a classis would inquire, but there are also other important issues. I would inquire about a person’s position on the proposed plan to put World Missions and World Relief under one board, how they would vote on a Banner editor, their view of denominational quotas, apartheid and race relations, the contemporary testimony, etc.

Perhaps “the trenches” go back even one more step to our consistories. In considering the issue of women as deacons, suppose the minister and the elder whose turn it is to attend the classical meeting favor it, but the consistory as a whole does not. This consistory will then send two votes to classis against any overture to overturn the decision of 1984, and two votes for delegates to synod for men who favor women as deacons. There is something terribly wrong about that. Perhaps consistories need to alter their procedure in sending delegates to classis to ensure that they are properly represented on some of these issues.

However we approach this, let us remember that the game is basically won or lost “in the trenches.”

Norman Haan, Worthington, Minn.

   

Capital Punishment

The other day an article appeared in the local press about the stand of the United Church of Canada on the issue of capital punishment. While all of the local clergy interviewed were against a return to capital punishment, the “churchmen say their congregations may support a return to the death penalty.” That’s not the first time that clergy are not representative of the thinking of the people in their congregations.

What struck me, however, were the arguments used by the clergy against reinstating capital punishment. I want to look at a few of them.

1. “Murder doesn’t entitle us to murder in return,” says one minister. As ifc apital punishment, carried out by duly appointed executioners, is murder. The magistrate is armed with the sword to prevent murder, says the Catechism. If I kill someone by taking the law into my own hands, then I am guilty of murder. But when someone appointed by God to carry out punishment does it, it is not murder. Rulers are God‘s servants for good, says Romans 13, and do not bear the sword in vain. (And the sword referred to is that of the executioner.) One would think that ministers of the Word would understand that elementary distinction.

What is more, in the same body of legislation in which God forbids murder (the 6th commandment), he prescribes the death penalty for several offenses. Is God contradicting himself? Of course not. The 6th commandment forbids us to kill our neighbor out of hatred or revenge. But God himself decides which crimes call for the death penalty, and He entrusts that duty to the magistrate who acts in the name of God. That is not “murdering in return.”

2. “The ‘eye-for-an-eye’ philosophy in the Old Testament is superceded by the New Testament gospel.” Capital punishment is “contrary to the spirit and teaching of Christ.” That is an old standby that has been used many a time. But it is dead wrong just the same. Old and New Testaments cannot be played over against each other in this fashion, neither in this case nor in that of the imprecatory psalms. You find the same principle at work in both testaments.

First of all, the “eye-for-an-eye” rule is not a cruel, vindictive law at all, but was introduced by God in order to prevent undue harshness in punishment. God was simply concerned to spell out that the punishment meted out was to fit the crime perpetrated. It was the principle of retributive justice, and that principle still holds in the New Testament too (Cf. Matt. 7:2; Luke 11:29–32; 12:47–8). Furthermore, the spirit and teaching of Jesus is consistent with that of the Old Testament, including His teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, and it does not contradict or rule out punishment for sin (cf. e.g. Matt. 5:17–20; 7:13, 14, 21–23; John 2:13–16; Mark 11:15–17; Heb. 10:26–31).

‘3. “I’m still not convinced capital punishment is a deterrence to murder.” In the first place, that is not the point. If God says that he who sheds Man’s blood must have his blood shed by man, then we don’t counter by asking whether or not it is a deterrent. God‘s laws are good, whether or not we think they work. What is more, Romans 13:3, 4 clearly teaches that punishment is a deterrent to evil. And if capital punishment were carried out swiftly and effectively, it would be a great deterrent, as has been demonstrated more than once in history. Aside from that, however, God has established a “balance” in this world, so that he who willfully takes a man’ s life must himself undergo a penalty that restores the balance—restitution must be made. On that principle the whole house of justice stands. 

J. Tuininga, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada