Recently I reviewed an old post in which I asked about what role the virgin birth plays in the life of believers.  Not trying to revisit that old post, but as I read the comments, one respondent indicated that the virgin birth was one of the foundations of the faith, and if we start nibbling away at the foundations, soon the whole building can come tumbling down.

Foundation; fundamental -- same root, I think.  (And the virgin birth is, incidentally, one of the five fundamentals of classis American fundamentalism.)

Which brings to mind a question:  

If you had to identify five "FOUNDATIONS" or "FUNDAMENTALS" of the Christian faith, what would they be? 

I was not at the General Synod, but I certainly feel for those who were. (are)

A substitute for R-56, which was itself a recapitulation of the voice of the whole Synod (in response to overtures sent from 3 of the 45 classes -- that's a whopping 6.66 % of the classes in the RCA), indicates that the General Synod has, for the first time, determined (sort of) that getting too close to persons who are engaged in homosexual behavior have committed a "disciplinable" offense.

Well, proponents of the substitute said, over and over again, words to this efffect:  "This does not mean that a classis MUST discipline anyone."

So, what was the point?

No classis was under obligation to discipline anyone before the motion.  Were they?

Nor are they now obliged to do so, if the proponents of the substitute are to be believed.

The only practical effect of the action of the General Synod is to further alienate gay and lesbian believers from the body of the Reformed Church in America.

  There is another sort of effect, I suppose -- the effect that we can now feel ourselves just a little bit more "unstained by the world."  Pure.  Righteous. Godly.

How has the RCA benefited from this? Well, the substitute said that we reaffirm where we've been before. So that didn't advance the ball down the field.

Is this a day for rejoicing? I don't think so. Not for me. Or does my struggling with the meaning of the Scripture, and with an understanding of the standards of unity, not count, because I would have been in the minority?

Some will be proud to tell their children of what the General Synod did today. I will be ashamed. This action will drive them farther away from the church. Does my shame count? Or am I of the "false church" anyway, by the reckoning of some?

Please inform me, and those who would have voted against the substitute, where we stand. Do you want to hear from us? Do you long for table fellowship? Or is it a matter of "Now you be quiet"?

 I do have a suggestion for the church, and I invite others to join in. I invite you to join in a more widely attested biblical tradition.

 Any minister who has turned away a hungry person for any reason will be disciplinable.

Any minister who has gotten intoxicated will be disciplinable.

Any minister who has tolerated divorce will be disciplinable.

Any minister who has not visited at least one prisoner in the last year will be disciplinable.

Any minister who has not taken the homeless poor into her home will be disciplinable.

Any minister who is not reconciled to his own kin will be disciplinable.

Any minister who has failed to hold services according to the Liturgy of the RCA will be disciplinable. (OK, that one's not so biblical)

Any minister who has slandered a colleague will be disciplinable.

Any minister who has thought a colleague to be a "moron" will be disciplinable -- preferably, to the hell of fire. Any minister who has harmed the body by inhaling tobacco will be disciplinable.

And so on.

Shouldn't be too long before we've emptied out the RCA of ministers more effectively than the Soviet regime did over the course of decades. Just make sure you're among the early discipliners, not the disciplinees. OK, much of that was tongue in cheek, but can any one tell me what GOOD came out of all the wrangling?

I can define lots of harm. But where's the good?

My suspicion, if you'll indulge me just a bit longer, is that this will be another "brick in the wall" for those who interpret the Bible a certain way, and who think (totally incorrectly, as a colleague who is at GS could define better than I) that the RCA operates with a case-law model of church order. They'll think this is a "precedent." This is a fundamentally different way of understanding the way that the Church is constituted by the Word. It is what it is (more Roman than Reformed); it just ain't what we've been.

 I've given you too much to argue with already. May God help this little denomination as it continues to shrink -- and now, by the desire and action of some -- splinter.

As to the process itself, it's difficult to get at, and may be difficult to rid ourselves of.

It's a conversation. I may find myself saying that a thousand times today.  No, this is NOT a debate.  We are NOT a deliberative or delegated body.  We are NOT even "grass roots," imho.  We are a company of the motivated who could afford to come (or who couldn't, really, and made significant personal sacrifice to come).  I've walked through the process once now. It is helpful as a mutually educative tool.   And it will feed into the discussions that the GSC will have about whether to have another 10 year goal, and if so, what shape that goal might have.  It is just a conversation--to which people come with all sorts of expectations.  Those who expect it to have legislative status may be disappointed if it turns out to be just 'guidance.'   Those who want it to just be informative may be disappointed if it turns out to be informally 'binding' in some way.  That said, it may be bound to divide, rather than unite.  I hope that won't happen, but it may.

Please pray for the conversers, friends.  Pray for clarity about what we are doing and what it will mean.  Pray for charity as we listen more than speak.  We who are here need you, that we might not be caught up in temporary enthusiasm, but be guided by Word and Spirit.

Conversations opened last night with a gathering of about 2 1/4 hours in a hotel ballroom.  I'll spare you my personal reactions to the gathering, and instead, report with sadness that it was about what one would expect.  Having served the General Synod for a few years as its worship coordinator, I know how very difficult it can be to plan worship that is truly unitive in our denomination.  Last night's service was no exception as a testament to the enormity of that task.  I only report from the postings of several friends on facebook that several of them found the gathering to be inspiring, uplifting, etc; and that an equal number felt  dis-enabled from worshipping by the choices of music and physically assaulted by the volume of the music.  Most fb friends on that side of the equation simply held their peace.

Another two items about the gathering are more than quibbles.  First, there was no public reading of scripture.  I know that this is fairly common in many gatherings of RCA folk.  Does it not, however, strike you as odd?  "Reformed according to the ......."   Christ is the Lord and King of ...........  The ......... became flesh.     We are ministers of ......... and Sacrament.  How do we gather -- much less worship -- without the public reading of the scriptures?  I don't get it.   Second, there was a space in the order for intercessions, but we didn't pray for anybody else.  We prayed about ourselves, and for ourselves, and seemingly salved our anxiety by assuring ourselves that God would surely speak to us at this gathering..... but the poor were not present among us, the weary and wartorn, the abused, institutions of government, etc.  We live in a context -- and that context is not just us.  I don't think these are just personal "quibbles," though I'd be happy to hear from folks who disagree with me.

Again, overall impression -- sadly, oif what we were doing was to be called "worship," then, at least for last night, we seem to have experienced worship as divisive, not unitive.

Wait.

Isn't that backwards?

Don't we sin, and then God gets angry with us? 

And why did this jump out at me?

Because I, a pastor of an eastern congregation (Park Ridge, New Jersey) am a wee bit tired of hearing the saw that goes like this:  "You eastern churches have abandoned the true faith.  That's why you've lost so many members."

Well, I'm no advocate for abandoning the true faith.

However, if numbers tell the story, are the likes of Creflo Dollar and Joel Osteen to be trusted with carrying on the vessel of the orthodox faith into the next generation?

If numbers tell the story, how does one explain the thriving lives of many congregations in the east that are too "inclusive" or "progressive" for the purveyors of those who equate membership decline with doctrinal apostasy?

The story is just more complicated than that.

Most irksome is the uber-confidence that I detect in the voices of those who draw a straight line between membership decline and heterodoxy.

Heeding Isaiah's words would cause one to be more tentative.  "Thou wast angry, and we sinned."  So....is God responsible for our sin?  No, we would rightly say.  After all "thou hast delivered us into the hand of our iniquities."  Nevertheless, the mechanical sense of "if you're 'bad' in some way, God will get angry'" inverts the plain meaning of the text as we have it.

The Hebrew may be obscure, but what is rendered as "and shall we be saved?" is a question that puts us in the right spirit for Advent.  Shall we indeed be saved?  Not, "shall we be successful" or "shall we decrease in number?"  But "shall we be saved?"

Responding as a Calvinist, the answer to that question is up to God.

I'm not advocating anything like a formal dress code.  (If I did, I'd make it simple.  Like -- guys, cover  your entire legs.  And wear something that has at least one button.)  I don't mind an air of informality.  But might there be a line inserted in next year's online workbook to the effect that "casual Friday" dress is most appropriate for Synod meetings? 

After all, we gather to do the Lord's work.  Sometimes it seems like several delegates -- even staff (well, at least one that I saw) -- are gathered for a few moments before they head to the shore to dig for clams.  Or to the parking lot for tailgating. 

Is this the message we intend to convey -- "hey, we all just really love the Lord, and Jesus says 'come as you are' (please quote the passage for me), so it doesn't matter what we wear, as long as we're comfy?" 

Is it sexist of me to notice that the women on the whole -- as few as they are -- dress in a way that befits the importance of the occasion?

Do we bind the Spirit if we ask for some kind of standard?

You can't even wear shorts to lots of golf clubs!

Have any bloggers attended the assemblies of our ecumenical brothers and sisters in Christ?  If so, what do they wear when they gather to discern the will of the Spirit? 

Lots of good things happen at Synod, maybe despite our dress.  I get that.  Seldom is enough credit given to the "back of house" staff people who work so tirelessly and cheerfully to deliver a productive Synod experience.

But -- tell me -- am I just out to lunch on this one?

(OK, I'll quit RobBelling, 'just asking questions.'  If you're going to Synod next  year, please, dress like you're doing the Lord's work, not like you can't wait to get out on the deck for margaritas.)

I get that the RCA isn't perfect.  How could any denomination with Calvinist roots claim to be free from the totality of human sinfulness?

But consider this.  For many thousands of folks (I'll only say thousands, because we ain't that big), the RCA has been their spiritual mother.  We began life here.  We continue life within its walls.  Maybe from time to time we need a little 'therapy' to deal with 'mother issues.'  Nevertheless, the RCA is still our "spiritual mother," to use a rather archaic phrase.

So, if at some point a reader of this blog thinks it expedient to mock the life of the RCA, please consider -- you're calling out someone's mother.  I would venture a guess that (if you're in the mocking mood) you wouldn't want your mother ridiculed in public.  I hope you'd rush to defend her.

Think about it, next time before you say "yo momma" about the RCA. 

I don't want to turn this into a thread where people can just whine away unabated, but is this feeling of non-recognition or being non-valued very widespread? 

For my part -- I'm in one of those 'traditional' ministries. Congregation here for almost 200 years.  It's done countless missional things over the years, and it continues to do so, although what counts for "missional activity" these days isn't all that much in evidence.  (We aren't starting a new program each year to reach out to a new community need, for example.)  Sometimes my eyes roll back in my head when folks who are enthusiastic about missional activity talk to me, and others in churches in the East, as if we're not doing anything for the sake of gospel and and God's reign.

What do you think?  Have a story to tell?  Are we just not talking to each other?

What do you think will be Wes's most significant legacy in the RCA?  How would you choose to express your gratitude for his leadership?  What sort of person do you think the RCA should be looking for as its new General Secretary?  What sorts of qualifications (or disqualifiers) should he or she possess?

For my own part -- thanks, Wes; you've given your mind, body, and soul to serving the RCA for these years.  You've dealt with both supporters and detractors with grace.  You have served us well internally and have represented us well externally, and we have been blessed to be led by a true servant of the church (the whole church).  May God be with you in your time of transition, and with the RCA in a time that will no doubt bring some anxiety and concern to the fore.