Kevin DeYoung's analysis of the Kingdom of God educated me well and good - see his blog dated around 40 days ago, at the Gospel Coalition.

My wife and i will soon have a bumper sticker of a phrase we appreciate from a Christmas song - "Jesus is the King born for you and me". Perhaps we should have something like this for Easter - "Jesus is the King Who died for you and me".

Blessings ><>

I am saddened by this. There were so many factors that went into this chain of decisions -- finance, organization, policy, editorial control, message management, centralization and federalism. All of these are real, and they played out at different times with different bodies.

I appreciate Paul's discussion of what transpired. He focuses one of this final judgements by saying, " It’s more than strategy and cost. It’s about how we talk to each other. How we listen to and understand each other."

And that's where I am most saddened. There are many ways to talk to each other, and doing it in print is only one -- our digital and wireless world greatly expands the methods. We need many ways to talk, many vehicles, many ways to carry our voices. The Church Herald was a print vehicle that has now gone away.

I greatly admire individuals who have a 'true center': a clear set of beliefs, core to their being, that they are able to express with integrity in many ways. That doesn't mean I always agree with them. The Church Herald provided a forum for such individuals with competing views, in print. It can still happen, and certainly does happen, here on the blog. But I doubt it will happen in RCA Today, the only remaining print vehicle.

After sitting through a couple of judicatories (regional and denominational), assisting classis churches in conflict and going through my own personal tensions, it seems that we really do need to be more intentional about loving the "other" whoever that "other" may be. We need to move from debate to dialogue. I think this is what should distinguish Jesus' disciples from Pharisee and Sadducee images of New Testament times.

Conflict is not a bad thing but how we address it (the process as Paul notes) is most important. Can we take a pastoral approach or must we always use a legal one to do things "decently and in order?"

It often seems that we, along with the culture we live in, are more interested in the destination more than the pilgrimage or the journey itself. Contemplative Christians throughout the ages would have something to share with us here. Even Willow Creek, in their recent Reveal study, recognized in hindsight, that people really want to go deeper in their spirituality, i.e., really don't want to settle for a "comfortable" spirituality and want to move beyond a consumer Christianity.

How do we see see issues, like this one on communciation, as not problems but opportunities to grow in our faith, to be stretched (stretching is not always comfortable) and formed in more spiritually mature ways. Let's face it, following Jesus Christ is not about "me" or "us" changing everyone else to our way of thinking, or our theological interpretations, but surrendering our lives to God's transforming grace. When we learn to do that, I think communication at a more intimate and powerful level will happen. Yet, realistically, there still may be too many that would rather be right than to do the right thing.

Perhaps the gift of the Belhar will help us to realize that communion and community are not givens. They take commitment, covenant and effort to happen. Deeper spirituality, as encouraged by Wes Granberg-Michaelson, will take "blood, sweat and tears", less worry about marketing strategy, and a focus on faithfulness over and above successfulness.

Hopefully and prayerfully, as a denomination, we will rise to the opportunity and challenge that God has placed before us. One would have to wonder, if a small membership denomination like the RCA cannot learn to really reflect upon, communicate about and seek discernment concerning difficult issues, what can we expect when we connect with the larger body of Christ? Maybe we need to go to family counseling but, then again, that would mean we have to admit our problem (total depravity is still a reality in our lives).

Grace and peace,
Scott Crane

Thanks for the clarification. It's helpful.

That’s not an accurate summary. The URCSA Synod sent the matter back to the churches for further study. That’s not a NO. That’s a NOT YET.

See Below:

Allan Boesak Quits URCSA Posts over Homosexuality Policy

South Africa – Allan Boesak, a church leader and former anti-apartheid activist, presented a lengthy report on homosexual members to his church, the Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa at its general synod Oct. 2. He dramatically insisted that the church’s Belhar Confession demanded the defense of the full rights of gay members. When the synod rejected this, he announced his intention to resign from all church offices and left the synod floor with his wife.

Boesak was the chair of a synodical committee that had presented a 60-page report on homosexuality to the church. At the previous URCSA synod in 2005, the church had asked for a report that would show several things, including a rejection of homophobia, an acknowledgement of the civil rights of homosexuals, and an acknowledgement of their membership in the church. The main task was to clarify the theological and moral status of homosexual unions, and clarify the ordination of practicing homosexuals into ministry. The report, which included a lengthy exegesis of the implications of the Belhar Confession for the topic, recommended full acceptance of homosexuals in loving and faithful relationships to the ministry of the church.

Presenting this report to the synod, Boesak told delegates that the Belhar Confession demanded that they move in this way. The Belhar, he said, was never meant to be just an anti-apartheid document, but a document against discrimination of all kinds.

Delegates reacted angrily. One even suggested that Boesak’s use of the Belhar Confession for this purpose was slanderous, although that delegate later apologized for the charge. The synod received the report but did not adopt any of its recommendations. Instead, it called for another committee to present the "other side" of the issue. Following the debate, Boesak again asked for the floor and announced that he intended to resign. Later, he charged the church with betrayal of the Belhar Confession.

Over the next two weeks, Boesak consulted with friends. He joined a new political party that split from the current ANC leadership. Moreover, he made his intention to resign final. He had been Moderator of the Cape Synod for URCSA.

The URCSA executive, however, said that if Boesak had done his work properly, this would not have happened. They characterized Beosak’s words after the synod as "misrepresentations" and "misleading declarations." They did agree with Boesak’s remark that the synod was not theologically or emotionally ready to deal with the report. They said that the committee was late with its report, and there was no time to process it through the church before it came to the synod. "Dr. Boesak should . . . take full responsibility for what happened with the report at synod. He should not try to lay the blame on the synod."

They described the report as an outstanding piece of work, which would now be sent to the regional synods for discussion. (Kerkbode, Beeld)

But I say that because I believe the Belhar is about the nature and character of who God is, and who we as people made in God's image were created to be. The Belhar thus speaks of unity, justice, and reconciliation. I don't see sexual behavior in there anywhere. Just my opinion.

Would you agree with this statement: "the Belhar Confession can in no way be construed as affirming the legitimacy of homosexual behavior, and those who claim the Belhar in support of such an affirmation violate the original purpose and meaning of the Confession"?

Kevin

But, I'll have to say I'm not entirely surprised. When I look at some other things she has done. In case you don't know there are churches in the Dakotas. And at our classis meeting last year, she was in attendance. She addressed us and spent time with any who wish to express and share the issue relevant to our churches.

Here's another thing. There was not a living member at the classis meeting that could remember a President of Synod ever visiting Dakota Classis. I'm certain she visited may classis, as she did Dakota. I look forward to seeing what happens next.