I'm not a therapist nor do I play one on TV, but that statement seems to point toward entitlement on your part. What gives you the final word on the concept of "necessary change"?? I am not hearing a lot of passion for harmony in your post either.

I know of many elderly folks in my home church who don't have an iron grip but rather relish the thought of trying new things in worship. On the other hand there are other congregations who are in such full scale change that it drives people to new congregations. So whats really a "tradition".....something some does for more than 1 year?

As I reflect on the process and tone of Synod, the underlying dynamics give me some concern too.

Can we trust each other? That question cuts both ways. I get the sense that our denominational leadership does not trust the delegates to come to the right conclusion. In our advisory groups we adopted norms for our conversation, which included encouraging the expression of different points of view. But there is little encouragement to raise concerns on the floor of Synod. How refreshing it would have been to hear someone even say, "These are the weaknesses I see, but the these are the strengths that outweigh the weaknesses in my judgment." Though I understand why Elder Spaans was cut off, it is most unfortunate that he was. It had the impact of squelching dissent. Articles were sent to us, supposedly not to persuade but to inform. But then it seems to me that there should also have been several solicited articles offering critiques.

The effect of all the different official voices chiming in to promote Belhar may be creating an intimidating atmosphere.

And just as the admonition to trust cuts both ways, the admonition not to be afraid cuts both ways. Some are afraid of uses the Belhar might be put to, and we have been urged not to vote out of fear. I think that is legitimate point, by the way. But come now.
My sense is that some of our denominationa leaders are now also "afraid." Afraid that the Belhar may not pass. Afraid of how certain groups will react. And so I wonder if they are leading out of fear too.

May the Lord guide our conversations later today, so that there is trust all around, and somehow discern the Lord's will in this imperfect document.

Stacey, thank you for your thoughtful comments encouraging the inclusion of all God's people.

I believe the biggest issue of Belhar is the way it excoriates the church for NEVER having been the church of Jesus Christ. Never? No never. The Belhar, with its themes of Unity, Justice, and Reconciliation, taken seriously and laid alongside the lived life of the church, shows us painfully and unequivocally that the church has repeatedly and mightily failed marginalized people including children, the differently-abled, women, people of color, THE POOR, and LGBTIQ folks. We easily turn the focus of Belhar on gay people because that focus so easily whips the church into a froth, but if we are honest with ourselves and faithful to the narrative of Jesus Christ which calls us to unity, justice, and reconciliation, we must admit we have failed to be the Christians Jesus called us to be - loving, embracing Christians. There are sadly so many outside our embrace in spite of JC's call to love our neighbors as ourselves and we still don't get it. I pray the Spirit of the one God will blow in us in the coming days and lead us where God would have us go.

My sister, stay strong and continue to love and share the love of God with all God's people. I appreciate you.

You state:
# "It is one matter to affirm that self-chosen homosexual acts are sinful. It is quite another to reject, defame, and excoriate the humanity of the person who performs them. This distinction has often been missed. It is possible and necessary on biblical grounds to identify homosexuality as a departure from God's intent. However...there are no theological grounds on which a homosexual may be singled out for a greater measure of judgement. All persons bear within them the marks of the fall."

I do appreciate your awareness/acknowledgement of the distinction in the singling out of one group of people v. another concerning the issue that all of us bear the marks of the fall. This is a distinction which people overlook in our rush to judge one another.

However, what does concern me is this notion that homosexuality/lesbianism et. al is a lifestyle - chosen by individuals who what: are just plain rebellious and if they only accepted God they would somehow be able to love a person of the other gender?!

There is a range of human sexual behaviors which vary from healthy to very unhealthy. And there are people who do make unhealthy (even over the top choices) about their sexual activities. But loving another human being should be a "lifestyle" that we are all free to chose - and being in a committed, caring, respectful relationship w/another is not something that anyone does on a whim. Ok - love at first sight - it happens.
For those who say "prayer" changed them - and they are now able to be in opposite sex relationships - well, good for them - if it is a loving healthy relationship. Maybe they were uncertain about their sexuality which is determined and affected by our hardwiring and external circumstances.

But I know far too many people, Christian or not - who have prayed, struggled, begged God to "make them different" and yet nothing changes. They love who they love.
(I am excluding reference to promiscous behavior of any sort and things of that nature). Why should people who love someone of the same gender be excluded from having access to things that you and I take for granted?
A home, a job, the ability to participate in loving and being loved - raising children - being married - being ordained. This is more than just sex w/someone of one's own gender. It is more than just physical intimacy.

If we all bear the marks of the fall, then either exclude everyone - or no one.

You wrote:
"I have to remind myself sometimes that it is completely reasonable for someone who believes that affirmation of LGBT persons is not a biblically faithful position to question whether I will push them to embrace something they believe is sin."

I feel like I have to remind you that our denomination does hold that the view that a LGBT lifestyle is not biblically faithful. To reference our 1978 paper (http://www.rca.org/Page.aspx?pid=502):

# "Heterosexuality is not only normal; it is normative. Homosexual acts are contrary to the will of God for human sexuality."

# "While avoiding simplistic and obnoxious social crusades, the church must affirm through its preaching and pastoral ministry that homosexuality is not an acceptable alternative lifestyle. God's gracious intent for human sexual fulfillment is the permanent bond of heterosexual love. This redemptive word must be spoken, with sensitivity, caring, and clarity to any person who would make a perverted sexual choice, and to society as a whole."

# "It is one matter to affirm that self-chosen homosexual acts are sinful. It is quite another to reject, defame, and excoriate the humanity of the person who performs them. This distinction has often been missed. It is possible and necessary on biblical grounds to identify homosexuality as a departure from God's intent. However...there are no theological grounds on which a homosexual may be singled out for a greater measure of judgement. All persons bear within them the marks of the fall."

I have many friends who follow this lifestyle. They are not bigger sinners than I am. I am the worst sinner I know, because I see my own sins more clearly than I see the sins of anyone else ... including people of different sexual orientation. I need the Gospel, and the Gospel calls me to repent. The RCA's consistent stance is that we all need the Gospel, and the Gospel calls us all ... homophobes and homosexuals alike ... to repent and to be transformed by the power of Christ's Spirit. Racists need the Gospel too. Remember, when Peter was acting in a racist / segregationist way, Paul chastised him - not for breaking the "no racism rule" but because he "saw that their iconduct was not in step with jthe truth of the gospel." (Galatians 2:14).

I have theological reasons that will more than likely lead me to vote that the Belhar become a helpful statement and not a fourth confession of faith. Homosexuality has nothing to do with it.

Yet ... I mourn the fact that it seems that we've lost a bit of the Gospel in the RCA. That's a later post for someone smarter than me to make, but I find myself praying for a recovery of the full Gospel in our churches and meetings.

(Sorry for the length of this post, but it seems that many are sharing your concern and I felt the need to address it.)

Blessings,

David Vandervelde