August Guillaume

I believe that the committee dealing with the word changes would be interested in your views, especially if you can give some specific examples (where one or the other 'translations' was not correct and where the choice that was made was in error.  The committee decided not to re translate all the documents but tried to choose the best existing translation.

None of the original documents were written in poetic style as far as I know. Again an example would be appreciated.  Translation of poetry is very difficult. How to keep the metric (or other poetic device) without changing the meaning?  The psalms is an example. All we can find out about the poetic device (first lines begin with the different letters of the Hebrew Alphabet for example) can only be recognized in the footnotes.  I believe that in these documents the meaning of the sentence is paramount.

What I have found about "process Theology" on wikipedia is interesting; Many facets as described seems close to a Reformed view. However, the following shows Process Theology is not identical to Reformed Faith, as I understand it.

The Christ of process theology does not represent a hypostasis of divine and human persona. Rather God is incarnate in the lives of all humans when they act according to a call from God. Jesus fully and in every way responded to the call of God and so the person of Jesus is theologically understood to be “the divine Word in human form.” Jesus was not God-man in essence, but fully identified with God at all moments of life.[6]

Headship is certainly a Reformed concept. The term "federal headship" is a bit foreign to the CRC I believe and with the Women in Office issue has been refined in concept and application. 

There is certainly biblical support for Women in Office as well as certain passages that make it an issue for many, but the change you refer to is not a 'back door' method for same. The CRC  has used many direct methods to argue for or against. 

I believe that using 'Adam and Eve' is more exact. In the past, Adam was held as the representative of the whole human race, but with such emphasis on Women's rights and responsibilities, Adam may only be seen as the representative of  males and Eve the representative of females. If that is the case for many readers, it is better to explain the whole human race is meant by referring to both Adam and Eve.

"Amendments to the three documents" may not be the most appropriate for this forum. It may be better to have it discussed under 'elders'. However, I do not see any reference to this topic

The change in the three documents was to simplify the common hymnal that is to be published. The CRC requested the inclusion of the three documents; hence the attempt to find common wording.

You may like to check the Belhar confession, also before the churches for comment. This document is certainly about how to love our neighbour.

The three documents were written in the time when detailed theological statements were thought to be very important in the Western Church. I doubt they have the similar impact today.

I believe that the jump to LDS is quite large. See Heidelberg Catechism #24 for example:

http://www.crcna.org/pages/heidelberg_spirit.cfm#QandA 62  

I believe that the phrase Judeo-Christian is possible because we both consider the Old Testament to be the Word of God and use it to understand how to love God and neighbour.  

Any group that considers Jesus only as a great prophet but no mediator between God and man is actually quite far away from Christianity even though they may agree with many of the practises how to love our neighbour.

"Proper thinking about theological propositions" may have been very important during the Reformation for protestants to distinguish themselves from Catholics . However to claim that as the only 'goal' of Christianity goes a bit too far since the mandate of Christians is to love God and neighbour. 

The Catechism builds the argument carefully right from Sunday #1 to #52, answering most of your questions.

Discipline needs to be done prayerfully, and very carefully since all we do is stained with sin. If a member needs discipline it is likely because the person does not seem to be bothered with his/her sin and the sin may be very difficult for others.

There are quite a few problems in trying to have an 'objective' test. 

for instance http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Matthew+25 (vs 31 etc)  shows clearly that Christians will not know about the "good works" they did.  Our problem is that once we think we know we did a good work we then tend to be quite proud of it which could actually nullify it all.

How can we tell the real reason a person did something well.  Was it due to thankfulness or spite? And then we realize that we can hardly do anything 100% and so the Catechism builds the argument that any 'objective' test will not work; That all is a gift - even all the good works.

We can then live and be thankful for such gifts we receive and try every day again.

Now and ever the common assumption is that if someone does something that is considered right or good  the person who is dead will go to heaven. 

When Jesus showed what is important  He seemed to turn everything around and upside down but not completely!

The end result of all our figuring should to leave most of the figuring out and leave everything up to the Lord.

That means leave heros heros, be happy with what seems to be good, and stay away from evil, and whatever seems to be bad without needing to know exactly what our Lord would say about it every time.

I appreciate Ken's statement.  It is true, however, that police see many horrible activities and situations which may make their lifeview different from 'ordinary' folk who may hardly, if ever see these situations first hand.  Questions such as can God forgive this?  Could God not have prevented this? may well be a daily experience for many police.

Could the only way out be daily prayer where the police can honestly express his/her feelings to God, and let God show the police his love in some meaningful way?

I used to be a member of CRC voices, but the messages were way too much and often went nowhere changing topics without changing headings.

I would like to see the discussion via a web service, but in no way i want any e-mails.

How can I do that?

Granted - a smaller mission force is not what we want - neither is a model where missionaries have to be salesmen better than the staff in GR, attempting to raise ministry shares! Financing local missionaries in foreign countries is another model, having staff in GR paid on the same basis as missionaries - raise your own funds - then come to work - is another model to use.  A shrinking money pot is what all of us have to face - why use the services of front line staff - the ones that actually bring the WORD to others - to raise money may not be the solution everyone is looking for. Missionaries can now shop around for the best deal, since many missionary organizations use the same model. Since there is only so much CRC based money around, who can prove more money will flow into CRC related organizations using this model? 

Are we merely competing for the same pot among ourselves?

Thanks for reminding me to work on the book I am writing regarding my mom and dad's story.

When I was in Synod in 2010, there was some discussion about  churches who wanted to change classis for the same reason. So why not have another classis?  We should be agreeable and only argue heavily on what separates Chirstians from Non-Christians. I feel sorry for the women in the new Classis as well as all the men.

August Guillaume

I appreciated Synods actions very well. Many texts show different positions on the same question. It is only a Greek view that wants to enforce one position only. I am sure that every text in the Bible was well meant. Whether each statement mentioned in the Bible is of the same force today depends on a lot of factors, not just what some people wish or not.  Prayerful deliberations, listening to the Spirit is so important.  Realizing that not anyone has a full grasp of the full truth in all its detail means that Christians have to try and see how we can work together even if there are differences. Only our stubborness has forced various denominations and have thrown others out. Each church community has been guilty of this sin and we should confess our short comings. In heaven there will not be any denominations, I am sure. 

This is for churches in USA only. Should country specific issues be in a separate administrative forum?

I ilke "liturgical" instead of the complex #1.  By liturgical I mean preset precise wording before and/or after the sermon such as an official opening, and ending, confession and assurance, certain set prayers. The dominant Christ image is that of the crucified one. Anglican, Lutheran are examples.  These are patterned after the catholic and/or orthodox liturgies

As every church is a combination of certain types,The convergent is not really required. The types need to be unique.

In #6, I would estimate that the Christ image is the ascended one. The role of the preacher is an actor trying to be as effective as the praise team which fills the auditorium with very loud music drowning out any reflective thought.

I am not sure what is meant by preacher as "prophet" Teaching or pointing to the future?