Aaron Vriesman

Affirming what Michael and William said already, the statement might have additional considerations. Belhar itself gives reasons to not adopt it as a confession, and this is one.

If we can accept that a considerable number of members and officebearers in the CRC oppose adopting the Belhar Confession as a fourth confession, then adopting it as a fourth confession would be going against what Belhar itself says. Confessions are statements all officebearers must accept and agree with, as they sign the FOS. Many current officebearers disagree with some certain statements in Belhar and would not be able to sign the FOS (or Covenant of Officebearers) if Belhar was included. If Belhar is made a fourth confession it will put these officebearers under "constraint" in adopting the unity, justice and reconciliation, which Belhar says cannot be done.

The New International Commentary on the New Testament (and Old Testament) is a great series of commentaries that is often insightful and lay accessible. However, they are not strictly Reformed, but more broadly evangelical. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Old Testament also) are smaller, more affordable and more accessible or readable. These also seem to be more broadly evangelical. The Revelation commentary by Leon Morris takes an amillennial approach. Stay away from Word Biblical Commentary series as it is academic.

Thank you for sharing! Human trafficking is horrendous and infuriating. Thank you for doing something about it.

Thank you for the post! I appreciate your reframing the case of Angelina Grimke.

A better way for electing officers of synod sounds great, and your suggestion, Keith, sounds like a good one. Another way to address Terry's #1 hurdle is to have second and third alternates in case the classis does not want to send the same person twice. If all alternates are missing then voting could be done as a last resort.
When it comes to voting in general at synod, it would be nice to know more about the people themselves. Instead of just lisitng the positions they have held and giving resume-style information, it would be more helpful to know things like what they value about the CRC, what do they believe their gifts are, what are the indications God is leading them to this position, etc.

Keith,
You are on to something here. Pornography is an industry bringing in billions of dollars each year and the statistics of even ministers using it are shocking. Plenty of studies have shown its harmful effects on the mind and relationships. Except there is one thing that pornography doesn't have going for it that homosexuality does. Nobody in the church (that I know of) is arguing that viewing pornographic material is acceptable to God, but there are significantly loud voices calling for full inclusion of those who publicly and proudlyy live in a same-sex union. I know and have counseled people who struggle with pornography. Each one is fighting it and ashamed when they cave to temptation. Even though they are sinning, they repent and would never encourage anyone to do down their road.
Both pornography and homosexuality are serious problems challenging the church, but more dangerous than sinning itself is believing and preaching that sin is not sinful.

Bruce and others,

I realize that this discussion might be cold but perhaps Bruce or someone can answer some questions that I have.

When the CRC considers joining an ecumenical organization, are its member churches taken into consideration at all? Is there a point when differences become severe enough to be intolerable?

Thanks

Good food for thought. The numbers of building the kingdom don't always translate into "members." Moreover, it seems that there are plenty of professing members who never darken the door of their church, while plenty of non members are there every Sunday and participate in church activities.
I would be interested in this CRC in Texas and how they went about starting this network of "missional communities." Could you share about that?

Paul,

Forgive me if this has been addressed somewhere already but I have a question about what you are writing here. Do you believe that the complementarian view is based on culture? If the reason women officebearers are not forced upon all classes is because of differing cultures, then does that imply complementarians are complementarian because of their culture? It seems that the more these differing views are seen as cultural, the more it can be said that complementarians are just prejudiced and misogynistic.