Recognizing that some separation is inevitable, we believe the RCA has an opportunity to act in an exemplary way by providing a generous exit path for those churches which decide to leave and by inviting those churches to also act generously. While the process currently outlined in the RCA Book of Church Order (BCO)…allows a classis to be generous with a church petitioning for withdrawal from the denomination, it also allows a classis to deny a church’s petition for withdrawal or to be less than generous in granting the withdrawal. Given that we are entering a period when there will likely be more petitions being put forth than has been typical, we believe it is the right time to provide more guidance for this process so that generosity is prescribed rather than simply permitted.

After spending hours in discernment groups related to the Vision 2020 Team’s recommendations on Thursday and Friday, delegates considered those recommendations in plenary session on Saturday afternoon and evening.
Marijke Strong, a member of the Vision 2020 Team, began the report by leading the synod in singing “Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus.” She and fellow Vision 2020 Team members Thomas Goodhart and Brian Keepers presented the team’s three recommendations.
Following the conclusion of the Vision 2020 Team report on Saturday evening, the team was given a standing ovation in appreciation for their work.
Vision 2020 restructuring team approved
The Vision 2020 Team’s first recommendation, calling for a team to develop a restructuring plan for the denomination with a view to optimizing the RCA’s sustained spiritual and organizational health, was adopted after two hours of debate. Though six amendments were considered by the synod, in the end, only two words changed from the original recommendation. Read the full Vision 2020 Team report.
Read the full story. 
Mission agency recommendation denied
After nearly an hour of discussion that spoke volumes to the centrality of mission within the Reformed Church in America, the General Synod voted against the Vision 2020 Team’s recommendation to create a separate 501(c)(3) mission agency. As a result, RCA Global Mission will continue to exist with the RCA label.
Read the full story.
New regulations adopted for departing churches
The Vision 2020 Team recommended new rules and regulations for departing churches that would allow for mutually generous separation. The rules and regulations, spelled out in a ten-page recommendation, were adopted as proposed. They allow a local church to retain its property and other assets while being solely responsible for any liabilities. Read the new rules and regulations.
Read the full story.
Synod supports anti-racism work in the church
After the 2020 global reckoning with racism, General Synod 2021 approved five anti-racism recommendations on Saturday morning. These included a recommendation urging RCA assemblies to hold an annual one-day event dedicated to racism. For accountability, another recommendation, which came as a motion from the floor, adds a question to the Consistorial Report Form (CRF) about anti-racism training. The recommendations came from the African American Black Council, by way of the General Synod Council.
Related: RCA resources for dismantling racism
Committee on Emergencies will provide direction if General Synod can’t meet in the future
In a change prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic, General Synod approved a new committee on emergencies. When the pandemic repeatedly delayed General Synod, the RCA had been stretching its church order to make decisions. (On Friday, delegates ratified some of those decisions.) The Commission on Church Order proposed the new emergency provisions. Other recommendations adopted from the Commission on Church Order clarified the process of transferring RCA ministers to another denomination.
Other business
The synod heard reports from its three racial/ethnic councils: the Council for Hispanic Ministries, the Council for Pacific and Asian American Ministries, and the African American Black Council. These racial/ethnic councils “express the collective vision and voice of racial and ethnic congregants and congregations as they develop ministries and advocate for policies of racial and ethnic inclusion, economic, social, and racial justice, both within the Reformed Church in America and ecumenically,” as outlined in the Book of Church Order. Synod approved four anti-racism recommendations that came to the synod from the African American Black Council, by way of the General Synod Council.
Seven of the 11 General Synod commissions gave reports on Saturday morning: Race and Ethnicity, Christian Worship, Christian Discipleship and Education, Women, Church Order, History, and Nominations.
The Commission on Christian Unity reported on Friday; other commissions will report Saturday night and Monday.
Source
Other articles on the RCA Synod:
LGBTQ inclusion disagreements threaten Reformed Church in America split
America’s Oldest Denomination Faces Split Over LGBT Issues

We are to forgive others as God in Christ has forgiven us. We forgive as an expression of the kingdom and in the power of the kingdom. Freely dispensing the healing properties of forgiveness is one of the ways we seek the kingdom of God and His righteousness. We look to overlook offenses and give grace in the model of God to us. Forgiveness is a discipline of the kingdom of God. 

And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another,even as God in Christ forgave you. (Ephesians 4:32, NKJV)
From his imprisonment, John the Baptist sent two of his disciples to ask of Jesus: “Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?” (Luke 7:19). Jesus didn’t reply to John’s question with a simple “yes.” Rather, He answered John by having him take stock of what he has witnessed. “Go and tell John the things you have seen and heard: that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the gospel preached to them” (Luke 7:22).
Jesus was assuring John that the kingdom of God had indeed come. He was the promised Messiah.
What did Jesus point to in order to convince John? He pointed to healing. The fall of the world under the dominion of sin had wreaked havoc on what God had created. The intrusion of sin had brought misery, alienation, disorder, decay, and death.
Read More
Related Posts:

Good Bible translations will demonstrate that they have paid attention to the way God’s gift of language actually works. They won’t propose impossible linguistic ideas or promise special insight into “what God really meant” in the originals, insight no other translations provide. They won’t baptize one language as specially divine.

If you find an English Bible translation on your Christian bookstore shelf, it’s almost certainly good. Buy it. Read it. Trust it.
But there are some “bad Bibles” out there, Bibles you won’t find careful evangelical biblical scholars recommending. In my last article I discussed Bible translations that give in to sectarian impulses. In this article, I discuss the second major category of bad Bibles: crackpot translations.
I’ll drastically qualify that word “bad” for some of these; and “crackpot” is about as nice a thing to say as “sectarian,” I’m afraid. Perhaps I should say instead, “idiosyncratic.” Some Bibles are indeed just odd; they rely on ideas about Scripture that are just weird—the kinds of ideas that make you purse your lips and glance from side to side, looking for a way out of this conversation ASAP, the kinds of ideas that get weeded out when translators must have accredited degrees and work in a group with checks and balances.
I have a soft spot in my heart for idiosyncratic evangelical Bible translations. I think they are, from one perspective, a great problem to have. The Bible is such an absorbing interest of American evangelicals that we produce extraneous Bible study resources. (I don’t see Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox doing this, though I admit I may simply be ignorant here.) And I assume these idiosyncratic projects usually don’t do much harm. But if they’re not “bad” in the consequentialist sense, they’re not good either. And they merit our attention here. I will give, again, four examples.
1. The Amplified Bible
I hope I don’t offend anyone, but the Amplified Bible is a good example of what I’m talking about. When I first encountered this Bible edition as an 18-year-old, I was intrigued to have provided for me in such a convenient format the “fuller meaning” of the Hebrew and Greek I hadn’t yet studied at the time. It was as a young college student that I bought the Comparative Study Bible, a four-version parallel Bible including the KJV, the NIV, the NASB, and the Amplified. But I didn’t end up using that last one much; it came to feel like the editors were just piling on English synonyms in all those many brackets that fill (and clutter) the Amplified Bible. Who possibly is helped by adding that parenthetical to the following sentence?
We ourselves (you and I) are Jews by birth. (Gal. 2:15a AMP)
And how many readers will understand that systematic theology, and not “the true meaning of the Greek,” has been inserted in a bracket into this statement?
If, in our desire and endeavor to be justified in Christ [to be declared righteous and put in right standing with God wholly and solely through Christ] … (Gal. 2:17 AMP)
(I chose the first two examples my eyes fell upon when I opened the Amplified at random.)
What I came to like about the Amplified was actually that, because its interpolations made it so much longer than the other Bible translations, it opened up margin space at the bottom of pages for me to take notes in. My purposes would have been better served, however, if the column taken up by the Amplified had simply been left blank.
After I learned Hebrew and Greek, I came to feel that the Amplified was mostly harmless but that it raised false expectations among readers—readers who thought they were getting deeper insight than they really were. This isn’t entirely its fault, but the Amplified Bible inserts interpretation into the text in a way that, I discovered, misleads lay readers into thinking that they’re being told something from the Hebrew or Greek that traditional English translations obscure.
2. את Cepher
Cepher is an English Bible translation far weirder than the Amplified. The progenitor of Cepher—whose name I don’t care to give but who, I note, claims to have a doctorate but provides no details regarding it that I could find—is fascinated with the alleged power and depth of the Hebrew language in a way that echoes the Tree of Life Version (discussed here). But he takes his fascination to a level I can only call, well, idiosyncratic—and he places his most eccentric idea on the very cover of his Bible edition. We’ll get there; first, some other oddities in Cepher.
In the introduction to Cepher, we are given examples of the many Hebrew words that are transliterated rather than translated in this volume.
Another wonderful [Hebrew] word we have elected to use in the text is the word yachiyd (יחיד) which in its use declares tremendous meaning. In its first use, we find it in Bere’shiyth (Genesis) with the instruction to Avraham, saying: … “Take now your son, your yachiyd Yitschaq, whom you love.”
But yachid just means “only.” It does not have tremendous meaning. It should not be transliterated in an English Bible at all; it should be translated. But Cepher gets weirder as it traces this “wonderful word” throughout the Hebrew Bible and into the New Testament. At the end of its discussion of the Hebrew word for “only,” Cepher’s introduction says,
It is with these considerations that we have made the following change: “For Elohiym so loved the world, that he gave his yachiyd, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
So a Hebrew transliteration into Roman characters is inserted into an English translation of a Greek sentence. From the middle of this language mélange, two key ideas are dropped out: where is the word “Son”? And where is the “begottenness” that forms such an important part of the doctrine of the eternal generation of that divine Son? I’m not saying the editors in charge of Cepher undercut Trinitarianism on purpose; I doubt that, honestly. My guess is that they are so fascinated with the nifty possibilities provided by faux insights into Hebrew that they got carried away.
Cepher does this with other Hebrew words that, it alleges, “carry … additional meaning” beyond what English is capable of communicating. This is why we get Hebrew transliterations elsewhere in the Cepher New Testament. In John 17, for example, Cepher has Jesus praying that his disciples “all may be yachad,” the Hebrew word for “one.” Exactly whom or how this helps is to me very much unclear.
Cepher also “restores” many Hebrew names by making more tortuous transliterations of them than we already possess in the English Bible tradition (is Avraham really more deep or accurate or even Jewish than Abraham?). Moses is Mosheh in Cepher; Joshua is Husha; Jesus is Yahushua. And Jesus’ name gets a fanciful etymology that contradicts what the angel Gabriel told Mary. Instead of “Yahweh saves,” Cepher says that Yahushua means “Yah is He who makes equal.”

The Cepher intro also finds impossible phonemic connections between Hebrew and English, connections that aren’t really there—like seeing the English word “hell” in the Hebrew word the KJV translates as “Lucifer.” This is a game a clever person could play all day long in every language of the world. It is crackpottery.
My last complaint about Cepher (though I could go on, I assure you) regards a Hebrew word on its cover. It’s just two characters long; you could pronounce it “et.” But it’s actually not a word, per se; it’s a grammatical marker indicating that what follows is a direct object. It’s kind of like the practice in German of capitalizing nouns. It’s rare that this is truly needed; it’s just something biblical Hebrew does.
Read More
Related Posts: