All Nations has an "interim" term between 2 "semesters" of Sunday School in which the high school and adult SS classes join in one class.  So, we have a 5 week period and are using the Belhar materials (DVD and study guide) for this combined class.  Attendance in the class has been about 20 +/-, but the time limit of a Sunday morning class slot (about 45-50 minutes) has been limiting.  The material has more good questions to chew on than we have time.  So far, we are saving the "yes/no" discussion until the final class.  I'm also trying to avoid the 50 minute monologue of a retired prof.  :-)

Here are my reflections on the round table discussions that were brought to our area.  They were really not discussions of pros and cons but a presentation in favour of adopting it.  Everyone I talked with afterward said these were "Belhar promotional events" and not a discussion that helped them a whole lot.  This was especially true for those who had already been wrestling with this document.  In our church context I have not come across anyone who disagrees with the basic thrust of the document as to unity and justice and the sin of racism and whatnot, but many are wondering about making it a confessional statment.  There are a few lines in the document that would need re-wording or clarification.  And it does not strike people to be of the same type as our confessions, even if they can't put their finger on it.  Most feel it reads like Our World Belongs to God. 

Since these presentatons came across as promotional events I wonder if  the congregants get the feeling they aren't really being asked their input but are being sold something that they can buy into or not.  Perhaps that fuels the lack of discussion on this document.  Add to that the reality that it is difficult to speak against such a document without others pigeon holing you as a racist or simply negative to all things new.  The default them becomes to remain silent. 

My concern in such a context is that if this becomes a confessional standard in the CRC, and those serving in ecclesiastical office have in silence disagreed with the document, they will simply carry on and ignore it completely.  (We are after all, west of the Rockies in Canada and there is a tendency to ignore what happens out east in the Grand Rapids anyway.)  I worry that a document promoting unity will result in either further indifference to the Confessions or simply more disunity. 

I was a delegate to the "plague" Synod of 2009 (because we all got sick :) where this was first approved by Synod to propose as a new confession.  There was much pressuring going on emotionally to be in favour of it and not a whole lot of discussion of the problem parts of the document.  It seemed at times that the primary discussion was how not to offend anyone and how this document will keep us from sinning futher in specific areas, neither or which were very helpful discussions.  I am glad for our practice of giving time between Synods to let the churches discuss and wrestle with this document.  I am not so sure the denominational leaders have done a very helpful job as yet in letting people actually tussle with their difficulties, at least not in the presentations I have seen or others from my congregation have attended. 

Our Council has had some preliminary discussions of Belhar and we are planning to discuss it at our Spring congregational meeting in some way.  My intention is to make sure the pros and cons are laid out as clearly as possible and then encourage people to seek the Lord in prayer for a time for discernment and a decision. 

Yes, we're avoiding it because we have enough controversy to deal with, and have dealt with enough controversy over the first attempt to change the form of subscription. Right now it is nowhere near our agenda, and that has to do with the place where we are at as a congregation, receiving a number of members who are returning to the CRC from the URC and Canadian Reformed churches. Personally, I cannot endorse the Belhar on the confessional level, although I can tolerate it or subscribe "quatenus," i.e. to the extent that it agrees with the word of God, with my fingers slightly crossed. We as a congregation are not studying it because we are still struggling with women officebearers and a growing controversy related to our safe church policy, and we are very shy of division at this moment. And personally, at this moment I do not have the desire or the spiritual-emotional energy to debate it, because my self-differentiation will go right out the window. I look forward to John Cooper's response to Peter Borgdorf in the next CTS Forum. My perspective is the same as Kevin DeYoung of the RCA:

http://www.rca.org/Page.aspx?pid=6245

Jim, your correct to point out the need for conversation on Belhar but the conversation is bigger than that . When I read Randy's post which linked to Kevin DeYoung  comments in the Perspective, I changed my mind on Belhar. It is causing to much division in the polity. Like Randy mentions in his post our church is still caught up with woman leadership. I wish it were not  true but that is reality. I am willing to sacrifice my personal beliefs to remain in said polity. Maybe later I hope we could come to a unified agreement on what Christ intended. But some how we must stop the fracturing. The fracturing Church is definitely not according to God word no matter how you think about it.

Ken

I think Randy's and Ken's comments are very appropriate and relevant.  And Colin's comments also.   Is the Belhar important?   No, not really.   Not in our context.   It was born of a different need, and speaks to a different ethos.   And it is being manipulated towards a different agenda.   We will not be better for adopting it, and will not be worse for not adopting it.   As Colin said, "they will simply carry on and ignore it completely".  

We need to obey the important commandments, including to love our neighbor as ourself.   This is much more inclusive, and in a much better context than the Belhar, if it is preached properly.  

I'm leaning towards disagreeing with John and others on this. After having studied the Belhar and having led our congregation through it in sermons and in Council and other places, I'm left with the conclusion that the Belhar is very relevant to our Canadian and American contexts. Racial issues and social justice issues are huge for us. In Canada I think we have a tendency to say that we don't really have a problem regarding race, but I beg to differ. Where are the First Nations people in our churches? There are some areas in Canada where some First Nations people are present, but by and large First Nations peoples are still marginalized to a tremendous degree. They have poorer life expectancy, poorer educational and financial prospects, greater problems with drugs and alcohol and crime. Certainly they, like anyone else bear their burden of responsibility for their actions, but the fact is that the system here is broken and the church has not been a significant positive contributor to any solutions here.

I would venture to say that the problem is one that needs to be brought into great relief in our churches, and that the Belhar addresses these issues well. It would be extremely relevant to our congregation, classis, and denomination, I believe. 

Having said that, we haven't had to deal with the "controversy" that others are mentioning here. When we went through the Belhar together, no one seemed to have issues with it, that I was aware of, and the few comments that I have had since then expressing some concern have all been mild and easily dealt with. I'm very aware that heaping fuel on fires of controversy that may be present in other churches might indeed be unwise. That's why I'm only "leaning" toward disagreeing with the others.

All the same, I do believe that, if possible (using pastoral discernment), a discussion on the Belhar is important for us to have as a denomination.

Blessings all,

in His service,

Dan.

Daniel, I appreciate your disagreement because I can sense it comes from good motives.   However, perhaps our media and popular perception of race seems to color our perspective too much.   Think about this.  You asked about our approach to aboriginals?   I will ask how does our approach to Aboriginals compare to our approach to Italians, to Ukranians, to Germans, to Russians, to Hutterites or Amish, or to Norwegians?  

I maintain that it is not a race thing, but a love thing.   Perhaps we have defined our neighbor as narrowly as the pharisees, sometimes, in order to avoid the commandment to love.

If we were worried about race, we would get confused.   If we help the needy and treat all people as people, then we will be less confused. 

In our church, we have a number of aboriginal children, either adopted or foster children.   But we didn't do that because of some race issue, we do that because they need help and we have decided to help whoever needs it, within our capacity.   

The Belhar would be an entire waste of time for our congregation, and would divert us from the real opportunities for ministering to others. 

John,

Thanks for your response. I also appreciate your responses thus far, as I know that your concern is for the wellbeing of the church and, more importantly, for us to fulfill the command to Love.

I would certainly agree that at heart it is a love issue. Unfortunately, I think that our heart issues with love are sometimes most clearly seen when we take a good hard look at the "symptoms" of those heart issues. If you use a sickness metaphor, we often know we have a cold because our nose starts running, or we get a fever or whatever. But what happens if the symptoms are such that we either don't notice them, or cover over them with "medicine" that only masks the sickness. That is what I feel we have done with regards to love AND race. We have, in Canada at least, often pretended that there is no problem at all. That there is no sickness, and we ignore the symptoms of our sickness. In addition, the sad truth is that we DO treat different races in our countries differently. Why else would it be that some segments of our population have such radically different health, education, and wealth demographics? It's certainly not that those people are less gifted by God (not that you're implying that, of course). The fact is that there exist among us systemic, and societal, and personal racial issues.

An example that really struck me once was one that I experience when living in the U.S. for a brief time. When we lived there we were invited to a "block party". We thought that this would be a great experience. We were living in a primarily African American & Latino neighbourhood, and, having come from primarily white Peterborough, we assumed that our children would have the opportunity to meet and be friends with people from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. That was exciting to us. However, when we got there we found that ALL of the people there were white. After digging around a bit (discreetly) we found that the "block party" was sponsored by the neighbourhood homeowners' association. Thus, all the people invited were homeowners. The fact that none (or very few) of the African Americans or Latinos owned the homes in which they lived in that neighbourhood meant that none of them were invited to the block party. It got me thinking about how, in Canada, it's not even so much that we (unintentionally or otherwise) exclude aboriginals from things like block parties--we still all have the complicated baggage of how to deal with the "reservation" system and what was (and still is to some degree) essentially apartheid.

Now don't get me wrong. None of the people in the homeowner's association meant to be racist. For all intents and purposes they were not racist at all, in fact. BUT due to various systemic and societal things the majority of the people living in the neighbourhood were not invited, and NONE of the homeowners thought about changing the situation. The exclusion of two races who were the majority of the people in the neighbourhood was a symptom of a heart and societal issue that needed to be addressed. The Belhar has value at least (but I think more) insofar as it points out those symptoms, and directs us to the true sickness.

Those symptoms include (but are not limited to) race relations. We do marginalize certain segments of our own populations (or of the world's population), and then we turn around and ignore the very things that we're doing and pretend we don't have a problem. It would be like us all having a fever and pretending we didn't (let alone acknowledging that there must be some sickness driving the fever in the first place).

The Belhar helps us to give our heads a shake, by pointing out to us some of the symptoms that point to our sickness. To that extent I believe it is very important for us--it doesn't give us the option of pretending we don't have a fever. 

But I don't believe that it serves only that purpose. My reading of the Belhar is that it DOES go beyond just simply race, gender and/or social justice issues--that it clearly and explicitly points us to the very points you're making about the critical importance of loving our neighbours (wherever and whoever they are). 

Good point about block parties, Dan.   But I'm not sure the Belhar would solve that one.  The other thing is that much of the race issues you mentioned are political.   The reason that aboriginals in Canada are treated differently is because of constitutional issues, and that they want to be treated differently;  they want to maintain treaty rights and self-government based on race.  

At a personal level however, if you believe all peoples are the same before God, then you will act accordingly.   If we only concentrate on race, rather than on people, we will become reverse racists, which is still racism.   We will pay more attention to those with different colors of skin, than to those who have the same color of skin but different nationalities and languages.   Are we less racist if we help out the blacks vs the latinos?   Or help out the yellow skins vs the white russians? 

It is better just to look around and see who needs help, to whom you can witness, and then help and witness, rather than looking for or concentrating only on a different race, whatever that is. 

The Belhar is driven by race issues, and most of the language is colored by the baggage of that issue.   Periferally attached are other issues, but the language of social justice is not attached to a scriptural sense of justice as much as a system of rights, and now the Belhar is being used by some to condemn discrimination of any kind, even when the discrimination is based on moral and scriptural guidelines. 

Perhaps the Belhar does not serve any purpose whatsoever, and is distracting from real effort and Christian living by making a discussion out of it, rather than people paying attention to scripture and loving their neighbor.   I've wondered if the church seriously considered as a whole, making a mission effort out of adopting abandoned children and being foster parents to needy children, how much more success and obedience they would exhibit, than adopting a political statement like the Belhar, and then go on living much like they did before, aside from possibly writing a few political letters about equality, which minimizes and distracts from their personal involvement. 

John, you have no moral authoritty from the Bible to discriminate against people period.  God is the judge.  Social justice is about reconcilation and restoration of shalom (peace). Jesus commanded us to love our neighbor which means treating people around you the way you treat your family. We all fall pretty short don't we? That is why God gave us Grace, so none of us earned it or deserves salvation. That's where you start when  you start thinking about these issue;s. If you were part of a oppressed  group of people based on something you can due nothing about, how would you want to be treated? Remember John, we are no better than any of them including those that murder when it comes to sin.

Thanks

Ken

Thanks, John for your clariifcation. I understand what your saying, But were not talking about worship with them. We are trying to get them to see our love as Christ did. He was there with them communicating a message hope, freedom from bondage of the mind. His approach was as if everyone was equally falling short.  John, I know you know this but the real reason  is  discrimination works against our goal to reach out to these very obnoxious, sinfull people because that's part of the Great Commission. We do want to worship with them if they are willing to worship the one true God. John, your correct about being lead in worship by a buddhist but we always need to keep in mind that on God's ledger we all are in the red.

Thanks John for listening,

Ken

I've stayed out of this exchange for awhile, in part because I found the initial comments in this thread moderately depressing and requiring a response beyond my time limits to create.  Thanks to Dan for coming in and offering a response that fits my perspective.  The Belhar Confession offers us an opportunity to formally incorporate broad themes of unity, justice and reconciliation that will challenge us in our denominational, congregational and personal expressions of our faith in Christ.

The discussion thread also highlghted for me the broad continuum of individual church experience.  The contextual issues mentioned earlier in this thread (other division/fractures) are not adequate reasons for setting aside the Belhar Confession.  If these contextual issues remain salient for those attending a future Synod, it will be a painful discussion.

Hi Dale , I'm glad you joined in. When I made my first comment about not adopting the Belhar it's not because the Belhar is the problem. I confess all day about so many issue's in my life I have no problem with the Belhar. 

  I believe the conversation is much bigger than simply race  discrimination that the Belhar seeks reconciliation. We need to flush out  our understanding of Christ's intentions in how  we interact with the secular world. We need better understanding on how each of us as believer's in Christ  fullfill our calling from the Lord.

  I am willing like I said before, to forgo my understanding for the sake of those that haven't  accepted these belief's in the hope that we all can change. Were talking about good people with different type's of faith. It is not worth divsion of the church.

   Thanks Dale, I fully understand where you are coming from. God bless you my friend!

Ken

Well, friends, thanks to all for this continuing growing conversation. There is engagement here--even though only five or six different people have posted on it. It looks from my count that I see on my Guide's Page that 460 people have read this in just over a week. Hardly viral (which is "sick"!), but rather healthy.

Now I'll dip my oar in again. Aren't oars supposed to guide boats?! And I'm a guide after all. So here's my dip:

I'm seeing a few interesting things in this discussion. It reminds me of synod conversations and debates that tend to drift and sway in several always interesting, if not pertinent, directions. First of all, there are several different viewpoints about the content and place of Belhar. That doesn't surprise me. But what does surprise me are the distractions we are experiencing even in our small dialogues from what I think are the central points of the Belhar discussion. I am fully in sympathy with Randy Blacketer's sense of current limitation because of local stresses and problems, but that is not everyone's case--and besides, the rest of us have to pray for congregations and leaders dealing with such stresses that can pull us away from deeper gospel work and life.

A few folks have commented that Belhar doesn't have anything to do with their congregation. Others have looked more broadly and said that the issues go far beyond a given congregation's ministry or limits. That's heading in the right direction. Belhar is NOT merely a congregational issue. It is a covenantal and ecumenical issue that surely has to bear on attitudes that affect in some way of other all congregations--unless yours is a perfect one, perfectly and completely reconciled to God in all forms. Mine isn't. Nor am I perfectly reconciled to God--except through the work of Jesus, but I don't always show that perfectly. Just ask my wife and kids. No; don't, please.

Although ever more we Christian Reformed folk are acting and living congregationally, it is extremely important from a communal and covenantal perspective to think, live, pray and fellowship beyond the hopes and limits of our local, even regional and national areas of ministry and interest. A few blogs ago I confessed to the racism that was part of the air I breathed in my birth community in Chicago.  Apartheid was happening right there in Roseland and Englewood neighbourhoods and I was part of it.

Maybe if something like Belhar had been on our confessional and ecclesiastical radar, there would have been some kind of ethical, spiritual and moral impact on our lives, churches and communities. Instead, in the space of seven years six Christian Reformed congregations fled Englewood and Roseland for the southern and western suburbs of Chicago. Now some of those suburbs are "turning black." Guess what? Some of those suburban churches are now fleeing to northwest Indiana to whiter pastures. Apartheid in North America, not racial reconciliation. Belhar speaks to that. 

Furthermore, Belhar offers us an opportunity to embrace a timely, passionate contribution to the ministry of reconciliation that originates with people who might have left Reformed fellowships in South Africa, but--unlike our white Chicago CRCs--chose to stay. Some say Belhar is not a comprehensive gospel statement. Neither are the Canons of Dort. But I can still preach on 'em (carefully, with limitations of time) and do. I'd love to be able to preach on Belhar, not because it's Belhar, but because it's profoundly biblically based and contextually fruitful--kinda like the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed and Heidelberg Catechism were, as is Our World Belongs to God today.

We are members of a local, regional, national and international body called the church and can be enriched by the sufferings and lessons of our sisters and brothers. I will never forget hearing from a Lebanese Christian who was listening to the BBC World Service as the bombs were falling one Sunday morning in Beirut. He had tuned into the regular Sunday morning worship at an unnamed Anglican congregation in England. During the prayers of intercession, the leader lifted up to God "our brothers and sisters in Beirut." For a moment the Lebanese heard no more bombs and shelling. He heard only the voice of God: "I am with you."

Belhar gives us a chance for the Lord to be with us in the voice of people whose voices we need to hear and give thanks to God for.

Well, if this sounds like a sermon, that's what it is. It's Sunday, after all!

Keep writing, thinking, praying, confessing, thanking God.

I'm going on two weeks of holidays, but will probably check in on the Network now and again. Blessings. 

Interesting reading all these comments.  A few more reflections on adopting the Belhar ... at the 2009 Synod discussions on this it was pointed out that one of the reasons that we should adopt it is that it has been given to us as a gift and we can't say no to a gift.  It is certainly rude to turn down a well meaning gift.  However, since a confession of faith seems to me to have to be something that comes from the person or congregation or denomination confessing it, then this document should be re-written to reflect our particular situation in the CRC perhaps reflecting such things as mentioned in the previous comments.  Our present confessions arose in the context of the congregations dealing with those situations.  I think it would be different if we were coming out of a similar aparthied situation here or something, but our issues, though some racially driven, are not the same context.  I guess I wonder why in the CRC, who can produce some very helpful study reports, cannot accept the Belhar as impetus to write a new confession of faith that would incorporate the good themes highlighted by the Belhar.  I wonder why, if we need to adopt the Belhar out of respect for ecumenical relations (a theme repeated at the Synod discussions) that we do not also adopt the other main Reformed confessions: The Westminster Confession and Catechism, the Scots Confession, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Theological Declaration of Barmen; the Gallic Confession and so forth?  It seems first up would be the Westminster confession.  I suspect that one of the reasons we do not is because themes in those other Reformed Confessions are already covered in the Three Forms of Unity.  And if the Belhar has new themes from Scripture that are missing in our confessions some how, then let's write a new confession or apend what is missing to our present ones.  I can see no reason to not simply add a few more articles to the Belgic Confession that address the  justice and shalom issues present in Scripture.  I have difficulty with the unwillingness of our denomination to update its confessions.  The reason has been that we should not mess with an historical document.  However that approach also lends creedance to the reality that their meaningfulness is also tied to a receeding historical era, one that we are less and less connected to as we enter a post-Christendom context.  And with that unwillingness to update a document once accepted still in place, adopting the Belhar will mean that once in place, we can't do anything about its flaws or need of a further edit etc.  I still would rather accept it, with some initial editing for clarification, as a second Testimony or position statement.  We seem way more comfortable updating our testimony than our confession, so let's put it there for now. 

Colin

Good comments, Colin.   As to a gift.... when someone gifts you a book, you will probably keep it, but you don't have to put in on your night-table.   And if someone gifts you a hymnal, that doesn't mean that you have to replace your own hymnal, or purchase copies of the gift to sit side by side with your own.  This Belhar can be received, appreciated, etc., without making it another form of governance for us. 

Not to change directions so much,

but for a long time I've been wondering,

if the CRC would spend just a fraction of the time that we have spent studying and talking about the Belhar confession, on studying and talking about Isaiah and Amos, wouldn't we be further ahead on both issues of social justice and our awareness of Scripture?  I feel like this denomination places less and less emphasis on Scripture.  What happened to Sola Scriptura? What happened to our history of being people of the Book?  Is there really anything in the Belhar that both Isaiah and Amos have not said better?

I'm very sorry to hear that this is your impression of the CRC, Daniel W. My strong understanding is that part of what the church is called to do is to constantly re-examine herself in the light of the gospel (all of it, of course). Part of THAT process, in a confessional church, is for the church to re-examine the confessions that she holds as accurate summaries of that gospel. Whether that means we talk about the Canons of Dordt and whether or not they truly reflect the scriptures, or whether that means that in the light of a new potential confession we re-examine our actions and beliefs and consider adopting that new confession--whatever the circumstance of our discussion about creeds and confessions, the ultimate aim is for us to "grow into the fullness of He who is our head, that is Christ the Lord." 

This, of course, can only be done if creeds and confessions are never allowed to stand on their own, but are only expressions of faith that point always back to scripture. Even the early Reformers who advocated "Sola Scriptura" most strongly did not deny the value of creeds and confessions as summaries of the teachings of those scriptures. In fact, their cry of sola scriptura was, of course, historically one of decrying the idea of placing tradition or papal authority on the same authoritative leve as scriptures--it had nothing to do with whether or not people adopted creeds per se.

I hope, and believe, that actually the discussion around the Belhar HAS been one that has led us to dive into scriptures like Amos and Isaiah more thoroughly--one is almost irresistably drawn to prophetic literature relevant to social justice issues through the Belhar. 

Part of the beauty of creeds and confessions that come out of different cultural contexts and/or times, is that the writers of those documents have just a sufficiently different perspective on scripture that they challenge us and our presuppositions about what we have always assumed to be true. 

The Belhar, for example, challenges (I believe) many North American's assumption that consumer capitalism is wonderfully at peace with democracy and Christianity. I believe that the Bible expresses grave doubts about that kind of thinking, and that the Belhar can redirect us back to scriptures to analyze ourselves on those points and others.

Blessings,

Dan.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2009/05/11/belhar-confession-yea-or-nay/

http://www.rca.org/Page.aspx?pid=6245

Randy I do not find DeYoungs arguments very convincing. I think he is being disingenuous about the word special. The word indicates a fondness because of their condition.  Equality , as an in oppurtinity to be saved is something different. I mean God picked Abraham because of his belief and hospitality not because he was rich. But Jesus went out of way to treat the poor and sick.

  As far as the Belhar being used to argue for inclusion of gays in church leadership,  The Belhar doesn't speak tnis issue anymore than our other confessions. Those arguments would be there regardless.

  What the Belhar does speak to is social justice which is very Bibical. I just reread Amos, it pretty clear there and  lots of other places in Bible that social justice is not optional  to God.

It a good thing we have Grace because none of us deserve salvation any more than the other. That start point makes it pretty clear how we are to approach our fellow man. Thanks

Ken

Thanks, Ken. I would not want to say that Kevin DeYoung is being disingenuous, any more than others who have some concerns about the Belhar, including myself. To disagree is not to be disingenuous. Disingenous means "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere." Kevin might be wrong, but he's not insincere.

The historical fact is, as some church leaders have observed, that Marxist-influenced Liberation Theology does come through, especially in that one article of the Belhar, and which has to be significantly qualified in order to be squared with a biblical definition of justice, found in Leviticus 19:15: "Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly." Another historical fact is that one of the main authors of the Confession, A. Boesack, has insisted that one implication of Belhar is that the church embrace and affirm homosexuality (homosexual behavior), and even resigned his church offices over the matter. If the primary author of the confession declares that the implication of Belhar is the embrace of homosexuality, then there is good reason to doubt the “theological adequacy” of this confession, as Richard Mouw and others have argued. (http://www.netbloghost.com/mouw/?p=108 ) . So, my basic point is this: People of integrity can have serious concerns and disagreements about this confession without being "disingenuous," and without being opposed to social justice, unconcerned about racism and the poor and oppressed, etc. I react with moral outrage and indignation when I go back and study what happened at a certain school in the Chicago suburbs, disallowing the admission of African-American students. But for some of us, we are very concerned about the wording of the confession itself, among other things. I also understand that pastors and theologians of integrity do not agree with me on this, and have arguments to counter those above. But I don''t think they/we are disingenuous. We might be wrong, but not insincere.

And I think it is the "among other things" that shapes opinion on both sides of the debate (though the debate probably has more than two sides, with various shades of nuance and/or unsettled opinions). For example, some are concerned that we maintain good ecumenical relations with other churches; which I would agree with, but for me it is not adequate grounds for adopting a confession that is, in my judgment, somewhat weak and ambiguous and also highly localized in its context and application. Who doesn't agree that Apartheid was a damnable practice, supported by reprehensible theological principles? I think the CRC has treated the real problem of racism very well in its synodical actions and in the Contemporary Testimony.

One of the "other things" pertains to the identity of the CRC, which is one of my "issues" personally. I was nicely in the confessional middle of the CRC when the 1990's came along and many of the hardliners left the CRC for the United Reformed Church (URC); I freely confess that I still feel anger about that schism. Now I feel like I am uncomfortably on the "right," to use the term loosely, though there are still a number of CRC folk who are much more "conservative" than I, which gives me some comfort (e.g. I am pro-women's ordination, and I changed my mind on children at communion, too--but only after careful biblical-theological reflection, which for me is paramount). This is all a long way of saying that I personally want to see my church, the CRC, steer a middle course, a confessional course, between North American Evangelicalism / Fundamentalism on the one had and Mainline liberalism on the other. I am neither a fundamentalist nor a liberal; I am confessionally Reformed, and in a way that is particularly shaped by the CRCNA, into which my mom and sister and I were evangelized in 1976. I was heartened by James KA Smith's Banner article on the subject. As a convert to the CRC in my childhood, I have a close personal attachment to the distinct riches of the CRC and a deep emotional attachment to what I see as its core principles. I think the Belhar pushes us further into the mainline-liberal direction. This is also why I do not support a CRC-RCA merger, though it's obvious to me that we should work as closely as possible together. I also mourn the disconnection from NAPARC, even though I don't agree with those guys on women's ordination. I wholeheartedly support ecumenical efforts (Dan Meinema and I, though we don't necessarily agree on Belhar, regularly meet with pastors of other traditions to study the Lectionary, and I think I speak for both of us when I say what a blessing it is to learn from other strands of the Christian tradition, and also to share our own peculiar treasures). But confessing one holy catholic and apostolic church does not necessarily require institutional unity, nor is it always healthy to push for that, in my judgment; nor does it require adopting each other's confessions. Moreover, we can support our sister church in South Africa without adopting their very particular and contextual confession as our own; in fact, I've heard one missiologist make the argument that to do so might actually be condescending to them and smack just a wee bit of colonialism on our part.

Also something that would be of great import for me as an ordained pastor in the CRC is whether I would in good conscience be able to subscribe wholeheartedly and robustly to this confession, as I do with the three forms of unity. Would I have to file a gravamen, and if so, would it be a confessional-difficulty gravamen (and I can already see the response: we don't mean by the Belhar what you think it means), or a confessional revision gravamen (which would be doomed to failure, most likely). Or would I subscribe with a Jesuit ethic of mental reservation? Or would I just practice some really massive self-differentiation and say I only subscribe to the Belhar quatenus (a technical term for agreeing with something "insofar as" it reflects the teachings of scripture, which is not really the way of integrity). Is there a grandfather clause? Obviously I don't have that sorted out yet.

I said earlier I am not on this forum to debate the Belhar; but I do appreciate the opportunity to share some of my own personal feelings and struggles with this issue, and I hope that it remains a safe place to express those things, without recriminations or questioning people's motives, wherever they may come down on the issue.

More discussion of the Belhar can be found here:

• Viola Larson, The Belhar Confession: The Wrong Time, The Wrong Place, The Wrong Confession Larson argues that the Barmen Declaration is more of a real comprehensive confession, but that is also rather debatable.
• Richard Mouw, Allan Boesak: Earlier versus Later
• Kevin DeYoung, The Belhar Confession: Yea or Nay or even better: Why Not Belhar? Note the final paragraph: The Belhar Confession, for all its good words and noble intentions, creates more problems in the RCA than it solves. A “no” on Belhar is not a “no” to multiculturalism, learning from the global South, or racial reconciliation. It is a “no” to an ambiguous, open-ended document that, despite the relentless and one-sided efforts of the RCA leadership, is better left as a statement of South African courage than a binding confession that defines us a denomination for years, decades, and possibly centuries to come.”

Randy , good desription of your position. So basicly if you remove special and acknowledge this document is not a argument for homosexuality you be ok with it?

I'm not for the unnecessary (in my judgment) multiplication of confessions when are own foundational confessions are being neglected (again, in my judgment). We already have good strong statements about racism and social justice. But now I have to go and finish my two sermons for tomorrow so I can't delay it anymore by reflecting on ecclesiastical politics.

Thanks Randy,

 thanks for the talk. Randy you are entitled to your view. I am also not especting you to answer some of these questions or statements. We just need to get this figured out . The reason I called called Kevin 's statement disingenuous is he know's this stuff and to grab" special " as one of main objections when he know's it can be changed to say loving or consistant. That in my book is a misdirection from him to avoid other issue's. Kevin's a smart guy and a brother in Christ but I feel he may be incorrect  on this issue.

Thanks

Ken

It is crazy to me that we are looking to adopt this as a confession - and that is not because of it's content. I do not understand the need to go so far as to add a 4th confession, especially one which was written by others in a place different from ours (yes our other 3 were written in a place different from ours but we descended from them theologically). It is not like we have not struggled with and wrestled with racial issues and the call to unity in Christ. Can't we speak to this ourselves? Do we actually need to adopt a confession?

I really do wonder where the energy for adopting this comes from? Acknowledging the value and truth stated in the document, yes, recognizing our need to say and do more, sure, but adopt it as a confession? What? We've had three confessions for nearly 500 years - why suddenly the need to adopt this short document from half-way around the world?

As I commented in a post elsewhere on the network, I believe the discussion should distinguish between the truth and value in the Belhar on the one hand, and whether we should adopt it on the other - affirming the former does not lead to the latter. The latter requires a ton more discussion. I do not believe we should adopt it as a confession or even as a testimony. Speaking to the truth of it does not convince me, because we do not adopt as confession everything which is true and valuable - if we did that we'd have an endless list of confessions.

I wonder if the urgency/energy/pressure to adopt the Belhar is out of a sense of guilt that we still have racist attitudes and actions present among our congregations and denominational structures?  Or that we seem to not be making a big enough dent in the culture concerning racism or speaking loud enough for people to hear us in our and other cultures world wide?  Adopting the Belhar, we can then point to something we have done in response perhaps?  Just a wondering ... 

I have the feeling that adopting Belhar makes us feel good about having done something concrete about racism without really having done anything concrete about racism. It's ironic that in a point in our history where some of us are trying to loosen our confessional straitjacket (as the Form of Subscription is questionably portrayed), we want to adopt another confession that we can ignore just like many of my older colleagues who graduated in the 1960's and 70's ignore the Canons of Dordt (or worse, denounce them with a wink like it's a commonly held joke). It's easy to condemn the racism of South African apartheid. It's easy to adopt a piece of paper to make us feel good. It's a lot harder to face our own prejudices and stereotypes. If we had a testimony (and that's what a statement on a particular issue should be called, not a confession, just as the Barmen document was originally called a Declaration, Erklärung), we should have called it the Timothy Christian School Declaration, decrying the exclusion of African American children from "our" covenantal Christian school for white Dutch children in the 1960's, and the recalcitrant opposition of the local classis to the whole denomination's stance against segregation. I gave a lesson on that ugly incident to my congregation during a series on CRC history during our 150th year. That is our history, and it is quite different than that of the Boers in Zuid Afrika, though our apartheid is often more subtle, and therefore more insidious. I am a Reformation historian and my work has  much to do with the Reformed Confessions, and the Belhar is a testimony, not a confession. Our two main confessions are the Heidelberg and the Belgic, which cover the full main points of Biblical teaching and Christian practice, with the Canons being a supplementary judicial judgment on the interpretation of Belgic Confession art. 16, in response to the five Remonstrant articles. And with the Belhar, what happens to the Contemp. Testimony? Is that now ignored? One could argue that it does a better job than Belhar dealing with racism see §§ 11 (1986 12, which more clearly said "race" rather than 2008's "every hue," which is a dubious "improvement"), 16 (17), 40 (41), and especially §47, which revises the old  §50 to specifically exclude racial segregation in schools, no doubt reflecting the Timothy Christian School affair. I think the Contemporary Testimony is a better basis from which to teach than the Belhar with its ambiguous language about God being (in some unspecified way) the God of the poor, which for liberation theologians meant the proletariat, and which the primary author of the confession means also practicing homosexuals. Of course the denomination is at great pains to say that's not what we mean, but what are the implications of adopting a confession that is so ambiguous? As Richard Mouw observes, the confession lacks "theological adequacy." We don't overcome prejudice with documents; we overcome prejudice by interacting with and listening to the stories of people who are different from us.

So you believe that the people pushing this Belhar are giving lip service to racism and that the Bible does not give the poor a "special" treatment. You also think the Belhar as being an agenda of liberation theology by the people who promote the it. You also believe the Belhar should have been a testimony and not a confession. You believe it lacks theological adequacy and  is also ambiguous because as you say one of the writers has a different approach to homosexuality. You also indicate that this may stem from one main incident. You are also concerned about the Contempt. confession being  abandoned when it speaks to this issue of racism. You also indicate that we or some of us do not understand the how isidious racism is. Did I miss anything Randy?

Ken

I have to admit that I haven't read every exachange above... but with that said... this might add something to think about.

Synod is going to be in an interesting spot this year.  The BOT is asking that Synod approve their new mandates for racism training and sensitivity.  This includes setting quotas for minorities in leadership, and on search committees for new leaders.  This is entirely contradictory. 

Out of one side of hte mouth, we are promoting a confession that insists that race should not be used as a defining factor in any part of the life of the church.  Race shouldn't be used to determine membership, leadership, involvment, etc. 

Out of the other side of our mouth, we are imposing a limit on how much one race can be involved, and how much other races must be involved. 

This is embarassing.  We're trying to use a form of "law" to bring about the gospel of reconciliation.  We can't have it both ways.  Either we don't use race as a determining factor, or we do.

Good point, Rob.   Some would say that this is why we would need the Belhar, but they are wrong.  Mandates are more important for racist organizations, and are not useful for the CRC.   I think it is a good idea to pay some attention to whether certain cultural or ethnic groups have enough representation, but I don't think it should be a mandated prescription, other than possibly in an informal sense to consider whether it would be valuable to have a Korean CRC representative on the BOT.    Other leaders ought to be selected on their merits.  

Hi John and Rob,

   Merit is pretty subjective would not you agree? Take pastors and elders roles in church order, pastors make all kind of assumptions based on a perceived merit. You argued against this previously.

 Rob don't be embarrassed about the apparent conflict of ideology. They mesh quite naturally. We are not  giving them our representation but allowing them to have representation.

 I suspect you guys will object to this this kind of reasoning, But if we are equals in Christ lets find a common ground to frame this discussion in a context respect and realization that not one of us is completely objective.

  Ken

I don't see how they mesh at all.  This is a form of legalism -- trying to change behavior through rules and mandates. When we do this, we will elevate the rules (and by rules, I mean the quotas that are being mandated).  That will be our primary objective; "do we have the proper percentage of minorities?"  I guarantee that that will become the focus here.  That only masks a deeper problem; "In our hearts, are we seeking true reconciliation with other races?"  We can fool ourselves inot thinking that we are, by looking at quotas and numbers, and policies and procedures.  Following rules can't change hearts. 

And suppose I applied this practice here in our church.  "25% of new members must be minorities."  Would that fly?  I doubt it.  It flies in the face of hte gospel.

It seems to me that the problem trying to be addressed by ethnic quotas is that the competencies and/or screening processes are generally geared to anglo-saxon ethnicity, and, perhaps, also along particular lines of white, western approaches to business.  In other words, if the criteria for hiring someone are closely tied predominantly to a single ethnicity's way of approaching such work, then using ethnic quotas simply gives the appearance of multi-ethnicity, rather than a truely multi-ethnic approach to how we do the leadership work in the first place.   If the above is the problem, then let's work on that, so that competent individuals, regardless of ethnicity, can adequately serve in positions available.  And then the hiring process needs to be done blind to ethnicity.  Perhaps we have some things to learn yet about the balance of productivity and relationships in our denominational work environment.  Could other cultures teach us some thing about this? Of course they can.  To get to such actual multi-ethnic leadership, we may need to be intentional about bringing such voices together to try this out and make the changes they present themselves.  The quota route by itself seems to be either condescending on the one hand and racist against persons who are more highly qualified for a position, but get passed over finally because they are the wrong ethnicity.  There is also the difficult situation of being church in a culture that persists in bringing larger numbers of one ethnicity into high ranking leadership postions, so that other ethnic groups seldom get the experience or mentoring needed to excell at the higher levels.  What are we, denominationally, doing to respond to that? 

Colin.

I think if ethnicity is the perceived problem about why only some ethnic communities get represented in some positions, then perhaps we have not looked closely at criteria used for "hiring" or appointing.  

First, there needs to be a difference between criteria for different positions.   Some positions ought to require a certain amount of writing and speaking as a background for selection.   In some cases, this might favor one ethnic community over another, but the requirements should not be changed to solve this. 

In other cases, the amount of formal writing and speaking engagements need not be a criteria at all.  It may be an artificial uneccessary requirement that simply eliminates more qualified persons who have other talents or contributions to make.  The determination of the criteria thus should be appropriate.   I think this will help to remove ethnic barriers, and may also give a better selection even when ethnicity is not even at play. 

When I saw the comment yesterday re the BOT's request, I had an immediate burden to pray for them... I don't think I've ever prayed specifically for the CRC BOT...often pray for the pastors and elders and council and teachers and leaders in general and Synod come every June...but not specifically for this group... 

I cringe when we try to use intellectual "human" ways to orchestrate Kingdom dynamics instead of letting the Spirit guide us with fasting and prayer...Have we ever tried selecting our leaders after prayer AND fasting?!?!  (Acts 13:1-3, vs2 - As they ministered to the LORD and FASTED, the Holy Spirit said, "Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.")...  not very intellectual, but amazing results (trust me, our elders did this last year with calling a new pastor)... I just weep in desperation that we will become far more sensitive to the Holy Spirit, and fasting does help us be more sensitive as well as other things we don't understand...  Listening to the Holy Spirit blows our intellect to bits...  Be still, listen for that still, small voice... and then obey!

I know merit is a starting place for leader selection, but as followers of Christ, we need to go much deeper than that and look at eligible leaders from a spiritual perspective...ie. are they Spirit led, men and women of prayer (like 2+ hours a day -no, the Jesuits spirituality on the run of 15 minutes a day does not usually cut it, unless that is a specific call God gave you), with a close relationship with Jesus, that have been obedient in their walk with the LORD...  we often assume this of course when someone is talented and successful, but do we actually ask about their prayer life, what is a recent testimony of God working in their life, how they are growing in their relationship with God...   and then after prayer and fasting, listen for the Spirit's leading...make sense!?!??!   hahahaha...only in a God way....

thanks for the reminder about prayer, Bev.

Here's the Banner article (March) re. spirituality on the run....Catch Your Breath: Parque Central

http://www.thebanner.org/departments/article/?id=3144 

It should be noted that if someone characterizes "Jesuit spirituality" as a kind of spiritual fast food, that would be quite misguided and uninformed. The Jesuits promote precisely what the Banner article is trying to propose, and it may be that the author recognizes that fact. Despite the fact that it may only take 15 minutes to go through the Ignatian exercises, this is simply a discipline that prepares on to actively reflect on Christ throughout the day. If we are ignorant of a tradition we should not use it as a negative example, because the result is that we might end up bearing false witness--in this case, against a spirituality that is not far from our own, and perhaps even more disciplined and focused (Jesuit theology aside).

Note Professor John Cooper's latest reflections on the Belhar:

http://www.thebanner.org/departments/article/?id=3362

Who is John Cooper?

Ken, follow this link and you shall see:-)

http://www.calvinseminary.edu/aboutUs/facultyStaff/cooj.php 

Thanks Dutch, I was asking rhetorically. I knew who he was from the article and researched him extensively. I respect accomplished people but I know wisdom and knowledge are distinctly different. The kind of leadership and insite on some of these issue's are matters of the heart not the brain. Thanks Dutch you are someone I can relate to.

Ken

Ken, that was an inappropriate comment about Dr. Cooper. To suggest that he is knowledgeable but not wise is inappropriate, since you do not know him, even though you claim to have researched him extensively, whatever that means. Stick with the issues he raises, and debate them if you will, but don't presume to judge his wisdom, particularly not in such a patronizing way.

Randy,

 Well here,s my rebuke. What I refering to Is Mr Cooper is no more qualified than anyone eles in these matters including me and you. You took my words anjd applied them as if i'm degrading Mr. Cooper. You keep missing the point. This is a issue of the heart not the mind. Randy, I'm not going to treat you like your treating me so if you want to get angry go ahead. I would like you to lay it all out Randy. I will continue to pray for everyone and suggest praying to everyone.I'm broken and your broken Randy so that is the problem. I will admit to sinfulness but can you?

OK...back to the Belhar folks!

One of the most prevalent offshoots of our denominational heritage is a lack of civility when it comes to doctrinal issues that spell "culture."

While we are on the subject, can we all spell "schism"?

You know, that word from Greek: σχίσμα, skhísma- from σχίζω, skhízō, "to tear, to split;" refers to a division between people, usually belonging to an organization or movement religious denomination; most frequently applied to a break of communion between two sections of Christianity that were previously a single body, or to a division within some other religion.(Wikepedia)

Yes, once again the CRCNA as discovered a way to tear itself apart- you know, just like it has done in the past.

CRCNA begat the Free Reformed Church, Protestant Reformed Church, Orthodox Christian Reformed Church, United Reformed Church in North America...but that's how we do business as "Reformed Churches;" right- we keep "reforming" ourselves when we can't agree with each other to get along.

Perhaps one of the most contentious issues of late was women in ecclesiastical office: first we discussed, then we became at odds, then some simply walked out! Even more churches and people than the big split over common grace!

This past Synod we had a couple of churches that said. "Folks, we just can't square yet this issue of women in office with our theology- so let us stay with the CRCNA fellowship and go to another Classis- it was done before." The originating Classis of each church said "fine;" Synod at first said "fine"...then a bunch of delegates who just couldn't figure out how to live with someone that thinks differently said: "no you can't do that," and convinced Synod to retract it's initial thinking. Now that is a sure way to say, "just get out!" "Follow the historical template!"

Are we now going to do the same with the Belhar? It seems the church is split on how to handle this...can't we come up with a compromise for all those folks that want our denomination to stick together- follow the great commission, and agree to disagree- CIVILLY? So we start calling each other names...now that is adult! And this is the same church that is talking "faith formation" of our children?

No, from what I have read on this blog, Network, and in other printed material, the" lines in the sand are being drawn." And it isn't even 2012 yet!

Of course...we probably will do what we know how to do best from history: discuss, cuss(more or less), then "reform" into another "reformed church."

Good thing we all go by the "grace of God"...and aren't we fortunate with that!

So now let's get back to the Belhar, and work this out- and just maybe by the time we turn 175 years old as a denomination we will not have added to that list of "reformed churches" that seems to keep growing!

Then again…perhaps we just can‘t help ourselves, if we miss breaking apart with this one- we sure won’t on the next one; what’s that going to be…