Affirm the Belhar? Yes, but Not as a Doctrinal Standard

In one sense I agree with you. The Belhar is not a complete presentation of the Gospel. But I'm not sure the Canons of Dort stand very well without the support of the Heidelberg and Belgic either.

I see the Belhar as remedial, in that it addresses elements (especially in the are of ecclesiology) that are missing in our other confessions, such that the Dutch Reformed Church could adopt the doctrine of apartheid without any direct confessional contradiction.

But you touch on the nature of a confession. Does it have to be complete? If so, are our other confessions complete? In what way are they 'complete enough?' I don't ask those questions to challenge your statements here, but I do think that we have not always clearly understood, or at least not clearly articulated the nature of a confession until now. It's good that we're doing it now, and I look forward to continued discussion about it.

In one sense what a confession is, has everything to do with how it functions in the Church. As it is now the confessions are called our forms of unity; they hold us together theologically. We don't take them in isolation from each other, but together, never letting the abstract, apologetic theology of the Canons overrun the warmth and piety of the Catechism, e.g. And while we're talking about the Canons, we remember that they were articulated to resist a particular but serious threat against Reformed theology. And while that threat was about the nature of salvation (specifically God's and our role in it), it is still and because of that limited in scope and incomplete on its own.

So I can see the Belhar rising to the level of a confession, but only in the context of the other three. In that sense, I would accept it the way I accept the Canons: incomplete on its own, but adding necessary clarification to the other two (which apparently were not sufficient on their own either at the time of the writing of the Canons).

However, I think there are some other problem with adopting the Belhar as a confession that make me hesitate. First, I have colleagues in the ministry who find they cannot fully agree with some of the statements in it (even though they do agree with the intent of the Belhar). I don't want to discuss those now, but it becomes a big problem for them when it comes to signing our form of subscription, and when it comes to serving with integrity in our denomination. So far, this issue has not been addressed. At all!

Secondly, I don't think we're done discussing this document. There are ways in which, through either confusion or neglect, we've just not given it justice. To adopt it with a shrug of the shoulders would be the height of foolishness. It is worthy of much more careful study than what it has been given in most of our churches. These last three years have not proven as fruitful as the Synod of 2009 wanted in this regard. As a delegate at that Synod, I think I can say that with some degree of confidence.

There are probably some other reasons we could cite as well, that make me think that we're (at best?) not ready to adopt this as a confession.

Like you, I think we should adopt it on some level. However, doing so means we need to deal very explicitly, carefully, and respectfully with the theology of the Belhar. In some debates or forums on the Belhar, criticism of it's statements has been met with disdain and near ridicule. Some of the denominational statements have been perceived as being quite heavy-handed and one-sided, not encouraging discussion as much as trying to end it. For those with some genuine questions, this has become a major stumbling block and threatens the very unity the confession champions!

So I would be in favor of Synod 2012 doing either of two things with the Behlar: 1) Giving us another 3 years to study it, or 2) adopting it as an official statement of some kind. But only if we also continue to encourage discussion and (respectful) debate about its points.

For those who want to avoid the real work of the church, discussing the Belhar would be a good way to do this.   By now, it is easy to see that we could affirm the intent of the Belhar, and receive it for information as a statement by another denomination in another space and time.   It could easily be regarded in a similar position to the Westminster Confession and other confessions and statements that we do not need to "adopt" in any official manner.   Getting back to scripture would be better, rather than adding confessions and statements that will not be given even the declining amount of attention presently given to our existing confessions.  

A much simpler and more pertinent statement would be that all people of all languages and  nations are called to serve and praise God, and that we should help one another to do so by loving one another as Christ loved us.   (read the epistle of I John)

Richard, I agree mostly with what you said in the previous post (the one before that...).   I love to discuss, but I also know that discussion of the confessions of another denomination is not really the main work of the church.   Richard, yes, theology is important.  Most confessions were born out of struggle, in the midst of the struggle.   The belhar is talking about a struggle that is virtually over, and a struggle where society and government are already leading and have led for some time.  On the other hand, the creation/evolution debate/struggle is more relevant, and needs more attention, because raw evolutionary theory justifies racism, and justifies treating less capable and less fit people and anyone "different" as of less worth.   Racism is a symptom, of which a lack of love and a lack of obedience, and in some cases a belief in evolution are the cause.   Good theology will get at the cause.  

But I would not ask for the church to make a new confession which makes a statement on evolution, since our confessions have already declared scripture to be authoritative, and have declared God the good creator, man the fallen sinner.   At this point, the real work is not to make another confession, but to uphold what we have.   The real work is to support those who want to work in the field of creation science, since they are being more diligent in upholding the confessions. 

The real work of the church is not making new confessions, but is living them out.   The real work of the church  is living by the authority and guidance of scripture, depending on God, and trusting His Spirit.   Confessions of faith guide us in our belief, but only our personal confession and repentance can change us, by God's grace and spirit and power. 

Confessions of faith may unite us, or may separate us, but certainly will not stop church shopping in this day and age.  Unity, reconciliation and justice are indeed very important, but they must cross confessional boundaries, not wait for a new confession to be written or adopted.   I think the confessions are very important yes, and I agree the proposal to add a new confession is no small thing, but I do not think at this point the belhar will help us in any significant way, and it has a high potential to harm us.   So I would suggest to accept it for information, express appreciation of the circumstances in which it was written, and leave it for the church that wrote and adopted it, to live it out in the context of scripture and the context of their environs.    

We ought to put ourselves to more productive use, and deal with the issues that are really the causes of present-day problems and faithlessness within our churches.    It bears repeating that it is no use adopting another confession that can be conveniently ignored by so many. 

Steve, I don't know if you were referring to John Cooper or to myself in your comment.   However, I just want to make clear that I do not want to adopt the Belhar as a testimony either, nor as a confession.  The reason I don't want to adopt it as a testimony is a bit different than the reasons for not adopting it as a confession, although the same problems with its vague terminology and political atmosphere are still there.   I think a testimony is much more personal.   It ought to come out of your own personal history and your own experience.   Adopting someone else's testimony just doesn't make much sense.  This applies at a denominational level as much as at a personal level.   Just as you or I adopting the personal testimony of Franklin Graham or Abraham Kuyper or John Calvin or John Tyndale just doesn't make sense, so for the crc to adopt the testimony of another denomination just doesn't make logical sense. 

It is better simply to receive it for information, indicate perhaps some potential problems, and express appreciation for the motivation, the context and the love expressed in that testimony.   Let it be theirs. 

(As a side note, I would love to see more testimonies expressed by people who make profession of faith.   It is a sad thing that so few do so.   But it would also be sad if they simply adopted one formulaic testimony made by someone else.)

I'm not hung up on the term testimony.  John Cooper offered the term declaration.  I used testimony because that is what we call Our World Belongs to God and it is simpler if we don't multiply terms.  I also don't see the word testimony as requiring the personal character that is mentioned just above.  If you spend some time with people who have been on the receiving end of racism, the idea that the Belhar's issues are "political" is pretty hard to swallow.  Watch the PBS special on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission sometime.  The systematic torture and murder used by the old regime in South Africa in order to maintain white privilege is truly incredible.  The fact that many of the perpetrators were attending Reformed churches at the time, should give us all pause. 

Discriminating against people on the basis of race, which is definitely not limited to South Africa, is a denial of the Gospel.  That is why I believe it is vital to adopt the Belhar at some level and with some terminology.  To just receive it as information will be perceived by many around the world as fudging on the issue of racism.

Hey Steve;

My concern with adopting the BC  is: Will it force us somewhere down the road into a situation where we wil either have to accept same sex marriages or be deemed as practicing injustice and prejudice against homosexuals according to the BC? I say this because as John Cooper pointed out the BC language has been used to do just that in other denominations. We live in a world where "Tolerance" is the cultural religion of the day and can easily be used against us as it has in the church affiliated schools in Canada. It is something to seriously think about. The wording of the BC is so open to interpretation that I have some serious concerns how it could be used, or more to the point, how it already has been used. It isn't a theological treaties by any stretch of the imagination. It is clearly a religious-social-political statement. I'm not sure I'd even want to see it used even as a testimonial.

The Belhar has three sections.

As to the first section, about unity, the content is fairly unobjectionable, but I don't think it adds anything of significance for the CRC. Still, it may well have been very meaningful to the South African church. I wouldn't add that section as a confession for the CRC just because there isn't enough reason to do that (and that itself is a significant reason not to).

As to the second section, about Unity, ditto. An irony would be that adopting the Belhar would diminish unity in the CRC. Whenever a slight majority tells the entirety what it must think and believe, a degree of disunity results. In this respect, we would be wise to observe the traditions of the Friends (Quakers), who require consensus for decisions such as this, as opposed to the more common political measure of "majority rules."

As to the third section, about "social justice" (designated by that phrase or not), the Belhar is, in my mind, highly objectionable.

The Behlar speaks only about "justice," not "mercy." My observation of some years has been that some in the CRC wish to similarly twist Michah 6:8, which commands that we (people) "do justice" and also "love mercy" (and "walk humbly with God").  When the CRC Articles of Incorporation prior to our most recent version were drafted and filed, the Articles referred to the church as an agent of mercy, but not justice (I got a copy today from the Michigan Corporation Division's online records). This probably reflected the view that churches are agents of mercy in society at large, but not agents of justice, the latter properly belonging to the domain (sphere) of government. That didn't mean of course that Christians should not participate in doing justice personally, nor even that they should not participate FULLY in political matters to ensure that government is also doing justice.  But it was not thought that the church, as institution (as the CRC denomination) was the agency properly tasked with corporately doing justice in members' behalves, as if all members would agreed with the denomination's decisions for them..

Flash forward to the present. The CRC now has a "Office of Social Justice" that promotes certain federal legislation and a certain political perspectives; Home Missions has a Hope Equals project that promotes UN inititiatives, certain federal legislation, and a perspective as to injustice in the Palestinian/Israli struggle; the Banner declares it knows for all its members the scientific and political answers involved in global warming; and Synod purports to understand and then even adopts the "Millennium Development Goals" promoted by the United Nations.  I'm neither a Republican nor Democrat, but still I am increasingly part of a political association.

The Belhar's third section reflects this recent CRC development and pushes it forward significantly. It would have us declare in complete unison that God is God "in a special way" to the poor. Of signficance, the third section and only the third section, calls "the church" to specific actions, none of which were anticipated by the Articles of Incorporation of the CRC denomination drafted less than twenty years ago. Of further significance, the word "mercy" appears nowhere in the Belhar, let alone the third section.  Lots of "justice" though.

I didn't have to look up the phrase "social justice" in Wikipedia to know what that meant, or that the third section of the Belhar literally reeks with the ambience of that worldview (or conglomerate of worldviews), but if you need a historical refresher, check out Wikipedia's article on it (not bad really), at:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

Essentially, "social justice" is a worldview with heavy emphasis on a political disposition, which until the past decade or so has been fairly foreign to the CRC.  It merges the two mandates of Micah 6:8 (do justice, love mercy) into one, that being "do justice." In the case of the Belhar, if we adopt it, the mandate becomes, more specifically, the following:

   "The church, as institution and as denomination, shall be, must be, the political proxy for its members in deciding what is justice and what is not, and it shall, must, also act in behalf of its members in lobbying government to implement what the CRC as denomination decides, again in behalf of its members, is appropriate legislation to achieve what the CRC as denomination decides is just. And, by the way, 'love mercy' means 'do justice', as we have all agreed." 

AARP (the political lobbying organization masquerading as as a retired folks association)?  Meet the CRC.

I used to work quite hard to convince churches who tended "right" in a political way to separate their church affairs from their political affairs (do both but watch out for the proper spheres of authority). I shouldn't have to explain why I did that, this being a discussion among those from the church that still (hopefully) remembers Abraham Kuyper. As a practical matter though, I know from experience that when a church (as intitution, including as denomination) takes political positions and does political lobbying, the church become fractured into as many sub-groups as there are political positions, as well as anemic, at least as a church.

When I was in college (Dordt), the professor who really taught me the most about "not one square inch" also disagreed with me the most about political theory.  I was a philosophy and history major, with an emphasis on political theory (did you know John Locke described Kuyperian spheres of authority long before Kuyper was born?). My and my professor's political perspectives were and still are really, really different. Fortunately, Dordt College was a college, not a political party, and so my professor and I could be brothers in Christ together, notwithstanding our political differences. I was on Dordt's Board of Trustees in the early 1990's when that board very wisely decided not to "take a position" on "women in office," declaring rather that it was the church's question to deal with, not the school's, including Dordt College's, including even the Theology Department.

The push for the Belhar reminds me that every generation needs to learn anew the truths one would think should be automatically established. Before even considering adopting the Belhar, the CRC needs to figure out what the roles of the church, as institution and denomination, are, and are not.

I've spent the last several weeks looking at pretty much every page on the CRC website (including OSJ and such, and the Network), reading past Synodical reports, past Banners, and reviewing websites of WCRC (World Communion of Reformed Churches) and related organizations.  (The recent Banner editorial, "Why Play Favorites" jolted me).

It has become clear to me that the point of the Belhar, at least for those larger powers-that-be who are pushing it, is to become a more genuine partner in the WCRC crowd.  Almost a initiation right of sorts.  "Yes, we really are like you -- see, we adopted the Belhar as one of our confessions, just as you required."

I've been out of touch with my denomination (busy in life), which is perhaps why I haven't seen this, but for those of you who have kept in touch, isn't this really obvious?  I suspect 90% of any group of reasonably perceptive people who previously knew nothing of the CRC would view it that way if they reviewed what I have in the last few weeks.

And what does the WCRC represent?  Essentially, a "global church alliance" that is about 70-80% politically focused, 20-30% church focused (at least church as insitution, as understood by Kuyperian sphere sovereignty thinkers).  Moreover, WCRC is predominantly non-North American, concerned predominantly with non-North American issues and themes.  WCRC is pretty much a redecorated throwback to Liberation Theology, using the newer label of Social Justice.  It tends to be quite-left-of-center if mapped by generally understood American political labels, and, like most left-of-center American politicos, is by default distrusting of anything that smacks of "traditional American values." 

This current Zeitgeist loves the UN, globalism, green, simple living, talking about racism and oppression, Obama, having solidarity, the IPCC, fair trade, immigrants (to the US only, preferably Hispanic, especially illegal ones), rights, social justice, economic justice, fuzzy communication (mantras and words that could be interpreted so many ways, ala Belhar), homosexuality, fighting AIDS above all other diseases, being non-judgmental (except about being judgmental and refusing to do justice), communal lamenting, and respecting all living creatures including worms (see latest Creation Stewardship Task Force Report, just released), and maybe objects like rocks and dirt too.

In the opposite direction, this Zeitgeist has no use for American ________ (pretty much anything can be put in the blank), the thought of anyone making more than $80,000 (although most of them actually do), jobs (except when in the phrase "jobs for the poor"), Wall Street, Walmart, small business, big business, GNP, talk of mercy (there is no mercy, only justice), talk of self-sufficiency, balancing budgets, Republicans, any expression of economic theory (eg., "supply and demand"), Ronald Reagan, the US Constitution (except for some parts of the first amendment, the fourth, and some other provisions, certainly not the second or tenth amendments), the phrase "securing the border," CO2 emissions from anything or anybody (except from going to lots of global conferences), industry, business.

I'm convinced that were it not for the WCRC (including the prior entities that folded into the WCRC), hardly anyone in the CRC would even know the word "Belhar."  No, some would say that's why its a good thing we are in the WCRC.  Maybe so (well, I don't think so but).  Still, it should be recognized that if the CRC completes the move this direction (and the Belhar is just a small part of it -- being driven from above by the WCRC, not from below), it will completely transform what the CRC is.  Some say we already are there.  Well, maybe, at least at the "top end" of the denomination, but I convinced the bottom end is not there at all.  Most don't know much about any of this (I was that) and if they did, would be, well absolutely bewildered about where their church went (actually, I'm kind of there right now).

And some will say this is all a good thing.  Not me.  I've seen this story before. 

But don't misunderstand.  I think the CRC has always had "political righties" and "political lefties" (and some other places -- I'm a bit of a mix, though mostly right).  That isn't the change here.  The change is the denomination choosing sides for its members, essentially on political issues, to appease its global partners (masters?).  Just as the Banner editorial ("Why Play Favorites") announced the Banner's departure not picking sides on the political issue of climate change, so the Belhar, if passed, will announce a right of passage toward becoming a more trusted part of a global political train, willing to acquiesce in what the engineer of that train says.

By the way, the Accra Confession is now being pushed by WCRC.  Like Belhar except bolder, less ambiguous, more explicity political, even less theological.  In a way, we've already adopted that by being part of WARC (which folded into WCRC).

I really wonder whether those pushing this know where they're driving.  I'm sure some do, but I can't imagine we've really changed this much, whether we've really decide to be that much less a church and that much more a political player. 

I pray we haven't.