Maybe the understanding of this phrase underlies the problem in the discussion we are having. What does it mean that the church is reforming? What are we reformed by? What are we reformed to? I think we should understand that this phrase does NOT mean, to be reformed by the world. Instead, it means to be reformed by scripture, and by the Spirit of God. It does not mean that the church is to be reformed to worldly standards or beliefs, but rather to service of God and our neighbor in love that honors God as creator, saviour and lord, and honors scripture as God's word.
"Dr. Case-Winters suggests that the phrase Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda has been misused or misinterpreted by Reformed Christians on both ends of the theological spectrum. The Reformers understanding of the phrase was neither conservative nor liberal, but “radical, in the sense of returning to ‘root.’” They believed that the church had become corrupt and wanted to return to a more authentic faith and life. “The cultural assumption of the Reformers’ day,” she notes, “was that what is older is better.” (Presbyterian Hist Soc News)
b-ver and Doug Vande Griend, I just want to say thankyou for your involvement and participation in these issues. The broad background of relevant information and your astute analyses on this issue as well as the evolution and climate change issues are shedding light in the midst of murky waters. You are like a breath of fresh air. May God use this discussion to direct our paths towards focussing on our main mission and on our unity in the light of His Word, and by the power of His Spirit.
Lubbert, the "charity" ace card gets pulled out in a way that removes any possibility for understanding reasonable objections. Walhout wrote about this in a way that clearly indicates that he believes that our basic doctrines will change in the future. There are many who see that. Most commentators on the banner thread have indicated that. If we are misunderstanding him, then he needs to clarify it.
If a former minister or an elder can make comments like this about basic doctrines, then it seems they are not exploring all the options. If they can make comments like this with impunity, then there is no point in having classical examinations for ministerial candidates, and there is no point in having elder examinations of those who wish to make profession of faith. What is the point of having those "examinations", and what is the point to agreeing to the form of subscription, and what is the point of making a profession of faith that subscribes to the three forms of unity, if you don't have any intention of abiding or holding to them. Is that not a form of deception? Is that not the heart of deceit? Please tell me what it is.
Charity means love for those who place confidence in office bearers. That means that charity demands extra responsibility from "teachers, preachers, etc." because of the potential impact of what they do and say, on the rank and file. Sending comments like this into helpless innocent homes through a denomination support publication, where individuals barely have the right to even refuse the publication, is not charitable, and creates dissension and discord. Charity demands a response of accountability.
Furthermore, if the basis of our sinful condition is torn down (as it appears to be by Walhout), then what is the basis for a requirement that we need to be charitable? Evolution certainly does not require charity from us? If God used evolution to create us, and created us with the competitive survival of the fittest pre-eminent instinct, then it would be unreasonable for God to ask us to be charitable, wouldn't it?
"Innocent" households are those who do not decide based on any evidence, but decide on the basis of "authority" or perceived authority which they attribute to those they assume they can trust. That is why those who presume to teach must be doubly aware of their responsibility.
To some degree what you say here makes sense, and I agree. But still, many place a lot of trust in the leaders and official statements and publications of their church as to how to interpret scripture. Perhaps not technically innocent, but still not considering themselves expert or with more knowledge than their leaders, and thus I say they are innocent. Just as Jesus said of those who crucified him: "forgive them for they know not what they do".... you think they did not know they were crucifying Him?
Steve, I appreciate that you don't want to be racist, nor perceived as racist, and that you want people to know you don't want to be racist, and that you don't want reformed churches to be perceived as racist. I understand that.
However, the Belhar is political. It is political because it deals with the political issues of racism, the power of the state, the power of the church, the ideas of equality and rights. But our discussion of it is also political, because we assume that because reformed churches in South Africa are reformed, that we are automatically allied to them in some structural sense. If this confession had been given to us as a gift, from some pentecostal church or baptist church or calvinist Presbyterian church in South Africa, we would likely not be discussing this. Thus the politics of churches.
We don't have to be seen as fudging on racism just because we don't adopt this statement as something on a par with our confessions or testimonies. It is not difficult to make a statement that all people of all races, colors, and abilities, are equally human beings, equally children of God. But if we are to make such a statement, then we should make our own, not adopt someone else's. This is a Christian-cultural statement, and as such, it should come out of our own cultural context, not from another continent where most of us have never been, nor have our ancestors come from there.
The USA culture liberated slaves one hundred and fifty years ago, and gave everyone equal rights more than fifty years ago. Any testimony that we might make with regard to that is fifty or one hundred years behind the times, out of date, and useless. Nor does it seem to apply in any discernable way to the Canadian context.
If we are going to get into the business of making denominational testimonies, then we should not place these testimonies into some sort of a book that gives them a quasi official status with a different name but similar importance to our basic confessions. And if we are going to start to make denominational testimonies, then to be consistent and honest, we ought to promote individual testimonies on a regular basis. It is these individual testimonies that carry the real weight when we talk about issues such as racism, or ignoring the needs of the disabled, or evangelism, or living lives of purity (purifying ourselves).
My testimony is this: we have adopted an aboriginal girl, my oldest son and wife have adopted a girl from Haiti, and another son and wife have adopted three boys from Russia. Our local church directly supports mission work in Kazakhstan and Kenya. I work with professional people who have come from countries such as Sudan, Kenya, India and Pakistan. And have worked with others whose parents or grandparents or themselves have come from China, Ukraine, France, Germany, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Finland and elsewhere. What have you (you-all) done, or do you intend to do?
I'm sure many others have similar testimonies and situations. I wouldn't be surprised that many voted for the present president, and that many appreciate Martin Luther King day.
The real testimony is from those people who refuse to move out of certain neighborhoods in Chicago, New York, Washington DC, even though the neighborhoods are changing color.
And it is also important to recognize that not all perceived racism is racism. It may also be about strong cultural differences. The desire for cultural connection and similarity leads to the tendency to create a hispanic neighborhood, or a middle-class black neighborhood(ie. parts of Washington, DC.), or an East-Indian community, or a China town, or a dutch community, or an italian neighborhood, or a mormon town. I think to call all of this racism is to miss the point, and it doesn't really get covered by something like Belhar.
If you really want to fight racism and discrimination on basis of disabilities, then you ought to develop a testimony about the fallacy of evolution. It is raw evolutionary theory that leads to racism.
John Kralt, since the article in question is in the denominational magazine, which members are virtually forced to accept, then this discussion certainly does not break the rules. Every transgression or problem ought to be dealt with at the level that it is promolgated. While a "private" sin ought to be dealt with as privately as possible, this is a public and denomination wide contradiction of confessions, subscription, and profession of faith. Regardless of who actually deals with it, it absolutely requires a public announcement or knowledge of how it is dealt with. Discipline is done as much for the sake of the church as it is for the sake of the individual. That's exactly why Annanias and Sapphira received the consequences they did. And that's why apostle Paul publicly rebuked Peter to his face, and publicized the discussion. If this is not dealt with, it will lead to an eventual deterioration. Those churches who do not defend the faith, are indicating that they really do not think it is that important. They are like those identified in Jeremiah 7, who wish to worship both God and mammon. We are all susceptible to that, and we all need to admonish one another in those situations. I think Philip Westra has made some very good points in his post.
Stanley, are there not many aspects to our spiritual health? Yesterday's semon mentioned a phrase: "Calm seas do not make for strong sailors." Complacency and apathy are very toxic for spiritual health, even though there may be a feeling of ease. Your feeling of the impact on your spiritual health while reading this discussion is very real. Perhaps you can understand that others have that same feeling of toxicity and depression not when they read this thread, but when they read Edwin Walhout's article?
From a personal point of view, when I thought that this article was merely on line and not in print, then I thought we could tolerate his article, but when I just saw it in print, going to every innocent household, I realized the implications were much greater, and this has passed the point of being charitable and patient. (with friends like this in our church, who needs enemies?)
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)
Naturally, John K, you are entitled to your opinion. But is "entitlement" really the issue? Entitled by whom? Human beings are "entitled" to be unbelievers, but of what use is it? Why do we focus so often on "entitlement"?
The real issue is not "entitlement", but being true to scripture, and true to your faith. I agree with Calvin that some people are inclined to reject what they do not know or understand. I also agree with Calvin, that we should not forbid scientists from working because we are afraid of some new knowledge. But you have not drawn a connection between this statement and our present discussion... what I mean is that no one is saying that we should not do science. So I think this is a red herring. What some of us are saying is that perhaps science is not being done well; that conclusions are being drawn which do not have substantive proof.
Furthermore, are you implying that Calvin would agree with Walhout? That there is no original sin; that no original Adam and Eve existed; that God did not declare everything good? That God did not make a promise to Adam and Eve that their seed would crush the head of the serpent? What exactly are you implying?
When you state that things that Paul stated went way over the head of Peter, did you get that idea from scripture? Is that really what he said?
When you say that all you need to know is that Christ is your saviour, what is it you are being saved from? your sin? your sinful nature? But what if your "sin" is merely an outworking of the supposed "natural" evolutionistic tendencies to survival? Why would you be redeemed from that? And you say that Christ redeems the whole creation... but why does the creation need to be redeemed? what's wrong with it? How do you know? What makes your beliefs different from someone who says that man is "naturally good"?
It is my view that these views are fundamental, not peripheral. They are basic to our understanding of ourselves, of creation, and of the creator/redeemer. Does that mean that people should not be investigating fossils, and starlight, and planets, and genetics, and different types of rock, or the sequences they are found in? No, all investigation is legitimate, but our interpretation is colored by our assumptions, and we do not serve the greek or roman gods, but we serve the true God. We know the true God through scripture, not thru the imaginations of our minds, nor thru the wistful desires of our heart. And we know God thru the majesty and order and magnificence of creation, not thru the supposed random accidentalness and ferocious survival instinct and desperation to survive, which if it was the dominating principle certainly would make it useless and meaningless to love God and our neighbor, wouldn't it.
I think this issue is well worth discussing. We need to know how to defend against such statements as Walhout makes. The problem is that Walhout proposed it and gave it the appearance of a valid christian approach, which is highly, highly questionable, and certainly should not have been given the imprimatur of the banner podium in the way that it did.
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.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
"Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda"
Maybe the understanding of this phrase underlies the problem in the discussion we are having. What does it mean that the church is reforming? What are we reformed by? What are we reformed to? I think we should understand that this phrase does NOT mean, to be reformed by the world. Instead, it means to be reformed by scripture, and by the Spirit of God. It does not mean that the church is to be reformed to worldly standards or beliefs, but rather to service of God and our neighbor in love that honors God as creator, saviour and lord, and honors scripture as God's word.
"Dr. Case-Winters suggests that the phrase Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda has been misused or misinterpreted by Reformed Christians on both ends of the theological spectrum. The Reformers understanding of the phrase was neither conservative nor liberal, but “radical, in the sense of returning to ‘root.’” They believed that the church had become corrupt and wanted to return to a more authentic faith and life. “The cultural assumption of the Reformers’ day,” she notes, “was that what is older is better.” (Presbyterian Hist Soc News)
Posted in: Affirm the Belhar? Yes, but Not as a Doctrinal Standard
b-ver and Doug Vande Griend, I just want to say thankyou for your involvement and participation in these issues. The broad background of relevant information and your astute analyses on this issue as well as the evolution and climate change issues are shedding light in the midst of murky waters. You are like a breath of fresh air. May God use this discussion to direct our paths towards focussing on our main mission and on our unity in the light of His Word, and by the power of His Spirit.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Lubbert, the "charity" ace card gets pulled out in a way that removes any possibility for understanding reasonable objections. Walhout wrote about this in a way that clearly indicates that he believes that our basic doctrines will change in the future. There are many who see that. Most commentators on the banner thread have indicated that. If we are misunderstanding him, then he needs to clarify it.
If a former minister or an elder can make comments like this about basic doctrines, then it seems they are not exploring all the options. If they can make comments like this with impunity, then there is no point in having classical examinations for ministerial candidates, and there is no point in having elder examinations of those who wish to make profession of faith. What is the point of having those "examinations", and what is the point to agreeing to the form of subscription, and what is the point of making a profession of faith that subscribes to the three forms of unity, if you don't have any intention of abiding or holding to them. Is that not a form of deception? Is that not the heart of deceit? Please tell me what it is.
Charity means love for those who place confidence in office bearers. That means that charity demands extra responsibility from "teachers, preachers, etc." because of the potential impact of what they do and say, on the rank and file. Sending comments like this into helpless innocent homes through a denomination support publication, where individuals barely have the right to even refuse the publication, is not charitable, and creates dissension and discord. Charity demands a response of accountability.
Furthermore, if the basis of our sinful condition is torn down (as it appears to be by Walhout), then what is the basis for a requirement that we need to be charitable? Evolution certainly does not require charity from us? If God used evolution to create us, and created us with the competitive survival of the fittest pre-eminent instinct, then it would be unreasonable for God to ask us to be charitable, wouldn't it?
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
"Innocent" households are those who do not decide based on any evidence, but decide on the basis of "authority" or perceived authority which they attribute to those they assume they can trust. That is why those who presume to teach must be doubly aware of their responsibility.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
To some degree what you say here makes sense, and I agree. But still, many place a lot of trust in the leaders and official statements and publications of their church as to how to interpret scripture. Perhaps not technically innocent, but still not considering themselves expert or with more knowledge than their leaders, and thus I say they are innocent. Just as Jesus said of those who crucified him: "forgive them for they know not what they do".... you think they did not know they were crucifying Him?
Posted in: Affirm the Belhar? Yes, but Not as a Doctrinal Standard
Steve, I appreciate that you don't want to be racist, nor perceived as racist, and that you want people to know you don't want to be racist, and that you don't want reformed churches to be perceived as racist. I understand that.
However, the Belhar is political. It is political because it deals with the political issues of racism, the power of the state, the power of the church, the ideas of equality and rights. But our discussion of it is also political, because we assume that because reformed churches in South Africa are reformed, that we are automatically allied to them in some structural sense. If this confession had been given to us as a gift, from some pentecostal church or baptist church or calvinist Presbyterian church in South Africa, we would likely not be discussing this. Thus the politics of churches.
We don't have to be seen as fudging on racism just because we don't adopt this statement as something on a par with our confessions or testimonies. It is not difficult to make a statement that all people of all races, colors, and abilities, are equally human beings, equally children of God. But if we are to make such a statement, then we should make our own, not adopt someone else's. This is a Christian-cultural statement, and as such, it should come out of our own cultural context, not from another continent where most of us have never been, nor have our ancestors come from there.
The USA culture liberated slaves one hundred and fifty years ago, and gave everyone equal rights more than fifty years ago. Any testimony that we might make with regard to that is fifty or one hundred years behind the times, out of date, and useless. Nor does it seem to apply in any discernable way to the Canadian context.
If we are going to get into the business of making denominational testimonies, then we should not place these testimonies into some sort of a book that gives them a quasi official status with a different name but similar importance to our basic confessions. And if we are going to start to make denominational testimonies, then to be consistent and honest, we ought to promote individual testimonies on a regular basis. It is these individual testimonies that carry the real weight when we talk about issues such as racism, or ignoring the needs of the disabled, or evangelism, or living lives of purity (purifying ourselves).
My testimony is this: we have adopted an aboriginal girl, my oldest son and wife have adopted a girl from Haiti, and another son and wife have adopted three boys from Russia. Our local church directly supports mission work in Kazakhstan and Kenya. I work with professional people who have come from countries such as Sudan, Kenya, India and Pakistan. And have worked with others whose parents or grandparents or themselves have come from China, Ukraine, France, Germany, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Finland and elsewhere. What have you (you-all) done, or do you intend to do?
I'm sure many others have similar testimonies and situations. I wouldn't be surprised that many voted for the present president, and that many appreciate Martin Luther King day.
The real testimony is from those people who refuse to move out of certain neighborhoods in Chicago, New York, Washington DC, even though the neighborhoods are changing color.
And it is also important to recognize that not all perceived racism is racism. It may also be about strong cultural differences. The desire for cultural connection and similarity leads to the tendency to create a hispanic neighborhood, or a middle-class black neighborhood(ie. parts of Washington, DC.), or an East-Indian community, or a China town, or a dutch community, or an italian neighborhood, or a mormon town. I think to call all of this racism is to miss the point, and it doesn't really get covered by something like Belhar.
If you really want to fight racism and discrimination on basis of disabilities, then you ought to develop a testimony about the fallacy of evolution. It is raw evolutionary theory that leads to racism.
John
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
John Kralt, since the article in question is in the denominational magazine, which members are virtually forced to accept, then this discussion certainly does not break the rules. Every transgression or problem ought to be dealt with at the level that it is promolgated. While a "private" sin ought to be dealt with as privately as possible, this is a public and denomination wide contradiction of confessions, subscription, and profession of faith. Regardless of who actually deals with it, it absolutely requires a public announcement or knowledge of how it is dealt with. Discipline is done as much for the sake of the church as it is for the sake of the individual. That's exactly why Annanias and Sapphira received the consequences they did. And that's why apostle Paul publicly rebuked Peter to his face, and publicized the discussion. If this is not dealt with, it will lead to an eventual deterioration. Those churches who do not defend the faith, are indicating that they really do not think it is that important. They are like those identified in Jeremiah 7, who wish to worship both God and mammon. We are all susceptible to that, and we all need to admonish one another in those situations. I think Philip Westra has made some very good points in his post.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Stanley, are there not many aspects to our spiritual health? Yesterday's semon mentioned a phrase: "Calm seas do not make for strong sailors." Complacency and apathy are very toxic for spiritual health, even though there may be a feeling of ease. Your feeling of the impact on your spiritual health while reading this discussion is very real. Perhaps you can understand that others have that same feeling of toxicity and depression not when they read this thread, but when they read Edwin Walhout's article?
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
From a personal point of view, when I thought that this article was merely on line and not in print, then I thought we could tolerate his article, but when I just saw it in print, going to every innocent household, I realized the implications were much greater, and this has passed the point of being charitable and patient. (with friends like this in our church, who needs enemies?)
Posted in: Affirm the Belhar? Yes, but Not as a Doctrinal Standard
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)
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Naturally, John K, you are entitled to your opinion. But is "entitlement" really the issue? Entitled by whom? Human beings are "entitled" to be unbelievers, but of what use is it? Why do we focus so often on "entitlement"?
The real issue is not "entitlement", but being true to scripture, and true to your faith. I agree with Calvin that some people are inclined to reject what they do not know or understand. I also agree with Calvin, that we should not forbid scientists from working because we are afraid of some new knowledge. But you have not drawn a connection between this statement and our present discussion... what I mean is that no one is saying that we should not do science. So I think this is a red herring. What some of us are saying is that perhaps science is not being done well; that conclusions are being drawn which do not have substantive proof.
Furthermore, are you implying that Calvin would agree with Walhout? That there is no original sin; that no original Adam and Eve existed; that God did not declare everything good? That God did not make a promise to Adam and Eve that their seed would crush the head of the serpent? What exactly are you implying?
When you state that things that Paul stated went way over the head of Peter, did you get that idea from scripture? Is that really what he said?
When you say that all you need to know is that Christ is your saviour, what is it you are being saved from? your sin? your sinful nature? But what if your "sin" is merely an outworking of the supposed "natural" evolutionistic tendencies to survival? Why would you be redeemed from that? And you say that Christ redeems the whole creation... but why does the creation need to be redeemed? what's wrong with it? How do you know? What makes your beliefs different from someone who says that man is "naturally good"?
It is my view that these views are fundamental, not peripheral. They are basic to our understanding of ourselves, of creation, and of the creator/redeemer. Does that mean that people should not be investigating fossils, and starlight, and planets, and genetics, and different types of rock, or the sequences they are found in? No, all investigation is legitimate, but our interpretation is colored by our assumptions, and we do not serve the greek or roman gods, but we serve the true God. We know the true God through scripture, not thru the imaginations of our minds, nor thru the wistful desires of our heart. And we know God thru the majesty and order and magnificence of creation, not thru the supposed random accidentalness and ferocious survival instinct and desperation to survive, which if it was the dominating principle certainly would make it useless and meaningless to love God and our neighbor, wouldn't it.
I think this issue is well worth discussing. We need to know how to defend against such statements as Walhout makes. The problem is that Walhout proposed it and gave it the appearance of a valid christian approach, which is highly, highly questionable, and certainly should not have been given the imprimatur of the banner podium in the way that it did.
Posted in: Affirm the Belhar? Yes, but Not as a Doctrinal Standard
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.