To keep this a bit shorter I will try to be more concise:
God's sovereignty over this world includes politics, but I do not think confessions should be political statements.
Dan, it was previous generations that made the treaties, and for most Canadians, it was not our ancestors (nor WE) that made them. In the days when some of those treaties were made, France and England and Spain were exchanging lands between themselves like they were poker chips.
The political oppression of the reformed peoples was based on religion, not on race, and thus the confession to explain that religion was appropriate. Interesting how the reformed peoples also oppressed the anabaptists, and included statements within the confessions to seemingly justify that oppression.
I agree that the confessions should be appropriately used. Therefore we should not have too many of them to distract us from scripture.
I have no difficulty with political letters and supporting political causes. And you are right, you can do both. And if we were living in an apartheid system, or a slave society perhaps the political approach would be most appropriate. However, our constitution, labor practices, public policy do not support, and rather condemn racism and discrimination already. So it is at the personal level that we will have the most impact. The Belhar is like DonQuixote fighting imaginary windmills.
Again, rather than spend endless reams of paper on someone else's confession, why don't people put their money where their mouth is, and each family befriend, assist and/or protect a needy person or persons irrespective of race: some person or persons who are from a different culture, national heritage, ancestry, language. And in particular, volunteer to be a foster parent, or adopt one or two children. You will be amazed at how meaningless the Belhar becomes in that situation.
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.
Ken, I do believe your understanding of discrimination is different than scripture. The Psalms often talk about the wicked and the righteous, and the new testament advises to have nothing to do with certain people who cause dissensions. We may differ in judgement about who fits into what category, but that type of discrimination is what I call scriptural discrimination. Although there is always a desire and an opportunity to love people, there is also a need to discriminate in some cases based on actions and beliefs. We would not permit a buddhist to become an elder in our church, for example. This has nothing to do with us being better than buddhists.
We don't have to set it aside. We do not have to adopt it. We do not have to claim it as ours.
We need more action, less talk. Belhar is talk. The command to love our neighbors, to realize there is neither Jew nor Greek, has been around for 2000 years. It has been preached, discussed, dissected. If you really do it, then Belhar will become irrelevant. If scripture does not speak to you, then it is not likely that the Belhar will.
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.
There are two types of discrimination, Ken. One is based on outward appearances. The other is based on actions that come from the heart. Jesus pointed out that the sheep would be separated from the goats, and the wheat from the weeds. But I do agree that we do not have all the answers, nor can we see into the eye of the heart, and therefore we follow Jesus example to love all those who would be loved. However, when people use this non-discrimination policy to assume that Christians should not discriminate in their lives about how they live, or about which lifestyles they approve then that is a perversion of scripture. Even though we are all in the red, yes, that does not justify ignoring sin in our own lives, nor should we act as if we have no responsibility to speak against sin. If we ignore sin, then we are reducing God's claim on our lives. If we use the excuse of non-discrimination to reduce the significance of sinful lifestyles, then we are being phony. For after all, if sinful lifestyles do not demand require change or approbation, then why are we worried about discrimination as a sin? Racial discrimination is not the only sin.
Coming from a background where my siblings and children are members of churches from eight different denominations, ranging from protestant reformed to baptist and pentecostal (but no anglicans nor rom cath), I have often asked myself what is God's purpose with regard to so many denominations or churches who all want to serve and worship the same Lord and Saviour. I'm not sure I have a very good answer, except maybe this, that personalities and personal quirks sometimes cause problems in one church situation, and another church situation can allow a method of worship and service that is more tempered to an individual at that time. Various disputable theologies and practices also play a role; we see changes sometimes in one denomination, but they happen too quickly or too slowly for some, or no change is desired. Sometimes history of experiences, or separation of family relationships, combined with a different worship environment, make old scriptural passages and applications take on a new life and vigour.
Underlying all of this, however, is the common purpose and unity that can exist between Christians in different churches and denominations. While differences are real, so is the unity also real. Sometimes there is greater unity between christians in different denominations or churches, than there is within one particular church. This might be because the focus changes to what unites, rather than to what separates, especially when churches want to work together.
This realization has also ocurred to me, that some churches have great theology, but members don't practice it, while other churches have sloppy or incomplete theology on paper, but members practice a great theology in daily life.
The different churches also allow some people to discover the essentials of the walk of faith, since they must separate their walk of faith from mere tradition, into a conscious discovery of God's will for their/our lives on a day to day basis with people who do not take their particular traditions for granted. This will bring them back to scripture and God's will on a deeper basis than they have ever perhaps done before.
The Belhar will not change churches moving to different places, unless the churches have a mission to reach others. If they do have a mission to reach others, the Belhar will not be necessary. I think if preachers lack the courage to preach scripture, or to live from scripture, and if people consider their wealth and comfort more important that their neighbors, then they are not listening to scripture. If they do not listen to scripture, why in the world would they ever listen to the Belhar? That logic escapes me.
I'm very surprised that you feel that you cannot preach on the Belhar merely because it is not in the back of the hymnal. It is not really the belhar that should be preached on anyway, but certainly if the themes are valid and the principles are scriptural what would be stopping you from preaching on those themes or applying scripture in a practical way?
Other confessions were born out of life and death issues, usually in great turmoil, persecution, and earth-shaking times. The Belhar comes at a time when most of the principles it espouses are already supported by laws of our countries. The adoption of the Belhar is more of a whitewash over our own actions and attitudes. It is a way of looking good, rather than being good. And because it follows society, rather than leading it, our motives are suspect. And because it follows society, it will have a tendency to follow society down the broad path to destruction, rather than following Christ down the narrow path to God's will.
As your example of the tower of babel illustrates, God uses divisions and separations for his own good purposes. Maybe this is also true within the church, not that we should be looking for divisions and contentions since scripture clearly indicates against that, but...
Last weekend, I heard an aboriginal Dene talk about his faith experiences. He had been a Rom Cath, somewhat nominal apparently, who embraced alcohol and eventually ended up in jail. But at one point he was given a bible by a Rom Cath priest, and began to read it. Then he became a Christian, receiving his "prayer" in the Pentecostal church. He has been a Christian for about 30 years (is now about 60yrs old), has left alcohol behind, and had a sister who became a Christian after 18 years of evangelism by him. He talks/preaches in churches of various denominations, and often feels rejected by his aboriginal relatives and friends, but perseveres. He knows his bible very, very well, having memorized some epistles completely.
I guess my point in this example, is that even though he is no longer a Rom Catholic because he wants to follow scripture and not follow a hierarchy nor a human tradition, he still acknowledges that God worked through that priest in order to bring scripture to him. That is where we ought also to have the humility to admit that God works thru means and ways that are sometimes beyond our categorizations, even though we ought to do the best we can to understand good theology and good practice in our walk of faith. I believe that sometimes the struggles themselves are exactly the means that God uses for his good purposes.
The tower of Babel was a sign of pride, but also of disobedience, since people were commanded to fill and replenish the earth, not hole up in some small corner to preserve their comfort... so God made them move and disperse by other means. It reminds me of the phrase, "every knee shall bow" to Christ; we will either acknowledge him in this life willingly, or we will be forced to acknowledge God in the next life, unwillingly.
One other thought: What is our great concern with empathizing with people in south africa, if we do not first have concern with our own motives with regard to our very neighbors. Is it easier to claim we believe what they believe as long as they live far away, but if we had to apply this to our everyday lives, particularly from a misssional perspective, then we would change the subject?
I have had one son and his wife adopt a child from Haiti, another son and wife adopt three boys from Russia, and we adopted an aboriginal child. There are others who have done similar things both in the CRC and in many other denominations. This was not because of the Belhar, or adopting some other foreign testimony or confession, but because of understanding God's call to us to be a witness, to demonstrate Christ's love, which scipture is clear on. Perhaps convicted thru preaching, or thru bible study, or thru personal devotions and prayer.
It is good to talk about these things, but not under the cover of adopting a piece of paper, when instead we should be adopting real people.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
To keep this a bit shorter I will try to be more concise:
God's sovereignty over this world includes politics, but I do not think confessions should be political statements.
Dan, it was previous generations that made the treaties, and for most Canadians, it was not our ancestors (nor WE) that made them. In the days when some of those treaties were made, France and England and Spain were exchanging lands between themselves like they were poker chips.
The political oppression of the reformed peoples was based on religion, not on race, and thus the confession to explain that religion was appropriate. Interesting how the reformed peoples also oppressed the anabaptists, and included statements within the confessions to seemingly justify that oppression.
I agree that the confessions should be appropriately used. Therefore we should not have too many of them to distract us from scripture.
I have no difficulty with political letters and supporting political causes. And you are right, you can do both. And if we were living in an apartheid system, or a slave society perhaps the political approach would be most appropriate. However, our constitution, labor practices, public policy do not support, and rather condemn racism and discrimination already. So it is at the personal level that we will have the most impact. The Belhar is like DonQuixote fighting imaginary windmills.
Again, rather than spend endless reams of paper on someone else's confession, why don't people put their money where their mouth is, and each family befriend, assist and/or protect a needy person or persons irrespective of race: some person or persons who are from a different culture, national heritage, ancestry, language. And in particular, volunteer to be a foster parent, or adopt one or two children. You will be amazed at how meaningless the Belhar becomes in that situation.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
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.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
Ken, I do believe your understanding of discrimination is different than scripture. The Psalms often talk about the wicked and the righteous, and the new testament advises to have nothing to do with certain people who cause dissensions. We may differ in judgement about who fits into what category, but that type of discrimination is what I call scriptural discrimination. Although there is always a desire and an opportunity to love people, there is also a need to discriminate in some cases based on actions and beliefs. We would not permit a buddhist to become an elder in our church, for example. This has nothing to do with us being better than buddhists.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
We don't have to set it aside. We do not have to adopt it. We do not have to claim it as ours.
We need more action, less talk. Belhar is talk. The command to love our neighbors, to realize there is neither Jew nor Greek, has been around for 2000 years. It has been preached, discussed, dissected. If you really do it, then Belhar will become irrelevant. If scripture does not speak to you, then it is not likely that the Belhar will.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
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.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
There are two types of discrimination, Ken. One is based on outward appearances. The other is based on actions that come from the heart. Jesus pointed out that the sheep would be separated from the goats, and the wheat from the weeds. But I do agree that we do not have all the answers, nor can we see into the eye of the heart, and therefore we follow Jesus example to love all those who would be loved. However, when people use this non-discrimination policy to assume that Christians should not discriminate in their lives about how they live, or about which lifestyles they approve then that is a perversion of scripture. Even though we are all in the red, yes, that does not justify ignoring sin in our own lives, nor should we act as if we have no responsibility to speak against sin. If we ignore sin, then we are reducing God's claim on our lives. If we use the excuse of non-discrimination to reduce the significance of sinful lifestyles, then we are being phony. For after all, if sinful lifestyles do not demand require change or approbation, then why are we worried about discrimination as a sin? Racial discrimination is not the only sin.
Posted in: Bishop Whipple Takes Heart
Coming from a background where my siblings and children are members of churches from eight different denominations, ranging from protestant reformed to baptist and pentecostal (but no anglicans nor rom cath), I have often asked myself what is God's purpose with regard to so many denominations or churches who all want to serve and worship the same Lord and Saviour. I'm not sure I have a very good answer, except maybe this, that personalities and personal quirks sometimes cause problems in one church situation, and another church situation can allow a method of worship and service that is more tempered to an individual at that time. Various disputable theologies and practices also play a role; we see changes sometimes in one denomination, but they happen too quickly or too slowly for some, or no change is desired. Sometimes history of experiences, or separation of family relationships, combined with a different worship environment, make old scriptural passages and applications take on a new life and vigour.
Underlying all of this, however, is the common purpose and unity that can exist between Christians in different churches and denominations. While differences are real, so is the unity also real. Sometimes there is greater unity between christians in different denominations or churches, than there is within one particular church. This might be because the focus changes to what unites, rather than to what separates, especially when churches want to work together.
This realization has also ocurred to me, that some churches have great theology, but members don't practice it, while other churches have sloppy or incomplete theology on paper, but members practice a great theology in daily life.
The different churches also allow some people to discover the essentials of the walk of faith, since they must separate their walk of faith from mere tradition, into a conscious discovery of God's will for their/our lives on a day to day basis with people who do not take their particular traditions for granted. This will bring them back to scripture and God's will on a deeper basis than they have ever perhaps done before.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
The Belhar will not change churches moving to different places, unless the churches have a mission to reach others. If they do have a mission to reach others, the Belhar will not be necessary. I think if preachers lack the courage to preach scripture, or to live from scripture, and if people consider their wealth and comfort more important that their neighbors, then they are not listening to scripture. If they do not listen to scripture, why in the world would they ever listen to the Belhar? That logic escapes me.
I'm very surprised that you feel that you cannot preach on the Belhar merely because it is not in the back of the hymnal. It is not really the belhar that should be preached on anyway, but certainly if the themes are valid and the principles are scriptural what would be stopping you from preaching on those themes or applying scripture in a practical way?
Other confessions were born out of life and death issues, usually in great turmoil, persecution, and earth-shaking times. The Belhar comes at a time when most of the principles it espouses are already supported by laws of our countries. The adoption of the Belhar is more of a whitewash over our own actions and attitudes. It is a way of looking good, rather than being good. And because it follows society, rather than leading it, our motives are suspect. And because it follows society, it will have a tendency to follow society down the broad path to destruction, rather than following Christ down the narrow path to God's will.
Posted in: Bishop Whipple Takes Heart
As your example of the tower of babel illustrates, God uses divisions and separations for his own good purposes. Maybe this is also true within the church, not that we should be looking for divisions and contentions since scripture clearly indicates against that, but...
Last weekend, I heard an aboriginal Dene talk about his faith experiences. He had been a Rom Cath, somewhat nominal apparently, who embraced alcohol and eventually ended up in jail. But at one point he was given a bible by a Rom Cath priest, and began to read it. Then he became a Christian, receiving his "prayer" in the Pentecostal church. He has been a Christian for about 30 years (is now about 60yrs old), has left alcohol behind, and had a sister who became a Christian after 18 years of evangelism by him. He talks/preaches in churches of various denominations, and often feels rejected by his aboriginal relatives and friends, but perseveres. He knows his bible very, very well, having memorized some epistles completely.
I guess my point in this example, is that even though he is no longer a Rom Catholic because he wants to follow scripture and not follow a hierarchy nor a human tradition, he still acknowledges that God worked through that priest in order to bring scripture to him. That is where we ought also to have the humility to admit that God works thru means and ways that are sometimes beyond our categorizations, even though we ought to do the best we can to understand good theology and good practice in our walk of faith. I believe that sometimes the struggles themselves are exactly the means that God uses for his good purposes.
The tower of Babel was a sign of pride, but also of disobedience, since people were commanded to fill and replenish the earth, not hole up in some small corner to preserve their comfort... so God made them move and disperse by other means. It reminds me of the phrase, "every knee shall bow" to Christ; we will either acknowledge him in this life willingly, or we will be forced to acknowledge God in the next life, unwillingly.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
One other thought: What is our great concern with empathizing with people in south africa, if we do not first have concern with our own motives with regard to our very neighbors. Is it easier to claim we believe what they believe as long as they live far away, but if we had to apply this to our everyday lives, particularly from a misssional perspective, then we would change the subject?
I have had one son and his wife adopt a child from Haiti, another son and wife adopt three boys from Russia, and we adopted an aboriginal child. There are others who have done similar things both in the CRC and in many other denominations. This was not because of the Belhar, or adopting some other foreign testimony or confession, but because of understanding God's call to us to be a witness, to demonstrate Christ's love, which scipture is clear on. Perhaps convicted thru preaching, or thru bible study, or thru personal devotions and prayer.
It is good to talk about these things, but not under the cover of adopting a piece of paper, when instead we should be adopting real people.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
Randy, this was well said. Thanks.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
thanks for the reminder about prayer, Bev.