Randy Blacketer

We could use more pastoral guidance and help in this regard.

I find it ironic, not to mention troubling, that people here seem to speak contemptuously of study committees (it seems that disdain for such committees reflects disdain for the CRCNA) and then those same persons say the study committee from 1973 is good enough, despite the fact that it's 40 years old and uses outdated and unhelpful terms such as "homosexualism." It seems like this reflects fear that the CRCNA is going to cave into the "gay agenda" that Meg mentioned. If you really want to minister to persons, families, and churches struggling with this issue, you shouldn't be afraid to discuss it. Fear is not a Christian virtue. And a "robust" theology is not opposed to a biblical one; rather, it is a reference to the virtue of Reformed theology that it deals thoughtfully with biblical interpretation and scientific understanding. This does not imply that we must or even should change our basic position on the issue, but given our current social climate on this issue, a 40 year old study is no longer adequate to address the challenges pastors and church members face.

One resource that may serve as an example of how we could be better served with deeper reflection and practical, pastoral guidance is Dr. Heather Looy's article "Same Sex Attraction" in the volume Delight in Creation, edited by Deborah Haarsma & Scott Hoezee. You can read it online here: http://ministrytheorem.calvinseminary.edu/essays/wiwmpk/4_looy.pdf
 

Excellent post. I witnessed misuse of the SDs when they engaged in the debate over a ministerial candidate. They did not concur in our decision, though not on grounds of procedure, but because they didn't like the candidate's performance. Some of us responded that we would file a complaint of misconduct against the deputies. They reconsidered their decision, and relented, concurring contingent upon some remedial action. Most drama I've ever seen at a classis meeting, and I was right in the middle of it all, as the sermon critic.

Now I'm a synodical deputy. Got a good lesson on how *not* to conduct that office.

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.

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

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).

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

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

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

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

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.”