Wow, what a discussion. I want to pick up on what others have said. For me, of course Christians should be involved in advocacy. The danger comes when the Gospel message becomes defined with very specific advocacy issues. A great example is a current news item on the denominations main webpage - the fact that representatives of the CRC are down at a conference in Florida protesting a grocery store over the price of tomatoes. It is very dangerous when it looks like in order to follow Jesus one must take a particular view on fair compensation and tomato prices. To move from a concept like Justice to a complex particular issue like that raises the red flag associated with Christians and advocacy. I am growing increasingly uncomfortable with the focus of my denomination when our leadership does things like that.
John VanLeeuwen... do you really believe that Christians never show up if they are not in control? I think that proposition is indefensible. I believe that Christians (and organizations like our denomination) advertise their showing up when they are 'in control' to some degree, but Christians all over the world are integrated into the fabric of society - 'showing up' every day doing all sorts of things without making a big deal about it . Whoever originally asked that question has a rather skewed perspective.
Ken, I agree. That is why I grow very uncomfortable when, for example, the CRC newsroom indicates that Christians ought to believe Publix supermarket in Florida needs to pay a couple more cents / pound of tomatos. Our denomination's representatives are down there with the WCRC protesting about this and it is being reported on our denomination's home page. Advocacy is great, but we need to be very, very care identifying the gospel with very complex, specific situations. Especially ones that we likely do not understanding anywhere close to fully.
The danger, as I said above, is that the Gospel becomes identified with a very specific issue - like the price of tomatos paid by a Florida grocery store. It may be the just thing for the store to pay 1 or 2 cents more per pound. However, it may not be. They may buy such a volume of tomatoes that 1 or 2 cents would mean they lose enough money that they have to cut somewhere else - like someone's job who is struggling to get buy, or not give someone a small raise they need for their kids, or reduce health benefits, or who knows what. I don't think grocery stores usually make a huge margin on their produce. I truly don't know what the right thing to do is in this case, I don't know the facts. It is dangerous when Christians identify proclaiming the Gospel with something like this protest.
I am worried that our denomination's leadership is heading in this direction - note that as I write 2 of the headline stories on the home page focus on this issue. Given the focus on WCRC and the attention our leadership pays to it, I see more and more of this in our future.
I think it is important to distinguish between two questions. One is whether or not the content of the Belhar is true - this would include discussions or wording, interpretation, intention, etc. The second is whether or not the CRC should adopt it as a confession. I want to note that simply because one determines that the content of the Belhar is true and relevant does not automatically lead to a decision to adopt it as a confession. Pause and consider the number of documents containing true and good and relevant content that exist in the world - ought they to be adopted?
What I am interested in is hearing a clear case for why we ought to adopt it as a confession - or even a testimony. It can be read and affirmed and agreed on and celebrated and acted upon without being adopted as a confession. Adopting a new confession is a HUGE thing and I am skeptical in this case.
To deny adopting it as a confession or testimony is not to deny it's message. I hope no one implies that in discussion. One can affirm the unit of the body of Christ, the importance of welcoming members from all races and cultures as brothers and sisters, and also acknowledge and repent from racism in our cultures, lives, and communities yet still not want to adopt a new confession.
Quite apart from discussions of the first question, I am far from convinced of the denomination's apparent position on the second.
Ken, thanks for explaining. As Randy said below, the CRC has only three confessions, that is not endless. It is true that we confess everything Scripture says, but that is equivocating on the word confess(ion). A formal confession which has been adopted by the church as a summary and guide to the teaching of Scripture is a particular thing. That is the sort of thing we are being asked to make of the Belhar.
I'm sad that you think of me as close minded. I'm open to changing my mind - I've been wrong before and surely will be again. It is clear to me, however, that I have not heard a good case for making the Belhar a formal confession of our denomination. I'm not going to change my mind simply because I hear some people wanting me to do it.
As I likely will not be at Synod, I won't have a vote except through the long route of congregation, classis, and then synod. However I will continue to ask why we should declare it a 4th confession for our denomination in hopes that those who do have a vote consider the question. To deny it confessional status says nothing about the importance of unity in the body of Christ or the sin of racism, it simply says that we can speak to these and many other issues without going to the lengths of adding confessions.
In the end, though, I appreciate your point. There are many, many, many, many things which we confess without having formal confessions. In fact, we can and do stand for and do many good things and stand against many bad things without requiring a formal confession to be added denominationally - so why do we need a formalized confession in this case?
I appreciate you giving a picture of your perspective and also believe that discourse around the issue is very healthy and good, especially since we as members of a denomination are being asked to discuss and make a decision.
I am not sure I follow your thought contained in your reply, however. I feel no loss of 'shalom' and in fact believe that finding wholeness (shalom) in a broken world is going to be tough, confusing, and at times conflicted work because Christians do not always agree on the path - in fact the shalom may come as we wrestle and struggle with the conflict.
Part of the search, for me, is asking why the drive to make the Belhar a formal confession, the topic of this discussion thread. Simply to make a sort of statement does not make sense to me as we can make statements many other ways and there are many other issues which deserve formal statements but may not deserve formal confessions (abortion is an example of something which is very culturally relevant yet is not directly discussed in our 3 confessions - might we need to adopt a confession on that too? What would be next?). I have yet to hear a case for adopting it as a formal confession.
It is crazy to me that we are looking to adopt this as a confession - and that is not because of it's content. I do not understand the need to go so far as to add a 4th confession, especially one which was written by others in a place different from ours (yes our other 3 were written in a place different from ours but we descended from them theologically). It is not like we have not struggled with and wrestled with racial issues and the call to unity in Christ. Can't we speak to this ourselves? Do we actually need to adopt a confession?
I really do wonder where the energy for adopting this comes from? Acknowledging the value and truth stated in the document, yes, recognizing our need to say and do more, sure, but adopt it as a confession? What? We've had three confessions for nearly 500 years - why suddenly the need to adopt this short document from half-way around the world?
As I commented in a post elsewhere on the network, I believe the discussion should distinguish between the truth and value in the Belhar on the one hand, and whether we should adopt it on the other - affirming the former does not lead to the latter. The latter requires a ton more discussion. I do not believe we should adopt it as a confession or even as a testimony. Speaking to the truth of it does not convince me, because we do not adopt as confession everything which is true and valuable - if we did that we'd have an endless list of confessions.
Posted in: Why Christians Should Be Involved in Advocacy
Wow, what a discussion. I want to pick up on what others have said. For me, of course Christians should be involved in advocacy. The danger comes when the Gospel message becomes defined with very specific advocacy issues. A great example is a current news item on the denominations main webpage - the fact that representatives of the CRC are down at a conference in Florida protesting a grocery store over the price of tomatoes. It is very dangerous when it looks like in order to follow Jesus one must take a particular view on fair compensation and tomato prices. To move from a concept like Justice to a complex particular issue like that raises the red flag associated with Christians and advocacy. I am growing increasingly uncomfortable with the focus of my denomination when our leadership does things like that.
John VanLeeuwen... do you really believe that Christians never show up if they are not in control? I think that proposition is indefensible. I believe that Christians (and organizations like our denomination) advertise their showing up when they are 'in control' to some degree, but Christians all over the world are integrated into the fabric of society - 'showing up' every day doing all sorts of things without making a big deal about it . Whoever originally asked that question has a rather skewed perspective.
John
Posted in: Why Christians Should Be Involved in Advocacy
Ken, I appreciate you response. However, Ken, I don't understand what you're saying. Could you restate it?
Posted in: Why Christians Should Be Involved in Advocacy
Ken, I agree. That is why I grow very uncomfortable when, for example, the CRC newsroom indicates that Christians ought to believe Publix supermarket in Florida needs to pay a couple more cents / pound of tomatos. Our denomination's representatives are down there with the WCRC protesting about this and it is being reported on our denomination's home page. Advocacy is great, but we need to be very, very care identifying the gospel with very complex, specific situations. Especially ones that we likely do not understanding anywhere close to fully.
Posted in: Why Christians Should Be Involved in Advocacy
The danger, as I said above, is that the Gospel becomes identified with a very specific issue - like the price of tomatos paid by a Florida grocery store. It may be the just thing for the store to pay 1 or 2 cents more per pound. However, it may not be. They may buy such a volume of tomatoes that 1 or 2 cents would mean they lose enough money that they have to cut somewhere else - like someone's job who is struggling to get buy, or not give someone a small raise they need for their kids, or reduce health benefits, or who knows what. I don't think grocery stores usually make a huge margin on their produce. I truly don't know what the right thing to do is in this case, I don't know the facts. It is dangerous when Christians identify proclaiming the Gospel with something like this protest.
I am worried that our denomination's leadership is heading in this direction - note that as I write 2 of the headline stories on the home page focus on this issue. Given the focus on WCRC and the attention our leadership pays to it, I see more and more of this in our future.
Posted in: Saying No to the Belhar (The Banner, Jan 2011)
I think it is important to distinguish between two questions. One is whether or not the content of the Belhar is true - this would include discussions or wording, interpretation, intention, etc. The second is whether or not the CRC should adopt it as a confession. I want to note that simply because one determines that the content of the Belhar is true and relevant does not automatically lead to a decision to adopt it as a confession. Pause and consider the number of documents containing true and good and relevant content that exist in the world - ought they to be adopted?
What I am interested in is hearing a clear case for why we ought to adopt it as a confession - or even a testimony. It can be read and affirmed and agreed on and celebrated and acted upon without being adopted as a confession. Adopting a new confession is a HUGE thing and I am skeptical in this case.
To deny adopting it as a confession or testimony is not to deny it's message. I hope no one implies that in discussion. One can affirm the unit of the body of Christ, the importance of welcoming members from all races and cultures as brothers and sisters, and also acknowledge and repent from racism in our cultures, lives, and communities yet still not want to adopt a new confession.
Quite apart from discussions of the first question, I am far from convinced of the denomination's apparent position on the second.
Posted in: Saying No to the Belhar (The Banner, Jan 2011)
Ken, I don't understand what you are saying in your last paragraph. Sorry, I don't follow.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
Ken, thanks for explaining. As Randy said below, the CRC has only three confessions, that is not endless. It is true that we confess everything Scripture says, but that is equivocating on the word confess(ion). A formal confession which has been adopted by the church as a summary and guide to the teaching of Scripture is a particular thing. That is the sort of thing we are being asked to make of the Belhar.
I'm sad that you think of me as close minded. I'm open to changing my mind - I've been wrong before and surely will be again. It is clear to me, however, that I have not heard a good case for making the Belhar a formal confession of our denomination. I'm not going to change my mind simply because I hear some people wanting me to do it.
As I likely will not be at Synod, I won't have a vote except through the long route of congregation, classis, and then synod. However I will continue to ask why we should declare it a 4th confession for our denomination in hopes that those who do have a vote consider the question. To deny it confessional status says nothing about the importance of unity in the body of Christ or the sin of racism, it simply says that we can speak to these and many other issues without going to the lengths of adding confessions.
In the end, though, I appreciate your point. There are many, many, many, many things which we confess without having formal confessions. In fact, we can and do stand for and do many good things and stand against many bad things without requiring a formal confession to be added denominationally - so why do we need a formalized confession in this case?
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
I appreciate you giving a picture of your perspective and also believe that discourse around the issue is very healthy and good, especially since we as members of a denomination are being asked to discuss and make a decision.
I am not sure I follow your thought contained in your reply, however. I feel no loss of 'shalom' and in fact believe that finding wholeness (shalom) in a broken world is going to be tough, confusing, and at times conflicted work because Christians do not always agree on the path - in fact the shalom may come as we wrestle and struggle with the conflict.
Part of the search, for me, is asking why the drive to make the Belhar a formal confession, the topic of this discussion thread. Simply to make a sort of statement does not make sense to me as we can make statements many other ways and there are many other issues which deserve formal statements but may not deserve formal confessions (abortion is an example of something which is very culturally relevant yet is not directly discussed in our 3 confessions - might we need to adopt a confession on that too? What would be next?). I have yet to hear a case for adopting it as a formal confession.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
Very well written and argued. I hope the folks in leadership take this to heart.
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
It is crazy to me that we are looking to adopt this as a confession - and that is not because of it's content. I do not understand the need to go so far as to add a 4th confession, especially one which was written by others in a place different from ours (yes our other 3 were written in a place different from ours but we descended from them theologically). It is not like we have not struggled with and wrestled with racial issues and the call to unity in Christ. Can't we speak to this ourselves? Do we actually need to adopt a confession?
I really do wonder where the energy for adopting this comes from? Acknowledging the value and truth stated in the document, yes, recognizing our need to say and do more, sure, but adopt it as a confession? What? We've had three confessions for nearly 500 years - why suddenly the need to adopt this short document from half-way around the world?
As I commented in a post elsewhere on the network, I believe the discussion should distinguish between the truth and value in the Belhar on the one hand, and whether we should adopt it on the other - affirming the former does not lead to the latter. The latter requires a ton more discussion. I do not believe we should adopt it as a confession or even as a testimony. Speaking to the truth of it does not convince me, because we do not adopt as confession everything which is true and valuable - if we did that we'd have an endless list of confessions.