There is little in this lead post I can agree with.
Our three confessions are simply not stories, but rather confessions. The Heidelberg Catechism reads like, well, a catechism. If you never read the historical footnotes in the Psalter, you'd have no idea about its historical context. It is a catechism obviously designed to teach theological propositions (one per week even).
The Belgic Confession is also a statement of fundamental confession, not a story. Again, I'd challenge anyone to find a person unfamiliar with the Belgic Confession, have him/her read it, and then have him/her explicate the historical context. Read it yourself. It covers theological topics quite systematically, but it too is simply not a story. Now it could be there was also a story at play when de Bres wrote the Belgic Confession, but he didn't write that story when he wrote the Belgic Confession. He may have written a story in another writing, but it wasn't the BC and we didn't adopt any other of his writings as a confession.
Canons of Dordt. Different than the HC and BC, but again certainly not a story. Rather, it is a set of synodical decisions in response to about certain doctrinal teachings, highly "theoretical" ones at that. Again, it happened within a historical context (nothing human does not happen within a historical context), but that doesn't make it a story. If it does, then everything is a story, and if everything is story, isn't not meaningful to identify anything as a story because that would be a given.
I don't even think the Belhar is as much of a story as it is a political statement. Sure, it goes on and on making flowery worded theological statements that are nothing new, but then its gets to its core point, that being the assertion that God is God in a special way to the poor and oppressed. Not only is that statement unbiblical, it's fundamentally political. Liberation theology, including the regular and black versions (Black liberation theology) use that assertion as a cornerstone. Moreover, if one simply observes the subseqent political statements made by those who "gave us" the "gift" of the Belhar, one can see that directly. The sequel to the Belhar Confession is the Accra Confession, already adopted by those who "gave us" the Belhar. The Accra Confession contains the substantially identical cornerstone assertion that declares God to be a special God to the poor and oppressed, but then it continues on beyond the words of the Belhar to make more clear what that means. It lifts up third world countries and condemns first world countries. It ascribes victim status for third world countries, declaring their problems to arise from "empire" powers in first world countries. It condemns "neo-liberal" political/economic theories--yes those same political/economic theories that find their historical origin in Calvinist thinking set in opposition to Roman Catholic theories--and advocates for political centrism. It condemns allowing capital to play a large role in economic dealings, in very much the same way that neo-Marxism (even Marx himself in Das Kapital) does.
Please understand this is not "slippery slope" argument. That is, I'm not saying adopting the Belhar will lead to the Accra. Rather I'm saying those who have asked us to adopt the Belhar have already adopted the Accra. They are saying "do what we did" and what they have done is adopted the Accra and begun working that out in the political/economic world. If we say "yes" to making the Belhar one of our confessions, we will be saying yes to a political/economic perspective. At least that's how those who "gave us" the Belhar will see it.
Also please understand I do not claim that anyone, including anyone in the CRCNA, shouldn't be able to have whatever political/economic perspective he/she may choose to have. Two people can adopt our three forms of unity, and the CRCNA's perspective on Scripture and come to completely different political/economic views. Neither should be excommunicated. What I am saying is that the CRCNA should not itself, as a church institution, adopt a political/economic statement (which the Belhar is), nor even a "story" as one of its confessional statements. If we begin to divide the CRCNA by adopting specific political/economic perspectives, we will begin the process of morphing from an institutional church to a political association. Certainly, it would still make some noises like that of a church, but then so did the Liberation Theology movement embodied by Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.
Understand too that many churches in North America, including "politically conservative" churches, have been unable to resist the tempation of becoming political, albeit on the other side of the political spectrum. Until perhaps 15 years ago, the CRCNA had largely avoided that temptation--from either side. No more it seems. Our ecumenical organization, the WCRC, is not much more than a political organization, and one aligned with the Belhar and the Accra Confessions.
Adopting "stories" or poltical statements that sound appealing to some may be tempting, even create the appearance of short term gain, but unless the CRCNA remains a church institution, its meaningful role as a highly respected church within the North American community of churches will diminish quickly.
"It seems to me that there are issues with the Canons, the HC, and the BC which we tend to work around. My point is not that we have to get rid of the the original three, but the original three do not deal adequately with some of today's issues."
There is a process for changin the confessions so as to not have to "work around" them, which process was used to produce the current BC Article 36 that you quote (and complain about) in your post before the post quoted above. The CRC Synod changed Article 36 (the RCA kept the original version) in a way that made it less "political" (good) and more biblical (also good). You seem to cite the current CRCNA Article 36 as an example of a problem with the BC, but I'd respectfully suggest, given your critique, you are not reading it fairly (accurately) at all. In fact, I'd suggest BC Article 36 sets forth (though not completely) a principle of "sphere sovereignty," at least as to government, which is quite biblical. You say Article 36 wouldn't go down well with Canadian or American courts. Actually, I think you are wrong on that. At least in the United States (I'm not Canadian), we have a federal first amendment which, as interpreted and reflected in the state constitution of the various states, is pretty compatible with BC Article 36. (Makes sense: a Calvinist worldview dominated political thinking when the constitution was written).
Why should we give up on refining the original three confessions (if needed) and choose instead to adopt a new "confession" (story?) that has many more difficulties? Why should we adopt a blatently unbiblical confessional statement ("that God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged")?
Here's the difference between having confessions that are stories and having confessions that are confessions: if they are stories, it really doesn't make much difference what they say because we only regard them in a way that is largely sentimental; but if they are confessions, it does make a difference what they say because we commit to them as rules for living and as truths to teach to future generations.
I'm not suggesting there is not a role for stories in human life, or even in the church, or even in the institutional church, or even at the denominational level in the institutional church. Nor am I saying there is no room in all those places for sentimentallity. But I am saying, essentially in a Sesame Street kind of way, that 'one of these things is not like the other' and that the denomination ought not adopt a story for a confession, as if they are the same thing. Certainly, as I've suggested before, none of our current current confessions (or creeds for that matter) are stories (although there were stories that could have been and were written and read about the historical context surrounding those confessions/creeds), but the church back then understood that essential but basic Sesame Street truth, and so distinguished between stories and confessions/creeds.
And this is what makes me especially concerned. Are we actually unable to distinguish between confessions and stories? Do we care? Do we no longer wish to be, properly defined, a confessional church? Are we so inflicted with feelings of "white guilt" that we've given up on thinking (as opposed to feeling) about these things? Do we want to only be sentimental? Do we want our 'confessions' to no longer really be confessions?
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this John, because I am genuinely perplexed about why the CRCNA, given its history, would even think of going in the direction that adopting the Belhar as a confession takes us.
Bev: I've been looking for suggested answers to your question.
I tend to view the claim of having the responsibility to be prophetic in this article as merely a way to emphasis the writer's insistence that he is right and those who oppose his view are wrong. In the context of the article you cite, I wonder why the Banner is not insisting, in order to excercise the church's prophetic role as it has chosen to do about climate change, that congress pass laws prohibiting taking the Lord's name in vain, or coveting, or adultery, or worshipping idols. Doing that would be in accord with the article's emphasis on "sphere universality" (as the article seems to define it), as oppose to "sphere sovereignty."
Bev: I appreciate your post, and think it is extremely timely, given how much some recent speakers on Synod's floor emphasized that the institutional church must exercise its prophetic responsibilities (and so declare, for example, that a near consensus of scientists believe this and that about climate change).
I'll thus be more than a bit baffled if no one takes this opportunity to explain in this public CRC forum where they would have more than two minutes (time limit on the floor of Synod) to speak their minds.
And yes, I am baiting. :-)
But seriously, if this reason (CRCNA must exercise prophetic responsibility) is going to used to justify CRC statements/actions on non-ecclesiastic matters, some definitional discussion is needed.
Henry: Thanks much for the answers. If you would indulge me, I have some follow up questions.
First, what is the CRC's role within WCRC as to WCRC's decision making? For example, when the WCRC adopted the Accra, which I understand it to have done in 2004 (well, WARC actually did but it seems WCRC considers itself to have inherited that), what role did the CRC play in that adoption? Did the CRC have privilege of the floor so as to state its position? Did it cast votes? Something else?
Second, assuming the CRC played/plays some active role in WCRC decisions, how does it practically/logistically do that? Does it send representatives who have voting authority? If it does, how are those representatives selected and how to they cast votes (eg., by decisions made by a group? by using their own judgment?) ?
Third, when you suggest that the "CRC isn't saying anything," but refer to CO Article 50c, I note the language in that Article to precisely say "decisions of ecumenical bodies shall not be binding ...". It could be argued that "not being binding" does not equal "the CRC isn't saying anything." To clarify by analogy, were I a member of the Democratic Party, I could quite legitimately claim that I wasn't bound by any of the platform planks the party may have adopted, but yet, other people could as legitimately say that my party membership does say something about me. So is there some sort of generally understood, non-CO sense for what the CRC is saying when an ecumenical organization of which it is a part adopts a confession? I do realize that question cannot be a precisely answered. Still, it is a meaningful question for members to ask.
I probably agree that the CRCNA, as a church institution, should not play its mission in complete isolation. My concern is that the close I look at the WCRC, the less "reformed" I see, the less "church" I see, and the more "political organization" I see. Still, before coming to too many conclusions, I feel the need to thoroughly fact find. Thus, my questions -- and appreciation for your willingness to provide some answers.
Kris: I mean this kindly and with a smile on my face, but you did punt on the question. I asked (with bolding), "In other words (and framed another way), do you think our Constitution SHOULD provide that foreigners have legal right to immigrate? " and you answered "maybe it would be more accurate so say it is up to other countries to decide if their citizens have a right to apply? At any rate the U.S. congress is supposed to set up laws that respond to those applications." Respectfully, and again with smile, that's a punt.
It could be that you are punting because you don't know what your answer would be, that you haven't thought of this before. But, you are the OSJ's "Congregational Justice Mobilizer" and, again with respect and a smile, you need to have your political theory down if you are going to mobilize others. CRC members will reasonably assume OSJ has its political theory down, and that they can rely on it as scripturally based.
I have read the full text of the report from the "Committee to Study the Migration of Workers" -- twice in fact. Actually, I thought it was a pretty good report. My one concern about it was that in one recommendation especially, it exceeded its own analysis. It recommended (and Synod adopted the recommendation) in paragraph G that the BOT was to encourage the OSJ to engage in advocacy strategies that will lead to immigration reform and enactment of fair, just, and equitable laws regarding immigrants.
Sounds innocent enough, but here's the catch. The analysis of the report clearly recognized, essentially, that Scripture gives no specific guidance for what immigration laws might be, and that Christians could reasonably disagree as to what they would be. So just what are the "fair, just and equitable laws" that OSJ should politically advocate for? And why don't CRC members just get to advocate for themselves? They are the US citizens, individually, not collectively through the CRC/OSJ.
Now if the OSJ would just say, "hey members, we don't know what they would be, but please consider for yourselves what immigration laws should be and advocate for them," I'd be fine. Certainly, Kuyper's "not one square inch" also covers immigration and we should be responsible Citizens. BUT, and a bit BUT, OSJ's pledge letter advocates for specifics. Just one, for example, is that the US government "maintain the constitutional rights of birthright citizenship." Certainly, Christian minds can differ on whether a government should grant a baby citizenship just because his/her parents illegally came to the US soley in order that their child be born here (and so acquire US Citizenship). In my mind, creating that incentive is really bad government policy. And I think the Committee Report members would regard my position as "reasonable" and "not contrary to Scripture." So, why does OSJ insist on being my political proxy on that issue?
The Committee Report did an excellent job, I thought, of distinguishing between our perspective: (1) as Christians and churches dealing with immigrants; and (2) as government, or citizens who play a role in creating good government. On the other hand, there is nothing in the OSJ documents that I could find (the pledge letter included) that appropriately distinguishes between those two perspectives. That's a "Kuyperian sphere sovereignty" thing, and although I saw that perspective recognized in the Committee Report, I just see no evidence of it is OSJ's implementation of the Synodical mandate based on that report.
And that's is the core of my concern, which is why I start by asking "In other words (and framed another way), do you think our Constitution SHOULD provide that foreigners have legal right to immigrate? " From what I do read off the OSJ site, your office may be promoting the political idea of borderless societies. I'm not saying you do, but I certainly can't determine that you don't, and some of your materials at least suggest you may. And so I ask a "beginning question," a "foundational question," in order to work up to OSJ's adopted political theory/framework that would be the beginning point from which it would answer lots and lots of specific immigration questions.
Whether OSJ staff knows it or not, OSJ is being my political proxy on this. I just want to know what OSJ has fundamentally decided its political theory is in this area before I "complain too much" (again, smile on my face).
Kris: Your latest posts suggests to me that you're just trying to help congregations help people in their church who have immigration issues. It seems to me that you are not really into the part of OSJ that deals with "advocating government policies." That's fair enough.
I did notice that OSJ has a number of positions, and yours isn't the one I'd expect to answer questions about the "government policies" OSJ advocates for. There is another position, that of Policy Analyst/Advocacy Fellow. I believe Than Veltman holds that position. Might he be able to help on some of these questions? Could you ask him.
Switching thoughts, my own church, employers in my church, and I personally, are pretty Hispanic immigrant friendly (lots of Hispanics in the mid-Willamette Valley here). We sponsor a Hispanic church in the city, our dairy owners employ pretty much all Hispanics for milkers, I've had Hispanic (legal and illegal) for clients, and I have them for neighbors (I live on "that side" of town). I coached a junior high (public school) basketball team a few years back and I suspect at least half my team were illegals or the children of illegals. No, I don't check anyone's legal status when I deal with obvious immigrant types in the neighborhood, or as coach, etc. I do deal with that at work, but my "rules for myself" at work are more complex than would be profitable to go into.
But there there's me as Citizen of Oregon, City of Salem, Marion County and the United States. In my voting (and political advocacy), I take the position of having to create and implement "good government." And if government does what I think "good government" should do, more illegals would be removed than are from the area I live in, mere birth would not create citizenship, and many fewer illegals would get across the border.
Certainly, I think comprehensive immigration reform is LONG overdue. But the reason we don't have that reform is because too many people allow their genuine feeling of mercy to trump concepts of justice when it comes to voting and advocating government policy. We've had pretty good law in the somewhat distant past, but then we started to not enforce it, and eventually the change in the law that should have happened didn't, because our real law (what we enforced) eliminated any motivation to change the formal law (what's in the books). We think we are doing good (being merciful) by failing to execute laws that "are mean to people" but instead do bad, putting immigrants in impossible situations and literally tearing down "the rule of law," ending up with neither justice nor mercy.
This problem will only be successfully tackled when we, as a nation, figure out how to separate what we'd personally like to have happen for the illegal immigrants we personally know from what we know to be good government. I don't see OSJ or the Synod pushing in that direction, which means I suspect at this point, we are part of the problem, not the solution.
Now there are some who honestly believe there should be no borders, that anyone who wants to come into the US (or any other country for that matter) should not be prevented by government from doing so. I can sympathize with the sentiment but that is not a practically workable proposal at any level. Not even close. Nation states have to have enforced borders or they cannot be nation states (and some oppose nation states).
By the way, Congress and the president resolved to have comprehensive immigration reform back when Reagan was president. Amnesty was given to millions of illegals, which was to be followed by legislation that would control the border (a fundamental prerequisite for any control of immigration), create appropriate guest worker laws, etc. The problem was that after the amnesty was granted, nothing else was done. I put that one squarely at the feet of Democrats, who renegged on the deal after getting the amnesty they wanted. And that's why you know have so many Republicans who absolutely refuse to discuss anything about immigration reform until the border is controlled. Sort of a "fool me once, shame on you, twice shame on me" thing for them.
And this is why it is important that the CRC, if it is going to represent my political voice (certainly not my first choice), do so competently. If it can't distinguish between CRC members and congregations being merciful, and creating/implementing good government (and so far I can't tell that it can), it will only be adding to the mess already there. And the result of that will be injustice for pretty much everyone.
Kris: Thanks for the further response and your willingness to invite Than to the discussion.
I'm particularly pleased to see your willingness to use the word "mercy." It is becoming a rarely used word in CRC. For example, in the Belhar confession, the word "justice" (or injustice) appears 7 times, mercy" 0 (zero). If I go to the WCRC (World Communion of Reformed Justice) website (the CRC is a member of WCRC ) and use it's search facility, there are 11 PAGES of hits for "justice," but a search for the word "mercy" renders NOT EVEN ONE hit. If I use the CRCNA.ORG search facility on the CRCNA site, I get 11, 100 hits for "justice" but only 2560 for "mercy." Contrast this with the 1995 Bylaws for the CRCNA (the denominational corporation). It mentions only "mercy," never "justice." What a difference 16 years makes, eh?
I would suggest "justice" predominantly characterizes the jurisdiction of the sphere of government, and "mercy" is within the "church" sphere (ala Kuyper/Dooyeweerd), perhaps among others. "Liberation theology" saw this quite differently, with some manifistations of Liberation Theology becoming almost totally, if not totally, involved with justice (usually unapologetically Marxist, eg., Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas). Somewhat more contemporarily, a "Black version" has also evolved (Black Liberation Theology), as exemplified by Barak Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright. I regard the "Social Justice" movement as largely a relabeling of "Liberation Theology," which I think essentially confirmed by John Cooper and is one of his objections to the Belhar. Unlike Cooper, I don't want the CRC to adopt the Belhar as anything, confession or otherwise. My objections to both the Liberation Theology movement and the Social Justice movement are: (1) both morph the church into a political organization, and (2) the political theory adopted by both is largely unbiblical. Both perspectives rewrite Micah 6:8 by ignoring the "love mercy" phrase.
Which is why I appreciate your obvious willingness to use the word "mercy." :-)
Meghan: Are you (meant as folks from OSJ) intending to actually discuss these issues, or is your post just an advertisment for the OSF initiative you are pitching?
I'd love to discuss these (and other) OSJ issues--constructively--but I am getting the feeling that your seed post wasn't an actual discussion invitation.
Let me know. I don't really want to waste my time "discussing" with myself, but would like an "iron sharpens iron" discussion with OSJ folk and CRC members about this.
First, I'm wondering first how the OSJ develops the statements it develops. Does it just assign someone to write it? Does the BOT write it? Does it subcontract with Sojourners or Center for Public Justice? Or ...? The reason I ask this is because it seems to me that it is difficult at best (acutally impossible) to "represent" all CRCers when producing statements like this. So I think knowing the process is important.
Second, I notice in the statement that there seems to be a presumption that people from other countries have some sort of justice based right to immigrate into the US. Is that a presumption, or not? Put another way, would it be "just" (not discussing wisdom at this point, or even mercy) for the US to simply deny immigration requests to everyone?
In some respects, I think the pamphlet draws from James Bratt's (Calvin professor) book: "Dutch Calvinism in America: A History of an American Subculture."
I think the pamphlet can be very helpful for understanding "who we are," and Bratt's book is too. But, I'm a Dordt College grad with a double major in philosophy and history (and a subsequent Juris Doctor degree). Some newcomers to the CRC would love and benefit from reading this pamphlet (and book) but others would find it little more than upsetting. My wife, livelong CRC member, would probably find both somewhat upsetting. I would not suggest to her that she read either. I'm on the other end of that spectrum (we make a good team).
I understand the "pigeon hole" accusation, but tend to set that aside. Hey, all of theoretical thinking (my Dooyeweerd is coming out) involves "pigeon holing" for the simple reason that human minds need to erect a set of boxes to categorize things as it processes. If we must avoid "pigeon holing," we have to stop writing any kind of historical or descriptive accounts of anything involving society, CRC or otherwise.
I could certainly see using the pamphlet in a new members class, as Paul does, but that's a "supervised" context, which is probably best for some "newbies" who can become a bit unsettled when things aren't as simple as they might like them to be. There is a milk-meat factor to all of this, and sheer personality comes into play as well -- and I say that without any disrespect to anyone. We're all parts of the body, none greater than another.
Megan: Thanks for the answer to the first question. That's helpful. I have read by now pretty much everything on the OSJ web pages, as well as the Synod 2010 report. Please understand that I understand you and other OSJ staff are doing what you are assigned to do. I say that because some of what I may say in my posts here might seem to be taking pokes at you and other staff. I'm not intending that. But I am trying to figure out what political positions the CRC (via OSJ and otherwise) is taking (because in so doing, the denomination is acting as my political proxy and the political proxy of other CRC members).
Which brings me back to the second question I asked. You punted on answering that one. :-)
I do realize my second question is more complicated than my first, but it's not that complicated. In fact, I would argue that the question is a foundational one, such that OSJ can't really start "doing" anything without answering it and a handful of other foundational questions. When I reviewed all the OSJ web pages and linked reports, I found lots and lots of the usual "left of center" lingo but I would be really hard pressed to say there was even one statement that clearly acknowledged the right of any government to limit (even if to the point of eliminating) immigration. Again, the answer to this question is a fundamental point for any immigration discussion. Indeed, some folks will openly and honestly say they believe the US should be borderless, that it has no right to disallow anyone from coming here. What is bit troubling to me is one could make a case, from reading the Synod 2010 report and the OSJ pages and links, that such is also the position of the CRC/OSJ.
So, is it? Does OSJ take the position that the US government should be acknowledged to have a "right" to control (i.e., limit, even if that means eliminate) immigration? Or does OSJ take the position that all people, or even some people, outside the US have a justice based right to immigrate into the US?
Posted in: The Belhar Confession: An Invitation
There is little in this lead post I can agree with.
Our three confessions are simply not stories, but rather confessions. The Heidelberg Catechism reads like, well, a catechism. If you never read the historical footnotes in the Psalter, you'd have no idea about its historical context. It is a catechism obviously designed to teach theological propositions (one per week even).
The Belgic Confession is also a statement of fundamental confession, not a story. Again, I'd challenge anyone to find a person unfamiliar with the Belgic Confession, have him/her read it, and then have him/her explicate the historical context. Read it yourself. It covers theological topics quite systematically, but it too is simply not a story. Now it could be there was also a story at play when de Bres wrote the Belgic Confession, but he didn't write that story when he wrote the Belgic Confession. He may have written a story in another writing, but it wasn't the BC and we didn't adopt any other of his writings as a confession.
Canons of Dordt. Different than the HC and BC, but again certainly not a story. Rather, it is a set of synodical decisions in response to about certain doctrinal teachings, highly "theoretical" ones at that. Again, it happened within a historical context (nothing human does not happen within a historical context), but that doesn't make it a story. If it does, then everything is a story, and if everything is story, isn't not meaningful to identify anything as a story because that would be a given.
I don't even think the Belhar is as much of a story as it is a political statement. Sure, it goes on and on making flowery worded theological statements that are nothing new, but then its gets to its core point, that being the assertion that God is God in a special way to the poor and oppressed. Not only is that statement unbiblical, it's fundamentally political. Liberation theology, including the regular and black versions (Black liberation theology) use that assertion as a cornerstone. Moreover, if one simply observes the subseqent political statements made by those who "gave us" the "gift" of the Belhar, one can see that directly. The sequel to the Belhar Confession is the Accra Confession, already adopted by those who "gave us" the Belhar. The Accra Confession contains the substantially identical cornerstone assertion that declares God to be a special God to the poor and oppressed, but then it continues on beyond the words of the Belhar to make more clear what that means. It lifts up third world countries and condemns first world countries. It ascribes victim status for third world countries, declaring their problems to arise from "empire" powers in first world countries. It condemns "neo-liberal" political/economic theories--yes those same political/economic theories that find their historical origin in Calvinist thinking set in opposition to Roman Catholic theories--and advocates for political centrism. It condemns allowing capital to play a large role in economic dealings, in very much the same way that neo-Marxism (even Marx himself in Das Kapital) does.
Please understand this is not "slippery slope" argument. That is, I'm not saying adopting the Belhar will lead to the Accra. Rather I'm saying those who have asked us to adopt the Belhar have already adopted the Accra. They are saying "do what we did" and what they have done is adopted the Accra and begun working that out in the political/economic world. If we say "yes" to making the Belhar one of our confessions, we will be saying yes to a political/economic perspective. At least that's how those who "gave us" the Belhar will see it.
Also please understand I do not claim that anyone, including anyone in the CRCNA, shouldn't be able to have whatever political/economic perspective he/she may choose to have. Two people can adopt our three forms of unity, and the CRCNA's perspective on Scripture and come to completely different political/economic views. Neither should be excommunicated. What I am saying is that the CRCNA should not itself, as a church institution, adopt a political/economic statement (which the Belhar is), nor even a "story" as one of its confessional statements. If we begin to divide the CRCNA by adopting specific political/economic perspectives, we will begin the process of morphing from an institutional church to a political association. Certainly, it would still make some noises like that of a church, but then so did the Liberation Theology movement embodied by Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.
Understand too that many churches in North America, including "politically conservative" churches, have been unable to resist the tempation of becoming political, albeit on the other side of the political spectrum. Until perhaps 15 years ago, the CRCNA had largely avoided that temptation--from either side. No more it seems. Our ecumenical organization, the WCRC, is not much more than a political organization, and one aligned with the Belhar and the Accra Confessions.
Adopting "stories" or poltical statements that sound appealing to some may be tempting, even create the appearance of short term gain, but unless the CRCNA remains a church institution, its meaningful role as a highly respected church within the North American community of churches will diminish quickly.
Posted in: The Belhar Confession: An Invitation
@John Kralt
You say:
"It seems to me that there are issues with the Canons, the HC, and the BC which we tend to work around. My point is not that we have to get rid of the the original three, but the original three do not deal adequately with some of today's issues."
There is a process for changin the confessions so as to not have to "work around" them, which process was used to produce the current BC Article 36 that you quote (and complain about) in your post before the post quoted above. The CRC Synod changed Article 36 (the RCA kept the original version) in a way that made it less "political" (good) and more biblical (also good). You seem to cite the current CRCNA Article 36 as an example of a problem with the BC, but I'd respectfully suggest, given your critique, you are not reading it fairly (accurately) at all. In fact, I'd suggest BC Article 36 sets forth (though not completely) a principle of "sphere sovereignty," at least as to government, which is quite biblical. You say Article 36 wouldn't go down well with Canadian or American courts. Actually, I think you are wrong on that. At least in the United States (I'm not Canadian), we have a federal first amendment which, as interpreted and reflected in the state constitution of the various states, is pretty compatible with BC Article 36. (Makes sense: a Calvinist worldview dominated political thinking when the constitution was written).
Why should we give up on refining the original three confessions (if needed) and choose instead to adopt a new "confession" (story?) that has many more difficulties? Why should we adopt a blatently unbiblical confessional statement ("that God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged")?
Here's the difference between having confessions that are stories and having confessions that are confessions: if they are stories, it really doesn't make much difference what they say because we only regard them in a way that is largely sentimental; but if they are confessions, it does make a difference what they say because we commit to them as rules for living and as truths to teach to future generations.
I'm not suggesting there is not a role for stories in human life, or even in the church, or even in the institutional church, or even at the denominational level in the institutional church. Nor am I saying there is no room in all those places for sentimentallity. But I am saying, essentially in a Sesame Street kind of way, that 'one of these things is not like the other' and that the denomination ought not adopt a story for a confession, as if they are the same thing. Certainly, as I've suggested before, none of our current current confessions (or creeds for that matter) are stories (although there were stories that could have been and were written and read about the historical context surrounding those confessions/creeds), but the church back then understood that essential but basic Sesame Street truth, and so distinguished between stories and confessions/creeds.
And this is what makes me especially concerned. Are we actually unable to distinguish between confessions and stories? Do we care? Do we no longer wish to be, properly defined, a confessional church? Are we so inflicted with feelings of "white guilt" that we've given up on thinking (as opposed to feeling) about these things? Do we want to only be sentimental? Do we want our 'confessions' to no longer really be confessions?
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this John, because I am genuinely perplexed about why the CRCNA, given its history, would even think of going in the direction that adopting the Belhar as a confession takes us.
Posted in: So What Is "Prophetic"?
Bev: I've been looking for suggested answers to your question.
I tend to view the claim of having the responsibility to be prophetic in this article as merely a way to emphasis the writer's insistence that he is right and those who oppose his view are wrong. In the context of the article you cite, I wonder why the Banner is not insisting, in order to excercise the church's prophetic role as it has chosen to do about climate change, that congress pass laws prohibiting taking the Lord's name in vain, or coveting, or adultery, or worshipping idols. Doing that would be in accord with the article's emphasis on "sphere universality" (as the article seems to define it), as oppose to "sphere sovereignty."
Posted in: So What Is "Prophetic"?
Bev: I appreciate your post, and think it is extremely timely, given how much some recent speakers on Synod's floor emphasized that the institutional church must exercise its prophetic responsibilities (and so declare, for example, that a near consensus of scientists believe this and that about climate change).
I'll thus be more than a bit baffled if no one takes this opportunity to explain in this public CRC forum where they would have more than two minutes (time limit on the floor of Synod) to speak their minds.
And yes, I am baiting. :-)
But seriously, if this reason (CRCNA must exercise prophetic responsibility) is going to used to justify CRC statements/actions on non-ecclesiastic matters, some definitional discussion is needed.
Posted in: What Does It Mean To/For the CRC When WCRC Adopts or Declares Something — or Does Stuff?
Henry: Thanks much for the answers. If you would indulge me, I have some follow up questions.
First, what is the CRC's role within WCRC as to WCRC's decision making? For example, when the WCRC adopted the Accra, which I understand it to have done in 2004 (well, WARC actually did but it seems WCRC considers itself to have inherited that), what role did the CRC play in that adoption? Did the CRC have privilege of the floor so as to state its position? Did it cast votes? Something else?
Second, assuming the CRC played/plays some active role in WCRC decisions, how does it practically/logistically do that? Does it send representatives who have voting authority? If it does, how are those representatives selected and how to they cast votes (eg., by decisions made by a group? by using their own judgment?) ?
Third, when you suggest that the "CRC isn't saying anything," but refer to CO Article 50c, I note the language in that Article to precisely say "decisions of ecumenical bodies shall not be binding ...". It could be argued that "not being binding" does not equal "the CRC isn't saying anything." To clarify by analogy, were I a member of the Democratic Party, I could quite legitimately claim that I wasn't bound by any of the platform planks the party may have adopted, but yet, other people could as legitimately say that my party membership does say something about me. So is there some sort of generally understood, non-CO sense for what the CRC is saying when an ecumenical organization of which it is a part adopts a confession? I do realize that question cannot be a precisely answered. Still, it is a meaningful question for members to ask.
I probably agree that the CRCNA, as a church institution, should not play its mission in complete isolation. My concern is that the close I look at the WCRC, the less "reformed" I see, the less "church" I see, and the more "political organization" I see. Still, before coming to too many conclusions, I feel the need to thoroughly fact find. Thus, my questions -- and appreciation for your willingness to provide some answers.
Posted in: Commitment to My Immigrant Neighbor
Kris: I mean this kindly and with a smile on my face, but you did punt on the question. I asked (with bolding), "In other words (and framed another way), do you think our Constitution SHOULD provide that foreigners have legal right to immigrate? " and you answered "maybe it would be more accurate so say it is up to other countries to decide if their citizens have a right to apply? At any rate the U.S. congress is supposed to set up laws that respond to those applications." Respectfully, and again with smile, that's a punt.
It could be that you are punting because you don't know what your answer would be, that you haven't thought of this before. But, you are the OSJ's "Congregational Justice Mobilizer" and, again with respect and a smile, you need to have your political theory down if you are going to mobilize others. CRC members will reasonably assume OSJ has its political theory down, and that they can rely on it as scripturally based.
I have read the full text of the report from the "Committee to Study the Migration of Workers" -- twice in fact. Actually, I thought it was a pretty good report. My one concern about it was that in one recommendation especially, it exceeded its own analysis. It recommended (and Synod adopted the recommendation) in paragraph G that the BOT was to encourage the OSJ to engage in advocacy strategies that will lead to immigration reform and enactment of fair, just, and equitable laws regarding immigrants.
Sounds innocent enough, but here's the catch. The analysis of the report clearly recognized, essentially, that Scripture gives no specific guidance for what immigration laws might be, and that Christians could reasonably disagree as to what they would be. So just what are the "fair, just and equitable laws" that OSJ should politically advocate for? And why don't CRC members just get to advocate for themselves? They are the US citizens, individually, not collectively through the CRC/OSJ.
Now if the OSJ would just say, "hey members, we don't know what they would be, but please consider for yourselves what immigration laws should be and advocate for them," I'd be fine. Certainly, Kuyper's "not one square inch" also covers immigration and we should be responsible Citizens. BUT, and a bit BUT, OSJ's pledge letter advocates for specifics. Just one, for example, is that the US government "maintain the constitutional rights of birthright citizenship." Certainly, Christian minds can differ on whether a government should grant a baby citizenship just because his/her parents illegally came to the US soley in order that their child be born here (and so acquire US Citizenship). In my mind, creating that incentive is really bad government policy. And I think the Committee Report members would regard my position as "reasonable" and "not contrary to Scripture." So, why does OSJ insist on being my political proxy on that issue?
The Committee Report did an excellent job, I thought, of distinguishing between our perspective: (1) as Christians and churches dealing with immigrants; and (2) as government, or citizens who play a role in creating good government. On the other hand, there is nothing in the OSJ documents that I could find (the pledge letter included) that appropriately distinguishes between those two perspectives. That's a "Kuyperian sphere sovereignty" thing, and although I saw that perspective recognized in the Committee Report, I just see no evidence of it is OSJ's implementation of the Synodical mandate based on that report.
And that's is the core of my concern, which is why I start by asking "In other words (and framed another way), do you think our Constitution SHOULD provide that foreigners have legal right to immigrate? " From what I do read off the OSJ site, your office may be promoting the political idea of borderless societies. I'm not saying you do, but I certainly can't determine that you don't, and some of your materials at least suggest you may. And so I ask a "beginning question," a "foundational question," in order to work up to OSJ's adopted political theory/framework that would be the beginning point from which it would answer lots and lots of specific immigration questions.
Whether OSJ staff knows it or not, OSJ is being my political proxy on this. I just want to know what OSJ has fundamentally decided its political theory is in this area before I "complain too much" (again, smile on my face).
Posted in: Commitment to My Immigrant Neighbor
Kris: Your latest posts suggests to me that you're just trying to help congregations help people in their church who have immigration issues. It seems to me that you are not really into the part of OSJ that deals with "advocating government policies." That's fair enough.
I did notice that OSJ has a number of positions, and yours isn't the one I'd expect to answer questions about the "government policies" OSJ advocates for. There is another position, that of Policy Analyst/Advocacy Fellow. I believe Than Veltman holds that position. Might he be able to help on some of these questions? Could you ask him.
Switching thoughts, my own church, employers in my church, and I personally, are pretty Hispanic immigrant friendly (lots of Hispanics in the mid-Willamette Valley here). We sponsor a Hispanic church in the city, our dairy owners employ pretty much all Hispanics for milkers, I've had Hispanic (legal and illegal) for clients, and I have them for neighbors (I live on "that side" of town). I coached a junior high (public school) basketball team a few years back and I suspect at least half my team were illegals or the children of illegals. No, I don't check anyone's legal status when I deal with obvious immigrant types in the neighborhood, or as coach, etc. I do deal with that at work, but my "rules for myself" at work are more complex than would be profitable to go into.
But there there's me as Citizen of Oregon, City of Salem, Marion County and the United States. In my voting (and political advocacy), I take the position of having to create and implement "good government." And if government does what I think "good government" should do, more illegals would be removed than are from the area I live in, mere birth would not create citizenship, and many fewer illegals would get across the border.
Certainly, I think comprehensive immigration reform is LONG overdue. But the reason we don't have that reform is because too many people allow their genuine feeling of mercy to trump concepts of justice when it comes to voting and advocating government policy. We've had pretty good law in the somewhat distant past, but then we started to not enforce it, and eventually the change in the law that should have happened didn't, because our real law (what we enforced) eliminated any motivation to change the formal law (what's in the books). We think we are doing good (being merciful) by failing to execute laws that "are mean to people" but instead do bad, putting immigrants in impossible situations and literally tearing down "the rule of law," ending up with neither justice nor mercy.
This problem will only be successfully tackled when we, as a nation, figure out how to separate what we'd personally like to have happen for the illegal immigrants we personally know from what we know to be good government. I don't see OSJ or the Synod pushing in that direction, which means I suspect at this point, we are part of the problem, not the solution.
Now there are some who honestly believe there should be no borders, that anyone who wants to come into the US (or any other country for that matter) should not be prevented by government from doing so. I can sympathize with the sentiment but that is not a practically workable proposal at any level. Not even close. Nation states have to have enforced borders or they cannot be nation states (and some oppose nation states).
By the way, Congress and the president resolved to have comprehensive immigration reform back when Reagan was president. Amnesty was given to millions of illegals, which was to be followed by legislation that would control the border (a fundamental prerequisite for any control of immigration), create appropriate guest worker laws, etc. The problem was that after the amnesty was granted, nothing else was done. I put that one squarely at the feet of Democrats, who renegged on the deal after getting the amnesty they wanted. And that's why you know have so many Republicans who absolutely refuse to discuss anything about immigration reform until the border is controlled. Sort of a "fool me once, shame on you, twice shame on me" thing for them.
And this is why it is important that the CRC, if it is going to represent my political voice (certainly not my first choice), do so competently. If it can't distinguish between CRC members and congregations being merciful, and creating/implementing good government (and so far I can't tell that it can), it will only be adding to the mess already there. And the result of that will be injustice for pretty much everyone.
Posted in: Commitment to My Immigrant Neighbor
Kris: Thanks for the further response and your willingness to invite Than to the discussion.
I'm particularly pleased to see your willingness to use the word "mercy." It is becoming a rarely used word in CRC. For example, in the Belhar confession, the word "justice" (or injustice) appears 7 times, mercy" 0 (zero). If I go to the WCRC (World Communion of Reformed Justice) website (the CRC is a member of WCRC ) and use it's search facility, there are 11 PAGES of hits for "justice," but a search for the word "mercy" renders NOT EVEN ONE hit. If I use the CRCNA.ORG search facility on the CRCNA site, I get 11, 100 hits for "justice" but only 2560 for "mercy." Contrast this with the 1995 Bylaws for the CRCNA (the denominational corporation). It mentions only "mercy," never "justice." What a difference 16 years makes, eh?
I would suggest "justice" predominantly characterizes the jurisdiction of the sphere of government, and "mercy" is within the "church" sphere (ala Kuyper/Dooyeweerd), perhaps among others. "Liberation theology" saw this quite differently, with some manifistations of Liberation Theology becoming almost totally, if not totally, involved with justice (usually unapologetically Marxist, eg., Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas). Somewhat more contemporarily, a "Black version" has also evolved (Black Liberation Theology), as exemplified by Barak Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright. I regard the "Social Justice" movement as largely a relabeling of "Liberation Theology," which I think essentially confirmed by John Cooper and is one of his objections to the Belhar. Unlike Cooper, I don't want the CRC to adopt the Belhar as anything, confession or otherwise. My objections to both the Liberation Theology movement and the Social Justice movement are: (1) both morph the church into a political organization, and (2) the political theory adopted by both is largely unbiblical. Both perspectives rewrite Micah 6:8 by ignoring the "love mercy" phrase.
Which is why I appreciate your obvious willingness to use the word "mercy." :-)
Posted in: Commitment to My Immigrant Neighbor
Meghan: Are you (meant as folks from OSJ) intending to actually discuss these issues, or is your post just an advertisment for the OSF initiative you are pitching?
I'd love to discuss these (and other) OSJ issues--constructively--but I am getting the feeling that your seed post wasn't an actual discussion invitation.
Let me know. I don't really want to waste my time "discussing" with myself, but would like an "iron sharpens iron" discussion with OSJ folk and CRC members about this.
Posted in: Commitment to My Immigrant Neighbor
Kris: Thanks for the help. OK, I will.
First, I'm wondering first how the OSJ develops the statements it develops. Does it just assign someone to write it? Does the BOT write it? Does it subcontract with Sojourners or Center for Public Justice? Or ...? The reason I ask this is because it seems to me that it is difficult at best (acutally impossible) to "represent" all CRCers when producing statements like this. So I think knowing the process is important.
Second, I notice in the statement that there seems to be a presumption that people from other countries have some sort of justice based right to immigrate into the US. Is that a presumption, or not? Put another way, would it be "just" (not discussing wisdom at this point, or even mercy) for the US to simply deny immigration requests to everyone?
Posted in: CRC Pamphlet on Theological Streams in CRC
The pamphlet is online at: http://www.crcna.org/site_uploads/uploads/resources/identitystatement_eng.pdf
In some respects, I think the pamphlet draws from James Bratt's (Calvin professor) book: "Dutch Calvinism in America: A History of an American Subculture."
I think the pamphlet can be very helpful for understanding "who we are," and Bratt's book is too. But, I'm a Dordt College grad with a double major in philosophy and history (and a subsequent Juris Doctor degree). Some newcomers to the CRC would love and benefit from reading this pamphlet (and book) but others would find it little more than upsetting. My wife, livelong CRC member, would probably find both somewhat upsetting. I would not suggest to her that she read either. I'm on the other end of that spectrum (we make a good team).
I understand the "pigeon hole" accusation, but tend to set that aside. Hey, all of theoretical thinking (my Dooyeweerd is coming out) involves "pigeon holing" for the simple reason that human minds need to erect a set of boxes to categorize things as it processes. If we must avoid "pigeon holing," we have to stop writing any kind of historical or descriptive accounts of anything involving society, CRC or otherwise.
I could certainly see using the pamphlet in a new members class, as Paul does, but that's a "supervised" context, which is probably best for some "newbies" who can become a bit unsettled when things aren't as simple as they might like them to be. There is a milk-meat factor to all of this, and sheer personality comes into play as well -- and I say that without any disrespect to anyone. We're all parts of the body, none greater than another.
Posted in: Commitment to My Immigrant Neighbor
Megan: Thanks for the answer to the first question. That's helpful. I have read by now pretty much everything on the OSJ web pages, as well as the Synod 2010 report. Please understand that I understand you and other OSJ staff are doing what you are assigned to do. I say that because some of what I may say in my posts here might seem to be taking pokes at you and other staff. I'm not intending that. But I am trying to figure out what political positions the CRC (via OSJ and otherwise) is taking (because in so doing, the denomination is acting as my political proxy and the political proxy of other CRC members).
Which brings me back to the second question I asked. You punted on answering that one. :-)
I do realize my second question is more complicated than my first, but it's not that complicated. In fact, I would argue that the question is a foundational one, such that OSJ can't really start "doing" anything without answering it and a handful of other foundational questions. When I reviewed all the OSJ web pages and linked reports, I found lots and lots of the usual "left of center" lingo but I would be really hard pressed to say there was even one statement that clearly acknowledged the right of any government to limit (even if to the point of eliminating) immigration. Again, the answer to this question is a fundamental point for any immigration discussion. Indeed, some folks will openly and honestly say they believe the US should be borderless, that it has no right to disallow anyone from coming here. What is bit troubling to me is one could make a case, from reading the Synod 2010 report and the OSJ pages and links, that such is also the position of the CRC/OSJ.
So, is it? Does OSJ take the position that the US government should be acknowledged to have a "right" to control (i.e., limit, even if that means eliminate) immigration? Or does OSJ take the position that all people, or even some people, outside the US have a justice based right to immigrate into the US?