Harry: Do you really want to say, "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor"? Really? Honestly, that blows me away. Beyond that, it even more persuades me that the CRCNA passing the Belhar as anything would be so deterimental to the CRCNA. If we did, there would be people saying, hey, even our own confession (or testimony or declaration or affirmation or whatever) says God prefers poor people over rich people (or even not so poor people), which means that we should ________________, and that we should not _________________, merely based on economic status. Again, wow!
Don't get me wrong on this. I've quoted Matthew and the parable that concludes with "inasmuch as you have done to the least of these, you have done to me" more often than I can count. I choose to live in what is arguably the poorest area of my city (including highest percentage of hispanic and black that our town has). I personally do more work (and spend more dollars) for the sake of my neighborhood (especially those who are poor and of other races) than I do for any other cause. But to say that God (Jesus or the Father) "massively prefers" (even "prefers") the poor over others??
Let me suggest a book, not written by a Christian (I don't think at least), but informative notwithstanding. It's "Stuff White People Like," and it has a sequel, "Whiter Shades of Pale." It's not just about white or black or brown, or about race or ethnicity, but about a certain kind of current zeitgeist. I think there is a lot of what these books talk about (in a humorous but still real way) in certain parts of our denomination. Certainly, not the majority (in fact this particular zeitgeist dominants in only a distinct minority in the CRCNA) but it includes many who have power positions in the CRCNA. It's a zeitgeist that makes certain kinds of people (WASPs) feel horribly guilty about their lives in a lefty political kind of way, and respond in fashionable, knee-jerk kinds of ways (white is bad, any amount of wealth is bad, affirmative action is good, private sector economics is bad, government aid is good, etc etc etc). I'm amazed at how much of that I'm seeing in the CRCNA (at least in some influencial parts).
Harry. No, my argument is that if we conclude "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor," it's got to be something other than what we've understood to be a reformed hermeneutical process that gets us to that conclusion.
Acts 6? The apostles choosing 'deacons' to pay more attention to providing for the widows of Hellenistic Jews? And you say these deacons were the complainers? And that the apostles appointed them as deacons because they were complainers?
OK, I'm back to recommending "Stuff White People Like." I'm persuaded that if Christian Landers did a "White CRC" version of his book, the Belhar and Accra Confessions would be high on the list of "things liked."
I would genuinely like to see a defense of the the assertion "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor," as would quite a few classical overture authors. Acceptanance of that doctrinal point, assuming it means what the words seem to me, would pretty dramatically and foundationally change the reformed tradition.
Harry: If you want to tell your kids and grandkids the story of faith as exhibited by some in the Dutch church, by all means, do that, along with tens or thousands of other stories of faith by good people deciding to do right throughout all of human history. Some of these stories are in Scripture, many (most) are not.
But why does the CRCNA have to adopt a confession for you to tell that story, especially when that confession includes assertions that of supposed "truths" that are in contradiction to Scripture? The adage, "hard cases can make bad law" applies here.
I'm still waiting for a defense of the statement, "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor." Abraham was pretty favored (preferred), yet not poor. Lot was pretty poor, yet not particularly favored (preferred).
Harry: You say "us guys" (the 'hooty ones') have "warned [you] of the dangers of liberation theology..." and have "suggested darkly that [your] hermeneutic may not be reformed."
I'm actually at a point bit farther. I intend to say this with respect, and I actually assume you already know (??), but your thinking, at least if it is accurately reflected in what you post, is liberation theology. Not at the fringe, not in danger of, but is. Why do I say that? Because the essence of liberation theology is viewing Scripture through an interpretive paradigm in which the assumed overriding and foundational theme of Scripture is the liberation of people from political/economic oppression and injustice. The political/economic aspect of life becomes absolutized (to use a Dooyeweerdian concept) and becomes a defining filter for all (or at least nearly all) interpretive/hermenutical activity.
Outside the church (and pre-existing "liberation theology" historically), Karl Marx developed (using a bit from Hegel but also in reaction to what he saw resulting from events during the early industrial revolution) a similar kind of perspective, that is, one that absolutized the political/economic aspect of life, and so was the definition filter for all truth. Marx was no friend of Christianity, however, describing religion as an opiate that just confuses and misleads. Thus, when the same sort of perspective took hold within the church (so-called "liberation theology," which began in the Roman Catholic tradition), it was also referred to as neo-Marxism (a new Marxism -- a "christianized marxism" ). My best example of modern day liberation theology/neo-Marxism is Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas, whose revolution against the Somozan government in Nicaragua gained the support of those within the (RC) liberation theology tradition.
As a historical matter, when the liberation theology perspective filtered into protestant traditions, it more often went by (and goes by) the labels "social gospel" or "social justice."
I suspect you will chastise me for articulating this history but I do so because the Belhar isn't the only something here with a story/history behind it, and to encourage you to understand the broader perspective of those opposed to the Belhar. We are not opposed to the Belhar because it condemns racism. This one document (Belhar) says multiple things, but is being pushed as a whole package. Condemning racism is an easy thing to agree on, but the Belhar does much more than that, as is made a lot more clear by reading also the Accra Confession, which is big sister to the Belhar and useful in confirming the liberation theology (aka "social gospel", "social justice", neo-Marxist) perspective written into the Belhar.
Let me be clear about this too. I do not consider someone who is of a liberation theology perspective to necessarily not be a brother or sister in Christ, as severely as I might disagree with their perspective on how to read Scripture. I think one can be of a liberation theology perspective (or a neo-Marxist if you will) and still hold to the Apostles Creed type truths that mark one as essentially "Christian." But the question involved with regard to the adoption of the Belhar is much more than "can one hold to all the statements in the Belhar and still be a Christian?" The question is whether the CRCNA should adopt it, given the CRCNA's present and past hermeneutical/confessional perspective. Some might say the CRCNA should essentially jettison its historical perspective and buy fully into the liberation theology / social gospel / social justice / neo-Marxist narrative. That causes me to shiver and cringe, but some others to smile with genuine delight. And indeed, the CRCNA can be said to have done just that in some ways by choosing to affiliate/align itself with the WCRC (World Council of Reformed Churches), which is very clearly of that (liberation theology / social gospel / social justice / new-Marxist) perspective.
In a real way, the argument over the Belhar does represent an argument over whether the the CRCNA will depart of its fundamental, historic theological perspective and move to a new one. I think you want to move to that new perspective (given the contents of your posts), although I could be misreading you. I don't. Hopefully (in my mind at least), delegates to Synod will realize what they would be choosing if they were to adopt the Belhar. This isn't just a tweak on CRCNA perspective but a foundational shift. Again, examining the Accra and the WCRC helps to illuminate that.
Harry: I'll exegete Matt 25 when you first respond to my earlier (repeated) request of you, to defend your assertion that "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor."
Oh come on Harry -- that's too old and cheap of a strategy. In response to several people explicating serious assertions about a serious subject, you thow back some hyperbolic claims but refuse to defend them, then do a bit of attention redirection with a little Stephen Colbert styled mock routine, then demand that the other side of the argument be permantly on the defensive while at the same time refusing to offer a defense for your own hyperbolic claims. And then you claim victory without ever having to defend your own defenseless claims -- declaring that everyone who thinks differently from you is just "opposing the Belhar on this issue because of prejudice and not principle".
No, I still won't bite, but whenever you care to first defend your claim that "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor", I'll then exegete Matt 25 for you, even without the mock routine.
And the Belhar would be merely a beginning of the disunity, because the next step (already half-taken) is the Accra Confession (the Belhar's sequel), adopted by our own ecumenical organization, the WCRC (World Communion of Reformed Churches), which quite vigorously pitches a dominant therme of oppressors vs. victims of oppression: rich against poor, northern hemisphere against southern, first world countries against second and third, men against women, youth against adult, etc.
Beyond that, the WCRC and/or Accra condemns private enterprice economics (its the "worship of mammon") literally praises "liberation theology models" (in those words), almost bringing back and east/west cold war theme (with the CRCNA, as members of the WCRC, essentially being on the side of the east this time).
If you care to peruse the WCRC site long enough, you'll soon enough figure out that the big pitch for unity is really for the purpose of having a united political front, which creates (they think at least) power to tell governments to stop with the free market stuff and start seriously regulating evil private businesses. The biggest fracture in the WCRC's current "unity front," is NOT coming from us (the CRCNA), amazingly, but from the eastern European countries, who for some odd reason think much of what the Accra represents is simply a throw-back to a USSR-styled central planning system they were quite pleased to escape not so long ago. Read about this being discussed in one of the WCRC "reports" at: http://www.wcrc.ch/sites/default/files/Europe%27s%20discussion%20about%20justice.pdf . Read the whole report, but here's an excerpt:
The general feeling among Eastern European WARC [now WCRC] member churches is critical, to say the least. One can hear sometimes that the language being used in the Accra Confession and also in the overall covenanting for justice work reminds one of the Marxist ideological language so favoured by the former communist regimes.
AARP needs "unity" to be an effective political power in the US. WCRC wants unity to have that power as well. The more they have that unity, the more they can (try at least to) tell governments what to do. The adoption of the Belhar, were the CRCNA to do that, and our existing membership in the WCRC moves the CRCNA toward becoming much more of a political association than a confessional church, and one that opposed market based economics at that.
And 'no' Harry, that "Marxist" talk isn't coming from my drooling on my keyboard, but rather a WCRC person who has adopted the Belhar, it's sequel, and is wanting to move full steam ahead with the working premise of "Jesus having a massive preference for the poor."
Let me try this from another angle. If the concern of pro-Belhar advocates is, as suggested in this thread (but also a number of others), that not adopting the Belhar would be to communicate our prejudice (given the South African context of the Belhar), with purported arguments of principle being merely a rouse to oppose, why don't we (Synod 2012 in fact) consider getting more directly to the point. Let's condemn racism, not as a confession or a testimony, nor even as a fancy worded something else, but rather as a simple and direct Synod 2012 resolution.
Here's the bones of a possible resolution that is pretty short but to the point. (Sorry if it sounds like legislation -- that's my experience -- it could be 'styled' otherwise).
The CRCNA condemns racism. For purposes of this condemnation, "racism" means:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, personal action, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine.
3. a policy, system of government, personal action, etc., that favors or disfavors members of any particular race.
4. hatred or intolerance or disfavor of another race or other races.
5. a practice or promotion, whether government enforced or merely adopted by society or individuals within it, of apartheid, as that was enforced and practiced in the history of South Africa.
Certainly, the above could be adjusted (changed, added to, detracted from), but sometimes (and I think this is the case with the Belhar), the longer a document is, the less able it is to make a specific point. Indeed, we've already had to make clear that if we were to pass the Belhar, we wouldn't be intending to say about homosexual practice what one of the Belhar authors has already claimed it says.
So, lets reduce the words, get to the point, and support Synod passing a simple, more direct, more clearly-understandible-by-all resolution. And if further "points" that are now considered valuable points made by the Belhar should be made, Synod (2012 or of whatever year) could make those too, again by simple, straightforward resolutions that don't mire down in so many words and so much ambiguity.
I can't imagine a resolution of this sort receiving many (any actually) negative votes in Synod. A unanimous resolution of this kind would communicate more that a split adoption of a longer text (Belhar) containing many, less unambiguously stated, thoughts and themes. Beyond that, I can't imagine a resolution of this sort receiving negative reaction from any Classis, nor even from any local churches. Indeed, Synod 2012 passing a resolution of this sort would avoid creating disunity, and would (for once) demonstrate that we can have unity.
Eric: I have been trying to figure out exactly what it is the causes pro-Belhar folk to want to adopt the Belhar. The reasons I have concluded thus far are not generally well received by those pro-Belhar, but I'm having a hard time coming up with others.
You say in your above that your long time concern has been that the CRCNA had made really wonderful and often interestly written policy documents, but you don't see the CRCNA has being very effective in the area of developing church policy that guides how we interpret the Bible through our actions.
I'm 57, born/raised on a farm in NW Iowa. Moved to Oregon in 1976 and have been a practicing lawyer in Oregon for 32 years. I'm a thorough-going Kuyperian, straight from the tradition at the core of NW Iowa based CRCNA-ness. If there is one thing that I can definitively say is that my CRC church tradition has in the course of my life been more effective in developing within me a theological/worldview tradition that guides "how I interpret the Bible through my actions" that any other US church tradition could have been (and I know a lot of other traditions, have lived where I do and having done what I've done now for decade). Indeed, it is the CRC/Reformed emphasis of world and life view, a phrase that didn't even exist in other Protestant traditions, that has since the 1970's, captured the attention and excitement of so many other traditions such that "worldview" is now a common reference. Quite literally, CRC and other reformed traditions transformed the US Protestant landscape, again beginning in the 1970's, by persuading the broader Christian community that there is not one square inch not subject to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
It is because of my CRC/Reformed worldview that I never applied for a position with a larger law firm but instead started my own law practice (I saw worldview clashes as inevitable). It is the result of my the CRC/Reformed worldview that I never made all that much income (I'm fine but ...), but rather donated probably close to half of my productive time/career to people with problems who didn't have money or necessary causes that didn't pay. Because of my CRC/Reformed worldview, I still live on the poorer, hispanic side of my city where I have more opportunity to help individual neighbors who have less than I do and help the community at large by reviving/maintaining/improving the neighborhood park that the county had left to be grafittied and vandalized by Surenos and Nortenos (hispanic gangs).
I consider the CRC/Reformed tradition/worldview to be incredibly bold, so much so that people from other church traditions across the country have moved in our direction and emulated it. And when I know they see that in our tradition, I can figure out why those within the tradition can't see it.
So why do you and I see our heritage so differently? And what is it in the Belhar -- specifically -- that you believe will make us more bold than what I think I (and I'm not alone) have already found over 40 years ago?
Wendy: Two of your sentences struck me: "No one you know desires things over God at least occasionally? Instructs their children to go into something that will make money rather than go into kingdom service?"
I suspect I "know what you mean," but to declare as opposites: (1) "go[ing] into something that will make money" and (2) "kingdom service" really gets us to a bad place. Let me explain.
In my sophomore year of high school, I decided to be a lawyer rather than a pastor (my math teacher was pushing the pastor route). In college (Dordt), I confirmed that decision. No, not to "make money" (or at least not to make MORE money), but because I had been sold on the reformed worldview, which proclaimed that "not one square inch ..." (you know the rest).
But why a lawyer? There were lots of Christian pastors, I thought; few Christian lawyers. All were "equally faithful" options (if you really believed the "one square inch" thing instead of merely mouthed it), and I thought I was more of a "lawyer person" than a "pastor person."
But I'll never forget my grandmother, knowing of my plans, saying to me (and I quote verbatim): "how can you decide to be a lawyer if you are a Christian." I didn't argue with her, but when you say what you have said, I'm hearing my grandmother all over again.
We seem to have the idea of late (last decade or so in the CRC), that certain things are inherently bad, or at least not so good: wealth, certain occupations, certain political theories, etc.; and that certain things are inherently good , or certainly not bad: poverty, certain occupations, political theories, etc.
Well, some occupations may be inherently bad (pimps, for example), and I suppose certain political theories could be bad as well (e.g., one that says Baal must be worshipped by all citizens), but wealth isn't bad -- or good -- and most occupations are not bad -- or good. One can be a pastor, yet do that which is evil, or a lawyer, yet do that which is righteous. The other way around is true too of course, but I would suggest that the test of faithfulness is not the occupation chosen, but what we do with that set of talents once we have them.
Nor is a condition of wealth or poverty evidence of faithfulness, although what we do with our wealth, however much of it we may have, would provide such evidence. OK, also perhaps how we acquired the wealth, but equally why we are in poverty. Thus, one might be in poverty because he/she simply refused to go the the ant to consider her ways, but instead insists on being a sluggard. That person would have been unfaithful. But the wealthy person who efficiently produced a great amount of food (milk, grain, what have you) and sold to the market at great profit has been faithful. Now, the wealthy person may or may not be faithful by what he/she then DOES with that wealth (talents given), but the acquisition of wealth is not per se an act of unfaithfulness.
Indeed, God is not"in a special way the God of the poor" (as the Belhar suggests). Rather, some have more material wealth and some less, in each case some for faithful and some for unfaithful reasons. And in whatever condition of material weath we are in, we all have challenges and temptations to overcome in order to be faithful. Jesus' warns that it is hard for the rich to enter God's kingdom because of the temptation of their wealth. But he warns those with less wealth of essentially the same in the parable where the servant with the fewest talents was judged for squandering them, and in the parable of the servants who were paid the same even though they had worked longer. "Do not covet," one of the big ten, cannot be said to only apply to the wealthy.
Your categorization scheme says, literally, I did not choose "kingdom service." I strongly object to that. I did, and still do choose "kingdom service." Indeed, your categorization scheme says most CRC members did not choose "kingdom service." I suspect most of them (though perhaps not all) would object as well.
When reading/counting overtures on the Belhar, there may not be "any clear line-up of opinion following geographical lines within the CRC," but there certainly is a very clear line-up on opinion on whether or not to adopt the Belhar as a confession.
Here's the bottom line (using numbers from this articles): of the 35 overtures, only three support adopting the Belhar as a fourth confession. That's only 8.6% (3 divided by 35). All other overtures (91.4%) explicitly or implicitly reject adopting the Belhar as a fourth confession. I would also argue that these positions are not, as suggested, "all over the map." I would suggest, being part of the process in my own classis, that many, perhaps most, of the overtures that propose adopting the Belhar as a testimony or "something else" were drafted/passed in order to offer a compromise, not as the classes' first choice position. The logic goes as follows: if we just say "no," maybe Synod will pass the Belhar as a confession, but if we say "no as a confession, but OK to pass it as a testimony," it might lessen the chances that the Belhar will be passed as a confession because it "offers a compromise."
I also am not a prophet, just a lawyer, but one who has spent many years providing advice to churches (CRC and otherwise) who are in "split" situations or having major controversy. Based on that, I don't want to predict either re the Belhar, but I would suggest that Synod 2012 would be so, so unwise to adopt the Belhar as the denomination's one-of-four foundational statements when 90%+ of the membership, calculating by extrapolating classical overtures, do not want that. Indeed, I would suggest it would be dramatically unwise not to REQUIRE at least a two-thirds majority for adopting a foundational confession. If a church or any other organization is constantly battling to get 51% of the votes on matters as important/foundational as these, that church/organization is asking to be in near-constant internal conflict. Which is a more than a bit of where the CRCNA is these days.
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
Harry: Do you really want to say, "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor"? Really? Honestly, that blows me away. Beyond that, it even more persuades me that the CRCNA passing the Belhar as anything would be so deterimental to the CRCNA. If we did, there would be people saying, hey, even our own confession (or testimony or declaration or affirmation or whatever) says God prefers poor people over rich people (or even not so poor people), which means that we should ________________, and that we should not _________________, merely based on economic status. Again, wow!
Don't get me wrong on this. I've quoted Matthew and the parable that concludes with "inasmuch as you have done to the least of these, you have done to me" more often than I can count. I choose to live in what is arguably the poorest area of my city (including highest percentage of hispanic and black that our town has). I personally do more work (and spend more dollars) for the sake of my neighborhood (especially those who are poor and of other races) than I do for any other cause. But to say that God (Jesus or the Father) "massively prefers" (even "prefers") the poor over others??
Let me suggest a book, not written by a Christian (I don't think at least), but informative notwithstanding. It's "Stuff White People Like," and it has a sequel, "Whiter Shades of Pale." It's not just about white or black or brown, or about race or ethnicity, but about a certain kind of current zeitgeist. I think there is a lot of what these books talk about (in a humorous but still real way) in certain parts of our denomination. Certainly, not the majority (in fact this particular zeitgeist dominants in only a distinct minority in the CRCNA) but it includes many who have power positions in the CRCNA. It's a zeitgeist that makes certain kinds of people (WASPs) feel horribly guilty about their lives in a lefty political kind of way, and respond in fashionable, knee-jerk kinds of ways (white is bad, any amount of wealth is bad, affirmative action is good, private sector economics is bad, government aid is good, etc etc etc). I'm amazed at how much of that I'm seeing in the CRCNA (at least in some influencial parts).
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
Harry. No, my argument is that if we conclude "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor," it's got to be something other than what we've understood to be a reformed hermeneutical process that gets us to that conclusion.
Acts 6? The apostles choosing 'deacons' to pay more attention to providing for the widows of Hellenistic Jews? And you say these deacons were the complainers? And that the apostles appointed them as deacons because they were complainers?
OK, I'm back to recommending "Stuff White People Like." I'm persuaded that if Christian Landers did a "White CRC" version of his book, the Belhar and Accra Confessions would be high on the list of "things liked."
I would genuinely like to see a defense of the the assertion "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor," as would quite a few classical overture authors. Acceptanance of that doctrinal point, assuming it means what the words seem to me, would pretty dramatically and foundationally change the reformed tradition.
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
Harry: If you want to tell your kids and grandkids the story of faith as exhibited by some in the Dutch church, by all means, do that, along with tens or thousands of other stories of faith by good people deciding to do right throughout all of human history. Some of these stories are in Scripture, many (most) are not.
But why does the CRCNA have to adopt a confession for you to tell that story, especially when that confession includes assertions that of supposed "truths" that are in contradiction to Scripture? The adage, "hard cases can make bad law" applies here.
I'm still waiting for a defense of the statement, "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor." Abraham was pretty favored (preferred), yet not poor. Lot was pretty poor, yet not particularly favored (preferred).
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
Harry: You say "us guys" (the 'hooty ones') have "warned [you] of the dangers of liberation theology..." and have "suggested darkly that [your] hermeneutic may not be reformed."
I'm actually at a point bit farther. I intend to say this with respect, and I actually assume you already know (??), but your thinking, at least if it is accurately reflected in what you post, is liberation theology. Not at the fringe, not in danger of, but is. Why do I say that? Because the essence of liberation theology is viewing Scripture through an interpretive paradigm in which the assumed overriding and foundational theme of Scripture is the liberation of people from political/economic oppression and injustice. The political/economic aspect of life becomes absolutized (to use a Dooyeweerdian concept) and becomes a defining filter for all (or at least nearly all) interpretive/hermenutical activity.
Outside the church (and pre-existing "liberation theology" historically), Karl Marx developed (using a bit from Hegel but also in reaction to what he saw resulting from events during the early industrial revolution) a similar kind of perspective, that is, one that absolutized the political/economic aspect of life, and so was the definition filter for all truth. Marx was no friend of Christianity, however, describing religion as an opiate that just confuses and misleads. Thus, when the same sort of perspective took hold within the church (so-called "liberation theology," which began in the Roman Catholic tradition), it was also referred to as neo-Marxism (a new Marxism -- a "christianized marxism" ). My best example of modern day liberation theology/neo-Marxism is Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas, whose revolution against the Somozan government in Nicaragua gained the support of those within the (RC) liberation theology tradition.
As a historical matter, when the liberation theology perspective filtered into protestant traditions, it more often went by (and goes by) the labels "social gospel" or "social justice."
I suspect you will chastise me for articulating this history but I do so because the Belhar isn't the only something here with a story/history behind it, and to encourage you to understand the broader perspective of those opposed to the Belhar. We are not opposed to the Belhar because it condemns racism. This one document (Belhar) says multiple things, but is being pushed as a whole package. Condemning racism is an easy thing to agree on, but the Belhar does much more than that, as is made a lot more clear by reading also the Accra Confession, which is big sister to the Belhar and useful in confirming the liberation theology (aka "social gospel", "social justice", neo-Marxist) perspective written into the Belhar.
Let me be clear about this too. I do not consider someone who is of a liberation theology perspective to necessarily not be a brother or sister in Christ, as severely as I might disagree with their perspective on how to read Scripture. I think one can be of a liberation theology perspective (or a neo-Marxist if you will) and still hold to the Apostles Creed type truths that mark one as essentially "Christian." But the question involved with regard to the adoption of the Belhar is much more than "can one hold to all the statements in the Belhar and still be a Christian?" The question is whether the CRCNA should adopt it, given the CRCNA's present and past hermeneutical/confessional perspective. Some might say the CRCNA should essentially jettison its historical perspective and buy fully into the liberation theology / social gospel / social justice / neo-Marxist narrative. That causes me to shiver and cringe, but some others to smile with genuine delight. And indeed, the CRCNA can be said to have done just that in some ways by choosing to affiliate/align itself with the WCRC (World Council of Reformed Churches), which is very clearly of that (liberation theology / social gospel / social justice / new-Marxist) perspective.
In a real way, the argument over the Belhar does represent an argument over whether the the CRCNA will depart of its fundamental, historic theological perspective and move to a new one. I think you want to move to that new perspective (given the contents of your posts), although I could be misreading you. I don't. Hopefully (in my mind at least), delegates to Synod will realize what they would be choosing if they were to adopt the Belhar. This isn't just a tweak on CRCNA perspective but a foundational shift. Again, examining the Accra and the WCRC helps to illuminate that.
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
Harry: I'll exegete Matt 25 when you first respond to my earlier (repeated) request of you, to defend your assertion that "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor."
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
Oh come on Harry -- that's too old and cheap of a strategy. In response to several people explicating serious assertions about a serious subject, you thow back some hyperbolic claims but refuse to defend them, then do a bit of attention redirection with a little Stephen Colbert styled mock routine, then demand that the other side of the argument be permantly on the defensive while at the same time refusing to offer a defense for your own hyperbolic claims. And then you claim victory without ever having to defend your own defenseless claims -- declaring that everyone who thinks differently from you is just "opposing the Belhar on this issue because of prejudice and not principle".
No, I still won't bite, but whenever you care to first defend your claim that "Jesus has a massive preference for the poor", I'll then exegete Matt 25 for you, even without the mock routine.
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
And the Belhar would be merely a beginning of the disunity, because the next step (already half-taken) is the Accra Confession (the Belhar's sequel), adopted by our own ecumenical organization, the WCRC (World Communion of Reformed Churches), which quite vigorously pitches a dominant therme of oppressors vs. victims of oppression: rich against poor, northern hemisphere against southern, first world countries against second and third, men against women, youth against adult, etc.
Beyond that, the WCRC and/or Accra condemns private enterprice economics (its the "worship of mammon") literally praises "liberation theology models" (in those words), almost bringing back and east/west cold war theme (with the CRCNA, as members of the WCRC, essentially being on the side of the east this time).
If you care to peruse the WCRC site long enough, you'll soon enough figure out that the big pitch for unity is really for the purpose of having a united political front, which creates (they think at least) power to tell governments to stop with the free market stuff and start seriously regulating evil private businesses. The biggest fracture in the WCRC's current "unity front," is NOT coming from us (the CRCNA), amazingly, but from the eastern European countries, who for some odd reason think much of what the Accra represents is simply a throw-back to a USSR-styled central planning system they were quite pleased to escape not so long ago. Read about this being discussed in one of the WCRC "reports" at: http://www.wcrc.ch/sites/default/files/Europe%27s%20discussion%20about%20justice.pdf . Read the whole report, but here's an excerpt:
The general feeling among Eastern European WARC [now WCRC] member churches is critical, to say the least. One can hear sometimes that the language being used in the Accra Confession and also in the overall covenanting for justice work reminds one of the Marxist ideological language so favoured by the former communist regimes.
AARP needs "unity" to be an effective political power in the US. WCRC wants unity to have that power as well. The more they have that unity, the more they can (try at least to) tell governments what to do. The adoption of the Belhar, were the CRCNA to do that, and our existing membership in the WCRC moves the CRCNA toward becoming much more of a political association than a confessional church, and one that opposed market based economics at that.
And 'no' Harry, that "Marxist" talk isn't coming from my drooling on my keyboard, but rather a WCRC person who has adopted the Belhar, it's sequel, and is wanting to move full steam ahead with the working premise of "Jesus having a massive preference for the poor."
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
That is fair warning James, and thanks for that.
Let me try this from another angle. If the concern of pro-Belhar advocates is, as suggested in this thread (but also a number of others), that not adopting the Belhar would be to communicate our prejudice (given the South African context of the Belhar), with purported arguments of principle being merely a rouse to oppose, why don't we (Synod 2012 in fact) consider getting more directly to the point. Let's condemn racism, not as a confession or a testimony, nor even as a fancy worded something else, but rather as a simple and direct Synod 2012 resolution.
Here's the bones of a possible resolution that is pretty short but to the point. (Sorry if it sounds like legislation -- that's my experience -- it could be 'styled' otherwise).
The CRCNA condemns racism. For purposes of this condemnation, "racism" means:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, personal action, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine.
3. a policy, system of government, personal action, etc., that favors or disfavors members of any particular race.
4. hatred or intolerance or disfavor of another race or other races.
5. a practice or promotion, whether government enforced or merely adopted by society or individuals within it, of apartheid, as that was enforced and practiced in the history of South Africa.
Certainly, the above could be adjusted (changed, added to, detracted from), but sometimes (and I think this is the case with the Belhar), the longer a document is, the less able it is to make a specific point. Indeed, we've already had to make clear that if we were to pass the Belhar, we wouldn't be intending to say about homosexual practice what one of the Belhar authors has already claimed it says.
So, lets reduce the words, get to the point, and support Synod passing a simple, more direct, more clearly-understandible-by-all resolution. And if further "points" that are now considered valuable points made by the Belhar should be made, Synod (2012 or of whatever year) could make those too, again by simple, straightforward resolutions that don't mire down in so many words and so much ambiguity.
I can't imagine a resolution of this sort receiving many (any actually) negative votes in Synod. A unanimous resolution of this kind would communicate more that a split adoption of a longer text (Belhar) containing many, less unambiguously stated, thoughts and themes. Beyond that, I can't imagine a resolution of this sort receiving negative reaction from any Classis, nor even from any local churches. Indeed, Synod 2012 passing a resolution of this sort would avoid creating disunity, and would (for once) demonstrate that we can have unity.
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
Eric: I have been trying to figure out exactly what it is the causes pro-Belhar folk to want to adopt the Belhar. The reasons I have concluded thus far are not generally well received by those pro-Belhar, but I'm having a hard time coming up with others.
You say in your above that your long time concern has been that the CRCNA had made really wonderful and often interestly written policy documents, but you don't see the CRCNA has being very effective in the area of developing church policy that guides how we interpret the Bible through our actions.
I'm 57, born/raised on a farm in NW Iowa. Moved to Oregon in 1976 and have been a practicing lawyer in Oregon for 32 years. I'm a thorough-going Kuyperian, straight from the tradition at the core of NW Iowa based CRCNA-ness. If there is one thing that I can definitively say is that my CRC church tradition has in the course of my life been more effective in developing within me a theological/worldview tradition that guides "how I interpret the Bible through my actions" that any other US church tradition could have been (and I know a lot of other traditions, have lived where I do and having done what I've done now for decade). Indeed, it is the CRC/Reformed emphasis of world and life view, a phrase that didn't even exist in other Protestant traditions, that has since the 1970's, captured the attention and excitement of so many other traditions such that "worldview" is now a common reference. Quite literally, CRC and other reformed traditions transformed the US Protestant landscape, again beginning in the 1970's, by persuading the broader Christian community that there is not one square inch not subject to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
It is because of my CRC/Reformed worldview that I never applied for a position with a larger law firm but instead started my own law practice (I saw worldview clashes as inevitable). It is the result of my the CRC/Reformed worldview that I never made all that much income (I'm fine but ...), but rather donated probably close to half of my productive time/career to people with problems who didn't have money or necessary causes that didn't pay. Because of my CRC/Reformed worldview, I still live on the poorer, hispanic side of my city where I have more opportunity to help individual neighbors who have less than I do and help the community at large by reviving/maintaining/improving the neighborhood park that the county had left to be grafittied and vandalized by Surenos and Nortenos (hispanic gangs).
I consider the CRC/Reformed tradition/worldview to be incredibly bold, so much so that people from other church traditions across the country have moved in our direction and emulated it. And when I know they see that in our tradition, I can figure out why those within the tradition can't see it.
So why do you and I see our heritage so differently? And what is it in the Belhar -- specifically -- that you believe will make us more bold than what I think I (and I'm not alone) have already found over 40 years ago?
Posted in: My Case for a Holy Hypocrisy
Once again, another inciteful, well-written blog by Paul VanderKlay.
Seriously Paul. I really appreciate your contributions to the Network and hope you keep doing this for a very long time. :-)
Posted in: Guard Against All Kinds of Greed - a Reflection on Luke 12
Wendy: Two of your sentences struck me: "No one you know desires things over God at least occasionally? Instructs their children to go into something that will make money rather than go into kingdom service?"
I suspect I "know what you mean," but to declare as opposites: (1) "go[ing] into something that will make money" and (2) "kingdom service" really gets us to a bad place. Let me explain.
In my sophomore year of high school, I decided to be a lawyer rather than a pastor (my math teacher was pushing the pastor route). In college (Dordt), I confirmed that decision. No, not to "make money" (or at least not to make MORE money), but because I had been sold on the reformed worldview, which proclaimed that "not one square inch ..." (you know the rest).
But why a lawyer? There were lots of Christian pastors, I thought; few Christian lawyers. All were "equally faithful" options (if you really believed the "one square inch" thing instead of merely mouthed it), and I thought I was more of a "lawyer person" than a "pastor person."
But I'll never forget my grandmother, knowing of my plans, saying to me (and I quote verbatim): "how can you decide to be a lawyer if you are a Christian." I didn't argue with her, but when you say what you have said, I'm hearing my grandmother all over again.
We seem to have the idea of late (last decade or so in the CRC), that certain things are inherently bad, or at least not so good: wealth, certain occupations, certain political theories, etc.; and that certain things are inherently good , or certainly not bad: poverty, certain occupations, political theories, etc.
Well, some occupations may be inherently bad (pimps, for example), and I suppose certain political theories could be bad as well (e.g., one that says Baal must be worshipped by all citizens), but wealth isn't bad -- or good -- and most occupations are not bad -- or good. One can be a pastor, yet do that which is evil, or a lawyer, yet do that which is righteous. The other way around is true too of course, but I would suggest that the test of faithfulness is not the occupation chosen, but what we do with that set of talents once we have them.
Nor is a condition of wealth or poverty evidence of faithfulness, although what we do with our wealth, however much of it we may have, would provide such evidence. OK, also perhaps how we acquired the wealth, but equally why we are in poverty. Thus, one might be in poverty because he/she simply refused to go the the ant to consider her ways, but instead insists on being a sluggard. That person would have been unfaithful. But the wealthy person who efficiently produced a great amount of food (milk, grain, what have you) and sold to the market at great profit has been faithful. Now, the wealthy person may or may not be faithful by what he/she then DOES with that wealth (talents given), but the acquisition of wealth is not per se an act of unfaithfulness.
Indeed, God is not "in a special way the God of the poor" (as the Belhar suggests). Rather, some have more material wealth and some less, in each case some for faithful and some for unfaithful reasons. And in whatever condition of material weath we are in, we all have challenges and temptations to overcome in order to be faithful. Jesus' warns that it is hard for the rich to enter God's kingdom because of the temptation of their wealth. But he warns those with less wealth of essentially the same in the parable where the servant with the fewest talents was judged for squandering them, and in the parable of the servants who were paid the same even though they had worked longer. "Do not covet," one of the big ten, cannot be said to only apply to the wealthy.
Your categorization scheme says, literally, I did not choose "kingdom service." I strongly object to that. I did, and still do choose "kingdom service." Indeed, your categorization scheme says most CRC members did not choose "kingdom service." I suspect most of them (though perhaps not all) would object as well.
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
When reading/counting overtures on the Belhar, there may not be "any clear line-up of opinion following geographical lines within the CRC," but there certainly is a very clear line-up on opinion on whether or not to adopt the Belhar as a confession.
Here's the bottom line (using numbers from this articles): of the 35 overtures, only three support adopting the Belhar as a fourth confession. That's only 8.6% (3 divided by 35). All other overtures (91.4%) explicitly or implicitly reject adopting the Belhar as a fourth confession. I would also argue that these positions are not, as suggested, "all over the map." I would suggest, being part of the process in my own classis, that many, perhaps most, of the overtures that propose adopting the Belhar as a testimony or "something else" were drafted/passed in order to offer a compromise, not as the classes' first choice position. The logic goes as follows: if we just say "no," maybe Synod will pass the Belhar as a confession, but if we say "no as a confession, but OK to pass it as a testimony," it might lessen the chances that the Belhar will be passed as a confession because it "offers a compromise."
I also am not a prophet, just a lawyer, but one who has spent many years providing advice to churches (CRC and otherwise) who are in "split" situations or having major controversy. Based on that, I don't want to predict either re the Belhar, but I would suggest that Synod 2012 would be so, so unwise to adopt the Belhar as the denomination's one-of-four foundational statements when 90%+ of the membership, calculating by extrapolating classical overtures, do not want that. Indeed, I would suggest it would be dramatically unwise not to REQUIRE at least a two-thirds majority for adopting a foundational confession. If a church or any other organization is constantly battling to get 51% of the votes on matters as important/foundational as these, that church/organization is asking to be in near-constant internal conflict. Which is a more than a bit of where the CRCNA is these days.