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.
Wendy: Thanks for the reply, and I'll repeat what I said in my prior post: that "I suspect I 'know what you mean,' but ..." Please don't stop posting online on "complex issues." I think one of the great values of the Network is it allows these kinds of conversations to occur. I think they are almost always edifying.
I actually remember the Banner Q&A you refer to and cringed when I read it. I would have given a very different answer: When a parent "discourages" his child from going into nonprofit work because the parent is concerned the child wouldn't be able to afford to support a family or Christian schools, the parent isn't necessarily being irresponsible, but might be extremely responsible.
I personally have discouraged some Christians from taking certain nonprofit work (or other work for that matter), based on economic considerations. There are all sorts of jobs in the world, ranging from those providing millions in compensation to those providing zero (some of my jobs pay me, some don't pay me at all). I remember when my wife and I moved to Oregon (I was going to attend law school). She received an offer to teach at a Christian School for an annual salary of $3000. She didn't take that, nor did I think she should, but instead took a teaching job at a public school that paid $9,000 (this was a long time ago of course). My law school tuition was $3000. We couldn't get through the basics of life if she took the $3000 job. Ironically, the Christian School verbalized that they couldn't pay more because paying more meant they wouldn't be able to do as kingdom work. There was and still is something wrong with that picture (and the school closed down within a couple of years of our moving out).
You say in your response, "I do think it's wrong if people resist the call to do kingdom work if they are gifted in that area simply because they feel they won't make enough money." OK, but it will never be "simply because they feel they won't make enough money." And gifts (talents) can never be used "just in one way" or "just in one job." Realistically taking into account the economic aspects of any particular occupation (or more likely a particular job) is always, ALWAYS, responsible (in fact, doing otherwise is not) . Even in the Banner Q&A, two parental concerns were provided in the question: one being family (quite important, even a first priority) and Christian education (which relates to paying for what your children need, which again is a first priority). I'm not actually seeing the "wrong-ness" here, and perhaps am seeing a lot of "right-ness." For the advising parent, this wasn't about money per se but about taking care of family (which happens to require money). Now, I can come up with examples of "wrong-ness relating to money and jobs, but I'm not seeing it in the Banner Q&A.
I guess what I'm also saying is that it is good that we (communally) watch out for easy or even simple answers (which the Banner's Q&A often give I think) because they are so often wrong. And that cliche phrases ("kindgom work," as if some work is not?) sometimes form our actually operative thinking categories in bad ways even though our professed theology/worldview/tradition is otherwise.
With respect, I don't know why one would presume that Synod has some sort of monopoly, or even is specially gifted, to pray, or seek reliance upon the Holy Spirit, or to open itself to the voice and leading of God. Nor do I understand why one would presume that those opposed to the adopting the Belhar, probably including over 90% of classical delegates, have not prayed, or sought reliance upon the Holy Spirit, and have not opened themselves to the voice or leading of God, regarding the Belhar.
There was a nationwide tour lead by Peter Borgdorf among CRC membership in which he explained, even pitched for, the adoption of the Belhar. His doing so, and the actions of those members who came to those meetings, as well as those who didn't but have engaged themselves in the discussions and deliberations a prior synod has requested members engage in, should not be presumed to have been done withoug reliance upon the Holy Spirit that "only delegates to Synod can do." Again, respectfully, that is an offensive idea and assertion (if only by implication).
In the reformed tradition, we have come to believe in the priesthood of the believer. I'm a bit astounded by the suggestion that regardless of what CRC members say, by whatever numbers, delegates to synod know better (or are "more guided by the Holy Spirit") just because they are delegates to synod and so are able to invoke God's guidance in ways mere members cannot. This smacks of Romanism, something quite foreign to the reformed tradition, and, in my mind, is a violation, as least in spirit, of our own Church Order Article 85, which suggests that holders of office ought not "lord it over" others in the CRC.
This perspective particularly concerns me because Synod has been reduced to one week (I was at Synod 1992 and two weeks was too short for true deliberation), and because the denominational beauracracy has expended considerable effort "pitching for" the Behlar (Exhibit A is the rather well done multimedia pitch video hosted by the CRC website, not to mention the Borgdorf tour). If synodical deliberation was the only way to invoke the guidance of the Holy Spirit, why cut its deliberation time in half?
I would suggest that denominational decisions, even those as fundamental as choosing our foundational confessions, are increasingly made from the top down, without regard to the perspective of the bottom up (which I would argue is as guided by the Holy Spirit as that from the top down). In that sense, the better question to ask here is whether synodical delegates believe they should seek private and special counsel from the Holy Spirit as to the Belhar and disregard the deliberations of the members (the bottom up) has having any meaning at all.
Interestingly, my church was the first in the denomination that (un-named) attempted to rip from the denomination in the early 1990's (over WICO). What was astounding to me was the pronouncement of the elders who were inclined to follow the lead of (un-named). In an attempt to justify actions I would described here with particularity, they confidently pronounced that they were only responsible to God for their decisions. Very high sounding of course (although it also sounded like a cult), and a claim that silenced the voices of many, but that perspective resulted in little more than an excuse for disregarding the voices and perspectives around them (not to mention rules they had covenanted to follow). Should the delegates to Synod 2012 decide they have a monopoly on God's guidance, refuse to give due respect to the voices and perspectives of CRC members, they will be a bit like the elders of my church back in the early 1990's. (Don't misunderstand -- I don't believe 2012 delegates will do that).
If the CRCNA's top-down does not want to listen to its bottom-up, including lowly members who hold no office, it will, in my mind, have rejected the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not to mention Christ's constant reminders that the kingdom of heaven is upside down when viewed by worldly perspective.
James: Thanks for diving in, and especially your research into past synodical acts.
You find remarkable that what I wrote/proposed sounded a lot like the language of the Belhar. I'd like to explain that.
I agree there is much in the Belhar that I have no disagreement with. In fact, measured by the number of used words, I think I can say with certainly that I have no disagreement with MOST of what the Belhar says. Indeed, were the Belhar minus its Section 4 (which BTW says nothing about race), I don't think I'd have strong negative feelings about the Belhar. (I want to be honest, though: I've often thought we say too much in our already existing confessions, especially because they are are "constitutional in nature," and the Belhar tends to merely add to that problem without adding anything really new -- except Section 4 of course).
So what do I think is wrong with Section 4? Quite a bit. Not only is it simply wrong to say "that God is ... in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged", it is wrong in a way that will quoted as justification for the CRCNA's already happening, wrong-headed plunge into left wing oriented political action.
The litany of items in Section 4 can "kind of, sort of " be argued to be true, but the truths selected are just that: selected, cherry picked, read without regard to the context of the entirety of Scripture. The entirety of Section 4 will be used to move full speed ahead in a liberation theology tradition. That would be, in my mind, the end of the CRCNA as a historically reformed tradition.
So, what do I have against Liberation Theology? First, I don't disagree with everything LT stands for. I do believe in justice. My goodness, if my life has been about anything, it has been about justice. But LT does a couple of thing I consider completely at odds with the reformed tradition as held to by the CRC for many decades. First, LT transforms nearly all that used to be characterized as mercy into justice. Our CRCNA bylaws (from the 1990's) talk of mercy but never justice. Flash forward: today, if you do a word search of the CRC web site, you will find precious few references to mercy but incessant references to justice. (Or try WCRC.ch -- I can't find even one single reference to mercy there). Micah 6:8 (my favorite verse since decades ago -- hey, I'm a lawyer) has been transformed. It's no longer "do justice and love mercy" but rather "do justice and demand justice." This isn't just a symantic quibble. When people in need of mercy are told/taught should demand justice instead of see themselves as in need of mercy, they are enormously changed and damaged. In the US, the recharacterization of the need for mercy into a cause to demand justice has created multi-generationally established dependency for literally tens of millions. This is a terrible thing for a government or church to do people.
Second, LT casts nearly all social issues as battles between the oppressive wealthy and the oppressed poor. Certainly, any absolutization contains truth. The problem is the absolutization. Life is about more than relative degrees of material wealth and LT does not allow for much of anything else.
Third, LT, by definition, requires the church, AS INSTITUTION, to be a political force (Kuyperian sphere sovereignty thinking goes out the window). For LT, doing justice fo the poor demands that government, using the power of of the sword, make it happen (after all, government is predominantly involved with justice and has the guns). But LT demands that the church, AS INSTITUTION, be responsible for making sure justice happens. (See Belhar, "that the church must wintness against AND STRIVE AGAINST any form of injustice..."). Exactly how does the church, AS INSTITUTION, do that without becoming a political association that focuses on lobbying government and re-educating its membership about political issues?
Fourth, LT leaves very little time or resources for the institutional church to do anything else by "justice" because of the priority of "striv[ing] against any form of injustice." (Belhar, section 4) I'm a big believer in the James theme that we show our faith by our works, but LT too often only talks about works, and within that, only works that bring economic justice, and within that, works that are done or directed by the church, AS INSTITUTION.
You suggest the "Belhar does not breath LT nearly as much as some assert." I agree but only if you take out Section 4. Section 4 absolutely reeks with it. Moreover, I would suggest one gains additional perspective by looking at the subsequent Confession of those who gave us the "gift of the Belhar," which is the Accra Confession of course, which is perhaps the core operating document of the WCRC, which is much more political association than ecumenical organization. I consider Section 4 of the Belhar to be a short version primer for the Accra. Some would say we should take the Belhar on its own. I disagree. If the intent of the Belhar's authors is to be understood more clearly, to see what other statements the authors and givers of the Belhar are making.
Getting back to the beginning: the Belhar is not a mono-message document. Which is why I suggested that the resolution I proposed would probably pass unanimously in Synod, perhaps even unanimously in a vote taken of the CRC nationwide membership. I think that's how much we agree in the CRC that racism is sin. And that's consistent with the historical materials you provided. It is not new news that the CRCNA opposes and condemns racism. But the givers of the Belhar have packaged something very acceptable with something very objectionable and have asked the CRCNA to accept it as a package, and as a foundational 1-in-4 document at that.
First: I understand arguing that the Belhar is biblical. I don't understand, or even consider credible, the suggestion that there is "no argument" that the Belhar is biblical. That's like Al Gore saying this is no argument about anthropogenic global warming alarmism.
Second: I don't get your second point. Even if we assume for the sake of the argument that none of our confessions aren't intended to stand alone (I actually think both the Belgic and HC do that pretty good job), I don't understand that as an argument for what we need to adopt a rather poorly written document that has some highly objectionable points (e.g., God is not THE God of the poor and oppressed, but rather of all).
Third: Do you seriously think the CRCNA is in danger of supporting apartheid if we don't adopt the Belhar? It may be that for the South African church, passage of the Belhar was needed as a very wordy way of saying "racism is a sin," but they could and can do that without pushing on other churches the same wordy confession that says so much more than "racism is a sin."
Fourth: All kinds of people, majority and minority, suffer from rejection and injustice. Indeed, one of the problems with the Belhar, and it's advocates, is the implicit assumption that racism is a seething foundational motivation for nearly all injustice. Injustice is injustice, and the Belhar doesn't help make that clear, as perhaps illustrated by you own point four.
Fifth: Ah, this is the real reason I think most pro-Belhar folks want to see the Belhar passed -- it's seen as "progressive" and that's a good thing because it is presumed that "young people like progressive." I'm glad the CRC didn't take that approach in the 1960's with what was progressive/fashionable then, nor should it now. You suggest we can solve our declining membership by adding "the Belhar to the package we already have and we are back on the front page where the action is." Even if we could (although I don't think we can), that's simply not a reason to adopt the Belhar. I think you are looking for a form of denominational salvation in a place where it cannot be found. Indeed, I think passage of the Belhar would have the opposite effect, membership-wise, from what you presume, as suggested by the 90% of classical overtures for NOT adopting the Belhar. The Accra Confession (sequel to the Belhar, adopted by WCRC) is really cutting edge. Should we adopt that too?
There are quite a number of churches that are not moving in a so-called "progressive" direction that are doing just fine, and indeed much better, membership-wise, than the CRC. And in reality, very few churches of the reformed perspective have adopted the Belhar. Do you really think we have to be out in front with progessive doctrinal fashion in order to save ourselves from membership decline? I'm baffled by that sort of thinking. I actually think the opposite, although I also think it is far more important to be faithful than fashionable, regardless the membership effects.
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.
Posted in: Guard Against All Kinds of Greed - a Reflection on Luke 12
Wendy: Thanks for the reply, and I'll repeat what I said in my prior post: that "I suspect I 'know what you mean,' but ..." Please don't stop posting online on "complex issues." I think one of the great values of the Network is it allows these kinds of conversations to occur. I think they are almost always edifying.
I actually remember the Banner Q&A you refer to and cringed when I read it. I would have given a very different answer: When a parent "discourages" his child from going into nonprofit work because the parent is concerned the child wouldn't be able to afford to support a family or Christian schools, the parent isn't necessarily being irresponsible, but might be extremely responsible.
I personally have discouraged some Christians from taking certain nonprofit work (or other work for that matter), based on economic considerations. There are all sorts of jobs in the world, ranging from those providing millions in compensation to those providing zero (some of my jobs pay me, some don't pay me at all). I remember when my wife and I moved to Oregon (I was going to attend law school). She received an offer to teach at a Christian School for an annual salary of $3000. She didn't take that, nor did I think she should, but instead took a teaching job at a public school that paid $9,000 (this was a long time ago of course). My law school tuition was $3000. We couldn't get through the basics of life if she took the $3000 job. Ironically, the Christian School verbalized that they couldn't pay more because paying more meant they wouldn't be able to do as kingdom work. There was and still is something wrong with that picture (and the school closed down within a couple of years of our moving out).
You say in your response, "I do think it's wrong if people resist the call to do kingdom work if they are gifted in that area simply because they feel they won't make enough money." OK, but it will never be "simply because they feel they won't make enough money." And gifts (talents) can never be used "just in one way" or "just in one job." Realistically taking into account the economic aspects of any particular occupation (or more likely a particular job) is always, ALWAYS, responsible (in fact, doing otherwise is not) . Even in the Banner Q&A, two parental concerns were provided in the question: one being family (quite important, even a first priority) and Christian education (which relates to paying for what your children need, which again is a first priority). I'm not actually seeing the "wrong-ness" here, and perhaps am seeing a lot of "right-ness." For the advising parent, this wasn't about money per se but about taking care of family (which happens to require money). Now, I can come up with examples of "wrong-ness relating to money and jobs, but I'm not seeing it in the Banner Q&A.
I guess what I'm also saying is that it is good that we (communally) watch out for easy or even simple answers (which the Banner's Q&A often give I think) because they are so often wrong. And that cliche phrases ("kindgom work," as if some work is not?) sometimes form our actually operative thinking categories in bad ways even though our professed theology/worldview/tradition is otherwise.
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
With respect, I don't know why one would presume that Synod has some sort of monopoly, or even is specially gifted, to pray, or seek reliance upon the Holy Spirit, or to open itself to the voice and leading of God. Nor do I understand why one would presume that those opposed to the adopting the Belhar, probably including over 90% of classical delegates, have not prayed, or sought reliance upon the Holy Spirit, and have not opened themselves to the voice or leading of God, regarding the Belhar.
There was a nationwide tour lead by Peter Borgdorf among CRC membership in which he explained, even pitched for, the adoption of the Belhar. His doing so, and the actions of those members who came to those meetings, as well as those who didn't but have engaged themselves in the discussions and deliberations a prior synod has requested members engage in, should not be presumed to have been done withoug reliance upon the Holy Spirit that "only delegates to Synod can do." Again, respectfully, that is an offensive idea and assertion (if only by implication).
In the reformed tradition, we have come to believe in the priesthood of the believer. I'm a bit astounded by the suggestion that regardless of what CRC members say, by whatever numbers, delegates to synod know better (or are "more guided by the Holy Spirit") just because they are delegates to synod and so are able to invoke God's guidance in ways mere members cannot. This smacks of Romanism, something quite foreign to the reformed tradition, and, in my mind, is a violation, as least in spirit, of our own Church Order Article 85, which suggests that holders of office ought not "lord it over" others in the CRC.
This perspective particularly concerns me because Synod has been reduced to one week (I was at Synod 1992 and two weeks was too short for true deliberation), and because the denominational beauracracy has expended considerable effort "pitching for" the Behlar (Exhibit A is the rather well done multimedia pitch video hosted by the CRC website, not to mention the Borgdorf tour). If synodical deliberation was the only way to invoke the guidance of the Holy Spirit, why cut its deliberation time in half?
I would suggest that denominational decisions, even those as fundamental as choosing our foundational confessions, are increasingly made from the top down, without regard to the perspective of the bottom up (which I would argue is as guided by the Holy Spirit as that from the top down). In that sense, the better question to ask here is whether synodical delegates believe they should seek private and special counsel from the Holy Spirit as to the Belhar and disregard the deliberations of the members (the bottom up) has having any meaning at all.
Interestingly, my church was the first in the denomination that (un-named) attempted to rip from the denomination in the early 1990's (over WICO). What was astounding to me was the pronouncement of the elders who were inclined to follow the lead of (un-named). In an attempt to justify actions I would described here with particularity, they confidently pronounced that they were only responsible to God for their decisions. Very high sounding of course (although it also sounded like a cult), and a claim that silenced the voices of many, but that perspective resulted in little more than an excuse for disregarding the voices and perspectives around them (not to mention rules they had covenanted to follow). Should the delegates to Synod 2012 decide they have a monopoly on God's guidance, refuse to give due respect to the voices and perspectives of CRC members, they will be a bit like the elders of my church back in the early 1990's. (Don't misunderstand -- I don't believe 2012 delegates will do that).
If the CRCNA's top-down does not want to listen to its bottom-up, including lowly members who hold no office, it will, in my mind, have rejected the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not to mention Christ's constant reminders that the kingdom of heaven is upside down when viewed by worldly perspective.
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
James: Thanks for diving in, and especially your research into past synodical acts.
You find remarkable that what I wrote/proposed sounded a lot like the language of the Belhar. I'd like to explain that.
I agree there is much in the Belhar that I have no disagreement with. In fact, measured by the number of used words, I think I can say with certainly that I have no disagreement with MOST of what the Belhar says. Indeed, were the Belhar minus its Section 4 (which BTW says nothing about race), I don't think I'd have strong negative feelings about the Belhar. (I want to be honest, though: I've often thought we say too much in our already existing confessions, especially because they are are "constitutional in nature," and the Belhar tends to merely add to that problem without adding anything really new -- except Section 4 of course).
So what do I think is wrong with Section 4? Quite a bit. Not only is it simply wrong to say "that God is ... in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged", it is wrong in a way that will quoted as justification for the CRCNA's already happening, wrong-headed plunge into left wing oriented political action.
The litany of items in Section 4 can "kind of, sort of " be argued to be true, but the truths selected are just that: selected, cherry picked, read without regard to the context of the entirety of Scripture. The entirety of Section 4 will be used to move full speed ahead in a liberation theology tradition. That would be, in my mind, the end of the CRCNA as a historically reformed tradition.
So, what do I have against Liberation Theology? First, I don't disagree with everything LT stands for. I do believe in justice. My goodness, if my life has been about anything, it has been about justice. But LT does a couple of thing I consider completely at odds with the reformed tradition as held to by the CRC for many decades. First, LT transforms nearly all that used to be characterized as mercy into justice. Our CRCNA bylaws (from the 1990's) talk of mercy but never justice. Flash forward: today, if you do a word search of the CRC web site, you will find precious few references to mercy but incessant references to justice. (Or try WCRC.ch -- I can't find even one single reference to mercy there). Micah 6:8 (my favorite verse since decades ago -- hey, I'm a lawyer) has been transformed. It's no longer "do justice and love mercy" but rather "do justice and demand justice." This isn't just a symantic quibble. When people in need of mercy are told/taught should demand justice instead of see themselves as in need of mercy, they are enormously changed and damaged. In the US, the recharacterization of the need for mercy into a cause to demand justice has created multi-generationally established dependency for literally tens of millions. This is a terrible thing for a government or church to do people.
Second, LT casts nearly all social issues as battles between the oppressive wealthy and the oppressed poor. Certainly, any absolutization contains truth. The problem is the absolutization. Life is about more than relative degrees of material wealth and LT does not allow for much of anything else.
Third, LT, by definition, requires the church, AS INSTITUTION, to be a political force (Kuyperian sphere sovereignty thinking goes out the window). For LT, doing justice fo the poor demands that government, using the power of of the sword, make it happen (after all, government is predominantly involved with justice and has the guns). But LT demands that the church, AS INSTITUTION, be responsible for making sure justice happens. (See Belhar, "that the church must wintness against AND STRIVE AGAINST any form of injustice..."). Exactly how does the church, AS INSTITUTION, do that without becoming a political association that focuses on lobbying government and re-educating its membership about political issues?
Fourth, LT leaves very little time or resources for the institutional church to do anything else by "justice" because of the priority of "striv[ing] against any form of injustice." (Belhar, section 4) I'm a big believer in the James theme that we show our faith by our works, but LT too often only talks about works, and within that, only works that bring economic justice, and within that, works that are done or directed by the church, AS INSTITUTION.
You suggest the "Belhar does not breath LT nearly as much as some assert." I agree but only if you take out Section 4. Section 4 absolutely reeks with it. Moreover, I would suggest one gains additional perspective by looking at the subsequent Confession of those who gave us the "gift of the Belhar," which is the Accra Confession of course, which is perhaps the core operating document of the WCRC, which is much more political association than ecumenical organization. I consider Section 4 of the Belhar to be a short version primer for the Accra. Some would say we should take the Belhar on its own. I disagree. If the intent of the Belhar's authors is to be understood more clearly, to see what other statements the authors and givers of the Belhar are making.
Getting back to the beginning: the Belhar is not a mono-message document. Which is why I suggested that the resolution I proposed would probably pass unanimously in Synod, perhaps even unanimously in a vote taken of the CRC nationwide membership. I think that's how much we agree in the CRC that racism is sin. And that's consistent with the historical materials you provided. It is not new news that the CRCNA opposes and condemns racism. But the givers of the Belhar have packaged something very acceptable with something very objectionable and have asked the CRCNA to accept it as a package, and as a foundational 1-in-4 document at that.
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
Al: Responding:
First: I understand arguing that the Belhar is biblical. I don't understand, or even consider credible, the suggestion that there is "no argument" that the Belhar is biblical. That's like Al Gore saying this is no argument about anthropogenic global warming alarmism.
Second: I don't get your second point. Even if we assume for the sake of the argument that none of our confessions aren't intended to stand alone (I actually think both the Belgic and HC do that pretty good job), I don't understand that as an argument for what we need to adopt a rather poorly written document that has some highly objectionable points (e.g., God is not THE God of the poor and oppressed, but rather of all).
Third: Do you seriously think the CRCNA is in danger of supporting apartheid if we don't adopt the Belhar? It may be that for the South African church, passage of the Belhar was needed as a very wordy way of saying "racism is a sin," but they could and can do that without pushing on other churches the same wordy confession that says so much more than "racism is a sin."
Fourth: All kinds of people, majority and minority, suffer from rejection and injustice. Indeed, one of the problems with the Belhar, and it's advocates, is the implicit assumption that racism is a seething foundational motivation for nearly all injustice. Injustice is injustice, and the Belhar doesn't help make that clear, as perhaps illustrated by you own point four.
Fifth: Ah, this is the real reason I think most pro-Belhar folks want to see the Belhar passed -- it's seen as "progressive" and that's a good thing because it is presumed that "young people like progressive." I'm glad the CRC didn't take that approach in the 1960's with what was progressive/fashionable then, nor should it now. You suggest we can solve our declining membership by adding "the Belhar to the package we already have and we are back on the front page where the action is." Even if we could (although I don't think we can), that's simply not a reason to adopt the Belhar. I think you are looking for a form of denominational salvation in a place where it cannot be found. Indeed, I think passage of the Belhar would have the opposite effect, membership-wise, from what you presume, as suggested by the 90% of classical overtures for NOT adopting the Belhar. The Accra Confession (sequel to the Belhar, adopted by WCRC) is really cutting edge. Should we adopt that too?
There are quite a number of churches that are not moving in a so-called "progressive" direction that are doing just fine, and indeed much better, membership-wise, than the CRC. And in reality, very few churches of the reformed perspective have adopted the Belhar. Do you really think we have to be out in front with progessive doctrinal fashion in order to save ourselves from membership decline? I'm baffled by that sort of thinking. I actually think the opposite, although I also think it is far more important to be faithful than fashionable, regardless the membership effects.
Posted in: Guard Against All Kinds of Greed - a Reflection on Luke 12
Bill: You were a police officer for 30 years and apparently did your job (at least tried to) in a manner consistent with your faith and worldview.
In my thinking, you were, literally, doing "kingdom work."