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.
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.
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."
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.