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.
Respectfully Dawn, you acknowledge the argument (re women in certain offices) but you have neither time nor respect for those whose conclusions on the question differ from your own. What you write denigrates those who hold that different position by equating their positions with positions on other questions that none of them would have.
The source of this irreconcilability is not that the "culture of classis is fatally ill" but that some, including you, wish to stay within the denomination (a structure that includes classis) but yet insist that it must change as you dictate to fit with your conclusions.
Again, respectfully, I think it would be better for the church (the 'holy catholic or universal' one) if you decided to to associate with an church institution tradition other than that of the CRCNA. Paul and Barnabas separated over a difference. It may be that you and the CRCNA should as well.
Actually, I don't understand how that (classes who do not seat women) "tugs at your conscience." I suspect I understand how disagreeable that is for you, but not how it "tugs at your conscience." I think you tend to characterize things so that you will always look good and reasonable and those on the other side bad and unreasonable. I don't think you have any concern or inclination to understand or empathize with the position of others on this question.
Dawn: While I agree with you on the narrow question, I don't agree as to what you find in Scripture. Paul did lock out women from teaching or having authority over women. The OT sign of the covenant locked out women from having the sign. Jesus did lock out women from being among his twelve disciples.
Conversely, I can find nothing in Scripture where races were locked out of anything.
Richard: I re-read my post and don't find either mischaracterizations or a dearth of gracious understanding. Certainly, I know I wrote nothing in anger or with the intent to be less than respectful. Your own post says, and I quote,
"we must stop compromising with the cry-baby, foot-stompers who threaten
to leave or walk out should we decide "X." I say, let 'em go. If not, let's just admit
that we prefer to be held hostage by cry-babies and foot-stompers. Besides,
if their commitment to us, is that shallow and fragile, they are already admitting
that their primary loyalties lie more with themselves than with the covenant we
have together as this part of the Body of Christ to which they claim to belong."
The differences between my post and yours are two: (1) I use much less name-calling, (2) I talk directly to the person who isn't going to like what I say instead of say things about not-specifically-named others.
I meant "respectfully" when I said that. Still, there's a time to call a spade a spade. In your post, you bemoaned a lack of willingness to submit. I'm being specific about applying that admonition, not with name-calling words or words that are hyperbolic or gratuitously sharp, but still directly.
And perhaps we have a different definition for "conscience." When one decides he/she is aggrieved, repeatedly asks others how they would feel if, like he/she, they were the analogical object of racism, one is feeling victimized but not a tug of conscience. He/she is, after all, not the perpetrator of the analogical racism but the victim of it. And just sometimes, actually often, when we are convinced we are the victim, we think we have a special license -- because of the victim status -- to interact with others in ways we ourselves would deem unacceptable.
The church is simply not benefitted, but harmed, by repeated accusations of analogical racism (among other analogies, e.g., slave-keeping) against those who sincerely hold the position that Scripture does not allow for women to hold certain offices. Keep in mind, my view is that the church should allow women to hold those offices. Still, I respect, and insist on respect for, those who disagree out of Scripture based motivation. Our church (denomination) made a decision about this and some classes are following that decision, respectfully, but then are called analogical racists, perhaps "cry-babies" and "foot-stompers" as well (not to mention members of a culture resembling "stagnant water"). At some point, it's time to object to the characterizations, describe these (mis)characterizations as what they are, and suggest a biblically consistent resolution (separating) if some just can't live with that (or at least stop with the characterizations). I thought it was that time, understanding and respecting your right to disagree. And Dawn's right too.
Paul: I'm going to suggest there may be a couple of problems.
First, "social justice" is a "liberal term." More specifically, it is a code-phrase for a certain political perspective that some (many?) of your kids -- and/or their parents -- may not adhere to.
Second, the term (social justice) itself is problematic. It only speaks of "justice" and not "mercy" (your posts discusses mercy but the term "social justice" does not). Certainly, we must do justice (as Micah 6:8 says), but the current fashionable political perspective (which created the phrase "social justice") wants to talk only of justice and never (or rarely) of mercy, and wants to, literally, recharacterize that which should be described as "mercy" as "justice." Why? Because that is a political statement: the poor are poor only because they are oppressed, which means "poor-ness" is always the result of injustice -- oppression by others. The use of "mercy" implies there is no injustice done, that someone is giving out of love but not because justice demands it. "Social justice" thinking just doesn't like talk of mercy because that would imply condescension.
"Social justice" is a close cousin to "liberation theology," which is a close cousin to neo-Marxism. All three represent political perspectives more than anything else.
Finally, when you say "Others have a flawed logic that if poor people just worked harder, they wouldn’t be poor," you somewhat belie your bias. In fact, that is sometimes the case. Sometimes it's not the case as well, but sometimes it is. In addition, there are times where the decisions people make (e.g., not to finish high school, to have a child without benefit of marriage, to spend money unwisely, etc.) cause them to be poor. I'm not suggesting that we (as Christ's representatives) should ignore people who don't work harder or make bad decisions, but helping them is not then a matter of "justice" but rather of "mercy."
Understand the possibility that whenever you talk about "doing justice to others", those you talk to may be understanding you to say that they have done injustice to those others. If they feel accused, the accusation may bother them, in part because the accusation is itself unjustice.
I think it is helpful in all of this to examine claims of "conscience violation." When issues like this are raised, folks (generally on both extremes of perspective) are quick to claim their "conscience is violated." Certainly, one's conscience can be violated, but that is when one does something one knows one shoudn't do. It does NOT happened, and cannot be legitimately claimed, when one is simply in opposition to someone else doing something or taking some position, which is often the basis for the claim in the women-in-office discussion.
So if you do something to me that you shouldn't (e.g., don't repay a loan I gave you, or hit me for no reason), I can have a number of responses but not (at least with credibility) that you violated my conscience.
In the CRC, we've gotten the habit of claiming conscience violations for doctrinal disagreements because it works a bit like the rook card in the game of Rook. Trumps everything and everyone tends to step back because of your sacred invocation of right. And the more we get that response, the more we claim it.
If don't believe women should be pastors, but I go to a CRC church in a distant city and they have a woman pastor (I didn't know ahead of time of course), I really can't claim that being exposed to that woman violated by conscience. Or if I can claim it, it is because I refused to walk out when I thought I was required to and could have but didn't. She didn't violate my conscience, nor did the council who put her in the pulpit.
Applied to any who may claim conscience violations when women attend their classis meetings: well, that your problem; she doesn't violate your conscience, only you can.
Applied to any who may claim that their conscience is violated when their council doesn't allow women as elders in their church: what are you talking about; you're simply disagreeing with someone else making a decision that they, not you, made; how can that violate your conscience?
Getting to the core of the issue (in discussing it at least) will mean, then, dropping most of these "violations of conscience" claims -- getting rid of the rook and trump color tactics -- and talking more directly about what we have concluded what we have concluded.
Chris: The term ('social justice') may have roots (or at least a root) in Catholicism but that doesn't mean it's not liberal (nor is Catholicism "all about the sanctity of human life" -- it's a big church with lot of views and lots of doctrines).
Indeed, Catholicism is also the historic source of "liberation theology" (the Protestant version generally referred to as "social gospel) and the two, or three, phrases, "social justice," "liberation theology," and "social gospel," are all phrases within a largely single perspective. For a good summary, check out Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice ). However "social justice" may be characterized, "conservative" is not one of them.
Understand of course that "liberal" and "conservative" are relative terms (thus, a conservative in the US tends to want limited government while a conservative in Russia wants dictatorial government). But we're in the US, talking about US/English words and phrases, as are the parents (and children) of CRC church youth groups. Were we in Russia, "social justice" would indeed be "conservative."
I think there is a pretty big disconnect between the denominational bureacracy and the CRC membership in this area. Via our membership in the WCRC and a number of activities of our CRC agencies (OSJ and others), the denominational bureaucracy is embracing, promoting, and advocating political centrism (lots of government control over society) and forced (government controlled) egalitarianism -- all under the banner of "social justice." That would make sense in a Catholic tradition, but not in a Calvinist tradition. The historic Catholic tradition rarely opposed centristic government control. In fact, the middle ages is a long story of the Catholic tradition promoting, even seizing that centristic government control (and the Catholic church governance structure is very heirarchical, in contrast to that of the various Calvinist traditions). Catholic tradition embraced monarchy; but the various Calvinist traditions wanted decentralized authority (sphere sovereignty if you will). Only recently, and especially in the US, Catholics have been rethinking their political perspectives and becoming much more conservative, that is, de-centrist in their political thinking.
And this is the problem that Paul Boice's families may be having. When most CRC folk (members, not denominational bureacracy) hear the phrase "social justice," they hear (for good reason) Van Jones, green parties, Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas, Barak Obama -- all of which have two political perspective points in common: (1) that which used to be regarded as "mercy" is now recast as a matter of justice, which means a matter of political right; (2) government should enforce political rights, including matters of justice, including the right to economic equality.
Interestly, even though Paul Boice's lead post begins with talk of "social justice," it continues more by referring to mercy, even describing the projects undertaken as "mercy projects." Justice and mercy are two different things. Christians should "do justice" and they should "love mercy," but they should not confuse the two, and the current fashionable use of the phrase "social justice" does just that, confusing not only the two concepts, but the people with whom the phrase is used in conversation. And so when Paul takes his kids back from doing "mercy projects," he finds no objection but rather enthusiasm for what was done. Makes sense. When he talked first about "social justice," he got a cool response; but then when he engaged the kids in "mercy projects," he found families supportive. His initial communication was not in sync with the projects actually undertaken.
Please don't misunderstand my perspective. I'm all for "mercy" and "mercy projects." I advocate for them, I do them personally -- a lot (because I'm a decentrist). I'm also all for "justice," having spent more than a little of my 32 years of law practice obtaining justice for clients (not infrequently at no or little charge). But I don't confuse the two, and I don't advocate for government to be our society's mechanism for doing mercy (justice yes, mercy no). In fact, I would suggest that confusing the two, and miscasting the role of government as to justice and mercy, leads to dramatically bad results.
Dawn: You say, "I do not think anyone really thinks that we should act in a way that counters our beliefs."
Assuming you are not kidding, I and most other people in the world conform to things we disagree with all of our lives. Children sincerely believe they should be allowed to do this or that, or allowed not to do this or that, but their parents insist otherwise. Growing up as adults doesn't change that. Some adults sincerely believe they should keep their money instead of giving it to the government (for all kinds of reasons), or that they should be allowed to ride their motorcycle without a helmet, or talk in their cell phone while driving, etc etc etc etc etc. I even conform to what my wife says, sometimes, and she sometimes to what I say, in each case including about things counter to our own beliefs.
Could be that I'm a lawyer, but I just see acting in conformity to be forced upon all of us everyday. Without that, we don't even have a political society, let alone a church, or even a family.
So yes, I do think we should -- often -- act in ways that counters our beliefs.
You say, "That is what I am asked to do as a member of the CRC, feeling wrenched by the fact that I am willing to be a member of a country club that does not permit black tee times." Hey, I feel wrench by big things and and little things, including that I can't speak my mind respectully on this forum without being censored. And yet I conform.
Your solution, really, to your feeling wrenched, is to not be "willing to be a member...". I can't stand what certain political parties advocate for, and so I'm not a member. Indeed, I'm not a member of any political party.
But you want more. You want to keep the CRC banging on the drum. Well, not argue about the women-in-office question anymore (you've said you don't want to argue that anymore), but you do want to, as Michael Bentley suggests, "silenc[e] hermeneutical opponents by eliminating denominational structure?"
Again, I actually agree with your position that women should be allowed to be pastors and elders. What I disagree with is that the decision the denomination made should be continually pounded on. At some point, we need to agree to disagree, and getting rid of classis as a denominational structure is not that. Nor is characterizing those who disagree with your position as being analogical racists and slave keepers. At some point, we need to submit to the decisions made or decide we want out.
You were right, I think, when you observed that the CRC is a "dying denomination." I think it is that in no small part because too many simply want things their way and refuse to see themselves as ever having to "act in a way that counters their beliefs."
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: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Respectfully Dawn, you acknowledge the argument (re women in certain offices) but you have neither time nor respect for those whose conclusions on the question differ from your own. What you write denigrates those who hold that different position by equating their positions with positions on other questions that none of them would have.
The source of this irreconcilability is not that the "culture of classis is fatally ill" but that some, including you, wish to stay within the denomination (a structure that includes classis) but yet insist that it must change as you dictate to fit with your conclusions.
Again, respectfully, I think it would be better for the church (the 'holy catholic or universal' one) if you decided to to associate with an church institution tradition other than that of the CRCNA. Paul and Barnabas separated over a difference. It may be that you and the CRCNA should as well.
Actually, I don't understand how that (classes who do not seat women) "tugs at your conscience." I suspect I understand how disagreeable that is for you, but not how it "tugs at your conscience." I think you tend to characterize things so that you will always look good and reasonable and those on the other side bad and unreasonable. I don't think you have any concern or inclination to understand or empathize with the position of others on this question.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Dawn: While I agree with you on the narrow question, I don't agree as to what you find in Scripture. Paul did lock out women from teaching or having authority over women. The OT sign of the covenant locked out women from having the sign. Jesus did lock out women from being among his twelve disciples.
Conversely, I can find nothing in Scripture where races were locked out of anything.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Richard: I re-read my post and don't find either mischaracterizations or a dearth of gracious understanding. Certainly, I know I wrote nothing in anger or with the intent to be less than respectful. Your own post says, and I quote,
"we must stop compromising with the cry-baby, foot-stompers who threaten
to leave or walk out should we decide "X." I say, let 'em go. If not, let's just admit
that we prefer to be held hostage by cry-babies and foot-stompers. Besides,
if their commitment to us, is that shallow and fragile, they are already admitting
that their primary loyalties lie more with themselves than with the covenant we
have together as this part of the Body of Christ to which they claim to belong."
The differences between my post and yours are two: (1) I use much less name-calling, (2) I talk directly to the person who isn't going to like what I say instead of say things about not-specifically-named others.
I meant "respectfully" when I said that. Still, there's a time to call a spade a spade. In your post, you bemoaned a lack of willingness to submit. I'm being specific about applying that admonition, not with name-calling words or words that are hyperbolic or gratuitously sharp, but still directly.
And perhaps we have a different definition for "conscience." When one decides he/she is aggrieved, repeatedly asks others how they would feel if, like he/she, they were the analogical object of racism, one is feeling victimized but not a tug of conscience. He/she is, after all, not the perpetrator of the analogical racism but the victim of it. And just sometimes, actually often, when we are convinced we are the victim, we think we have a special license -- because of the victim status -- to interact with others in ways we ourselves would deem unacceptable.
The church is simply not benefitted, but harmed, by repeated accusations of analogical racism (among other analogies, e.g., slave-keeping) against those who sincerely hold the position that Scripture does not allow for women to hold certain offices. Keep in mind, my view is that the church should allow women to hold those offices. Still, I respect, and insist on respect for, those who disagree out of Scripture based motivation. Our church (denomination) made a decision about this and some classes are following that decision, respectfully, but then are called analogical racists, perhaps "cry-babies" and "foot-stompers" as well (not to mention members of a culture resembling "stagnant water"). At some point, it's time to object to the characterizations, describe these (mis)characterizations as what they are, and suggest a biblically consistent resolution (separating) if some just can't live with that (or at least stop with the characterizations). I thought it was that time, understanding and respecting your right to disagree. And Dawn's right too.
Posted in: Seek Justice, Love Mercy, Walk Humbly...in Youth Group
Paul: I'm going to suggest there may be a couple of problems.
First, "social justice" is a "liberal term." More specifically, it is a code-phrase for a certain political perspective that some (many?) of your kids -- and/or their parents -- may not adhere to.
Second, the term (social justice) itself is problematic. It only speaks of "justice" and not "mercy" (your posts discusses mercy but the term "social justice" does not). Certainly, we must do justice (as Micah 6:8 says), but the current fashionable political perspective (which created the phrase "social justice") wants to talk only of justice and never (or rarely) of mercy, and wants to, literally, recharacterize that which should be described as "mercy" as "justice." Why? Because that is a political statement: the poor are poor only because they are oppressed, which means "poor-ness" is always the result of injustice -- oppression by others. The use of "mercy" implies there is no injustice done, that someone is giving out of love but not because justice demands it. "Social justice" thinking just doesn't like talk of mercy because that would imply condescension.
"Social justice" is a close cousin to "liberation theology," which is a close cousin to neo-Marxism. All three represent political perspectives more than anything else.
Finally, when you say "Others have a flawed logic that if poor people just worked harder, they wouldn’t be poor," you somewhat belie your bias. In fact, that is sometimes the case. Sometimes it's not the case as well, but sometimes it is. In addition, there are times where the decisions people make (e.g., not to finish high school, to have a child without benefit of marriage, to spend money unwisely, etc.) cause them to be poor. I'm not suggesting that we (as Christ's representatives) should ignore people who don't work harder or make bad decisions, but helping them is not then a matter of "justice" but rather of "mercy."
Understand the possibility that whenever you talk about "doing justice to others", those you talk to may be understanding you to say that they have done injustice to those others. If they feel accused, the accusation may bother them, in part because the accusation is itself unjustice.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
I think it is helpful in all of this to examine claims of "conscience violation." When issues like this are raised, folks (generally on both extremes of perspective) are quick to claim their "conscience is violated." Certainly, one's conscience can be violated, but that is when one does something one knows one shoudn't do. It does NOT happened, and cannot be legitimately claimed, when one is simply in opposition to someone else doing something or taking some position, which is often the basis for the claim in the women-in-office discussion.
So if you do something to me that you shouldn't (e.g., don't repay a loan I gave you, or hit me for no reason), I can have a number of responses but not (at least with credibility) that you violated my conscience.
In the CRC, we've gotten the habit of claiming conscience violations for doctrinal disagreements because it works a bit like the rook card in the game of Rook. Trumps everything and everyone tends to step back because of your sacred invocation of right. And the more we get that response, the more we claim it.
If don't believe women should be pastors, but I go to a CRC church in a distant city and they have a woman pastor (I didn't know ahead of time of course), I really can't claim that being exposed to that woman violated by conscience. Or if I can claim it, it is because I refused to walk out when I thought I was required to and could have but didn't. She didn't violate my conscience, nor did the council who put her in the pulpit.
Applied to any who may claim conscience violations when women attend their classis meetings: well, that your problem; she doesn't violate your conscience, only you can.
Applied to any who may claim that their conscience is violated when their council doesn't allow women as elders in their church: what are you talking about; you're simply disagreeing with someone else making a decision that they, not you, made; how can that violate your conscience?
Getting to the core of the issue (in discussing it at least) will mean, then, dropping most of these "violations of conscience" claims -- getting rid of the rook and trump color tactics -- and talking more directly about what we have concluded what we have concluded.
Posted in: Seek Justice, Love Mercy, Walk Humbly...in Youth Group
Chris: The term ('social justice') may have roots (or at least a root) in Catholicism but that doesn't mean it's not liberal (nor is Catholicism "all about the sanctity of human life" -- it's a big church with lot of views and lots of doctrines).
Indeed, Catholicism is also the historic source of "liberation theology" (the Protestant version generally referred to as "social gospel) and the two, or three, phrases, "social justice," "liberation theology," and "social gospel," are all phrases within a largely single perspective. For a good summary, check out Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice ). However "social justice" may be characterized, "conservative" is not one of them.
Understand of course that "liberal" and "conservative" are relative terms (thus, a conservative in the US tends to want limited government while a conservative in Russia wants dictatorial government). But we're in the US, talking about US/English words and phrases, as are the parents (and children) of CRC church youth groups. Were we in Russia, "social justice" would indeed be "conservative."
I think there is a pretty big disconnect between the denominational bureacracy and the CRC membership in this area. Via our membership in the WCRC and a number of activities of our CRC agencies (OSJ and others), the denominational bureaucracy is embracing, promoting, and advocating political centrism (lots of government control over society) and forced (government controlled) egalitarianism -- all under the banner of "social justice." That would make sense in a Catholic tradition, but not in a Calvinist tradition. The historic Catholic tradition rarely opposed centristic government control. In fact, the middle ages is a long story of the Catholic tradition promoting, even seizing that centristic government control (and the Catholic church governance structure is very heirarchical, in contrast to that of the various Calvinist traditions). Catholic tradition embraced monarchy; but the various Calvinist traditions wanted decentralized authority (sphere sovereignty if you will). Only recently, and especially in the US, Catholics have been rethinking their political perspectives and becoming much more conservative, that is, de-centrist in their political thinking.
And this is the problem that Paul Boice's families may be having. When most CRC folk (members, not denominational bureacracy) hear the phrase "social justice," they hear (for good reason) Van Jones, green parties, Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas, Barak Obama -- all of which have two political perspective points in common: (1) that which used to be regarded as "mercy" is now recast as a matter of justice, which means a matter of political right; (2) government should enforce political rights, including matters of justice, including the right to economic equality.
Interestly, even though Paul Boice's lead post begins with talk of "social justice," it continues more by referring to mercy, even describing the projects undertaken as "mercy projects." Justice and mercy are two different things. Christians should "do justice" and they should "love mercy," but they should not confuse the two, and the current fashionable use of the phrase "social justice" does just that, confusing not only the two concepts, but the people with whom the phrase is used in conversation. And so when Paul takes his kids back from doing "mercy projects," he finds no objection but rather enthusiasm for what was done. Makes sense. When he talked first about "social justice," he got a cool response; but then when he engaged the kids in "mercy projects," he found families supportive. His initial communication was not in sync with the projects actually undertaken.
Please don't misunderstand my perspective. I'm all for "mercy" and "mercy projects." I advocate for them, I do them personally -- a lot (because I'm a decentrist). I'm also all for "justice," having spent more than a little of my 32 years of law practice obtaining justice for clients (not infrequently at no or little charge). But I don't confuse the two, and I don't advocate for government to be our society's mechanism for doing mercy (justice yes, mercy no). In fact, I would suggest that confusing the two, and miscasting the role of government as to justice and mercy, leads to dramatically bad results.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Dawn: You say, "I do not think anyone really thinks that we should act in a way that counters our beliefs."
Assuming you are not kidding, I and most other people in the world conform to things we disagree with all of our lives. Children sincerely believe they should be allowed to do this or that, or allowed not to do this or that, but their parents insist otherwise. Growing up as adults doesn't change that. Some adults sincerely believe they should keep their money instead of giving it to the government (for all kinds of reasons), or that they should be allowed to ride their motorcycle without a helmet, or talk in their cell phone while driving, etc etc etc etc etc. I even conform to what my wife says, sometimes, and she sometimes to what I say, in each case including about things counter to our own beliefs.
Could be that I'm a lawyer, but I just see acting in conformity to be forced upon all of us everyday. Without that, we don't even have a political society, let alone a church, or even a family.
So yes, I do think we should -- often -- act in ways that counters our beliefs.
You say, "That is what I am asked to do as a member of the CRC, feeling wrenched by the fact that I am willing to be a member of a country club that does not permit black tee times." Hey, I feel wrench by big things and and little things, including that I can't speak my mind respectully on this forum without being censored. And yet I conform.
Your solution, really, to your feeling wrenched, is to not be "willing to be a member...". I can't stand what certain political parties advocate for, and so I'm not a member. Indeed, I'm not a member of any political party.
But you want more. You want to keep the CRC banging on the drum. Well, not argue about the women-in-office question anymore (you've said you don't want to argue that anymore), but you do want to, as Michael Bentley suggests, "silenc[e] hermeneutical opponents by eliminating denominational structure?"
Again, I actually agree with your position that women should be allowed to be pastors and elders. What I disagree with is that the decision the denomination made should be continually pounded on. At some point, we need to agree to disagree, and getting rid of classis as a denominational structure is not that. Nor is characterizing those who disagree with your position as being analogical racists and slave keepers. At some point, we need to submit to the decisions made or decide we want out.
You were right, I think, when you observed that the CRC is a "dying denomination." I think it is that in no small part because too many simply want things their way and refuse to see themselves as ever having to "act in a way that counters their beliefs."