It's been a couple of years since the
CRC has been introduced to the
Belhar Confession. We are supposed in a time of reflection and study to see if it would be appropriate to add this as a fourth "confession" along with the
Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession and
Canons of Dort. Still, it seems that the
Interchurch Relations Committee (
IRC) certainly knows what we should do with it as seen in the title of their report:
"The Belhar Confession: What the CRC Can Do with This Gift." If we view it as a gift, why wouldn't we accept it, right?!? (Yes, you correctly read a bit of
facetiousness there). What are your thoughts about the
Belhar? Is this something
we need to adopt as confessional in status? Be assured that you won't be labelled a "racist" by offering a critique nor will you be tagged as a "liberal" is you find some merit. If you have any links to good reviews of the
Belhar or if your church would like to share it's reponse, please post that here as well.
For a copy of the
IRC's report to Synod, click
here.
we need to adopt as confessional in status? Be assured that you won't be labelled a "racist" by offering a critique nor will you be tagged as a "liberal" is you find some merit. If you have any links to good reviews of the Belhar or if your church would like to share it's reponse, please post that here as well.
Posts
8 comments:
My concerns follow a couple of lines of thinking:
1. This document was written for a completely different context - apartheid South Africa. Confessions are meant to state beliefs clearly to correct error. Some of the Dutch reformed churches approved of apartheid. So when the Belhar speaks to "forced separation" - this is something with which the CRC has no experience nor has it ever advocated such.
2. In light of current society norms, terms like "natural diversity" or "for the sake of diversity" are just too vague. It leaves open the door to insert homosexual behavior - or any other number of factors - as just another aspect of diversity. The point which states "Therefore, we reject any doctrine... which explicitly or implicitly maintains that descent or any other human or social factor should be consideration in determining membership of the church." Really?!? "any other human or social factor" shouldn't be considered for membership?!?! So polygamy can't bar someone from membership? A practicing pedophile shouldn't be kept from membership? We could also slip in a blatant adulterer... or dare we say "homosexual offender." These would all fall under "any other human or social factor."
Brian Polet from Holland, MI, wrote an editorial in the June, 2008 Banner that takes another angle. http://www.thebanner.org/magazine/article.cfm?article_id=1548
Also, Christian Renewal's March 26, 2008 issue, pages 14-15 have a brief critique - no web link that I know of.
Chad Steenwyk
Central Ave CRC
Holland, MI
I have posted many news articles (and sme brief questions) on the following website
http://belhar.blogspot.com/
under Comments under the section
Are you buying the Belhar?
I hope to write up something more formal. Of course, we've also discussed this over at CRC-Voices.
Dave in Kent
The following is taken from an article by Johan D. Tangelder, a retired CRC pastor.
"Cnfessing Churches in Confusing Times (4): New Creeds? Christian Renewal, March 26, 2008
The Belhar Confession
CRC Synod 2005 appointed a committee to revise the Contemporary Testimony, and Synod 2006 encouraged the study of the Belhar Confession and its consideration as a confession in the CRC. I suggest the CRC should not adopt the Belhar Confession as her own since it conflicts with the Three Forms of Unity.
The history of the Belhar Confession gives reason for caution. Throughout the 1970s Reformed theologians, working in conjunction with the Word Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC), gave considerable attention to sociopolitical issues,and especially to human rights. Of primary concern, however, was the struggle against racism and, therefore, apartheid. In its 1982 Ottawa meeting WARC was challenged to recognize that apartheid is a heresy, contrary to the gospel and inconsistent with the Reformed tradition. Shortly after Ottawa, the Dutch Reformed Mission Church of South Africa concluded that the burning issue of the day is justice and reconciliation. It formulated that conclusion in the Belhar Confession, which was formally approved by the church in 1986.
Significantly, it interprets the Gospel from the liberating perspective of a commitment to the poor. It goes beyond the struggle against apartheid. It states that the God revealed in Jesus Christ is “in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged,” who “calls his Church to follow him in this.” It confesses: “We believe “that the Church must therefore stand by people in any form of suffering and need, which implies, among other things, that the Church must witness against and strive against any form of injustice, so that justice may roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”
The theologians who worked on the Belhar Confession were strongly influenced by the thinking of the German theologian Jurgen Moltmann. His theology of hope gives a much broader vision of reality than a “merely” private version of salvation. He seems more concerned about this life than the life to come. Hence, he stressed the social nature of the Christian faith in the modern world.
Moltmann wrote, “From the first to last, and not merely in the epilogue, Christianity is eschatology, is hope, forward looking and forward moving, and therefore also revolutionizing and transforming the present.” For Moltmann, the Bible is not itself revelation and is not verbally inspired. It is a human response to the promises of God.
Moltmann also seems to have difficulty incorporating any thought of a future judgment as condemnation. If this is so, how can he recite the Apostles’ Creed in which we confess that Jesus Christ “shall come again to judge the living and the dead?” While we are waiting for the Lord’s coming, we must be actively involved in doing justice, helping the poor, etc. But the coming judgment is still a Biblical reality. I am thinking of Dante, who called the world “this little winnowing floor” (Paradise,22:151), alluding to Jesus’ warning that at the last judgment the wheat would be winnowed from the chaff.
How well has the Belhar Confession been received by various Reformed Churches in South Africa? In the ongoing union talks the place of this confession remains the chief obstacle for unification. A large majority of the delegates to three regional synods of the Dutch Reformed Church are in favour of unification with the other three denominations in the Dutch Reformed family in South Africa. However, the synods’ meeting in October also heard survey reports that fewer than half of the ministersin the DRC are prepared to accept it as a condition of unity. Those percentages have fallen from 52% willing to accept it in 2004 to 48% in the 2006 survey. In other words, the DRC churches are divided over a confession which is supposed to unify them. For example, the synods of the West Transvaal and the East Transvaal, in the centre of South Africa, have stated that they want to be under no obligation to accept the Belhar Confession as part of a new church order.
Do we need a 4th Confession? If we do, this is not it. Confessions need to arise from a pressing serious conflict in the church where the biblical position needs to be clearly spelled out. And while the Belhar deals with an important issue, it really isn't a conflict in the church. Yes, it is serious, but every moral issue in Scripture is serious as it pertains to God's Law. If we make a Confession based on every serious moral issue, we would be stacked high with all sorts of confessions. And while the issue of loving each other and races loving one another is an important 2nd table of the Law sort of thing, there really is not much of a conflict or disagreement in the church about that matter. Basically all of the church opposes racism...that's a no-brainer. Who is in favor of the church promoting a lack of Christ-like love?
On that issue alone, the Belhar Confession does not rise to the level of us needing it as a 4th Confession (to join the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dort). The churches are not crying out for it, and there is no great need for it. And we don't just adopt confessions on the basis that we don't have any major problems with it.
Now there are other reasons why not to adopt it as a confession. Maybe some others have some insight here.
Tyler Wagonmaker
Beaverdam CRC
Hudsonville, MI
Concerning confessions:
Perhaps someone can shed some light on these questions:
What are the standards that a statement has to meet in order to become a "confession?"
From a layman's perspective, on a purely functional basis (content aside):
1. A confession should be concise
2. Easy to follow with clear breaks in ideas
3. An available tool to preach and teach from
4. It should be able to speak for itself regardless of the age without the need for constant interpretation
The Belhar seems to be more of a statement and less of a confession. The reaction on the part of my family and friends to the Belhar is consistently that it is hard to understand. Could someone comment on this, are we not giving it adequate study?
What are theological standards for a confession or creed?
Would the Belhar accompany our 3 creeds or the 3 forms of unity?
The other creeds are exclusively devoted to confessing "who God is." The Belhar is primarily devoted to confessing "who man is." Is this ok?
Racism is sin. This issue can be combatted chiefly, more clearly and effectively from our Bible-believing pulpits. It is an issue that can only be reconciled through the preaching of the gospel of Christ. Do we also need this statement? Why?
I would appreciate any comments on the questions.
Thank you,
Mrs. Jeremiah Apol
Wayland CRC
jeremysarahapol@att.net
I am glad that one of my old professors from Calvin College, Dr. Richard Mouw, has weighed in against making the Belhar a confession.
http://www.netbloghost.com/mouw/?p=108
Excerpt:
Boesak was also instrumental in drafting the 1986 Belhar Confession, which I welcomed at the time as an important confessional statement about race relationships. He now appeals to that document in support of his advocacy for gay-lesbian ordination. In a recent insightful blog posting, “The Belhar Confession & God’s Final Revelation,” Violet Larson argues that this is a good reason to question the theological adequacy of the Belhar Confession, precisely because of the use to which it is being put these days by proponents of full inclusion on same-sex topics. I agree with her. While that document spoke forthrightly against the injustices of apartheid, it did not explicitly appeal to biblical authority. That it can now be seen by some of its drafters as capable of being extended to the full inclusion of active gays and lesbians in ministry says something about the weaknesses of Belhar—not as an important prophetic declaration in its original context, but as a statement that can stand on its own as a normative confession.
...
I can’t imagine that the Allan Boesak of the 1970s would have insisted that sexual activity should simply be treated under the vague rubric of “inclusion for all,” but must also be examined carefully under the authority of the written Word of God.
From Dave in Kent,WA
Via Dave in Kent
Kevin DeYoung has also weighed in on the Belhar:
http://heraldblog.squarespace.com/kevin-deyoung/2009/5/10/why-i-cant-quite-support-the-belhar-confession.html#comments
Why I Can't (Quite) Support the Belhar Confession
Sunday, May 10, 2009 at 3:59PM
I want to support the Belhar Confession. Like everyone else in the RCA, or virtually everyone, I think apartheid was evil, racism is wrong, and church unity is good. I like the idea of adopting a confession that comes from the Global South and may speak to non-whites in a way that our present confessions do not. I agree with most of the Belhar Confession, much of it simply a restatement of Scripture. I want to support Belhar—others I respect do. But in the end, I cannot.
First, there are a few lines that cannot be supported by Scripture. Here’s just one example: We believe that God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged. To be sure, the Bible is full of examples of God’s heart for the poor and the oppressed. But it goes too far to say he is in a special way a God to them. The covenant promise—I will be your God and you will be my people (language Belhar echoes here)—is for those who put their faith in God, not simply those who are poor or oppressed. In fact, Abraham, the man of faith and the model for all covenantal blessing (Gal. 3:5-9), was especially rich (Gen. 13:5-6). Is God less of God to him than to the poor man who rejects Christ? Was God a God to Job, Zacchaeus, Mary and Martha in a less special way because they were well-to-do? There are plenty of verses to support the contention that God cares for the poor and oppressed, but are there any verses to suggest that he is their covenantal God apart from faith? Or any verses to suggest that God looks on the believing poor with more favor than the believing non-poor? God does not show partiality to the poor, nor does he defer to the great (Lev. 19:15).
Second, I am concerned about what it will mean to confess the Belhar Confession as a denomination. I understand that possible abuses of the confession should not be a knock against the confession itself, but adopting the Belhar Confession only makes sense if we are actually going to confess it together. Thus, it becomes important to listen to how others are already “confessing” the Belhar.
Those advocating the adoption of Belhar do not simply want us to affirm an anti-apartheid document. They are passionate about Belhar because of its many perceived implications. The Commission on Christian Action in 2007 lauded Belhar because it spoke to so many issues before them, including the farm bill, Sudanese refugees, the Iraq War, socially screening RCA retirement funds, immigration policy, minimum wage increases, and America’s embargo of Cuba. Others in the RCA have suggested that Belhar applies to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, global economics, green house gas emissions, abortion, social welfare, and taxation policies. For many in the RCA, Belhar’s talk of justice lends support for almost any cause that can be put in the broad category of “social justice.”
And for some, “social justice” includes the affirmation of the homosexual lifestyle. This concern cannot be dismissed as fear-mongering. Allen Boesak, under whose leadership Belhar was first drafted, recently made headlines when he “dramatically insisted that the church’s Belhar Confession demands the defense of the full rights of gay members. When the synod rejected this, he announced his intention to resign from all church offices and left the synod floor with his wife” (The Banner, January, 16). If the man responsible for overseeing the first draft of the Belhar Confession asserts that support for homosexual unions and homosexual ordination is demanded by the Confession, why should we think that this document will not be used in the RCA to a similar end.
I’m not opposed in principle to a new confession. But a new confession should clarify some issue that is begging for clarification. While there may be pockets of insensitivity regarding race in our denomination, I don’t see where we are facing anything remotely close to the situation that prompted Belhar in South Africa in the 1980s. We do not honor the anti-apartheid cause by equating our situation to theirs.
Instead of clarifying, Belhar confuses. We are told it will apply to social justice issues, but how? It will speak to our need for unity, but in what way? It will urge reconciliation, but with whom? At this point in the life of our denomination, Belhar looks to me like a wax nose, which is exactly what confessions ought not to be. The right confessional statement settles issues; it doesn’t raise them.
I want to support the Belhar Confession. Its main thesis—God’s people should not be separated by race or ethnicity—is courageous and correct. But the Confession goes beyond Scripture in a few important places. And further, those who are most eager to confess Belhar in our denomination are often confessing a very different document than the anti-racism confession many of us read it to be.
P.S. A few weeks ago Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary, blogged about the unfortunate trajectory of his old friend, Allan Boesak (HT: Stephen Ley). Here's part of what Mouw said:
Boesak was also instrumental in drafting the 1986 Belhar Confession, which I welcomed at the time as an important confessional statement about race relationships. He now appeals to that document in support of his advocacy for gay-lesbian ordination. In a recent insightful blog posting, “The Belhar Confession & God’s Final Revelation, Violet Larson argues that this is a good reason to question the theological adequacy of the Belhar Confession, precisely because of the use to which it is being put these days by proponents of full inclusion on same-sex topics. I agree with her. While that document spoke forthrightly against the injustices of apartheid, it did not explicitly appeal to biblical authority. That it can now be seen by some of its drafters as capable of being extended to the full inclusion of active gays and lesbians in ministry says something about the weaknesses of Belhar—not as an important prophetic declaration in its original context, but as a statement that can stand on its own as a normative confession (emphasis mine).
Kevin DY | 6 Comments | Email Article | Print Article | Share Article
Reader Comments (6)
Kevin,
My thoughts exactly. But I fear, that the measure will pass; for two reasons. First, proponents will use the "guilt" factor, implying that rejection of the Belhar is an approval of racism. Second, I perceive that there are some who want to be able to say "We did it it first" as others denominations are now taking up the Belhar discussion.
The dangers you have illustrated are very real. We will be tied up with endless debate on these issues with proponents twisting the Belhar into almost unrecoginizable shapes.
I urge Synod delegates to vote NO on the inclusion of the Belhar as one of the Standards of Unity.
Scott Nichols
May 11, 2009 | Scott Nichols
Toward a solution,
If my house was on fire, the last thing I would do is adopt a resolution that supports, encourages, and fosters the use of fire trucks. Instead, I would grab a hose and call 911.
Instead of adopting another confession, why don't we preach, teach and live the GOSPEL? The best way to combat racism is to clearly live out the realities of the Gospel in the life and ministry of the church. (I support the aim of Belhar...I simply think Gospel preaching and teaching does a better job)
Steven
May 11, 2009 | Steven
That’s what Belhar has done to me, it raised questions. For most of the document, it looks good, if it remains in the context of race. It’s the vague notion of “justice” in articles 4&5 that gets confusing.
I’m not sure how many people know about “Our Song of Hope.” To my recollection it was a document that was an attempt at a new confession in the 70’s it was approved by the General Synod in ’78 as "a statement of the church's faith for use in its ministry of witness, teaching, and worship." If I would go to General Synod this year (I still may, because I am one of 2 alternates from the classis) I would vote “No” to the Belhar as a confession and maybe perhaps present it as a statement of the church’s faith regarding the sin of racism, ala something like “Our Song of Hope”. Though I’m still thinking through that.
Grace be with you,
Paul
May 12, 2009 | Paul Van Maaren
Kevin and other post-ers above,
I appreciate your thoughtful and fair evaluations of the Belhar Confession. I wonder if you might not be setting the bar a little too high. No standard says everything. No standard by itself is a very stable platform. They are written in historical contexts, often conflict, which accounts for the accents and emphases. The Canons of Dort come to mind as an example. It covers only a very narrow segment of Christian doctrine. It expresses things that we may believe, but it may also express them in a way we wouldn't phrase them today. What we have learned, over the centuries, is how to read and interpret (and frankly in the case of Dort--sometimes ignore) a Standard together. When I read your concerns about Belhar, what I hear is more concern about how we live into, use and learn to interpret Belhar together as a denomination. That will take time and trust--two things we often seem to lack. I wonder if the problem is less with actual contents of Belhar itself and more with a concern about our ability to learn to live and use Belhar together.
May 12, 2009 | Steve MVW
Thanks for the helpful post for those of us on the CRC side of the fence. Helpful insights for both our denominations as we consider this document.
May 12, 2009 | Todd Z.
"If the man responsible for overseeing the first draft of the Belhar Confession asserts that support for homosexual unions and homosexual ordination is demanded by the Confession, why should we think that this document will not be used in the RCA to a similar end."
This issue is of very grave concern for me as a RCA member. The reality is that the dialogue process has not accomplished much more than a survey, sharing of feelings..., but no definitive conclusion or recommendation. The RCA would better off to reaffirm our position on this issue prior to affirming the Belhar so that it is not misused.
May 12, 2009 | Fred Dykema
I am uncomfortable with the Belhar. Several people here have referenced different blogs. I found another with comments on the Belhar.
http://blessedlonging.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/the-belhar-confession/
I think that one problem is that the churches within the CRC are not teaching the current confessions, so the people reading the Belhar cannot immediately see that the Belhar lacks the theological nuance and clarity of the 3 forms of unity.
Post a Comment