"Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints."
Jude 3
Yesterday we had an interesting discussion at First CRC concerning the Belhar Confession of Faith. The occasion of this discussion was that the Council (which is the church leadership at First CRC) proposed that we rescind our adoption of Belhar as a fourth confession and instead support the denomination's statement concerning Belhar, which affirms it as an important Ecumenical Faith Declaration, but not a confession. The exact wording of the motion is "Council recommends to the congregation that we rescind our previous acceptance of Belhar as a confession and accept it as an Ecumenical Faith Declaration (which 2012 Synod has accepted) to be in line with the denominational stance."
What does this mean? Some context is in order.
First CRC adopted the Belhar Confession before I became the pastor as a fourth confession of faith. This short statement of faith was written in 1986, and it arose out of the struggles for racial unity and equality in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. It is a statement against apartheid and racism, and it promotes church unity.
As with any decision made in a decent sized church, there were many personal reasons for adopting Belhar. I believe universally there was and is a recognition that racism is wrong. As a church we desire to see church unity expressed across racial and ethnic lines, and we have affirmed two different sister church relationship across these lines. In addition, I think the Belhar and apartheid have specific poignancy within the CRC since as a Dutch Reformed church, it was our tradition, though in a different context, that approved apartheid. Furthermore, in the North American context, the CRC is extremely dominated by white folks, and we have not made it easy because of our ordination requirements for minorities (really anyone who is poor or urban) to become church planters or pastors.
With all of this in mind, the leadership of First CRC was asked to adopt this standard as a confession to help push the denomination to consider it. This action was taken without direct consultation with our local Classis (all the churches in the area). In turn, this has caused division. In fact, the debate concerning Belhar caused great division within the CRC in many different Classes. In the end, this year's synod of the CRC voted to declare the Belhar Confession an Ecumenical Statement of Faith after much debate. I was in a different Classis (Classis Atlantic North East), and we discussed Belhar before Synod. We had at least one church that proposed an overture to synod to support Belhar as a confession and several proposed overtures to synod to decline making Belhar a confession.
All told, I believe there were 35 different overtures and much other correspondence written by Classes within the CRC to support/decline making Belhar a fourth confession. It was debated and the decision was made to support the prophetic nature of Belhar against racism and to promote reconciliation, justice, and unity. Yet, it was also decided to retain the three forms of unity as our confessional standards (three forms are the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort).
So why was this decision made? Are all these church composed of a bunch of racists (even if they do not realize it)?
I ask such a provocative question because this is how many see the issue. I do not think this way of framing the question is helpful or to the point!
I believe virtually all in the CRC and at Synod strongly agree that racism in all it forms is wrong. In addition at Synod was and is an affirmation of the prophetic nature of Belhar against racism, apartheid, and for promoting justice, unity, and reconciliation between all peoples. Thus, Belhar was elevated to a position honor, but not to confessional level.
Why the distinction?
Here is the true issue concerning adopting Belhar as a Confession. It is not a discussion about racism or the themes of Belhar. It is a discussion about the nature and purpose of a Confession of Faith.
A Confession of Faith is a positive declaration of what is believed.
As Protestants, we believe that the Word of God alone is our ultimate standard for truth, for our faith, and for our practice. Yet, because there is such debate over what scripture says and how to interpret it, faith communities wrote confessions of faith to positively declare what they believe scripture to teach. Some of these confessions have stood the test of time while others have fallen into the forgetfulness of history. Why?
To be an accepted Confession, a statement of faith needed to be in alignment with scripture. It had to declare and teach what was found in scripture. This is the first and most important test. Yet, it is not the only test. A Confession also had to be clear in what it teaches. It had to help aid interpretation, not distort accurate biblical interpretation.
How does the Belhar stack up with both of these tests? Of course there is debate on this subject! With a few clicks and a google search, you can find some of these objections. Let me share one concerning the first point from a conservative RCA pastor named Kevin DeYoung. As he states,
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).
thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2009/05/11/belhar-confession-yea-or-nay/
I can hear some objections already that this is merely theological hair-splitting. Perhaps. But theological and biblical clarity is the goal and purpose of a confession. One must be careful about affirming a Confession that is not clearly biblical.
Of greater concern is what folks in the North American context have done with Belhar in terms of application. The important notion of "social justice" means something very different in our context, as it contains politically coded words to promote a very different agenda than racial reconciliation.
I first came across those who pushed for the adoption of Belhar while I walked the halls of academia. In that Mainline and religiously secular context, Belhar was used as a document to support a politically left social agenda. In particular, I heard it used to support homosexual rights, homosexual ordination, anti-capitalist and pro-communist economic systems, global wealth redistribution to combat global warming, and a host of other political agendas.
If these concerns match your political beliefs, Belhar as a confession might sound great. If you disagree, it sounds horrible. I must confess that when I read Belhar for myself I was surprised by the beauty of its prophetic tone against racism and for reconciliation and unity. I agreed with so much of it! Yet, I even as I read it, I could see how my theologically liberal friends could use it to promote their agenda even as I do not believe such an agenda was in it original intent of the Confession.
The discussion at Synod concerning Belhar revolved around these issues. Please notice how a discussion concerning racism and the need for reconciliation and unity is lost in our context as we debate these issues.
In the end, the CRC voted to affirm the substance of Belhar as it spoke against racism and apartheid, while it promoted reconciliation and unity within the Church. The question was about making it a Confession on par with the three forms of unity. It was decided that such an affirmation was unwarranted and unwise within our context.
What does this mean for First CRC of Seattle? The Council has brought a motion to our congregational meeting to affirm our denominational position. I do not believe the discussion is really about racism or our desire for racial reconciliation or unity. As a church we are united in our desire to promote these affirms of Belhar. Instead, question is about the use of the term "Confession."
There is much more that could and has been said. I do wish I did not have to write about such tangential issues that can cause division. I can affirm that I did not bring it up to the Council nor did I participate much in the discussion. Yet, the issue is before us. I hope this post provides some context that helps frame our discussion.
As always, discussion and comments are welcome!
No comments:
Post a Comment