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).
Reader Comments (46)
Tim did not hit the nail…he hit his thumb. ;-)
Tim,
Unity is most assuredly by the work of the Holy Spirit through the bride of Christ- the church. Therefore, the question must be asked, does an inclusive, pro-homosexual “church” count as a true church?
The marks of the church according to Calvin are the Gospel preached and the sacraments properly administered. A pro-homosexual church may have the second aspect down but they lack Gospel preaching. The message Paul preached was not, inclusive, affirming, and welcoming to unrepentant sinners. Therefore the pro-homosexual “church” is not a true church and does not have any true fellowship in the RCA.
Tim when you say, “I think: Unity in the body of Christ is dependent on the work of the Holy Spirit, not on doctrinal unity or a particular sense of religious purity”. I agree with you until the “church” in question rejects the Gospel and embraces, sanctions and celebrates unrepentant sin that leads to death.
Agree?
David
Just a note, in case there is any question, the David posting above, is not me.
Blessings,
David Vandervelde
David...
First, let it be noted that I didn't advocate for or against homosexuality. I advocated for the Behlar regardless of whether or not some people will misappropriate it (for whatever reason... and there are many ways it could be misappropriated as is also true with the scriptures themselves).
Having said that. Are you seriously suggesting that a denomination supportive of gays and lesbians has entirely abandoned the gospel and is, in essence, reprobate? Is it your position that a single position on an issue that isn't fundamentally central to Jesus (or related to him, for that matter) is enough to render an entire denomination bunk?
Wow.
There are very few single issues I'd place in that category. Indeed, they'd probably have to be issues that the church, throughout history, has made essentials... issues actually found in the creeds, for example.
Grace and peace,
`tim
Tim...
First, let it be noted that I did not claim you were supporting homosexuality. Second, my focus was on the definition of a true church in light of the homosexuality discussion. Third, I was talking about the specific church’s involved and not the entire denomination but if you want to expand the conversation…
“Are you seriously suggesting that a denomination supportive of gays and lesbians has entirely abandoned the gospel and is, in essence, reprobate?” Let me be clear- YES! Any denomination that sanctions, fosters or supports sin has crossed a line that places it outside of the true church. It scares me that this statement will be seen as radical. Note, all churches and denominations have unrepentant sin (we all have sin) but that is a far cry from sanctioning the practice of sin! Any church, denomination, or person in this situation can and will be forgiven if they turn from the sin or the act of encouraging it.
“Is it your position that a single position on an issue that isn't fundamentally central to Jesus (or related to him, for that matter) is enough to render an entire denomination bunk?” Again, on this issue-YES! Tim, come on brother, you’re a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, your job description is to teach, lead, care, preach, people AWAY from sin and into a life of repentance and good works for the Glory of God! So yes, when the Shepard’s lead people into the den of wolves, I would say that is a Gospel issue. When you lead the people of Jesus away from Jesus that is a Gospel issue.
How can you say an issue of sin is not related to Jesus? He died for that sin and you would be ok with a denomination encouraging more sin? Tim, brother, what is a gospel issue in your mind?
The issue is not in the creeds because it was not worthy of addressing. The ancient Fathers never fathomed a day when the Word would become so maligned and subjected to culture that such clear teaching could be missed. So, I wouldn’t hang my hat on issues only found in the creeds!
Would you be willing to clarify your views?
David Jansen (Sorry other David)
I'd like to jump back in the fray here and weigh in on a few matters floating around.
1. While it is true that people misapply the Bible and the Standards and everything else, the point of a new confession ought to be clarification. The Canons might be misinterpreted by some (more likely just ignored, which is sad), but when they were adopted they clarified a pressing issue in the church. Belhar, though I disagree with a few lines, provided that same benefit for the church in South Africa in 1986. I don't see Belhar clarifying some pressing issue in the RCA. Adopting it may signal our further appreciation for the stance taken against apartheid and racism, but in our context it raises more issues than it settles.
2. It sounds nice to say, "Let the Classis figure these things out. The Classis will do the right thing. The Classis will know how to handle its own local context." But some of the same voices urging us to trust the Classes, are in Classes which are turning a blind eye to homosexuality. Some of these same voices are overturing Synod to urge the rest of us to refrain from disciplinary actions relative to homosexuality. This is very shrewd: asking us to trust the Classes and then advocating that the Classes don't do anything.
The fact of the matter is that many of us do not trust the Classes to do the right thing, and when other Classes don't do the right thing, it affects the whole body. I've had people tell me that for years they never thought of visiting our church because we were an RCA church, which they equated with "liberal." Others have been hesitant to join because of where our assessment dollars go. My point is that the Classes have not been responsible to abide by the denominational pronouncements on homosexuality, and when they disregard these pronouncements they affect us all.
3. I strongly disagree with the assertion that unity is not based on doctrinal unity. Why have the Standards then? Are they not "Standards of Unity"? Why did Paul constantly urge his churches to hold to the message they received, guard the good deposit, and stand fast in the gospel? The unity in Ephesians 4 and John 17 is rooted and grounded in truth. Spiritual unity on a relational, personal level can only be achieved when there is an underlying theological unity as well. Calvin says it perfectly: "Now this communion [of the church] is held together by two bonds, agreement in sound doctrine and brotherly love" (Inst., IV.ii.5).
David,
Firstly, I will presume the statement "When you lead the people of Jesus away from Jesus that is a Gospel issue" is a generic condemnation of those you imagine to be "open and affirming" rather than a personal attack in violation of this blog's user policy.
Secondly, I believe I clarified my view in my post. Let me repeat it, if it helps:
There are very few single issues I'd place in [the category of automatically rendering a denomination reprobate]. Indeed, they'd probably have to be issues that the church, throughout history, has made essentials... issues actually found in the creeds, for example.
You're post brings up a lot of question and a lot of accusations. Few (if any) of which have any relationship to the topic of this thread. There are ample places for a discussion on homosexuality in the RCA. My post was an attempt to return this discussion to the Belhar.
If you wonder about my position on that, feel free to return to see my previous posts.
Grace and Peace
`tim
In my opinion, us clergy types in the Reformed Church of America spend too much time (wasted time which could be better used bettering God's kingdom) debating this issue of Homosexuality. It is plagued with too much homophobia and a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what it means to be gay. I am not gay, I have no idea what it is like to be gay, and I have no idea how someone who is homosexual walks with God especially when the Church seems to constantly be telling them that they are the worst sort of people alive.
I have a few friends who are homosexual. And more often than not they are kind, caring, loving, and compassionate human beings who do more to care for God's people and God's creation that the Church does. That said, I will not promote anything that excludes Gay people from our Church, because if we are going to (and here I'll take the side that calls homosexuality a "sin") we have to exclude almost every other single person in our Church. Lets look at other people in our Church who destroy God's great gift of sexuality and idea for marriage.
The 2001 U.S. Census showed that at least twenty percent of adults are divorced or have been divorced. The percentage is higher for people between the ages of 50-59- note that is for all adults; both those who have been married and those who have not. The statistics for marriages that end in divorce is most likely higher. The National Center for Disease Control says that in 2002 statistics were showing that twenty percent of marriages ended in divorce in the first 5 years of marriage. Overall, they found that 47 percent of marriages end in divorce. A less academic survey by Gallup showed that most experts agree that homosexuals make up 10 percent of less of the population. However, the difference is clear…if divorce and homosexuality are both sins (I am assuming most people who are homophobic think that divorce is also biblically wrong) then why do we pay little attention to this problem of divorce…it is clearly a “larger problem” for the Church! I have heard Ministers argue that the divorce rate in the Church is even higher than among those who do not belong to a Church!
It is hypocritical to stand on your soapbox and condemn homosexuality when we tend to embrace and love those who have are divorced. I’ve seen billboards promoting divorce care groups at local Churches in my town! Divorce is a far greater plague to the Church than homosexuality is (if it even is one). And do not bring the argument that divorce is a “one time sin” and homosexuality is a lifestyle of sin. The bible clearly states that one who is divorced is living in sin! So while you want to expel the ten percent of homosexuals from the Church (and I would argue that there are less than that who are openly gay in our Churches), then you better be ready to expel those divorcees as well…
I’m not saying that everyone who gets a divorce is a sinner condemned to hell with no chance of grace; I’m just showing the flaw in the logic that is so often used to condemn homosexuals. And divorce is just one example. I guarantee you that in our churches we have far more people who lust after women, are addicted to pornography, cheat on their spouse, and physically and emotionally absent from their spouses and children, than there are gay people in the Church! The RCA still struggles with racism, sexism, and hate towards other human beings (not just homosexuals)…. and after all this you think that God is going to spite our Church because we allow a Gay person to worship and interact in God’s community?!?!?! Liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans… we need to stop classifying who can come into God’s Church… it is made for all people. Jesus said “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” FYI, none of us are righteous enough to enter into the Kingdom of God. Christ calls us all to repentance.
So, if you as a pastor wants to deny homosexuals the right to be loved by God, and if you wish to attempt to deny them the Grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, you better be ready to get rid of everyone else in your Church as well… your pastors, your elders, your deacons, and YOURSELF! Loving someone genuinely does mean you tell him or her the truth…that we are all saved by the loving grace of Jesus Christ our Lord- the truth that you and I are all alike, we are all sinners, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Grace and Peace,
Andrew
Tim,
First: correct.
Second: understood.
Third: no accusations…simply, genuine questions for clarity.
Fourth: I answered you’re question “Are you seriously suggesting that a denomination supportive of gays and lesbians has entirely abandoned the gospel and is, in essence, reprobate?” Would you please answer?
Thanks my brother,
David Jansen
Why does everything become about homosexuality?
Friends,
What is the Belhar about?
It is about declaring the nature of God in a situation of dis-unity, irreconciliation, and injustice.
The way this discussion has heated up indicates that we need to hear that God is a God who calls us, at the very least, to unity and reconciliation.
It will not do for us to misinterpret others' posts, or to impugn motives. In my opinion, those sort of behaviors are tactics and strategies in debate, not in open and honest conversation.
For example, I spoke earlier of the Classis. The Classis is the place, like it or not, where issues must get ironed out. It is the place where discipline will happen. And if it does not happen according to the way I interpret the scriptures in another place, then so be it. Why is it "shrewd" to honor the order we ministers signed on to when we became ordained?
(Besides, the first point about the Classis is the very white-bread point of polity that that's where the decision about the Belhar will ultimately be made.)
I realize fully well that there will be people who think the RCA is a "liberal" denomination, and who may therefore refrain from joining an RCA congregation. Does that situation have any more validity than the situation (which I've personally encountered) in which people think the RCA is too conservative, and hence have not become a member of the church I serve.
What's happened in this blog is that we're not even talking about the Belhar any more. I plead with those in the conversation to stay on topic.
Is God a God of unity, reconciliation, and justice? Can we see how those assertions about the nature of God play out in our context?
I'll close down my participation in this blog, I think, with an image from Rowan Williams' "Ray of Darkness." (Please don't get bogged down in the fact that it's from Rowan Williams) He calls us each and all to be thoroughly engaged in the vision of Christ that the Holy Spirit has granted to us. So long as we remain intent on that vision, and follow it to the delight of both God and us, we are able to remain in that state that the scriptures call 'abiding in' Christ. However, if I start to gaze over at your vision of Christ, because it seems defective -- or for that matter, perhaps more attractive -- I have lost that vision that the Holy Spirit gave to me. The more time I spend focusing on your vision, the less connected I become to Christ himself. The thing is, I can not expect you to see my vision as I do, because you do not stand in the same place as me. We may journey together for a time, and we may even be so close to one another as to share a very similar vision. But it is also possible that I stand in a very different place from you, and I will not therefore see the same vision you do.
I believe our brothers and sisters in URCSA have asked us to see Christ from where they have stood, and still stand, and to confess with them the fully Scriptural and Spirit-led conviction that the Word and Spirit lead us to the truth that God is a God of unity, reconciliation, and justice. We will not see everything as they have seen it. We will not share an identical vision of Christ. But we can confess that in a land where the church remains divided, where Sunday morning is still in the vast majority of places still the most segregated hour of the week, and where enmity, strife, and hatred are still the bitter daily nourishment of millions of people -- Christians and non-Christians alike -- God wills unity reconciliation, and justice.
Peace be with us all.
I would like to respond to Kevin's point number 2. Above.
The Overtures are not asking the Classes to do nothing about homosexuality....the overtures are asking Synod to do nothing about the issue of Homosexuality.
Also, if you ask many people in those classes they are hardly turning a blind eye but are trying their best to be faithful to the gospel that has been given them and to pass the gospel onto those God has called them to serve.
Just as a pronouncement might help you in your place of ministry, a pronouncement would extremely hamper me in mine. In my experience, if a denomination has a strong stance against homosexuals then they won't even darken the door in fear of more persecution. How can we minister to people who won't even give us a chance because of a denominational stance. This is not the same as issues in the the Canons of Dort or the Heidelberg or other matters of theology like the meaning of baptism or the Lord's Supper. That is what makes us Reformed or Lutheran or Baptist.
My hope is that all people can experience the life eternal now...not just some time in the future, and a firm pronouncement against anything sexual will hinder this in all contexts as we are an oversexualized culture. Jesus said come to me, yet with a firm pronouncement we tell 10% of the population....need not apply.
If we truly trust the power of the Gospel we can let it speak for itself when it is heard by all who might hear it from our lips.
To bring this back to the Belhar.....The Belhar as a standard would help us all by officially telling all people that they need and deserve to hear the Gospel. Why wouldn't we want to pass it?
Let's not forget the Belhar Confession attempts to help the body of Christ face the contradiction of claiming unity in the body, while simultaneously refusing to speak against the racist system of Apartheid, which Reformed leaders concocted and claimed it to be consistent with Scripture. By our mostly silent -- or at best feeble response, we acquiesed in this long and tragic "trail of tears." Is this how we choose to act, claiming to be the "presence of Christ?" May God help us to be stronger and more courageous than that.
--Albert Terry
I'd like to insert, again, that the Belhar Confession clarifies that God is a God of unity, justice, and reconciliation. In a matter of degree, the churches in SA may have been dealing with something different than we do in the USA, however it is a matter of degree. Most of the neighborhoods in Grand Rapids are segregated to a large degree; the result of the same history of flight experienced in many places throughout the country. People of color make up a larger portion of the prison population than they do the general population, as another example. I don't hear many RCA churches clamoring in protest or speaking God's wisdom to the rulers (see Eph. 3). Why?
Look at health care, infant mortality rates, income for the same jobs (also a gender issue), wealth, or any number of other statistics that so many of us take for granted. Injustice persists in this country even if strides have been made (many of them in part a response to the gospel). The Belhar says unequivocally that it is the church's task to engage in the quest for unity, justice, and reconciliation, that this quest is not secondary to the gospel, but the very outcome of the breaking in of God's kingdom. Adopting this Confession demands that our classes engage in this quest or risk being called to task for shallow (dare I say: dead) faith.
Homogeneity is not the same as unity. Charity is not the same as justice. Tolerance is not the same as reconciliation. Our churches seem very good at the former, to the neglect of the latter (I must include myself in this). The Belhar calls us to task. It's difficult to be convicted, to repent, and homosexuality makes for a very convenient scapegoat, but it will not remove our sin from us in this case. I hope that by welcoming the Belhar into our denominational house and listening to its story, we will be able to see any "planks" that remain in our own eyes and remove them rather than focusing on the speck in someone else's.
Coming from a business background where I deal with "standards" on a regular basis, my understanding is that a properly written standard is one that is unambigous. It is something against which we measure our work and are able, without doubt or argument, to agree that we either match it or fail.
If I were to state that I have a very good flavored ham, it might be a nice statement and certainly the host(ess) who served it will be pleased, but to the manufacturer who produced the ham, this fine statement means almost nothing as a standard.
If we intend to make the Belhar one of our "Standards of unity", we must make sure that it is in fact, not just a fine statement, but actually a standard against which we can measure ourselves and our faith.
To expand a bit. I would use the statement of how fine that ham is as a testimonial to sell my hams. I might point out how relevant good flavor is or I might advertise how many people agree with it. I might identify a "big name" who says how great is that flavor, and many people might buy my ham because of the fine statement. But the bottom line is that as a standard, the statement is ambigous and inprecise.
From the length and content of this thread, It appears that the Belhar is to many, a very fine statement... a statement of considerable value, and certainly a statement that can be used to great benefit. Is it, however, truly a "Standard" of unity?
Lowell TenClay
Dear Kevin,
I can assure you that I respect your reservations about Belhar, but only share them to a degree. If the Church is not committed to "full justice," then we are not the Church. We do not rely on any confession to establish what is already a Biblical mandate. Christ expects no less than a full commitment to full justice from us, and we can expect to account to him on this matter, as on everything else. Whether or not Belhar is adopted, Christians will continue to live out the summons to partner with God in the end-time manifestation of righteousness among all the nations. To have this language in one of our confessions, therefore, would not inherently favor "pro-gay advocates" etc. Those who understand that full justice includes the recognition of gays, etc., will still be in conversation with those who believe that full justice does not apply to the same-sex agenda. Nothing changes in this respect one way or the other. What matters, simply, is how we choose to define "full justice." It would therefore be a miscarriage of "justice" to oppose adopting Belhar following your line of reasoning. Like no other confession before it that we would ever consider adopting, Belhar makes the Bible's condemnation of collective, systemic evil explicit in a way that will not let the Church easily continue to live in denial about its complicity with such evil.
My greater concern, rather, actually is with your denial that God has a special relationship with the poor and oppressed, or that Scripture establishes the precise nature of that relationship. We used to refer to this idea as "God's preferential option for the poor."
According to Scripture, God wills abundant life for all creatures, and the Covenant was expressly designed to mediate abundant material blessing to the People of God in complete harmony with all other blessing from God. Scripture likewise asserts boldly that the repeated history of failure by the People of God to sustain political, social, and economic justice, among other things, exposed them to God's judgment. Dreadful things happen to them as a whole People when God comes to the Vineyard expecting abundant blessing but finds poverty and oppression. All of this is abundantly clear from the Bible before we ever ask about the rest of the peoples, etc. However, the standards of conduct to which God holds the Covenant People are the same standards which God applies to the rest of the nations. God is an impartial judge, according to Scripture. That capacity as judge on God's part includes advocacy for the poor and oppressed who have no one else to go to bat for them. The Bible repeatedly emphasizes that God will come to their aid. This is what is meant by God's preferential option for the poor. Those responsible for their poverty and oppression have at least one enemy, and it is God.
William L. Schutter
Well stated, William.
We recently studied the Belhar in our Church for 6 weeks. We found it a Confession of Liberation theology cloaked in Gospel language which I find was Boesak's intent all along. A Gospel based on Marxist ideology is a 'No-Spel'. We can join hand in hand and denounce racism and oppression as sinful without adopting another confession. The last thing the RCA needs at this time is to begin on a slippery slope into full blown theology of Liberation. Jesus Christ is the only liberator from sin, not a 'mea culpa' for our denomination.
Upon first reading the Belhar, my questions began: 1) why another confession which doesn't clarify any aspect of who God the Father, Son or Holy Spirit is? 2) No prior confession draws in issues of race or ethnicity, when those had certainly been plaguing the church from its inception. 3) Wasn't Paul inspired of the Holy Spirit to enbook many clarifications of our oneness "in Christ," admonishing us as followers of Christ to not demean any other member of God's Family? 4) By bringing up the racial issue (admittedly from a culture which had seen claiming believers behave in blasphemous ways toward other members of the Body of Christ), doesn't Belhar invite the very inclusions which Pastor Van Doren addresses? I'm admittedly new to the RCA, but this confession, if adopted could very well shorten my stay within it. While not attending the Synod Session this summer, were I to be able, I would manifestly vote NO when given the opportunity.
Respectfully, In Christ,
Tim Arensmeier
Pastor of the Sonoma Valley Community Church (RCA)
Sonoma, California
I can't let this thread go without one more stab at this (with a particular reference to the previous post).
1.) This confession does clarify something. It clarifies that God is a God of unity, justice, and reconciliation. I realize it's hard to imagine some people needing clarification on that, but it is still sadly the case. If you want reference for the truth of that see Gregg Mast's article in the General Synod Workbook appendix. Besides, Tim A., you contradict yourself in point 2 anyway.
2.) It is precisely because no prior confession addresses issues of race and ethnicity that the Belhar is a necessary addition to our confessions.
3.) Paul was inspired and has offered many clarifications for unity, justice, and reconciliation. I'm sure he would be appalled at the disunity, injustice, and division among the churches including those divisions along racial lines.
4.) The Belhar doesn't invite us to do anything other than unity, justice, and reconciliation.
Peter:
Is there an option to adopt the Belhar as something along the lines of our 'song of hope?" We give it some elevated title and then never use it? hahahaha
The RCA is in decline . . and it will continue to decline . . . the folks that are leaving in droves are going to more conservative churches. I have no problem with the core message of the Belhar . . truly in Christ there is no east or west . . yet . . the heirarchy lauds the politically correct liberal propositons boldly . . but for so many years now has failed to stand firm and laud the rights of the unborn. Our denominational heads hail the political left . . and disdain the political right. No wonder the core of the RCA has hit the road.