Boesak and Belhar
Sunday, June 7, 2009 at 8:01PM Dear friends,
Regarding the matter of Boesak and the Belhar.
I ask, humbly but forcefully, that when anyone tells the story of Boesak and the Belhar, could we all tell the story straight and full?
First, it is true that Dr. Boesak was present and was one of the drafters of the Belhar Confession, it was not his brainchild. The Belhar arose from its own rather complex history, and was not the creation of simply two or three people, nor was it even from one communion, but three. Please do not imply that Boesak was the sole writer, or even the most important writer, of the Belhar.
Second, what is described is absolutely true: Boesak did extend the reading of the Belhar to the question of the inclusion of gay and lesbian Christians at all levels of church life. But what happened when he proposed this application? The church heard what he was claiming, and tested what he was claiming against the Scriptures, and found his personal interpretation to be outside the bounds of Scripture. I hope that I am not overstepping the bounds of polite blog conversation, but to me it seems disingenuous to make the argument that because Boesak applied the Belhar to a context it was clearly not meant to address, we should therefore be afraid that others will do so as well. Well, it is true, they might! And then what? Then the church will discern the voice of the Lord as God speaks by the Spirit through the pages of the Scriptures. We do not foreclose what the church will say about this, any more than we would have foreclosed what church said about the practice of trading enslaved human beings as chattel when they declared this practice to be in accord with God's will.
Goodness, I know people who have misinterpreted the Scriptures and have over-applied them! No doubt I've done it myself. When I've done so, an elder, or elders, have corrected me. The offices, entrusted to do their work, indeed do it. We do not fear the Scriptures or their overinterpretation, precisely because the Spirit ordains officers in the church to be the guardians of the word. That's one of the things our ordination means.
There will ALWAYS be opportunity to misinterpret the Belhar. True enough. Fair point. That's a reason not to adopt it? I don't think so.
That said --
Is anyone denying that gays and lesbians have suffered injustices? Is anyone denying that the young teenage boy who is struggling with his sexuality and gets called "faggot" and "sweetie" and words I can't say here-- that his soul has not been wounded for life? Does anyone deny that a woman whose partner is dying, but who is barred from visiting her partner and offering hope and relief because she is not recognized as next of kin?
I'm not advocating for anything here but compassion; for a recognition that the pain that people who are gay and lesbian (or who are struggling with their sexual identity) is just as real as the pain of a child who has no food to eat. Is the injustice they experience any less poignant than the injustice of a child who is called "the n-word" on a daily basis in school, as a school administrator does nothing? Is injustice against gays and lesbians any more palatable than injustice against anyone else?
And do we not think that adopting a confession on justice, but saying "this document is not about the injustices that you who are gay and lesbian suffer", would itself be a form of injustice? Could someone help me understand this argument?
Reader Comments (5)
Paul,
Would you agree with this statement: "the Belhar Confession can in no way be construed as affirming the legitimacy of homosexual behavior, and those who claim the Belhar in support of such an affirmation violate the original purpose and meaning of the Confession"?
Kevin
Kevin,
Here's my take on your question. I hope it's clear.
I don't think the Belhar says a single thing about homosexual behavior.
Therefore, I don't think it can be used to "affirm the legitimacy of homosexual behavior" any more than it could be used to affirm the legitimacy of any other behavior.
Further, I do think that leveraging the Belhar to do so would indeed, violate the original purpose and meaning of the Belhar.
But I say that because I believe the Belhar is about the nature and character of who God is, and who we as people made in God's image were created to be. The Belhar thus speaks of unity, justice, and reconciliation. I don't see sexual behavior in there anywhere. Just my opinion.
“The church heard what he was claiming, and tested what he was claiming against the Scriptures, and found his personal interpretation to be outside the bounds of Scripture.”
That’s not an accurate summary. The URCSA Synod sent the matter back to the churches for further study. That’s not a NO. That’s a NOT YET.
See Below:
Allan Boesak Quits URCSA Posts over Homosexuality Policy
South Africa – Allan Boesak, a church leader and former anti-apartheid activist, presented a lengthy report on homosexual members to his church, the Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa at its general synod Oct. 2. He dramatically insisted that the church’s Belhar Confession demanded 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.
Boesak was the chair of a synodical committee that had presented a 60-page report on homosexuality to the church. At the previous URCSA synod in 2005, the church had asked for a report that would show several things, including a rejection of homophobia, an acknowledgement of the civil rights of homosexuals, and an acknowledgement of their membership in the church. The main task was to clarify the theological and moral status of homosexual unions, and clarify the ordination of practicing homosexuals into ministry. The report, which included a lengthy exegesis of the implications of the Belhar Confession for the topic, recommended full acceptance of homosexuals in loving and faithful relationships to the ministry of the church.
Presenting this report to the synod, Boesak told delegates that the Belhar Confession demanded that they move in this way. The Belhar, he said, was never meant to be just an anti-apartheid document, but a document against discrimination of all kinds.
Delegates reacted angrily. One even suggested that Boesak’s use of the Belhar Confession for this purpose was slanderous, although that delegate later apologized for the charge. The synod received the report but did not adopt any of its recommendations. Instead, it called for another committee to present the "other side" of the issue. Following the debate, Boesak again asked for the floor and announced that he intended to resign. Later, he charged the church with betrayal of the Belhar Confession.
Over the next two weeks, Boesak consulted with friends. He joined a new political party that split from the current ANC leadership. Moreover, he made his intention to resign final. He had been Moderator of the Cape Synod for URCSA.
The URCSA executive, however, said that if Boesak had done his work properly, this would not have happened. They characterized Beosak’s words after the synod as "misrepresentations" and "misleading declarations." They did agree with Boesak’s remark that the synod was not theologically or emotionally ready to deal with the report. They said that the committee was late with its report, and there was no time to process it through the church before it came to the synod. "Dr. Boesak should . . . take full responsibility for what happened with the report at synod. He should not try to lay the blame on the synod."
They described the report as an outstanding piece of work, which would now be sent to the regional synods for discussion. (Kerkbode, Beeld)
Paul,
Thanks for the clarification. It's helpful.
I fully agree that the Belhar Confession says nothing at all about homosexual behavior. Furthermore, my interactions with many Christian leaders in Africa suggest that their prevailing view about homosexual behavior is compatible with the RCA's existing stance. If anything, convictions about Biblical teaching on this topic are more uniformly traditional among African believers than seems to be the case within the RCA. So, Allen Boesak aside, there seems to be little doubt that the authors of the Belhar Confession did not intend it to address this topic.