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?