Nobody is asking whether the Belhar rises to the level of a confession

Does the Belhar Confession rise to the level of a confession? Interesting question, but it’s not the question we’re being asked to consider.

The Belhar is not a ‘comprehensive’ confession, in the same the way that the Belgic Confession is a confession.  

In the 16^th century Guido de Bres (author of the Belgic Confession) was moved to write a statement of faith that responded to the persecution of Philip II, both in order to show that the Reformed expression of the faith was truly Christian and to distinguish the Reformed from the Anabaptist understanding of the relationship between church and state. 

In the 20^th century the Belhar confession arose out of the context of apartheid, in order to declare the true gospel.  The Dutch Reformed Church blessed the civil policies of apartheid, by teaching that God ordained the separation of the church and non-reconciliation between races, and by practicing the faith in a way that avoided questions of justice (ironically enough, citing article 36 of the Belgic Confession to justify their practice). 

The contexts were different; the confessions are different. The Belgic is comprehensive; the Belhar is specific.

Problem is, the comparison is a red herring. No one is asking the RCA whether the Belhar is a confession. No one is asking whether the Belhar is a confession in the same way that the Belgic is a confession.

What is being asked is whether God is speaking to the church through the Belhar.

What is being asked is whether we will agree to read the Scriptures through this lens.

There’s little doubt that unity, reconciliation, and justice are Biblical themes. The question is whether we will agree to be bound by these Biblical emphases.

Are we willing to declare that unity, reconciliation, and justice are Biblical norms?

If the answer is yes, then the question “does the Belhar rise to the level of a confession” is a semantic quibble. 

If the answer is yes, then you’re arguing over the definition of a confession – but not discerning whether the RCA should be bound by the Scriptures.

If the answer is no, (though how one could say they are Biblical norms and then say we don’t want to be bound by them is unthinkable to me) then by all means, one should vote against the Belhar.

But it seems to me that you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that unity, reconciliation, and justice are Biblical themes, and at the same time argue that the RCA should not be bound by them – at least not if the Scriptures are our only rule of faith and practice.

You may wish to argue that the Belhar should be more specific.  Then again, the Heidelberg Catechism could be more specific, as could the Belgic Confession and the Canons of the Synod of Dort.

So, if you claim that the Belhar just isn’t comprehensive enough to be a confession, what is the real issue?

As Your Classis Considers the Belhar...

I would encourage all to read the "Accompanying Letter" to the Belhar Confession.  This hasn't gotten much play -- indeed, it's not part of the Belhar itself.  (In other words, the Accompanying Letter isn't before us as a potential fourth standard of unity.)  However, it is very much worth reading, as you consider this very important matter.  You can find the letter here:

http://www.rca.org/Page.aspx?pid=5247

Some salient passages:

"[W]e make this confession not as a contribution to a theological debate, nor as a new summary of our beliefs, but as a cry from the heart, as something we are obliged to do for the sake of the gospel in view of the times in which we stand."

"We are aware that the only authority for such a confession and the only grounds on which it may be made are the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God."

"We plead, therefore, that this confession would not be misused by anyone with ulterior motives and also that it should not be resisted to serve such motives. Our earnest desire is to lay no false stumbling blocks in the way, but to point to the true stumbling block, Jesus Christ the rock."

"Our prayer is that this act of confession will not place false stumbling blocks in the way and thereby cause and foster false divisions, but rather that it will be reconciling and uniting."

"We pray that our brothers and sisters throughout the Dutch Reformed church family, but also outside it, will want to make this new beginning with us, so that we can be free together and together may walk the road of reconciliation and justice."

By taking excerpts, I hope I haven't taken out of context. I only wanted to give you a sense of the document.  Please do read it, carefully, and prayerfully, as you consider voting on the Belhar.

(Full disclosure: I am on the Belhar Implementation Team.  This message, however, was not encouraged by that team. I'm sending it on my own)

Martin Luther King Jr.

I wonder -- what, if anything, did our RCA congregations do to mark Martin Luther King's birthday?  I have a hunch that most of us do something with Mother's Day, and Memorial Day, and probably July 4.  (I've never heard of anyone doing anything with Columbus Day, but I suppose it might happen.)  What was done at your church?  If nothing was done, why do you think not?

Just in the interest of disclosure, the church I serve didn't make anything of King's birthday this  year.  We were totally preoccupied with Haiti.  I know connections could have been made, but I didn't make them; I wanted to focus on Haiti alone.

And about those three kings...

"Dia de los tres reyes" is a big deal, so far as I know, in many, if not all, Hispanic Christian cultures.  Other than singing "We Three Kings", though, I don't remember it having a whole lot of significance for my faith as I grew.  I seem to remember preaching about the nascent universal appeal of Jesus (see? he's a light to the nations!) but that always seemed a bit of a stretch. 

(Not saying it IS a bit of a stretch -- I'm just saying it seemed TO ME to be a bit of a stretch -- can one think publicly without being construed as making universal statements?)

Since becoming a bit older and recognizing that the Bible itself doesn't place the presentation of the three gifts on the actual night of Jesus' birth -- or that they laid the gifts at his feet in a stable (Matthew says 'house'), I rankle a bit at the "Christmas Card" story that gets played out, complete with wise men, in churchly tableaux.

Two questions arise:

When you take the Bible at its word, it doesn't seem the givers of the three gifts appeared on the very night Jesus was born (unless the manger was in a lower level of a house, like a Dutch house/barn, which is, I suppose, entirely possible.)  But -- I am asking -- does anyone else feel a bit of dissonance when the whole shootin' match is there at Bethlehem on the night of Jesus' birth (hardly Dec. 24, anyway)?

Where do you, personally, go with the appearance of the givers of the gifts?  What's the story's uptake for you?  And how do you a) teach it, b) preach it, and c) otherwise practice three kings' day?

A New Christmas Carol

Thought you might enjoy a new Christmas carol I've written to the tune "Noel Nouvelet" (to which you might have sung "Sing We Now of Christmas" or "Now the Green Blade Rises").   Enjoy!

Jesus Christ is born this day in Bethlehem

Death and shame are trembling; he will conquer them!

Blessings are flowing forth from God’s own heart,

All the earth is singing, Christians, do your part!

   Oceans offer praise as whales and dolphins sing;

   Cardinals and cuckoos, noels are echoing;

   From the savannah, hear the lions roar:

   Jesus Christ is born for blessing evermore!

      Babies cry, and old folks sigh to join the song

      Congregations carol forth, and join along:

      Commerce is halted; fam’lies join in prayer,

      Christ is born this day: there’s music in the air!

         Humble folk are raised to sit at God’s right hand;

         Mighty powers are cast aside at God’s command.

         Blind gain their sight; the speechless find their voice:

         Christ is born today; let heaven and earth rejoice!