A Full Friday

Wow, what a day of General Synod! Carol Bechtel's speech truly spoke to the essence of what brings us together in worship, and then Wes' report and emphasis that evangelism and social justice go hand in hand was a perfect  lead in to the discussion on the Belhar today.

I have become aware of some concerns about these words of the Belhar: "therefore we reject any doctrine...which explicitly or implicitly maintains that descent or any other human or social factor should be a consideration in determining membership of the church."

My colleagues who are presenting the Belhar to us this week reminded me to remember the original context of this statement in regards to this statement. Because of apartheid, people because of the social factor of being black could not be a member of a white church. That is the key element to remember in this statement of rejection of this practice. But the real thing to remember in this area is the positive statement in section 2 above this: "We believe...that true faith in Jesus Christ is the only condition for membership of this church." Enough said.

 As we approach the advisory committee discussion on the Belhar today, it is my hope and prayer that all that we say and do be to honor God and that we embody the unity that the Belhar offers.

Comments

[Isaac Rottenberg]

Here you touch on a problem that is inherent in the process when a church adopts a "creed" that does not grow out of its own confessional dynamic. The RCA dynamic has been basically bureaucratic rather than " we must speak in the name of the Lord because we cannot do otherwise." Still, the Spirit can transform even borrowed words into the Word and a living witness in our environment.

[Leighton Seys]

If we were to argue from context about what creeds or confessions we should have. It would seem to me then that all should be rejected since none, save our song of hope, is from the North American context.

[Isaac Rottenberg]

"Rejected" seems too strong and somewhat ungrateful. I would prefer "relativized"--the voice of the church in a particular historical situation and as part of a confessional dynamic. The challenge for the RCA on racial reconciliation was during the 1960s when some of us rented buses to take Christians to the March on Washington and later had to go through an agonizing process with our consistory. We now live in the Obama era, but apparently some synod delegates are using a statement on the 1960s agenda to deal with what they believe is today's urgent agenda. The credal mind-set lacks imagination. But, let me repeat, God's Spirit is creative even when we are not.

[Judy Parr]

Efforts toward racial reconciliation in the 1960s did not end with the March on Washington. Nor, as Barbara Williams Skinner reminded us Saturday night, is having a black President enough to declare victory on racial reconciliation. The need for racial reconciliation will not end, she said, until we come to realize that we are all adopted children of God. And, she added, “who has the right to exclude anyone from this family?”

We have had the gift of the words of Jesus and of His early followers, and we as Reformed Christians have had our identity-setting confessions of the Reformation. As Eugene Heideman points out in his essay “Why We Need the Belhar Confession” (General Synod Workbook, pp. 198j-198l), these words and confessions were not enough, however, to prevent apartheid policies in civil government. Nor were they enough to prevent apartheid in the serving of Communion around the Lord’s Table in the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa.

Carol Bechtel aptly described how a confession “sharpens the point of Scripture and pokes us with it.” I believe that the Belhar Confession can inspire us to be more Christlike as we seek unity with our extended family in Christ, reconciliation with those whom we have wronged, and justice that helps God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Judy Parr

[Joanna Tipple]

Below are my comments in response to another blogger but thought I'd share them here in response to Scott's original comment on the Belhar. I feel so strongly that this should pass!

Greetings All:
I have been reading the responses to Stacey's original post and after scrolling down through several I had to stop and post this thought. I have to wonder if the people who state that they are against the Belhar Confession and then link it w/the issue of homosexuality understand the origins of this document. Are you aware it did come out of the reconciliation experience of South Africa - where apartheid was the church-sanctioned norm for far too long? (Far too long - anything longer than one second).
Are you aware that the bible was used as justification for sanctioning the separation of black & white human beings? And not only sanctioning separation but stating that black human beings were inferior to white human beings? This IS the history of apartheid.
The BC comes out of that experience!
The history of the church in our own country testifies to the fact that there was separation and disagreement on even that sad issue. One only has to look through editions of the Church Herald during that time to see that yes, our own brothers & sisters in Christ disagreed on whether or not apartheid was acceptable or not. So, what seems like a no-brainer in this moment at a previous time was an issue that could be seen as divisive.
(I won't elaborate here on the fact that the arguments against ordained women clergy/elders/deacons echoed the very arguments made for sustaining separation of white and black. And still being disagreed over - via different interpretations of "what the bible says." )
Leaving aside -for a moment - the concern over the GLBT community being fully included in church polity - it could be interpreted that those who are against the passage of the Belhar Confession still believe that people should be separated by color, ethnicity, or any other characteristic which isn't accepted by some members of the Body of Christ. I can't believe this is the case. It is quite hard to fathom but that is how it seems.
I'll hold off on the GLBT discussion for another time. But just to be clear...
I fully support the passage of the Belhar Confession - may it happen speedily in
our day.
Shalom,
Joanna
Just to clarify - when I stated the notion of GLBT human beings being included in church polity - I made that distinction for a reason. The Body of Christ already includes members who are GLBT. The issue of inclusion as I understand it is to officially acknowledge the Gifts of the Spirit that all who claim Christ as their savior and have been baptized w/the Holy Spirit have; thus allowing those brothers & sisters to use those gifts in the way that God has called them to.