Making wise decisions about Belhar
Saturday, June 6, 2009 at 11:14PM Today we spent the morning talking about the Belhar confession, both in the morning session of General Synod as well as in small group advisory committees. We were off to a rocky start in our introductions when a delegate was given the floor to speak with regard to an overture suggesting Belhar be adopted as a "statement of the church's faith" and not as "confession," and then chose to speak instead about fear of relating Belhar to social activism on issues, specifically homosexuality. I want to point out that what he said IS NOT listed as a part of the reasons for the overture. While others spoke more to the general introduction of what a confession is, how a confession is used, the history of Belhar, and then tried to clarify some of the misunderstood statements made by the speaker to this overture, what he said confused many and riled others as we went to advisory committees.
While I have much I could say in regard to my frustration with how this all played out, I will abandon that topic in light of the larger discussion.
When I first heard that people were speaking against the Belhar because it was being related to homosexuality, I did not believe it because the logic did not make any sense to me at all. Regardless of what you think about homosexuality, this speaks to FEAR BASED DECISION MAKING. If the United Reformed Church of South Africa is not equating Belhar to apartheid, then how can we apply it to our "issue of the day?" This is not how our confessions are used. Our confessions are a faithful witness to how we have experienced God and what we have learned about God through what we have experienced. The purpose of our confessions is not to tell us what to think about a specific issue. But even still, do we really want to make our decision about the confession based on fear of how it might be used? To me, the answer is a resounding NO! Fear is the opposite of faith. Fear is the opposite of trust in God and trust in the Holy Spirit. Please, fellow delegates, recognize and face your fears, do not let them enter into your decision making regardless of what you decide.
I can't tell you how many times I heard the words, "I am afraid..." today. In our advisory committee I even named it and the whole committee agreed resoundingly that fear was a factor, with some members still feeling that "the fears were too great."
What if portions or the whole of what we call scripture was never canonized because of fear of how it would be used and abused (and I think we can all agree this happens often)? A confession is NOT scripture, but my point is that fear over some future misuse is NOT a valid argument against adoption.
Secondly, I heard another very surprising argument for denying the Belhar today; denominational mistrust. Some feel strongly that "this was already a done deal," it has been shoved down our throats or that there has been some conspiracy to get Belhar to pass. I do not see that overall. I have seen some places where some might interpret things this way. For example, I can't count the number of times we have heard that this is a "historic synod" and some even adding to it in regard to their pleasure to be present as we adopt or add the Belhar. We do need to be more careful with such statements, however, this event is still historic, regardless of the outcome. Even considering the Belhar, even considering another confession is historic.
Once again, let me ask, is mistrust or denominational politics a basis for our decision? Again, I plead not! Let us set that too aside to give true consideration for the issue at hand.
Do we see God in Belhar? Do we feel that it gives faithful witness to a part of the character of God not otherwise described in our confessions? Do we feel God leading us to the ideals expressed in Belhar?
These are the questions upon which I am basing my decision.
My answer is Yes.
Reader Comments (8)
A PROBLEM (as Richard Mouw has pointed out in one of his recent musings on the Fuller Seminary web site): the Belhar Confession is already being used to defend same-sex marriage--by Allan Boesak, one of the key drafters of that confession. For years, he was a trusted advisor to many of us in Reformed circles, and I dare say that none of us would have believed that this could happen. However, in today's ideologically charged environment nothing seems surprising anymore.
Great post, Sherri. You raise some important issues.
I keep hearing mention of Allan Boesak relating homosexuality to the Belhar, but without the related information that URCSA didn't accept his interpretation, and I believe he then separated himself from them. Sexuality issues will continue to be discussed in the RCA with or without the Belhar. I agree with Sherri: our decision about the Belhar needs to be based on more than fear of how someone might use it at some point down the road.
Stacey:
I can agree with you about not making a decision based on how the Belhar might be used down the road. What I can't agree on is the "might" and the "down the road." The public talk and writings of our own Seth Kaper-Dale is a perfect example of the Belhar being used (not might) now (not down the road) to do the very thing feared by many.
Ironically, it was Seth Kaper-Dale himself who suggested the RCA should not adopt the Belhar when he said: "If we don’t address in our polity, statements that limit some humans based on gender, sexual orientation or any other human or social factor, I don’t know if we’re ready for the Belhar Confession." (See http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/dale_fa06_0.pdf).
Blessings,
David Vandervelde
Hello Stacey.
You said: Sexuality issues will continue to be discussed in the RCA with or without the Belhar.
I certainly agree with this statement. It has been discussed for decades without the Belhar. In fact, don't we, the RCA, already have statements about the homosexuality issue since 1974? Yes we do. What is the chance that adopting the Belhar will make us reverse these biblical statements that affirm Scripture is explicit that a homosexual lifestyle is not acceptable for a believer?
Interesting thoughts on the Belhar and the concerns over same gender attraction. The points and counter points I've read have been stimulating. Question to answer..... are there any folks out their that are advocates for same gender attraction who are not supporting the Belhar?
I find it somewhat ironic that almost alo of posts to Sherri's comments deal with issues regarding the Belhar and homosexuality (ironic because I think Sherri is asking us as delegates and possible future classis voters to consider that Belhar primarily, and perhaps exclusively, on it's primary focus...the nature of God). For what it's worth, these are my thoughts about the Belhar (all of which I shared with Doug who drove me back tot he airport on Thursday afternoon). I don't think the Belhar is a perfect document, but I do believe it is a faithful document.
And like Sherri and many of the others who have said similar things, I hope the delegates to General Synod don't vote either for or against adopting the Belhar based on fear of what might happen, the fear of what is happening, the fear of new things, orthe fear of confrontation. If we are guided by fear, we cannot be guided by the Spirit. And if we are not guided by the Spirit, we are not being faithful to the God who called us out of darkness. Whatever your vote (now or possibly later), speak because it is the Spirit that lifts your voice. I will be watching tomorrow morning via streaming video (I hope).
Is there not a sway within the RCA, since signing the Formula of Agreement, that has become open and affirming? Which has resulted in the 'conservative' leg of the denomination to react as they have? I agree that what Boesak erroneously used the Belhar for should not be a barometer that this will become a platform for the same within the RCA. And I also agree that fear should not be the motivating factor in making a decision. But looking at the direction of our denomination in some areas, I am concerned that it will empower the Social Gospel(SG) and a theology of liberation(LT), that is predominant within the denomination already. Which pro homosexuality is a 'first cousin.' I wonder how Johannes Bogermannus would look at this direction? Probably not too favorably since just being part of the remonstrants brought a death sentence!!
Being brought up in a gardening family, I will always remember one thing my grandfather taught me. If the root is bad, the fruit is bad. The homosexuality issue, the Belhar confession are fruits of the same 'bad' root. And that my friends is the Formula of Agreement, SG, and LT. If we continue to only try to pick the bad fruit off the vine, more will grow back. (End of Metaphor-Speak)
Fear is not a Christian motivator, but concern is. I believe we, as a denomination have forgot about the antithesis we so proudly confessed and lived at one time. Scriptures show this antithesis between the people of God and the world to be an eternal truth. We have taken the Rodney King motto of 'Why can't we all just get along" and molded it as a nose of wax from the truth of caring for every part of God's creation, into a postmodern humanism and relativism. The antithesis is no more between the people of God and the world. "You believe that, what about where the scriptures says it is not true? Well it is OK, you're a nice person, let's fellowship together."
The SG and LT are completely at odds with Scripture and our Heidelberg and Belgic confessions which state: "Son of God gathers...out of the whole human race, a church chosen to everlasting life." "we are received into the Church of God, and separated from all other people and strange religions, that we may wholly belong to him, whose ensign and banner we bear...."
Do not the words of the CRC synod in 1924, almost 100 years ago still ring true within the RCA today? "If we observe the spiritual tendencies of the present time, we cannot deny that there exists much more danger of world conformity than of world flight. The liberal theology of the present time actually wishes to eradicate the boundary between the church and the world.... The idea of a spiritual-moral antithesis is weakening in large measure in the consciousness of many, and gives way to a vague feeling of general brotherhood.... The doctrine of special grace in Christ is more and more driven to the background.... Through the press and through all sorts of inventions and discoveries, that in themselves should be valued as gifts of God, a great part of the sinful world is intruding into our Christian homes. Against all these and more pernicious influences, which press upon us from all sides, there is a crying necessity that the church mount a guard on principle; that she...also fight tooth and nail for the spiritual-moral antithesis.... Without ceasing may she hold fast to the principle that God's people is a special people, living from its own root, the root of faith.... And with holy seriousness may she call...her people and especially her youth not to be conformed to the world."
In His Name
JPK