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.