BBQ and Belhar
Wednesday, June 3, 2009 at 11:50AM "BBQ - it's not just what we do, it's who we are."
I have to admit that my first reaction to this restaurant marquis was, "Ew, who would want to be BBQ?" But then, I've never been a huge fan of barbeque, so maybe I just don't get it.
However, there are some things that I'd be willing to say go beyond just something I do, down to the core of my being, to who I am. It also seems to me that there are some things that we as a denomination don't just do; we are.
This week we will take one more step in the process of approving the Belhar Confession as one of our standards - not the last step, but very, very close. As I thought about this idea of doing vs. being, I realized even more how much I hope that the Belhar passes. It is one thing to say that we're going to do what we can to eliminate racism in the RCA. It's yet another to confess that part of our identity lies in being a people who hope and work for a future of justice.
Someday, I'd like us to be able to put that on a sign: "Justice - it's not just what we do, it's who we are."
Reader Comments (20)
Please don't throw the word "justice" out there as if everyone immediately understands "your" version of it. Please define it, as you are proposing it.
As for the Belhar. I hope it doesn't pass and further politicize and culturalize the RCA. I will be seriously considering ending my life long association with the RCA and stepping down as elder if this passes.
As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
I am concerned with that tiny, small or big spot in the hearts of some delegates who vote so that they can say they personally had a part in the adoption of the Belhar. I also find it somewhat ironic and inconsistent that the RCA leadership are so "pro-Belhar" yet seem so confused regarding the denominatiional dialgue on same gender attraction.
Stacey:
I will have to agree with Alan (although not his tone) about the need for defining words that have become jargon. We could just as easily and just as hastily say things like the following:
- "Repentance - its not just what we do, its who we are."
- "Grace - its not just what we do, its who we are."
- "Mission - its not just what we do, its who we are."
- "Truth - its not just what we do, its who we are."
I'm sure you get the picture. Jargon words simply lack meaning, and so defining how you mean justice is rather necessary.
Blessings,
David Vandervelde
Alan, I think it is important for us to start from a place of recognizing that while we may not agree on specifics of how, we are all truly seeking to serve the LORD.
What do you mean by "politicize and culturalize" the RCA?
Sherri, you stated: I think it is important for us to start from a place of recognizing that while we may not agree on specifics of how, we are all truly seeking to serve the LORD.
I agree with this, but we MUST also add the Caveat that many claim to be 'serving the Lord' but serve in an unbiblical way. Look at the Apostle Paul. "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated at the feet of Gamaliel according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God as all of you are this day. 4 I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women, 5as the high priest and the whole council of elders can bear me witness. From them I received letters to the brothers, and I journeyed toward Damascus to take those also who were there and bring them in bonds to Jerusalem to be punished. (Acts 22); If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.(Phil 3)
Scripture confirms that many are truly 'seeking to serve the Lord', yet they are seeking to fill their own version of the Lord and not the God of scripture. SO the right hand of fellowship as laborers for God may be a starting point in a sense, but if the goal and direction is opposite, then two results happen:
1) God will not bless the endeavor
2) Compromise of the truth will ensure.
JPK
Because I support the adoption of the Belhar Confession, I am not seeking to serve the Lord? Now I think I need to ask you to define your terms, Alan and Joe. Let's start with "politicize," "culturalize," and "serve the Lord," as I'm not clear on what you mean by any of those terms.
Let me be clear: I believe that a biblical vision of serving the Lord includes seeking reconciliation where people have been divided, and inclusion where people have been excluded. I believe that reconciliation and inclusion are parts of the total picture of God's justice, in which all of creation is made whole and right. I believe that confessing our own sins of fear, distrust, abuse of power, and oppression is the first step in the process of reconciliation. I believe that the Belhar could be a powerful way for us to confess together, even if we're not all on the same page about what it all means for us. I believe that confession, perhaps especially when we're not sure what it might mean for us, has the power to challenge and shape us. Maybe you don't want to be challenged and shaped by the Belhar. Fair enough. I do. And that's why we're in the midst of this very long process of deciding whether to adopt it: we are not all of one accord in this matter.
It may be true that our definitions of justice are different, but it seems to me that your demands that I define my concept of justice come from a suspicion that I mean something particular that you disagree with. If you're going to attack my use of a word, it would be nice if you would offer your definition as well, and perhaps even state your concern about my use of the word outright.
David, you are right, justice could use more definition. On the other hand, if I used words like "repentence," "grace," or "mission," chances are that no one would attack me for it ("truth" is a different story, I know), even though we may have different ideas about those things as well. Again, it seems to me that the questioning about "justice" in particular comes out of distrust and fear.
Goodness, you write a pithy little post about BBQ, and look what happens...
Stacey: Regarding your statements: (and its not the BBQ)
"I believe that confession, perhaps especially when we're not sure what it might mean for us, has the power to challenge and shape us. Maybe you don't want to be challenged and shaped by the Belhar. Fair enough. I do."
This statement reminds me of the egalitarian elder board I previously served on. We got into a squabble when the men serving were too focused on "facts"and "certainty" while the women acted more with "emotions" and trust in "uncertainty" It wasn't really about "faith" but rather how we were "wired" differently.
As a "male" there are some red flags of uncertainty regarding the Belhar as to how it shapes up versus our existing creeds and confessions. To a certain extent, I want to know what it will mean and how some groups will interpret it and put it into practice.
Isn't the Belhar supposed to be about unity? It is clear from this thread and many others that the Belhar will only further divide the RCA. The Belhar's demand for unity is more like an RCA call for conformity.
I think many may have missed, what I see, as a very important challenge made by Stacey. The challenge to being, above simply doing.
Regardless of what congregation we attend, there are people who attend (doing) because of reasons of habit, obligation, guilt, obedience, etc. Attending church is what the do. Yet, examine how they live, with no knowledge of their proclaimation of being a Christian, and your hard pressed to find evidence in their lives of their faith.
We should be moved to walk in a new way of life. It should be who we are (being). It is the call to be a disciple of Christ, not a church goer.
Thank you for that challenge.
Leighton
" I believe that a biblical vision of serving the Lord includes seeking reconciliation where people have been divided, and inclusion where people have been excluded. I believe that reconciliation and inclusion are parts of the total picture of God's justice, in which all of creation is made whole and right"
Stacey: I am 100% for this concept. But that is not specific enough.
At this moment in time, sadly the RCA leadership (the dialogue committee on homosexuality and leaders who implemented it) have not given much if any clarification or certainty what inclusion and exclusion should look like. This lack of clarity has bogged down support of the Belhar for many.......and you mentioned "creation .... made whole and right".........sadly some RCA members are not walking in unity regarding creation order....men and women as the model for biblical sexuality. I pray too, that our denomination be whole and right.
Stacey, I was responding to Sherri, and not directly to you. Sherri stated: It's yet another to confess that part of our identity lies in being a people who hope and work for a future of justice. Someday, I'd like us to be able to put that on a sign: "Justice - it's not just what we do, it's who we are."
What concerns me about this statement is the echo I am hearing that it promotes a Social Justice Gospel where the Cross of Christ is in the background as the means of reconciliation and replaced with emergent relativism. As if some form of radical hospitality can bridge the barrier we look for.
Stacey you stated: Let me be clear: I believe that a biblical vision of serving the Lord includes seeking reconciliation where people have been divided, and inclusion where people have been excluded. I believe that reconciliation and inclusion are parts of the total picture of God's justice, in which all of creation is made whole and right.
Jesus Christ and His life death and resurrection is the ONLY means to the end you seek. I am not sure what you mean by the last part, I assume you are paraphrasing Romans 8. And I am not sure how the Belhar becomes another means to this end.
Stacey again: I believe that confessing our own sins of fear, distrust, abuse of power, and oppression is the first step in the process of reconciliation. I believe that the Belhar could be a powerful way for us to confess together, even if we're not all on the same page about what it all means for us
Why must their be a denominational "Mea Culpa" and adopting the Belhar to admit the simple idea that racism is anti-Christ? I just do not understand this thought process. Perhaps my view of sin does not include a lack of socialized goals for the KOG. (Kingdom of God), which would then include a continuing of the OT practice of Corporate sin. How do we confess corporate sin? How is it atoned for? I cannot find one example in the NT where generation sins are confessed. I agree there is a corporate aspect to sin, but not a transfer of guilt to another person save original and imputed sin. The corporate aspect is 'All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God" Adam's sin was both individual and corporate, he sinned as the federal head of all mankind. The guilt is corporate, for all. but when it is taken beyond this truth and say I am personally guilty for the sins of others, I find no New Testament support. In fact, Jesus in John 9, with the man born blind, argues against the notion. The KOG is not organized around the principle of unity at the expense of truth nor equality for all.
This whole issue of the Belhar is a reemergence of Ritschlian theology where The focus of Christian ministry is not so much individual conversion but “to transform human society into the Kingdom of God by regenerating all human relations and reconciling them in accordance with the will of God” (Christianity and the Social Crisis [New York: Macmillan, 1907], And also Walter Rauschenbusch, who embodied the liberal spirit in this regard: “The Kingdom of God is . . . a collective conception, involving the whole social life of man. It is not a matter of saving human atoms, but of saving the social organization. It is not a matter of getting individuals to heaven, but of transforming the life on earth into a harmony of heaven” (Christianity and the Social Crisis, 65).
JPK
Tom: I don't agree with your stereotypes about gender, and as far as I know, there are quite a few men who do not feel similarly alarmed by the Belhar. Frankly, for someone who wants certainty about the future, you follow an awfully unpredictable God.
Mark: I'm curious about this phrase, "biblical sexuality," especially in light of the fact that rape, polygamy, and concubinage are all condoned in various parts of scripture. I'm also concerned that you put excessive emphasis on sexuality when I am pointing toward the broad vision of God's reign of heaven and earth. Also, while I don't think it's the certain or even probable outcome of the Belhar that we will change our stance on homosexuality, I must admit (as you likely suspect) that I am one of those you claim is not walking in unity. So, if you're waiting for me to say that I mean inclusion for everyone except LGBT people, well, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Joe: You and I clearly have a drastic difference in perspective about the nature of sin and of the Gospel. I think your version of sin ignores the collective responsibility we hold for institutional injustice, and your version of the Gospel is some severely truncated good news that is limited to the individual rather than pervading all of creation. Yours is the more popular view, but I do not believe it is the biblical one.
I'm a man and I'm not concerned about the Belhar.
The Belhar does a very good job defining it's own terms.
It should strike us that confessions come out of a sense of urgency for clarification. History is wrought with injustice, disunity, and division. And, yet, the church has never come out with a strong defense, not of ethical behavior, but of God. In other words, the church's silence on historical injustices, disunity, and division is to imply that God is silent on such matters. By adopting the Belhar we are acknowledging that God is a God of justice as much as God is three-in-one. There should be little dispute with either of those and confessions seal it.
A confession like this should have been adopted quite some time ago. We are finally making up for centuries oversight with the adoption of the Belhar. Our other confession are clear on who God is, the Belhar gives us a confession on what God does. Who wants to deny that God is for justice, unity, or reconciliation (see Belhar for definitions).
Stacey says: Joe, You and I clearly have a drastic difference in perspective about the nature of sin and of the Gospel. I think your version of sin ignores the collective responsibility we hold for institutional injustice, and your version of the Gospel is some severely truncated good news that is limited to the individual rather than pervading all of creation. Yours is the more popular view, but I do not believe it is the biblical one.
And this is the fear that I have with people pushing for the Belhar to be elevated to our 3FU, (3 forms of Unity). I guarantee it will be used sooner or later as a foundation for a theology of Liberation and the Social Justice Gospel that is pervasive in the RCA as we speak. To think that preaching of the Gospel can be better fulfilled through social activism and the promotion of societal change is unfounded in scripture. To think that the essence or at least the primary factor in God's will is social and institutional regeneration rather than personal salvation is also not present in the writ. Reformed Christianity affirms as the "greatest need," is the saving efficacy of Chris. The religion of humanism, elevates the moral nature and possibilities of man. For me and scripture, man is a sinner, not the object of faith. The worlds problem in this focus, does not have need for regeneration but for re-organization, not a change in man's nature but a change in man's sicial and institutional environment. And this, of course was the Enlightenment hope which is doomed to fail because Christ's Kingdom is not of this world.
I find truth in the Belhar, but the fruits of most of the people who support it are secular humanism, theology of liberation, and the social Gospel.
Stacey: Regarding:
"I must admit (as you likely suspect) that I am one of those you claim is not walking in unity. So, if you're waiting for me to say that I mean inclusion for everyone except LGBT people, well, I wouldn't hold my breath."
Of course, there may be multiple definitions of "inclusion" but I would like you to explain how the Belhar confession will provide inclusion for the LGBT people.
Joe,
Jesus said at the beginning of his ministry that God had anointed him to bring good news to the poor, recovery of sight to the blind, set the captives free, proclaim the year of the Lord's favor, etc. That's from Luke 4, but he's quoting Isaiah as I'm sure you know. Do you think Jesus has taken Isaiah's words to mean something completely different than Isaiah did? Jesus's words sound awfully liberationist and social to me. It sounds to me like Jesus thinks that's good news. What do you think?
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.
"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."
A think part of the statement made earlier hits on an important difference in peoples minds regarding groups of people. Some see "characteristics" needing defending , while others see " behaviors" needing repentance..
Hello Peter: Good question, one a former Pastor of mine believed was a foundation for his theology of Liberation. Yet, misses the mark. First off Isaiah uses the word 'meek' but the meaning is the same. It is those poor in spirit, not economically poor. Luke was inspired to use the adjective ptōchos. Where the context demands this to mean lowly and afflicted, powerless to be part of the 'educated' and those whom the Pharisees would have ignored. These are 'poor in spirit' those who recognize their spiritually poverty and how they lack any righteousness in themselves. These are those whom the Spirit of God brings to this condition and heartily seek the remedy of Salvation in Christ, not a change in socio-economic conditions. The broken hearted are those whom under the influence of the Spirit, recognize their sin and are distressed because of this disease. Christ heals them by the cross. Not those who are broken about their socio-economic condition.