As I began thinking about what I would do if given the opportunity to vote on the Belhar, I spent a lot of time thinking about what a “confession” is. Of course, there are a lot of ways to define a confession, and I wasn't a delegate at Synod, so however I would have voted is entirely irrelevant. However, the question I kept coming back to was the question of context.
It sounds awful, but bear with me. One of the beautiful things about the scriptures is that they can be used outside of their original context. That doesn't mean that all out of context interpretations are appropriate, but it does suggest that some out of context interpretations are. I don't think that's even remotely controversial. Obviously we live in a completely different context than those the scriptures were written in. If we are to believe that they still speak to us and make God's will known to us, we have to believe that it's possible to apply them, in some way, outside of their original context.
The standards are obviously not scripture; they do not hold the authority of scripture; they are not inspired in the same way as the scriptures. That said, one of the beauties of the standards is that they too, in some ways, can be interpreted and applied outside of their original context. Ministers in the RCA affirm that they are “historic” and “faithful” expressions of God's will. “Historic” means that they have an original context different from our own; “faithful” suggests that they, to some degree can be interpreted outside of that original context.
As I've thought about the Belhar, then, I've found myself wondering which of two, very different, categories it fits in: (1) is it a powerful document bound to it's original time and context (and thus not suitable as a confession), or (2) is it a powerful document able to speak in some way outside it's original time and context (and thus appropriate for adoption as a confession).
In the end, I believe it's the latter. Which means, of course, that I believe the Synod made a wise and discerning decision in approving it, and celebrate that the years of study have led us to this place.
Certainly some applications outside of South African apartheid are appropriate, certainly others aren't. The flurry of activity on the Church Herald Blogs, over the past week, has seen a myriad of posts referencing the Belhar (in my opinion) under both categories. The question, then, becomes how it can appropriately be applied outside of its original context.
One of the problems we have, in answering this question, is that as important as it is, we haven't done a very good job at answering it with our other three standards. Nor, even, have we done an acceptable job answering it in the case of the scriptures. Again, it's worth noting that the scriptures and the standards are unquestionably on different levels – yet the question is similarly important.
I can't provide a full hermeneutic on the standards, but let me at least suggest the following:
(1) In order to understand how the standards (and therefore, the Belhar) can be applied outside of their original context, we need to know as much about their original context as possible and what the differences are between their original context and a contemporary one.
(2) The first step in interpreting the standards, is to figure out what they meant to their original audience in their original context.
(3) The second step in interpreting the standards, is to ensure that the “contemporary” (i.e. out of context) interpretation is consistent with the scriptures. (As a standard, I already believe the original interpretation is consistent with the scriptures).
(4) The third step in interpreting the standards, is to ensure that the contemporary interpretation is consistent with original interpretation (i.e. it's inappropriate to try to get the standards to say something inconsistent with what they were intended to say, even though it is appropriate to carefully apply them to different contexts than originally intended.)
OK, it isn't a fully functional hermeneutic... but maybe it's a start.
Thoughts?
Grace and Peace,
`tim