Belhar Resources: A CRC Congregation's Proposal to Not Adopt the Belhar

Overture to Synod 2012: Not Adopt the Belhar as a 4^th confession in the CRC by First Christian Reformed Church (of Byron Center) 

This overture to Synod is a thoughtful proposal from a local church congregation. I think it is particularly helpful in pointing out that the Belhar addresses an important problem, though not at its root. Racism is a reprehensible sin that ought to be fought with Spirit-given strength; however, it is not our alienation from each other that is the root problem. Our root problem is our alienation from God, which produces the corollary problem, alienation from each other:

The first concern is with the Belhar Confession’s content. The content of the Belhar is limited in scope compared to our other standards, the Three Forms of Unity. It’s true as Lyle Bierma points out that “Not all confessions…have the same scope.” (Calvin Theological Seminary Forum, Fall 2010, p.7.) The Belgic Confession covers many topics that the Canons of Dort and the Heidelberg Catechism do not. The Canons of Dort are narrower in focus than the other two. But while not all cover the same breadth of material, each one is a summary of the gospel and the Reformed Christian faith. The Belhar Confession, however, fails to meet that standard. It addresses gospel implications without much explanation of the gospel itself. How can a gospel explanation be missing when it is the gospel alone which has the power to stop racism? Racism is a blood sin which can only be defeated by the power of the blood of Christ. Racism is not first a social issue but a spiritual one. Our deepest problem is not that we are alienated from one another, but that we are alienated from God. Only when we address our alienation from God can we find the answer for alienation from others. The gospel alone has the power to conquer the roots of racial hatred such as pride, greed, hate, and guilt. Yet, gospel content is in large measure missing from the Belhar Confession. The result is that it is left to be interpreted by our other confessions, which makes it submissive to them and not adequate to be considered as a confession with equal authority. Even worse, the Belhar Confession potentially leaves itself and our denomination open to gospel reinterpretation. Considering the absence of clear gospel definition it is no coincidence as John Cooper indicates that the Belhar Confession allows readings from the perspectives of Reformed orthodoxy as well as the progressive social gospel, and various forms of liberation theology. (Copper, Affirm the Belhar? p. 11) How can a document open to so many perspectives serve as a confession?

Further, adoption of the Belhar would fail to preserve the unity it affirms.

One final concern regarding the Belhar Confession deals with consensus. Confessions are designed to create unity. Unity is best achieved when an issue arises from the bottom up or from the grass roots. Adoption of the Belhar Confession, however, feels more like a top down approach. We have been told that this is the “gift of the Belhar.” How can you refuse a gift? The burden of proof, it seems, does not stand with those who wish to adopt it but with those who do not. This is not a path to unity. Rather than unifying our denomination, adopting this confession may lead to unnecessary division.