Boiling down the Belhar Brouhaha

Last Tuesday night, my wife and I sat down with a bowl of popcorn to watch the live webcast of the Christian Reformed Church's Synod 2012. Admittedly, we're "special" like that. I can think of only two groups of people that voluntarily to watch a a series of (seemingly) futile exchanges back and forth by a bunch of Dutch people-- fans of the CRC Synod and Dutch soccer fans. 

In fact though, the 2012 CRC Synod was not an exercise in futility between Dutch people because (a) though the Vander-whatchamacallits and the Van-whatever-smas were numerous, they were by no means the only ethnicity represented (an encouraging thing to see!) and (b) Synod was not futile. 

The discussion on the Belhar Confession-- and its place in the Christian Reformed Church-- lasted close to three hours. Discussion was back and forth, and though tense, the debate remained civil. In the end, responding to the recommendations of a synodical advisory committee, the delegates of Synod voted to create the category of "Ecumenical Faith Declaration" and voted to make the Belhar Confession the first document of that kind. 

The creation of the "Ecumenical Faith Declaration" category-- and the subsequent deposit of the Belhar into said category-- represents a compromise. On the one hand, the Belhar is given an official status within the Christian Reformed Church; however, it is not given the same official and binding status as the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, and Canons of Dort. It means that the Christian Reformed Church has, in a qualified manner, received the Belhar, but it does not demand its office bearers (elders, deacons, pastors, professors) to "sincerely believe that all the articles and points of doctrine [in the Belhar Confession]... agree with the Word of God", as the Form of Subscription says. Something many could not say.  

For some proponents of the Belhar, this may comes as a disappointment because the Christian Reformed Church could not fully endorse the teachings of the Belhar. Many who had sought its adoption had argued for the importance of standing, in unity, alongside brothers and sisters in the Uniting Reformed Church in South Africa. This was the reason the motion was to adopt the Belhar, instead of creating a new document that spoke to racial reconciliation.

As the situation currently stands, it appears not much has changed. Those who sought the Belhar will make use of it in their congregations, their liturgy, and their teaching; those who opposed it, will either ignore it or (hopefully) find other ways to speak against racism and pointless divisions that will satisfy their conscience. Some will function as though the Belhar was a confession, others will not. 

The positive outcomes of Synod's decision is, for now, the visible unity of the Christian Reformed Church is preserved and many in good conscience can still sign the Form of Subscription. 

A couple summary news articles on the Belhar happenings are available from the Aquila Report and The Banner. 

Belhar Resources: J. Todd Billings on the Belhar

Again, I want to refer you to material on the Belhar Confession found on Kevin DeYoung's blog. This time he interacts with the work of J. Todd Billings of Western Theological Seminary. Billings' recent book on believers' union with Christ criticizes the Belhar's phrasing that "God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged.”

Belhar Resources: A Belhar Alternative

Not Another Confession in the CRC: A Belhar “Alternative” by Aaron Vriesman, pastor of North Blendon CRC in Hudsonville, MI

 
Pastor Aaron Vriesman, of the Christian Reformed Church, creates a modified edition of the Belhar Confession that he believes more adequately speaks to the Biblical vision of justice and reconciliation. Vriesman’s alternative edition highlights the two problems with the Belhar. In places it goes beyond the Biblical vision of justice (e.g. that God is, in a special way, the God of the poor and oppressed) and at other times it does not adequately express the grounds for Biblical justice (the reason for Vriesman’s additions). What is most notable about Vriesman’s additions is that he is attempting to compensate for the Belhar’s failure to clearly ground the Christian’s mandate for justice and racial reconciliation in the salvific work of Christ. Here are several additions that Vriesman makes to this end (** denotes addition, [ ] subtraction): 

**– that God sent his only begotten Son to suffer and die on the cross to accomplish this justice and peace (Matt. 12:18-21; Isa. 42:1-4); that as sinless man and perfect God, Jesus Christ’s suffering and death on behalf of sinful humanity amounts to the greatest injustice of all time (Isa. 53:5-6, 8-10; Luke 20:9-18, 23:41; Acts 8:32-35);**

**– that God, by the cross of Christ, condemns all injustice in sinful humanity (Rom. 8:3); that God, by the resurrection of Christ, shows his salvation to triumph over injustice (Php. 2:5-11; Isa. 53:11-12);**

**– that God desires and calls people from all nations, tribes, backgrounds, ranks and status to his salvation through Christ (1Tim. 2:1-4; Rev. 14:6); that all believers everywhere are called to face injustice for the sake of Christ, not seeking their own justice (Deut. 32:35; Rom. 12:19), but taking up the cross and following Christ in suffering injustice (Matt. 16:24; 2Tim. 1:8; 1Pet. 2:19-23, 4:1), thereby considering it an honor to suffer injustice for the sake of Christ (Matt. 5:10-12; Acts 5:41; 1Pet. 4:12-19);**

In the below paragraph, Vriesman adds "in Jesus Christ" to stress that the unity of God's church is the unity of those who are effectually called by God and united to Christ through faith. He also subtracts the misleading clause "anything which threatens this unity may have no place in the church and must be resisted". While the apostle Paul does desire the unity of the body, he also calls Christians (and especially leaders in the Church) to defend the faith and to turn away from those who promote error (e.g. 1 Timothy 6 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6). Unity is never at the expense of the truth, something that the Belhar fails to make clear.

"that this unity **in Jesus Christ** must become visible so that the world may believe that separation, enmity and hatred [between people and groups] is sin which Christ has already conquered, and accordingly that [anything which threatens this unity may have no place in the church and must be resisted] **the church is called to focus on Jesus Christ who is the head of his church and the sufficient healer of all human divisions** (John 17:20-23 **; Matt. 10:2-4**)"

While no changes will actually be made to the Belhar by the Christian Reformed Church, one may still find Vriesman's exercise instructive.

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.

Belhar Resources: Kevin DeYoung (of the Reformed Church in America) on the Belhar Confession

Since the Belhar Confession is up for approval as a fourth confession in the Christian Reformed Church at the denominational Synod in Ancaster, Ontario, I thought it was fitting to put our ear to several voices objecting to the adoption of the Belhar as a confessional document. Stay tuned through out this week for more resources related to the Belhar. 

The Belhar Confession: Yea or Nay? By Kevin DeYoung.

Written in May 2009 prior to the Reformed Church in America’s adoption of the Belhar Confession. While affirming the theme that God’s people should not be divided by race or ethnicity, DeYoung probes the problematic language of the Belhar:

“…there are a few lines that cannot be supported by Scripture. Here’s just one example: We believe that God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged. To be sure, the Bible is full of examples of God’s heart for the poor and the oppressed. But it goes too far to say he is in a special way a God to them. The covenant promise—I will be your God and you will be my people (language Belhar echoes here)—is for those who put their faith in God, not simply those who are poor or oppressed. In fact, Abraham, the man of faith and the model for all covenantal blessing (Gal. 3:5-9), was especially rich (Gen. 13:5-6). Is God less of God to him than to the poor man who rejects Christ? Was God a God to Job, Zacchaeus, Mary and Martha in a less special way because they were well-to-do? There are plenty of verses to support the contention that God cares for the poor and oppressed, but are there any verses to suggest that he is their covenantal God apart from faith? Or any verses to suggest that God looks on the believing poor with more favor than the believing non-poor? God does not show partiality to the poor, nor does he defer to the great (Lev. 19:15).”

DeYoung also points to the plurality of applications that have been seen to emerge out of the Belhar as a confusion-creating problem.

Belhar Debate

Dr. John Cooper (Calvin Theological Seminary) and Rev. Peter Borgdoff (former director of the Christian Reformed Church) debate the Belhar Confession at a denominational event in Illinois.

Belhar Confession

In one week the Christian Reformed Church will gather in Ancaster, Ontario for Synod. This Synod is anticipated (or dreaded) because the CRC will dash itself upon the rocks of the Belhar Confession. The Belhar Confession was written in response to the horror of South African apartheid. While the church stood, amidst the racial chaos with blood on its hands, the Belhar was penned. Now, the Christian Reformed Church will decide whether the Belhar should be adopted as the denomination's fourth confessional document.

The Belhar is intended to be a statement of Christian unity, but the grim reality is that it threatens to tear the CRC apart. I will be posting (or referring to) a number of resources this week that speak to the Belhar Confession. In the meanwhile, please pray fervently that God will guide the discussions of Synod and that He will provide a way to maintain both the unity and the doctrinal integrity of the denomination.

Here is the text of the Belhar Confession. Be sure to read it.