CRC creates new category for Belhar

[malum in se]

Thoughts on “Ecumenical Faith Declarations”?

" Synod 2012 spent more than three hours Tuesday night debating the Belhar Confession, finally adopting it as an Ecumenical Faith Declaration rather than a confession."
Belhar Yes, Confession No- Christian Reformed Church

"This new category was presented as a middle ground where Belhar could be affirmed in an official way with some authority but not with the confessional status of the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, and Canons of Dort."
http://theaquilareport.com/at-the-c...sion-by-aaron-vriesman/#.T9sO9D3Jp3E.facebook

 

[jogri17]

That is a reasonable position in my mind. I appreciate the mentality in writing new confessions that address specific needs for today, however political conservatives are often uneasy with a lot of it's language. I don't think it teaches the social gospel, but does perhaps put a bit too much emphasis on social justice. However given the South African context in which it was written, that may have been necessary. I'm not a fan of it, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it theological liberalism.

 

[Jack K]

Even if we were to assume the Belhar is good stuff, it is too focused on the historical issues of this particular century. That's often the blind spot of any confession. Even looking back on the excellent confessions of the Reformation/Puritan area, the few concerns that have had to be addressed since then seem to be due to ways the particular issues of the day worked their way into the confession.

So... to adopt a confession that purposefully focuses on the issues of the day is foolishness. That's what you want the ideal confession to avoid, not aim for. The CRC delegates, is this case, made the right call. Too bad they plan to re-examine their decision (like they did over and over on women in office until it passed) in three years.

 

[Zach]

I agree with Jack. Our Confessions of Faith should be timeless as the Good News of Jesus Christ is timeless. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. One of the beauties of the Reformed Confessions is that they capture that have stood the test of time.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Well, I think that this "statement of" whatever should be more scrutinized. It focuses more on liberation from suffering and oppression then on the Gospel of Christ. Also, I have issues with the CRC(which I won't speak about in this thread).

Something to keep of note: liberal denominations are taking this so-called "confession" as their own, E.G. RCA, PCUSA, etc.

 

[kvanlaan]

I've read the Belhar, it is garbage. The CRC has to learn to just say no; it is eating everything the world puts on its plate, and, should the gospel be victorious there, it will vomit it all back up. Otherwise, it will die from acute theological gastrointestinitis.

 

[CharlieJ]

Confession of Belhar
September 1986

1. We believe in the triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who gathers, protects and cares for the church through Word and Spirit. This, God has done since the beginning of the world and will do to the end.

Total garbage. What were they thinking?

2. We believe in one holy, universal Christian church, the communion of saints called from the entire human family.

Crazy.

We believe that Christ's work of reconciliation is made manifest in the church as the community of believers who have been reconciled with God and with one another (Eph. 2:11-22);that unity is, therefore, both a gift and an obligation for the church of Jesus Christ; that through the working of God's Spirit it is a binding force, yet simultaneously a reality which must be earnestly pursued and sought: one which the people of God must continually be built up to attain (Eph. 4:1-16);

Arrgghh! My eyes are bleeding from reading this!

that this unity 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 (John 17:20-23);
that this unity of the people of God must be manifested and be active in a variety of ways: in that we love one another; that we experience, practice and pursue community with one another; that we are obligated to give ourselves willingly and joyfully to be of benefit and blessing to one another; that we share one faith, have one calling, are of one soul and one mind; have one God and Father, are filled with one Spirit, are baptized with one baptism, eat of one bread and drink of one cup, confess one name, are obedient to one Lord, work for one cause, and share one hope; together come to know the height and the breadth and the depth of the love of Christ; together are built up to the stature of Christ, to the new humanity; together know and bear one another's burdens, thereby fulfilling the law of Christ that we need one another and upbuild one another, admonishing and comforting one another; that we suffer with one another for the sake of righteousness; pray together; together serve God in this world; and together fight against all which may threaten or hinder this unity (Phil. 2:1-5; 1 Cor. 12:4-31; John 13:1-17; 1 Cor. 1:10-13; Eph. 4:1-6; Eph. 3:14-20; 1 Cor. 10:16-17; 1 Cor. 11:17-34; Gal. 6:2; 2 Cor. 1:3-4);

No! I want reconciliation that no one can see or recognize!

that this unity can be established only in freedom and not under constraint; that the variety of spiritual gifts, opportunities, backgrounds, convictions, as well as the various languages and cultures, are by virtue of the reconciliation in Christ, opportunities for mutual service and enrichment within the one visible people of God (Rom. 12:3-8; 1 Cor. 12:1-11; Eph. 4:7-13; Gal. 3:27-28; James 2:1-13);
that true faith in Jesus Christ is the only condition for membership of this church.

Aww...and I was hoping for unity by constraint and for membership by faith plus works.

Therefore, we reject any doctrine

which absolutizes either natural diversity or the sinful separation of people in such a way that this absolutization hinders or breaks the visible and active unity of the church, or even leads to the establishment of a separate church formation;
which professes that this spiritual unity is truly being maintained in the bond of peace while believers of the same confession are in effect alienated from one another for the sake of diversity and in despair of reconciliation;
which denies that a refusal earnestly to pursue this visible unity as a priceless gift is sin;
which explicitly or implicitly maintains that descent or any other human or social factor should be a consideration in determining membership of the church.

How could they say this after seeing how well segregation and ethnic conflict has worked everywhere else in the world?

3. We believe

that God has entrusted the church with the message of reconciliation in and through Jesus Christ, that the church is called to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world, that the church is called blessed because it is a peacemaker, that the church is witness both by word and by deed to the new heaven and the new earth in which righteousness dwells (2 Cor. 5:17-21; Matt. 5:13-16; Matt. 5:9; 2 Peter 3:13; Rev. 21-22).
that God's lifegiving Word and Spirit has conquered the powers of sin and death, and therefore also of irreconciliation and hatred, bitterness and enmity, that God's lifegiving Word and Spirit will enable the church to live in a new obedience which can open new possibilities of life for society and the world (Eph. 4:17–6:23, Rom. 6; Col. 1:9-14; Col. 2:13-19; Col. 3:1–4:6);
that the credibility of this message is seriously affected and its beneficial work obstructed when it is proclaimed in a land which professes to be Christian, but in which the enforced separation of people on a racial basis promotes and perpetuates alienation, hatred and enmity;
that any teaching which attempts to legitimate such forced separation by appeal to the gospel, and is not prepared to venture on the road of obedience and reconciliation, but rather, out of prejudice, fear, selfishness and unbelief, denies in advance the reconciling power of the gospel, must be considered ideology and false doctrine.
Therefore, we reject any doctrine which, in such a situation, sanctions in the name of the gospel or of the will of God the forced separation of people on the grounds of race and color and thereby in advance obstructs and weakens the ministry and experience of reconciliation in Christ.

4. We believe

that God has revealed himself as the one who wishes to bring about justice and true peace among people;
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;
that God calls the church to follow him in this, for God brings justice to the oppressed and gives bread to the hungry;
that God frees the prisoner and restores sight to the blind;
that God supports the downtrodden, protects the stranger, helps orphans and widows and blocks the path of the ungodly;
that for God pure and undefiled religion is to visit the orphans and the widows in their suffering;
that God wishes to teach the church to do what is good and to seek the right (Deut. 32:4; Luke 2:14; John 14:27; Eph. 2:14; Isa. 1:16-17; James 1:27; James 5:1-6; Luke 1:46-55; Luke 6:20-26; Luke 7:22; Luke 16:19-31; Ps. 146; Luke 4:16-19; Rom. 6:13-18; Amos 5);
that the church must therefore stand by people in any form of suffering and need, which implies, among other things, that the church must witness against and strive against any form of injustice, so that justice may roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream;
that the church as the possession of God must stand where the Lord stands, namely against injustice and with the wronged; that in following Christ the church must witness against all the powerful and privileged who selfishly seek their own interests and thus control and harm others.
Therefore, we reject any ideology which would legitimate forms of injustice and any doctrine which is unwilling to resist such an ideology in the name of the gospel.

5. We believe that, in obedience to Jesus Christ, its only head, the church is called to confess and to do all these things, even though the authorities and human laws might forbid them and punishment and suffering be the consequence (Eph. 4:15-16; Acts 5:29-33; 1 Peter 2:18-25; 1 Peter 3:15-18).

Jesus is Lord.

To the one and only God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, be the honor and the glory for ever and ever.

I see your point, Kevin. Total junk.

 

[kvanlaan]

Charlie - put it in the context of what is going on now in the CRC and what has been going on in the CRC for the last decade and a half and the road they are choosing theologically when it comes to biblically defined worship, gender roles, etc. and yes, it is indeed garbage, as it is a tool to further liberal theological movement and not a return to orthodoxy. Put it against what they are moving away from, the motivation for doing so, etc. and it is that much more clear. It does not exist nor was it written in a vacuum. Let's not present it as such.

 

[CharlieJ]

Even if we were to assume the Belhar is good stuff, it is too focused on the historical issues of this particular century. That's often the blind spot of any confession. Even looking back on the excellent confessions of the Reformation/Puritan area, the few concerns that have had to be addressed since then seem to be due to ways the particular issues of the day worked their way into the confession.

So... to adopt a confession that purposefully focuses on the issues of the day is foolishness. That's what you want the ideal confession to avoid, not aim for. The CRC delegates, is this case, made the right call. Too bad they plan to re-examine their decision (like they did over and over on women in office until it passed) in three years.

Jack, I think almost the exact opposite is true. It's not possible to write a timeless statement of theological truth. Other than the briefest statements, such as the Apostle's Creed, almost all our statements are highly conditioned by the time of writing. The original Nicene Creed (325) was crafted specifically to rule out the Arian heresy in a way that previous creeds did not. In fact, it was not quite successful in doing so, so the wording was revised and strengthened. What we normally call the Nicene Creed is actually the revision, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381). The Definition of Chalcedon (451) betrays the marks of the philosophical debates of the 5th century. All the confessions of the Protestant Churches in the 16th century could not have been written previously. They emerged from the struggles of the churches.

Perhaps temporality is a weakness, but if so, it is an ineradicable one. Rowan Williams once said (loosely quoting) that finite beings cannot know a timeless truth in a timeless way. However, one might view it the other way around. Perhaps Nicaea and Chalcedon are so useful to us today precisely because of how successfully they addressed a particular problem at a particular time. As Christians, we are not called to preach a timeless gospel, but a timely one. We need to speak God's message to THIS culture and THIS time, no other.

So, looking at something like the Belhar Confession, I think it's important not to view it as parallel with something like the WCF or Heidelberg. It's obviously not designed to serve as a comprehensive founding document for a church fellowship. Rather, it's crafted to address an urgent problem in the life of a particular church and a particular place. To the extent that it does so successfully, and to the extent that other churches can use it to combat that same problem or similar ones, it's a good document. Its timeliness is not a drawback for any of the churches currently groaning under the problem, and if one day they find that they have moved beyond it and that the Belhar seems dated, it will be partly because they adopted it in the first place.

 

[kvanlaan]

Charlie, I see where we get crossed in our talk now. I honestly believe that we preach a timeless gospel that is applicable to any age and any time, any where. There are those who will listen and those who will not, at any time and any where. The Belhar does not address any 'urgent' problem, because unity has always been an issue, and the social gospel has no place being preached in place of the true gospel. Make no mistake, when true conversion occurs in the visible church, it will impact these things that the Belhar speaks of (but without any need of the Belhar's existence). The Belhar takes us off the path of the true and pure gospel and brings into the core many things on the periphery - it puts these things into places they do not belong.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It's not possible to write a timeless statement of theological truth. Other than the briefest statements, such as the Apostle's Creed, almost all our statements are highly conditioned by the time of writing.

Would you claim that 2 Tim 3:16-17 suffers from the same problem?

 

[Jack K]

So, looking at something like the Belhar Confession, I think it's important not to view it as parallel with something like the WCF or Heidelberg. It's obviously not designed to serve as a comprehensive founding document for a church fellowship. Rather, it's crafted to address an urgent problem in the life of a particular church and a particular place. To the extent that it does so successfully, and to the extent that other churches can use it to combat that same problem or similar ones, it's a good document. Its timeliness is not a drawback for any of the churches currently groaning under the problem, and if one day they find that they have moved beyond it and that the Belhar seems dated, it will be partly because they adopted it in the first place.

Well, I agree it's best not to adopt it as something on the same level as the WCF or Heidelberg, which is what they've done. I don't think it's comprehensive enough or timeless enough. Maybe I'm naive to think there can be confessional documents that come close to acheiving timelessness and a comprehensive biblical overview, but I think those should be the church's confessions. Documents that largely deal with one particular issue of the time are best given some other status.

Side note: I guess this begs the question of what should have become of Dort. It dealt with one particular issue of the time, yet was seen as foundational and comprehensive enough to become a confessional document.