Adopt the Belhar as a
Testimony not a Confession
Preamble
The
Synod of 2009 proposed “to Synod 2012 the adoption of the Belhar
Confession as part of the standards of unity of the CRC (as a fourth
confession).” Ground 8 of this proposal “allow[s] for a three-year period
of reflection (2009-2012) . . . The additional time is given to the churches to
adequately study and reflect on the proposal and be better prepared for
response.”
This
overture is a response to Synod’s recommendation to study and reflect on the
Belhar Confession. We hope that this
overture will be a helpful addition to this study period and that this overture
will be received as part of Synod’s discussion in 2012.
Introduction
Racism is a terrible sin that has
humiliated, belittled and destroyed countless people through the ages.
Throughout history racism has taken on many forms. It has appeared as slavery,
oppression, Apartheid, and the Holocaust to name a few forms. Regardless of its form, racism effectively
denies that all people are created in the image of God. Scripture makes it
clear that in Christ there are no divisions of race. In Christ “there is no
Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free,
but Christ is all, and is in all” (Colossians
Unfortunately the Church has not
always proclaimed this truth. Some
churches have remained silent about racism while others have manipulated
scripture to make racism appear acceptable, even honourable. In both silence and endorsement the sin of racism
has been perpetuated in Dutch Reformed churches. The sin of Apartheid isn’t
something that happened in
We are thankful to our brothers and
sisters in
In
History of Racism in
the CRC
The CRCNA, while not guiltless, has
not remained quiet on the issue of racism and in numerous cases has put words
into action. In 2007 Synod recognized that the decision to send missionaries to
This wasn’t the only time our
denomination has struggled with racist tendencies. The
In all of this we recognize that we
can’t ignore the reality of racism in our churches and in our
denomination. We must fight against this
sin as we seek to love and embrace our fellow humans regardless of race or
colour or ethnic background.
The Benefits of the
Belhar Confession
It’s into this context that we
receive the Belhar Confession. This
document does well in its call to reconciliation and healing. It is a call to unity and a call to love each
other regardless of our differences.
Given our continent’s and our own denomination’s history, this is an
important document because it forces us to wrestle with racism.
Belhar is an articulation of our
need for unity and respect for the diversity God has created in the world he
loves. We also recognize its desire to
remain true to God’s Word. After
reading through this document one would find it very difficult to argue against
its basic premise from a Biblical basis.
For this reason we see value in this document within our context in the
CRCNA. At the same time we also note some significant concerns about this
document.
Theological Concerns
The Belhar Confession leaps into social
matters before establishing a Gospel foundation. It rightly points out Christ’s concern for
the unity of the church. Citing John 17:20-23 the Belhar notes “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.” This visible aspect of unity
is a necessary component of declaring the Lordship of Jesus Christ. However, we
must be careful that we keep our emphases in proper order.
The Belhar Confession
states humanity’s need for unity in such strong terms that it renders unclear
humanity’s greater need for reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ. In
John 17:21b Jesus emphasizes that the heart of evangelism is union with God the
Father and God the Son when says to the Father “May they also be in us so that
the world may believe that you have sent me.” Christ’s followers are
unified not first in how they act, but first as they know a more significant
union with God through the blood of Christ.
The preceding observation is evidence that
the Belhar may be theologically unclear.
There is a confusion of theological emphasis as it appears to place
primary importance on horizontal unity with man, as though this will strengthen
our vertical unity with God. This emphasis appears to parallel a
humanistic assumption that the human race can better itself through our own
hard work - in this case the hard work of race reconciliation. Little emphasis
is given to human depravity and our need to first be reconciled to God through
Christ by means of Christ’s atonement and the Spirit’s power. Jesus evidenced
this in his summary of the Law in Matthew 22:34-40. Loving God above all must lead to love for
his image bearers. The Belhar's
human-centered theology will in the end fail to achieve results because it is
centered on people first before God.
When we consider racism in this light, we
realize that racism is a much more serious issue. Racism is not simply harmful
feelings or actions between those of different coloured skin. Racism is a
symptom of a heart that has not been reconciled to God. To this end, racism
causes us grave concern, not only for the victims of racism, but for the
perpetrators of racism considered before their God. Therefore, when the Belhar
Confession focuses only on the fruit of conversion – .viz, unity with humanity – it effectively bypasses a much more
serious need for the perpetrators of racism to be reconciled to God through the
blood of Christ.
A second concern that we have is with the
Belhar’s statement “we reject any
doctrine which explicitly or implicitly maintains that descent or any other
human or social factor should be a consideration in determining membership of
the church.” The term “social factor” is much too ambiguous. Religion itself can be categorized as a
social factor. To this end, the Belhar
can very easily be used to propagate a theology of universalism.
Furthermore, we should recognize that the
Gospel itself is on occasion divisive in nature. In Luke 12:49-53, Jesus says he is not
bringing peace but division. As Jesus
speaks from there he talks about division which will happen within families as
a result of the gospel. Given that this
division will happen within a family system, this division is obviously not
based on descent, but is likely based on social factors. As Christians we are called to live according
to a different standard than the world. What
secular society deems as acceptable behavior, is often much different than how
Christ calls us to live. Even these
basic parameters of belief fall under the category of “social factor.”
Third, we are concerned with where the Belhar
stands in relation to our current three Forms of Unity. Since the Belhar calls
for a rejection of all theology that does not encourage unity, this appears to
place the Belhar at odds with our other three confessions given that these
confessions themselves point to a division between members of the church. They were written to distinguish the beliefs
of Reformed churches from other theological traditions of the day. In our
current Reformed Confessions we discover language referring to the Mass as
“condemnable idolatry” (Q&A # 80) and detesting the “errors of the
Anabaptists” (Art. 34 Belgic).
Historically, the CRCNA has taken issue with these statements in our
current confessions and has opted not to change these confessions due to the
historical nature of these documents. Rather, these oppositions have been noted
as footnotes in subsequent printings of these documents. Since the CRCNA has chosen not to alter our
existing confessions these divisive words still stand. This implies that if we
were to receive the Belhar confession as a fourth confession we might be
required to reject the other three.
Given that the CRCNA has been reluctant to
alter inflammatory language in our current confessions, can we safely assume
the same treatment of the Belhar if it reaches confessional status? As it
stands right now, there are many concerns about the content and the language of
the Belhar. Is it wise for the CRCNA to rush forward and grant this document
confessional status without first wisely and carefully addressing these issues
before the document reaches a status where we can no longer alter it’s content?
This in itself is a problem because we
recognize the limited scope of the Belhar.
It is a document concerned solely with
one issue: the issue of racial
unity. When placed beside the Belgic
Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belhar lacks the depth and
richness of the whole Christian Faith.
While the Canons of Dort focus on one specific theological issue, they
are an important confessional statement to make as the Canons of Dort bring
clarity to God’s sovereignty in such a way that the elect can have comfort and
peace in their election to salvation. Our Three Forms of Unity lay out the
basics of Reformed theology. They help
to speak our reformed accent in a way that the Belhar doesn’t.
The Belhar appears to be in an entirely
different category than our current three forms of Unity. The current three forms of unity serve mainly
as a vertical description of who God is and how God interacts with humanity. The Belhar focuses on the horizontal
relationship between people. This
horizontal relationship serves as a testimony to who God is. Our current
confessions are statements about God, the Belhar is a statement about how
people should respond to each other in response to God. To this end, it seems appropriate for the
Belhar to be accepted as a testimonial status.
A testimony is our response to the gospel. A testimony is a call for our
actions to speak to who God is.
Finally we find this document far too
open-ended and unclear. It calls us to
offer reconciliation to anyone who has experienced injustice. What kind of injustice are we referring
to? Is it real injustice or perceived
injustice? May we even make a
distinction between the two? What if a
perceived injustice doesn’t resonate with the truths of God’s Word? Some would argue that it is unjust to limit a
woman’s right to abortion. Do we need to
fight on behalf of these rights when Scripture recognizes that sometimes being
true to God’s word means being unjust in some people’s eyes? The lack of clarity of the Belhar is a point
of concern given that the purpose of our confessions is to bring greater
clarity to what we believe.
The Paradox of Our
Response
Some people are afraid that if we don't
accept the Belhar as confessional, it would send the wrong message to people.
They fear rejecting the Belhar as confessional could send the message that we
endorse racism. Therefore we need to be
careful to distinguish between the Belhar as a document and the act of racism.
Some would assume that not accepting the Belhar as confessional is nothing more
than passive racism. We must be clear that not accepting the Belhar as
confessional does not equal embracing racism. Racism is sin.
More important, we
need to consider the implications of accepting the Belhar as confessional. This
too could send the wrong message to people. Accepting the Belhar as
confessional could send the message that the church is so concerned with
producing fruits of the gospel (social issues) that it pays little attention to
its root: its central message about the active and passive obedience to Christ.
When the church places social matters before us without clarifying the gospel
it diminishes the church to just another social agency. The Word of God deals greatly
with social matters but only as an outflow of the gospel and the knowledge of
God (theology); there is no warrant for hanging one social issue like racial
justice alongside our confessions independently.
Furthermore, the language of the Belhar Confession
is divisive in itself. There are portions of the Belhar where the wording is so
strong that it makes it difficult to express theological disagreement without
being seen as a racist. Point 5 of the Belhar leaves little room for
questioning or dialogue. There it states
“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.”
This point appears to say that if a person does not agree with every last point
that is written in this document, that person must not be a follower of
Christ. This is in stark contrast to the
tone found in the Belgic Confession article 7 where it humbly submits itself to
the authority of scripture when it says “We must not consider human writings-no
matter how holy their authors may have been – equal to the divine writings . .
. therefore we reject with all our hearts, everything that does not agree with
this infallible rule.”
To that end, we don't wish to accept the
Belhar as confessional because there are aspects of the Belhar that don't agree
fully with the emphasis of Scripture or give full-bodied expression to the
gospel as it is expressed in our other confessions.
Conclusion:
Given the above discussion we recognize the
benefits and the limitations of the Belhar as a Confession. It certainly
has value for our denomination and our context but its limitations make it
impossible for us to receive it with confessional status. As a result we
wonder about the possibility of receiving this document on par with Our World
Belongs to God; A Contemporary Testimony. Both documents challenge us, as
a denomination, to live out our faith in our specific social context.
For
this reasons the council of Riverside CRC Overtures Classis to recommend that
Synod 2010 propose to Synod 2012 the adoption of the Belhar Confession as a
document with the same status as Our World Belongs to God; A Contemporary
Testimony.
Grounds
1. A testimony is
properly understood to be our response to the gospel.
2. It recognizes the
importance of this document.
3. It honours our
need for racial reconciliation.
4. It recognizes the
limits of this document (not confessional).
5. It provides Synod
2012 with an additional option as how to handle Belhar.
Council
of
Dick VanDyke, stated clerk