On The Belhar Confession
The latest issue of our denominational newsletter, [The Banner](http://thebanner.org/template/index.cfm), just came out. There’s an article about how the [CRC](http://www.crcna.org) is looking at adopting [The Belhar Confession](http://www.vgksa.org.za/who.asp?id=106&sinid=1). And this got me curious and then to thinking about this serious undertaking.
[Wikipedia has a good explanation and summary of The Belhar Confession.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belhar_Confession) It has an interesting history and I think that this confession is necessary from [churches that institutionalized segregation in South Africa.](http://www.warc.ch/dcw/bs25/08.html) But as the CRC and our sister denomination, the [RCA](http://www.rca.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?&pid=2225&srcid=-2), look at it, we have to decide whether is it necessary for us Americans, too.
The RCA has been looking at this new confession for five years, much longer than the CRC has been looking at it, so their ideas on it are more refined than my own denomination. [Here is a note from a RCA leader about a joint session with the CRC on Behlar.](http://www.rca.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?&pid=2693&srcid=570) (Go down about halfway to see the headline.) He seems quite positive on it and, from what he says, I think the CRC is actually further along in the process than the RCA is, though I may be reading it wrong. Here’s a blog entry from a delegate to the RCA Synod [who isn't quite as positive on it.](http://swolters.wordpress.com/2007/01/20/on-the-belhar-confession/) He raises some very valid points on it, especially given the fact that everything the Behlar Confession is already in our statements of faith somewhere, so why do we need to repeat it.
Reading The Behlar Confession warms the heart of this former Anabaptist. The issues of racial reconciliation and social justice that this confession addresses goes right with the beliefs I was brought up with and still hold, only with a more Reformed perspective on them. The CRC has been very active in these areas, especially through [the CRWRC](http://crwrc.org/). If we have been doing this already, why do we need to have another confession on it?
On the other hand, Sunday morning is the most segregated time during the week. The American melting pot, or tossed salad if you want to use that metaphor, is not as one during that time. Americans are also extremely wasteful in our resources and we tend to ignore the corruption and poverty in our own country and others.
The CRC is no different than other Evangelical denominations in this. And sometimes worse than others. If I introduce myself as Hostetler in some CRC circles, I get a blank stare back, because with a name like ‘Hostetler’ that means you can’t play [Dutch Bingo](http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=74555) real well. And how else do you start a conversation with someone you don’t know?
If the CRC denomination adopts The Belhar Confession, then they are not only focusing on accepting the responsibility of the causes of the poor and to help make right the injustices of the world, but they are also saying that they fully embrace God’s church in all its diverse glory. If they adopt this, they are officially saying that the mantra “If you ain’t Dutch, then you ain’t much” is wrong, even when said in jest.
If the CRC adopts The Belhar Confession, then they will have to take big steps to show that they are fully embracing its implications. If they are unwilling to make those changes, then it shouldn’t be adopted as a core of their faith. I think that the CRC should adopt this new confession — it will let the world know that they honor everyone in God’s Kingdom and will stand up for the justice that God’s Kingdom can give.
Hrm…
Seems to me to be a lazy way of affirming what your Three Forms already spell out in adequate detail. To me, stepping into the adoption of Confessions in response to contemporary social issues is not to be prefered. This ‘new’ Confession really doesn’t, as you point out, add anything at all to your current documents of Polity.
In fact, I would argue that rather, it dilutes them. It’s like a ‘Cliff Notes’ guide to your other documents. Sure, I can see why it would be wise in S.A. to have reaffirm the truths of the Confessions as sumarized in Belhar, but I don’t know if I can agree that it is needed nor wise to adopt it as a 4th leg of the Confessional stool.
Australia is not America, but there, the ‘Dutch’ Reformed Church lives and dies by the not dutch – not much mindset. I’ve been to more than one service where folks around me have broken into Dutch leaving me to become minutely interested in the patina of the pew ahead of me.
Is there room for a better understanding that ‘ghettoism’ and exclusivity is not in the will of God? Yes, indeed. Does the denomination have a means within her grasp to effect this better understanding? Yes, she does.
Heidelberg Confession
54. Q. What do you believe concerning the holy catholic Christian church?
A. I believe that the Son of God,[1] out of the whole human race,[2] from the beginning of the world to its end,[3] gathers, defends, and preserves for Himself, [4] by His Spirit and Word,[5] in the unity of the true faith,[6] a church chosen to everlasting life.[7] And I believe that I am[8] and forever shall remain a living member of it.[9]
[1] John 10:11; Acts 20:28; Eph. 4:11-13; Col. 1:18. [2] Gen. 26:4; Rev. 5:9. [3] Is. 59:21; I Cor. 11:26. [4] Ps. 129:1-5; Matt. 16:18; John 10:28-30. [5] Rom. 1:16; 10:14-17; Eph. 5:26. [6] Acts 2:42-47; Eph. 4:1-6. [7] Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:3-14. [8] I John 3:14, 19-21. [9] Ps. 23:6; John 10:27, 28; I Cor. 1:4-9; I Pet. 1:3-5.
55. Q. What do you understand by the communion of saints?
A. First, that believers, all and everyone, as members of Christ have communion with Him and share in all His treasures and gifts.[1] Second, that everyone is duty-bound to use his gifts readily and cheerfully for the benefit and well-being of the other members.[2]
[1] Rom. 8:32; I Cor. 6:17; 12:4-7, 12, 13; I John 1:3. [2] Rom. 12:4-8; I Cor. 12:20-27; 13:1-7; Phil. 2:4-8.
Does Belhar add anything of consequence to these two questions? No, it does not. I merely expands and unpacks them and, to my mind, that’s no way to adopt a Confession.
Adding a document the world will not read nor have heard of will not show it that you honor everyone in the kingdom and will stand up for justice. Rather, honoring everyone in the kingdom and standing for justice will show that you honor everyone in the kingdom and stand for justice.
Endorsement of Belhar as a worthy restatement of the truthes long held? Amen.
Adoption of Belhar as a worthy successor to the Historic Confessions? Why bother?
- The curmudgeonly Presbyterian
Nubi,
You make some great points and none I totally disagree with. The Belhar Confession doesn’t say anything that hasn’t been said before, but it does say it in a different way, with a different focus.
I’m not sure that I would use the word “successor” — how about Supplement to the Big Three? And I don’t agree that the issues it focuses on are contemporary. The only thing that is contemporary about is that we have only recently figured out that we have problems in these areas. The problems are as old as Western Civilization.
I think the CRC is taking these concepts seriously. Whether they will adopt the words as well as deeds remains to be seen. I support the adaptation of Belhar, but I support the actions of it more than the words.
For anyone (especially in the CRC) who wants to learn more about the Belhar Confession, check out
belhar.blogspot.com
Some of us have some reservations about adding it as a Fourth Standard of Unity. The concerns about racism are valid, for sure.