In an inter-denominational synergy (or maybe a cosmic convergence or providential parallel) it turns out that the Belhar Confession is currently under consideration in three Reformed churches in the U.S. — In addition to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) it is also being looked at by the Reformed Church in America (RCA) and the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) for adoption as a confessional standard.
If you have not had a chance to get acquainted with the Belhar Confession yet, it was written by the Dutch Reformed Mission Church of South Africa, under the leadership of the Rev. Allan Boesak, and it spoke to the concern that the concept of apartheid was at odds with the justice and equality of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Belhar Confession is now one of the standards of unity of the Uniting Reformed Church of Southern Africa.
Of the three denominations the one furthest along in the adoption process is the RCA which has been studying it in the wider church since 2000. In 2007 it was provisionally adopted by the General Synod and this past summer the General Synod approved the formal adoption process and it must now be approved by 2/3 of the 46 classes (like a Presbyterian presbytery) to become their first new standard in over 300 years. (OK, the three standards, the Belgic Confession, Canons of Dort, and Heidelberg Catechism were written over 300 years ago but adopted by the RCA in 1771.)
As it turns out the process in the CRC is a bit ahead of the PC(USA) but their study period will close at the same time as the PC(USA) in 2012. The CRC has been in consultation with the RCA about this and their Synod 2009 recommended that the church study the Confession and that it be adopted by Synod 2012 as their fourth confessional standard, the same as the RCA. For the CRC the approval by Synod 2012 is the final step and no vote of the classes is required under their polity. (A unique feature in my experience.)
Concerning the PC(USA), if approval is gained at each of the planned steps then it would enter the PC(USA) Book of Confessions following the 220th General Assembly in 2012. The specific steps are the formation of a study committee by the 218th GA, report back of the study committee recommending adoption to the next GA, the 219th, and approval of the confession by that Assembly. It would then be sent to the presbyteries for approval requiring an affirmative vote of 2/3 of the presbyteries. There must then be a final vote of the next GA, the 220th in 2012, to finish the process successfully. The first and second steps, creation of the study committee and a positive recommendation of that committee have now been completed. The committee’s work has included consultation with the CRC and the RCA, even holding their first meeting back in June in Grand Rapids, MI, a location chosen to better dialog with the CRC.
While this is not the hottest topic (maybe this, or this, or even this is) in the Reformed circles of the blogosphere, it does have pretty good coverage. Bloggers from the RCA (e.g. Steve Pierce and Kevin DeYoung) and the CRC (e.g. Algernon Peak) are weighing in on the confession. And of course, there is plenty of opinion from the PC(USA) as well (e.g. Toby Brown, Byron Wade, Viola Larson, and Mark Koenig).
There is general agreement that the Belhar Confession would bring a couple of new items to the Book of Confessions — its focus on equality and justice as well as its Southern Hemisphere perspective. Those are aspects that you may or may not agree should be represented in the Book of Confessions.
Regarding the justice aspect there is a concern among many of the bloggers that it comes from the perspective of Liberation Theology. In the fourth section of the Belhar Confession, the second bullet-point reads “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.” The current debates revolve around the phrase “is in a special way” and what that means. In some varieties of Liberation Theology the scriptures are viewed as saying that God not only comforts the poor and oppressed but is inherently against the rich and powerful. Algernon Peak comments on this saying:
The first aspect of the Belhar that makes me uncomfortable is that it makes the claim, “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.” While Scripture makes clear that God cares for the poor, and Christ says in Luke 6, “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God”, we go too far to say that God is in some special way God to those who are impoverished. According to the Scriptures, God is God in a special way to his chosen people, to go beyond that truth is to say more than the Scriptures do. This does really concerns me, because that particular portion of the Belhar seems much more indebted to contemporary liberation theology than it does to the Bible. We are lost if we start allowing our confessions to say that which God’s revealed written testimony does not give us the right to say.
The aspect of the Belhar that is probably the focus of the greatest debate is how the pronouncements about justice and equality regarding racial divisions can be extended to current controversies of gender orientation equality. That this extension can be made seems
to be acknowledged by all engaged in the debate. In the case of the Rev. Joseph Small of the PC(USA) Office of Theology and Worship this is a good and legitimate extension. The official PC(USA) press release says this about his comments to the committee:
Adopting the Belhar also means more than presenting a simple statement against racism, Small said.
“It does speak to the contemporary reality of racial discrimination in our church and the world,” he said. The church can’t ignore the situation of apartheid that led to the Belhar, Small told the committee, but also can’t limit it to that. “Belhar is something that speaks about the diversity of the church but doesn’t restrict it to one dimension.”
That openness to a wide range of social conflicts could also be a barrier to adoption for Belhar, which some could argue opens the door to gay and lesbian ordination. That issue was raised recently when the national governing bodies of the Reformed Church in America (RCA) and the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) also considered Belhar.
But the confession mentions only membership in the church — not ordination — and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people have long been welcomed as members in the PC(USA), Small said.
One of the people raising concerns about the extension of the Belhar Confession to this current debate is Dr. Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary. His is an interesting voice in this discussion because, as he describes in his recent piece about it, he has significant experience with all three of these Reformed branches as well as the individuals and denomination that wrote the Belhar. (He has an earlier article from last Spring raising concerns as well.) In the article from last week he wrote:
So why am I opposed to our—the CRC, RCA, and PC(USA)— adopting Belhar as a confessional document? When I wrote about this earlier I mentioned that Allan Boesak, also one of the gifted anti-apartheid spokespersons in South Africa’s Reformed community, had recently appealed to Belhar in support of including active gays and lesbians in the church’s ministerial ranks. I might also have mentioned that many fear that Belhar will now be used to reinforce an unnuanced anti-Israeli stance.
I think those worries are real. But my critics, many of whom share my views about same-sex issues and Middle East matters, rightly insist that this is no reason to oppose Belhar as such. What we must do, they rightly argue, is to make sure that Belhar is understood as a prophetic word against racial and ethnic discrimination within the Christian community.
We will see to what extent Belhar is held up as a “particular stance” in particular circumstances at a particular time versus how it is applied as applicable today to any perceived injustice or inequality.
But Dr. Mouw continues on from there to express an even greater concern on his part — the nature of confessional standards in general and how this one fits into that framework. The nature of confessional standards is something I have discussed before and this is of concern to me as well. I encourage you to read the whole discussion, but here are some excerpts that I hope gives you the basics of what seems to me to be the strong case that Dr. Mouw makes:
My real concern about adopting Belhar has to do with the broader issue of the nature of confessional integrity in our Reformed and Presbyterian churches. I think I know all three denominations very well. I was raised in an RCA pastor’s home, and attended two of that denomination’s colleges and one of its seminaries. I was an active member of the CRC for 17 years. And for two decades now I have been similarly active in the PC(USA).
When I was studying at an RCA seminary in the 1960s, one of my more conservative professors explained the differing views on the status of the Reformed “Standards of Unity”—Heidelberg, Belgic, and Dort—in this way. The CRC, he said, takes them very seriously. If you are Christian Reformed you are expected really to believe what is in them. […] Some people in the RCA, on the other hand, said the professor, tend to see the book of confessions as a kind of museum. […]
I think the professor had it right at the time. But today all three of the aforementioned denominations basically endorse the museum approach. Or it may be a little more like a “Great Books” approach. The documents from the past are all there up on the shelf, and we all acknowledge their importance, but some of us really like James Baldwin and others of us prefer Jane Austen.
[…]
These days it is rather common for people—CRC folks included—who have taken ordination vows publicly to express their disagreements with what I take to be essential Reformed doctrines. Indeed, I am often treated as a curiosity of sorts when I make it clear that I still subscribe to the actual doctrinal content of the Reformed “Great Books”—predestination, individual election, substitutionary atonement, the reality of hell, Christ as the only Way.
So, let me put it bluntly. If we—for all practical purposes—don’t care about genuinely subscribing to the actual content of, say, the Belgic or the Westminster confessions, why would we think that adopting Belhar would be in any way binding on the consciences of persons who take ordination vows? When detached from the content of the rest of Reformed thought, many of Belhar’s formulations—as stand-alone theological declarations—are dangerously vague. Belhar deserves confessional status only in a community that takes the rest of its confessions with utmost seriousness.
To sum up this whole issue his concluding paragraph is concise and to the point. I leave you with that:
The most compelling case being made for adopting Belhar is for me the pleas of underrepresented racial-ethnic minority groups in our denominations. They have a right to ask us to declare our firm conviction that racism and ethno-centrism are not only unjust, they are theological heresies. But I fear they are assuming that we are more committed to confessional integrity than we actually are. When all of this debate is over and Belhar—as is very likely—is on the confessional shelf, I hope they will push us hard on whether we really take that whole shelf seriously.
(It is like the standing joke in academics about reviewers of journal articles asking that you discuss this, that, and the other thing in more detail, and by the way, make the paper 10% shorter.