This past summer I attended the Reformed Church in America’s General Synod, and one of the major issues before Synod was adopting the Belhar Confession into the RCA’s book of Standards, which now includes 3 ecumenical creeds – Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian, the Heidelberg Catechism (HC), Belgic Confession (BC), and Canons of Dort (CD). Now, the RCA has been discussing this issue for five years now, and the CRC has now started to discuss adopting this confession as well. For those of you who are not familiar with this document I have provided a link to it above; it focuses on three issues: unity of the church, reconciliation within the church and society, and God’s justice – all very important issues.
Clearly, the RCA has been hesitant in adopting this confession as a confession of the church, this is seen in the fact that it has been a 5 year discussion. Yet, it seems that the leadership of the denomination is trying to force the issue. When I was at Synod, one whole day was slotted for celebrating church unity and ecumenicity- which are important issues. Then, at the end of the day, after all this celebration, we came back from the ecumenical meal and on our tables were the Study Guides which the Synod was to vote on to have all the churches study the Belhar. So we looked at the study guide, sang a song on the Belhar, then the people were to vote. Clearly, at this point, no one could say no. I found this very intriguing.
Then, I recently read the fall issue of the Reformed Review, which is Western Theological Seminary’s theological publication, and it was on the Belhar Confession. After reading the issue I was disappointed that a opposing view was not involved in the discussion; all the authors wrote in favor of adopting the Belhar. Yet, the RCA has been hesitant, so this clearly is not representing the entire denomination. Again the denomination seems to be pushing the issue.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to slander the leadership of the RCA, but this is what I see. So, should the RCA adopt the Belhar? My opinion is that they shouldn’t. The main reason’s for adopting are: (1) The confessional statements we have now do not fully discuss the issues involved in Belhar; therefore, it would complete the doctrines of the church. (2) The Belhar was given as a gift from the Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa, and as a sign of affection toward this church and their struggle we should adopt it. This would be a sort of ecclesiastical handshake if your from the North or hug if your from the South.
These seem like good reasons don’t they? Now, I will briefly examine them. First, on the second point, the RCA has been side by side with the URCSA during its struggles, so I am not sure if we need to accept a document as a stardard of the church for that reason. I really don’t think that would ever be a good reason to adopt a confessional document. (If you would like me to flesh that out more I can and would be glad to)
Second, on the first point, which is the strongest point, I am not certain that the Standards now in the Constitution don’t adequately discuss these issues of unity, reconciliation, and justice. In fact, I think the issue is that the church doesn’t read and examine the documents it has. A thorough examination will reveal these issues in the Three Forms of Unity -the Heidelberg, Belgic, and Canons for those who are not familiar with this language. On church unity, HC 54 and BC 27 – 29 clearly discuss what the church is and that it is to be united. And the same teaching would be clear in the teachings on the sacraments. On reconciliation and justice, almost all the the HC, BC, and CD are concerned with our reconciliation with God, which is not really a concern of Belhar – which is fine because of its focus. But, these documents do talk about these issues as stated in Belhar: HC 55, 81, 90, 91, 103-115, 123, 126, 127 and BC 24, 28, 29, 32, 36, 37.
Now, one may say that I am arguing on implication. Yes, these things do arise from implication – though I do think most issues are explicitly approached, but the implications are clear and logical, if these articles of faith are taught. And that is the real issue, they aren’t taught in our churches. A wise farmer told/asked me at Synod that we don’t even read and study the Standards we have now so why would we want to adopt another? This is what I think is the real issue at hand. These social issues are discussed in the documents we have now, but the church needs to examine and teach them. What difference would it make if we adopted a document and didn’t teach it?
Do you have any concerns about the Belhar itself?
It seems to me that it’s superfluity is a very good reason to reject it. We ought not to take lightly the significance of these confessions the Reformed faith is founded upon. Although they are not infallible and inerrant as holy scripture is, they are a very precious part of our heritage and ought not to be added to lightly. The BC and HC and Cof D were written in times of great theologicl turmoil in the church as were the creeds and some of their authors and supporters paid for their bold defense of truth with their lives.
At a broad level, I don’t have many concerns with what Belhar teaches as an addition to our confessional standards (I say “our” assuming you are in a Dutch or German Reformed tradition, and you use “our” as well, but I apologize if my assumption is wrong). BUT (note emphasis) I can say this as I define the terms within the statement. That is the problem about adopting another church’s confessional statement. If you are going to adopt it and take it seriously, then the denomination should define its terms, and how it reads it. We cannot adopt their historical situation, but we can apply it to ours, but if we do I think we should comment as a denomination on its teaching. For instance, the use of “poor” in the fourth article. The church has to be careful not to fall into the trap of liberation theology and teachings like it – to me the confession does get very close to teaching it. And on a different note, I don’t think it teaches well. I know that this is not as important, but it is quite wordy. Yet, I wouldn’t let this get in the way of adopting it. Actually, if the RCA is concern about having a confession that speaks to these aspects of the church, why not produce a new confessional statement in our own context. Maybe one that brings in all the teachings of the other statements – One Big Confessional statement for the 21st century. This process would also help us find our identity as a denomination, which seems to be a constant question and concern recently for the church. Just some thoughts…
[...] 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. He raises some very valid points on it, especially given the fact that everything the Behlar [...]
[...] concept of what that word means (this is an issue I have with adopting Belhar, for more info see my post on the Belhar Confession). In fact, repeating a word too much can sometimes lessen the strength and meaning of that word. [...]
We are having a discussion about the Belhar in the CRC as well. If you would like to read about it some more, check out
belhar.blogspot.com
Some of us have reservations about adding it as a Fourth Standard of Unity