Tuesday, April 15, 2008

The Belhar Confession: The Wrong Time, The Wrong Place, The Wrong Confession


As I have began to read and study the Belhar Confession, its history and the suggested documents for studying it, I have decided to stop and apply some of Arthur Cochrane’s material from his book The Churches Confession Under Hitler, as well as my own thoughts, to the Confession.

First I want to list the initial problems I have with the Belhar Confession and its possible inclusion in the Presbyterian Church (USA) Book of Confessions.

1.The text the Church has been given to study is an inclusive translation of the original one. It is slightly altered. In some sense, in the very first part, the Word and Spirit are cut free from God; likewise the Church has lost its owner.

2.The Belhar Confession only speaks to a symptom of a deeper problem, therefore, it is more relevant for a certain time and place, rather than meeting the needs of the Church Universal.

3.Likewise the Confession fails to do the first thing a Confession must do, that is, confess Jesus Christ anew for the Church. It is because of this that it only speaks to a symptom.

4.Following this failure to confess Jesus Christ anew this Confession begins a small fissure that will undoubtedly widen into such a wide canyon that other Confessions may fall into the chasm. (I will of course explain my metaphors.)

5.Rather then speaking to the fomenting heresies that are gathering strength in the Presbyterian Church USA as well as the antinomianism that is plaguing this and other denominations, this Confession has the power to confuse all the issues.

1. The first problem is quite fixable and is not a problem in some of the translation. The original #1 reads, “We believe in the Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who gathers, protects and cares for his Church by his Word and his Spirit, as He has done since the beginning of the world and will do to the end.”

The new translation reads, “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.” This simply leads to a rather ambiguous ‘Word’ and ‘Spirit,’ and fails to note that God is the owner of his Church. Probably the worst problem here is the setting of a precedent for changing language in an already existing official document (official to the Churches of South Africa).

2-3. The second problem, the Confession’s concerns with a symptom, must be joined with the third problem its failure to Confess Jesus Christ as Lord. That is, the disunity in the South African Church caused by a forced separation of ethnic groups had as its basic foundation the failure of the Church to confess Jesus Christ as Lord. Failure to acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord always causes, in one way or another, disunity.

Cochrane in his chapter on the nature of a Confession, as I have elsewhere pointed out, writes:

"The Barmen Declaration teaches first and foremost that a Confession of Faith is a written document drawn up by the Church which confesses Jesus Christ. While the Church confesses certain doctrines and dogmas and supplies answers to specific questions, it does so only in order to bear witness to Christ. It confesses a living Person who is the Lord and thus calls for a personal relationship of trust and obedience to him—not to the Confession as such or to the doctrines contained in it.”

While the Belhar Confession does refer to Jesus Christ as Lord in several places, those are simply formal statements. The Church is not called to a personal relationship of trust and obedience which then would have included unity among believers. The broken unity of that Church at that particular time was failure to be obedient to Jesus Christ as the only Lord of the Church. Lack of adherence to the unique and only Lordship of Jesus Christ is always the foundational cause of disunity. The Church must be called back to the unique Lordship of Jesus Christ.

4. The fourth problem in the Belhar Confession is its relationship to "liberation theology." While it does not first, in a proper manner, call the Church back to its Lord, the Confession rather in a very small and subtle way connects a different group to the Lord in a way it has not connected the Church to the Lord. Under number 4 the author of the Belhar Confession writes:

“We believe … that God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the Lord of the destitute, the poor and the wronged … that God calls the church to follow him in this; …” (Emphasis mine)

That sounds right but it isn’t. The Lord cares for the poor, the destitute, the wronged, but the Bible does not say he is their Lord in a special way.
God calls his people to care for the destitute, the poor and the wronged, not because he is Lord of the poor in a special way but because he is Lord of the Church in a special way!

Some of the poor will be lost because they reject the Lord of the Church. But still the Church is called to love and care for them because Jesus Christ is Lord of the Church.

Into this fracture, caused by naming another relationship between God and the world other than that which exists between Jesus Christ and the Church, falls all that is important concerning God’s unique revelation in Jesus Christ.

5. Because the Belhar Confession creates with this one subtle statement another relationship between God and the world, that is a relationship because of need, not because of God’s act of redemption in Jesus’ life death and resurrection it opens the door to receiving heresy and antinomianism into the life of the Church.

If God has a special relationship with a particular oppressed group because they are oppressed rather than because he has come to them with his transforming life given in Jesus Christ not only are their needs not addressed, their sin is unaddressed. The door is open to receive those who come un-believing and un-repentant into God’s Church.

Cochrane in his 7th point on the nature of a Confession, states “it [the Confession] occurs when the Church is convinced that its faith and unity are ‘grievously imperiled’ by a heresy that has ripened and come to a head,” yet, the Belhar Confession simply gathers up the ripening heresies of today and shatters them all over the Church. (Cochrane’s italics)

The Belhar Confession will call the Presbyterian Church USA in the wrong direction. It is not the right time, the right place or the right Confession. The Declaration of Barmen, in fact, already, in a much more universal and careful way meets the need the Presbyterian Church USA has at this time. It calls the Church to the one Lordship of Jesus Christ.

17 comments:

Rob Harrison said...

As to the document itself, Viola, I don't agree with you. The Belhar Confession develops logically, confessing Christ as the one who has called us as his people and given us the ministry of reconciliation; and while you're right that the word "Lord" is not used, I believe it's implicit. As such, while it was definitely written to address a particular symptom, it in fact speaks far more broadly than that.

Unfortunately, that's part of the problem with the PC(USA) adopting Belhar at this point. I'm sure I'm a lot more positive about Belhar than most orthodox types in this denomination, since I've known people from the DRMC, and I see it partly through their eyes; but at the same time, I know that if the PC(USA) adopts it, those who vote to do so will adopt it not to be chastened and instructed by it, but in order to use it however they can to achieve their own ends. As such, while I don't agree with your reading of Belhar, I agree completely with your reading of the denominational agenda and the probable effects of adopting Belhar.

Rob Harrison said...

One minor point: Belhar was written and adopted in Afrikaans, and I don't know if the URCSA has actually formally adopted/approved an English translation. As such, the "inclusive language" translation might not actually qualify as changing the language of the original. (Certainly the RCA, in its materials, has been using the PC(USA)'s version, and I haven't heard any squawks from anyone in South Africa.)

Viola Larson said...

Rob,
I should have put links in my post--I forget. Here is the English translation on the Uniting Reformed Church of South Africa.

Viola Larson said...

Rob,
We do have a disagreement on this and the call to confess Christ anew. While I appreciate your point of view and don’t think everything about this Confession is bad, unlike the Declaration of Barmen it does not layout a straight forward confession of Christ which is so important. The Belhar almost immediately jumps into the works part of following Christ. It also does not offer any scripture which is just amazing for a Confession.

Barmen, after giving an introduction of who they (the Churches offering the Confession) are and their purpose, begins with John 14:6 and John 10:1, 9 and then speaks about who Jesus Christ is. “Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and death.” 8.11

The Barmen Declaration goes on to several more statements about Jesus Christ before actually addressing such problems as the state, etc. I do hope others will write on this Confession.

Chris Larimer said...

As Ecclesiastes 4:1 shows, both the oppressed and the oppressor need the same answer - a new Lord.

Thank you for you excellent reflection.

Bill Crawford said...

Viola,

good assessment especially on the preferential treatment of the poor.

He is the Lord of all!

Viola Larson said...

Chris & Bill--Amen!

Anonymous said...

the Belhar confession is in the news today and my shrt comment:

1. it seems a very angry statement and this will be understood if we remember that it was composed pre-1994 election - in the aprtheid SA.

2.As Christian we should believe in "one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Ephesians 4:5)" but where in all the world is this an institutional reality? Roman Catholics say they have it. Emil Brunner, respected Reformed theologian's responseis, the R.C.'s have not got Paul's ekklesia which should be an organic union based on the Spirit. Who is right? E.B. says we don't need the institutional unity that documents like Belhar try to bring into being.

My gut feel is that we have an ideological statement in Belhar but look what Belhar says about "ideology". Irony!

Piesangkoos

Anonymous said...

Regarding what Viola said "It also does not offer any scripture which is just amazing for a Confession."

see the version here
http://www.vgksa.org.za/documents/The%20Belhar%20Confession.pdf

that includes scripture references.

Viola Larson said...

Anonymous,
You are right about not having scripture. However at the 219th GA this year they did vote to add with its posting the scripture texts that the SA church listed. But it still will not have any written scripture with in it.

Viola Larson said...

By the way you need to leave your name.

Anonymous said...

Viola, I completely agree with you and support all of your statements. Just one reading of the confession was enough for me to know and pick up on the language of liberation theology. I believe the PC (USA) church is currently going in the wrong direction. That is one reason I currently in seminary earning a degree in theology. My goal is to help get the church back on track. Thank you.
Meredith Norville

Viola Larson said...

Thank you Meredith,
My Christ be with you in tour endeavors.

Anonymous said...

Dave Watsons notes that "Belhar fails"

http://www.pres-outlook.com/component/content/article/44-breaking-news/11473-nfog-is-approved-belhar-fails-an-update-on-amendment-voting.html

Even though biblical conservatives in the PCUSA have little to rejoice about lately, I want to express my appreciation for their success in the Belhar's "failure." Being in the CRC in which the "powers-that-be" are trying to get this one through (we have a majority-rule rather than a 2/3rds requirement at this point) - it's encouraging that we can point to your work in the PCUSA to slow the train down.

Viola Larson said...

Anonymous,

Yes, I pray that this will help the vote against Belhar in the CRC.
We live in troubling times.

Carl said...

The danger of accepting the Belhar isn't in the immediate future, but somewhere down the road, when we get told by others that we need to be more inclusive in our beliefs. Our children will need to accept all faiths as one, all gender choices, or any other 'dis-unifying' items that the devil might bring to the foreground to be able to un-purify the body of Christ.

Viola Larson said...

Carl,
I think you are right.