A reposting of my 2011 Presbytery presentation against Belhar

I saw on my feed someone looking at the presentation on Belhar I gave on March 24, 2011. I thought perhaps it would be helpful to some people again in this next round of voting at General Assembly. I am reposting:

My presentation against Belhar at Sacramento Presbytery

At Sacramento Presbytery's last meeting, in February, before we voted on the three big amendments, two presenters gave a short, five minute presentation, one for and one against. I gave the presentation against the Confession of Belhar. Just in case my presentation has any thoughts that will be helpful I am posting it here.

Adding a confession to the PCUSA’s Book of Confessions is a very serious action. So serious that it requires a two/thirds vote by the Presbyteries and a second vote by the following General Assembly. The Confession of Belhar, within its text, must above all confess Jesus Christ as Lord in order to be a true confession of faith. That is what we must consider as we vote.

On the Racial Justice web page of the PCUSA, one finds information about Belhar which includes this: “It [Belhar] calls the church to a deeper appreciation of the values of unity in diversity in relation to the divisions of race and culture and many other facets of the human condition.”

History: Belhar was written by the Dutch Reformed Mission Church of South Africa in the midst of apartheid; black Christians of South Africa were sinfully excluded from fellowship with their white brothers and sisters. A statement about such horrific conditions was needed, Belhar fulfilled that need. It was faithful in its context. But it is not a universal confession. Although structured in the same manner as the Theological Declaration of Barmen it does not confess Christ in the same manner rather it confesses unity.

Unity: Belhar calls for an unqualified unity. In one place it states: “We reject any doctrine “which absolutizes natural diversity or the sinful separation of people in such a way that this absolutization hinders or breaks the visible and active unity of the church ...” In another place it states, “a refusal earnestly to pursue this visible unity as a priceless gift is sin,” and still further, “anything which threatens this unity may have no place in the church and must be resisted.” While “true faith in Jesus Christ” is mentioned as a boundary it is not defined.

So let me ask, are we, as a church, called to be in unity (that is in agreement) with those who deny the deity of Christ, the authority of scripture, or justification by faith? Unity without qualification could mean that we, as a connectional church, would be denying the faith.

And notice, as I have pointed out, the Racial Justice page interprets Belhar’s unity in terms that not only include unity in the midst of racial diversity but also unity in the midst of “many other facets of the human condition.” But, the human condition is broken and sinful. Unity needs a foundation; a Savior who transforms. We must confess Jesus Christ before we confess unity.

Racism: There are only two small references to racism in Belhar. But both the Confession of 67 and the Brief Statement of Faith speak to racism and diversity in the context of the United States’ particular problems. The Confession of 67 speaks of fair housing, education, work and even political rights. And both the Confession of 67 and the Brief Statement of Faith carefully confess Christ.

The many uses of the Belhar Confession: Because Belhar does not, above all else, confess Jesus Christ, as he is known in Scripture, it may be used for unintended purposes. Insisting on the oneness of Islam, Christianity and Judaism is one suggested use. Others are the ordination of GLBT people, the ‘racism’ of Israel and power sharing. Now you may agree with one or all of these, (certainly the first is not a confession of Christ) but you may agree. Nonetheless you can see the danger of having a document in our Book of Confessions which can, so easily, be used for any particular group’s cause.

Some have countered this argument with the thought that even the Bible has been misused. That is true. But the Bible has corrections within it. One of Belhar’s weaknesses is that it does not.

The need for a Confession from the Southern Cone: Some have suggested that we have no confession from the Global South and Belhar meets this need. But even the racial Justice page admits that the Nicene Creed is a Global Southern Creed. And so is the Apostle’s Creed, since some parts of it were formed in Africa. However, the important point here is that we do not choose Confessions on the basis of where they come from but because it is time to confess anew Jesus Christ. A Confession confesses Jesus Christ that is its purpose.

Please, vote no on the adoption of the Belhar Confession.

The Office of the General Assembly, Belhar and confessing Christ today

The Office of the General Assembly Of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has released an article written by Sharon Young about the failure of the Belhar Confession. The article entitled, “All but one PC(USA) constitutional amendment headed for approval: Belhar Confession falls short of required two-thirds majority of presbyteries,” fails to acknowledge any reasonable grounds for its failure.

Those Presbyterians who spoke and wrote about some of the problems with Belhar were not quoted in the article, only those who wished it to pass. The article itself is a sign that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), within the Office of the General Assembly, is heavily weighted with progressives who care little for the views of the orthodox in the denomination.

One quote, that “Belhar might not have received sufficient attention in a year when presbyteries were engaged in several substantive discussions around constitutional amendments,” is a disingenuous statement for several reasons. The first being that the votes on all of the three hot items ran about the same, in fact, Charles Wiley coordinator of the Office of Theology and Worship has stated that, “It should be noted that despite the fact that Belhar will not pass, it actually received a higher percentage of votes than either 10-A or nFOG.”

The other is that, with the kind help of Charles Wiley, who was for Belhar and quoted in the article, a long running debate on the resource page of the GAMC continued even after Belhar was defeated. Putting a new confession in our Book of Confessions is very serious and Presbyterians took this action very seriously.

Also, let me state once again, orthodox Christians in the PCUSA applaud the help Belhar was to black South Africans, indeed, help to white South Africans who were sinfully racist. However, many of the orthodox, have rejected Belhar because of it’s emphasis on unity over the Lordship of Jesus Christ. As we now exist in a denomination that upholds the morals of the culture over biblical morals, the cry for unity is now a cry for unity around moral failure. Belhar can only aid the disaster.

It should be noted by the OGA that some, including myself, in the PC (U.S.A.) are calling for a new confession. Above all we need once again to confess Jesus Christ. In the midst of our sinful broken culture and our sinful broken denomination which includes all of us, we are called by Christ to a confession of sin but more so to the act of confessing Jesus as our Lord.

Using the good reformed doctrine of our union with Christ, Presbyterian scholar Arthur C. Cochrane writes:

The primary condition of a Confession, the possibility of a Confession, is not that men decide to confess Christ for a variety of reasons—say, for the sake of a Church union—but that Christ for no reason at all, that is, in his sovereign freedom, has decided to confess himself to us. A Confession is Christological not only in the fact that its articles are related to Christ but in the sense that he is the confessor. The Church confesses only in him! The confession occurs not when we think we have discovered the truth, but when the truth has found us.

We should remember that the Declaration of Barmen was never a call to unity around a diversity of theological or ethical opinions. The signers of Barmen were concerned about a unity that upheld biblical and confessional truth. They believed, and it was so, that the German Christians were causing disunity by false doctrine, force and insincere practices. The Confession states:

Their intention was, rather, to withstand in faith and unanimity the destruction of the Confession of Faith, and thus the Evangelical Church in Germany. In opposition to attempts to establish the unity of the German Evangelical Church by means of false doctrine, by the use of force and insincere practices, the Confessional Synod insists that the unity of the Evangelical Churches in Germany can come only from the Word of God in faith through the Holy Spirit. Thus alone is the Church renewed.

The further move to encourage the study of Belhar without any truthful acknowledgement by the leadership of the PCUSA of the true reasons for its rejection by most of those who are orthodox is a further attempt to push on to many what they have rejected. And we have no one to speak up for or even acknowledge the words we have spoken.

We must confess Christ. Some questions by Cochrane are extremely appertain to the position of the orthodox in the PC (U.S.A.) today.

Were those terrible yet blessed years of the Church under Hitler a foreshadowing of the destiny of the Church in other lands in this atomic age? [Written in the early sixties] Were they prophetic of a return for us too to a pre-Constantinian, New Testament time of the Church? Are we on the threshold of a day when the Church knows that its only weapon and defense will be its Confession of Faith? Are we conscious of some great heresy by which our Churches are “grievously imperiled” and of some great truth by which we are possessed? Are we prepared to make dogmatic and, much more important, ethical decisions as a Church, and for the sake of them to lose our life in order to find it? Are we really ready for the fearful “either-or” decision involved in a Confession of Faith?

The ACSWP on our tolerant youth and Belhar: yes it's about sex!

The Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy and their adviser Chris Iosso has published their latest Salt & Light. It is their Post General Assembly issue. The paper is a free on line subscription and a friend sent me his on-line copy. I have now subscribed. There are several items that need to be addressed including the Middle East.[1] But the subject I want to address in this posting concerns the Belhar Confession. The author writes:

“And adding the Belhar Confession to the Book of Confessions was strongly supported and will now also go to the presbyteries. (One overture opposing Belhar [the Sacramento Overture] cited its possible application to GLBT issues, where categories or limited definitions of people can be used to exclude, as racial categories did during apartheid). The issue in the presbyteries will then be partly generational: does the church want to oppose the current generation’s increasing tolerance?”

So now supposedly the debate about Belhar turns on age versus youth because supposedly youth are more tolerant then older people. And supposedly, in the Church, the ordination of gays and lesbians as well as same gender marriage has to do with competing levels of tolerance rather than Scripture or the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Everywhere one turns in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) there is a drive to pass Belhar for the sake of, not differing ethnic groups, but for the purpose of turning the Book of Confessions into an avenue that allows, even blesses, sin. Belhar was never intended as a document to use in that manner but it will be used that way in the PCUSA.

I seem to be constantly turning to Bonhoeffer as a way of pointing out truth but on both youth and sexual ethics Bonhoeffer has some important corrections to make to the ACSWP’s newsletter. I have written before about the confession he wrote for the Confessing Church of Nazi Germany in his book Ethics. That was a book he wrote in the midst of horrors.

On the sexual issues plaguing Germany’s society and church he wrote:

"The Church confesses that she has found no word of advice and assistance in the face of the dissolution of all order in the relation between the sexes. She has found no strong and effective answer to the contempt for chastity and to the proclamation of sexual libertinism. All she has achieved has been an occasional expression of moral indignation.[2] She has thus rendered herself guilty of the loss of the purity and soundness of youth. She has failed to proclaim with sufficient emphasis that our bodies belong to the Body of Christ." (114-15)

On youth Bonhoeffer wrote:

The Church confesses herself guilty of the collapse of parental authority. She offered no resistance to contempt for age and idolization of youth, for she was afraid of losing youth, and with it the future. As though her future belonged to youth. She has not dared to proclaim divine authority and dignity of parenthood in the face of the revolution of youth, and in a very earthly way she has tried ‘to keep up with the young.’ She has thus rendered herself guilty of the breakup of countless families, the betrayal of fathers by their children, the self-deification of youth, and the abandonment of youth to the apostasy from Christ.” (114)

There is not much more on these two subjects one can say about our post-modern Presbyterian denomination than the confession that Bonhoeffer offered the Church of the Nazi era. Do we as members want to encourage a tolerance among youth that is anti-Christian? Are we so afraid of losing them that we will allow them to apostatize from Christ? Even if we lose, even, as Barth once said, even if we are “thinned down till it be a tiny group and go into the catacombs,” we need to keep teaching and proclaiming to them and to ourselves the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of his word.

[1] I will write on the Middle East in another posting, but it should be noted that the Newsletter makes a connection between Belhar and the Middle East.
[2] The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A), in her higher offices, at this moment is failing to offer even an expression of moral indignation.

Beginning at the End: GA, Confessing Christ against the darkness

Starting my GA experience from the end includes a train car full of Christian Reformed Church young people and their pastor heading to a youth conference in California.

The young people’s difference was immediately noticeable to me when I awoke in the morning. (We boarded at 11:30 PM and slept in our seats.) They weren’t spouting religious slogans or wearing WWJD bracelets, they just weren’t offensive with language or sexual innuendo. And they seemed to enjoy each others company without exclusion.

But as the morning evolved they each took out their Bibles and headed somewhere for worship or bible study. At the end of the trip as we neared Portland where we would change trains, the man setting in front of us, hearing our discussion, introduced himself as the pastor of the young people, and asked if we had just come from the Presbyterian General Assembly.
His concern was Belhar which the CRC is also in the process of attempting to adopt into their confessions. They also have a beginning battle over sexual standards. We talked a long time about Belhar and the growing decadence of our culture. As we finished the conversation and left the train I understood more clearly how large this battle is. This is certainly not a battle against flesh and blood, but a spiritual battle where some are being used by the enemy of our souls …

I noted in an early post that item [08-08]was introducing yet another confession into the PCUSA, the Accra Confession that is basically an economic document that slants towards socialism while caricaturing capitalism. While the General Assembly did amend the document to “encourage a study” in the churches and presbyteries and deleted the words “integrate and interpret,” this slight introduction is not unlike the first introduction of Belhar.

And they left intact this, “Request the General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical Relations to contact the coordinator for the Committee on Theological Education and seminary organizations to provide briefings on the new realities of WCRC/CANAAC, and to ask PC(USA) seminaries (including seminaries in covenant agreement with the General Assembly) to include the Accra Confession as a study document.”

Not only Belhar, which will be used in a non-confessional way to introduce sexual perversion into the Church, but also Accra is being promoted by huge ecumenical institutions which were meant to bring unity to the Church but will now bring harm. I say this because of all the various papers, conferences and organizations pushing this toward individual denominations and churches.

One of the lead up papers to Accra is “A Continuing Journey towards Confessing Movement for Economic Justice and Life on Earth (processus confessionis) 2001” This very long paper, which does contain some important thoughts, confuses orthodox & evangelical churches within the mainline denominations with the prosperity teaching of some Pentecostals. It equates evangelism with political propaganda.

And it also asks the church to create a space for the public and remember those who, "were dis-membered, marginalized and excluded by violence and exclusion in its various forms, and to strive for healing and justice, [which] requires us to stage protest against ongoing victimisation based on prevalent structures of class, gender, race, age,, dominating culture as in the case of Indigenous People and sexual orientation."

An important feature is how the paper has within it the connection between Belhar and Accra. It states:

"It is now time for the WARC to implement this decision [produce a confession that deals with economics] by getting its member churches involved in studying the Confession of Belhar ... in order to become an ecumenical confessing movement, facing the economic injustice and ecological destruction in word and deed and aiming at a common confession at the next General Council 2004 in Accra."

A series of article in the Reformed World, published by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches which is now, the World Communion of Reformed Churches, looks at many confessions and how they speak to economic and social Issues. One is written by Dr. Jane Dempsey Douglas, who also presented the recommendation of Belhar at GA. In the article she speaks of Calvin’s views on unity, community and social issues and ties this to Accra. She writes of Accra, “The solidarity of the human family and God’s special concern for the poor and for creation are emphasized as requiring resistance to an unjust economic order imposed by empire.”

Another author, Margit Ernst-Habib, a German theologian, writes of the Reformed Confessions. She looks at theology in general, but mainly examines many confessions including Barmen and Belhar, a Reformed Cuban Confession and Accra. The Cuban one is centered on humanity and social issues with this statement:

“The Scriptures teach us that salvation necessarily includes the emerging of a new fraternal solidarity that is made concrete in a ‘community of goods’ where ‘private property’ is abolished in order for all of us to be able to enjoy the goods produced.”

The point of many of these later confessions is their focus on praxis rather than confession. That is a focus on the action of believers rather than what they confess about Jesus Christ. But that misses the point of what a confession is, that is, the Church’s complete acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as Lord. And it also leaves room for a misunderstanding of what it means to act in the name of Jesus Christ. That is why the Theological Confession of Barmen does not fit among these confessions although it occurred in some of the same contexts.

But to return to the train, the young people, the pastor and the mother and son I wrote about in my last posting are living examples of what a confession should be. Out of their confession of who Jesus Christ is, they act in the way God has called them in Jesus Christ. Confession comes first. The Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Scriptures, obedience through grace given, this is the future of the Church. It does not deny the needs of the poor or the oppressed but it finds its footing in confessing the Lord of the Church even unto death.

The Belhar Confession: its many possibilites!

In Sunday's sermon, my pastor, Dr. Don Baird, explained how sometimes words are repeated to emphasize the importance of the subject. He used Jesus’ use of verily, verily, and in Isaiah the seraphims' holy, holy, holy as examples. I also am repeating myself and I do want to emphasize a statement that I have made over and over, "A Confession’s main focus must be confessing Jesus Christ."

Carmen Fowler of the Presbyterian Layman has noted in an article, linked to by CHURCHandWORLD, that several committees “support elevating Belhar to confessional status.” In her report she quotes Cynthia Holder Rich, of the Advocacy Committee for Racial Ethnic Concerns, that “Theologians have used this document to press issues other than race. The overture from Sacramento refers to sexuality issues. You may or may not know that that is part of the international conversation. … This document is about freedom. People of different sexual orientations are not free and so this document could be used to free people.”

Holder Rich gave a presentation on Belhar at the Stony Point Conference, “Confessing when empire trembles: Belhar and Accra Confessions in conversation.” Fowler writes that in referring to that conference Holder Rich stated, “I hope in the context we talk about power rather than strictly border it by the color of people’s skin. Are we able to use this document to … really effectively share power.”

Belhar was a good document meeting the needs of the Churches in South Africa in their quest for ethnic unity in their various churches. But it was and is not a good example of a true confession since it does not focus on confessing Jesus Christ. And that is why such people as Holder Rich, Witherspoon Society’s Eugene TeSelle, [1]one of the original promoters of the confession, Allan Boesak, and the Office of Theology and Worship of the General Assembly Council of the PC (U.S.A.) can so easily attempt to use the confession as a means to achieve their own particular faith goals.

The author of the PCUSA’s study guide for the Belhar Confession writes, “While the impetus for studying the Belhar Confession in the PC (U.S.A.) is racism, Belhar’s strength is that it speaks to more than one form of injustice. By focusing on the unity of the Church, it gives us theological grounding for the ministry of reconciliation amidst all the sins and disputes that divide the Church.”

The author, Eunice T. McGarrahan, goes on to place unity above all concerns, stating “The Church is fractured over ways in which justice should be done, ordination and sexuality, the nature of scripture, and its posture towards the world.” The guide insists that the Church is a poor witness if she does not maintain unity despite these problems.

But no, all Christian discipleship must come under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Within the Church ethnic unity is a biblical truth under the Lordship of Christ, as is the authority of Scripture, sexuality or the Church’s “posture toward the world. Without that realization there is no ethnic unity, no obedience to Christ, no foundational truth.

Yet some have insisted that not adopting Belhar because of a few person’s different interpretations of Belhar is unreformed since it is the whole Church that will accept or reject a Confession.[2] There are at least three problems with this view.

The first problem is one I keep returning to. That is that the confession itself is wrong, it does not focus on confessing Jesus Christ. It isn’t that other people would be held higher than the Confession if we listen to their different ideas about what it means and therefore do not adopt it, but rather Belhar invites to its table many different kinds of agendas under the category racism. It asks for its confessors to confess unity grounded in human needs such as justice rather than in Jesus Christ.

Secondly, as I have shown, many of those advocating for Belhar, are, like Holder Rich, advocating for something different or something more than racial unity. If Belhar is adopted it will be adopted on grounds other than what it was intended for in South Africa. And this leads into the third problem.

As I have also shown, a great many of those pushing the denomination to adopt Belhar are both in leadership and believe it is possible to use Belhar for issues other than racism. And since there are no scriptural boundaries connected to this confession such as there are e.g. in Barmen, any issue is possible. The possibilities are, in fact, already multiplying.

One new possibility comes in the statement of Holder Rich. That is the desire that Belhar be used to confront power in the Church. While power and its use is an important concern for any Christian, confessions are not about making everything fair or democratic but about confessing Christ. On the other hand nothing will be fair if Christ is not confessed. Playing the blame game with a confession has all of the earmarks of the beginnings of totalitarianism in the Church.

Arthur Cochrane, author of The Church’s Confession Under Hitler, asks a question, that we all should be asking ourselves:

“Are we on the threshold of a day when the Church knows that its only weapon and defense will be its Confession of Faith? Are we conscious of some great heresy by which our Churches are ‘grievously imperiled’ and some great truth by which we are possessed? Are we prepared to make dogmatic and much more important, ethical decisions as a Church, and for the sake of them to lose our life in order to find it? Are we really ready for the fearful ‘either-or’ decision involved in a Confession of Faith?”

We may very well be-but the Belhar Confession does not qualify as the answer.

[1] See, ga report by gene.pmd
[2] See Rev. Chris Schoon’s Response To Rich Mouw Regarding Allan Boesak & The Belhar Confession

The goddess, Belhar & Accra at Stony Point

Two friends, who probably don’t know each other, sent me notices about a conference at Stony Point, “Confessing When Empire Trembles: Belhar and Accra Confessions in Conversation--
A Colloquium on North American & Caribbean Reformed Justice Theology.” I noticed immediately that the title of the conference does not say confessing Christ, but just confessing.

I am unfamiliar with most of the speakers, but one does stand out. That is Rebecca Todd Peters, Professor at Elon University and Editor and contributor to Justice in a Global Economy: Strategies for Home, Community, and World. Peters has also written a contributing chapter to the book Body and Soul” Rethinking Sexuality as Justice-Love. The chapter is entitled, “Embracing God as Goddess: Exploring Connections between Female Sexuality, Naming the Divine and Struggling for Justice.”

One announcement about the Conference suggests that the speakers are very good, and another that the Accra Confession is “non-doctrinal” in its critique. Both of these thoughts contribute to my own perceptions of the problems looming in the Church if Belhar is adopted into our Book of Confessions. The Accra Confession is about economics with a rather hazy socialist point of view. While it makes some good points about the needs of the marginalized and needy it gives economic definitions and interpretations that many in the Reformed churches would not agree with.

Probably Accra’s biggest problem is not the stance it is coming from, socialism versus capitalism, but rather the idea that a confession for the Church could be a confession about economics no matter from which position. A Confession must first confess Christ and then allow all Church problems to fall under his Lordship.

But that Peters is one of the speakers for this conference is telling. She has been very much involved in goddess theology as well as the Re-Imagining movement. Peters' contention is that we need a changing god for our changing times. She sees the idea of an unchanging God being in contradiction to the evil in the world. In Body and Soul Peters is also looking for an image of God that would allow for gay sex and sex without the boundaries of marriage. Beyond sexual issues Peters sees the idea of an unchanging God as obstructive towards the world’s poor.

She writes:

“Given that tragedy and pain are part of the human experience, a theology of an immovable God is woefully inadequate to help the majority of the world’s people make sense of their lives. For people who experience lives of relative comfort and privilege, this theological construct may sometimes suffice. For those with a steady paycheck, a healthy family, a decent education, and the comfort and power to secure a First World existence, the image of God as all good, all powerful, and unchangeable can contribute to a personal sense of ‘blessedness’ or well-being. It enables an interpretation of life circumstances as ‘blessings’ that God has bestowed. As long as one remains inside that world, this theology may remain adequate.”(164)

Peters sets up a straw person since most orthodox Christians find their comfort in Jesus Christ and his redemption. On the other hand if the Christian finds their comfort in material things they have failed to consider the unchanging God of the Bible who demands total discipleship. A changing god or goddess or even a changing universal force is no answer.

Peters goes on to suggest that women’s life changes make a good model for how God could be perceived. Stating that “If God is imaged as a divine being ‘in control,’ then control itself becomes a desirable moral norm,” Peters sees a model of non-control in such sexual reactions as orgasm and erection. She states:

“A God/ess open to change, vulnerability, and partnership exercises a nontraditional form of power rooted in relationality and reciprocity. These, then, can become the moral ground for ethical behavior in the world, including sexual behavior.” (168)

Notice in all of this there is no mention of Jesus Christ. And yet all of the problems Peters is grappling with are wrapped up in him. As the Christian faces evil in the world, including their own sinful nature, Jesus Christ is the Father’s answer. How can a Christian leave that out of the equation? And how can orthodox believers trust a conference about confessions when at least one of its speakers desires to change God’s revelation of himself. And how can we, in the midst of a denomination that allows leadership among those who reject biblical authority and in many cases the Lordship of Christ, trust these confessions when they do not have a strong focus on confessing Jesus Christ as Lord of the Church.

Sacramento Presbytery passes overture on Belhar Confession

Yesterday,December 5th, the Sacramento Presbytery passed an “Overture on Belhar” to be sent to the 219th General Assembly. The overture motion was brought by Fremont Presbyterian Church, my church. I am very grateful it passed; its words are just right for dealing with the issues revolving around the attempt at adopting Belhar. Originally adopted by the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Mission Church in South Africa to deal with their horrific racism there are those in several North American reformed denominations attempting to misuse the confession. There are advocates wanting to use Belhar to promote gay ordination, for rebuke of Israel and even pluralism.

You can read about those problems here and here and here.

The Overture begins with commendation of all anti-discrimination policies in the Presbyterian Book of Order. It also offers sections from the “Brief Statement of Faith,” and the “Confession of 1967” which clearly and practically speak about and against racial discrimination. Then it asks the General Assembly to discontinue attempting to adopt the Belhar Confession as another confession in the PCUA Book of Confessions.

But it does this with a comment about its link with the Barmen Declaration and a section from Barmen which allows understanding about the boundary that is missing in Belhar which is a proper confession of Christ:

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6), “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber.... I am the door; of anyone enters by me, he will be saved.” (John 10:1, 9.)

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.

We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God’s revelation. (8.10–8.12)"

The rationale for this overture speaks to how confusing Belhar is and offers a quote about what a confession should be written by Dr. Arthur C. Cochrane who spent time with the early Confessing Church in Germany and was a Barth specialist. That quote is:

"A Confession is therefore not the publication of the opinions, convictions, ideals, and value judgments of men. It does not set forth a program or system of theology or ethics. It is not a set of principles or constitution for a fraternal order, social service club, or a religious society. It is not a political or ethical, religious platform. It does not bear witness to certain events, powers, figures, and truths in nature and history that may be championed by certain groups in society.

It confesses Jesus Christ as the one Lord, the one justification and sanctification of men, the one revelation, and the one Word of God which we have to hear, trust and obey in life and in death. "

Until it is placed on the 219th GA site, it can be read on the Presbyterian Coalition site under Draft Overture. Look both here and here. I am guiding you to these pages because you may be interested in using some of the other resources found there.

Belhar: four important reasons the PC(U.S.A.) should not adopt the Confession

The Presbyterian Outlook reported that the Committee to Consider Amending the Confessional Documents of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to include the Confession of Belhar in The Book of Confessions reached a consensus to recommend the addition. That means that the General Assembly in 2010 will vote on the recommendation.

If it passes at GA the Presbyteries will then vote, “needing approval from at least two-thirds of the denomination’s 173 presbyteries.” I have been writing on this Confession for the last year. I believe it should not be added to our Book of Confessions for four reasons:

1. Failure to focus the confession on the Lordship of Christ.

2. The issue of homosexuality

3. The Israeli and Palestinian conflict

4. The issue of pluralism

Before I begin explaining each of these problems I must insist that in South Africa with its problems of apartheid, which included the Church, such a statement was necessary. But there are problems with this Confession; the first and most important one being its failure to emphasize Christology including the Lordship of Christ. And it is this failure that causes all of the other problems.

Failure to focus the Confession on the Lordship of Christ: Various theologians have insisted that Belhar looks to Karl Barth and the Declaration of Barmen as its model. While this may be true the writers failed Barth’s and Barmen’s most important tenet, the insistence that a Confession’s main emphasis is to confess Christ. And in fact, Barmen would have been and is the better Confession.

The problem in South Africa within the Church was with the doctrine of the ‘Orders of Creation.’ That is, that in creating, God instituted certain institutions that could not be changed. In South Africa, the church using this system set boundaries for various races allowing the Church to fit within a racist state. In Nazi Germany the rights of government was emphasized in an attempt to allow the Church to fit within a totalitarian state.

But Barth’s word on that attempt was to insist that placing anything beside Christ, as he is found in the Old and New Testament, was a compromising position for the Church. Here Barth is referring to “Creation and Redemption, Nature and Grace, Nationalism and Gospel.” And Barmen, (which was largely written by Barth), supports his concerns while at the same time preventing the Church from falling into any kind of idolatry or antinomianism. And it does that by insisting, biblically, that “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)

And additionally Barmen states, “As Jesus Christ is God’s assurance of the forgiveness of all our sins, so in the same way and with the same seriousness is he also God’s mighty claim upon our whole life. …
We reject the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we could not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other Lords—areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him.” (8:14-8:15)

This places the Lordship of Christ above all statements and yet Christ is tied to scripture. What falls outside of Christ’s Lordship is unacceptable. What falls under his Lordship is. For instance the racism of South Africa is seen as sin when one reads, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:28)

But the Belhar Confession on the other hand emphasizes the unity of the Church which is not a confession that Jesus Christ is Lord, but a confession about what the Church is or must do. Therefore unity is not necessarily tied to Christ’s Lordship, since unity may be achieved by other means.

The issue of homosexuality: Because unity is the main point of the Belhar Confession others have insisted on using it for issues that are unbiblical. In a blog posting, The Belhar Confession & God's final revelation, I have pointed out that one of the contributors to Belhar, Allan Boesak, has sought to use it as a means to gain ordination for practicing homosexuals in the Uniting Reformed Church in South Africa. Quoting from the Banner, I wrote, “He dramatically insisted that the church’s Belhar Confession demands the defense of the full rights of gay members.”

A statement within the Confession of Belhar, “…we reject any doctrine which absolutizes either natural diversity or the sinful separation of people in such a way that this absolutization hinders or breaks the visible and active unity of the church, or even leads to the establishment of a separate church formation. …” is a very big problem. (Emphasis mine)

In the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A,) the Witherspoon Society’s Eugene TeSelle in a “Special Report to Witherspoon Society and Friends” from the 2004 General Assembly, ga report by gene.pmd, writes of that part of Belhar, “While we’re talking about absolutizing natural diversity, we might refer the Belhar Confession to the Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity as it considers the PC(USA)’s prohibition on gay/lesbian.”

So in the PC (USA) we also will undoubtedly see this confession used in a way that is detached from the Lordship of Christ “as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture.”

The Israeli and Palestinian conflict: In another posting on my blog, Using the Belhar Confession to overcome Israel’s “racism,” and as a means to bring about repentance from those desiring a Jewish State!, I have pointed to speakers for the Reformed Church in America using the Confession as a solution for what they perceive as racism on the part of Israel. As one speaker, the Rev. Christo Lombard from the Uniting Reformed Church of South Africa, put it “If there is one situation in this world that contextually fits the antiapartheid struggle and its dynamics, for which the Belhar Confession was written, it must be the Palestinian situation, currently.”

Another speaker, Rev. Dr. Mitri Raheb, pastor of Evangelical Lutheran Christmas Church in Bethlehem, also hoped that the Confession might be used against the State of Israel. And in the same way those in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) who are advocating for this Confession may attempt to use it as leverage against Israel.

One of my first postings on Belhar was concerned with a faulty study paper on Belhar. It made reference to the United Nations World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance which met in Durban, South Africa from August 31 to September 8, 2001.

I began that posting, “At the coming 218 General Assembly the Advocacy Committee on Racial Ethnic Concerns is offering Rec-046, Resolution to study the Belhar Confession for inclusion in the Confessional Documents of the Presbyterian Church (USA).”A study paper was recommended by that committee,(Report of the Task Force to Study Reparations) .

The authors of that paper castigated the United States for walking out of the conference. What the author’s failed to write was that Israel also walked out of the Conference because it was an extremely anti-Semitic conference.

The then U.S. Secretary of State, General Colin Powell, wrote:

“Today I have instructed our representatives at the World Conference Against Racism to return home. I have taken this decision with regret, because of the importance of the international fight against racism and the contribution that the Conference could have made to it. But, following discussions today by our team in Durban and others who are working for a successful conference, I am convinced that will not be possible. I know that you do not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations containing hateful language, some of which is a throwback to the days of "Zionism equals racism;" or supports the idea that we have made too much of the Holocaust; or suggests that apartheid exists in Israel; or that singles out only one country in the world--Israel--for censure and abuse.”

If members of the AACREC could so easily ignore the racism of this conference while recommending Belhar and their paper, it may be inferred that they may also use the Belhar Confession in the same manner as Raheb.

The issue of pluralism: And Raheb formulates the last concern that members of the PC(USA) may have with this Confession.

In a final and complete leap away from Barmen, Raheb divorces Jesus Christ from the Confession, writing “On several places in the confession the word “church” is replaced by another category called “the People of God.” The Belhar Confession uses this term to describe the church. My question would be, is it possible to expand this “People of God” terminology to encompass the “peoples of God,” including in this Jews and Muslims? And by this to provide a monotheistic platform for unity?”

Now, with this formula we have unity totally taking over the Confession as it shallows up the Church’s confession of Jesus Christ as Lord. In fact, Raheb’s formula does more than shallow; it empties and turns the confession into a hollow unfaithful paper, recommending apostasy.

A Confession of Faith for the Church must have as its main focus the Church’s Confession of Christ. All other important concerns of the Church, including her unity, must be subsumed under the heading 'Jesus Christ is Lord.' He is Lord over sin of any kind. Lord over adultery and homosexual practice. Lord over racism and anti-Semitism. Lord over all gods and powers. Jesus Christ is the Lord of his Church, within her, above her and leading her. That is the ultimate Confession for the Church of Jesus Christ.

Using the Belhar Confession to overcome Israel’s “racism,” and as a means to bring about repentance from those desiring a Jewish State!

Sometime after the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s General Assembly I posted an article, The Belhar Confession & God's final revelation on my blog about how it might be possible to use Belhar as a means of insisting that a denomination must ordain practicing homosexuals.

What I did not know at that time was that at the General Synod (2004) of the Reformed Church in America[1], two speakers, one from South Africa, the other from Palestine, insisted not only that the Belhar confession would provide a means for “justice” for homosexuals in the church and unity among the three monotheistic faiths, but that it might be a means for bringing those who desire a Jewish State to repentance.

The first speaker, The Rev. Christo Lombard from the Uniting Reformed Church of South Africa laid out some of the more positive aspects of Belhar and attempted to give it a strong connection to Barmen and Barth. That in itself calls for a different posting. But as a contextual theologian he emphasized how Belhar could be used in other contexts, including Palestine.

Under the subtitle “the Palestine struggle for independence and justice,” Lombard stated:

“ It is with grave and almost bewildered concern that South Africans (and other citizens of our planet) witness the typical violent and oppressive (“apartheid”) route the Palestinian struggle for justice is taking under the almost unbelievable measures of the Israeli state to “control” the lives of Palestinians in the smallest details, like in the “old” South Africa. With bitter irony, walls are now being erected around Palestinian cities or enclaves, reminding us of the Jewish ghettos of the holocaust. If there is one situation in this world that contextually fits the antiapartheid struggle and its dynamics, for which the Belhar Confession was written, it must be the Palestinian situation, currently. Only, the situation in the “Holy Land” appears to be even more serious, threatening, and inhuman than the terrible days of apartheid in South Africa. Is it possible? Does this not cry out for another status confessionis? Do we have any consistency in the very heart of our Christian convictions about justice?”

Lombard’s speech covered a wide range of uses to make of Belhar including the idea of justice for those he considered marginalized in the church. But the next speaker, The Rev. Dr. Mitri Raheb, pastor of Evangelical Lutheran Christmas Church in Bethlehem and General Director of the International Center of Bethlehem, dealt chiefly with Palestine, including the three monotheistic faiths in the area.

Raheb, of course, found it necessary to show the differences between the problems of South Africa and the problems in Palestine and Israel. That is, since the problem in South Africa was between different churches or Christians, Raheb looked for divisions among the churches in his area and found it mainly between those Christians who consider themselves Christian Zionists and the churches that reject Christian Zionism. He found it also between those who support Israel as a Jewish State and those who do not.

But an important thought here with both Lombard and Raheb is that one must see Israel as racist in order to use Belhar as a confession to address the issues. And besides the racist label, one must expand the definitions of those involved since the scenario moves from Christian unity to ethnic unity combined with interfaith unity. This is interesting because Belhar pointed to a church denying the Christian faith because of the lack of unity between believers.

Raheb asks, “My reading of the Belhar Confession suggests that there could be a small open window, which might help us to do exactly this. On several places in the confession the word “church” is replaced by another category called “the People of God.” The Belhar Confession uses this term to describe the church. My question would be, is it possible to expand this “People of God” terminology to encompass the “peoples of God,” including in this Jews and Muslims? And by this to provide a monotheistic platform for unity?”

In his attempt to contextualize the confession Raheb clearly moves far beyond Barmen and Barth. And as I have contended in other postings this is due to a lack of placing the confession of Christ as Lord as the foremost reason for the Belhar Confession.

Raheb goes on to refer to Barmen as a Confession directed against the “racist ideology” of the Nazis. But he fails to understand that its main focus was confessing Christ. Christ as Lord means that the commandments of other lords such as “hate Jews” or “tell lies about Jews” cannot be obeyed.

After referring to Barmen he now turns to Israel and the Jews insisting that now it is time for a Jewish confession. He states:

“Where do our Jewish dialogical partners stand with regard to the apartheid system which is being perpetuated by the Israeli government? Why don’t we hear more Jewish clergy raising their clear voices against this? Isn’t it time for a clear Jewish confession or for maybe a joint Jewish-Christian confession regarding the lands and the people under Israeli occupation? We have been confessing our sins to the Jewish people over and over again for fifty years now. And we do not regret doing that. But we should now expect our Jewish partners to confess their sins against the Palestinian people. A moment of truth has come. This issue, I believe, will either make or break Jewish-Christian dialogue. It is in this spirit of the Belhar Confession that I hope we can come to forge a unified Jewish-Christian confession on this issue.”

But one must deny several issues to state any of this. One has to deny the need for a Jewish State, which means that the history of the persecution of the Jews has been ignored. And above all else a denial of the very reason for a confession has occurred. The main reason for the Church’s Confession is to clearly confess Jesus Christ as Lord.


[1]see REPORTS ON MISSION AND CHRISTIAN UNITY 218 GENERAL SYNOD/JUNE 2004

The Belhar Confession & God's final revelation

The Committee listing for the Belhar Confession has been posted on Moderator Bruce Reyes-Chow’s blog. Special Committee on the Belhar Confession includes at least one Pastor whose theology combines liberation theology with Afrocentric Christianity. Afrocentric Christianity can mean living out the Christian faith by simply including the customs and culture of Africa, or it may be a radical syncretism of African religions with Christianity.

I have written about both types of Afrocentric Christianity in my article, “Radical Afrocentric Christianity, Black Liberation Theology & Black Nationalism Facing Racism and Heresy in the African American Community.”

After writing more about the Belhar Confession I will post the above article on my blog in three or four parts.

I am returning to this subject because the view of culture as revelation and the biblical view of revelation are in total opposition. And those opposites, in my mind, are connected to the understanding of Belhar.

Reverend Dr. Max Lomax a member of the Committee believes “that human cultures are the containers of Divine Self –Revelation.” Not only does the credo on his’ Churches web site state this but also in an e-mail to me last year he affirmed and clarified that statement:

“Cultures are containers of the Divine Self because God's self-revelation occurs within the context of culture. Historically speaking human groups have already been formed, tacit social and political agreements have already been made, and people have already agreed upon common defining characteristics by the time they are settled enough to reflect on the nature of their existence. Another way of saying this is that historically people have moved beyond the survival, hunting-gathering, protecting way of being to developing more sustainable, settled, sedentary life-styles and patterns before the God question is even raised in any systematic way. In that sense then, Cultures are the containers of the Divine Self. The genius of God is that God can reveal God's Self and speak meaning into cultures regardless of their unique characteristics. I think human beings have problems with the way those who are different from them talk about and worship God because it is culturally unfamiliar.”

This is important because one of the issues stressed in Belhar is on the unity of the Church. And unity is more important to this particular confession then the Lordship of Jesus Christ. That is, rather than connecting unity to the Church’s faithfulness to Christ as Lord, faithfulness is achieved because of unity.

Lordship is thus pushed to the margins of the Confession. God’s revelation is realized in the unity or agreement among the people of the Church community.

Unity has become more important than faithfulness to Christ. I have stated in another place, because of the problem of racism in South Africa “the emphasis was on unity and the sinfulness of the absolutizing of ‘natural diversity’ and the ‘separation of people.’ Anything “which explicitly or implicitly” maintained “that descent or any other human or social factor should be a consideration in determining membership of the Church” was rejected in the Belhar Confession. (Emphasis mine).”

As I have written In a Review of Horizons on the Voices of Orthodox Women’s web site, “With Belhar the Church would listen to the voices of those in their church community rather than the voice of Christ. Therefore “all” absolutizing might be denied on the grounds of Christian unity. In the American mainline churches when the argument for the ordination of self-affirming gays and lesbians is based on an understanding that heterosexuality is an absolutizing of sexual standards the Belhar Confession is unacceptable and incomplete.

And in fact just recently one of the fathers of the Belhar Confession attempted to use it to gain acceptance of the ordination of practicing gays and lesbians. The Banner, the magazine published by the Christian Reformed Church in North America, reports that “Allan Boesak, a church leader and former anti-apartheid activist, presented a lengthy report on homosexual members to his church, the Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa, at its general synod Oct. 2 (2008). He dramatically insisted that the church’s Belhar Confession demands the defense of the full rights of gay members.”

The Banner further reported that 'Presenting this report to the synod, Boesak told delegates that the Belhar Confession demands that they move in this way. The Belhar, he said, was never meant to be just an anti-apartheid document, but a document against discrimination of all kinds.' While the synod in Africa rejected the committee’s report, it is unclear how the Confession would be understood among those in the PC(USA) who are pushing for the ordination of self-affirming gays and lesbians. The Declaration of Barmen is a much stronger and more faithful confession for the PC(USA).”

And I will add that Barmen does not posit revelation in culture or community but in God’s final revelation, Jesus Christ, as he is known in Scripture.

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.

A Badly Flawed Document For Study

At the coming 218 General Assembly the Advocacy Committee on Racial Ethnic Concerns is offering Rec-046, Resolution to study the Belhar Confession for inclusion in the Confessional Documents of the Presbyterian Church (USA). The Belhar Confession was adopted by the Dutch Reformed Mission Church in 1986 as a statement against apartheid in South Africa. It was “drafted under the leadership of Allan Boesak."

The ACREC among other recommendations has suggested that Presbyterians utilize several resources in their study of the Belhar Confession. One of the recommended papers is the (Report of the Task Force to Study Reparations) Minutes, 2004, part I, pp. 701-20.” This has the text of the Belhar Confession and can be found at www.pcusa.org/reparations/

As I was studying this recommended document I found a serious flaw in the rationale section. Quite a long reference is made to a United Nations Conference in Durban South Africa. The authors of the Reparations document write, “A noteworthy example of reparation and restoration was taken in Durban, South Africa, during the United Nations World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance in September 2001.

A great deal is quoted from a declaration on racism formulated by the Conference and brought back by a Presbyterian delegation to the 214 General Assembly. In a seeming 'wise,' aside, the authors write, “Unfortunately, the official representatives of the United States government walked out of the conference on the first day. Nevertheless, it is significant that the world community felt it appropriate to stay, participate, acknowledge and confess its complicity in such ‘crimes against humanity’ as the transatlantic slave trade, and seek opportunities for reparation and restoration.”

So why did the United States government and (not mentioned) the government of Israel walk out on this supposedly race free conference? It was Anti-semitism. Horrid Anti-semitism. At the Jewish Virtual Library which is a division of The American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, there is a report about this conference by Elihai Braun. I quote some of his report here.

“The United Nations World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance met in Durban, South Africa from August 31 to September 8, 2001. The UN General Assembly authorized the conference in Resolution 52/111 in 1997, aiming to explore effective methods to eradicate racial discrimination and to promote awareness in the global struggle against intolerance.

Yet the noble goals of the 2001 UN World Conference Against Racism were undermined by hateful anti-Jewish rhetoric and anti-Israel political agendas, prompting both Israel and the United States to withdraw their delegations from the conference. Participants revived the scurrilous charge that "Zionism is Racism" and used false and hostile allegations to delegitimize Israel.

In the weeks prior to the conference, the United States had warned organizers that it would withdraw from Durban if the early anti-Jewish charges and the condemnations of Israel remained unchallenged. After four days of fruitless negotiations, the U.S. delegation withdrew on September 3, midway through the conference, unable to turn the focus of the conference back to its original goals. The aim to combat discrimination and intolerance worldwide was ironically superceded by a bigoted campaign to single out one nation for criticism.

The September 3 statement of withdrawal of U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell read:

'Today I have instructed our representatives at the World Conference Against Racism to return home. I have taken this decision with regret, because of the importance of the international fight against racism and the contribution that the Conference could have made to it. But, following discussions today by our team in Durban and others who are working for a successful conference, I am convinced that will not be possible. I know that you do not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations containing hateful language, some of which is a throwback to the days of "Zionism equals racism;" or supports the idea that we have made too much of the Holocaust; or suggests that apartheid exists in Israel; or that singles out only one country in the world--Israel--for censure and abuse.'

Copies of the anti-Semitic work, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, were sold on conference grounds; anti-Israel protesters jeered participants chanting "Zionism is racism, Israel is apartheid," and "You have Palestinian blood on your hands"; fliers depicting Hitler with the question, "What if I had won?" circulated among conference attendees. The answer: "There would be NO Israel and NO Palestinian bloodshed."”

If the authors of “Report of the Task Force on Reparations,” as well as the new call for the study of the Belhar Confession want to be taken seriously perhaps they should clean up their materials and allow the reader to believe they really do care about tolerance for everyone.