Dr. Stephen A.
Hayner and Dr. Mark Labberton have written a paper on the Belhar Confession,
“The Bible and Belhar.” Both are presidents of theological seminaries; Hayner
of Columbia Theological Seminary and Hayner of Fuller Theological Seminary.
They both have strong ties to the evangelical side of the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A). It is hard to disagree with two such prominent gentlemen and scholars,
and I do so with (as Kierkegaard might say) much fear and trembling.
The authors'
intentions are seemingly to reconcile Belhar and Bible to make the case that if
it is the right time to include Belhar in the Presbyterian Book of
Confessions that it is a biblically acceptable confession. That is, that
everything in it is founded on Scripture.
Before addressing
that subject I want to tie up what I consider a loose end. The authors intended
that their paper should only address the biblical foundations of Belhar, I
believe they have left a few other dangling strings. It is partly about the first quote in their
article taken from C.S. Lewis' introduction to Sister Penelope Lawson's
translation of St. Athanasius' On the Incarnation. Lewis speaking of “the characteristic
blindness of the twentieth century” finds some solution in the reading of old
books. “None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly
increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books,”
Lewis writes.
He continues,
referring to the reading of modern books:
Where
they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they
are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously
ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries
blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not,
of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer than
they are now; they make as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes.
Using the quote
and a bit more of it, the authors explain that if an old book helps surely the
“Bible as God's inspired Word is certainly many times as strong and important.”
And then they explain that any paper such as the Belhar Document which was
written in a time of crisis should help also.
First, the help
we are gifted with through the reading of Scripture cannot be equated with the
help of “old books.” It is the living word that actually feeds and nourishes
our lives. Secondly the Belhar Confession is not old. It therefore could
possibly, and I believe it does, aggravate “the error with which we [in the
postmodern western world] are dangerously ill.” We simply cannot see it because
Belhar is a document which in its context performed a great service to the
South African church.
Thirdly, there
was a second reason Lewis suggested we should read old books:
But
if any man is tempted to think—as one might be tempted who read only
contemporaries—that “Christianity” is a word of so many meanings that it means
nothing at all, he can learn beyond all doubt, by stepping out of his century,
that this is not so. Measured against the ages 'mere Christianity' turns out to
be no insipid interdenominational transparency, but something positive,
self-consistent, and inexhaustible.
Lewis goes on to
explain that as an atheist, reading so many varying classics, all of which held
the odor of Christ, he now understands that those who look-in from the
outside—the enemies or naysayers—see “what is left intact despite all the
divisions, still appears (as it truly is) an immensely formidable unity.”
And so now the
Bible and Belhar. (But also what it means to confess Christ.)
The authors
choose to point out the “lessons that the Confession of Belhar” “derives from
the Scriptures.”
1.
The
first one has to do with God as creator and humanity created in God's image,
which implies the dignity which resides in each member of the human race. They
use Gen.1, 9:6 and John 3:16 for this lesson.
2.
The
second lesson is the unity that is meant for all of creation. God intends there
to be reconciliation. “Throughout the Old Testament, God's great mission of
salvation was to reconcile all people and nations and return them to God's rule
of peace (shalom). “Jesus reaffirmed that God's
vision throughout all the Scriptures was that the good news should be
preached to all people (Luke 24:45-49; Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 1:9).”
3.
The
third lesson has to do with God using the church as the means of bringing about
reconciliation. The authors see the unity focus of Belhar as theological and
found in Christ. It was “to be modeled on very relationship between Jesus and
the Father.” Among much other descriptive language the authors write:
“Belhar
captures the scope and language of God's great plan for unity, borrowing liberally
from the images and teachings found throughout the New Testament, especially
from the book of Ephesians. It captures both the spirit and emphasis of the
Bible on this great theme. While recognizing that individuals, people groups,
and cultures bring differences of many kinds, including gifts to the body of
Christ, the church is called to participate in God's plan to bring all things
together in Christ. If the unity of God's people is not visibly seen across
all possible divisions and within all diversity then the witness of God's
people to the watching world is surely compromised. (Italics the authors)
4.
The
fourth lesson is a recognition of sin in the world, but a charge to continue
following both the prophets and Jesus in his work of reconciliation. This
charge includes feeding the hungry, standing “with the victims of injustice,”
and seeking the lost.
So have Hayner
and Labberton truly confirmed the biblical foundations of Belhar? Are their
biblical lessons the same lessons we
find in Belhar?
The first lesson
about the Creator creating humanity in His image is certainly a biblical theme.
And undoubtedly the writers of the Belhar Confession held that biblical view,
but it isn't really within the text of Belhar. (Perhaps implied but certainly
not stated) But that isn't a problem; other important confessions such as the
Nicene Creed do not emphasize humanity's creation. But what it does imply is
that the authors of “Bible and Belhar,” were digging deeper in Scripture than
in Belhar.
The second and third
lesson, God's desire for unity and the church's responsibility to demonstrate
and participate in that unity are certainly the whole focus of Belhar. But when
looking at Belhar one must look at the whole text. The whole text must stand on
a biblical foundation; if even one part is false or unbiblical or even leads to
a contradiction of Scripture the whole confession will not be helpful as a
confession. Within the Confession there
is a statement which does not have a solid biblical foundation:
...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.
All of the other
statements in the section which follow this statement under the subtitle “Therefore,
we reject any doctrine” are not biblical. There is a natural absolutization
of diversity that is biblical and is contained not only in the beginnings of
Genesis but also in the words of Jesus:
“Have you not read that He who created them from the
beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall
leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become
one flesh.
That biblical
statement, including the original text quoted by Jesus, cannot be changed,
twisted or have words removed from it. It stands as it is and so leaves the
Belhar Confession wanting.
It is true that
in the beginning the authors of Belhar did not intend that the Confession
should be used the way some in the PC (U.S.A.) desire to use it. They intended
to attack the sin of racial absolutization.
But it is because of its unbiblical insistence that there can be no
absolutization of natural diversity that there are problems. And the problem
occurred because the aim of a Confession should not be to attack a heresy in
any other way but by a full confession of Christ. That is, the time comes when
the Church must confess Christ anew in such a way that the church is renewed
and brought back to the true word of God.
The Nicene Creed
confesses Christ against the heresy of Arianism not by explaining the heresy of
Arianism but by confessing the biblical truth that Jesus Christ Lord was
begotten before all worlds, that he is God of God and Light of Light, that he
is of one substance with the Father, etc., etc. A confession confesses Christ
Jesus. And in doing so affirms biblical truths about Christ.
The Reformation confessions while very full of
all manner of church doctrine, since their heresy involved a whole hierarchical
system; nonetheless contain full confessions of Jesus Christ. For instance The Westminster Confession of
Faith speaking of unity links it to Jesus Christ by affirming truths about
Christ:
1.All
saints being united to Jesus Christ their head, by his Spirit and by faith,
have fellowship with him in his graces, sufferings, death, resurrection, and
glory; and, being united to one another in love, they have communion in each other's
gifts and graces, and are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and
private, as to conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward
man. (Chapter XXV! 6.146)
The Theological
Declaration of Barmen as it stands against allegiance to any other Lord, goes
straight to the word and clearly confesses that Jesus is the way, the truth and
the life. Barmen explains that he is “our wisdom, our righteousness and
sanctification and redemption. Barmen states a great deal about Jesus Christ;
it truly confesses Christ.
The fourth lesson
about sin in the world and caring for the poor, marginalized and lost while
following the prophets and Jesus in this activity is certainly in Belhar and in
the Scripture although Belhar carries a whiff of liberation theology in this
area, it is certainly biblical in its call. But Belhar which helped the church
of South Africa with the racial sin that pervaded their church is not universal
in its usefulness. While aimed at racism it is open to misuse because of
unhelpful language which is not biblical.
It should be
noted, as C.S. Lewis saw it about contemporary books, Belhar aggravates the
error of our day by allowing many to see the biblical insistence of God's plan
for marriage between a man and a woman as sin. It allows instead for the
blessing of a multiplicity of genders in marriage. But on the other hand we
should also note that, as Lewis pointed out, there is also an “immensely
formidable unity” within our divisions when seen by an unbelieving world. It is
the natural outcome of our being in Christ, united to him by the Holy Spirit.
And it is that “mere” Christianity that Lewis understood and clarified so well.
