A while back, I wrote a brief post referencing the Reformed Church of America’s adoption of the Belhar Confession as one of its standards of unity. As we might expect, the prospect of adopting Belhar triggered much discussion among those inside the RCA. I’m not in the RCA, so I don’t have any comments about the discussions of Belhar or about its adoption. But I do have a few thoughts on Belhar itself that I want to share in response to a couple people kind enough to invite comment.
First, Belhar could never stand alone as a confession. For it to in any way be sufficient as a statement, it must be confessed along with other historical and theologically more comprehensive statements. The CRC has added the Belhar to its other standards of unity–the Heidelberg Catechism, Canons of Dordt, and the Belgic Confession. Without these statements, Belhar lacks any definition of the Gospel or most other cardinal points of Christian belief. It must stand on the shoulders of these other confessions–and secondary to them–or else the entire Christian confession falls, in my opinion. Others have already noted this, but it warrants stating again.
Second, Belhar makes an important statement against the sin of racial injustice and complacency in the face of it. The document takes the accomplishment of our reconciliation in Christ seriously. The first section meditates largely on Eph. 2:11-22 and Eph. 4:1-16. It makes the case that while our unity exists in the already–not yet tension, that unity is nonetheless to be visible. And without that visible unity the conquering power of Christ is obscured, denied, and resisted. Belhar states these things clearly, succinctly, and compellingly, in my opinion. What it rejects in section 2 is as compelling as what it affirms.
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;
which professes that this spiritual unity is truly being maintained in the bond of peace while believers of the same confession are in effect alienated from one another for the sake of diversity and in despair of reconciliation;
which denies that a refusal earnestly to pursue this visible unity as priceless gift is sin;
which explicitly or implicitly maintains that descent or any other human or social factor should be a consideration in determining membership of the church.
It’s in places like this that the Belhar grows longer teeth, and sinks those teeth into the deep tissue of abiding racial and ethnic prejudice. Willful separation, apathy, and despair must be countered with sober and serious gospel commitment, confessional resolve, and spiritual action. Too many statements intending to redress past prejudice have languished in the nether of generalization, platitude, and inaction. Belhar attempts some serious confession, and insofar as a local church and denomination are confessional, Belhar promises at least some serious examination of conscience and life.
Reading this section I was forced to ask myself: “Is it sin to not pursue unity in the church?” I answer “Yes! It is sin to neglect unity in the church.” On two grounds: (1) such a pursuit is commanded in Scripture, which Belhar makes clear; and (2) to not pursue this unity betrays the reconciled nature of the new humanity; it is to deny who we are in Christ in the same way that to practice homosexuality is to deny the heterosexually gendered nature God created us with. Some won’t like the comparison. But do you see the point? To deny our new humanity in Christ is in every way as fundamental a betrayal of Christian profession as denying heterosexual orientation betrays natural gender design. I think Belhar strikes at this well.
Third, Belhar calls the church to both word and deed on this issue. In essence, Belhar is a confession touching on the doctrine and mission of the church as the church. It calls the church into the work of pursuing justice. Again, some will be made nervous about this. But the statement is surely correct when it confesses: “God’s lifegiving Word and Spirit has conquered the powers of sin and death, and therefore also of irreconciliation and hatred, bitterness and enmity, that God’s lifegiving Word and Spirit will enable the church to live in a new obedience which can open new possibilities of life for society and the world.” Now, to be honest, there’s something in me that finds the last half of that statement a bit sappy or sentimental. And, yet, that’s a problem in me–not with the power of God’s Word and Spirit to transform us, as He will do until the Day of redemption (Phil. 1:6).
The statement gives hope, even as it stands against apathy. The statement is necessary because so much apathy exists–apathy expressed in the name of the gospel. And there again, Belhar strikes a blow for deeper conviction and action when it says “the credibility of this message [the gospel] is seriously affected and its beneficial work obstructed when it is proclaimed in a land which professes to be Christian, but in which the enforced separation of people on a racial basis promotes and perpetuates alienation, hatred and enmity.” Amen! Part of me wants to take my stand with Paul and declare “as long as Christ is preached” then this issue is secondary. But, I think on the strength of Galatians 2, Paul would say that such bias denies the gospel just as Peter denied it when he withdrew table fellowship with Gentiles.
The emphasis on deeds is critical, not “liberal.” Why? Without an emphasis on deeds of repentance–when there were so many egregious deeds of commission–we’re right back where we were. Which is to say, we’ve actually not left where we were–stuck in an ineffectual quagmire of lip-service. “Faith without works is dead.” And so is any resolution or evangelical communion that “confesses” racism as sin but has no expectation of resolute action against it and for reconciliation. “Bring forth fruit worthy of repentance” should be the banner.
So with Belhar, the church should “reject any doctrine which, in such a situation, sanctions in the name of the gospel or of the will of God the forced separation of people on the grounds of race and color and thereby in advance obstructs and weakens the ministry and experience of reconciliation in Christ.” The crafters of Belhar should have gone an important step further to also reject any doctrine that sanctions voluntary separation in the name of the gospel and Christ. Most of us no longer live in Apartheid-era South Africa or Jim Crow America. There are no laws in most Western nations physically prohibiting integration. We voluntarily segregate, and that tells us a lot about our hearts. We should reject any doctrine that makes such segregation easy when Christ suffered the torments of God’s wrath to end in His own body our alienation from God and from each other.
But, Belhar’s significant weakness is the lack of definition in the fourth section. The fourth section proclaims that “God has revealed himself as the one who wishes to bring about justice and true peace among people” and “God, in a world full of injustice and inmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged.” At this point, Belhar sounds much more like James Cone than the Bible Cone rejects as infallible and inerrant. To be sure, God is just. The writers of Belhar cite Deuteronomy 32:4–”He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.” But are we ever told that God “in a special way” or in any unqualified way sides with the poor? The references listed in support of Belhar’s claims hardly establish such an interpretation of the Scripture.
So, Belhar sticks its chest out to say, “the church must therefore stand by people in any form of suffering and need, which implies, among other things, that the church must witness against and strive against any form of injustice, so that justice may roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” I rather like the sweeping universals and absolutes: “must… any… any.” What forms of injustice are okay for the church not to strive against? I can’t think of any. But the beauty or danger of this wording lies in the eye of the beholder. And that’s the rub. For not everything that people decry or march against may safely be called an “injustice.” We can with Belhar “reject any theology which would legitimate forms of injustice and any doctrine which is unwilling to resist such an ideology in the name of the gospel.” Sure. But we’re still left with the nagging problem of precisely defining “injustice.”
Again, this is where Belhar must stand together with the other confessions of the faith, and why it must stand in second place to those confessions. It’s not as though the other confessions define “justice” for every generation. But they at least provide the necessary framework and raw munitions for doing so. They teach us about the inspiration, authority, and sufficiency of the Scripture. If those confessions provide serious boundaries for Belhar, then Belhar’s sweeping language actually calls the church out of sloth and into the fray while honoring the roles assigned to the church in the Scripture itself. But should the RCA or any other body lose its grip on the Scripture, then Belhar’s broad, undefined language includes a host of issues as “must” justice issues that contradict the Bible’s teaching. That’s no small threat or concern.
Conclusion
Would I toss the Belhar Confession aside for its weaknesses or adopt it for its strengths? I think I’d rather adopt it for its strengths while fighting for a clear definition of “justice” or “injustice” and working for reform of its soft spots. It’s a good but imperfect statement. I’m for these things. I think it calls for courage to confess this statement with Judgment Day honesty.
But if we’re confessing Belhar with the level of interest and applied earnestness with which we confess most statements of faith… well, then, most will say “why bother?” The more things change the more they stay the same.
Josh Harris’ new book,