The Belhar Confession and the CRC
Kevin DeYoung Blog | May 16, 2012
This June the CRC will consider adoption of the Belhar Confession. For those who will be voting at the CRC Synod, or for anyone else who is interested, I encourage you to read the overture from First Christian Reformed Church of Byron Center, Michigan. My friend Tom Groelsema is the pastor there, and this is the church which hosts the PCRT conference when it comes to the Grand Rapids area.
While the overture acknowledges the serious and often unnoticed sin of racism, it suggests that approving Belhar is nevertheless unwise and unwarranted.
The Belhar Confession is a call to action. It challenges the church in the areas of unity, reconciliation, and justice. Much of what it says is biblicaly based and beautiful in expression. There is much to affirm in the Belhar Confession. However, given its significant weaknesses it would be unwise to adopt the Belhar as our fourth confession. Richard Mouw notes that the Belhar is an important prophetic declaration in its original context, but is too weak to stand on its own as a normative confession. (Mouw's Musings, Blog, April 21, 2009) John Cooper adds, "The Forms of Unity are not merely venerable documents expressing the faith of our ancestors on the issues of their time. They are doctrinal standards-definitive summaries and explanations of the essential and enduring truths that God teaches in Scripture-foundational to our denominational identity and unity." ("Affirm the Belhar? Yes, but not as a doctrinal standard", p.4.) What both Mouw and Cooper affirm is that while a document might convey many truths, there is a stricter standard for that document to be considered a confession. Adopting or not adopting the Belhar Confession must not be viewed as a rejection or acceptance of racial sin, but as a matter of confessional definition. The question before us is not, "what do we think of racism," but "do we believe the Belhar Confession should be adopted as a confession?" On this matter there are significant concerns.
In the end, the overture recommends that the CRC not adopt Belhar, but instead reaffirm a previous synodical report on racial diversity. You can read the complete overture here.
Comments:
May 17, 2012 at 04:59 AM
Why adopt a new confession? Just so the RCA and CRC can have another historical document that hardly anyone believes? Just so many of the pastors and theologians can ignore it like the other documents and get their theological bearings elsewhere? This whole fight about Belhar is pointless if these two denominations don't repent of their serious drift away from the their original faith.
May 16, 2012 at 12:25 PM
Just like Michigan State is the little brother to the University of Michigan and does anything it can to be like big brother, so is the CRC the little brother to the RCA. The CRC will pass the Belhar to keep up with big brother.
It will also pass if Tom Groelsema does as much to oppose the Belhar as a confessional standard in the CRC classis meeting as Kevin opposed the Belhar in the RCA classis meeting. As much as Kevin writes his opposition to things like the Belhar on his blog, he's pretty silent when it comes to standing up and speaking out against issues like this in his denominational meetings.
Kevin's bark is definitely worse than his bite, and the RCA administration knows it. It's a win-win. Kevin can oppose things on paper keeping his conservative constituents happy but doesn't fight for those values when it counts thereby keeping in good standing with the RCA hierarchy. As long as University Reformed continues to send in their club dues (assessments for you RCA folks), and not speak up in the RCA classis and synod meetings, he'll stay out of trouble. The RCA hierarchy does not come down hard on Kevin because he's not really a threat to them and the direction they are going.
May 16, 2012 at 11:29 AM
That makes complete sense to me. Having been to the more recent PCRTs at First Byron, my eyes took notice when I read Rev. Groelsema's name. I'm neither RCA or CRC but I totally agree with the position you stated and the logic applied to the issue.
Per your recent post on why churches look so different, it's interesting that some churches consider adopting new confessions in addition to the historical standards, while others shun historical confessions of any kind as outmoded! Just one example.
May 16, 2012 at 09:18 PM
Back to the point, sort of. I submit that if we hold the Belhar to the standard of covering the whole council of God, we should either ask the same of the Canons of the Synod of Dort, or throw them out. Or the Heidelberg, for not giving us a list of canonical books. But of course we won't, nor should we. The Belgic Confession covered the waterfront, because that is what was demanded.....but its comprehensiveness does not serve as a definition of a proper confession. Its breadth speaks to what the times called for. Which is what the Belhar did, and does. Besides, remember that the Belhar is for the RCA, though a confession, a standard of unity. It must be read in concert with the others. When that is done, it turns out to be pretty solid.
May 16, 2012 at 04:51 PM
@DA I'm not sure if your referring to the business section of the meeting before the actual vote or the educational section before official business began. If the latter, then we simply disagree. A more than 30 minute, prepared and argued presentation clearly outlining reasons not to vote for Belhar would constitute being willing to "speak up in the RCA" in my book.
If, indeed, you have the kind of proximity to KDY you indicate, then I would suggest a better place to share your opinion of what he should/should not be doing would be a phone call or e-mail to him. If, indeed, you share a classis affiliation with him, then you, like all members of his classis, have his contact information. Impugning his character and motivations online is probably not the best course of action.
I support your right to respond to the substance of KDY's arguments and positions (whether written or spoken). But you've gone beyond that to a form of character attack:
"...thereby keeping in good standing with the RCA hierarchy"
"...send in their club dues"
"...not speak up, he'll stay out of trouble"
"seems satisfied to write blogs and books instead" (i.e., talks, but does not walk)
"held accountable for following through on the ideas he promotes" (i.e., he doesn't follow through)
You might just want to consider the possibility that you're not aware of all the facts or all that KDY has done or is doing to affect change in the RCA. In fact, he has sacrificed for the cause of reformation in the RCA in ways you apparently know nothing about. At the very least, you've accused him of gross cowardice and hypocrisy. That's wrong DA. And, to be honest, it's kind of ironic coming from an anonymous blog commentator.
May 16, 2012 at 04:43 PM
DA, since we are apparently in the same classis, I'd be happy to get together with you sometime or set up a phone call to talk about ways you think I can change the denomination. I'd also love to hear what you are doing to work for reformation. If you leave your name here I can try to contact you.
May 16, 2012 at 04:03 PM
@ATB, on the contrary, I was at the classis meeting when the overture on the Belhar was presented. You're definition of "bravely" evidently differs greatly from mine and the characterization comes from my direct observations. You accuse me of a mischaracterization only because of your differing viewpoint but I could equally apply the mischaracterization to you.
I agree with Kevin theologically on almost every point. He is in a position to affect change in a denomination that has been going in the wrong direction for many years and is badly in need of a new reformation. He could take the mantle of leadership in that reformation but he seems satisfied to write blogs and books instead.
If he is going to write about what's wrong with the RCA he should be willing to also work to affect change (note the failure of Integrity RCA - it's merely an occasional conference now)and also be willing to be held accountable for following through on the ideas he promotes.
May 16, 2012 at 01:24 PM
@DA Apparently you weren't at the classis meeting when Kevin stood up and bravely spoke AGAINST adopting the Belhar. In fact, based on your comments here, I doubt you've been at a single classis meeting to hear him stand and speak.
And apparently you're not up on you RCA history either, or you would know that in 2005, Kevin was one of the key voices bringing charges against Norm Kansfield, former President of New Brunswick seminary, for performing a same-sex wedding.
I say "apparently" because I can't really be sure about your knowledge of these things. But apparently you have no problem mischaracterizing a brother whose words match his actions in ways you (apparently?) know nothing about.
As to "paying club dues," some people believe that things should be done "decently and in order." While I would not presume to speak for KDY: RCA churches that have serious problems with the denomination's direction understand that if, or when, they seek to withdraw, it will be a process that demands careful leadership. Refusing to meet financial obligations might feel good, but it is a poor witness and a breech of agreement between churches.
Dr. Randy Blacketer
May 19, 2012 at 03:17 AM
"The RCA does not require elders or deacons to subscribe to any of our standards." Wow, I did not know that. I find it shocking. John Cooper wrote an excellent paper on the Belhar, and there are many overtures regarding it coming to the CRCNA synod this summer, and more are against it than for it as a confessional standard; and some say affirm it as a testimony subject to the three forms of unity (Cooper's suggestion).