The Belhar Confession is an important statement of belief adopted by the Dutch Reformed Mission Church of South Africa in 1986. The confession arose out of reflection on the struggle with apartheid in South Africa. After the Dutch Reformed Mission Church (DRMC) and the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa (DRSA) united in 1994 to form the Uniting Reformed Churches in Southern Africa (NGK), it served as one of their primary confessions of faith.
Since that time, the Belhar Confession has been adopted as a foundational confession by several denominations: the United Protestant Church in Belgium, the Dominican Reformed Church, and just recently the Reformed Church in American (still awaiting final ratification). In addition, the confession has just been adopted for consideration by the Christian Reformed Church and is being considered by the Presbyterian Church USA. You can read the confession and download a copy here at the RCA website.
In general, the Belhar Confession contains five main sections dealing with the following subjects:
• Faith in the triune God
• Unity of the church
• Reconciliation of people in Christ
• God’s justice and care for the suffering, and the priority of working against injustice
• A call to confess and practice this teaching
Those who support adopting the Belhar Confession as part of denominational confessional standards usually point out that it fills an important gap in our confessions, that the content of the confession is essential to our faith, that it deals with issues relevant to the universal church, that is represents a worldwide Reformed faith, and enriches our Christian way of life.
Whereas there are many who would like to adopt the Belhar Confession as part of their denominational standards, others believe that it should be acknowledged simply as a statement of faith or an important ecumenical confession. Some who are opposed to the confession think that it has an unbiblical statement of a “preferential option for the poor” or that it deals to specifically with the sin of racism.
Among these positions, I believe that the Belhar Confession should be adopted to some degree, at least as an important statement of faith of the worldwide community of Reformed churches. What are your thoughts? What would be the reasons why the Belhar Confession should not be adopted? What are reasons why it should be adopted? I look forward to your thoughts…
Posted by Wes on July 3, 2009 at 10:20 am
One of the reasons why I would support adopting the Belhar Confession is that is really does fill a gap in our confessions, namely, the consequences of belief in the Trinity and reconciliation in Christ for racial reconciliation and integration in the Christian church. Also, it deals very practically with matters of justice, which is another weakness in our Reformed confessions.
Posted by RFT on July 6, 2009 at 9:24 am
Wes, after reading this confession, I think it unwise to be adopted. I have posted some critiques related to it at http://reformationfaithtoday.com/2009/07/06/the-belhar-confession-quite-inadequate/
Posted by Wes on July 6, 2009 at 9:43 am
Thanks for posting some comments on your blog, which gives some good food for thought.
In regards to Mouw’s critique of Belhar, also referenced by DeYoung, I would have to emphasize that homosexual union is not demanded or even implied by the emphasis on reconciliation and social justice in this confession. If Christians supporting homosexual union can find support for their position in the Bible, then they can probably find support in the Belhar Confession and other confessions as well. The fact that Belhar can be applied in many different ways in not a weakness, but a strength in service to the Church. To ensure that it is applied in biblical ways requires much searching of Scripture, empowered by prayer and the Holy Spirit.
There is probably one phrase that is most critiques in the confession, and that is the following: “God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged” (DeYoung talks about this in his critique). I have read many of the debates on this sentence, and it can be taken in many different ways. If you look at the Bible passage that the confession references, I would think this should be understood not in terms of having favoritism toward the poor, but taking the side of the poor, destitute, and wronged when they are being oppressed or victims of injustice, which has many examples in Scripture. Because this phrase can be interpreted in a biblical way, I do not think this should be a barrier in supporting the confession.
So, those are my thoughts for now, and thanks again for providing the links to these critiques for further food for thought.
Posted by Wes on July 6, 2009 at 10:54 am
A common objection to adopting the Belhar Confession on any level is that our current confessional standards (like the Westminster Confession or Heidelberg Catechism) deal adequately with the issues of race and social justice. Of course, the issue of racism can be addressed with general answers in the existing standards, but the issue is not addressed directly or explicitly in such a way that such confessional statements trickle down into the worship, life, and practice of the church.
Obviously, there were many questions and issues outstanding in our existing confessional standards, because the PCA, for example, thought it necessary to draft a position paper on racial reconciliation. (you can access this paper here: http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/race.html. This paper is very good, but like many of the position paper, it goes into the archives where it sits collecting dust and does not inform the daily life of the church in very powerful ways. If something is adopted as a confession, or at least as an important statement of faith, it has more power to influence the actual life of the church, at least much more than a position paper.
By the way, I have not yet argued that the Belhar Confession should be adopted as another confessional standard, but only that it should be adopted at some level as an important statement of faith in the worldwide Reformed community.
In regards to the particular statement I mentioned about God being the God of the destitute, poor, and wronged, there is a danger of understanding this in an unbiblical way, but I would argue that there are several items in our existing confessional standards for which the same is true. Just as I take exception to these portions of our existing standards, the same could be done with this confession, taking note that this particular statement, if interpreted in one way, could lead to unbiblical conclusions.
For those who oppose adopting Belhar in any way, what would there be to lose if a denomination adopted it as an important statement of faith in the worldwide Reformed community, and not as another confessional standard?
Posted by RFT on July 6, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Well, I agree with Ramon’s take on it over at http://reformationfaithtoday.com/2009/07/06/the-belhar-confession-quite-inadequate/
Our confessional standards speak clearly enough to assist as a guide for our behavior in matters such as racism and the poor. The various position papers do very well at helping to clarify theological and societal matters.
The Belhar is simply to vague as to doctrinal support (lack of biblical footing) to be of much use. And when one of the principal architects of the document uses it to advocate for homosexuality and homosexual ordination, well that ought to be a deal killer.
Posted by Wes on July 6, 2009 at 1:19 pm
But let’s just suppose that one of the drafter of the Westminster Confession used it to advocate homosexual union. Would that be a deal killer for the Westminster Standards as well?
Posted by RFT on July 6, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Has one done so? That’s a pretty far stretch. In any case, the WCF can in no way be construed to advocate something it expressly forbids:
Posted by RFT on July 6, 2009 at 2:22 pm
What I mean is, about the hypothetical, is it is a non-sensical hypothetical. The document itself would expressly render such a position idiotic and would therefore allow the WCF to stand up just fine.
Posted by Wes on July 6, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Even if the Westminster Confession has never been used to advocate homosexual union, the Bible certainly has been and is currently used in this way. Should this then be a deal killer for the Bible, or simply certain interpretations of the Bible?
Also, I want to note that whereas I believe our confessional standards are wonderful doctrinal foundations, there is a need to continue to reflect in the Spirit and prayer on challenges to the church in the world today, which will produce more contemporary statements of faith and confessions.
In fact, the Westminster Confession is itself a document addressing many contemporary issues, and it is written into the confession that they expected following leaders and generations to do the same.
Posted by RFT on July 6, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Ah, the bible. No, I don’t think we have the prerogative to “kill the deal” on the Holy Scripture, a non-manmade work. Even if devils are “re-interpreting” obvious anti-homosexual passages to suit their lifestyles, the scripture will endure. I think the devil himself tried that sort of re-interpretation in the garden.
However, the confessions are not on a par with scripture, as good as one like the WCF surely is. We should use great discernment when advocating a new confession, since fallen men craft them.
Your second paragraph: I cannot think of a modern moral issue the WCF does not speak to, can you?
Posted by Wes on July 6, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Certainly there are general truths, doctrines, and ethical guidelines in the WCF that can be applied to almost every contemporary issue today, but there still is a need for practical and specific reflection on issues that are not addressed explicitly in our existing confessional standards.
Take, for example, the relationship between evangelism and social action, or the church’s responsibility to fight for social justice. I believe that groups such as the Lausanne movement have continued to reflect on these issues in the present, creating statements of faith such as the Lausanne Covenant and “Evangelism and Social Responsibility,” which are essential contemporary reflections on issues not adequately addressed in our existing standards.
Or what about the church’s responsibility to be stewards of creation? I don’t think the Reformational confessions and catechism really deal with this, which is why several of statements sprung up such as the Cornwall Alliance or the Evangelical Climate Initiative that are trying to address these issues. Again, you could argue that these things could be worked out in position papers, but there has to be a consistent way for these position and beliefs to be worked into the worship, life, and practice of the church, which is the current weakness of position papers. In addition, since they are just positions, they are not binding in any way, which is why racism, for example, has persisted so strongly in many denominations.
Posted by RFT on July 6, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Well, I suppose we agree to disagree. I think the WCF, for example, encompasses any and all such moral issues and if we would live by what we confess, there would not be, for example, racism. Non-binding position papers are indeed helpful and do help us clarify what the bible already teaches.
Posted by RFT on July 7, 2009 at 9:56 am
Wes, I am confident you didn’t mean to imply that if position papers WERE binding then racism, for example, would have ceased, right? In fact, even if a statement against racism were confessional (and thus “binding” on the officers of a denomination, racism could still exist, right?
Last, I don’t cede that racism has persisted in many denominations. Some to be sure. But not in any major denominations I am aware of.
Posted by Wes on July 7, 2009 at 11:42 am
You are right that I was not implying this, but there is real sense in which denominational position papers do not work themselves into the worship, belief, and life of the church as do confessional standards and official statements of belief.
In terms of racism persisting, I know through personal experience and some friendships that various forms of racism do exist, even within my own denomination. In addition, even though it is not racism per se, many churches and denominations fall into patterns of homogeneity, when multi-cultural and multi-racial congregations would be a more fitting and biblical witness in their communities and neighborhoods. This is the kind of thing that the Belhar Confession exhorts us to leave behind as we bear witness to the reconciliation that we have experienced in Christ.
Posted by RFT on July 7, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Well, if they do not work themselves in, as you say, that is not the fault of the position papers. Any other non-binding adoption of something such as the Belhar would be subject to the same dust collection as position papers, right?
As to racism, surely there is racism in ALL sectors of the professing church. Always has been, always will be. But where is there “institutional” racism? Will be hard to find, well except somewhere such as Rev. Wright’s church in Chicago (Obama’s former church) or some Arian types out there.
The patterns of homogeneity are just that…patterns of a freely moving and associating peoples. That in no way means that the patterns are racist. If blacks tend to worship together in metro areas such as St. Louis, that does not mean they are racists. It just means that is what people are choosing to do for a variety of reasons. They are not being less biblical just because they don’t have more white folk in their churches. Right?
Posted by Wes on July 7, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Yes, there is a danger the Belhar collecting dust as well, but people have already published study guides, suggestions for incorporating it into worship, and other tools that would help this confession influence the church’s belief, worship, and life.
I am not sure about institutional racism, but that was not where I was focusing.
I do not think patterns of homogeneity are a good thing, although I was clear that they are not racism. I believe, as Paul Metzger has pointed out in his brilliant book Consuming Jesus: Beyond Race and Class Divisions in the Church, that there is a dangerous triangle of consumer Christianity, homogeneity, and upward mobility that must be broken by radical fellowship across lines of race and class. I believe many neighborhoods are much more diverse than the churches in them, a reality that must be challenged and not accepted.
Posted by RFT on July 7, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Who are you or who am I to say where people may worship? I know a friend, a young black man, who occasionally preaches at his church, an African Missionary Baptist Church in Illinois. Per him, there are no whites there. There are whites in the surrounding community. MUST his church have whites? even if the reasons for them not being present have nothing to do with racism but rather a preference to worship with one’s family and friends, who happen to be other blacks? There is nothing wrong with that.
No, the way to combat the sin of any racism is to preach Christ and Him crucified. God changes hearts and as the leaders teach “whatsoever I have commanded you” to the people, racial walls fall. Will that put an end to all black churches? No, but there is no need to put an end to them. At least no one has shown biblically yet why they shouldn’t exist.
Posted by Wes on July 7, 2009 at 1:18 pm
The beauty of multi-racial and multi-class churches is that the invisible unity of God’s people is visibly represented across lines that have been and are barriers in many places.
Of course the place of worship cannot be forces, but it is obvious to me that much of the contemporary evangelical church looks the way it does because people go church shopping, and pick the church that most fits their needs. Following this consumer attitude will inevitably promote race and class division, rather than destroying them.
May we preach the powerful gospel of reconciliation and unity, but may we seek to show it and live it as well.
Posted by RFT on July 7, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Surely there is much consumerism in how people church shop. But I don’t think that just because like people, be they black or white, congregate and worship together means they are promoting race and class division.
Posted by slm on July 18, 2009 at 6:54 am
I really appreciate the Belhar Confession and think it should be adopted as a confession. To me it helps to fill in some of the gaps not covered by the Westminster Confession. I am a relatively new convert to reformed theology having come out of a charismatic baptist back ground. I was searching for a solid theology and found it in reformed theology. However, as excellent a summary of doctrine and Scripture as it is the Westminster Divines did not cover many topics that occur in the Church today. Things like spiritual warfare, integral mission, missions, racial reconciliation, social justice, contextualization etc. I have in general using the Lausanne documents as a guide in these area. This confession helps.
I would very much like to see it adopted by the PCA as a confession.
Personally, I would like to see a council called by the reformed church world-wide to adopt an updated confession that addresses all these issues and many more that do not fall under the WCF.
I appreciate that this confession was written up by non-euro-amero brothers and sisters. I think we need to hear and listen to the perspectives of our brothers and sisters in the global south the majority church today. I think they have much to teach us.
It is very encouraging that a church emerged from a time of gross wrong-doing and complicity with an evil and unjust system and repented and examined how it can keep from making the same mistakes again.
Thanks
Scott
Posted by Wes on July 18, 2009 at 7:34 am
Thanks for your comment, Scott. I am glad that you see that there are a host of issues that the PCA has yet to deal with in an adequate manner. Fortunately, there are resources like the Lausanne Covenant that can help guide through some of these matters in the meantime.