Lent is over, only if you want it so. Limiting purposeful devotions to God for a short period of time can be helpful, especially if it leads to deeper commitment. Lent continues if you wish it so.
Our spiritual ancestors, Israel, spent 40 long years in the desert, let’s call it a divinely chosen and then enforced time of Lent. A life time of Lent. God came into their midst and they began to learn about life with God.
In its long Lenten walk with God the Christian church has confessed its faith and committed that faith to writing. Thus the Christian Reformed Church has subscribed to the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort since its birth in 1857, having inherited them from their ancestors in the faith. Now the Synod of the CRC recommends the Belhar Confession to the churches for study in preparation for debate and vote on its approval as a fourth confession at the Synod of 2012.
John Bolt, professor of theology at Calvin Theological Seminary and advisor to the Synod of 2009, addressed Synod of 2009 on the Belhar recommendation. The text of his address follows:
Our spiritual ancestors, Israel, spent 40 long years in the desert, let’s call it a divinely chosen and then enforced time of Lent. A life time of Lent. God came into their midst and they began to learn about life with God.
In its long Lenten walk with God the Christian church has confessed its faith and committed that faith to writing. Thus the Christian Reformed Church has subscribed to the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort since its birth in 1857, having inherited them from their ancestors in the faith. Now the Synod of the CRC recommends the Belhar Confession to the churches for study in preparation for debate and vote on its approval as a fourth confession at the Synod of 2012.
John Bolt, professor of theology at Calvin Theological Seminary and advisor to the Synod of 2009, addressed Synod of 2009 on the Belhar recommendation. The text of his address follows:
"Mr. President
Thank you for the opportunity to raise a number of concerns I have about the recommendation before synod.
Thank you for the opportunity to raise a number of concerns I have about the recommendation before synod.
"I enthusiastically share the vision of the Belhar Confession in its powerful affirmations of section 2 [nature of the church], yet when I go to Section 4 [task of the church], I have concerns that the Belhar is an inadequate instrument for that purpose. Specifically, I fear that proposing making the Belhar a fourth confession for the CRC, in an honest desire for unity and reconciliation, could nonetheless have the tragically ironic consequence of creating discord and disunity where it does not now exist.
"Statements such as “God has revealed himself as the one who wishes to bring about justice and true peace on the earth” followed by “God . . . is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged,” and then applied to the church’s obligation to follow God in “standing by people in any kind of suffering and need, which implies, among other things, that the church must witness against and strive against any form of injustice” including “witnessing against all the powerful and privileged who selfishly seek their own interests and thus control and harm others”—are at one level of course true but they are partial truths and unable to serve as a full statement of the gospel. They beg the question about who the “poor” are in Scripture and to whom it applies today, and who decides who the real victims are. All too often it is simply assumed that demographic analysis of economies provides the answer and that God’s peace and justice for this world must be understood in categories of class and race. Here the wonderful affirmation of Section 2 that “true faith in Jesus Christ is the only condition for membership in this church” seems in tension with the more global and universal reach of the subsequent discussion of unity, reconciliation and justice in general. To heighten the issue here consider what happens if we substituted the evil of abortion for that of racism and said something along the lines of “God has a preferential option for the unborn and requires that his people be pro-life; that in the United States this is now a status confessionis requiring the church to stand with the unborn and vigorously oppose all those who tolerate or even promote the culture of death or who rationalize their support for politicians and political parties that do so. The troubling question I have for the delegates of synod—a question that we have not faced yet and need to in the next few years—why are we not making this a matter of status confessionis for us? I am as vigorously and passionately pro-life as I am anti-racist but also would oppose such a move for the CRC. Should that inconsistency however not bother us?
"You see what concerns me about Belhar is that the comments I just highlighted from section 4—when stated so starkly and without qualification—may be at odds with our Lord’s own teaching, not to mention the ecclesiology of the Reformed standards. Jesus did after all also give us those troubling statements in Luke 12:49-53 that he came to bring division and conflict between those who follow him and reject him. The biblical antithesis is not between the economically prosperous and disadvantaged—God is no respecter of persons; rich and poor are both sinners in need of redemption—nor is the justice and peace of Scripture simply the cessation of class, racial or national conflict. As synod this year and the CRC in the next three years considers the Belhar—with whatever proposed status—I believe that we need to ask whether or not it in fact significantly alters and perhaps even contradicts a number of categories that are currently an essential part of our doctrinal standards such as the marks of the church. And we need to ask how different standards relate to one another when there are competing or conflicting claims? (e.g. The PCUSA’s 1967 Confession and the Westminster Standards)
"Mr. President,
I believe that a great many questions remain about our understanding of what it means to be a confessional church and how our confessions of faith lead us to faithful discipleship in God’s world. These are weighty and I am not sure we have even begun to deal with them much less answer them. If we fail to deal with them we might reap the harvest that the 1986 accompanying letter to the Belhar prayed would not happen when it said: “Our prayer is that this act of confession will not place false stumbling blocks in the way and thereby cause and foster false divisions, but rather that it will be reconciling and uniting.” That concern should factor into the decision how synod deals with this matter this year and how the church will in the years to come. I pray for the Holy Spirit to grant the delegates of synod and our church courage, grace, and wisdom as we wrestle with this recommendation and its aftermath."
