Practical Christianity

“Man is becoming as narrowly “practical” as the irrational animals. In lecturing to popular audiences I have repeatedly found it almost impossible to make them understand that I recommended Christianity because I thought its affirmations to be objectively true. They are simply not interested in the question of truth or falsehood. They only want to know if it will be comforting, or “inspiring,” or socially useful. (In English we have a peculiar difficulty here because in popular speech “believe in” has two meanings, (a) To accept as true, (b) To approve of—e.g., “I believe in trade.” Hence when an Englishman say he “believes in” or “does not believe in” Christianity, he may not be thinking about truth at all. Very often he is only telling us whether he approves or disapproves of the Church as a social institution.) Closely connected with this inhuman Practicality is an indifference to, and contempt of, dogma. The popular point of view is unconsciously syncretistic: it is widely believed that ‘all religions really mean the same thing.’”

C. S. Lewis, Present Concerns: Essays by C. S. Lewis, “Modern Man and His Categories of Thought,” 65. Cited in Wayne Martindale and Jerry Root, eds., The Quotable Lewis (Wheaton, 1989), 50.

“Belhar Reflections (3)”

by
John Bolt

In the two previous reflections I summarized the CRC’s decision at its 2008 synod and took a close look at what it means for the church to declare that it is in statu confessionis, i.e. “when the truth of the gospel and Christian freedom are at stake.” As we now consider the first two sections of the Belhar, let us keep this important context in mind. (A friendly reminder: the text of the Belhar can be found on the CRCNA website at http://www.crcna.org/pages/belhar.cfm )

The first two articles are solid affirmations of biblical truth, beginning with an appropriate expression of faith in the triune God:

1. We believe in the triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who gathers, protects and cares for the church through Word and Spirit. This, God has done since the beginning of the world and will do to the end.

The Belhar then bypasses the credal affirmations concerning Christ and jumps to what is usually considered the third part of the Creed, the affirmation of what the Holy Spirit is doing in the church:

2. We believe in one holy, universal Christian church, the communion of saints called from the entire human family.

As sub-points under this statement we find six further elaborations that are decidely Christological: (Don’t be satisfied with my summary here; check out the full statements.)
- Christ’s work of reconciliation is made manifest in the church
- Unity is both a gift and an obligation
- Unity must become visible so “that the world may believe that Christ has alreadyconquered sinful separation, enmity, and hatred between people and groups.”
- Unity must be manifested and active in a number of ways . . . “that we have one calling, are of one soul and one mind; have one God and Father, are filled with one Spirit, are baptized with one baptism, eat of one bread and drink of one cup, . . . work for one cause and share one hope. . . .”
- This unity can be established only in freedom and not under constraint.
And finally, the most important: That faith in Jesus Christ is the only condition for membership of this church.”

Observation: If this were all that the Belhar confessed; if the standard set here were maintained in the entire Confession; then, there would be little to object to. All this is a ringing endorsement of classic Christian, trinitarian doctrine with a focus on the church as a community of reconciliation.

Question: If we stopped right at this point, paid little attention to the historical context in which the Belhar was written, would the CRC and other Reformed and Presbyterian churches outside of South Africa itself feel led to adopt it as an addition Standard of Faith? To put it in other words, granted that it is an eloquent statement, is there anything here that warrants raising the Belhar to a status that puts it on par with the Heidleberg Catechism?

My question is somewhat rhetorical. I do not see anything here objectionable or anything, for that matter, that is even all that new. “The triune God gathers his church; Christ’s work of redemption is its foundation; we are called to become what we are in Christ.”

While I find nothing objectionable in statements 1 and 2, I do have some lingering questions, even before going to the “rejection of errors” that follows # 2. The fourth bullet point under #2 needs its own attention, quite apart from the intended application to the situation of apartheid.

Let me cite it in full here:

"We believe
that this unity of the people of God must be manifested and be active in a variety of ways: in that we love one another; that we experience, practice and pursue community with one another; that we are obligated to give ourselves willingly and joyfully to be of benefit and blessing to one another; that we share one faith, have one calling, are of one soul and one mind; have one God and Father, are filled with one Spirit, are baptized with one baptism, eat of one bread and drink of one cup, confess one name, are obedient to one Lord, work for one cause, and share one hope; together come to know the height and the breadth and the depth of the love of Christ; together are built up to the stature of Christ, to the new humanity; together know and bear one another’s burdens, thereby fulfilling the law of Christ that we need one another and upbuild one another, admonishing and comforting one another; that we suffer with one another for the sake of righteousness; pray together; together serve God in this world; and together fight against all which may threaten or hinder this unity (Phil. 2:1-5; 1 Cor. 12:4-31; John 13:1-17; 1 Cor. 1:10-13; Eph. 4:1-6; Eph. 3:14-20; 1 Cor. 10:16-17; 1 Cor. 11:17-34; Gal. 6:2; 2 Cor. 1:3-4);"

Remember here that this is a confession that was made necessary because the South African Reformed church was declared to be in statu confessionis, i.e. “when the truth of the gospel and Christian freedom are at stake.” If that is indeed the case then the confession places us in an impossible situation. Set aside here the questions of racial separation that rightly troubled the authors of the Confession; every church in the world is then in statu confessionis because there is no church in Christianity that truly and full expresses the unity described in the lengthy paragraph above.

One cannot have it both ways. If any failure to measure up to the description above means that the “truth of the gospel and Christian freedom are at stake,” then it is wrong to single out racial separation as a distinct instance of such sin. However, if all failures are such a sin, then no church can be said to proclaim the gospel any more and singling out the sin of racism is an instance of sinful pride against other Christians. That strikes me as a perfectionist position from which there is no return.

Question: Has our proper indignation about racial injustice and our passionate desire to speak out prophetically against it led us to adopt positions that are theologically as problematic as any theological justification for apartheid might be?

In my next reflection I am going to look at the “rejection of errors” that follow article 2. I want to ask whether the problem I have pointed to in this reflection is exacerbated by these repudiations.

Belhar Reflections (2)

by John Bolt

In this reflection I want to explore the background to the Confession, in particular the circumstances in which it was written. The documents I will consider are all available on the CRCNA website and include the General Introduction from the Christian Reformed Church and the Reformed Church in America (http://www.crcna.org/pages/belhar_introduction.cfm); the Accompanying Letter by the Moderamen of the Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa [URCSA] (http://www.crcna.org/pages/belhar_letter.cfm); the brief statement “Why Consider” (http://www.crcna.org/pages/belhar_why.cfm ); and the history of the Belhar’s development (http://www.crcna.org/pages/belhar_history.cfm ).

For study purposes all these documents are important. My reason for considering them before looking at the actual text of the Belhar, beginning in the next installment, is that taking the Confession’s positive statements about unity, reconciliation and justice on their own, as abstract statements of general truth, would be to misunderstand them and perhaps even falsify them. We must know by whom, for whom, to whom and about what the Belhar was written before we can speak with confidence about its claims.

The Belhar was penned in what was perceived a time of crisis for the gospel in South Africa. The CRC/RCA Introduction speaks of “ . . . another critical issue that threatened the very core of the gospel message. The church and the society in which it ministered were torn by internal conflict, injustice, racism, poverty, and subjugation of the disenfranchised. From this crucible of suffering emerged the Belhar Confession, a biblically based doctrinal standard of justice, reconciliation, and unity.” The Moderamen’s Accompanying Letters speaks in no less stark terms:

"We are deeply conscious that moments of such seriousness can arise in the life of the Church that it may feel the need to confess its faith anew in the light of a specific situation. We are aware that such an act of confession is not lightly undertaken, but only if it is considered that the heart of the gospel is so threatened as to be at stake. In our judgment, the present church and political situation in our country and particularly within the Dutch Reformed church family calls for such a decision."

First question: When in the life of the church does a situation become so sinful that the very gospel itself is threatened? False teaching? (If so, all false teaching or only teaching on the cardinal points of the Christian faith. Hint: We disagree with the doctrine of Baptists on the important sacrament of baptism, but do we think that Baptists are “heretics” whose teaching threatens the gospel itself?) What about situations of suffering and persecution?

Here a look at the Belgic Confession’s statement about what the “false church” does (article 29) may be instructive. The language used in promotion of the Belhar was status confessionis; a church is said to be in statu confessionis “when the truth of the gospel and Christian freedom are at stake.” While it was the political ideology of the South African government that led the World Alliance of Reformed Churches in 1982 to declare that “Apartheid was a Heresy” and that a status confessionis existed in the country, the Reformed tradition does not use this language and the cited definition in the previous sentence is actually taken from the Lutheran Formula of Concord (Epitome, art. X, 6). This is itself rather interesting and reflects important differences between the two traditions when it comes to so-called “matters of indifference” (adiaphora). For the Reformed, matters of worship and church order are of such importance that they must be governed by the Word of God. For Lutherans, they are generally a matter of adiaphora except in times of suffering and persecution.

We believe, teach, and confess that in a time of persecution, when an unequivocal confession of the faith is demanded of us, we dare not yield to the opponents in such indifferent matters. . . . For in such a situation it is no longer indifferent matters that are at stake. The truth of the gospel and Christian freedom are at stake. The confirmation of open idolatry, as well as the protection of the weak in faith from offense, is at stake. In such matters we can make no concessions but must offer an unequivocal confession and suffer whatever God sends and permits the enemies of His Word to inflict on us. [Formula of Concord-Epitome, Article X,6].
Before considering the next question, let us pause to consider what is at stake here. The declaration that one is in statu confessionis is a confessional protest against a church that has become false, heterodox, in violation of Scripture and the church’s Confessions. It is a public declaration that one feels obligated to separate oneself from that false church. It is an accusation that is serious and solemn. Those who declare themselves to be in statu confessionis are obligated to spell out clearly where the body against which they level the charge of heterodoxy has departed from Scripture and the church’s confessions; the declaration arises from a common subscription to the church’s Confessions and the ordination vows of its office bearers.
Second question: Do the introductory materials and the text of the Belhar itself exlicitly and clearly reference the confessional doctrines that are denied by the Reformed Churches of South Africa?

In this connection, what do we make of the statement in the Accompanying Letter that “This confession is not aimed at specific people or groups of people or a church or churches. We proclaim it against a false doctrine, against an ideological distortion which threatens the gospel itself in our church and our country. Our heartfelt longing is that no one will identify himself with this objectionable doctrine and that all who have been wholly or partially blinded by it will turn themselves away from it.” Is this not curious? Does the Belhar then combat a “doctrine” that possibly no one believes? How does this threaten the gospel itself?

At this point, it is helpful to consider the actual “rejection of errors” in the Belhar itself (They are found at the conclusion of points 2, 3, and 4). Spend some time with them; ask yourself whether they articulate beliefs that you in fact hold and, if so, whether repentance on your part is called for.

In conclusion, a reminder from my first reflection of the purpose of our studying the Belhar: Simply look at the text and ask whether it speaks for you. After reading and reflecting, can you say, with joy and confidence, “This is what I believe!”? (And, of course, what doctrines I reject.)

A Prayer before Study

Thomas Aquinas frequently recited this before he dictated, wrote, or preached.


Ineffable Creator,
Who, from the treasures of your wisdom,
has established three hierarchies of angels,
has arrayed them in marvelous order above the fiery heaven,
and has marshaled the regions of the universe with such artful skill,

You are proclaimed the true font of light and wisdom,
and the primal origin
raised beyond all high things.

Pour forth a ray of your brightness
into the darkened places of my mind;
disperse from my soul the twofold darkness into which I was born: sin and ignorance.

You make eloquent the tongues of infants.
Refine my speech
and pour forth upon my lips
the goodness of your blessing.

Grant to me
keenness of mind,
capacity to remember,
skill in learning,
subtlety to interpret,
and eloquence in speech.

May you
guide the beginning of my work,
direct its progress,
and bring it to completion.

You who are true God and true Man,
Who live and reign, world without end. Amen.

from Devoutly I Adore Thee. The Prayers and Hymns of St. Thomas Aquinas

So I'm thinking of joining a monastery...

Reformed devotional writings attest to desires for full time devotion and single-minded attention to doing the Lord’s will. In that journey with God unique opportunities for deepening such devotion may cross our paths, and then . . . it’s time for some reflection. Such is the case of a recent graduate of Calvin Theological Seminary now writing her doctoral dissertation in Old Testament at the Free University of Amsterdam. The following article was first published in Catapult Magazine 7.6 (2008). Website: http://www.catapultmagazine.com/engaging-monasticism

So I'm thinking of joining a monastery . . .
by Brenda Heyink

"Joining a monastery was not exactly on my “what I want to do when I grow up” list. It was not even a possibility in my mind, nor in the minds of anyone around me. Reformed folks don't join monasteries. We get married and have lots of kids and work hard at our jobs (preferably jobs that use our unique gifts) so we can make a difference in the world. Perhaps that's a bit of an exaggeration, but joining a monastery seems to be antithetical to what most people understand to be the calling of a Reformed Christian.

"Yet, my thoughts on joining a monastery do somewhat fit in with (Reformed) Christianity as I've grown to know it and love it more. The church I went to while I was in seminary instilled in me a love for liturgy, following the Christian year closely and having Lord's Supper every week. During college, I was encouraged and challenged to pray with and for others daily; my desire to pray with others has only grown since then. Growing up, my parents instilled in me a desire not to live a selfish life but instead to make space in my life for others and share what I have. I have been encouraged by the church to live out my faith in all of what I say and do—and share it with people who have not yet heard. I've discovered that living in a Christian community provides an amazing and challenging way to combine all of these things.

"Even as much as joining the community of Oudezijds 100 provides amazing possibilities, there is still something distinctly odd about it. The community in Amsterdam is a bit different than what one expects when one hears the word “monastery.” There are still expectations of obedience, chastity and poverty, but these are modified so that members are held accountable in the community, they can still get married and have children, and they can still have regular jobs (in fact they'd like me to have one–it helps pay the bills). And as far as engaging with the world, the community's in the middle of the Red Light District and we interact with our neighborhood both in and outside of our doors. Sometimes it feels like we're a little too engaged with the world!

"As I already participate in this community, I am encouraged to explore how my gifts might fit with the gifts and needs in the community. I've been given structure to pray daily for the world, the church and the communities of which I am a part. I live with people whom I would never even have met before becoming part of the community—which is, as you might expect, sometimes a bit more of an adventure than I'd like! Through our prayers and laughter and shared meals and events, we pray that we may be a light and that we might share hope. And my wanting to be part of that seems to be a good desire that God has placed on my heart.

"Even with all of the wonderful possibilities involved in joining the community, I'm not sure yet whether I will fully join the community. It's not just that Sister Brenda (or Zuster Brenda, as they say in Dutch) has a bit of an odd ring to it. More so, like many of my generation, I'm not entirely sure what's next in my life. I know I'd like to teach the Old Testament and serve God, but where and how much are pretty large deciding factors. There are many people and communities in my life whom I love and who would be affected by my decision to join a monastery. As much as the thought of joining the community in Amsterdam fills me with joy, I know that joy would disappear without a sense that this is the place that God would have me best serve Him among the communities of which I am part. As I keep seriously considering this crazy notion of joining a monastery, I pray that no matter where I end up, all that I've learned from the community in Amsterdam about living wholly for God will continue to grow and be nourished."

Postscript
Some months ago Brenda decided to join the community. She now wears an apron, explaining “the apron is only for inside the community, and the title of zuster is also only in relation to the community - or official functions related to one's position in the community. The other community members were forewarning me of their own wonderful experiences of being labeled broeder Luc or zuster Albertine while taking a class or picking up kids from the local school - and thinking, yeah, great - now how do I explain that to the neighbours!? Or, how am I going to react when somebody yells hey, zuster Brenda, from across the canal in the middle of the red light district, which is bound to happen sooner or later?! Perhaps we've taken the names of broeder and zuster to keep us 'from thinking too highly of ourselves.'"

ACL

A New Confession for the CRC?

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:

"Mr. President
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."

A Psalm for Easter

I love the Lord, for he has heard my voice;
he heard my cry for mercy.
Because he turned his ear to me,
I will call on him as long as I live.

The cords of death entangled me,
the anguish of the grave came upon me;
I was overcome by trouble and sorrow.
Then I called on the name of the Lord:
“O Lord, save me!”

The Lord is gracious and righteous;
our God is full of compassion.
The Lord protects the simplehearted;
when I was in great need, he saved me.

Be at rest once more, O my soul,
for the Lord has been good to you.

For you, O Lord, have delivered my soul from death,
my eyes from tears,
my feet from stumbling,
that I may walk before the Lord
in the land of the living.

Psalm 116:1-9 (NIV)