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.)