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.