Synod is now in to full swing and I had a few moments so I thought I’d touch bases and give a quick update.
The seminarian seminar (which I facilitate) started a day and a half before synod, during which we studied through the entire workbook, looked at every substantive recommendation, and welcomed a few guests who could give the seminarians a clearer glimpse into the business of the denomination. Our guests, thus far, were Kirsty Depree (who works with Discipleship), Rodger Price (who works with Revitalization) and Wes Granberg-Michaelson (the denomination’s General Secretary). Our guests, this year, were a bit more focused on the “revitalization” section of the denomination’s ministry (compared to last year, when I had more guests from the “multiplication” subgroup.)
The Belhar was declared and is now OFFICIALLY the RCA’s fourth standard! My only regret (and it’s not really a regret) is that, as a non-delegate, I didn’t get to personally vote on it.
Opening worship went well. It turned out longer than expected… a bit too long. The delegates didn’t really read the bulletin very well so the movement to communion was incredibly disorganized and I thought we were going to run out of bread (they ended up bringing more in!) but I’m pleased with how it went.
Both opportunities for new business went by without anything.
The General Secretary’s report included a few proposals. Huge proposals…. I’m a bit concerned about them – will try to write more later.
The President’s Report had 6 proposals…. Wow!
More later…
Grace and Peace,
`tim
Early this morning, official news came from the RCA and those “in the know” that 32 of the RCA’s 46 Classes have affirmatively voted to confirm the General Synod’s 2009 decision to make the Belhar Confession the RCA’s 4th theological standard.
Never, in the history of the Reformed Church, has the denomination added a theological standard (the other three predated the establishment of the RCA). It is a journey we have been walking since 1985 – three short years after the confession was written in South Africa (as, among other things, a theological condemnation of apartheid).
Those who know me know this is a decision I have hoped and prayed for since my days in seminary, however many of my friends and colleagues come from non-confessional traditions and don’t “get” why I would be so excited about the addition of a new “standard.”
Today, I write to you.
Let me admit a little secret that most confessional Christians either don’t know are don’t admit: When push comes to shove, we do not hold entirely to the reformation concept of sola scriptura. To be honest no one does. Everyone uses their own culture, education, experience, and established beliefs to help them understand the scriptures (sometimes faithfully, sometimes not).
The difference between confessional churches and non-confessional ones is that we admit our theological biases, and we have taken the time and energy to create (and/or adopt) denominational standards that help us define what aspects of our culture, education, etc. are appropriate for use in biblical interpretation and what their limits are.
In other words, everyone reads the scriptures through a specific set of lenses (sometimes this is done intentionally, other times accidentally). As a minister in the RCA, the most powerful of those lenses are the standards I affirmed as “faithful” upon my ordination (and will re-affirm every time I transfer to a new Classis).
The addition of the Belhar Confession to our list of standards in the RCA adds a new set of lenses to help us more faithfully embrace the fullness of the scriptures.
I can already hear the question: Why not just read the Bible?
That, unfortunately, is a question with a simple answer: the Bible is all-too often misused and abused.
Confessional standards set up theological fences (tested by time and careful discernment) to help ensure orthodoxy. Standards help clarify that some interpretations are misinterpretations – they help prevent the scriptures being misused (usually by the powerful and wealthy) to abuse (usually the weak and poor).
The Belhar, with it’s deep commitment to unity, justice and reconciliation, sets forth a lens that reflects Jesus’ ministry and teaching more clearly than our other three standards. It draws us out of an over-emphasis on Paul’s writings by calling us to recognize the Kingdom of God (that Jesus so frequently preached) and embrace it’s priorities.
None of this suggests that the other three standards are somehow “lacking” in what they intend to teach us. They simply arose out of different contexts and speak to different issues. As powerful and Spirit-informed as they are, they could not say what the Belhar says because they were not written when the Belhar was written by the people who wrote the Belhar.
By recognizing the Belhar as a confessional standard, the RCA is saying that after an extensive amount of time, thought, discernment and prayer, we believe that the the Belhar’s message speaks to the larger church, not merely to the post-apartheid church in South Africa. These are universal lenses that reflect the priorities Jesus expressed throughout his earthly ministry – and thus, they are lenses that we can – and should – use to faithfully interpret the scriptures.
I don’t expect that I’ll “convert” any of my non-confessional friends and colleagues into confessional Christians, but I hope this helps you understand a bit more why I’m so excited about this historic decision. Maybe you can even celebrate along with me (us)!
Grace and Peace,
`tim
The Reformed Church in America traces its history in North America back 1628. We are the oldest continuous denomination on the continent, and yet in that time we have never adopted a new confession.
It is no small thing, then, that for the first time ever, we are going through the process of potentially adopting a new confession – the Belhar Confession. You see, the RCA is a confessional denomination. We currently have three standards of unity (the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Canons of the Synod of Dort). We also confess three creeds (the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed).
That sad reality is that, despite our confessional identity, there seems to be very little understanding of what it means to be such a body. Many believe the RCA is, like most pentecostal or baptist churches, a “no creed but Christ” denomination or a merely sola scriptura entity. We are not. Every minister in the RCA, alongside affirming the “Word of God as the only rule for faith and life,” also confirms that they hold our confessional documents to be “historic and faithful witnesses to the Word of God” (Declaration for Ministers of Word and Sacrament).
As far as I know, there is no “industry standard” as to how these statements are to be interpreted. In other words, there is no universal understanding of what it means to be confessional Christians. Some of my colleagues read the Declaration with a heavy emphasis on “historic and faithful witnesses….” Others clearly confess that the standards are “historic and faithful witnesses….” I tend toward the latter… many of my friends toward the former.
So, what does it mean to be confessional Christians? What are “confessions?” What is their authority? How are they related to the scriptures?
Here’s what I think:
I believe the confessions are documents from specific historic times and places. They were originally written to specific people in specific contexts. Unlike many theological documents, however, the creeds and confessions speak outside of their original context. While their authority is not equal to that of the scriptures, as with scriptures, a solid understanding of their original context(s) enables us to appropriately embrace them into our own time and place.
The confessions, while always subservient to the Bible, provide accurate and faithful distillations of the gospel. They offer us with the essential touch points of the Christian faith. These documents help us understand what is most important and give us a solid paradigm within which to interpret the parts of the Bible that are unclear or difficult to understand.
All of this helps explain why I believe the RCA should adopt the Belhar Confession.
Unlike some of my colleagues, I do believe the Belhar’s affirmation of God’s preferential option for the poor. I do believe that a faith which proclaims unity, justice and reconciliation but fails to live them, is no faith at all. If God stands with the “least of these” and all who suffer (and I believe God does!) then God’s people must as well. Failure to do so reveals us as Christian-like, rather than truly Christian.
In many ways, our current confessions handle Paul’s writings well, but they fail to adequately express the life and ministry that Jesus lived and taught. The Belhar helps rectify that.
The next two and a half months will show whether or not the RCA is ready to embrace the aspects of the scriptures that the Belhar lifts up as essential. I couldn’t be more pleased that Zeeland Classis and the other 5 who have currently voted on the issue have followed General Synod’s example and voted to embrace the Belhar.
I hope and dream for a world where Christians confess and live into the realities of unity, reconciliation and justice. This is, I believe, a small – but very important – step in that direction!
Grace and Peace,
`tim
As I began thinking about what I would do if given the opportunity to vote on the Belhar, I spent a lot of time thinking about what a “confession” is. Of course, there are a lot of ways to define a confession, and I wasn’t a delegate at Synod, so however I would have voted is entirely irrelevant. However, the question I kept coming back to was the question of context.
It sounds awful, but bear with me. One of the beautiful things about the scriptures is that they can be used outside of their original context. That doesn’t mean that all out of context interpretations are appropriate, but it does suggest that some out of context interpretations are. I don’t think that’s even remotely controversial. Obviously we live in a completely different context than those the scriptures were written in. If we are to believe that they still speak to us and make God’s will known to us, we have to believe that it’s possible to apply them, in some way, outside of their original context.
The standards are obviously not scripture; they do not hold the authority of scripture; they are not inspired in the same way as the scriptures. That said, one of the beauties of the standards is that they too, in some ways, can be interpreted and applied outside of their original context. Ministers in the RCA affirm that they are “historic” and “faithful” expressions of God’s will. “Historic” means that they have an original context different from our own; “faithful” suggests that they, to some degree can be interpreted outside of that original context.
As I’ve thought about the Belhar, then, I’ve found myself wondering which of two, very different, categories it fits in: (1) is it a powerful document bound to it’s original time and context (and thus not suitable as a confession), or (2) is it a powerful document able to speak in some way outside it’s original time and context (and thus appropriate for adoption as a confession).
In the end, I believe it’s the latter. Which means, of course, that I believe the Synod made a wise and discerning decision in approving it, and celebrate that the years of study have led us to this place.
Certainly some applications outside of South African apartheid are appropriate, certainly others aren’t. The flurry of activity on the Church Herald Blogs, over the past week, has seen a myriad of posts referencing the Belhar (in my opinion) under both categories. The question, then, becomes how it can appropriately be applied outside of its original context.
One of the problems we have, in answering this question, is that as important as it is, we haven’t done a very good job at answering it with our other three standards. Nor, even, have we done an acceptable job answering it in the case of the scriptures. Again, it’s worth noting that the scriptures and the standards are unquestionably on different levels – yet the question is similarly important.
I can’t provide a full hermeneutic on the standards, but let me at least suggest the following:
(1) In order to understand how the standards (and therefore, the Belhar) can be applied outside of their original context, we need to know as much about their original context as possible and what the differences are between their original context and a contemporary one.
(2) The first step in interpreting the standards, is to figure out what they meant to their original audience in their original context.
(3) The second step in interpreting the standards, is to ensure that the “contemporary” (i.e. out of context) interpretation is consistent with the scriptures. (As a standard, I already believe the original interpretation is consistent with the scriptures).
(4) The third step in interpreting the standards, is to ensure that the contemporary interpretation is consistent with original interpretation (i.e. it’s inappropriate to try to get the standards to say something inconsistent with what they were intended to say, even though it is appropriate to carefully apply them to different contexts than originally intended.)
OK, it isn’t a fully functional hermeneutic… but maybe it’s a start.
Thoughts?
Grace and Peace,
`tim