Is the Belhar Confession in fact a confession or is it a political polemic pretending promulgating itself under the guise of religion? One way to take a stance on this is to look at the origin of the Belhar and contrast it to the issues which gave rise to the church's historical confessions.
When looked at from this perspective it is clear that there is a vast difference between the factors which led to the Belhar's creation and the creation of the Church's other confessions. The Belhar has arisen not out of concern for the gospel and the church but as a consequence of a specific societal reality, namely that of Apartheid, which is a policy that arose to deal with a specific society structure and not to address a church heresy or to defend the church from a hostile world. This is rather interesting to note because if the historical creeds and confessions of the church have not dealt with societal issues then we need to ask ourselves why not.
The reason certainly cannot be because there were no societal inequities at the time of their writing. If we look at the structure of the societies of their day we will see that societal inequity was pervasive in all of the countries where these documents were crafted. Rather the truth is that all of these confessions and creeds focused on some very central Biblical themes such as; the nature of God and man, the way of salvation, the Church, and the role of the magistrate or civil government. All of this material is dealt with purely terms of how all these things relate back to God. But is this the only reason why none of these church standards do not address societal injustices?
I would offer one more reason as to why none of these confessions were written with an eye to social inequities and that is that they are following the example that is set for us in God's word itself, especially in the New Testament. In the New Testament we encounter a Jesus who has no desire to overthrow the Roman rulers and who when confronted on the issue of Roman rule, replies to his inquisitors by saying, "render unto Ceaser what is Cesar's and unto God what is God's". We find Paul telling a runaway slave that he must return to his master. We hear Paul telling people who are married at the time of their conversion that they are to remain married to their unconverted spouses rather than dissolve their holy union. When it comes to making change in this world the New Testament is consistently focused on making a change in people's hearts. Whereas the Belhar has as its ultimate goal the reforming of secular society apart from the reform that must go on in human hearts.
When one reads the Belhar you come away with this impression which is that this confession was not constructed to give Biblical instruction to the church of God or to give a defence of the church in response to persecution but rather to advance a political agenda. This purpose comes out especially in the last part of the confession where the confession interchangeably talks of the meaning of the Cross for the church and then talks about its meaning for society as a whole. Such a use of the cross is a hallmark of "liberation theology", and it is not denied by the supporters of the Belhar that the confession does espouse this teaching.
Now I believe that it would be ironic that the same church which would denounce Apartheid as being a heresy would embrace the heresy of "Liberation theology". The way to counter one heresy is not by the adoption of another. When it comes to theology I do not subscribe to the idea that "turn about is fair play." The truths of the Gospel are much to important for us to treat them so disgracefully.
The only concern that the Bible wants the church to focus on is this one issue, "what must I do to be saved?" If we look at the historical creeds and confessions we see that their concern is also with this sole issue and I believe that it is Belhar's divergence from this singular point that disqualifies it as being worthy of elevation to confessional status.
No comments:
Post a Comment