Why You Should Vote Yes on the Belhar

As a part of the Seminarian Seminar, while I have the privilege to watch the proceedings of the General Synod, I do not have the power to vote (some of us have the power to speak, but that doesn’t include me). So, I am submitting here a few reasons why I think YOU (that is, any of you delegates who are checking this blog) should vote for the acceptance of the Belhar Confession today.





1- It says something crucial about God and His identity that is not explicit in the other confessions.



God is a reconciling God, who reconciles the whole world to Himself through his Son (2 Cor 5), who has conquered sin and death by his resurrection. Therefore as the body of Christ, we must be a reconciling people (Eph 2:11ff). In this we must be fundamentally concerned with our unity as a body (1 Cor 12), and with matters of justice for the poor and oppressed (Amos 5): these things are what make us distinctive, and our voice distinctive, as a witness to the world. This is the heart of the Belhar, and understanding this is critical to understanding the Gospel, and well as God Himself. Yet, as revered as the other three standards are, they do not make this critical piece of the Gospel explicit in the same way that Belhar does.



We need the Belhar for the sake of being a more thorough witness to who God is, and consequently who WE are, as well as what is God’s hope for the world. Justice and reconciliation are INSEPARABLE from the Gospel.







2- Its use in worship and study will help us become a more confessional church again.



I have heard a few times now that the issue of the Belhar is relatively insignificant, because today, primarily, the RCA is no longer a confessional church. However, since I’ve been here, I’ve heard (from pastors and students) of the Belhar being used in churches around the country, in a variety of ways, both in liturgy/worship and in study. Is it possible that the Belhar’s passage might actually lead to a revival of the usage of confessions in our churches? Is it possible, also, that the use of the Belhar will also lead us to rediscover our other confessions?



We need the Belhar because confessions need to be revived as a part of our worship, and the Belhar contains the necessary immediate relevance that make it viable to do so.





3- It will also help us become more ecumenical.



The other American denominations are watching us this week. The rest of the world is watching us, the RCA, this week.



We need to fully embrace the Belhar so that the rest of the world can see this as our commitment to both internal unity (within the RCA), and external unity (through ecumenical dialogue). In doing so, and being the first U.S. denomination to fully accept it as a confesion, I believe other denominations will quickly follow suit (and give us another point of connection with other Christian bodies)….but someone must take the first step!



4- The arguments against the Belhar are based on a faulty understanding of what confessions are.


I have read and heard virtually every argument against the Belhar at this point… they usually come down to a concern regarding how certain phrases in it might be used to support a position that she or he may not hold (e.g., support of homosexuality)… as if accepting the Belhar will tie their hands and keep them from being able to speak from their viewpoint. Yet, NO confession is meant to function as a pillar, an unmovable, static repository of propositional truths (or, as a useless mausoleum of once important issues that are now irrelevant). No, confessions are a RIVER in which we swim… a stream that originates in a particular moment in time, yet flows into a context much larger than its own and still finds applicability, because something about it touches the very heart of God.



We need the Belhar because it is a uniquely rich river in which we can swim (that is, work, worship, and use to interpret scripture)… one that, while the other confessions were written to help us understand and be assured in who we ARE before God, the Belhar offers to help us understand who we should desire TO BECOME… it confronts us, rather than assures us. This makes it more threatening, but it is no less God’s will upon us… it is a prophetic text.





5- We are in a moment of crisis.



Forged in the fires of apartheid, which was certainly a “crisis” moment (as all creeds/confessions are written in such times), we stand today as the American church at a crisis moment of our own: an increasingly diverse and fragmented, individualistic world, that instills deep bitterness if not hatred for others, tribalism, and profound injustice (the divide between rich and poor being wider than ever). The church, rather than confront these things as contrary to the Gospel, ends up looking a lot like the culture instead, and the question becomes: does the church offer the world anything different than what the world offers?



We need the Belhar because with it we make a stand to the world to say what we believe God to call us to be… and as we live in it, we as the church will once again grow into a more viable witness to the world.



Regarding the two main contentions (as far as I can tell):



The “special way” clause (i.e., God is with the poor and broken “in a special way.”)— I would ask someone who contends with this phrase, first of all, to examine your own reaction when you encounter someone who has dealt with particular hardship. Do you treat them the same, as if nothing tragic has occurred? Doing so would be quite cruel in most cases. Does not God’s heart, therefore, ache abundantly MORE than ours, when he sees his people suffer? Would that be unfair to those who are not suffering?



Is not the primary defining characteristic of our God, according to John, LOVE?



Biblical themes also support God’s concern for the poor: God’s deliverance of slaves because he had “heard their cries,” the numerous provisions made for the poor in the Law, God’s condemnation of Israel when they refused to care for the poor, and of course, Jesus, who at the “inauguration point” of his ministry (Luke 4) read from Isaiah that the word of the Lord was upon (him), to preach good news to the poor….set the captives free, break the yoke of the oppressed, give sight to the blind, and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. Jesus later said that it is MORE difficult for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God (Matthew 19, I think…?) And if that wasn’t enough, he later blatantly identifies himself with the poor in Matthew 25: “Whatever you did for the least of these (hungry, thirsty, naked, homeless)…. You did for me.”



The concept of God being with the poor in a “special way” is biblical. We need to be reminded of it and to confess it, for as Matthew 25 implies, our own souls depends on it.



The “natural diversity” clause-- It appears to me that some people read this particular phrase and immediately read “homosexuality” into it… and at that point, stop reading and assume that the Belhar allows some kind of radical liberal agenda. They must not be reading the rest, for as the rest of the paragraph states, the rejection is of any doctrine where absolutizing this diversity leads to “hinder(ing) or break(ing) the visible and active unity of the church, or even leads to…separate church formation.”



So, to violate Belhar, there must be a doctrine, which absolutizes categories of people, and leads to a breaking of church unity. Those three things must all be present, if you are reading the Belhar literally.



Basically, regarding homosexuality, to vote against Belhar means that you wish the church to reserve the right to a) form doctrines that permanently separate gays and lesbians from straight people and b) to kick them out of your churches. Is not wanting to give up these “rights” what the fear is really all about?



Actually, this section threatens gays and lesbians as much as those who are straight. It implies that to separate because of difference is wrong… the Belhar compels those who wish to split from a “hate the sin, love the sinner” kind of church…. to stay and work through their differences, as much as those who want to split from an “open and affirming” kind of church…. are compelled to do everything possible to stay unified.



The Belhar threatens all of us, because our natural, sinful tendency is to divide and categorize each other, and to either fight or flee when the going gets tough. To stay unified in the midst of diversity is what makes the church unique, and it is only possible because of Jesus Christ.





Okay, I have said my piece… now you vote based on your own conscience.



(Remember, as a delegate you are responsible to voting your conscience, not obligated to represent the people in your church/classis.)



In whatever happens today, Solo Deo Gloria.

the view outside my office.

Only in Southern California. The heavy rains all day have given way to sunshine once again, and the resulting mountain vista is spectacular. These pics don't do it justice.

i'm feeling blogorific.

(which means, "I feel like puke and I'm taking a moment away from the mounds of work I have to do while I feel like puke to spice up my long-neglected blog.")

You'll notice the Taize banner on the left. Click on it and it'll take you to a list of Taize podcasts and give you the option to subscribe to it. (You can also do this via ITunes, as I have done.)

Use it for a little centering time during your week.

since my return...

I discovered two sites that consistently make me laugh.

1. Stuff Christians Like. Hey, anytime you poke fun at the Christian subculture, you got me... Course, I spend much of the time when reading the posts saying "Oh, I do that..." or, "Oooh, I used to do that..."


2. Uncyclopedia. A little (read: a lot) edgier than the first one, and it may not be appropriate for all ages, but, I couldn't stop laughing when I read just a few of these pages. Requires at least a general knowledge of how Wikipedia works in order to fully enjoy... which I assume by now is just about everyone who might read this.


There's my act of service for the day.

at the center.

A principle being applied to business that should be applied to the church... connection with real beliefs and values. A fascinating read to the business-mind and the spiritual mind: gapingvoid.com

I find it a little disturbing.

Cool new way to discuss consumption and consumerism with others.

It speaks for itself. Runs 20 minutes. Very well done.

SHIFT:: breakouts, and limping evangelicals.

Just a quick blurb on the day's events, then I'm off to bed...again. I tried to sleep a second ago, but couldn't. Hating the PCT right about now.

I attended two special Point Leader breakouts, as opposed to most here who went to four shorter breakout sessions today, for an additional cost (I thought it was worth it b/c I really wanted the slower and more intentional pace of longer sessions and smaller group sizes... and besides, the McLaren and Claiborne breakouts were full already.....j/k)... Those groups were with Mike Novelli and Dan Kimball. I also had an early coffee date with Scot McKnight.

The theme of the day, much to my dismay, seemed to be the worry of evangelicals who have encountered emergent and like movements, and have found much to admire and that from which to draw inspiration... but, a concern remains about the perceived "over-open-endedness" of such movements. Particularly through the conversation with Scot and others at the table, and also through Dan's breakout, I was struck repeatedly with the notion that our theological discomforts both reveal our own psychological tensions within ourselves, and that many emergent leaders' thinking has been shaped by deep personal wounds. In other words, the struggle reveals our brokenness, from both sides. (I think my work as a chaplain is where this insight is coming from....)

With the coffee convo w/ Scot, I mentioned that the emergent movement is a half-way house, or a recovery group of sorts... and that's not a bad thing. emergent is serving a badly-needed pastoral need for so many who have been wounded by the modern church. I hope that doesn't come across as dismissive. However, those finding refuge in these "recovery centers" had better be careful about harboring their ill feelings about the modern church until it becomes anger, creating an "other" out of other brothers and sisters in Christ (wouldn't be the first time) and separating ourselves from them and creating more church division.

With Dan's group, it was the opposite that I observed: Evangelicals who have encountered emergent and have found resources, vision, passion, freshness, and new frameworks, but are fearful of fully identifying with emergent, are wanting to ensure that the old theological frameworks of "substitutionary atonement," or "the fall," or topics like homosexuality in the church, are not being changed. There are psychological ( I should say, pastoral...that is, reasons to be pastoral...) reasons for that. Dan at one point posited understanding theology as having a "core" with certain propositions that do not change, while other propositions contain varying amounts of truth are further from the center. Very Quine-esque, which is well and good...but my question is, what if my central propositions were different? (which they were?) What if I wanted more stuff in there? (as in, the Kingdom of God is at hand, which is pretty central to Jesus) What if I wanted less? (as in, Jesus paid the penalty for my sin)... it seemed to me that many evangelicals are weary of wading into the uncharted waters of emergent and are now floundering in the deep end, grabbing onto the old friends of propositional truths to keep them afloat. What is the fear there? What control would they lose? What fears would they have to confront?

I know sounds all very pompous; I know my theology probably reflects the results of a deeply wounded psyche in me...but I felt like I took a step backward in the second breakout session from the first with Novelli (which was great, and clearly addressed how we can have a clear, articulate faith, that can even be taught to and understood by teenagers, without clinging to propositional truth and even our own theological constructs!!!)... and I know I'm probably the only person in the room this afternoon that felt that way. I did learn from the session with Dan some ideas on how to ask tough theological questions with youth or young adults, and how to use visual media. But I was a little disappointed with the rest, if I may be as brazen to say so. Even so, another great day at Shift on the whole.

(And Bo Boshers impressed me again at lunch with his humility and honesty.)

at SHIFT 2008.

I'm sitting in my hotel room only 2 miles from Willow Creek, having just completed the first day of the SHIFT conference, a conference for youth leaders, volunteers, and students. It's my first youth conference since becoming a youth pastor, and I must say, I've been quite impressed. I was telling Amy today just how comprehensive, pastoral, and even, dare I say, impromptu, everything was. Although I knew the speakers (Brian McLaren, Mark Yaconelli, Shane Claiborne were just TODAY) were high quality, I was sure that Willow itself and its staff would make me cringe with its commitment to hyper-efficiency, overproduction, and extravagance. And I must repent at the end of today, having experienced what I have. The worship leader, Charlie Hall, cut out half of his planned set after the second session after listening to Mark Y. talk about the need for silence in our lives, and allowed us to continue sitting in the grief that the silence was stirring up inside all of us. Bo Boshers, Willow's youth exec, teared up after Shane's presentation and again broke the day's planned protocol so that Shane could come back up and pray again for us. All of Charlie's music selections reflected both a deep pastoral conscientiousness of the subject matter, and attention to worship metaphors and pronouns (he had about the right balance of using You-We-I pronouns, in that order of frequency, instead of the usual I-You-We). And as expected, the speakers were all profound, prophetic, and yet still pastoral and loving (especially Mark, with whom I was less familiar). While I remain wary of megachurches in general, I repent tonight of my stereotypes. I thank Willow for providing this needed spiritual and intellectual sustenance for so many youth workers, newbies (like me) and experienced. And I eagerly await tomorrow's fare.

Check out the blog discussions on Out of Ur for the conference.

The Fuller Generation

Well, Sam told me about this, and I was going to blog on it, but he already beat me to it. Figures.

Jim Wallis (above) wrote a blog on the Huffington Post discussing the new "twentysomething evangelicals".... and using Fuller Seminary as one of the key examples of the changes happening in evangelical Christian thought and culture in America.

In one sense, I beam with pride for my now-alma mater, because I feel like the changes that are happening are positive ones. I also feel like Jim is describing me when he says that more and more Christians ID themselves as "Matthew 25, Luke 4, and 'Sermon on the Mount' Christians" who seek to live out the Kingdom of God in this life as much as the next one...although this change in my head and heart was rooted in events and biblical discoveries that happened before I ever stepped foot onto the Fuller campus....Fuller simply helped the seeds to grow.

I also am left wondering, "Almost every new movement, every fresh breath of the Holy Spirit, becomes over-systematized and dogmatic eventually, setting the stage for a new movement... when will that happen for us?" In other words, when will we take our new "hooks" and theological toys and push them to the extreme, using them (and not the Spirit, nor the Biblical narrative) as the litmus test for legitimate Christianity? I suppose we are years away from this, since we're still the minority... then again, maybe in some circles, we're not.

The rhetoric has been from the beginning that we continue to "emerge," not to ever close neither our ears from dissension nor our eyes to seeing God's fresh movement in the world...this is what makes people who desire a definition for the emerging church tear out their hair. (minus the "we are democrats" part, this might be one of the better attempts to give some definition to the movement, particularly as it is ID'd as an evangelical movement, primarily.)

My question is, will we stay open to the Spirit, and to criticism, and to theological balance?... B/c human history suggests that we won't.

the gospel according to josh. (part 1 of ?)

Well, the previous blog set a new standard in suck-ery. Good thing no one reads this anymore.

I've had a few theological thoughts ruminating in my head over the past few weeks, a lot of which involving remembering the journey of the past few years. Many of my closer blog friends know that atonement theories (i.e., how the "problem" of the world was solved by Jesus), re-thinking about sin, Pauline thought, dualism, the nature of the Trinity, and the resurrection have all been "hot topics" for me. They have been, because I feel like they really matter to talk about. I mean, I know theology is supposed to be boring, esoteric, and ultimately useless navel-gazing by academicians needing something to put in a dissertation. But, maybe I've been deluded, but I actually think it matters to think about big topics like this. I know that theology comes from life, and so trying to make "meta-categories" like "Trinity" and "Sin" is at best an overgeneralization of experiences and at worst a tool of oppression leading to the death of individual (marginal) experience....but, I still find it useful to do theology.

Because really, theology IS life... Everything we do has spiritual implications. Everything in this world is within the realm of God, and so it has theological meaning. Attempting to dive into this mystery, knowing full well that that mystery is bottomless, should necessarily lead us to a deeper knowledge about life, and namely, the meaning and purpose of it.

Good theology is also self-critical; i.e., it learns from itself, and from its sordid past... if it is, it can never be used as a tool for oppression or violence, because we have too many examples in our history to mention to give us any excuse of ignorance in the future.

I'm no longer a student. I'm a youth pastor now. Which means, when I say things with theological significance, I don't get to put down footnotes and create elaborate arguments; instead I am explaining things have I've studied/discovered to churchgoers and teenagers in simple terms... well, sorta. You can poll any of my kids and they'll probably tell you that I have a tendency to speak in another language at times... I really have to watch myself. And I'm not going to lie; it's been frustrating. I have things in my head that make sense, that I can't seem to communicate as well as I would like. I want people to catch the vision of the Kingdom of God, but I can't seem to put it into terms that most people can get, without having studied theology on their own. Basically, I'm used to working with people who share some basic presuppositions. Without these, I am constantly explaining myself, until I talk myself into so deep a spiral that no one is following me anymore. I exaggerate, but only a little.

After all, my sermons have all been to audiences with whom I feel like I have some continuity in thought and theology....either to classmates, or to the Warehouse, whose congregants largely share my convictions. While I hold these convictions firmly (and yet loosely, which is a conviction in itself), I sometimes now feel like I'm the only one on the planet with this view of the Christian religion...which is not true, of course.

And as you can see, without writing papers constantly, I have become ridiculously verbose...another obstacle to clear communication.

So I've become increasingly interested in working my language and my metaphors, crafting and molding them, so that my progressive convictions can strike an emotional chord with others, just as they do with me. And, I want to be able to show how it all ties together, how it all fits, by logical standards, biblical standards, and historical standards.

In other words, I want to be Rob Bell.

So, over the next several blog entries (I may interject a few other entries about other things) I plan to let this blog be an open forum where I can craft in everyday language my view of the Gospel. That is, "the Gospel according to josh." Once I write something that I think is compelling, I'll be illiciting feedback from trusted sources, but whoever you are, if you have an opinion, I would love to hear it. It would be a great help to me. And my youth will thank you.