Early in my Christian life, while I was in college, I took a philosophy course on the Phenomenology of Religion. I learned that all religions, from the most formal to the least structures, have three elements – creeds, codes, and cults. A Christian brother from a “free church” protested that his denomination had “no creed but the Christ and no book but the bible.” The professor said, in typical philosopher style. “Let’s test that assertion.” He asked the young man a set of questions that went something like this, ”When you read the Bible do you sometimes understand what it means?” The poor guy admitted that he does often believe he understands the meaning of what the Bible teaches. “Do you ever say to someone else what you believe the passage means?” He said, with an insecure chuckle, “Well, yes.” The professor then suggested that he was, at that moment, making a creedal statement. The student objected. “I am not stating a creed I am stating what the bible clearly says.” This guy was not stupid; he finally admitted that creedal statements are unavoidable.
What is the function of a Christian creed or confession? Why were they formulated? The classical answer is simply, 'I believe, therefore I confess' (Credo, ergo confiteor). A creed is the church’s answer to the question asked of Peter by our Lord – “Who do men say that I am?” and “Who do you say I am?”
Philip Schaft, in his classic study of “The Creeds of Christendom”, writes, “When controversies arose concerning the true meaning of the Scriptures, it became necessary to give formal expression of their true sense, to regulate the public teaching of the Church, and to guard it against error."
The church developed “the rule of faith” in order to teach faith to the subsequent generations. The development of creeds is in response to the Church’s role as “custodians of the mysteries.”
It is the Scriptures, the word of God, which is the “Norma Normans Non Normata.” That is, it is the rule of faith that will not be ruled by anything else. A creed or confession is a “normata” and it is not a “norma normans.” The truth of any creed or confession is measured by the word of God written, as the only “rule of faith.”
The Belhar Confession must stand or fall on the basis of this norma normans – this word of God written. It must also stand or fall on the basis of the meaning and purposes of confessions. It must meet the test of anything that is written. Its expressed meaning must be coherent and internally consistent.
Is it a statement that informs the Biblical message or is informed solely by it? Does it depart from anything clearly affirmed in Scriptures? Does its message conform only to what is clearly taught in the Bible? It might be a fairly good social ethics (which is not uniformly so) but still not rise to the status of a biblical exposition of the Christian gospel.
Belhar is internally inconsistent. It is self contradictory. It claims that unity is the highest value for the Church, and then anathematizes anyone who disagrees with this statement. It forgets that Jesus did not come to bring peace but a sword. It is the nature of truth to divide itself from error.
For us to embrace and confess this statement about unity, in the light of the deep divisions created in the Presbyterian Church (USA) by sexually permissive fundamentalists, is the height of hypocrisy. Belhar expresses the central foolishness of our age in that the only thing it “absolutizes” is relativism. Even there, logic rules and creates a contradiction. You cannot say that the principle of unity embraces all principles (they call it “convictions”) then denounce any principle. The political word “justice,” which is central to its message, can mean different things and will vary widely in its application. It is not clear how it is used in this document, yet it is the central meaning of its application. So, at its heart there is confusion.
As a confession of the Christian faith, it fails on every point.. It certainly fails on the basis of staying close to the norma normans of Scriptures which it reduces the crudest form of proof texting.
1 comment:
Gary,
Two questions arise for me from this post.
1) How does Belhar claim that unity is the highest value for the Church or anathematize those who disagree? I cannot find such strong language in the confession.
In fact, I do not see any comparatives or superlatives in the entirety of the document. Instead, it concerns itself with expounding one of the Nicene marks of the Church. Such an emphasis does not dismiss or devalue the other marks (holy, catholic, apostolic), but instead details the mark of oneness against false doctrine and unjust civil law. Such expansion on the mark emerges directly from the story of the early church as recorded in Acts and the letters of Paul and John. Is it proof-texting and/or too unfocused to talk about the general thrust of the post-Pentecost New Testament? If so, please tell me and let me post an argument with specifics.
2) Does Matthew 10.29 really mean we should take up the sword against one another?
That appeal has been troubling to me since I first saw it appear in Belhar discussions. I'm not convinced by the passage that it is Jesus promoting the coming divisiveness and suffering. In fact, because it appears in the context of warning the disciples of persecutions to come, I read it as a lament about how receptive the world will be to the proclamation of Christ. There's no clear indication of the emotional tenor, but if it's not a lament, it is at least a prophecy, not a recommendation for the life of the Church.
If you'd like Scripture to interpret Scripture on this last point, I'll choose Jesus telling Peter (or an unnamed disciple) to put away his sword (else he'll 'die by the sword') or telling his disciples to love one another as he has loved them. Further, I'd again appeal to Paul, especially, First Corinthians or Philippians. (I'd probably not rush to Galatians, but the case could be made in there as well.) Or I'd turn to the first letter of John.
Oneness of the church is a common value in the New Testament, even where members of the Body disagree. It does not stand alone, but again, I don't think that Belhar makes that claim, it only tries to state the church's oneness against the divisiveness of the world.
Bill
Post a Comment