Rage Against The Machine — Reflecting on the Belhar Document

We will return eventually to the theme of Unity that the Belhar opens with and insists upon after we have examined the affirmations which the Belhar sets forth. Obviously, as unity is pinioned upon shared truth we can not know, concretely speaking, if we agree with Belhar’s call to unity until we know if we share Belhar’s truth affirmations.

So, with that in mind we will, with the next few entries, look at the truth affirmations and then we will return to the clarion call for unity issued by the Belhar.

Now as we head into this examination of the Belhar affirmations we must keep in mind that the burden of proof is upon the Belhar to be unambiguous about its statements and what those statements mean. Since the Belhar has aspirations for confessional status and since the Belhar is not worldview neutral in its affirmations it should be approached with a Hermeneutic of suspicion in order to expose any dangerous ambiguities that may lie sleeping in its text.

To that end we note this statement of the Belhar that follows its opening touting unity,

“Therefore, we reject any doctrine which absolutises either natural diversity or the sinful separation of people in such a way that this absolutisation hinders or breaks the visible and active unity of the church, or even leads to the establishment of a separate church formation;

Now the ambiguity that enters with this statement is found in the four italicized words above.

In this context what does “natural diversity,” mean?

Folks who subscribe to the Belhar will be rejecting any doctrine which absolutizes natural diversity. Who defines what “Natural diversity,” means and by what standard? According to some neo-Christians “natural diversity,” could very well mean the “natural diversity” that we find among the various sexes. We now have Social Scientists insisting that, biologically speaking, there are many gradations running from female to male; and the Social Scientists are telling us that depending on how one calls the shots, one can argue that along that spectrum lie at least five sexes– and perhaps even more. Are all these sexes an example of “natural diversity,” the existence of which we are not break the visible and active unity of the Church over per the Belhar?

To think that this lies in the realm of possibility is by recognizing that one of the key framers of the Belhar, Dr. Allan Boesak, in 2008, while Moderator of the Uniting Reformed Church (formerly the DRC Mission Churches) used the Belhar Declaration to justify homosexuality in Church. Now it is true that Dr. Boesak was voted down, in his attempt but it seems that if anybody was familiar with the original intent of the Belhar document it would be one who was an instrumental framer of the Belhar. If one of the framers of the Belhar insists that the original intent of the Belhar was to prohibit disunity over the Church officially embracing the putative “natural diversity” of homosexuality then why would a Church, such as the Christian Reformed Church, which does not justify homosexuality in the Church want to embrace that document as a confession? Certainly in light of this no one can argue with the fact that this phraseology is “ambiguous.”

Now, that this reading of Boesak’s should be of import to CRC people is found in the continual push within the denomination to normalize homosexuality in the Church. In point of fact, the March 2012 issue of the Banner finds a news clip on page 10 that opens with this paragraph,

“A group of members and pastors from several West Michigan Christian Reformed churches have organized to provide educational opportunities for congregations about the full inclusion of gay, lesbian, and transgendered individuals in their churches.”

Now, in light of the push of a significant interest group within the denomination (I say it is “significant” because I cannot imagine the Banner running such a news piece on some obscure group) to normalize homosexuality, and in light of the fact that one of the key framers of the Belhar insisted that the original intent of the Belhar justified homosexuality in the Church then can we really believe that the Belhar, if adopted as a Confession, won’t eventually be used as leverage in the push to bring homosexuality and sexual perversion into the Church and as proof that confessionally we are compelled to unite with homosexuals who call themselves “Christian.”

Our concern with the Belhar does not end on this point, for elsewhere in the Belhar we get other language that allows for a interpretation that would sanction sodomy and sexual perversion.

“Therefore, we reject any doctrine which explicitly or implicitly maintains that descent or any other human or social factor should be a consideration in determining membership of the Church.”

With this sentence we have moved from the ambiguity of the previous statement from the Belhar, as cited above, to a unambiguous statement which a Mack truck could drive through, interpretatively speaking. Those 7 words which are italicized in the above quote section clearly teaches that sodomy, bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, or any other human or social factor should not be a consideration in determining membership of the Church. What is sodomy, or lesbianism, or bestiality, or any number of sexual perversions but “human or social factors”?

When we begin to deal with the slippery way the Belhar uses the word “injustice” we will have questions once again about this matter, but for this post it is enough to see that the Belhar should not be adopted as a document because it’s language is not merely ambiguous as to what is being communicated, the language invites and begs those who want to advance a sodomite agenda to read the document as supporting their cause.

It is my belief that the document does support their cause and that is why I am raging against the machine.

Temple Prostitution in These united States of America

1 Kings 14:21-24 Solomon’s son Rehoboam was forty-one years old when he became king of Judah, and he ruled seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the Lord had chosen from all the territory of Israel as the place where he was to be worshiped. Rehoboam’s mother was Naamah from Ammon. The people of Judah sinned against the Lord and did more to arouse his anger against them than all their ancestors had done. They built places of worship for false gods and put up stone pillars and symbols of Asherah to worship on the hills and under shady trees. Worst of all, there were men and women who served as prostitutes at those pagan places of worship. The people of Judah practiced all the shameful things done by the people whom the Lord had driven out of the land as the Israelites advanced into the country.

This problem with Prostitution in connected with the Temple Idols has been found in many cultures throughout the centuries. Not only do we find it in the Old Testament, but we find it as a issue in the New Testament. In Corinth for example, rising 1,500 feet above the city and to the south of the acropolis was a fortified hill upon which loomed the infamous Temple of Aphrodite or Venus. This pagan temple and its 1,000 temple prostitutes greatly influenced the city’s culture and morals. In the book of Corinthians Paul has to deal with the issue of Christians and joining themselves with idols and how that is inconsistent with being joined with Christ. Some scholars believe that Christians in Corinth were not only joining in Temple Feasts but they were also joining with Temple Prostitutes.

All this as introduction to my conviction that in the current news on the US Federal Government and free contraceptives for women we are returning to a culture characterized by Temple Idol worship that includes the perk of Temple prostitution.

If we agree that the State has become the Idol then the idea that the idol State is subsidizing single women’s sexual habits by providing or requiring the free provision of contraceptives it is not a leap to see the women who take advantage of the free contraceptives in order to have copious amounts of sex are in essence Prostitutes for the Temple God of the State. Now, it is true that we are missing a centralized location where all this Temple sex occurs but as we are far more Democratic than the ancients one might argue that we have decentralized our Temple sex so that our Temple Prostitutes lavish their whorings on any passerby in any place of convenience. So, the whoredom of America is connected to Temple Prostitution as required by and provided for by the Idol State.

The Idol state, in our modern expression of Temple Prostitution, plays the role of the Pimp by providing contraceptives for their temple Prostitutes for free AND by providing the required blood atonement sacrifice to themselves as the Idol State by paying for the abortions that occur among their stable of fillies, and this keeps agents of the Idol state (Planned Parenthood) profiting from the selling of whoredom. By providing free abortions along with free contraceptives the Idol State does a lucrative business that keeps their temple prostitutes turning more tricks.

So, Temple Prostitution is not a thing of the past and should not only be identified with ancient cultures. Modern man has his own version of Temple Prostitution and the current “contraceptives for free,” story that is all over the news is proof of that for those with eyes to see — for those who have not so identified with their culture that they can no longer see the culture for what it is.

Rage Against The Machine — Reflection On The Belhar

The Belhar says,

“We believe that unity is, therefore both a gift and an obligation for the Church of Jesus Christ; that through the working of God’s Spirit it is a binding force, yet simultaneously pursued and sought: one which the people of God must continually be built up to attain.”

1.) The unity of the Church can never never be isolated from the truths to which Christ has called his people to witness.

2.) This is why the Belgic Confession of Faith does not list “Unity” as one of the marks of the Church. The Belgic confession lists the marks of the Church by which it can be recognized to be,

“The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church– and no one ought to be separated from it.”

The Belhar concentrates on unity but forgets that unity is only a consequence of a shared understanding of the Christian faith. Unity is the residual effect of the marks of the Church being pursued. If unity is an obligation for the the Church of Jesus Christ it is an obligation that is attained only indirectly as the Church directly embraces a common understanding of our undoubted catholic Christian faith as that faith is revealed in Scripture. Unity is not biblical unity when it is pursued only for the sake of unity. Unity that is pursued apart from the consideration of the pure preaching of the gospel, pure administration of the sacraments, and the practice of church discipline is a empty set unity.

So everyone can agree with the Belhar as it calls for unity but only as that unity is a reflection of all of God’s peoples embracing the intolerance of Christianity to whatever teaching stands in opposition to it. So the question becomes, does the Belhar, with its call for unity, reflect the pure preaching of the Gospel? If it does it should be accepted. If it does not, then it should be rejected. If it is unclear then it should be rejected until clarity is achieved.

I do believe the Belhar document is at best ambiguous and so the responsibility should lie on those who want to accept the Belhar document to clean up its language so that those of us who have grave concerns about the Belhar can be satisfied.

Rage Against the Machine — The Belhar Confession & Its Marxist Redrawing Of The Antithesis

One of the most egregious errors of the Belhar is that it draws the antithesis in the wrong place. Whereas we find in Scriptures that the antithesis is between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman (between those who belong to God and those who belong to the Devil) what the Belhar does is that it draws the antithesis between rich and poor, with the result that all who are rich are of the seed of the serpent and all who are poor are of the seed of the woman. Then because it draws this antithesis in the wrong place it can say that “God is God in a special way to the poor,” quite ignoring that God is only God in a special way to His people.

This drawing of the antithesis between rich and poor as opposed to those in Christ and those outside of Christ is a perfect expression of the Belhar’s Marxist tilting. Marxist have forever drawn the antithesis in their “theology” between the working class (proletariat) and the Capital class (Bourgeois).

The Belhar is a theologically illiterate statement. If “Theologians” can not get right the most basic theology (where to draw the antithesis) then how can we trust them to get anything else correct?

Introduction to the Second Word

Passages,

Exodus 19:4, 20:22-26, 34:17, Lev. 26:1-2, Dt. 4:15-24, 11:16-17, 27:15

We note here that this prohibition does not forbid art work in general.

Priest’s garments — Pomegranates (Ex. 28:33-34, 39:24)
Mercy seat — Two Cherubim of Gold (Ex. 25:18-22)
Sanctuary as whole richly ornamented

These types of things in the OT could be used in the context of worship. The prohibition in the 2nd commandment concerns itself w/ forbidding turning any created thing into a talisman that would serve as a conduit between God and His people.

To create such a talisman was to violate the Creator vs. Creature distinction.

This ban on images makes God non-manipulable.

Jeroboam — I Kings 12:25f

Without Images God can not be controlled to the controller’s desired end.

So, idolatry generally speaking is forbidden in the 1st word but in the 2nd word we have prohibition concerning how the cultic worship is to be shaped. The Second word informs us we can only approach God on God’s terms, there are to be no Talismans between God and man — no mediation between God and man — except that which is ordained by God.

Nadab and Abihu — Lev. 10:1f

In terms of the prohibition we must keep in mind that whenever man believes that can establish His own approach to God in worship it is not long until he believes that he can his own autonomous law word in every other area of life.

This is why some have contended that until we get worship right, and begin to worship God upon His terms, we will never get anything else right in other jurisdictional spheres. And this has some merit. If man is homo adorans — man the worshiper — then man a man who worship God by His own will and lusts will live all of his life according to his own will and lusts.

So, this commandment reminds us that the lawful approach to God is entirely of God’s ordination. This in turn reminds us of Christ since the whole OT economy is one reminder after another of how God graciously came near His people and how Worship was entirely God centered.