Category: Apologetics

The Belhar would find us confessing,

We believe

• that God has entrusted the church with the message of reconciliation in and through Jesus Christ; that the church is called to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world, that the church is called blessed because it is a peacemaker, that the church is witness both by word and by deed to the new heaven and the new earth in which righteousness dwells

Now remember the problem that we have recognized with the Belhar is its ambiguity. The reason for that ambiguity is lodged in the reality that we do not know what meaning the drafters of the Belhar are filling their words with. We need to keep in mind in this discussion that while words have true meaning in themselves, one tactic that is used by a alien worldveiw to overthrow an existing worldview is to retain the form of the word while emptying it of its true meaning and then filling that word with a novel meaning unique to the worldview that the word is now dwelling. Purposeful ambiguity thus becomes a chief weapon for those seeking to introduce non-Biblical thinking. The Church has had to fight this tactic of subterfuge by purposeful ambiguity for millennium. If one reads carefully through books like Jude or I John one sees that a similar tactic was being used there as the Gnostics / Docetists were retaining the language and jargon of the Christian faith but were filling it with a meaning that was unique to their alien world and life view. In the 20th century, in the Modernist vs. Liberal controversy that roiled the Church the battle was fought over the tactic of the Liberals / neo-orthodox to empty Christian words and jargon of its orthodox meaning only to fill those words and that jargon with a meaning that was alien to Biblical Christianity. In all such contests the form of Christianity is maintained but the thing itself is mutated into something unrecognizable to those who previously identified with it.

This is the kind of ambiguity we find throughout the Belhar. Over and over again we find words, concepts, and jargon used that sounds familiar to the Christian ear but upon closer examination one is left wondering if the words used, left undefined as they are, really mean what they have historically meant or if those words are being used ambiguously in pursuit of subterfuge.

The emboldened words in the paragraph above is just such an example.

What few people in the American setting recognize is that the words “witness by word and by deed to the new heaven and the new earth in which righteousness dwells,” have a decidedly political meaning in the light of statements that have been made by liberation theologians. In other words what we have in the phrase “witness by word and by deed to the new heaven and the new earth in which righteousness dwells,” is a phrase that has been co-opted by some of the Liberation Theologians. Dr Allan Boesak, a key drafter of the Belhar and one influenced by Liberation theology and theologians, explained the above emboldened phrase like this:

“The New Jerusalem is no future world somewhere else. No, the new Jerusalem comes from Heaven into this reality… The New Jerusalem is no mirage from the beyond… It does not need to wait for eternity. This new Jerusalem will arise from the ashes of all that which today is called Pretoria. For the old things have passed away.”

Now, when you read the quote immediately above and then juxtapose it with this liberation theology inspired quote below from Dr. Boesak suddenly the implications of the Belhar take on foreboding meaning,

“[Black Power] is action to achieve justice and liberation for black people. It does not purport to be the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, or the true Christian church. Black Theology is how black theologians understand Jesus Christ, the Spirit, the church, etc., in relation to justice and liberation

Farewell To Innocence: A Socio Ethical Study On Black Theology And Black Power
Dr. Allen Boesak — pg. 71

Now, in light of these words one wonders if the New Jerusalem in which righteousness dwells is in fact a community ruled by Black Liberation Marxist theologians and inhabited by disciples of James Cone. At the very least we see that the phrase “the church is witness both by word and by deed to the new heaven and the new earth in which righteousness dwells,” is one that is filled with ambiguity. If the Belhar is adopted that phrase could be read in terms of its historic Christian meaning or it could easily be read in terms of Liberation theology. Do we want to affirm a Confession that we are not sure what it means?

In the Belhar we find,

Therefore, we reject any doctrine

• which absolutizes either natural diversity or the sinful separation of people in such a way that this absolutization hinders or breaks the visible and active unity of the church, or even leads to the establishment of a separate
church formation;

Again the Belhar document suffers from severe ambiguity on this point.

We already noted in the last post the problems that the phrase “natural diversity” suffers from, so we won’t go down that road again, although we most certainly could. Let us assume instead that this is a prohibition against congregations forming that are ethnically homogeneous. A natural reading of this rejection might be (and who can know for sure given the ambiguity in the statement) that it is verboten to have congregations or Classis’ that are Korean in their makeup since a Korean Classis would be an example of hindering or breaking the visible and active unity of the Church.

So, if the Christian Reformed Church makes the Belhar document a Confession will that mean that Pacific Hanni California Korean Churches will have to dissolve or reorganize since such a Classis breaks the visible and active unity of the Church?

Really, though, what is sinful about a set ethnic people being homogeneous in their formation and worship? It is perfectly understandable that people find it more comfortable to worship with people who have a shared culture, language, and history. In “The Bridges of God” Church growth guru, Donald McGavaran wrote: ‘People become Christian fastest when least change of race or clan is involved’. In Understanding Church Growth (1970, 3rd Ed. 1990), which McGavaran co-wrote with C. Peter Wagner, this observation has become the ‘Homogeneous Unit Principle’. Empirical evidence, they argue, ‘people like to become Christians without crossing racial, linguistic or class barriers’. As a result homogenous churches grow fastest. Homogeneous churches are those in which all the members are from a similar social, ethnic or cultural background. People prefer to associate with people like themselves – ‘I like people like me’. And so we should create homogenous churches to be effective in reaching people. Obviously the Korean Churches and Classis in the CRC are employing the homogeneous unit principle and yet should we make the Belhar a Confessional document it would seem Classis formed like this would have to go.

If we affirm the status of the Belhar as “Confession,” are we saying that the Koreans are racist? If we don’t pass the Belhar as “Confession,” are we saying that we affirm the Homogeneous unit principle for all peoples? And if we are affirming the homogeneous unit principle for all peoples then would we not be in error for pursing quotas in the denominations hiring practices since such hiring practices would be erecting more barriers to individuals of all people groups pertaining to salvation.

Ironically, the insistence that we must reject any doctrine which absolutizes “natural diversity,” could be argued as “racist,” since the insistence that Churches must be a homogenization of multiple people groupings is to give in to current and recent Western notions of the way culture should be formed. To insist on a multicultural approach to organizing Churches is to absolutize the fad of pop Western multiculturalism as the organizing motif by which all Churches must be formed.

So, it seems we are on the horns of a dilemma here. If we affirm the Belhar we are implying that the Korean Churches are racist. If we don’t affirm the Belhar we are denying the Homogeneous unit principle.

However, all of this is assuming that the statement on “natural diversity” is referring to ethnic groupings and not to something else. Given the ambiguity of the document, it is hard to know what is being said exactly.

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.

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?

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

—C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock

Did you know that Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount proves that Jesus was a cultural Marxist? Did you know that when Jesus cited Isaiah 61 in Luke 4 that proves that Jesus was a cultural Marxist? I mean it’s clear right? Jesus said in Luke, “Blessed are the Poor.” That obviously means that Jesus supported Liberation Theology. Jesus supports redistribution of wealth plans. Jesus believes it is the very essence of wisdom that you can make poor people rich by making rich people poor. (It was a new covenant so Jesus could read those nasty old covenant Rich people like Abraham and Job out of the new covenant.)

And did you know the application of this is that you and I should feel guilty about being rich and living in a prosperous country? Why if we don’t embrace cultural Marxism we might lose our poor guilt ridden white effeminate souls. Up until this point I always thought that living in a rich prosperous country was a reason to thank God and be grateful but now I know it is a curse to be ashamed of. Why, if we don’t embrace cultural Marxism that proves that we are hard hearted towards the poor and the indigent. It proves that we are evil people hoping that the surplus population of the earth would just shrivel up and die. If we don’t embrace the Belhar, well it’s just obvious that we are Bastards deserving of social excommunication.

Nobody doubts that the Gospel of Jesus Christ has a healing effect or that it works to proclaim liberty to the captives or that it will set at liberty those who are oppressed. The question is, is the theology reflected in the Belhar the theology that will set at liberty those who are oppressed. And the answer is resoundingly “No.” The theology of the Belhar, in the name of compassion and love for the oppressed, will be and has been the means of untold oppression and captivity and death for millions as it has been for millions already. The theology reflected in the Belhar does not bless the poor but curses them with the comfort that their misery will be shared by countless others as the Theology of the Belhar practices the compassion of equality of identity — a equality that works to create shared misery and does not allow the usage of the phrase, “this is yours and that is not yours,” (sometimes called the reality of private property). The theology reflected in the Belhar will not feed the hungry but will only create more hunger as it has everywhere it has been practiced in the 20th century. Ask the millions of Ukranians who died of starvation during the Holdomar about the theology reflected in the Belhar. Ask the Boers in South Africa today about the theology of the Belhar. Ask the Cubans under Castro about the theology reflected in the Belhar.

And when Jesus pronounces “woes” on the rich in the Sermon on the Mount are we really to believe that he was announcing woes on the rich who were in the covenant of grace? Was Jesus pronouncing woes on Abraham and Job merely for being rich? Or was Jesus pronouncing woes on the wicked rich? Does having riches automatically make one wicked and worthy of woes? My Pastor seems to think it does.

My Pastor seems to envision a Jesus who wears a Bandelero bullet belt with a big Sombrero and runs around saying things like, “working men of the world unite,” or, “the proletariat must arise and throw off the wicked rich Bourgeoisie ruling class.” Well, my Pastor probably doesn’t envision a Jesus like this, he only wants just enough of this type of Jesus to make him feel comfortable w/ his white guilt security blanket.

And did you know that the Exodus account proves that God is a Cultural Marxist? Why, of course. God let all those poor oppressed people go from Egypt thus giving prima facie evidence that God is ALWAYS for the poor and ALWAYS against the rich and powerful.

Let’s just keep it our secret that the poor that God was for were HIS PEOPLE and not the poor that claimed a different god(s).

Besides, much of what God says is ambiguous anyways, though the words of Martin Luther King are clear as a bell and are to be cited w/ authority.

And did you know the fact that as minorities disproportionally comprise the prison population that means that Institutional Racism exists and the Jim Crow laws didn’t really go away? Why a book even said that was true so it must be true.

This institutional racism is everywhere you know. Why, it is even the case that Institutional Racism is the reason we elected B. Hussein Obama. You see, we supporters of institutional racism pulled our famous “Institutional Racism” ju jitsu trick and got people to elect Obama so we could keep up our Institutional Racism in place knowing that the foolish masses would believe that the charge of “Institutional Racism” could not be hurled at us any more if we elected a 1/2 black, 1/2 white man. Clever of us wasn’t it?

And did you know that we need to pass the Belhar just like the Germans passed the Barmen declaration because, jeepers creepers, there are still Nazis that exist today and we need to put those bad critters down.

I learned all this from my pastors and pastorettes yesterday in the “Church service” as they sang the praises of the Belhar Confession and instructed me how God delights in Christianity being reinterpreted through the Worldview grid of Cultural Marxism.

Not that they have any earthly idea what Cultural Marxism is. I mean to them, Cultural Marxism = Christianity and the idea that cultural Marxism might actually exist as a threat to Biblical Christianity is just something to be gently mocked and laughed at.

And you wonder why the West is dying?

But it sure made them feel good about themselves that they could stand with the poor and oppressed and the suffering. Never mind that that which they’ve embraced is guaranteed to increase the poverty of the poor, increase the oppression of the oppressed and increase the suffering of the Suffering. Their good intentions are paving the road to hell. They are nice people. Really they are. They’d give you the shirt of their backs.

And the shirt off my back.

And if I didn’t think somebody really was in need of the shirt off my back they’d make sure that the Government took the shirt off my back.

All in the name of justice you know.

So, if you really want to stand with the poor, the suffering, and the oppressed you will stand against those who stand for the Belhar. They are the ones, with the best of intentions, whose advocacy will result in the blooming of poverty, suffering, and injustice all across the world.

Bad Theology hurts people.