I started to watch a bit of the Belhar debate on the CRC website. The second speaker asked “what happens to office bearers who have already signed the FOS (Form of Subscription) when you add another confession?”

That raises an interesting question of how well you can publically debate a confession prior to signing it. If you come out strongly against the document can you quickly turn around and sign it? Are we potentially putting a whole bunch of people into a crisis of conscience? Will as we discussed earlier this be accompanied by a FOS that allows for a bit more “wiggle room”.

The politics of the reworking of the FOS at the same time as the Belhar is an interesting one to consider. Confessionalists have taken stands to avoid “watering down” of the FOS but if the Belhar is added they may in fact be more open to a looser FOS so as not to have a public situation where they chose to stay CRC for pragmatic reasons while having made very strong statements about the Belhar.

Part of how these polemical debates have played out both politically in the nation and in the church is an embracing of hyperbolic language. What’s tough is that if you use that language in the context of the debate over the Belhar, do you in a sense close the door behind you if you lose the vote? Can you save face and sign the FOS or do you simply file papers on all your “yeah buts”?

The other question relates to the question I asked yesterday about the transformationalists new excitement over the confession/FOS tool in terms of tools for control. Again, these have been tools used by the confessionalists. Will the transformationalists just be satisfied in using acceptance of this document as a “sign of righteousness” or a “sign of solidarity” or a credential establishing a sufficient level of anti-racism or will the confession be used as leverage to promote other agendas (hence the “homosexual” fear by the confessionalists)? Will the Belhar motivate the evangelical faction to get into synodical politics out of fear of taking another step away from “just the Bible please” or will the attitude of “it doesn’t really matter what Synod and their ecumenical groups really do” continue?

John Bolt’s speech likewise was interesting in noting that the unborn are the weak. One could easily employ the Belhar as church political tool to further a conservative agenda as well. The lack of specificity in matters of weakness can cut in many directions. Is every loser of a denominational fight awarded the credential of “powerless” and therefore in need of remedial justice doing? Shall the URC press a claim?

Will any of this matter or has confessionalism in fact lost so much bite in the hearts and minds of pew sitters that people won’t really care much what documents Synod reads or signs as long as what is happening in the local church suits their tastes?

How does the denominational priority of creating and sustaining healthy churches (ever hear of this?) play over and against the transformationalist embrace of the confessional/FOS tool?

Does the CRC even have enough community left in its body and community-conveying organs (Banner, Classis, Council, etc.) to actually have a vigorous trying of the issues involved? A number of people made comments that their desire is that the CRC embrace it before they adopt it. What does “embrace” really look like in the present state of the denomination?

Again I mentally go back to James Schaap’s fine piece written for the 150th. It is a terrific piece that bears regular re-reading. http://www.dordt.edu/publications/pro_rege/crcpi/Pro_Rege_Sept_2007.pdf It’s in the middle of the larger document. I’ll post some quotes in a separate post but one thrust of the article is that the CRC has lost control of its own agenda. That is on both sides of whatever aisle you want to imagine. The dominant debates in the broader culture determine the CRC’s debate. Was this ever not true? It is certainly more true today than it was 50 years ago. In our culture of TV, Internet, etc. “backwaters” no longer exist as long as there is electricity or batteries. The CRC no longer simply battles pros and cons on issues, the dominant American identity is individual choice. Would even a concerted a attempt at a grass roots vigorous debate unleash anything more than a million ideas about just about anything tangentially associated with church?

John Witvliet was out in our parts for a thing out here that we put on and he got together with a few of us to work some of his Faith Formation stuff. A big part of the debate is whether or not any sort of “push” is even possible anymore in the CRC. Is there enough of a distinct working circulatory system left in the organism to actually inject anything into it that will reach all the cells? I don’t know. Or is the CRC now (this image is going to get gross and weird) connected with tubes and wires to many other bodies: RCA, PCA, URC, PCUSA, plus worldwide churches in ways that the hand and foot on the left feels more affinity with Episcopalians and PCUSA types and the hand and foot on the right feels more affinity towards the PCA and WTS? What about knees and wrists that wonder why are aren’t Baptist, Vineyard or non-denom and ears and eyes that care more about abortion or homosexuality (one way or the other) than how many confessions we have and what they say?

The thing about history is that there is no stopping it. You can’t just turtle up and say “we’ll ignore Belhar and anything else that comes…” You have to say “yes” or “no” and whatever you do defines you. Will Synod 2012 just kick the can down the road a bit further? What would that be a sign of? It might show that there is some concern for confession remaining in the church. It might bear witness to the fact that we are reluctant, fearful, and uncertain, or that we care about unity and each other and don’t want to “bless” the URC with more groups because they lost yet another battle.