Commentary
Belhar defeated in Seattle
by James D. Berkley, The Layman, January 28, 2011
Assumptions die hard and for some time in Seattle Presbytery, it has appeared that the official leadership assumption was that the Belhar Confession just ought to be approved and added to the Book of Confessions. On January 18, the presbyters demonstrated a different bent, defeating approval of the confession by a vote of 78-99.
As is too common, Belhar’s presentation had been skewed by a marked bias in its favor. “If it comes down from headquarters, it must be good” was the feeling we presbyters had received in prior meetings. Belhar was introduced to presbytery in a first reading in November with the showing of a video that presented it in glowing terms. Belhar wasn’t merely explained; it was touted. Leadership commended it. The video was then highlighted on the presbytery Web site.
Although cogent and responsible Presbyterian materials that question Belhar’s adoption are easily found, at first, nothing of a contrary nature balanced the presbytery’s official resource for the Belhar Confession. The presbytery posted only pro-Belhar materials. Only pressure by a presbyter – me – eventually produced another forum, where presbyters could post a variety of viewpoints, rather than one side’s propaganda. Finally, just prior to the presbytery meeting, the presbytery combined onto one site the pro-Belhar resources that it had gathered with the anti-Belhar resources provided by presbyters. The resources favorable to Belhar headed the list, and had it been left to those in charge, apparently only those resources would have appeared.
A fairish forum
On the afternoon of presbytery, presbytery leadership provided a pre-presbytery forum for presbyters wanting to discuss the Belhar Confession. This event offered a better opportunity for both pro and con arguments. For the most part, the floor was simply open for people to comment s on the confession, to ask questions, and to interact. This event finally gave a more rounded approach to the question of adoption of the confession. Conversations were lively and spirited. Information got out. Opinions could be formed and sharpened.
The forum was led by the presbytery’s General Assembly commissioners from the GA that had approved the Belhar Confession and sent it to the presbyteries. Thus, the commissioners tended to favor the confession at the forum. Although they intended as a committee to be neutral, not all of the GA commissioners in charge of the forum could contain themselves for long, regularly attempting to rebut anti-Belhar comments as they walked the microphone to the next speaker. This lent to the forum a measure of institutional bias – again in favor of Belhar.
The pre-presbytery forum drew perhaps 20 to 25 percent of the presbyters who would later vote in the presbytery meeting. It is to be commended as a means to offer more in-depth interaction than is possible in a parliamentary debate.
An unbiased debate
In the presbytery meeting itself, the consideration of the Belhar Confession proved decidedly decent and in order. Presbytery leadership had set up a fair and balanced procedure for debate: 32 minutes for 16 two-minute speeches, alternating pro and con. Speeches were timed, and speakers were gently warned and then cut off, with a measure of fairness and grace. Rather than with long lines of eager speakers, the debate happened almost casually, with as many speakers wandering to the microphones as there were slots in which to speak.
The system worked. Presbytery got to hear advocates for each side provide their best reasoning. Other than one unnecessary accusation of fear as a motive, the speakers stayed on subject and refrained from attacks or histrionics. Seattle Presbytery showed its maturity by not allowing the issue at hand to be cheaply framed as pro- or anti-racism, pro- or anti-gay. Instead, we looked at the content of the confession and debated its value and effect.
The vote was by written ballot, and the ballots were scrupulously allotted to voting commissioners only. When the result was announced, the “winners” didn’t celebrate and the “losers” didn’t whine. We remained united as a body of believers who had done our best to come to a wise and correct decision.
What did we learn?
The strongest arguments against approving the Belhar Confession appeared to be questions about its theological affirmations that many could not affirm: God’s preference for poor people, as if God were prejudiced against anyone else; the elevation of unity above truth and purity; the irony of blanket disapproval of any separation by a church that separated itself from the Roman Catholic Church. Strong arguments against racism and collaboration with evil were made, using excellent passages from the Confession of 1967 and the Declaration of Barmen – existing confessions that render Belhar superfluous. “The elephant in the room” was also pointed out – the reality that Belhar would be used to push the ordination of practicing homosexual persons.
Probably most helpful for the outcome achieved was the appropriate resistance of presbyters to any railroading of this item sent to presbytery from General Assembly. Presbyters would not settle for one-sided materials or an uneven playing field. Gently and persistently, sessions and individuals lobbied presbytery to provide the body with a broad set of interpretative resources, not just the package sent by General Assembly to sell its product. People came forward to identify and offer a broad set of arguments, allowing presbyters better means to discern how presbytery ought to respond to the proposed confession. Add to that presbytery leaders wanting and willing to offer a fair consideration, and the presbytery was well-served.
Choosing a denomination’s confessional standards is a daunting task. Not lightly do we set down our beliefs in our confessions. Not lightly do we enshrine the tenets that we must uphold, even – if need be – to death! Ours is not the task to “complete the full set” of colorful confessions, or to receive various confessions as tokens of appreciation for people we want to honor. Ours it is to discern word for word the biblical integrity and foundational necessity of a confession that voices our deepest belief.
For Seattle Presbytery, the Belhar Confession did not measure up. In a thoughtful, fair and spirited exchange of cogent arguments, we discerned that we do the right thing to stick with the confessions we now hold. May we live into them in all their fullness of faith and practice!