Simil Fundus et Liberalor



A visitor recently asked when the Outhouse might post on the CRC adopting the Belhar Confession. I’m not sure. But here is the next best thing. The RCA has.

The Rev. Mark Kleinheksel, pastor of South Blendon Reformed Church near Hudsonville, said he initially opposed the confession due to its possible support for homosexuality, but changed his mind.

“The risk is outweighed by the benefit of the Belhar,” he said.

That is a pretty good example of the inner conflict between an evangelical’s fundamentalist and liberal. (The liberal won this time.) This contrasts nicely with Luther’s formula designed for the confessionalist whose daily war is between his inner sinner and saint, which he deemed “Simul justus et peccator.”

(HT: HB)

This entry was posted in Confessionalism. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Simil Fundus et Liberalor

  1. RubeRad says:

    “Simul fundus et liberalor” — genius! How can we make that catch on?

  2. shane says:

    That’s great! The inner struggle between the fundie and the liberal – what a war that is! I suppose you could also say “liberal fundamentalist” or “liberally fundamental” or “fundamentally liberal.”

    Tis true: the liberal and the fundamentalist often times are like fighting brothers – sometimes they are on the same side!

    My question for you Zrim, on the “lighter” side, is, “For whom does a fundamentalist liberal vote?”

    Thanks again,

  3. Zrim says:


    I say things three times in order for it to sink in. I have a bad short term memory. Can you say “Simil Fundus et Liberalor” three times really fast?


    My question for you Zrim, on the “lighter” side, is, “For whom does a fundamentalist liberal vote?”

    The pope?

  4. Todd says:

    Now the RCA has their Vatican II – woo, woo

  5. Machiavelli says:

    Not being very familiar with the Belhar Confession, what is in the confession that would support homosexuality in churches?

  6. Zrim says:


    I think the short answer is “not-a-much.” It’s not a long read.

    I actually tend to think the claim that something in the BC would “support homosexuality” is an example of homophobic fear and loathing, preying on abiding fundamentalist fears. That was the same sorry device used to counter female ordination in the CRC and still can be (yes, I am a convinced subordinationist, don’t worry).

    The more significant problem here, as it was when the CRC ordained women, really has more to do with a move away from narrow confessionalism toward broad evangelicalism. That isn’t to suggest that the question of homosexuality is moot at all (in fact, the fear and loathing actually and ironically detract from more sober considerations of it), but if women were defrocked tomorrow in the CRC the denomination would just be on a male led trajectory toward broad evangelicalism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s