This We Believe: The Theological Declaration of Barmen, affirmation 6

“Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matthew 28.20) “The word of God is not fettered.” (2 Timothy 2.9)
The Church’s commission, upon which its freedom is founded, consists in delivering the message of the free grace of God, to all people in Christ’s stead, and therefore in the ministry of his own Word and work through sermon and Sacrament.
We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes and plans.

This is one of the clearest statements against proof-texting that our tradition has to offer. “Proof-texting” is when you pull a statement out of its context and use it to prove your point. Never mind that if it were read in context, it might not prove your point! (or it might, but that still doesn’t make it okay!) Proof-texting is a way to make Scripture say whatever you want it to say, rather than the other way around. We are to read the word of God in order to be formed in Christ’s image, to be made new and transformed, to be informed by God’s will. But it is so so so tempting to come up with what we believe and then find the sentence or even half-sentence in Scripture to support it. This is how we got into trouble RE slavery, women, people of different ethnic backgrounds, LGBT people, and numerous other situations. If we are willing to read only a few words, we miss the overarching story of the Bible, we miss the historical context, the literary context, and often even the simple and obvious meaning.

This affirmation tells us that the Church’s task is to deliver the message of the free grace of God to all people, and we do this through Word and work, sermon and sacrament. Our task is not to decide what we want and then to make scripture fit that. The Word speaks into many situations and about many things, but it serves only the One, not anything or anyone else.

Have you ever engaged in proof-texting? (it’s okay to admit it—most of us have done it at one time or another!) How can we avoid falling into that trap? Have you ever seen the Word of God or the work of Christ set in service to another ideology or master, rather than the other way around? What do we, as faithful Christians, do when we see that happening? How do we avoid it to begin with?

This We Believe: The Theological Declaration of Barmen, affirmation 5

“Fear God. Honor the emperor.” (1 Peter 2.17)
Scripture tells us that, in the as yet unredeemed world in which the Church also exists, the State has by divine appointment the task of providing for justice and peace. It fulfills this task by means of the threat and exercise of force, according to the measure of human judgment and human ability. The Church acknowledges the benefit of this divine appointment in gratitude and reverence before him. It calls to mind the Kingdom of god, God’s commandment and righteousness, and thereby the responsibility both of rulers and of the ruled. It trusts and obeys the power of the Word by which God upholds all things.
We reject the false doctrine, as though the State, over and beyond its special commission, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the Church’s vocation as well.
We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, over and beyond its special commission, should and could appropriate the characteristics, the tasks, and the dignity of the State, thus itself becoming an organ of the State.

Here we have an even more strident statement than last week. Not only can the church not take over the tasks of the State, nor can the church BE the state, the state also cannot take over the tasks of the church. The Church and the Government have different callings that lead to the same end—but each must fulfill its own calling.

There are plenty of examples throughout history of the government of a nation or kingdom attempting to rule the faith and life of religious communities. In the time of Jesus, even, the government dictated what was acceptable religious practice, what was merely tolerated, and what was completely out of the question. And in 1930’s Germany, the government was attempting to do the same—to rule out some expressions of faith, to tolerate others on the margins, and to dictate acceptable practice to the rest.
This small gathering of pastors and other church leaders were determined to resist. Under no circumstances can the government dictate, particularly something opposed to the gospel. The state cannot assume or restrict the authority of those doing ministry any more than it can be restricted by those called to ministry.

The church is not to be turned into a propaganda machine!

Where have you seen this dynamic at work in the world? Have you seen it in our own country or community? How do we as faithful Christians respond to this kind of situation? Can you imagine a situation in which the mixing of church and government might be beneficial? How does that fit into this (and last week’s) affirmations?

This We Believe: The Theological Declaration of Barmen, affirmation 4

“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant.” (Matthew 20.25-26)
The various offices in the Church do not establish a dominion of some over the others; on the contrary, they are for the exercise of the ministry entrusted to and enjoined upon the whole congregation.
We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, apart from the ministry, could and were permitted to give to itself, or allow to be given to it, special leaders vested with ruling powers.

This is a really important statement in a place where the church and state were once synonymous, and where that problem seems to be rearing its head yet again. The purpose of offices of the church is to serve—people who hold ordained office do not have more power than those who do not. Instead we say that people are called to an office to be set apart to a particular task—not to lord it over others, but to focus on the task that is their calling. So some are called particularly to care for people in the congregation. Some are called particularly to guide the congregation or the denomination in following the path of the gospel and the confessions. Some are called particularly to preaching or teaching. And so on. None of these offices entails particular authority or power, especially outside the church (but not in it either!). And it is not possible for those who hold offices in the church to transfer that authority outside the church simply because of their title.

In other words: the church cannot be the state. The purpose of the church and its leaders is different from the purpose of the state and its leaders. The tasks to which each is called are different, though they may sometimes (hopefully) lead in the same general direction—toward the kingdom of God coming on earth.

There is no ruler in the church other than Christ, and no way for the church to take over the political realm…however tempting that may initially appear!

Have you seen this temptation in the church? How do we resist it, and maintain our calling as disciples of the one teacher, children of the one ruler?

This We Believe–the Theological Declaration of Barmen, affirmation 3

“Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body is joined and knit together.” (Ephesians 4.15-16)
The Christian Church is the congregation of the brethren in which Jesus Christ acts presently as the Lord in Word and Sacrament through the Holy Spirit. As the Church of pardoned sinners, it has to testify in the midst of a sinful world, with its faith as with its obedience, with its message as with its order, that it is solely his property, and that it lives and wants to live solely from his comfort and from his direction in the expectation of his appearance.
We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions.

Here we are reminded of a few really important things—one, that the church is the body through with Jesus acts in the world as Lord and Savior; two, the church is made up of sinners who are forgiven, not of perfect people who need no forgiveness; three, the church’s purpose is to show God’s love in the world in word and in deed, always obedient to Christ; four, that the church belongs to God, not to us, and we rely on God for everything from vision to direction to resources to teaching.
It is so tempting to see the church as “ours” and to try to form it into yet another organization that helps us to be good people or to pursue our goals, but that’s not what the church is for. The church’s purpose is to follow Christ, to do his will, and pursue his goals. Not the goals of the government, or the goals of an individual, or the goals of the culture, but the goals of the gospel.
What are the goals of the gospel? To make the love of God known in word and sacrament, to form a community of the forgiven, to show us God’s ways and teach us to rely on God’s grace. To help us grow up in every way into Christ, becoming more and more in his likeness each day.
Easier said than done, of course—it’s much easier to pursue our own goals than to listen for God’s, easier to follow our own direction, easier to be formed into our culture’s likeness than Christ’s. To live this part of the confession requires a willingness to be transformed, and time spent in prayer and study that helps us grow up into Christ.

Have you ever realized that the goals of the gospel and the goals of an individual (or agency or culture or government or even yourself) were not the same? How do you choose to pursue the gospel?

This We Believe: The Theological Declaration of Barmen affirmation 2

“Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” (1 Corinthians 1:30)

As Jesus Christ is God’s assurance of the forgiveness of all our sins, so in the same way and with the same seriousness is he also God’s mighty claim upon our whole life. Through him befalls us a joyful deliverance from the godless fetters of this world for a free, grateful service to his creatures.

We reject the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords–areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him.

“God’s mighty claim upon our whole life.”

There’s not a much more stunning statement than that, when we sit and contemplate the implications. Our whole life–not just our Sunday morning lives or our Wednesday evening lives, but our business, economy, government, friends, intimate relationships, families, leisure time, hobbies, environment, shopping choices, food….everything. Whole. All of life is claimed by God. And not just all of life, but all of MY life, all of YOUR life, every aspect of every moment of every day.

Wow.

One of the reasons this affirmation is so important, in addition to being thoroughly biblical and thoroughly in line with orthodox Christian theology, is of course the context. The Nazi party was trying to take over every aspect of life, including the church, and to insinuate their doctrine into the church’s theology. The German Christian movement (the movement that created a theology in line with the national socialist party) was going along with this plan, and the Confessing movement was standing against that corruption of biblical theology. When someone or something, government or economy or ideology or relationship or even “church” is trying to claim a higher authority than Christ, there is a problem and it is important to stand against that, and FOR the authority of Jesus Christ as head of the church and lord of the conscience.

Hence the rejection of the false doctrine that some areas of life would belong to other lords–ie, that we can compartmentalize our faith, keeping the Lordship of Christ in the “Sunday” box, and the lordship of the current governing party (or our preferred political party or ideology) in the Monday to Friday box, and the lordship of the almighty money in the all-the-time box, and the lordship of personal fulfillment in a Saturday box, etc. These are rightly named for what they are–idolatry. We don’t like to hear it, but it’s true. Many of us have put our faith into a box we take out now and then, like Christmas decorations we put away for a season and pull out to exclaim over for a few weeks a year. Having any area of our life not subject to the Lordship of Christ (notice we keep saying “the lordship of Christ” not “the lordship of the bible”–our lord is a person, God in the flesh, with us in our life…not words on a page–bibliolatry is just as much idolatry as holding anything else up in place of Christ) means we are idolaters.

This is a hard affirmation to make, and a harder one to live out. But important in their time as in ours.

What lords compete for your allegiance? How do you live out the affirmation that Jesus Christ is Lord of your whole life, in every circumstance and area?

peeking in on the Men’s Breakfast talk…Church and State

John is the speaker for the Men’s breakfast this morning. Here’s what he’s talking about…
In UK today is Guy Fawkes Day when kids all over the country light bonfires and set off fireworks to “Remember, remember the 5th of November” when in 1605 Guy Fawkes was arrested, tortured and executed for attempting to blow up King James I and all of Parliament in an act religious terrorism.
This led me to think on the subject of the “Separation of Church & State”, a foundational principle of the Constitution. Yet today we hear more and more about politicians and their religious viewpoints.
Recently I have heard media reports about “Do not support X. He will take his religion into the White House.”
At the same time I have also heard “Do support Y. He will take his religion into the White House.”
The subject has cropped up before but usually in isolated cases (Lieberman and JFK). Now it seems to be required of every candidate to showcase their faith values.
I find this fascinating and disturbing at the same time. While I can see that it is important to know a candidate’s values…are we now being asked to vote depending on religious affiliation as opposed to (or as well as) policy and strategy positions?
—————————————————————————————————————————
As a history fan I have for a while now been interested in the culture, politics, and church in Germany in the 1930’s .Particularly in the various churches response to Hitler and Nazi beliefs. Many of the books I have read suggest that there are similarities between the situation then and now, i.e. high unemployment, global financial crisis, collapse of economies, wide spread unrest with “ the present situation”.
Can we learn anything from that time? How did the churches react?
Two short opposite examples.

“Stay out of it”–The Roman Catholic Church

According to new internal Vatican documents, released in 2005/6, the key issues for the church were:

1) Germany was the only nation in which the Pope did not have sole and exclusive power to appoint bishops. Since the Reformation the German RC’s had the right to choose their own short list of candidates. This list was send to Rome for “agreement“ or “alteration” and then there was an open vote. This situation was intolerable to Rome and there had been numerous attempts and schemes to end it.

2) This had caused political friction between Rome, the German church and the government. In certain regions, during 1870-80, the government banned the appointment of new priests and bishops resulting in thousands of parishes and numerous bishoprics lying vacant for years. This meant generations of Catholics had lived and died without ever having had priests, sacraments or instruction. Theologically this meant they were all damned with no hope of salvation. The Vatican was determined to avoid a repeat of that situation.

3) Pope Pius XII took the position that he was “vicar of all Catholics world wide” and support or criticism of one nation over another was not possible as his primary duty was international pastoral care of his flock.

By the end of WW 2 absolute Papal authority had been established and the Vatican had taken minimal political participation.

“Complete Immersion”–The German Christian Movement
The German Christians were an inter-denominational pressure group of 600,000 Protestant pastors, bishops, professors and teachers of religion and laity with the stated aim of proving that “National Socialism and Christianity were not only reconcilable but mutually reinforcing.” The movement was based in the “Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Church” at the University of Jena.

Their main teachings were:

1) Church should be based on race and ethnicity.
2) Universal in that it was open to all Germans, exclusive in that it was only legally defined Germans.
3) Christianity is “universal” in the next world but “national” in this world.
4) Jesus was a descendant of Aryan invaders, not a Jew.
5) Paul was chiefly responsible for Judaizing Christianity.
6) Absolutely anti-Semitic and attempted to de-judiase Scripture and all aspects of religious life (even Christians descended from Jews should be purged from the church, no matter how long ago that ancestor lived).
7) Abandoned Old Testament and re-wrote the New.
8) Christianity/Jesus was the final rejection and destruction of Jewish faith NOT the culmination of it.
9) Church had to be anti-doctrinal and anti-creedal. Therefore anti-denominational and anti-ecumenical.
10) Church had to be “manly” a place for “warriors and soldiers “and all emotional “softness and femininity” was Jewish influence which had to be routed out and destroyed.

Although not technically supported by the Nazis, and sometimes even attacked by them, the German Christian movement was very influential throughout the War. It collapsed in 1944/45 and after the war all its members were re-absorbed back into German church life with no official penalties or correction of its teachings.

A third way: the Confessing Churches

We’ve been talking on the blog about this history, and the (relatively) small group of pastors, congregations, teachers, and Christians that stood against both these options and sought a third way–a way faithful to the gospel, not to a political ideology or an institutional religion. To learn more about that, follow our series on The Theological Declaration of Barmen, posted every Monday. The historical background, info about the people involved, and the way they worked is here, and the first installment of our study of the statement of faith they wrote is here. Check back each Monday for the next month as we continue to explore the faith they clung to and even died for, and what they have to teach us 70 years later.

This We Believe: The Theological Declaration of Barmen affirmation 1

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14.6) “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber…I am the door; if anyone enters by me, he will be saved.” (John 10.1, 9)

Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death.

We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God’s revelation.

Each of the 6 affirmations of this declaration of faith begins with a scripture quote (or two)–which is in itself an affirmation, that Scripture speaks to particular issues and contexts, and must be interpreted and applied to each context.

We have heard words like these before–The Brief Statement of Faith picked up this language from both the Scots Confession and Barmen–that we hear, trust, obey, and serve only one: the God made known to us in Christ. Here we find Jesus referred to as God’s Word (capital W), which picks up on the first few verses of John 1, in which Jesus is called the Logos or Word of God. It is this Word that we look to when ordering our lives, this Word we obey in all things, this Word we turn to in times of distress or wonder. In the PCUSA one of our foundational statements is that “Jesus Christ is head of the church”–there is no person or doctrine or book that we look to first or that has more authority. The church is under the authority of Jesus Christ, the Word of God.

This “yes” also means a “no”–there is no other authority for the church. The state, the culture, the government, an individual, the military, or a piece of writing can never be the source or authority for the gospel. The Word of God, who is known to us through the Holy Spirit and through the word written, is the sole source of our proclamation of good news. The Nazi government was trying to force the church to proclaim a different message than that seen in Christ, and here they push back, insisting that it is impossible to preach the gospel when pulling from a source other than Christ.

In this statement, the confessing church movement also declares that other forms of God’s revelation are not to be trusted, because God has chosen to reveal God’s self through Christ, whom we know through scripture and through his presence in our midst. This implies that so-called “natural theology” (in which one can glean knowledge of God from God’s creation) is also suspect. I doubt many of us would take it that far, though we might affirm that it’s only possible to know God in a very limited way through creation, without also interacting with the word written and proclaimed and the Word incarnate.

This is the very first affirmation for a reason–on this hangs all the rest of the argument. Our faith is not founded on an idea, a concept, a book, a feeling. Our faith is founded on a person–a relationship with a person who was (and is) the embodiment of God. There is no other foundation than this, however hard the government, the economy, the culture, the media, or even we ourselves as individuals might try.

What do you think about this affirmation? How does it speak to our context today? What difficulties do you have? What questions? How does it help or hinder your understanding of your own faith?

This We Believe: The Theological Declaration of Barmen

Having dipped our toes into the theological waters with the Brief Statement of Faith (written at the reunion of the northern and southern churches, becoming the PCUSA, finished in 1991), it’s time now to turn to another confession. Since we are embarking on a WEAVE class about how our faith affects our public life, and since our country has turned its attention to election season yet again, how about exploring a confession written at a time of deep national and political strife that had worked its way into the faith and life of the church and Christians?

In 1932, the German Christian movement was organized as an attempt to organize the church around the National Socialist party line. The people forming this movement believed the church was not adequately supporting German nationalism, and that Christianity was really rooted in nationhood. Among other things, they taught that God created certain orders in life, and the church’s task was to maintain those orders–including racial purity and German superiority. They also championed the removal of anyone with Jewish heritage from the church–Jews were not even worthy of evangelization, they were simply to be purged.  Many church leaders and intellectuals of the day supported this view.

The Pastors Emergency League, organized by Martin Niemoller in late 1932, attempted to resist. Thousands of pastors and other church leaders gathered in an attempt to maintain true Christian faith–and for their efforts, many were jailed. Niemoller ended up as Hitler’s personal prisoner, eventually spending time in Dachau.

In 1933, Adolf Hitler was elected Reich Chancellor of Germany, and though he initially feigned compatibility with Christianity, it soon became clear that was not the truth. Soon the Nazi party was coercing churches into doing their political will, including that bit about making one’s racial background a criteria for church membership.

In May 1934, delegates representing several denominations (Lutheran, Reformed, and United) met in Barmen to reiterate their faith in the gospel–and so openly contested the imposition of the Nazi agenda on the churches. This was, at the very least, unpatriotic, and more likely treasonous. But the church believed it had reached a time called status confessionis, where it is impossible NOT to make a new and public declaration of faith.

To be clear on some language: “German Christians” are the state church, the “Evangelical Church” is the protestant coalition that stood against the Nazis. (in other words: Evangelical then and Evangelical now are not exactly the same thing!)  There were also German Catholics, of course, though Barmen and its history doesn’t go into their response to this public and political faith crisis. The faithful in the Evangelical Church eventually became known as the “Confessing Movement” which is, again, different from the Confessing Church movement in the PCUSA in the 20th/21st century.

Karl Barth, a well known German theologian, did most of the writing of this confession, “fortified by strong coffee and one or two Brazilian cigars.” The confession is in 2 sections–first, a “why are we doing this” section, and then a 6-point confession of faith that both declares what we believe and what we do not believe–in other words, affirming that to say “yes” to the gospel, we must say “no” to some other things.

Section 1: An Appeal to the Evangelical Congregations and Christians in Germany

In this section, the delegates explain what they are doing.

“With gratitude to God, they are convinced they have been given a common word to utter. It was not their intention to found a new Church or to form a union. Nothings was farther from their minds than the abolition of the confessional status of our Churches. Their intention was, rather, to withstand in faith and unanimity the destruction of the Confession of Faith, and thus of the Evangelical Church in Germany. In opposition to attempts to establish the unity of the church by means of false doctrine, by the use of force and insincere practices, the Confessional Synod insists that the unity of the church can come only from the Word of God in faith through the Holy Spirit.

“Therefore the Confessional Synod calls upon the congregations to range themselves behind it in prayer…

“Be not deceived by loose talk, as if we meant to oppose the unity of the German nation! …

“If you find that we are speaking contrary to Scripture, then do not listen to us! But if you find that we are taking our stand upon Scripture, then let no fear or temptation keep you from treading with us the path of faith and obedience to the Word of God, in order that God’s people be of one mind upon earth and that we in faith experience what he himself has said: ‘I will never leave you nor forsake you.’ “

Already in just their introduction, the Synod is making a theological statement: they believe that the Spirit of God is still moving and active, giving them a common word to utter against the false doctrine and use of force that has been imposed on the church. They clearly believe that the Church belongs to God, not to human beings, and so in prayer and with careful study of Scripture we will find the authority to follow Christ–not in careful study of what the elected leader wants the church to do. In fact, they say that it is important to speak up, that we cannot remain silent in the face of such untruth and injustice–that when we see the state, the powers, the culture twisting the word of God, or working against it, then we as people of faith must speak.

They also clearly state that opposing the state’s interference in the church is NOT the same as opposing the nation. Notice, however, that they do not comment on the ruling party or on Hitler. It was still early in the Nazi experience, but even so many of the people at the Synod felt guilty about this later–that they did not stand up and more clearly oppose Hitler and Nazi policy and practice. After the war ended, many in the movement believed they could (and should) have done more, and they signed the Stuttgart Confession of Guilt, embracing their collective responsibility for the sings of the war years. Though there is plenty of debate about whether the church could have done more to stand up to Nazi atrocities, it is certain that many in the movement paid a high price even for this much dissent–many (including Barth) lost teaching positions and pastorates, and some, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, lost their lives.

Check in every Monday for the next few weeks as we discuss the six points of the Theological Declaration of Barmen, and wonder about the crossing of our own faith and public life.