I’m about finished with my study through the Book of Confessions. Today, I read about the historical context of the Westminster Confession of the Faith, including, of course, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. Geez, England had a lot of blood shed over the different forms of Christianity, sometimes in the name of “religious tolerance.” As I was reading about Oliver Cromwell and the hostilities between Presbyterians, Anglicans, and Puritans (Independents), it made me appreciate the irony of a former Evangelical now Presbyterian teaching Bible at an Episcopal seminary.
It also made me ponder both the excesses of Christianity enforced through political power and the poverty inherent within our conviction-less mainline Protestantism. It is both to our credit and our shame that religious traditions have as little meaning as they do in the current climate. The next “confession” on my list is the Barmen Declaration. It was a theological response just prior to World War II that sought to address the growing alliance between Nazi politics, nationalism, and “German Christians.” Here are some excerpts:
“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, 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.”
“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.”
Hmm, where is this conviction today? It seems to me that we have a growing U.S. empire that thinks of itself as Christian. I tend to think that Dr. Barth and others who signed the Barmen Declaration would have had issues with the present marriage of politics and faith. We N. American Christians may not kill each other over different understandings of the sacraments or church polity anymore, but it sure seems to me that we are missing some bite in our theological conviction.
Posted by Frank Yamada at August 22, 2005 04:26 AMHey Frank,
A bit of coincidence: my dad, a relatively recent Presbyterian, is preparing an adult ed bit on the Barmen Declaration. His reading led him to Prof. Mauser (PTS, emeritus), who (my dad tells me) in his writings appeals to the Barmen Declaration for his position against gays in the pastorate, church blessing of gay unions, etc. I spent some time poring over the Declaration (but not over Mauser), and provisionally concluded that Mauser might see the full inclusion of gays as one of those "abitrarily chosen desires." That is, that the issue reverts to the old business of discerning the spirits (those of "this age" vs. the Holy Spirit). Around that time, I had to get back to my own work, feeling unsatisfied and provoked; hence the absence of a real conclusion to this bit of ramble.
Yes, I know Ulrich's positions. I find it unfortunate and misguided. I believe that the contextual nature of Barmen prohibits it from being used in this way. On the subject of "worldly" influences, there is a huge difference between the threat of a totalitarian government and LGBT culture, even for those who see the latter as a threat (which I know you and I do not). However, the correspondence between World War II Germany and 21st C. U.S.--of self-proclaimed, "God-sanctioned" political autonomy and power--is frightening. To be fair, I have not read anything by Dr. Mauser since I left Princeton, which was of course prior to 911 and the Iraq invasion.
Posted by: Frank at August 22, 2005 05:24 AM