Sunday, November 11, 2007

A Side-Trip Into Barmen and the One Word of God


Today in my church we had a sermon concerned with The Theological Declaration of Barmen as well as a Sunday school class on the same subject. As a refresher on this Declaration, last night, I got out one of my favorite books, The Church’s Confession Under Hitler by Arthur C. Cochrane. The Office of the General Assembly actually used this book's copy of The Barmen Declaration when it was printed in the PCUSA’s Book of Confessions.

Also included in this book is “An Address on the Theological Declaration Concerning the Present Situation in the German Evangelical Church.” This was an address given to the delegates of Barmen by Pastor Hans Asmussen. It is a point by point explanation of Barmen by a pastor who was deeply involved in the Confessing Church’s actions.

This afternoon, when I once again had my attention drawn to a blog with postings propounding unbiblical caricatures of the Christian faith as well as continued mocking of Christians and Jesus Christ I couldn’t help thinking of some of the words of both Asmussen and the Theological Declaration of Barmen.

Before I write about those words, I will give an example of the abuse heaped on believers and Jesus Christ alike using one posting where this particular Presbyterian Pastor insists that biblical Christianity is passé. In the posting “
How Literalist Christianity Often Appears to Those Who Are Not Christian,” the pastor continues to push progressive theology which for him includes the denial of Jesus as God as well as the denial of the bodily resurrection of believers. In the comments on that posting he further denies the validity of orthodox faith with his statement:

That point is simply this: popular (literalist, fundamentalist, whatever)
Christianity is absurd. To equate the main dogmas of Christianity with any kind of reality save mythical and symbolic is incredible. Steve's definition simply removes the pious veneer. [For Steve’s definition see posting]
Is the Apostle's Creed credible on any level except myth? (Bold mine) [See note at end of my post]

Pastor Asmussen refers to the section of Barmen that speaks of a particular false doctrine the Confessing Churches rejected, in this case, “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.” (8.12 in Book of Confessions)

Asmussen explains:

For the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ we may not become weary of stressing repeatedly that it is false doctrine when other authorities are set up for the Church beside the incarnate Word in Christ and the Word proclaimed in him. That is what is happening today. … For it is only a relative difference whether beside Holy Scripture in the Church historical events or reason, culture, aesthetic feelings, progress, or other powers and figures are said to be binding claims upon the Church. All these factors cannot limit the proclamation of Christ, nor can they take a place beside Christ as subjects of proclamation. In proclamation they can have no other place than that of various marks of the one, basically unchanged world, which can find redemption in Christ and only in Christ. (254-55)

To put it more succinctly, historical events, reason, culture, aesthetic feelings, and yes even progress including progressive theology are placed under sin and in need of redemption in Jesus Christ.

Another important point in Asmussen’s sermon is that although the Church in Germany still held the Confessions and had a constitution, the unity of the Church in Germany was in peril because of the actions of the Church administration and the “German Christians.” He states, “It is not a case of occasional mistakes by individuals that one finds in administrative matters and could thus be removed. On the contrary, it is a question of a false doctrine all along the line and of a conduct that not only occasionally but systematically and comprehensively opposes the gospel, the Confessions presently in force, and the constitution of the German Evangelical Church.”

The idea here is that a Church, having orthodox confessions and constitution, and more importantly the Holy Scriptures, can still, because of church politics and administrational maneuvering, pursue false doctrine which causes disunity in the Church. Lack of discipline is often administrational maneuvering.

"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.) (8.10) Book of Confessions

Note: "There have been many complaints and murmurings over this formula [The Apostles' Creed] and probably, sooner or later in your studies, you will come up against men of letters and even teachers, who also do the same and think it dreadful that this matter should be reduced to this formula. . . This inveighing against so-called 'orthodoxy' is just a 'wolf's snarl', which an educated man should have nothing to do with."
Karl Barth
Dogmatics in Outline



5 comments:

Bill Crawford said...

Amen,

The confessions take a downward spiral after Barmen.

Barb said...

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
1 Cor. 1:18-21

Viola Larson said...

Bayou,
In Cochrane's book, The Church’s Confession Under Hitler, he points out in the chapter entitled "The nature of a confession of faith" that a true confession is "a confession of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church," because its ecumenicity is "grounded in the fact that it undertakes to confess the one Lord and the one faith attested in Holy Scripture and given to the whole Church." I think several confessions fail that understanding.

I was Just Thinking, thanks for the verses, sometimes I think we should just write that across every situation and just let it all go. It fits so well and in this case it is so sad. But the Scripture also insist we keep offering a witness to His truth in the face of either impending damnation or coming glory.

Viola Larson said...

Bayou,
You got me to reading more in that chapter, "The nature of a confession." I just have to quote more from it. Maybe later I will post some more on it. Anyway here is one more very long quote:
"A Confession is therefore not the publication of the opinions, convictions, ideals, and value judgments of men. It does not set forth a program or system of theology or ethics. It is not a set of principles or constitution for a fraternal order, social service club, or a religious society. It is not a political or ethical, religious platform. It does not bear witness to certain events, powers, figures, and truths in nature and history that may be championed by certain groups in society. It confesses Jesus Christ as the one Lord, the one justification and snctification of men, the one revelation, and the one Word of God which we have to hear, trust, and obey in life and in death."

will said...

Having the confessions and having a constitution is not sufficient. When people in leadership and administrative positions do everything in their power to oppose and violate these, there is no structural remedy.

The toleration of this, on the part of the majority church in Germany indicates something about the toleration of the same thing in American Mainline denominations today.

And the great offense people take because of that toleration - most protests begin with a profession of faith ... "I don't believe these things that depart from Christianity", then proceed to defend the actions of those who do.

This is a coward's option - As if to say: "these departures from Christianity aren't OK for me ... I'm safely orthodox, but it's perfectly fine if large segments of my church (including many 'people of note', leaders, those who are thought to be something) war against historic Christianity at every opportunity."