Wednesday, February 20, 2008

The Confession of the Church 1


The subject of essentials and confessions continues to surface in other writer's essays, postings comments and editorials. Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick has, according to Rev. James D. Berkley , suggested the PCUSA adopt the The Confession of Belhar, "and urged as 'necessary' the study of the Confession of Accra with Belhar."

In his book, The Church’s Confession Under Hitler, Arthur C. Cochrane has a chapter entitled “The Nature of a Confession of Faith, Illustrated from the Theology and History of Barmen.”

Using that chapter I am going to lay out his points although not with quite his extensive amount of detail. I intend to quote a great deal with just a small amount of commentary. I will look at each point for each posting.

First Cochrane explains that a confession is not a dead document. He writes that instead, “It acts upon its environment and the environment reacts to it. It affects the lives of all who come in contact with it. The Barmen Declaration is such a document. It invited and secured decisions from the Church and the nation. It evoked love and hate, joy and grief, praise and blame, obedience and disobedience.” (181)

Then Cochrane lists the qualities of the confession as supplied by Barmen. The first point:

“1. The Barmen Declaration teaches first and foremost that a Confession of Faith is a written document drawn up by the Church which confesses Jesus Christ. While the Church confesses certain doctrines and dogmas and supplies answers to specific questions, it does so only in order to bear witness to Christ. It confesses a living Person who is the Lord and thus calls for a personal relationship of trust and obedience to him—not to the Confession as such or to the doctrines contained in it.”

Cochrane shows how, in this Declaration the unity of the Church is founded on the ultimate confession that is made by the Church. He writes, “…in its preamble Barmen declares: ‘We are bound together by the confession of the one Lord.’ Jesus Christ is directly spoken about in the first three articles and indirectly in the other three.”

This one confession of Jesus Christ as Lord produces a negative side of the confession, that is, it allows the Church to understand what a confession is not:

"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."

And confessing one Lord Jesus Christ allows for the positive side, that is what a confession is:

“It confesses Jesus Christ as the one Lord, the one justification and sanctification of men, the one revelation, and the one Word of God which we have to hear, trust and obey in life and in death.”


So the Church's unity is bound up with its confession of Jesus Christ. This will gain greater meaning in another point which deals with Holy Scriptures.

2 comments:

Glenn Buzbee said...

From what you have written I find it difficult to discern what you are saying about the two proposed confessions. BTW, I studied under Art Cochrane at UDTS back in the 1980s.

Viola Larson said...

Pastor glenn,
It wasn't my intent to say anything at the moment about the two proposed confessions, although I do have an opinion about at least one of them. My concern was that the Church have a better view of the nature of a confession before they even begin talking about either. Actually, Kirkpatrick wants the church to use one to study the other.

Perhaps I will write about them later using what I am exploring from Cochrane. His book is one of my favorites, full of both history and theology.