Tuesday, September 9, 2008

The Church within a Church: Free Confessional Synods as Witness 2


Over the weekend my husband and I re-watched the movie “Witness.” The movie centers on an Amish community and a little boy who is the only witness to a murder in a train station. As I was watching the movie I realized that not only was the boy a witness to the evil of a corrupt police department, but the whole Amish community was a witness to the invasion of the corrupt officials as they invaded the peaceful community.

Because of the community’s witness, as a group, the murderers were not able to complete their unspeakable deeds.

I am reminded of this as I write on the witness of the free synods of the Confessing Church in Germany during the time of Hitler. I am also reminded of this as I think about those in the PCUSA who hold an orthodox view of the Christian faith and choose, out of obedience to Jesus Christ, to stay in the denomination. Often, all that is required of a witness is to observe and state the truth. Or conversely to state the truth and observe.

Beginning very early, in 1934, the Reich bishop, Ludwig Müller, committed many “dictatorial acts” by eliminating many pastors from their positions. “Over two hundred ministers were subjected to disciplinary measures, suspensions, and dismissals.” Martin Niemöller was the first of this group to lose his position. This was the beginning of the call for free synods which were not official synods of the Church in Germany, but rather began with local meetings of those who had protested but now needed to simply stand in faithfulness.

The first free synod was a Reformed synod. It met in Barmen-Gemarke on January the 3- 4th. 1 There were “320 elders and ministers representing 167 congregations.” The next meeting was in “Pomerania on February 4.” The third free synod was held again in Barmen and was a Free Evangelical Synod consisting of Reformed, Lutheran and United ministers and elders. That was in February the 18 and 19th.

Next, members of the Council of Brethren of the Pastor’s Emergency league meeting on February 20 asked to become members of the free Evangelical Synod of the Rhineland and brought with them the congregations of the league. On March the 7th, congregations from Berlin met for a “Free Evangelical Synod for Berlin and Brandenburg.” Arthur C. Cochrane, author of The Church’s Confession Under Hitler, gives some interesting statistics here. He writes that four laymen and two ministers from each Church attended; “four hundred men and forty women altogether.” (My emphasis; a new history project for someone!)

The next meeting also has an interesting piece of data beside it. In March the 16th “the day the Secret Police dissolved the regularly called [official] Synod of Westphalia,” the First Westphalian Confessional Synod was held in Dortmund. On April the 29th the Free Evangelical Synod of the Rhineland met with the Westphalian Confessional Synod.

With further manipulative actions by official Church leaders in takeovers of Churches and dismissal of pastors many more congregations in Germany joined the Free and Confessional synods. By April 22 the Ulm Conference was held which had delegates from, “Bavarian and Württenburg Churches, the Free Synods in the Rhineland, Westphalia, and Brandenburg, as well as many ‘confessing’ congregations throughout Germany.”


Of course the most important meeting was held in Barmen on May 29-31 when the "Declaration of Barmen" was formulated, presented and accepted.

Several actions occurred within these free synods. The first was the formulating and acceptance of several confessional statements. The first statement was the “The Declaration Concerning the Right Understanding of the Reformation Confessions of Faith in the German Evangelical Church of the Present.” This, like the later “Declaration of Barmen” was written by Karl Barth. Another Confession was the “Ulm Declaration.” I will write about these statements in my third posting on this subject.

The Second action was the formation of leadership groups in the form of councils of brethren. The third inevitable action happened in the midst of severe crisis and persecution. Members of the synods came to the conclusion that they were the “legitimate” Church in Germany. This recognition of their own legitimacy can be traced to their stands on the faith and confession of the Church rather than any political viewpoint.

The members of the free synod and confessional gatherings were certainly witnesses to the German Church, the German people and later to the worldwide Church. They shared a witness to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in the midst of a Church which wanted to share his Lordship with other gods. In gathering together they stood as one against an egocentric culture within Germany. And they spoke truth when everywhere lies and manipulation were the norm. Because of their witness paganism never totally engulfed the whole Church.


But, most important, it was the unique act of calling together "free synods" as a way of addressing the crisis within the official Church which allowed the confessing Christians and congregations to bring orthodox teaching and structure to the churches while speaking confessional truth to the German people.

1 All of the material about the free synods is taken from The Church’s Confession Under Hitler by Artur C. Cochrane.

18 comments:

Stushie said...

Thanks Viola. I really appreciate this information. My call for a Sanctuary Synod within the PCUSA for fellow conservatives appears to have a rich historical pedigree.

God bless you.

Viola Larson said...

A very rich pedigree indeed!

will said...

Unless I'm misunderstanding it, this appears to be a kind of 'bottom up' movement. In the PC(USA) context, one might want to start with 'free presbyteries'.

Viola Larson said...

Will,
I think it is more regional than anything else and synods lend themselves to a better definition for this sort of meeting. Still, when we in the PCUSA think synods I am not sure it is the same thing.

Christine said...

One of the implications of this post is that those in the PC(USA) who do not hold to what you call "an orthodox view of the Christian faith" are analogous to murderers and Nazis. I hope that is not what you intend.

Viola Larson said...

Hi Christine,
No I am not equating progressives in the PCUSA with Nazi's or murderers. I am using the actions of the Confessing Church as a model for what the orthodox might do in order to stay within the PCUSA and still be faithful to Jesus Christ.

What I have said, in my first posting on this subject, is, that minus the evil of the Nazi's, the theological issues are the same in the two Church struggles. That is, the orthodox hold to Jesus Christ as the one and only revelation given by the Father. Many progressives put other things on a par with that revelation such as sexuality and culture, even other faiths. It changes the whole theological viewpoint.

I am intending to aim these posts at those who are orthodox, Reformed and Evangelical since many of us are thinking and talking about how to stay in the PCUSA and stay faithful.

Anonymous said...

Viola,

Don't be disingenuous. Christine is is right. It appears that's exactly what you are saying. I find it a bit over the top.

Of course, orthodoxy, like heresy, is only in the eye of the beholder. With just a modicum of humility and objective historical awareness one is encouraged to be much more careful about how to paint those evil heretics over there compared to we orthodox over here. The tables have proven to be much too easily reversed.

Carl

Viola Larson said...

Carl,
You will find that I am not a post-modern. Your statement:
"Of course, orthodoxy, like heresy, is only in the eye of the beholder," from a biblical perspective is not true. The Bible gives clear definitions as to what heresy is, as do our confessions.

Further I don't believe either you or Christine read my first posting. Please do. I explain that I am writing about the issues that have to do with theology and what the form of the church should be.

Anonymous said...

Viola,

I hope you don't take offense, because I am only reflecting on what you have written on the assumption that you are posting here maybe as a trial run to a more formal publication and that feedback is useful for making changes for the final version.

I don't think post-modernism has anything to do with it. Its an objective fact that people do not generally consider themselves to be heretics and others orthodox.

It is an objective fact that reasonable people disagree with each other on the basis of their own perceptions and beliefs, even if they believe these perceptions and beliefs are based on objective truth. It is still on the basis of their own perception of objective truth.

It is an objective fact that how much they can perceive and what they perceive is a function of their own intellectual abilities, their education and their own cultural biases.

This is a documented objective fact.

And it is a well documented objective fact that reasonable people have profound disagreements on what the Biblical perspective really is, and what can be considered heresy on the basis of what the bible has to say.

It is a well documented objective fact that it says different things to different people. To the point that even great wars have been fought between otherwise reasonable people, in which they killed each others children, and burned down each others homes, and pillaged, and raped, and tortured.

All because they disagreed on what was heresy and what was orthodoxy.

Now I have no idea what you consider heresy and orthodoxy, or whether mine is the same as yours, but even though you claim to be talking about theology, you continue to claim parallels between the PCUSA and the German Lutheran Church under Nazi Germany.

That might make sense from your point of view, but it is an objective fact that it is insulting and demeaning and a touch arrogant as well. I am sorry for being so blunt, but it is a fact.

Is it your intention to offend? If not, then you might consider revising your approach in order to be more effective. If you do intend to offend, then a simple acknowledgment of that fact would at least be honest. But as it is, it appears all too easily to some that you are just putting lipstick on a pig and poorly hiding an ulterior motive.

And that fact causes one to question your objectivity when you talk about theology.

Carl

Viola Larson said...

Carl,
You are assuming an awful lot without any objective facts, to put it bluntly. First, let me once again correct something. It was not the German Lutherans against the Confessing Church. It was the German Christians and others against the Confessing Church. Not all German Christians were Lutheran.

And it is post-modern to suggest that all of our faith knowledge comes from our own perspective and that we cannot know truth. Surly you would not suggest that 2 plus 2 equals 4 depends on our perspective. Surly it does equal 4 no matter what our perspective about it. And what the Holy Scriptures say about Jesus Christ although far more complex than 2 plus 2, nonetheless is truth and God’s truth at that. It is possible to know that Jesus Christ is God because of the Scriptures, therefore it is possible to know that the Arians of yesterday and today are heretics.

Finally I am not claiming parallels between the PCUSA and the Nazis. I am claiming parallels between the theological positions of some liberals and most progressives in the PCUSA and the German Christians of that time. The issues, as I have already stated are, revelation, (how God reveals himself to us) the Lordship of Christ, redemption and the order and form of the Church, (See my last posting).

Anonymous said...

Viola,

LOL

Actually, "2 plus 2 equals 4" is very much an abstract concept that is only true subject to a very strict set of man made rules.

Without those rules you cannot know if the statement is true, or even if the statement is verifiable to be true or false

And again, nothing to do with being post modern.

Excellent illustration.

I fear that perhaps you don't really understand what constitutes objective reality and what post modernism says about reality. But it is interesting that you seem to believe that post modernism is a bad thing. Why is that? It seems somewhat like saying that screwdrivers are bad things.

Carl

Viola Larson said...

Carl,
Obviously you live in a different world than I do! And I might say a world in which our conversations are impossible. Of course I don’t really believe that but you have made it so. So I will leave you to live in the world you have built which has no absolute truth. I stand by all that I have written.

Anonymous said...

Viola,

Don't slam the door in my face.

It is just that I create objective reality for a living and I really would like to know why you think post modernism is such a bad thing.

Carl

Viola Larson said...

So Carl,
Tell me about yourself. What do you create and exactly who are you?

Anonymous said...

Viola,

I'm an engineer for a large company that makes cool things that have changed the way people live and the way they see and understand the world they live in. But my customers and my bosses prefer that people like me not discuss who we are and what we do in public. It's a pain but they have their reasons.

I suppose "post modernism" is a natural philosophical consequence of twentieth century advances in science and technology.

For example, I hear conservatives complain about the liberal media. They say the liberal media distorts the facts. That people are not seeing reality for what it is, but only through the lens of the liberal press.

That criticism is a post modernist view of things and it is an acknowledgment that reality is not what we think it is because we only see it through a lens or a filter.

Of course the conservative press also puts its own lens and spin on reality, and so what they claim is reality suffers from filtering and distortions as well. Some of them quite intentional.

Some people like to think they see reality for what it really is, and that only other people are being deceived.

Post modernism just tries to recognize that none of us are clever enough to see past our own filters and distortion and to give us tools to help us make adequate adjustments to our lack of knowledge.

For me that is an inescapable everyday fact of life, easily demonstrated, and your life depends in part on people like me having the skill to adjust for it. The proper functioning of the car your drive, or the computer you use, or the airplane you fly in all depend on such skills, as does your ability to understand the news, select a good governor or president, or, yes, read the bible.

The only people who benefit from you not having such a skill are those who are trying to manipulate people's perceptions for their own gain.

Post modernism is the tool kit for adjusting to the filters we have and the filters others place before us.

Which smoothly brings me back to the question I asked three comments ago and that you seem to be ignoring: Why do you think post modernism is so bad?

Carl

Viola Larson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Viola Larson said...

Carl,
With this remark, "Post modernism just tries to recognize that none of us are clever enough to see past our own filters and distortion and to give us tools to help us make adequate adjustments to our lack of knowledge.

For me that is an inescapable everyday fact of life, easily demonstrated, and your life depends in part on people like me having the skill to adjust for it," you are making yourself sound very arrogant and almost godlike.

I hope I make this perfectly clear to you—my life depends on many things but I am completely dependent on God not on you!

Philosophically and theologically speaking you are totally off the track. Just because one might look through filters does not dissolve truth; not mathematical or physical truth, and certainly not biblical truth.

We have gone way beyond the subject of my post and I am now closing this tread.

Anonymous said...

Viola,

I wasn't trying to be arrogant. Instead of answering my question you asked me one in return. In good faith I answered truthfully, hoping you would then be so kind as to respond to mine.

My mistake. On both accounts.

Carl