The Barmen Theological Declaration--a Christian confession of faith for the new ecumenical century.
This year marks the 75th anniversary of the most significant event in 20th century Protestant church history, the Barmen Declaration, which was debated and adopted by the first Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church in Barmen, from 29 to 31 May 1934.The synod members assembled in Barmen--"representatives of Lutheran, Reformed and United Churches, of free synods, Church assemblies and parish organizations"--were fully aware of the unusual and momentous nature of the event. What many had hoped for but which, given the prevailing theological opinion, few expected, had happened: on 31 May 1934, after discussions in plenary and in the confessional meetings, the amended and expanded draft of the Barmen Declaration that had been presented by Hans Asmussen, was unanimously approved by all 139 synod members of different confessions. This act of confession, coupled with the "Declaration concerning the Legal Status of the German Evangelical Church" (1) marked the birth of the Confessing Church. This took place in a situation where the "German Christian" heresy, which was contrary to the church's confession of faith, was threatening the very existence of the church. The Confessing Church was not a church set up in opposition to the church, but a church which claimed to be the only legitimate form of the German Evangelical Church (DEK). In other words, it was the Confessing Church in opposition to the German Christian church government in the overwhelmingly "devastated" member churches of the DEK and which was receiving support from the highest levels of the Nazi state.
"A miracle has happened before our very eyes," the pastor and writer Klugkist Hesse said at the time, (2) voicing the feelings of many synod members and their fellow citizens.
What remains of this "miracle" in Barmen? Was it simply a momentous event in church history, the significance of which is nonetheless confined to the era of the Kirchenkampf (church struggle), an occasion to remember with gratitude the statements of affirmation and rejection contained in the Barmen Declaration at that time? The question comes to a head in the so-called "confessional issue", the question of whether and to what extent the Barmen Declaration can stand as a confession of faith alongside the confessions of the Reformation, such as the Augsburg Confession or the Heidelberg Catechism.
How is this question to be answered, 75 years after the event in Barmen? It is hardly surprising that the discussion of the validity and authority of the Barmen Declaration started immediately after the meeting of the synod in Barmen. After all, the synod itself in its "Appeal to the Evangelical Congregations and Christians in Germany" urged people to "Try the spirits whether they are of God. Prove also the words of the Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church to see whether they agree with Holy Scripture and with the Confessions of the Fathers." (3) In the minds of the synod members there could be no doubt about the outcome of any serious examination. But the Kirchenkampf was a struggle about the Barmen Declaration; it was Barmen that was the contentious issue. (4)
What is surprising, on the other hand, is that heated argument about the relevance and the reception of Barmen continued unabated even after 1945. In the process of the reconstituting of the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) and its member churches, the opposition between radical supporters of Barmen and confessional Lutherans, which had been concealed only with difficulty during the Kirchenkampf by the common front against the German Christians, resurfaced in full force. This had repercussions in the debates about the reception of Barmen in church law in the new constitutions of the EKD, its member churches and in confessional associations such as the VELKD (United Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Germany), the EKU (Evangelical Church of the Union) and the Reformed Alliance. Fearing that Barmen could be imposed as the founding confession of a new church union of Reformed and Lutherans within the Old Prussian Union (later called the EKU) and beyond, confessional Lutheranism for a long time refused to allow the Barmen Declaration to be described as a "confession". (5)
1. The Question of the Barmen Declaration's Status as a Confession of Faith as Reflected in the Fiftieth Anniversary of Barmen in 1984
It has to be said that, after 1945, there was no automatic consensus among the German Protestant churches about the Barmen Declaration's status as a confession, despite their esteem for it. h is worthwhile therefore to look back at the extraordinary anniversary year of 1984, with its many events, symposia and publications. For it tells us not only about different approaches to the actuality of Barmen today, but also about the remarkable progress that has been made in relation to the question that concerns us here, about the nature of the Barmen Declaration as a confession. I shall focus on three events or publications that illustrate this.
1.1 "Confessing" political-ethical actualization by the Reformed churches
The peace demonstrations and the arguments about peace ethics surrounding NATO's twin-track decision involving the stationing of medium-range nuclear missiles in the Federal Republic of Germany caused shock waves in the early 1980s and culminated, in the churches, in heated debate about the declaration by the governing body of the Reformed Alliance, "Confessing the faith in Jesus Christ and the Church's responsibility for peace" (1981). Deliberately linking up with the Barmen theses, this stated that justification of nuclear weapons was incompatible with the confession of faith in Jesus Christ, declaring this to be a matter of status confession# analogous to the Barmen Declaration.
This "confessing" political-ethical approach of applying Barmen to the contemporary situation--as previously in the "Darmstadt Message" from the Council of Brethren of the EKD in 1947--was used by the joint meeting of the Society for Protestant Theology and the Reformed Alliance in February 1984 in its closing statement, entitled "Bekennende Kirche werden" (Becoming a Confessing Church). This comprises four sets of theses, each of which, like the Barmen Declaration, is introduced by a passage of Scripture: I. "Israel and the Church" (cf. Barmen I); II. "Ecumenism and the International Economic Order" (cf. Barmen III); III. "The Church's Witness for Peace in face of Weapons of Mass Destruction" and IV. "Christian Behaviour in a Constitutional Democratic Social Welfare State" (cf. Barmen II and V). (6)
In the tradition of the Reformed Alliance, and also that of the Society for Protestant Theology, the Barmen Declaration was certainly considered as a confession, or at least as a confessional text. (7) But this was not confession understood in a statutory, church-founding and doctrinal sense, but rather considered as guidance for confessing the faith anew in each new situation in which the church found itself challenged or tempted. During those years, Lutheran critics accused the Reformed of exploiting the Barmen Declaration for church purposes, or even political ends in general, and being careless in their use of the concept of status confessionis. But it should be remembered that the Lutheran churches at that time also declared a case of status confessionis, and did so with a direct reference to the Barmen Declaration, in a situation that was certainly similar to that of Barmen, when faced with the ideology of apartheid that threatened to destroy the church as church. This was done first in the Swakopmund Appeal issued by the Federation of Evangelical Lutheran Churches in Southern Africa, in 1975, and then formally in the Appeal in Dar-es-Salaam in 1977 by the Assembly of the Lutheran World Federation to its white member churches in South Africa. This was followed by a similar appeal from the World Alliance of Reformed Churches to its white member churches, in Ottawa in 1982. (8)
1.2 Interpretation as pointing the way for witness to the faith in the Evangelical Church of the Union (EKU)
The EKU, which understandably saw itself in a special way as heir to the Barmen tradition, (9) had long since chosen a quite different approach. It took to heart the Barmen Synod's repeated urgings to interpret the Barmen Declaration responsibly, admittedly not so much in the light of the "confessions of the Fathers", as that of scripture and the particular theological and social challenges of the time. So, in the years from 1970 to 1999, thanks to the work of the joint theological commission of the EKU (even in a divided Germany), a considerable body of interpretation was produced under the headings "On the political task of the Christian congregation" (Barmen II), 1974; "The Church as a congregation of brethren" (Barmen III), 1980; "Working for justice and peace. The mission of the church and the task of the state according to Barmen V", 1986; "The One Word of God--Good News for All" (Barmen I and II), 1993; and "The ministry of the whole Church of Jesus Christ and the problem of authority" (Barmen IV), 1999.
For all their diversity, these documents and the contributions that fed into them essentially show a common approach in dealing with the Barmen Declaration. They do not reduce the Barmen theses to suggestions on which to pin new affirmations of their own, updating the rejections and so-to-speak rewriting Barmen for the present time; but nor do they simply "expound" them like a normative and sufficient doctrinal confession, as so often happened with the confessional texts of Reformation times. There is a clear effort to perceive and interpret the Barmen Declaration as being really a "testimony of faith pointing the way forward for a church facing challenge and temptation". In the process it became clear that the basic theological statements of Barmen are surprisingly forceful and capable of further interpretation, especially when set against the touchstone of contemporary, biblical and systematic theological exegesis.
However, this theological work on the Barmen Declaration also made us aware that Barmen did need to be interpreted, and even supplemented. The document on Barmen III, "The Church as a congregation of brethren" in its chapter on "The Church and Israel" (written at the same time as, but independently of the Rhineland synod resolution on the "Renewal of relations between Christians and Jews", 1980), deplores the Barmen synod's silence on the Jewish question as a "failure at the critical point". (10) In 1967, Karl Barth, the main drafter of the Barmen Declaration, described the Declaration's silence on this as "a fault on my part". (11) In the anniversary year of 1984 this "deficit" was widely deplored, not least by Eberhard Bethge, (12) who closed his stirring plea--"Barmen and the Jews--an unwritten thesis?" (13)--with a quotation from the New York Rabbi, Irving Greenberg: "In light of the holocaust, there is only one alternative: either traditional Christianity dies in order to rise again to new life; or it lives on unperturbed, but dies to God and humanity." (14)
The continuing work of interpreting the Barmen Declaration made it clear far beyond the anniversary year 1984, but also beyond the sphere of the EKU and the Arnoldshain Conference (a grouping of regional churches within the EKD), that this was not undertaken simply as a matter of church or theological duty, but that a process of dialogue between Barmen and contemporary theology was under way, in which--overtly or covertly--a promising way forward was being set for the church's witness and service in an increasingly secularized and plural society. Besides the continuing work done by the committees of the EKU and the Arnoldshain Conference, and their successor, the Union of Evangelical Churches (UEK) in the EKD, (15) this is also evident from the conference themes and publications of the Society for Protestant Theology, (16) as well as many individual publications, such as the ecclesiological studies by Wolfgang Huber. (17)
1.3 A new perception of the Declaration as a confession at the Reisensburg Symposium of the VELKD
With the Symposium on the "Lutheran Churches and the Confessional Synod of Bar men", (18) the confessional Lutheran side chose a very different approach from that of the hermeneutics favoured by the EKU and the Reformed-Barthian actualization of the Barmen Declaration presented above--which also included Lutherans from United churches with "Barthian-leftist" leanings. With its presentations dealing with the historical significance, reception and influence of Barmen, this conference reflects what can only be called an historical turning point for Lutheranism, as it moved from an initially hesitant and distant attitude to the Barmen Declaration--even long after 1945--towards an increasingly affirmative approach and acceptance. One might almost talk about a homecoming of the Barmen Declaration to the Lutheran fold. The introductory historical presentation by Carsten Nicolaisen documents in convincing detail the hitherto largely unheeded Lutheran contribution to the emergence of the Barmen Declaration. (19)
Particular mention must be made of the concluding "Theses to follow up the Reisensburg Symposium" by Georg Kretschmar and Wolf-Dieter Hauschild. (20) These mark a clear revision of the attitude--"divided from the outset"--of Lutheran theology and the Lutheran church to the Barmen Declaration: "Ay a consequence of church-political conflicts and because of theological ambiguities in the constitutions of the Lutheran regional churches after 1945, and that of the United Evangelical Lutheran Church of Germany, the binding validity of the Barmen Theological Declaration has never been stated with sufficient clarity." (21) This comment no doubt also applies to the fact that, in the constitutions of most Lutheran regional churches, the Barmen Declaration has been historically reduced to the rejections expressed at that time, as for example in that of the VELKD: "The rejections expressed there (i.e. in Barmen), as interpreted by the Lutheran confession of faith, continue to be the standard for the church's action." (Constitution of 8 July 1948).
Here, at last, we have a move away from the narrow confessionalistic understanding of the concept of confession which played an important role in confessional Lutheranism's continuing reticence towards Barmen after 1945: the view that "what makes a confession is that it make a statement on all fundamental points of doctrine", and "the idea of a church-founding confession of faith in which the act of confessing refers to the confession of a particular church". (22) This opened the way for the Barmen Declaration to be seen in an unprejudiced way as a consensus text, drafted by Karl Barth and Hans Asmussen, in which all those involved were careful to ensure its compatibility with the Lutheran confession of faith. "From its inception and its content it is therefore also a Lutheran document". (23) This also opens the way for work on interpreting the content, similar to that already begun within the EKU, and that had involved the EKU Lutherans. The aim of this is specifically not to write a confessional continuation of the Barmen Declaration wherever it shows shortcomings, rather "The task for Lutheran exegesis today can only be that of integrating the doctrinal declaration of the Barmen Confessional Synod into the Lutheran theology in general." (24)
The theses now see no obstacle to prevent the Barmen Declaration from being described and accepted as a confession, because the text "contains all the traditional features of a confession of faith": "It is a new concrete application of the ancient confession of faith in Christ to a particular situation with an existential claim; in it, affirmations and rejections go together just as, before Jesus Christ, there can only be confession of faith or denial; referring to Holy Scripture it affirms fundamental convictions of the faith in relation to a current false doctrine". (25)
This resolute departure from a concept of confession dating from the 19th century meant that, fifty years after Barmen, the Barmen Declaration could be seen and evaluated with fresh eyes. It has now been realized anew that, as it states in the Preamble, in confessing its six "evangelical truths" the Barmen Declaration refers, besides to Holy Scripture, specifically to the confessions of faith of the Reformation and also, following the Nicene creed, states: "We are bound together by the confession of the one Lord of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church."
The authors of the Reisensburg theses therefore considered it appropriate to class the Barmen Declaration as a 20th century confession of faith and set it alongside the confessions of the ancient church and the Reformation. It can specifically be compared to the Augsburg Confession in that it does not set out to round a new, particular, confessional church, but to testify to the "common, universal Christian faith" based on Holy Scripture, against the errors of the times. (26)
2. The Long-Term Effects of the Barmen Theological Declaration as a Unifying, Inter-Confessional Confession of Faith by the Church from Halle 1937 to Leuenberg 1973
The members of the synod in Barmen in 1934 exercised great care and sensitivity in formulating what they had to say, and in doing so, they not only acted wisely but pointed the way forward right up to the present time. They called themselves a "confessional synod", but avoided talking of a common "Confession", and spoke instead of a "Theological Declaration". They did not hesitate to use classical confessional formulations, to the extent that, immediately afterwards, one of the harshest critics of Barmen, Werner Elert, could rightly talk of a "Confessio Barmensis", but they spoke of "evangelical truths". They had no thought of founding a new confession and church. However, when even their opponents based themselves on the confessions of the Reformation, so that these could not offer decisive guidance, they were forced to find a new way of confessing, but in the now famous words of the Preamble they said they had been given "a common message to utter": "We commend to God what this may mean for the interrelations of the Confessional Churches." Seventy-five years later, this promising opening has still not been fully thought through and acted upon.
What kind of confession is the Barmen Theological Declaration, if it is to be called a confession, as it can and should be? For the Reformed, given their understanding of confession, there was no problem about including Barmen among their confessional texts. But does this make it a Reformed confession? Respected representatives of Lutheranism no longer hesitate to grant the Barmen Declaration confessional character and call it a "Lutheran document". But even if the Barmen Declaration can be seen as compatible with Lutheran confessional writings and can be accepted and interpreted in the light of these, it is not a Lutheran confession, especially as, according to prevailing Lutheran opinion, the evolution of the confession of faith was completed with the Formula of Concord in the 16th century.
In order properly to grasp what is still new and forward-looking today about this confessional text, it is both helpful and necessary to listen again to what contemporary witnesses had to say about Barmen. During the concluding second reading of the Barmen Declaration on 31 May 1934, one synod member, Dr Gerhard Ritter, a historian from Freiburg and, on his own admission, "not a member of one of the inward looking Lutheran churches", expressed his appreciation of the nuanced theological work on the text, but then went on to say: "Now, because of this, we have been given the much greater gift of not having to force ourselves to say yes reluctantly and with doubts and reservations, but being able to do so gladly and willingly ... Yesterday I coined the phrase that Brother Asmussen then took up in the Lutheran meeting, when I said that his speech yesterday morning was a good Lutheran commentary on a good Reformed text. Now I have to say that this text is neither confessionally Lutheran nor confessionally Reformed; here we really hear the voice of the Confessing Church ..." (27) Other speakers from the "confessional" churches and "confessional" groups had similar things to say and emphasized the spiritual or Spirit-given experience of confessing the faith in common despite the differences of confession that had until now divided the churches: "We too have accepted it as God's gift that, in time of need, the confessing Christians of the different Reformation confessions have been bound together under one yoke, and we are persuaded that it is the yoke of Christ." (28)
Those involved at the time should never have let go of this level of understanding, this deep sense of what was new and liberating about the Barmen Declaration and we today should definitely not retreat behind confessional lines. None of the participating confessions and churches could claim Barmen only as their own, not even the United. Because of differing confessional identities, and above all because of confessionalistic anxieties and inhibitions, it proved difficult to find an adequate term for what was in itself obvious. Against this background, the Barmen Declaration was a confession of a new kind: it did not set out to found a church, on the contrary, it transcended the confessions, it was a renewing and unifying confession that sought to overcome the sources of division and called the participating confessions and churches back to the real issue.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, that ecumenically-minded and ecumenically-engaged Lutheran, considered the Barmen Declaration from the beginning to be an "authoritative confession" that should be placed on an equal footing with the Reformation confessions. He put this very sharply and clearly in 1936 when he intervened in the heated discussion that had broken out about the confessional nature of the Barmen Declaration: "Either the Declaration of Barmen is a true confession of the Lord Jesus Christ which has been brought about through the Holy Spirit, in which case it can either make or divide a church--or it is an unofficial expression of the opinion of a number of theologians, in which case the Confessing Church has been for a long time been on the wrong track." (29) Although he was reticent about the use of the term confession, Karl Barth--who regularly complained about the lack of effect of the Barmen Declaration, especially in relation to the "unity of the confessional churches united in the DEK" (30)-was well aware even in Barmen itself of the new and special nature of the Barmen Declaration as a confession of faith, and later stated this again and again: (31) "This Barmen Declaration--there has since been quibbling and argument about it, but it should simply be allowed to stand--was a confession of faith and, by its content, a highly theological document ..., but unlike some church texts which are so named, it is a genuine confession of faith by the church, because its principles were not spoken in the rarefied atmosphere of a purely theological discussion, but in a concrete act that related the confession of a Christian community in theory to a necessary practical responsibility in a particular situation, under pressure of a real and palpable threat to its confession of faith." (32)
So we also have to say: "Barmen" was the work of the Spirit, an ecumenical event within Protestantism. The Barmen Theological Declaration is an ecumenical confession of faith of Protestant Christendom united in the then DEK, and now the EKD. Certainly, it was a special kind of ecumenical confession, as the synod members and witnesses, notably Karl Barth, stressed at the time: not a consensus text elaborated after long theological negotiations, but an act of confession and a confession of faith offered to the synod in the heat of a struggle that threatened its existence. And yet it is a "highly theological document" in the concrete and incisive Sic et Non of its theses, never particular or confessional but always arguing in universal Christian terms and--solemnly echoing the Nicene Creed--renewing the "confession of the one Lord of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" (Preamble).
After Barmen, and still more so today, it was a question of recognizing the full scope and consequences of seeing the Barmen Declaration as a unifying and authoritative ecumenical confession of faith for Christians in Germany and beyond. The process of appropriating and implementing the Declaration began immediately at the Barmen synod itself, with the adoption of two further declarations on the "legal status" and the "practical work" of the Confessional Synod of the DEK. These were of fundamental importance for the Confessing Church on the way to proclaiming its own emergency church law (Dahlem 1935) and in the struggle for the freedom of preaching and freedom of the church against the National Socialist Gleichschaltung policy (Augsburg 1935). But it quickly became clear--especially with the division of the Confessing Church into the "Council of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Germany" and the new "Provisional Church Authority" (Bad Oeynhausen 1936)--that the unanimous acceptance of the Barmen Declaration in 1934 did not mean that the theological, legal and practical divisions between Lutherans, Reformed and United would automatically be overcome within the Confessing Church. This would call for thorough theological work, constantly recalling the common experience brought about by the Spirit in Barmen, and trusting in the guiding strength of the Barmen Declaration.
In what follows, I shall confine myself to three crucial stages in this theological work, during the years of the church struggle and in the decades since 1945.
2.1 Moving towards the unity of the Confessing Church through fellowship in the confession of the faith and in communion--Halle 1937
At the Confessional Synod in Barmen, despite the Barmen Declaration, it went without saying that there was no common celebration of the Lord's Supper. But while the challenge of the measures imposed under the National Socialist church policy was at its height, and the Confessing Church divided, the fourth Confessional Synod of the Old Prussian Union in Halle in May 1937 was inspired by Barmen to begin some theological work on the question of whether "in the light of Scripture and the confessions that bear witness to it, it is right for us to celebrate Holy Communion together as Lutheran, Reformed and United". (33) And on the question of communion, the most sensitive point in the 400-year division within Protestantism between Lutherans and Reformed, it came to the conclusion that: "The separation of Lutherans, Reformed and United in the celebration of the Lord's Supper is not justified by the opposing positions of the 16th century. Table fellowship is not based on our understanding of the Lord's Supper, but in the grace of the One who is the Lord of the table." (34)
The synod referred explicitly to the Barmen Declaration, hot just in reaching this conclusion, but also by going on to initiate a new biblical-theological examination of "faithfulness to scripture" and a new historical theological evaluation of the doctrinal differences behind the divisions. These two issues were noted in Halle as a task for the future for the whole church. The official report of the synod notes: "In view of this confessionally-determined diversity in the unity of our confessing of the faith today, the duty that we have to reach a fully elaborated consensus de doctrina evangelii is recognized as an ecclesiological-theological task that has to be resolved and, as such, is laid upon the office-bearers of the church as a task to be given their responsible attention." (35)
Here we can already see the eminently ecumenical scope of the Barmen Declaration and its consequences for the unity and fellowship of the then still separated confessional churches of the Reformation, as they were later to be developed in the Arnoldshain Theses and the Leuenberg Agreement. This development was made possible by the breakthrough to a new, post-confessional perception and appreciation of the Barmen Declaration, and hence also of the tradition of the Reformation confessions of faith, that took place in Halle in 1937. On the "confessional issue" the synod in Halle had this to say: "The Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church in Barmen testified in its Theological Declaration to the essential prerequisite, without which the confessions of faith in force among us cannot be correctly taught and genuinely confessed ... Where the link to Holy Scripture and the confessions of the church, as attested in the Theological Declaration of the Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church in Barmen in opposition to the present false doctrine, is not recognized, the validity of a Reformation confession can also not be rightly affirmed." (36)
2.2 The breakthrough to fellowship in the Lord's Supper within the EKD--Arnoldshain 1957/58
After neither the "Council of Brethren", then still in office, nor the confessional Lutheran wing with its proposal to constitute the new EKD as a uniformly Lutheran confessional church, were able to prevail, the EKD was constituted as a "federation of Lutheran, Reformed and United churches" that could not in itself claim to be a church. This was strikingly expressed, for instance, in the brief sentence in the constitution stating: "No full agreement on admission to Holy Communion exists within the Evangelical Church in Germany" (Art. 4, para.4). So it was, for example, that the suggestion made in 1949 that a common communion service should be held at the next EKD synod came to nothing because the VELKD, which had meanwhile also been founded, objected that the emergency wartime situation should not be taken up as general practice. (37)
The breakthrough in the question of communion was only achieved thanks to the work of a commission of 19 Lutheran, Reformed and United theologians who had experience of the Kirchenkampf. From 1947 on, following the line of Barmen and picking up the preparatory work done by the synod in Halle, they undertook an intensive theological study that combined recent exegetical insights with the passion for unity in this matter. The Arnoldshain Theses on the Lord's Supper, presented by this commission in October 1957, reveal their subtle handling of the respective Reformation traditions with regard to communion. But they are also infused with the spirit of Barmen. What is striking is not only the consistent christological focus on the action and self-giving of Jesus Christ in the eucharist, which is reminiscent of the central ecclesiological thesis of the Barmen Declaration (Barmen III) and whose wording echoes the Halle Theses of 1937 (Theses 1 and 3); equally striking and forward-looking is the "Nicenean" ring to the introductory question, which recalls the Preamble of the Barmen Declaration: "What do we as members of the one Apostolic Church understand as essential in what the Bible says about Holy Communion" (38)
While, fifty years on, the Arnoldshain Theses have with hindsight been described as the "crucial breakthrough in overcoming the division within Protestantism", (39) it has to be said that this process of unification within the EKD was very hesitant and, taking the member churches as a whole, received a decisive impetus only from the Leuenberg Agreement. All the same, prior to this, 12 United, Reformed and Lutheran member churches of the EKD--including the Evangelical Church of Wurttemberg as a guest--did join together to form the "Arnoldshain Conference" and in 1969 declared themselves to be in full table fellowship on the basis of the Arnoldshain Theses.
2.3 Church fellowship in reconciled diversity among Reformation churches--Leuenberg 1973
What the synod members at the Confessional Synod of Halle in 1937 had so longed for, and what they said about the theological task for the future was largely fulfilled by the Leuenberg Agreement (1973) and the formal constitution the following year of the Leuenberg Church Fellowship. (40) For, in assenting to the Agreement, the participating churches "in loyalty to the confessions of faith which bind them" declare that "the doctrinal condemnations expressed in the confessional documents no longer apply to the contemporary doctrinal position of the assenting churches"; and that "they accord each other table and pulpit fellowship; this includes the mutual recognition of ordination and the freedom to provide for intercelebration." (41)
It is only on first sight that the Leuenberg Agreement may seem to have little to do with the Barmen Declaration and its historical consequences. The roots of the Leuenberg Agreement lie in the third World Conference on Faith and Order in Lund, Sweden, on the theme "Christ and the Church" and the suggestion that came from it to begin doctrinal conversations at European level between Lutheran and Reformed theologians. The Karchenkampf and the Barmen Declaration did not play a formal part in the process which led to the Leuenberg Agreement. The obvious starting point was the famous satis est of the Confessio Augustana (Article 7): "In the view of the Reformation ... the right teaching of the gospel and the right administration of the sacraments is the necessary and sufficient prerequisite for the true unity of the Church." (42)
On second glance, the close relationship is obvious. The hermeneutics underlying the Leuenberg Agreement, distinguishing between "the contemporary doctrinal position" and "the historical doctrinal decisions" or condemnations that divided the churches of the Reformation, (43) links up with the tasks set by Halle in 1937 and the related process of Arnoldshain in 1957. With regard to content, it is immediately obvious that the key sentence of the Arnoldshain Theses on the Lord's Supper (Thesis 4) was taken up almost word for word in the Leuenberg Agreement (cf. Thesis II, 2b and III, 1). Leuenberg's insight that the foundation of the church is not confession, but the Word of God and Jesus Christ acting in word and sacrament, recalls the central statement of the third Barmen thesis. And the distinction between the foundation, shape and mission of the church, (44) which was essential to the Leuenberg process of unity, is very similar to the structure and justification of the Barmen theses (cf. I and II, III and IV, V and VI).
The Protestant world's most successful ecumenical concept can also be traced to Leuenberg when, picking up the term from a programme originally based in the Christian World Communions, the notion of "church fellowship in reconciled diversity" came into general use. It can rightly be deduced from this phrase that unity and diversity are not mutually exclusive, that on the contrary, the diversity of forms and cultures of local and regional churches are part of the richness of the one, true church. The word "reconciled", however, is also a reminder that, for the long-divided churches, growing together also implies sorrow, repentance for the scandal of the division of Christ's body, forgiveness for having sinned against the unity, truth and vocation of the church given in Jesus Christ. The churches that are growing together, confess at the same time, "that guilt and suffering have also accompanied and still accompany the struggle for truth and unity in the Church". (45) Church fellowship in reconciled diversity stands "under the sign of the cross". (46)
This raises the question of what is to become of the continuing confessional identity of the member churches of the Leuenberg Church Fellowship, and how it is to be understood and shaped in a new way. In this connection it is important to remember that, closely related as they are, the Leuenberg Agreement and the Barmen Declaration had a different significance and different hermeneutics. The Barmen Declaration did certainly spark theological conversations on doctrine, but it is not itself the result of such conversations. It is not a concordat or agreement. Rather, it is a new unifying confession of faith of Reformation Christendom in Germany, a "common message to utter" given to the Christians and churches of different confessions after 400 years of separation. Unquestionably, the Leuenberg Church Fellowship is part of the implementation of this new-found unity and truth. But the commitment and "promise" of the Barmen Declaration goes considerably further and has a significance that reaches even beyond the Leuenberg ecumenical fellowship.
3. A "Call to Move Forward" Even After 75 years: on the future of the Barmen Theological Declaration as a unifying and liberating confession of faith for the whole of Christianity
3.1 An appeal to the EKD and its member churches in this anniversary year
In 1952 Karl Barth coined the much-quoted phrase: "Barmen was a call to move forward". (47) Banal as this may sound, "Barmen" is still today a call to move forward. Seventy-five years after the event it seems to me that it is high time that all the member churches and member associations of the EKD opened their ears to this call and gave the Barmen Declaration the space it deserves, not only within their respective constitutions, but also in the life and witness of the regional churches and congregations. This is of course being done in some of the member churches. But unless it happens in all of them, then the EKD's affirmation of the Barmen "resolutions" on behalf of all its member churches and member associations, and its commitment "as a confessing church to put the insights of the Kirchenkampf into the nature, mission and order of the church into effect" will be no more than empty words.
In the new EKD Constitution of 1991 this reference to Barmen in Art. 1 para. 3, unchanged since 1948, is preceded in para. 2 by this notable sentence: "Ecclesial communion as defined in the Agreement of Reformation Churches in Europe (Leuenberg Agreement) exists among the member churches. The Evangelical Church in Germany therefore encourages its member churches to grow together in common Christian witness and service in accordance with the commission laid on them by the Lord Jesus Christ."
On 10 September 1999, the EKD became the 100th signatory to the Leuenberg Agreement, following a decision by its member churches, and the corresponding agreement of synods and the EKD church conference. With all due respect for the Leuenberg Agreement, it is nevertheless surprising that the church fellowship within the EKD is said to pass by way of the ecumenical fellowship of Leuenberg, rather than through the fellowship that has grown up over many long years among the churches committed to Barmen. One can ask whether Barmen is not perhaps still burdened by memories of a somewhat conflict-laden fellowship, before and after 1945, rather than being seen as a new and liberating fellowship of common witness.
In the anniversary year of 2009 it is good to recall the Reisensburg Theses of 1984. Not only did these draw a final line under a difficult history for confessional Lutheranism, they also opened the way for a new assessment and reception of the Barmen Declaration as a common Christian confession of faith. That being said, the new constitution of the VELKD of 3 Match 2007 does not seem to have incorporated this change for, with regard to Barmen, it has not moved away from the well-known minimal reception of 1948: "The rejections expressed there, interpreted by the Lutheran confession of faith, continue to be the standard for the Church's action."
While the VELKD has good reasons to insist on the confessional basis of its faith and action, is it not perhaps time, after 75 years of careful testing and interpretation, to set the Barmen Declaration of 1934, which also had the assent of legitimate confessional Lutheran representatives, on an equal footing alongside the Lutheran confession according to its constitution, the "unaltered Augsburg Confession" and Luther's Small Catechism? This would be a material departure from confessionalism, but not by any means from confessional identity and could only benefit the VELKD's highly valued ecumenical commitment.
This question is meant seriously and, to that extent, it is also a call to the EKD's other member churches and associations of member churches to take similar action. And it is of course especially addressed to the EKD, urging it to encourage this in its own process of strengthening of communion and development into a church, while preserving the respective confessional profiles of its member churches. It would be good if a new process of reception of this kind could help the Barmen Declaration finally to shake off the image that has clung to it of being a bone of contention within the Protestant churches so that it could be received into the ordination orders of the different member churches as an ecumenically unifying confession of faith. Long experience of this in the EKU and now the UEK, have shown that linking the respective confessional identities of the Reformation with the guiding force of the Barmen Declaration generally has a positive effect in raising awareness and pointing the way forward in the practical testimony to the faith by local congregations.
3.2 The contribution of the Barmen Declaration and its tradition of interpretation to the process of unification in the Leuenberg Church Fellowship
The 21st century began with a commitment to the ecumenical fellowship by the synod of the EKD in its statement of 9 November 2000, "One in Christ--Churches on the way to fuller communion": "Thanks be to God: After centuries of working against each other and next to each other, in suffering and blame, the churches of the 20th century have begun a process of reconciliation and have begun to find their way toward one another. And yet, the communion which God desires for all of Christendom on earth has not yet been attained by far. We are convinced: it is time for fuller ecumenical communion." (48)
Some people predicted the start of a new "ecumenical ice-age" for the new century, following the impression left by "Dominus Jesus" and subsequent Vatican documents, with their refusal to recognize the Protestant churches as "sister churches". However, the EKD's statement shows good judgment and perseverance, one might even say a reidentification with ecumenism and a sense of new beginning: "We are Protestant and ecumenical." (49)
As a unifying and forward-pointing Christian confession of faith, the Barmen Declaration can and should play a substantial role in this new ecumenical beginning in the 21st century. How this might be done can already be seen in the remarkable document "A Protestant Understanding of Ecclesial Communion: A statement on the ordered relations between churches of different confessions" from the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany", (50) drafted by the EKD's Advisory Commission on Theology, chaired by Eberhard Jungel and Dorothea Wendeburg, and adopted by the Council of the EKD in September 2001. In the important first section "...The Protestant Understanding of the Church", the central ecclesiological statements of the Augsburg Confession and the Barmen Declaration are consistently and systematically compared and developed under the three headings of "The foundation of the Church", "The form and order of the Church", and "The marks of the true Church". The third Barmen thesis, with its linking of message and order, and its rejection of any outside influence on the form of its message and order through "changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions" is not only quoted with impressive clarity, but also interpreted: "the distinction between the hidden and the visible Church should be understood to mean that the present embodiment of the triune God in the communion in faith requires an adequate outward form with its own unmistakable visible characteristics in the midst of other social structures in this world." (51) The signa ecclesiae vera as set out in the Confessio Augustana are interpreted amongst other things by means of Barmen VI. And the Nicene phraseology of the "one, holy, apostolic and catholic Church" is regularly used, which is likewise in the Barmen tradition.
I see this as a first step towards realizing the wish expressed above under the heading "Appeal to the EKD". But it should be remembered that the Advisory Commission had been instructed "to start from the Protestant understanding of the Church and examine the theological concept of ecclesial communion as practised in the Leuenberg Fellowship as a contribution to the current debates". (52) Strengthened by a general reception of Barmen by all its member churches, the EKD would have the chance--and the duty--to bring the Barmen Declaration, with its pioneering, future-oriented force, into the Leuenberg process of growing fellowship among the churches and the ongoing debates. This linking of confession and tradition could offer a valuable addition to the framework of regular doctrinal conversations and the related consultations.
By the criteria of Leuenberg the EKD can be seen as setting an example for fellowship among churches of different confessions, a "model for church unity". (53) Specifically, the fourth section of the document, on the Evangelical Church in Germany as an "ecclesial communion" states: "No additional measures are needed in order for the EKD to become a church; as it already is a church in theological terms, since an ecclesial communion is a church". (54) However, this raises the question of whether the obvious separation that still exists in terms of church law with regard to "form and order" in each case is appropriate for this common way of being church. To put it differently: I see a danger here that the EKD could content itself with the Leuenberg model of an ecclesial communion in "reconciled diversity" with regard to its own tradition and confession instead of growing closer together in witness and service.
A church united in this way would be well advised to renew its attention to the process of interpreting the Barmen "truths" for today, given the many different challenges facing us at the start of this new century and, most importantly, to link this with the theological work being done by the Leuenberg Church Fellowship.
3.3 A plea for the inclusion of the Barmen Declaration in future dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church
It may seem somewhat bold to attribute ground-breaking significance to the Barmen Declaration in the future dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church. For one thing, the Declaration has played next to no part in Protestant-Catholic consensus talks up till now. Second, the hitherto successful culture of dialogue seems to have reached its limits today, not least because of the document, "Answers to questions on some aspects concerning the doctrine on the Church" (2007), probably intended originally only for internal Catholic use. This once again reaffirms the Roman Catholic Church's claim that the Church in its fullness "subsists" in it alone, and denies the churches of the Reformation the status of "Church in the proper sense".
It seems appropriate in this situation to operate a change of paradigms and shift from a model based on consensus to one based on difference. (55) Is the hermeneutics of "differentiated consensus" (Harding Meyer), as applied, for example, in the case of the "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" to deal with remaining problems, still sound and promising for the future? At any rate, it is logical and in keeping with the new mood of realism, that the fundamental hermeneutical question of differing views of ecumenical goals should again receive greater attention, as this is clearly at the root of the differences that persist in so many different topics on which "growth in agreement" had nevertheless been reached after long years of dialogue.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, once an early pioneer of the ecumenical opening of Vatican II, even to the point of suggesting limited eucharistic hospitality, spoke very clearly after the Ecumenical Kirchentag in Berlin (2003). He said "No substantial progress is possible with the Reformation churches at the present time." (56) Why? Because different ecclesiologies also lead to different conceptions of ecumenical goals. Kasper sees the Reformation churches' model of unity in the form of church fellowship in reconciled diversity as totally incompatible with the Roman Catholic conception of "full visible church communion in faith, sacraments and authority". (57) The Protestant churches justifiably see this as a reminder of the classical Roman Catholic model of ecumenism as return to the fold of the Roman Catholic Church, the "unity of Christ's Church as communion with and under the Pope". (58) But that, surely, takes us back to before the ecumenical advance of the Second Vatican Council?
Although this does make the fundamental differences in the understanding of church and ecumenism admirably clear, things cannot be left at that and a new approach to dialogue is all the more necessary.
In a moving contribution "Standstill or Kairos? The future of Protestant-Catholic dialogue", Harding Meyer called for the dialogue to be continued "on the basis of binding reassurances about what has already been achieved". (59) He said that the consensus resulting from the work of dialogue was relatively unknown in the local churches and congregations, and had been little publicized. He rightly saw the crisis described above as a moment of kairos, allowing the dialogue to concentrate on the "fundamental differences" that have emerged between Protestants and Catholics in the understanding of the Church and the ordained ministry. (60)
The EKD Synod, in its statement, "One in Christ", likewise recalled the document and dialogue programme "Doctrinal condemnations--do they still divide?" (1986), developed by the Joint Ecumenical Commission of the Council of the EKD and the German Bishops' Conference. In this we read: "Today it is possible to say the following: Far-reaching agreement in the interpretation of Holy Scripture, clearer insight about the historical contingency of traditional doctrinal formulations, and the new spirit of ecumenical dialogue, in awareness of the ties linking Christians of different denominational traditions through their faith in the one Lord, have all contributed essentially to the achievement of a large measure of mutual understanding. This understanding is not confined to the fundamental acknowledgement of the one Lord Jesus Christ. It applies also to central themes of Christian doctrine. Today we have to say that a whole series of sixteenth-century condemnatory pronouncements rested on misunderstandings about the opposite position. Others were directed at extreme positions that were not binding on the church. Again others do not apply to today's partner. In the case of a further group, new factual recognitions have led to a considerable degree of agreement." (61)
At this point the document rightly refers again to the "new spirit of ecumenical dialogue", with the awareness that Christians of different confessional traditions are bound together in the faith. This new spirit is still alive today. We can only expect progress at the level of dialogue in face of an impending blockage if this level of lively and passionate ecumenical engagement and common spiritual experience is taken seriously as a fertile breeding-ground for growing church fellowship. Ecumenical fellowship grows from below and appropriate biblical and practical theological clarification of this growth process is called for.
The spiritual vitality of this ecumenical fellowship experienced between Protestants and Catholics has not faded since the Berlin Ecumenical Kirchentag. Witness, in particular, the wide-ranging activities at local, regional and interregional level organized by the Council of Churches in Germany. In most local churches and parishes similar fellowship groups or informal study groups have been set up. Some places have even developed ecumenical centres where regular ecumenical services, events and prayer meetings are held and where many initiatives are encouraged aiming to implement the Charta Oecumenica jointly signed by the churches in Europe. For this new ecumenical beginning "Living tomorrow's church today" is no doubt the typical motto of a post-conciliar (1967) "International Ecumenical Fellowship", which besides focussing on worship and encounter has also, for example, had the courage to work towards a theological declaration on "Eucharistic Sharing". (62) In all these ecumenical organizations, groups and initiatives there is a high level of expectation that responsible theological work will be carried out by the church authorities and the commissions set up by them, and that these will not give up when it comes to the fundamental points of controversy.
The fact that the Barmen Declaration has not so far played any discernible role in this dialogue is largely due to its incomplete reception within the EKD. The majority of Protestant-Catholic dialogues have been Lutheran-Catholic dialogues, in which the Lutheran side scarcely, if ever, brought the Barmen Declaration into the conversations.
Although there has been little internal recognition--by the DEK or the EKD--of the Barmen Declaration as a unique 20th century ecumenical confession of faith, it has been clearly recognized as such from the outside. In 1984 Philip Potter recalled Bonhoeffer's exceptional position in the Germany of that time, when for instance in his essay "The Confessing Church and the Ecumenical Movement" in 1935, on the basis of the Barmen Declaration, he urged that the ecumenical movement as a fellowship of confessing churches should issue "a word of judgement about war, race hatred and social exploitation". (63) Philip Potter himself noted: "It (i.e.Barmen 1934) was undoubtedly one of the major events leading to the formation of the World Council of Churches in 1948". (64) Jan Michalko who gave the welcome speech for the Ecumenical Council of Churches in Czechoslovakia on 31 May 1984, even went a step further: "The ecumenical movement was born here in Barmen in the old Gemarke church". (65)
The important thing for me in bringing the Barmen Declaration into the discussion for the new Protestant-Catholic dialogue that lies ahead is not the confession, and certainly not a new Barmen confessionalism, but the continuing ground-breaking, clarifying force of its "truths". A new chapter should be started in the history of the interpretation of Barmen: an interconfessional chapter which would of course also refer to the texts of other confessions of faith and doctrinal traditions, but which would always focus on the truths to be confessed together.
It quickly becomes clear that this path to establishing consensus and identifying differences is different to that followed by Leuenberg. For the statements of rejection in the Barmen Declaration have nothing to do with mutual condemnations by the churches. Rather, they are a reminder that in taking up contemporary challenges, as we must do, we have to take account of the possibility of outside influence and danger to ourselves, of attacks and temptations. The ecumenical intention of the Barmen Declaration invites the churches as partners in dialogue not to deal primarily with individual controversies, aiming for consensus on these, but to concentrate on the fundamental truths of their being and their faith, their fellowship and their mission.
In comprehensively reviewing and ascertaining the truths of Christianity in this way attention also has to be given to what it is in each case that prevents us from bearing common witness to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, and what does not. And then it would in fact be appropriate to focus any further theological work on the different understanding of the church and of the ordained ministry.
From the standpoint of the Barmen Declaration and the history of its influence so far, the following areas stand out as themes in any such project for dialogue. Let me outline them briefly:
1) The mission of the Church
"The Church's commission, upon which its freedom is founded, consists in delivering the message of the free grace of God to all people ... through sermon and sacrament" (Barmen VI).
In this area, the process under way in Germany to reach agreement on the common task of mission and evangelism, initiated by the Council of Churches in Germany, missio and the Association of Protestant Churches and Missions (EMW) under the heading "On the way to a missionary ecumenism" (66) has already done a considerable amount of preparatory work. The Apostolic Exhortation from Paul VI Evangelii nuntiandi (1974) already set important priorities following on from Vatican II, which are reminiscent of Barmen V "Evangelizing is in fact the grace and vocation proper to the Church, her deepest identity" (EN 14). But a deeper and still more far-reaching agreement between Protestants and Catholics on fundamentals and practical details would be a major ecumenical event! "Delivering the message of the free grace of God to all people" is the church's primary task and a credibility test for the one Christian faith and its witness in an increasingly secularized Germany and Europe.
2) Jesus Christ--the one Word of God
"Jesus Christ as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God..." (Barmen I).
The Christological affirmations made in "Dominus Jesus" (2000) about the uniqueness and universality of salvation in Jesus Christ are widely appreciated, even among Protestants, and certainly link up with Barmen I. The interpretation history of Barmen I throws up many keywords that could prove interesting in Protestant-Catholic dialogue: understanding of Scripture, sola scriptura and resistance of fundamentalism, Christocentricity and the doctrine of the Trinity, understanding of revelation, exclusiveness and inclusiveness with regard to "Israel" and also to "dialogue with other faiths", especially dialogue with Islam.
3) Jesus Christ and the Church
"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" (Barmen III).
From the Protestant point of view this brings us to the crucial question in Protestant-Catholic dialogue: How do Christology and ecclesiology relate to one another? How can the uniqueness and universality of salvation be attributed in one breath to Christ and "to the Church"--as it was in the subtitle of "Dominus Jesus"? Does the fundamental, and so for the church foundational, affirmation "Dominus Jesus--Christ alone is Lord" really stand as such? Or are the attributes of Jesus Christ passed on to the Church, its ministries and its office-bearers?
"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" (Barmen IV).
The fundamental difference in the understanding of the Church, which has cast a shadow over all the themes discussed and the outcome of the dialogue--e.g. the question of eucharistic fellowship--can be most dearly seen in the different understanding of church ministries. Does the founding and renewing action of Jesus Christ "in Word and sacrament through the Holy Spirit" still stand?
No church of Jesus Christ without ministries! No ministries without ordination and orderly calling! No apostolic succession without the ministry of proclamation through preaching and sacrament entrusted to the whole congregation (cf. the Second Vatican Council on the priesthood of all believers). But, from the Protestant point of view, any linking of apostolic succession to the episcopate, coupled with the infallibility and jurisdictional primacy of the Pope, belies the gospel and obscures the truth and unity of the church guaranteed and promised by Jesus Christ alone.
With its third thesis the Barmen Declaration offers a helpful criterion for further dialogue on the subject: The church cannot "abandon the form of its message and order" either to its own pleasure or to outside influences. Its "order" must be in keeping with its message. In this respect, there is still much need of clarification and arrangement among the Protestant churches, and among the churches belonging to the WCC. But, in my view, on the Roman Catholic side, this could also open the door to a new "non-dominating" approach to conversations, following in the line of the communio ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council.
4) Church and responsibility for the world
At this point I refer to the second and fifth Barmen theses, and to the fact that the fifth thesis contains "the first confession-based, defining declaration on the relation of Church and State since the Reformation". (67)
The Council of the EKD and the German Bishops' Conference have issued a plethora of joint declarations on fundamental contemporary ethical issues. For many people, Christians and non-Christians alike, it seems as if this is "the church" speaking, and many expect this practice to continue so that the credibility of Christian witness in our society can be strengthened. The interpretation of the second and fifth Barmen theses has shown that the Barmen Declaration can offer significant guidance in the great questions of the future affecting our time, such as peace, justice and the integrity of creation, but also for the church's witness in an increasingly plural society.
This being so, this proposal for a new start in Protestant-Catholic dialogue is addressed first of all to the Joint Ecumenical Commission of the Council of the EKD and the German Bishops' Conference. "That which separates us is much less than that which unites us"--this comment, which Pope John Paul II also famously used, still holds. "It is time for fuller ecumenical communion." It is time to recognize the Barmen Declaration in a new way as a unifying ecumenical confession of faith!
(1) The declarations, resolutions and motions adopted by the Synod of Barmen, May 29-31, 1934. In: A. C. Cochrane (1957) The Church's Confession under Hitler, Appendix VII, pp.237-247. The Westminster Press, Philadelphia.
(2) In the Weekly "Unter dem Wort" of 10 June 1934; Alfred Burgsmuller & Rudolf Weth (eds) (1998) Die Barmer Theologische Erklarung. Einfuhrung und Dokumentation. 6. Aufl. 1998, p.26. Neukirchener Verlag, Neukirchen-Vluyn.
(3) Burgsmuller & Weth (1998) p.63.
(4) Cf. Wolf, E. (1957) Barmen. Kirche zwischen Versuchung und Gnade, 2nd Edition 1970, p.74. Chr. Kaiser Verlag, Munich.
(5) For a detailed presentation of the history of the reception and influence of Barmen, I would recommend the outstanding study by Manuel Schilling (2005) Das eine Wort Gottes zwischen den Zeiten. Die Wirkungsgeschichte der Barmer Theologischen Erklarung vom Kirchenkampf bis zum Fall der Mauer, Neukirchener Verlag, Neukirchen-Vluyn.
(6) Moltmann, J. (1984) Bekennende Kirche wagen, pp.266-273. Chr. Kaiser Verlag, Munich.
(7) Cf. the Orders or Basic Articles of the Reformed Alliance and the Reformed churches and congregations belonging to it, in which the Barmen Declaration is set alongside the Creeds of the ancient church and the Heidelberg Catechism; cf. Burgsmuller & Weth (1998) p.81 ff.
(8) For greater detail, cf. Weth, R. (1984) "Barmen"--eine okumenische Herausforderung, Am hollandischen und sudafrikanischen Beispiel. In: R. Weth, "Barmen" als Herausforderung der Kirche. Beitrage zum Kirchenverstandnis im Licht der Barmer Theologischen Erklarung, pp.195-208. Chr. Kaiser Verlag, Munich.
(9) Unlike the EKD and the VELKD, the EKU declared its commitment to Barmen in its Order of 1951 within the Basic Order and in conjunction with its commitment to other confessions: "Bound by the words of Holy Scripture, the Evangelical Church of the Union affirms the Theological Declaration of Barmen as a confession of faith, pointing the way forward for the Church in its need and temptation." Burgsmuller & Weth (1998) p.81.
(10) Burgsmuller, A. (ed.) (1981) Kirche als "Gemeinde von Brudern" (Barmen III), pp.99. Gutersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, Gutersloh.
(11) Letter to Eberhard Bethge, 22 May 1967. In: Barth, K. (1981) Lelters 1961-1968, p.250. J. Fangmeier & H. Stoevesandt (eds), trans G. W. Bromiley. W.B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
(12) Huffmeier, W. & Stohr, M. (1984) Barmer Theologische Erklarung 1934-1984. Geschichte-Wirkung-Defizite, pp.47-66. LutherVerlag, Bielefeld.
(13) In: Stephan, H.-U., (ed.) (1986) Daseine Wort fur alle. Barmen 1934-1984--Eine Dokumentation, pp.114-133. Neukirchener Verlag, Neukirchen-Vluyn.
(14) Stephan (1986) p.133.
(15) Cf. for example, the EKU statement "Die Bedeutung der Reich-Gottes-Erwartung fur das Zeugnis der christlichen Gemeinde", 1986, and the UEK statement "Unsere Hoffnung auf das ewige Leben", 2006.
(16) Cf. for example, Weth, R. (ed.) (1998) Was hat die Kirche heute zu sagen? Auftrag und Freiheit der Kirche in derpluralistischen Gesellschaft, p.1. Neukirchener Verlag, Neukirchen-Vluyn.
(17) Huber, W. (1983) Folgen christlicher Freiheil: Ethik und Theorie der Kirche im Hoffzont der Barmer Theologischen Erklarung, Neukirchener Verlag, Neukirchen-Vluyn; Huber, W. (1999) Kirche in der Zeitenwende. Gesellschaftlicher Wandel und Erneuerung der Kirche. Gutersloher Verlagshaus, Gutersloh.
(18) Hauschild, W.-D., Kretschmar, G., Nicolaisen, C. (eds) (1984) Die Lutherische Kirche und die Bekenntnisynode von Barmen. Papers from the International Symposium at the Reisensburg. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Gottingen.
(19) Nicolaisen, C. (1984) Der lutherische Beitrag zur Entstehung der Barmer Theologischen Erklarung. In: Hauschild et al, pp.13-38; a detailed and comprehensive presentation by the same author will be found in (1985) Der Weg nach Barmen. Die Entstehungsgeschichte der Theologischen Erklarung von 1934. Neukirchener-Verlag, Neukirchen-Vluyn.
(20) Hauschild et al (1984) pp.461-467. These were presented in plenary, but were not put to a formal vote.
(21) Hauschild et al (1984) p.461.
(22) Hauschild et al (1984) p.462. Cf. on this Wolf (1957) pp.74ff.
(23) Hauschild et al (1984) p.461.
(24) Hauschild et al (1984) p.464.
(25) Hauschild et al (1984) p.462.
(26) Thus Hauschild & Kretschmar with reference to the concept of confession in the Formula of Concord. Hauschild et al (1984) p.462f.
(27) Niemoller, G. (1959) Die erste Bekenntnissynode der Deutschen Evangelisehen Kirche zu Barmen, Bd. 2: Texte--Dokumente--Berichte, p.150. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Gottingen.
(28) Remark by Hugo Hahn, Dresden. In: Niemoller (1959) p.155.
(29) "Questions to be answered" in Bonhoeffer, D. (1966) The Way to Freedom: Letters, Lecturer and Notes from the Collected Works of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, E. H. Robertson (ed.) Harper & Row, New York/Evanston, p.110; cf. also "The Question of the Boundaries of the Church and Church union", in Bonhoeffer (1966) pp.75-96.
(30) Barth, K. "Wende oder Episode? Gesprach zum 30. Jahrestag det Barmer Erklarung 22. Dezember 1963". In: Karl Barth, Texte zur Barmer Theologischen Erklarung, 2nd ed., M. Rohkramer (ed.) (2004) pp.213-218, 213f. Theologischer Verlag Zurich, Zurich.
(31) Cf. the text by him presented at the Free Reformed Synod in Barmen Gemarke on 3/4 January 1934, "Declaration concerning the right understanding of the Reformation confessions of faith in the German Evangelical Church of the present". In: Cochrane (1957) The Church's Confession under Hitler, pp.230-234.
(32) Barth, K. "Barmen". In: Rohkramer (2004) pp.160-161.
(33) Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte in Quellen IV/2 Neuzeit, H.-W. Krummwiede et al., (eds) 3rd edition (1989) pp.149-150, 149. Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener.
(34) Krummwiede (1989) p.149.
(35) Krummwiede (1989) p.150.
(36) Burgsmuller & Weth (1998) p.78f.
(37) Cf. Markschiess, C. Okumene--Die vielen Abendmahle und die eine Kirche der Reformation. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 8.3.2002, p.43.
(38) Die Arnoldshainer Abendmahlsthesen. In: Kummwiede (1989) pp.175-178. English translation: T. F. Torrance & I. A. Muirhead, (1962) Doctrinal consensus on Holy Communion: with text of the Arnoldshain theses. Scottish Journal of Theology, v.15, No.1, pp.1-35.
(39) Cornehl, P. (2007) Arnoldshain und die Folgen--aus praktisch-theologischer Sicht. epd-Dokumentation, No.52, pp.9-10.
(40) Since 1.11.2003 it has been named: "Community of Protestant Churches in Europe--Leuenberg Church Fellowship".
(41) Agreement between Reformation Churches in Europe. In: W. Huffmeier (ed.) (1993) Konkordie reformatorischer Kirchen in Europa (Leuenberger Konkordie), Trilingual Edition, p.42. Verlag Ottn Lembeck, Frankfurt/Main.
(42) Huffmeier (1993) p.36.
(43) As formulated for the first time in 1966 in the "Schauenburger Gesprachen" and the "Thesen uber das Bekenntnis". Cf. Link, H.-G. (1998) Bekennen und Bekenntnis, p.71. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Gottingen.
(44) Cf. on this, the ecclesiological study adopted by the Assembly of the Leuenberg Church Fellowship in Vienna in 1994, "The Church of Jesus Christ--The Contribution of the Reformation towards Ecumenical Dialogue on Church Unity". In W. Huffmeier (ed.) (1995) Die Kirche Jesu Christi: der reformatorische Beitrag zum o'kumenischen Dialog uber die kirchliche Einheit, Leuenberger Texte No.1, p.85. Verlag Otto Lembeck, Frankfurt/Main.
(45) Huffmeier (1993) p.36.
(46) As Ulrich Kortner rightly says in his book (2005) Wohin steuert die Okumene? p.36. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Gottingen.
(47) Barth. "Barmen", in Rohkramer (2004) p.172.
(48) Eins in Christus. Kirchen unterwegs zu mehr Gemeinschaft. Annex to Kirchengemdnschaft nach evangelischem Verstandnis. Ein Votum zum geordneten Miteinander bekenntnisvershiedener Kirchen. Ein Beitrag des Rates der Evangdischen Kirche in Deutschland, EKD-Texte 69 (2001), p.16. English translation at: http://www.wordalone.org/pdf/kundgebung-2002.pdf. [accessed on 24 March 2009].
(49) EKD Statement, "Eins in Chrisms. Kitchen unterwegs zu mehr Gemeinschaft", p.26.
(50) English translation: A Protestant Understanding of Ecclesial Communion: A statement on the ordered relations between churches of different confessions from the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany: At http://www.ekd.de/english/ 1724-protestant_understanding_1.html [accessed on 24 March 2009].
(51) http://www.ekd.de/english/1724-protestant_understanding_2.html [accessed on 24 March 2009].
(52) Chairman of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany, http://www.ekd.de/english/1724-protestant_understanding_ 1.html [accessed on 24 March 2009].
(53) EKD Statement, "Eins in Christus. Kirchen unterwegs zu mehr Gemeinschaft", p.18.
(54) http://www.ekd.de/english/1724-protestant_understanding_5.html [accessed on 24 March 2009].
(55) See the subtitle of Kortner (2005)--"Vom Konsens-zum Differenzmodell".
(56) Kasper, W. (2003) Kein Grund zur Resignation. Die katholische Kirche und ihre okumenischen Beziehungen. In: Herderkorrespondenz 57/2003, pp.605-610, 608.
(57) Kasper (2003) p.609.
(58) Cf. EKD Statement, "Eins in Christus. Kirchen unterwegs zu mehr Gemeinschaft," p.20.
(59) Meyer, H (2007) Stillstand oder neuer Kairos? Zur Zukunft des evangelisch-katholischen Dialogs". Stimmen der Zeit, p.690.
(60) Meyer (2007) p.694ff.
(61) Lehmann, K. & Pannenberg, W. (eds) (1990) The condemnations of the Reformation era: Do they still divide? p.27. Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
(62) Circular letter from the International Ecumenical Fellowship, October 2006, pp.28-31. The IEF, to which I myself belong, is only one example of many similar groups.
(63) Bonhoeffer, D. (1965) No Rusty Swords: Letters, Lectures and Notes 1928-1936, E. H. Robertson (ed.) p.344. Harper & Row, New York/Evanston; quoted in Potter P. (1984) Barmen--an Ecumenical Response. The Ecumenical Review, vol. 36, no.4, p.423.
(64) Potter (1984) p.421.
(65) Stephan (ed.) (1986) p.214. On the ecumenical influence of Barmen, cf. also Lothar Schreiner (1984) Stimmen aus der Okumene zur Barmer Theologischen Erklarung. In: Huffmeier & Stohr (1984) pp.185-208.
(66) EMW (1999) Aufbruch zu einer missionarischen Okumene. Evangelisches Missionswerk in Deutschland, Hamburg.
(67) Huffmeier, W. (ed.) (1986) Fur Recht und Frieden sorgen. Auftrag der Kirche und Aufgabe des Staates nach Barmen V,, p.61. Gutersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, Gutersloh.
Rudolf Weth was director and theological supervisor of the Neukirchener Erziehungsverin in Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany, from 1973 to 2003. From 1993 to 2005 he was chairperson of the Society for Protestant Theology and lecturer at the Neukirchen diaconal training centre.
 Printer friendly
 Cite/link
 Email
 Feedback
| |
| Author: | Weth, Rudolf |
|---|---|
| Publication: | The Ecumenical Review |
| Date: | Jul 1, 2009 |
| Words: | 11451 |
| Previous Article: | To become permeable to Christ: Elisabeth Behr-Sigel's theological vision. |
| Next Article: | The importance of the Barmen Declaration for the congregation in Wuppertal-Barmen today. |
| Topics: | |