Say It Like You Mean It: Confession of 1967

July 17^th, 2016       “Confession of 1967”         Rev. Heather Jepsen

Summer Sermon Series: Say It Like You Mean It – Confessing Our Faith

2^nd Corinthians 5:16-21 and Galatians 3:23-29

          Today we continue our summer sermon series, “Say it like you mean it” on our Book of Confessions.  We are quite a ways in now, having discussed the ancient creeds, the Reformation creeds, and the Theological Declaration of Barmen from WWII.  This week we continue with a look at a confession written specifically by our denomination, the Confession of 1967.

          Our story begins back in 1910 when the General Assembly adopted a five point declaration that was essential for all candidates for ordination.  All men wanting to serve as ministers in the denomination needed to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, substitutionary atonement, Christ’s bodily resurrection, and the authenticity of Christ’s miracles.  These five points of belief were upheld by the GA in 1916 and again in 1923.

          With the rise of Darwinism, the development of Biblical criticism, and the movement of industrialism in the nation; the church found itself in theological turmoil.  Some began to argue that the five points were not a valid test of faith, and that fundamentalism was not the only path.  By the 1920s there were three different groups within the church: the theological liberals who wanted an inclusive church, the doctrinal fundamentalists who wanted only those who fully adopted the five points, and the moderates who were theologically conservative but valued a united church.  It actually sounds a lot like the church today, 100 years later!

          The famous Scopes trial of 1925 drew negative attention for the church as William Jennings Bryan a famous Presbyterian argued in favor of Biblical literalism.  Although Bryan’s view prevailed at the trial, public opinion was turned against the church.  By the late 1920s the General Assembly had dropped the 5 points of belief in favor of a view of “Christian toleration”.  By the 1930s the fundamentalist arm of the church left the denomination and began calling themselves Orthodox Presbyterians.

          In the 1940s and 1950s a new view of the Bible was emerging in America and around the world.  Called neo-orthodox, this new school of thought centered around the work of Niebuhr and Barth.  The major insight of this movement was that God was not revealed through the infallible words in a book.  Rather, God was revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.  The Bible was a witness of God’s work and the story of God’s people, but it was written by humans and was understood to be fallible.  As the world around them continued to change, this view was heartily embraced by Presbyterian pastors.

          In 1958 the Presbyterian Church in the USA and the United Presbyterian Church of North America merged to form the United Presbyterian Church in the USA.  At the time, the only accepted confessional doctrine of the church was the Westminster Standards.  The uniting GA formed a committee and assigned them two major tasks: to gather together a Book of Confessions for use within the church, and to compose a new modern confession for the denomination. 

          It was a huge undertaking but finally in 1965 the committee came back to the assembly with a Book of Confessions much like the one we have today, and a new confession for a modern era.  Immediately there was controversy.  The new confession spoke broadly on social issues and called the church to take a stand on such things as discrimination and war.  The Presbyterian Lay Committee was formed in opposition to the confession.  They argued that the church should not discuss social ethics or participate in social issues.  They fought very hard against the confession but they lost, and in 1967 the General Assembly adopted both the Book of Confessions and the new Confession of 1967.

          The Confession of 1967 is a wonderful document and I highly recommend it to you for reading.  In fact, I have placed several copies of it in the back if you are interested in taking one home after worship today.  Of all the documents we have studied this summer, this confession is a breath of fresh air in its timeliness and its readability.

          Drawing inspiration from Paul’s writing in 2^nd Corinthians, the confession centers around the theme of reconciliation.  Those who are in Jesus Christ are a new creation and it is through the work of Jesus Christ that God was trying to reconcile us with God.  Christ is that reconciliation between God and humanity.  We are called then as the church to work for reconciliation in our world.  In the world of 1967, broken by war in Vietnam and the strife of the civil rights movement these were powerful words of peace as well as strong declarations of who the church is called to be in the world.

          As I mentioned, there were those in the church who opposed the confession because it took a stand on social issues of the time.  The issues the confession addresses are still points of conflict in our world today.

          The first is racism.  Drawing inspiration from Paul’s letter to the church in Galatia where he declares that all people are one in Christ, the Confession of 1967 states that God created all people equally.  It calls the church to overcome barriers and to break down any form of discrimination.  The confession declares that any congregations or individuals who exclude or demean their fellow citizens are resisting the Spirit of God and will bring contempt upon the faith.

          The second social issue addressed is peace.  The confession calls for peace and justice between the nations and governments of the world.  One controversial sentence requests that “nations pursue fresh and responsible relations across every line of conflict, even at risk to national security, to reduce areas of strife and to broaden international understanding.”  The confession warns against the rise of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and laments the use of resources spent in procuring such items of war.

          The third issue addressed is poverty.  The confession states that “the reconciliation of man through Jesus Christ makes it plain that enslaving poverty in a world of abundance is an intolerable violation of God’s good creation.”  The confession calls all churches and believers to work toward the alleviation of poverty in all of its forms around the globe.  In very strong language the confession declares that “a church that is indifferent to poverty, or evades responsibility in economic affairs, or is open to one social class only, or expects gratitude for its beneficence makes a mockery of reconciliation and offers no acceptable worship to God.”

          The fourth major social issue addressed by the confession is that of sex.  The confession calls for the church to lead men and women into healthy sexual relationships in marriage.  Written in the time of the sexual revolution the confession calls for respect and joy in relationships between women and men. 

          Many women, like me, might be wondering why the confession does not address the issue of sexism more clearly.  Unfortunately the church had been quite slow on that issue and some would argue that it continues to be.  In 1930 the church ordained its first women elders but it wasn’t until 1956 that women were allowed to be ordained as ministers.  While the Confession of 1967 declared the equality of all persons, it did not directly address the need to correct the inequalities between men and women in the church.  That is evidenced by the exclusively male language of the confession, which I find to be its biggest drawback.

          So why do I care?  Well, of all that we have looked at so far, the issues in the Confession of 1967 are extremely relevant and timely in our own world.  It was from this point in time that the Presbyterian Church became a church focused on social justice and working to preach a new vision of the kingdom of God in our world.  There were still barriers to overcome, like sexism and the struggle with homosexuality, but on the whole the church was taking a stand out front of the social issues of its’ time.  The language in the document on racism and the call to end nuclear proliferation are still very contemporary and needed in our world today.  It was this confession that began our denomination’s identity focused on social justice, and that I believe has become what draws many people to the Presbyterian denomination today.

          I will be out of the pulpit for the next few Sundays for some much needed vacation time.  You too, will get a break, as we leave this sermon series behind for a while.  When I return, we will look at the last confession in this Book of Confessions, the Brief Statement of Faith which was written in the 80s.

          Once again, we will close this sermon by declaring our faith.  I chose the section from the Confession of 1967 that addresses racism as that seemed most relevant in our nation at this time.  Let us stand together, and “say it like you mean it!”

 

 

Say It Like You Mean It: Barmen

July 10^th, 2016    “Barmen”           Rev. Heather Jepsen

Summer Sermon Series: Say It Like You Mean It – Confessing Our Faith

John 14:1-7 and 1^st Peter 2:13-17

          This morning we continue our summer sermon series “Say it Like you Mean it” about our Book of Confessions.  We began with a look at the ancient creeds of the early church and then we spent two weeks discussing the Reformation confessions.  This week we move into what is living memory for some of us, the period of WWII.

          This morning we are looking at the Theological Declaration of Barmen which was written in 1934 by a gathering of over 130 clergy and lay people representing Lutheran, Reformed, and United churches.  The confession was written in Germany in the city of Barmen-Wuppertal in direct response to the tensions between church and state in the lead up to World War II.

          As with the other confessions we have studied, there was a lot of history and strife leading up to the moment of writing this declaration of faith.  Germany had a state church for many years but it ceased to exist after the end of WWI in 1918.  The protestant denominations remained though throughout the country.

          As National Socialism began to rise with the power of Hitler, a similar movement was brewing in the church.  Called the “German Christian” movement, this group within the church sought a full embrace of the national socialist movement including its anti-Jewish, anti-international, and racial purity ideals.  By July of 1933 a movement for a new national church, the German Evangelical Church was created and in a series of sham elections among religious leaders, the German Christian movement took over the new national church. 

          Reaction against such a distortion of the gospel was swift and in September of 1933 the Pastor’s Emergency League was formed.  Thousands of Pastors signed on and would frequently read statements from their pulpits denouncing the German Christian movement. 

          The rhetoric increased and in November of that year the German Christians held a rally in Berlin to declare that the German reformation that had begun with Martin Luther would be complete in the Third Reich by formation of a new church, a “mighty, new, all-embracing German national church.”  Dr. Reinhold Krause preached for the cause making clear the ideals for creation of this church including getting rid of “the Old Testament with its Jewish morality of rewards, and its stories of cattle dealers and panders.”  The New Testament was to be purged of all its superstitious passages as well as the theology of the Rabbi Paul.  Talk of a crucified Jesus was to be avoided in favor of talk of a “hero” savior.  Any members not agreeing to the changes were discharged from the church.

          The Pastor’s Emergency League again preached against the German national church, protesting in their pulpits.  The following January, in 1934, the First Free Reformed Synod met and issued a statement against the Nazi leanings of the German Evangelical Church.  The response was swift when a day later the Reich Bishop issued a muzzling order which forbade any public criticism of church administration or discussion of church controversy.  The Pastor’s Emergency League responded by again preaching protest from their pulpits. 

          Things continued back and forth until April of 1934 when the Pastor’s Emergency League created the Constitutional Evangelical Church of Germany and declared that it, not the German Evangelical Church, was the true church of God.  The group knew that there would be no compromise with the German Christian movement or the Nazi regime.  They declared that unity of the German church could only come from God, and could not be forced by false doctrine or governmental decree. 

          In May of 1934, the Synod met at Barmen and crafted the statement that appears in our Book of Confessions today.  The majority of the document was written by now famous theologian Karl Barth.  The document pointed out the idolatry of the German Christian movement’s members who were giving ultimate allegiance to the state, rather than to God.  It also lifted up the Lordship of Jesus Christ above all other sources of authority.  It was from this gathering that the Confessing Church movement was formed, which would struggle against the Nazi regime throughout the war, and who would influence many great pastors including Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

          After the war, Karl Barth said this of the confession he wrote:

“Even it was not a total resistance against totalitarian National Socialism.  It restricted itself to repelling the encroachment of National Socialism.  It confined itself to the Church’s Confession, to the Church service, and to Church order as such.  It was only a partial resistance.  And for this it has been properly and improperly reproached . . . In proportion to its task, the church has sufficient reason to be ashamed that it did not do more; yet in comparison with those other groups and institutions (meaning universities, legal professions, business, etc.) it has not reason to be ashamed: it accomplished far more than the rest.”

          One issue that plays a prominent role in the Theological Declaration of Barmen is the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  This is the idea that no authority is greater than the work of God in Jesus Christ.  We see that in our reading from the gospel of John where Jesus declares that he alone is “the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.”  The German Christian movement was claiming a revelation apart from Jesus Christ.  They claimed that in race, folk, and nation there was an order of existence granted to them by God.  In their race and in their nation, they saw a truth that enabled them to declare that some people, Jews in particular, were not worthy of citizenship or human rights.  The Declaration of Barmen declares this to be false; the only true revelation is Jesus Christ himself, who was a Jew. 

          The other issue, and perhaps one that resonates quite strongly in our world today, is the sin of idolatry.  The German Christian movement had placed devotion to country above devotion to God.  Country and the allegiance it required became an idol.  Rather than being a piece of wood or gold, like we imagine from Old Testament stories; an idol is anything created by humans that we give our ultimate allegiance to.  Idolatry is giving our total commitment to anything that is not God.  We see this everywhere in our lives today, be it a commitment made to money, to power, or simply to our cell phones.

          In our reading from 1^st Peter, we are reminded that faithful Christians accept the role of human authority that we find in government.  But, we also recognize that only God is the Lord of our life.  Only God is worthy of our full allegiance.  It is easy for us to see the mistakes the German Christians made and to write them off as non-Christians, or somehow worse than us.  Yet, I think the subtle creep from patriotism to idolatry is a surprisingly slippery slope.  We too, should be wary that we don’t follow this same path as we live in a country that many want to declare a Christian nation.

          One of the leaders of the anti-Nazi movement within the German church was Pastor Martin Niemoller.  You might not recognize his name but I am confident that most of you will know the quote that he is most famous for:

“In Germany they came first for the communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.  Then they came for the trade unions and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.  Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was Protestant.  Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

          Niemoller was a powerful witness against the Nazis but also spoke eloquently about the role of all people in allowing such an atrocity to occur.  When he was released from Dachau in 1945 he declared “We have no right to pass off all guilt on the evil Nazis . . . We the church failed.”  All Germans needed to repent.

          So, why do I care?  Well, just like before, these issues are as relevant in our lives today as in the time that the Theological Declaration of Barmen was composed.  Many things vie for positon of Lord of our life, not the least of which is patriotism and our love of country.  As folks long for a return of Christian values and to lift up the United States as a Christian nation, we would do well to take a lesson from history.  Few German Christians, when pledging allegiance to the state of Germany, realized what an idol it had become.  Nor could they have imagined the awful turn that such a course would take in human history.  It is good for Americans to love their country, but it is important for Christians to love their God more.

          This week has been an especially hard one for our country, as violence has erupted across our nation.  There are many issues in play from questions of gun control, to the rise of racism, to questions of the use and abuse of authority.  As forces in politics and the media continue to seek to divide us, the people of one country, into separate camps and tribes, confessions like the Theological Declaration of Barmen seem especially relevant.  Who is the Lord of our life this day?  And how do we show that in our interactions with others who share this great nation with us?

          Today we gather around the communion table, and state clearly that Jesus alone is Lord of our life.  In this place we reject the story of a hero Jesus, and lift up instead a picture of weakness, a crucified savior, a man unjustly killed.  At this table we affirm the Old Testament ideal of covenant, and celebrate a new promise of freedom given for us in Jesus Christ.  This table is where our allegiance lies, honoring a sacrifice of body and blood, and pledging to live our lives in the model that Christ has taught.

          Before we gather at table though, we will pause to confess our faith.  In your bulletin insert you will find words from the Theological Declaration of Barmen, declaring our beliefs about the relationship of church and state.  Let us stand together, and “say it like you mean it!” 

Say it Like you Mean it: Reformation II

July 3^rd, 2016        “Reformation II”        Rev. Heather Jepsen

Summer Sermon Series: Say It Like You Mean It – Confessing our Faith

Matthew 28:16-20 and 2^nd Peter 1:19-21

          This morning we continue our summer sermon series “Say it like you mean it” about the Book of Confessions.  We have already discussed the ancient creeds that we share with our Roman Catholic and Orthodox friends, and last week we began our discussion of the Reformation.  Today we continue discussing the Reformation creeds as these documents take up the majority of our Book of Confessions.

          As I have mentioned before, the whole point of this sermon series is for us to become more aware of the history of the church.  We are all comfortable calling ourselves a part of the church; and a part of this church family in particular.  It is important, therefore, that we know the history of the church of which we are a part.  Being a Presbyterian, the story of the Reformation is an important part of the story of our church.

          We talked last week about the first two Reformed confessions in our Book of Confessions.  Those that were here may remember the exciting stories around the formation of the Scots Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism.  Both of the confessions we will discuss today were also formed in the violent crucible that was the Reformation in Europe.

          The first confession that we will look at today is the Second Helvetic Confession.  Helvetic is the Latin word for Swiss, so it comes as no surprise that this confession is from Switzerland.  The Second Helvetic Confession was written by Heinrich Bullinger in 1566.  He originally intended it as a personal confession of faith to be attached to his will upon his death, but he was moved by the plight of Fredrick III to make the confession public.  Those that were here last week might remember that Fredrick III was Elector of the Palatinate in Heidelberg, and was responsible for the creation of the Heidelberg Catechism.  Fredrick ended up on trial for heresy and Bullinger was persuaded to release his confession as a basis for Fredrick’s defense at trial.  It was a good thing too, as Bullinger’s confession got Fredrick exonerated.

          So who was this Heinrich Bullinger and why did he write his confession?  Bullinger was a student of Ulrich Zwingli and a big part of the Reformation movement in Switzerland where John Calvin also played a major role.  Bullinger and Zwingli were good friends and made a good combination of Reformation leadership.  Zwingli was militant for the cause and liked to push the envelope by doing things like serving sausage to folks during Lent, while Bullinger was more calm and pastoral in his leadership style.  Zwingli died in battle, sword in hand, fighting for the Reformation cause, and Bullinger took his place as minister of the great cathedral in Zurich where he served for many years.

          One issue of great importance during Bullinger’s time of service to the church was that of Baptism.  This period of time in Switzerland saw the rise of the Anabaptist movement.  Anabaptist was a name given to many loosely organized groups who claimed that baptism was for adults only and who rejected the idea of infant baptism.  Hutterites, Mennonites, Brethren, and Quakers all trace their roots to the Anabaptist movement.  The Anabaptists spoke loudly against Zwingli and Bullinger in Switzerland because of their support of infant baptism.

          Surprisingly, and I would say horrifically, this disagreement over when baptism should occur led to tremendous violence.  In Zurich in 1525 it was decreed that anyone who was baptized as an adult should be executed without the benefit of a trial!  Many leaders of the Anabaptist movement were thus killed.  Anabaptists were seen as anarchists who were bent on destruction of society and they were persecuted terribly.  By the early 1520s hundreds of Anabaptists were drowned, beheaded, or burned at the stake.  All for their beliefs surrounding baptism!

          Many Anabaptists were peaceful and promoted nonviolence, just as their modern day counterparts often do.  But in 1533 a militant Anabaptist faction arose in the Dutch city of Munster.  The Munsterites, as they came to be called, took over the community and declared that all who refused adult baptism would be banished.  They believed it was the end times and that it was their job to kill all the ungodly.  In May of 1535 they attacked the city hall in Amsterdam and killed the mayor and several citizens.  Other Anabaptists ran naked through the streets announcing the end of the world.  Well, it was the end of the world for them, as the Roman Catholic bishop’s army entered the area and killed every Anabaptist leader, displaying their bodies in iron cages around town.  Talk about a Game of Thrones! 

          The damage to the Anabaptist movement was irreparable and all talk of religious tolerance was over.  This continued to drive a wedge between Lutherans and Roman Catholics against the Swiss Reformers Zwingli and Bullinger who at one time had shared a peaceable relationship with the Anabaptist Swiss Brethren.  The Reformers seemed to be forever pitted against each other.

          It is into this climate that Bullinger wrote his confession.  Bullinger continued to dream of unity between the German Lutheran and the Swiss Reformed churches.  He worked with colleagues to write a unifying confession, the First Helvetic Confession.  It was accepted by the unified Swiss Reformed Church but Luther rejected the document.  It was from this that Bullinger was then moved to write his own private confession, the Second Helvetic Confession that we have today.  The confession is an all-encompassing document and is quite an impressive work when we consider that it was written by one man alone.

          The second confession we are going to talk about today is what is known as the Westminster Standards.  This includes the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Shorter Catechism written for the instruction of youth, and the Longer Catechism which was meant as an aide for preachers.  The Westminster Confession arose from the ashes of the Reformation and was written in 1647 with the goal of uniting England under a Presbyterian system of government. 

           History students will remember that in its own way, England missed the Reformation.  Most of us know the story of Henry VIII, and his struggle to obtain a divorce from Catherine of Aragon in 1531.  Henry created a new national church, the Church of England, and declared himself its leader.  What followed was years of strife as Kings and Queens battled with Parliament for control of the country.  Unity of England and Scotland, as well as of the Reformation movements was desired, and in 1643 the Westminster Assembly was established to write a unifying document.  Over 150 pastors and lay people met for several years to write the confession.

          There were three main groups in play at the time: the Royalist Episcopalians who supported the rights of the kings and an Episcopal style of government with bishops, the Parliamentarian Presbyterians who wanted more power for Parliament and a Presbyterian style of government, and then Oliver Cromwell and his Congregationalists who wanted everyone to be free to believe and worship in their own way.  The whole thing ended in shambles as Cromwell’s army forcefully took over in 1649, killing King Charles and dissolving the Parliament.  The confession was written, but England was a mess!  It wasn’t until the 1660s that order was restored and England settled on an Episcopalian style of government.  The Presbyterians had lost, but the greater church had gained a wonderful theological document.

          So why do I care?  Just like always, the issues at play during the days of the early church are still a part of our lives.  The Second Helvetic Confession addresses the issue of baptism among other things, and many of us still have questions about that today.  In our reading from Matthew, we have what is called the Great Commission.  Jesus tells his followers to make disciples of all nations, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”  Jesus tells us what we are supposed to say, but he doesn’t tell us if we should baptize babies or adults. 

          Our tradition supports the baptism of infants, with the understanding that God reaches out to us before we are even able to respond to God.  Other traditions make the argument that only adults can make a decision of faith, so therefore only adults are eligible for baptism.  Both are solid arguments, and to know that people died for which side they stood on this issue makes it all the more significant.  Religious tolerance is definitely not something we should be taking for granted.

          One issue that was prominent in the Westminster Confession was the authority of Scripture.  All of these differences that we have been talking about in this sermon series really boil down to his one issue.  How do we interpret the Bible and how do we understand its authority?  Differing denominations mean differing interpretations.

          Today in the Presbyterian Church, we still follow the guidelines spelled out in these confessions hundreds of years ago.  Following the advice given in 2^nd Peter, we believe that understanding scripture is a matter of group discernment and not left to the individual.  The working of the Holy Spirit is essential in this act, as where two or three are gathered in God’s name, God is working amongst us.  We believe that one is to use the whole of the story of the Bible to understand God’s message, rather than to remove one line or sentence and make it the most important.  We also believe that the Bible should be studied in earnest, and that all interpretation should fall under the rule of love.  If it doesn’t promote love of neighbor, then it is not an accurate interpretation of scripture.

          So, what do you think?  Where do you side on these issues?  Should we baptize babies or only adults?  How should we work together to understand the words of the Bible in relation to the modern challenges of our lives?  These are wonderful things to think about this week, as you consider your place in a church that has a long history of wrestling with these very questions.

          Next week we will leave the past behind and move into the 20^th century with a discussion of the Theological Declaration of Barmen which comes out of WWII.  We close today with the Declaration of Faith printed in your bulletin.  This comes from the Second Helvetic Confession and discusses how we interpret scripture.  Let us stand together and “say it like you mean it!”