Written in 1934, the
Theological Declaration of Barmen was the response of the Confessional Church, those Christians who had left the official Church in Germany because of Nazi influence. While they represented Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches, they held in common a revulsion at Nazi ideology, and an unwillingness to ignore its corrupting influence upon both the German Church and German people. The primary author of the declaration was the Swiss Reformed theologian
Karl Barth (1886-1968), mentor to German leaders of the Confessing Church like Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
While it is typically folly to compare any situation to that of Nazi Germany, for the German Church certainly faced challenges with few parallels in the rise of Hitler's political party, there remains within the Barmen Declaration a number of truths which transcend the historical moment which inspired its writing. (The words of the Declaration appear below in bold, my commentary in normal font.)
8.04 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. If you find that we are speaking contrary to Scripture, then do not listen to us! But if you find that we are taking our stand upon Scripture, then let no fear or temptation keep you from treading with us the path of faith and obedience to the Word of God, in order that God's people be of one mind upon earth and that we in faith experience what he himself has said: "I will never leave you, nor forsake you." Therefore, "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom."
No matter what circumstances an individual Christian, a local church, denomination, or the Church as a whole, may find itself in; whether that circumstance be one of abundance or scarcity, of peace or persecution, the response of God's people to that circumstance can only be validated or denounced based upon the teachings of Holy Scripture. Let the people of God clamor for leaders who will build their ministry upon God's Word, and may they ignore those who would teach anything contrary to it. I have told my own congregation, on a number of occasions, that as an American Baptist Church with a congregational polity, that they are the ones responsible for testing my sermons, bible studies, classes, blog posts, etc. by the standard of God's Word; and that should I fail to adhere to that Word, that I would expect them to call me on it, to challenge me, and if necessary to remove me from this position of authority in Christ's Church should I refuse to bend my will to that of God's Word. This should be the standard for those who serve the Church in every denomination, whether it be on the authority of a bishop from above, or a local congregation's members, we must demand that God's Word remain the standard. As Barth urged, if we are convinced that the path we tread is the path of faithful obedience to God's Word, let no fear or temptation keep us from following, for we can be assured that God goes with us.
8.08 As members of Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches we may and must speak with one voice in this matter today. Precisely because we want to be and to remain faithful to our various Confessions, we may not keep silent, since we believe that we have been given a common message to utter in a time of common need and temptation. We commend to God what this may mean for the interrelations of the Confessional Churches.
How does the Church speak with one voice when there are so many competing opinions being offered by its leaders? For Karl Barth and the Confessing Church, it was necessary to set aside their denominational distinctions, to come together and hammer out a statement of common belief, and share that message with the world. What will it mean for the barriers that exist between churches when they can find common ground in God's Word in the midst of extraordinary challenges? The answer can hardly be detrimental, and holds promise of great benefit for the Kingdom of God. What are the challenges today that the Church can come together and speak about from God's Word with one voice? Sadly, the growing trend is for 'liberal' churches of various denominations, and 'conservative' churches of various denominations to find common ground with each other
against the positions of their liberal or conservative brethren, thus resulting in a Church that speaks with
two voices, one corresponding to each of the major political parties in the United States. The long-term effects of this alignment are far from clear. {In other words, it is not so much Catholic vs. Protestant or Baptist vs. Methodist anymore, but rather conservative Catholic and conservative Baptist vs. liberal Catholic and liberal Baptist}.
8.15 We reject the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords--areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him.
The Nazis demanded total allegiance, and would not share it with Jesus Christ. Like the Early Church's refusal to worship the Roman Emperor, this led to persecution and martyrdom. Barth was absolutely right in declaring that no segment of our lives, as Christian disciples, are outside of the control of the lordship of Jesus Christ, and that no other authority can supersede our allegiance to God, for any purpose. This idea was front and center at the start of the 20th century, as Nationalism grew steadily throughout Europe, resulting in millions of people viewing themselves as British Christians or German Christians rather than as Christian Brits or Germans. Whatever other allegiances we may have in life, they cannot come first, they cannot be allowed to demand of us things contrary to the Word of God. {And if they attempt to do so, we must resist, as Barth and Confessing Church were doing}.
8.17 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. As the Church of pardoned sinners, it has to testify in the midst of a sinful world, with its faith as with its obedience, with its message as with its order, that it is solely his property, and that it lives and wants to live solely from his comfort and from his direction in the expectation of his appearance.
This is simply an eloquent answer to the question: What is the Church? Notice the radical commitment, a bold departure from what
Dietrich Bonhoeffer diagnosed as the ill of the practice of faith exercised by German Christians: Cheap Grace. A discipleship which costs nothing, which asks little of us, is no discipleship at all.
8.18 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions.
The Church has a divinely appointed purpose and mission. This is not open for negotiation. It cannot allow itself to abandon this calling, nor can it allow itself to be bullied into silence. We are in the business of making disciples. We do this by sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Good News that Jesus died for our sins and was raised to new life for our justification. This message is for everyone, period. This message is to be accompanied by acts of love and charity, by grace and truth. Whatever self-interest, whether power, money, or fame, whatever ideology or political cause would seek to turn the Church from its God-given task, must be rejected. {I may have written a few times about the Church's need to
protect the Gospel from politics.}
8.21 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, apart from this ministry, could and were permitted to give itself, or allow to be given to it, special leaders vested with ruling powers.
The Nazis claimed the authority to appoint the leaders of the German Church, as if the Church were subservient to the state {An arrangement that existed for centuries in the Byzantine Empire with the Eastern Orthodox Church, and one that caused the
Investiture Controversy in the 11th century as Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV squared off against Pope Gregory VII. This episode is one of the portions of Church History highlighted in my class:
What Every Christian Should Know About: Church History}. This same dilemma exists for Christians in China, with the Communist Party insisting upon the right to appoint its leaders, thus driving into unofficial 'underground' churches, those who would not be subject to that illegitimate authority.
8.23 We reject the false doctrine, as though the State, over and beyond its special commission, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the Church's vocation as well.
8.24 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, over and beyond its special commission, should and could appropriate the characteristics, the tasks, and the dignity of the State, thus itself becoming an organ of the State.
Why do Baptists traditionally espouse the Separation of Church and State? For the very reasons cited here: The temptation for the State to try to do the Church's job, and for the Church to try to function as an arm of the State (or control it outright). The State does not function well as an arbiter of our relationship with God {examples of which are plentiful, from the Salem Witch Trials to John Calvin's Geneva burning a non-Trinitarian heretic at the stake:
The dark side of the Reformation: John Calvin and the burning of heretics - by Joseph Hartropp }, nor can the Church function properly as a witness to the Kingdom of God when it becomes enmeshed in the business of temporal kingdoms. How the line is to be drawn between Civil and Church responsibility is a tough one, as is the question of cooperation in areas of mutual interest {For example: the mutually beneficial work of
Mustard Seed Missions of Venango County in cooperation with the Human Services Department of Venango County}.
8.27 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans.
This is the Truth at the core of Barth's statement: The Church serves the will of God, it honors and obeys the Word of God, and it seeks to build up the Kingdom of God. How could any diversion of that effort, and compromise of that cause be tolerated, and how could the Church allow itself to become the tool of any other vision? It seems obvious that the Nazis were not the right ones to hand over control of the Church to, they had the mark of villains from the very beginning. Nor would people within the Church be rushing to be under the authority of the Chinese Communist government, for their stated purpose is hostile to religion. But temptation typically comes in subtler guise. What about using the Church to help 'our side' win an election? What about utilizing the worship service of our Lord to promote a politician or political party? To think that Barth's warnings only apply when dealing with fascists or communists is naive. The Church has a singular mission, the Church has a singular authority, and the Church bows its knee to only one Lord; those truths are timeless.
