The Presbyterian Confession of 1967

If it is true that a manifesto is more appropriate to the summer of 1967 than a Confession, an interesting possibility is raised. Is it possible that committed unbelievers may be of more help to the Church in fulfilling its stated task than many of its members?

The Department of Defense recently circulated a memorandum on the subject of Presbyterians as security risks. The Department decided Presbyterians weren't risks.

For the question even to be raised was to give more credence to Presbyterians as revolutionaries than they deserved; but it was raised, and to trace how it happened throws some light on the conflicts and transformations taking place in America.

What happened was this. The Presbyterian Church in May completed a nine-year process of revising its confessional standards. Under the American equivalent of the Scottish Barrier Act (which guards against hasty ecclesiastical legislation by requiring that changes in church law be approved by a General Assembly, then be sent down to the presbyterians for their approval, and finally be approved by the next annual General Assembly), what is called "The Confession of 1967" was presented to the General Assembly meeting in Boston in May, 1966. It included a phrase that urged the pursuit of peace, "even at risk to national security."

In the year following the first approval, several church officers who were in military service asked military legal officers if subscription to the new Confession would affect their security clearances. Some officers, it is reported, ruled that this could create problems for military personnel.

Defense Memo

Other individuals and some congregations made similar inquiries at the Department of Defense in Washington. Some of them were opposed to the entire Confession and were using the security argument to develop support for their position; others were for the Confession but opposed to this statement; others felt torn in their loyalties between church and state.

In April of 1967 Mr. Thomas D. Morris, Assistant Secretary of Defense, sent the following memorandum on the "Proposed Presbyterian Confession of 1967" to the Secretaries of the Military Departments:

"We have been informed that military personnel and employees of defense industries have been advised that adoption of the subject Confession will jeopardize the security clearance of members of the Presbyterian Church.

"In response to inquiries concerning this Confession, we have, with the advice of the General Counsel's office, informed the questioners that:

"1. commitment to the Confession would not disqualify an individual for a position requiring access to classified information:

"2. from the plain meaning of the language of the Confession we find nothing to suggest that disloyalty to the United States is encouraged; and

"3. the Confession does not identify the United Presbyterian Church as a pacifist group.

"I would appreciate it if you would make these views known throughout your department."

A month later, in Portland, Oregon, the General Assembly adopted the Confession, retaining the "risk to national security" lines. It also adopted a strong Declaration of Conscience against the war in Vietnam, including this statement: "We understand this Declaration of Conscience to be required of us by our Confession of 1967: 'The search for cooperation and peace...requires the pursuit of fresh and responsible relations across every line of conflict even at risk to national security.'"

The statement concluded with, "We must declare our conscience at whatever cost. We recognize that if our military escalation is not reversed, the time may come when those who dissent because they seek peace will be placed under even greater pressure, and that the possibility of significant influence by the church on public policy will have disappeared. Should that time come, we urge our corporate church and our individual church members still to exercise the voice of conscience...."

This oblique exchange between the Church and the Defense Department reflects some of the transformations that are taking place in America right now. The Church spoke its mind clearly; the Department in effect said, "That's all right." And nothing has changed. New political activists are formed by such experiences.

The Church adopted a relevant, contemporary Confession--it included powerful, prophetic lines--and it adopted a strong resolution of dissent and warning about the war in Vietnam. It is a good Confession, both from the perspective of faith and for the sake of the world. But it is too late by two generations, and it took too long to get through the Barrier Act once the decision to formulate it was taken.

Since the first World War, and especially in the last nine years, our culture has moved away from itself. It has been inwardly and externally transformed. But awareness of this transformation's meaning has not developed into the shared consciousness which a Confession requires. Right now is no time for Confessions.

Instead, manifesto and declaratory action seem to be more appropriate for this time. Liturgy and ethic, made articulate in humane and political commitment, are the best inner and outward expressions of the power that is now largely nacent in the Church. The language of "must, if, may, and urge" which is the hortatory language of Confessions written in a time of failing faith, can be transformed into "have, did, shall, and join us." That is the language of manifesto.

The importance of the exchange within the Church and the Defense Department rests partly in the fact that such experiences transform confessional statements into declaratory acts. Polarization occurs. Conflicts develop. People who were silent begin to speak out. Values that people have held intellectually--about justice, truth, love, and compassion--become acts as well as beliefs. People who until recently led quiet and uninvolved lives are becoming political activists. Some are members of churches and others are not. And as the force of their commitments may chance to coincide with each other's and with some formal statement within the Confession, the dynamic qualities of a manifesto become associated with the Confession. Confessional language says, "Everyone should tell the truth" and "There is no moral issue more urgently confronting our church and nation than the war in Vietnam. The hour is late; the church dare not remain silent. We must declare our conscience." The language of manifesto says, "This is the way it is," and "I won't go."

If it is true that a manifesto is more appropriate to the summer of 1967 than a Confession, an interesting possibility is raised. Is it possible that committed unbelievers may be of more help to the Church in fulfilling its stated task than many of its members?

Theology and Ecumenics

The Confession has established a new way of doing and using theology in the church. The church has defined the task of confessional theology as "understanding the gospel." It has broadened the base of historic creeds, catechisms, and declarations to be used as guides to aid in that task, and thus made the discovery of what Presbyterians now believe is both more difficult and more interesting.

Deacons, elders, and ministers of the Presbyterian Church are required to subscribe to the faith of the church at the time of their ordination. The meaning of subscription, however, has been effectively changed. The old form enquired of a candidate for ordination, "Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures?" The reference was to the Westminster Confession of Faith which is now one of the nine symbolic documents in the Book of Confessions.

The new subscription form enquires, "Will you perform the duties of ruling elder (or deacon) in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of the Scriptures, and under the continuing instruction and guidance of the confessions of this Church?" The differences between the old and new forms of the question make clear how the church expects its members hence forth to do their theology. Jesus Christ is to be obeyed; the Scriptures are "the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church catholic"; and the nine confessions are for "continuing instruction and guidance." The elders who enquired about possible jeopardy to their security clearance missed these distinctions.

It is refreshing, after 21 years of ordination, to hear the church say it is "aided in understanding the gospel by the testimony of the church from earlier ages and from many lands." The Westminster Confession fits in its original 1646 context. To see behind Westminster the struggle of the Scots and English for political and ecclesiastical control encourages a new approach to politics today.

Slight faults might be found with the Book of Confessions. One is the absence of any document out of the Lutheran tradition. Heidelberg is German Reformed (1563) and Barmen is German (1934), but one of Luther's catechisms would have been helpful. A second is that no witnesses are included from the continents of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Perhaps a supplemental book with representative liturgies, statements, or documents from non-confessional churches could be put together.

The Scots Confession (1560), the Second Helvetic Confession (Swiss, 1562), the Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647), and the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds complete the Book.

But the Book of Confessions remains open, and this has a theological and ecumenical significance that might be overlooked in the easy tendency to think of the Confession of 1967 as the "new" Confession, replacing Westminster, rather than as one of the nine in the Book of Confessions.

The openness of the Book of Confessions is made clear in a formal statement addressed to candidates when they appear for their ordination: "This Church, under the authority of the Scriptures, and in the tradition of one catholic and apostolic Church...makes such other confessions as are from time to time required by the Holy Spirit."

As the Consultation on Church Union progresses, involving the formation of one church out of the Episcopal Church, the Disciples, the Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ, the United Presbyterian Church, and others, it will probably become necessary to draft a tenth Confession or even to reorganize the function and use of the Book as a whole.

The Barmen Declaration

The Theological Declaration of Barmen, like the Scots and Westminster Confession, involved politics. Barmen illustrates the importance of having an eye for the political and social issues that are close by whenever theological statements are made. Barmen, in Germany in 1934, was the meeting place of the first Synod of the Confessing Church. The Synod said Jesus Christ is the only Word of God that men are to hear, trust, and obey; the Synod condemned the suggestion that there might be any source for the church's proclamation other than revelation.

Standing alone, and not in the context of those gathered at Barmen, these statements sound like typical, orthodox, Protestant argumentation. It would be easy to offend a Catholic with such a statement; he might feel that it denied the validity of tradition in the Church. Such statements would be offensive to a Rabbi, or to a Muslim, a Buddhist, or a secularist. Unitarians and Friends could be upset by such a strong declaration.

Barmen, however, confronted the National Socialist Party, the Hitler Youth, and a group called "German Christians." The German Christians were extremists who combined theological liberalism with anti-semitism and nationalism. Resistance was organized under the leadership of Pastor Martin Niemoeller in the Pastor's Emergency Federation, and at the Barmen Synod the declaration was adopted according to which Jesus Christ is the only Word of God that men are to hear, trust, and obey. The pastors were harrassed, arrested, deported, called into military service, prevented from conducting services, not allowed to train theological students, and their churches were pacified by a government Ministry for Church Affairs. They were harrassed for over 12 years, until the end of the Second World War.

The troubles of the German Pastors and their people in the Confessing Church cannot be compared to the suffering of Germany's Jews. But the Synod made a declaratory statement about whom they would hear, trust, and obey which is one part of the Book of Confessions and the principal model for the Confession of 1967.

The Confession of 1967

The United States of 1967 is not the Germany of 1933; nevertheless, one may worry about the U.S. because of the direction in which it is moving. The Confession of 1967 is not the Barmen Declaration; but the similarities between the two are encouraging.

The purpose of the Confession "is to call the church to that unity in confession and mission which is required of disciples today." In 1958 a drafting committee had been appointed to prepare "Brief Contemporary Statement of Faith." The committee worked for six years. In 1965 it proposed to the General Assembly the Book of Confessions, The Confession of 1967, and the changes in the ordination vows that would be required if the first two proposals were adopted.

Since the purpose of the Confession was to call the church to its contemporary mission, it was not written as a system of doctrine. It doesn't include all the traditional topics of theology. The Confession will be a disappointment to those who are looking for restatements of old doctrines or for discussions of contemporary theological questions. It will disappoint any who would like to find either a theologically liberal or a socially conservative point of view. The Confession is orthodox, trinitarian, and biblical. Its social point of view is more inclined toward humane, political activism and advocacy than toward welfare or control. It seeks peace, but it does not shy away from conflict.

The Confession's theme is reconciliation. It can be summarized this way: "In Jesus Christ God was reconciling the world to himself...Therefore the church calls men to be reconciled to God and to one another." An amplification of this statement, from a section of the Confession titled "The New Life," describes what the church believes its members ought to be doing as agents of reconciliation: "The members of the church are emissaries of peace and seek the good of man in cooperation with powers and authorities in politics, culture, and economics. But they have to fight against pretensions and injustices when these same powers endanger human welfare."

Form, order, institutions, and polity are treated in a section on "Forms and Order." The controlling concept is flexibility of institutional form for the sake of mission in the world. "The institutions of the people of God change and vary as their mission requires in different times and places."

The Church has been practicing this flexibility of form for some years. But now, with the sanction of the Confession encouraging imaginative use of time and resource, there will be more congregations without church buildings and ministries without congregations. The proper movement within a Christian's life, according to the Confession, is the familiar one of gathering and scattering.

Every Christian is expected to gather with others "...to praise God, to hear his Word for mankind, to baptize and to join in the Lord's Supper, to pray for and present the world to him in worship, to enjoy fellowship, to receive instruction, strength, and comfort, to order and organize (the church's) corporate life, to be tested, renewed, and reformed, and to speak and act in the world's affairs as may be appropriate to the needs of the time."

Individual responsibility is emphasized. "Each member is the church in the world, endowed by the Spirit with some gift of ministry, and is responsible for the integrity of his witness in his own particular situation. He is entitled to the guidance and support of the Christian community and is subject to its advice and correction. He in turn, in his own competence, helps to guide the church."

The Religions of Men

One wonders how non-Christians feel--persons of other religions or of no religion--when they hear or read of the things that Christians are planning to do to them. Gathering and scattering, mission, reconciling, fighting, loving--one wonders if the non-Christian isn't wondering what some scattering Christian might try to do to him when he meets one out there in the world.

The Confession has a section on "Revelation and Religion" that puts all religions on the same human level, incuding the Christian religion, and then distinguishes between them all and God's relevation of himself. It says "The Christian religion, as distinct from God's revelation of himself, has been shaped throughout its history by the cultural forms of its environment...The church in its mission encounters the religions of men and in that encounter becomes conscious of its own human character as a religion." The parallels the Christian finds between other religions and his own, it says, means that he "must approach all religions with openness and respect." And since the church understands the gift of God in Christ is for all men, it is therefore "commissioned to carry the gospel to all men whatever their religion may be and even when they profess none."

This understanding of religions, recognizing that they are all shaped throughout their history by the cultural forms of their environments, affirming that each has gifts and insights of value to the others, could be viewed as a sort of double-universalism, or double-talk, or as a creative insight.

The Self and the World

When the members of the church leave their reflection and their gathering to go into the world as "emissaries of peace," they are to "seek the good of man in cooperation with powers and authorities in politics, culture, and economics. But they have to fight against pretensions and injustices when these same powers endanger human welfare."

Members of other religions should not fear meeting a Christian of the kind this Confession is trying to form. The Christian is more likely to engage in conflict with a fellow church member than a member of another religion. But the converse is also true. One ought not to expect favored treatment just because he is of a different religion.

But what is even more likely, when the Christian sets off as an emissary of reconciliation in the world, is his discovery that he too is in the world and a part of its power problem. But self-discovery in the life of another happens and sometimes heals. The Confession says "all men fall under God's judgment. No one is more subject to that judgment than the man who assumes that he is guiltless before God or morally superior to another."

The main thrust of the Confession centers down in its discussion of Reconciliation in Society. The Church declares that race, peace, poverty, and man and woman are particularly urgent problems at the present time.

The observation about moral superiority and the self in the world that needs reconciling and adjusting requires that the Presbyterian Church be described before describing its confessional call to deal with race, peace, poverty, and sex.

The Presbyterian Church's membership is largely white, suburban, middle class to affluent, well-educated, Republican, establishment-minded and property-conscious. It includes racists, militarists, Birchers, and philanderers; it includes supporters of black power, pacifists and peace workers, philanthropists, and celibates.

The church's ministers were estimated a few years ago to be divided about half and half between biblically-grounded, prophetic-minded, change oriented pastors and biblically-grounded, pastorally minded, counselling pastors. Most of them appear to be restless as they face the problems of their people and the needs of our society.

In spite of some of these characteristics of laymen and clergy--because of others--the church came closer to Barmen than Westminster when it overwhelmingly approved the Confession of 1967.

One hestiates to report what the church has said to itself, and to the world, because once the words are written they have to be evaluated for performance and future promise.

Each of the four statements on reconciliation in society closes with a formal religious sanction. "Congregations, individuals, or groups of Christians who exclude, dominate, or patronize their fellowmen, however subtly, resist the Spirit of God and bring contempt on the faith which they profess...Although nations may serve God's purposes in history, the church which identifies the sovereignty of any one nation or any one way of life with the cause of God denies the Lordship of Christ and betrays its calling...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 church comes under the judgment of God and invites rejection by man when it fails to lead men and women into the full meaning of life together, or withholds the compassion of Christ from those caught in the moral confusion of our time."

The church has used strong language: "...resist the Spirit of God and bring contempt on the faith...denies the Lordship of Christ and betrays its calling...makes a mockery of reconciliation and offers no acceptable worship to God..."

Is the church serious? Does it expect its members to begin now to amend their lives, do justly, and love mercy? Does it expect people who hold power in corporations, universities, and governments to listen to its witnesses and respond?

There have been signs that the church, or parts of it, mean what they say. Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense, is a Presbyterian elder. Churchmen have gone to him privately and appeared against him publicly to the nation's policy of escalation. Presbyterians have been in Buffalo, Rochester, Louisville, Chicago, Cleveland, Watts, Delano, Port Chicago, Mississippi...

A few years ago a prominent Presbyterian layman stated publicly that if Presbyterian ministers didn't stop what he called their "socialism," that laymen would stop contributing funds. The layman was reported to have given one million dollars to a right wing organization to make his point. But printed was a public note to the gentleman saying "The Presbyterian Church is not for sale."

I do not know how it will all turn out. There is a ferment in the church--tragic conflict and a crisis of both faith and trust. There is anger within the church. But there is determination also. I have a feeling that ministers and laymen who are commtited to the call of the Confession will continue to give their witness and that the church's contributions and membership will decline a bit.

I do not know whether America can be turned aside from its pride and its madness soon enough. There are increasing numbers, both in and out of the church, who declaring a manifesto for humanity by speaking and acting and organizing. Many of them are young, some are wealthy and are giving generously for the movement for peace, many are poor, some are politicians. As they make their witness against war, poverty, and racism they are confessing my faith. They are my church. I hope my other church's formal declaration of conscience will encourage them and increase the movement