In the process of confession

Learning experiences from the Protestant debate on nuclear weapons in Germany 1957-1962

Ulrich Möller

Is economic justice an appropriate subject for a status confessionis? That is a question that Ulrich Duchrow has been asking with his publications since 1986.¹ I myself got involved in the international theological debate sparked off by the Kitwe statement² before the Warc assembly in Debrecen in 1997.³ Appraising the concern of the Kitwe statement I affirmed that, in view of global economic injustice, the church was challenged in word and deed to confess its faith in God as the lover of life, Lord of the world and advocate of merciful justice. At the same time I tried to show "that the issue of status confessionis, if raised too early, will prevent, rather than promote the very necessary process of confession."⁴ Speaking against the call to declare a status confessionis on this question at that particular point in time, I urged the churches to enter into a process of confession. In the lead-up to Debrecen this position was received favourably, amongst others by Russel Botman,⁵ and was adopted by a large majority at the assembly as the common line of Warc member churches.⁶

The Debrecen decision on the processus confessionis, however, raises new questions.

• In view of the difficulty of linking up the different theological traditions and contextual approaches of the church, how can a truly comprehensive, binding ecumenical process come about based on mutual recognition and confession in questions of global economic justice and protection of the environment?
• Can such an ecumenical learning and confessing process, starting from such diverse theological traditions and contextual approaches, ever really bring forth a common witness with authority for the churches? Or is it almost automatic that we avoid the necessary struggle for truth with equivocal turns of phrase or confine ourselves to the closed language of confessional formulae that are not open to experience nor available to the different analytical approaches of present day research?
• In striving for binding commitment within our own churches and in ecumenical dialogue, how can we avoid to become unable to see the truth of the other side's position if their line is different from ours?

In order to get on here it is important to focus on the conditions of such processes in the past as precisely as possible in order to formulate criteria for a successful course of the new process we are facing today.

In this regard it may be helpful to cast our glance back to the peace ethical conflicts of the Cold War era. By this I do not mean primarily the discussion in the 1980s that led into the conciliar process for justice, peace and the integrity of creation. In many respects this discussion was a second version of an earlier one. A particularly controversial section of the peace ethics debate - instructive for the Warc processus confessionis - was, in fact, the first struggle around nuclear deterrence in the late 1950s to early 60s.

This discussion, taking place as it did under certain historical conditions, illustrates a process, the way judgements were formed in the church in response to a challenge to confess. It shows what led to the success or failure of such a process. It is a particularly interesting discussion because the then protagonists claimed to be continuing in the tradition of the Confessing Church and the Barmen Theological Declaration - which Ulrich Duchrow has referred to in his contribution - and updating the confession in response to a completely new issue. So I think that working through this debate can help us to learn from the insights gained and mistakes made, and so as to chart a right course today. In this understanding my following remarks are of very limited ambition: they do not claim to present possible drafting proposals for today originated from the debate of the 1950s. They rather try to focus on this debate in a way that enables us to understand its inner dynamics, strengths and weaknesses specifically under ecclesiological perspectives, especially the status confessionis/processus confessionis issue. I hope this may help us today to avoid fallsteps within the process of confession we are striving at vis-à-vis the Warc processus confessionis on Covananting for Justice in the Economy and on the Earth.

The contemporary context of the church's nuclear weapon discussion from 1957-62

Hiroshima ushered in a new era. The beginning of the nuclear age meant that the self-annihilation of humanity and the destruction of natural conditions of life became a real possibility. The scientific discovery of nuclear fission in the -30s, through its exploitation by the military, sparked off an unprecedented potential for destruction that was without limits of space or time. The development of nuclear weapons changed war so fundamentally that the prevention of nuclear war in the atomic age became a condition for the survival of humanity.

The peace ethics debate in German Protestantism after 1945 took place against the backdrop of the cold war. It was marked by controversy about the remilitarization of West Germany and the establishing of a new military chaplaincy system. When in early 1957 the new defence minister Franz Josef Strauss and Chancellor Konrad Adenauer played down the dangers of tactical nuclear weapons in the public at large and seemed to be working towards an imminent nuclear armament of the German army (Bundeswehr), 18 German nuclear physicists of international repute issued a public statement warning of plans to equip Germany with nuclear weapons; they themselves pledged on no account to cooperate in any way in the manufacturing, testing or use of such weapons. The statement, for which Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker was largely responsible, called forth an overwhelming public response. It sparked the first public post-war debate in Germany about questions of military strategy. Heated debates broke out about the possibility or prevention of nuclear. arms, not just in the parliament, also in a rapidly growing extra-parliamentary opposition.

The "query" of the Church Brotherhoods: rejecting weapons of mass destruction and declaring status confessionis

The first reactions to the statement by the "Göttingen 18" were theologically definitive statements by Karl Barth and the convention of the Church Brotherhood(s) in the Rhine, issued around Good Friday and Easter 1957. They marked the actual beginning of the theologica1 debates.These.publicationns shared the conviction that, in view of the unique threat to life and human survival, Christian faith force.d the churches to say a definite no to nuclear weapons and to oppose them in practice. In autumn 1957 these Church Brotherhoods, which had emerged from the ministers' fraternals of the Confessing Church, formed a working group to initiate a process of confession embracing the whole church.

Their first statement of April 1957 focussed on the aspect of public commitment and the attempt to initiate a process of confession that would gradually move towards an official witness committing the church as a whole. When the Brotherhoods later clarified their theological positions further at their famous conference held in Frankfurt in autumn 1958, it was in line with this original attempt of this "Wermelskirchen statement".

At the end of 1957, however, NATO seemed to be willing to create the conditions to equip the Bundeswehr with nuclear armaments, in the context of the alliance structures. At the same time it took practical measures to push this through politically by means of the absolute majority of the conservative Christian Democratic (CDU) government in parliament. Now, the brotherhoods thought, the time had come for a rapid reaction by the churches. In view of their experience in the churches' rearmament discussion they thought they could not wait for the governing bodies of the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKiD) to take the initiative. They were afraid that - as with the Kirchenkampf in the 1930s regarding the Jewish question - the church would not make the required witness on the issue of nuclear threat. They thought it would react too late to be able to contribute to stopping this wrong course of action, which would be such a threat to survival for the whole planet.

Being a dissident minority within the church, the brotherhoods were under pressure to act as fast as possible; they aimed to get the whole church to take a massively clear line that it would prevent the planned nuclear armament at the last minute. They considered an immediate church decision more important than a comprehensive clarification of the related theological problems. This linking of the desired church confessional process with the intent to mobilize for immediate political effect brought the inner-church debate to a head.

In order to achieve an unequivocal church confession the brotherhoods in 1958 sought to force the EKD to take an unequivocal line on 10 theses, by means of a "query" to the EKD synod, the anonymous author being none other than Karl Barth.⁷ They began by asking, "How do we Christians have to respond to the testing, manufacturing, storage and use of atomic weapons?"

After a section substantiating their own answer to this question, they continued: "In our understanding this issue is a status confessionis for the churches."

The 10 theses culminated in the following assertions:

1. 6. The Church and the individual Christian can therefore only say no in advance to a war to be waged as nuclear war.
2. 7. The very preparation for such a war is under all circumstances sin against God and our neighbour, of which no church or Christian can make themselves guilty.
3. 9. We call on all who seriously want to be Christians to reject participation in the preparation for nuclear war, without reservations and under all circumstances.
4. 10. The opposite standpoint or neutrality in this question is untenable for Christians. Both would mean denying all three articles of Christian faith.⁸

The original text framed by Barth went further in its ecclesiological incisiveness and concluded thesis 10 with the proposition:

"Either position would mean denying all three articles of Christian faith and breaking with the one holy universal Church".⁹

With their query to the EKD synod, the accent within the brotherhoods also shifted from the inviting call to make a joint confession to the demand for decision. How Christians have to behave towards the testing, manufacture, storage and use of nuclear weapons, and towards political plans to deploy them, is something the brotherhoods declared to be a matter of status confessionis. An unconditional no was called for on the basis of Christian confession. An opposing position or neutrality on this question was not acceptable for Christians and meant denying all three articles of faith. The EKD synod was called on to endorse the brotherhoods' position or refute its confession. This "query" was coupled with a politically sensational motion calling on the synod immediately to terminate the military chaplains' agreement in the event of the German army being equipped with nuclear weapons.

This put a virtually unsurpassable ecclesiological point on their peace ethical initiative, which substantially contributed to the fierceness of the subsequent church debate. The internal church opponents of the brotherhoods got together, accusing them of intending to split the church and engaging in inadmissible politicking. After that, the argument constantly came back to the problem as to whether the use of status confessionis terminology with a simultaneous change in the traditional status confessionis recognition was legitimate and necessary or an inappropriate burden on the church debate.

Even though the involvement of weapons of mass destruction in state threats to use force was rejected by the brotherhoods as fundamentally incompatible with the will of God, however, they too were uncertain about what to do after the unavoidable no to the recognized wrong course. In the context of an ethic of repentance what steps could lead out of the deadly danger and into ways of safeguarding life? This uncertainty was at the same time the expression of sincerity: in view of the presence of existing arms stockpiles and military strategies the practical question of how to implement the fundamental rejection of nuclear deterrence was dependent on complex political, military and strategic factors. The brotherhoods did not want to get involved in analysing and weighing up these complex factors necessary for the development of practicable strategies - nor could they. Their objection was rather a fundamental call to ban and eliminate weapons of mass destruction. They rightly held it to be going beyond their competence and role to attempt to tell the politicians exactly how to go about achieving this goal.

For me today the question would be: on which level do we have to state a no against the recognized wrong course vis-àvis present globalization? What precisely is the subject of our fundamental theological and ethical stance and what not? And in which regard is this linked to the question of church unity today?

In the question of the connection between confession and church unity, the brotherhoods' argumentation remained marked by the tension between opposing approaches. On the one hand, there was the demand, patterned on the Kirchenkampf, that the church in statu confessionis had to make a clear confession and to reject heresies, even at the risk of division. On the other hand, in view of the challenge of the nuclear age, there was the conviction that a fundamentally new beginning was necessary in theological terms. This way anew overall attitude was to be achieved through getting practice in judging, deciding and taking action.

In this radically new situation the communicative openness needed for such a process made it difficult to link the declaration of status confessionis traditionally with the rejection of heresy. On the other hand, the criterion emphasized by E Wolf - that of the "duty to witness" - was unclear in itself. A more comprehensive justification of this status confessionis recognition would have been required, involving an explicit wrestling with tradition. Only thus would the new interpretation of the concept have been able to form a sustainable basis for the desired process of confession. The brotherhoods, however, did not really achieve this in the follow-up to the debate.

From the "query" to the Frankfurt Declaration, or from status confessionis to processus confessionis

A decisive point was the unexpected outcome of the EKD synod held in April 1958,¹⁰ at the height of the conflicts. In heated clashes, the synod representatives of the brotherhoods refrained from forcing a vote on the "query". After the insurmountable differences had surfaced so clearly in the discussion Synod on April 30 adopted a statement - with no votes against and four abstentions - which basically ran as follows:

"The disagreements existing among us in the assessment of atomic weapons are profound... We shall remain together under the gospel and strive to overcome these disagreements. We pray that God will guid us through his word to a common understanding and decision."¹¹

This jointly worded resolution to stay together under the gospel and to endeavour to overcome disagreements made it completely clear that there could be no analogy between the present conflict and the situation of the Kirchenkampf. Previous plans for a "free synod" proved inappropriate, in the absence of the external preconditions for a renewed recourse to emergency church law. Likewise, the brotherhoods were still free within the church to proclaim the gospel and act according to their confession. On the basis of the synod's commitment they saw themselves, along with their opponents, as being still within a church that was on the move. The final common request of the synod resolution that God would lead them through his word to a common understanding and decision was understood by the brotherhoods as meaning that despite all conflict of standpoints all participants saw themselves as being committed to seek a common, binding witness on the part of the whole church. They also interpreted the decision to strive to overcome the disagreements in a committee as a sign that they were now on the way towards a common church confession. The brotherhoods themselves had to stand the tension between the call to decide (particularly in their efforts to update the rejection clauses of the Barmen declaration) and the call for new recognition (according to the theological expert opinion drawn up by the theology professors close to them). On the way from the EKD synod to the "Frankfurt Declaration" the emphasis of their public position shifted from the provocative ecclesiological extreme of the charge that there was a denial of the gospel and thus a status confession to a justification and clarification of their own initiative in the sense of a pledge to initiate a binding process of confession across the whole church.

During these conflicts Karl Barth made it clear that his 10 theses, a call to opt for confession through unequivocal witness, were not identical with the statement of status confessionis by the brotherhoods, which linked the two. In his view the status confessionis would only ensue if the confessors were prevented from witnessing: "A 'separation' could only come about in synod or otherwise from the other side if it declared the petition in its turn to be 'untenable for Christians' and accordingly adopted church disciplinary measures against the signatories aimed to limit the freedom of church proclamation in the spirit of the petition. Strictly speaking, only then would the brotherhoods find themselves in 'status confessionis'. What would have to happen then would have to be the subject of a new decision which is not a topic for discussion at the moment."¹²

From this perspective, the concept of status confessionis, by now dominating the debate, was increasingly reduced by the brotherhoods to the function of calling on individual Christians to personally commit themselves in the confession process (W. Schweitzer). Furthermore, the brotherhoods laid the basis for recognition within the church through making it clear that their no to nuclear weapons was at the level of fundamental ethical, theological questions, to be distinguished from questions about the practical consequences under given political circumstances.

The intensive discussion process during the Frankfurt conference in October 1958 and in the development of their documents confirms that the brotherhoods actually clarified their own position by listening to the arguments of their opponents. With their Frankfurt Declaration they presented to the whole church the confession to which they saw themselves bound, after renewed examination. At the same time they stressed the character of their witness as being that of an invitation and request to their fellow Christians to join them in endeavouring to get the whole church to witness for peace.

They expressly stressed that there was an "internal church and theological connection with the Barmen Theological Declaration of May 31 1934, the Stuttgart confession of guilt of October 18/19 1945 and the Darmstadt statement of the Reichsbruderrat of August 8 1947 on the political course of our people".¹³

The starting point of the Frankfurt Declaration is the question, "What does it mean to confess Jesus Christ in a world of nuclear threat?"¹⁴

The first thesis of the three-part statement responds by elaborating on Thesis I of the Barmen Declaration. In view of the threatening "powers", in particular in the form of the technology to which people were increasingly become enslaved, there must be no restricting or suspending of the confession of the lordship of Jesus Christ as the head of the church and Lord of the world, certainly not by referring to orders or systems with specific jurisdiction. The first thesis thereby sets itself apart from any placing of natural law principles - whether they be called natural law, the order of creation or preservation, or autonomous laws - above the Lordship of the word of God as revealed in Jesus Christ.¹⁵

Like Barmen II the second thesis focuses on the relationship between justification and sanctification from the angle of fulfilling the mandate to subdue the earth (dominum terrae) that is renewed with the liberating act of justification. It excludes a separation of faith and obedience for all areas of life. The reality of faithful obedience necessitates a certain taking of responsibility by the congregation and the individual in the political field.¹⁶

Thesis 3 links up with Barmen V, showing that the shared responsibility of Christians for the bearers of state power corresponds to the divine purpose of the state as a means of preserving human life. Through proclamation and corresponding action it consists in "reminding it of its mandate to preserve human life, helping it to fulfil its task and preserving it from the abuse of its power."¹⁷ On this basis it outlines the extent to which this active responsibility of the congregation and the individual for the preservation of human life calls for a special confession with respect to nuclear weapons.

"Using weapons of mass destruction as a means of threat and exercise of power by the state can only take place in the de facto rejection of the will of God who is true to his creation and gracious to humankind. Such action is untenable for Christians. A neutral position in this matter, which we recognize as sin, is incompatible with confessing Jesus Christ. Any attempt to justify such action and such neutrality in theological terms becomes heresy, causes temptation and abrogates the will of the triune God." ¹⁸ The connection of the "threat and exercise of power" is in deliberate analogy with the phrase "threat and use of force" in Barmen V. Here the declaration contests the possibility of distinguishing between threat and use of nuclear weapons and allowing this threat to remain a still legitimate political means in the context of a theory of deterrence. The theological content of the controversial 10th thesis of the "query" is reformulated in the 3rd thesis of the Declaration. This is intended to clearly state that the warning of the incompatibility of such action and any neutrality in this matter with Christian confession does not deny the faith of those of other opinions in the church, indeed it takes it for granted. In this sense the warning against nuclear weapons is termed an "invitation to faith in the promise of the gospel". The thesis concludes with a commitment of the signatories to the "commonality of witness and appropriate action".¹⁹

A comparison of the final version of the Frankfurt Declaration with its previous drafts brings out the shift of accent, ranging from the updating of the Barmen rejection clauses to the character of personal commitment by analogy with the declaration of the emergency ministers' fraternals (Pfarrernotbund) in the 1930s.²⁰

The primary self-commitment character of the brotherhoods' confession is clearly expressed in the final sentence of the final version of their statement: "This insight gained under the word of God binds us in the commonality of witness and commits us to take appropriate action."²¹

In the commentary to the Frankfurt Declaration this commitment is, moreover, interpreted expressly by analogy with the statement of the Pfarrernotbund: "We mean this self-commitment in the sense in which the PfarrerNotbund in the Kirchenkampf once committed itself to preserve the witness to Christ and mutual assistance in this service, at a time when the Aryan clauses were a symbol of the attack on God's will over human beings."²²

In the effort to overcome conflicts which followed from the EKD synod of April 1958, the results of the Frankfurt conference as a whole, and particularly its Theological Declaration, mark new progress on the road towards a common church understanding and decision.

The brotherhoods confess that to which they are committed after a renewed examination of the arguments. However, they do this in the awareness that the process of confession will continue to involve a wrestling with the content of the desired confession by the whole church, in conjunction with its opponents in the church. The Frankfurt Declaration is understood as their confession, claiming authority in the church, but not as a "church confession" already achieved in a church consensus.

Further development of the discussion

The longer they waited for the definitive process of church-wide awareness and confession the more the different groupings within the brotherhoods developed in different directions. Some continued to try and place the theological results of the Wuppertal conference of October 1957 ²³ and the Frankfurt conference of October 1958²⁴ on a broader basis within the church, spelling out their consequences through theological statements on current issues of political ethics. Others attempted to achieve an unequivocal stance through repeated topical comments and efforts responding to the situation in political and church life as the east-west conflict proceeded.

The two most important contexts for the nuclear weapon debate in the church were, firstly, the commission of the Evangelische Studiengemeinschaft, an interdisciplinary research group based in Heidelberg, on war in the nuclear age. Its findings, the "Heidelberg Theses" of 1959, were to characterize the ethical debate for decades, until into the 1990s.²⁵ Unfortunately I cannot take the time here to go into this in detail, although it would be very worthwhile.²⁶ Secondly, the EKD synod debate was continued in the committee of the EKD on nuclear questions, which was unfortunately more important in terms of church politics than of substantive theology in that it served the opponents of the Church Brotherhoods as a lightning conductor, without their seriously addressing the spiritual claims of the EKD resolution cited above.²⁷

Not least because the EKD largely withdrew from its church-wide responsibility in this question, by reference to its work in the committee on nuclear questions, established by the EKD Council in November 1958, the actions of those fraternal circles particularly pressing for practical consequences from the Frankfurt Declaration became increasingly radical and non-conducive to communication. They increasingly let their opponents within the church draw the front lines, and in this fixation lost the ability to present their objections as an inviting call to the truth of the gospel. The statements of the brotherhoods were therefore paid less and less attention, being increasingly used only as ideological ammunition in the cold war. The peace church grouping within the brotherhoods finally opted for a genuinely pacifist stance, and formed a new, independent organization.

The church's grappling with nuclear weapons at the beginning of the 1960s finally ended up with contrasting positions existing side by side, largely operating along the lines of old church fronts. There were indications that in view of the unprecedented challenge to church peace witness posed by the nuclear threat to life it would be possible to achieve at least common intermediate goals as part of the whole confessional process. This did not lead any further, however.

One of the external reasons for the inconclusive nuclear discussion was also the changed political situation in the early 1960s when it became clear that there was no question of Germany obtaining its own nuclear weapons, as originally feared. The provincial character of the status confessionis discussion at the time is emphasized with hindsight by the fact that in the resurgence of this debate 20 years later again the issue was the stationing of nuclear weapons on German soil. As in the past the debate was not decided theologically; political changes also modified the emphases of theological discussion. Unlike the earlier church debate about nuclear weapons, the German discussion was now enriched by contributions from the international ecumenical movement which helped to broaden the debate.

Before we come to consider consequences for our process of today, I want us to conclude our review of the debate of the late 50s by presenting one theological position, which for me turned out to be the most consistent and helpful one for our matter:

Helmut Gollwitzer: calling the church into the process of confession

Helmut Gollwitzer, the theologian whom Barth would have preferred to succeed him in his Swiss professorship, had published Die Christen und die Atomwaffen,²⁸ perhaps the most well-known theological contribution to the debate. At the same time he represented the concern of the brotherhoods very independently and thoughtfully in the commission on war in the nuclear age.²⁹ Here he played the role of an outsider, also reflected in his minority opinions. Looking back, however, we can see that his position proved the most sustainable, both from ethical and ecclesiological angles. His ecclesiological approach can be summed up as the "calling the church into the process of confession."

What was his theological approach?

The reality of the peace founded in Christ and promised as the all-encompassing reality for the kingdom of God, he believed, makes it necessary for Christians to affirm their fundamental rejection of a war involving weapons of mass destruction. "We cannot believe and proclaim God's reconciliation with people at the cross of Golgotha today without characterizing the threat of nuclear war as what it is, as an uprising against the reality of reconciliation."³⁰

This confession can, and must, be made the basis of witness by the whole church, regardless of previous and remaining differences between the positions of fundamental Christian pacifism and a conditional readiness to cooperate with state administration of power. It follows from the "duty of the church community to give guidance and advice to the individual and publicly confess the knowledge of the divine command".³¹

The urgency of the fundamental threat to life in the nuclear age demands of the church a rapid witness of encouragement, so that the remaining time for repentance can be used before it is too late. The unprecedented character of the new situation calls for such radica1 rethinking that repentance cannot occur immediately, but only in a process of continuing recognition and confession.³² This process lays special responsibility on those who have already recognized the challenge to confess: in keeping with their recognition they have to go ahead with the confession required of the whole church in order to foreshadow the needed authority of the desired common church confession. At the same time, from their position, they have to struggle in dialogue with representatives of other views, seeking common understanding and the emergence of a joint church learning process. Only when, despite conflicts within the church, there arises a common recognition of the specific topical challenge can there follow a broad-based, common listening to God's command in this crisis, leading then to different possible forms of human response.

The comparison with Karl Barth makes it clear here how much Gollwitzer's understanding of the command and discretionary decisions in characteristic manner also impacts on the question of intra-church communication. For Barth only one specific decision is possible, respectively, by way of obedient response to God's specific command.³³ For Gollwitzer, however, the attempt to be obedient can lead the hearers of the command to make different, even contradictory discretionary decisions. Because the respective discretion determines the answers to the command, the differences arising from the different discretionary decisions are to be distinguished from those showing clearly that there is no longer a basis of common listening to God's command. In urgently appealing to fellow Christians the individual has to focus not on his or her own answer or discretionary judgement formed in obedience to listening to the command, but rather on the command itself that leads to the judgement.³⁴ The commitment essential in church communication therefore relates only to the question of whether practical action is in contradiction to the common seeking and listening to God's command, to faith in God's lordship and the responsibility for all fellow human beings also affected by the respective decision. Only in this case is church unity threatened, but not from the differences arising from the different practical conclusions drawn from discretionary judgements, as long as they were founded on the same basic recognition.

This means that even with the crisis of nuclear threat the main issue is still the common basic recognition of God's command. It is recognized that there is no justification at all for nuclear war, and in the spirit of the Frankfurt Declaration the confession required is that involving nuclear weapons in the use of threatened state power can "only take place in the de facto rejection of the will of the God who is true to his creation and gracious to human beings".³⁵ From this common point of departure there can only be one common goal and one common direction for the required Christian witness. The only thing that can differ is the form of the decision by which Christians respond. In this sense then, non-participation and participation in nuclear deterrence can exist side by side in church community as expressions of possible Christian action. They can do this if they can prove they are a possible form of the basic understanding to which the Christian congregation is called to witness through listening together to God's commands and prohibitions. Non-participation and participation are mutually exclusive options, that cannot be practised by the same person. But on condition that they are understood as contradictory forms of one basic understanding they can recognize one another. They even need the aspect of truth in the option of the other in order to be able to go their own way responsibly. Whether the provisional preservation of nuclear arms and Christian participation in that can really be justified with the only possible argument, that of preservation of life, is something that requires detailed examination. This leads to political judgements that are essential if the church is to form a practical ethical judgement and adopt a situationally appropriate position. Therefore at the level of political judgement the insistence on the "indivisibility of the ethical question" (Helmut Thielicke) would fail to recognize precisely the differentiated connection between ethical and political judgements.³⁶ By contrast with the basic recognition of the fundamental incompatibility of the manufacturing, threat and use of nuclear weapons with the will of God, the church's judgement with respect to the consequences for current action under given circumstances demands close scrutiny of the respective specific conditions and more far-reaching ecumenical learning from one another. Differences in confession then are perhaps less rooted in the contrast between confession and denial, and are the expression of subsisting differences at the level of recognition. Confessing and committed groups that call their fellow Christians into the process of confession in face of the nuclear threat obviously create a situation of utmost tension vis-à-vis those church members still unable to make this required confession. But as it is primarily a matter of anticipating new insight and its implementation, Gollwitzer does not find the talk of status confessionis helpful for overcoming conflicts in this situation. Status confessionis being an ecclesiological concept, Gollwitzer understands it as having its place in the struggle for church unity against the threat of heresy and situations where believers are prevented from witnessing. In this situation, rejecting heresy and resisting those who suppress the required witness is the final attempt to call those in error back to the unity of the church. In the unprecedented crisis of the nuclear age the issue is, by contrast, that of a new recognition and the overcoming of outmoded, wrong views. In the now highly required struggle for common new insights and their implementation within the church Gollwitzer therefore does not use the concept of status confessionis. Here he remains true to the concern already represented in the Kirchenkampf in the disagreement on the question of church membership. In his article "Zur Frage der Kirchengemeinschaft", Dietrich Bonhoeffer put forward the controversial thesis that anyone knowingly departing from the Confessing Church was parting from salvation. Ulrich Duchrow in his contribution mentioned this - however with a different conclusion. Gollwitzer affirmed this view at the time while commenting, "'Knowingly' needs underlining, ie in a clear decision against the confession of the Confessing Church!"³⁷

In his view this category did not include the "neutrals" in the Kirchenkampf. With regard to them it was particularly important to realize "that the church does not draw its borders but runs up against them"³⁸

With the deliberate non-use of this concept Gollwitzer makes it clear that the present phase of struggling to gain acceptance for new awareness within the church should not focus on the question of the limits to possible church membership.

Yet it would have certainly been possible to link up the concern of the Heidelberg Theses aiming for integration with the call of the brotherhoods for binding confession by the church. The position taken by Gollwitzer in the commission and that prepared by W Schweitzer in the brotherhoods and taken up by E Wolf and Helmut Simon in the EKD nuclear issues committee could have led to agreement. On the basis of the confessional rejection of nuclear weapons the brotherhoods did not just say a confessional no to weapons of mass destruction and leave it at that. After the Frankfurt conference it strove to translate its witness into practical action with the goal of achieving a gradual exclusion of nuclear weapons from political planning. However, unfortunately, as we Indicated before, this chance was not realized:

Consequences for the present confessional process

There is no doubt that the peace question in the crisis of the nuclear age has become a confessional issue on which the church's confession or denial is decided.. A comprehensive ecumenical consensus has developed on this question within the present conciliar process. Today it has to prove itself particularly in the question of global economic justice, in the spirit of a biblically comprehensive concept of peace understood as shalom. The ecclesiological concern pursued by the brotherhoods in the church peace discussion at the end of the 1950s is hereby given de facto confirmation by Christians worldwide. Yet this does not apply in the same way to how they used the concept of status confessionis at the time to highlight this concern. The renewed status confessionis debate in the '80s regarding apartheid in Southern Africa and the renewal of the status confessionis declaration in the peace question by the Warc declaration in the renewed nuclear weapon discussion in Germany in the 1980s have made it clear that declaring an issue to be a confessional issue cannot necessarily be equated with declaring status confessionis.

With respect to our concept of processus confessionis today it should be noted, Ihowever, that the option for obedience by individuals and church groups is essential precisely with respect to the desired church-wide confession. Only through the linking of the conflict-provoking resoluteness of anticipatory confessing groups within the church and the quest for consensus within all facets of church life can there ever be a church-wide confessing that does not miss the kairos of the confession, at the same time focusing on the centre of the church and not on its limits.

Our study has shown that precisely the new ethical dimension of the nuclear threat challenging Christian confession makes operating with the theological concept of status confessionis questionable. The confession called for here is not primarily concerned with the rejection of heresy and detecting of false church; it is about a rethink in the light of the gospel that leads to new recognition and thereby enables a new confessing in word and deed. The confession of those who already tread this path would therefore need to be geared to communication, despite all their own commitment. Those who have already pledged themselves to a certain confession must remain in active communication with those fellow Christians who do not (yet) have this recognition and those who think they have found another answer. The goal of this process must be a witness by the whole worldwide church. The declaring of status confessionis can become necessary when the church stubbornly refuses to . give space to the required confession. At the beginning of the confessional process it will, however, do harm to the necessary striving for dialogue as the way forward to a common recognition of truth.

The concept of status confessionis implies that the response to the challenge to confess is primarily given through the exclusion of all that contradicts the confession. This approach based on exclusion is accompanied by the danger of losing sight of what was hitherto possib1e in terms of common witness in the crisis posing a new challenge to confession. In this spirit the particular achievement of Gollwitzer - was the way in which he linked the confrontive unambiguity of an ethic of confession with the shift of ecclesiological perspective to an integrative readiness for dialogue. The leading question here was that of the conditions needing to be fulfilled so that even conflicting position could coexist within the church.

Economic globalization has put the question of economic injustice and ecological destruction on the agenda as being relevant to confession. For this reason the Warc assembly in Debrecen in 1997 was challenged to call on the member churches worldwide to examine their position and state clearly where their final loyalties lay.

In my opinion it was wise of the assembly not to declare a status confessionis in view of this situation and to immediately draw up a kind of confession as a reaction to it. Instead it called for a process of growing recognition, education and confession. At the beginning of this paper I looked into the background to my argument in Debrecen for the processus confessionis, and into the historical expectations suggesting that this approach was ongoing. What have been our ecclesiological findings?

Status confessionis as an ecclesiological concept has its function in the struggle for the unity of the church in face of the threat of heresy and if the confessors are prevented from giving their witness. Traditionally this act is characterized by the affirmation of confession through the rejection of heresy, linked with the challenge to those of different or no confession not to depart from the unity of the church or to return to the unity of the confessing church. In this situation the rejection of heresy and resistance against those who suppress the required confession is the last attempt to call back those in error to the unity of the church. This was the situation in Barmen in 1934 and with the Warc status confessionis decision on apartheid in Ottawa in 1983, to which the answer was the Belhar confession.

It was, however, not the situation in the nuclear weapons debate in German Protestantism. Nor is it (yet) our situation in face of present day challenges to confessing. As in the past, it is still not primarily a matter of setting the confession of the truth of the gospel apart from a deliberate, knowing denial through the emergence of heresies and the deliberate refusal to make the required witness. Rather the lack of confession has been and still is primarily a problem of not-yet recognizing that is related to the lack of a binding, context-related and also ecumenical peace ethic in the brpad sense, embracing ethical questions of global economic justice and environmental protection. As in the earlier argument about the church's peace witness in a nuclear age, what is primarily at stake in the present globalization process is a new recognition, the overco.ming of outdated views no longer useful to contemporary confession and, in particular, a new action by the churches. The churches today are in a dilemma, just as they were back then.

In view of the threat to life through nuclear weapons and today in a new way through the detrimental social and ecological consequences of a global market, the church has to check whether its previous witness in word and deed is unambiguous and authoritative enough to confess God as the advocate of life in the new situation. The urgency of the situation demands a radical rethink on the part of the church and also a rapid, encouraging witness, so that the remaining time can be used for repentance before more and more people (particularly in countries in the two-thirds world) go under, elementary rights to life of future generations are deprived of their foundations and nature is dealt irreversible damage through unbridled depredation. Here it is necessary to achieve an unequivocal confession by the church in the question of global economic injustice. This process will become more unequivocal and ecclesiologically authoritative through the coupling of positive confession with negative points, ie what ways of acting are ruled out in the present situation as we seek to confess the God of life, peace and justice.

However, the process of market economy globalization is so complex and calls for such radical rethinking that the repentance cannot take place immediately, only in a process of ongoing recognition and confession. Our dilemma is that insights mature only slowly in the transition process - but we do not have much time to arrive at a new ethic appropriate to the challenges of economic globalization. At the same time we must distinguish between the expresslon of the basic theological recognition and its possible consequences for contemporary action. It is one thing to recognize that the globalization of an idolatrous and dehumanized economy - engendering slavery, injustice, and exclusion from human community the world over - is incompatible with the will of God. It is another to analyse whether this is an accurate description of reality, and yet another for the church to judge the consequences for action at a given time and under given circumstances. This calls for exact consideration of the respective special conditions. Differences in confession do not then need to be founded in the opposition of confession and denial. They can also be an expression of conflicts subsisting at the level of recognition.

Since it is primarily a matter of foreshadowing new recognition and putting it into practice in this phase of the confession process any talk of status confessionis is not a helpful category for overcoming differences. In this phase the question about the limits of possible church membership should not be central. This is the lesson we can learn from the analysis of the status confessionis debate in German Protestantism from the late 1950s to the early 1960s. That still applies today:

Declaring a status confessionis at this stage in a confessional process would only hinder communication and impair its necessary openness.

If, however, differences are subjected to ecclesiological verdicts the attempt to critique one another in the confessional process and learn from the element of truth in the other's position must necessarily fail. Instead of the acceptance of a communicative, ecumenical learning process, the result will be a reinforcement of immunization strategies against positions that differ from one's own. The declaring of status confessionis at the beginning of a process of forming ecumenical judgements would impede the openness of all parties involved to agree to a dialogue mode, with the aim of recognizing and confessing the truth together.

A confession grows above all from hearing the witness of scripture, hearing that which God's spirit has to say to the present-day challenge to confession. The occasion to confess must make confession unavoidable and the time must be ripe for the convincing clarity of a confession to be found and made public, regardless of possible negative consequences.

The Warc assembly in Debrecen in 1997 emphasized the need for a clear confession. It said that the cry of suffering people and the groaning of creation through the continuing destruction of the environment challenged the Reformed churches to make a confession of faith rejecting and combating these injustices, reaffirming at the same time our faith in the triun God who opens up a new creation in Christ. This affirmation of life, commitment to resistance and struggle for change are today an integral part of Reformed faith and confession.

But precisely this calls for a clear, common insight into the causes of what is happening. It calls for an intensive process of study and prayer within the whole ecumenical community, before the latter can convincingly speak and act and give a compelling witness. That is why the central clause of the decisions of Debrecen is: "We now call for a committed process of progressive recognition, education and confession (processus confessionis) within all Warc member churches at all levels regarding economic injustice and ecological destruction."

In my view it is a considerable step forward in ecumenical thinking that the delegates in Debrecen opted for a processus confessionis in this matter. The assembly believed it was time to formulate a confession of faith that rejects and combats injustice, and at the same time positively affirms its faith in the triune God, who promises a new creation in Christ. If we seriously listen to the cries of the outcast and the groans of the suffering earth we will sense that it was time for the decision of Debrecen. However, we must not start at square one in this process. In listening to scripture and the confessions of those who confessed before us in listening to scripture we can gain fundamental insights for the confession required today.

Debrecen names four levels of action: a."to give special attention to the analysis and understanding of economic processes, their consequences for people's lives, and the threats to creation; b.to educate church members at all levels about economic life, including faith and economics, and challenge them to develop a lifestyle which rejects the materialism and consumerism of our day; c.to work towards the formulation of a confession of their beliefs about economic life which would express justice in the whole household of God and reflect priority for the poor, and support an ecologically sustainable future; d.to act in solidarity with the victims of injustice as they struggle to overcome unjust economic powers and destructive ecological activities."

Different proposals for practical action are submitted to the churches - regarding what they can do themselves and what calls for cooperation with other allies in the struggle against injustice, The recommendations for action do not lead to narrowness and isolation but invite all to join in a committted ecumenical process In.worldwlde cooperation and practical action at the local level we are all called upon to discover the special ways of acting available to us, in order in our context as congregations and individuals to confess the God of life and justice. At the same time, however, we must address the fact that the churches are still at the beginning of a difficult road in many complex questions involving the connection between faith, the economy and justice. The process has a special vision, to which we are especially committed in these days together in Stellenbosch - the vision that in connection with this process the churches could grow into a confession. A confession of God the Father of Jesus Christ, as the lover of life, Lord of the world and advocate of gracios justice. A confession that, going beyond its meaning for the limited context of its origin can convince and liberate human beings in a broad ecumemca1 context. Perhaps in listening together to the experiences of confessing churches in Africa, Latin America, Asia and Europe we can give impetus to the process towards such a confession. That would be my wish and my prayer for the coming days.

Will the further wrestling for such a confession lead to separations? Will a status conf'essini inevitably lie at the end of the road? Not necessarily. At least, not if the process of confession is carried out in the coming years with so much openness and commitment and clarity that the Holy Spirit is not hindered from leading his church into the clarity of confession: One thing is clear. None of us can claim to possess this clarity already. The process would be doomed to fail if we did not use it to ask questions about the centre of witness, focusing instead on the limits to church membership and unity. None of us is in full possession of the truth. But all of us have the promise: the truth will make you free - free to hear the witness of scripture, free to witness in word and deed for God's vision of life for his world, his vision of the sustainable enough for all that excludes no one from life. Thank you for your patient attentiveness!

Notes