Confessing our faith in the context of economic injustice

Ulrich Möller ¹

Our situation today
What is binding and what is not binding?
What does that mean concretely?
Conclusion

The Warc consultation on Reformed faith and economic justice in Geneva in May 1996 criticized with remarkable clarity and sharpness the way in which the new globalization of the economy results in enslavement and injustice all over the world. It called for an act of repentance as a new beginning: 'We, Christians of the Reformed tradition, have to confess our complicity in the global system and also our insensibility to the victimization of the people...We cannot be silent when so many people are excluded and discriminated against. We are called to resist the mechanism that serves Mammon in the first place and requires both human and environmental sacrifices. We are challenged to search for a system that affirms and promotes life.'²

The Warc-Saarc consultation on the same issue, held in Kitwe, Zambia, in October 1995, goes even further. In its final document, it judges that the global market economy 'usurps the sovereignty of God, claiming a freedom that belongs to God alone. For us as Christians, this raises the question of idolatry and of loyalty to God or Mammon. The idolatrous and dehumanizing nature of the contemporary global economy is seen in the exclusion of Africa and Africans from the human family. This denial of our humanity is a direct contradiction of the faith that we were created by God in God's image.' That is why it is necessary today 'to choose between a coerced allegiance to Mammon or the faithful worship of God'. The Kitwe declaration comes to the 'painful conclusion that the African reality of poverty caused by an unjust economic world order has gone beyond an ethical problem and become a theological one. It now constitutes a status confessionis. The gospel to the poor is at stake in the very mechanism of the global economy today.' Consequently, it calls upon Warc 'to consider our submission that a status confesssionis be declared in the light of the African theological experience', and 'to have a pre-conference on economic justice of member churches from countries of the southern hemisphere to advise the 23rd General Council in Debrecen', which should then 'consider the calling of a confessing movement of the churches of the South and others who are in solidarity with them.'³

Does the issue of economic injustice pose the question of status confessionis? This is a question which Ulrich Duchrow has been raising in his publications since as early as 1986.⁴ In his keynote lecture to the Warc European Area Council in Edinburgh, Scotland in September 1995, Milan Opocenský suggested that 'problems that confront us with the confessional issue' should be addressed within the context of the status confessionis. He defined 'some criteria for declaring a status confessionis' before examining the applicability of the status confessionis category to the issues of racism, weapons of mass destruction, gender, economic justice and responsibility for the environment. Opocenský aims at avoiding an over-hasty use of the term. As examples of appropriate and successful status confessionis declarations, he mentions those issued with regard to apartheid (21st Warc General Council, Ottawa, 1982) and weapons of mass destruction. Concerning the latter, he refers to 'a long process going back to the fifties' in which 'the debate in ecumenical meetings and in peace movements led to the recognition that nuclear armament is incompatible with the confessional stance.'⁵

As far as apartheid is concerned, I basically agree with that view, although the critical question has to be raised whether in the subsequent implementation the position of Warc and those of its member churches which were affected has been sufficiently clear and consistent. The apartheid system has been overcome in South African society, but the church clarification process has not yet reached a stage where the criteria established in Ottawa in 1982 are met by the Dutch Reformed Church, whose Warc membership has been suspended.

The case of weapons of mass destruction is, however, considerably more complex. An intense debate went through its first 'hot phase' in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and a second phase in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and was finally taken up in the conciliar process of mutual commitment to Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation (JPIC). The debate was passionately conducted, especially in the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD). The opposing sides in the 1980s used essentially the same theological arguments as those used 25 years earlier. Neither protagonists nor opponents had learned sufficient lessons from the previous debate, which had petered out without producing any positive results that could be recognized by the church as a whole. Because the churches had failed really to analyse and learn from the course which the first nuclear discussion had taken, the old divisions, patterns of theological argumentation, and dead-ends of church politics returned. There were strong efforts within the EKD to use the antithesis of 'questions of faith' and 'matters of political discretion' to deny that the integrity and unity of the church might be at stake. But when we examine the debate more closely, we can see that the struggle of the Reformierter Bund (Reformed Alliance in Germany) for a binding church witness is an impressive demonstration that to equate 'confessional issue' too hastily with 'status confessionis' is an approach precisely not suited for making headway towards a binding process of confession.

To avoid misunderstanding: in my view, that debate showed clearly that this issue of peace ethics touches the crux of Christian faith. It is an issue that challenges the church in the very heart of its gospel. If the church fails to live up to its responsibility to witness here, it will be denying the gospel. The challenge is at the same time a deeply theological challenge whose ecclesiological sensitivity must not under any circumstances be played down! Yet, it is precisely here that it becomes apparent how counterproductive over-hasty application of the status confessionis term can be if it is intended to enhance church-political effectiveness. Referring to earlier usage of the term along similar lines to legitimize that approach is of no help either. In the 1980s, just as in the 1950s, a lack of clarity in using the term hindered the legitimate concern, contributed to the fact that the discussion failed to get out of certain constrictions, and if anything rendered the necessary binding process of confessing more difficult.

What can we learn from the status confessionis debate on nuclear weapons for the necessary ecumenical process of confessing concerning economic injustice? In my view: first of all to pose our questions precisely.

Our situation today

Because of the global dynamism of economic injustice, more and more people are deprived of decent living conditions and millions of people are being denied a fulfilled life. In view of the threat to life posed by the worldwide adverse effects of the globalization of the market economy, the church will have to consider whether its present witness in word and deed is sufficiently clear and binding to confess faith in God as the advocate of life.

Given the urgency of the situation, the church is called upon radically to change its views and to bear witness speedily and unanimously so that the remaining time can be used for repentance before more and more people perish (particularly in the countries of the two-thirds-world), the very basis for elementary rights of future generations is destroyed, and irreversible damage is done to nature by an unrestrained over-exploitation of natural resources. There can be no doubt about the need for the church to go beyond an ethics of mere discretion to clear church witness against economic injustice. Those who have already recognized this need render a vicarious service to the whole church. Their witness initiates the broad-based process of witness by the whole church that is required. They confront their fellow Christians with their decision and, by their challenge to bear witness, call upon the church as a whole to see church unity more precisely as a unity of faith and obedience. As groups within the church - both locally and worldwide - they invite others at all levels of church life to join in a binding conciliar communication process which aims to achieve the consent of the entire people of God. This process gets its unambiguous and binding character from the fact that positive witness means spelling out negatively the activities and attitudes that contradict this faith.

And yet, the globalization of the market economy is so complex, and requires such a radical change in ideas, that repentance cannot be brought about immediately but only through progressive recognition. We are involved in a transition in which recognition comes only gradually, but we do not have much time to develop a new ethics geared to the challenges of economic globalization.

Both aspects place particular responsibility on those who have already recognized the challenge of confessing, both within the local congregations and within the worldwide ecumenical JPIC process. On one hand, in the light of what they have recognized, they have to anticipate vicariously the confession which is required of the whole church, in order to provide some orientation for the necessary binding quality of the church confession which is desired. This occurs through a new theological recognition of God's commandment and some initial attempts at practical implementation. On the other hand, they have both to maintain their position and to be open for dialogue with protagonists of other views, struggling for common insights so that a broad ecumenical learning process can be triggered - both locally and worldwide.

What is binding and what is not binding?

To what does the binding character which is indispensable in the church communication process refer? It refers to the question as to whether concrete action or inaction is inconsistent with joint questioning and compliance with God's commandment, with belief in God's reign, and with responsibility for all fellow human beings who are affected by the decision concerned. It is only here that the unity of the church is threatened - not by differences which result from different judgements made on the basis of the same fundamental insight and with a view to its practical implementation. After all, there is not just one decision that may be taken to respond to and obey a given specific commandment of God. Rather, the attempt to obey God and fulfil the commandment may lead those who hear it to different, even contradictory decisions. Because there is some leeway of analytical or political discretion that plays a part in determining responses to the commandment, differences in judgement have to be distinguished from differences that clearly show that the very basis of jointly listening to God's commandment has ceased to exist. In addressing their fellow Christians and calling for binding statements, individuals must not focus on their political judgement, exercised in trying to obey the commandment, but rather on the ethical judgement which leads them into concrete action in a given situation.

What does that mean concretely?

The fundamental realization that the globalization of an idolatrous and dehumanizing economy, which throughout the world results in enslavement, injustice and exclusion from participation in the human community, is incompatible with the will of God is one thing. Church judgement with regard to the consequences for current action is another. This requires taking the particular conditions of the specific situation thoroughly into account. Differences in confessing are not necessarily based on the fundamental contrast of confession and denial. They may express differences at the level of insight.

Groups that by confessing and commitment in the face of this challenge of faith and economic injustice call upon their fellow Christians and churches to join in the ecumenical process of confessing are inevitably in an extremely tense relationship with those within the churches who as yet fail to participate in the confessing which is required. Yet, since it is primarily a matter of anticipating new insights and of their application, status confessionis is not, in this phase of the process, a useful category when it comes to overcoming the differences. If we trust in the forces of accumulation instead of our Lord, we deny our faith. If we keep silent in the face of economic injustice and do not resist the human and environmental sacrifices demanded by the present world economic system, we are guilty, as Christians and as church, of complicity with an oppressive system. Metanoia - rethinking our responsibility for economy and justice in the light of our faith - is urgently needed.

The function of status confessionis, however, is to fight for the unity of the church when this is threatened by heresy, and by the fact that those who wish to confess the faith are prevented from bearing witness. Traditionally this act is characterized by rejecting wrong teachings and reaffirming faith, in conjunction with a call to those that do not confess the same faith, or do not confess at all, not to separate from the unity of the church or to return into the unity of the confessing church. In such a situation, rejecting false doctrines and offering resistance to those who suppress the confession which is required is an attempt to call back into the unity of the church those who err.

This is not yet our situation today. It is not primarily a matter of clearly distinguishing confessing the truth of the gospel from deliberately and intentionally denying it by following wrong teachings and deliberately refusing to bear witness as required. Rather, the lack of confession is first and foremost a problem of not-yet-recognizing, linked with the absence of a binding, relevant and at the same time ecumenical peace-ethic, in the broadest sense, which is related to the church's current responsibility in the world.⁶

At the present time, a status confessionis declaration can only hamper communication and impair the openness which the confessing process requires. If ecclesiological verdicts are used to designate differences at too early a stage, the attempt to learn from the elements of truth contained in the position of the opposing side by mutual and critical questioning in the confessing process is doomed to fail. Instead of allowing people to become involved in a communicative ecumenical learning process in which the critical anticipatory learning potential of individual groups within the church can push the confessing process of the whole church forwards, immunization strategies vis-à-vis other positions are reinforced. This applies both to different approaches as well as to the mutual relationship of the different units, groups and levels within the church. The global responsibility of the church requires clearly confessing the church's faith in the kingdom of God in the many different life-contexts and bodies of the church. If, however, a status confessionis is declared at the outset of the process of forming an opinion in the church, the openness of all those involved to embark on a path of dialogue so as to recognize and confess the truth together is impaired.⁷ Although an analysis of the status confessionis debate in the question of weapons of mass destruction in the 1950s shows that a status confessionis came to be declared in a paraenetic/inviting sense rather than a church-disciplinary sense, the reinterpretation of status confessionis tended to be an attempt to overcome problems of the obvious non-applicability of the traditional sense rather than a constructive development of the term in line with its tradition.⁸ The same applies to the debate during the eighties.

Conclusion

I'm afraid that the question of status confessionis, posed too early, may not support but hamper the very necessary processus confessionis (process of confessing) that we are challenged to get involved in. How can we take up the urgent cry of the victims of the present ruling unjust economic order? How can all of us respond adequately to our sisters and brothers from Africa who raise the question of status confessionis now? How can we find common answers adequate to our different contexts, witnessing that the church is challenged to confess or deny the gospel in this critical question? How can we, in Debrecen, strengthen this process within our churches and, at the same time, avoid creating barriers between ourselves which would lead too early into a church struggle that may be necessary at a later stage in the process? I end my reflections with questions, not answers. I do not have the answers. Together we shall have to find them, on our way to Debrecen, at the council and beyond - committed together to confess our faith facing the powers of injustice in our midst.

Ulrich Möller was formerly the ecumenical officer in the Church of Lippe, Germany and is currently the ecumenical officer of the Church of Westphalia

Notes