A great many questions are raised by the theme "confession of faith", but before turning to specific aspects we must first of all emphasize that the central question to be asked at the Ottawa assembly is simply this: how is the church to bear authoritative witness to the gospel today in its words and by its life? The main focus of attention must be on how the church can spread Christ's liberating love in the world today. If the gospel is to make its way in the world, human witnesses are needed who themselves confess Jesus Christ as Lord. The gospel needs disciples who are ready to "fight the good fight" and to identify themselves wholly with the confession of faith borne by Jesus Christ himself. It is in this light that confessions of faith, ie texts which state the essential content of the gospel in a particular situation in a representative way, are to be understood: they are meant to serve the confessing of the faith today. They are to help the church to be a church confessing Christ in more freedom and more faithfulness. Therein lies their legitimacy and their significance.

A. Confession and confessing as understood in the Reformed tradition

To avoid any misunderstanding, it must be stated at once that, in the churches which belong to the Reformed tradition, there is no uniform view of confession and confessing. The situation varies from church to church. Some churches continue to accept one or more particular confessional documents from the Reformed tradition as their official basis, or at least as guidelines for their preaching and teaching. Others have abandoned all ties with the confessional statements of earlier centuries. Others again were never committed to particular confessions even in the past. In considering the theme "confession and confessing", therefore, the individual Reformed churches start from different premises. We must therefore guard against the temptation to generalize about the Reformed view of confession and confessing. Nevertheless it is possible to identify a number of attitudes as being characteristic to a certain extent at least of all Reformed churches.

1. Reformed churches all hold that Jesus Christ is the head of the church and guides it by his word in the power of the Holy Spirit. In listening to him and letting itself be guided by him, the church becomes a confessing church. Reformed churches also agree in holding that the gospel is attested in Holy Scripture and that this witness of Scripture is sufficient in itself and has no need of supplementation. "In Holy Scripture the church of Christ has a complete account of whatever pertains to true instruction about saving faith and a life pleasing to God." In meeting the obligation to proclaim the gospel today, therefore, the Reformed churches will always turn first of all to Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture is the guide to life for the whole church and for every single one of its members. Holy Scripture is central in the worship of the church. In the last analysis, therefore, a confession (in the sense of a written document) can only be the unfolding of the witness of Scripture. It is an instrument through which Scripture itself can speak. It cannot itself become the criterion whereby Scripture is to be interpreted. The confessions of the Reformed tradition leave no room for doubt as to this priority of Scripture. Indeed they point it out explicitly and by doing so point beyond themselves. Scripture, it can be said, needs no interpretative criterion which is not already contained within itself. On the contrary, it is its own interpreter.

2. What were the motives which led to the production of confessions in the Reformed church? The term which immediately comes to mind here is "accounting for". The Reformed confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries were above all attempts to summarize what the Reformed church confessed and taught. Their purpose was to strengthen the witness of the church and at the same time to differentiate it from error. The confession could take the form of a declaration, a catechism or a constitution (one distinctive feature of the Reformed confessions is that they also include statements about the church's true order). But the need for a confession could also arise in order to defend the gospel from betrayal by the church in a concrete situation. The Barmen Theological Declaration of 1934 is an example of this kind of confession.

The confessions of the Reformed church serve primarily as an instrument in the struggle to maintain the gospel in the centre of the church's life. They are used as a basis in preaching, in instruction and in the public debate. In contrast to this, they play only a small part in the liturgy; as a rule they are not recited in public worship.

3. The Reformed churches have always held that confessions are subject to revision. Typical in this respect is the statement found in the Berne Synodus of 1532, one of the oldest Reformed confessions: "But whenever our pastors or any others propose something which leads us closer to Christ and, in accordance with God's word, is more conducive to common friendship and Christian love than the opinion here set down, we will gladly accept it and set no obstacle in the way of the Holy Spirit, who does not lead us back to the flesh but always advances towards the likeness of Jesus Christ our Lord." There are two reasons why a confession formulated in the past always remains in principle open. Firstly, by constantly returning to Holy Scripture we are enabled to discover hitherto neglected aspects; on the other hand, a new historical situation can require us to emphasize different aspects. The two reasons are, moreover, interconnected. In wrestling with a particular historical situation, our eyes can be sharpened for dimensions of Holy Scripture which have previously been left in the background in our preaching.

This is why the Reformed churches regard the confessions of earlier generations as a treasure accompanying them still today. They are aware of the obligation to continue this series of confessions by fresh acts of confession today. As a rule this is also the way in which the ancient creeds of the church, the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, are judged. While the significance of these creeds is usually recognized by the Reformed churches, they are understood primarily as testimonies to a struggle which took place at a particular time in a particular situation.

Given this approach to the confession, it is not surprising that membership of the Reformed family includes even churches which assign no special status to confessions of the past but concentrate all their attention on the act of confessing today on the basis of Holy Scripture. They attach more importance than other churches do to the need for Holy Scripture to speak directly to the contemporary situation. They are also more keenly aware, of course, that confessions are sometimes maintained for reasons which have nothing whatever to do with their actual contents but simply reflect human interests of one sort or another. Confessions can, for example, become the symbol of confessional or political status and be defended for this reason alone.

4. Another characteristic of the Reformed tradition is the plurality of confessions found within it. No particular confession stands out from all the rest so that it might be called in some sense the Reformed Confession. In this respect the Reformed churches differ from the Lutheran church where the Confessio Augustana of 1530 came to be recognized as the fundamental document. Reformed confessions were produced in different cities and in various language areas in the 16th century. None of them succeeded in finding acceptance everywhere. Although there were attempts to formulate a common confession based on the various confessional writings, they had no permanent result. Within the World Alliance of Reformed Churches discussions took place in 1877 and 1925 with the object of producing a common confession but they hardly survived the initial effort. Down to our own time the coexistence of a variety of confessions side by side has continued to be typical of the Reformed churches.

5. Great importance has been attached in the Reformed churches, in recent times especially, to the fact that an authentic confession on the part of the church is always connected with, indeed, occasioned by, a specific situation. It is the church's response to the problems which are inherent in this situation. It has significance for the church in other situations and in other times only because it articulates the gospel in this situation in an exemplary way. That a genuine confession should embody in its title the place and time of its appearance is therefore part of its very essence. A genuine confession is not a theological artifact, therefore. It cannot be drafted by a committee in a vacuum. It originates in an event. It is a spontaneous utterance of the church. It must be felt to be so inevitable, therefore, that the formulation follows the intention of formulating it as "thunder follows the lighting". The example of the Barmen Theological Declaration is often cited in this connection. This has been expressly accepted by certain Reformed churches as an example of what a confession should be; for many of them it provides the model of the confession they will have to make in the future.

6. In the last fifteen years, a considerable number of Reformed churches have produced and adopted confessions or quasi-confessional documents. Some of these deal fairly broadly with problems arising in the proclamation of the gospel today (eg, United Presbyterian Church in the USA 1967, Presbyterian Church in Cuba 1977). Most of the statements were produced in situations calling for a clear directive (eg, Presbyterian Church in Taiwan). A number of churches were compelled by union negotiations to participate in working out a declaration of the faith to be confessed in the united church (eg, Uniting Church of Australia). This plurality of recent confessions is typical of the Reformed churches and is certainly not found to anything like the same extent in other traditions. In many respects it is the faithful continuation of the diversity which has always been a hallmark of the Reformed tradition.

7. It is a basic principle that confessions should be the result of the decision of a synod of the church or at least be adopted by a synod of the church. In matters concerning the truth of the gospel, it is the whole church which has authority and such authority can only be exercised by representative church gatherings. Certainly in the formulation of a confession, the initiative can and perhaps even must lie with individuals or groups. But that the whole people of God must stand behind the confession of faith is part of the ethos of the Reformed church. True, the history of the Reformed church has not always been exemplary in this respect. Confessions have sometimes been forced on congregations by the civil authorities or princes. But such a procedure is not in accord with the understanding of the church characteristic of the Reformed tradition. Confessions are the business of the whole church and the Reformed churches must therefore dispose of structures which make it possible for the congregations to participate both in the discovery of the truth and in decisions about it.

B. Five open questions

If we are to obtain a clear picture of the task of the Reformed churches today, it is not enough simply to enumerate the characteristics of the Reformed tradition. What we need to ask is whether their present understanding of confession and confessing is adequate if they are really to come to grips with the present situation. However impressive it may be in many respects, it undoubtedly displays weaknesses, too. Where are the open questions to which the Reformed churches must address themselves today? Where can they learn from the churches with which they are engaged in dialogue today in the ecumenical movement

1. How are we to think of the authority of Holy Scripture today? The reference made in the Reformed confessions to the Scriptures as source and standard of all knowledge requisite for salvation has lost none of its importance and contemporary relevance. But the question does arise as to how we are to understand in detail this authority in face of recent developments in our understanding of theology. Two problems in particular call for attention here:

The sola scriptura principle can easily induce a view of Scripture which ignores the historical context in which the biblical writings emerged. In virtue of their very history, the Reformed churches are especially prone to adopt a fundamentalist approach to Scripture. The view of the Bible as an inspired book is often taken to mean that it is exempt from historical criticism of any kind. How are we to formulate the Reformation tenet of the authority of Scripture today in view of the obvious fact that the Bible is the result of a complex historical development?
How is Scripture related to the Tradition which began with the coming of Jesus and continues down to our own day and indeed until his return? The Faith and Order Conference in Montreal in 1963 pointed out that the church lives by the proclamation of the gospel handed down to us from the beginning until today. The Scripture itself is witness to this Tradition. If the church is to be able to differentiate between the genuine Tradition and the traditions illegitimately added to it, it must return again and again to the original Tradition attested in Scripture. How far can the Reformed churches endorse this attempt to define the relation between Scripture and Tradition? If they are able to do so, to what extent must the view that the church is constantly born anew of the word of God be criticized?

2. What is the relationship between confession, confessing and the worship of the congregation? We have already seen that the confession plays no prominent part in Reformed worship. While the confessions are there in the background of proclamation, they make no visible appearance in the service of worship.

This leads to the question whether sufficient room is given to the common confession of the apostolic faith in Reformed worship. Is not Reformed worship to a large extent always something created from scratch? Is it not essential to give a permanent place in worship to the regular confession of the central contents of the Christian faith?

One reason, of course, why this regular reminder of the central affirmations of the Christian faith is missing is the fact that the Reformed churches do not celebrate the Lord's supper every Sunday and that the credal utterances of the eucharistic liturgy have not really become anchored in the consciousness of the congregation. Is it not essential, therefore, to strive for the regular weekly celebration of the Lord's supper, also because of the contribution this would make to the common confession of faith by the congregation?

3. The fact that the confessions are in principle open to revision raises the question as to the way the Reformed churches deal today with the confessions of earlier generations. This readiness to produce new confessions can easily mean not merely relegating the confessions of the past to a secondary place but even to complete oblivion. The Reformed churches have relatively little awareness of the continuity of the church through the centuries. They are more inclined to turn towards the future as if the church had to be freshly constructed today on the basis of Scripture.

This poses the question: how can the confessions of the past be commemorated without diminishing our receptivity to new situations? Another very relevant question is what significance the Reformed churches are prepared to attach to the creeds of the ancient church.

4. The diversity of confessions of faith has always confronted the Reformed churches with the question as to how far they are really united in their confession of the gospel.

In view of this plurality of voices, are they really of one mind? Each church must, of course, in the first place confess the gospel in its own special situation. But are the churches not also confronted by certain common challenges to which they must also respond together?

Two things need to be done in this connection:

The Reformed churches must systematically study the confessions which are produced by the individual churches in their respective situations. The declaration of one church concerns all the churches. Agreement among the churches is not something to be taken for granted. It needs constantly to be substantiated. Calvin once expressed this memorably by saying that the fellowship among the churches is to be understood as a pia conspiratio; this fellowship must be maintained in the praxis of the churches.
At the same time, however, the Reformed churches must also study together the questions which confront them all in the contemporary world. It may be that this more intensive joint study will also lead them to issue joint statements on specific questions.

5. The church must be a confessing church. It must in its entirety and in all its members concentrate on the task of confessing the gospel in the world today. But in their present condition are the Reformed churches in any position at all to face up to this responsibility? Are they so thoroughly imbued with the gospel as to be inescapably constrained to engage in such acts of confession? Are they capable of uniting in a synodical procedure with an essentially ecclesial dimension? Or are they so irremediably handicapped by the ingrained individualism of the Reformed churches as to be incapable of bracing themselves for such an effort? If the Reformed church is to meet its present responsibilities it is not only its spiritual life which needs to be deepened; it also needs to reform its structures. The Reformed vision of a synodical, or, we may also say, a conciliar fellowship needs to be embodied in new forms of life and practice.

Is it not incumbent upon the Ottawa assembly to summons all Reformed churches to give an account of their faith, each in its own situation? Is it not essential that an attempt should be made to establish a vital relationship between the churches in this effort to achieve a contemporary account of their faith? Is it not essential, too, that they should try to reach agreement as to the specific questions to which the Reformed churches can offer a common response today?

(Translated from the German)