The history of the term [status confessionis] is a complex and confusing one indeed, but the term has a quite specific meaning that may or may not be appropriate to our own situation. So, we need to exercise care in using the term. It is easier to accept that, however, when we realize that there are other resources on which we can draw to fight the evils of our time. Not everything rests on proving that we are in the midst of a status confessionis. One does not need a status confessionis in order to confess. Similarly, there are guidelines for Christian life which, even though they are not, strictly speaking, confessions of faith, may be just as imperative for the life of the church.

The original meaning of the term

What does status confessionis mean? The term arises out of the Lutheran struggle during the so-called Interim. The Emperor Charles V, after the defeat of the Protestant Schmalkald League, pressured the Reichstag in 1548 to decree uniformity of practice (the mass) and of authority (bishops) in all churches. Melanchthon and others in heavily Catholic areas of West Germany favoured compromise in "adiaphora" (matters of indifference), as long as they did not threaten the heart of the gospel, which is justification by faith. But Flacius, speaking for a large group in East Germany, where the Lutherans were strong, opposed this interpretation of the situation. He argued that in a case/situation/time of confession/scandal/persecution, things which otherwise might be indifferent are no longer indifferent, neutral, or irrelevant to the confession of faith. Matters of worship or governance that may be indifferent in themselves will become instruments of witness to the gospel, and there are circumstances in which, if there is compromise here, precisely the wrong message will be given. There will be a distortion or suppression of true doctrine (specifically, justification by faith) and a denial of Christian freedom. Ceremonies under normal circumstances may be varied through the exercise of Christian freedom, but once they become linked with "idolatry," they must be suspended because they cause scandal. If their observance is made essential to salvation, it is a denial of the gospel of justification. And if they are imposed tyrannically, there is a confusion between God's rule through the gospel and God's rule through secular powers.

This doctrine entered the Lutheran Formula of Concord, which states in both the Epitome of 1576, art. 10, and the Solid Declaration of 1577, art. 10, that in a case or situation of confession, when there is an attempt to return to abandoned practices that are in themselves indifferent, the church's confession will be "clear and steadfast," "godly and frank," only if it refuses such practices. A parallel is drawn with Paul, who made many concessions to those who were "weak in faith" (Rom 14.6; 1 Cor 10.28-29), but when points of ceremony (food and drink, circumcision feast days) were made essentials of the faith, he denounced them (Gal. 2:3-5, 5:1-12; cf. Col. 2:16; I Tim. 4:1-2). And he even "resisted" Peter and Barnabas when they compromised the gospel of justification (Gal. 2:11-21). In such a situation, therefore, one is no longer dealing with indifferent externals but with "scandals to the faith" and violations of Christian liberty.

The term status confessionis, and the doctrine associated with it, belong to the Lutheran tradition. The Reformed never had occasion to take precisely the same stand. Although Calvin and Farel had been expelled from Geneva in 1538 when they refused to follow the ceremonies imposed from Bern, Calvin was able, after being invited back to Geneva, to maintain sufficient freedom for the church, and gain sufficient support from the magistrates, to avoid the kind of crisis that called forth the Lutheran doctrine of status confessionis. The views of Flacius did have a direct impact on the English Reformation, however, through English exiles on the Continent and Continental reformers fleeing to England. In the controversy over vestments and other ceremonies imposed by the Crown, the Puritan party took a position essentially the same as Flacius'. And Calvin himself took a keen interest in the controversy between Flacius and Melanchthon, urging his long-time associate, Melanchthon, to take a firmer stand, to spill more ink when others were spilling their blood. The Lutherans' stand was also noted and affirmed by Bullinger in a cryptic statement in the Second Helvetic Confession (chapter 27): "When things indifferent are wrested to the confession of faith (rapiuntur ad fidei confessionem), they cease to be free". In all these cases, status confessionis has to do not primarily with the content of faith, which is established in other ways, but with the mode of its confession.

The present use of the term

In the course of time, the meaning of the term status confessionis has been expanded considerably. When a status confessionis is declared today, what is proclaimed is that, in view of a particular situation, a specific, essential aspect of the gospel must at the moment be vigorously called to mind. The declaration of status confessionis becomes necessary when the integrity of the proclamation of the gospel is at stake. It points to a specific aspect of the gospel, and declares that, in this particular situation and for this particular time, that aspect of the gospel can under no circumstances be neglected or denied, without calling into question altogether the proclamation of the gospel. It also points to the fact that, on this particular issue, all churches - even those which are not directly affected by the challenge - must join in this act of confessing.

This use of the term status confessionis goes beyond its original meaning. The declaration of status confessionis no longer refers only to questions which, in themselves, are not part of the church's confession, but which in a particular situation must be assigned the rank of confession in order to avoid any misunderstanding. Rather, in the present usage, the declaration of status confessionis serves much more the purpose of creating space for the gospel to become manifest in a situation of confusion. It underlines an affirmation which is central to the confession of the church. It calls, within a specific situation, for a clear decision for the truth.

Both with the original use of the term and with its present, expanded meaning, the issue is to make clear the implications of the confession of Jesus Christ. However, declaring a status confessionis is not the only way for the church to make such a confession, or to bring to light its implications for a particular time and place.

The various ways of confessing the gospel

We might find that an essential truth must be stated now and with special force because of current circumstances, or that certain things which could be tolerated in the past have become intolerable, because time, which should have been used for "repentance and amendment of life," has run out. The mode of response may be a clue to the church's perception of the situation. In the case of apartheid, both the Lutheran World Federation (1977) and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (1982) declared it a heresy, and churches which supported it were suspended from membership. In the case of nuclear weapons, the Dutch Reformed Church and the Reformed Alliance of West Germany have declared them incompatible with true faith in God. Here, however, there was no suspension from membership, no exclusion, but rather a declaration of faith and an invitation to further discussion and discernment. There are some who demand now a new "confessing church," in which certain points of confession become definitive; and this poses the procedural question how existing denominations can be transformed or a new church can come into being. But a more pluralistic approach is also possible. In fact, we already have something like a "confessing response" in the divestment campaign, the sanctuary movement, or the pledge of resistance to US military intervention in Central America.

The same line of reflection is pertinent to the other issue that has been brought so forcefully to our attention in recent decades - the poverty, misery, and exploitation, especially in the third world, that results from east-west competition, a luxury of the north that wastes resources to the detriment of the south. We in the US bear a special responsibility when our government has built up armed forces at the expense of domestic programmes, muted the advocacy of human rights in other countries, and tied foreign aid more closely than ever to the aims of empire. The concern for energy conservation, which was so strong in 1973 and again in 1978-80, is gone. Now we are being urged to consider the Persian Gulf vital to our national security so that consumers can buy cheaper gas at the pump. Our multinational corporations are closing down steel mills and auto plants, knitting mills and garment factories and shoe factories, so that jobs can be exported to dictatorships with low wages, sweat-shop working conditions, and negligible rights for organized labour. And all of this is said to be good for us as individual consumers and collectively for "the economy." It is one thing to discuss such issues in the forum of political debate, on the assumption that political life will be open toward truth and moral discernment and wisdom. It is another thing to find that certain values, which may be politically neutral in and of themselves, have become an abomination when they are placed at the top of the national agenda and are insisted on at the expense of all other values, and when the advocacy of other values - human rights, justice, self-determination, and economic empowerment - is indicted as part of a communist conspiracy.

To declare a status confessionis is to say that time has run out, that toleration has reached its limits, that a line must be drawn. It is to say that the time is "an evil time" (Amos 5.13), but one in which we may no longer keep a prudent silence. It is to acknowledge that scandals must come, but to declare woe to those through whom they come (Mt 18.7). It is to say that an emergency situation has been imposed upon the church by others, and that a response is required by faithfulness. It is by its very character a risky judgement, for it deals with historical contingencies, saying that what would remain open under other circumstances is no longer open.

But those who wish to respond to our current situation with forceful denunciations and appeals to Christian conscience have more than this one resource on which to draw. It may be enough to confess the faith or call for obedience with new clarity and pointedness - and even this will be viewed by many, quite rightly, as provocative. What we are called to say to our age can be stated in various ways, making each statement appropriate to the situation. Let us hope that awareness of the multiplicity of possibilities will loosen the tongue of the church to speak all the more pertinently and convincingly.

Note: The Introduction, Parts I and III of this text are extracts from an article by Eugene TeSelle, "How Do We Recognize a Status Confessionis?" in Theology Today, April 1988, Vol. 45, No.1. Part II of this text was contributed by Lukas Vischer. Here the intention is to provide a general background and overview of the term status confessionis. For more particular information and history within WARC and its member churches, see "From Ottawa to Seoul".