2. Credo at the head of the symbol does not signify the act of faith of a well-disposed or gifted or even an especially enlightened individual as such. The act of the Credo is the act of confession. But the subject of confession is the Church and therefore not the individual as such nor in virtue of any human or even divine mark of individuality, but the individual solely in virtue of his bearing the mark of membership of the Church. When God’s reality, as it affects man, is recognised by the Church in the form of definite cognitions won from God’s revelation, then there comes into existence in this eo ipso public and responsible recognition a confession, a symbol, a dogma, a catechism; then there come into existence articles of faith. When the individual says in the sense of the symbol, credo, he does not do that as an individual, but he confesses, and that means—he includes himself in the public and responsible recognition made by the Church.
Dogmatics belongs entirely to the same sphere. It is indeed not itself confession; but it is allied with it as the action of definite individual members of the confessing Church; it is the elucidation of the current confession and the preparation of a new one. Because the Church must again and again understand its Confession anew and because it is again and again confronted with the necessity of confessing anew, it requires Dogmatics alongside of the Confession. There is no other justification for Dogmatics. An individual can be its subject only as commissioned “teacher of the Church,” i.e. as teacher in the Church from the Church for the Church, not as savant, but as one who has a vocation to teach. The private character of the professor of Theology, his views and insights as such are matters of no interest. And the same is to be said of his hearers and readers as the future preachers. Lecturing on and study of Dogmatics are a public and responsible action inasmuch as only the Church—in Dogmatics just in the same way as in the Confession—can seriously speak and seriously hear.
3. The problem of the Credo as the Church Confession arises in the problem of the Church’s proclamation. The good news of the reality of God as it affects man is entrusted to the Church. That is, entrusted to its faith. This, however, means among other things—entrusted to the work of its faith which is from the beginning tentative and fallible, entrusted to the human, the all too human, understanding and misunderstanding of the divine judgment, entrusted to the conflict and contradiction of human opinions and convictions. What becomes of the purity of that which has been entrusted to the hands of the pardoned, who always were and will be nothing else than pardoned sinners? The answer can be, and indeed must be: even in impure hands God can and God will keep it pure. But that does not exonerate us from concern for the purity of our hands or from searching after the true and proper proclamation. From this concern and this searching springs the Church’s Confession. Confession is always the result of an effort motivated by this concern and searching, is always an attempt to protect divine truth from human error and to place it on the candlestick. Confession is always concrete, historical decision, a battle action of the Church, which thinks that it hears, in various convictions and doctrines cropping up within its pale, the voice of unbelief, false belief or superstition, and feels compelled, along with the “Yes” of faith, to oppose to it the necessary “No”: for the purpose of purifying the human hands in face of the purity of the message entrusted to them in order that its proclamation may be a proper proclamation.
It is in this connection that Dogmatics gets its meaning and its task. It is no idle intellectual game. Nor is it research for research’s sake. In explaining the Confession and preparing a new confession it performs that watchman’s office that is indispensable for the Church’s proclamation. In face of the errors of the time it enters the breach where the old confession is no more regarded or no more understood and a new confession is not yet in existence. Certainly it cannot speak with the authority of the Church’s Confession, but instead of that it can, as living science, act with greater mobility and adaptability in relation to the situation of the moment, with greater accuracy and point in the particular investigation. Certainly like the Church’s proclamation itself it can deteriorate and run wild. It can very well be that, with regard to the Confession with which it is allied, it strays and leads astray. It can actually be that, instead of calling to order, Dogmatics has to be called to order and corrected by the Church’s proclamation that has kept to better ways. Dogmatics is no more able than the Confession to be a mechanically effective safeguard of the good news in the Church. Yet a Church that is conscious of its responsibility towards what has been entrusted to it will always be mindful of these safeguards. What men do in Church can from beginning to end of the line be nothing else than service. He who acts in it is the Lord, He Himself and He alone. But just as along the whole line of Church service the function of the Confession is necessary, so also this function is necessary: the scientific examination of the Church’s proclamation with regard to its genuineness. The existence of Dogmatics is the Church’s admission that in its service it has cause to be humble, circumspect and careful.
4. But the Credo does not spring from any concern or questioning of the Church, acting on its own, in regard to the genuineness of its proclamation. Not arbitrarily does faith part company in the Credo with anything that it thinks faith should not hold; not in any haphazard way does it say “Yes” here and “No” there. When the Confession makes its decisions it does not measure with the yard-stick of the ideas of truth, God, revelation and the like that happen to be current at the time, to-day this, to-morrow that, now under this prevailing point of view, now again under another. If it did that, it could not really itself be described and understood as an act of recognition, nor could it on its side make any claim to recognition. The value of the Confession lies in the fact that when it was being formed the Church, in face of the ideas of the time, inquired into the decision of Holy Scripture, and in the Confession did not simply express its faith as such, but what in its faith it thought it heard as the judgment of the Holy Scripture in points of Church proclamation that had become doubtful. In the Credo the Church bows before that God Whom we did not seek and find—Who rather has sought and found us.
Now it is just from this that the worth of Dogmatics also derives. It is preceded by Exegesis as primary theological discipline. That means that Dogmatics does not carry its norm in itself, as also it does not have its purpose in itself, but is reminded by the discipline of Practical Theology that follows on after it, of its task within the whole sphere of the Church’s service. The expert in Dogmatics is not the judge of Church proclamation. Only if he put more reliance on his philosophy or philosophy of religion than is permissible could he be willing to act as judge. His function is to point the Church’s proclamation in its whole range to the real judge. The real judge is the prophetic and apostolic witness to revelation, as that witness speaks through the Holy Spirit to our spirit. Every dogmatic effort to elucidate the cognitions already expressed in the Credo, and every dogmatic stirring of cognitions that are waiting to be expressed in a future Credo can, in their true substance, exist only in the confrontation of the propositions on occasion uttered in the Church with this judge. What Dogmatics has to exhibit with the utmost conscientiousness is the discussion that is inevitable when these two meet. No limitation or modification of this rule is involved when we add that any arbitrary appeal on the part of Dogmatics to the very Bible itself is forbidden by the fact that it is itself confession-bound, i.e. that