Confessions of faith are vital for a church. Barth’s position is that all confessions arise out of conflict. This is true. The Nicene Confession arose out of conflict over the deity and humanity of Christ.

Confessions, in Barth’s view, come into a need for revision from time to time because of conflict. Controversies arise and further examination of a part of a confession may be in order.

It consists rather in controversies in which the existing confession of the common faith and therefore the existing exposition and application of Holy Scripture is called in question because the unity of the faith is differently conceived, and there is such different teaching on the basis of the existing unity that the unity is obscured and has to be rediscovered… If the Church wants to preserve its unity, it must give it a more accurate expression…

This may seem to be a good reason explaining why there are so many doggone confessions since the Reformation! However, I don’t always see that as healthy. Sometimes confessions are “refined” because there is a desire to point out the differences and let the differences be a point of division rather than unity. Clarification is sometimes needed, but the more I read the Nicene Creed or Apostles’ Creed, I’m left wondering, “Why do we need MORE detail?”

Sometimes I think we “refine” our confessions because we are looking for points of disagreement. We’re not necessarily looking to unify. We’re looking for reasons to stay a bit divided.

Confessions ARE necessary. But so many of them? I’m not so sure.