When postmodern deconstructionism came to roost in biblical studies, the historicity of the united monarchy, once accepted as factual by nearly everyone, was now called into question. Thus the modern-day postmodern critic will claim that even though the biblical authors spoke of a David who ruled from such places as Hebron and Jerusalem, these stories are insufficient to provide us with reliable historical information and thus cause us to doubt their reliability. These critics have been labeled as "minimalists" in that they believe the Bible provides us with minimal access to "what really happened" and contains a minimum of historical truth.

Source: Christian Renewal, 2001. 8 pages.

The Value of the Reformed Confessions Today

Bible

Recently, Dr. C. Graafland, a retired professor of  theology in the Netherland's, suggested that the vitality of the orthodox Reformed faith is being stifled by the confessions. In his view, Reformed theology cannot develop because supposedly all doctrinal positions are already expressed in the Three Forms of Unity. More importantly, the confessions hamper effective preaching and so contribute to the decline of the churches. In this post-modern age, Graafland suggests, we need to develop a new Reformed theology that reacts to the spirit of the times and breathes new life into the churches. We should not ascribe to the confes­sions a highly normative value, but "crawl through them" to the Bible. Needless to say, these comments sparked a lively and useful discussion about the authority and current value of the confessions.

Such discussion is not new. Already in 1568, when the Belgic Confession was adopted as a form of unity to be signed by all office-bear­ers in the lowlands, critics stated that this document restricted their freedom and imposed an unbearable yoke on the conscience.

Indeed, throughout the history of the Reformed churches, generations have witnessed a questioning of the worth and use of the confessions in the life of the churches. The confessions are documents written by unin­spired, human authors and therefore subject to the only rule of faith, the Bible. It is not surprising, therefore, that the question arises: what is the value of the confessions? In answering it, we consider first the biblical meaning of confession. Then we shall define precisely what authority the confessions have. And finally, we shall make some observations about the usefulness of the confessions today.

The Meaning of Confession🔗

Let's begin by defining the term. Confession is both a biblical concept and a biblical word. In the old and new dispensation confession is the neces­sary expression by the believer of the faith God has worked in the heart through the Holy Spirit. To give one instance, there is the declaration of the Syrian commander Naaman, in 2 Kings 5:15, when he was healed of leprosy: "Behold, I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel." The word of faith is in his heart and on his lips. By the grace of God, the Holy Spirit witnesses to the believer's con­science the truth of God. We learn from Romans 10:9-10 that only those who believe with the heart and confess with the mouth will be saved.

Indeed, God abides in whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God (1 John 4:15). Otherwise, if we deny Him, He will also deny us (2 Tim. 2:12). And although not everyone confesses Him now, we know that the day will come when every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Phil. 2:11).

This confession of faith is not only per­sonal, but also corporate. It is the expres­sion of the one faith that believers share. There is one Lord, one faith, and one bap­tism (Eph. 4:5). Therefore Hebrews 3:1 speaks of "our confession", that is, a singular, common confession, and not of sepa­rate, individual confessions. And in Hebrews 10:23 we are encouraged to "hold fast the confession without wavering." And this confession is inseparably associated with God's revelation as we have received it in his Word. The church — which com­prises confessors of the faith — must con­fess the Word as truth, and be, in the words of 1 Timothy 3:15, the pillar and bulwark of truth. And since the church confesses that the Word is truth, it must establish and maintain that Word by proclaiming it, defending it, spreading it, and explaining it. The function of confession, then, is eccle­siastical: the church of the Lord Jesus Christ comprises believers united by the faith which they together profess.

When we consider the Greek word that is used in these and other New Testament passages, we discover that "confession" has a range of connotations. And this range applies also to the various aspects of the Reformed confessions. The Greek verb "homologein" is formed from two words, "homo" — the same — and "logein" — to state. Literally translated "homologein" is "to say the same thing". Basically, the word means "to agree", as when the so-called heroes of the faith agreed that they were strangers on the earth (Heb. 11:13). The verb also may have the sense of "to admit", as when John the Baptist confesses that he is not the Christ (John 1:20). The word also has the nuance of "to praise, glo­rify", and so it is used in Romans 15:9: "I will praise (literally: confess) thee among the Gentiles." In other contexts the word has the flavour of the courtroom, as when the Lord Jesus Christ in his testimony before Pontius Pilate "made the good con­fession" (1 Tim. 6:13), bearing witness that he is the Son of God.

Often, the word has the connotation of "declaring, stating openly", as when the Jews determined that if any one should claim publicly that Jesus is the Messiah, he was to be put out of the synagogue (John 9:22). The Lord Jesus said that "whoever confesses me before men, I also will con­fess before my father who is in heaven" (Matt. 10:32). As we shall observe later, the Three Forms of Unity are rightly called confessions because each is a statement of agreement, a glorification of the triune God, a bearing witness to Christ before fel­low men, and an open declaration of the belief.

The question that may arise at this point is, "what is the difference between the ecu­menical creeds and the confessions?" Simply put, a creed provides the basic tenets of the faith. As the name "creed" reveals, it states what we, or I, believe. It is a simple, brief, yet complete summary of the faith. A creed may also be called "sym­bol", that is, a concise representation of the Christian belief. The confessions, on the other hand, are the church's explanations of the Creeds. Thus, for example, in the Apostles' Creed we state that we believe "a holy, catholic church". In the confessions we unfold the significance of that symbol. The Belgic Confession teaches what catholic church means (Art. 27), that everyone must join the church (Art. 28), what the marks of the true and false church are (Art. 29), the government of the church (Art. 30), the officers of the church (Art. 31), and the order and discipline of the church (Art. 32). The confession expresses the doctrine of the church, while the creed expresses the belief that there is a holy, catholic church.

Another way to illustrate the difference between creed and confession is by observ­ing that the creeds are taken up in the con­fessions. For example, the Apostles' Creed is part of the Heidelberg Catechism, and unfolded in it. In fact, Lord's Days 7-22 deal with each article of the Apostles' Creed. Thus the purpose of the confessions is to unfold the articles of the faith.

In the history of the church, various tenets of the faith have been questioned, so that it was necessary to refute heresy and teach the truth of Scripture. Time and again the church had to defend the truth of Scripture. When one considers the historical context in which the Three Forms of Unity were written, one soon realizes that they unfold the articles of the Christian faith against a false understanding of them.

The first was the Belgic Confession, com­posed by Guido de Bres in 1561. In response to the persecution by the Roman Catholic government, the Belgic Confession is a public statement that reformed believers were law-abiding citi­zens professing the Christian doctrine according to Scripture. The Heidelberg Catechism was composed in more favourable circumstances, as elector Frederick III commissioned Ursinus and Olevianus to write it as a guide for instruct­ing the next generation, and to help pastors teach sound doctrine and refute heresy. The Canons of Dort were published in 1619 fol­lowing the synod there, and consists of positive statements of biblical teaching, followed by rejections of errors. It was especially against the Arminians that the Canons were composed. The Three Forms of Unity, then, explain the articles of the Christian faith and express Scriptural doc­trines as the church has received them.

Having defined what the reformed confessions are, the next question is: what authority do the confes­sions have? What power or right to enforce obedience — if any — do they possess? In the history of the church different answers have been given to this question. It is an important one, however, for if we do not have a proper estimation of the confes­sions, we may not know how and when to use them. A brief summary of the different views of their authority, therefore, is in order.

The Roman Catholic Church holds that its confessions and councils do not err. When the pope speaks in the capacity of his apos­tolic office as inherited from Peter, he speaks infallible truth. Martin Luther attacked this teaching in the Leipzig debate of 1519, when he told the Romanist scholar John Eck that the councils of the church may err and are subservient to the Word of God. The Romanist church taught, and still teaches, that its confessions cannot be overturned, not even by an appeal to the Scriptures, for when the pope decides, the case is closed.

Already in the middle of the 16th century, at the Council of Trent, this was decided: the Church determines the true meaning and application of the Bible. Thus the tra­dition of the church was raised to the level of an independent rule of faith. Obviously, this is an inordinate estimation of confes­sions and councils, one which elevates them to a place above the Bible.

old books

A completely different view of the authority of the confessions was held by certain groups of Anabaptists (and Reformed) in the 16th century. They want­ed nothing to do with written confessions, and viewed them as iron chains. These Anabaptists held that the confessions over­turn the sole authority of the Scriptures. They cast doubt upon the sufficiency and clarity of the Bible, by suggesting that they themselves more accurately or completely express biblical doctrine. By using confes­sions recorded in forms, the church threat­ens to place the Bible aside and tends to turn solely to these documents as decisive. Menno Simons, from whom the Mennonites derive their name, is represen­tative of this position. He held that the let­ter of Scripture was all-sufficient. The explanation and application of the Word, by the power of the Holy Spirit, is all that is necessary. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, so the argument goes, there is freedom (2 Cor. 3:17). The confessions restrict the working of the Holy Spirit by assuming the responsibility of interpreting the Bible. And what is more, the formulated confes­sions do not encourage unity, but by demarcating doctrines break up the oneness of the faith, thus promoting sectarianism.

A view only somewhat different from this one was maintained by the Remonstrants, and especially the followers of Jacob Arminius. Like the Anabaptists, the Remonstrants argued that confessions chal­lenge the exclusive authority of Scripture, hinder the freedom of the conscience of the believer, and prevent the growth in under­standing God's Word. But they admitted that in certain difficult circumstances the confessions may be used to assist the church. Like a torch in the dark night, the confessions can guide the way. But they have no binding authority in the polity of the church. For whatever is necessary for our salvation is contained in Scripture, and that we must believe. While the confes­sions can be useful, they have little moral or legal power. In publishing a confession, the Remonstrants believed, the church does not declare what all believers hold to be true, but what in the circumstances they experience to be the truth.

For this reason one may not ascribe any irrevocable authority to the confessions. Indeed, one may accept the declarations in the confessions as true only insofar as they accord with Scripture. Therefore, in mat­ters under dispute, in synods and in coun­cils, the confessions may not be appealed to as binding. No one should be forced to subscribe to the confessions; the freedom of "prophecy" must remain.

Where do the Anabaptists and the Remonstrants go wrong? Briefly stated, their views are based on a misunderstand­ing of the purpose of confessions. Confessions do not push Scripture to the background; rather, they maintain Scripture and protect it against subjective interpreta­tion. Nor do confessions repress the free­dom of individual interpretation, but guard it in the face of a tendency to heresy. And lastly, confessions do not dampen the development of knowledge of God's Word but keep it on the right course by constant­ly directing the believer to that Word and by being subject to its correction This rebuttal leads us to the Reformed under­standing of the value of the confession.

In 1607, in reaction to the views expressed by the Anabaptists and Remonstrants, a committee published a document to advise Reformed believers regarding the proper status of the confessions. It made the following five observa­tions: 1) It is an error to think that Reformed believers elevate the confessions to a place above Scripture. 2) Throughout the history of the church it has been neces­sary to declare publicly what the church confesses. For hereby heresy has been refuted, unity expressed, and the future generation instructed. 3) All office-bearers in the church must promote the unity of the faith, and do so by subscribing to the bibli­cal doctrine summarized in the confes­sions. 4) Any revision of the confessions should be based upon a clear demonstra­tion of wherein they have deviated from the Bible, and not simply upon the notion that they can err. 5) If the churches release office-bearers from being bound by confes­sions, then the worth of the confessions is cast into doubt, schisms arise, and the unity in doctrine is broken. These five statements of advice to the Reformed churches in the lowlands are among the earliest formal statements supporting the authority of the confessions, and so influenced many later discussions.

Hence we come to the orthodox Reformed understanding of the authority of the confessions. The fundamental principle is that Scripture is the only rule of faith. Article 7 of the Belgic Confession makes it clear that the confession itself is not on par with the Bible, but subservient to it. There we confess that "we may not consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with the divine Scriptures ... We therefore reject with all our heart whatever does not agree with this infallible rule." The first article of the Westminster Confession, to give an example of another Reformed confession, is entitled "Concerning Holy Scripture", and states that the Bible "is the church's ultimate source of appeal in every religious controversy." What we observe here is that confessions are oriented to the Bible, and are not to be used without it.

To express the relation between confes­sion and Scripture differently, we may say that since the Bible is the only rule of faith, the proclamation and explanation of that Word should not be determined by the con­fessions. While the confessions may assist in understanding the Bible, the clarity and perspicuity of the Bible means that the "infallible standard for the interpretation of the Bible is the Bible itself'' (Westminster Confession 1.9). Thus the confessions remain subject to examination in light of Scripture. This qualification does not diminish their derived authority, however.

For at the same time, we may say that because they "say the same thing" as the Word of God the confessions have value. It is because they are a repetition of Scripture that the confessions are not to be underesti­mated. The derived authority of the confes­sions is demonstrated in the form for the public profession of faith.

lock

When a Reformed believer professes the faith, she declares that she believes "the doctrine of the Word of God, summarized in the confessions and taught in this Christian church." We hold ourselves even to the words of the confessions because they agree with the Word of God. This does not mean that confessions are inspired, and that every expression in them is perfect. But the church of today does confess the same eternal truth which the church of the 16th century confessed, and that is the truth of Scripture. For this rea­son, too, those who serve the church in ordained office "declare that they heartily believe and are persuaded that all the points of doctrine, contained in the doctri­nal standards of the church ... do fully agree with the Word of God." This state­ment means that the forms for subscription do not force unity upon those who serve the congregation in teaching and preach­ing, but rather that those who sign it in so doing express the unity in doctrine that already exists. Binding oneself to the con­fessions is therefore not the cause, but the execution of the responsibility to teach in the church that which is in accordance with the faith of the church. The confessions are called forms of unity not because they bring about oneness of the faith, but because they declare it.

We should not easily cast into doubt therefore, what the confessions express. In the history of the church those who opposed subscribing to the forms revealed that they do not consider the content of the confessions to be scriptural. Questions about the teaching in a confession must be done in a proper, church-orderly way. If difficulties or different sentiments respecting doctrine should arise in the minds of those who have subscribed to the Three Forms of Unity, it is their responsibility to reveal that they have such difficulties. One may not publicly promote teaching that conflicts with one's confession, but must take up the matter with the church to which the confessions belong. When Abraham Kuyper defended the authority of the con­fessions against those who wanted to revise them, he employed an image from the law-courts that accurately portrays the way in which they should be protected by the church. He said: in the justice system there is the judge, the accused, the accuser, and the law. The judge's responsibility is to defend and promote the innocence of the accused. If, in the eyes of the law, the accused is indeed guilty, then the judge must apply the rules of the law. Well, the person who claims that the confession errs is like the accuser. The confession, then, is the accused. The church must decide, and therefore it is like the judge, while the Bible is the law, the rule. Thus the church's task is to defend and promote the inno­cence of the confession, and the confession is innocent until proven guilty by the rule of faith, Scripture.

It is said sometimes that we should add to the confessions statements against current false teachings that were not explicitly refuted in the 16th century. Such augmen­tation should not be undertaken lightly, however. It must be proven first that there is a dire need for addition. Otherwise the danger arises that confessions may become so specific that they delimit Scripture. If the confessions are rewritten so as to impose upon Scripture a restrictive mean­ing, the consciences of those who subscribe to them are being bound in a way that con­fessions ought not to do. The confessions should maintain their authority as derived from Scripture; by adding to them we may be infringing upon the absolute authority of the Bible. If the church were to add all kinds of new elements to the confessions, then the Word of God, which is the only rule of faith, may be pushed to the margins.

Another reason why we should not readi­ly add to the confessions is that they are not theological treatises to be filled with all kinds of doctrinal pronouncements, but explanations of the faith. The church should not make more doctrinal statements than those that are strictly necessary in her duty as pillar and bulwark of truth.- What is more, as every believer belongs to the spir­itual estate, it is everyone's task to search the Scriptures, to test the spirits to see whether they are of God, and to be a con­fessor. For this reason, too, we pray daily to be illumined by the Holy Spirit, and to receive insight into God's Word. The expo­sition of Scripture should not be located in the Confessions so much as in the preach­ing and teaching of the gospel, and the daily functioning of the royal priesthood of believers. As we see in the age of Reformation, it is the Lord Jesus Christ who by the power of his Spirit and Word defends the church and causes her to con­fess the truth of his Word.

The Usefulness of the Confessions🔗

Having surveyed the authority of the confessions as perceived in the late 16th century, and as expressed also by Reformed orthodoxy, the next question is: what is the usefulness of the confessions today? When and how should they be employed, and to what end do they serve? One will appreciate that the answer to these important practical ques­tions is based on our understanding of what a confession is and what authority it has.

Confession, as was stated, is the public declaration and explanation of what the church believes. The church appropriates the promises of God recorded in Scripture, and makes these promises her own in pro­claiming and defending them. In the con­fessions the church says: this is what we believe and why we believe it. And we believe it to be the truth not because we have determined it, but because the Bible, the infallible and authoritative Word of God, says so. An inherent relation exists between Scripture, church, and confes­sion. The church's confessions are not use­less heirlooms but essential and operating, public declarations of the faith that brings glory to the triune God and confesses Him before men.

Therefore, when the confessions are no longer in evidence, the faith has departed. Then again, when true reform occurs, there must be a return to the Scripture and confessions. A church that lives by the Word of God lives by the confessions that repeat the Word. Strongly worded, you may say that there cannot be a church without a confession.

scale

An essential function of the confessions, then, is to defend and promote biblical doctrine, while exposing heresy. Each of the Three Forms of Unity responds to attacks against the truth of Scripture. In the confessions the church preserves the doctrines which it draws from the Bible. In this regard, it is striking how often vari­ous false teachings have recurred in dif­ferent guises; the confessions help us to identify them in their modern garb. Think of Pelagianism, which recurred in the 16th century in Arminianism. What the two teachings share is especially the notion that the human being is only partially depraved, and that therefore he or she is capable of doing something towards being saved.

Thus while the Canons of Dort dealt with this notion as it was expressed by Arminians in the 16th century, it may be equally relevant today when the same heresy exists in a different shape. The confessions, then, help the contemporary church to identify recurring false teach­ings, at the same time pointing to the proper teaching of Scripture.

A third function of the confessions is to preserve the identity of the congregation, by helping the community of faith to define itself by stating clearly and con­cisely what it holds to be the true doctrine of Scripture. The confession is, as we say, a "form of unity". It unites those believers who have together professed the one faith. To put it differently, without a confession the community of faith is broken, and each believer does what he by his own conscience derives from the Bible. When the commonly accepted standards are neg­lected, all interpretations of Scripture would then be of equal value. The confes­sion of the entire body keeps individual­ism and subjectivism at bay. And the con­fessions strengthen the unity of the faith also between generations, as children are instructed in the faith by the parents, teachers and office-bearers who employ them.

Yet another use of the confessions is that they promote a study and understanding of the teachings of Scripture. In repeating the Word of God, the confessions point to that Word. The doctrines of predestina­tion, sanctification, and the end of times, to mention only three, are explained con­cisely in the confessions, but are fully revealed in the gospel. In other words, the confessions help individuals and congre­gations to avoid the superficiality and vagueness that characterizes so much of modern Christendom. Without confes­sions we may be inclined to gloss over the doctrines of Scripture whereby we ought to conduct our lives. When we do use them, confessions encourage us to plumb the depths of our religion, which is a great mystery, by searching the Scriptures.

Confessions thus function as standards whereby each congregation can assess and direct its own obedience to God's Word, and whereby another congregation can see whether it strives to live according to its profession. Confessions help congrega­tions to recognize and acknowledge each other in a federation. Thus congregation­alism, which may tend to suggest that each gathering of believers is an autonomous manifestation of the body of Christ, is avoided. By means of the con­fessions we are encouraged to join with others who profess the same one faith we do. What is more, a federation permits the mutual exhortation and reproof on the basis of the confessions. We may appeal to each other on the basis of the common faith expressed in the confessions.

One can take this function of confessions one step further. Confessions are like ban­ners or flags that indicate to others where we stand. On the basis of confessions churches are able to acknowledge other denominations, and a gathering of Free Reformed, United Reformed, and Canadian Reformed believers is an exam­ple of the confessional basis whereupon churches meet. It is not an exaggeration to state that if these denominations did not share the same confessions, they would not be gathering together. Thus, the con­fessions promote the unity of the faith not only within, but also between federations and encourage them to seek one another on the basis of the one faith.

Next, confessions guard the church against harmful influences from the secu­lar world by providing a means to test them. They also protect individual believ­ers who are overly sensitive to current fads and trends, also within Christianity. Novel ideas promoted by theologians and philosophers can be tried by means of the confessions, which direct everyone to test the spirits by searching the Scriptures. We reject with all our heart whatever does not agree with the infallible rule, the Bible (BC, Art. 7). Members of the congrega­tion, therefore, should use the confession to assess contemporary developments in doctrine and practice.

Church

There is yet another function for the con­fessions today. A common criticism of them is that they are time-bound, and therefore outdated and defunct. Yet because they contain the truth of Scripture, which is never time-bound, they remain relevant today. With the church of the 16th century, we confess that same, unchanging truth. This implies that we are able to see our position in the context of God's plan in history. We do not need to study anew all of the questions that are posed to us. We may draw upon the understanding of God's Word as was granted by Him through the ages. For example, at a Reformation meeting we acknowledge God's grace as it was revealed in the 16th century, when espe­cially the teaching of justification by faith alone through the grace of God was redis­covered. The confessions preserve that discovery and help us to use that doctrine which the 16th century church drew from the Bible. What we confess today is in agreement with the confession of the church of all ages. The confessions remain relevant because they repeat the truth of Scripture that is always current.

The immediate relevance of the confes­sions is revealed also by the fact that they help believers in responding to the ideas of the current age. For example, here in North America we see around us that per­sonal experience predominates Christianity. The confessions direct one beyond statements of vague generalities, stories of individual experiences and groundless feelings. How much better have the grander perspective of the church as preserved in the confessions! They direct one to the promises in Scripture that far surpass any one person's experience, which is incapable of pointing to salva­tion. They help one to realize the richness of the faith, and to deepen the personal experience by giving it substance and solidity. For the confessions strengthen the individual experience by pointing to the depths of the promises in God's Word. As a last instance of the use of the con­fessions today, they help the church's wit­ness to the world. The confessions help the church to state clearly that Christ is the head of the Church, that He is gather­ing for himself from all tribes and nations a people chosen to eternal salvation. When you think of the martyrs in the early church, when you consider the Christians who gave themselves as a living sacrifice for the sake of the faith, when you think of the persecutions throughout the history of the world, you soon realize that all these took place in the context of profess­ing the faith before God and men. The Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism attest to their function in explaining to those who oppose us that in life and death we belong to our faithful saviour Jesus Christ. The confessions were composed to assist every believer who must bear witness to God at all times and in every situation.

Conclusion🔗

We live in an age when believers are not as conscious of the confes­sions as they perhaps should be. Many Reformed Christians have studied the confessions in preparation to declaring the faith publicly before God and his church, but not as many make use of them thereafter. In light of their proper authority and continuing value, however, we should employ the con­fessions in conducting our own lives and thoughts. We should use them to study the Scriptures more diligently and to understand more fully the doctrines contained in them. We may employ them not only in our own lives, but also towards others. If confessions are public declarations of the faith we pro­fess, we should use them in our contacts with those we meet. In them we have clear and concise statements of the Scriptural doc­trines we believe, and so they help us to define our position towards others.

We may use the confessions not only in our lives as individuals but also as members of the body of Christ. As was already noted, in the life of the congregation the confessions may be employed as the standards of the faith. Members may promote the unity of the faith by pointing to the confessions they share. Churches may foster that unity by employing the confessions in mutual exhor­tation and reproof. For it is by the assistance of the confessions that we may, and should, recognize other churches of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Confession is to say the same thing as Scripture, to repeat what the Bible says. Just as we began with the Bible, we should also end with it. For that which we have heard we must also proclaim (1 John 1:1), and we should not be ashamed then of testifying to our Lord (2 Tim. 1:9). We must follow the pattern of sound words which we heard (2 Tim. 1: 13), guard the truth that has been entrusted to us by the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 1: 14), continue in what we have learned (2 Tim. 3:14), and always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls us to account for the hope that is in us (1 Pet. 3:15). Let us remember that he who confesses the Son has the Father also, while no-one who denies the Son has the Father (1 John 1:23). Indeed, every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come into the flesh is of God (1 John 4:2). Therefore thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumph, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of Him everywhere (2 Cor. 2:14).

Add new comment

(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.