FC X and the Confession of the Gospel
Introduction
Imagine a situation where folks
called Lutherans were split into two camps.
Where brothers who had known one another long and studied at the same
institutions suddenly found themselves looking at each other with distrust and
suspicion. Where bitter
recriminations of betraying the Gospel were hurled in all earnestness by either
side at their opponents in one press release after another.
Where the question of the relationship between church and state seemed to
complicate the situation and muddy the theological waters.
Where the laity were often left behind in trying to figure out what their
pastors were arguing about. Imagine
a situation like that.
Does it sound familiar?
It should. You learned about
it in your Confessions class at the seminary.
It’s what happened in Lutheranism after the disaster of the Smalcaldic
War and the attempt to impose the Interims on the evangelical lands.
Article X of the Formula of Concord is how our Lutheran forebears finally
sorted out the question that had divided them and how they united together again
as one Church speaking one message of the one saving Gospel.
They did it not by compromise, but by sorting out what the point at issue
really was, and then listening to what the Divine Word had to teach about it.
May God give us the same humility and wisdom in our day!
Historical Setting
“It would hardly seem that the
church would need an article of doctrine on things that really do not matter.
But it was a controversy over adiaphora that precipitated the first
recognizable split in Lutheran ranks after Luther’s death.”
We do not have the time to trace
out the whole of the sad story of the Smalcaldic War and of its aftermath.
What finally resulted is what interests us:
Charles V began a program to restore the evangelical territories to the
Roman fold, including the Saxon territory ruled by the traitor Moritz.
The emperor set about doing that at a Diet in the City of Augsburg in
1548. By May 15th of
that year he was able to promulgate a document that has become known as the
Augsburg Interim.
This document was designed to
gently lead the Lutheran churches back to the Roman fold, and to address issues
they had raised in a temporary manner until the final disposition of the problem
could be issued by the Council of Trent. The only evangelical to participate in the drafting of the
document was Agricola, who by then was court preacher in conservative
Brandenburg.
It threw a few bones to the
evangelicals. They could keep their
married priests for the time being. With
permission they might even also continue to administer the chalice to the laity.
The huge problem with the Augsburg Interim, however, was its gutting of
the doctrine of justification. Just
a sample: “When God justifies, he
does not act only in a human way with people, by merely ignoring their sin,
forgiving them the sin and absolving them from guilt, but he also makes them
better…..”
Additionally the Augsburg Interim reinstated virtually the whole of the
medieval ceremonial surrounding the administration of the sacraments – as in,
all seven of them, if you get my drift!
So there was Moritz in a mess of
his own making. On the one hand,
the emperor – forgetting any promises about Moritz’ faith - demanding that
Moritz enforce this Augsburg Interim in his lands.
On the other hand, a populace and preachers who would not stand for it.
What to do? Well, Moritz
took the very modern option of prevarication.
He’d have his theologians compose another document that would be
intended to appease both sides. The
compromise that his men struck upon was this:
attempting to appease Rome by yielding to the fullest extent on every
matter of indifferent ceremonies in addition to using language that Rome might
understand one way and the evangelicals another, and appease the Lutherans by
confessing with clarity the Lutheran doctrine of justification.
This compromise document, which
ended up really pleasing neither side, was known as the Leipzig Interim.
It is a fascinating document. It
lays out its basic premise on adiaphora right up front:
“Accordingly, our first
consideration is that everything that the ancient teachers regarded as adiaphora,
that is, things that are neither commanded nor forbidden by God, may still be
regarded as adiaphora without compromising the Scripture.
Even when they are still in use by the other party, they may continue to
be observed. No one should try to
make them a burden or regard them as such or as something to be avoided since
they may be observed without harming consciences.”
What did this include?
A number of items: the restoration of Unction; the full set of Marian feasts in
the church year; the feast of Corpus Christi; even the rules on fasting from
meat, though these fasting regulations were cleverly packaged as done in
obedience to the Emperor!
An example of the prevarication
that pervades this document is in its description of the mass.
The first part reads just like any Lutheran or Roman Church order; no big
differences there. But then listen carefully:
“The Dominus vobiscum, the Oremus,
the Offertorium, the Praefatio,
the Sanctus, the Consecratio,
the Lord’s Prayer in German, the Agnus
Dei, the Communio and
administration of the sacrament, the Communicatio
or partaking, the Collects, the Benediction [shall be sung].”
Now add to this, that the
Augsburg Interim had made specific reference to the Roman Eucharistic canon and
said that it was not to be changed.
Comparing the two interims, you see a subtle move: the Leipzig Interim refers to the Consecration, which the
Roman party was intended to hear as the canon and the Lutheran party was
intended to hear as the Words of Institution.
Clever, wasn’t it? Devilishly
clever!
And who is the primary author of
this compromising document with its deceptive wording? Philip Melanchthon. Who
else stood behind it? Try Johannes
Bugenhagen on for size, Luther’s own pastor.
What gives with that?
To be most charitable,
Melanchthon thought he was faced with a nasty alternative:
either accept a handful of dropped Romanist practices back, many of them
admittedly neutral, some of them even still practiced by Lutherans in
neighboring territories, and by so doing still keep Lutheran priests in Lutheran
parishes preaching the saving Gospel OR have Spanish troops march into Saxony,
remove Lutheran priests forcibly from their pulpits and altars, and replace them
with Roman priests, preaching salvation by faith AND love.
Looking at it from his academic perspective, it seemed like a no-brainer,
distasteful as it might be. Concede
the battle in hopes of later winning the war.
Meanwhile, over in the relative
safety of Magdeburg, Amsdorf, Flacius and assorted other exiled company did not
see with the eyes of academics, but of parish pastors.
They were convinced that following the Leipzig Interim would result in
the common laity drawing a false conclusion.
Namely, that the Reformers had gotten it wrong after all, and that Rome
had the real scoop on the Gospel. “For
the common people pay more attention to the external state of things than to
doctrine.”
The exiles in Magdeburg were persuaded that no amount of evangelical words would
be able to shout down what the action of restoring the outward ceremonies would
actually communicate to the people. It
was a no-brainer to them too. Tell
that traitor Moritz where he might like to put his Interim (as in, where the sun
doesn’t shine) and forge ahead, trusting in God.
Suffering may indeed result. But
they were utterly convinced that we are precluded by Scripture from “doing
evil that good may come.”
They were very much in the spirit of A
Mighty Fortress: “And take
they our life, goods, fame, child, and wife, let these all be gone, they yet
have nothing one. The kingdom ours
remaineth.”
The Truce of Passau (1552) and
the Religious Peace of Augsburg (1555) made the Interims moot by recognizing the
right of the Lutheran Church to exist as a Church, but the conflict between
these two sides raged on long after the Interims were history.
As Kolb characterized matters: “the
controversy had burned too hotly for it to be put out at once.
The Gnesio-Lutherans insisted that the Philippists repent publicy for
their composition and defense of the Leipzig Interim. Although Melanchthon did admit that he had taken the wrong
stand, he and his followers refused to submit to the kind of public penance
Flacius and his friends insisted upon. So
the two parties continued to exchange verbal and printed blasts on the subject
of the Interim throughout the 1550’s.”
So what the Confessors of the
Formula inherited was a period of roughly 25 years of “bitter exchanges of
charges and counter-charges.”
They found themselves in the unenviable position of being students and friends
of the men on either side. What to
do?
The Theological Decision
The first thing the Confessors
did was to disentangle the personalities. Instead
of naming names and lining up sides, they sought to discern under the mess what
exactly was the point that was at issue. They
were able to express this point at issue without any reference to the
personalities involved. Going with
the Epitome (since life is brief!), we find that the point at issue was simply
this:
“The chief
question concerned a situation of persecution, in a case in which confession is
necessary, when the enemies of the gospel refuse to come to terms with us:
the question was whether, in that situation, in good conscience, certain
ceremonies that had been abolished (as in themselves indifferent matters neither
commanded nor forbidden by God) could be revived under the pressure and demand
of the opponents, and whether compromise with them in such ceremonies and
indifferent matters would be proper? One
party said yes, the other said no to this question.”
(BOC KW, p. 515)
To sort out an answer to this
question, they had recourse to the Scriptures as the final rule and norm.
1. Distinguishing Human Additions from Divine Mandates
The first point was that
Scripture draws a line that we dare never cross between humanly instituted
ceremonies and divinely instituted ceremonies.
Humanly instituted ceremonies, no matter how venerable and beneficial for
good order and decorum “are in and of themselves neither worship ordained by
God nor a part of such worship.” In
fact, when we let them parade around as such, we are in danger of falling into
the trap that Christ warned about: “In
vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”
Matthew 15:9. Put crassly, for the
Holy Eucharist you do not have to have candles on the altar – that is a
reverent and fitting addition, but one that is humanly instituted. But for the Holy Eucharist you dare never omit the Words of
Institution by which Christ has connected His speaking with our speaking in
order to give to us the bread that is His body and the wine that is His blood.
So that’s point number one: what’s
mere human in origin dare not be confounded with that which is divine in origin
in the church’s life. And its
negative is stated as well as its positive:
we reject and condemn as contrary to God’s Word “when anyone teaches
that human ceremonies are in and of themselves worship ordained by God or even a
part of it.” (FC X:9)
2. Locus of Authority in Regulating Adiaphora
Point number two is that the
community of God (or, as in the Latin, the churches of God in every land and
every time) is where the authority resides to alter such ceremonies according to
its own situation and as may be most “useful and edifying for the community
(or churches) of God.” We
understand what that means best by reading the negative:
we reject and condemn as contrary to God’s Word “when anyone imposes
such ceremonies, commands, and prescriptions upon the community of God (churches
of God – Latin) with coercive force as if they were necessary, against its
Christian freedom which it has in external matters.” (FC X.10).
Now without trying to parse out how that comes to application for us,
let’s just be clear on what it meant for them and what it did not mean.
It meant that the pope could not enforce his dietary regulations on the
Saxon churches (even under the guise of obedience to the emperor). It meant that the pope could not mandate the observance of
Corpus Christi on the Saxon churches. It
meant that the pope could not
insist that only bishops obedient to him be allowed to ordain clergy in the
Saxon churches. What it most
certainly did not mean was pastors could replace the pope in ordering their
congregations around in what they were to do; in what they would drop and what
they would add and what they would change.
Rather, we know what they actually did at the time was this: the Church
in each territory promulgated a Church Order which was then enforced by Church
authority, not as necessary for salvation, but as a matter of good order.
Further, superintendents (such as Martin Chemnitz was for the province of
Braunschweig) would then visit the clergy to see whether they were teaching
correctly, including whether they were teaching correctly about ceremonies, and
whether they were observing the ceremonies as prescribed for the churches in
that land. We are miles away here
from what FC X is popularly taken to mean.
The Australians have addressed this extensively and in a scholarly manner
in their Statement 35: Solidarity in
Worship: A Lutheran Understanding
of Adiaphora.
Rather than deal more with that now, I’d just refer you to it.
3. Love and the Confession of the Faith Guide Use of Adiaphora
Next point:
when ceremonies are being altered “all frivolity and offense must be
avoided and special consideration must be given particularly to those who are
weak in faith.” Remember the
gentle and kindly way that St. Paul dealt with the question of meat offered to
idols. Again the corresponding
negative is helpful by way of clarification: we reject and condemn as incorrect
and contrary to God’s Word “when such external ceremonies and indifferent
matters are abolished in a way that suggests that the community of God is not
free at all times, according to its specific situation, to use one or more of
these ceremonies in Christian freedom as may be most beneficial to the
church.” The late scholar Bodo
Nischan has written extensively about how in 17th century
Brandenburg, the Calvinists condemned rites that were essentially indifferent
but retained by the Lutherans in that territory. He cites two examples. First,
in the mass, the Lutherans retained elevation and even embellished it by the use
of the so-called ostenatio.
The priest would hold our Lord’s body and blood up before the people
and say: “Dear Christians, this
is the true body of Christ which was given for you. This is the true blood of
Christ which was shed for you." The
ostentatio was added when the elector
was campaigning for the abolition of the elevation because he no longer believed
in the real presence of our Lord’s body and blood.
Similarly, in the rite of Baptism, there was the exorcism.
Calvinist sympathizers among the Lutherans pastors just hated it!
Nischan tells the somewhat amusing story of the butcher who had his
suspicions about whether his pastor was truly a Lutheran.
Consequently, he turned up for the baptism of his child armed with his
butcher’s cleaver, which he threatened to apply to the pastor’s head, should
the pastor dare to omit the exorcism from Baptism.
(Oh, for such lay activism in our day!)
Thus the Church of the Augsburg Confession jealously guards her freedom
in regard to adiaphora – not merely to simplify the ceremonial of the church,
but even to amplify it. The governing principle always being: “as is most beneficial to the church.” (FC X:12) But
she does so in such a way that the churches are not to condemn each other
because has more or another less of these humanly instituted ceremonies:
St. Irenaeus is cited: “Disagreement
in fasting does not destroy the unity of faith.”
Thus, in Brandenburg they had the elevation and fought to keep it; in
Saxony it was dropped. But the
FAITH that was confessed in both places was the same.
4. Christian Freedom Must Not Be Used to Give False Impressions
Further, whenever we are dealing
with adiaphora we must always have a care that we do not seek to give the
impression, nor even to so unwittingly, that our church is at one with those
have distorted the divine truth. The
Solid Declaration (X:6) cites 2 Corinthians 6:14,17:
“Do not be mismatched with unbelievers… What fellowship is there
between light and darkness?” “Therefore, come out from them, and be separate
from them, says the Lord.” Now if
this holds for our relationship with the papists, so that “we must not include
among the truly free adiaphora or indifferent matters ceremonies that give the
impression or (in order to avoid persecution) are designed to give the
impression that our religion does not differ greatly from the papist religion or
that our religion were not completely contrary to theirs” (SD X 5) – if it
holds for the papists, how much more so does it obtain when dealing with those
who are not even Christian? In any
dealings we have with Muslims or Hindus or Jews, we owe it to them to avoid
anything that would compromise or give the appearance of compromising the truth
that is confessed in the Athanasian Creed:
“whosoever would be saved, before all things it is necessary that he
hold the catholic faith, which faith except a man do keep whole and undefiled,
without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.”
An illusion of unity (FC SD X:5) is simply not worth the price of one
lost soul.
5. Nothing Coerced Remains Theologically Neutral.
Final point:
When the enemies of the Gospel demand that we conform in indifferent
matters to them, Scripture teaches us that we may not.
Galatians 2 and 5 are cited: Paul’s
refusal to yield to those who demanded circumcision as necessary (SD X:12)
Now surely here we have the definitive answer to the question at issue.
We have circumcision, an indifferent matter in itself.
We have Timothy who loses his foreskin to confess the Gospel of Christ to
the Jews. We have Titus who keeps
his foreskin to confess the Gospel of Christ to the Jews. What Paul could freely grant when it gave him greater
opportunity to spread the Gospel, he wouldn’t budge an inch on when it became
a demand, a law, something coerced. So
in a nutshell, we reject and condemn as contrary to God’s Word “when anyone
teaches that in a situation of persecution, when public confession is necessary,
one may comply or come to terms with the enemies of the holy gospel in these
indifferent matters and ceremonies. Such
actions serve to damage God’s truth.” (FC X:12)
Thus, without invoking the
personalities, the Confessors settled the matter according to the Word of God.
Scaer summarized their conclusion: “Christians have freedom to practice
or to avoid customs and rituals which are neither forbidden nor commanded in
God’s Word, but they are duty bound to resist where compliance in customs
would give the impression that they were complying with false doctrine.
Should a human ordinance be given the stature of a divine command or be
viewed as necessary to salvation, it must be resisted.”
Conclusion
Digging through to the point at
issue is always the most difficult task of theological controversy.
FC X has resourced us helpfully.
-
It suggests that we move beyond personalities and individual
instances to look at the theological questions before us,
-
It reminding us that theology is never done by compromise, but by
listening to the Word of God together, which Word alone is the final arbiter in
our disputes.
-
It reminds us that actions can speak louder than words and that we
need always to assess not merely what we sought to convey by an action, but
rather assess what message our action in fact conveyed.
-
It warns us again looking for practical and workable solutions
(remember, that was what caused the whole mess FC X sought to address in the
first place), but calls for us simply to be faithful in our confession and be
willing even to suffer for it, knowing that God will certainly bless our
faithfulness in the end.
-
It warns us against pleading Christian freedom when the exercise
of such freedom gives the impression (especially to the weak) that we support
false teaching.
-
And finally, by the very manner in which the situation at that
time was addressed, the FC reminds us to avoid attempting to embarrass or
ridicule a brother or sister for a wrong position, but in gentle, loving yet
firm spirit, to call an erring brother to repentance.
This way and
only this way is the path toward concord – the outward expression of a true
inner unity.
William Weedon
St. Paul Lutheran Church
Hamel, IL
USA
