Full Membership in the Lutheran World
Federation:
Responding to the CTICR Proposal
Whatever various individuals may think of
the Theses of Agreement, there is no
doubt that from the time of their acceptance by the two synods in 1966, they
have comprised and still comprise to this day the formal doctrinal constitution
of the Lutheran Church of Australia (LCA). That means that, until such time
that the Church thinks otherwise, the Theses
of Agreement carry a permanency and binding status applicable to every
congregation that wants to be a member congregation of that same LCA.
Among other things, the Theses of Agreement affirm that ‘the
doctrinal consensus required’ for altar and pulpit fellowship between the congregations
that make up the LCA and any other church body ‘should always be regarded as
the doctrinal content of the Book of Concord’ (TA V.22). This does not mean
that we have to arrive at an exact verbal correspondence in doctrinal
formulations with other church bodies, but that the LCA, as a whole and in its
parts, is committed to grounding church fellowship – communio - in true agreement in doctrinal substance as that
substance is summed up and defined in those symbols which together comprise the
Book of Concord.
That this is the case has
repeatedly been confirmed by various LCA leaders over the years, both in the
past and more recently. For instance, following the summit in October 1998
between representatives of the LCA and guests from Europe, Japan and the USA in
which was discussed the LCA’s future relation to the Lutheran World Federation
(LWF), Dr David Stolz wrote with reference to CA 7: ‘The LCA has understood
sufficiency in terms of the broad sweep of the Book of Concord. For want of a better description, the LCA has
maintained a maximalist position as the basis for structural communio.’ By way of contrast, he added,
‘[t]he LWF seems to follow a more minimalist approach.’[1]
Following that same event, Dr
Jo Strelan also acknowledged with reference to CA 7 that, for us in the
LCA, ‘much has hinged on what is meant
by the pure preaching of the gospel. We have tended to say that this phrase,
together with the phrase “the doctrine of the gospel”, means the whole of
Christian doctrine. Pure preaching of the gospel means being orthodox with
regard to the chief tenets of the Faith as they are set out in the Book of Concord.’[2]
In like manner, the authors of the
recently tabled CTICR proposal document ‘Membership in the Lutheran World
Federation’,[3] while
confessedly speaking without consensus, also acknowledge that ‘[i]n the history
of the LCA the ‘pure’ teaching of the gospel has mostly been understood to
imply the full doctrinal content of the Book of Concord.’ And again, ‘the LCA
has tended to understand the ‘pure’ teaching of the gospel to imply the full
doctrinal content of the Book of Concord’, and thus ‘has usually made full
agreement on the Book of Concord a condition of church fellowship.’[4]
Whether or not the LCA has done this ‘mostly’ or ‘usually’ is neither here nor
there. The point is, when it has ‘tended’ this way, it has done so in
faithfulness to its own public doctrine as stated in the Theses of Agreement.
In this light it is all the
more enlightening to hear the authors of the proposal admit that, despite it
being the LCA’s commitment, as stipulated in its doctrinal constitution, to
ground church fellowship in agreement in the doctrinal content of the Book of
Concord, they are now in fact proposing some ‘other interpretation’, one they
acknowledge is ‘also adopted by the LWF’, in which the sufficient condition for
church fellowship is not the doctrinal content of the Book of Concord but
simple agreement on the gospel - ‘gospel’ being understood here in the strict
sense of justification.[5]
I say that this is enlightening, because the authors are here admitting that
what they are proposing with this ‘other interpretation’ is, in fact, a
departure from the Theses of Agreement,
and so a reconstitution of the LCA as such.
Now in and of itself, this is no big
deal. The Theses of Agreement state
that their authority is ‘entirely determined by the faithfulness and accuracy
with which they reflect the teaching of God’s Word, in particular the doctrine
of the Gospel.’ The real question is therefore: do the Theses of Agreement provide an accurate interpretation of the
Lutheran Confessions, remembering that it is an interpretation that precludes
fellowship with any other church body which in principle or practice does not
hold to the doctrinal content of the Book of Concord?
Satis
est
and the Gospel
The
question whether the Theses of Agreement provide an accurate
interpretation of the Lutheran Confessions question quite naturally takes us
back to the Confessions themselves, especially to CA 7 and the content of the satis est which, after all, is what much
of the fuss is all about. What does Article 7 mean when it speaks of ‘the
gospel’, or of it being taught ‘purely?
In answer to this question, the authors
of the CTICR proposal would have us believe what they write in paragraph 5
where they claim, without evidence, that ‘at the time of the Reformation… the
gospel was taught purely when it was not confused with the law.’ In other
words, they claim that the word ‘gospel’, as used in CA 7, is being used in the
narrow sense as the message of forgiveness. But when they set out to elaborate
on this they invite confusion by arguing that the implied emphasis is not upon what is taught, but on ‘how’ it is
taught.[6]
This confusion, apparently shaped by a
hermeneutic more existentialist than biblical, could use some unraveling. For a
start, as the Formula of Concord rightly explains, the word ‘gospel’ both in
Scripture and in medieval and Reformation writings is regularly used in two
different ways. On the one hand, it is sometimes used to refer simply to the
preaching of God’s grace. This is called its ‘narrow’ sense. On the other hand,
it is sometimes used to refer to the whole word of God or ‘the entire teaching
of Christ.’ In this sense, which is called its wider sense, ‘the term includes both
the exposition of the law and the proclamation of the mercy and grace of
God…’ (Tappert: 558, 3-4).
The question now is: is the term ‘gospel’
as it used in CA 7 meant to be taken in its narrow or its wider meaning? Is it
being used in its strict ‘either/or’ sense, or in its broader ‘both/and’ sense?
All the evidence points to the latter. This is first of all in direct congruity
with Scripture, which is where the Confessions would always have us return. As
St Paul writes in Ephesians 2:20, the church is ‘built on the foundation of the
apostles and the prophets’, that is, on the apostolic and prophetic Scriptures,
whose ‘cornerstone’ is Christ.
It is also in direct congruity with the
Apology - the official explanation of the Augsburg Confession. There in Apology
7 the term ‘gospel’ is amplified by such terms as ‘word of God’, ‘confession’,
‘confession of faith’, ‘doctrine of the gospel’, ‘apostolic doctrine’, and
‘divinely instituted word’. So closely is the term ‘gospel’ equated to ‘word of
God’ that the phrases ‘according to the gospel’ (iuxta evangelium) and ‘according to the Scriptures’ (iuxta scripturas) are used synonomously
(Tappert: 170.16; 173.28).
Still more light can be shed on the
meaning of this word ‘gospel’ by looking at the literary background of CA 7.
Articles 7 and 8 of the Augsburg Confession are simply the edited re-write of
Article 12 of the Schwabach Articles. There the church was defined as ‘nothing
other than the believers in Christ, who
believe and teach the aforementioned articles and statements, and who are
persecuted and martyred because of them in the world.’ It is to be noted that
the church here is not defined as those who believe the gospel, that is, the
gospel narrowly understood as the free, unmerited bestowal of forgiveness.
Rather, the objective content of the faith of the true church (fides quae) is much wider, consisting in
‘the aforementioned articles and statements’, that is, articles one through
eleven of the Schwabach Articles. Those articles correspond in doctrinal
content to articles one through six, nine through eleven and article thirteen
of the Augsburg Confession. Thus in CA 7 the Augsburg Confession is itself
proposed to be ‘the standard for what constitutes the right doctrine of the
gospel.’[7]
Nor is this merely a peculiarly Melancthonian idea. Luther too in the Smalcald
Articles defines the church’s holiness not simply in terms of ‘faith’ and the
‘gospel’, but as consisting in ‘the word of God and the true faith’ (im Wort Gottes und rechtem Glauben)
(Tappert: 315.3).
What about the qualification ‘in
accordance with its pure meaning’ (nach reinem Verstand)? A further look
at the Confessions reveals that the word rein in this usage means, as an
adverb, truly or rightly, or as an adjective, orthodox or unadulterated. This
is how Luther uses it in the preface to the Smalcald Articles when he speaks of the light that has dawned in
the churches of northern Germany ‘with the pure
word and the right use of the sacraments’ (Tappert: 290.10). And we need only
recall the Small Catechism when
it speaks of ‘the word of God taught in its truth and purity’ (das Wort Gottes lauter und rein gelehret
wird).
To preach the gospel purely therefore is
to preach the whole content of the revealed word of God in such a way that is
faithful to its true content and meaning. In the German text of CA 7, rarely
used as the basis for the more minimalist interpretation, the two
qualifications, standing in parallel, function as mutually interpretive:
The gospel preached
in
accordance with [its] pure meaning (nach reinem
Verstand)
The sacraments administered
in
conformity with the divine word (dem gottlichen Wort
gemäβ).
Having said all this, there will no doubt
still be some who will insist that the word ‘gospel’ in CA 7 is to be taken in
its narrow sense. But even if one were to grant this, the fact cannot be
avoided that this gospel is never in practice found apart from the law. Again,
the Formula of Concord explains: ‘Both doctrines’, the law and the
gospel, ‘are always together, and both of them have to be urged side by
side…’ (Tappert: 561, 15). And again, ‘[s]ince the beginning of the world these
two proclamations have continually been set forth side by side in the church of
God with the proper distinction…. We believe and confess that these doctrines
must be urged constantly and diligently in the church of God’ (Tappert: 562,
23-24). In other words, even the proclamation of the gospel in its narrow sense
presupposes and necessitates the prior proclamation of the law, ‘which reveals
the righteousness and immutable will of God’, ‘rebukes sin and gives
instruction about good works’ (Tappert: 561, 17-18). It is therefore quite
misleading to say, as the authors of the proposal do, that the gospel in CA 7
is meant to be understood as gospel ‘apart’ from the law.
The theo-logic of the case confirms this
too. Divine revelation forms an ordered, organic whole. ‘The gospel’ is not
some separate, self-contained component that can be abstracted from the whole
body of Christian truth. As Sasse once rightly observed, ‘[t]he article of
justification cannot be rightly taught where the great articles of the
Apostles’ and Nicene Creed are not kept. A false doctrine of the Incarnation
leads to a false understanding of justification and the sacraments. Thus the
article of the standing and falling [of the] church keeps together all articles
of the Christian faith and illumines them.’ Samuel Nafzger makes the same
point, reminding us that as Christians we are to ‘seek agreement in doctrine
not only for the sake of agreement or merely out of obedience to the Scriptures
but also because all the articles of faith are so integrally related to the
gospel that error in the confession of any article of faith threatens this
gospel.’[8]
And Ralph Bohlmann likewise writes, ‘Biblical doctrine is not something apart
from or alongside the gospel, but simply the articulation of the many aspects
of the gospel. To be concerned about agreement in doctrine is to be concerned
about the confession of the gospel itself.’[9]
Moreover, it is not the purpose of the
‘gospel’, narrowly understood as justification or forgiveness, to function as
the sole rule, norm and judge in matters of faith and practice. That would be
to turn the gospel into a new law. Rather, the word of God as contained in the
totality of Scripture is our rule and norm, defining not only what the gospel is but how it is to be administered. We
administer the Lord’s Supper not according to some a priori notion of the gospel, but according to Christ’s explicit
mandate and instruction. By obeying this divine command, the church faithfully
proclaims the gospel and administers forgiveness of sins in Jesus’ name. It is
not permissible, nor in the end even possible, to take the ‘gospel’ (narrowly
understood), abstract it from the whole word and counsel of God, and turn it
into some independent, ruling article of faith.
It seems to me that the CTICR proposal
has introduced even further confusion by continually presupposing an already
existing unity between the LCA and the member churches of the LWF through faith
in Christ, as though church fellowship were simply the inevitable outward
expression of faith in the heart. But despite appearances this presupposition
fails to uphold the fundamental distinction between the church as an
indivisible fellowship of faith and the Spirit in the heart, whose members are
known only to God (ecclesia stricte dicta),
and the church as an fellowship in outward ties and rites, recognisable to all
according to its public doctrine and practice (ecclesia late dicta). The proposal implies that by stitching up the
divisions in the outward fellowship through formal juridical alliances we will
somehow be giving visible expression to an alleged prior unity. But this is to
invert a basic and biblically established order: the unity of the church is to
be recognized, located, and preserved by means of its objective marks, not by
local, national, or international alliances - no matter how pious the
intentions or how genuine the good will of the various parties involved.
Thus the question as to what a
particular church or international communion believes, teaches, and confesses
is not a theoretical question by which we speculate or judge who is a true
Christian and who is not, nor does it seek merely to know which confession or
creeds that body may subscribe to on paper or in its charter documents. Rather
it is a question asking what actually goes on in the ‘body language’ of that
church, what is confessed, taught, and enacted in their public worship. Whose
name do they call upon in prayer? Who preaches, and what do they preach, and by
what authority? Who presides at the eucharist, and whom do they admit and
exclude from the altar? Who is responsible for judging doctrine and exercising
the keys, and on what basis, and with what checks and balances?
Having mentioned this distinction between
the one church conceived in its inward and outward aspects, it may be useful to
point a related distinction, also made by the Reformers. The Confessions
distinguish between the unity of the
church, that reality hidden in justifying faith, and unity in the church, a visible fellowship resulting from doctrinal
agreement. The unity of the church
is that essential, indivisible unity inherent to the una sancta, the universal assembly of saints united with Christ
through faith. For this unity the Confessions use the German phrase Einigkeit der Kirchen or the Latin unitas ecclesiae. Unity in the church, on the other hand, is
the harmony or agreement formally realised between particular churches on the
basis of shared, common doctrine and practice. For this unity the Confessions
also use the German word Einigkeit.
However it is never followed the genitive der
Kirchen, but with the preposition ‘in’ plus the dative: in
der Kirchen. Nor, when Einigkeit
is used in this way, is it translated with the Latin word unitas, but with concordia
or consensio, meaning harmony or
agreement.[10] It is this
latter unity in the church, realised
in ecclesial fellowship, that forms the concrete goal of ecumenical dialogue.
So we read in the Formula of Concord:
‘The primary requirement for
basic and permanent concord within the
church (Einigkeit in der Kirchen
/ concordiam in ecclesia) is a
summary formula and pattern, unanimously approved, in which the summarized
doctrine commonly confessed by the churches of the pure Christian religion is
drawn together out of the Word of God’ (Tappert: 503.1).
And a
few paragraphs on we read again:
‘In order to preserve the pure
doctrine and to maintain a thorough, lasting, and God-pleasing concord within the church (Einigkeit in der Kirchen / in ecclesia concordiam), it is essential
not only to present the true and wholesome doctrine correctly, but also to
refute the adversaries who teach otherwise’ (Tappert: 506.14).
In asking what constitutes the
adequate foundation for this unity in
the church, and thus for unity in our church, we cannot fail to notice
the ‘maximalist’ terms used here and repeated in subsequent paragraphs. What is
need is a ‘summary formula and pattern’, a ‘summarized doctrine’, ‘drawn out of
the Word of God.’ The Formula of Concord goes on to specify that summary in
terms of the contents of the whole Book of Concord.
Of course, if you are a church body that
does not hold to the Formula of Concord, all of this can be happily ignored
without any qualm of conscience. The CTICR proposal advocating full
membership in the LWF does just this. Now it is well known that there are
Lutherans who are happy to accept the Augsburg Confession, but do not hold to
the entire Book of Concord. Many have
seen in the other confessional books and in the Formula of Concord in particular
a departure from the so-called gospel impulse found in Luther and the Augsburg
Confession. Jaroslav Pelikan was one. He is now Greek Orthodox. Robert Wilken
was another. He is now Roman Catholic. But it is not only individuals who think
this way, but whole church bodies. To them the Formula of Concord is just too
restrictive in its doctrine, too tight in its wording, too unambiguous in its
formulations, too thoroughgoing in its condemnations. They might be happy to
call Scripture an authoritative testimony in which God’s word is found, but they
shrink from the Formula’s insistence that the Bible is ‘the sole judge, rule,
norm and touchstone according to which all doctrines should and must be
understood and judged as good or evil, right or wrong’ (Tappert: 465.7). They
might be happy to see somewhere in the Augsburg Confession or the Small
Catechism a pure exposition of the word of God,[11]
but they shrink from the Formula’s insistence upon including the Apology, the
Smalcald Articles, the Treatise on the Pope and both Catechisms as true
expositions of Scripture, authentic testimonies to the truth, and the Formula
itself as the their proper exposition. The point is, either the Formula of
Concord is a true exposition of the preceding symbols, or it is not. Our Theses of Agreement says it is. If now
we think it is not, let us at least admit as much, and reconstitute ourselves
accordingly.
So what does all this mean? We are being
urged to enter into full altar and pulpit fellowship with 136 church bodies about
whom we actually know very little, except that they hold nominally to the eight
line doctrinal basis of the LWF. No one
is denying that - to the extent that the gospel, narrowly understood as God’s
gracious remission of sins, is proclaimed among them, whether in greater or
lesser degrees of clarity – no one is denying there are many true, sound, and
good Christians among them, and that therefore there obtains between us and
them that fundamental unity of the church that consists in communion of faith and
the Holy Spirit in the heart.
The problem rather lies in our
biblically motivated conviction that the true church of God may extend ‘the
right hand of fellowship’ to another body claiming the name ‘Church’ or
‘Christian’ only if that body holds in principle and exhibits in actu ‘the faith once and for all
entrusted to the saints’ (Jude 3), that is, if that body holds to the
objective, summary content of apostolic teaching, the cardinal doctrines of
Scripture. To ground unity or concord in the church (Einigkeit in
der Kirchen) on the basis of a shared subjective faith in Christ (fides qua), apart from a shared
objective confession of faith (fides quae),
is to abstract the concrete foundations of church fellowship established by
Scripture and to set up in their place an intangible, purely speculative
foundation. This is little short of a complete capitulation to that ancient
heresy called gnosticism, only dolled up in modern dress: Christianity without
the church; faith without dogma.
In summary, it must be affirmed again
that none of us has any business defending Lutheran teaching simply because it
is ‘Lutheran’. Along with the creeds our Confessions say nothing about any
‘Lutheran’ church. Our true concern is with the teaching of sacred Scripture.
Only Scripture determines what is to be taught in our churches and in the ‘one
holy catholic and apostolic church.’ Scripture alone determines where the
boundary lines of the true church lie. As St Augustine once declared, pointing
to the whole canon of Scripture, ‘there let us seek the church.’[12]
We commit ourselves to the contents of the Lutheran Confessions, the Formula of
Concord included, only because we believe them to be the genuine teaching and
sum of Scripture, and therefore believe them to constitute the reliable
foundation for that saving ministry of the gospel to which the whole church is
called. If we bind ourselves to the catholic creeds and the Confessions, it is
because we find them saying the same
thing as Scripture. We are right to be concerned when we ourselves, or any
other church body claiming the name ‘Christian’ or ‘catholic’ or ‘Lutheran’,
deviate from the Confessions. This is not because we or they are not being
sufficiently Lutheran, but because thereby the word of God is not being ‘taught
in its truth and purity’, nor are we as God’s beloved children ‘living in
harmony with it.’
According to the Scriptures,
true and God-pleasing ecclesial fellowship is always only the result of agreement in and confession of
the true apostolic faith (1 Jn 1:3). It is not, despite what contemporary
ecumenists tell us, a means to it.
The unity of believers for which our Lord prayed follows upon his urgent
request that God ‘keep them in his name’ and ‘sanctify them in the truth’ (Jn
17:11,16). Where this truth is confessed, there unity will follow (ubi
veritas, ibi unitas). And so it is for the sake of that unity that we
earnestly pray, with Christ, to Almighty God our Father: sanctify us in the
truth, your word is truth.
Adam G Cooper
Geelong
[1] LTJ 33:1 (1999), p. 23.
[2] LTJ 33:1 (1999), p. 53.
[3] Pp. 110-122 under DOCUMENTS AND STATEMENTS in the Agenda Handbook for LCA Regular Convention, 2003.
[4] ‘Membership in the Lutheran World Federation’, p. 114.
[5] ‘Membership in the Lutheran World Federation’, p. 114.
[6] ‘Membership in the Lutheran World Federation’, p. 114.
[7] Werner Elert, The Structure of Lutheranism, p. 273.
[8] LTJ 33:1 (1999), 62.
[9] LTJ 33:1 (1999), 62.
[10] See A.C. Piepkorn, ‘What the Symbols have to say about the Church’, Concordia Theological Monthly (Oct, 1955), 759.
[11] This deliberately ambiguous qualification (in) is from the Doctrinal Basis of the LWF.
[12] Quoted in Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent I, 157. Also: ‘let us search for the church in the sacred canonical Scriptures (ergo in scriptures sanctis canonicis ecclesiam requiramus).’