ROUGHLY EDITED COPY
CONFESSIONS 1
CON1-Q043
JANUARY 2005
CAPTIONING PROVIDED BY:
CAPTION FIRST, INC.
P.O. BOX 1924
LOMBARD, IL 60148
* * * * *
This text is being provided in a rough-draft format.
Communications Access Realtime Translation (CART) is
provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility
and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.
* * * *
>> JOSHUA: I see that the Apology constantly addresses a
secular ruler; namely, Emperor Charles V, rather than the
Pope or his representatives. What can be the value of the
Apology of the Augsburg Confession for Lutherans that live
in a society that maintains the separation of church and
state?
>> DR. CHARLES P. ARAND: I think one of the tendencies of
Lutherans is to focus only on the doctrinal content of the
Augsburg Confession, the Apology to such a point that we can
miss or not always recognize the historical context,
particularly, the political context in which they were
offered.
The observation is right on target. The Apology is
addressed to an emperor. It is not addressed to the Pope. It
is not addressed to the cardinal. That, more than anything
else, highlights that we are dealing with a document that
has a very complex context; there is an ecclesiastical or
religious context, a political context, and a legal context.
Moreover, we're dealing with a document that is produced at
the height of an age we might call the Constantinian church,
and many today would argue that we're living in an age of
post-Constantinianism. We'll come back to that in a couple
of minutes.
But just to highlight that particular context in which the
Apology was prepared, must bear in mind that ever since the
year 313, when Constantine became emperor of the Roman
Empire, he established a policy for the empire that was
built upon this conviction: the unity of the empire depends
on having a single religion within the empire. The unity of
religion and the unity of the empire go hand in hand.
Accordingly, when a theological controversy broke out
between Arius and Athanasius, it threatened to disrupt the
unity of the empire. So what does Constantine do? He calls
for a council to be convened. Now, here you have a secular
ruler, an emperor, convening a church council, if you will,
to resolve the dispute. You know the rest of the story; the
end product of that council was what we know as the Nicene
Creed.
Strengthening Constantine's link between church and
empire, 50 years later, there was a man by the name of
Emperor Theodosius. In the year 379, he issued what is now
known as the Theodosian Edict. In it, he laid down the
requirements for citizenship within the empire. What were
the requirements for citizenship? Whoever wants to be a
citizen of the Roman Empire basically has to confess the
Nicene Creed. That is, they have to embrace the faith it
confesses, the trinity, the three persons in unity.
With that edict, bear in mind now, to be a citizen within
an empire is to confess a religious creed, if you will. And
from that point on, heresy and treason become linked
together with the result that armed force becomes a
legitimate means for dealing with heresy. Why? Because
you're also dealing with treason.
Well that edict goes into a compilation of imperial edicts
that was gathered together by Theodosius II in the year 438.
And that becomes known as the Theodosian Code. And that
becomes the basis both for law in the Western Empire as well
as the Eastern Empire. The Eastern Empire goes into what is
known as the Justinian Digest.
Well, after the barbarians overran the Roman Empire, that
collection of Roman laws and edicts pretty well became lost.
Being written in Latin, they became incomprehensible in the
Eastern Empire which was Greek speaking. And it became lost
pretty much until into the Western Empire. But in the 12th
century, they were rediscovered in Bologna. And from the
12th century on, law students from all Europe go to Bologna
to study the Justinian Digest and Roman laws. From that time
on, Roman law begins influencing the church’s canon law
rather significantly. When the Holy Roman Empire is
established, it is done so on the basis of Roman law. In
fact, most Holy Roman Emperors, Maximilian, Charles V, saw
themselves as standing in a direct line of succession from
the ancient Roman emperors like Constantine and Theodosius.
Indeed, in 1495, the empire set up the Imperial Supreme
Court and deliberately and consciously adopted Roman law as
the basis and guidance for its decisions. Why did I share
all of that? Because that body of Roman law, and I think the
Theodosian Edict in particular, becomes the legal basis for
all of the diets in the 1520s, beginning with the Diet of
Worms and culminating with the Diet of Augsburg. That Roman
law becomes the basis for heresy within the empire. So when
the Lutherans are dealing with Charles, they are having to
deal with him on the basis of imperial law, in this case,
Roman law.
So in the Diet of Worms, 1521, perhaps the most famous of
all the diets next to Augsburg, this is the one where Luther
is summoned to recant. Now, again, that story is very
fascinating, too, because when the Pope condemned him, he
simply wanted Charles to carry out the condemnation.
Charles, on the other hand, being an emperor for about two
years, very young, about 21 years old, was going to first
deliberate on it and maybe even give Luther a hearing. In
the end, he didn't give Luther a hearing, instead, ordered
Lutheran to recant. And in light of what he considered to be
Luther's stubbornness, he issued what is known as the Edict
of Worms. The Edict of worms declared Luther to be not only
a heretic but an outlaw. He could be shot on sight. Books
were to be burned. His reforms were to be prevented. Anyone
who offered him support would come under the edict itself.
And that would put their life and property at risk.
Well now, following the Edict of Worms, Luther and the
entire issue of the Reformation becomes a decidedly
political problem. Here is the bind that the princes find
themselves: If they implement the Edict of Worms, the risked
rebellion and unrest within their lands because many people
of sound mind, if you will, many reasonable people
considered Luther's reforms and criticisms against the
church to be entirely justified. So if the princes
implemented the Edict of Worms, they risked rebellion and
revolt within their territories. In fact, ever at the Diet
of Worms, there were slogans plastered through the town
threatening the peasants' boot, sort of a way of expressing
peasant rebellion should Luther not be given a fair hearing.
But on the other hand, if the princes don't implement the
Edict of Worms, then they themselves would come under its
strictures, and then they would incur the wrath of the
emperor himself and face possible war with the emperor. So
that's the tension in which they find themselves all through
the 1520s. And every diet that took place, Nuremberg in
1524, Speyer 1526, Speyer 1529, all were grappling with the
issue, do we implement the Edict of Worms. If so, how, to
what extent, and the like. So the Diet of Speyer in 1526,
for example, they actually manage to arrive at somewhat of a
compromise so that each prince would implement the Edict of
Worms as far as and to what extent they could justify before
the emperor and God.
A number of them took that as a chance to actually expand
the Reformation. The Diet of Speyer 1529, Charles was
rather, I would say, infuriated at the way in which the
Recess of 1526 had been used. And so now, at Speyer in 1529,
his brother-in-law, King Ferdinand of Austria, managed to
push through a position that, more or less, rescinded the
decisions of 1526, reimplemented the Edict of Worms. To
that, the Lutherans issued a protest. Now, this is where the
word Protestant comes from. But I need to emphasize it
wasn't simply a matter where the Lutheran princes were
saying, hey, we don't like that. We object. In fact, the
protest was more along the lines of a legal appeal like in
our own court system. If one finds that a decision has been
handed down unfavorable, one can appeal it to a higher
court. This was a legal procedure for appealing a decision
that had just been made. And part of the basis for the
appeal was that a decision adopted unanimously in 1526 could
not be overturned by a decision adopted merely by a majority
in 1529. There were other issues involved, but that's
basically where we get the notion of a protest or
Protestantism comes from.
Bear in mind, each one of these diets. It is not Lutheran
pastors or Lutheran theologians or professors who are the
prime characters or actors. It is laymen, secular rulers,
princes, dukes, magistrates within cities within the
imperial cities and the like.
Following 1529, you have a number of other reforms
continuing to take place. Lutherans conduct visitations of
the parishes to assess their financial condition, the care
of the pastor, the doctrine, the worship and the like. Much
of that provokes, then, the emperor to call the Diet of
Augsburg. Why? Because secular princes were not to undertake
these visitations. That is the responsibility and the
jurisdiction of bishops. And, in a sense, one can say they
were undertaking these reforms without due authority.
Now, I went through all of this in order to highlight the
political and legal contexts because it bears an important
bearing upon the purpose of the Augsburg Confession and
Apology themselves. I think one could make a strong case
that one of the primary tensions of the Augsburg Confession
was to make the case that the Lutherans met the requirements
for citizenship within the empire. In other words, they were
good catholic Christians. That's why the Augsburg Confession
opens by citing the Nicene Creed. That goes to the very
heart of the Theodosian Edict. It’s also why the Augsburg
Confession distances itself from all of the ancient heresies
that had arisen within the early church.
Moreover then, when you get to the Apology of the Augsburg
Confession, Melanchthon is writing a document that has at
least three audiences in view. Primarily, he's addressing
Charles V. The reason, Charles has issued the recess
Augsburg. He has threatened to use armed force, if
necessary, in order to bring the Lutherans back into the
Catholic fold. Melanchthon thus, in a sense, is appealing to
the emperor. The Apology could almost be likened to an
appeal that the emperor reverse his decision. And as he
addresses the emperor, he is going to argue that his
opponents, the opponents of the Lutherans, have distorted
and misrepresented the Lutheran position. In other words,
one of his primary tasks is to try and drive a wedge in
between the emperor, whom Melanchthon generally thinks is
more inclined to adopting a mild position, than the Lutheran
opponent. So he's trying to drive a wedge between the
emperor and the authors of the confrontation. In other
words, he's hoping the emperor might reverse his decision.
Secondly, it's almost as if Melanchthon is in a court of
law with the emperor as the judge, and the authors of the
confrontation are the prosecutors. So secondly, he also
addresses the authors of the confrontation. And in a couple
of instances, particularly in Article 12 of the apology, you
almost have this picture of where Melanchthon spins on his
heels in the midst of an argument, looks directly at
Cardinal *Compeggio, points a finger at him and says, if the
diet failed and if war comes, it is your fault. It is the
failure of Rome to have appointed reasonable men, capable
theologians, who could discern the spiritual crisis afoot
within Europe and provide a reasonable and responsible way
of resolving the controversies. This is basically Paragraphs
123 to Paragraph 130 Apology Article 12. And Melanchthon
even warns that things are changing, and Rome's status might
not be what it once was.
There's also a third party I think Melanchthon is
addressing, and that’s the court of public opinion. You'll
find this occasionally when he talks about the dear reader,
or the reader can see. In other words, this might be the
gallery in the courtroom. You might say Melanchton is
writing this as an open letter, and I think one might even
be able to make the case that Melanchthon is trying to
prepare the Lutheran audience, if you will, for possible
resistance if it comes to that, in other words, resistance
against the emperor.
In Article 20 of the Apology, you have a little *digressio
in Paragraphs 69. There Melanchthon states that we see a
horrible decree has been drawn up against us. I think he’s
referring there to the Recess of Augsburg, and behind that,
to the Edict of Worms. He goes on to say, our cause is just.
We know the faith we confess is grounded in scripture and is
entirely Catholic. Therefore, don't lose heart. In other
words, he's preparing them for whatever the consequences may
be. In other words, should the emperor invade Germany? He’s
preparing them for that eventuality.
Now, what does that mean for us today? Obviously, we don't
confess the faith in the courthouse or in the Congress in
the same way. In other words, the governor doesn't call the
Missouri Synod into convention. Nor does the governor
convene sessions of Congress or the assembly for the purpose
of resolving religious questions. Nonetheless, I think
there's an important lesson that we may take away from here;
namely, in our culture, there's a tendency, I think, for the
church to withdraw from the world, perhaps into its own
communities or enclaves, in order to have nothing to do with
the wider culture or with the world. There's a tendency,
perhaps, to think of ourselves as resident aliens. We're not
really citizens; we're just passing through. We don't really
belong here. I think the lesson that is valuable here
regarding the political and legal context is that the
Lutherans refused to leave. They had a seat at the table.
They had a place, and they belong, you might say, in the
Empire, and they made their case. In a similar way, I think
the Christian church, today, needs to reclaim public space.
There's a tendency to privatize the faith in such a way that
the faith belongs simply in our heart and in our home and
nowhere else. Not in business, not in politics, not in the
public square.
The Apology and the Augsburg Confession argue quite the
contrary. Maybe there are some things here that we could
explore down the road on how the church can reclaim space
within the wider public for discussion of issues related to
ethics and morality and even natural law and issues related
to God and the importance of the state not being the final
authority, that the state, in fact, is accountable to some
higher being, namely, God. But like I say, that might be
food for discussion for a day.