Lutheranism yet today continues to find itself struggling to locate Christian ethics meaningfully within its justification-centered theology. Already several centuries old, the struggle has evaded an entirely satisfactory resolution, as witnessed in the variety of efforts surveyed in the previous chapter. The reality and persistence of Lutheranism’s notorious quandary over ethics is readily admitted by Lutherans themselves. Some theologians working from a Lutheran perspective such as Yeago and Hütter seek and suggest remedies for this ethical impairment. There are others, though, who actually discourage the pursuit of typical ethical concerns, in particular the encouragement of virtue, deeming this to be a threat to Lutheran doctrine. Such attitudes only serve to bolster the accusations of those like Hauerwas who contend that Lutheran theology itself is the source of the problem. To see problems with the current practice of Lutheran theology in line with the observations made in the previous chapter is one thing. To fault Lutheran theology itself is another thing altogether. But that is precisely the charge that is being made. Handicapped by what might be called justification-induced myopia, Lutheran doctrine, it is asserted, suffers from an inherent incapacity for ethical concerns, which leaves Lutheran believers poorly equipped to address practical issues of Christian living. Sadly, as witnessed by the previous chapter’s criticisms, much of contemporary Lutheranism may very well substantiate the charge of proffering feeble or inadequate ethical tools. What must be understood, however, is that the fault for this failure lies not with the doctrine itself but with some of the current claimants to the legacy of Lutheranism. The object of this chapter is to support this assertion by considering the best possible authority on the true position of Lutheran theology: the Lutheran Confessions themselves.
Why Consider the Confessions?
In their effort to address the problem of Lutheranism’s allegedly inherent ethical inadequacy, some of the theologians considered in chapter 2 looked with success to the work of Luther himself. This is a move in the right direction: thinking about Lutheran theology, it is probably a good idea to hear what Luther thought, and there is much in the great reformer’s writing that is of significant value in refuting the charge of Lutheranism’s systemic ethical incapacity. Still, Lutheran pastors and teachers do not subscribe to Luther’s extensive corpus, but to the Lutheran Confessions. The Confessions enjoy a unique authority and surpass Luther alone. So, in this chapter, we will specifically consider the Augsburg Confession (also known as the Augustana) and the Apology of the Augsburg Confession. There are several reasons for this choice. Penned by Philipp Melanchthon, these Confessions are important by virtue of their priority in the confessional corpus historically and formatively. Further, these documents are of special interest since their foil is the sixteenth-century Roman Catholic Church, a church that had carefully cultivated the idea of habits and disciplines of piety—key components of what today is called virtue ethics. It is helpful, then, to explore Melanchthon’s attitude toward the possible continued usefulness of such practices in the churches of the Reformation. This is especially important in light of the Lutheran rejection of Rome’s understanding of the Christian life and Rome’s oft-repeated accusation that Lutheran theology was undermining morality.
Finally, there remains at least one last factor that favors the use of the Augsburg Confession and its Apology. Contemporary Lutheranism’s near-universal recognition of the primacy and authority of the Augustana and, for most, also the Apology, confer a particular significance and sphere of influence on these confessions. If the charge that ethical incapacity is an intrinsic aspect of Lutheranism is accurate, one should legitimately expect to discover corroborating evidence within these foundational confessional documents. If, however, these documents exhibit a concern for questions of Christian ethics, and an interest in formation of Christian character, not only will the charge collapse, but those Lutherans content to dismiss ethical issues will perhaps be obliged to reevaluate the propriety of their position. To that end, this chapter will consider representative passages from the Confessions, especially the Augustana and the Apology, which provide significant bridges to the concerns of contemporary virtue ethics. Chapter 4 will then suggest a framework within which to organize and understand these data gleaned from the Confessions.
The Prominence of Good Works in the Confessions
The Confessions’ keen interest in encouraging good works is the most obvious “ethical” element in the Lutheran symbols and provides a reasonable place to begin a search for potential connections between Lutheran theology and modern virtue ethics. Little more than a cursory reading of the Lutheran Confessions is required to recognize that the believer’s life after justification was a significant concern for the reformers.
The Augsburg Confession
Of course, the primary Lutheran confession is the Augsburg Confession, and one needs to proceed no further than article 6 of that symbol to discover explicit evidence of the reformer’s desire to cultivate and multiply good works in the lives of Christian people: “Likewise, they teach that this faith is bound to yield good fruits and that it ought to do good works commanded by God on account of God’s will and not so that we may trust in these works to merit justification before God.” This article, provided with the title “The New Obedience” in early editions of the Confession, is later supported by article 20 of the Augustana, “Concerning Faith and Good Works.” Here, a similar importance is attached to good works: “Further, it is taught that good works should and must be done, not that a person relies on them to earn grace, but for God’s sake and to God’s praise.” Even beyond these articles specifically committed to an exposition of the significance of good works, The Book of Concord contains a wealth of additional material that highlights the reformers’ keen interest in good works and the Christian’s life after justification.
The author of the Augustana emphasizes the importance, indeed the necessity, of good works in several articles primarily dedicated to other issues. Article 12 of the Augustana, “Concerning Repentance,” confirms that good works are the fruit of repentance: “Faith believes that sins are forgiven on account of Christ, consoles the conscience, and liberates it from terrors. Thereupon good works, which are the fruit of repentance, should follow.” Article 16, on civil affairs, establishes that “lawful civil ordinances are good works of God,” and reflects the central elements of the reformers’ teaching of two realms and their corresponding kinds of righteousness. Article 18 treats the topic of free will and further develops the doctrine of two different kinds of righteousness: “Concerning free will they teach that the human will has some freedom for producing civil righteousness and for choosing things subject to reason.”
The Apology
Besides multiple passing references to the place and importance of good works in the Christian life, the Apology also contains several extended discussions about the good works of Christians as well as the two kinds of righteousness. Given the repeated accusations being leveled against the Lutherans that their doctrine was undermining civil righteousness, such an emphasis is hardly unexpected. Friedrich Mildenberger lucidly outlines the logic of the charge against the Lutheran reformers’ doctrine:
If salvation is the free gift of God’s grace, then we have no need to trouble ourselves with trying to lead a God-pleasing life. Rather, we are free to do or not to do whatever pleases us. This reproach was close to the surface and was easily confirmed by experience—for people’s religious and moral activities are always open to criticism. The statement that Lutheran preaching resulted in immorality was an effective argument and the Lutherans had to defend themselves against this accusation.
Melanchthon took the charge seriously and addressed it at length. His argument begins with paragraph 122 in article 4 of the Apology and runs for the remainder of the article—almost thirty-three pages in the Kolb-Wengert edition. Exhibiting his skill as a dialectician, Melanchthon contends that good works and faith are not at odds, but intimately related. “Thus good works ought to follow faith as thanksgiving toward God. Likewise, good works ought to follow faith so that faith is exercised in them, grows, and is shown to others, in order that others may be invited to godliness by our confession.” For Melanchthon and the argument of the Apology, good works are not optional but an integral part of the Christian life.
The Smalcald Articles and the Catechisms
In a somewhat ironic twist, the vast majority of the Lutheran Confessions did not come from the pen of Luther. Luther’s Smalcald Articles and catechisms, then, occupy a unique place in the confessional corpus as we hear from the great reformer himself. And here we continue to find a marked concern for the importance of good works in the life of the believer. Article 13 of the Smalcald Articles addresses both justification by faith and the good works that are to follow. Here, Luther lays heavy stress on the absolute necessity of faith before any work can be considered good.
Good works follow such faith, renewal, and forgiveness of sin, and whatever in these works is still sinful or imperfect should not even be counted as sin or imperfection, precisely for the sake of this same Christ. Instead, the human creature should be called and should be completely righteous and holy—according to both the person and his or her works—by the pure grace and mercy that have been poured and spread over us in Christ.
In other words, Christ justifies not only the person, but also that person’s works. A good work is good not by virtue of the motive driving it, nor in light of the result it produces. It is good only because the forgiveness of Christ covers and redeems it. For Luther, it is simple: Christ makes both the person and that person’s works holy and righteous. The transformation is complete.
Nevertheless, Luther’s most enthusiastic endorsement of good works in the life of the Christian is yet to come. Within the confessional corpus, the Small Catechism and the Large Catechism together provide perhaps the most impressive evidence of the emphasis placed on good works or Christian living in the teaching of the first Lutherans. Scandalized by his bitter firsthand experience during the 1528 church visitation of electoral Saxony and Meissen, Luther hoped that the catechisms and their place in the daily routines of believers would help to lead the people out of their shameful state of licentiousness. The problem is best explained by Luther himself. In his preface to the Small Catechism, the reformer complains that the “ordinary person, especially in the villages,” is woefully ignorant about the most basic tenets of the Christian faith. “As a result,” Luther laments, “they live like simple cattle or irrational pigs and, despite the fact that the gospel has returned, have mastered the fine art of misusing all their freedom.”
Similarly, in the Large Catechism’s longer preface ...
