Ed Schroeder Parodies the Lutheran Faith
by
Robert A. J. Gagnon
Associate
Professor of New Testament
Pittsburgh
Theological Seminary
Aug. 30, 2004
A certain Ed Schroeder, a
former Lutheran Church Missouri Synod professor who joined the Seminex
walk-out in the 1970s and is a founder of an organization called
“Crossings,” has gotten himself into a tizzy over my involvement in the
homosexuality debate in Lutheran churches. In reaction to my forthcoming
presentation at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis (Sept. 21, 2004),
Schroeder publicizes on the internet a letter that he wrote to Concordia’s
president, hoping to censor my message by urging the president to
“disinvite” me (http://www.crossings.org/thursday/Thur081904.htm;
he also reposts here a 2002 harangue). While I am grateful for the
publicity that he gives this event, I do not commend his distortions of my
work, much less of the gospel. There may be some value to exposing
Schroeder’s error to the light of the gospel.
Schroeder wants to “warn”
Lutherans that I am a dangerous Presbyterian. Schroeder is fearful that I
might encourage fellow believers to take seriously Scripture’s core values
in sexual ethics. (By “core values” I mean values upheld strongly,
absolutely, and counterculturally by Jesus and Paul in agreement with the
creation texts, the biblical witness generally, and millennia of church
history, including Lutheran history.) Schroeder believes that to take such
values seriously is “anti-Luther” and a rejection of “Lutheran
hermeneutics” regarding the law/promise distinction and a theology of the
cross. He cites the Augsburg Confession and Melanchthon’s Apology as
documents in Lutheran history that would support his odd version of
Lutheranism.
Schroeder also thinks
that he is taking on Ezekiel’s mantle in warning Lutherans about my views
on homosexual practice. Ironically—as we shall see, there are many ironies
in Schroeder’s views—Ezekiel read the Sodom story in the light of absolute
Levitical prohibitions against homosexual practice and labeled homosexual
practice an “abomination,” an application that Schroeder contemptuously
dismisses (Ezek 16:50; 18:12; see discussion in The Bible and
Homosexual Practice, 79-85; Homosexuality and the Bible,
57-58).
Schroeder’s antinomian parody of classical Lutheranism
Cheap-grace antinomianism
is not classical Lutheranism. Unfortunately, cheap-grace antinomianism
appears to be the message that Schroeder is peddling.
Schroeder alleges that my
“allies are the scholastic Confutators” who criticized the Augsburg
Confession (AC). As it is, it is Schroeder himself who ironically gives
aid and comfort to the critics of the AC. For Schroeder’s antinomian
views resemble the false parody of the Augsburg Confession put forward by
the scholastic Confutators. Rather than defending the Augsburg
Confession, Schroeder unwittingly lifts up an antinomian caricature of the
AC that at various points Melanchthon took pains to refute.
Although Schroeder casts
himself as the gatekeeper who defines for other Lutherans “the” Lutheran
position, his hermeneutical lens for reading Scripture is not
distinctively Lutheran. It is the same anti-Scripture, gospel-diluted, and
Reformation-caricatured hermeneutic that I have heard from Presbyterian,
Episcopalian, and Methodist supporters of homosexual practice. Strangely,
they all delude themselves into thinking that their hermeneutic is
distinctive to their own denominational heritage. The truth is that
neither they nor Lutherans like Schroeder represent their denominational
heritage well.
More and more people are
beginning to realize that the great danger to their denominational
heritage comes not from listening to scholars from other mainline
denominations who uphold the authority of Scripture but from the
propaganda of persons within their own denomination who, captive to the
contemporary culture, seek to undermine the witness of the gospel
regarding sexual ethics and Christology.
The Augsburg Confession and Melanchthon’s Apology: On faith and good
works
Of course, the idea that
an appeal to Scripture’s strong stance against homosexual practice
contradicts the theology of Luther, the Augsburg Confession, and Melanchthon’s Apology is ridiculous. I agree with Luther, the Augsburg
Confession, Melanchthon, and, more importantly, with Jesus and Paul on the
fundamentals of faith and works. But I disagree with those, like
Schroeder, who truncate the full-orbed message of the gospel.
The message of the
Augsburg Confession on “Faith and Good Works” (Article XX) is clear (see
also Article VI):
- Justification is by
faith alone. Good works cannot merit salvation.
- Faith, in combination
with the indwelling Holy Spirit, enables and impels us to good works,
which are “necessary” for the Christian life. We do such works out of
gratitude for God’s grace through Christ, not out of a vain desire to
merit our way into heaven.
- Where a life is lived
under the primary sway of the lusts of the flesh faith is absent. “When
there is no faith and trust in God, all manner of lusts and human
devices rule in the heart.”
On this last point, we
might note also Philip Melanchthon’s Apology of the Augsburg Confession,
Part VI:
Likewise the faith of which we speak
exists in repentance i.e., it
is conceived in the terrors of conscience, which feels the wrath of God
against our sins, and seeks the remission of sins, and to be freed from
sin. And in such terrors and other afflictions this faith ought to grow
and be strengthened. Wherefore it cannot exist in those who live
according to the flesh, who are delighted by their own lusts and obey
them. Accordingly, Paul says, Rom. 8, 1 [and 8:4]: There is,
therefore, now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. So, too, vv. 12. 13: We are
debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after
the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye, through the Spirit, do mortify the
deeds of the body, ye shall live. Wherefore, the faith which receives
remission of sins in a heart terrified and fleeing from sin does
not remain in those who obey their desires, neither does it coexist
with mortal sin. (emphases added)
Melanchthon is quite
clear: Faith cannot continue to reside in those who live according to the
flesh, that is, in primary obedience to the flesh’s sinful desires.
At the end of this essay
I have appended some additional quotations from the Augsburg Confession
and Melanchthon’s Apology to buttress the points made above.
Paul’s theology of the cross
Schroeder complains that
I do not understand the theology of the cross. But the misunderstanding
lies with Schroeder who has turned grace into a license to sin.
Of course salvation
cannot be merited by any amount of good works. God justifies the sinner on
the basis of grace, by means of Christ’s atoning work on the cross, and
individually appropriated by faith in Christ. Boasting in self-achievement
is thereby excluded (Rom 3:27; 1 Cor 1:29; Phil 3:7-11). Of course we are
to act out of what God has remade us to be by his grace and through his
Spirit, not out of our own self-striving.
At the same time, grace
is not cheap. It comes at great cost to Christ, a fact that lays a great
claim on our lives, including our sexual lives. This is how Paul related
the cross of Christ to a requirement for sexual purity in 1 Corinthians
6:18-20:
Flee sexual immorality! Every sin,
whatever a person does, is outside the body. But the one who commits
sexual immorality sins against his own body. Or do you know that your body
is a temple of the Holy Spirit in you, which you have from God, and you
are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your
body. (emphasis added)
Moreover, Paul states
that we are transferred into Christ’s death and this for a purpose: so
that we might no longer live for ourselves but for the one who died for
us. The point is well made in Galatians 2:19-20:
For I through the law died to the law, in
order that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ; and I
no longer live, but Christ lives in me. And the life that I now live in
the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself
over for my sake.
Where Schroeder promotes
a view of faith as a take-the-money-and-run approach to God’s grace, Paul
put forward a view of faith as a holistic life reorientation, a trust that
repeatedly says “Yes” to God and “No” to self. Schroeder wants sin to
transfer to Christ without the self also transferring to Christ. It can’t
happen. According to Paul, the theology of the cross necessitates a
cruciform life—a life reshaped by the event of the cross such that I no
longer live but am crucified with Christ. To continue to live for
oneself is the antithesis of a life lived “by faith.” The life lived by
faith is the life lived for God, out of the power of the indwelling Spirit
of Christ, and in gratitude for Christ’s great sacrifice on one’s behalf.
Paul’s theology of the
cross is a theology that not only denies to the justified any personal
boast but also requires that the justified allow the Spirit to do the work
of crucifying the flesh with its sinful passions. Paul makes this point
obvious again in Romans 6:1-8:17 (similarly, Galatians 5:13-25; 6:7-9,
below). He asserts that to continue in enslavement to sin is to contradict
God’s purpose in liberating us from sin, a purpose self-evident in our
baptism into Christ’s death and in our future expectation of resurrected
bodies (6:1-14). Believers are now to be enslaved to God. Those who
continue to behave as though slaves to sin, including slaves to “sexual
uncleanness” (6:19), will be recompensed with death; those who behave as
slaves of God will receive the gift of eternal life (6:15-23). “The ‘law’
(i.e. regulating principle) of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” now
liberates us “from the ‘law’ (i.e. regulating principle) of sin and death”
(8:2; compare 7:7-23, which distinguishes the external, good, but weak law
of God from the internal, bad, and strong “law” or regulating power of sin
operating in human members). Christ died for us “in order that the
requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to
the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Rom 8:4)—not just in “us who
believe” but in “us who walk . . . according to the Spirit.” In the
conclusion to this section Paul states with absolute clarity:
So then, brethren, we are debtors not to
the flesh, resulting in living in conformity to the flesh, for if you live
in conformity to the flesh, you are going to die. But if by the Spirit you
put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For as many as are led
by the Spirit of God—these are the children of God. (Rom 8:12-14; note:
vv. 12-13, plus v. 4, are also quoted in Melanchthon’s Apology, Part VI,
cited above)
In conclusion, there is
no valid theology of the cross that treats transformation as optional for
those not under the law, including transformation away from sexually
impure, immoral, or licentious behavior. Not surprisingly, then, when Paul
sat down new converts to explain to them the kind of conduct expected of
believers, sexual “commands” were at the top of the list. Along with them
Paul delivered strong warnings that non-compliance would be tantamount to
rejecting God, risking God’s wrath and exclusion from God’s kingdom (1
Thess 4:1-8; cf. 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:3-5). Either the apostle
Paul or Ed Schroeder does not understand the import of grace for sexual
morality. I personally prefer the apostle.
The law/promise lens
Schroeder also complains
that I do not understand the law/promise dichotomy. But Schroeder forgets
the fact that an essential part of the promise is the Spirit—see the
phrase “the promise of the Spirit” (= “what was promised, namely the
Spirit” [Bauer’s Lexicon]) in Galatians 3:14 and Acts 2:33. For
Paul the Spirit is integrally related to the necessity of the transformed
life, which in turn is integrally related to sexual purity and an outcome
of eternal life. Thus Paul says in Galatians 5:13-25; 6:7-9:
You were called to freedom, brethren; only
[do] not [use] your freedom as a bridgehead (or opportunity) for the
flesh. . . . Walk by the Spirit and you will certainly not carry out the
desire of the flesh. For the flesh desires against the Spirit. . . . But
if you are being led by the Spirit you are not under the law. Now the
works of the flesh are obvious, which are: sexual immorality (porneia),
sexual uncleanness
(akatharsia),
sexual licentiousness (aselgeia) . . . , which I am warning you
about, just as I warned you before, that those who practice such things
will not inherit the kingdom of God. . . . Those who belong to Christ
Jesus have crucified the flesh with its (sinful) passions and desires. If
we live by the Spirit, let us also line up with the Spirit. . . .
Stop deceiving yourselves. God is not
going to be mocked, for whatever a person sows, one will also reap this.
For the one who sows into one’s own flesh will reap destruction from the
(same) flesh; but the one who sows into the Spirit will reap eternal life
from the (same) Spirit. And let us not grow tired of doing what is right
for in due time we will reap—if we do not relax our efforts.
Here Paul states clearly
that:
- Believers are free in
Christ. Those who seek justification through works of the law such as
circumcision are severed from Christ and have fallen away from grace
(5:4).
- Nevertheless, freedom
is for being led by the Spirit and not for carrying out the sinful
desires of the flesh.
- The ones who are no
longer “under the law” are those who are “led by the Spirit.”
Conversely, those who are dominated by fleshly impulses remain “under
the law,” that is, within the realm of the law’s jurisdiction and
condemnation, regardless of any confession of faith.
- “Sexual uncleanness” (akatharsia)—a
rubric under which Paul elsewhere prominently categorizes same-sex
intercourse (Romans 1:24-27)—is a particularly obvious “work of the
flesh” that believers are to steer clear of.
- Those who practice, in
a serial and unrepentant manner, such sinful behaviors and who thereby
“sow seed” primarily in the field of the flesh, risk not inheriting
God’s kingdom and reaping instead a harvest of destruction. They risk
this not because they fail to merit salvation but because they
demonstrate that faith has meant little more to them than an
intellectual assent to the truth. Those who persist in doing what is
right—in gratitude for Christ’s redemptive work and knowing that God is
the one who energizes both the willing and the doing (Phil 2:13)—will
reap eternal life.
Schroeder affirms the
first point but denies points 2 through 5. He then claims that he has the
right hermeneutic for discerning Paul’s gospel of grace—which, apparently,
Paul himself did not understand.
A second thing that
Schroeder forgets about the law/promise lens (there are others) is that
one of the main problems of the law is not just that it promotes
self-striving or condemns but that it is powerless to effect obedience.
Luther’s comments on Romans 6:14 (“sin shall not have dominion over
you for you are not under law but under grace”) are illuminating:
Hence we must note that the apostle’s mode
of speaking appears unusual and strange to those who do not understand it
because of its great peculiarity. For those people understand the
expression “to be under the Law” as being the same as having a law
according to which one must live. But the apostle understands the words
“to be under the Law” as equivalent to not fulfilling the Law, as being
guilty of disobeying the Law, as being a debtor and a transgressor, in
that the Law has the power of accusing and damning a person and lording it
over him, but it does not have the power to enable him to satisfy the Law
or overcome it. And thus as long as the Law rules, sin also has
dominion and holds man captive. . . . Therefore he says in this passage
that we can restrain the reign of sin because “we are not under the Law
but under grace” (v. 14). All this means “that the body of sin might be
destroyed” (v. 6) and the righteousness which has been begun may be
brought to perfection. (Lectures on Romans, in Luther’s Works
[vol. 25; Saint Louis: Concordia, 1972], 316-17; emphasis added)
In other words, “to be
under the Law” is to be locked into a regime of sin, serving the sinful
passions of the flesh and disobeying the Law’s moral demands. “To be
under grace,” then, must be the obverse of this; namely, to be liberated
from the controlling influence of sinful passions and so to bear “fruit”
in one’s conduct that issues in eternal life. As Paul says later in
Romans 7:4-6:
You were put to death in relation to the
law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to the
one who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for
God. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions that were
aroused by the law were at work in our members so as to bear fruit that
issues in death. But now we have been discharged from the law, having
died to that by which we were being held down, so that we serve [as
slaves] in newness of Spirit and not in oldness of letter (i.e., under
the empowering “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” [8:2] and not
under the powerless, merely written text of the law). (emphasis added)
Perfection of course
awaits the redemption of our bodies; but, as Luther notes, the process has
begun. Melanchthon makes the same point in his Apology, Part VI:
We, therefore, profess that it is
necessary that the Law be begun in us, and that it be observed continually
more and more. . . Therefore the adversaries falsely charge against us
that our theologians do not teach good works, while they not only require
these, but also show how they can be done.
Relevant too are Luther’s
comments on Romans 6:19. Romans 6:19 states: “For just as you once
presented your members as slaves to sexual uncleanness (akatharsia,
the same term used for same-sex intercourse in 1:24) and to lawlessness
for the purpose of [doing] lawlessness, so now present your members as
slaves of righteousness for the purpose of [doing] holiness.” Luther
rightly notes the implication of this passage:
He who serves uncleanness, that is,
dissipation and carnal uncleanness, is already becoming more and more
unrighteous, for sin now rules over him, and he has lost faith and has
become an unbeliever. (Lectures
on Romans, 321)
According to Luther,
active participation in sexually immoral behavior of an egregious sort is
tantamount to a complete loss of faith.
If Schroeder refuses to
accept what I say about Paul, simply because I am not a member of a
Lutheran church, he can hear essentially the same message from a fine New
Testament scholar who teaches at Smith College and happens also to be
Lutheran: Karl P. Donfried. Almost 30 years ago Donfried wrote an article
entitled “Justification and Last Judgment in Paul,” which has since become
a classic (first published in Zeitschrift fuer die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft 67 [1976]: 90-110 and Interpretation 30 [1976]:
140-52; reprinted in: Karl Donfried, Paul, Thessalonica, and Early
Christianity [Eerdmans, 2002], 253-78; see also, “Justification and
Last Judgment in Paul—Twenty-Five Years Later,” in ibid., 279-92).
According to Donfried, “Paul expects a last judgment for Christians which
can have different results: salvation for the Christians who have been
obedient in faith and wrath for those who have been disobedient to their
calling in Christ” (p. 270). Similarly, in connection with the case of the
incestuous man in 1 Corinthians 5, Donfried concludes: “anyone who is
baptized, justified and a member of the church but who is not obedient to
the gift and possibility of his new existence, will not be tolerated [by
God]” (p. 278).
On Schroeder’s misunderstanding of Leviticus
Schroeder says that we
shouldn’t pay any attention to Leviticus because it was “God’s civil
ordinance for the Jews.” Obviously Leviticus is a civil ordinance for
Israel and, taken as a whole, is not our civil code. For example, we don’t
impose the death penalty for adultery and other sexual offenses.
At the same time it is
equally obvious that Leviticus enshrines many core moral
standards—including “love your neighbor as yourself” in Lev 19:18 (the
second greatest commandment according to Jesus)—that are carried over into
the new covenant. We don’t say about adultery, or consensual adult incest,
or bestiality, “Oh, that’s part of the outdated Levitical purity code. We
can ignore that.” There is clearly significant continuity in the divine
will between the two Testaments, including in sexual ethics. Jesus
believed this. Paul obviously believed this, since he alluded to Lev 18:22
and 20:13 in his own denunciations of same-sex intercourse in Rom 1:24-27
and 1 Cor 6:9 (also of incest in 1 Cor 5). The entire New Testament canon
professes it. Indeed, so far as sexual standards are concerned, the New
Testament at a number of points actually intensifies the Old Testament’s
demand rather than weakens it (compare, for example, Jesus’ antitheses in
Matt 5:27-32).
Schroeder also
conveniently ignores the fact that Scripture’s other-sex prerequisite for
appropriate sexual relations spans the entire Scripture, from Genesis 1 to
Revelation 22. It is certainly not limited to Leviticus, as I have shown
in The Bible and Homosexual Practice. Every narrative, law,
proverb, exhortation, metaphor, and poetry that has anything to do with
human sexuality presumes the sole and exclusive legitimacy of heterosexual
unions. In most of my presentations I don’t even have time to talk about
Leviticus because I’m so preoccupied talking about Genesis, Jesus, and
Paul, and various hermeneutical concerns.
On the definition of sin as not believing in Jesus
Schroeder says that I
ignore “the new definition for sin that came with Jesus,” namely, not
believing in Jesus. Of course sin means this. However, the term “sin”
doesn’t cease to be used in the New Testament to refer to individual acts
of rebellion that patently exhibit unbelief toward God and ongoing
reliance on the flesh.
For example, what does
Paul mean when he asks, “Are we to continue in sin . . . ?” or “Should we
sin . . . ?” in Rom 6:1, 15? Context indicates that he means obedience to
erring desires of the flesh, including desires for sexually impure
behavior (6:12, 19; 7:5, 8, 18-19; 8:5-8, 12-13). When Paul says that
“every [other] sin . . . is outside of the body but the one who commits
sexual immorality sins against his own body” (1 Cor 6:18), he is clearly
referring to engaging in sexual immorality as a particularly egregious
sort of sin in terms of its effects on the human body, whether it be sex
with prostitutes (6:15-16), incest (ch. 5; 6:9), fornication, adultery, or
same-sex intercourse (6:9). He means by sin engaging in behavior
that God commands us not to engage in (7:19). When Jesus says to the woman
caught in adultery “sin no more” (John 8:11) he means that the woman
should stop committing adultery. If Schroeder would take the time to do a
simple concordance search of the word “sin” (hamartia and cognates)
in the New Testament, he would see over and over again that sin in the
sense of failing to believe in Jesus does not eradicate sin in the sense
of a violation of God’s moral imperatives. If one claims faith in Jesus, a
trust that Jesus’ provision for my life is better than any
self-gratification, and then engages in serial, unrepentant adultery or
incest, what kind of faith is that? The answer: the nonexistent kind,
no-faith, and no-faith is sin.
On “abominations” and loving homosexual persons
In a contrived effort to
paint me as callous to homosexual persons, Schroeder says several times
that my favorite word
is “abomination.” The truth is that I rarely use it in my writings apart
from discussing Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, the prohibitions of homosexual
cult activity that can be found from Deuteronomy through 2 Kings, and
Ezekiel 16:15 and 18:12 (all of which use the term to’evah,
“abomination,” “abhorrent or detestable act,” of homosexual practice).
Even so, Scripture makes it quite clear that God abhors same-sex
intercourse, as also incest and adultery; it would be unloving and
deceptive to gloss over this fact. In describing same-sex intercourse in
Rom 1:24-27, Paul uses similar words: “sexual impurity/uncleanness,”
“indecency” or “shameful conduct,” self-“dishonoring/degrading” behavior.
At the same time I also
emphasize strongly in my work the church’s obligation to love and reach
out to those engaged in such behavior, and to be open to such outreach
ourselves whenever we fall into willful sinful behavior. For example, on
pp. 31-32 of The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Schroeder calls
this my “now
(in)famous book”), I say:
I deplore
attempts to demean the humanity of homosexuals. . . . The person beset
with homosexual temptation should evoke our concern, sympathy, help, and
understanding, not our scorn or enmity. Even more, such a person should
kindle a feeling of solidarity in the hearts of all Christians, since we
all struggle to properly manage our erotic passions. . . . Thus a reasoned
denunciation of homosexual behavior . . . is not, and should not be
construed as, a denunciation of those victimized by homosexual urges,
since the aim is to rescue the true self created in God’s image for a full
life.
Similar observations are
made throughout the book (see, inter alia, pp. 227-28, 484-85,
489-93), including the conclusions of chapters where they can hardly be
ignored (although Schroeder chooses to do so). Abhorrence of a given
practice can, and must, coexist alongside of love for violators. Jesus
demonstrated precisely this in reaching out to tax collectors who
exploited many economically.
Conclusion
The bottom line is that
Schroeder operates with a highly truncated gospel. He views Lutheranism
through the distorted lens of antinomianism. While there are indeed parts
of the canon higher and more “core” than our parts, in severing gospel
from new life Schroeder has cut deep into the gospel itself.
In Romans 1:18-32 Paul
depicts the wrath of God in the present time as God standing back and
allowing humans to be controlled in their behavior by self-degrading
impulses. What Paul describes as “the wrath of God” Schroeder sees as
the grace of God. For Paul, the gospel is not just a proclamation that
our sins are forgiven, as though leaving us trapped in cycles of
self-degrading conduct. It is also a message of hope regarding the
transformed life. The tragedy is that this message is so easily gleaned
from central (not merely peripheral) portions of the New Testament,
including the consistent teaching of Jesus and Paul, and yet so many,
including Schroeder, refuse to acknowledge it because it does not conform
to their bogus “hermeneutic.”
We have focused mostly on Paul to this
point but one could easily multiply material from the Jesus tradition,
such as when Jesus says: “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do
what I tell you?” (Luke 6:46); “Whoever does the will of God is my brother
and sister and mother” (Mark 3:35); “Everyone who hears these words of
mine and does not do them” is like the person who builds a house on sand,
which is destroyed when a flood comes (Luke 6:47-49 par. Matt 7:24-27);
“If anyone wants to follow after me, let him deny himself and take up his
cross and follow me; for whoever wants to save his life must lose it”
(Mark 8:34-37); and, in the midst of a discussion about sex, that one
should be prepared to cut off body parts that “threaten one’s downfall,”
because it is better to go into heaven maimed than to be thrown into hell
whole-bodied (Matt 5:29-30). Salt that loses its taste and trees or
branches that cease to bear fruit are to be thrown into the fire (Luke
14:34-35 par. Matt 5:13; Luke 6:43-44 par. Matt 7:16-20; Luke 13:6-9; John
15:1-11).
Schroeder says that the
Bible should be viewed as a “patient chart,” not as a body of texts that
tells us “what to believe, how to behave.” But the dichotomy is false and
certainly not one that the Augsburg Confession embraced. Moreover, a
patient too needs practical instruction in how to get better and maintain
health. Yet even a corrected version of Schroeder’s “patient chart” only
goes so far, inasmuch as (a) there is a strong dimension of moral
culpability to sin not conveyed by the sickness metaphor, (b) God’s
commandments cannot be reduced to mere suggestions from a doctor, and (c) God’s role in
judging cannot be reduced entirely to the kind of impersonal cause-and-effect nexus
normally associated with disease.
The big picture that has
apparently escaped the notice of persons like Ed Schroeder is that, even
though the Bible is not in its entirety a rulebook (the Bible is composed
of many different genres) and underwent development throughout its long
history, it does contain rules to be obeyed, called “commandments.”
Confession of faith in Christ is not an excuse to disregard core
commandments of Scripture. On the contrary: it is the stimulus and means
for obedience to such commands (as the AC acknowledges). That is why the
risen Christ commanded the eleven to make disciples by “teaching them to
keep all the things that I have commanded you to do” (Matt 28:20). That is
why Jesus in John declared, “If you love me, you will keep my
commandments” (14:15, 21). That is why Paul, in the midst of talking about
sex ethics, declared that what counts is “keeping the commandments of God”
(1 Cor 7:19). That is why the New Testament in general devotes an
extraordinary amount of attention to instructing believers in how they
should behave.
But for Schroeder it
seems to matter little that these concerns were central to Jesus, central
to Paul, and central to the rest of the New Testament witness. He has
constructed glasses that allow him to discard whatever does not fit his
own fabricated ideology. What he protects is not the view of faith and
works upheld by Luther, the Augsburg Confession, and Melanchthon’s
Apology—much less the view upheld by Jesus and the united witness of
Scripture. No, what he protects is a tragic parody of classical
Lutheranism, a caricature of justification by faith. He fails to see that
to be “under grace” involves the capacity and necessity to do
right, including in the area of sexual ethics; that freedom from the
law is only for those led by the Spirit; that sin transfer to
Christ does not occur apart from self-transfer to Christ; and that
faith is not a mere intellectual assent to the truth but a holistic
life reorientation that entails living in “the law of the Spirit”
and “for God.” All of
these points can, and must, be affirmed in a theological context that
maintains that God justifies the ungodly on the basis of faith in Christ
and in Christ’s redemptive work. Schroeder’s rigid “either-or” mentality
about such things—either justification is by faith alone or moral
transformation is necessary—is dead wrong.
© 2004 Robert A. J.
Gagnon
Appendix
The Augsburg Confession,
Article XX (“Faith and Good Works”):
“Our teachers are falsely accused of
forbidding good Works. . . . Our teachers have instructed the churches
concerning faith as follows: First, that our works cannot reconcile God or
merit forgiveness of sins, grace, and justification, but that we obtain
this only by faith when we believe that we are received into favor for
Christs sake, who alone has been set forth the Mediator and Propitiation,
1 Tim. 2, 6, in order that the Father may be reconciled through Him.
Whoever, therefore, trusts that by works he merits grace, despises the
merit and grace of Christ, and seeks a way to God without Christ, by human
strength. . . .
“Furthermore, it is taught on our part
that it is necessary to do good works, not that we should trust to merit
grace by them, but because it is the will of God. It is only by faith that
forgiveness of sins is apprehended, and that, for nothing. And because
through faith the Holy Ghost is received, hearts are renewed and endowed
with new affections, so as to be able to bring forth good works. For
Ambrose says: Faith is the mother of a good will and right doing. For
man’s powers without the Holy Ghost are full of ungodly affections, and
are too weak to do works which are good in God’s sight. . . .
“Hence it may be readily seen that this
doctrine is not to be charged with prohibiting good works, but rather the
more to be commended, because it shows how we are enabled to do good
works. For without faith human nature can in no wise do the works of the
First or of the Second Commandment. Without faith it does not call upon
God, nor expect anything from God, nor bear the cross, but seeks, and
trusts in, man’s help. And thus, when there is no faith and trust in God
all manner of lusts and human devices rule in the heart.”
The same point is
communicated in Article VI, “Of New Obedience”:
“Also [our teachers]
teach that this faith is bound to bring forth good fruits, and that it is
necessary to do good works commanded by God, because of God’s will, but
that we should not rely on those works to merit justification before
God.”
And also in Philip
Melanchthon’s Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Part VI:
“It is . . . the opinion of merit that we
exclude. We do not exclude the Word or Sacraments, as the adversaries
falsely charge us. For we have said above that faith is conceived from the
Word, and we honor the ministry of the Word in the highest degree. Love
also and works must follow faith. Wherefore, they are not excluded so as
not to follow, but confidence in the merit of love or of works is excluded
in justification.”
Melanchthon’s Apology,
Part VI:
“We, therefore, profess that it is
necessary that the Law be begun in us, and that it be observed continually
more and more. And at the same time we comprehend both spiritual movements
and external good works [the good heart within and works without].
Therefore the adversaries falsely charge against us that our theologians
do not teach good works, while they not only require these, but also show
how they can be done. . . .
“Likewise the faith of which we speak
exists in repentance i.e., it is conceived in the terrors of conscience,
which feels the wrath of God against our sins, and seeks the remission of
sins, and to be freed from sin. And in such terrors and other afflictions
this faith ought to grow and be strengthened. Wherefore it cannot exist in
those who live according to the flesh, who are delighted by their own
lusts and obey them. Accordingly, Paul says, Rom. 8, 1: There is,
therefore, now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. So, too, vv. 12. 13: We are
debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after
the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye, through the Spirit, do mortify the
deeds of the body, ye shall live. Wherefore, the faith which receives
remission of sins in a heart terrified and fleeing from sin does not
remain in those who obey their desires, neither does it coexist with
mortal sin.”
Melanchthon’s Apology,
Part XXV (on Article 20):
“Faith does not remain
in those who lose the Holy Ghost, who reject repentance, just as we have
said above (p. 253) that faith exists in repentance. . . . For we do not
make void the Law, says Paul, Rom. 3, 31; yea, we establish the Law,
because when by faith we have received the Holy Ghost, the fulfilling of
the Law necessarily follows, by which love, patience, chastity, and other
fruits of the Spirit gradually grow.”