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.