Concord

The following is a presentation I gave for my Theology of the Reformations Class on October 3rd. It is based on sections 4-6 of the Formula of Concord found here.

The Formula of Concord

            Following Luther's death in 1546, Pope Paul III and Emperor Charles V agreed to a military solution to the Lutheran problem they were facing, by 1547 he had conquered Wittenberg's Castle Church, the building where the 95 theses had been posted in 1517.[1] Following his military victory Charles V tried to settle church matters through the Augsburg Interim, a document which compromised allowing clergy to marry and give both elements in the Eucharist but demanded they submit to Rome in other manners such as affirming transubstantiation.[2] This compromise did not sit well with either side, the pope demanding total rejection of Lutheranism which caused the Lutheran rulers to realize they would lose everything if they accepted the interim.[3]

            This led to Charles enforcing the Augsburg Interim militarily. To appease this, Philip Melanchthon was willing to compromise with Rome, writing a document called the Leipzig Interim, which would grant a lot of concessions to Rome. Melanchthon’s Followers would become known as Philipists.[4] When the Leipzig Interim failed to give him the peace he thought it would, and realizing that he was then considered a traitor by many of his people, Elector Maurice betrayed Charles and drove Imperial forces out of Augsburg. This led to the peace of Augsburg and the principal Cuius regio, eius religio (he who rules, his the religion), drawing the major conflict between Lutheranism and Catholicism to a close.[5]

            However this did not create peace within Lutheranism. The Philipists and their compromises were opposed by the Gnesio-Lutherans (Gnesio meaning “Genuine”), who argued for a closer following of Luther's original Doctrines.[6] This theological conflict was brought to a close by the work of a third group led by Jacob Andreae and Martin Chemnetz. They saw that a lot of the arguing was centered around Personality Conflicts, and polarization caused by the nature of arguing.[7]

            Eventually in 1577 they signed the Formula of Concord and submitted it to Elector Augustus, spending the next three years persuading Priests, laypeople, and theologians to accept it.[8]

            The Formula of Concord is very methodical. For each Controversy it addresses, it gives a brief synopsis of the debate, ignoring mention of who said what, then gives the authors' solution to the debate in terms of Affirmative Theses and Negative theses. This form works very well because it acknowledges the merits of both sides while still being clear about what it rejects.

            The section of the Formula that we read for class develops an understanding of how actions, while unnecessary for salvation, are important to the life of a Christian. In “Concerning Good Works,” It is very careful to maintain that justification is through faith alone, but it also emphasizes that good works are necessary proof that your faith is alive.[9] This section draws James 2:17 into the discussion of Sola Fide, However the division between an alive faith, and salvation seems contradictory. If you faith is dead, shouldn’t that mean your salvation is lost?

            Then in “Concerning Law and Gospel” it distinguishes between law, that which is commanded to us, and gospel, the free gift from Jesus Christ which is “grace, comforting, and making alive”.[10] I find this division troubling because, while carefully nuanced, there is a sense in which it vilifies the law. In This context, the law is used to show how necessary grace is, ignoring the fact that the giving of the law is also an act of grace. While we were previously living in darkness, without any sort of moral compass, the law, even at its most basic- don't eat the fruit- is grace because it protects us from harm, like a mother telling a child don't touch the stove.

            In the Final section we read “Concerning the Third use of the Law.” The law is a teaching tool for those already saved. Because of the fallen nature of the world, Christians still need guidance in how to live. However, Christians obey the law with “a willing spirit... what no threat of the law could ever force from them”.[11]

            The problem is that faith in this context seems to be one of intellectual assent. If you believe in Jesus, then you are saved. That if we are saved sola fide, then we then we are automatically inclined to do good works/ obey the law.  I hold a more pessimistic view of human nature, that even after we are forgiven we will still face the temptation of sin, and that we will still fall to it. Instead, I believe that faithfulness also has an aspect of loyalty to it, that grace gives us the ability to struggle with sin, and the fact that we are struggling, even if we fall is important.

            Identity is often based in contrast to the other. Who we are is often defined by who we are not. The Protestants are not Catholic; the Philipists are not like the other Lutherans; the Gnesio-Lutherans are not Philipists. There have been literally thousands of divisions in the church since then, usually based on who they are not. The Formula of Concord is an attempt at taking some of these divisions and working in the opposite direction. It recognizes the differences in doctrine between the two sides, and works towards a common understanding, and should be applauded for what it accomplished: unity between two sides. I wonder if more statements of shared belief would be helpful in healing other divisions in the church?

---

[1] Paul Timothy McCain, “Editor’s Introduction to the Formula of Concord,” in Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006), 443-445.

[2] Ibid., 445.

[3] Ibid., 446.

[4] Ibid., 451.

[5] Ibid., 452.

[6] Ibid., 451.

[7] Ibid., 453.

[8] Ibid., 457.

[9] Jacob Andreae and Martin Chemnetz, “Fromula of Concord (1580)” in A Reformation Reader: Primary Texts and Introductions, ed. Dennis R. Janz (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 159.

[10] Ibid., 161.

[11] Ibid., 162.