What Is Lutheranism? Two Competing Visions

This post is the introduction to a talk I delievered recently on ethical formation in a Lutheran theological context.

Does Lutheranism have anything to say about ethics? As I ponder this question, it stands out to me as a bit absurd that such a thing has to be asked at all. The answer would seem to be an obvious, “yes,” as every religious system aligns with some form of ethics or another. Often, it is the ethical system itself which defines a religious tradition or set of beliefs. Within a Christian view, it is not solely the ethical element of man which is in need of what religion provides, as man’s greatest need is redemption from sin and death (with the remedy for this central human dilemma found in the person and work of the life, death, and resurrection of the eternal Logos). And yet, Christianity also speaks deeply to man's natural moral need. Christianity provides both the means of eternal redemption and a perfect rule of life. As the absolute religion, Christianity speaks to the total man, and fulfills all of his natural and supernatural needs and ends. What kind of system would any philosophy be without providing clear guidance to the most basic questions of day-to-day life? In part, it was the nature of the ethical rule of life which Christianity provides—being superior in its ethical demands and callings to the surrounding multitudes of pagan religions—that drew so many in the Roman Empire to the Jewish messiah. In a world of numerous competing ethical claims, it was only Christianity which truly comprehended the notion of love as both the form and motivating force of all moral striving. That same love which redeems out of abundant mercy forms people to act in that same manner toward one another.

And yet, the question still stands before us. Through most of Lutheran history, the idea that ethics were not essential to Christian proclamation was known only as a caricature of the theology of the Reformation made by its greatest critics in Rome. Of course Lutherans care about good works. How could someone possibly proclaim allegiance to a Lord if one was not willing to actually strive to obey that Lord? How could redeeming love not also be forming and shaping love? And yet, in recent decades, some Lutherans have decided to adopt such a caricature as if it were an actual theology, decrying any detailed exposition of the nature of Christian obedience (let alone the scandalous idea that one might actually preach about it!). One is left with an impotent theology, unable to provide even the most basic moral guidance to a people lost in a world of moral chaos and alienation from any strong sense of cultural continuity in which ethical norms are ordinarily passed down from one generation to the next.

An exemplar of this utter derision toward many of the most basic questions of human life is the theologian Steven Paulson, who writes the following about virtue in the life of the Christian:

Virtue is not the goal of life, virtue is our problem. Religion is not given for morality; it is there to end it…Christian faith is not moving toward virtue, it is taking leave of it…Yes, Christ is to be imitated, but only after virtue is ended. Taking leave of virtue and going to Christ is apocalyptic; it is a new life outside of the legal scheme without law at all. (Lutheran Theology, 2-3)

This statement arises at the beginning of Paulson's explanation of Lutheranism in this text, no doubt to provoke his readers to continue reading in order to discover exactly what he means. The reader might be surprised to discover after continued reading that this is no mere rhetorical flourish to be corrected by further exposition of the subject. Both in the rest of this work and in Paulson’s more recent books, such language is rather ubiquitous. While the need for Christian obedience is acknowledged in a theoretical sense in this textbook (and in his other work), any detailed discussion about the nature of that obedience, or of clear practical moral guidance is dismissed as part of the “legal scheme.” Such a scheme captivates those lost and ignorant legalists who believe in the need for a pious life. One gets the impression here that virtue is a purely a Roman Catholic concern, rather than a Reformational one. Since St. Peter clearly confesses the need for the exertion of effort to add virtue to one's faith, perhaps he should be given to Rome too (2 Pet. 1:5)! And there goes the Reformation.

Despite the portrayal of Lutheranism here in Paulson’s writing, and in other sources who seem to view self-righteousness as the only sin, and acknowledgment of grace as the only good deed, classical Lutheran theologians speak quite boldly and continually about the importance of virtue and the need for Christian obedience. As an example of one of these older Lutheran works, observe the following from David Chytraeus,

Through the ministry of the Gospel and the sacraments, the image of God—His likeness in wisdom, justice, and all other virtues that conform to His Law—has been restored within us, so that we might once again become His dwelling place and holy temple. Thus, with God dwelling within us and our hearts conformed to Him, we may attain true unity with Him. To this ultimate end and goal, namely, that by true faith in Christ the Savior, our righteousness and salvation may be preserved, virtue—or rather, obedience and the conformity of our minds and actions to the divine Law, that is, to the Decalogue—must be restored and must grow in this life and in all eternity. For this is the entire purpose of the ministry of the Gospel in this world. (Regulae Vitae)

Prior to adding commentary to this citation, it is essential to provide some details about the author. David Chytraeus (1530-1600) was one of the six authors of the final document written within the Lutheran Book of Concord, the Formula of Concord. He has sometimes been called the “last father of the Lutheran church.” While not revered as a particularly original thinker, at least not as highly as Martin Chemnitz and Jacob Andrae, Chytraeus was one of Melanchthon’s brightest students. As a young man, Chytraeus attended Luther’s lectures on Genesis in Wittenberg, and lived at Melanchthon’s home. Through his career, Chytraeus wrote on an impressive range of subjects. He was largely a synthesizer, taking ideas from a variety of sources and making connections between them. Among his most popular writings were his On Sacrifice, the first dedicated Lutheran treatment of eschatology De Morte et Vita Aeterna (1581), and a small dogmatics text called a Catechesis (1555) which was used as an introductory theological textbook for a number of years. The citation under discussion here comes from Chytraeus’s ethics textbook Regulae Vitae, (1555) which was an expansion on a work original begun by Melanchthon.

The citation above speaks rather boldly about the Christian life of virtue, not as a mere optional part of life, nor as a lesser function of faith or something to be delegated purely to the civic realm, and certainly not as a hindrance to the Christian faith. Instead, for Chytraeus, the virtuous life is the “ultimate end and goal” of Christ’s work within us. Even more boldly, he proclaims that this is the “entire purpose of the Ministry of the Gospel in this world.” There is no diminishment of the centrality of the Gospel of Christ’s atonement, nor of the sufficiency of faith for justification in Chytraeus’s writing. Such themes are prominent not only in this text but throughout his corpus. And yet, he has no incessant ever-looming fear that talk of effort, or of virtuous character will negate or subsume such truths (as is often the case in Lutheran discourse today, where one cannot speak of virtue without stopping every two minutes to remind the audience that one really does believe in sola fide). As Chytraeus recognizes, a true conception of virtue is never in competition with justification by grace, but instead arises from it. Note further that, for Chytraeus (and for the entire ethical tradition as it grows in the Lutheran Reformation) virtue is connected to the divine Law. As he later says, “Virtue is acting in accordance with the Decalogue.” The Law refers to the external and objective norms by which God reveals his moral will for creatures. Virtue refers to those elements of character which align with personal obedience to that will.

Perhaps one will protest that Chytraeus is merely one example—albeit a rather significant one—of a Lutheran making these audacious claims which elevate virtue and obedience to a lofty position. Such an argument would work if there were any references one could point to among the Lutheran orthodox which contested these kinds of statements. While I have certainly not read every Lutheran writing from the late sixteenth century, what I have read indicate that these types of sentiments are rather universal, as they are found in other ethical works from the era, such as those of Melanchthon, Brenz, Chemnitz, and von Eitzen. In order to strengthen the point then, I cite another Lutheran author from a later century—C.F.W. Walther. Most well-known (as far as his published works are concerned) for his textbook The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, Walther has often been heralded as the most-strict in his adherence to the Law-Gospel paradigm as foundational to any and all Lutheran theology and practice. One would expect that Walther would be especially careful regarding the function of the Law in the Christian life in relation to the formation of character and its relationship to the telos of human life. In a sermon titled, “The Restoration of the Divine Image Through Christ,” Walther says the following,

We dare not think that Christ by his grace abolished the Law, and that now we need not fulfill it. Definitely not! The Law is the declared, eternally unchangeable will of God. It is, therefore, not in the least revoked by the Gospel. It must, therefore, be fulfilled to the very smallest letter not only by Christ but also by every individual person. Just this—to bring man again to this ultimate, completely perfect fulfillment of God’s Law—is the final purpose of the whole redemption of Jesus Christ…If you have no zeal to fulfill God’s Law yourself, then your ‘faith’ in Christ’s fulfillment is merely a fleshly comfort. For he who is really owned by Christ’s grace is also transfigured by it more and more into God’s image. (Selected Sermons, 45-47)

Again, like Chytraeus, Walther speaks teleologically. The personal individual fulfillment of the Law is the very purpose for which man was created.

Such quotations could be multiplied, as there are parallels to this in numerous sources from the authors of the Lutheran Confessions into the early twentieth century. The key to notice here is that there are two fundamentally opposed views of not only what Lutheranism is, but of what Christianity is which stand against one another between the writing of Steven Paulson and of David Chytraeus. One says that Christianity is about taking leave of virtue, while the other says that the development of virtue is the purpose for which we were created. One says that the Christian life is lived outside of the Law, while the other claims that the Christian life is centered (in a moral sense) on the gradual fulfillment of the Law. One says that eschatology is breaking free from the Law, and the other says that the eschatological goal is the Law—both in its fulfillment by Christ and in the final formation of character in glorification in which the Law is embedded so deeply into Christian character that obedience to its precepts and perfect and automatic.

The question before us today is: which vision do we follow in the twenty-first century? Do we answer the chaos and ethical misdirection of modern life by directing people away from virtue as some kind of legalistic scheme that subverts Gospel-proclamation? Or do we instead proclaim that which our forefathers held dear, and direct people to a Christ who gives himself not only as grace, but also as gift, who forms us into his own image and directs our actions toward proper and good ends that benefit the neighbor in love?

The answer seems to me to be quite obvious.