Gathering in the Square: A Lutheran Confessional Understanding of Obedience to the State and Public

presented at the 2017 Ways of Knowing Conference, Harvard Divinity School...

“All the people came together as one in the square before the Water Gate.”

Nehemiah 8:1

“But if a command of the political authority cannot be followed without sin, one must obey God rather than any human beings (Acts 5[:29]).”

Augsburg Confession, XVI. Concerning Public Order and Secular Government (German Translation)

Introduction

The Boston Common, like many public squares in large American cities, have been bustling with protest activities since the 2016 United States Presidential Election. When one exits the Park Street T station in the Boston Common, on nearly any day of the week, you will likely find a protest taking place on the steps of the State Capitol building. In addition to large national protests, such as the Women’s March, the Climate March, and the Immigrant’s March, which have attracted people by the tens of thousands in cities across of the U.S., small peaceful protests have been taking place in resistance to policies rolled out by the Trump administration. As many local Lutheran congregations and clergy members have joined peaceful marches of all sizes, it requires the practical question; what is the role of Lutherans in public protest? In addition to a theological question; is there a theological confessional case for active participation of Lutherans in public protests?

The Trump administration has provided opportunity for the public display of the ‘alt-right’ and conservative Christian’s theology, providing a platform to demonstrate their social and theological beliefs. The theology of the conservative Christian is a public theology, exemplified in their policy making and social ideologies. However, historically, Lutheran theology has also been a public theology, yet in recent months the public theology of the Lutheran Confessions, has been hard to spot. The very nature of the Lutheran Confessions requires them to be public and actively lived out, as we not only witnessed during the Reformation, but have also witnessed during the destruction of the Berlin Wall and resistance to the Third Reich in Nazi Germany. Though we should be hesitant to make comparison claims of contemporary America to the East Berlin regime and Nazi Germany, we find ourselves in a historical period in the United States that is no stranger to public protest and resistance to the government. Yet again, as Lutherans, we must consider our roles in such protests and further consider the theological implications of these roles. This paper seeks to explore the overall public role of the confessions in public protests and government resistance, eventually calling on Lutheran’s to continue to participate in an active public theology. Further, through a tandem exploration of the Augsburg Confession’s Chief Articles of Faith, the Sixth Article Concerning the New Obedience and the Sixteenth Article Concerning Public Order and Secular Government, the role of Lutheran’s in public protests will become clear. The thesis of this paper argues that as a growing number of bodies, lives, and livelihoods, become threatened by the current political environment and Trump administration, there is an increasing need for Lutherans to live out the public nature of confessional theology through active public protests, that work towards peace on behalf of others. However, such a thesis also requires an acknowledgement of the susceptibility of these very confessional principles that risk enabling a weaponization by others, requiring us to return to the Augsburg Confession’s Fourth Chief Article of Faith Concerning Justification.

Public Confessional Theology in the 21st Century

It can be difficult to understand how the ancient articles assembled in the Book of Concord could possibly be applicable to America’s political environment of the 21st century. First, we must find reason to draw on the writings of the early reformers from the very nature of the confessions as tools of public theology. William R. Russell writes about the accessibility of the Lutheran Confessions, particularly now in their new translated form from both German and Latin to English, allowing Lutherans to regularly refer to the confessional writings in their theological formations. Russell also reminds us that Lutheran theology is an innately public theology as demonstrated from the point in which Luther nailed his 95 theses to the Castle Church door. The English translation is simply a continued form of public theology as demonstrated in its accessibility: “Lutheran confessional theology is public theology. It is open and accessible to all. The closing words of the Preface to The Augsburg Confession summarizes this normative dimension well: ‘...We herewith make public witness and appeal. This is our confession and that of our people, article by article, as follows.’” The Lutheran confessions are intrinsically public, further calling Lutherans to integrate the confessional principles into their daily lives as they work to theologically inform and shape political work. This is the very public fundamental nature of the confessions that we require as 21st century Lutheran’s to live out our theology as such; public.

Secondly, Gerhard O. Forde argues that the positionality of Lutheran’s in the contemporary world calls for a theological identity of “radical lutheranism.” Forde calls us to radical Lutherans rooted in the proclamation of the Gospel: “Let us be radicals: not conservatives or liberals, fundagelicals or charismatics (or whatever other brand of something-less-than gospel entices), but radicals: radical preachers and practitioners of the gospel by justification by faith without the deeds of law.” We are called to be radical lutherans in practice and theology, living out the public theology of the gospel through our fierce protection of our neighbors. The goal of this paper is not to simply argue that we are called to more politically liberal, but instead to suggest that the confessions free us to live out Forde’s calling to, “cease the silly debates about whether the church’s mission is proclamation or development, personal salvation or social justice, and so on, and get on with the business of taking care of this world and the neighbor as lovingly, wisely, and pragmatically as our gifts enable.” The very nature of the Lutheran confessions call us into a public theology and frees us to stand in rebellion and protest against the government if our neighbor’s lives, bodies, or even livelihood is threatened. This freedom found in the confessions seeks to allow us as humans to “get on with the business of taking care of this world and the neighbor” as best as we possibly can.

Obedience and Government: Understanding our Role as Confessional Lutherans

As Russell outlines, the translation of the Book of Concord’s Augsburg Confessions from both Ger man and Latin text, allows not only for accessibility, but for a form of Confessional exegesis. First, we will begin by reviewing the sixth and sixteenth Chief Articles of Faith of the Augsburg Confession, allowing them to become guiding principles of defining Lutheran’s role in public protests in modern America. From the german translation, an excerpt from the Sixth Article Concerning the New Obedience reads as follows:

“It is also taught that such faith should yield good fruit and good works and that a person must do such good works as God has commanded for God’s sake, but not place trust in them as if thereby to earn grace before God. For we receive forgiveness of sin and righteousness through faith by Christ, as Christ himself says [Luke 17:10]: “When you have done all [things]...,say, ‘We are worthless slaves.’” The fathers teach the same thing. For Ambrose says: ‘It is determined by God that whoever believes in Christ shall be saved and have forgiveness of sin, not through works but through faith alone, without merit.’”

We are immediately reminded of a staple of the Lutheran Confessions, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— not the result of works, so that no one may boast.” This reminder pushes us to the Fourth Article of Justification; “that human beings cannot be justified before God by their own powers, merits, or works. But, they are justified as a gift on account of Christ through faith when they believe they are received into grace and their sins are forgiven on account of Christ.” While exploring our role as Lutheran’s in public protest, we are immediately reminded that “Justification is not a separate topic apart from which all other topics must be discussed. Justification is the starting point for all theology and it affects every other topic.” The Article of Justification should stand as a constant backdrop to our ensuing discussion. Through the Sixth Article Concerning the New Obedience we are reminded that we are called to be obedient to God through the Gospel, yet we are not freed from our responsibilities as Christians, simply because we have received forgiveness through Christ (as discussed through justification) and are obedient to God and God alone.

Our role as Christians however is further complicated by the Sixteenth Article Concerning Public Order and Secular Government:

“Concerning public order and secular government it is taught that all political authority, orderly government, laws, and good order in the world are created and instituted by God and that Christians may without sin exercise political authority; be princes and judges; pass sentences and administer justice according to imperial and other existing laws; punish evildoers with the sword; wage just wars; serve as soldiers; buy and sell; take acquired oaths; possess property; be married; etc.”

Taking this excerpt of the Sixteenth Article, it may seem clear cut to us; the government and its rulers have been instituted by God and as obedient Christians, we are to serve God and God’s institutions, including the government. Therefore, although Christians are free to participate in all facets of government, as judges, voters, or public servants, we are to submit to the authority of the government. While this is true, the Christian is also called to serve and commit to God through the Gospel, straining the clearness of our role as both a citizen of the state and as a Christian. The Sixteenth Article further clarifies the role of the Christian in obedience to the state:

“For the gospel teaches an internal, eternal reality and righteousness of the heart, not an external, temporal one. The gospel does not overthrow secular government, public, order, and marriage, but instead intends that a person keep all this as a true order of God and demonstrate in these walks of life Christian love and true good works according to each person’s calling. Christians, therefore, are obliged to be subject to political authority and to obey its commands and laws in all that may be done without sin.”

Again, this seems fairly clear; the Christian is subjected to serve the “political authority and obey its command and laws,” however, we must pay particular attention to the following stipulation: “to obey its commands and laws in all that may be done without sin.” The article continues its clarification, with perhaps the most important directive: “But if a command of the political authority cannot be followed without sin, one must obey God rather than any human beings (Acts 5[:29]).” Again, we are called back to our obedience to God through Christ, over any temporal, or worldly authority: our authority lies in Christ. The Latin translation allows for even further clarification: “Christians owe obedience to their magistrates and laws except when commanded to sin. For then they owe greater obedience to God than to human beings (Acts 5[:29]).” In contemporary America, this clarification is vital. As Christians, we are called to be obedient to the state unless we are commanded to sin, than the confessional principle is clear; we must be reminded that we are first called to obedience of God.

Sarah Hinckley Wilson further clarifies the role of the Sixteenth Article in our public and political life in conjunction with Luther’s politics on pacifism: “A Christian is to do no harm, but sometimes the state requires certain harm to be done in order to prevent worse harm.” Wilson argues that Luther advocated for the Christian to absorb all harm and suffering like a sponge, as a model of the crucified savior, avoiding the urge to rebel as a case for self-preservation arguing for a “radical personal pacifism.”For modern day advocates and activists, this is likely not the political message we were hoping to hear from Luther. Luther after all, embodied the very definition of rebellion, so how it is that he simultaneously committed himself to ‘radical personal pacifism’? Wilson clarifies this distinction. That at times as mentioned prior, Christians are to only inflict harm if it is done to prevent further harm, but also that such rebellion is only justifiable when it is done out of love for other and on behalf of others. This is a vital distinction to draw in Luther’s politics in conjunction with the Sixteenth Article. This division ensures that the individual turns away from self-preservation and towards justice and protection of the neighbor. Therefore, the Christian is only called to radical personal pacifism “on one’s own behalf.” She reminds us that Luther believes that “There is no dodging the crucified messiah: if the world’s injustice hounds you to death, then go to your death with the same faith and courage as the martyrs,” we are obedient to Christ not only through Christ’s forgiveness, but also through Christ’s crucifixion. However, another vital distinction in Luther’s political theology is offered. Wilson acknowledges that it is often not simply your own life that draws concern, but it is often the threat to the lives and bodies of others that draws the most concern for the Christian, again requiring us to turn away from self-preservation. Here, as Christians, we find a responsibility: “In that case, while still committing yourself to your own personal pacifism, your job is to protect those that God has placed in your care: ‘[I]n what concerns the person or property of others, you govern yourself according to love and tolerate no injustice toward your neighbor.” Wilson commits us as Lutheran’s to the same calling that Forde asked of us to simply “get on with the business of taking care of this world and the neighbor.”

When the words of Luther’s thoughts on temporal authority are placed in direct conversation with the words of the Augsburg Confession: “But if a command of the political authority cannot be followed without sin, one must obey God rather than any human beings (Acts 5[:29]),” the calling of Christians to politically work towards justice on behalf of their neighbors becomes quite clear. Luther does not free us from our radical personal pacifism, but the Sixteenth Article frees us from our obedience to the government if we are asked to sin, in this case, against our neighbor. As Lutherans, we are called to speak out against the government if the government threatens the lives or bodies of our neighbors and this is directly informed by the Sixteenth Article Concerning Public Order and Secular Government, with the underpinnings of the Fourth Article of Justification. We are not to speak out on behalf of ourselves, unless this is required of us in an effort to protect others. We are called to civil disobedience, to gathering in the square in peaceful protest (while still embodying a deep personal pacifism) to protect our neighbors, because we serve a God of love before a government of hate. This responsibility does not discriminate, but instead calls us to speak out for all of our neighbors, the marginalized and vulnerable; our LGBTQ+ siblings, our immigrant neighbors, our neighbors of color, our lesser abled neighbors, and more. Without discrimination, we are called to protect our neighbors and as Christians, if this requires us to disobey the state, than in more simplistic words than Luther and the the Augsburg Confession: so be it.

As clergy and pastors, this responsibility is illuminated and magnified. You have been called to serve your people through word and sacrament and if any member of your congregation is threatened than you have a duty as their pastor, to speak out on their behalf, seeking to protect them. Additionally, the ordained Lutheran pastor publically acknowledges “the Lutheran confessions as true witnesses and faithful expositions of the holy scriptures,” promising to, “preach and teach in accordance with the holy scriptures and these creeds and confessions.” Therefore, upholding the confessions in accordance with the gospel’s call to love one’s neighbor is emphasized for the pastor. Wilson reminds us that Luther meant just this: “You can’t hand your conscience over to your ruler and excuse yourself on Judgement Day on those grounds. You must refrain from evil, even if it involves disobedience.” The pastor is not withheld from action against the state due to their bound consciousness in their commitment to the confessions, but are instead freed by the gospel to act against the state in the interest of others. Thus, this responsibility is magnified for the pastor, in seeking fulfillment of their promise of ordination.

Reader Beware: The Danger of Adopting the Confessional Principle of Justification

The dichotomy of the Sixth and Sixteenth Articles frees us from a state that oppresses our neighbors precisely because Christ calls us to care for our neighbors, however it does not do so without risk. As this paper began, we first acknowledged the public theology of conservative American Christians in an effort to also call confessional Lutherans into a lived, public theology. However, the articles above also pose a risk, as they allow confessional Christians to make claims of rebellion based on what they perceive as an effort to serve God. This is also the very foundation that has resulted in the weaponization of biblical ‘clobber’ verses and dangerous social ideologies by the Christian right. They too, have ‘rebelled’ against the state because they perceived a threatening government imposing on their rights and the rights of others. Contemporarily, this is publicly evident through a short exposé into American Christian media.

Through American Christian media, we can find a plethora of examples of people and groups utilizing a foundation of God as justification for rebellion against the government. This is the very foundation that gave rise to the 2013 Hobby Lobby debate, in which Hobby Lobby claimed that participation in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also popularly known as ‘Obamacare’ threatened their (and their fellow Christians) religious liberty. In recent debates regarding the proposal of the American Health Care Act (AHCA), the Republican counter to repeal pieces of the ACA under Trump’s presidency, liberal Christians have made similar claims. For example, the recent Twitter hashtag, #ThingsJesusNeverSaid made claims through popular media that the AHCA was a deeply non-Christian bill whose supporters were failing to uphold Jesus’ teaching to protect the needy and help the poor. Though perhaps an unlikely place to look, the use of twitter hashtags, by both sides of the healthcare bill debate demonstrates the ease of both sides at weaponizing biblical and theological concepts in self-interest framed as interest and love for neighbors. This concrete example of #ThingsJesusNeverSaid demonstrates the very risk of the confessional principles of obedience to God and the government outlined above. Though twitter may be an unlikely place to find confessional principles lived out, they act as an active form of theological justification for or against the proposal of the AHCA through social media: #PublicTheology.

To elaborate further, the above examples demonstrate two groups of people that believe they are rebelling against the state based on what God has commanded from them; to care for their neighbors. Yet, both parties, in an effort to (what they believe is) protect their neighbor, find themselves on opposite sides of such debates. This leads us to our next question, how can the Lutheran Confessions direct and inform us in these situations of ambiguity? There is a clear confessional case for rebellion against the state: “If a command of the political authority cannot be followed without sin, one must obey God rather than any human beings (Acts 5[:29]),” but what happens when two public theologies disagree about what warrants such rebellion?

At this junction, Lutherans must return to the Article of Justification, often referred to as the ‘chief article’ of the Lutheran Confessions. Though we will not attempt to deeply dissect justification in this short paper, we will briefly examine a threefold approach to the Article of Justification offered by Wilfred Harle. This threefold approach will be utilized as a framework for assisting the individual in determining when employment of the Article of Justification is necessary in protest against the state. Harle shares our reading of the doctrine of justification as a relational theology and determines that, “‘Justification’ has to do less with righteousness as a quality, and more with right relationships, less with being righteous and more with being right with God and neighbor.” Employing the doctrine of justification as a relational theology allows Harle to suggest three utilizations of justification; relating to oneself, to others, and to societal structures. In short, relating to oneself allows for the individual to love and accept themselves as their whole person, considering their fallible background and nature, and understanding their value is not determined by their works Relating to others captures the same principles of relating to oneself, with the added perspective of fundamental equality among all and seeking to serve others out of love instead of obligation. Lastly, and most importantly to this current argument, justification is to be utilized when relating to societal structures.

In relation to societal structures, the doctrine of justification reminds us that dignity is granted by God and not determined by any human entity or an individual's achievements. Further, the doctrine of justification proclaims human freedom. That is, human freedom is only to be threatened by societal structures when a person is at risk of harming themselves or others. This is not to say that other societal structures do not threaten such freedom, including the church or religious societies, but instead that the only credible voice to speak on behalf of the doctrine of justification is the apostolic church, “when this freedom includes even the right to oppose Christian doctrine, and the right to make apparent mistake.” That is, the church can only truly represent the freedom conveyed in the doctrine of justification if it also encompasses the freedom to speak out against the church itself. Lastly, the doctrine of justification speaks to the universal right to education. A right to education is based on the value and dignity of all humans, created in the image of God and granted freedom by God. These three pivotal points of the a relational understanding of the doctrine of justification, dignity, freedom, and education, allow us to understand the function of justification within societal structures. In relation to this particular argument, these three pivotal points can be used to determine the threat of the state towards our neighbors. There our understanding of the threats imposed on our neighbor’s bodies, lives, and livelihood, encompasses threats to their dignity, freedom, and education. If any of these points are threatened by the government, again, we are called to act on behalf of our neighbor in the interest of our relationship to others as determined by the doctrine of justification.

Conclusion

From Luther, we learn that when we feel threatened, we must refrain from rebellion or protest in the case of self-preservation, physically, ideologically, or politically, as outlined above. Further, the safest route is to pause, ask ourselves, is our neighbor’s body, life, or livelihood (including dignity, freedom, and education) threatened? If the answer is yes, with further considerations, we must understand that we are called to serve a Christ who offers forgiveness, refuge, and protection to our neighbors and as members of the apostolic church and believers of the gospel, we are called to live this out, even if it requires rebellion against the government, as we are freed by the confessions. Lastly, Paul Nelson summarizes this argument well as he seeks to understand the role of Lutherans in making healthcare decisions stating that “we are less than perfect people living in a far from perfect world, along with the conviction that we are, nevertheless, forgiven sinners, are the two benchmarks of a Lutheran moral vision. The former precludes self-righteousness and underlies the sense that often we can do little else but choose between greater and lesser evils. The latter makes choice and action possible despite the attendant ambiguities” Nelson acknowledges that we face complex ethical decisions in the realm of healthcare and politics but reminds us that, “A statement by the ELCA emphasizes this point when it says that Christians must face complex ethical decisions “in all their ambiguity, knowing we are responsible ultimately to God, whose grace comforts, forgives, and frees us in our dilemmas.” This short statement reminds us to begin with the doctrine of justification, seeking to serve as relational beings, to ourselves, others, and societal structures. Nelson emphasizes, “the importance of individual conscience over institutional authority.”

The very intrinsic public nature of the confessions calls Lutherans to be active in their public theology. As contemporary America continues to see an increase in governmental threats to our neighbors dignity, freedom, and education, we are called by the gospel to intercede on their behalf and are freed by the Sixth and Sixteenth Articles of the Augsburg Confession to protest against the state, if needed in seeking preservation of our neighbor’s rights. This current administration continues these threats and this historical period calls for the public relational theology of the confessions which free us to protest when needed, to speak up and to gather in the square. The doctrine of justification offers us a litmus test in determining which situations call us to action. Further, we acknowledge the boundaries of this doctrine in their ambiguity, but accept the responsibility as Lutherans, knowing that we are ultimately responsible to God, and God alone. 

Bibliography

"Berlin Lutherans Move to Keep Unity Across Wall." New York Times (1923-Current File) (New York, N.Y.), January 19, 1967.

David Barnett. "7 Things the Bible Says About Obamacare." The Family Leader. N.p., Feb. 2011. Web. 09 May 2017. http://thefamilyleader.com/7-things-the-bible -says-about-obamacare/.

Deborah Abbott and Paul Nelson. “The Lutheran Tradition, Religious Beliefs and Health Care Decisions” in Religious Traditions & Health Care Decisions : A Quick Reference to Fifteen Religious Traditions and Their Application in Health Care.Chicago, Ill.: Park Ridge Center for the Study of Health, Faith, and Ethics, 2001.

Ferdinand Schlingensiepen. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 1906-1945 : Martyr, Thinker, Man of Resistance. London; New York: T & T Clark, 2010.

Gerhard O. Forde. Justification Is for Preaching : Essays by Oswald Bayer, Gerhard O. Forde, and Others. Eugene, Or.: Pickwick Publications, 2012. 15-28.

Oswald Bayer. “Justification as the Basis and Boundary of Theology” in Justification Is for Preaching : Essays by Oswald Bayer, Gerhard O. Forde, and Others. Eugene, Or.: Pickwick Publications, 2012. 31-48.

Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert. “The Augsburg Confession” in The Book of Concord : The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000. 30-109.

Sarah Hinckley Wilson. “A Primer on Luther’s Politics” in Lutheran Forum. Spring 2017. (51)1. 4-9.

Stoyan Zaimov. "#ThingsJesusNeverSaid Trends on Twitter as Christian Liberals, Conservative, Mock Each Other." The Christian Post. N.p., 08. May 2017. Web. 09 May 2017. http://www.christianpost.com/news/thingsjesusneversaid-trends -twitter-christian -liberals- conservatives-mock-182911/.

William R. Russell. "The Lutheran Confessional Writings for the 21st Century: A Question of Translation." Dialog 42, no. 1 (2003): 32-38.

Wilfred Harle. “Living Out of Justification” in Justification Is for Preaching : Essays by Oswald Bayer, Gerhard O. Forde, and Others. Eugene, Or.: Pickwick Publications, 2012. 91-101.