Considering contexts: understanding Article X of the Formula of Concord then and now

Currents in Theology and Mission, April, 2005 by Nathan Montover

Recently, a group of notable contemporary Lutheran theologians offered the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) what they called an "Admonition for the Sake of the True Peace and Unity of the Church." This document opposes the Concordat between the ELCA and the Episcopal Church USA and contains a request for church leaders in the ELCA to carefully consider Article X of the Formula of Concord and the prohibition against forcing an adiaphoron onto the church. The intention of these authors is to avoid a split in the church over what are nonessential practices and to avoid making that which is indifferent--such as apostolic succession--necessary for unity.

Their determination and the purity of their motives are beyond question. Yet, the "Admonition" applies Article X of the Formula to a division within the church, brought about by persons within the church, and affecting only the church. Can Article X of the Formula, which deals exclusively with a conflict brought about by a collision between secular authorities and church leaders, really be applied so easily to the contemporary conflicts in the North American Lutheran Church? Apparently, it can:

Therefore, it is wrong "when anyone imposes such ceremonies, commands,
and prescriptions upon the community of God with coercive force as if
they were necessary, against its Christian freedom, which it has in
external matters.
  (Formula of Concord, Epitome, Article X). (1)

Perhaps we would do well to reconsider the historical context of Article X in order to recall what the authors of the Formula meant by "coercive force."

In the early morning hours of February 18, 1546, the hope of both Emperor and Pope became a reality. Martin Luther, heretic, outlaw, and wild boar, died in the town of his birth. Luther's final words came in the form of a confession and a promise to die in the name of Christ and the doctrine that he had preached for so many years.

Shortly after his death a controversy arose in Lutheranism that echoed Luther's confession and promise, a conflict now commonly called the adiaphoristic controversy. At the heart of the conflict between Luther's followers was a question about whether compromise on church rites and rituals (usages) was consistent with the need for bold confession of faith in a time of persecution. Was the church willing to suffer and perhaps taste death in the name of Christ and the evangelical doctrine that it preached and confessed?

This controversy took root when both Emperor and Pope seized the opportunity to crush the Lutheran movement. The time was ripe. For the time being, the Turks were not threatening the lands of Christendom. Many of the conflicts in the empire had been settled. With the death of Luther, it seemed as though there was no evangelical leader with enough authority to hold the movement together.

As events unfolded, Emperor Charles V, in a tenuous alliance with Pope Paul III, attacked and defeated the league of Protestant princes and occupied the heart of the Lutheran movement, forcing the temporary closing of the University of Wittenberg. These defeated territories were placed under a new religious law that demanded the return of Protestants to the practices of the Roman Catholic Church.

Some Lutherans decided to compromise with the Emperor in hopes of saving their movement. They believed that in indifferent matters, which they called adiaphora, compromises could be made in the name of Christian freedom. This position was born of the hope that the heart of the Lutheran confession, justification by grace through faith alone, would survive changes in church usages. This party came to be called the Philippists, so called because of their commitment to the positions held by Philip Melanchthon.

Others refused compromise in the name of the good confession. Theologians such as Matthias Flacius and Nicolas von Amsdorf claimed that there are no indifferent matters--adiaphora--when the church is being persecuted. To protect their understanding of Christian freedom, these Lutherans refused to be compelled in matters of church usages when the secular arm of authority was forcing the issue. Their opponents called them Gnesio-Lutherans (Genuine Lutherans).

Eventually the Emperor and Pope lost control over the bodies and consciences of their German subjects, and the destruction of the Lutheran movement was avoided. However, the dispute among Lutherans that grew out of the period of persecution raged on until the publication of the Formula of Concord. In the words of its framers,

... a dispute arose among some of the theologians of the Augsburg
Confession over ceremonies and ecclesiastical practices that are neither
commanded nor forbidden in God's Word but have been introduced into the
church with good intentions for the sake of good order and decorum or to
maintain Christian discipline. (2)

After considering the causes of the adiaphoristic controversy, namely the defeat of the Schmalkald League and the imposition of the Augsburg Interim on German lands, it must be concluded that the primary issues at stake were not only theological but were also the result of a collision between theological principles and political realities. Christian freedom was being threatened due to the imposition of rites and rituals by secular authorities. From this historical lens I conclude that the response to the adiaphoristic controversy found in the Formula was an attempt to resolve the need for clear confession of faith when the faith is being persecuted by secular authorities.