Consensus, Article VII

and the Unity of the Church

‘Consensus’ is fast becoming the new solve-all catchcry in current attempts to resolve ecclesiastical dismemberment. The common line of thought, in itself innocent enough, goes something like this: ‘If only we [the divided parties] can reach consensus on [such and such] a problem, then the unity of the church willed by Christ will be restored.’

But as one pastor of the Lutheran Church of Australia (LCA) recently pointed out, what theology means by the term ‘consensus’ is quite different from what is understood when it is used in more popular, political circles. In the latter, ‘consensus’ is the agreement achieved when the hard-held positions of divided parties are abandoned for the sake of brokering a middle, compromise solution. This same pastor went on to demonstrate the affinity between this kind of consensus-as-compromise and theological indifferentism.[1]

It is the purpose in what follows to argue that while the Lutheran Reformers were certainly eager to achieve consensus both among their own churches and between themselves and other professedly Christian bodies, their main concern was not for consensus as an ultimate good in itself, but for consensus in pure doctrine. That is, the value of ‘consensus’ was immediately and subordinately related to its object, which object alone was understood to constitute the certain, infallible foundation for the unity of the one true church.

Magnus consensus

The term magno consensu (‘with great unanimity/agreement’) first occurs in the Lutheran symbolical books in Article I of the Augsburg Confession (CA). In that context the term served to indicate the breadth of unity that obtained between the churches of northern Germany in their complete agreement with the doctrine decreed at the Council of Nicaea in 325, namely, that there is one divine essence which is truly God and that there are three persons of equal power and Godhead: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

That the electors, princes and theologians gathered at Augsburg in 1530 saw fit to begin by confessing agreement with the historic faith of Nicaea is telling. They were there, we remember, as a result of a summons to an imperial diet issued by the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire himself, Charles V. Charles was regarded (rightly or wrongly) by the German Confessors as the successor of the emperors of old Rome, and therefore responsible to protect the right of subjects belonging to the imperial nation states to practise the Christian religion. Implicit therefore in Article I is the claim being laid, on the basis of an ancient Edict promulgated by Emperor Theodosius I (d. 395) in February of the year 380, to the right to be called and treated as fully and properly catholic Christians.[2] The Edict had set forth the necessary prerequisite for use of the name ‘catholic’ in terms of compliance with ‘evangelical doctrine’ and ‘apostolic instruction’:

It is our will that all the peoples who are ruled by the administration of our clemency should practise that religion which the divine Apostle Peter transmitted to the Romans…. [T]his is the religion followed by Pope Damasus and by Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, that is, that according to apostolic instruction and evangelical doctrine,[3] we shall believe in one deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit conceived in terms of[4] equal majesty and a blessed Trinity. We command that those who follow this rule shall embrace the name ‘catholic Christians.’ All the rest… shall bear the infamy of heretical dogma.[5]

As Elert has pointed out, this apologetic and practical appeal by the Confessors to the right of the name ‘catholic’ forms an interpretive frame for the entire Augsburg Confession. For at the end of the 21 articles on faith and doctrine, we read again the claim that ‘our churches dissent from the church catholic in no article of faith’ (Tappert 48.1). On the basis of the objective content of doctrine believed and taught in their churches, the princes at Augsburg were claiming to stand in complete continuity with the catholic and apostolic church of antiquity. Moreover, they were claiming to be doing so magno consensu – with a high level of consensus among the churches in their electoral regions.

Such consensus was clearly seen to be a valuable factor in the princes’ appeal to the Emperor for recognition. Indeed, it was ‘one of the essential purposes of the document to establish the fact’ that this consensus really existed.[6] But it was not the consensus itself that held primary weight. It was rather the doctrine in which there was consensus which they proffered as most significant. Their claim was that it was the same doctrine as that taught and believed by the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council, the common doctrine of all true Christian churches. Consensus itself, even magnus consensus, would mean little if it were a consensus in falsehood or heresy. On the contrary, if that were the case, the greater the consensus, the greater would be the evil. Repeatedly throughout the Confessions it is said that a church’s public doctrine – whether held with consensus or not - must be tested to see whether it is either ‘good or evil, right or wrong’ (Tappert 465.7). The sole determining criterion for judging public doctrine is not, therefore, consensus, but ‘the touchstone of the truth,’ Scripture (Tappert 465.1,7). Scripture already contains and presents the magnum consensum of the divinely inspired prophets and apostles. In this sense, consensus already exists. The only question is whether we will participate in that already-given consensus or not. It is not lack of consensus that is to be avoided at all costs, but ‘false’, ‘new’ and ‘ungodly’ doctrines, since these amount to the ‘worst profanation and dishonor of the divine name’ (Tappert 95.5; 425.41). In that light, the later Confessors made the solemn pledge ‘neither to prepare nor accept a different or new confession of faith’ (Tappert 503.2).

CA VII and the Unity of the Church

How does such a stringent principle whose function is to ensure the primacy of orthodox doctrine go in the necessary task of preserving the divinely-given unity of the church? It is recalled that following the New Testament and the ancient regula fidei, CA VII defines the church as ‘one’. It is not divided, nor is it the sum total of a number of complementary voices or inter-dependent movements. Embracing both the visible particularity of the local congregation and the hidden, universal extension of christendom in every time and place, the church is ‘the assembly of all the faithful among whom the gospel is preached in its purity and the holy sacraments are administered in accordance with the gospel.’

If this is ‘what’ the one church is, then ‘how’ it is preserved as such is simply answered:

German: It is enough for the true unity of the Christian church that the gospel be preached unanimously in accordance with its pure meaning and that the sacraments be administered in conformity with the divine word.

Latin: For the true unity of the church it is sufficient to agree on the teaching of the gospel and on the administration of the sacraments.

This article establishes the basic and necessary conditions for the realisation of full and visible ecclesial communion – the preservation of the church in its integral unity. Directed against the claims of the papacy, for which the necessary conditions for ecclesial unity went beyond agreement in doctrine to agreement in ceremonies and organisation, the conditions outlined in CA VII postulate not the minimum, but the maximum conditions for agreement.[7] Consensus, we see, plays a central role. But the church of Rome had consensus in teaching and practice too. The question must be, then, not whether there is consensus, but what it is in which there is (or is not) consensus. Through patient and precise confession of truth and rejection of falsehood Christians are to seek agreement in certain, objective realities without which the one holy church cannot exist. And what are those objective realities? They are defined in terms of certain external actions enacted according to certain criteria: preaching or teaching the gospel, administering the sacraments (supposedly baptism and holy communion) – each done ‘according to’ or ‘in conformity with’ the gospel or the divine word, rightly or purely (rein) understood.

Much clearly hangs upon identifying the criteria according to which the common actions of preaching the gospel and administering the sacraments are to take place. The qualifications ‘in accordance with its pure meaning’ (nach reinem Verstand) and ‘in conformity with the divine word’ (dem gottlichen Wort gemäß) ultimately contain an eschatological impulse, since it is only on the last day, before the judgement seat of Christ, that such things will come to full light. In the meantime, however, the church must undertake ‘the toil of discovery’, as St Clement of Alexandria urged, and ‘establish the matter that is under question by the voice of the Lord… giving a complete exhibition of the Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves.’[8] Here also the much-maligned and misunderstood canon of St Vincent of Lérins[9] has its place, which is to be understood in the light of his two-tiered rule that the church should ‘prove the true faith in these two ways: first, by the authority of the divine canon, and next, by the tradition of the catholic church.’[10] All this is to say that the verity or falsehood of any doctrine is to be established by the words of Scripture, and that each part of Scripture is to be interpreted in the light of the whole, which whole is specified in terms of the church’s credally defined regula fidei.

But what, in CA VII, we may ask, is meant by the word ‘gospel’? Mostly it is used in the symbolical books in a narrow sense to mean the dynamic message of justification: God’s gracious forgiveness of sins for Christ’s sake through faith. But both in the Confessions and in Medieval theology, it is also employed to mean simply ‘the word of God.’ In this second, more plenary sense, ‘gospel’ is coextensive with ‘Scripture’ - or at least with the Scripture of the new covenant: the four Gospels and the Apostolic writings.[11] How are we to determine the sense in which it is being used here?

The German version of CA VII gives us the first clue that the word ‘gospel’ in this context is to be taken in this second, more plenary sense. The sacraments, it says, are to be administered ‘in conformity with the divine word’, in conformity, that is, with the form and content embodied and intended in their dominical institution. That we can apply this plenary sense to the term gospel in CA VII is also suggested in the Apology, where the church is again defined as ‘the assembly of saints who share the association of the same gospel or teaching’ (Tappert 169.8), or when the notae are explicated in terms of ‘word, confession, and sacraments’ (Tappert 169.4) or ‘the divinely instituted word and sacraments’ (Tappert 175.36). It is suggested still further when Melanchthon accuses the papists of wanting to keep ‘apostolic rites’ but of rejecting ‘apostolic doctrine’ (Tappert 176.38). Nor is this merely a peculiarly Melanchthonian idea. Luther too, in the Smalcald Articles, defines the church’s unity and holiness as consisting not simply in faith and the gospel, but in ‘the word of God’ and ‘true faith’ (Tappert 315.3).

This evidence is strengthened by an analysis of the redaction history of CA VII.[12] Articles VII and VIII of the Augsburg Confession began life together as the twelfth article of the Schwabach Articles. There the church was defined as ‘nothing other than the believers in Christ, who believe and teach the aforementioned articles and statements, and are persecuted and martyred because of them in the world.’ It is to be noted that the church is not defined as those who believe the gospel – the gospel, that is, strictly understood as the free, unmerited bestowal of forgiveness of sins. Rather, the objective content of the faith (the fides quae) of the true church is much wider, consisting in ‘the aforementioned articles and statements’, that is, articles one to eleven of the Schwabach Articles. Schwabach Articles I-XI correspond in material content to articles one to six, nine to eleven and article thirteen of the Augsburg Confession.[13] Together they constitute definite, objective articles of faith with specific doctrinal content, a content materially continuous with the ‘evangelical’ and ‘apostolic’ teachings decreed at Nicaea in 325. It is confession of these common, cardinal teachings of Scripture that constitutes the common, pure, catholic faith of which the church is essentially comprised. They constitute the visible, external marks by which the hidden association of faith in the gospel, as worked in the heart by the Holy Spirit, is manifested ecclesially. This is not to compromise the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae, but to protect it. As Sasse once observed, ‘[t]he article of justification cannot be rightly taught where the great articles of the Apostles’ and Nicene Creed are not kept. The denial of the Virgin Birth leads to a false doctrine of the Incarnation. A false doctrine of the Incarnation leads to a false understanding of justification and the sacraments. Thus the article of the standing and falling [of the] church keeps together all articles of the Christian faith and illuminates them.’[14]

Now, though the Schwabach Articles were taken to the diet in Augsburg and later published by Luther himself, Melancthon left this formula out in his final edition of the articles to be presented before the Emperor. But it is clear from the opening statement of the Augsburg Confession – that the doctrinal articles that follow represent the ‘common’ faith of the Christians in Electoral Saxony, and from the statement closing the first 21 articles of the Confession – that the summary of doctrines just presented contains nothing at variance ‘with Scripture or the catholic church or with the Roman church’ (Tappert 47.1) - it is clear, it seems to me, that Melanchthon had the entire doctrinal content of the Augsburg Confession in mind when, in CA VII, he spoke of agreement in the teaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. In the formula of CA VII, the Augsburg Confession is itself proposed to be ‘the standard for what constitutes the right doctrine of the gospel and accordingly to be a bond of unity for all those whom the right preaching of the gospel has brought together into the true unity of the church.’[15]

Conclusion

In the LCA’s Theses of Agreement there is affirmed the principle that ‘where there is truth, there is unity’ (ubi veritas, ibi unitas).[16] Since the authors of the Formula of Concord see all the Lutheran symbols subsequent to the Augsburg Confession only as explications of it, the consensus required for the true unity of the church ‘should always be regarded as the doctrinal content of the Book of Concord.’[17] Speaking of the doctrine comprised in the Augsburg Confession, the preface to the Concordia of 1580 states how ‘many churches’ came to acknowledge it as ‘both supported by firm testimonies of Scripture, and approved by the ancient and accepted symbols’ and so ‘have also constantly judged it, as now repeated, to be the only and perpetual consensus of the truly believing church.’

In concluding, we may return to the claim made by the Confessors to have a legitimate right to the name catholic on the basis of the veracity of their common public teaching. The subjective, invisible reality of saving faith in the heart, which alone is credited for righteousness, is impelled by necessity toward the external confession of the one true faith in union with the saints of all time. This represents what has been called ‘the ecclesial character of Luther’s theology of justification’,[18] and corresponds to a kind of ordo salutis enshrined in the creed: ‘I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints….’ After all, ‘the Word became flesh…’, or, as Luther said in 1530, ‘faith without confession is nothing.’ That confession – the believed, proclaimed, prayed and enacted doctrinal content of the apostolic faith - constitutes the certain, visible mark to which one can always point and say without doubt, ‘there is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church,’ and therefore ‘there is Christ and his Holy Spirit and all his gifts.’ And apart from it, communion with that one church – with or without consensus - will always remain a matter of doubt.

Adam G. Cooper

Geelong

Easter, 2003

Back to CLA Topics

[1] Peter Koehne, ‘Consensus or Consent?’, unpublished paper (1998). I am indebted to Pastor Koehne for some valuable references and comments.

[2] Werner Elert, The Structure of Lutheranism, trans. Walter A. Hansen (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1962), pp. 274-275, 284-285; Erich Seeberg, Luthers Theologie, vol. 2, Christus, Wirklichkeit und Urbild (Stuttgart, 1937), pp. 380-381. Wilhelm Maurer urges the obvious point that this thesis does not exhaust the significance of CA I (and III), though it is not clear whom he seeks to implicate when he suggests that ‘these central questions of the Christian faith’, as defined by the ancient church, may be regarded as ‘edifying platitudes.’ See idem., Historical Commentary on the Augsburg Confession, trans. H. George Anderson (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), pp. 246-247.

[3] In the Fathers the terms apostolica disciplina and evangelica doctrina are commonly used to refer to the doctrinal and moral teachings of the Gospels and New Testament epistles.

[4] ‘Conceived in terms of’ translates the Latin sub with the ablative.

[5] Codex Theodosianus XVI.1.2. Translation (amended by me) by J. Stevenson, Creeds, Councils and Controversies (rev. ed. by W.H.C. Frend, London: SPCK, 1989), p. 150. Partial Latin text quoted in Elert, Structure, pp. 274-275, fn.2. Currently I have no access to the Greek text. See further N.Q. King, The Emperor Theodosius and the Establishment of Christianity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961), pp. 28ff.

[7] Hermann Sasse, ‘Article VII of the Augsburg Confession in the Current Crisis of Lutheranism’, April 1961, in We Confess Anthology: the Church, trans. Norman Nagel (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1986), p. 67. For the seminal statement on the status of organisation and external rites in the matter of church unity, see Augustine, Ep. 54 and 55 (to Januarius).

[8] Clem.Stromateis VII.15-16. From these passages comes the rule ‘Scripture interprets Scripture.’

[9] ‘In the catholic church, all possible care must be taken that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.’ Vinc.Commonitory II.6.

[11] Needless to say there is certainly no Marcionism implicit here.

[14] Hermann Sasse, ‘Theses on the Seventh Article of the Augsburg Confession’, unpublished paper, no date, p. 2.

[18] David S. Yeago, ‘”A Christian, Holy People”: Martin Luther on Salvation and the Church’, in L. Gregory Jones and James J. Buckley (eds.), Spirituality and Social Embodiment (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1997), pp. 101-120 (here p. 116).