Please note that this is a summary (and, to some extent, even an interpretation) rather than a precise transcript of what Dr Feuerhahn said. Any errors or confused arguments are therefore likely to be my fault rather than Dr Feuerhahn's!
Dr Feuerhahn started by briefly outlining the three different types of reformation:
- institutional: reform "from within", the approach of the conciliarists and of humanists like Erasmus;
- moral: reform that focuses on people's behaviour, which Dr Feuerhahn argued was characteristic of the Swiss Reformations under Zwingli and Calvin; and
- doctrinal: the distinctive characteristic of the Lutheran Reformation was that it was truly a doctrinal reformation, rather than merely institutional or moral.
- the Law proclaims what we are to do and not to do
- the Gospel proclaims what God has done
Dr Feuerhahn then applied this to a number of areas, to demonstrate how the Lutheran Reformation can be distinguished from the other, "institutional" or "moral", reformations.
Reform of the Church
Calvin and Zwingli argued that the mediaeval church was corrupt, and that it was necessary to go back to the time of Jesus and the apostles to find a model for a reformed church (Calvin in many respects went back even further, into the Old Testament). This was also the approach taken by Karlstadt, who launched the 1522 iconoclasm in Wittenberg, prompting Luther's return from the Wartburg.
Luther responded to such calls for a purified, New Testament church, that we can't simply do what Jesus, because He was unique as the incarnate Son of God (as Luther pointed out, we are unable to walk on water!). Similarly, the apostles were in a unique situation, with unique gifts.
Luther argued instead that, just as the individual Christian is simil iustus et peccator, "simultaneously justified and sinful", so the church is simil sanctus et peccator, simultaneously holy and sinful. A "purified" church will be just as sinful as the "corrupt" church it seeks to replace.
Crucially, the "purifiers", the "moral" reformers, were looking to the Law rather than to the Gospel. We need rather to look at the Gospel. It is not about what we are to do to purify the church (Law), but about bringing the Gospel to the church as she is.
As Luther put it:
Doctrine and life are to be distinguished. Life is as bad among us as among the papists. Hence we do not fight and damn them because of their bad lives. Wyclif and Hus, who fought over the moral quality of life, failed to understand this . . . When the Word of God , remains pure, even if the quality of life fails us, life is placed in a position to be what it ought to be. That is why everything hinges on the purity of the Word. I have succeeded only if I have taught correctly (WA TR 1:624; LW 54:110).Faith and Love
The great objection of Roman Catholics to the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith was based on 1 Corinthians 13:13 – "the greatest of these is love". Love is more important than faith, so it was love we needed first, before we could be justified.
Melancthon's response to this was to say that love is concerned with horizontal relationships between people. When we meet someone, we don't first talk about our faith, but we show them our love for them. But with God – in the vertical dimension – the crucial thing is faith, the empty hand by which we receive the gift of righteousness and eternal life. The first thing God does is to forgive us our sins.
Law and Gospel
While Calvin, like Luther, taught the distinction between Law and Gospel, he argued that they were both the Word of God and were therefore to be put on an equal footing.
Luther agreed that Law and Gospel were both the Word of God. However, the Law is God's alien Word, and the Gospel is God's proper Word. The Law is what God doesn't want to say, but has to. We won't ever hear the Law in heaven – we won't need it! – but we will hear the Gospel.
Fellowship
This is the section of the lecture that particularly riled my Baptist friend, as Dr Feuerhahn turned to the issue of fellowship, and particularly fellowship in the Sacrament of the Altar.
Dr Feuerhahn pointed out that in the Bible, fellowship - koinonia - is not something we choose (i.e. Law, something concerned with what we are to do or not to do). Rather, it is something that exists as we participate in God's gifts, in particular the Gospel, Holy Baptism, absolution, the Lord's Supper, suffering, and so on.
This is the link between the two NT meanings of koinonia, namely fellowship and participation: if we don't share the gifts, then fellowship does not exist. Fellowship is based on a common participation in God's gifts – Gospel – not something which we can decide to "do" for ourselves (Law). Hence, where there is no true sharing in these gifts – because one or other person denies some aspect of the Gospel or teachings relating to the Sacraments – then to that extent there is no true fellowship.
Until the 19th Century, everyone was agreed on this. Everyone was agreed that you cannot commune where there is a different confession. This can be seen in the definitions of the church dating from Reformation times (such as the Augsburg Confession or the Thirty-Nine Articles): the church can be found wherever the Word is rightly preached and the Sacraments duly administered.
But in the 19th Century, Schleiermacher introduced the concept that the church is found where the people are found (a view which has now swept all before it in much of the church, under the apparently-blameless slogan "the church is the people"). So fellowship is a human decision, one based on what I do or don't do.
Thus open communion is an approach rooted in the Law, as it holds that fellowship in the Supper is based on our actions and choices. Close communion, on the other hand, is based on a common confession of the Word and Sacraments – in other words, the Gospel.
What does "confession" mean? Literally, it means "same-say", same-saying with God and with one another. We see this in the Divine Service. First of all we see it negatively, in the confession of our sins. God tells us "you are a sinner", and we reply, "yes, Lord". Then we see it positively, in the confession of faith, where we "same-say" what God has revealed to us about Himself.
Incidentally, Luther's favourite creed was the Nicene Creed. Why? Because of what he described as its "for-usness" ("For us men and for our salvation… For our sake…").
Lutheran Worship
In addition from the "same-saying" of our confession of sin and confession of faith in the Divine Service, the Law and Gospel distinction also lies behind Lutheranism's approach to the rest of worship.
The Lutheran attitude to worship is that it is primarily God's act, rather than our own. First and foremost it is Gospel – what God has done – not Law – what we are to do and not to do. This is the true meaning of "Divine Service" – God's service, God's act (as summarized in the beautiful German expression, Gottesdienst).
Dr Feuerhahn quoted Norman Nagel's introduction from Lutheran Worship as a definitive statement of the Lutheran doctrine of worship:
Our Lord speaks and we listen. His Word bestows what it says. Faith that is born from what is heard acknowledges the gifts received with eager thankfulness and praise. Saying back to him what he has said to us, we repeat what is most true and sure. Most true and sure is his name, which he put upon us with the water of our Baptism. We are his. The rhythm of our worship is from him to us, and then from us back to him. He gives his gifts, and together we receive and extol him. We build each other up as we speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Our Lord gives us his body to eat and his blood to drink. Finally his blessing moves us out into our calling, where his gifts have their fruitionThis applies right from the start of the service, with the invocation – "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", which fulfils the Old Testament promise that the place of blessing for God's people is "the place where God's name dwells."
There is also a difference in the Lutheran and Calvinist approaches to preaching. For Lutherans, preaching is truly a means of grace by which God works to save us (exposing our sin and convicting us by the Law, bestowing forgiveness upon us by the Gospel). This is one reason why Lutheran pastors retained the traditional "clerical" dress.
Calvin, however, placed more emphasis on preaching as teaching. Hence the switch in Geneva to the gown, which was academic dress. [A perspective also reflected in the Church of England: while the Elizabethan Settlement restored clerical vestments in place of Geneva-style academic dress, clergy were still required to wear an academic hood when preaching].
The Hiddenness of God
The Lutheran conception of worship is also linked to the distinctive Lutheran teaching of the hiddenness of God. God is hidden, and we are to look for Him only where he has promised to be found. If we look elsewhere, we may find Satan instead.
The hiddenness of God also affects our attitude to prayer, as we learn to understand "the yes behind Jesus' no" – think of the Syro-Phoenician woman, and her persistence in the face of an almost brutal initial rebuff from the Lord ("It is not right to take the children's bread and give it to the dogs").
Conclusions and reflections
Looking back at Dr Feuerhahn's lecture, the one point on which I would still take issue is his assertion that Calvin's reformation was merely "moral". There may have been a greater emphasis on outward transformation and regulation of personal behaviour in Geneva rather than Wittenberg; Calvin may have placed a greater stress on the role of the Law in the Christian life; but I still feel it is overstating the case to say that the Genevan Reformation was merely "moral", while the Lutheran Reformation alone was "doctrinal". But I'm happy to listen to arguments either way on this one.
What I found most helpful in the lecture was Dr Feuerhahn's powerful and illuminating use of a Law/Gospel, as he demonstrated throughout his lecture that on issue after issue, what distinguishes the Lutheran Reformation is the distinction of Law and Gospel, applied in every area of the church's life. What cannot be conveyed on the "printed" page is Dr Feuerhahn's simple but effective use of gesture to help illustrate the point: gesturing to the left while referring to the Law ("what we are to do and not to do"), gesturing to the right while referring to the Gospel ("what God has done"). Doesn't sound like much, but it made the stark distinction between the two very clear.
