Tag Archives: Reformation Day

Reformation Day: God Alone Is Lord Of The Conscience

2. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, in matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.

Westminster Confession of Faith 20.2

I don’t know if Presbyterians inherently have more internal disagreements, but one of the unique things about Presbyterianism is that we seem to act on those disagreements more. Yes, other denominations have splits, but is there another one in the US with as many active branches as the original mainline Presbyterian church which now has six distributed descendants? And that does not count the ARPC or the RPCNA which trace their roots back to earlier divisions in Scotland.

At times, we hear a lot of the opening line in that paragraph from the Westminster Confession of Faith that “God alone is Lord of the conscience.” Presbyterians have long affirmed the right for you to have your opinion and I will have mine. But what is often missing is what follows those words, so on this Reformation Day let’s take a closer look at that.

While the Westminster Standards are not the earliest Reformed or specifically Presbyterian doctrinal statement, they are the most developed, extensive and widely accepted ones. The heart is of course the Confession from which the catechisms, Directory for Public Worship and Form of Presbyterian Church Government derive. As such, this section is found in the confessional standards of most Presbyterian branches. (I don’t know how many branches don’t use it but the Cumberland Presbyterians are an example of one that doesn’t.)

But this concept was important enough in early American Presbyterianism that when the New Side – Old Side split was healing and the first General Assembly (as a judicatory, not just as a meeting) was discussed, the freedom of conscience was the first of eight points that were put into “The Preliminary Principles” that became the preface of the first Form of Government. These eight Principles can be found in many Books of Church Order, for example in sections F-3.0101 to F-3.0108 of the PC(USA) Book of Order. The PCA History Center has a helpful page providing a comparison of the text as found in the original Form of Government and the Books of Church Order for three other branches.

But what comes next? Freedom of conscience is one thing but exercising it in a covenant faith community, particularly as an ordained officer of the church is another.

In the Westminster Confession we need to look eleven chapters further on to consider deciding matters of conscience. In 31.3 it says:

3. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his Word.

Westminster Confession of Faith 31.3

So conscience is not absolute within the context of the covenant community. The community can not bind the conscience, but it can determine whether it is consistent with the community’s understanding. As the prefatory material to the PC(USA) Book of Confessions says:

b. To be an ordained Presbyterian is to promise to be “instructed,” “led,” and “continually guided” by the confessions of the church—not just by one’s personal theological and ethical preferences or even by one’s own personal understanding of God or Jesus Christ or Scripture. The church should not “bind the conscience” of those who disagree with its confessions and interpretation of their meaning. When an individual or group of individuals disagree with the consensus of the church, the church must first examine itself to see whether it needs to reform its confessional stance. Nevertheless, in the Presbyterian Church the consensus of the church concerning the meaning of faith and life takes precedence over the opinions and preferences of individuals and groups in the church, and may lead to the refusal of ordination to those who disagree with the church.

PC(USA) Book of Confrssions, pg xxi

The Preliminary Principles reflect the time of tension and differing opinions in which it was written. After stating that God alone is Lord of the conscience it goes on to say:

That, in perfect consistency with the above principle of common right, every Christian church, or union or association of particular churches, is entitled to declare the terms of admission to its communion, and the qualifications of its ministers and members, as well as the whole system of its internal government which Christ hath appointed: that, in the exercise of this right, they may, notwithstanding, err, in making the terms of communion either too lax or too narrow: yet, even in this case, they do not infringe upon the liberty, or the rights, of others, but only make an improper use of their own.

Preliminary Principles, paragraph 2, https://www.pcahistory.org/documents/principles.html

So in the context in which it was written a branch or denomination can come to its own conclusions. It may disagree with the others but each has a right to its doctrinal standards. And it is probably important to acknowledge that this grew out of the American context where the lack of a national or established church was a feature, not a bug. And in fact, at this point, there are other associations (they don’t want to consider themselves denominations) where each congregation had explicit flexibility and they are now considering if and how to enforce doctrinal standards. (A current example)

The answer of course for Presbyterians is that section of the Westminster Confession (31.3) that says that doctrine is not decided by you or me or any single person, whoever they may be. We decide these in our councils and synods, in groups of people prayerfully studying scripture and discerning the will of God. Sometimes the process is slow – the first General Assembly in 1789 considered an overture to abolish slavery which failed. And usually, not everyone is satisfied with the result. But it is the faithful application of our Presbyterian process and principles where decisions are bottom-up and not hierarchical. And we need to be regularly reminded of the following section of WCF 31 which says “All synods or councils since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.”

Have a good Reformation Day. Soli Deo gloria – Glory to God alone

Postscript: If you want more there is a one-hundred-page PC(USA) document reflecting on this when this because an issue shortly after the 1983 reunion. In 1988 the 205th General Assembly adopted “God Alone is Lord of the Conscience: A Policy Statement.”

Reformation Day: How To Distract A Holy Roman Emperor

So it’s been 499 years since a crazy German monk allegedly nailed a debating document of 95 theses to the door of a castle church and started a movement that continues today.

There is no question that Dr. Luther’s efforts bore tremendous fruit, including in ways he did not imagine. But in many aspects he was, you could argue providentially, aided by a significant set of circumstances present at the time of his attempts to reform the Roman system. Where others had suffered for their attempts to challenge doctrine – like Jan Hus before Luther, or his contemporaries William Tyndale, Heinrich Moller, and Patrick Hamilton – Luther found safer ground for his thoughts. The prince ruling his region, Frederick III, Elector of Saxony, got him safe passage and provided him protection from those who sought to arrest and punish him. And it should be noted that the invention of the printing press with moveable type significantly help Luther get his message distributed quickly and widely to be read by a broader audience, thus making it harder for authorities to silence him. And certainly Luther’s force of personality in writing and speaking was a considerable advantage as well. (You can check out the Lutheran Insulter web site if you want a taste of that.)

But today I want to take a moment to look a little bit higher and consider the top political power in that part of the world at that time – the Holy Roman Emperor.

peter_paul_rubens_-_charles_v_in_armour_-_wga20378

Charles V (from Wikimedia https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Peter_Paul_Rubens_-_Charles_V_in_Armour_-_WGA20378.jpg)

That would be Charles V. He was a native of Spain, He was a native of Flanders from the house of Hapsburg and assumed the leadership of the house of Burgundy upon his father’s death in 1506. He ascended to the Spanish throne through his mother’s line in 1516 and was elected the Holy Roman Emperor in 1519 upon the death of his grandfather. So he was not a ruler over the German states when this whole thing with Martin started, but as it progressed he became involved. He was present at the Diet of Worms and hearing Luther’s defense and possibly the famous “Here I stand” speech, rendered the verdict. He issued the formal verdict on May 8, 1521.

[Correction: Thanks for the email pointing out I got his early life wrong in my interest in focusing on 1517 and following. I think I have it corrected now and regret the error.]

But in an interesting historical coincidence it was on that same date that an offensive alliance against France was signed by representatives of Charles and the pope. This protracted conflict became the major concern for the emperor and certainly diverted his attention away from that monk in Saxony. His edict was never enforced.

The online version of the Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that Charles considered the matter more of an ecclesiastical one and settled by the papal bull of 1520. In addition, in spite of the alliance against France, the Encyclopedia also tells us that Charles was not particularly fond of the pope and had his eyes on consolidating some of his holdings in Italy. In light of that, it is not surprising that France and the pope were the major parties objecting to him becoming the Holy Roman Emperor in 1519. Both the French conflict and the Italian/papal conflict were settled by treaties in the summer of 1529 on terms generally favorable to Charles. So now the coast is clear to return to the German states? Not quite…

On the eastern and southern sides of the empire the Turks were advancing and having conquered much of Hungary they reached as far as Vienna in 1529. While trying to juggle the Lutherans in Germany, Pope Clement VII in Italy and the Turks in the eastern corner, Charles made some preliminary attempts to reunify the Germans around religion at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530. Little progress was made and soon Charles was occupied with a new advance by the Turks the next year.

At this point I will not try to narrate a play-by-play of shifting European political alliances – have a look at the Encyclopedia entry if you are interested – but the bottom line is that between these shifting powers and the threats from the Turks religious unity in Germany was not a pressing concern for him. He finally had the opportunity in 1546 and 1547 to return to Germany with military power, but while taking back some measure of political control the religious situation had progressed to a point where Charles let the status quo remain and Lutheranism had established it’s foundation.

Charles died in 1558, having placed other family members to administer the parts of the empire. The shifting political alliances continued throughout his life and beyond making political solutions impossible without strong military backing. And the hoped for reforms from the Council of Trent were slow in coming and received throughout the western churches with a variety of reactions.

I readily admit that this is a cursory treatment of the wider political situation at the time, but the bottom line is that in a complex world the need to contain this particular religious rebellion was not perceived as a top priority for the emperor. He was distracted with other conquests and maybe a bit ambivalent about getting political power involved in an ecclesiastical dispute. The catch on the latter point is that in a world of established churches the ecclesiastical is political. (Consider Calvin and Geneva for more on that.)

But it gave Dr. Luther and his followers the space they needed and, unlike other reformers who were not as fortunate to have that slight buffer around them, in Saxony the Reformation had the elements it needed to establish itself and spread from there to large sections of Western Europe.

So on this Reformation Day, we remember not just the hard work of Martin Luther and the risk he took to challenge the established church’s doctrine, but also the favorable ground his thoughts landed on to be able to take root. And if distracting the Holy Roman Emperor is part of that, so be it.

Happy Reformation Day. And I am not sure whether to encourage you to enjoy, or possibly cringe, at the build-up in the coming year to the 500th.

luther_kleine