This article appeared in the summer issue of dialog.
Published with permission.
[1] In the wake of recommendations from the ELCA Task Force on
Human Sexuality, one commentator worried that Lutherans would fall
prey to bitter "red synod/blue synod" squabbles reminiscent of the
November, 2004 election. Let's hope we have recovered
from the fallout of an angry election.1 Still, there are some
similarities between church and state: both decided not to decide
one of the most divisive issues they faced. Each realm frames
the issue differently. The civil realm debates "gay marriage," and
it became a wedge issue in the campaign. There was even
promise of an amendment to the Constitution limiting marriage to a
union between a man and a woman. Post-November, however, the
issue was quietly dropped by the White House, merely a blip on the
screen of the State of the Union message.
[2] The churchly realm debates "gay unions," which would welcome
gay and lesbian couples into the state of holy matrimony. In
its recommendations to the churchwide assembly this summer, the
Task Force declined at present to alter either current matrimonial
practice or standing policy binding its rostered leaders, the
Vision and Expectations statement. Instead, the Task
Force counseled a pastoral rather than a juridical or disciplinary
approach to congregations that acted to bless unions or call
pastors in violation of church policy. It urged Christians
instead to "embrace such unions with prayer" rather than with
matrimonial ceremony or with ecclesiastical trial.
[3] I would argue that this "embrace of prayer" ought to be
extended to unions this church already blesses in the form of holy
matrimony. Lutherans are unable to rise above the high
divorce rates plaguing other American Christians - and
non-Christians. It seems like our heterosexual unions are in
a state of siege - but that would be the subject of another
article.
[4] The recommendations took the wind out of everyone's
sails. Expectations of an all-out assault on Higgins Road
were disappointed, despite the small army of staff trained to parry
angry phone-calls and cyber-attacks. "We had two calls the
day the recommendations were released - and one was asking for
technical assistance in downloading the document," confided one
churchwide head. Some may be breathing a sigh of
relief, but I suspect most Lutherans feel a sense of
disappointment. Doubtless "red synod" Lutherans find that the
recommendations did not go far enough in defending the sanctity of
Christian marriage, and "blue synod" Lutherans fault the
recommendations for not going far enough to welcome gay and lesbian
Lutherans into their congregations by blessing their committed and
faithful partnerships. The recommendations may have
disappointed everyone equally. Given the partisan political
climate we inhabit, we should not be surprised. But before we
despair of yet another task force in the near or far-distant
future, I want to highlight language that surfaced throughout the
recommendations which is provocative, promising, and distinctive to
our Christian tradition - whatever color your synod.
[5] The report appeals again and again to "conscience,"
sometimes qualifying conscience as "good" and more often referring
to it as "bound." This appeal to conscience ought not
surprise a tradition whose chief reformer resisted pope and emperor
alike on grounds of conscience. More surprising is that
Lutheran ethics since Luther himself has had relatively little to
say about conscience, its possibilities and its limits.
Conscience gets more attention from Roman Catholic moral
theologians, who draw on a tradition of reflection that dates back
to the apostle Paul, but flourished particularly in late medieval
theology.2 Luther spoke from
a rich tradition and a complex, nuanced view of
conscience.
[6] In contrast, we inherit our understanding of conscience from
the Enlightenment, too easily understanding it as the inner voice
that prods us to challenge authority in the name of individual
autonomy. Individual conscience reigns as a sovereign
arbiter. We judge things by whether or not we feel
"comfortable" with them. We rest easy in consciences that are
confirmed in their goodness: "These are my principles and a plague
be on yours, on any evidence to the contrary, and on what anyone
else might think." For us "authenticity" is not merely a
desideratum; it is a kind of entitlement.
[7] The difference between these two understandings of
conscience is profound. Luther struggled with consciences
that were unduly beleaguered, not overweeningly
confident. Luther's understanding of conscience captive
to the Word of God expresses his solus Christus ("Christ
alone") convictions; Enlightenment appeals to conscience express
more a kind of sola viscera ("by guts alone")
mentality. The question remains: can Luther's views of
conscience enrich our own? I am convinced that rightly
understood, Lutheran appeals to conscience invite us to transcend
divisions that threaten to divide our church. I fear that
Enlightenment appeals to conscience only invite us to dig in our
heels more deeply. First, we need to understand what Luther
meant by conscience: conscience captive, conscience instructed, and
conscience informed. Only then can we revisit the role of
conscience in the life of the church and its congregations - in
this debate and in so many others.
Luther on Conscience
[8] Martin Luther famously appealed to conscience at the Diet of
Worms on April 18, 1521. Summoned before the emperor and
urged to repudiate his writings, he refused: "My conscience is
captive to the Word of God," he reputedly said. "Thus I
cannot or will not recant, for going against conscience is neither
safe nor salutary. I can do no other, here I stand, God help
me. Amen."3 These words
remain the locus classicus of Luther's thinking on
conscience. Few are able to resist the temptation to appropriate
the quote, either abridging it or taking it out of context
entirely.4 Succumbing to
this temptation blinds us to the crucial modifiers of Luther's
understanding of conscience: captive, instructed, and informed.
Conscience captive:
[9] "Going against conscience is neither safe nor
salutary...." Since the eighteenth century these words
represent conscience's declaration of independence from popes,
councils, constraints of tradition, or anything else that rubs
against the grain of integrity. Indeed, Enlightenment
secularists valorized Luther, reading him as if he had internalized
Kant's command: "Sapere audere!" "Dare to know!" But of
course, Luther could not know the great Konigsburg philosopher's
inaugural speech for the Age of Reason, "Was ist Aufklarung?"
And Luther would have insisted on conscience's captivity before its
liberation. For him Christian conscience was captive to the
Word of God, not to Enlightenment notions of the autonomous
self. There is a huge difference.
[10] Understood aright, Luther bequeathed to the future the
profound psychological and spiritual insight that conscience is
never free. The independent conscience simply does
not exist. Conscience is always bound - possibly even
strait-jacketed in precisely those moments when the moral agent
feels most free. Luther pointed us to the hard truth that
conscience is always captive to something - the real question is
what? Parents of teenagers know that captivity well, as they
watch their children head off to school in a uniform that may not
be school-issue and regulated by institutional code, but remains
rigidly regulated by the pressure of peers. Instead of plaid
skirts, white ties, and blue blazers, the look features low-rider
jeans, cargo pants, and tight tops. Whatever the dictates of the
reigning fashion police, the current look is still a uniform - and
everyone looks the same as everyone else. Parents who try to
intervene incur a passionate appeal to the autonomous conscience:
"But Mom: I need to be me! This is my way of expressing
myself!" Conscience is always captive: the question is to
what?
[11] Before the emperor on that afternoon in 1521, Luther was
quite clear: "My conscience is captive to the Word of God." Luther
would not capitulate to popes, councils, nor even the emperor
himself - and Charles V responded in a few weeks with a double
imperial ban. What did Luther mean by the captive
conscience?
[12] We get some important clues in a sermon Luther preached
shortly before his audience with the emperor "on the three kinds of
good life for the instruction of consciences."5 This - and not
Immanuel Kant - formed the necessary backdrop for Luther's
statement before the imperial diet. Here like a master
architect Luther sketched three kinds of conscience along the lines
of a Hebrew tabernacle with its forecourt, the sanctuary, and
tabernacle or Holy of Holies. He notes the structural
resemblance with the Christian church's churchyard, nave, and
chancel. The floor plan sketches out his thinking on the uses
and limits of conscience.
[13] In his sermon, Luther laid out three kinds of conscience with
their respective understandings of doctrine, sin, and works -
or an understanding of what constitutes "the good life." In
the churchyard the good life consists of following rules concerning
food and drink, dress and occasion, hours spent in prayer, work,
and sabbath. Breach of any of these commandments rightly
gives one a "bad" conscience, and adherence to the commandments
convinces people that they have achieved a right relationship with
God. For Luther nothing could be further from the
truth. These "churchyard saints" with their churchyard
consciences "strain gnats and swallow camels," all the while
standing far from the truth of God's promises.
[14] But no one comes to church to stay in the churchyard.
People come to church to worship, and Luther invited his listeners
into the nave, "where teaching, works, and concepts of conscience
... are really good." Language from virtue ethics described this
space: "humility, meekness, gentleness, peace, fidelity, love,
propriety, and purity," and these dispositions contrast sharply
with the churchyard's external acts of piety. Although he
praised these dispositions as constituting "true conscience,"
allowing believers to "strain camels and swallow gnats," Luther
shrewdly acknowledged how hard this righteousness was to come
by. He was convinced that people didn't really want to be
righteous; instead, they generated these pious feelings because
they were either fearful of disgrace or desirous of praise.
Ultimately, they failed to deceive even themselves with this facade
of goodness, and would-be saints wound up on their knees, begging
for grace.
[15] At this point, Luther invited his listeners into the
chancel, the Holy of Holies, where Christ and his promises
reside. At Christ's bidding the Holy Spirit enters the
believer, creating virtues that seek no reward, fear no punishment,
and become holy for the sake of holiness alone. Luther
concluded: "Here is really sound doctrine! This shows what a
conscience is and what good works are!"
[16] The kind of conscience described here stands equidistant
from Enlightenment notions of the autonomous self and from Roman
Catholic notions of natural law which presumes an internal faculty
with at least some potential for pointing the moral agent in the
right direction. Conscience seems not merely captive to the
Word of God, but coopted by the Holy Spirit. Indeed, Luther's
conscience fulfils itself only when it denies itself entirely and
follows the lead of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Ironically,
conscience is "free" only when it is captive to the Spirit.
[17] Yet Luther knew that Christians did not live out their
lives in the tabernacles of temples nor in the chancels of
churches. They returned to their worldly duties in a
rhythm of worship and service that was as instinctual as
breathing. Just as life-giving breath flowed in and out of
the lungs, so Christians moved out of the chancel and into the
world and back into the sanctuary again. Faith was no
end in itself, but found its fulfilment in service of the
neighbor. Filled with the Spirit, Christians turned around
and stepped out of the chancel, through the nave, and out into the
churchyard. Luther concluded that "good works without faith
cannot happen, and that faith without works cannot endure."
[18] It seems clear, though it is implicit in this sermon, that
conscience brings the counsel of the Holy Spirit to bear on the
concrete contexts of daily life. As Christians moved from the
chancel back into the nave, that theater of virtues, they needed to
discern which virtues the situation demanded. For example,
courage might be admirable on the battlefield, but out-of-place in
a nursery, where uncommon gentleness was called for. A
Spirit-filled conscience assessed context and supplied the
appropriate response. Beyond the nave and into the courtyard,
conscience translated virtuous habit into action. External
works would not secure righteousness, but conscience inspired by
the Spirit became incarnate in works of love and service to the
neighbor.
[19] I wish Luther had been more specific about the work of the
Spirit-inspired conscience, but it is well within the parameters of
his thinking to present conscience as the necessary mediator
between the counsel of the Spirit and the concrete situation,
between the Christian virtues or "gifts of the Spirit" and
service to the neighbor in front of me. Clearly, he does not
want to conflate these three distinct kinds of conscience any more
than he wants to tear down the walls between chancel, nave, and
churchyard. But conscience in each of these spaces has an
important role in the Christian life.
Conscience instructed:
[20] When should the Christians use which kind of conscience?
The question remained a problem, and Luther spent a good deal of
time instructing the consciences of his flock. I'm not
sure we post-Enlightenment Christians grasp his urgency on this
point either. We tend to view instruction as the enemy - or
at least one of them. We devalue instruction as the benign
face of propaganda, and propaganda shackles conscience to
heteronomous authorities. So far from working to educate
consciences, we latter-day Lutherans prefer peeling away layers of
"bad" teaching to get to "what feels right to me" or "what I am
confortable with." Feeling authentic or feeling "comfortable"
with something substitutes for listening to others and learning
from them. Sola viscera! "By guts
alone!"
[21] Alas! For Luther human nature is less like a peach than
an onion. Peel all you want, you will never come to a
life-bearing seed, but rather a handful of nothingness. We
live only when we are grafted onto the life-giving body of Christ;
we live only as we are nurtured by the promises of baptism.
Again and again, Luther wrote letters of pastoral counsel to
instruct the consciences of his fellow Christians. In his
writing he showed familiarity with the rich tradition of reflection
on conscience from ancient and medieval theologians who preceded
him. For example, in considering the question of whether
Christians should go to war, he revealed knowledge of the whole
medieval taxonomy of conscience.6 There are: "weak,
timid, and doubting consciences;" there are "timid and insecure
consciences;" there are "good and well-instructed
consciences." Luther stood in a tradition that gave
conscience a two-fold referent. On one hand, it was
subjective, referring to the person or moral agent deliberating; on
the other, it was objective, referring to the judgment itself and
how closely it conformed to objective reality. Subjective
conscience referred to the character of the person deliberating,
and conscience could be "good" or "bad," "strong" or "weak,"
"convicted" or "insecure." Objective conscience
referred to the quality of the deliberation itself, and here
conscience was either "well-instructed" or "poorly instructed," in
other words, "right on" -- or gravely in error.
[22] A compelling illustration is close at hand: we don't have to
leave the 21st century for the 16th. Luther's poor
soldier aside, the war in Iraq shows in sharp relief the difference
between conscience's subjective and objective
referents. The U.S. took a principled stance in Iraq
for democracy, freedom, and liberty and against tyranny, torture
chambers, and WMDs. We acted in "good conscience," according
to the subjective axis of conscience. The problem lies on the
objective axis of conscience. The U.S. judgment to go to war
was out of synch with objective reality on two points: we believed
that Iraq possessed WMDs - and they did not; and we believed that
Iraqis would cheer us as liberators - and they despised us as an
occupying army instead. In subjective terms, it could
be argued that the U.S. acted in good conscience, but seen
objectively, our judgment was gravely in error.
[23] His medieval heritage gave Luther distinctions that he
clearly knew - but did not always adopt. We see his departure
from established teaching most clearly in the 1521 sermon. He
put no stock in the subjective referent of conscience; the
character of the moral agent meant little to him. "We are all
sinners," he observes, and with this statement the careful
calibrations of human goodness fell away. The "good" person
simply did not exist, and that made any "principled" stance just so
much false pride. In a word, the subjective referent of
conscience had nothing to refer to.
[24] Perhaps this was why Luther spent so much time working the
objective axis of conscience. He frequently wrote letters with the
express purpose of instructing conscience, i.e., affecting its
objective judgments. In writing to his poor beleaguered
soldier, he responded not with a theology of war, not with a
political theology, but with a pastoral word. In replying to
the Twelve Articles of the Swabian peasants, he sought to sway both
the peasants and their lords.7 In preaching to
his peasant congregation in Wittenberg, he struggled to put in
plain language the real work of conscience, which was to reach
beyond itself, grasp the promises of Christ, and then incarnate
those promises in service to the neighbor.8 Only then could
the Christian truly become a "little Christ" to the neighbor.
Inspired by the Spirit, conscience was shaped by the promises of
Christ to serve others.
Conscience informed:
[25] What could conscience know? Conscience was not a matter
of individual integrity, but a matter of corporate
deliberation. Derived from the Latin conscientia, con- +
-scientia, conscience signaled insight gained from
communication and conversation. Luther understood the word
literally as a kind of "knowing with" someone or something
else. Formation of conscience demanded a consult. He
could not imagine conscience working properly without
conversation. He himself asked for counsel, and he responded
freely when asked. Behind his statement "my conscience
is captive to the Word of God" lay hours of worship and prayer,
argument and disputation, letters written and received. These
practices all demanded community. There is here no
declaration of independence for individual conscience, but rather
an observation of its dependence on the mutual conversation and
consolation of the brothers and sisters. Luther's captive
conscience displays but the interdependence of Christians. We
need each other for the task of judgment: to weigh possible
options, to test potential courses of action, to discern, and to
seek counsel from people who may be wiser than we..
[26] Of course, the quality of moral discernment depends on the
range of people consulted. Consulting with the "in-house
trinity" - me, myself, and I - takes little energy and produces the
expected results: people whose conscience is bound to their own
prejudices. Consulting with like-minded folks binds
conscience to the narrow view of a life-style enclave.
Consulting with the broad spectrum of folk may or may not confirm
initial hunches, but it opens us to the working of the
Spirit. Luther's correspondence documents communication with
a broad range of friends and enemies, neighbors and strangers.
[27] Finally, the Word of God which captures conscience works in
a three-fold fashion. It is incarnate in a community, as it
worships together, shares the sacraments, and prays for grace; it
is inscribed in Scripture, which treats Christ (as Luther put it,
was Christum treibet); and it is embedded in human nature, as
people together exercise "plain reason" to approach a mystery that
is wholly in and wholly other than their
experience.
Conclusion
[28] The final scene of director Eric Till's 2003 movie
Luther features Luther and his wife silhouetted against a
green hill as Phillip Melanchthon (Phillip the Meek) gallops down
upon them shouting "They accepted our confession!" As the
scene fades, words scroll across the screen praising Luther for
giving future generations a sense of the "freedom of
conscience." Nice tribute - but not at all
accurate. Luther did not claim his conscience was "free;" he
claimed that it was "captive."
[29] We mishear the Reformer, because his words get drowned out
by an Enlightenment symphony praising a very different kind of
conscience. Luther understood conscience as:
-
captive - not free;
-
a knowledge gained and held in common with other Christians -
not annexed to the individual;
-
interdependent and born of a discerning community - not
independent and lodged in the sovereign self;
-
confident in Christ and doubtful about its own conclusions - not
confident in its own conclusions and wary of all else;
-
welcoming of instruction from the indwelling Spirit - not
suspicious of instruction as propaganda.
[20] So understood conscience is not a work of the individual
but a mystery of the Trinity: instructed by the indwelling Spirit,
formed by the promises of Christ, and directed by the created image
of God and "plain reason" to be of concrete service to the
neighbor.
[21] I applaud the Task Force for returning to such classically
Lutheran language - I only hope we latter-day Lutherans turn to
Luther rather than the Enlightenment for unpacking
conscience. The Task Force recommendations work in
concert with its two impressive study guides to point the church in
a course of on-going deliberation. May our work be bold,
broadly consultative, and faithful!
© July
2005
Journal of Lutheran Ethics (JLE)
Volume 5, Issue 7
1 Kathryn A. Kleinhans, "No Red Synods/Blue Synods in
the ELCA: Attempting to Hold the Middle Ground," in the on-line
Journal of Lutheran Ethics, http://www.elca.org/jle/article.asp?k=497.
For other responses to the Task Force recommendations, including
articles from Dennis Bielfeldt, Jonathan R. Sande, John Wickham,
Bp. Steven Ullestad, Kaari Reierson, and others, see the archives
of the Journal of Lutheran Ethics.
2 Cf. Anne E. Patrick, Liberating Conscience:
Feminist Explorations in Catholic Moral Theology, (New York:
Continuum, 1996); Sidney Callahan, In Good Conscience: Reason
and Emotion in Moral Decision-Making, No. 14: Conscience (New
York: Paulist Press, 2004), especially articles by Charles E.
Curran, "Conscience in the Light of the Catholic Moral Tradition,"
Timothy E. O'Connell, "An Understanding of Conscience," Richard M.
Gula, "The Moral Conscience," and William C. Spohn, "Conscience and
Moral Development."
3 Cited in Heiko
Oberman, Luther: Man between God and the Devil, trans.
Eileen Walliser-Schwarzbart (New Haven: Yale University, 1982), p.
203.
4 Another fine Luther
remark receives the same kind of treatment: "Pecca fortiter -
sed fortius fide et gaude in Christo!" "Sin boldly - but even
more fiercely believe and rejoice in Christ." If only the latter
part of the statement received the attention the first part
does!
5 Martin Luther, "A
Sermon on the Three Kinds of Good Life for the Instruction of
Consciences, 1521," trans. James Atkinson, in Luther's Works:
Vol. 44 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), pp. 235-242.
6 Martin Luther,
"Whether Soldiers , Too, Can Be Saved, 1526," trans. Charles M.
Jacobs, in Luther's Works: Vol. 46 (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1967), pp. 93-137.
7 Martin Luther,
"Admonition to Peace, A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the
Peasants in Swabia, 1525," trans. Charles M. Jacobs, in
Luther's Works: Vol. 46 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1967), pp. 17-43.
8 Martin Luther, "A
Sermon on the Three Kinds of Good Life for the Instruction of
Consciences, 1521," op. cit.