A Thinking Reed

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal

Three approaches to faith and works

In continuing the tradition of outsourcing quality theological reflection to my betters, allow me to link to this weighty post from Christopher on justification, sanctification and the various kinds of legalisms and antinomianisms that afflict the left and right.

The way I’ve learned to think about faith and works was that we are saved – i.e. restored to a right relationship with God – sheely by grace on account of Christ received through faith. This is the Reformation view shared by Lutherans, Calvinists, and many Anglicans.

But there’s a divergence about what role sanctification, or growth in the Christian life, means. Lutherans tend to say (at least when they’re being good Lutherans) that being continually rooted and re-rooted in faith will “naturally” produce good works (cf. Luther’s Freedom of a Christian). However, Luther, being the realist that he was, also recognized that our sinful impulses aren’t going to disappear until the consummation of all things, so in the interim we have the law to act as a check on them. I think this is properly described as the “civil” or first use of the law, not the much controverted third use.

Calvinists, by contrast, tend to have a more positive view of the law as a guide to Christian living and see sanctification as on ongoing process of being empowered by grace to obey God’s law. Naturally as a Lutheran I think the danger here is legalism and instrospectiveness; Calvinists would no doubt say that Lutheranism courts antinomianism.

An interesting third view, suggested as a distinctively Anglican one, is offered by Louis Weil in an essay called “The Gospel in Anglicanism,” found in an anthology The Study of Anglicanism, edited by Stephen Sykes and John Booty (1st ed.). Weil contends that Anglicanism, as it’s expressed in the prayer book and Articles of Religion, agrees with the Reformers on justification, but has a more sacramental understanding of sanctification:

While clearly within the Reformation tradition in its understanding of justification, Anglicanism distanced itself from both Calvin and Luther in ways which have been presented here. It is particularly with regard to the role of the sacraments as instruments of grace that Anglicanism maintained its own middle way: as Hooker wrote, ‘Sacraments serve as the instruments of God.’ They are thus God’s actions toward mankind, occasions in which through participation in the outward forms, men and women are involved in an active response to the grace of God. (p. 71)

In Weil’s view, the Anglican ethos sees sacramental and liturgical worship as the means by which God’s sanctifying grace is communicated to us. Through worship we participate in the mysteries of the faith and are linked to God’s purposes for the world. It is the primary means by which we are incorporated into the Body of Christ. Sanctification, then, has its roots in this incorporation; it is a key part of acquiring the “mind of Christ” from which good works flow. If good works are the fruit of faith, perhaps we can see this as “watering the plant.” This is one of the aspects of Anglicanism that I came to appreciate and cherish during last year’s sojourn among the Anglo-Catholics in Boston.

In theory Lutherans (I can’t speak for our Calvinist/Reformed brethren) ought to have a similar sacramental piety. After all, Lutheranism was the “conservative” branch of the Reformation that maintained much of the Catholic practice that the more radical elements of the Reformation rejected outright. However, my sense among ELCA Lutherans at any rate is that this sense of participating sacramentally in the reality of the paschal mystery is not very common.

My heart’s with the Lutherans in insisting that we can never merit our relationship with God. Our righteousness is always a gift that comes from outside (extra nos) and there’s nothing we can or need do to add to it. However, I also like the Anglican emphasis on being incorporated into Christ through participation in sacramental worship. Or, to put it more simply, learning to love Jesus by spending time with him. It seems to me that this offers the promise of helping to give a shape to the Christian life that sometimes seems to be lacking in Lutheranism, but without reducing it to sheer moralism.

3 responses to “Three approaches to faith and works”

  1. The way I’ve learned to think about faith and works was that we are saved – i.e. restored to a right relationship with God – sheely by grace on account of Christ received through faith. This is the Reformation view shared by Lutherans, Calvinists, and many Anglicans.

    This holds for Methodists/Wesleyans as well. Wesley, an Anglican, did not know about this doctrine until it was introduced to him by the Moravians (who were Lutheran), and that is when Wesley really latched on to it.

    However, Wesley, who was Anglican until the day he died (and never intended for his Methodists to split off), discovered to his chagrin that Anglicans already had this doctrine on the books — it’s just that in practice he never heard it preached! (So he was kinda ticked about that.)

    Peace,

    Eric

  2. Yep. It’s in the Articles:

    XI. Of the Justification of Man.

    We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely expressed in the Homily of Justification.

    Heavily Lutheran in several aspects by the way on matters of grace, sin, the church.

    I would add that my experience of Anglicanism in this regard is mixed because we are an amalgam of things. There is a tendency toward moralism especially on the right and left and on the other hand of so instantiating the work of God in the church by many, especially in the middle, that nothing gauges us as community–we become a word to ourselves. That’s what I see currently.

    I would also say this differently than Weil as Cranmer writes justification deep and through our Canon of the Mass such that our Eucharist is justification at prayer, at least in the classic family of prayerbooks. In this regard, I think us closer to the Lutherans in that for you also the Dominical sacraments are the means of grace by which God serves us and that justificaiton is not a past event in a sequence but a present reality in our relationship before God in Christ and no more so than in the Eucharist.

    I think the problem I have at heart is a sequentialist understanding of justification and sanctification that comes to us from the Reformed and the Roman Catholic through our Evangelicals and Anglo-catholics this is not what our Canon implies, but rather, the two are held together, one relating to how we are in relationship to God–God alone saves, the other in how we are graced to relate to one another.

    Does that make any sense?

    I fear though that at present we don’t even have a common theological language as Anglicans, and I feel caught in the middle of our lack.

  3. Christopher, I liked the way David Scaer put it in the article you provided the link to: he says that justification are two aspects of the same reality, one in the Godward dimension and the other in the “horizontal” dimension vis a vis our fellow human beings and creation.

    However, I’ve wondered if it’s correct to see sanctification in such strictly monergistic terms. Is there not room for human response here? Of course, all synergistic schemes inevitably raise the question of what part God is contributing and what part I’m contributing, which there doesn’t seem to be an obvious way of sorting out.

    Also, I like your point about the sacraments in Lutheranism – they do seem to be more “performative” if you will. The water, bread and wine are God‘s acts toward us. This understanding led someone like Gerhard Forde to prefer the term “Lord’s Supper” to “Eucharist” which seemed to him to connote the human response more than the divine initiative.

    I’m enjoying your blogging on these “fundamentals” very much, btw.

Leave a reply to Lee Cancel reply