20 minute read
Toward a Conservative Lutheran Social Ethic
Introduction
Why do conservative Lutherans lack a coherent response to political evil? Why do they struggle to confront legalized abortion, let alone subtler evils like socialism, monetary inflation, and gun control?1 Over many years of conversation and study, I have come to the conclusion that conservative Lutherans lack a coherent social ethic for two main reasons: 1) an intense fear of using God’s law and 2) an interpretation of two-kingdom theory that introduces an epistemological dualism of nature and grace. Apart from God’s law, however, there is no standard for Christian ethics. Moreover, even if the law is affirmed, the dualism of nature and grace precludes the application of special revelation to the state. Thus, a Lutheran social ethic becomes impossible since the two factors combine to remove Biblical law from the civil realm. As a result, the state becomes a realm of human autonomy devoid of moral absolutes.2
However, since these problems arise from a bad interpretation of Lutheran theology, it is possible to correct them through better interpretation. To this end, my argument below proceeds in four steps. First, I discuss the law-gospel distinction to show that the fear the law is unfounded since using the law as an ethical standard does not undermine the gospel. Second, I argue that two-kingdom theory entails an institutional distinction, but not an epistemological one. Thus, a separation of church and state does not entail a separation of Bible and state. Third, having addressed the impediments to a Lutheran social ethic, I then set forth a pro-nomian model of Christian ethics known as multiperspectivalism. Through this ethical model, I show how law and gospel work together harmoniously within the ethical realm. Finally, to set forth the utility of this model, I analyze the issues of socialism, monetary inflation, and gun control mentioned above.
Nomophobia: The Irrational Fear of God’s Law
Many Lutheran pastors have an irrational fear of God’s law which I call nomophobia.3 These pastors fear that any positive use of God’s law will degenerate into works-righteousness and thereby undermine the gospel. Accordingly, they put a hedge around the gospel just as the Pharisees once
put a hedge around the law. However, once the law is sidelined and prevented from fulfilling its God-ordained role, an alternate ethical standard becomes necessary. Thus, many of these same pastors use the gospel, rather than the law, as an ethical standard, thereby making a law out of the gospel! In other words, in their attempt to avoid “front door ” law-gospel confusion (works righteousness), they unwittingly fall into “back door ” law-gospel confusion (antinomianism).4
Nomophobia is based upon the mistaken belief that law and gospel are opposites and are therefore pitted against one another in a zero-sum-game. Thus, any attention to the law necessarily detracts from the gospel, and vice versa. However, this opposition is false. The law is not the opposite of the gospel, works-righteousness is. Stated differently, it is the abuse of the law that is the opposite of the gospel, not the law itself.
Rightly understood, the law tells us what we should do. By contrast, the gospel tells us what God has done through Christ for law breakers like us. Clearly, law and gospel are distinct, but this distinction need not imply opposition. Our heart and lungs are also distinct, but they are not for this reason opposites. Rather, they manifest a harmony-in-difference in their joint work.
In a similar manner, law and gospel work together in a harmonious manner. Through the law God shows us our sin and drives us to His gospel promise for forgiveness and renewal. Through the gospel, in turn, God forgives and renews us, and thereby writes His law upon our hearts. Through their joint work, therefore, law and gospel not only provide for our personal salvation but also help us live our lives. To change the metaphor, the gospel puts the wind in our sails while the law is our rudder. Together they help us navigate the waters of life.
Consequently, Lutherans may robustly affirm the law as our ethical standard without undermining the gospel as the proclamation of God’s saving grace. King David said that he loved God’s law and that it was a lamp unto his feet and a light unto his path (Ps. 119: 97-105). If we cannot say the same thing, we need to adjust our theology, not the Bible.
King David
Epistemological Dualism: Nature, Grace, and the Two Kingdoms
In addition to the fear of God’s law, a second impediment to a Lutheran social ethic is a view of two-kingdom theory that involves an epistemological dualism of nature and grace. Within this framework, the church, as the realm of grace, has a top-down epistemology in which Scripture is the primary source of knowledge. By contrast, the state, as the realm of nature, has a bottom-up epistemology based upon reason and empirical observation. However, since this framework puts the divergent principles of nature and grace side-by-side, it fractures the view of life. This makes an integrated worldview impossible and specifically precludes the application of Biblical law to the state. An example of this type of thinking comes from the website of the ELS.
. . . As opposed to those of the Reformed tradition who have tried to follow Calvin’s Geneva experiment in setting up a Bible-run secular government, we Lutherans maintain a distinction between the kingdom of Christ (ruled by God’s Word) and the kingdom of politics (ruled by reason and natural knowledge of the law). For further reading on this matter, we suggest the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article XVI.5
In reaction to these statements, there is neither a Scriptural nor a natural reason to eliminate Biblical law as a basis for civil law. Moreover, to pigeonhole and dismiss such an approach as Calvinist ignores the earlier history of Christianity as a civilizing force in Europe. For instance, in Ireland St. Patrick used Biblical law to correct and revise the Brehon laws of the Druids.6 And in England King Alfred the Great made a similar revision of Anglo-Saxon law. Alfred’s Book of Dooms begins with the Ten Commandments and intersperses Old and New Testament references throughout.7 As a result of this move, Biblical law is integral to Anglo-American common law, and for this reason the Ten Commandments are prominent in many U.S. courtrooms. But this influence is not surprising. Since Christians are called to be salt and light, the Church had a leavening effect upon culture long before Calvin’s Geneva. This isn’t just a Calvinist thing; it’s a Christendom thing. Shouldn’t we have a similar effect in our day?
Alfred the Great
The above revision of legal traditions is consistent with Lutheran theology. Melanchthon argued that natural reason, and hence natural law, approximates the second table of the Decalogue (AP, IV, 34). Consistent with this view, both St. Patrick and King Alfred the Great accepted their received legal traditions as congruent with natural law for the most part. However, since Scripture provides a clearer revelation of God’s law than nature does, they used Scripture to modify particular laws that were inconsistent with the Bible. Moreover, in this process their use of Biblical law was flexible and nuanced since it was being applied to a different culture.
Getting back to two-kingdom theory, why do we think that it is wrong to appeal Alfred the Great to Scripture in the civil realm? Does the church have a Biblical reason for this? No. Does the state have a “natural” reason for this based upon reason and empirical observation? To the contrary, reason and empirical observation show St. Patrick and King Alfred the Great revising their received legal traditions in terms of Biblical law. Accordingly, any reasonable view of two-kingdom theory must not preclude the application of Biblical law to the state.
To this end, we must formulate two-kingdom theory in terms of an institutional distinction between church and state without imposing an epistemological dualism. Within this framework, the Church bears the keys, and the state bears the sword. Hence, the Church can excommunicate but cannot execute, whereas the state can execute but cannot excommunicate. Moreover, since their differences are complementary, church and state work together to produce a godly society. Through its proclamation of law and gospel, the church serves the state by producing a law-abiding culture, and through its administration of justice, the state serves the church by preserving external order. But in all of this, nothing in Scripture or nature precludes the civil magistrate from using the Bible to formulate just and equitable laws. In other words, a separation of church and state need not imply a separation of Bible and state.
Multiperspectivalism: A Framework for Christian Ethics
Having examined the impediments to a Lutheran social ethic, we may now turn to the positive task of developing a pro-nomian ethical framework. To this end, I will use a meta-ethical model known as multiperspectivalism that was developed by John M. Frame.8 As illustrated in Figure 1 below, Christian ethics involves the interpenetration of three distinct perspectives: 1) existential, 2) situational, and 3) normative (or deontological). These three perspectives concern the ethical agent, the ethical situation, and the ethical standard or law, respectively.
In a private communication, Frame stated that multiperspectivalism combines the insights of the Reformed apologist Cornelius Van Til and the Lutheran theologian George Lindbeck.9 Consistent with the influence of Lindbeck, multiperspectivalism functions as a grammar of human action although Frame insists that it is more than a grammar. As a
John Frame
grammar, it relates the subjective, objective, and normative aspects of human action in various fields. For this reason, the same three perspectives arise in Frame’s discussion of epistemology.
In Figure 1 above, the triangle represents ethics as a whole while the three vertices represent the differing ethical perspectives. Since the ethical perspectives are like vertices of the same triangle, they cannot be separated from one another or from the triangle as a whole. Thus, the three perspectives interpenetrate so that each includes each of the others as well as the entire ethical domain. It is for this reason that Frame calls them “perspectives,” not “parts” of ethics. As Frame describes them, the perspectives are coextensive but differ in terms of their foci, orientations, and vantage points.10
Figure 1. - Multiperspectivalism
Given this combination of co-extensiveness and orientational difference, there is complementarity and interdependence between the three perspectives such that each is needed to understand the other two. For instance, one cannot understand the law as an ethical norm except as it is intended for an ethical agent to apply within an ethical situation. Similarly, an ethical situation is meaningless apart from an ethical agent whose activity is subject to an ethical norm or law. Finally, an ethical agent is incomprehensible except as one who is active within an ethical situation and subject to an ethical norm.11
Multiperspectivalism with a Lutheran Twist
Having examined the multiperspectival model of Christian ethics, I would like to give this model a Lutheran theological twist. I do this for multiple reasons. First, I want to show how this model is consistent with Lutheran theology. Second, I wish to show how the model provides greater insight into a Lutheran understanding of ethics by revealing the relation of its several factors. Finally, I hope that this model will promote an advance in Lutheran ethics by showing where Lutheran ethics is weak and suggesting ways to strengthen it.
In regard to the interplay of Lutheran theology and ethics, the multiperspectival model gives us a framework for understanding the distinct roles of law and gospel within the sphere of ethical action as well as their relation to each other. In this model, the law enters the ethical framework through the normative perspective since the role of the law is to function as an ethical norm. By contrast, the gospel enters the ethical framework through the existential perspective. After all, the role of the gospel is to transform the ethical agent through word and sacrament so that she is motivated and empowered to love and serve her neighbor in accordance with the demands of God’s law. Finally, the situational perspective concerns the various vocational spheres (family, workplace, church, state, etc.) within which we live out our daily lives.
Within the multiperspectival model, therefore, Christian ethics involves a harmonious interaction of law, gospel, and Christian vocation. In this interaction the roles of law and gospel remain distinct but are complementary rather than opposed. This means that when the law is rightly understood, rightly related to the gospel, and rightly applied to ethical problems; its use is evangelically empowered and life-giving, rather than legalistic.
In providing us a full picture of the ethical domain, multiperspectivalism also helps us see where Lutheranism is ethically deficient and what must be done to fix it. In this regard, Lutheran ethics often downplays the law (normative perspective), focusing instead upon service to the neighbor (situational perspective) as motivated by love (existential perspective). Thus, it focuses upon the ends and intentions of human action, but not the law.12 Apart from the law, however, Lutheran ethics is hobbled because it cannot discriminate between good and evil. It is therefore essential for Lutherans to embrace a positive view of God’s law. Only so will Lutheranism develop a robust social ethic and begin to speak prophetically on issues of public policy.
Application of the Multiperspectival Method
In the introduction, I said that the Church needs to stand against the subtle evils of socialism, monetary inflation, and gun control in addition to obvious evils like abortion. I will now apply the multiperspectival method to these three issues to illustrate the utility of this method. In so doing, I will also show that socialism, inflation, and gun control violate God’s law at multiple points and therefore warrant the opposition of conservative Lutherans.
In socialism the central problem is the forced wealth transfer from person A to person B. Of course, it is legitimate for the government to tax us for the services that it renders to us, such as national defense, police protection, criminal justice, physical infrastructure, and so forth. However, when the government taxes person A for the direct benefit of person B, the government becomes a middleperson in a system of institutionalized thievery and covetousness. This violates the Seventh and Ninth Commandments (normative perspective). Moreover, since socialism destroys livelihoods and thereby ruins lives, socialism is murderous in its effects (situational perspective). This violates the Fifth Commandment. Finally, at the level of the human heart, socialism is idolatrous in its pretensions since the rulers in socialist systems assume godlike power over the people (existential perspective). This violates the First Commandment.13
The central issue in monetary inflation is that government expansion of the money supply reduces the value of the currency and hence the real value of people’s savings and incomes. Since this is theft by scheming and stealth, it violates the Seventh and Ninth Commandments against thievery and covetousness, respectively (normative perspective). Moreover, since inflation destroys livelihoods and thereby ruins lives, it is murderous in its effects (situational perspective). This violates the Fifth Commandment. Finally, at the level of the human heart, monetary inflation is idolatrous in its pretensions since the expansion of the money supply is an attempt to create value ex nihilo (existential perspective). This violates the First Commandment.
To see the evil of gun control, we must first note that Biblical law allows the taking of human life in at least three cases: 1) capital punishment, 2) just war, and 3) self-defense. Thus, it is Biblically legitimate to use lethal force in the defense of one’s life, and owning a firearm is a necessary means to this end.14 Consequently, gun control is a murderous violation of the Fifth Commandment since it strips innocent people naked in the face of thugs and gangbangers (normative perspective). In terms of its effects, gun control removes a deterrent to crime and thereby increases the rates of murder, rape, and robbery (situational perspective).15 This violates the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Commandments, respectively. Finally, at the level of the human heart, many rulers, who support gun control, seek to increase their power by subjugating their people (existential perspective). Since this attitude is both idolatrous and murderous, it violates the First and Fifth Commandments.
As seen from these examples, multiperspectivalism provides a robust and systematic method of ethical analysis.
Through this method one can take a current issue and expose various ways in which it violates God’s law. In fact, since the above analysis is admittedly brief, each of the above issues violates God’s law in additional ways not covered here. However, what is shown above is sufficient both to illustrate the utility of the multiperspectival method and to show that socialism, monetary inflation, and gun control are immoral.
Conclusion
In the discussion above, I have championed a conservative Lutheran social ethic. To this end, I have confronted two theological impediments to this ethic, have set forth a pronomian model of Christian ethics, and have applied this model to three current issues. First, I argued that the Lutheran fear of the law is unfounded. Since law and gospel are distinct but not opposites, one can champion the law as an ethical standard without undermining the gospel. Second, I showed that twokingdom theory involves an institutional distinction but not an epistemological one. Consequently, a separation of church and state does not entail a separation of Bible and state.
Third, having addressed these theological impediments, I set forth a pro-nomian ethical model known as multiperspectivalism. This model provides a meta-ethical framework that shows how law, gospel, and Christian vocation harmoniously interact within the ethical domain. Thus, it shows positively that the ethical use of the law does not undermine the gospel but is in fact motivated and empowered by the gospel. Moreover, in addition to a meta-ethical framework, multiperspectivalism also provides a robust and systematic method of ethical analysis. As my final step, therefore, I used multiperspectivalism to analyze three issues in order to demonstrate the utility of this method. From this analysis I also showed that socialism, monetary inflation, and gun control violate God’s law at multiple points and should therefore be rejected as immoral.
John B. King, Jr. is pastor of Grace Lutheran Church (NALC) in Enterprise, OR. He has a Ph.D. in Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering from Oregon State University, a Th.D. in Systematic and Philosophical Theology from the Graduate Theological Union, and a D.Min. in Leadership in the Emerging Culture from George Fox Evangelical Seminary.
Endnotes
1For my critique of socialism, see John B. King Jr., "Socialism--a Confessional Lutheran Critique," Lutheran Forum 55, no. 1 (2021).
2Presumably, the state still has natural law. But as Dr. Phil might ask, “How’s that workin’ for ya?”
3For a fuller discussion of my views, see John B. King Jr., "Toward Law-Gospel Harmony in Lutheran Theology and Ethics," Dialog 59, no. 3 (2020).
4For conceptual symmetry, I prefer the terms legalism and lawlessness to worksrighteousness and anti-nomianism.
5Socialism, (Evangelical Lutheran Synod, accessed 15 March 2022); available from https://els.org/resources/answers/socialism/.
6John Eidsmoe, Historical and Theological Foundations of Law, vol. II: Classical and Medieval (Ventura, CA: Nordskog Publishing, 2016), 767, 768.
7Ibid., 824. The word doom here means judgment. So, Alfred’s book may also be called the Book of Judgments.
8Although Frame is a Reformed theologian, I do not believe multiperspectivalism is a “Reformed” model (see below). Reformed ethics tends to focus upon the law. By contrast, Frame seeks to make all three perspectives equally basic. For this reason Reformed theologians frequently push back against Frame’s model.
9John Frame, "Private Communication," (2006). Frame came under Lindbeck’s influence as a Ph.D. student of Paul L. Holmer, Lindbeck’s colleague at Yale.
10John Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life: A Theology of Lordship (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2008), 34, 35.
11According to Frame, the three ethical perspectives cohere with one another because they represent different aspects of God’s lordship and are therefore held together by God Himself. However, in secular ethics, this unity falls apart as secular thinkers seek an absolute reference point outside God’s revelation and therefore absolutize one of the three perspectives. Thus, we have normative (or deontological) ethics, situational ethics, and existential ethics. However, since Christianity views God as ultimate, we must not absolutize any ethical perspective. Rather, we must allow for interaction among these perspectives because they are equally derivative aspects of the created order. John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, A Theology of Lordship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Pub., 1987), 74.
12In this regard, Lutherans need to be reminded of two ethical maxims. First, the end (situational perspective) does not justify the means. Second, the road to hell is paved with good intentions (existential perspective). Although good ends and intentions are commendable in themselves, the law (normative perspective) must constrain our means.
13The perceptive reader will notice that I have used God’s law in all three perspectives, not just the normative perspective. Because the three perspectives interpenetrate, the law is the normative standard for each perspective but is applied differently in each: 1) to the essence of the issue (normative perspective). 2) to the effects of the issue (situational perspective), and 3) to the heart attitude of those who push or favor the issue (existential perspective).
14In the gun control debate, there are actually two central questions, not just one. The first question is whether private citizens have the right to use lethal force to defend their lives. This is the question that I have addressed here. However, the second question is one of where to draw the line. How much fire power is enough? We all agree that private citizens can own a butter knife, and we also agree that citizens should not own private nuclear weapons. So, between the extremes of a butter knife and a nuclear weapon, where do we draw the line? Due to space limitations, I have not answered this second question here, but have assumed that handguns are on the allowable side of the line. To attack this second question, the criterion would be that a private citizen should be able to have defensive fire power to a degree that is proportional to all realistic threats without posing a large scale, aggressive threat to society as a whole. I have derived this rule by modifying the proportionality criterion of just war theory. Suffice it to say that since we cannot answer this second question Biblically, we can only address it through pragmatic wisdom. For this reason, conservative Christians will disagree on precisely where to draw the line.
15On the deterrent effect of private gun ownership, criminologist John R. Lott, Jr. writes: “Overall, my conclusion is that criminals as a group tend to behave rationally—when crime becomes more difficult, less crime is committed. Higher arrest and conviction rates dramatically reduce crime. Criminals also move out of jurisdictions in which criminal deterrence increases. Yet criminals respond to more than just the actions taken by the police and the courts. Citizens can take private actions that also deter crime. Allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crimes, and the reductions coincide very closely with the number of concealed handgun permits issued. Mass shootings in public places are reduced when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns.” John R. Lott Jr., More Guns Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010), 20.
