Why Lutheran? And why Reformed? Why do we have these two branches of the Protestant Reformation?
I’m Fred Zaspel, editor here at Books At a Glance, and that’s the topic of the new book, Between Wittenberg and Geneva: Lutheran and Reformed Theology in Conversation. The two authors, Drs. Robert Kolb and Carl Trueman are with us to talk about their collaborative work.
Bob, Carl – congratulations on your new book, and welcome to Books At a Glance.
Fred Zaspel:
It may be helpful if we begin with brief introductions, so our listeners can understand your perspectives. Please, each of you introduce yourself and tell us where you teach. And being separated by the great Lutheran-Reformed divide, how did you guys become acquainted?
Robert Kolb:
I teach at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, and Carl and I got to know each other largely by correspondence. My first focus in my research 40 years ago, was actually Luther’s and Melanchthon’s impact on their students rather than the great reformed figures, themselves. And Carl has done a lot of work on the 17th century on the Calvinist side and we started to correspond and then he came to me with his book proposal.
Carl Trueman:
I teach at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia and I am pastor of an Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Ambler, which is a small suburb of Philadelphia. I’ve known of Bob’s work for many years and been a huge admirer of it, particularly his writings on Martin Luther and also on post Reformation Lutheranism. And, as Bob mentioned, I think it was really our shared interest, not simply in the Reformation, but how the Reformation panned out in the decades and the century after the initial reforming influence that brought us together.
Kolb:
Along with that I would say, we’re both convinced that our heritage from the 16th and 17th centuries has an awful lot to say to 21st century Christians around the world and also to the world beyond the church. So that kind of common interest in making what we study in the past make sense in the present, brought us together.
Trueman:
I might add so slightly tongue-in-cheek in saying that I am absolutely convinced that Bob is wrong. (All men laughing.) But we love each other as Christian brothers. So that would be in the context for the book.
Kolb:
I think that was part of your conception of it. We needed two people who knew the traditions and were honest enough to say we disagree, as well as where we agree.
Zaspel:
And this actually was a friendly work all the way through?
Trueman and Kolb:
Oh, yes.
Zaspel:
You say that this book was born of two basic concerns with regard to many seminary students. The first is that they tend not to recognize the difference between being Evangelical and being Confessional. Explain that difference for us.
Trueman:
Well, certainly, in the context of Westminster, the seminary where I teach, we draw very widely for our student body; not all the students coming to us come from Presbyterian or Reformed backgrounds. We have a lot of Baptists and a lot of Evangelicals coming in. I think what we were trying to get out of that point was to say that there certainly is a phenomenon called Evangelicalism. It generally traces its historical roots to the great revivals of the 18th century and characters like George Whitfield, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards. But, behind and before that, there are these prior Protestant traditions, the Lutheran tradition and the Reformed tradition that have their own distinct history and their own distinct emphases. So one of the things that I wanted to do, in the book, was to get students to realize that we can use the general term evangelical, but that’s not very helpful, often, in specific ecclesiastical contexts where a deeper, longer history applies.
Kolb:
We have a different setting at Concordia. We come from a conservative Lutheran body and have tended, especially since the Prussian union of the 19th century, where the King of Prussia forced Reformed and Lutherans together, to have a high suspicion of some other Protestants, well, most other Protestants, actually. And neither evangelical nor reformed are always used in a very positive fashion around here. And I thought it was important, not only to do the task that Carl emphasizes, because since we are conservative, it’s easy for us to like a whole lot we find in both evangelical and reformed writings. And yet, the labels stand in the way. And what Carl was proposing was a book that would make our traditions clear in their historic roots, and also in the contemporary relevance, and help our students come to clarity about their own traditions, first of all, and then about the other conversation partners we have in North American and in World Christianity.
Zaspel:
Explain what you mean when you say you are small “e” evangelical but not upper case “E” Evangelical. Carl, that sounded like you when I read that, am I right?
Trueman:
Or Daryl Hart, yes, though I’m not sure that Daryl would refer to himself as a small “e” evangelical. But what I meant by that was, we share a basic commitment to the Gospel. Particularly the Gospel as it was, if you like, we could say, minimally defined in the Reformation as justification by grace through faith. But our primary point of identity is much richer than that and more historically grander than that. But to say that you are a capital “E” Evangelical often locates you specifically within a particular church movement that, as I mentioned a few moments ago, comes out of the 18th century. I would want to affirm the good things that I see in big “E” Evangelicalism; but not see it as the key central point for my Christian identity, which is rooted much more in the historic church tradition of the Reformed and Presbyterian traditions. So, I think that’s what we were trying to get at. Bob, would you agree?
Kolb:
Yes. The word has a special meaning for Lutherans, because in the sixteenth century the Evangelicals, the euangelische, were specifically, as the two confessional identities, Reformed and Lutheran, developed, that was a term that was specifically used at first for the Lutherans; and the Reformed were those who claimed the Reformation under the title Reformierte, in German. And so, in Germany evangelical practically means mainline Protestantism. Within North American Lutheranism, that was a term that was brought with us to affirm exactly the identity that Carl was talking about, an identity that is much richer than simply the doctrine of justification, but that is grounded and centered, stands and falls (we talk about the church standing and falling) on the doctrine of the atoning work of Jesus Christ and his resurrection, which restores our righteousness as the Holy Spirit gives us faith. And that’s the heart of the matter; and that’s what I think we both mean when we talk about small “e” evangelical.
Zaspel:
Okay then, what is the difference between being Lutheran and being Reformed? What is it to be Lutheran? And what is it to be Reformed?
Trueman:
I think, clearly, the big difference would be a different view of the Lord’s Supper, which was historically what divided the Lutheran and Reformed in 1529 at the famous Colloquy of Marburg when Luther and the Germans met with Zwingli and his Swiss allies to try to form a common Protestant alliance or front. And they agreed on pretty much everything except for the Lord’s Supper and the concomitant Christological issues that connect to that. So, the fundamental dividing line, I think, between Reformed and Lutheran is the Lord’s Supper and how that relates to understandings of Christology.
Kolb:
I would agree. I think there was a basic presuppositional difference between Luther and Zwingli. And that goes back, in part, to their education. Luther had been trained as a so-called Ockhamist school and Zwingli in the so-called Realist school. And what that meant was, Luther believed that, as I like to say it, God uses selected elements of his created order, not only to point to heavenly realities, but actually to deliver salvation to sinners. Luther believed in the proclaimed Word or in the promise that the sacraments bear. God is not only saying I’m up here liking you, but he’s actually doing something to you and changing the reality of your existence. And it’s over that understanding of how God works in the world, I think, that the Lord’s Supper, with some implications, I suppose, for baptism. I just read a forthcoming book on an attempt to bring certain South Germans and Luther together, The Wittenberg Concord, in which the author says confession and absolution was also a part of that. But, I think, in the past we’ve concentrated on the question of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper and, as I think our book makes clear, it’s also a question of the power of God’s Word to actually accomplish his saving will. Do you think that’s fair, Carl?
Trueman:
I think so, yeah. I would want to emphasize there’s a lot that binds Lutheran and Reformed together. If you get beyond the very hot-button issue of the Lord’s Supper, there’s a huge amount of overlap between Lutherans and Reformed on issues of Justification, Predestination, practically speaking, the power of the preached Word. One of the things I’ve been trying to do the last couple of years is get Reformed people to read Luther on preaching. Particularly, the things he says about the Word in his lectures on Genesis. I think the Reformed can draw very deeply on, and appreciate, and find very little, if anything, to disagree with.
Kolb:
We’ve never talked about this, I don’t think, Carl, but I read Heinrich Bullinger’s (the great successor to Zwingli) catechetical sermons in his Decades on the preached Word, and I could put some passages, when he’s talking about the power of the preached Word, on an exam for my students and they would identify it as Luther’s. Bullinger is one of the hardliners against a Lutheran understanding of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper, but somehow, he had confidence in the power of the proclaimed Word.
Trueman:
Yeah, very much so. In fact, when I gave that paper a couple of years ago at the Lutheran seminary in Indiana, and I talked about the Reformed view of the power of the preached Word, a couple of the students really hammered me afterwards saying, if you believe that, then you should be with us on the Lord’s Supper. They didn’t persuade me, but I saw the point, that the Reformed do think of the preached Word as a creative power.
Kolb:
What we don’t appreciate in the 21st century, is the horror at medieval abuses of confidence that going through the ritual and confidence in the material elements, doing something apart from faith. We can’t sense the depth of the horror that someone like Bullinger felt.
Zaspel:
These days labels don’t always convey the content. There are Lutherans, and there are Lutherans; there are Reformed, and there are Reformed, and the same with Baptists. So maybe you could clarify for us how you define these terms – and just what is it that defines them?
Trueman:
For me it would depend upon the context, Fred. I mean, reformed, as you pointed out, can mean different things in different ways. In the book, I’m specifically thinking of conservative Protestants who adhere in their church polity to one of the sets of confessional documents produced by the Reformed churches in the 16th and 17th centuries. In my own denomination, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, we hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Shorter and Larger Catechism, and hold pretty strictly to them, as well. It’s not just that they are just there as museum artifacts pointing to our historical origins. They are actually things that we genuinely believe and try to apply in the present day. So that’s the Reformed group for which I am speaking and to whom I am trying to speak, if I could put it that way.
Kolb:
For the Lutherans there’s a kind of secondary authority; there’s a first instance of interpretation. The Book of Concord, which was brought together in 1580 as sort of the mission statement of the Lutheran churches, contains six or seven documents from the 16th century, plus the ancient creeds. And that is theoretically what defines Lutherans, doctrinally. Lutheran has become a cultural term; it was a state-sponsored religion and then in the 20th century those relationships with the state dissolved; but, it’s still what we might call a territorial church in large parts of central and northern Europe. And so it embraces, historically, a wide spectrum. But, I would hold to defining what it means to be Lutheran, in terms of the interpretation of Scripture found in The Book of Concord. There are many other issues in which Lutherans would take stands today and some pretty significant disagreements within the spectrum of Lutheranism; but, my own feeling is that The Book of Concord is the standard source and definition. For talking in ecumenical conversation, I don’t always find those documents a good place to start, because they are in specific genre. Luther’s catechisms are good conversation pieces, but the formula of Concord is a fairly technical theological document. So, I think that Martin Luther, himself, makes the best beginning conversation partner with Lutherans. Simply because I find his sermons, as well as his other writings, come alive, even today.
Trueman:
That would be one big difference, I think, Fred, between Lutherans and Reformed, in terms of dialogue in that the Reformed simply don’t have a figure like Luther who dominates our thinking it quite that way. Reformed are often referred to as Calvinists, and that’s something of a misnomer, because Calvin probably, although he was probably the most significant Reformer of the 16th century, never shaped Reformed thinking and quite the profound way and singular way that Luther did. I absolutely agree with Bob; I think Luther is the best guy to dialogue with when engaging Lutheranism. Sadly, Reformed theology hasn’t produced a parallel figure. We have to look more to a network of figures, if you like. Bob’s already mentioned Bullinger, Calvin, and then moving on, of course, into the 17th century with some of the great Puritans.
Zaspel:
So what do you set out to accomplish in your book? What is the contribution you hope to make?
Trueman:
I would say two things: one, the purpose you already stated, and that was to give a book to students that clarifies the differences for them. Bob would have a heart failure the number of times that Luther is referred to as Reformed in papers I receive at Westminster. Hopefully we’ll cure the students of that. The other thing is perhaps less theological, but I think equally important. And that is we earnestly wanted to model to the reader how Christians who disagree about some fairly important things can yet engage with each other with affection and respect; and try to move beyond the name-calling which has sadly characterized a lot Reformed/Lutheran interaction since before 1529 and certainly after 1529. We’re hoping, apart from anything else, that the book represents the kind of delightful and charitable engagement that we hope Christians will engage in on these issues.
Kolb:
I think it’s possible, today, to enter into the discussion of some of these questions between the two traditions on a slightly different basis because modern linguistic theory has taught us so much about the importance of presuppositions. And so we can revisit some of these questions and ask, “Why do you say that?” and, “Where did that idea come from?” in a way that hasn’t happened in the last 450 years or so. As Carl says, first of all we wanted to make clear, and I think it’s very helpful for Lutherans to see, specifically, a Lutheran presentation in the context of also reading a Reformed presentation. I think that simply sharpens the focus of our students on both sides to read in that kind of context. But then we hope also to foster discussion. At the end of the book, there are a half a dozen or so brief questions that could be used in discussion groups, bringing Lutherans and Reformed together. I was able to speak about Luther to a basically Reformed group here in St. Louis a year ago and tried to do that face-to-face with a group of maybe 30 or 40 interested laypeople. And I think there’s profit in exploring some of these questions and listening as well as confessing to one another.
Trueman:
I think, just following up from Bob there, that point about some linguistic theory allowing us to approach these questions differently, is very important. We take the Lord’s Supper, which is, as mentioned, the point of dispute between Lutheran and Reformed in a very fundamental way. It seems to me that Luther’s emphasis on promise that one finds, particularly in his writings around about 1520 on the Lord’s Supper, there are things that the Reformed can affirm, as well, and when you look at what Luther and Calvin are trying to do, or what they see the Lord’s Supper as doing, they are actually pretty close together. What we might call the metaphysics underlying them are very, very different. But I think it’s possible for Lutheran and Reformed to look at Baptism and the Lord’s Supper and say, you know, we both think the basic significance of these two things, the basic purpose of these two things, we think of those in very, very similar ways, even if we disagree on a lot of the underlying theology that allows us to get to that point.
Zaspel:
Give us just a brief taste here of what we might find in your book: What are some of the more pointed areas of disagreement between the Lutheran and Reformed churches? We’ve mentioned Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, are there others?
Kolb:
One of the surprises that I got as Carl and I began our conversation on how to shape the book was that he wanted to talk about worship. And I had just not thought of that is a major difference, even though I recognized that there are certainly some significant issues in the way Reformed people have always worshiped and the way Lutherans like to worship. That was one of the things that fascinated me, and from which I learned the most, perhaps, in our exchange. That there is a difference in the way we view images and in the way we view the relationship of Scripture and the divine service and in those kinds of practices that are not simply practices, but rest on deeply theological roots.
Trueman:
I think, for me, the two chapters that most stimulated my thinking in reading Bob’s sections were Chapter 2 on Law and Gospel, and then the related chapter, Chapter 5 on Justification and Sanctification, because they really touched not simply on the preaching of the Gospel, but also on the practical outworking of that in the Christian’s life. And there are differences there in emphasis, certainly, between Lutheran and Reformed. The role of the Law in the Christian life tends to be a more positive one for the Reformed. The Reformed tend to place more of an emphasis on what we call Sanctification than the Lutherans do. But it’s very helpful to me to have Bob laying out the Lutheran position on these things. To get rid of some of the caricatures I think that the Reformed often throw at the feet of the Lutherans, accusations of antinomianism and not having a practical, ethical interest. So, I was very helped personally by Bob’s contributions on those fronts. It helped clarify my own thinking and also, I think, familiarized me more with the status of Lutheranism on those points.
Kolb:
That’s one thing that I have learned in the last 10 to 15 years, is I have been drawn from Luther’s students to Luther himself, and Melanchthon as well. Melanchthon was his sidekick, his conversation partner that was more than just a stimulus to him. In the two of them you see how deeply anchored in a concern for pastoral care and particularly the consolation of consciences, troubled consciences, that that really shaped the way the Lutherans did theology. So, I always tell my students that there are really two poles between which Lutheran theology develops – Scripture and the delivery of Scripture to the Christian life. And I think the Reformed would say something similar, but that so deeply shapes the way that Luther understood how Law and Gospel worked.
The other thing that surprised me, as I’ve looked at Luther more, is how concerned he was about the daily Christian behavior of people in Wittenberg when he preached. He’s very much concerned, first of all, to call people to repentance for their sins, and he’s an equal opportunity critic of the way people were living. From the peasants who were cheating him in the market to the merchants who were cheating him at the bank, it was just a call to repentance. But then, also, positive instruction for living the Christian life. But it’s that distinction of the call to repentance which talks about our actions and the pure gift, unconditional gift of salvation in Christ that is the framework and, you might say, the motor which drives Luther’s theology.
Zaspel:
We should note also … what are some important areas of agreement that you found in your interchange?
Trueman:
I’ve already mentioned the power of the preached Word, Fred, and also I think the distance between Lutheran and Reformed on the sacraments is perhaps not as great as has sometimes been argued, particularly when we look at the purpose of the sacraments. I think that going back to Marburg, there was a huge amount of agreement at Marburg. That the key issue of the real presence of Christ was the rock on which the ecumenical boat foundered at that point. But would say in all of the areas, and all of the chapters, substantial areas of agreement emerged. Even though some fundamental disagreements remain on the Lord’s Supper and also, as Bob has mentioned, on worship there are distinctives there. But, what hopefully comes through in the book is that Lutherans and Reformed both share a deep love for the Bible, a deep love for the Lord Jesus Christ, and a common commitment to Orthodox Christianity.
Kolb:
Again, I would say, on the issue of Scripture and its nature and its authority within both people who claim to be Reformed and people who claim to be Lutheran, there is quite a spectrum. But I think Carl and I share a common commitment to, as Luther would say it, (Calvin probably didn’t say it quite this way, or Bullinger) the real presence of the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures. It’s a book that Luther thought would kill you and make you alive; it would bring you into death as a sinner, and it would raise you up to have a new life.
And I would say that in much of the doctrine of Justification and Sanctification there is agreement. The whole issue of pastoral care was so important for Luther, however, and that, again, comes to the point of, first of all, taking the words of institution literally because he couldn’t see any metaphysical reason why the body and blood could not be given with bread and wine. And then the pastoral care that comes, the comfort that comes from knowing that Christ is giving you his body and blood that has won the forgiveness of sins. That is an important matter that we still have to discuss.
Zaspel:
Before we sign off, maybe you could give us a brief overview of the book so our listeners can know what to expect.
Trueman:
Empirically, it’s a collection of eight chapters and a conclusion on key theological themes ranging from Scripture all the way through to Worship. In each chapter the first half is written by Bob, and the second half is written by myself. The introduction was written by me, and the conclusion to the book was written by Bob. It culminates in a set of questions for Christians to ask themselves as they engage with these issues.
Kolb:
I think we would find it good for individual reading, but particularly for groups that want to get together and pursue the discussion further.
Zaspel:
Do you guys find in your respective seminaries and in the larger colleagues, acquaintances that you have, do Reformed theologians care what Lutheran theologians have to say, and do Lutheran theologians care what Reformed theologians have to say? Do they pay much attention to each other?
Trueman:
In my circles, and this is in the background of the book, the Reformed that I am aware of tend to look more toward the Baptists and the Evangelicals for dialogue partners and we’re kind of unaware of the Lutherans, on the whole. And this is an attempt to try to reorient some of our thinking.
Kolb:
I’ve been amazed, at least in the last decade or so, how much my students know about conservative Reformed theology. They have a wide spectrum of Roman Catholic and Evangelical friends, as well. But they have often been, at the college level, university level, they’ve often been in engaged in Bible study groups or other groups which has brought them into dialogue. So, I think our students read a wide variety; and I would say, too, that they read much of the particularly practical literature from Evangelicals. I think they are interested, and often encounter, in this age of practical ecumenism, members of their congregations who have Reformed backgrounds and Evangelical backgrounds.
Zaspel:
We’re talking to Robert Kolb, Lutheran, and Carl Trueman, Reformed, about their new book, Between Wittenberg and Geneva: Lutheran and Reformed Theology in Conversation – a book that will doubtless help clarify your understanding of these two major Protestant branches. I’m not aware of another book like it – a very helpful resource.
Bob and Carl, thanks for your good work, and thanks for talking to us about it here on Books At a Glance.