Return to ALD Home Page

from the district pastor ...

Rev. Mark Jamison

Part II —Article 4 of the Augsburg Confession

Justification by faith is like a multifaceted gem. Western Christianity though has accented the forensic or judicial nature of justification, and rightly so. God is the judge of all. St. Paul took the Greek term for justification from the Greco-Roman court system. Unfortunately, this accent when coupled with the so called "Objective Atonement Theory" attributed to the great theologian Anselm, has led to an obscuring of the relational and the bio-organic dimensions of justification by faith.. One cannot do justice to a discussion of atonement theory in this essay. But to make a short summary statement about the objective view of atonement, its weakness is that it suggests that God in his holiness had to be bought off or paid off in some way for him to forgive sins. The payment was the death of God’s Son, Jesus Christ. The implication of such of view is that God has to have some one killed before He can merciful. That contradicts the plain simple truth of the Bible that God forgave sins long before Jesus died on the cross. God can easily come off as blood thirsty in this model. It also leans towards a quantifying of the relationship between God and humanity in which God almost seems like a hard hearted banker demanding instant payment on a mortgage note before the bank will have anything more to do with the customer (sinful humanity).

While Luther and the reformers retained a traditional emphasis on the forensic nature of justification as the declaration of the forgiveness of sins and a righteousness (Christ himself) or a right standing with God given to sinners that was external to themselves, at the same time, they highlighted the relational aspects of justification. For Luther, at least, it was not either/or thinking about justification. One did not have to make a choice between forensic or relational justification. For Luther justification was both at the same time. Perhaps it was the last two words of the phrase "justification by faith" that kept it relational. You have to be in a relationship to trust someone. Faith doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The shiny facet of by faith stands side by side with the forensic one in the jewel of justification.

Luther also saw the bio-organic dimension of justification as death and resurrection that actually takes place in the life of the believer. Something dies or is put to death in a person who comes to faith – namely the death of the old sinful self (what Luther called the old Adam) and unbelief. The next discussion on Article IV will go into more detail on this subject. For now, however, I can say the best treatment of this bio-organic model is Gerhard Forde’s Justification by Faith – A Matter of Death and Life, from Fortress Press. Forde also discusses how atonement theory has impacted justification and visa versa in this great book.

But back to "by faith" in the justification formula. When it comes to words about God, words should reflect the reality to which they point. Otherwise, we do God a disservice. That means one should not use the language of self-reliance (faith as an act of the will or a personal choice that forces God into loving us), to talk about faith reliance or being totally at the mercy of God to be faithful to his promise to save us in Jesus Christ. Of course, all human relationship analogies are flawed because of sin. But to help us talk about justification both within the church and outside, let’s use the parent child analogy. It is the closest analogy to God and sinners because it is not a relationship between peers, especially as children are growing up. Parents have all the power. It is the choice of parents to bring children into the world. Children do not choose themselves into existence. Children as they are growing up do not have the mental, emotional, or financial capabilities of taking care of themselves, even though our culture seems hell bent on making them employable mini-grownups as soon as they hit the high school years.

Children live in a state of dependency as they grow up. If they are in abusive homes they still depend on other adults, social services and the court system, to make things right again. They live in a constant state of trust in parents and grownups because they basically are at the mercy of parents and other adults. The trust is not so much a self-conscious thing, and it exists even in adolescent rebellion. The courts have recognized this powerlessness of children. That is why they have come up with such severe penalties for abusing children. Little Johnny and Susie trust Mom and Dad to provide for them. They trust Mom and Dad will show up at home every night after work to take care of them and do the things necessary to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads because night after night Mom and Dad don’t run away and abandon Johnny and Susie. They show up and prove their trustworthiness again and again. But Johnny and Susie can’t force Mom and Dad to come home and do these necessary things. The dependent trust of kids is based on their lack of control over grownups and the uncertainty that creates.

Obviously, we are referring to healthy, loving parents. It is only too true that there are many parents who are unfit for their care taking relationships. But the point here is clear. The unconditional love of parents creates or generates the dependent trust of children. Both the parents and kids know a child won’t get kicked out of the family for getting less than straight A’s in school. They both know Mom and Dad aren’t going to run away and abandon the family if a child gets a minor for underage drinking. Perfect behavior on the part of children or even good behavior most of the time is not a family membership requirement if the parents are realistic and wise. The same is true too for single parent families.

The relational language of the unconditional love of parents for children helps us get at the relational meaning of justification by faith. God’s love for sinners is not performance based on the part of humanity. It is God’s decision, will, and character to love people who don’t always love him back in their sinfulness just as growing or grownup children for that matter don’t always love their folks back. God’s love and faithfulness in Christ generates or creates its own response of dependent trust. Tell a child enough times growing up that you love him or her and prove that same love, and the child will believe it and will be shaped into a person capable of love in himself or herself. Whether it is the parent child relationship or the God and sinful humanity relationship, the language of the self-conscious, self reliant choice or act of the free will to speak of the dependent state of trust does not realistically describe relational dynamics. To talk about faith reliance in the terms of self reliance is a self-absorbed and self-centered way to talk about relationships, particularly when it comes to God and humanity. It’s as if one is denying being affected at all by God. Such self-centered and self absorbed independence from God by insisting that sinners can control God by how they respond to him by their own power is the very essence and proof of original sin.

But on the downside of this, the language of unconditional love for justification has hit a cultural snag. Many in the culture including Lutheran pastors have confused or reduced unconditional love to unconditional tolerance. To be unconditionally loving then means God doesn’t really set boundaries or put some behaviors off limits, especially when it comes to sexuality. This is an unrealistic denial for many of their own parenting style and experience. Parents who love their children without conditions will discipline them to help them avoid self-destructive and anti-social behaviors that will only cause them great harm. Love means protecting children and doing everything you can to see to it that they turn out to be the best human beings they can be. Unconditional love for children also means you love them enough to bear their wrath, their temper tantrums, their withdrawal, and even silence for disciplining them. Letting children suffer the natural consequences for their actions is called tough love for a good reason. It is often harder on the parents than the children. Parents don’t like being hardnosed with their kids. It doesn’t feel good. I’m not proud of it now, but I got my first plane ride as a consequence of giving my parents the silent treatment for a whole weekend. It was my way of punishing them for grounding me from friends and social activities that weekend because I had procrastinated for so long on writing my high school term paper.

The culture has rejected the judicial or forensic dimension in justification by rejecting God as the judge of all. Again, that is an unrealistic thing for parents to do. Parents have to make value judgments about the behavior of their children as to its appropriateness and its consequences on a daily basis. Even in the most mundane of matters such as when to shut off the TV or get off the computer they do this. Why then wouldn’t almighty God the creator and sustainer of all get to make judgments and set limits for his creatures? Justification as relationship does not swallow up forensic justification, but contains it.

Discussion questions:

What are some signs that our culture, in general, no longer fears God as judge?

What are come common examples of parents using discipline as a part of their unconditional love? How can this be used to explain God to the unchurched?

When a little girl runs to her daddy and says "Kiss me, Daddy," and Dad’s heart sings for joy and without thinking he gladly and naturally picks up his little girl, does he stop and say, "Now I have to make a decision to accept my daughter’s love," ? Why would it be any different with God and us? What other examples can you think of where love and faithfulness generate or create their own responses? How does God show us this kind of faithfulness?

To top of page      

Home  |  Mission  | Library  |  Resources  | Discussions  
Constitution  |  Teaching Documents  |  Contacts

© 2001 Augsburg Lutheran District.  All rights reserved.
Website Comments:  webmaster@augsburgchurches.org