A Response to Walchenbach

88 Response to Dr. Walchenbach by Brian Armstrong I would begin by indicating.my appreciation for the type of presenta- tion which Dr. Walchenbach has given us. The nature of the audience here, one which covers a great span——— from the specialist scholar to the generalist——— whether an academic person or a minister or just an interested student or church person, makes the generalist approach particularly appropriate. Beyond that, those of us who are in the academic end of things can all agree, I believe: that one of the and the papers delivered at them is the increasing tendency to narrower of specialists know anything about the subject. There fs: I believe, almost a sacred obligation for the researcher, the paper presenter, if general, overall context so that the non-specialist is able to enter into the discussion and so to profit from the work. Indeed, from my perspective it is a type of arrogance not to place one's research findings at the disposal of the more general field of scholarship. But, to return to Dr. Walchenbach's paper, happily that is not the case here. Here we have a paper which has a solid foundation in research activity but which also has been constructed so that generalizations are both appropriate and the basis of fruitful dialogue.

In this paper Dr. walchenbach not only relates everything to a general understanding of the ideas on "christian community' which were prevalent in the sixteenth century, but he also provides a model of his own construction which we are asked to consider as a device by which the topic can be approached and characterized. Such constructs, such model-building, if well done: always carry with them at Ieast two and thereby to bring it into a forum for meaningful debate and the application of the wisdom of the group, thereby introducing new perspectives and understandings. (b) a heavily risk-laden methodology which threatens.at all times to do violence to the specific meaning and purpose of an author's argument or position. It is my opinion that the paper manages to accomplish both of these, one desirable, the other less so. I will first address some of the misconceptions which I fear may result from Dr. Walchenbach's construct as weli as. from the various parts of his discussion; then I will turn to what I consider the very considerable contributions which the paper makes to our understanding not only of Calvin but of the general context in which Calvin did his work. First, by directing our attention to the political realm in which the ideas of the "christian community" found their application, we are immediately reduced to speaking of the church in terms which are not wholly appropriate to Calvin's position. That is to say, a discussion of this sort necessarily uses the term "church" in an institutional way; We all know that for Calvin the princlpal interest was to establish the church as the body of Christ, as that invisible fellowship of believers which cannot be reduced to any definitive identification of its members:.

89 What Dr. Walchenbach fails to do for us is to remind us of this fact, thereby cautioning against any widespread application of his model for immediate one of the possible political dimension of his ideas. We must never fail to take into account Calvin's division of his argument into two parts, one which stresses the ideal realm and which claims this to be the more important, the other which stresses the actual experience and situation which is always something less 'than that God intended because of the disruption and distortion caused by sin. Second, and closely related to the above, I had the uneasy feeling that the political construct which Dr. Walchenbach has provided might well subtly Iead ts into an understanding of Calvin: Luther and the others as having been self-consciously writing political theory. It something to say of political import. and that both were heavily involved in so-called political action throughout most of their careers. But that is a wholly different thing than to say that what they were doing was writing theory which was designed for political ends. True, some of their writings, spawned by the exlgencies of the moment: were political in nature; but again, that is something else than to say that they were setting about to write a' political program which was designed first and foremost for political application. In this context, that is, the context of the general purpose of their ideal. it is a mistake to view write material which can be applied to particular political situations, and they did take action which had political import, but we must be careful that we do not attribute to them more than the context permits. I was worried that Dr. Walchenbach, approaching the material with the assumptions of the rellgia-political categories of the twentieth century, may have been pursuing too ambitious ends for the construct which he had developed.

Third, and an example of the worry I have just expressed above, I was uncomfortable with the discussion relating to the two-kingdoms theory of Luther. I fear greatly 'that the nuance of Luther's position on the two kingdoms has been Iost. It is, I belleve, not nearly so politicaily-oriented nor nearly so polftically-applicable as the paper suggests. Further, the division between the secular and sacred realms in Luther is not nearly so sharp as the paper suggests. Luther's teaching on the secular call must be factored in here; a calling which is clearly "spiritual" in origin if not in nature and application (and I the conclusions which follow from the general construct which insists upon a neat and sharp division between the two realms. In the first place, I do not believe it to be an accurate representation of Luther's wouid be no necessity for princes, kings, swords or laws." Rather, Luther seems to follow the general line of "chain of being" theory that there is a division of offices among the members of the triune Godhead, that there is an hierarchy of angels. and that the situation on earth logically reflects that general structure. In the second place, it is that tone can have a set of ethics for oneself with the kingdom of God and feel justifiably called upon to adopt an altogether other ethical

90 standard.-: within the kingdom of the world. As Gustaf wingren (LUTHER ON VOCATION. PhiIadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1957) has noted, these two realms are discrete and distinct, but that is to forget that "In reality, a Christian is of course a sinner even while he Is righteous. emphaslzes the simultaneity of these two governments over one and same person." Or again, when we ask if there is any inner connection between from above, for God's Point of vlew, and a connectlon from below. In his (secular) vocation man does works which effect the well-being of others; for so God has made al offices. Through this work in man's offices, God's creative work goes forward,... Through the preacher's vocation, God gives the forglveness of sins. Thus Iove comes from God, flowing down to human beings on earth through all vocations, (Pages 26,27). One could go on, but this is presumably sufficient to show that one cannot separate the twa kingdoms so neatly and discretely as Dr. walchenbach has done.

Following on this misunderstanding of the complexity of Luther's view of the two kingdoms is the cleavage'which Dr. Waichenbach argues exists between Luther and Calvin relating to the idea of the "chrfstian community." The implication of the paper is that Calvin does not follow Luther in.the doctrine of the two kingdoms, or that whatever position Calvin does take with regard to the propriety of the Christian magfstrate teaching. I cannot agree either with the idea that Calvin and Luther are as far apart on this matter as is suggested. or with the implication that Calvin's teaching regardiag the two kingdoms is that much different from that. of Luther. One could, I beIieve, develop some contrast God once sin had occurred, presumably causing the need for "secular" the peasants is useful establishing Luther's position in general, and treatise is used as normative. then I must demur. Were Calvin to have had to face the problem of a peasant uprising, I doubt seriously that he would have taken a position much different from that of Luther. More to the point, however' it seems to me that Dr. walchenbach has an obligation to point out that Calvin did accept and use a doctrine of the two kingdoms. At that point, it becomes encumbent upon him to show that it is different from the position of Luther. and to show how.it is different. He speaks of there being a "different spirit fn Calvin's writing. I think that there is something different about Calvin's teaching on this matter: but I am not convinced that we have had it described in this Paper.

This brings us to the discussion of Calvin's teaching. What Dr. Walchenbach has to say here seems to me to be pretty much an accurate representation. That Calvin.certainly did develop a position which called for the Involvement of the Christian in all aspects of secular as well as sacred affairs is unobjectionable. Likewise, that Calvin did over ali is also most acceptable. But the Iarger question still needs to be addressed: What rationale Iies behind Calvin's position of

91 involvement? Why does he develop such a teaching: and precisely wherein does it differ from the other positions which are set forth in the paper? Or, from another angle, how does Calvin's view differ from the belief of the medlevalist in the "interconnectedness of church and state" which Dr. Walchenbach has argued is the number one problem that Luther had with the medieval brand of Christianity? But I do not wish to dwell on the few faults which I perceive the paper to have; thus, I wish to turn to the very considerabie merits of ing this difficult topic. I find myself in essential agreement with the categories which have been established. I believe that the characteri- zation of the Anabaptist position is both accurate and Instructive. Their doctrine of separatlon and withdrawal from secular government is discusses the possibility of the Christian to rebel against the state: is instructive for the understanding of the phenomenon of rebellion which was so common to the sixteenth century. I have some reservations about the relation of Calvin to this theory of rebellion; and I would like to have seen more examples than are given for this positlon, but in general it is a good and provocative discussion. I have indicated that I have some problems with the third category, not so much with the title or construct——— which seems acceptable enough——— but rather with the inclusion of Luther in the category. The fourth category is also clearly approprlate for the discussion of the position of Calvin——— and indeed for several of the first-iine reformers. I would have liked to have seen a fuller presentation of the position of Calvin, along with some explanation of the intricacies of his doctrine. I would suggest that the whole problem of Calvin's theocracy can be informed by the article by Jack Hexter in which he compares More's UToPIA with the experiment in godly living in Geneva under Calvin. And as for myself, I am convinced that anything which Calvin says, including the material which can be related to a political theory, must always be presented in the context of the ideal state which God has intended for the world and mankind as well as the corrupted state in which this original creation now finds itself. That polarity, that tension and dialectic, must always be taken into account before any definitive statement can be made on any one topic. In other words, the discussion of any discrete topic in Calvin must be viewed from the perspective of the whole structure of his thought. I would suggest that this structure is found in the dynamic tension of what was meant to be and what has actuaIly eventuated.

Taken togethers then, the categories which make up the parts of Dr. Walchenbach's model are weil worth the consideration, and are not only capable of advanclng the understanding of Calvin's position of the "christian community," but also are useful in the context of the whole problem of sixteenth century views of the sacred and the secular responsibilities of the Christian. I am very appreclative of the work and thought which has gone into the paper, and appreciative Iikewise of the author's courage in proposing a thesis which, by its general nature. provides an easy target for the weapons of the specialist. But it is such efforts which contribute significantly to the advance of scholarship into new vistas and so I want to record my thanks for the author's contribution to that noble undertaking.