\. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ‘An analysts of the 1983 report of the U.S. Lutheran -Roman Catholle Dialogue GEORGE A. LINDBECK On September 30, 1983, the U.S] Lutheran-Roman Catholié Dialogué made headlines by announcing « “fundamental consensus on the gospel” on the part of] Roman Cetholle end Lutheran parti pants, The announcement was made incon nection with the release of the group's twenty-fourhousand-word document on Justification by Faith, representing five Years of intense theological study and ex change. After the inital flare of publity died down, however, litle more was heard of the matter. The dociment Hielf telatively hard to obtain. : All that is about to change. Lutheran} World Ministries will soon distribute the| full text and supporting essays. to -all Lutheran pastors free of charge. ‘As an aid to pastors and Iay professional leaders in studying the document, LCA} Partners asked.one of the LCA’t leading| ecumenical theologians and 4 dialogue par- ticipant, Dr. George A. Lindbeck of Yale University Divinity School, to supply us with an analysis, Dr. Lindbeck obliged by| sending us a copy of a lecture that he delivered to several audiences after the document appeared. We are grateful to be} able to share with our readers this most * helpful introduction to the historic state ment, REK George A. Lindbeck ls Pitkin Profesor of Nghia Theology at Yate Universiy Divinity ool. New Piven, Connect, end @ mem ber ofthe US. Ltheran-Roman Curate. Dialogue representing the Lutheran Church in ‘Americal s the cuthor of The Nature of Doctrine Religion and Theology Ins Post. liberal Age whch ls reviewed bn tls sue of, LCA Partners. Now that the U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue report on Justifi- cation by Faith has actually been pub- lished, readers will be in a position to judge for themselves whether it is the ‘ecumenical breakthrough heralded by news accounts beginning with the front-page story in the New York Times on Sept. 18, 1983. The purpose ‘of what follows is to facilitate this judgment. As one of the group that helped prepare the document, 1 am predisposed in its favor, but I have tried to restrain my enthusiasm in what follows and have for the most part limited myself to analyzing and clarify- ing the main thrust of the argument to make evaluation easier (and also to in- duce as many readers as possible to study the report for themselves). PRELIMINARY COMMENTS 1, Some preliminary comments are in order. The impression left by some ‘news reports that Lutheran and Roman Catholic theologians have never before agreed on justification is liable to create a serious misapprehension. As the document notes, some of them came close to agreeing at Regensburg the sixteenth century (paragraphs 48) and, after a long lapse, they have done so with increasing frequency in the last thirty years (2, 83, and note 163, and the books by C. H. Pesch, A. Peters, and H. G. Poehimann cited in 1. 130). Nor is this rapprochement con- fined to theologians. It was expressed by Archbishop Elchinger of Strasbourg jn what for me was the most moving speech I heard in St, Peter’s during the ‘years I was an observer at Vatican If, and it has since been reflected in numerous public statements by emi- nent churchmen, both Catholic and non-Catholic. This belief, further- re, has been the basis of the logue between Lutheran and the last di Roman Catholic churches two decades. Those who proposed the American dialogue back in 1964 were persuaded that our churches, though widely separated on many issues, did share the same basic conviction that salvation through Jesus Christ is a free gift received in faith. If we had not believed that there was this fundamen- tal unity underneath all our differ- ‘ences, there would have been no point in seeing how far it is now possible to ‘overcome divisions on such secondary, though vital, issues as the Lord's Sup- per, ministry, papacy, and infallibilty. Furthermore, in discussing these topics, Lutherans and Roman Catho- lies have over and over again had occa- sion to make clear to each other that they were not fundamentally con- tradicting each other about salvation or justification. In a sense the dialogue hhas been treating justification for the last eighteen years, even though only now have we produced a statement on the matter. 2. Yet, although widespread agree- ment on justification between indi- vidual Roman Catholic and Lutheran theologians is not new, the statement iss This document is the first time since the Regensburg Colloquy of 1541 that a joint group appointed by their respective churches has reported at UcA Paris, Dacre 104 Janey 1985.7length on the doctrine. It is the first ever that such a group has had the backing of a widespread though un- official theological consensus (for in the days of Regensburg, it was only the partners in discussion and scarcely anyone else who thought there was a possibility of agreement). This, there- fore, is also the first time that the churches have been challenged by work on justification that they themselves have sponsored to seek for greater unity in the proclamation of the gospel. Whatever the response, the challenge is of abiding significance. 3. The importance of this statement, it should next be observed, is not con- fined to Roman Catholic-Lutheran relations. The authors speak in the concluding paragraph of their trust that it will be useful to “all traditions”* (165). They write, to be sure, exclu sively in terms of Roman Catholic Lutheran relations because that is all they were authorized to do. Yet both ides were conscious of their respon- sibilities to the wider church. They knew that the first ecumenical docu- ment on a given topic is often widely used by other groups in formulating statements. Let us hope that they will improve on what we have done, not least by producing a more succinct and. easily readable document. 4. This reference to readability calls for yet another preliminary comment. The document is addressed to the churches, and even, as the preface says, to the parishes, but itis both long and difficult. The authors would have wished it otherwise, and yet we had no alternative. Justification isin one sense simple, the simple heart of that simple story of Jesus which even children can understand, and yet in another sense it is immensely complex for it touches on all aspects of Christian thought, life, and practice. Furthermore, it has been a topic of debate ever since Paul wrote his letters to the Galatians and the Romans. Last, the document is the product of twenty people coming from two very different church traditions, 8 LCA ane, December 18/Jerary 198 The Central Point on Which Both Parties Agree—Roman Catholic. Center panel of the Sforca triptych by Rogier van der Weyden, Flemish, c. 1450, and each of these twenty participants had his or her own particular slant on the material. The wonder is that the final product is not longer than twenty- four thousand words, and that beneath, its obscurities and complexities it has a coherent thesis. In introducing the document, 1 shall start with the point of agreement which it especially emphasizes; then, second, summarize what it says about doctrinal differences; third, speak of the sense in which these differences both are and are not church dividing; and, finally, deal with the statement’s explanation’ of why differences that ruptured unity in the sixteenth century need not divide the churches. 1. THE POINT OF AGREEMENT ‘The central point on which both parties agree involves both an affirmation and@ negation. The affirmation is that ultimate trust for salvation Is to be placed in the God of Jesus Christ alone. This assertion is of crucial im- portance. It is twice repeated, once toward the beginning and once toward the end of the document (4, 157), and is the only material that is italicized. ike all assertions, this one implies an exclusion, w cludes ultimate reliance on our faith, iues_or merits, although we ac- “knowledge God working in them by grace afone™ (4), Both the affirmation ‘Bnd The negation are brought together a single sentence that says, ‘ultimate. trust and hope for salvation are to be ‘placed in tt Lot our Lord Jesus ist, an perience, even when t of faith” (15 ym either good works of from, for example, conversion experiences. Most Lutherans spontaneously re- act to this common affirmation as equivalent to the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone, but the document describes it simply as a ‘cen- I concern” of the doctrine (157). central concern, it says, is that Christians have the right “experiential itude ... in relation to God’ id.); and the right experiential at- titude, in turn, is defined as trust and hope, not in general, but directed to a particular object, God as known in Christ. This common affirmation con- stitutes agreement on the nature of the experiential attitude of faith IN the justified, but it is not yet agreement on doctrinal explanations of HOW God justifies. Before dealing with the doctrinal differences, however, it should be noted that the common affirmation is really equivalent to saying that God in Christ alone saves, or, as the document puts it, Christ alone “is the one mediator through whom God in the Holy Spirit pours out his saving gifts” (160). Luther sometimes speaks in a similar way of justification through faith as centering on Christ alone, on the solus Christus (27). Salvation through faith alone is meant to protect. ‘or support salvation by Christ alone, and salvation by Christ alone is the heart of the matter. On this Roman Catholics and Lutherans agree, accord- ing to the document. I, DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES Yet despite this consensus, the theo- logical explanations or doctrines of how God justifies are different. The traditional’ Catholic doctrine, so the statement says, stresses God's trans- forming action (20), his sanctifying and renewing work (95), while the Reformation doctrine emphasizes God's address to humankind, his for- giving word and promise (95). The Transformationist Doctrine ‘The transformationist doctrine, as for- mulated by Augustine and developed by others, pictures or explains jus- tification as a process in which God ‘changes sinners by the inward infusion of grace (which ultimately is the Holy Spirit itself). Grace working wit transforms hearts of stone into hearts of flesh. It imparts faith, hope, and love. It enables the justified, if oly im- perfectly, to love God above all things and their neighbors as. themselves. These virtues and deeds are pleasing to God, and God accepts them as worthy of eternal life. They are, to use a term that has been much misunderstood and debated, meritorious. For the Catholic authors of this document, however, as for Saint Augustine, merits are wholly the gift of God: when God rewards our merits, its his own gifts that he crowns (11). Grace is primary, as the d ment generally puts it, or, in techni theological language, grace is preveni- ent, and salvation is sola gratia, by grace alone, Furthermore, human be- ings can never know with certainty whether they merit: God alone can judge that. Thus, to repeat the com- mon affirmation, assurance cannot rest on God-given merits, but ulti- mately on God alone. There is in this version of the transformationist doc- trine, no room for pride in one’s own goodness, or self-satisfaction, or self- righteousness. The Justifying Word Other and very different forms of a transformational doctrine prevailed during the later Middle Ages on the eve of the Reformation, and the Augustin- fan (and Thomistic) sola gratia version Thave just sketched is not what the Reformers attacked. Yet the Reform- ‘ers’ own doctrine, their own pattern of thinking, was not transformationist ‘As the ‘statement emphasizes, they placed primary stress on God's justify- ing word or promise. God declares or pronounces sinners just or righteous for Christ's sake, not because he has already transformed them and made them good or righteous. Just as the in- heritance of property does not depend ‘on a change in the heir, but simply on the testament of the one who wills the property, s0 salvation does not depend ‘on a change in us but simply on God’s promise. God's word, to be sure, is in- finitely more powerful than any human word. The Holy Spirit acts through it to accomplish what it says. The prori- issory word creates the faith that trusts the promise, and itis through this faith for trust and nothing else that God’s Justifying decree becomes effective in human lives (producing, for example, works of love). This doctrine of justification was traditionally called “forensic,” but nowadays this word is familiar mostly from TV police dramas in connection, for example, with forensic medicine. *" originally referred to processes in general, and therefore, in its theological use, sum- mons up the picture of a courtroom with God as judge declaring some in- rnocent and others guilty. According to the statement, however, the Reforma- tion doctrine should not be completely identified with juridical or forensic patterns of thought. Rather, these pat- terns simply provide one powerful way of expressing or expounding the doc- trine (90). The doctrine itself can be siven what the document, basing itself CA Parte, Dobe 198/185 9JUSTIFICATION RY FATTH contnund especially on the early Luther, calls a “hermeneutical interpretation” (88- 93). This hermeneutical interpretation focuses on what in our day is some- times termed the “performative” use of words (88). Words sometimes func- tion as performances or deeds that themselves constitute the actuality of which they speak. A judge's verdict does this, but so also does a last will and testament, or the vows exchanged in marriage. These do not describe or ratify preexistent facts, but bring into being the realities that they utter. And what human words can do when used performatively, God’s almighty word does supremely well: it creates the world out of nothing and justifies sin- ners. God does not first change unac- ceptable persons into acceptable ones before he accepts them, but rather he simply accepts the unacceptable their unacceptability and thereby makes them acceptable. To have faith, as is often said in contemporary discus- ions, is simply to accept God's word ‘of acceptance. That is why justification is through faith alone, sola fide. In summary, the Reformation doctrine stresses the performative power of God’s external word, while the tradi tional Catholic doctrine emphasizes the transformative power of inward grace. The Place of Trust These two doctrines, we must next observe, are related differently to the common affirmation. Trust or faith is spoken of first in the Reformation ac- count, but last in the Catholic trans- formationist one. When one thinks, as did the Reformers, of God's word of forgiveness as itself justifying, hearing and accepting that word is the i and sufficient human response. The Christian life from beginning to end is a matter of looking solely to Jesus, not at all to oneself. If, in contrast, one pictures God’s justifying action terms of the infusion of transformi grace, then the question of the nature of Christian trust or assurance comes ater and can be answered in a variety of ways. It can be said, for example, that what Christians rely on for as- 10 LCA Pater, Dacre 1964/Bay 185 surance of salvation are the evidences ‘of God's grace at work in their lives. Not only Catholics have answered in this fashion, but also the many Protestants who seem to depend more on their private or social action or on their conversion or charismatic ex- petiences than on God's promises in Christ. The difficulty with this answer is that we can know the work of grace by looking at ourselves only conjec- turally or uncertainly, and it is for this reason that the Roman Catholics in our dialogue agreed that reliance is ulti- mately only on God. Yet this affirma- tion in the traditional Catholic pattern of thought is an addendum, almost an afterthought, which belongs more in the area of spirituality than of theology. It is not, as for the Re- formers, an integral part of the ex- planation of how God justifies. If one thinks transformatively, one can say that the justified trust in God alone, but one does not use this little word “alone” twice: one does not say that justification is through trust or faith ‘alone, but only that the trust is in God alone. ‘The document makes clear that Catholics and Lutherans disagree on how to evaluate their respective posi- tions, but there was not space fully to develop the grounds for the disagree- ment. In outlining these grounds, therefore, I shall be relying on my own impressions of the discussion rather than reporting on a carefully for- mulated group consensus. Speaking of Justification— The Catholic View ‘The Catholics in our group, it seems to me, were inclined to acknowledge that the Reformation way of speaking of tion does have a special ap- propriateness in situations, such as the sixteenth century, where, as the Re- formers put it, consciences are terrified ‘and people are afraid of hell; or where, as was also true in the sixteenth cen- tury, fulfillment of the law is seen as the cause or evidence of salvation. ‘There are also periods such as our own, however, in which neither a sense of sin, nor legalism, nor paralyzing fear of God’s wrath seem to be major prob- lems, and in such situation, so the argument goes, preaching in terms of justification through faith alone can lead to a lack of concern for holy living and encourage permissiveness and ‘moral flabbiness. Sometimes and for some purposes a transformationist model may be the best way to present the Gospel message. This, needless to say, is a familiar line of reasoning, and many non-Catholics as well as Cath- lies agree with it. It implies, in effect, that although justification sola fide should never be denied, it is in a privileged sense the articulis stantis et cadentis ecclesiae only under some cir- ‘cumstances. The Lutheran Response ‘The traditional Lutheran response to this criticism is to adopt something like 1 transformationist model but apply it exclusively to sanctificati stood as the stage of Christian life subsequent to justification. [Catholic theology has not generally made this distinction, but instead speaks of “Sjustification"’ and “'sanctification,”” of making righteous and making holy, as two interchangeable names for the same reality.) The Lutherans in this document, however, do not adopt this ‘ordo salutis, this processive view of salvation, but follow those passages in which Luther speaks of progress in holiness, not as a process of improve- ‘ment, but as a matter of learning to trust ‘oneself less and fess and God more and more. The Christian life tunderstood in terms of justification by faith is not one of continuous, goal directed growth, but is a paradoxical and tension-filled dialectic or interac- tion between Law and Gospel, guilt eness, being simultaneously sinful and justified (96). Most of the Lutherans in our group agreed, furthermore, that justification sola fide is the primary even if not only way to proclaim the Gospel in every age. As in the case of the Catholic objections, the reasons for this conviction are not fully developed,but it may be helpful to recall a type of argument which is currently wide- spread. Why Justification Sola Fide One can argue that the fundamental human problem is anxiety or lack of faith. To be human in our fallen estate is to be thrown into a world in which we are threatened on every hand by death, meaninglessness, and guilt. We turn to ourselves or to things less than God to seck security against these threats. We try to be good, or to gain control over others and our environ- ‘ment, of to forget our imperiled condi- tion by the distractions of anythi from TV to drugs, or by turning in- ward in search of peace of mind by means of transcendental meditation or similar devices. Yet the only way to escape from the body of this death, as St. Paul calls it, is through accepting our acceptance by that which is both unrestrictedly powerful and unre- strictedly loving: God as known in the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This basic confidence frees us from self-concern and for concern for others: we are liberated to serve the neighbor through love and the works of love. Clearly, so the argument con- cludes, this way of presenting the Christian message is not restricted to epochs of penitential guilt and fear of damnation, but is needed in all times and places: the problem of anxiety or tunfaith that it addresses is fundamen- tal and enduring, the very essence of original sin. While none of the Lutherans of the dialogue group disagreed with this description of the human condition, they did not use it to found their con: viction that justification by faith “apart from the works of the law’ the permanently primary way of pro- claiming the gospel. This description, after all, can be derived at least in part from, for example, some forms of ex- istentialism or depth psychology. To depend on it would be similar to the ‘old error of trying to ground faith in natural theology or science. In this document, the case for the enduring The Central Point on Which Both Parties Agree—Evangelical Lutheran, Polychrome ‘wood engraving of Luther and Elector Frederick the Wise adoring the Crucifed, atirited to Lucas Cranach the Eder, centrality of justification by faith is a scriptural one. It rests on the exegetical finding (with which the Catholics con- curred though without necessarily drawing the same conclusion) that “a faith-centered and forensically con- ceived picture of justification is of ma- jor importance for Paul and, in a sense, for the Bible as a whole, al- though it is by mo means the only iblical or Pauline way of representing. God's saving work" (146). The Lutheran Critique of Justification 4s Transformation ‘Turning now to Reformation criticisms of the Catholic approach, the major problem with the latter is that it makes the transformation of the sinner by in- sherent grace the condition for God’s acceptance or forgiveness. When this is preached, Christians are tempted to turn introspectively inward in search of evidence that God has infused grace, and thus forget or subvert the affirma- tion that they should ultimately rely ‘only on God's promises in Christ. The transformationist doctrine should therefore be avoided in preaching oF counseling, but if so, it is useless from 1 Reformation perspective. It seems at best an abstract and speculative ex- planation from ‘the side of God"” of how he justifies sinners, but it appears to have no practical application “from the human side’ (see n. 181). A Catholic Reply One Catholic reply to this Reformation concern is that a transformationist way Of thinking about justification is not chiefly a guide to proclamation, to the telling of the Christian story, but rather to the response of joy and praise that the story evokes. We bless and praise God for his transforming work in human lives and for the virtues and merits of the martyrs and saints who surround us as a great cloud of wit- nesses to triumphant grace. Thus, as the document says, Catholics think their approach can take better account than the Reformation one “of the dox- ‘ological dimension of faith, ie., of the CA Parte, Dente 1964/nry 1985 HTJUSTINCATION BY PATH contnoad ise of God for his transformative Indwelling” (01).” Far trom” being useless, the doctrine is of great pr tical importance when rightly em- ployed. While the document does not say so explicitly, this reply suggests (as one theologian put it in an unpublished communication to the dialogue group), that the Reformation doctrine ex: presses a lex proclarnandi, a rule aris- ing from Christian prayer and praise to God. Whether or not this suggestion adopted, it is clear that there are at least some applications of the transfor- ‘mationist emphasis to which the heirs of the Reformation cannot object just as there are some applications of justification through faith alone which the Roman Catholics in our group ap- prove. Both parties, furthermore, can agree that their doctrines are subject to se even though in different ways. What the document says about the Catholic position also applies to the Reformation one: This ‘doctrine, ‘often poorly presented and wrongly ‘understood, was used in support of @ variety of abuses that were rightly de- nounced... Many of these abuses were corrected .... others have died out, but some, no doubt, still remain ay). ‘Summation Alter reading the section in which this quotation occurs (94-121), it would be easy to suppose that there is no need to choose between the doctrines: each has its uses and abuses, and both are needed for particular purposes. Fur- thermore, there seems to be agreement fon the test for determining what is use and what is abuse. The common affir- mation that God in Christ alone is ultimately to be trusted for salvation i according to the document, “the cri terion for judging all church practices, structures and traditions . . . all Chris- tian teachings . . . and offices.”" All these should "'so function as to foster “the obedience of faith’ (Rom. 1:5) in God's saving action in Christ Jesus alone’ (160). This would seem to be as complete a consensus as could be asked "12 UA Pere, Denes 184 Jenury 1988 for, and yet, as we shall now see, it has its limits. I, APPLICATION OF THE CRI- ‘TERION—THE LIMITS OF CONSEN- sus ‘The remaining difficulty, to state it briefly, is that the application of the criterion is influenced by differences in the doctrines. Practices, teachings, or church structures that seem to support trust in God when looked at through the spectacles of the transformationist model sometimes do the opposite when ‘one puts on the glasses of the Reforma- tion forensic approach. It seems easy, for example, to employ the transfor- mationist understanding of justifica- tion to legitimate the traditional Catholic multiplication of ceremonies, devotions, cults of saints, prayers for relics, ascetic practices, and church authorities. These things need not function legalistically or idolatrously as ends in themselves. They can be means of preparatory grace that lead especially simple folk. step by step toward greater reliance on God in Christ. The lives of Catholic saints, it can be argued, demonstrate that this at least sometimes. happens. From the Reformation sola fide ‘perspective, however, it is more difficult to make room for what I have just. called preparatory means of grace. Worship should point directly to what God has done in Christ, biblical preaching and sacraments are central, and other types of practices and devotions suspect. In short, the doctrines shape the evidence in terms of which one judges whether specific activities or structures promote or detract from ultimate reliance on God in Christ. As the document says, the accord which: has been reached “does not always imply agreement on the application of the criterion, i.e., which beliefs, practices, and structures pass the test" (153). Change and Rapprochement Yet it would be @ mistake to suppose that nothing has changed. Roman Catholics who take the common affir- mation seriously find themselves par- tially agreeing with criticisms of what Protestants regard as luxuriant ex- cesses of uncontrolled religiosity. As the document notes, the Second Vatican Council has done much to en- courage a biblical piety centered more directly on faith in Christ (73-77). It not only Catholics who cry mea culpa, however. The heirs of the Reformation need to recognize that many of the Catholic emphases they have rejected are legitimate or helpful when tested by whether they promote or express Christ-centered trust in God for salva- tion. Luther, for example, believed that a renewed form of private confes- sion passed this test, and wanted to keep it, despite its postbiblical origins, as a regular practice for all Christians. When properly reformed, it was for him a particularly powerful way of declaring God’s forgiveness. His later followers, however, threw out the baby with the bathwater. They objected to private confession, not because it is contrary to justification by faith, but because in their eyes it was too Romish ice, Strange as it may seem, if is the promotion and expre trust in God above all things, then more of the Cathe jon than the Reformation churches have retained needs to be considered at least a possi ble option (n. 41). ‘The farthest the document goes in this direction is when it says that “Lutherans . .. do not exclude the possibility” that purgatory, papacy, and the cult of saints ‘‘can be under- stood and used in ways consistent with justification by faith; if such teachings fre preached and practiced in accord with this doctrine, they need not, from the Lutheran perspective divide the churches even though Lutherans do not accept them" (153). Catholics on their side, the document goes on to say, “admit the legitimacy of the test,” but, as one would expect, they reject the im” plication that these teachings in thei resent form fail to pass, and they are divided on the possibility of full union with churches which, while not con- (continued on pege 30)Re NTO JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH {continued from pose 12) demning, also do not accept them (Gbid.). Whatever the advances repre- sented by this statement, there remain major roadblocks on the way to unity. Iv. OVERCOMING THE DIVI- SIONS OF THE SIXTEENTH CEN: TURY Yet the progress since even a geners tion or two ago is so vast that it for explanation. How is it that Catholics can now say that justifica- tion by faith alone is a legitimate way to preach the Gospel and a criterion, even if not the sole criterion, of Chris tian authenticity, and yet believe that they have not departed from the ‘dogmas of the past? And how can heirs of the Reformation envision the possi- Dility of joining in a single church with adherents of purgatory, papacy, and the cult of the saints, and yet suppose that Luther would approve of their position? Luther Would Approve In the case of Luther, to start with that, it is hard to imagine him not ap- proving. At the very time that he de- Glared the pope is literally the Anti- Christ, he insisted that if only the pope would allow freedom to preach the gospel of justification by faith apart from the works of the law (Rom. 3:28), he would gladly kiss the papal foot ‘The Lutherans in this dialogue c tainly do not go that far. Luther, it needs to be recalled, refused to leave the church voluntarily: he had to be excommunicated. The last thing he wanted was the establishment of anew and separate church, especially not one called by his name, “Lutheran.” Nothing would have pleased him more than if he and his followers could have remained as a reform movement within the Catholic church of the West, and the fact that his testimony to the truth fs he saw it resulted in schism was the source of his severest Anfechtungen, his most acute attacks of depression and despair. If he lived today, his greatest enemy would be denomina- Hional chauvinism, not greater unity with Rome; and the emphasis on rapprochement in this document would seem to him too cautious, not too bold. 30. LCA Paty, Dcebe 1904/1983 Fidelity to the Past and the Unity of the Church It is not_my business to evaluate whether the Catholic position in this Gocument is compatible with past dogmas, and specifically with Trent, ‘ut some comments on the statements treatment of the problem of continuity {n the midst of change are appropriate. It argues, in effect, that the changes of the last four hundred years have been fof such a character that the very same commitments that led to disunity in the ‘Sixteenth century now require unity. ; the nontheological factors that past exacerbated the ecclesiastical putes have largely disappeared (150 tn, 43). New and old believers were in the Reformation period involved in struggles for economic and political advantage that made a resolution of the specifically theological disputes dif- ficult. or impossible. Not only were Renaissance popes and many of their adherents chiefly concerned with pro- tecting revenues and worldly status and power, but similar considerations Quickly became of major importance aso on the Reformation side (43). One result of this situation, furthermore, ‘was that the Catholic authorities paid Tittle attention to the issue of justifica- tion (1). As was noted at the begin- ning of this article, on the few occa- ‘sions when the doctrine was seriously discussed, the two parties came close to agreeing that their differences on this point need not be church dividing; but most of the time, in the superheated at- mosphere of the day, they spoke past Zach other. Even the Council of Trent did not seriously ask what was the fauthentic Reformation teaching and therefore succeeded in condemning only a caricature (par. 56 suggests but does not assert. this interpretation). Reformation polemicists returned the compliment and put the worst possible interpretation on the Tridentine de- trees (63). The self-interest of each side required that the other be proved heretical and the breach between the ‘confessions irremediable. Thus it is only now when the disputes of the past have subsided that the churches can ask themselves whether their differ- fences over justification are perhaps not contradictions. Last, the actual differ- ences have also greatly diminished be- ‘Cause of changes in practice and the- Ology. It is centuries since anyone like & Renaissance pope has reigned in Rome, there has been a tremendous effort, signalized by the Second Vatican Council (73-77), both to update the church and to return to Scripture and the early tradition, and the Reforma- tion churches, after acquiring their ‘own heavy burden of unfaithfulness (131), have also attempted, though less systematically, to return to the com- mon catholic heritage. Almost ev Reformation emphasis is now also in some form also found among Cath- lics, and to a lesser extent, vice versa. The Place of Scripture The most important developments, however, have been in scriptural studies (122-49), at least according to document (150). Scholars on both sides now agree that there is much fnore variety in biblical treatments of justification than had previously been thought. The Catholics concurred, somewhat to their own surprise, that there is a predominance in both the Old 1d New Testament of the forensic it gery the Reformers stressed (146), but other motifs are also abundantly pres- ent. ‘The reality of, justification, of becoming right with God, is also spoken of as liberation, redemption, reconciliation, new birth, new crea tion, healing (99, 132), and some of these themes are more easily incor- porated into a transformationist than a forensic account of justification. The I data “is richer and more varied than has been encompassed in either traditional Catholic or Lutheran ap- proaches to justification. Both sides heed to treat each other's concerns and ways of interpreting Scripture with greater respect and willingness to learn than has been done in the past’” (149). By implication, therefore, any church that wishes to be genuinely biblical must have room for a pluralism of doc- trines of justification. The importance of pluralism for the document needs to be stressed. What the authors propose isnot a com~ promise or synthesis but rather the fegitimacy of the traditional differ ences within a single church providing the common affirmation of ultimate trust. in God alone is maintained (157-59). Those who thus agree can together proclaim one and the same Gospel, and as evidence of this, let me turge the reading of the common Declaration with which the statement concludes s the best possible conclu- sion also to this article,