CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY Pleroma and Christology HAROLD A. MERKLINGER The Relationship Between Dogmatics and Ethics in the Thought of Elert, Barth, and Troeltsch EDWARD H. SCHROEDER A Checklist of Luther's Writings in English GEORGE S. ROBBERT Homiletics Brief Studies Book Review Vol XXXVI December 1965 No. 11 The Relationship Between Dogmatics and Ethics In the Thought of Elert, Barth, and Troelt sch EDWARD H. SCHROEDER INTRODUCTION espoused against Lutheran theologoumena) concern for dogmatics and a concern led him to say "no" to any independent A for ethics do not always go together. ethics and "yes" only to a Kirchliche Dog­ The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, matik. Some of the intellectual roots of for example, has always had a strong dog­ Troeltsch's answer ("yes" to ethics and matic tradition, but has in general been ethical Christianity, but little interest in uninterested in what is commonly called dogmatics) lie in his acknowledged kin­ ethics. But this is the opposite of the ship with the "left wing" of the Reforma­ situation in many other American de­ tion. Troeltsch's position - nondogmatic, nominations. To put the problem into a antiauthoritarian, ethically conscious Chris­ broader perspective, what is the relation­ tianity - has typified large segments of ship between dogmatics and ethics? American Christianity. A helpful approach is to study the dis­ WERNER ELERT 1 tinctive answers given by Werner Elert, Karl Barth, and Ernst Troeltsch, which PRELIMINARY DEFINITIONS prove to be distinctive not only because Elert carefully defines the four key con­ their personal theological convictions differ, cepts - dogmatics, ethics, dogma, and but also because they reflect quite clearly ethos. Dogmatics and ethics are separate the three major traditions which they theological sciences. They are separate be­ openly espoused: Lutheran, Reformed, and cause they investigate two different sub­ Enthusiastic-Spiritualist Christianity. ject matters, dogma and ethos. They are Elert's Lutheranism led him to say yes scientific in the same sense that other to both a separate dogmatics and a sepa­ rate ethics based on a specific understand­ 1 Werner Elert, a Lutheran theologian, was born Aug. 19, 1885, in Heldrungen, Sax­ ing of their relation to each other, and in ony, and died Nov. 21, 1954. Following his his lifetime he wrote one of each. Barth's education at the universities of Breslau, Erlan­ gen, and Leipzig (1906-1912) , he served as Reformed heritage ( often consciously pastor at Seefeld in Pomerania (1912-1919), director of the Lutheran Seminary at Breslau Edward H. Schroeder is associate professor (1919-1923), and Professor Ordinarius at Erlangen (1923-1954) . Among his chief at Valparaiso University, Valparaiso, Ind. works are Morphologie des Luthertums, 2 vols. This article is a condensation of a doctoral (1931-1932, Eng. [Vol. I]: The Structure of thesis which the author submitted to the Lutheranism, 1962) ; Der christliche Glaube theological faculty of the University of Ham­ (1940); and Das christliche Ethos (1949, Eng.: burg, July 1963. The Christian Ethos, 1957). 744 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DOGMATICS AND ETHICS 745 intellectual disciplines are scientific, as a formulations as "confessions," they are al­ critical (in the sense of kfisis - making ready indicating that the authority of the judgments) process of asking and answer­ confessions is secondary, for confessions ing the question of the "sufficient grounds" are responses to something prior and they (zufeichender Grund) for any subject also indicate that they are freely given. matter. All sciences - theological and The confessions are not coerced, but they nontheological - do this with their spe­ are the personal convictions and commit­ cific subject matters. Dogmatics does this ment of the confessors. The authority of with Christian dogma; ethics does this with the dogma does not consist in coercion the Christian ethos. The disciplines of dog­ to believe something but in the binding matics and ethics are separate and distinct obligation and commitment to preach and because dogma and ethos are distinct enti­ teach something. Neither the confessions ties. What is Christian dogma? It is "the nor the ancient dogmas preceding them required content of the kerygma" (Soll­ are original, nor is their obligating au­ gehalt des Kerygmas), the necessary mini­ thority primary. It is all derivative obliga­ mum - and maXimlu.11 - content of the tion. The original is the Gospel itself - kerygma required to keep it what it was or even the Gospel "Himself." The originally intended to be. What is Chris­ derivative dogma and are "con­ tian ethos? Ethos is a qualitative ~ __ bel. fessions to the C __ ..- ~t" 2 Christian ethos is that quality which a In seeking the sufficient grounds of this person has by virtue of God's own verdict. dogma, dogmatics is forced back behind Dogma is neither what you have to the confessions and into the Bible in order believe (C'fedetlda) nor what you have to to formulate the Sollgehalt of the kerygma. teach (docenda) , but what has to be Just because it is in the Bible is not "suffi­ preached (praedicanda) if the proclama­ cient grounds" for its being in the tion is to be Christian. The opposite of authorized praedicanda.3 Thus the dogma­ dogma is heresy - that which must not be tician himself must listen to the kerygma. preached under the guise of Christian This does not mean listening to the church, proclamation. In this sense dogma is also but to the Christ and the canonical books the maximum necessary content of the to which the church itself listens. The kerygma. The authoritarian connotations centrality of Christ's own person is that implicit in dogma are not derivative from He is the one absolute point, the irre­ the church but from the kerygma itself placeable center, in all the canonical docu­ which first brought the church into ex­ ments. He is both "the authorizer as well istence. In working with the basic ques­ as the content of the church's kerygma tion of dogmatics (What are the sufficient grounds for the church's dogma? What is 2 Werner Elert, Der Christliche Glattbe. the minimum required content of the Grundlinien der L1ttherischet~ Dogmatik, 4th kerygma, and why must this be so?) the ed. (Berlin: Furche-Verlag, 1940), pp. 3 Sf. Hereafter cited as GZalJbe. question of authority, at least in the sense 3 A favorite illustration of this fOf Elert is of authorization, is inevitable. the passage in Jude 9 about Michael and Satan When Christians refer to their dogmatic arguing over the body of Moses. Ibid., p.261. 746 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DOGMATICS AND ETHICS since in him the formal and the material distinction and connection between the 'Sollen' of the proclamation coincide." 4 disciplines of dogmatics and ethics in However, when one gets all the way Elert's thought is easy to follow. Ethics is back to Christ as the necessary required basically theological anthropology. Dog­ content of the kerygma, then it is no longer matics is in the narrow sense thea-logy, Christ's own authority which stands be­ the sufficient grounds for what God Him­ hind the requirement (S ollen ). "But the self authorizes as the necessary core of His obligatory character of this Sollen, since own kerygmatic word. The fact that these it issues from Christ, is rendered even more two distinct disciplines are traditionally obligatory because it is perceived to be subsumed under "systematic theology" is a Sollen from God Himself. Here is the largely a formal consideration, the product ultimate and most profound point where of 19th-century intellectual history, and dogmatics must begin. Here and here not grounded in a material unity of both alone one can seek and find sufficient within the same "system" as this was un­ ground for the required content of the derstood under the hegemony of idealistic kerygma which is the church's dogma." 5 philosophy.6 For Elert their different sub­ The sufficient grounds of the church's ject matter makes such a "systematic" dogma has to be "Thus says the Lord." - treatment inappropriate. If some short­ God Himself authorizes this kerygma with hand description of their relationship need precisely this required minimum content. be given, it is not credendal agenda nor In defining ethics and its subject mat­ docendal agenda but doctrinal qualitas. ter, the Christian ethos, Elert says that The subject matter of the disciplines ethos is not descriptive of what Christians does, however, give them some common do, nor is it the prescriptions which they ground. 1) Both presuppose God's au­ seek to follow. It is not the corresponding thority to make judgments, as does all the­ agenda (what you must do) to the cre­ ology. In fact, in this way any discipline denda, which Elert has already rejected as becomes a theological one when God's ad­ the valid notion of dogma. Although the dress to men becomes audible in it. 2) Both Christian ethos is normative, it is not are dependent on Scriptures; however, not normative in terms of the laws that guide for the doctrinal statements of dogmatics one's daily life. Ethos is the quality, the nor for the moral regulations of ethics but value, which man has by virtue of God's rather for the content of the kerygma and verdict upon him. Therefore the central for the source of the ethos. 3) By virtue of task of theological ethics is the question their subject matter, both have a common of the sufficient grounds of the divine foundation in Christ Himself. 4) Both also judgment - what is it and how can we have contact with the same keryma, though ascertain the quality of the divine judg­ 6 An example of this is Theodor Haering, ment? whose systematic theology was centered on the With these definitions in mind, the principle of the kingdom of God.