Lutheran Options

Contemporary Lutheranism is impoverished by the narrowing in the last few decades of theological options. My own negative reading of Forde far predates my ecumenical work, but goes back to grad school in the mid-1970s and was a function of the kind of Lutheran theology that engaged me.

When I began graduate school I was bowled over by my first detailed encounter with Barth’s Church Dogmatics. Quickly, however, I came to have some of the standard Lutheran doubts about the systematic structure of Barth’s theology. The critique of Barth by Elert, focussing on the categories of law and gospel, seemed inadequate. I discovered Regin Prenter, the Danish theologian who had begun as a disciple of Barth, but broke with him in the 1940s. Prenter used the richer categories of creation and redemption to criticize Barth. When I learned to (very haltingly) read Danish, I discovered how deeply Prenter’s understanding of creation and its role in theology was indebted to Nicolai Grundtvig. (The English translations of Prenter eliminate most of the discussions of Grundtvig.) Grundtvig’s positive evaluation of creation and its important function in his outlook lays a groundwork for a more nuanced understanding of law. When I then read Forde’s The Law-Gospel Debate, my suspicion was aroused by the absence of any significant, positive function for the doctrine of creation.

Grundtvig’s writings are something of a mess and there are many versions of Grundtvigianism, but he represents an option within the Lutheran tradition quite different from what one finds in, say, Forde or Eberhard Jüngel.

Another lost strand is that of the Heidelberg school of the mid-twentieth century: Edmund Schlink, Peter Brunner, and, a bit later, Albrecht Peters. Their most important work was not translated into English. Here there is a confessionally serious, but more ecumenically open sort of Lutheranism, less shaped by existentialism or the urge to make Lutheranism distinctive. This school has little influence in Germany today (despite its extension in Wolfhart Pannenberg), but lives on to a degree in Robert Jenson, who did his doctoral work with Peter Brunner. A rediscovery, especially of Brunner, would do Lutheranism much good.

A Few Criteria for Assessing Lutheran Discussions of Law

Some criteria for assessing Lutheran discussions of law:

1. Can a particular understanding of law make sense of Luther’s criticism of such things as pilgrimages? Luther argued that such actions are not commanded by God and thus we cannot know that they are God-pleasing. Such actions as honoring our parents, however, are commanded by God and so we know we are doing what God wishes when we honor our parents. It seems to me that some recent Lutheran presentations on law cannot make sense of this argument by Luther.

2. Can a particular understanding of law make sense of the sections on the Ten Commandments in Luther’s Large and Small Catechisms? Luther here clearly presents the law as instruction on what persons (Christians included) ought to do. There may be some understandings of a ‘third use of the law’ that are objectionable (e.g., directly deriving legal or political structures from Old Testament models), but that there is a kind of third use, a pedagogical use, in the Catechisms’ discussion of the Commandments seems obvious.

3. Can a particular understanding of law make sense of Ps. 119? We may want to make distinctions between what ‘law’ means in this psalm and what it means when law is contrasted with gospel, but the two uses overlap significantly. In both cases, they involve moral instruction. And the psalmist gives thanks for the law as a blessing: “Oh, how I love thy law! It is my meditation all the day” (v. 97). This psalm is not an obscure passage to be passed over; it has been an important part of Christian prayer

The law always accuses, but it does not only accuse, nor does it only accuse and restrain. It instructs. If that is not Lutheran, then Lutheranism is not biblical.

Conference on “The Morally Divided Body”

This year’s conference of the Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology will be on the theme: “The Morally Divided Body: Ethical Disagreement and the Disunity of the Church.” It will be held June 14-16 at Loyola University, Baltimore, Maryland. The keynote address will be by Robert Jenson. David Yeago will also be among the presenters. A full list of presenters and other information is on the Center’s website. Online registration (also for housing) is here.
The conference has a strong group of speakers and is certainly relevant to the issues of the day. There is an early-bird registration fee until March 30 and a very, very low student registration rate. I hope some of you can attend.

The Problem Isn’t Just Liberalism

A mistake being made by some opposed to recent developments in the ELCA, I think, is to blame everything simply on ‘liberalism.’ Omitted is a reflection on how modern developments within Lutheranism, even and especially among some counted as confessionalists, are a large part of the problem.

Take this quotation from Werner Elert I ran across today (The Structure of Lutheranism, p. 412 – p. 361 of Vol 1 in the German): “Christ’s righteousness is my righteousness because the Word pertains to me. But it pertains to me only if this righteousness remains unentangled with my empirical existence. Faith, which hears this Word, has no other function than this hearing and exists only by hearing. If in spite of this it is my I that hears and believes, it can be only the ‘pure’ I, that is, the I cannot be further qualified in an empirico-psychological manner, therefore the transcendental I.” Once this move is made (and it is made in a similar manner by Gerhard Forde, without the Kantian trappings), the ‘empirico-psychological’ self, the self that actually lives in the world, is cut off from the self that truly lives in Christ. Ethics, especially as it relates to physical actions, then exists in a different dimension than faith. From here, it is downhill to where we are today in the ELCA. The church cannot be divided over an ethical question. Granted, it may be a ways down this hill to get to where we are now and admirers of Elert (and Forde) may believe they have ways of stopping the slide down the hill, but this sheltering of the new self in Christ from life in the world (the ‘gnostic’ move in Forde that David Yeago has identified) is one element in the mix that has produced our present mess.

FOLLOW UP LATER IN THE DAY:
Two comments have asked for further information on the critique mentioned but not developed in the posting. David Yeago’s analysis of Forde is developed in two pieces from the early 1990s:

David S. Yeago, “Theological Impasse and Ecclesial Future.” Lutheran Forum 26.4 (Nov 1992): 36–45.
David S. Yeago, “Gnosticism, Antinomianism, and Reformation Theology: Reflections on the Cost of a Construal.” Pro Ecclesia 2 (1993): 37–49.

Unfortunately, neither is online. I find his argument devastating, all the more because it is unpolemical in tone. I utilize (but don’t really expand much further) his analysis in an essay on “Preaching Justification” in the new book on preaching by members of the Southern Seminary faculty: Proclaiming the Gospel: Preaching for the Life of the Church (Fortress).

E. Radner on the Episcopal Church

Ephraim Radner, an Episcopalian teaching at Wycliffe College, Toronto, and one of the most profound ecumenical and theological observers of the moment, has some harsh words for his own church here. The ELCA has not come to this point yet, but the road lies ahead of us and we should take heed.

Church of Sweden on Same-Sex Marriage

While looking for something else on the Church of Sweden website, I ran across a recent (Sept 2009) comprehensive reflection on same-sex marriage (here, in English). I have not seen this text noted in the US discussion, so I thought I would link to it. It provides the basis for the action of the Church of Sweden to permit the blessing of same-sex marriages by Lutheran priests (see news report here).

Marshall on Grace

If one wants to see an important element missing in contemporary Lutheran theololgy (or in Lutheran theology simpliciter), see the reflections of Bruce Marshall in the most recent issue of First Things, especially the final paragraphs. You can find the essay here. There is not a direct conceptual connection between his reflections and the present plight of Lutheranism, but the indirect connection is of profound significance.
[Addition in response to comment. I think the ‘profound significance’ relates most closely to whether and how we understand the gospel as a call into a specific form of life. If the gospel is a call into a specific form of life, then some agreement on the shape of that life is inherent to the gospel. And, in that case, the assertion of the Sexuality Social Statement that agreement in the doctrine of justification is all that the church needs must be wrong.
More distantly, but more importantly, there is the question of how we are called and graced to participate in Christ and Christ’s saving action. That we are called to participate is clear: our participation in Christ’s death and resurrection is our salvation. But do we participate in the way Marshall describes? I increasingly think that Marshall (and behind him, Aquinas) is correct.]
Michael Root

A Blessed Christmas

I will have limited internet access until Dec. 27 and probably will not be able to moderate comments.
Readers will have noticed that postings have slowed down lately. The end of the semester produces a backlog of work and I have worried that I have started to repeat myself. We will see what happens with the new year.
In the meantime, best wishes for a blessed and merry Christmas.
Michael Root

The ELCA Conundrum

Two recent news reports illustrate the conundrum before the ELCA.

On the one hand, Pr. Richard Johnson in the December issue of the Forum Letter (not available online; subscribe here – it is well worth the subscription price) describes the November meeting of the ELCA Church Council. The Council, he reports, is committed to the finding in Sexuality Social Statement that the ELCA has no consensus at present on the morality of homosexual partnerships and thus the four positions outlined in the Social Statement should all be respected as valid in the ELCA (a bad argument, but that is another matter). This attitude would seem to imply that if a majority of a synod council or candidacy committee finds such partnerships incompatible with the ordained ministry, they should be able to vote their convictions.

On the other hand, an ELCA news release (here) quotes ELCA Secretary David Swartling expressing concern that the resolutions of the NE Iowa Synod (here), which embody that freedom to vote one’s convictions, seem incompatible with the ministry recommendations adopted by the Churchwide Assembly.

Secretary Swartling may be correct, but the problem does not lie with the NE Iowa Synod resolutions. The problem lies in the divergence between the Social Statement (which argues that the church has no position on the sexuality questions) and the recommendations on ordained ministry (which, as amended by the ELCA Church Council and adopted by the CWA, implicitly affirm a specific position).

Secretary Swartling dodges the bullet by saying the Church Council will need to decide the issue in April. Their task is not to be envied.

[I have not made any posts for a while. I worry about repeating myself and have needed to attend to other tasks. I should return to posting more regularly soon.]

R. Benne: Unintended Effects

Posted as a page to the right (here) is an excellent short piece by Robert Benne on the “unintended effects” of the Assembly’s action.
A comment: Benne’s first paragraph is an accurate description of what the documents from the Sexuality Task Force said: the ELCA has no agreement on these issues and thus it should allow a diversity of practice. That proposal implies (and the Task Force explicitly said) that no particular position should be privileged. What we got, when the proposals were revised and then interpreted by those who did the revisions, is a policy that embodies one side of the debate, allowing only a limited ability for individuals and congregations to avoid the consequences of that policy.
Michael Root