'A Hidden God' revealed through the Cross?
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
in Purgatory
As if there haven't been enough bend-mending threads recently, here's one more.
As if I haven't got all on in reading some Marian material during this Dormition Fast ...
As if I haven't already got enough to do ...
Here's another question.
I very much admired @Gramps49's outline of some Lutheran emphases on one of the threads about God's 'feelings' and 'emotions'. I can't remember which one as they all entwined!
There was much there that resonated with me as an Orthodox Christian and I'm sure much that resonated with believers from other Christian traditions too.
Something that struck me as 'distinctively Lutheran' though, was the point about God being 'hidden' in some way until revealed through the Cross of Christ. I'm not expressing that very well and I'm sure Lutherans would be better equipped with the necessary vocabulary and conceptual framework to expound this point.
I am vaguely aware of Luther's 'theologiae crucis' - that God is supremely and concretely revealed through Christ's sufferings on the Cross and not by abstract or 'human philosophy'.
I wonder whether Lutheran (or Shipmates of other traditions) could elucidate this some more in order to demonstrate how it might accord with - or differ from - understandings in other mainstream Christian traditions such as Roman Catholicism, the Reformed (and small r reformed) traditions and Orthodoxy?
My intention is not combative, nor am I trying to catch anyone out in a Big O Thought-Police kind of way.
I think I can grasp how or why this became a particular emphasis within the Lutheran side of the Protestant Reformation given the rather abstract way late medieval Western theology had developed.
There are those who might accuse the Christian East of being overly philosophical too, no doubt, but obviously we don't see things that way ourselves!
As with the question on the essence/energies distinction, is it 'necessary' and how does it help (or hinder?) us in our understanding of God's self-revelation in Christ?
Was there anything new or innovative in Luther's approach at this point or was he redressing some kind of imbalance?
Over to you my dear sisters and brothers ...
As if I haven't got all on in reading some Marian material during this Dormition Fast ...
As if I haven't already got enough to do ...
Here's another question.
I very much admired @Gramps49's outline of some Lutheran emphases on one of the threads about God's 'feelings' and 'emotions'. I can't remember which one as they all entwined!
There was much there that resonated with me as an Orthodox Christian and I'm sure much that resonated with believers from other Christian traditions too.
Something that struck me as 'distinctively Lutheran' though, was the point about God being 'hidden' in some way until revealed through the Cross of Christ. I'm not expressing that very well and I'm sure Lutherans would be better equipped with the necessary vocabulary and conceptual framework to expound this point.
I am vaguely aware of Luther's 'theologiae crucis' - that God is supremely and concretely revealed through Christ's sufferings on the Cross and not by abstract or 'human philosophy'.
I wonder whether Lutheran (or Shipmates of other traditions) could elucidate this some more in order to demonstrate how it might accord with - or differ from - understandings in other mainstream Christian traditions such as Roman Catholicism, the Reformed (and small r reformed) traditions and Orthodoxy?
My intention is not combative, nor am I trying to catch anyone out in a Big O Thought-Police kind of way.
I think I can grasp how or why this became a particular emphasis within the Lutheran side of the Protestant Reformation given the rather abstract way late medieval Western theology had developed.
There are those who might accuse the Christian East of being overly philosophical too, no doubt, but obviously we don't see things that way ourselves!
As with the question on the essence/energies distinction, is it 'necessary' and how does it help (or hinder?) us in our understanding of God's self-revelation in Christ?
Was there anything new or innovative in Luther's approach at this point or was he redressing some kind of imbalance?
Over to you my dear sisters and brothers ...
Comments
'Mind-bending' of course!
Goodness me, I must be tired ...
Luther believed that the “Hidden God” (his language I believe) was supremely revealed in Jesus and that revelation overshadowed abstract (Greek) philosophy. That revelation was most significant at the Cross.
Any more than that is best left to Lutherans! Luther’s writings were complex and nuanced, particularly when considering the cross and the Trinity.
I would contend of course that it wasn't so much the influence of Greek philosophy on Patristics that he objected to - Luther, like all the Reformers was steeped in the Fathers - but rather the way the Aristotelian dimension had become overgrown in late medieval Scholasticism.
But then, others may know better than me on that score.
But yes, a complex and intriguing character.
It's the term 'hidden' that I'm interested in exploring.
I'd forgotten about the thread but as I read it it began to feel more familiar, particularly when it came to your martyred mother-in-law - may her memory be eternal!
I then came across some posts by a fella called Gamma Gamaliel who made some comments about things being 'both/and'.
I didn't pay much attention to him but his stock phrase sprang to mind when I read what you'd posted here about not separating out the Cross and Resurrection.
That seems to be an aspect where both the Lutherans and the Orthodox are very much on the same page.
This makes sense to me.
This is all very helpful and I appreciate all the comments plus the reminder of the excellent 2024 thread.
With my limited knowledge of Lutheranism I had wondered whether the 'Theology of the Cross' might be overly crucicentric in some way without due emphasis on the Resurrection so I am reassured that this isn't the case.
Not that it's any business of mine, but you know what I mean.
My heart is warmed at the resonance and congruence between our respective Christian traditions on this - and other - points, whatever our differences might be otherwise.
The emphasis on God's glory revealed through suffering, weakness, kenosis and humility is also a very powerful insight and point of congruence.
I don't think the Lutherans are saying that God is 'only' revealed through the Cross or that he is 'completely hidden' without it as it were.
What I understand the Lutheran tradition to be saying is that the Cross uniquely reveals something exceptionally profound about God - divine self-emptying and humility, Christ's sufferings for our redemption - and his raising to life for our justification.
The Orthodox might differ with them in the way these things tend to be 'separated out' to some extent in some Western approaches to these things - and some of those might be later iterations, I don’t know.
Whatever the case I don’t take it that 'traditional' Lutherans are playing down the Incarnation in any way. Quite the opposite.
Whatever you've got right remember we were there first. 😉
But I can go on and I can be a pain in the butt at times.
Some Lutherans have issues with his orthodoxy or lack of it, but Forde's On Being a Theologian of the Cross isn't bad, and is quite a short read.
I'm tired and I'm sure I've been tiresome but FWIW @Gramps49 and @Lamb Chopped we are all 'one of us' in the sense of all being in Christ.
God in his time or out of time (as R S Thomas put it) can straighten the rest out.
"By the reign of His humanity or (as the Apostle says) His flesh, which takes place in faith, He conforms us to Himself and crucibles us, making genuine men, that is wretches and sinners, out of unhappy and haughty gods. For because we rose in Adam towards the likeness of God, He came down into our likeness, in order to lead us back to a knowledge of ourselves. And this takes place in the mystery [sacramentum] of the Incarnation. This is the reign of faith, in which the Cross of Christ holds sway, throwing down a divinity perversely sought and calling back a humanity [with its] despised weakness of the flesh, which had been perversely abandoned. But by the reign of [His] divinity and glory He will conform [configurabit] us to the body of His glory, that we might be like Him, now neither sinners nor weak, neither led nor ruled, but ourselves kings and sons of God like the angels. Then will be said in fact "my God," which is now said in hope. For it is not unfitting that he says first "my King" and then "my God," just as Thomas the Apostle, in the last chapter of Saint John, says, "My Lord and my God." For Christ must be grasped first as Man and then as God, and the Cross of His humanity must be sought before the glory of His divinity. Once we have got Christ the Man, He will bring along Christ the God of His Own accord."
Luther's comment on Psalm 5:2-3 (Operationes in Psalmos (1519-1521), WA 5:128-129 (I think the translator is Kurt E. Marquart, at least I got it from an article of his called “Luther and Theosis” from one of our seminary journals.)
I'd have to read more to see the passage in context of course.
I tend to be more in the "separationist" camp myself, though the crucible thing is tempting. Might wonder if that leads into some of Luther's anger at non-converts. When you literally confuse (fuse-with) yourself with Jesus, it's easy to begin to carry hate for people who reject the fusion. So Bonhoeffer, seeing the holocaust in the face, realized the need for boundaries as a way to promote common humanity in common humility. I am not Jesus. I worship Jesus. I do not confuse myself with my Lord.
God is revealed to me, but I am not becoming God, at least not yet. Mind the gap.
Very interesting post. When I did a lot of meditation groups, I was always coming across people who said they experienced the divine, or felt at one with it. There was no way of checking this. The issue of separation is solved for me by the idea of the ego, which is separate, but the ego at times submerges into the whole, or the two become one. Of course, this is all highly speculative, but those experiences that people had still shine out to me.
“Peter answered him, ‘Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.’ He said, ‘Come.’ So Peter got out of the boat, started walking on the water, and came toward Jesus. But when he noticed the strong wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, ‘Lord, save me!’ Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, ‘You of little faith, why did you doubt?’ When they got into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’”
Matthew 28:8–10:
“So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them and said, ‘Greetings!’ And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, ‘Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.’
Matthew 28:16–17:
“Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.”
Luke 24:50–53:
“Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and, lifting up his hands, he blessed them. While he was blessing them, he withdrew from them and was carried up into heaven. And they worshiped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy; and they were continually in the temple blessing God.”
John 9:35-38:
“Jesus heard that they had driven [the man blind from birth] out, and when he found him, he said, ‘Do you believe in the Son of Man?’ He answered, ‘And who is he, sir? Tell me, so that I may believe in him.’ Jesus said to him, ‘You have seen him, and the one speaking with you is he.’ He said, ‘Lord, I believe.’ And he worshiped him.”
Neither have I read enough Bonhoeffer to be au fait with later Lutheran ideas about the 'separation' @Bullfrog alludes to.
Theosis in the Orthodox understanding means that we 'become by grace what God is by nature' but not that we become God in 'essence'.
If we are 'united with Christ' then I'd have thought we would - or should - show unconditional love towards all - irrespective of whether they are believers or otherwise.
Yes, there's the hyperbolic thing about not being worthy to be his disciples unless we 'hate' father and mother and sister and brother etc ...
But I'm not convinced that means we have to bear ill will towards non-Christians - quite the opposite.
I'd be surprised if Luther was as dualistic as that although I'm sure he could lay the rhetoric on rather thickly at times.
I'm trying not to be unsympathetic while being fair to the historical record of his beliefs. I remember being shocked in undegrad when a Jewish student lambasted him in the above quote, but the record says she wasn't off-base. He was passionate about his beliefs, all of them.
And having witnessed the holocaust may have led Bonhoeffer to consider some revisions.
I agree that there's a unity of will, of spirit, but not of essence. I think that distinction is very important. And I'll freely accept that I am probably spitballing by connecting flawed sense of theosis to antisemitism or other kinds of hatred directed at those who seem to reject grace.
Yeah, I think I was exploring something in that last bit. Maybe everyone has some experiences. Maybe I was thinking about the passage from church yesterday, with Elijah seeing God in passing in the silence. You don't become God, you might come close sometimes at some points.
And my life has been a bit numinous lately, but I'm careful about that. "Speculative" is always safer.
My ego has always felt a little loosely attached. I'm never sure if that's a strength or a weakness.
St John Chrysostom came out with all sorts of antisemitic comments a good millennium before Luther.
Amen, and alleluia!
I wonder if there's a common thread around "I know God so intimately that I must reject anyone who rejects Him with vehemence."
I'm not saying Luther is uniquely monstrous, just trying to analyze the disease. It certainly has an ancient pedigree. In the very early church, I think there might have still been memories of the separation or persecution, but by Chysostom's time those memories might have faded. I figure they must have been irrelevant for Luther.
I think it perhaps more likely that, like so many, Luther had his own periods of mental illness (here I think of the enormous energy he displayed, which makes me wonder about either ADHD or bipolar; and the OCD-like features of his Anfechtungen and intrusive thoughts leading to scrupulosity and excessive confession, etc.) And if any of that be granted to be the result of an illness, I wonder whether the antisemitism might not be from the same cause--made worse, of course, by the antisemitism all around him.
From an Orthodox perspective of course, Luther didn't 'uncover the true Gospel', he rebelled against late medieval Roman Catholic accretions and added some wonkiness of his own ... 😉
No, seriously, it's not as simple as that. As with all splits, schisms and disagreements across the Christian spectrum there is always a 'political' element. Given a different set of circumstances I could envisage Luther setting up a particularly rigorous new Roman Catholic religious order.
If he'd lived in the Balkans he'd have probably headed off to Mount Athos or gone and lived in a cave railing about everyone's sins.
Whatever the case about his psychological state, I think we underestimate how antisemitic society was at that time.
Chrysostom wouldn't have been 'irrelevant' for Luther. He'd be both directly and indirectly relevant as theology in Luther's time was steeped in the Fathers.
Yes, there were gradually diverging emphases between the Christian East and the Christian West but both drew on the same Patristic heritage. Augustine had a much stronger influence in the West than the East of course and there's a direct line from Augustine to Anselm to Aquinas to the Reformers.
Society was antisemitic and so Luther wax antisemitic. This may have been intensified in his case by a range of factors but he wasn't unique.
I'm sure some of the Desert Fathers and Mothers may have been bipolar or neurodiverse. A Quaker once told me she thought George Fox may have been neurodivergent in some way.
Reading his journal I can see why, even though later Friends toned some of it down.
You don't go wandering around the country thinking that everyone else had got it wrong and you are there to put them straight without it having some effect on your equilibrium.
How did Luther's ideas about the Cross play out in later developments or iterations within Lutheranism as a whole?
@chrisstiles has indicated upthread that not all Lutherans have accepted it and not all think it's 'kosher'.
Is there anything particularly distinctive about Lutheran views on 'The Theology of The Cross' and those found within the Reformed tradition, for instance?
No I didn’t. I just indicated that some Lutherans don’t necessarily agree with everything *Forde* says (but for what it’s worth that probably applies less to that particular book).
[ and honestly it’s a bit galling when you regularly post at length and then don’t really read what other people have written. ]
Moltmann’s book “The Crucified God” has much to say on this topic and I think it’s of value re Luther’s thinking in particular and Reformed understanding in general. More when I’m less tired.
... without at the very least, a doctoral dissertation or ten. Which I'm afraid I haven't got time to do. I'll simply say that the theology of the cross (together with grace) is the heart of Lutheranism, and there have doubtless been a thousand dissertations and books written on the topic already, and I'm hoping others may be able to suggest sensible reading for you on the subject. For myself, as an outsider, I can't (never attended seminary, and what I know, I mostly know from the Bible itself. I've got a bit of primary source reading in Luther, but that's not sufficient to give you pointers). I see Barnabas has already suggested one book, which I haven't been able to obtain myself, yet.
Thanks for that recommendation re the Forde book too. I’m going to try and get it. Moltmann does say something about Heidelberg too IIRC.
Makes sense.
I can’t get the book online so am looking at options
Thanks @chrisstiles
I noticed this a bit late. Luther had no problems I'm aware of with confusing himself with Christ. Quite the opposite, in fact! Very much aware of the vast difference between himself as a sinner and Christ as... well, Christ! But he found hope in the model Paul gives us in Romans 6, these bits in particular though the whole thing is well worth studying:
Paul and then Luther sees our union with Christ as something Christ does to us, with us--not something of our own doing. Christ grabs us and takes us along with him through death and resurrection--which is a very interesting model of the atonement to add to the rest of the various models!--and that's how we come to share in all his blessings. Not a matter of us becoming God at all, particularly in the idolatrous sense that we've been discussing.
I'm wondering if there might be some misunderstanding about the "crucible" passage. Would you forgive me if I did a bit of paraphrasing it here so you can see how a Lutheran interprets the passage?
Paraphrase: Jesus takes on flesh and becomes a man in the Incarnation. When we as individuals come to faith in him, his incarnate humanity begins to reign over us poor sinners in very truth in our lives, and it has this effect: Jesus' Incarnation conforms us to himself. What does this mean? It means that, just as Jesus is human, so now he makes us truly human again. (This is a painful process, like having all our falsity burned away--therefore the term "crucibling".) And what does it mean for us to be truly human? It is to be wretches and sinners, and to admit that fact, and willingly, even gladly accept our poor, wretched, sinful humanity, rather than to go on clinging to the false, unhappy, proud delusion we were treasuring before--that we had somehow managed to make ourselves gods.
Paraphrase: When our first forefather Adam clutched at deity (the temptation "You shall be like God"), he set the pattern for all human beings, who ever since then have been clutching at deity for ourselves and attempting to ignore our own true situation as human beings. Therefore God came down into the likeness of humanity, taking on human nature, to lead us back to a true knowledge of ourselves. And this happens in the mystery of the Incarnation (Luther likely means, both in the Incarnation proper, and as he has just mentioned, in the action of the Incarnation on the human being who has just come to faith in Christ.).
Paraphrase: This is what true faith looks like. When the Cross of Christ rules over our hearts, it throws down the false deity we have spent our lives running after. It also calls us back to the weak humanity which we despised and abandoned, though we ought not to have done that.
Paraphrase: [Only after all that] will Christ make us like him in glory. Then our humanity will be like Christ's own humanity, and we will be no longer sinners or weak, in desperate need of someone to tell us what to do all the time. Then [and only then!] we will be kings and sons of God like the angels are.
Paraphrase: Then we will be able to truly, fully, rightly call Jesus "My God." Right now it is better for us to say "My King" (the title that emphasizes humanity) and thus to follow the example of Thomas after he saw the resurrected Christ, when he said first "My Lord" and only after that "My God." (We can and do say "My God" right now, but only in hope, as we haven't yet attained the state of being that would allow us to say it in all its fullness, see below.)
Paraphrase: Because the only safe way for us human beings is to believe and focus on Christ as Man first, and only later as God. We need to seek the Cross his human nature died on before we even start thinking about the glory of his deity. Seek Christ crucified, and you will get Christ glorified thrown in.
Meanwhile @Bullfrog and @Lamb Chopped - from what little I know of Luther I can't imagine him 'confusing' himself with Christ either.
From what I can gather he did stress a 'mystical union' with God and in his views echoed some of the emphases of the Greek Fathers to some extent - although it would probably be stretching it somewhat to claim he espoused theosis in the same way.
There do appear to be some parallels though.
Albrecht Durer, the painter and engraver, did portray himself as Christ though - which wasn't that unusual in those days. Artists would sometimes depict themselves as a Saint or even as Christ not out of hubris but to suggest solidarity and that sense of 'mystical union.'
Durer became a Lutheran if I remember rightly.
At any rate, I think @Lamb Chopped is right. I've been asking questions that only scholars and PhD students could really address.
Nevertheless, this and other threads have increased my understanding of Luther and the Christian tradition that bears his name.
The usual advice to someone still interested would be to break down the topic into smaller and more accessible bits; for instance, "What difference do you think the theology of the cross makes in worship?" Or "Does the theology of the cross impact the way Lutheran churches handle politics, as opposed to other church bodies?"
The article is a fairly small part of the book (which in itself is not very long). It should be available on Amazon though I’m aware many avoid that outlet.
IMO Capons book on proverbs is a very good working out of what it may mean in terms of interpretation - though isn’t about the theology of the cross as much (again some will find him problematic for other reasons).
I tend to do that then narrow things down as I become more familiar with something.
You got a couple of recommendations for further readings up thread if you want to read up and then ask something more specific, continuing to post is a decision.
I really need to get my head around both Luther’s thoughts and Moltmann’s. They go deeper, much deeper. than I thought Cross thought could go!
I think that’s a good thing. I’ve been reflecting for a while on some words and thoughts in the first Chapter of 1 Corinthians and the Phillips paraphrase puts them well.
“Simple-mindedness” and depth can make uncomfortable companions!
Give me a chance! 😉
Am I supposed to have read and digested all the book recommendations before commenting further?
All I've done is agree that I started off too broad-brush and need to break things down into bite-size chunks.
I'm not aware that I've continued to broaden things out.