A PS for Lamb Chopped. I know that scripture was important for Luther and it is also quoted right up front in Moltmann’s theology of the Cross. They both went deeper I know and maybe in contrasting ways, but it does seem like a decent place to start.
Moltman is dependent on Luther, but is really trying to answer a different set of questions (which are more about the issues raised in the other thread. You could get an answer to those set of questions starting out from where Luther starts in the Heidelberg Disputation, but for the reasons contained therein it's the kind of effort that Luther would probably be very sceptical about (and would probably fall into the category of being a theology of glory).
From what I’ve read so far I do “get” the concerns about the theology of glory. And I admit to getting a bit lost in the Heidelberg Disputation! A certain amount of brain fog was at work!
A PS for Lamb Chopped. I know that scripture was important for Luther and it is also quoted right up front in Moltmann’s theology of the Cross. They both went deeper I know and maybe in contrasting ways, but it does seem like a decent place to start.
Some people have no need to go further!
Generally speaking, when I read theology, I'm looking for something that will open the Scriptures more for me. If it does that, great! If not, I tend to lay it aside, both for trust reasons and because it's very likely I don't understand a word of it. I tend to have a very simple mind. Is that what you meant?
Not always. Sometimes I need to look deeper because I’m confused. Sometimes looking deeper helps me to understand other Christians better.
I’m not the only one here who has been greatly helped by your posts and your insights. You can cut through complexities and reveal things that way. It’s a good gift.
I'm actually going through a number of the early church fathers to try to find stuff I can learn from--they put things much more clearly than most modern writers, I think. And a perspective from that long ago is good at knocking away my unexamined presuppositions. Very grateful for the Shipmate Questioning who suggested them.
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.
For consider, what have the philosopher, the writer and the critic of this world to show for all their wisdom? Has not God made the wisdom of this world look foolish? for it was after the world in its wisdom failed to know God, that he in his wisdom chose to save all who would believe by the “simple-mindedness” of the Gospel message. For the Jews ask for miraculous proofs and the Greeks an intellectual panacea, but all we preach is Christ crucified—a stumbling block to the Jews and sheer nonsense to the Gentiles, but for those who are called, whether Jews or Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. And this is really only natural, for God’s foolishness” is wiser than men, and his “weakness” is stronger than men.
“Simple-mindedness” and depth can make uncomfortable companions!
How did I miss this post????
This is one of my favorite passages, because it pretty much encapsulates the way we communicate when we're working among the Vietnamese people of our city--and also how I speak when I go out to do presentations, etc. on behalf of my work. I have to do it this way--I would get a terrible case of impostor syndrome if I tried to look as polished and wise as the people I work with. So for me it was never a choice at all.
I looked up the context of destroying the wisdom of the wise and confounding “the cleverness of the clever” as one translation puts it. It’s in Isaiah 29. And it’s preceded by God’s critical observation; “these people honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.” And therefore the wisdom of the wise will be destroyed.
That therefore is important. Moltmann observes that the target is human pride. “Their hearts are far from me.”
Sometimes this is regarded as anti-intellectual. And that can be a justifiable criticism of some of the attitudes found within some Protestant churches.
But we are also commanded to serve the Lord with all our mind too. The cleverness of the human mind is to be leavened by humility. Moltmann (a hugely clever man) says in effect that this is the word of the cross to us. Our encounter with the cross confronts human cleverness combined with human pride.
Referencing Luther, he observes that Luther’s theology of the cross also had a primary target. The thoughts and practices of the medieval institutional church. But he thinks this was imperfect since it did not address (at least nearly so clearly) the poverty of the poor. As an illustration he cites Luther’s writings during the Peasant wars which pointed to the virtue of humble submission.
I don’t know how justifiable that is, I haven’t the sources to check it out. To use a metaphor; I don’t really know how Amos-like Luther was. He certainly saw the exploitative wrongness of indulgences. I’m just not sure whether he carried that over into the social injustices inflicted on the poor.
(In passing I note that Moltmann sees the word of the Cross as much more than a word just to an individual. For him it clearly has a corporate dimension as well. It’s not just individuals who are to be saved.)
I think the title of Luther's 1525 tract Against The Murdering, Thieving Hordes Of Peasants indicates his position on that particular issue, @Barnabas62.
He wasn't known for mincing his words.
Whatever else we might say about Luther he wouldn't have got anywhere without the protection of the German Princes.
He'd have been toast otherwise.
The idea that he'd be some kind of Amos is anachronistic in the extreme.
We are talking the 'Magisterial Reformation' here - one supported and indeed imposed by the powers that were - not the 'radical reformation' of the Anabaptists and other more grass-roots groups - some of them very peaceful and counter-cultural, others completely barking.
Moltmann would have been coming at these things from a 20th century liberal perspective that we can't 'read back' into the 1500s or the 500s or the 500s BCE or 1500 BCE ...
That the Munsterites were some kind of 16th century Waco doesn't let the authorities off the hook for their brutal suppression of course.
I don't think I'd have wanted to live in Calvin's Geneva, Wittenburg or in Zwingli's cantons at that time, any more than Rome or Moscow or in Istanbul under the Ottomans.
It'd be great to visit in a time-machine ... providing you could get back into it when things got too messy.
I understand the pragmatic self-protection argument.
I’m not sure about anachronism however. There were risks for Amos. And other prophets. Speaking the truth to power and sticking up for the poor were always risky for the prophets. Kings and priests could be dangerous if their authority was challenged.
And Jesus’ prophetic message also included speaking good news to the poor and truth to power. It got him crucified.
The word of the Cross speaks of eternal virtues and verities doesn’t it? Whether it’s safe at any point in time for others to pronounce them is another matter. There have been and always are martyrs.
And I would never accuse you of belief in an individualised gospel.
Sure, I'm not suggesting that the Prophets didn't 'speak truth to power' nor that there isn't a radical element to the Gospel.
Luther put himself at extreme risk by challenging Papal authority.
He relied on the German Princes for protection. I'm sure we could have done the same.
What I'm saying is that we can't project 20th century liberal values back into history in a direct way.
Heck, there was an annual procession in 17th century London which culminated in the burning of an effigy of the Pope. It was supported by all sections of society and indeed encouraged by the authorities.
Some bright spark thought it would be more 'realistic' to place a cage of live cats inside the effigy so that their screams would sound as if the Pope were crying out.
Bloody hell!
That's horrific to us but wouldn't have bothered people that unduly at the time.
I'm sure if Amos bobbed round for a cuppa we'd find him conducive company to a certain extent but in other ways he'd be completely bewildering and incomprehensible to us and we to him.
Oh of course. Luther had to make priority decisions. And he was certainly at high personal risk from the power of Catholic authorities.
Do we actually know how he saw the responsibilities of the powers that be towards the poor? Jesus’ blistering critique about the indifference of religious leaders might I suppose just be seen as a criticism of religious leaders only?
I don’t know enough of his writings to be able to answer the question. After all there is Paul’s comment in Romans 12 about submission to ruling authorities to be taken into account.
But Jesus has always been seen as prophet, priest and King. And having all authority. How did Luther think of the moral obligations of all powers that be, not just the church?
Thanks Dafyd. Alms does suggest charity “from above” or at least the better off.
I don’t personally see this as a digression. I suppose it depends on how you see the Cross and in particular “the word of the Cross” (1 Cor 1 v 18).
What does the story of the Cross reveal about the Hidden God? When we survey what Wesley called the “wondrous Cross”. I certainly see a connection between Moltmann’s observation that the Cross is an affront to pride and human gain.
“My richest gain I count but loss
And pour contempt on all my pride”.
There have always been people of privilege who stood up for the poor, and there have been people who haven't.
I'm not demonizing Luther to highlight his warts, but I do think there's an accounting. And I often wonder how the theology-to-political-priorities game goes. Was Luther corrupted by the princes who protected him? Was that why he backstabbed the peasants? Or did he have a theological justification for social order over chaos?
There is certainly a dangerous political battlefield over "how much" public charity is owed. I've also read that Luther changed his mind on many things over the course of his life, as a reasonable person will as their life and circumstances change. Again, the interplay between this and his theological views is intriguing, as with anyone (self included.)
I saw Moltmann speak in person once, and no doubt he was influenced by the Holocaust as an experience. I wonder how that would've hit Luther. Perhaps he'd have been more circumspect about "the Jews."
That was Isaac Watts not Charles Wesley @Barnabas62.
The Wesleys were High Tories of course, although John pretty much related well to everyone apart from aristocrats.
There's no reason to suppose that Luther was any different to most educated people of his time who would have seen a peasants' revolt as a dangerous subversion of the social order.
Other than some of the radical sects pretty much everyone would have seen charity as coming 'from above'.
I really don't see why we have to go in for anachronisms.
I believe one of Luther's catechisms glosses thou shalt not steal saying that withholding alms from the poor is stealing.
I think you are referencing the Large Catechism. I do not remember seeing it in the Small Catechism.
Luther does not say almsgiving earns righteousness. He says that the love of the neighbor is the natural fruit of faith. Withholding help when we could give it is a violation of the commands positive intent.
We believe the commandment requires us not only to avoid taking our neighbors goods but also to actively protect and promote their well being. So when we withhold help from someone in need especially when we have the means to assist is a form of stealing.
In Lutheran theology, the cross reveals God's self giving love. The Christian life mirrors that love.
I think we have to disaggregate medieval and early-modern notions of charity and loving one's neighbour from those associations we have this side of the Enlightenment.
We can't 'project' them back onto Luther, John Ball the radical priest in the 1388 Peasants Revolt here or any other figure from pre-Enlightenment history.
Because St John Chrysostom denounced the wearing of finery or the shenanigans of the Byzantine court it doesn't turn him into a proto-Marxist.
The Wesleys were opposed to slavery but their contemporary Whitefield was thoroughly in favour of it.
Charles Wesley wrote a pretty awful poem criticising those who sympathised with the American rebels with a warning that they'd end up in Hell if they didn't mend their ways.
Henry VIII wasn't the first Western European monarch to have a run in with the Pope. Nor was he the last. Francis I of France was always trying to assert himself over the temporal power of the Papacy.
The German Princes the same. That's why they latched onto Luther. It gave them a convenient stick to poke the Pope with.
All this trying to find anything 'Amos-like' in Luther's writings or wondering whether he had a 'bias to the poor' in anything other than the conventional attitudes of his time is utterly futile.
I know someone who is descended from the Wesleys and who believes that if they were alive today they'd share the same radical left-wing and egalitarian views as they do.
There's no guarantee that they
would.
We have no idea whether Luther would have joined the Confessing Church and opposed Hitler or whether he'd have been comfortable with the statistics quo.
It's futile to even speculate about that.
All we can do is to take these people in context, according to the beliefs and conventions of their own times.
Yeah. Wesley was a monarchist. Also had some interesting ideas about the Native Americans. I don't think it's tossing an historical figure under a bus to reckon with their not-so-shiny ideas, though a lot of the Founding Fathers of America were slaveowners; the whole situation was a mess and moral purity isn't so straightforward. It isn't clear today. They're all human. So are we. But God's judgment is the same across time and space, no? Is it "20th century liberal" to have concern for the poor? That doesn't require Marxism.
I'm not saying that concern for the poor is Marxist @Bullfrog. What I am saying is that back in the day it didn't necessarily go hand-in-hand with what we might consider 'progressive' attitudes.
Of course the Wesleys were monarchists. They were Anglicans.
You'd be a pretty unusual Anglican not to be a monarchist back then.
That's part of the point I'm making.
All these people were products of their own time and context.
I wouldn't expect concern for the poor to necessarily go hand-in-hand with modern progressive attitudes. Heck, I find some early 20th century progressive attitudes downright objectionable, even as a modern progressive.
I think, for any Christian who thinks there's something special about Christianity, there must have been some kind of special revelation in the crucifixion and resurrection. And if a revelation, then prior to that, something must have been hidden. It might be God that had been hidden, but some quality, plan, or person thereof.
This makes sense to me.
I was just looking back over the thread, and this caught my eye. I don't think it's so much that God hid himself from us, or hid something about himself. I think rather it's our own blindness (hooked up to sin, of course), that makes us incapable of imagining God except in terms of power, glory, and strength. That is what we naturally think of, when we think of God / a supreme being / the Most High.
But when God reveals himself, he does it through weakness. The Most High descends; the Giver and Sustainer of all things becomes a dependent baby; the Holy One becomes sin (see 2 Corinthians 5:21); Life himself dies. And this is so utterly incomprehensible to us by nature, that, if the Holy Spirit did not himself give us understanding and conviction that this is true, we would certainly reject it. God knows, we see enough of this sort of rejection from others in our world!
And so, when God remakes us in his own image, we too end up descending rather than ascending. We begin to serve rather than ruling; we glorify God rather than ourselves; we stop seeking what we ourselves want, and give ourselves away freely, sometimes even to the point of death. And this is just as incomprehensible to our fellow human beings as what God does.
The theology of glory is what comes to us naturally. The theology of the cross is completely unnatural to the human heart and mind, at least as we are now, fallen. And that's where we meet God, in the last place we'd ever expect to find him--at the cross, in shame, nakedness, and death.
I looked up the context of destroying the wisdom of the wise and confounding “the cleverness of the clever” as one translation puts it. It’s in Isaiah 29. And it’s preceded by God’s critical observation; “these people honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.” And therefore the wisdom of the wise will be destroyed.
That therefore is important. Moltmann observes that the target is human pride. “Their hearts are far from me.”
Sometimes this is regarded as anti-intellectual. And that can be a justifiable criticism of some of the attitudes found within some Protestant churches.
But we are also commanded to serve the Lord with all our mind too. The cleverness of the human mind is to be leavened by humility. Moltmann (a hugely clever man) says in effect that this is the word of the cross to us. Our encounter with the cross confronts human cleverness combined with human pride.
I have yet to get hold of a copy of Moltmann (Oh, my to-read list! How it grows!), but drawing on the Heidelburg Disputation, the only time human wisdom, intellect, cleverness are used safely is when we use them with humility and trepidation--well aware of how easy it is for us to fall into the sins of pride and self-sufficiency, and always keeping a sharp eye out for these sins in ourselves. So Christianity isn't anti-intellectual, but rather distrusts any human power and watches it carefully, because when it is most glorious, that's when sin is sneaking in the back door. And ruining the whole thing.
Truly, in many ways I'm very lucky. I have several personal characteristics (gender, heritage, birthplace, etc.) that pretty much disqualify me from climbing the ladder in my particular church body. I can't be ordained; I don't have the proper family connections that get other people ahead; I'm distrusted as a Californian; and so on and so forth. And so I am prevented from following the very temptations that could lead me to damn myself through pride.
Yes, all of that resonates with me, apart from the specific cultural issues. There'll be parallels and equivalents elsewhere.
On the 'getting ahead' thing, I'm reminded of the story of the junior demon who complained to the Devil one day that he was getting nowhere with a particular hermit out in the desert.
'I've tried everything,' he sighed. 'Drink, drugs, money, sex. He seems impervious to it all ...'
'Leave him to me,' Satan replies and swoops towards the hermit's cell. Within minutes the monk emerges cursing and swearing. He heads into town where he plunges into a life of debauchery and sin.
The junior demon is suitably impressed.
'O Prince of Darkness, how did you get him to do that?'
'Easy,' says Satan. 'I told him his brother had been made Bishop of Alexandria.'
As an aside, I don’t think 'cultural relativism' and 'moral relativism' are the same, although cultural considerations play into these things of course.
If there are future generations they'll look back at us and think, 'How on earth did they waste resources, use fossil fuels, spend so much time online ...' etc etc etc.
I think you're wrong on this point. Cultural relativism becomes moral relativism when it condones indifference to suffering. God is just. Indifference to suffering is unjust. Regardless of culture.
Regardless of culture, the common thread which links the Old Testament prophets, the prophetic morality of the gospels, Heschel, Martin Luther King, Moltmann, Desmond Tutu, many other great protestors, all together, is that indifference to human suffering is wrong.
When particular cultural values condone indifference, the behaviour of individuals in those cultures is understandable. That doesn't make it right.
One of the things I see when I look at the Cross is that Jesus did not deserve to die. The dying thief got it right. "This man has done no wrong; we have". There is indifference to his suffering, mockery and cruelty on top of the cruelty of the form of execution. There is a lack of love. Jesus is despised and rejected. I think one has to have a heart of stone not to see that.
Indifference is a hardness of heart. The Cross reminds me of times when my heart has been hard. It points at times when I've been unjust.
In his abandonment, Jesus cries both " Why am I forsaken" but also "Father forgive them, they don't know". Justice and mercy are met together. Isn't that a revelation of the heart of God? There is precious little human mercy yet there is mercy in the heart of Jesus despite everything.
Truly, in many ways I'm very lucky. I have several personal characteristics (gender, heritage, birthplace, etc.) that pretty much disqualify me from climbing the ladder in my particular church body. I can't be ordained; I don't have the proper family connections that get other people ahead; I'm distrusted as a Californian; and so on and so forth. And so I am prevented from following the very temptations that could lead me to damn myself through pride.
Well, you can come to my side of the pool. You will be surprised how deep it can get here.
Looking at some of the responses, I wish I had read them before I finished my sermon for tomorrow. I had already rewritten it five times. I am not about to rewrite it again.
@Barnabas62 - who said anything about 'condoning'?
We can understand why someone might give way to temptation, say, but that doesn't condone it.
We may understand why a Luther, a Wesley, a St John Chrysostom or anyone else - including ourselves - may have entertained views or attitudes that we or others find reprehensible.
I was pointing out that moral virtues can transcend culture. There are aspects of Christian belief, foreshadowed by writings in the Hebrew Scriptures, which transcend culture.
Luther’s criticisms of the medieval institutional church contained much that was true. His attacks on Peasants and Jews fell far short of that. Peasants were downtrodden. Their humanity, their effective slavery and their suffering were discounted; a matter of indifference to those who effectively owned them. Maybe in our culture we can see that more clearly than folks could see it then?
Jews were persecuted terribly in Europe in the Middle Ages They were subject to legal restrictions, false accusations, violence and expulsion. There were roots of antisemitism in early Christian belief and these fuelled the medieval cultural antisemitism in Europe.
And Luther’s antisemitic broadside in “Against the Jews and Their Lies” is absolutely deplorable. Regardless of the extent to which antisemitism was embedded in medieval times and the times of the Reformation.
In both cases there was a blind spot to the unjust indifference to human suffering. Despite the very clear prophetic message in the OT prophets and and the gospels that such indifference was wrong. It is no anachronism to point out, for example, that Amos saw this much more clearly than both Luther in Reformation times and much of those who lived in Christian medieval times.
And above even that, the Cross clearly shows that there was indifference to suffering and harsh cruelty inflicted on Jesus. It makes me more sensitive to indifference to suffering. I’m sure I’m not the only one.
Such sensitivity is a transcendent virtue.
The wrongness of indifference to human suffering transcends cultures. Despite the historical truth that such indifference was found in ancient cultures as it is in our own.
And that wrongness was an ancient insight in both Judaism and the Christian gospels long before it was a modern insight.
Now I believe you believe that. So why bring in cultural relativism? That’s my point. Contrast with this.
That's part of the point I'm making.
All these people were products of their own time and context.
We all are.
You clearly did bring in cultural relevance.
It is irrelevant to the transcendent wrong of indifference to suffering.
“These people honour me with their lips but their hearts are far from me”.
“ The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.”
I have yet to get hold of a copy of Moltmann (Oh, my to-read list! How it grows!), but drawing on the Heidelburg Disputation, the only time human wisdom, intellect, cleverness are used safely is when we use them with humility and trepidation--well aware of how easy it is for us to fall into the sins of pride and self-sufficiency, and always keeping a sharp eye out for these sins in ourselves. So Christianity isn't anti-intellectual, but rather distrusts any human power and watches it carefully, because when it is most glorious, that's when sin is sneaking in the back door. And ruining the whole thing.
Truly, in many ways I'm very lucky. I have several personal characteristics (gender, heritage, birthplace, etc.) that pretty much disqualify me from climbing the ladder in my particular church body. I can't be ordained; I don't have the proper family connections that get other people ahead; I'm distrusted as a Californian; and so on and so forth. And so I am prevented from following the very temptations that could lead me to damn myself through pride.
Great post. It’s presumptuous of me to say this, but two things occur to me.
1. Any church which has you in it and doesn’t recognise and use (for dogmatic reasons) your obvious teaching gift is missing out.
2. I appreciate the temptation but I think you could handle it.
I received a letter from my previous set of English congregation host pastors (now retired) acknowledging my teaching and pastoral gifts and STRONGLY suggesting that I use my gifts... among the Vietnamese!
Ideally, Christianity should inform and transform culture - and I believe it has to a certain extent. That doesn't mean that we don't get things wrong.
I'll try and expand at some point. The Incarnation is all about the transcendent entering the 'every day' ...
'Be transformed by the renewing of your mind.'
@Barnabas62 you missed where I said that to understand is not to condone.
For those of us who go in for sacramental confession, absolution isn't a condoning of wrong doing.
Sounds like the message from your congregation host pastors was diplomatically worded but the implication was clear.
Curiously and by contrast it reminded me of the infamous blunt dialogue between Amaziah the Priest of Bethel and the prophet Amos (from Amos 7). With this opening salvo.
12 Then Amaziah said to Amos, “Get out, you seer! Go back to the land of Judah. Earn your bread there and do your prophesying there. 13 Don’t prophesy anymore at Bethel, because this is the king’s sanctuary and the temple of the kingdom.”
(Earlier Amaziah had told the King that “the land cannot bear all his words”]
I’m sure you didn’t respond as Amos did. Teaching and prophecy are different, if sometimes related, gifts of course. Furthermore, no one would accuse Amos of having a pastoral gift!
Hee. By that point we had long since stopped trying to speak truth to power and were just carrying on without any help or support. So no, not prophetic. (A major adversary from the other side of the schism in our church had dropped in to tell the English pastors all about our evil ways, and they were fool enough to fall for it and give us the cold shoulder while they waited for us to begin doing whatever evils he accused us of. Which of course we did not, as it was all bullshit—but in spite of 15 years of keeping our noses clean, they would neither warm up to us nor tell us what the antagonist has said so we could disprove it. Kinda hard to move forward from that. We asked for meetings two or three times early on to try to clear the air, but they refused to discuss whatever was upsetting them.
I’m kind of looking forward to the Last Day when we finally learn what we stand accused of—and THEY finally learn it was all lies.
It’s on my theme for me to see that seeing injustice to women is also a virtue, a truth which transcends culture. Treating women as second class citizens, as property, has caused and continues to cause much suffering. It’s wrong. Regardless of what religious or secular culture says to people.
Of course it's wrong! But women make complicated decisions about these things all the time--here, balancing doctrine I agree with against behavior that sometimes sucks--and throwing in the possibility that I might be able to make a change if I remain and keep trying.
Pete Seeger wrote an additional verse to “We shall Overcome” for the walkers on the way to the Pettus Bridge near Selma Alabama. It was “We are not afraid today”.
It’s not easy to be unafraid of injustice when you’re on the receiving end of suffering.
Bless you for your patience and perseverance. Sometimes fatigue gets us and we just want to throw in the towel.
I wonder? Does the Cross also reveal something else about the Hidden God? That rejection and apparent defeat are never the end for righteousness?
Well, if he chooses to go down such paths, I'd say yes--he knows that ultimately they lead to victory. And so my family has followed, even when everyone said we were crazy--but we've seen him pull some amazing victories out of defeat.
I don't think any of us are 'indifferent to suffering' unless we are complete psychopaths.
Luther wasn't indifferent to suffering, he advocated alms-giving like any Christian of his time would have done.
What he wouldn't have been so aware of, perhaps would be what we might call systemic or societal ills such as peasants being expected to know their place or Jewish people being regarded in a highly negative light.
Moreover, being moved by sufferings is one thing, doing something to alleviate it or right wrongs is another.
As an aside, as in the Peasants Revolt of 1388 here the 'peasants' in Germany weren't all serfs. Many of them were upwards mobile artisans and yeoman farmers.
That doesn't alter the fact that they had genuine grievances.
Comments
Some people have no need to go further!
From what I’ve read so far I do “get” the concerns about the theology of glory. And I admit to getting a bit lost in the Heidelberg Disputation! A certain amount of brain fog was at work!
But yes, @chrisstiles is right, he'd have been dealing with different issues to those Moltmann was addressing 450 years later.
There's a lot to get our heads round here, quite apart from disaggregating scripture from tradition / Tradition.
Which I don't believe is possible in the first place. We all approach scripture in the context of one interpretative framework or another.
Generally speaking, when I read theology, I'm looking for something that will open the Scriptures more for me. If it does that, great! If not, I tend to lay it aside, both for trust reasons and because it's very likely I don't understand a word of it. I tend to have a very simple mind. Is that what you meant?
Not always. Sometimes I need to look deeper because I’m confused. Sometimes looking deeper helps me to understand other Christians better.
I’m not the only one here who has been greatly helped by your posts and your insights. You can cut through complexities and reveal things that way. It’s a good gift.
I'm actually going through a number of the early church fathers to try to find stuff I can learn from--they put things much more clearly than most modern writers, I think. And a perspective from that long ago is good at knocking away my unexamined presuppositions. Very grateful for the Shipmate Questioning who suggested them.
How did I miss this post????
This is one of my favorite passages, because it pretty much encapsulates the way we communicate when we're working among the Vietnamese people of our city--and also how I speak when I go out to do presentations, etc. on behalf of my work. I have to do it this way--I would get a terrible case of impostor syndrome if I tried to look as polished and wise as the people I work with. So for me it was never a choice at all.
I looked up the context of destroying the wisdom of the wise and confounding “the cleverness of the clever” as one translation puts it. It’s in Isaiah 29. And it’s preceded by God’s critical observation; “these people honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.” And therefore the wisdom of the wise will be destroyed.
That therefore is important. Moltmann observes that the target is human pride. “Their hearts are far from me.”
Sometimes this is regarded as anti-intellectual. And that can be a justifiable criticism of some of the attitudes found within some Protestant churches.
But we are also commanded to serve the Lord with all our mind too. The cleverness of the human mind is to be leavened by humility. Moltmann (a hugely clever man) says in effect that this is the word of the cross to us. Our encounter with the cross confronts human cleverness combined with human pride.
I don’t know how justifiable that is, I haven’t the sources to check it out. To use a metaphor; I don’t really know how Amos-like Luther was. He certainly saw the exploitative wrongness of indulgences. I’m just not sure whether he carried that over into the social injustices inflicted on the poor.
(In passing I note that Moltmann sees the word of the Cross as much more than a word just to an individual. For him it clearly has a corporate dimension as well. It’s not just individuals who are to be saved.)
He wasn't known for mincing his words.
Whatever else we might say about Luther he wouldn't have got anywhere without the protection of the German Princes.
He'd have been toast otherwise.
The idea that he'd be some kind of Amos is anachronistic in the extreme.
We are talking the 'Magisterial Reformation' here - one supported and indeed imposed by the powers that were - not the 'radical reformation' of the Anabaptists and other more grass-roots groups - some of them very peaceful and counter-cultural, others completely barking.
Moltmann would have been coming at these things from a 20th century liberal perspective that we can't 'read back' into the 1500s or the 500s or the 500s BCE or 1500 BCE ...
I don't think I'd have wanted to live in Calvin's Geneva, Wittenburg or in Zwingli's cantons at that time, any more than Rome or Moscow or in Istanbul under the Ottomans.
It'd be great to visit in a time-machine ... providing you could get back into it when things got too messy.
I’m not sure about anachronism however. There were risks for Amos. And other prophets. Speaking the truth to power and sticking up for the poor were always risky for the prophets. Kings and priests could be dangerous if their authority was challenged.
And Jesus’ prophetic message also included speaking good news to the poor and truth to power. It got him crucified.
The word of the Cross speaks of eternal virtues and verities doesn’t it? Whether it’s safe at any point in time for others to pronounce them is another matter. There have been and always are martyrs.
And I would never accuse you of belief in an individualised gospel.
Luther put himself at extreme risk by challenging Papal authority.
He relied on the German Princes for protection. I'm sure we could have done the same.
What I'm saying is that we can't project 20th century liberal values back into history in a direct way.
Heck, there was an annual procession in 17th century London which culminated in the burning of an effigy of the Pope. It was supported by all sections of society and indeed encouraged by the authorities.
Some bright spark thought it would be more 'realistic' to place a cage of live cats inside the effigy so that their screams would sound as if the Pope were crying out.
Bloody hell!
That's horrific to us but wouldn't have bothered people that unduly at the time.
I'm sure if Amos bobbed round for a cuppa we'd find him conducive company to a certain extent but in other ways he'd be completely bewildering and incomprehensible to us and we to him.
Do we actually know how he saw the responsibilities of the powers that be towards the poor? Jesus’ blistering critique about the indifference of religious leaders might I suppose just be seen as a criticism of religious leaders only?
I don’t know enough of his writings to be able to answer the question. After all there is Paul’s comment in Romans 12 about submission to ruling authorities to be taken into account.
But Jesus has always been seen as prophet, priest and King. And having all authority. How did Luther think of the moral obligations of all powers that be, not just the church?
I don’t personally see this as a digression. I suppose it depends on how you see the Cross and in particular “the word of the Cross” (1 Cor 1 v 18).
What does the story of the Cross reveal about the Hidden God? When we survey what Wesley called the “wondrous Cross”. I certainly see a connection between Moltmann’s observation that the Cross is an affront to pride and human gain.
“My richest gain I count but loss
And pour contempt on all my pride”.
That seems to gel with a lot of things.
I'm not demonizing Luther to highlight his warts, but I do think there's an accounting. And I often wonder how the theology-to-political-priorities game goes. Was Luther corrupted by the princes who protected him? Was that why he backstabbed the peasants? Or did he have a theological justification for social order over chaos?
There is certainly a dangerous political battlefield over "how much" public charity is owed. I've also read that Luther changed his mind on many things over the course of his life, as a reasonable person will as their life and circumstances change. Again, the interplay between this and his theological views is intriguing, as with anyone (self included.)
I saw Moltmann speak in person once, and no doubt he was influenced by the Holocaust as an experience. I wonder how that would've hit Luther. Perhaps he'd have been more circumspect about "the Jews."
The Wesleys were High Tories of course, although John pretty much related well to everyone apart from aristocrats.
There's no reason to suppose that Luther was any different to most educated people of his time who would have seen a peasants' revolt as a dangerous subversion of the social order.
Other than some of the radical sects pretty much everyone would have seen charity as coming 'from above'.
I really don't see why we have to go in for anachronisms.
There was nothing 'lefty' about Luther.
I think you are referencing the Large Catechism. I do not remember seeing it in the Small Catechism.
Luther does not say almsgiving earns righteousness. He says that the love of the neighbor is the natural fruit of faith. Withholding help when we could give it is a violation of the commands positive intent.
We believe the commandment requires us not only to avoid taking our neighbors goods but also to actively protect and promote their well being. So when we withhold help from someone in need especially when we have the means to assist is a form of stealing.
In Lutheran theology, the cross reveals God's self giving love. The Christian life mirrors that love.
We can't 'project' them back onto Luther, John Ball the radical priest in the 1388 Peasants Revolt here or any other figure from pre-Enlightenment history.
Because St John Chrysostom denounced the wearing of finery or the shenanigans of the Byzantine court it doesn't turn him into a proto-Marxist.
The Wesleys were opposed to slavery but their contemporary Whitefield was thoroughly in favour of it.
Charles Wesley wrote a pretty awful poem criticising those who sympathised with the American rebels with a warning that they'd end up in Hell if they didn't mend their ways.
Henry VIII wasn't the first Western European monarch to have a run in with the Pope. Nor was he the last. Francis I of France was always trying to assert himself over the temporal power of the Papacy.
The German Princes the same. That's why they latched onto Luther. It gave them a convenient stick to poke the Pope with.
All this trying to find anything 'Amos-like' in Luther's writings or wondering whether he had a 'bias to the poor' in anything other than the conventional attitudes of his time is utterly futile.
I know someone who is descended from the Wesleys and who believes that if they were alive today they'd share the same radical left-wing and egalitarian views as they do.
There's no guarantee that they
would.
We have no idea whether Luther would have joined the Confessing Church and opposed Hitler or whether he'd have been comfortable with the statistics quo.
It's futile to even speculate about that.
All we can do is to take these people in context, according to the beliefs and conventions of their own times.
But how about surveying the Cross. What do you see?
Wow! Is cultural relativism Orthodox?
No, but common sense is ... 😉
Although it can be in short supply ...
I'm not saying that concern for the poor is Marxist @Bullfrog. What I am saying is that back in the day it didn't necessarily go hand-in-hand with what we might consider 'progressive' attitudes.
Of course the Wesleys were monarchists. They were Anglicans.
You'd be a pretty unusual Anglican not to be a monarchist back then.
That's part of the point I'm making.
All these people were products of their own time and context.
We all are.
I was just looking back over the thread, and this caught my eye. I don't think it's so much that God hid himself from us, or hid something about himself. I think rather it's our own blindness (hooked up to sin, of course), that makes us incapable of imagining God except in terms of power, glory, and strength. That is what we naturally think of, when we think of God / a supreme being / the Most High.
But when God reveals himself, he does it through weakness. The Most High descends; the Giver and Sustainer of all things becomes a dependent baby; the Holy One becomes sin (see 2 Corinthians 5:21); Life himself dies. And this is so utterly incomprehensible to us by nature, that, if the Holy Spirit did not himself give us understanding and conviction that this is true, we would certainly reject it. God knows, we see enough of this sort of rejection from others in our world!
And so, when God remakes us in his own image, we too end up descending rather than ascending. We begin to serve rather than ruling; we glorify God rather than ourselves; we stop seeking what we ourselves want, and give ourselves away freely, sometimes even to the point of death. And this is just as incomprehensible to our fellow human beings as what God does.
The theology of glory is what comes to us naturally. The theology of the cross is completely unnatural to the human heart and mind, at least as we are now, fallen. And that's where we meet God, in the last place we'd ever expect to find him--at the cross, in shame, nakedness, and death.
I have yet to get hold of a copy of Moltmann (Oh, my to-read list! How it grows!), but drawing on the Heidelburg Disputation, the only time human wisdom, intellect, cleverness are used safely is when we use them with humility and trepidation--well aware of how easy it is for us to fall into the sins of pride and self-sufficiency, and always keeping a sharp eye out for these sins in ourselves. So Christianity isn't anti-intellectual, but rather distrusts any human power and watches it carefully, because when it is most glorious, that's when sin is sneaking in the back door. And ruining the whole thing.
Truly, in many ways I'm very lucky. I have several personal characteristics (gender, heritage, birthplace, etc.) that pretty much disqualify me from climbing the ladder in my particular church body. I can't be ordained; I don't have the proper family connections that get other people ahead; I'm distrusted as a Californian; and so on and so forth. And so I am prevented from following the very temptations that could lead me to damn myself through pride.
There's one for the quotes file!
Yes, all of that resonates with me, apart from the specific cultural issues. There'll be parallels and equivalents elsewhere.
On the 'getting ahead' thing, I'm reminded of the story of the junior demon who complained to the Devil one day that he was getting nowhere with a particular hermit out in the desert.
'I've tried everything,' he sighed. 'Drink, drugs, money, sex. He seems impervious to it all ...'
'Leave him to me,' Satan replies and swoops towards the hermit's cell. Within minutes the monk emerges cursing and swearing. He heads into town where he plunges into a life of debauchery and sin.
The junior demon is suitably impressed.
'O Prince of Darkness, how did you get him to do that?'
'Easy,' says Satan. 'I told him his brother had been made Bishop of Alexandria.'
If there are future generations they'll look back at us and think, 'How on earth did they waste resources, use fossil fuels, spend so much time online ...' etc etc etc.
I think you're wrong on this point. Cultural relativism becomes moral relativism when it condones indifference to suffering. God is just. Indifference to suffering is unjust. Regardless of culture.
Regardless of culture, the common thread which links the Old Testament prophets, the prophetic morality of the gospels, Heschel, Martin Luther King, Moltmann, Desmond Tutu, many other great protestors, all together, is that indifference to human suffering is wrong.
When particular cultural values condone indifference, the behaviour of individuals in those cultures is understandable. That doesn't make it right.
One of the things I see when I look at the Cross is that Jesus did not deserve to die. The dying thief got it right. "This man has done no wrong; we have". There is indifference to his suffering, mockery and cruelty on top of the cruelty of the form of execution. There is a lack of love. Jesus is despised and rejected. I think one has to have a heart of stone not to see that.
Indifference is a hardness of heart. The Cross reminds me of times when my heart has been hard. It points at times when I've been unjust.
In his abandonment, Jesus cries both " Why am I forsaken" but also "Father forgive them, they don't know". Justice and mercy are met together. Isn't that a revelation of the heart of God? There is precious little human mercy yet there is mercy in the heart of Jesus despite everything.
Well, you can come to my side of the pool. You will be surprised how deep it can get here.
Looking at some of the responses, I wish I had read them before I finished my sermon for tomorrow. I had already rewritten it five times. I am not about to rewrite it again.
We can understand why someone might give way to temptation, say, but that doesn't condone it.
We may understand why a Luther, a Wesley, a St John Chrysostom or anyone else - including ourselves - may have entertained views or attitudes that we or others find reprehensible.
That's not to condone or justify those views.
Where did I say or imply anything of the kind?
None of us are plaster saints.
Luther’s criticisms of the medieval institutional church contained much that was true. His attacks on Peasants and Jews fell far short of that. Peasants were downtrodden. Their humanity, their effective slavery and their suffering were discounted; a matter of indifference to those who effectively owned them. Maybe in our culture we can see that more clearly than folks could see it then?
Jews were persecuted terribly in Europe in the Middle Ages They were subject to legal restrictions, false accusations, violence and expulsion. There were roots of antisemitism in early Christian belief and these fuelled the medieval cultural antisemitism in Europe.
And Luther’s antisemitic broadside in “Against the Jews and Their Lies” is absolutely deplorable. Regardless of the extent to which antisemitism was embedded in medieval times and the times of the Reformation.
In both cases there was a blind spot to the unjust indifference to human suffering. Despite the very clear prophetic message in the OT prophets and and the gospels that such indifference was wrong. It is no anachronism to point out, for example, that Amos saw this much more clearly than both Luther in Reformation times and much of those who lived in Christian medieval times.
And above even that, the Cross clearly shows that there was indifference to suffering and harsh cruelty inflicted on Jesus. It makes me more sensitive to indifference to suffering. I’m sure I’m not the only one.
Such sensitivity is a transcendent virtue.
The wrongness of indifference to human suffering transcends cultures. Despite the historical truth that such indifference was found in ancient cultures as it is in our own.
And that wrongness was an ancient insight in both Judaism and the Christian gospels long before it was a modern insight.
Now I believe you believe that. So why bring in cultural relativism? That’s my point. Contrast with this.
You clearly did bring in cultural relevance.
It is irrelevant to the transcendent wrong of indifference to suffering.
“These people honour me with their lips but their hearts are far from me”.
“ The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.”
And I know you know that too.
Great post. It’s presumptuous of me to say this, but two things occur to me.
1. Any church which has you in it and doesn’t recognise and use (for dogmatic reasons) your obvious teaching gift is missing out.
2. I appreciate the temptation but I think you could handle it.
🤣🤣🤣
But I guess there may be some value in a focus on a particular people group.
(I appreciate the implication of “somewhere else”!)
Ideally, Christianity should inform and transform culture - and I believe it has to a certain extent. That doesn't mean that we don't get things wrong.
I'll try and expand at some point. The Incarnation is all about the transcendent entering the 'every day' ...
'Be transformed by the renewing of your mind.'
@Barnabas62 you missed where I said that to understand is not to condone.
For those of us who go in for sacramental confession, absolution isn't a condoning of wrong doing.
Sounds like the message from your congregation host pastors was diplomatically worded but the implication was clear.
Curiously and by contrast it reminded me of the infamous blunt dialogue between Amaziah the Priest of Bethel and the prophet Amos (from Amos 7). With this opening salvo.
(Earlier Amaziah had told the King that “the land cannot bear all his words”]
I’m sure you didn’t respond as Amos did. Teaching and prophecy are different, if sometimes related, gifts of course. Furthermore, no one would accuse Amos of having a pastoral gift!
I’m kind of looking forward to the Last Day when we finally learn what we stand accused of—and THEY finally learn it was all lies.
Do you agree that seeing indifference to suffering as an injustice is a God-ordained virtue, a truth which transcends culture?
If you do we agree. Any other misunderstandings or marginal differences are of much lower priority.
@Lamb Chopped
It’s on my theme for me to see that seeing injustice to women is also a virtue, a truth which transcends culture. Treating women as second class citizens, as property, has caused and continues to cause much suffering. It’s wrong. Regardless of what religious or secular culture says to people.
It's never easy.
Pete Seeger wrote an additional verse to “We shall Overcome” for the walkers on the way to the Pettus Bridge near Selma Alabama. It was “We are not afraid today”.
It’s not easy to be unafraid of injustice when you’re on the receiving end of suffering.
Bless you for your patience and perseverance. Sometimes fatigue gets us and we just want to throw in the towel.
I wonder? Does the Cross also reveal something else about the Hidden God? That rejection and apparent defeat are never the end for righteousness?
It may be Good Friday but Sunday’s Coming.
Luther wasn't indifferent to suffering, he advocated alms-giving like any Christian of his time would have done.
What he wouldn't have been so aware of, perhaps would be what we might call systemic or societal ills such as peasants being expected to know their place or Jewish people being regarded in a highly negative light.
Moreover, being moved by sufferings is one thing, doing something to alleviate it or right wrongs is another.
That's the hard part.
That doesn't alter the fact that they had genuine grievances.