A Ross Douthat column in the July 14, 2012, NYT is titled, “Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?" It includes interesting data on trends in membership of the Episcopal Church and how those trends may be related to shifting positions on theological and social issues. The bottom line is that, while there is no proof of cause and effect, as the Episcopal Church has relaxed its emphasis on theology and given in to current societal trends and pressures, its membership has consistently declined. The article points out that other mainline “denominations” are suffering from the same disease and that some of the apparently more successful “conservative” churches are emphasizing health and wealth rather than the theological depth of the New Testament.
It seems to me there is no reason to save a Christianity that can be categorized and adequately described by any of today’s political descriptors such as “conservative” or “liberal.” If Christianity does not completely transcend and confuse and render meaningless such simplistic categories, it is redundant and neither needs nor deserves any defense. There will always be political and economic liberals, conservatives, socialists, libertarians, etc., squabbles among them, and strong defenses of and condemnations of them. But Christianity as revealed in Holy Scripture and through the teachings of The Church is a different category entirely, a spiritual category, and one that certainly includes individuals with secondary interests in or loose allegiances with all those worldly categories.
Considering some major philosophical differences between “liberals” and “conservatives,” reasonable people of faith may differ about which functions are best performed by government and which by private individuals and companies. They may argue about the appropriate size of government and the best ways to raise revenue needed by government to perform its functions. They may and probably will argue about how much debt government should accumulate in the process of performing its functions, though I would hope that all would agree that bankrupting the nation is an immoral choice. Math, after all, is a gift of God not to be ignored.
Such reasonable people may also differ about the extent to which government should subsidize or penalize or even be involved in personal behavior. Should government play a role in marriage, deciding who may marry and establishing different tax rates depending on whether one is married? Should government play a role in home ownership, granting loans to those who cannot afford them and tax advantages to those who chose to bear the burden of home ownership? Should government play a role in sexual relationships, offering free birth control and abortion opportunities or encouraging or prohibiting either or both? From this group of “social” issues, it seems obvious that new life, even more than math, is a gift of God not to be ignored.
But aside from and much more important than such social, political, and economic considerations, the person who claims to be a Christian, a follower of Jesus, a disciple, has all those inconvenient New Testament truths from Jesus to be dealt with. We have to try and understand what our role is in his Great Commission and in his two Greatest Commandments. We have to try to understand and comply with what he really meant in claiming to be one with the Father, in telling us we have to be last if we want to be first and that it is almost impossible for a rich person, whatever that is, to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. We have to figure out what our sins are and confess them to each other for forgiveness. We have to deal with his statements that he was establishing his church and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it, that he was sending the Holy Spirit to us, and that we must partake of his Body and Blood or else have no life in us. And he told us that if we love him, we will keep his commandments. Perhaps most challenging of all, he told us to “Be perfect, therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect.”
Well, at least if we get too frustrated or tired, we have his promises that he grants us his peace and that he will give us rest.
But here is the problem. Christianity with a liberal slant, a conservative slant, a patriotic slant, a prosperity slant, or any slant at all is a deviation from or corruption of or at least a selective editing of the fundamental truths on which Christianity is based. It would be much better for liberals, conservatives, patriots, etc. to seek common ground in the Faith, leaving their ideologies outside the door, than for believers to drag the Church into the political and philosophical arenas. Like Jesus, the Church, the Body of Christ, the Embassy of Heaven on Earth, is to be in the World but not of the World. It is to transform the World, not conform to it.
And so, let us go to Church not for political or social activism, not for friendships and business relationships, not for entertainment and pleasure, not for coffee and donuts, but for divine M&M’s, mystery and miracles, including some glimpse of, some foretaste of, the Real Presence of Christ and the Divine Mystery of the Triune God. That is the unique offering The Church can make. And, if that is available, and we receive it, and allow it to show in our lives, people will flock to it just as they flocked to Jesus. And Christianity won’t need any modifiers such as the one used by Mr. Douthat.
Otherwise, churches risk becoming not much more than social clubs, service clubs, hospices, groups of people enjoying each other’s company, doing some projects, singing some hymns, getting some advice, and taking care of each other as they die off, certainly all good things, but just missing the mark somewhat, it seems to me.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Gifts, Beatitudes, Fruits, and Happiness
I have been following some
pastoral advice and meditating on The Beatitudes for the past few weeks. I read Living
the Beatitudes Today by Dodd and Heaven
in Our Hands by Groeschel. And, I
actually read the Beatitudes in Matthew 5 a few times.
Immersed in today’s goal
oriented American culture, it is easy to read these verses as a sort of self
improvement plan or a way to categorize ourselves. If we want to be
blessed, we need to become poor in spirit.
If we want to be shown mercy, we need to become merciful. If we want to be recognized as children of
God, we had better be making some peace. Probably none will raise their hands for persecution. Now, all who want to be blessed go to Table A. Those who want to be shown mercy go to Table B. Etc. There will be trained discussion leaders at each table.
But it seems to me that the Beatitudes are more a description of the Church, it and its members
being the recipients of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and yielding, as is
natural, the fruits of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was perhaps just stating facts rather than issuing challenges. The gifts of course are free and there for the receiving. And, if we receive them, we are changed and
we are blessed and others are blessed through us and we are closer to the
Kingdom of God and all those other good things, not perfect, but moving in that direction.
So, maybe we need to relax and
enjoy and receive the gifts and let the blessings flow through and just give up on the self-improvement activities as means of getting closer to God.
It is probably worth pointing out some issues around interpretation and understanding of the Beatitudes. One is that little word that for 400 years or so was translated into English usually as "blessed" but, in newer translations as "happy." There is no point in reinventing the wheel here, so take a look at this posting for a good explanation of how "happy" just doesn't carry the weight of the original Greek or Hebrew. As a long time pastor I once knew liked to say, "Happiness depends on happenings." The Peace of God, "blessedness," does not.
It is also worth noting that the beatitudes in St. Luke's Sermon on the Plain are simpler, shorter, and fewer than those in St. Matthew's Sermon on the Mount. One could even say they are different. And, St. Luke's version includes those four troublesome woes immediately after the beatitudes. Bible scholars have various explanations for these differences, all of which depend on our understanding and acceptance of the simple fact that nobody from CNN or Fox news was following Jesus around recording every step he took and every word he said for distribution on YouTube. We also have to understand that the Gospel writers had different slants on the true teachings of Jesus depending on their audiences and situations. And it helps to understand that Jesus knew Holy Scripture (Our Old Testament) intimately and that his message is often an expansion or continuation of it. So, the answer to which version of The Beatitudes is correct is, of course, both of them. And not only that, we can beneficially meditate as well on the twenty beatitudes found in the Psalms. Click on these summaries for high resolution versions.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Love Means Having To Say I Am Sorry
As a recent Catholic convert, I’ve been thinking a lot about confession lately. It has been almost a year since being confirmed at St. Peter’s in Columbia, SC, and Catholic faithful “go to confession” at least once per year. I did it just prior to the confirmation, dumping on the priest a bunch of shameful stuff I have done over the decades, and that was about a year ago.
Of course all Christians believe in confession. How could we do otherwise, given 1 John 1:9 – “If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” For most of my life I understood confessing my sins to mean simply bowing my head in prayer and saying something like, “I did _______, and I am sorry. Please forgive me.” I’m not going to even suggest that God never heard or honored those confessions, but there is some challenging scripture that seems to suggest a bit more complexity about confession.
There is that instruction in James 5:16 – “Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed.” There is often an interesting connection between healing and forgiveness in the New Testament. So, it became reasonable to me that we need to say those confessions out loud and within hearing distance of somebody else. And maybe we also need to pray for each other about those things confessed. But I don’t really know if this is a command or a law or just a bit of “fatherly” advice offered by James to his readers.
And there is the “Our Father” in which we pray, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us,” additional evidence of the importance of person to person interaction as a part of confession, and indication that we should not only let others hear our confession but that we should hear theirs and forgive them as well. It is not clear to me whether that “as” means “while” or “in the same way” or “to the same extent?” In the Matthew version of the “Our Father,” Jesus offers some additional explanation in Matthew 6:14-15 - “For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” There is no emphasis on confession here, or even any request for forgiveness, but I suppose they are assumed. I believe that “trespass” is a synonym for “sin.”
Finally, there are those instances in Matthew 16:19 and John 20:23 in which Jesus gives Peter and the Disciples authority to forgive sins. I guess that, before becoming Catholic, I always just assumed that meant we all have some limited authority to forgive sins, and we do, of course, or would not have been instructed to do so, but I’m thinking this authority he gave them, the so-called Office of the Keys, is a bit different. Even if so, I might have once argued that it applied only to those who received the authority directly from Jesus. But now that doesn’t make sense to me. I have come to believe that Jesus founded His church and left somebody in charge with the authority and responsibility to hear confessions and forgive sins and teach and interpret and perform other specific duties and to ordain successors and that that authority and responsibility continue today.
So, I am getting ready, and of course a big part of the confession process is the time spent praying and reflecting on one’s own life with the objective of determining what needs to be confessed. Overt and undeniable sins of commission, lying, adultery, theft, etc., would come to the top of the list. Hopefully, I don’t have many of those, but I have to be concerned also about the more subtle failures, the places I have fallen short, the things I ought to have done but didn’t. And it is easy, especially in a hedonistic culture that encourages self-esteem, to deceive myself, to convince myself I am a pretty good guy. In Leviticus 11:45, God tells the people, “You shall be holy, for I am holy,” and Peter quotes and repeats that charge to the early Church in 1 Peter 1:16. The gap between that and where I find myself is pretty wide. Thank God for the opportunity for confession, for forgiveness, for reconciliation, for penance, and for continuing conversion.
Of course all Christians believe in confession. How could we do otherwise, given 1 John 1:9 – “If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” For most of my life I understood confessing my sins to mean simply bowing my head in prayer and saying something like, “I did _______, and I am sorry. Please forgive me.” I’m not going to even suggest that God never heard or honored those confessions, but there is some challenging scripture that seems to suggest a bit more complexity about confession.
There is that instruction in James 5:16 – “Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed.” There is often an interesting connection between healing and forgiveness in the New Testament. So, it became reasonable to me that we need to say those confessions out loud and within hearing distance of somebody else. And maybe we also need to pray for each other about those things confessed. But I don’t really know if this is a command or a law or just a bit of “fatherly” advice offered by James to his readers.
And there is the “Our Father” in which we pray, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us,” additional evidence of the importance of person to person interaction as a part of confession, and indication that we should not only let others hear our confession but that we should hear theirs and forgive them as well. It is not clear to me whether that “as” means “while” or “in the same way” or “to the same extent?” In the Matthew version of the “Our Father,” Jesus offers some additional explanation in Matthew 6:14-15 - “For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” There is no emphasis on confession here, or even any request for forgiveness, but I suppose they are assumed. I believe that “trespass” is a synonym for “sin.”
Finally, there are those instances in Matthew 16:19 and John 20:23 in which Jesus gives Peter and the Disciples authority to forgive sins. I guess that, before becoming Catholic, I always just assumed that meant we all have some limited authority to forgive sins, and we do, of course, or would not have been instructed to do so, but I’m thinking this authority he gave them, the so-called Office of the Keys, is a bit different. Even if so, I might have once argued that it applied only to those who received the authority directly from Jesus. But now that doesn’t make sense to me. I have come to believe that Jesus founded His church and left somebody in charge with the authority and responsibility to hear confessions and forgive sins and teach and interpret and perform other specific duties and to ordain successors and that that authority and responsibility continue today.
So, I am getting ready, and of course a big part of the confession process is the time spent praying and reflecting on one’s own life with the objective of determining what needs to be confessed. Overt and undeniable sins of commission, lying, adultery, theft, etc., would come to the top of the list. Hopefully, I don’t have many of those, but I have to be concerned also about the more subtle failures, the places I have fallen short, the things I ought to have done but didn’t. And it is easy, especially in a hedonistic culture that encourages self-esteem, to deceive myself, to convince myself I am a pretty good guy. In Leviticus 11:45, God tells the people, “You shall be holy, for I am holy,” and Peter quotes and repeats that charge to the early Church in 1 Peter 1:16. The gap between that and where I find myself is pretty wide. Thank God for the opportunity for confession, for forgiveness, for reconciliation, for penance, and for continuing conversion.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
A Holy Week Meditation
134 All sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, "because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ" - The Catholic Catechism
The diagram below started with one I published earlier, Chaos to Church. I had some feedback and suggestions on that one, and one thing led to another, and this is the current status. A work in progress I would say, but an attempt to outline what The Church means by the Gospel or Good News of Jesus Christ. I'm not going to try to explain because the whole idea is that such an exhibit should be pretty much self-explanatory. And, the less I say, the fewer errors I make. As usual, I welcome any feedback, comments, criticisms, or suggestions.
To get a readable version, just click on the diagram.
Tweet
Follow @dkw2020
The diagram below started with one I published earlier, Chaos to Church. I had some feedback and suggestions on that one, and one thing led to another, and this is the current status. A work in progress I would say, but an attempt to outline what The Church means by the Gospel or Good News of Jesus Christ. I'm not going to try to explain because the whole idea is that such an exhibit should be pretty much self-explanatory. And, the less I say, the fewer errors I make. As usual, I welcome any feedback, comments, criticisms, or suggestions.
To get a readable version, just click on the diagram.
Tweet
Follow @dkw2020
Monday, March 12, 2012
Chaos to Church
Below is a diagram which I developed a few years back after first hearing the term "henotheism" in a theology course at Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary and after some discussion of ecclesiology at that same institution. Who else but me is going to try to express in a simple diagram on a single sheet of paper, with an even dozen Bible verses, the theological history of the Christian church? Well, I did try to do that, for a confirmation class I believe, and just thought of the diagram a few days ago. I know this will look crazy to many Christians and to almost all of other faiths, but I think this is a standard Christian understanding of the theological story the Bible tells. Of course the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey might have said, is that The Church seems to some to have descended into chaos in the most recent few centuries, thus completing the circle.
And of course The Church has always had and still has its share of problems, often exhibiting shameful and very unchristian behavior. But Jesus didn't promise that it would be perfect; only that, "the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it." I am interested in any feedback this little exercise might generate. You will probably have to click on the chart to get a readable version.
And of course The Church has always had and still has its share of problems, often exhibiting shameful and very unchristian behavior. But Jesus didn't promise that it would be perfect; only that, "the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it." I am interested in any feedback this little exercise might generate. You will probably have to click on the chart to get a readable version.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Luther, Good Works, and Favorite Bible Verses
In discussions among Christians it is common to be asked to share one’s favorite Bible verse. I don’t have a favorite movie, song, vacation spot, color, city, grandchild, or Bible verse. Except in the case of my one and only and therefore favorite wife, I just don’t think in terms of favorites but rather in terms of variety. A generous assessment of my failure to express favoritism might be that I am trying to be non-judgmental, except of course in the case of quantitative and objective things such as budgets, debts, and deficits. After all, it is still true that 2+2=4. But, rather than get involved in such an explanation when asked the favorite Bible verse question, I think I will, from now on, just settle on Ephesians 2:10, the last in the selection below, because it seems to me to encompass the meaning of the Christian life. Now, if I can just remember that verse!
Of course that Lutheran position contrasts with what Lutherans often see as a Catholic emphasis on good works as a means of salvation. Googling, “Catholic works justification,” yields numerous hits explaining how wrong the Catholic Church is in emphasis on “works” along with very able defenses of the Catholic position on justification. Catholics never argue that we don’t have to do anything.
Because of this apparent divide and a belief on the part of many theologians that separation of the Body of Christ into denominations is not a good thing, Lutheran and Catholic theologians have engaged in ongoing dialogue for a number of years in an effort to reach agreement on various theological issues that have been stewing ever since Father Martin Luther raised them 495 years ago, and one result of that was a 1999 Lutheran Catholic Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. Of course such discussions and declarations are of little interest to average members of the respective bodies, but, as part of a seminary course, we read and discussed the 1999 Joint Declaration. That helped me understand why the average Catholic or Lutheran in the pews is not really very interested in the subject.
The opening statement in that ongoing discussion might be considered to have been a little pamphlet written by Father Martin Luther and delivered to Pope Leo X in 1520, three years after the posting of his Ninety Five Theses which got him in trouble. In that little pamphlet, Luther explored the relationship between works and salvation and tried to explain to Pope Leo X what “good works” are. During a History of Christianity course at Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary in 2002, I chose that pamphlet as the subject of a required paper. Here is that paper, after correction of a few minor grammatical errors pointed out by the professor. If the paper sounds very Lutheran, remember that I was one at the time and had not yet cast my vote in favor of greater and more visible Christian unity.
Ephesians 2:1-10 NRS You were dead through the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once lived, following the course of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work among those who are disobedient. 3 All of us once lived among them in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of flesh and senses, and we were by nature children of wrath, like everyone else. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us 5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-- by grace you have been saved-- 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God-- 9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.Lutherans put great theological emphasis on grace and faith over works. Google the word combination, “Lutheran we don’t have to do anything,” and you get quite a few hits focusing on that central element of Lutheran theology, that, as St. Paul wrote to the Ephesian Christians in the scripture quoted above, “…it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast.” But that is not the place to stop reading, for he went on to write my “favorite” verse. So, it seems that although we are not saved by good works, we are saved for them so they seem to be an essential element of salvation. Now if we could just figure out what they are.
Of course that Lutheran position contrasts with what Lutherans often see as a Catholic emphasis on good works as a means of salvation. Googling, “Catholic works justification,” yields numerous hits explaining how wrong the Catholic Church is in emphasis on “works” along with very able defenses of the Catholic position on justification. Catholics never argue that we don’t have to do anything.
Because of this apparent divide and a belief on the part of many theologians that separation of the Body of Christ into denominations is not a good thing, Lutheran and Catholic theologians have engaged in ongoing dialogue for a number of years in an effort to reach agreement on various theological issues that have been stewing ever since Father Martin Luther raised them 495 years ago, and one result of that was a 1999 Lutheran Catholic Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. Of course such discussions and declarations are of little interest to average members of the respective bodies, but, as part of a seminary course, we read and discussed the 1999 Joint Declaration. That helped me understand why the average Catholic or Lutheran in the pews is not really very interested in the subject.
The opening statement in that ongoing discussion might be considered to have been a little pamphlet written by Father Martin Luther and delivered to Pope Leo X in 1520, three years after the posting of his Ninety Five Theses which got him in trouble. In that little pamphlet, Luther explored the relationship between works and salvation and tried to explain to Pope Leo X what “good works” are. During a History of Christianity course at Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary in 2002, I chose that pamphlet as the subject of a required paper. Here is that paper, after correction of a few minor grammatical errors pointed out by the professor. If the paper sounds very Lutheran, remember that I was one at the time and had not yet cast my vote in favor of greater and more visible Christian unity.
LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL SOUTHERN SEMINARY
LUTHER’S USE OF THE TERM “WORKS” IN
THE FREEDOM OF A CHRISTIAN
DARRYL K. WILLIAMS
JANUARY 30, 2002
HT 102
HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY
LUTHER’S USE OF THE TERM “WORKS” IN
THE FREEDOM OF A CHRISTIAN
DARRYL K. WILLIAMS
JANUARY 30, 2002
I. Introduction and Background
Having taken a public stand, on October 31, 1517, against the abuses of the Catholic Church hierarchy of the 16th century, Martin Luther was under extreme pressure to recant or be declared guilty of heresy.[i] Had he restricted his criticisms strictly to matters of theology, he might have been allowed to continue to toil in relative obscurity. However, he had touched the financial nerve of the church by attacking the sale of indulgences on which the economic strength of the Church and the wealth of its leaders had come to depend.
Luther’s positions, stated in the “Ninety Five Theses,” had been called to the attention of Pope Leo X who had authorized the most recent scheme for sale of indulgences and who was “one of the worst popes of that age of corrupt, avaricious, and indolent popes.”[ii] Because Luther had support both from theologians, whom he had quietly convinced of the validity of his theses, and from Frederick the Wise, lord of Wittenberg, who wanted to be known as a wise and just ruler, Pope Leo X was not able to summarily squelch Luther. Instead, he sent emissaries, first Cardinal Cajetan and then Karl von Miltitz, to pressure Luther into recanting. Those efforts having failed, Luther was asked to write a conciliatory letter to Pope Leo X and agreed to do so and to send it along with a devotional booklet written especially for the purpose. The title of the booklet was The Freedom of a Christian and, in the accompanying letter, Luther said of the booklet, “Unless I am mistaken…it contains the whole of Christian life in a brief form, provided you grasp its meaning.” [iii]
The Freedom of a Christian is in two parts. The first addresses the uselessness of “works” of any kind as a way to please God or to achieve salvation. The second addresses the necessity of good works for the believer. The focus of this paper is on Luther’s use of the term “works” and some examples and illustrations he uses.
II. Biblical (NRSV) Use of the Term “Works”
In the Old Testament, “works” used as a noun usually refers to the “wondrous” or “marvelous” or “wonderful” works of God. There are examples in 1 Chronicles and in Psalms. In the Gospels according to Matthew and John, “works” refers to things done by Jesus or by His followers for God or in the name of God. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells his listeners to “let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.”[iv] In John’s Gospel, Jesus often speaks of doing the works of His father as when he spoke to his disciples in John 9:4: “We must work the works of him who sent me.” Jesus further makes it clear in John 14:12 that Christians are to carry on the works He has been doing after he leaves: “Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father.” Finally, in John 6:29, Jesus states the essential truth on which Luther’s theology seems to be based: “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” The belief of the Christian depends not on anything the Christian has done but solely on a “work of God.”
Most discussion of works both in the Bible and in The Freedom of a Christian focuses on works that are, at least from the human viewpoint, good. Little is said of works that are obviously evil, though Jesus does say in John 7:7 that the world hates Him because of his testimony “against it that its works are evil.” Both Galatians and Romans use “works” as an important theological term. In Galatians it is almost always “works of the law” referring to compliance with the Jewish laws which, of course, was not an issue for Christians in Luther’s time. The point in Galatians was that New Testament believers were free from requirements to comply with those laws. In Romans, the meaning of “works” includes “works prescribed by the law,”[v] but seems to extend also to whatever a person does. The letter to the Romans fully explores the relationships among works, grace, faith, and justification.
Luther made no secret of his high opinion of the theological importance of Romans:
This Epistle is really the chief part of the New Testament and the very purest Gospel, and is worthy not only that every Christian should know it word for word, by heart, but occupy himself with it every day, as the daily bread of the soul. It can never be read or pondered too much, and the more it is dealt with the more precious it becomes, and the better it tastes.[vi]
Paul’s epistle to the Romans is cited approximately twenty times in The Freedom of a Christian. It is not surprising that Luther used the term “works” in the same way Paul used it in Romans. For Luther, writing during a time when compliance with ancient Jewish laws was no longer an issue, “works” more clearly refers to all the things a person does. That is a reasonable extension of thought since those ancient Jewish laws had applied to almost everything the ancient Jew did. Just as clarification of the relationship between Jewish law and salvation through Christ was the goal of St. Paul
III. “Works” in The Freedom of a Christian
Early in the treatise, Luther makes the point that works of a religious nature such as praying, fasting, adorning the body, or dwelling in sacred places are in themselves neutral, neither helping nor hurting the soul. “It does not help the soul if the body … fasts … it will not harm the soul if the body…eats and drinks as others do.” He goes on to say that the reason such works, in themselves, are neutral is that they can all be “done by any wicked person” and are “things which hypocrites can do.”[vii] Luther’s belief was that it is the spiritual condition of the person doing a work that determines whether the work is good or not and that it is only God who can make a person’s spiritual condition right for doing good works. That belief seems to reflect the words of Jesus quoted earlier that the most important work is trusting Him whom God had sent.
Luther used trees and fruit as a parable of Christians and their good works:
As it is necessary, therefore, that the trees exist before their fruits and the fruits do not make trees either good or bad, but rather as the trees are, so are the fruits they bear; so a man must first be good or wicked before he does a good or wicked work, and his works do not make him good or wicked, but he himself makes his works either good or wicked. [viii]
Luther illustrates this counter intuitive truth by an interesting and perhaps surprising example of a work pleasing to God. The example is Adam’s tilling and cultivation of the garden in Eden
Similar to the example of a tree and its fruit is that of a bishop and the official duties of his office. The bishop is not made a bishop by the performance of those duties, but the performance of the duties is deemed valid because the person already holds the office of bishop. In the same way, the free and willing good works of a Christian are valid because of the person’s Christianity, a gift from God, and in no way make him or her a Christian.[x] Thus, for Luther, the important questions are not about “what works and what kind of works are done, but who it is that does them, who glorifies God and brings forth the works.”[xi]
Luther also mentions the good work of caring for one’s own body.[xii] He refers not to a narcissistic or egotistic self centeredness but to caring for one’s body in order that one might be able to serve others through working to earn money and giving it to those in need, willingly and with no interest in reward. Luther makes the point that it is because there is no need for good works to achieve one’s own righteousness and salvation, that the Christian is freed from thinking of his own needs and interests and is totally free to serve others just as Adam was totally free to till the garden in Eden.[xiii]
Motivation, in Luther’s theology, seems to be the key to good works, and pure and positive motivation seems to be possible only for those who are believers experiencing the grace of God. “Any work that is not done solely for the purpose of keeping the body under control or of serving one’s neighbor, as long as he asks nothing contrary to God, is not good or Christian.”[xiv] Luther follows these criteria with an expressed concern that “few or no colleges, monasteries, altars, and offices of the church are really Christian in our day” [xv] because people were seeking profit, in the form of salvation, in those institutions.
Luther’s clearest statement of appropriate works and attitude toward works for the Christian seems to be this: “Hence, as our heavenly Father has in Christ freely come to our aid, we also ought freely to help our neighbor through our body and its works, and each one should become as it were a Christ to the other that we may be Christs to one another and Christ may be the same in all, that is, that we may be truly Christians.”[xvi] This summary statement clearly connects and reconciles the Gospel teachings of Jesus about the works of the Father and the theology of works, grace, and faith expressed by St. Paul
Thanks be to God!
[i] Historical details are taken from Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: Vol. 2, The Reformation to the Present Day (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1985) 1-28.
[ii] Gonzalez, 21.
[iii]Luther, M. 1999, c1957. Luther's works, vol. 31 : Career of the Reformer I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works. Vol. 31 (Vol. 31, Page 343). Fortress Press: Philadelphia
[iv] NRSV, Matthew 5:16. All Bible quotations in this paper are from the New Revised Standard Version.
[v] NRSV, Romans 3:28.
[vi] Robert L. Ferm, Readings
[vii] Luther, M. 1999, c1957. Luther's works, vol. 31 : Career of the Reformer I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works. Vol. 31 (Vol. 31, Page 345). Fortress Press: Philadelphia
[viii] Ibid., 361.
[ix] Ibid., 360.
[x] Ibid., 361.
[xi] Ibid., 353
[xii] Ibid., 365.
[xiii] Ibid., 365
[xiv] Ibid., 370.
[xv] Ibid., 370.
[xvi] Ibid., 367.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ferm, Robert L. Readings in the History of Christian Thought. New York
Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity, vol. 2, The Reformation to the Present Day. San Francisco
Luther, M. 1999, c1957. Luther's works, vol. 31 : Career of the Reformer I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works. Vol. 31 (Vol. 31, Page 345). Fortress Press: Philadelphia
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Catholic Hospitals, From a Child's Viewpoint, Then and Now
I clearly remember being warned by one of my peers, about sixty years ago at age 9, that when I grew up and got married and my wife was having a baby that I should make sure she does NOT go to a Catholic hospital because they would let her die rather than allow any harm to come to the baby. I’m guessing my friend heard that from his parents. At least we know it didn’t come from TV. Well, that was the Southern Baptist environment of the small East Tennessee town I grew up in, just one tiny and very suspicious Catholic Church in the entire county, its members probably all Yankee transplants brought in by Alcoa. Aside from the misconceptions about Catholicism though, it is pretty neat that even as little boys we were talking about our future responsibilities as husbands and parents.
Catholic hospitals are in the news now because the Obama administration has determined that they must provide “free” chemical birth control and chemical (maybe) abortions to their employees as part of the health insurance plans they offer. Of course the Catholic Church, as I, a relatively new Catholic understand it, is not opposed at all to birth control and family planning. It just teaches that sex is for married couples, is primarily for procreation rather than recreation or stress relief, and that is it fine for such couples to engage in sex on a schedule or even at an age that makes pregnancy unlikely so long as they are aware of and open to the possibility of new life resulting from the encounter. The Church is opposed to chemical or mechanical, maybe even electrical, prevention of conception for the purpose of recreational or therapeutic sexual encounters. And of course the Catholic Church, along with Southern Baptists, is staunchly opposed to abortions. (Yes, I'm aware that many Catholics don't practice what the Church preaches and that lots of Baptists drink.)
So, what is the administration thinking? Is the objective to test the resolve of Catholics? Is it to put the Catholic health care providers out of business as part of the federal takeover of health care in the United States? Or maybe they are just thinking that it will be a great tragedy if, in the future, nine year old boys will have to warn their peers not to ever have a girlfriend who works at a Catholic Hospital because, if they do, they may have to pay for the birth control pills!
Please, can we get a little relief from government overreach?
Tweet
Follow @dkw2020
Catholic hospitals are in the news now because the Obama administration has determined that they must provide “free” chemical birth control and chemical (maybe) abortions to their employees as part of the health insurance plans they offer. Of course the Catholic Church, as I, a relatively new Catholic understand it, is not opposed at all to birth control and family planning. It just teaches that sex is for married couples, is primarily for procreation rather than recreation or stress relief, and that is it fine for such couples to engage in sex on a schedule or even at an age that makes pregnancy unlikely so long as they are aware of and open to the possibility of new life resulting from the encounter. The Church is opposed to chemical or mechanical, maybe even electrical, prevention of conception for the purpose of recreational or therapeutic sexual encounters. And of course the Catholic Church, along with Southern Baptists, is staunchly opposed to abortions. (Yes, I'm aware that many Catholics don't practice what the Church preaches and that lots of Baptists drink.)
So, what is the administration thinking? Is the objective to test the resolve of Catholics? Is it to put the Catholic health care providers out of business as part of the federal takeover of health care in the United States? Or maybe they are just thinking that it will be a great tragedy if, in the future, nine year old boys will have to warn their peers not to ever have a girlfriend who works at a Catholic Hospital because, if they do, they may have to pay for the birth control pills!
Please, can we get a little relief from government overreach?
Tweet
Follow @dkw2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)