Returning Thanks

If our power grids were to fail and our fuel supply chains were to be destroyed, we would, in just a few days, become a hunter gatherer society, foraging for food and drink, probably even without cash since the bank computers and ATM’s would be out of commission.  We would stop obsessing about obesity, and we would learn what hunger really is, all due to failure of the fragile infrastructure we have created and come to depend upon to feed more than 300 million people.  For a hint of what it would be like, just pay attention, next time there is a hurricane warning, to the speed with which store shelves are emptied of bread, milk, toilet paper, and wine, the essentials of American life.

Of course a few would have followed Glen Beck’s advice and stockpiled sealed containers of wheat or other such staples and would sit at home behind locked doors, blinds closed, armed, locked, and loaded, feeling smug and trying not to let their neighbors see how healthy they are, but that would not be sustainable.  The supplies would run out or “cabin fever” would set in or thieves would break in and steal and all but employees of US Government Health and Human Services, which would be charged with confiscation and distribution of all available food and water, would end up hungry, though hopefully not starving.  Expect lots of peanut butter.

All of which makes me think of the simple acts of giving thanks for or asking for blessing of our food.  

I don’t recall our family, during my youth, having a consistent tradition of prayer before meals, but my maternal grandfather, Oscar Shelly, at family gatherings, always called on Uncle Andy, his pastor son-in-law, to “return thanks.”  I don’t remember anything about Uncle Andy’s prayers except that he had a preacher’s voice and prayed with confidence, but that phrase, “return thanks,” has stuck with me.

The basis for our Christian tradition of giving thanks for our food is two instances in the New Testament, Jesus feeding the 5000 and the Last Supper at both of which, scripture tells us, Jesus gave thanks before serving (See verses below).  There is also an instance of St. Paul, suffering shipwreck, encouraging the crew members to eat.  After urging them to eat, “he took bread; and giving thanks to God in the presence of all, he broke it and began to eat.”  I assume the others eventually helped themselves.  They probably even gave thanks to their gods, considering their precarious positions.

There are two instances also of Jesus “blessing” bread or food before serving, at an earlier crowd feeding and at the feeding of his disciples on the road to Emmaus where Jesus was “made known to them in the breaking of the bread.”  I didn't find accounts of Jesus giving thanks or blessing the food when he ate with Pharisees or when he received water from the Samaritan woman at the well, though he may well have done so.

I’ve never been comfortable initiating giving thanks publicly in restaurants and other public venues since I tend to be self conscious and it always makes me think of Jesus’ warning about making a show of praying in public.  Meaningful prayer to God seems to demand losing consciousness of one’s surroundings and one’s self and focusing only on God, a difficult task for me in noisy and crowded restaurants and mixed company.  But, I can handle it just with immediate family at our own table.

Of course I am always ready to pray when asked to do so and will bow and listen respectfully when others pray, even if I find myself somewhat out of tune with the prayer.  And, if you see me staring down at a plate of food in some public place, don’t assume I am trying to figure out what it is and whether to eat it.  I am probably saying, “Thank you Heavenly Father for this food,” trying to be mindful that Jesus, and not that wonderful stuff on the plate, is the “Bread of Life.”

I am truly thankful for the abundance of food in so much of the world and pray for those who do not enjoy such bounty.  And, I am thankful for our incredibly complex infrastructure which serves us so well, and a bit worried about it. 

To end on a humorous note, take a look at this old clip ofJimmy Stewart as Charlie Anderson giving thanks before a family dinner in the movie Shenandoah, a depiction of pre-infrastructure days.  It is probably a pretty accurate glimpse of the culture of the Scotch-Irish ancestors of a good part of today’s US population.  Had President Obama been at the table, he might have said, “Charlie, you didn't do that.  The US Government let you settle here, and God provided that soil and rain and sunshine.”  And they both would have been partly right.

_______________________________________________________________

Theological Note:  Many Christians see a clear link between the mass feedings by Jesus, the offering of his own body and blood at the Last Supper, Eucharist or Thanksgiving, and his claim to be the “bread of life” and then, after the resurrection, his disciples recognizing him on the road to Emmaus “in the breaking of the bread.”  The whole story, even back to the feeding of manna to the crowds in Exodus, is pulled together in John 6. 

Matthew 14:19  Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds.

Matthew 15:35-36  Then ordering the crowd to sit down on the ground,  ³⁶ he took the seven loaves and the fish; and after giving thanks he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds.

Matthew 26:27-28   Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you;  ²⁸ for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 6:41  Taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before the people; and he divided the two fish among them all.

Mark 8:6  Then he ordered the crowd to sit down on the ground; and he took the seven loaves, and after giving thanks he broke them and gave them to his disciples to distribute; and they distributed them to the crowd.

Mark 14:22-24   While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body."  ²³ Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it.  ²⁴ He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Luke 22:17-20  Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, "Take this and divide it among yourselves;  ¹⁸ for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."  ¹⁹ Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."  ²⁰ And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Luke 24:30-31  When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them.  ³¹ Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight.

John 6:11  Then Jesus took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted.

John 6:53-56  So Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.  ⁵⁴ Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;  ⁵⁵ for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.  ⁵⁶ Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.

Acts 27:33-35  Just before daybreak, Paul urged all of them to take some food, saying, "Today is the fourteenth day that you have been in suspense and remaining without food, having eaten nothing.  ³⁴ Therefore I urge you to take some food, for it will help you survive; for none of you will lose a hair from your heads."  ³⁵ After he had said this, he took bread; and giving thanks to God in the presence of all, he broke it and began to eat.

1 Corinthians 11:23-24  For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread,  ²⁴ and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

Church Labels and Modifiers: Liberal, Conservative, Etc.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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 16^th 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, clarification of the relationships of works, grace, faith, and justification seems to have been Luther’s goal.

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.  Because Adam was created righteous, with no need of justification, and was given the gardening task by God, that task “would truly have been the freest of works, done only to please God and not to obtain righteousness…”[ix] 

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 in the Epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians.

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 in the History of Christian Thought (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1964), 340.

[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: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1964.

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity, vol. 2, The Reformation to the Present Day. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1985.

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