As did countless pilgrims before and after him, Luther climbed the 28 steps of Rome’s Santa Scala on his knees.
When it comes to how God relates to us, how God gives to us, we have something of a problem on our hands.
It seems more than obvious to point out that we live in a world filled with conditions, limits and expiration dates.
We are used to being told to act now, to study hard, to exercise at least 30 minutes a day, to drive the speed limit, or else we will miss out on the deal, won’t do very well in school, will have health problems, or will be in danger of receiving a speeding ticket.
These are not bad things, not at all.
The reality is this: In the conditional world in which we live, we come to believe that we can add to — or take away from — our lives.
While not problematic in and of itself, the real trouble comes when we think we can add to — or take away from — how God relates to us.
We try hard to put conditions on how God loves, forgives and saves us.
This kind of thinking was not foreign to Luther as he grew up.
Teachings of the time
Living under the popular medieval theological idea that each person is to “do what is in one” (facere quod in se est), Luther was taught that God’s gifts were boarded up and unleashed only after a person did everything in their power. Then, and only then, would God “do the rest” by giving people what is promised.
Some use the image of a staircase to identify how God conditionally relates to God’s people.
God stands on the top step; people stand on the bottom. By doing what is in them, people are able to ascend the steps to God. When they sin, or don’t somehow do all that they can, they either stand still or descend the staircase away from God.
The image suggests that in our relationship with God we are engaged in nothing more or less than divine step aerobics.
The result of such “exercising” is that people are in terror about whether they have, indeed, done “what is in (them)” so that God, by God’s grace, can complete what we’ve begun.
This was certainly true for Luther. Completely terrorized by the possibility that he hadn’t “done what was in (him),” Luther spent hours on end in the confessional describing the ways that he had fallen short. By so doing, he was hoping that then he would know the fullness of God’s forgiveness and love.
What Luther found at the end of the day, though, was not that he was wrapped in what God gives by “doing what was in (him).”
The only thing Luther gained from doing all he had done was pure exhaustion and further terror from all of the divine step aerobics.
New understanding
Luther discovered something that rocked his medieval worldview, and changed the way he — and we — understand how God gives to us. Luther realized that God doesn’t wait for us to do our part before God does what God promises to do for us.
Fully, Luther came to understand, God forgives, loves and saves us completely apart from anything we do or do not do. When this came to light, it was for Luther as if “the gates of heaven were opened to me.”
Such news clangs in our ears, however.
“I have to do something,” we retort. “God isn’t going to do God’s thing with or for us without our first believing, right?”
When faith — or anything else God gives — is turned from a gift God gives to something we need to do first to earn God’s favor, we reveal something rather telling about ourselves.
We do not trust that God gives as God promises.
We do not trust God.
This is the very definition of the confession, “(W)e are captive to sin and cannot free ourselves.”
We actually like doing divine step aerobics, thank you very much.
We would rather live in the terror of the law than the grace of the gospel.
Yet God will not have it. God’s gifts are neither something for which we barter nor prizes which we have earned.
Abundant gifts
For when God gives — and God does give, wholly and completely — we, like Jonah, “come to (ourselves).” We are left awestruck.
Dumbfounded. Surprised.
Where and when we want to hop back on the staircase to do our recommended daily allowances of divine step aerobics, God is the one who makes a move.
God comes down the staircase, gifts in hand, ready to dole them out to us who are caught empty-handed.
When God reaches us, God hands them out, as the one who sews seeds.
God throws caution to the wind and hands out God’s gifts with wild abandon. Foolishly. Freely. For us.
When we speak of grace alone, we mean to say something unconditional about the way God gives to us who are not ready and yet waiting for God’s presence and work among us.
God gives. We receive. Fully and completely.
In this there is hope.
Paul Lutter is a visiting instructor at Gustavus Adolphus College. He is working toward his Ph.D. from Luther Seminary.
Forde has taken this imagery a bit further, too, identifying both our upward ascent on the stairs as us trying to be as gods (original sin, no less!) and Christ's action as God coming down the steps and showing us a completely different way to God.
I agree that there is hope, but at this time in history I think we must revisit the notion of Sola Gratia -- Grace Alone. In my view, Grace "Alone" is the main reason for the decline of the ELCA. In the last 40 years, church is no longer about Lefse or being Norwegian. We have begun to think and ask questions. We had Faith. We tried being saved by Grace Alone. It didn't work. We ended up on the soccer field on Sunday mornings. After all, if we're saved by Grace Alone, who needs the church?
The more philosophical among us asked: If it's Grace Alone, shouldn't we be like angels -- without Free Will? It is true that God initiates our Salvation with Grace, and finishes it with Grace... but we have Free Will. This is where the Church, the Sacraments, and all the rest come in... the Church of Martin Luther... before October 31, 1517.
I disagree with Karen. Grace Alone is not the 'main' reason for the decline of the ELCA. Grace alone is a radical and hard to comprehend theological insight in scripture that many, if not most, Christians either misunderstand or reject. It is easier to follow a hard and fast set of rules or commandments that are well defined. If you do not go to church, you will go to hell when you die. Luther opened our eyes and hearts to a gracious and merciful God who is bigger than that.
The Lutheran understanding of grace is that it is free, unearned, BUT the loving response to that grace is what and how much can I DO to please and spend time closer to God who loves me unconditionally.
I agree completely with Linda about the wonderful importance of Grace, and that our works are simply a loving response to a loving God. There is no contradiction here with the teachings of the Universal, Catholic, Church. What Luther missed, I think, is that it is not a question of "either/or" but "both" -- we need both Grace and the guidance of the "commandments," the teachings of the Apostles. I was saddened by the comment about missing church and going to hell. This is an old, old stereotype, and I believe we can now see that it is a misunderstanding -- probably going back to the time of Luther. With Grace on one side and the commandments on the other, we climb the Santa Scala, "Jacob's Ladder."
Karen,
Luther didn't miss it, he outright rejected it. The contradiction comes as soon as you make it a "both". If Grace alone is insufficient, it's not really Grace. If following the commandments are even the least bit necessary, salvation is on us, and not on Jesus Christ alone and only. That's actually a very good thing for us, because we don't follow the commandments. Not enough for it to count in any sense. The Law always accuses.
Perhaps the best place to start is to look hard at Jesus' life. He died a criminal's death on a cross. He didn't climb Jacob's Ladder. God's glory isn't revealed up in the sky only after we've climbed Jacob's Ladder, but down here on earth, on a cross, at a tomb. The action is down here, and it is God's action for sinners, not even for "repentent sinners" or any other qualification on that.
I'm with Karen V.
Let's not forget we are saved by grace through faith. Luther was definitely not an antinomian . His writings on certain people behaving badly, demonstrates that he wanted people to not do bad works.
The Carthusian monks deserve to be hated (Luther’s Works Vol. 3 p. 251-252)
"one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants".
Space won't allow for all of the quotes from Luther on good behavior.
The "grace alone" of Luther was just not as all powerful as it has become in today's church. Luther is speaking about behavior that is so bad that the people behaving this way deserve to be hated. And again, lazy people deserve to get thrown out by the seat of their pants. Why is Luther so fired up about bad behavior here if being good wasn't important to him?
I find it impossible to completely divorce Luther from good works, or behavior. Many of his writings read like a "how to be good" book. From what I have read of Luther, I come away with "we are saved by grace alone and we should act like it".
David Lose writes about the "staircase" in the context of compromising our values: "I realize that if you think the Christian life is an ongoing quest to improve or to become holy, then compromising can sound like a bad thing." Yes, God's Grace is infinite, but we also believe that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. Luther said: "Law and Gospel." Both.
It is true that Jesus did not ascend some sort of "staircase," but we believe that he was God, he was perfect. We are sinners. We need to follow a way of holiness and learn in the "School of Character." With the guidance of Grace and the light of the Word, we learn to "run in the way of the commandments" and finish the race with St. Paul.
First and Second Uses of the Law is what Luther is speaking of with all of his condemnations of various sins. Grace alone does not mean that sin does not exist, but that grace comes in spite of the sin, and specifically as healing for that sin. It's not just some metaphysical transaction, but grace heals the sin.
This is the Law/Gospel distinction: Law convicts and points out our error, but it does not save. It is the Gospel that saves entirely and on its own. That salvation is not assistance to go back and fulfill the Law, but righteousness entirely apart from the Law.
It is "walking in the Spirit" "having the mind of Christ", etc, etc. Receiving the Gospel is no longer about "you gotta" but "you get to". It's not a command, or a list of things that must be done.
Peter -- "First and Second Uses of the Law"? -- I think we should keep things simple. I do know from experience that just receiving the Gospel does not keep me from sinning, and who on earth keeps a "list of things that must be done"? That sounds like outdated stereotyping.
Karen,
Sorry about that. Although Luther rejected works righteousness as a precondition for salvation, he did have an awful lot to say about God's Law-- which is all of those commandments in the Bible, every 'do this to be holy' and even all of the secular 'do this good thing for society' (think stopping for red lights) rules. According to the Reformers, all of these rules have exactly 2 (or 3, depending on how you read it) uses, none of which are to make one holy or allow one to accomplish salvation. The First Use of the Law refers to the use of God's Law in ordering and structuring society. Things like forbidding murder, theft, or the various marriage laws in Scripture are the easiest examples of how the Law functions in this use. One example of God's Law regarding marriage is Levirate marriage (your younger brother marrying your wife if you died). This existed to protect women in a culture where they had few/no rights.
The Second Use of the Law is the Law in its accusatory function. It reveals our sin, shows us how we fall short. It is our guilty conscience as well as the arresting cop (but not limited to these!) saying that we are judged and found wanting. It's terrible news, knowing that we are in rebellion against God and deserving of death. There is no escape.
It is the Gospel alone and only that saves us. It is new life in the face of the death brought about by the Law, and this is accomplished by Jesus Christ dying on the cross for us and being raised by God. This is not something we are owed, or can even reasonably expect, but a totally free gift given to undeserving sinners. That gift breaks through our reality of sin and death and brings new life.
As you note, though, in practice there aren't a whole lot of suddenly perfect people walking around. That's because the old life within us has not been put to death. There is new life living within us as well, created by God's Promise, but on this side of the grave we live in this tension between sinner and saint. Hence, Luther speaks of his need to "daily drown the Old Adam in the waters of Baptism". This tension is not about whether you have lived the Law or not on a given day (because you fail each and every day), but about being forgiven by God again and again.
So far, I've left one "Use" of the Law out, which people call "Third Use". After Luther's and Melancthnon's deaths, there was discussion about the role of the Law in the life of the Christian and its use as an ethical guide. To settle this, they came up with the Formula of Concord, specifically Article 6, which unfortunately isn't as clear as one might hope.
The simplest way to lay out the discussion on (and problems with) the Third Use is here (scroll down to "Luther Seminary
Handout for students in the Ethics Class"): http://www.crossings.org/thursday/2010/thur082610.shtml
Thank you, Peter, for your good explanation, but let's return to Lutter's "staircase." You bring up the word "perfect." Jesus said: "Be ye perfect." I think confusion comes when, in our pre-occupation with the solas -- God does it all -- we don't separate Salvation (the matter of a moment) and Sanctification (becoming holy, the "staircase"). Both. Two things, not sola (one) -- like two feet on a staircase.
The more I read and study, the more I am convinced that there has been a big misunderstanding. The study of 16th century Scholastic-like teachings about the Law -- triplex usus legis -- has its place, but how can we become holy in a church that allows and condones divorce and re-marriage, abortion, and now same-sex relations?
Jesus says 'be perfect', but that's Law in both of its uses. First use: society functioning works if we are all perfect. Second-use: none of us are perfect, and in fact, none of us can be perfect (today's lesson, St Paul described it great). The Gospel: we are made perfect through Jesus' death and resurrection for us. His perfection replaces our imperfection, whether that is divorce, abortion, or whatever. That's how we are holy in a world (or even church) of divorce, abortion, etc. We don't deserve it, we don't earn it on our own. But it is given to us as a completely free gift.
There is no contradiction with St Paul. This is only common sense. If I divorce and re-marry, like Henry VIII; if I abort my babies, etc., I am not living a holy life. You are interpreting the Scriptures through the eyes of Luther. The real question is: Who has the authority to interpret the Scriptures?
I, like you Karen V., do not think that Jesus and literally all of the NT authors were speaking with tongue in cheek when giving all of their instruction on how we should behave. What I have been saying while commenting in many previous posts, I just read on another post.
"Your belief that we ought to confront sin with the Gospel was taken up by Johann Agricola, a student of Luther who asserted just that - we use Gospel and love to confront the sinner, not Law. This view was thoroughly rejected by the reformers and labeled "Antinomianism".
This "antinomianism" of Luther's day has evolved into "universalism" in today churches. That is salvation without the need for Christ. You might as well eat, drink, and be merry because no matter what you do while you are here on earth, you are still heaven bound whether you want to go or not. It would be great if it were true; but I certainly am not buying it.
On July 3rd Peter wrote: "The Gospel: we are made perfect through Jesus' death and resurrection for us. His perfection replaces our imperfection, whether that is divorce, abortion, or whatever. That's how we are holy in a world (or even church) of divorce, abortion, etc. We don't deserve it, we don't earn it on our own. But it is given to us as a completely free gift."
Now, I am just an ordinary person and I am a little overweight. I know that if I want to lose weight, I have to diet. I am also a Christian and I believe (and even know in my heart) that I am saved. But ask anyone in my family: I am not holy. If I want to become holy, I have to work at it.
Even a child knows that people do not magically become holy by Jesus' death and resurrection. Luther wrote many volumes, but where is common sense? We simply must separate Salvation (the matter of a moment) and Sanctification (the work of a lifetime). Do we instantly become holy the minute we die if we have lived a sinful life?
davebob,
When have I said that Christ is unnecessary for salvation? Also, antinomianism isn't quite 'salvation without need for Christ', which is a rejection of the Gospel. It's rejecting the Law. Interestingly, it's also the one thing none of us can actually accomplish, since God lays His Law on us whether we want it or not.
Karen,
Sanctification is largely just a way of disguising works-righteousness. The "work of a lifetime" is a series of moments, which is why Luther speaks of the need to daily drown the Old Adam in the waters of Baptism. We don't get measurably any further up the holiness ladder no matter how long we live. Thinking that we do will take us in the wrong direction.
This is the Gospel: even though we are not holy, God looks upon us and sees Jesus' holiness. This is not received by common sense nor reason, this is received by faith (a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Greeks, no less!). Trust in that Promise is what reveals both our own holiness and that of others. Even the vilest offender can be made holy through Christ.
Yes, in this life we will squander that free gift of holiness. That's why we live in a series of moments, because even as we waste God's gift, Jesus comes again and again. Or to put it a bloodier way, we crucify Jesus again and again, yet we can't kill Him.
The imagery I best understand for the afterlife is the Day of Judgment, where we stand before God to face judgment for our lives. There we will be lost, except for Jesus given for us.
Peter:
You write: "Sanctification is largely just a way of disguising works-righteousness.... We don't get measurably any further up the holiness ladder no matter how long we live."
This is simply not true. What about all the Saints? St. Paul. St. Francis. Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Look at their lives.
Peter:
One other thought. We all talk about "learning experiences" -- The School of Hard Knocks -- and if we profit from them, we become "better persons." The New Agers say that the purpose of life is "to learn lessons" to make us better in another life.
You say: "The imagery I best understand for the afterlife is the Day of Judgment, where we stand before God to face judgment for our lives. There we will be lost, except for Jesus given for us." Does this mean that if I die a miserable drunk or whatever, and I stand before God, Jesus will magically make me pure and holy? This is what I mean by common sense.
Sorry Peter,
I would definitely not put you in with the "universalism "crowd. I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with your stance on "Christ alone and only". But I think you know that my statement below still holds water.
This "antinomianism" of Luther's day has evolved into "universalism" in today churches. That is salvation without the need for Christ.
When Lutter says "“I have to do something,” we retort. “God isn’t going to do God’s thing with or for us without our first believing, right?” When faith — or anything else God gives — is turned from a gift God gives to something we need to do first to earn God’s favor, we reveal something rather telling about ourselves.".....is Lutter saying that non-believers are also saved? I'm a bit confused by his statement here...can someone explain if this is what he means?
murdub, Paul Lutter would have to further explain to you what he means, but I think his posted explanation comes from Luther's theology of Grace Alone, Faith Alone (sola gratia, sola fide). You might want to try looking at John 3:18, but then you will be left wondering what it means. In my humble opinion, I think we need to ask the larger question: Who has the authority to interpret the Scriptures?
Karen,
St Paul didn't improve into a better human being. Jesus knocked him off his donkey and created new life within him. Even aside from controversy over whether Mother Theresa caused more harm with certain beliefs (ie use of contraception) than good, her works don't get her anywhere closer to Heaven. She can't make it, St Francis can't make it, St Peter can't make it, none of them can make it. Nor does Jesus lead them up the ladder slowly, as though one can't be ready for Heaven at 18, or 35, but only once one reaches 70. Look at the people Jesus saves in the Gospel. Blind Bartimaeus, a syrophoneician woman we never hear of again... or even last week's sermon about sowing-- God sows seed in all of us, and God's Word does not come back to God empty.
Nor do I think learning experiences make us "better" people. Different people, but the problem is your definition of "better" and even what it means to "profit" from such an experience. I think it's really important to keep the cross front and center here. The apex of Jesus' earthly career was being beaten, mocked and crucified. None of that made Him a better person, nor did he profit from that experience. Jesus was raised by God. Would He have been any less resurrected if a soldier had hit Him one fewer times, or if they hadn't been able to find a crown of thorns?
Yes, I believe that if you die a miserable drunk, and yet are given God's Promise, you will be saved. But salvation is not the reason to avoid being a drunk (or any of our other morals). Being a drunk or any other violation carries its own consequences with it, and that's reason enough. Consider all of the atheists out there and how they're not all out raping, murdering, stealing, terrorizing, etc. They live under God's Law, too, even if they don't want to call it that.
davebob,
No prob. I think in other places you've suggested my view is antinomian, which is why I took the implication that you were saying I was a universalist.
murdub,
Not to speak for Lutter, but here's what I think it means: God is an electing God. It is up to God, and God alone, who is saved and who is not, through no merit of our own. That means for all we hold up Mother Theresa, or your favorite saint, they didn't earn their way into Heaven, and justice actually demands that they go to Hell. Now, the Good News is that God saves us unrighteous, made through Jesus' cross and resurrection. Faith receives that Good News, and the only way we can have faith enough is if God creates it in us. This is why we can speak of that saving faith-- it is necessary to receive God's promise of new life.
The catch is that we can't create it ourselves, which requires a new way of viewing "non-believers", since the only difference between a non-believer and a Christian is whether God has given that person the gift of faith. The other crazy thing about this electing God's promise is that we are given the authority to tell anyone and everyone that they have been elected by this God and God promises to honor it on account of Jesus' death and resurrection.
This is all very interesting, and I think we are all talking about more or less the same things -- just from different perspectives. What do you guys (davebob & Peter) think about the "P" word (Purgatory)? Isn't this, at worst, a common sense theological solution? I sometimes wonder about Dennis Rader, the BTK, a Lutheran in good standing. Will he go directly to Heaven?
Karen,
I see purgatory as a construct of works-righteousness. As I understand it, it's taking the idea that we need to earn our righteousness to the other side of the grave, with disasterous consequences for Christianity. Consider the statement in John's Gospel: "If the Son of Man sets you free, you will be free indeed." (John 8:36) No ifs, ands or buts about it. Either you're saved, and hence don't need purgatory, or you're not, and purgatory isn't going to help.
I think the closest I could come to purgatory would be if we all went to Hell long enough to realize we'd gone there prior to any saving action by Jesus. Again, though, it wouldn't be purgatory in any normal sense of the word, since the suffering wouldn't be earning one anything, and it would be the same place as Hell. While I'm not clear time would have any meaning at that point, if it did, I wouldn't expect it to correlate with our notions of how righteous someone was.
Then again, it also depends on what you mean by the code-words "Hell" and "Heaven". Both kingdoms break into earth enough that I think we can speak of people being in Hell while here (as well as the Kingdom of Heaven being present in our midst). Nor can I imagine standing before God in judgment to be anything remotely resembling pleasant. Yet without any physical moving, it is God's judgment that dictates whether when we stand before God we are in Heaven or in Hell.
Peter: What you've written brings me back to my original thought that this whole thing (The Reformation)has been a misunderstanding. I like your use of "code-words." That's good. I guess I'm feeling feisty this morning, so I will take on your statement "with disastrous consequences for Christianity." Last time I checked, the church that teaches the doctrine of purgatory had 68+ million members in the US, and is growing and flourishing in spite of horrendous attacks. Churches that do not teach this doctrine are in a nose-dive, both in revenues and membership. "disastrous consequences"?
One other thought: Consider: "Truly I tell you, you will never get out [of prison] until you have paid the last penny. " Jesus, Mt 5:26. Even if Dennis Rader spends 500 years in prison on Earth, will he have paid the last penny?
murdub: To get back to your question, I can only tell you what helped me answer difficult questions -- I read The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis. Since the book was written before the 16th century, but close enough to modern times, it avoids a lot of confusion.
Regarding Peter's advice: "Election" sounds like Calvinism to me -- the later Lutheran reformers rejected this. I don't know why Peter brings it up.
Peter: Re. your comment 7/16 12:02, our Faith is dynamic, not static. Jesus says LEARN from me (Mt 11:29). As everyone knows, learning is the process of becoming "better" in some way. Jesus also tells a parable about a fig tree taking a few years to bear fruit (Lk 13:6-9). "Saved and that's it": This is where Luther and his followers went off the rails, and Luther himself died a grouchy old man.
Karen,
I'm not sure what you mean by "misunderstanding". The Reformers were very deliberate in their rejection of practices that are contrary to the Gospel. They knew exactly what they were doing. That's what the Augsburg Confession, the Confutation and Apology are all about. Check the Confutation (which is the RC response to the Confession) to Article IV and subsequent Apology.
As to election, it turns out that free will isn't really a Lutheran concept. In Bondage of the Will Luther argues the very point with Erasmus. I think Forde's understanding is a bit clearer to modern audiences: it's probably better called "Captivation of the Will". The basic premise is this: if we really, truly have free will, then one could stop sinning.
To churches, I'm not sure that I'd describe Catholicism as "flourishing" in the US or Europe. Both areas are becoming mission fields pretty much across the board. Nor are numbers even a reasonable way of measuring success. Willow Creek comes immediately to mind as a concrete reason why not.
I agree that faith is dynamic and that we learn as we go through life. I might even agree with the statement that our faith can grow as we go through life. However, the size of our faith is not important-- faith the size of a grain of a mustard seed is sufficient for saving-- it's that we are given any measure of faith. (I also can't resist pointing out that in the same part where Jesus says 'learn from me', He also says that His burden is light)
Matthew 5:26 is Law. The answer to your question about Rader is 'no'. Nor can your or I pay unto the last penny. This is what Jesus is all about. On account of His suffering, death and resurrection, our accounts are 'paid in full'. That's what God's Promise is all about and why we share it with anyone and everyone.
Well, Peter, I just checked and we are on comment #30, but this blog did start out with a photo of a nice Catholic boy climbing the Santa Scala on his knees, so I guess my comment is fair game. You may have really opened a can of worms (not Worms) with your comment: "The Reformers were very deliberate in their rejection of practices that are contrary to the Gospel." Yipe. About a million things come to mind, but what about divorce and re-marriage? Jesus was crystal clear about this, and the NT Scripture refs. are too many to type out. Also, (and how can I put this delicately?), what about Sodomy? Is that contrary to the Gospel? What about killing a child by Abortion, co-habitation (the Lutheran gay clergy live together w/o the blessing of marriage), female priests, goddess worship... is that enough?
Regarding the "flourishing" Catholic Church, I live in the Miami area, and it's flourishing down here. Also, I have read several articles recently in major publications that give the stats for the CC and the Mainline Protestant Churches. The CC is growing and the Protestant churches are dwindling. I don't know how you can ignore the stats.
Karen,
Thread hijacking is part of internet life, and I'm certainly guilty of hijacking my share of threads here. I leave it up to the moderators to decide whether they're going to smack down hijacking (which would be foolish as it stops spontaneous conversation) or suffer it.
I wonder how much of the RC "flourishing" in the US is due to immigration from Catholic countries. World-wide, there are places where the Lutheran churches are making wide gains, like Africa.
There's a lot in your list, but I'll focus on divorce and briefly answer the others. Co-habitation where the state refuses to sanction marriage is a special case, and I think homosexual sex is required by any martial covenants involving two people of the same gender. Failing to ordain women I see as contrary to the Gospel and abortion is a whole different issue.
To look at divorce legally, though, Jesus was pretty clear about it. However, He was also pretty clear about the use of violence (do not resist one who is evil, turn the other cheek, speaking in anger is murder, healing the ear of the high priest's slave), and the 10 Commandments forbid murder, yet the state is given the right to wage war and kill people (which should be clear from Leviticus, etc where it orders the Jewish people aka state to kill people committing other crimes). I could also pose the hypothetical possibility where one is in a position to kill or not kill someone about to kill one or more children/old persons/priests/lovers/etc. So, our world is complicated enough that figuring out what God's Law is is not always straightforward. Same case for divorce. Abusive marriages, for example, are a good example of marriage being demonized by sin. The best legal solution there is is to root out the sin, which could require the destruction of the corrupted marriage. The state is entrusted with this power to regulate the termination of marriage to minimize the losses to sin-- which is why it needs to deal with equitable distribution of goods, custody of children, etc. Of course, being sinners, we'll corrupt these rules too, and so our state has more rules to try to fix that corruption, and so on to infinity. This is part of what it means that the Law cannot save. Legally, though, divorce is necessary as a guard against the demonization of marriage.
Divorce or counseling may be about as deep as the Law can handle, but the problem goes deeper. The corruption of a marital relationship is waging war on God. The problem isn't just publicly admitting the end of a relationship that has been corrupted/destroyed, or even the corruption/destruction of the relationship. Those things are collateral damage in our war against God. Banning divorce doesn't fix the problem. It just traps people in demonized relationships that they will continue to wreck in their war against God. In order to fix the problem, we need to get to the root cause, which is our war on God. No amount of counselling or rules about marriage can fix that problem. Only God can fix that problem, which is done through Jesus' death and resurrectino for us. That's the fix we have for our rebellion against God. That healing Word ends our war on God and frees us to create a new relationship in place of that demonized one. Maybe that new relationship can be a renewal of the marriage; maybe it is simply the respect and love given to a friend going in a different way. Either way, divorce is not relevant so far as salvation is concerned or the Church.
Peter:
Thank you for your thoughtful response. The good news here, I think, is that at least we have identified some of the main questions. I can see that you have studied theology; so have I, just a little. I know very well, in order to answer these questions, we would have to write long papers, and this is just a blog.
This is also good. It forces us to be concise. You have asked me several times about my use of the word "misunderstanding." I will try to answer -- briefly. I picked up this word from "Tim" Lull in 1972, when he was pastor of Grace Lutheran Church in Needham, MA. I think Tim meant (he died in '03) that Luther and the Pope just got into a "misunderstanding" that "spiraled out of control." Luther got angry, the Pope dug in his heels, and the rest is history.
What I took away from Tim's word is: Keep the reforms, lose the schism. Personally, I think this is the Will of God. To me, it is what Jesus seems to be saying in John 17:21.
Karen,
In some senses, those across denominations are closer than ever. In other senses, we're further away than ever before. The biggest stumbling block (practically) is ritual. Then the theology is also an issue. Some Lutherans do view the papacy as an antichrist, for example.
Then Peter, my friend, you have no idea of how close we are! Michelle Bachman just left the Wisconsin Synod because it calls the Pope the Anti-Christ. (Really, what sane person today believes that?) Ritual? Oh my goodness. I don't know what to say. It is impossible that this could be a "stumbling block." I mean, I can't stand Benedict's red shoes -- I liked John Paul's white shoes much better. Does this really make a difference? Does it matter whether I stand or kneel during the Consecration? Does God really care? There are some theological things -- that is true -- but I like to think they are a "misunderstanding."
Karen,
Speaking of shoes, I do think "antichrist" fits more often than not for the papacy. Not in the sense of 'Satan's personal incarnation in the world to bring about 1000 years of suffering', but as something that stands directly opposed to, and in the way of, proclaiming the Gospel. Antichrist in the same sense that St Peter was an antichrist when he rebuked Jesus in Matt 16:22-23. Then again, I think the God-problem the Catholic church has is making an idol of the church. For example, when there were accusations that the church hierarchy protected sex offenders, the Catholic church absolutely moved to protect the institution above all else. Individual priests or bishops could be sinners, but the Catholic church fights tooth and nail at any suggestion that the institution could have been demonized. Instead, the CC should have owned up to the institution's role and asked forgiveness.
Peter: Usually I would not respond to a comment like this, but I have a little free time these days, so I will, just not now. For now, I will just say "Wow." (Is there anyone else in the ELCA who shares these views?)
Peter: Your comment (7/19) reveals our "misunderstanding" in it's most dismal aspect. Since this post is now on Page 4, I do not know how many people will read this, but even if it's only you, it will be worth spending a few minutes to dispel your dismal misconceptions.
Philip Jenkins, an Episcopalian, has written a number of books on the subject. Here is a quote from him: "My research of cases over the past 20 years indicates no evidence whatever that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination -- or indeed, than nonclergy. However determined news media may be to see this affair as a crisis of celibacy, the charge is just unsupported."
As for not apologizng, Pope Benedict has apologized many times. Perhaps you were not listening.
As for the CC making an "idol out of the church," well that's just laughable. I used to hear stuff like this when I was a kid, but I really thought it had died out.
As for serious theological matters (and none of these are), I will continue to write comments on other blogs -- unless, of course, the management choses to block me.
Karen,
I think you missed my point. My point about the sex scandal wasn't that Catholic priests are more likely to abuse kids, or that they're representative of the Catholic church or that the Pope has not apologized on account of them. The point was that the Pope apologized on their account, and not for the role that the institution itself known as the Catholic Church played in covering up the scandal. The Catholic Church has been very careful to keep the blame squarely on the shoulders of the offending priests and off of the organization as a whole. The accusations the church has defended most vigorously against are those that the Pope was involved as a cardinal and those that the institution itself enabled the abuse, both of which could be perceived to threaten the institution's authority. From where I see it, that's a sign that the church has become an idol. The wagons are circled around the institution-- and that's really bad because instead of the institution, the wagons should be circled around the Gospel.
Peter: I am glad that at least you said: "From where I see it." That is a sign, from where I see it, that at least you have a somewhat open mind. Of course the Church defended itself. The rash of accusations were off the charts -- and many were false. There has been abuse in all institutions on Earth, including the ELCA, since Adam and Eve abused the Garden of Eden. The LIBERAL MEDIA smelled blood in the water and went for it. Where you are totally mistaken is that you assume the Pope et al. saw this as a threat to the Church's authority. They know perfectly well that the Authority of Christ's Church comes from Him: Matthew 16:13-20. This is where the Protestants have gone completely off the rails. They wouldn't listen to Matthew Chapter 16, but they will very soon listen to Chapter 11.
Now let's talk about idols. I used to do door-to-door evangelization -- we used D. James Kennedy's "Evangelization Outreach." I was trained to "Present the Gospel" -- We are sinners. Christ died for us. Christ rose from the dead. Accept Christ and you will be saved. The Cross and Resurrection. Period. I cannot tell you what a turn-off this was to most people -- all, actually, except for a few disturbed housewives and drug addicts. This so-called "Gospel Message" can become very quickly an IDOL. If you do not see the message of the Gospel of Christ AS A WHOLE, then you will fall into this, and I think you have.