“Luther, Lefse and the Lutheran Book of Worship: What Does It Mean?” That was the “catchy” title of a six-week class I led about 10 years ago, intended as a follow-up to a new member/disciple class in my congregation.
As it turned out, a number of people came, including some who had been attending the congregation for many years. They came with their own questions about the essence of being Lutheran and whether they still fit in even though they had never eaten lefse nor memorized the Small Catechism as a child.
Living Lutheran is, for me, something that can’t be summed up by one’s ethnic heritage, or foods from “the old country,” or even any particular worship book or musical style.
My own particular Lutheran background was heavily influenced by growing up in a Southern city in which church potluck suppers meant fried chicken and barbecue rather than hotdish and lefse (which I never heard of until in my thirties!).
No, living Lutheran means two things which have been a constant for me from then until now.
Questions. Lots and lots of questions. And grace. Sheer undeserved, overwhelming, unstinting grace.
The questions, of course, include both the ones I ask and the ones asked of me. I grew up being asked versions of the quintessential Lutheran question: “What does this mean?”
Friends would ask why my church baptized babies, or used alcohol in communion, or had a huge stained-glass crucifix over the altar.
What did it mean that I was getting confirmed, and was I born again?
Questions continue
And that, I am convinced, has led to a lifetime of asking questions myself. Sometimes I get answers. Sometimes, I don’t. And sometimes, the answers I receive don’t satisfy me.
I keep coming back with more questions or the same basic question rephrased. I bring these questions into classes and meetings, into assembly discussions and council deliberations.
“What does it mean?” I ask. Does this proposed statement really say what it ought to say? Does this wording in this liturgy really convey the things we believe?
Does this great new idea really reflect what we know of the God made known to us in Christ crucified and raised from the dead?
Luther’s basic question, “What does this mean,” which is repeated throughout his Small Catechism, gives me permission to ask these questions, even when my questions put people on edge. Questions and the folks who ask them tend to do that.
We push, we prod, we dig and pick and burrow. We go back into the past hunting for precedents and background, while projecting scenarios into the future.
“What if we change this, what will it mean? What if we retrieve that, what might that do?”
Questions are viewed as a form of objecting, of raising arguments. Why can’t I just go along with the program? Why don’t I just take my questions and go away?
To live Lutheran doesn’t just mean asking questions of those around me, in this church and in my community; it also means asking God the two big questions: “What does this mean?” and “Why?”
How can I dare to do that? How can I dare to question God? Because I believe I live in God’s grace. I can ask questions, even ugly, rude and audacious questions, because I am not afraid of what God might do to me, the one asking such things.
I’ve been claimed as God’s precious child through baptism. I’ve been saved by the blood of the Lamb. I’ve been redeemed while I was yet a sinner.
I didn’t earn it by the things I do; I didn’t believe my way into God’s good standing.
God has overwhelmed me with the grace that comes as a free gift with no strings attached, and nothing and no one can take that away from me.
So I can blast my ugly, impolite, demanding questions at God. I can lay all the unfairness and injustice of the world before God, with accusations of God’s complicity in those situations.
I can complain about what I see as the hypocrisies and wrongs in the Christian church, and in my own corner of that institution.
I can pour out my soul in lament for wrong choices, hardness of heart, and foolish pride and ignorance, that of others as well as myself.
I may not get answers. My questions may not have answers. But I do get God, listening. I receive grace, whether I deserve it or not.
And I am assured that, for some of us, living Lutheran through our persistent, unrelenting questions is exactly what we are called to do.
This is a good article. I wonder if it doesn't gloss a little bit over some of the less pleasant aspects of being a sinner before God-- that sometimes (all too often?) God does answer, and we really don't like the answer. That for all we know the ending is good, it's going to be incredibly messy in the middle.
As a newly baptised Lutheran, I have alot of questions, but I am assured that God is patiently listening to me, however ignorant my questions seem to my own mind. I am comforted by Gods grace always.
It has been impressed upon me lately that the Bible tells us everything we need to know -- maybe not everything we want to know -- but everything necesary for our salvation. We spend a lot of time asking questions that will not be answered on this side of heaven. God gives us what we need -- no more, no less. We debate a lot of issues that the Bible and the Confessions speak to clearly. It is our sin that gets in the way of our understanding what scripture plianly teaches. Theology is faith seeking understanding. Without faith, we will never undrstand; with faith, we find that understanding is not of ultimate importance.
Well done, good and faithful servant!
I have been contemplating your statement about “not believing your way into God’s good standing”. I have heard many arguments lately about how impossible it is to please God, or get into His good standing. The argument usually is that “our best works are but filthy rags to the Lord”. I tend to agree with this passage, but I would also contend that when we do what Jesus tells us to do that theoretically, this should make Him happy. I believe that when we worship, pray, take communion, tithe, get baptized…etc, it pleases God. I believe that (salvation aside) doing these things, puts us in at least better, if not good standing with the Lord. It doesn’t make any sense to me that Jesus would tell us to do these things if it didn’t please Him somehow; especially if He becomes angry if we don’t do them. It’s almost like God only has two emotional expressions to some people; anger or indifference, there is no way of ever pleasing Him. Up until now I have never heard anyone put “believing” on the list of works that don’t help put us in good standing with God. If we don’t even have to believe, then there really is no such thing as free will is there? We will be saved even from the so called sin of unbelief. We will be saved even if we don't want to be saved. Disbelief, belief, same standing?
davebob,
I'd highly recommend Gerhard Forde's Theology is for Proclamation.
In short, Luther's argument in Bondage of the Will is specifically that we don't have free wills; they're captivated by sin.
I would say that God's judgment upon is indeed binary, but it's not anger/indifference but rather anger/ grace. The one and only way through which God's judgment changes from wrath to grace is Christ's death and resurrection, which is freely given to us. Our praying, worship, tithing, etc don't change the fact that Christ has died and been raised. None of those things earn us a favorable judgment in God's eyes. (the Sacraments are a communication of said Grace, a physical connecting of us sinners with the crucified and risen One) This is exactly what the parable of the Pharisee and Publican (Luke 18:9-14) is about.
So why does Jesus give us examples of the Law? The two reasons are the two Uses of the Law-- ordering society and convicting the sinner. Tithing, for example, keeps the physical aspects of the church running. If no one tithes, it's a lot harder to have a church building, rostered clergy, worship books, music, mission, etc. Also, tithing (or lack thereof) reveals sin. Consider someone who can afford to tithe, but does not. They choose not to because their heart is not in supporting the church's ministry. That miserly heart comes from their rebellion against God, which carries a death sentence. Even if they tithe, they're only really whitewashing the outward sign, or maybe trying to hide their rebellion against God. That rebellion is only ended by Christ crucified and risen for us. God, not us, ends our rebellion and creates new life within us. Through Christ, God creates new life within us, and it is that life that is pleasing to God. That new life carries with it a generous heart that freely gives as needed. That giving, especially of Christ crucified and risen, propagates the church.
Peter,
I guess the question still remains; if I don't want to go to heaven, will God force me to go anyway?
Of course we will always be sinners, but we are capable of doing good. We make these good and evil choices every day. If are wills were captivated only by sin, we would be unable to do good. Believer's wills are also captivated by the Holy Spirit who is helping us to become perfected in Christ by influencing our decisions.
I still think the Bible is the best place to get knowledge about God. If I read all the literature you have suggested, I would probably believe the same things you believe. This is not to say that extra- Biblical reading can't be helpful, but it is where all of the cults got started. Besides, I'm sure there are plenty of good books that would refute your positions. If God needed any further explanation of the Gospel, He would have given us more writings.
davebob,
That's a question the Old Adam asks. The answer is that the Old Adam must perish and it is the new creation within us that will go to heaven. There won't be any question of forcing, because the new creation will not want to be anything else.
Yes, the Holy Spirit brings freedom from the bondage of sin. But that freedom is the new creation made upon receiving that Spirit. It's not patching up the old to make it good enough, but creating something entirely new. The old ends and the new begins.
Knowledge about God is not what Christianity is about. Easiest illustration is a Greek translation. Knowledge= Gnosis, which is perhaps the earliest Christian heresy. Faith is not having enough God-knowledge, but it is trusting God's Promise made in Jesus' death and resurrection on the cross.
As to writings God has given us, what current (or in Forde's case, recently deceased) theologians say is one set of writings given by God, in a long history of writings by people reflecting upon the Gospel in their own current times. As Lutherans, for example, the Augsburg Confession is a very important one because it gives the key to making sense of the Bible. Plenty of people with the Bible never get it, and that's not because of additional writings, it's because the Bible must be interpreted.
Davebob, I am not discounting the value of believing, nor of theology and right teaching/understanding. And I do think that faith, as trust, needs and even requires content, which is the Lord Jesus Christ. My intention in my statement that I didn't believe my way into God's good standing is to strongly make the point, even to the extent of absurdity, that getting the theology "right" as my action isn't what creates or sustains this relationship with God. God does that all by himself, as a free gift. Anything I offer after that is pleasing to God insomuch as it (and I) are clothed in Christ's righteousness, not my own.
I tend to be pretty radically in the "I don't do anything/God does everything" camp; and I admit it strikes folks as being pretty offensive. I study theology and try to understand properly because I love this kind of discourse, and because I care so much about, to the best of my ability, knowing God and his ways thoroughly and correctly. I want my life to reflect Christ. But I trust that even if I am very wrong in many of my interpretations and understandings, my salvation was achieved on the cross. I can run the risk of being wrong. God's corrections come not in order to punish me but in order to refine me, for the sake of being his witness.
Davebob,
It's marvelous to see the Spirit at work creating faith and transforming even the most hardened hearts. Sometimes in our lives we might choose willfully to fight against God; but when the Spirit of God moves we might be so changed that we no longer fight against God but graciously recieve what God has done.I think you have a great question, "if I don't want to go to heaven, will God force me to go anyway?"
I sure do appreciate your challenge to use the Bible in our conversation first rather than refering to "extra-biblical" writings. Peter has been referring to some great theological works that are most definitely based in scripture and it would be good to put those scriptures out on the table here to answer your questions.
Ponder Jesus' words in John 3:8 for a moment.
thanks and peace to you
John
Peter, Erma Wolf, and John,
Peter,
There will always be old Adams asking questions. Apparently, the new Adam, who seems to have all the answers, won’t answer the old Adam’s questions.
You see now, I have never heard it said by anyone but you and the Mormon Church that “the Bible must be interpreted”. Mormon doctrine says the King James is a good book as long as it’s interpreted correctly, but it also says the book of Mormon is the most correct book of all. So you had better make sure your interpreter knows the truth. Oh, and by the way, whoever interpreted the Bible for your interpreter should be knowledgeable….Oh wait a minute, this interpretation thing has no end. By default, there must be a line of interpreters all the way back to the original writer. Now, where do we find an unbroken line of worthy interpreters?
Who interpreted the Bible for Luther? Whoever it was, apparently he didn’t listen to them because Luther started coming up with a lot of stuff on his own and in conjunction with other reformers who apparently didn’t listen to their interpreters.
The very reason they gathered in Nicaea in 352AD was in response to Arius’ heretical interpretation of scripture. The early church was afraid for men’s souls because of errant belief. Some folks found the Rev. Jim Jones to be their interpreter for them; that didn’t turn out well.
Among Luther’s greatest achievements was to get the Bible into the hands of the unwashed masses so they wouldn’t have rely on the “interpretations” of an unscrupulous Catholic Church leadership. 2 Timothy 3:16 does not include the disclaimer of having to have someone on hand to interpret scripture. It sounds as if the new Adam thinks all scripture needs to be “breathed” twice, once “God Breathed”, and another time by some interpreter you trust with your eternal salvation.
There is no doubt that some will come to some wrong conclusions when reading the Bible. I still place my trust in the intelligence of the collective masses common sense to hold to a middle course through a sea of extreme interpretation. And I think they can do this by simply reading the Bible on their own, and talking with each other.
Erma Wolf,
Like you, I love the discourse and thank you for the response; it sound very reasonable, but I’m still not sure if believers and unbelievers are in the same standing.
John,
I take it that
A) “Those born of the spirit” have no choice but to live an eternity serving a God that could care less about their personal beliefs?
B) God programs those “Those born of the spirit” to love him.
C) God saves everyone in the world period (we are all “born of the spirit”).
D) God knows beforehand who will believe and worship Him and who will rebel against Him. So He seeks after and saves these folks (the elect, or you might say “born of the spirit”). But aside from that He allows everyone to have a free choice regarding their eternal condition; He feels bad for those who choose to not believe, but will not coerce their love.
It’s hard to try and guess what you have in mind with that verse absent any clarification. Everyone seems to want to just beat around the bush hear. They either give me extra-biblical literature to read instead an answer, or they throw one of the most ambiguous verses in the bible that I have ever seen out there as an answer, without reference. The Bible doesn’t need an interpreter, you folks do (smiling ;o). If I don't want to go to heaven, will God force me to go anyway? Why is there no one willing to just come out and say it; yes, no or I don’t know.
At least Erma Wolf offers an explanation that seems to indicate her position as “offensive”, with her non-answer. I guess I take that to mean she believes universal salvation without the need of a belief in Christ (which doesn’t offend me by the way). I am festinated by different believes, and more importantly, how these beliefs came to be.
Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. We believe in Christ and it is credited to us as righteousness, right? Our belief in Christ is pleasing to God, isn’t it? Do we even need to have a belief in Christ? Righteousness, through a saving belief in Christ is pleasing to God isn’t it?
davebob, you have misunderstood me. I do not believe in salvation apart from faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, I believe that Jesus died for all people, and that salvation is for all. But I think we have the power to reject this gift. What is the consequence of that? There I bow in deference to God, and to what is known only to him. I don't think there is Scriptural support for any idea that God "forces" people into heaven who adamately reject him, reject his revelation in Jesus Christ, and reject the free gift given by the Holy Spirit. But I rely on the "passive righteousness" that Luther writes of in his commentary on Galatians, not on my own activity in how I respond and how strongly I believe.
God is pleased with his Son, and when God looks at me he sees Jesus. This is not due to my actions, even my actions in believing, but to the actions of Jesus. Absurd, yes. Universalism, no.
Erma Wolf,
I'm with you. Very well put. Hope you don't think I was pestering you, I enjoy your perspective.
Erma Wolf, Peter, and John
I did some extra biblical reading this morning in the June, 2011 “Core Connection” newsletter (http://www.lutherancore.org/pdf/Connection-Jun-11.pdf) that seems to fit right in with our discussion. On pages 4 & 5, there is an article titled “ELCA Bishops deny opposing theologies”. Among the opposing theologies mentioned is Universal salvation apart from the saving belief in Christ. The excerpt below was removed from the ELCA Lutheran study Bible after considerable complaint from among the ranks.
First Edition Footnote, Lutheran Study Bible, (Augsburg Fortress Press) p. 1658
….In contrast, Jesus now sends the disciples to make disciples of all nations. That does not mean make everyone disciples. Most people who are helped by Jesus and believe in him never become his disciples. Jesus includes in salvation people who do not believe in him or even know about him (5:3-10; 25:31-45).
It seems that our discussion has already taken place with some of the folks over there at Augsburg Fortress Press. I have a feeling this conversation is just getting started.
There must still be a lot of “old Adams” out there asking questions about how to become saved. Since both theologies can’t be true at the same time, it definitely highlights the importance of who interprets your Bible for you.
Anyway, thought you might be interested in reading the article.
davebob,
No one can read the Bible without any interpretation. As soon as you ask "What does this mean?", you are interpreting. I'm not saying that you need to trust a priest to interpret the Bible for you, but that every single person who reads a Bible is also engaging in the task of interpretation. Intepretation is vital because (as the late Bob Bertram said) how one interprets the Bible is inextricably linked to how one thinks people are saved. When you read the Bible as a list of instructions on how you should live, what you sould believe, etc, etc, righteousness is how well you carry out those instructions. That has terrible implications for salvation: it becomes something that is handed out based on how well you carry out those instructions. That's works-righteousness. All too often (especially because we live in bondage to sin), this is what happens when people read the Bible without any catechesis, help or assistance. The Gospel invariably becomes: do this and/or believe that and you shall be holy. That's not the Gospel Luther proclaimed; it's not the Gospel I proclaim. That Gospel is as Pr Wolf said above: that God promises to make us holy/save us as a completely free gift on account of Jesus' suffering, death and resurrection. Faith is trust in that Promise, which itself is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Yes, that means God is an electing God. The Good News is that on account of Christ's death and resurrection alone and only, God elects you, me, Pr Wolf, John, and everyone else to whom we can convey that Good News.
With apologies to Pr Wolf, I think the CORE Connection is not a good place to start or pursue extra-biblical reading. The exerpt you cite is one good example of why it is not a good choice. The study Bible exerpt is not promoting universalism. What it says is only that there are those who do not know about him who are included in salvation, not that everyone who does not know is included in salvation. As examples, this statement is backed by Matt 25:31-45 (when those saved ask Jesus, 'when did we serve you?') and Matt 5:3-10 (where Jesus blesses lots of people without requiring belief). So, the CORE article is mostly stirring up trouble where none really exists. I suspect the decision at the Augsburg Fortress was made far more due to political considerations (lots of people complaining) rather than theological considerations (whether or not the complaints are justified). If you read the rest of the article, it's similarly more interested in making people angry, specifically with the ELCA, than actually discussing any issues or thoughtfully considering others' positions. Most of the other CORE stuff I've read tends to go the same way. It's very difficult for me to read CORE literature and come away with any impression other than that those in CORE have a very large axe to grind with the ELCA. Personally, I know people who are a part of CORE who, while having firm opinions on how or how not the ELCA should act, don't have axes to grind. Until the hate in the organization is put into retreat, though, you're probably best off avoiding CORE publications.
I just want to note that while that while that particular footnote was in the Lutheran Study Bible in its initial printing, after concerns were raised with Augsburg Fortress regarding what was said and how it was being interpreted (or mis-interpreted), AF responded by re-working that passage, and offering a corrective to those who had already purchased the Bible. I for one appreciated their response on this. The footnotes of a study Bible are not the best place to present an interpretation regarding who may be saved that at least appears to call into question the central Christian teaching that salvation is through Jesus Christ alone. There are better venues for the writer of the commentary on the Gospel of Matthew to present his argument supporting his interpretation.
As for the CORE newsletter, no apologies necessary. Actually, I haven't read the newsletter yet, and so can't comment on the accuracy or possible bias present in any of its articles.
And Peter, to pick one more nit, I think the Lutheran take is that God *declares* us holy, rather than makes us holy. Forensic justification is what I was taught. I'm still a sinner, all the time. But God declares me holy, in spite of my past, present, and continuing sinfulness. Wild, isn't it?
Peter,
If you are including one’s own cognitive ability to comprehend the Bible as “interpretation”, I would agree with that. But then again, that is what I’ve been saying all along. And yes, there are a few sticky passages in the Bible that need in depth discussion to wean the new born off of milk and on to meat. But these passages are really too few, and far between to justify saying a statement like “the Bible needs to be interpreted”. This discussion highlights the problems with relying on the interpretations of others. Only people who are lazy or infirm require the Bible to be interpreted for them. I couldn’t agree more with Bob Bertram. If, “how one interprets the Bible is inextricably linked to how one thinks people are saved”; then it also must be said that “whoever interprets the Bible for you will be inextricably linked to how you think people are saved”. Biblical illiteracy does not come from the lack of interpreters; it comes from not reading the Bible, and more importantly, not believing the Bible to be divinely inspired.
And it seems my June 15th statement above holds true; I said; “Besides, I'm sure there are plenty of good books that would refute your positions”. Now I see you don’t like my extra-Biblical reading materials. Who would have seen that coming? The article’s title explains our conversation perfectly. There are competing theologies in the church. Just reading the June, 8th “God is not a Christian” blog and comments, expose how a patchwork of different eschatology’s within the church can confuse, and even diminish the need of the Gospel itself. If believing that Christ is not necessary for salvation, then the great commission becomes not so great, and even needless. And since literally no one can come away after a simple reading of the New Testament with the opinion that Christ is not absolutely necessary for salvation; then these diverse beliefs must be being formed by giving extra biblical literature and opinion undue credence. How else does such a core Christian / Lutheran concept as Christ being our only hope for salvation get exchanged for “Jesus includes in salvation people who do not believe in him or even know about him”? That doesn’t come out of the Bible. Well, actually, in this case, it literally did come out of the Bible…they removed it out.
As far as the CORE article being designed with a purpose to make people angry, instead of a thoughtful debate on the issues, is not a concept I agree with. Where is the open public discourse about goddess worship? You and I have unabashedly debated the subject on a number of occasions, (and I admire you for that by the way; you don’t pull any punches, and you say what you mean) but the silence from the gallery is deafening. One of our debates on Sophia began in another Pr Wolf blog that had nothing to do with Sophia (“They were there” March 11, 2011). After reading yours and my comments, Pr Wolf responded as follows:
“Interesting comments, even if the last few (dealing with feminist theology, the possible use of the Sophia-concept, and whether women can handle the way God has been spoken of in orthodox Christian liturgy and theology) seem to me a bit removed from what I had written”.
I thought “Interesting comments” was a very temperate response for a pastor. I just get the feeling that no one wants to talk about Sophia. I have brought her up on a number of occasions; one time sarcastically to be funny to try and draw out a conversation. Apparently, no one thought it was funny at all (complete silence). I keep hearing it said that it’s people of other traditions that are engaged in these practices. No, it’s ELCA Lutherans. No other denomination that I know of has a herchurch. Now we have three ELCA Bishops officiating a ceremony that invoked the risen christ Sophia’s prayer (Oh mother within us, many be your names) during an official church event. There are serious irreconcilable theological issues here which would have drawn the attention of most other church’s’ leadership. Core (who also works within the ELCA) is begging for thoughtful dialog from the ELCA. Do you think the Bishop knows about herchurch; I do. There is a developing subculture that wants to live and let live so as to not offend anyone else’s beliefs. I understand why, but I don’t think it’s a good thing. I agree with you though Peter, we should engage in some dialog.
Pr Wolf,
I will agree that God declares us holy, but I would say that God's Word also makes it so. There is a new creation worked in us by God's Word that is separate from the Old Adam or Eve within us that is put to death by that same Word. I see simul iustus et peccator as living on that knife-edge between old/new creation.
davebob,
I'm going to try to stick to the main points as I see them and not get distracted by others (ie divine inspiration as reason for Biblical authority for example). I do agree that when you trust other people to interpret the Bible for you, you are trusting their proclamation of how people are saved. In the end, though, it comes down to interpretation, and the biggest error in interpretation is to read the Bible as a 'how-to' manual for salvation. It's not. The 'how-to' is that God did it all in Christ and gives it to us as a totally free gift. That doesn't leave any room for us to do anything (which is good because we'd screw it up). All that's left to us is to "enjoy" God's free gift. Enjoy gets quotes because while I think plenty of martyrs died joyfully, plenty more didn't and yet I include those when I speak of 'enjoying' God's free gift. The problem isn't that people reading the Bible realize the Jesus is integral to salvation; the problem is that they see him as only one part of it instead of everything there is.
I never argued that plenty of people disagree with my theological position. The surprise for me is just how many people do agree. My biggest problem with the CORE article is not that it disagrees with me, but that it isn't making a clear or logical argument. It's an appeal to people's anger. I really hope Mark Chavez and the others currently steering CORE realize that emotional arguments work way better when they appeal to love rather than anger and hate. It also builds stronger organizations. It's also not quite accurate to reduce the theologies present in the ELCA to 2 positions (which usually end up with 'us' and 'everyone else'). Even within CORE, I can see at least 3 theologies at work: purity by schism (NALC), stay and hate and stay and help. I think two of those are contrary to the Gospel, but that's for CORE to sort out. Interestingly, that discussion (especially whether or not stay and hate is a reasonable expression of the Gospel) is very very muted, despite being mutually exclusive theologies. Those theologies are also present amongst other groups, and yet instead of finding common ground in shared theology, there is a preference to both tolerate the false gospel of others and remain within the group despite the false gospel.
As to Sophia, I think the biggest reason it isn't talked about is because it's largely irrelevant. As a theological question, it is certainly worth talking about and thinking about. To 95% of church-goers/people reading the site, it's something they've never heard of and/or don't care about because it doesn't affect them and/or may not feel comfortable with it, but not feel they know enough to say one way or the other. One irony I see coming is that by raising this herchurch hue and cry, CORE is going to do more to spread Sophia-theology than will herchurch. Nor have I seen much thoughtful discussion coming from CORE on this subject; it's mostly cries of heresy. Calling someone a heretic isn't much of a discourse. Educating people on why Sophia gets one into trouble vis-a-vis salvation by Christ alone and only would be far more helpful. Having a discussion on the gender of the Trinity and how "Father, Son and Spirit" has been twisted from a life-giving expression of God to one that oppresses and kills, and ways to new life would be helpful, but I have yet to see anything from CORE that even tries to address the underlying concerns that fuel a need for feminist theology, specifically a female Messiah.
As to Pr Wolf's apparent failure to adamantly and blatantly call the Sopiha stuff heresy (I read into it a rejection of both Sophia and some feminist theologies, and I did like the point about being "strong enough"), you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Or the Biblical version of that aphorism is in 2 Samuel 12. Or put another way, in order for the second use of the Law to be effective, we need preexisting relationships.
Since you're interested in Sophia, there are actually a fair number of Biblical passages that support an identification of Jesus with Sophia. 1 Corinthians 1:18-31, specifically v21, 24 and 30, where Jesus is equated with Wisdom, or in the Greek, "Sophia". Luke 2:52 suggests Jesus being filled with Sophia and many contend that John's Prologue is also consistent with Sophia as Christ, due to the phrase about the Word being made flesh and dwelling among us. Apparently that 'dwelling with us' is more like 'pitching a tent with us' and tends to be an expression referring to God's Wisdom. Proverbs also gives a fair amount on Wisdom.
Peter,
I didn't read Pr Wolf as supporting Sophia either. I just remember getting the feeling she has heard of it, and didn't want to comment.
I think that goddess worship is so far out there that CORE doesn't feel the need to try and make a case against it. Pointing out this anomaly to draw out an argument seems to place the ball where it should be; in the ELCA's court. This is not hate. Why would they not just come out and make a statement in defense of this belief and put the issue to rest. And Sophia worship is much more than just a sideshow on the outskirts of the ELCA. Seeds of the parish, a publication specifically for ELCA leadership (which my household used to get) had an article in one issue a couple of years back called "feminine theology". After reading the article and going to the provide link, I watched the video. At least two of the names provided in the subscript turned up on herchurch with just a simple Google search. And anytime three Bishops of a denomination are ok with participating in the lord's prayer goddess style is more than just a fad.
Jesus has never been associated with sophia with a small "s". You may be correct in Him being associated with wisdom, but wisdom is not a personage. I can pray for sophia, but not to Sophia. Jesus is also called the truth, light, and a number of other things, but we don't bow down and worship light. And in proverbs there is women called Folly, but we know the author doesn't really mean there is a real woman named Folly; just as there is no real woman named Sophia in other parts of proverbs. That is a pretty far stretch to turn the Greek word for wisdom into a goddess.
Peter,
Woops, I meant to say Jesus has never been associated with Sophia with a large "S", just a small "s"
my bad
davebob,
The manner in which CORE is trying to "draw out an argument" is not one designed for useful, helpful or actual discussion and/or dialogue. It's presented way more in the line of "I think they're heretics, you'd better justify them right away" without knowing anything other than the fact that they use "Mother" in place of "Father" and identify Sophia as the Christ. If CORE was interested in dialogue, it would be far less confrontational about it and far closer to something more like 'why do you use Mother in place of Father and identify Sophia as the Christ?' and raising any concerns about justification and/or if/how well it keeps the Gospel proclamation intact in the dialogue. Alternatively, instead of bringing Buba back to the convocation for more hate speech, they could invite the pastor from herchurch to the convocation to explain all of this Sophia stuff to them, and how it meshes with the Lutheran Confessions, justification, etc.
Feminist theology is something that should be talked about. Discussion of theology is something the ELCA leadership very much should be doing. Interestingly, I have heard those I associate with CORE often lament the lack of theology within the ELCA leadership...
As to the bishops' presiding, IIRC, there were multiple options for the Lord's Prayer. While many of the petitions in the Mothering God one are sketchy, this could be used as an opportunity for dialogue and discussion, instead of 'silence the heretics'. I think we need to get past the cries of heresy to looking at what needs this prayer reveals and the opporutnity to explain/teach/correct the prayer to articulating trust in Christ crucified alone and only as the solution to said needs. Also, that happened in California, so it really isn't that surprising.
As to capital vs lower-case "S", that's not really an issue in the original Greek. You'll note some translations capitalize God's Wisdom and others don't. That's one style to draw attention to the fact that it is divine wisdom. The Sophia identified with Christ is nothing less than the personification of God's Wisdom. There's a huge amount of precedent for this with the Christ in all of the Logos-theology that goes around. The Word-made-flesh is a literal personification of God's Word. For Sophia, it can be seen as essentially the same deal, but identifying that Word also with God's Wisdom. Is there a difference between God's Word and God's Wisdom, especially in light of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians? As to naming Jesus as light, consider "Oh come, oh come Emmanuel":
"Oh come blest Dayspring, come and cheer/
our spirits with your advent here"
There are Eucharistic prayers that name Jesus as the Morning Star (which in Latin would be ...Lucifer, or bringer of light, following Isaiah). We also worship Jesus as "Light of this world". It's not so much creating another God, but using a different name for the Christ, in this case one that is clearly feminine.
Peter,
You will have to show me where God's wisdom is capitalized.
Sophia is a Greek term. Proverbs was not originally written in Greek. Therefore whoever translated the old testament into Greek is the one you should credit with naming the risen lord sophia. No one knows when Sophia was first used as a woman's name. But small "s" sophia was incorporated into the names of many ancient Greek gods as a noun. For someone to draw the conclusion that Christ is legitimately associated with the female name Sophia from Proverbs can't be true. The author of proverbs was writing about wisdom, not big "S" Sophia. Just as when he was writing about the female "folly", he would not have been thinking of a woman's name, and I am sure he used a small "f" for folly. In both cases the author was using nouns, not names. Both wisdom and folly are nouns; sophia in proverbs is a small "s" noun. Later when Sophia became a Greek goddesses name is where these folks are getting their connection, and tying it to the Greek manuscripts of the Bible.
Associating Jesus with a personified Wisdom/Lady Wisdom (capital "S" to indicate personage), rather than an abstract notion of wisdom (lower-case "s"), is not an innovation of contemporary feminist theology, but rather is at least as old as the Gospel according to John. As Jewish scholar Daniel Boyarin points out ("The Gospel of the Memra" Harvard Theological Review 94), "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God" (Jn 1:1) is actually a midrashic conflation of two creation stories from the Hebrew Bible--Genesis 1 and Prov. 8:20-31. John 1:1 masterfully binds together the masculine Greek idea of the Word (the "logos" or Platonic creator-being) with the feminine Israelite notion of personified Lady Wisdom as God's creative "masterworker" (Prov. 8:30).
I would argue that those who insist on having their version of the Word Incarnate be an exclusively masculine-gendered affair are not fully coming to terms with what is arguably the richest collection of incarnational images that we have available to us--John's Prologue. Whether we use the Greek word for this personified wisdom ("Sophia") or the Hebrew word ("Hochmah")--both are feminine persons--seems somewhat irrelevant, at least to me. But if we chose to ignore this personification entirely, we are missing out on something imporant.
Wow Dale!
Who knew? It will probably be a month before I get back to you. There is a lot there that I'll have learn.
Take your time! I'd be very happy to dialogue with you about this.
DaleL,
Just to clarify your position, are you saying that we should bow down to the risen christ sophia, or are you making an ambiguous argument for that possiblility?
I'm not sure what to "bow down to the risen Christ sophia" means exactly without some additional context. All I'm saying is that 1) "Sophia" is a biblical category or even "title" if you will, for Christ and 2) the "Logos" (Word) is also a deity (demiurge/creator) in Greek Platonic philosophy.
The worshipers at www.herchurch.org bow down and worship the risen christ sophia. Their lord’s prayer starts out “Oh mother within us, many be your names” do they have it right?
DaleL,
The worshipers at www.herchurch.org bow down and worship the risen christ sophia. Their lord’s prayer starts out “Oh mother within us, many be your names” do they have it right?
To see whether "they have it right" I would have to first talk with them to see how (or even "if") they understand their theology, and then I would have to study it to see what place such a theology holds within the Bible and Tradition. That's how I understand the "Lutheran Method," if you will, holistically employing Scripture, Tradition and Reason to test everything.
The farthest I would go at this point would be to say that referring to Christ under the title "Sophia" has pretty strong biblical warrant, so I would say that doing what you describe is not incorrect or heretical when taken at face value--but again, I don't know enough about the specific details to judge this church's particular understanding either way. For me, it would be unfair and un-Christian to critique what they are doing without trying to first understand what they think and understand them as Christians.
It's probably a separate topic, but I know off the top of my head there are a fair number of places where the Bible refers to God using motherly imagery--but again, I think I would have apply the same process to see how they understand this imagery theologically.
My basic philosophy is that before someone can critique any idea or theology in a fair and honest way, it's a good idea to first determine where the person is coming from by doing your very best to understand the rationale behind what they are saying. Otherwise people just end up talking past each other, often with disastrous results.
DaleL,
I’m not seeing “Hochmah” as a female here. Does Binah seem to fit the bill better? Are we into Kabbalism here? All the key word searches I run seem to end up in mysticism.
Hochmah (Hebrew) Also transliterated as Chochmah, Hhokhmah, Chokmah, etc. Wisdom; the second Sephirah, regarded in the Qabbalah as the first emanation from the first Sephirah, Kether. Wisdom is considered as a masculine active potency, and is therefore called 'Ab, the Father, to whom Binah, the Mother and third of the Sephiroth, is united.
Binah, (meaning "Understanding"; בינה), in the Kabbalah of Judaism, is the second intellectual Sephirah on the tree of life. It sits on the level below Keter (in the formulations that include that Sephirah), across from Chokmah and directly above Gevurah. It is usually given four paths: to Keter, Chockmah, Gevurah, and Tiphereth (some Kabbalists place a path from Binah to Chesed as well.) In an anthropomorphic visualization, it may be alternatively related to the "left eye", "left hemisphere of the brain" or the "heart."
Sephirot or Sephiroth (pronounced /ˈsefɪrəʊθ/; Hebrew: סְפִירוֹת, pronunciation), meaning "enumerations", are the 10 attributes/emanations in Kabbalah, through which God (who is referred to as Ein Sof - The Infinite) reveals himself and continuously creates both the physical realm and the chain of higher metaphysical realms (Seder hishtalshelus). The term is alternatively transliterated into English as Sefirot/Sefiroth, singular Sephirah/Sefirah etc.
Am I on the right track here?
DaleL,
My understanding of the "Lutheran Method" is quite a bit different from yours. Bible and Tradition are not what the Christian faith is founded on, but rather Christ crucified, and raised, for the forgiveness of our sins, alone and only. The 4th Article of the Augsburg Confession lays out the measure which we should use to judge all religious claims- which is the Gospel, not the Bible nor Tradition. Bible and Tradition are important, but only insofar as they transmit the Gospel. Where they fail to do so, they must be discarded. This is why Luther had to break with Catholic Tradition, and why the Reformers could disregard Biblical commands (see most of Leviticus, but the best example is actually the abstention of blood commanded by the Apostles in Acts, which in Augsburg Confession 28:65 is a specific example of a law people don't need to follow). It's also why a female gender of God isn't necessarily heretical. Trying to deny the humanity of Jesus, or the fleshly incarnation of God, though, contradicts the Gospel promise as those are both wrapped up in the Gospel.
@ Peter.
I would certainly agree that for Luther, the Bible is ultimately only a "carrier"/Träger or that which brings Christ to us--Luther's reading of the Bible strives to be a Christocentric one, which is what ultimately allows him to conclude that some parts of the Bible are more important and relevant than others (WA 4:7).
But that having been said, I think the even more difficult question (and the one I was attempting to address in my posts above) is not so much one of trying to define the articles of faith, but more of a rubber-hits-the-road issue--about what should, may, and should not be practiced by the Church. One illustration I've often used in this regard is Luther's and Melanchthon's defense of Infant Baptism. Looking at this as a case study relating to a question of practical theology, both the Tradition of the Church and reason clearly weigh quite heavily in Luther's thought process for sanctioning a practice that is not explicitly endorsed by Scripture. For Luther, not every practice need be found in Scripture, but neither can Scripture or Tradition be simply ignored in discerning what the Church should do: "Unless I be convinced by the testimony of Scripture or clear reason..." as one of Luther's most famous lines goes.
Additionally, Luther sees Scripture as an essential lens for understanding human experience, and human experience as a lens for understanding Scripture (e.g., first chapter of Table Talk, 3-4). I see Scripture, Tradition, reason and human experience--all certainly with Christ in view as the focal point--as you have pointed out--as the "Lutheran Method" for discerning Church practice.
DaleL,
All 4 things you named (the Wesleyan quadrilateral, IIRC) are important, but it's flipped-- Christ crucified and risen, alone and only is the lens through which we view Scripture, Tradition, reason, experience (and anything else we want to add on). Christ isn't just a focal point, but the Way, the Truth, through which we look at everything.
Certainly Scripture can inform our lives today, has and continues to inform Tradition, reason shapes our view of Scripture and Tradition and experience affects all of these, too. But the only Christian way for those things to interact is to first look at all four through the lens of Christ crucified and risen for us. Before Scripture can tell us anything about our lives, we need to see both the Law and Promise within the passage of Scripture. Tradition must be viewed with an eye to its abillity to assist in proclaiming the Gospel. Likewise, "reason is the Devil's whore" (to use another ML quote) when it does not serve understanding and proclaiming the Gospel. Likewise with experience. It's only after we view these things through the lens of Christ crucified and risen, that Scripture can speak to our experience, or reason can say anything to Tradition, etc, etc.
DaleL,
Still waiting on an answer from my June 24, 2011 3:29 PM post. Are we still happy to dialogue?
@DaveBob
Hmmm, well Proverbs uses "Hochmah" which is feminine both in form and also personified as a woman in chapter 8. "Binah" is more along the lines of discernment or making judgments between two things--but I would agree they are close synonyms.
Again, I don't know any of the details about the theology of HerChurch (and people that want to know should ask them), but I highly doubt they are drawing from Kabbalah. I could be wrong. I do think what you've said about Kabbalah seems correct; Kabbalah places a great deal of emphasis on the feminine and masculine attributes of God.
But no, I don't think you're probably on the right track here.
@ Peter
I don't know anything about the Wesleyan quadrilateral, so I'll have to pass on that.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I would see your statements, though correct, as an epistemological conundrum. Scripture and Tradition are the primary means of accessing (again, think Luther's Träger) what we can know concerning Christ and him crucified and risen. It's impossible, at least for us, to know and understand the Gospel without the Gospels.
DaleL,
How are coming to know Hochmah is female? I sure can't find it. where do I find this interpretation? How do I get on your track?
First of all, Hochmah is a feminine word in Biblical Hebrew. Biblical Hebrew words that end in "-ah" or "-t" or "oht" are usually feminine.
Further, see Proverbs 8:1 and 8:12 (and all of Proverbs 8:1-12 for that matter). The Hebrew word that is translated as "Wisdom" is "Hochmah": חכמה She (Wisdom personified--the speaker) is beyond any doubt whatsoever, a woman.
If you read the same verse in the Greek Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) the Hebrew word "Hochmah" is translated "Sophia."
DaleL,
The composite meaning that emerges from all the Biblical material is that folly is the opposite of wisdom, and a fool is the opposite of a wise person. Both wisdom and folly are presented as a philosophy (philo-sophy love of wisdom) of life. The religious person chooses wisdom while the non-religious person opts for folly. A general Biblical principle is that Wisdom leads to victory and belongs to those who fear God while Folly leads to defeat and belongs to those who are thoughtless, self-centered, and obviously indifferent to God.
We can no more justify identifying Sophia as Christ or the Holy Spirit, than we can justify identifying Folly as some female Satin, or demon. These two feminine nouns were used to personify separate philo(sophies) of life, and had no purpose whatsoever to assign feminine gender to either God, or the Devil. I just can’t find any convincing evidence to support this theology.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the dialog. I have to say that I am smarter now, even though my opinion hasn’t changed.
Yes, I guess if you don't agree that wisdom is personified as a woman in Proverbs 8 (and there are other biblical passages that do this) then we are indeed at an impasse.
And just to reiterate my initial post, I'm not saying that the association of Christ with personified wisdom happens in Proverbs 8, it happens in John 1:1, although Proverbs 8 is an important component. I will simply commend Daniel Boyarin's article to you and leave you to contend with the writer of the Gospel of John on the issue.
DaleL,
I thought of you while researching on another blog. I found that Lev18:22 is using the feminine term abomination when the text is clearly speaking to males. I thought it might serve as a counter to your argument that the uses of feminine terms are used to identify feminine characteristics of subject matter. What do you think?
Original Word: תּוֹעֵבָה
Transliteration: toebah or toebah
Phonetic Spelling: (to-ay-baw')
Short Definition: abominations