Is Deification compatible with Lutheranism?

[FireDragon76]

That is good to know, though sometimes former adherents represent their old traditions accurately. In fact I don't think he misrepresented the concept of theosis in his article. If anything he overemphasized the Lutheran doctrine of justification, an error which may not be so common from ELCA Lutherans.

I wouldn't exactly call it an error, but it's not a typical emphasis. Most ELCA pastors are more like Methodists or Presbyterians in terms of their emphasis.

 

[Newtheran]

Most ELCA pastors are more like Methodists or Presbyterians in terms of their emphasis.

Most ELCA pastors are more like American United Methodists or PC-USA Presbyterians in terms of their emphasis.

World methodism just gave those in the American church a rather significant rebuke which will probably lead to a split.

 

[FireDragon76]

Most ELCA pastors are more like American United Methodists or PC-USA Presbyterians in terms of their emphasis.

World methodism just gave those in the American church a rather significant rebuke which will probably lead to a split.

Discussion of religious differences doesn't have to devolve into what amounts to politics. Shuffling the deck chairs won't change the fact that they are Methodists in terms of their religious patrimony.

 

[Tigger45]

I'm surprised no one brought up the Lutheran theologian Tuomo Mannermaa and his "New Finnish interpretation of Luther" which argues that Luther taught a kind of theosis. He of course has his critics among Lutherans but there is not a unanimous Lutheran position on this.

Finally decided to order a copy rather than piecemealing his works randomly.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That is good to know, though sometimes former adherents represent their old traditions accurately. In fact I don't think he misrepresented the concept of theosis in his article. If anything he overemphasized the Lutheran doctrine of justification, an error which may not be so common from ELCA Lutherans.

I still find his core criticism interesting, especially for laymen who are unable to make more subtle distinctions regarding justification, sanctification, and deification. Deification is foreign to Lutheranism at least on a certain level. Deification--or even sanctification--is apparently something that is not commonly preached from Lutheran pulpits. It is part of the broader tradition, but a lack of attention seems to eclipse it in favor of other doctrines which are more characteristically Lutheran.

It's certainly true that Lutherans have a long tradition of emphasizing certain things over others; this is probably a lot to do with a worry that some things can be easily misunderstood.

I think we have a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to talking about things like sanctification and holiness (etc) because we are concerned about things such as misunderstanding the Third Use of the Law leading to error. And so we tend to emphasize more those things which we want to really cement deep.

For example, it is true, in Lutheran thought, that we are in a process of being conformed and renewed in Christ, the "renewing of [our] mind" the Apostle speaks of for example. But even in saying this I can kind of feel part of me want to knee-jerk back to emphasizing that this life isn't glory, but cross; not because to say that we are being renewed, we are being transformed, that God's work is in process in us is wrong (because it is very much true and right) but because of how often I see (and in my own past experienced) how easy it can be to turn talk about our growing in the Lord into a system of performance and pursuit toward personal glory.

My own experiences, when I was younger, where by the emphasis on my growing, becoming holier, should bear certain characteristics--I should be sinning less, I should be becoming more holy, I should find certain struggles less of a struggle, etc and yet I was constantly beset by struggle, I didn't find myself becoming better, no matter how hard I tried, no matter how much I prayed, no matter how many times I was literally laying prostrate on the floor of my room begging and pleading with God to help me. And that terror and despair I experienced is not something I want anyone else to ever experience. I want to preach the Gospel, I want to preach God's love and kindness toward us sinners in Christ. I want to preach faith and hope in Christ.

So those are my biases, certainly. My knee-jerk reaction, out of concern to not let the conversation spiral out of control and give the impression that Christianity is about our "getting good", rather than God's good for us in Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FireDragon76]

It's certainly true that Lutherans have a long tradition of emphasizing certain things over others; this is probably a lot to do with a worry that some things can be easily misunderstood.

I think we have a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to talking about things like sanctification and holiness (etc) because we are concerned about things such as misunderstanding the Third Use of the Law leading to error. And so we tend to emphasize more those things which we want to really cement deep.

For example, it is true, in Lutheran thought, that we are in a process of being conformed and renewed in Christ, the "renewing of [our] mind" the Apostle speaks of for example. But even in saying this I can kind of feel part of me want to knee-jerk back to emphasizing that this life isn't glory, but cross; not because to say that we are being renewed, we are being transformed, that God's work is in process in us is wrong (because it is very much true and right) but because of how often I see (and in my own past experienced) how easy it can be to turn talk about our growing in the Lord into a system of performance and pursuit toward personal glory.

My own experiences, when I was younger, where by the emphasis on my growing, becoming holier, should bear certain characteristics--I should be sinning less, I should be becoming more holy, I should find certain struggles less of a struggle, etc and yet I was constantly beset by struggle, I didn't find myself becoming better, no matter how hard I tried, no matter how much I prayed, no matter how many times I was literally laying prostrate on the floor of my room begging and pleading with God to help me. And that terror and despair I experienced is not something I want anyone else to ever experience. I want to preach the Gospel, I want to preach God's love and kindness toward us sinners in Christ. I want to preach faith and hope in Christ.

So those are my biases, certainly. My knee-jerk reaction, out of concern to not let the conversation spiral out of control and give the impression that Christianity is about our "getting good", rather than God's good for us in Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

Have you encountered Br. David Stendahl-Rast? He's a very gentle person, he doesn't seem like a person into abusing himself or other people, yet his life has been filled with the appreciation of a more mystical approach to Christianity as a Benedictine monk.

What you portray about religion can happen for some people, but sometimes facing our terrors is very necessary to grow as human beings. Avoiding that terror is simply a way of leaving unconscious wounds unacknowledged. And what is repressed is expressed, often through projection onto other people.

Maybe part of the problem is the way religion has been used by the wider society to silence peoples aspirations towards greater liberty? Luther himself even backed away from the more liberating aspects of his message, for instance, his moral failure in the Peasants War, which left hundreds of thousands of people murdered. That's one reason I think liberation theology is an important counterpoint to a theology of personal guilt.

 

[zippy2006]

It's certainly true that Lutherans have a long tradition of emphasizing certain things over others; this is probably a lot to do with a worry that some things can be easily misunderstood.

I think we have a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to talking about things like sanctification and holiness (etc) because we are concerned about things such as misunderstanding the Third Use of the Law leading to error. And so we tend to emphasize more those things which we want to really cement deep.

For example, it is true, in Lutheran thought, that we are in a process of being conformed and renewed in Christ, the "renewing of [our] mind" the Apostle speaks of for example. But even in saying this I can kind of feel part of me want to knee-jerk back to emphasizing that this life isn't glory, but cross; not because to say that we are being renewed, we are being transformed, that God's work is in process in us is wrong (because it is very much true and right) but because of how often I see (and in my own past experienced) how easy it can be to turn talk about our growing in the Lord into a system of performance and pursuit toward personal glory.

My own experiences, when I was younger, where by the emphasis on my growing, becoming holier, should bear certain characteristics--I should be sinning less, I should be becoming more holy, I should find certain struggles less of a struggle, etc and yet I was constantly beset by struggle, I didn't find myself becoming better, no matter how hard I tried, no matter how much I prayed, no matter how many times I was literally laying prostrate on the floor of my room begging and pleading with God to help me. And that terror and despair I experienced is not something I want anyone else to ever experience. I want to preach the Gospel, I want to preach God's love and kindness toward us sinners in Christ. I want to preach faith and hope in Christ.

So those are my biases, certainly. My knee-jerk reaction, out of concern to not let the conversation spiral out of control and give the impression that Christianity is about our "getting good", rather than God's good for us in Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

I suppose Catholics do wrestle with issues of sanctification more than Lutherans, but at some level I don't see how you can avoid it. The question of whether you are growing seems like a very natural question to ask.

 

[FireDragon76]

I suppose Catholics do wrestle with issues of sanctification more than Lutherans, but at some level I don't see how you can avoid it. The question of whether you are growing seems like a very natural question to ask.

I think you'll find it addressed more in the ELCA than the LCMS, since the ELCA was shaped more by pietism. Even so, there are some ELCA Lutherans that aren't necessarily going to see it as something they are comfortable discussing. Most Lutherans collapse sanctification into vocation, without providing alot of guidance for either- that is sometimes why I have joked about "justification by banality" (whereas Anglicans often seem to believe in "justification by good taste").

 

[zippy2006]

...I have joked about "justification by banality"...

Ha, I have never heard that one before.

I sometimes think about the way Christianity has become very focused on the afterlife, even sometimes to the point of denying the efficacy of grace in our earthly lives. ...But what is salvation, then? Too often it is described by the via negativa: "Not this, not that." "It's not prosperity, it's not emotional well-being, it's not peace, it's not happiness, it's not societal flourishing, it's not a cheapjack's wares." But then what is it? A future state that contains some of these characteristics? A relationship with God that is disdainful of any secondary motive or fruit?

It seems like the seed and cornerstone of this whole theological current was Luther's concept of justification by faith alone. And to be frank, this concept of justification seems to be impotent by definition. Or if not impotent, then exclusively focused on a state of righteousness that transcends all earthly categories and is thus only capable of communicating a fact of future salvation in the afterlife. I do understand the focus on initial justification, but when that focus becomes exclusive the result is something altogether strange. The result is a radically disincarnate Christianity. I found Wagschal's article to be an interesting piece of evidence for that tension.

(I also spoke about this problem in your recent thread, "Martyrs Madmen and Marauders: Six Ways Christian Missions Need to Change," but it seems to have gone off the map.")

 

[ViaCrucis]

I suppose Catholics do wrestle with issues of sanctification more than Lutherans, but at some level I don't see how you can avoid it. The question of whether you are growing seems like a very natural question to ask.

It's something we can be wary about because we want to avoid easy errors, like that if we aren't exhibiting certain characteristics, or aren't measuring up to certain performance tests, then that means our hope, our trust, in Jesus somehow amounts to nothing.

That means that, yes, we should be bearing fruit, however, we don't get to be fruit inspectors. We can trust in Christ that we are being conformed, but we don't get to decide that our brother isn't "measuring up". Each of us is different, with our distinct struggles; the Christian life is not a ladder to be climbed up toward holiness, but a life to be borne out by the cross and suffering of Jesus.

The Christian life is a cross, not glory.

To that end real sanctification is never found by trying to reach that next rung of the ladder, or by figuring out where we are on such a ladder; but rather is found in the trenches of this life, as we are being laden with the cross.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[zippy2006]

That means that, yes, we should be bearing fruit, however, we don't get to be fruit inspectors.

But isn't the whole point of fruit that it's visible and tangible? Why would Jesus tell us that a good tree bears good fruit if fruit is intrinsically invisible, or if we are not supposed to look at/for fruit?

To that end real sanctification is never found by trying to reach that next rung of the ladder, or by figuring out where we are on such a ladder; but rather is found in the trenches of this life, as we are being laden with the cross.

Sure, but that answer doesn't strike me as "don't inspect fruit" so much as "don't inspect fruit in that way." There must be some criteria for inspecting fruit, e.g. Galatians 5:22-23.

 

[FireDragon76]

But isn't the whole point of fruit that it's visible and tangible? Why would Jesus tell us that a good tree bears good fruit if fruit is intrinsically invisible, or if we are not supposed to look at/for fruit?



Sure, but that answer doesn't strike me as "don't inspect fruit" so much as "don't inspect fruit in that way." There must be some criteria for inspecting fruit, e.g. Galatians 5:22-23.

I'm now concerned about the approach that Wagschal presents (and that is represented in some of the ELCA). I do think Roman Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) has a history of unjustifiable authoritarianism, but the Lutheran perspective has pitfalls of its own. There's so little to interact with in such a self-referential religious perspective that I'm not sure how it can be expected to engage with a post-Christian society, if all that can be offered are things that are largely incomprehensible in the modern world.

 

[Tigger45]

Here’s a great current episode from issuesect.org. Gotta love Pr. Will Weedon.

2122. The Mystical Union with Christ - Pr. Will Weedon, 7/31/19 - Issues, Etc.

 

[zippy2006]

There's so little to interact with in such a self-referential religious perspective that I'm not sure how it can be expected to engage with a post-Christian society, if all that can be offered are things that are largely incomprehensible in the modern world.

Right. It is also worth remembering that nature abhors a vacuum. Churches that do not continue to develop doctrinally create vacuums that must inevitably be filled by outside forces. This is perhaps seen most acutely in the case of the modern Evangelical who holds to outdated and scientifically untenable doctrines of inspiration, particularly with respect to the creation accounts. Such a case creates a scientific-rational vacuum in the modern consciousness and breeds instability in the person's religious life.

While even something as simple as laziness could cause a lack of development, health, and maturity in an ecclesial body, fideism seems to be a prime accelerator of that process. When fideistic tendencies cause denominations to eschew rational pursuits such as science and philosophy they unintentionally create a sort of vacuum or hunger within their own worldview that will result in eventual collapse or else a symbiotic wedding that restores balance. Some of these weddings have been fortuitous and some have been disastrous.

 

[Roymond]

It's certainly true that Lutherans have a long tradition of emphasizing certain things over others; this is probably a lot to do with a worry that some things can be easily misunderstood.

I think we have a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to talking about things like sanctification and holiness (etc) because we are concerned about things such as misunderstanding the Third Use of the Law leading to error. And so we tend to emphasize more those things which we want to really cement deep.

For example, it is true, in Lutheran thought, that we are in a process of being conformed and renewed in Christ, the "renewing of [our] mind" the Apostle speaks of for example. But even in saying this I can kind of feel part of me want to knee-jerk back to emphasizing that this life isn't glory, but cross; not because to say that we are being renewed, we are being transformed, that God's work is in process in us is wrong (because it is very much true and right) but because of how often I see (and in my own past experienced) how easy it can be to turn talk about our growing in the Lord into a system of performance and pursuit toward personal glory.

My own experiences, when I was younger, where by the emphasis on my growing, becoming holier, should bear certain characteristics--I should be sinning less, I should be becoming more holy, I should find certain struggles less of a struggle, etc and yet I was constantly beset by struggle, I didn't find myself becoming better, no matter how hard I tried, no matter how much I prayed, no matter how many times I was literally laying prostrate on the floor of my room begging and pleading with God to help me. And that terror and despair I experienced is not something I want anyone else to ever experience. I want to preach the Gospel, I want to preach God's love and kindness toward us sinners in Christ. I want to preach faith and hope in Christ.

So those are my biases, certainly. My knee-jerk reaction, out of concern to not let the conversation spiral out of control and give the impression that Christianity is about our "getting good", rather than God's good for us in Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

Ah, but part of a theology of the Cross is that us becoming more like Christ doesn't mean getting "better" in any worldly sense of the term, it means becoming more like the Crucified One -- not avoiding suffering, but embracing it to "fill up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ" as Paul puts it. It means becoming able to "count it all joy" when we encounter trials, and that out trials will more and more not be because we messed up yet again but because of "being Christ" to others. That's where the "prosperity Gospel" preachers go astray: our prosperity as Christians does not consist in any form of worldly success but of being conformed to the image of Christ and suffering for it -- since this world is still the enemy of God, nothing it values can be part of our prosperity.

And to a significant extent, that sums up theosis: not becoming like Christ in His glory, but in His suffering; we will know we are being conformed to His image when we like members of the early church can see our suffering (when it is for His sake) as a reward!

 

[Roymond]

...But what is salvation, then? Too often it is described by the via negativa: "Not this, not that." "It's not prosperity, it's not emotional well-being, it's not peace, it's not happiness, it's not societal flourishing, it's not a cheapjack's wares." But then what is it? A future state that contains some of these characteristics? A relationship with God that is disdainful of any secondary motive or fruit?

Actually it is, or rather includes, "emotional well-being" and "peace" -- just not as the world defines them. The world thinks of emotional well-being in terms of being able to be happy, and peace as the absence of irritating circumstances, but both can be summed up by Paul's "I have learned to be content regardless of my circumstances".

 

[Roymond]

But isn't the whole point of fruit that it's visible and tangible? Why would Jesus tell us that a good tree bears good fruit if fruit is intrinsically invisible, or if we are not supposed to look at/for fruit?



Sure, but that answer doesn't strike me as "don't inspect fruit" so much as "don't inspect fruit in that way." There must be some criteria for inspecting fruit, e.g. Galatians 5:22-23.

There's a difference in there: we aren't to be fruit inspectors, checking out everyone's lives to decide their condition, but we are to be alert for fruit. After all, fruit on a tree isn't something we have to search for, it's something easily seen!
A fruit inspector would look at everyone's life and decide how fruitful they are against some external standard. But that distorts things; fruit can well be things that no one will really notice unless they know a person well. As an example, there was a guy I knew who had no qualms about stealing from anyone; if he thought he needed something he would just take it. Others at church tended to look down on him because of this, but they didn't really know him so when a major change happened they didn't recognize it: one day he just decided that it was totally wrong to steal from other people. Most of those at the church didn't notice any change because they still saw the stealing, totally missing the fact that he now only stole from places where the items were anyone's personal possessions: he only stole from stores. That may seem a distinction without a difference if you're a fruit inspector, but it was a radical change in him -- he'd begun to see strangers as actual people instead of only seeing his friends that way.

 

[zippy2006]

Thanks @Roymond, that's a good way of putting it.

 

[Roymond]

Right. It is also worth remembering that nature abhors a vacuum. Churches that do not continue to develop doctrinally create vacuums that must inevitably be filled by outside forces. This is perhaps seen most acutely in the case of the modern Evangelical who holds to outdated and scientifically untenable doctrines of inspiration, particularly with respect to the creation accounts. Such a case creates a scientific-rational vacuum in the modern consciousness and breeds instability in the person's religious life.

While even something as simple as laziness could cause a lack of development, health, and maturity in an ecclesial body, fideism seems to be a prime accelerator of that process. When fideistic tendencies cause denominations to eschew rational pursuits such as science and philosophy they unintentionally create a sort of vacuum or hunger within their own worldview that will result in eventual collapse or else a symbiotic wedding that restores balance. Some of these weddings have been fortuitous and some have been disastrous.

Unfortunately the LCMS has bought into that "outdated and scientifically untenable doctrines of inspiration, particularly with respect to the creation accounts". But from my advanced studies in Hebrew, as far as the first Creation account goes the literalist interpretation is also untenable in terms of literature.

 

[Roymond]

In his post here @FireDragon76 links to Lutheran theologian David Wagschal's critique of the traditional Christian doctrine of Deification or Theosis. In beginning to explicate the doctrine of Deification, Wagschal tells us:

This is the teaching that salvation is the progressive and gradual sanctification or “divinizing” of the person, the church, and the cosmos. It is the idea that God saves or redeems us by permeating the creation and transforming it into its own (properly) divine form. -The Problem with Deification
​

Here is a quick outline of Wagschal's basic criticisms:

1. Deification creates the notion that God's love rests on our future, deified selves rather than on ourselves as we exist in the here and now, namely as sinful.
2. Deification creates the notion that salvation is progressive ladder-climbing rather than gratuitous and radical gift.
3. Deification leads to political theologies.
4. Deification leads to an appearance- and performance-based focus.

What do you think? Is Deification compatible with Lutheranism? Feel free to completely ignore Wagschal's analysis if you have thoughts different from his on the topic.

I've been reading a lot of Orthodox material and watching a lot of Orthodox videos and I have to say that Wagschal's basic criticisms are all wrong. One at a time:

In his post here @FireDragon76 links to Lutheran theologian David Wagschal's critique of the traditional Christian doctrine of Deification or Theosis. In beginning to explicate the doctrine of Deification, Wagschal tells us:

This is the teaching that salvation is the progressive and gradual sanctification or “divinizing” of the person, the church, and the cosmos. It is the idea that God saves or redeems us by permeating the creation and transforming it into its own (properly) divine form. -The Problem with Deification
​

Here is a quick outline of Wagschal's basic criticisms:

1. Deification creates the notion that God's love rests on our future, deified selves rather than on ourselves as we exist in the here and now, namely as sinful.
2. Deification creates the notion that salvation is progressive ladder-climbing rather than gratuitous and radical gift.
3. Deification leads to political theologies.
4. Deification leads to an appearance- and performance-based focus.

What do you think? Is Deification compatible with Lutheranism? Feel free to completely ignore Wagschal's analysis if you have thoughts different from his on the topic.

Now that I've read through the entire thread....

I've been reading a lot of Orthodox material and watching a lot of Orthodox videos lately and I have to say that Wagschal's points are almost all wrong.

1. He's got this completely backwards! A major part of the basis of theosis is that God's love rests on us right now such that He works in us right now to make us more and more like Christ. I've known a fair number of Orthodox folks (and several Orthodox priests) and never once gotten the idea they think that "God's love rests on our future, deified selves"!
2. Not really. Theosis fits with what Paul says when he talks about us "being saved", which indicates that salvation is a process, not a one-off event. An Orthodox Christian would say, "I have been saved, I am being saved, and I hope to be saved", which expresses Paul's thought about fighting the fight and running in a race. Theosis says that while we may start as a lump of dung covered in snow, God doesn't leave us that way but applies our salvation to us moment by moment, so that the declaration of righteousness isn't the end of the story; that salvation by faith is being applied to us by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel and the Sacraments and we are being changed.
3. I'm unclear what he means by "political theologies", and the links in the original post aren't working, but if he means that theology can result in movement for political change, I don't see that as a problem!
4. The concept of theosis in practice -- at least among the Orthodox I've known -- leads to deeper devotion to Christ because theosis is not something we do, it's something the Holy Spirit does in us. It leads to daily surrender, what Luther calls putting to death the old man daily. Indeed it emphasizes that from one perspective surrender is the only thing we are capable of doing, that all movement towards God is the work of the Holy Spirit -- even though we, too, are working, as Paul says "work out your salvation in fear and trembling". As far as appearances and performance, those are things we need to be aware of anyway -- Are we showing Christ to others? Does our performance in life point towards Christ? Theosis demands that we examine ourselves and renounce whatever does not conform to Christ -- and isn't that the point of confirmation classes?!

A Christian life without theosis is a Christian life without faith. Luther says that the faith that saves isn't alone, that it doesn't have to ask if it is to do good works because it is already busy doing them. Doing good works is being like Christ, becoming more like Christ -- and that's theosis (which is why "Christification" is a good alternate term).