Frozen Chosen

[AngelusSax]

Okay, so I have begun to re-read "Velvet Elvis" by Rob Bell. And almost immediately, there was a part of a paragraph that made me think of Lutheranism. Perhaps not every Lutheran, but as a whole, especially those whose seeming favorite quote is "What do the Confessions say?" (Not that we should discard the Confessions, mind you). Anyway, here's the quote:

"Here's what often happens: Somebody comes along who has a fresh perspective on the Christian faith. People are inspired. A movement starts. Faith that was stale and dying is now alive. But then the poineer of the movement - the painter - dies and the followers stop exploring. They mistakenly assume that their leader's words were the last ones on the subject, and they freeze their leader's words." (p 13)

How true do you think that is? Is it fair to say that Lutheranism, to a large extent anyway, is being described here (not necessarily purposefully by Mr. Bell, of course)? Have we frozen Martin Luther's (and the other same-era reformers') words, refusing to add our own paint-strokes to the painting that is the Christian faith? And, is it a good thing to freeze the words, so to speak? That is, Mr. Bell says "they mistakenly assume...", but is it good that we do so, and it's not so mistaken after all?

Hopefully we can have a good discussion. I don't want this to turn into something about recent votes on certain issues (they can be involved in the discussion, but let's not make them the focus, okay?).

 

[Willy]

Yes, I believe in certain portions of Lutheranism the understanding of the faith did not get beyond the insights of Luther, or more accurately, the followers of Luther. Some of us have gotten stuck in time, which is unfortunate, because this understanding does not connect to modern realities, or if it does connect, it is not articulated in such a way that it makes much of an existential difference to people. And the result is that we appear to be so irrelevant. I remember when I was in seminary one of the brightest professors in our school wrote on one of my classmate's papers, "Would Barbara Streisand give a sh...about this?" The question was pointed. The analysis might have been interesting (at least intellectually speaking) to a bunch of insiders, but to those who hadn't learned the group talk it was meaningless, or at least less than helpful or interesting. We would do ourselves a favor and not speak of the faith simply in the way that our ancestors did five hundred years ago. I am amazed these days by the way some people these days continue to speak of what the cross means simply in terms of Jesus paying the price for our sins. So many see the cross as a guilt offering. Many people of the current era are not preoccupied with guilt (whether they should be or not is another matter). They are much more concerned with meaninglessness. But we in the church often sound like 16th century people rather than 21st century people.

 

[AngelusSax]

So would it be fair to say that the biggest challenge we face is to explain and portray the same doctrines of Martin and his followers, just in an updated way that is meaningful, or do we need to re-examine some of those doctrines as a whole? For example, the thing about the cross being where Jesus paid for our sins. I firmly believe that to be true, but there is more to it than just that. Is that what you're getting at, that we need to add explanations and meat to our existing doctrines, possibly even adding new "sub-doctrines"? Or do we just need better PR? (Which may not hurt anyway...)

 

[Willy]

Theology is always contextual. Talk about Jesus being a sacrifice for sins made lots of sense for Jews for whom sacrifice made sense. It doesn't make much sense to us. For many of us it sounds barbaric. Paul says that in Christ and him crucified God was reconciling the world to himself. What that means is a great mystery--a mystery that we try in each generation to articulate in ways that make sense to the world that we are addressing. By the way, that was what Biblical writers did.

 

[AngelusSax]

I agree, but at the same time, I'm one of those people who still think, in today's world, that Jesus being a sacrifice for sins still makes a lot of sense. However, I don't think it can be left exactly there, either. We can point out things like what perfect justice is. Perfect justice is "an eye for an eye". So, we got a life for life here. The transgression is that sin deals death to all, so the perfect justice is that Jesus pays that death back to death. What kills us - sin - is what is ultimately killed on the cross (He became sin who knew no sin). I may not be explaining it the best here, but the idea is conveyed in one of my books I've recently read... I know, vauge (sorry), but it was either "Blue Like Jazz" or "Velvet Elvis". I'm thinking Blue Like Jazz, though. It's the idea of Jesus not merely being a sacrifice, like the ultimate turtle dove or something, but actively taking in sin to become sin itself, and when He dies, sin dies... but only Christ is raised from the dead, free from the stain of being that sin.

As for why God doesn't just "zap" sin without any kind of sacrifice, well, that's still a mystery to a degree. Sure, there are cosmic laws God puts in place, but if God were to change a cosmic law, that'd be His right, so... why not? Perhaps the answer is that we know God's love better when we see what He went through for us that way, as opposed to just hitting the Do-Over button.

It is a great mystery. I don't think we should ever claim to have all the answers. We have SOME answers, whether they work or not, for us. For me, the sacrifice for sins answer works, though it doesn't answer, conclusively, why God can't just hit the Do-Over. The showing-us-His-love answer is an answer that works, but it raises another question: Why couldn't God have both? Do-Over, and let us know through the way He can impart knowledge, how much He loves us?

The cycle is one of never-ending questions. Perhaps that's the movement we need today? The one where we don't think we need to have all the answers in order to be good church people?

 

[Willy]

From my perspective, to talk about the relationship of the cross and sin requires a good definition of sin. Sin is the not-rightness of life. It is life's separation and alienation. Without a doubt, Jesus on the cross took upon himself what is not right about life. He died because of the world's separation or alienation from God and each other. He paid the price for love. Love will and does suffer. Love does and will take upon itself what is not right about the world. Jesus dies because he loved. For us, this has everything to do with God. In Jesus and him crucified we experience a God who loves, a God who loves to the point of enduring the worst kind of suffering that a broken world imposes on people.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Honestly, the day I find someone who writes more elegantly and with clearer and more pastoral theology than Martin Luther I won't ask as much about what Luther says.

This is particularly true because we do acknowledge Luther's theology as true witness to the gospel, and so to deny part of it requires 1) really good reasons, and 2) IMO, working within the framework of his theological paradigm to change/adjust his theology.

An example of this is our stance on communion. I think Luther would not support our stance on communion. I do think that there are reasons within the theological paradigm of Luther and justification that allows, indeed beckons us to our policy on communion. Although many in our church do not think of it in this way or even consider it as important for justification to such change.

But to think that happens or should happen often would suggest either denying theologically who we claim to be or really deep and eloquent theology that I am not sure can be done "often" while maintaining what we profess in our constitution and catechesis.

Pax

 

[AngelusSax]

Well, I don't mean to imply that we should change things up just because we can, or just because we've got a new idea and want to go with it. But it seems to me that, beyond simply thinking Luther had it right, some people are even afraid to question that, as if it would somehow diminish our faith as Lutherans. This is what I really don't like. After all, Luther felt questioning the Catholic practices did not diminish his faith as a Catholic.

We should never think we're done reforming, should we? Aren't we being true to Luther the most when we are in an ever-reforming church?

 

[lux et lex]

Aren't we being true to Luther the most when we are in an ever-reforming church?

That makes a lot of sense.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

We should never think we're done reforming, should we? Aren't we being true to Luther the most when we are in an ever-reforming church?

I'm not sure Luther viewed the church as ever reforming. His idea was the church had strayed, once it was brought back to proper teaching that was all that needed to be done. Then change would happen in areas of adiaphora once the imperatives were "fixed".

Pax

 

[AngelusSax]

I'm not sure Luther viewed the church as ever reforming. His idea was the church had strayed, once it was brought back to proper teaching that was all that needed to be done. Then change would happen in areas of adiaphora once the imperatives were "fixed".

Well, I don't know if he did or not, personally, either. I had a pastor at one time who said that he and the reformers viewed the church as they saw it (as in, once their reformations were in effect for their own worship) as reforming, vs. reformed, which implies ever-reforming. But... that's been one person who said that to me. (It's also an assertion of Rob Bell in Velvet Elvis, but that doesn't mean he's necessarily right I grant.)