Monday, September 14, 2009

A time for beginnings

Today is the day I officially consider "New Year's Day."  My school classes begin.  I've been on an academic year schedule now in one role or another for 40 years, so it just seems that the start of school is what denotes a new year.  Here are a few things I need to remember today.

1) Though I have seen this class material lots of times, my students have not.  What is old hat to me is new to them.  It may be new and interesting, new and perplexing, new and easy, new and difficult - regardless, it is new. 

2) Even though some of my students were with me last year they are not exactly the same people I remember them as.  They have changed.  I have changed.  And my understanding of them is imperfect at best.

3) Thirty years from now some of my students may remember the subject matter I teach them.  Most of them will not.  My teaching, while it is centered on subject matter, ultimately deals with more important issues, such as integrity, the way we approach a challenge, how to tie one branch of learning to another, and living in relationship with others in an academic setting.  Thirty years ago few of today's students will face a Latin sentence to understand.  They will, however, face situations in which they have to make wise decisions based on the data they see.

4) In teaching my classes I am loving and serving my neighbor, who needs my good works.  I am doing this because my Lord and Savior has loved and served me. 

Lord, help me to love and serve my neighbor as you loved and served this world, giving yourself for its greatest need.  May I be faithful with what you have given me so my neighbors can receive what you would give them.

--
Dave Spotts
blogging at http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com and http://alex-kirk.blogspot.com


The Question of Theosis in the Perspective of Lutheran Christology

Green, Lowell C. "The Question of Theosis in the Perspective of Lutheran Christology." All Theology Is Christology: Essays in Honor of David P. Scaer. Fort Wayne, IN: Concordia Theological Seminary Press.  2000.  163-180.

Theosis is the point of view that in salvation the individual is in some way deified.  Some have recently claimed that Luther points to a version of theosis in his view of the atonemtn.  Green reviews the history of theosis, the way this relates to traditional Lutheran views of Christology, and how a doctrine of theosis moves us to be theologians of glory rather than theologians of the cross.

Green discusses theosis in Greek paganism, observing that it seems to be a very common view of life and salvation.  He moves to the early Church and observes that, contrary to the first five centuries of the Christian era being a high point in the life of the Church, in fact during this time Christians entered into all sorts of heresies, including a neo-Platonic view of theosis.  These weaknesses in theology have existed throughout Church history.  Continuing into the Medieval Church we see the same sort of mysticism and radical fanatical movements.  All these views of theosis are centered in the idea that by man's work it is possible to draw near to God and prove ourselves worthy before him.

Are there Scriptural arguments in favor of a view of theosis?  Green discusses Psalm 8s.6, Galatians 2.20, and 2 Peter 1.4, observing that while they can be used in some way to point people to a view of theosis that is not their most sensible interpretation.  2 Peter 1.4, however, causes more difficulty.  Interestingly enough, in Luther's writings, including his lectures which deal with 2 Peter a good deal, he hardly makes mention of 2 Peter 1.4, never in defense of theosis.  It appears that Luther did not view salvation as happening through any sort of deification, but quite the opposite, that it happens by God humbling himself to die as a man in man's stead.

So what of the claims that the believer participates in the divine nature?   In Luther, the believer never loses his identity even in light of the indwelling of God.  The change is not a change of being, but a change of relationship.  There does not appear to be any credible evidence that Luther thought man was deified in salvation.


--
Dave Spotts
blogging at http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com and http://alex-kirk.blogspot.com


Sunday, September 13, 2009

Stodgy? Dignified? Respectful?

I was doing some work outside the house yesterday afternoon, work involving one of my least favorite tools - a paintbrush.  Since we live in a neighborhood with a bit of foot traffic, and since it was a nice day when people would tend to have windows open in their houses and cars, I was expecting to hear a bit of noise.  I could hear radios and televisions, dogs barking, people talking at a yard sale down the block.  Kind of a nice sort of neighborly afternoon sound montage.

I heard someone calling, "Sweetheart?"  Once it was repeated a few times and I realized it seemed to be coming from near where I was, I turned around to see what was going on.  A lady I had never seen was standing in the street at the end of my sidewalk, calling me.  Apparently she hadn't managed to find the street sign on the corner, closer to her than to me, indicating that the cross street was Tenth Avenue.  She wanted to know where she was so as to tell someone on her cell phone.

I wonder if other people dislike having strangers call them by pet names?  I had initially automatically tuned it out because the voice calling "sweetheart" was not someone who would have that familiarity with me.  I typically would only respond to a name like that from a few people.  But as I thought about it, more and more, when I talk with a telephone customer service person, I am called "honey" or "sweetie."  

While I have nothing against friendliness, the fact is, unless you live in my household you really shouldn't call me any of those names.  I have a name and you may use it.  If you don't know my name, since I'm an adult male, last I knew the traditional way of addressing me in English would be "sir."  If I'm not dressed nicely, maybe you'd want to call me "mister."  If you are an adult female and I don't know you or don't think it appropriate to address you by name I'll call you "ma'am."  If you are quite young, I might call you "miss."  It just seems polite.

I've got a call to make to an insurance office.  There's a young lady there who always calls me "honey.'  I'm tempted to call her "snookums" or something like that when she calls me "honey."  Then again, that might simply lead her to think she is being appropriately friendly.

So what's the deal?  Am I really that oddly out of place? 

--
Dave Spotts
blogging at http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com and http://alex-kirk.blogspot.com


Luther, Newman, and the Punctiliar Church

Neuhaus, Richard John. "Luther, Newman, and the Punctiliar Church." All Theology Is Christology: Essays in Honor of David P. Scaer. Fort Wayne, IN: Concordia Theological Seminary Press.  2000.  153-161.

In this article, Father Neuhaus points out some difficulties in the arguments of Bishop John Henry Newman against Luther as the representative of Protestantism.  Newman's understanding of Luther's view of justification was that it was separated from the Catholic sacramental view of life.  He viewed Luther as having articulated a theology in which the individual spiritual perception of Christ in your heart was more important than the historic facts of Christ's death for sin, his resurrection to new life, and the impartation of new life to you through Word and Sacraments.  Neuhaus suggests that Newman's work does not show a great deal of evidence of having read and considered Luther carefully, as he confuses Luther with the radical reformers, including those of a later date.

Neuhaus does, however, point out in Newman's defense that Luther as a Catholic understood life and godliness through a Catholic lens.  He viewed life sacramentally.  And Neuhaus suggests that Luther would not have been able to sustain his views without the Catholic framework for thinking.  He observes that particularly when believers devalue the historic Church and the reality of the sacraments they very quickly take on a faith which is subjective and weak.

Father Neuhaus closes his article with pleas that believers all together focus on the historic faith and strive for unity in historic orthdoxy.  He manages to come a little short of begging that Lutherans and all Protestants come to join Rome.  Yet his intention is clearly to demonstrate that the Roman view of the sacramental life is a very important feature of the dedicated Christian life.  My observation is that a genuinely sacramental view of life does serve to pull the believer away from subjective and self-centered faith.


--
Dave Spotts
blogging at http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com and http://alex-kirk.blogspot.com


Saturday, September 12, 2009

The Future of a Tradition: Luther and the Family

Lindberg, Carter. "The Future of a Tradition: Luther and the Family."  All Theology Is Christology: Essays in Honor of David P. Scaer.  Fort Wayne: Concordia Theological Seminary Press. 2000.  133-151.

In the years before Luther the family had been devalued by Church and society.  Luther's teaching put a great value on marriage and family.  It is within the context of a family that we start to understand sin, forgiveness, and God's forbearance.

In medieval thought the celibate life was considered to earn merit for salvation.  It was not uncommon to consider all sexual activity to be unclean, though priests routinely violated their vows of celibacy, had children and concubines.  At the same time, priests did suffer from the guilt of their sinful behavior.

Luther brought liberation by observing that marriage is a biblically good thing.  Yet he emphasized that marriage involved caring for the household, bringing up children, and living in joy and respect together in community.

Lindberg details many of Luther's reflections on the blessedness of marriage and the care which God has given family members for one another.  A recurring theme is the way marriage and family reflect God's care for us, which is undeserved on our part.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Where Is Your God? Luther on God's Self-Localization

Kleinig, John. "Where is (sic) Your God?  Luther on God's Self-Localization."   All Theology Is Christology: Essays in Honor of David P. Scaer.  Fort Wayne: Concordia Theological Seminary Press. 2000.  117-131.

The interpretation of biblical passages which seem to declare God's presence is often a challenge.  We confess that God is omnipresent.  Yet in the Old Testament he is depicted as living at the tabernacle and later at the temple.  How do we reconcile these concepts?  Luther worked with this concept a good deal in his later years.

God's omnipresence seems masked in the Bible.  Though he is everywhere he does not make himself equally accessible everywhere.  We see this from before the Fall, when Adam had certain times and places where God would visit him.  In a stark contrast, Cain is sent out away from God's presence.  He is therefore a wanderer, a fugitive.

After the Fall, God gives sacrifices and the sign of his presence.  He further gives specific places for worship in the time of the patriarchs.  When he establishes the tabernacle and the feasts he makes more specific times and one specific place for worship, that time for participation in God's special presence.  

After analyzing these comments about God's presence we see that God's people know God can be found as he has revealed himself in the Scripture.  God institutes worship which is pleasing to him.  And he has promised always to be found in certain ways.  These ways are always accompanied by visible signs.  He is always accessible in sacrifices and circumcision in the Old Testament.

In the New Testament, after Jesus' ascension, we see that Jesus is in fact the culmination of the place of worship.  We therefore confess that wherever Jesus has revealed himself in Word and sacraments we can look to him in faith.  Therefore we rightly consider the church assembled in Word and sacraments as the place to meet with God.  This is coming into the specific real presence of our Lord and Savior.

-- 

Thursday, September 10, 2009

The Wedding Feast at Cana and the Christological Monomania of St. John

Schuchard, Bruce G.  "The Wedding Feast at Cana and the Christological Monomania of St. John."  All Theology Is Christology: Essays in Honor of David P. Scaer.  Fort Wayne: Concordia Theological Seminary Press. 2000.  101-116.

Schuchard asks about the possible significance of John's specific statement of the "third day" for the wedding feast at Cana.  Did John have a particular reason in mind for this mention other than simply stating chronology?  Schuchard thinks John does.  He finds in this account a parallel to the account of creation in Genesis.  He also finds in this portion of the Gospel (1.19-2.11) a parallel to the entire Gospel of John, a time involving four narrative "journeys" to Jerusalem which correspond with the four days mentioned in John 1.19-2.11.

In this pattern of concentric circles of revelation, we see that the wedding feast would correspond with Jesus' third trip to Jerusalem for Passover as well as the third day on which Jesus rose from the dead.  This is the wedding feast at which Jesus provides the superabundant wine, the very best which can be imagined.  This wine, as we see if we consider the idea of the resurrection from the dead, is the blood of Jesus given for the life of the world.  This is in fact what we need and can never attain to outside of the resurrected Christ.

This article gives an interesting and thoughtful analysis of the Gospel of John from a literary standpoint.  I have never seen these patterns in John myself, but Schuchard brings up numerous scholars who have seen them.  I'm afraid we often become so intent on seeing what one sentence in Scripture says that we forget to explore the big picture God has given us throughout an entire book.  But we know the first one to put forth his opinion seems right until other evidence is examined.  Is Schuchard right?  Anyone ready to contradict him?