The Theology of Martin Luther

A Critical Assessment

Hans-Martin Barth, Linda M. Maloney

• Publisher: Fortress Press
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9780800698751
• eBook ISBN: 9781451424355
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Denominations

II

Perceptions: Luther's Theology as Provocation

5

Alternatives: Between Cross and Self-Determination

“Theology of the cross” has become a kind of brand name for Luther’s theology. “Cross alone” constitutes his theology.^[1] It finds in the cross its criterion and its confirmation.^[2] At the same time, this may be one reason why Luther’s theology is not very well liked and seems not to have much about it that is attractive.

Contemporary Questions

We find the symbol of the cross nowadays in every conceivable context, from the corners of rooms in hostels in upper Bavaria to decorative pendants around people’s necks, even in Asia, and it has for the most part become dumb and speechless, for many people a puzzling “plus sign” on top of the church tower. In theology it seems to have become a frozen and empty formula, associated with no concrete memory of the agonizing death of Jesus of Nazareth. Consequently it has been suggested that we should no longer speak of the “cross of Christ” and instead talk of Jesus’ execution.^[3] On the other side it can continue to be interpreted as the symbol of an unjustified claim to power by an almighty church that is out of place in a secular, pluralistic society. The cross, or rather the crucifix, has become a run-of-the-mill object that says nothing or else an aggressive challenge, as discussion about the so-called crucifix decision showed a few years ago.^[4] In this situation how can Luther’s “theology of the cross” find a place for itself or bear any fruit?

Memory of the cross of Jesus Christ, in any event, stands in opposition to elementary needs at least of the well-situated people of the Western world, who have no desire to be deprived of the opportunity to make good on their ambitions. Western, well-off people see it as their task to make the best of their lives and accept responsibility for themselves. In the best case this also includes responsibility for other people or for society. In this context the memory of the crucified Jesus of Nazareth can only be a disturbing factor. On the other side are the marginalized people who find no connection to the boom in self-realization. What use is the cross of Jesus Christ to them? It does not help them to cope with the concrete crises of their daily lives and try to catch up with those who are better off. Looking at the cross is more of a hindrance than a help in their quest to break out and become active. For example, for centuries in Latin America the cross’s function was crippling. Women in particular feel damaged by references to passion and crucifixion; they have experienced too much of their own passion and crucifixion to be able to do much with the crucifix.^[5]

Within Christian theology the idea of a representative sacrifice, traditionally associated with the cross of Christ, has become obsolete for many. It is said to be one of the ideas we need to part with,^[6] based as it is on the idea of a sacrificial ritual that has nothing to do with Jesus’ proclamation. It is considered anachronistic to speak of a “redeeming sacrifice.” In fact, devotion to the passion has rapidly diminished in Lutheran congregations in recent decades; the Lenten “passiontide” has silently transformed into the “fasting time,” sometimes promoted as “seven weeks without” or even “with”—though not so much “with” recollection of Jesus’ suffering and death!

A theology of redemptive sacrifice, according to Klaus-Peter Jörns, arose in the interests of sacramental practice.^[7] In fact we do find here—although with different presuppositions than those Luther had—an anchor for the theology of the Mass and the idea of clerical office associated with it, and in turn the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to be Christ’s sole representative. Would not an insistence on the traditional implications of a theology of the cross prove to be positively anti-Protestant?

Finally, there is the head-scratching lack of understanding on the part of non-Christian religions and all our enlightened contemporaries: why should the execution of this one human being have significance for all humanity—and what is supposed to be consoling about it?

For all these reasons, would it not be appropriate to stop putting so much emphasis on Luther’s theologia crucis and making it so central, as was at least partly the case in the twentieth century?^[8]

Luther formed the concept of the theologia crucis in the spring of 1518. In the Heidelberg Disputation, in which he had the opportunity to present his views before the chapter of his order, he succeeded in giving a clear account of his concept. He considered the theologia crucis a direct counter to the theologia gloriae only in the years thereafter, namely in his lectures on the Psalms in 1519–1521^[9] and in his interpretation of the Magnificat.^[10] But the theology of the cross was not merely formative in a particular phase of Luther’s development. It is in the background of his distinction between the revealed and the hidden God. It changed in the course of the dispute over the Lord’s Supper and remained, in a form supported by the doctrine of two natures in Christ, as the supporting ground for the Reformation message about the justification of the ungodly. It represents a theological approach that accompanied the Reformer throughout his life and at the same time corresponded to a particular way of doing theology and a lifestyle in accord with it.^[11] Luther’s whole theology is, we might say, colored by and soaked in the blood of the Crucified and the suffering of the world.

The Approach

Biblical background

There are two primary New Testament passages, plus one reference from the Old Testament, on which Luther’s exposition of a theologia crucis rests. The “message about the cross,” Paul writes (1 Cor 1:18-25), is “foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” This is the way God chose “since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom.” The Jews demand “signs” and the Greeks ask for “wisdom,” but Paul preaches to them “Christ crucified, a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.” The Crucified is “the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.” This could be read together with the beginning of Romans, where Paul laments that God’s “eternal power and divine nature,” evident in the divine works, are not understood by human beings. “Claiming to be wise, they became fools” (Rom 1:18-23). In the Old Testament it is reported that Moses prayed to be able to see God’s “glory.” He received the answer: “you cannot see my face; for no one shall see me and live.” Moses is told that he will be placed in a cleft of the rock and God will pass by; “. . . you shall see my back; but my face shall not be seen” (Exod 33:18-23). The Vulgate has two words here that Luther seized upon: God’s “glory” (“Ostende mihi gloriam tuam”) and the permission to Moses to see at least the back of God, to perceive the other side of God (“posteriora mea”).

But it would be a mistake to see Luther’s theologia crucis as having a biblicist foundation. His concern is rather with taking the cross of Christ, which cannot be slotted into human categories of wisdom and strength, with the utmost seriousness.

Theses

The basic statements of the theologia crucis can best be enunciated from Theses 19–24 and 28 of the Heidelberg Disputation.^[12] “That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened” (Thesis 19). According to Romans 1:22, in fact, such a person should be called a “fool.” Access to the knowledge of God by way of creation, or reason that analyzes creation, is closed. Human beings have misused this way by confusing the creation with its Creator, and now the reverse path from the visible to the invisible is no longer possible. God has chosen a new way—in Christ. The one who does proper theology is instead the one “who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross” (Thesis 20). What is at issue is recognizing God hidden in suffering, in the lowliness and shame of the cross. Consequently, true theology and knowledge of God are found in the crucified Christ.^[13] Anyone who does not understand this and does theology for his or her own glory—as a theologus gloriae—calls what is evil good and what is good evil (Thesis 21). It is clear to the theologian of the cross, on the other hand, that God can only be found in the cross and suffering. Therefore the “friends of the cross” know that the cross is, in truth, good, because through it works righteousness and the old Adam are crucified. The theologian of the cross knows “that he is worthless and that his works are not his but God’s.”^[14] The attempt to know God in some other way puffs up, makes the perso...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Table Of Contents
• Copyright
• Preface
• Approach: Points of Entry and Difficulties of Access
• Perceptions: Luther's Theology as Provocation
• Consequences: With Luther beyond Luther
• Appendix: Technical Notes
• Indexes