Theological Journal - March 23: Moltmann Monday - Atonement
Moltmann once called the theology of
the cross a minority position in the church and a teaching “not much loved” by
it. It was, perhaps, understandable (even if not excusable) during the time of
ascendency of the church during Christendom (5th-20th
century) in the West that a theology of glory supplanted a theology of the
cross in the church’s theology. But the former has become a blind spot for the
church in the West as it has become clear that the long period of Christendom
was a monstrous aberration.
Moltmann works out of the Lutheran
tradition. And since it was Martin Luther who at the time of the Reformation
rediscovered the theology of cross in Paul and Jesus, it since only right to
hear from a great contemporary Lutheran theologian (other than Moltmann) his
take on this pernicious false gospel so deeply-rooted our traditions and
experience of Christianity in this country. Gerhard Forde is his name and we
will read a section from his fine book On Being a Theologian of the Cross (an in depth look at Martin Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation).
Theologians of Glory – “operate on the assumption that what we need is optimistic encouragement, some flattery, some positive thinking, some support to build our self-esteem. Theologically speaking it operates on the assumption that we are not seriously addicted to sin, and that our improvement is both necessary and possible. We need a little boost in our desire to do good works. Of course the theologian of glory may well grant that we need the help of grace.
The only dispute, usually, will
be about the degree of grace needed. If we are “liberal,” we will opt for less
grace and tend to define it as some kind of moral persuasion or spiritual
encouragement. If we are more “conservative” and speak even of the depth of
human sin, we will tend to escalate the degree of grace needed to the utmost.
But the hallmark of a theology
of glory is
that it will always consider grace as something of a supplement to whatever is
left of human will and power. It will always, in the end hold, out for some
free will.” (Forde, p. 16) – in short a theologian of glory sees the cross as a
means to an end rather than the end itself. He/she is interested in progression
to glory as opposed to death and resurrection.
Theologians of the Cross – “operate on the assumption
that there must be – to use the language of treatment for addicts – a
‘bottoming out’ or an ‘intervention.’ That is to say, there is no cure for the
addict on his own. In theological terms, we must come to confess that we are
addicted to sin, addicted to self, whatever form that may take, pious or
impious. SO theologians of the cross know that we can’t be helped by optimistic
appeals to glory, strength, wisdom, positive thinking, and so forth because
those things are themselves the problem. The truth must be spoken. To repeat
Luther again, the thirst for glory or power or wisdom is never satisfied even
by the acquisition of it. We always want more – precisely so that we can
declare independence from God. The thirst is for the absolute independence of
the self, and that is sin. Thus again Luther’s statement of the radical cure in
his proof for thesis 22: “The remedy for curing desire does not lie in
satisfying it, but in extinguishing it.” The cross does the extinguishing. The
cross is the death of sin, and the sinner. The cross does the ‘bottoming out.’
The cross is the ‘intervention.’ The addict/sinner is not coddled by false
optimism but is put to death so that new life can begin.
The theologian of the cross
‘says what a thing is’ (thesis 21). The theologian of the cross preaches to
convict of sin. The addict is not deceived by theological marshmallows but is
told the truth so that he might at last learn to confess, to say, ‘I am an
addict,’ ‘I am an alcoholic,’ and never to stop saying it. Theologically and
more universally all must learn to say, ‘I am a sinner,’ and likewise never to
stop saying it until Christ’s return makes it no longer true.” (Forde, p. 17) –
in short a theologian of the cross sees the cross as the end where we die to
our sin with Christ and are raised a new creation with Christ. The work is
truly finished as Christ promised and there is no moving on from His cross.
In more colloquial terms, we
might say theologians of glory believe that Christian life
-makes reasonable sense to
us,
-is livable by us,
and
-will make successes of us.
Theologians of the cross contest
these ways of parsing Christian existence by, in Moltmann’s words above,
putting the crucified Christ back in the “centre
of Christian faith and of theology.” When we do that
-life no longer makes such reasonable sense, -is
impossible for us to live, and
-and losing becomes winning.
The logic of such a life, a lá Jesus, is cruciform
(cross-shaped), it’s possibility is Christ living his cruciform live in and
through us, and it public face is martyrdom (the ultimate form of losing is
winning Jesus-style).
And that changes everything, absolutely everything.
Moltmann puts in this way: in the crucified Christ we are “set free from the
power of the facts of the present time (the way things are), and from the laws
and compulsions of history (the way things must be), and (are) offered a future
which will never grow dark again (things can and will be as God desires them).”
This is the essential theological recovery the
American church must make as it recovers from the hangover of Christendom and
its theology of glory!
Comments
Post a Comment