I could paraphrase this: “I am a Confessional Lutheran, born in a pastor’s household, brought up in the Lutheran Churches, studied at the feet of Nestingen, educated strictly according to the Book of Concord, being committed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, just as all of you are.” I could add to this that as Nestingen’s teaching assistant I tested my classmates on their memorization of the Small Catechism and the Augsburg Confession. And for twenty three years now I have been preaching and teaching each on a regular basis.
Now for my confession: As the years have gone by I have found that the traditional language of Law and Gospel, so firmly rooted in our tradition, mandated by our constitutions, and the very framework of the Confessions that define Lutheranism – no longer are persuasive to me. My fundamental problem is that though we hold firm to Paul and Luther’s understandings that we are justified by faith, apart from works prescribed by the law, we have nevertheless retained a fundamentally legalistic world view. Rather than come to a new understanding of the Gospel that has nothing to do with “the Law”, “the Law” remains fundamentally determinative for our relationship with God. The Gospel has been added, yes. It is seen as the cure demanded by the Law. But the Law remains.
We have a “cure” for the condemnation that the Law exacts, and so we will continue to “wound with the Law” that we may “cure with the Gospel”. What if that wasn’t what God ever intended? What if the reason God sent Jesus was not to first beat us up, convicting us of our sins, so that then he could forgive us? What if it was simply about a loving God reaching out to those that God loves, seeking nothing more, but also nothing less, than an intimate relationship with us all?
If St. Augustine could begin his “Confessions” with the line “You have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you”, the thought of Intimacy with God is clearly not some new and novel thinking. Loving intimacy is not a concept that can be defined legally. If we read scripture from the standpoint of a theology of intimacy what we find is that this theme is clearly present throughout the biblical witness. But if we develop our understanding of God’s relationship with the world as being defined by a quest for intimacy, we will end up with a much different world view than when we begin from the starting point of law and obedience.
Previously, I have written about my concerns that we no longer share a world view that centers on a cosmic battle between the forces of Good and Evil. I also have shared that I do not believe that it is all about “playing by the rules”. The polarity that I am suggesting truly reflects the world in which we live, is a polarity of “intimacy” versus “estrangement”. It is purely for love that God has created us. And the only thing God desires of us, is that we love even as God has first loved us. This is not radical language. It is at the very heart of the biblical witness. But love and intimacy can never be defined by the Law. Hence, I find myself compelled to reexamine our traditional teachings that presuppose the Law as the fundamental framework of our relationship to God.
[1] The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989, S. Ac 22:3
2 comments:
Well-wrestled! I have a lot of sympathy with you.
Gamaliel/Nestingen is a classicist, when it comes to the traditions of his fathers. And he will teach you that this is what it is to be a Jew/Lutheran. And we did what he taught us, and whatever the successes, in the end that worldview still got us Jesus asking "Why do you persecute me?"
I'm not in the same generation, but I was a PK raised in a Braaten and Nestingen house. Perhaps a good question is, who is your Ananias? To whom does Jesus lead you to learn anew? For me it was Karl Barth, and his way of turning the law-then-gospel system on its head. That, if Luther was obliged to oppose the way the Roman concept of legis worked, maybe we're not right to retain it as the dominant conception of law. That we are who we are because we are in Christ, and so the gospel conditions what is law for us. That therefore God gives us obligations and instruction and direction, but not in the form Luther was so opposed to. That cannot follow the gospel; it is only good for driving us screaming out of the system. That The Freedom of a Christian supplies the right basic idea.
My Ananias makes me a questionable Lutheran in the circles in which I was raised, with the way the brand "Confessional" is thrown around today. I have tainted my pedigree by dabbling in the Reformed. But I have no intention of being anything else but Lutheran, any more than Paul stopped being a Jew. Blessings as you keep confessing the gospel, and faithfully questioning the traditions of our fathers.
Thanks, Matt, for your comment. My Ananias? Ah, now that is a good question. I may be moving more toward John, than Paul. However even in Paul there are passages that reflect the biblical theme of “intimacy with God” that I am exploring. Romans 8 comes to mind. Within Johanine literature one need not look far. John 3:16, John 17, for example.
Truth be told the language of love and intimacy runs throughout scripture as a framework for describing God’s relationship with the world, and most specifically us. Yet it is like a marriage feast was shown, and some well meaning lawyers showed up to assist the bride and groom in drafting a legal document to define their marriage. Love needs no justification nor documentation in law. I find myself drawn to a language of the Gospel drawing upon loving intimacy, not legal compliance.
Thanks again, Dave
Post a Comment