1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
|
I love Luther!
##############
:date: 2019-11-15T08:09:02
:status: draft
:category: computer
:tags: review, Luther, Christianity, theology
I just finished reading the book “`Luther: finale of the medieval
spirituality`_” [Luther - finále středověké zbožnosti] by
Jaroslav Vokoun (Karmelitánské nakladatelství, Praha, 2017, ISBN
978-80-7195-890-1, in Czech).
The main thesis of the book is relatively simple although rather
surprising to many mainstream Protestants: the spirituality of
Martin Luther was not so much break from the medieval
spirituality but more its continuation.
One thing I learned again, that the medieval theology is not
uniform thing ruled by Saint Thomas Aquinas as the current
Catholics would like us to believe. He was not even the most
famous theologian, but more importantly there were many parallel
streams of theology, not all of them trying to press living God’s
faith into Aristotelian categories. The reason why we have
tendency not to believe Luther’s theology is related to the
medieval one, is because it is based on the monkish spirituality,
a way more practical, meditative, and pastoral, in the opposition
to the scholastic (academic) spirituality which dominated the
mainline Church then and it dominates the Roman-Catholic Church
until recently. Particularly, the author emphasizes the
relationship between Martin Luther and St. Berhnard.
Author then illustrates this point on couple of main topic which
covers the rest of the book. There are chapters dealing with the
Lord’s Supper, the mass, the general priesthood of all believers,
study of Bible and sources of the theology, understanding of Mary
generally and her Magnificat specifically. The last couple of
chapters are more metahistory of the later development of the
relationship between the Roman-Catholic Church and Martin Luther,
which started in the lowest possible point until the recent much
more open and accepting (including the discussion of the
Lutheran-Catholic commission and declarations they were able to
sign together, specifically is mentioned the most important of
them “`Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification`_\ ”).
I will deal with my review only with two of them: the first and
the last.
First, on the Lord’s Supper
---------------------------
Let me add a bit of introduction. I have been quite surprised how
much his explanation followed on my last year discussions about
the Holy Trinity, and how much the current Protestant (and
especially evangelical and charismatic) church is strongly
sliding (in moral more than in pure dogmatic sense of the word)
towards Gnosis, Monophysitism, or somewhere in that direction
denying material essence of the world and overemphasising
spiritual. We get a long discussions about the spiritual world,
and the demonic possessions, but everybody is ashamed (and viewed
as less spiritual) to suggest material reasons or even a mental
malady.
Therefore I enjoyed this (translation into English mine):
God doesn’t divide material and spiritual: God doesn’t give
only something, but he gives himself: Christ is really
present in the word, in sacraments, and in faith (in
a believing human). Materiality, corporeality, which offended
Luther’s adversaries, are in fact the very principle of the
God’s dealing with a human. Luther wrote to his adversary
Karlstadt: “God deals with us in two ways, once in the
external manner, and also the internal one. He deals with us
in the external manner when through mouths words of gospel
are preached, and also by the material signs, that is through
baptism and a sacrament. He deals with us in internal manner
through The Holy Spirit, and faith, and all his gifts.
However, everything so, that the external must precede. The
internal ones only after the external ones and through them.”
Elsewhere, he is even more sharp: God uses material things,
“but Devil doesn’t have body”. “Spiritual” could be demonic,
but corporeal and material can come from God as his word, as
his address to a human. “No, my companion, when you talk
about God, you have to talk about humanity as well. Neither
can be separated and divided.”
The question is not whether the God is present in the Lord’s
Supper, but that he is present there in the same manner as in any
other gift he gives to us. In everything given to us he is
present (“All generous giving and every perfect gift is from
above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is
no variation or the slightest hint of change.” James 1:17).
We can see, that Luther’s struggle with “spiritual”
adversaries (especially Karlstadt, Oecolampadius, and
Zwingli) is only new version of the struggle, which was
fought by Paul in Corinth with the “spiritual” Christians,
who had to be referred in the Christ’s name towards their
corporeality and challenged: Therefore glorify God with your
body! The relationship between God and materiality,
relationship between spirit and body, is the problem of
metaphysics. Luther’s adversaries and adherents to
“spirituality” want to separate one from another; matter and
body is seen as unspiritual and thus unworthy of God. The
problem they have with the Lord’s Supper, is the same problem
they have in fact with whole gospel, with the whole message,
that God acts in nature and in history, because there God
must be connected to materiality and corporeality.
The fundamental act of the Triune God towards the world and
humanity is giving. He gives to us in the creation, in the
Incarnation, and in the same manner he gives to us in sacraments.
In these gifts we need to distinguish truly good and bad, what
Paul sometimes call spiritual and bodily, but it is not accept
Church’s fathers (Clement of Alexandria, Origenes) persuasion
that the human body is a prison of the soul.
The biggest miracles for Luther are not “supernatural” acts
like healing or resurrection of dead, but everyday God acts
of creation of grain in ears on a field, and birds on trees.
After the Sin a man lost an ability to perceive this everyday
miracle and he seeks the extraordinary phenomena instead.
However, faith opens him eyes for this everyday God’s
creative activity in the creation. This all is created by the
God’s word and it continues to exist as the God’s word: “Sun,
moon, heavens, earth, Peter, Paul, you and me etc.,
everything are God’s words.” “Every bird and every fish are
therefore nothing else than word of the God’s grammar.” And
his words speak to us or instead the God himself speaks to us
through them. Luther says in one sermon, that if we had good
eyes and ears “every grain of cereal would tell us: Rejoice,
eat and drink, consume me and serve to your neighbour with
me.” Rejoice, eat and drink — this line of thought goes all
the way to the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper. Enjoy,
have a good time — even that is joyful trait of the
believer’s approach to the world.
Author then explains why this approach cannot be mistaken for any
kind of pantheism or why Luther was not a big fan of the natural
theology (discover God through observing nature), but the
principle is obvious, and it is suddenly obvious why Luther never
compromised on the point of the real presence of the Christ in
the Lord’s Supper. The question is not whether the Christ is
present in the Lord’s Supper, which could be partial and not
crucial point. It is whether the God himself is present in
everything we meet everyday, whether we are just spiritualists as
almost every other religious person, or whether we are true
Christians who believe in Christ who is “truly God and truly
Man”.
Also, the consequence of this thinking is that the legendary
Luther’s appreciating secular work (“work of shoemaker is as holy
as prayers of a monk”) has much deeper roots than expected, all
the way in his understanding of the Holy Trinity.
Second, on Marian reverence
---------------------------
If I was surprised on how well Luther’s understanding of the
Lord’s Supper matches with what I considered to be my great
discoveries, I was completely floored by Luther’s understanding
of the Marian reverence (at least how Vokoun describes it).
I always held that the Protestant’s closing of eyes over the
presence of Virgin Mary in the Bible is wrong. However, I haven’t
expected that some other Protestant, and even less Luther,
developed an alternative Mariology which is acceptable and
thoroughly biblical. I knew about `Luther’s Marian Theology`_,
but I thought it is just a hangover from his Catholic past.
On the other hand, I have to wonder how much views described by
Vokoun are truly the Luther’s ones, and how much they are pious
wishes of the author. The Wikipedia page mentions Luther’s
acceptance of the perpetual virginity of Mary, and even possibly
her Immaculate Conception, both of which are silently ignored by
Vokoun. And yes, the Wikipedia page clearly shows that both
doctrines are highly disputed among Lutherans, so that I am not
sure what is the authentic Luther’s opinion.
$$$
.. _`Luther: finale of the medieval spirituality`:
https://ikarmel.cz/produkt/luther-finale-stredoveke-zboznosti
.. _`Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification`:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
.. _`Luther’s Marian Theology`:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_Marian_theology
https://www.biblicaltraining.org/martin-luther/gordon-isaac
Martin Luther
The life and impact of Martin Luther on the Reformation and beyond.
Dr. Gordon Isaac
Gordon Conwell Seminary
|
