Happy Halloween! Or Happy Reformation Day. Or Happy All Hallow’s Eve. Or maybe I should just wish you all a Happy(-ish) Monday.
For many Christians, October 31 seems marked with uncertainty. Yes, we all enjoy seeing (and buying, but this isn’t the place for personal confessions) the gigantic bags of candy in the grocery store. And most of us enjoy seeing hilariously clever punny costumes. But for many others, the celebration of Halloween brings us back to that seemingly never ending question concerning how we should interact with culture. Halloween today seems far less innocent than it did even ten or fifteen years ago. Back in those days, as Richard Mouw has noted, Continue reading
Last Friday, Conciliar Post hosted a Round Table discussion on Martin Luther. I would encourage you go click on over there and peruse the reflections on how Christians from a variety of denominations view the “first” Reformer. My response to this Round Table is as follows:
My perception of Luther arises from many experiences with the Luther’s legacy and his writings. I grew up in the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod—attending both church and school until middle school—and learned much about Luther the Great Reformer there. Every fall we would talk about the Reformation, how Luther valorously stood up to the heresies of the Catholic Church. We would read stories about his life (mostly his post-Diet of Worms “capture” by Frederick the Wise), wait in eager anticipation for Thrivent Financial’s production of Luther, and talk about the central tenets of the Augsburg Confession. The picture of Luther painted at this stage of my life accorded with the idealizing of other great Christians, albeit with that special fervor which accompanied talking about Luther as a “Lutheran.” Continue reading
In Luther, the NFP Teleart and Thrivent Financial for Lutherans’ film starring Joseph Fiennes, the story of German monk Martin Luther’s journey to what is now referred to as the Protestant Reformation is told. The film begins with Luther’s entrance into the realm of late medieval Roman Catholic monasticism, moves to his struggle with faith, tells of his trip to Rome, his teaching at the University of Wittenberg, his scathing writing against the abuses of the Church, and the ensuing struggle to reform the Western Christian Church. The film portrays Luther’s struggle in captivating fashion and fared well when released internationally in 2003. But as with any other film production portraying historical events, one must ask how accurate the film Luther is in its portrayal of Martin Luther, the Catholic Church, and the events surrounding the Protestant Reformation of the early 16th Century. Continue reading
For many people living in the West, an assumption exists that religion is inherently violent. After all, they say, just look at the evidence: religion has caused wars, the Crusades, terrorism, religion has made people hate and kill others for nothing more than the ideas that were in their heads. According to this view, religions are not only necessarily violent, but they are responsible for much (if not all) of the violence in recorded human history. However, an explanation of the history of violence is not so simple, argues Karen Armstrong in her latest book Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014. 512 pages). According to Armstrong, though violence is an unfortunate reality of human history, evil and warfare are not necessarily religious in nature nor does violence always arise from religion. In the impressive and exhaustive tome that is Fields of Blood, Armstrong traces the relationship between religion and the history of violence, arguing that “We cannot afford oversimplified assumptions about the nature of religion or its role in world.” Continue reading
This post is part of our ongoing series on Romans, Predestination, and Freewill.
What then can be used in the soteriological constructions of Luther and Erasmus in light of such a critique? It seems that most scholars would especially prefer Luther, were he able, to rework his understanding of Romans in light of more recent scholarship, as a great deal of his interpretative framework has become the general Protestant manner of reading and interpreting the letter. Certainly many would argue against this justification theme as central to the letter, though it seems some scholars would be willing for certain understandings of Luther’s to remain, such as the doctrine of justification by grace through faith. On Luther’s understanding of foreknowledge and necessity, with concern for textual considerations only, it would seem that a good number of scholars, including those of the New Perspective on Paul, would argue against such a strong reading of God’s necessitating all of men’s willing and actions. Very few scholars however, seem willing to remove the interpretation concerning the importance and immanence of God’s grace in the process of salvation. Would a revised Lutheran theology continue in its original uniqueness and strength concerning the total sovereignty of God in all situations without any real role for man’s will to play in the process of salvation? Luther uses a great deal of strong language in On the Bondage of the Will, language that would seem impossible to continue employing were Luther’s theology critiqued in light of modern scholarship on Romans. Without such strong language, Luther’s understanding may revert back to his earlier understanding as presented in his lectures on Romans, where God remains totally in control of all circumstances while seemingly leaving something for humanity to do. How such a view would differ from Erasmus’ presentation remains a topic to be considered elsewhere. Continue reading