More conversation with the East...and this time Luther is playing too
With the advent of postmodern modes of thought, the theological vogue has shifted from the maddening articulation of academic minutia (see exhibit A: Society of Biblical Literature – that may be below the belt) to a renewed interest in inter-tradition dialogue and re-appropriations of classical theological texts. Tuomo Mannermaa’s Christ Present in Faith serves as a prominent example of this significant change in paradigms. In this thought-provoking text, Mannermaa captures the essence of this new movement in scholarship as he seeks to stir up conversation between the Finnish Lutheran school and Russian Orthodoxy on the basis of perceived similarities in Luther’s doctrine of justification and the Eastern divinization. In this fresh re-reading of Luther, Mannermaa attempts a daring enterprise that been undertaken in the past, but has failed miserably. Historically, the divide between models of justification in more Western-scholastic and Eastern-mystical traditions has been considered to be just too wide to be bridged. It has been suggested that forensic justification (as has been associated with Luther and the reformers) has nothing in common with the Eastern model of theosis. Can forensic justification be reconciled with deification? Unfortunately, though Mannermaa gives some common ground, I believe the answer is in the negative.
In fairness to Mannermaa, it was never his intention, even from the very onset, to suggest that Lutheran justification is the same as Orthodox divinization. Rather, Mannermaa wishes to contend that the two concepts are, at the very least, analogous and that the doctrine of justification can indeed serves as a “point of contact with Orthodox theology.”[1] Mannermaa’s operating assumption that allows such a connection is that the idea of a real, ontological union with Christ undergirds Luther’s soteriology. In this way, Mannermaa suggests, Luther’s concept of the inhabitatio Dei (the indwelling of God in the believer) is analogous to theosis, a sort of absorbtion into the Divine life emphasized in the East. Within Luther’s context, Christ himself is the substance and accidents of faith, as it were. Luther speaks of the believer taking hold of Christ himself in faith (In ipsa fide Christus adest). It is in this indwelling (though sometimes Luther speaks of Christ “covering” the believer) that Christ himself serves as both favor (the forgiveness of sins resulting in justification) and donum (the gift of indwelling affecting sanctification) simultaneously, ensuring a “cementing” of the two entities, by which the believer, it seems, is brought into a real, ontological union with Christ whereby the believer and Christ become unio personalis.[2] In this “happy exchange,” says Luther, God communicates his attributes to the believer by virtue of his real presence in Christ thus allowing the believer to partake in the Divine nature in an experience not altogether foreign to Eastern notions of deification. In this process, though, it is Christ himself who achieves the Christian’s justification and sanctification objectively from the outside. As Luther emphasizes, indwelling is passive, and comes from nothing inside the believer’s self: Christ himself becomes the Christian’s righteousness and guiltlessness before God.[3] In classical Luther fashion, the Reformer insists that salvation is wholly the work of God, that is, purely monergistic. It is for this reason that Luther vehemently condemns scholastic as well as Eastern (perhaps unknowingly, here) versions of theosis that rely on human love as a means for uniting with God, suggesting that incorporating human love into the salvific economy is a work of the law and an affront to the work of the cross.[4] Humanity can add nothing, says Luther, to the work of God.
With this in mind, it becomes increasingly difficult to equate Luther’s doctrine of justification with Eastern divinization with a high degree of accuracy. The reason is this: Luther’s perspective on union with God is accomplished solely by Christ himself as he descends into the believer in an act of unadulterated monergism whereas in the East, human striving in love is an essential component in a synergy that results in absorbtion into the Divine nature. Mannermaa, perhaps in detriment to his own thesis, articulates the irreconcilable disconnect between Lutheran monergism and Eastern synergism well:
Put another way, the result of salvation for both Luther and the East may indeed be union with Christ. However, the means by which this union is accomplished in each tradition is drastically different. Yet, as was his intention, Mannermaa has indeed created some common ground for future discussions between Finnish Lutheranism and Russian Orthodoxy. In this sense, Mannermaa’s endeavor was very successful though it failed to completely reconcile Luther’s inhabitatio Dei with the Greek theosis. Even though the concept of union with the Divine is prevalent in Luther, it seems that he means something different by this union than do his scholastic and Eastern colleagues. Perhaps Mannermaa’s most important contribution through this work is to uncover elements of Luther’s theology that have been forgotten in the wake of post-enlightenment interpretations of the reformer. What Mannermaa has done, if nothing else, is shown that Luther’s soteriology is much bigger than merely forensic models of the atonement.
[1] Tuomo Mannermaa, Christ Present in Faith: Luther’s View of Justification (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 3.
[2] Ibid, 41.
[3] Ibid, 57.
[4] Ibid, 25-27.
[5] Ibid, 45.
In fairness to Mannermaa, it was never his intention, even from the very onset, to suggest that Lutheran justification is the same as Orthodox divinization. Rather, Mannermaa wishes to contend that the two concepts are, at the very least, analogous and that the doctrine of justification can indeed serves as a “point of contact with Orthodox theology.”[1] Mannermaa’s operating assumption that allows such a connection is that the idea of a real, ontological union with Christ undergirds Luther’s soteriology. In this way, Mannermaa suggests, Luther’s concept of the inhabitatio Dei (the indwelling of God in the believer) is analogous to theosis, a sort of absorbtion into the Divine life emphasized in the East. Within Luther’s context, Christ himself is the substance and accidents of faith, as it were. Luther speaks of the believer taking hold of Christ himself in faith (In ipsa fide Christus adest). It is in this indwelling (though sometimes Luther speaks of Christ “covering” the believer) that Christ himself serves as both favor (the forgiveness of sins resulting in justification) and donum (the gift of indwelling affecting sanctification) simultaneously, ensuring a “cementing” of the two entities, by which the believer, it seems, is brought into a real, ontological union with Christ whereby the believer and Christ become unio personalis.[2] In this “happy exchange,” says Luther, God communicates his attributes to the believer by virtue of his real presence in Christ thus allowing the believer to partake in the Divine nature in an experience not altogether foreign to Eastern notions of deification. In this process, though, it is Christ himself who achieves the Christian’s justification and sanctification objectively from the outside. As Luther emphasizes, indwelling is passive, and comes from nothing inside the believer’s self: Christ himself becomes the Christian’s righteousness and guiltlessness before God.[3] In classical Luther fashion, the Reformer insists that salvation is wholly the work of God, that is, purely monergistic. It is for this reason that Luther vehemently condemns scholastic as well as Eastern (perhaps unknowingly, here) versions of theosis that rely on human love as a means for uniting with God, suggesting that incorporating human love into the salvific economy is a work of the law and an affront to the work of the cross.[4] Humanity can add nothing, says Luther, to the work of God.
With this in mind, it becomes increasingly difficult to equate Luther’s doctrine of justification with Eastern divinization with a high degree of accuracy. The reason is this: Luther’s perspective on union with God is accomplished solely by Christ himself as he descends into the believer in an act of unadulterated monergism whereas in the East, human striving in love is an essential component in a synergy that results in absorbtion into the Divine nature. Mannermaa, perhaps in detriment to his own thesis, articulates the irreconcilable disconnect between Lutheran monergism and Eastern synergism well:
By contrast, the fides charitate formata position (which Luther and Mannermaa
equate with scholasticism, but can also accurately describe the Orthodox
position on divinization), which rests on Greek ontology and its notion of
striving love, only signifies a partial, incomplete and insufficient
divinization…According to Luther, however, the true faith unites the Christian
with God who in God’s agape-love has “descended” to us and who is present in the
sinner by being present in faith in all God’s fullness.[5]
Put another way, the result of salvation for both Luther and the East may indeed be union with Christ. However, the means by which this union is accomplished in each tradition is drastically different. Yet, as was his intention, Mannermaa has indeed created some common ground for future discussions between Finnish Lutheranism and Russian Orthodoxy. In this sense, Mannermaa’s endeavor was very successful though it failed to completely reconcile Luther’s inhabitatio Dei with the Greek theosis. Even though the concept of union with the Divine is prevalent in Luther, it seems that he means something different by this union than do his scholastic and Eastern colleagues. Perhaps Mannermaa’s most important contribution through this work is to uncover elements of Luther’s theology that have been forgotten in the wake of post-enlightenment interpretations of the reformer. What Mannermaa has done, if nothing else, is shown that Luther’s soteriology is much bigger than merely forensic models of the atonement.
[1] Tuomo Mannermaa, Christ Present in Faith: Luther’s View of Justification (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 3.
[2] Ibid, 41.
[3] Ibid, 57.
[4] Ibid, 25-27.
[5] Ibid, 45.
posted by ryan tafilowski at 3:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home