As a Mattes of fact...
Every tradition has a centraldogma; that is neither here nor there. For Protestants, justification has enjoyed a place of doctrinal prominence; traditionally, other dogmas have been ancillary, flowing forth from justification which has set at the center of Protestant theological systems. Thus, it must be understood that much of the Protestant theological identity has been defined by the doctrine of justification. Obviously, Luther is the name that we associate with Protestant models of justification, the doctrine on which, says the reformer, the church stands or falls. If we assume then, as Mark Mattes does, that a Lutheran understanding of justification is to be normative for Protestant theology as a whole,[1] then all Protestant theology must be judged by the criterion (or discrimen, if you’d like) of justification. Yet according to Mattes, not just any understanding of justification will do. Rather, Mattes suggests that models of justification are captive to the work of Luther; thus, Mattes seeks to measure the work of five epic theologians—Eberhard Jungel, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jurgen Moltmann, Robert Jenson, and Oswald Bayer—against Luther himself, to whom Mattes audaciously refers as “the messenger of the ‘Everlasting Gospel.’”[2]…Easy there Mark. Criticizing Jungel, Pannenberg, and Moltmann especially for conforming their theologies to the secular philosophical trends of modernity, Mattes, it seems, is only picking up a battle left off by his idol.[3] It is evident that Mattes harbors a ferocious distrust for secular reason and is dedicated to the deconstruction of this the “devil’s whore.” As his project is directly out of Luther, it is only natural that Mattes apply the fiery monk as the ultimate arbiter for acceptable Protestant visions for justification.
Since space only allows for such, I will focus primarily on Mattes’ criticism of the theology of Jurgen Moltmann. After casting aside the neo-orthodox and existentialist Jungel[4] and Wolfhart Pannenberg (a personal favorite of mine) for his emphasis on a metaphysical connection to God and over-focus on ecumenism,[5] Mattes picks up in criticizing Jurgen Moltmann for an obviously un-Lutheran doctrine of justification. Though Moltmann is not confessionally Lutheran, he is Protestant, and this, says Mattes, is sufficient grounds from hauling him into Luther court. It is no surprise that Mattes’ verdict is “guilty.” As Mattes demonstrates, Moltmann’s understanding of justification is not purely Lutheran (whether it should be or not is another question). So, if we operate under Mattes’ assumption that Luther is the Protestant ideal, we ought to strongly reconsider allegiance to Moltmann. Mattes does well in expositing Moltmann’s theory of justification.[6] Keying on Moltmann’s Marxist emphasis on social and ecological transformation through solidarity with the oppressed and the alleviation of material concerns predicated on a hopeful anticipation of the future kingdom, Mattes arrives at the conclusion that Moltmann posits that justification essentially comes through hope.[7] Mattes is tenaciously critical of the revered theologian, correctly asserting that Moltmann’s ideas on justification can hardly be reconciled with Luther’s: “Politics has soteriological import for Moltmann. The Kingdom will save us. Moltmann does not hold to Luther’s view of keeping salvation to the promise, trusting that it liberates us from incurvation and returns us to creation.”[8] As it seems, Moltmann’s justification rests on active ethics, a living in light of the future; within this context, the Christian is justified on the basis of participation in the ideals of the coming kingdom of God. Put another way, for Moltmann, good works are of supreme importance in coram deo. Overall, Moltmann and Luther are at odds fundamentally over the issue of human agency; for Moltmann, humans are active agents for the transformation of the world. This flies in the face of Luther’s famous “passive righteousness.” Perhaps Mattes’ greatest critique of Moltmann is found in the latter’s political systematic theology. In Mattes’ estimation, Moltmann confuses the order of the theological enterprise. Instead of establishing justification as a hub to which all other doctrines are subjected, Moltmann values justification, but only as an ancillary doctrine that serves as a prelude to the real action: the advent of total global justice.[9] Thus, the fundamental problem is that Moltmann seeks to fit justification into a system rather than constructing his system around justification.
Mattes’ arguments are convincing, but they are not without their problems. My primary issue with Mattes relates to fundamental assumptions. Mattes assumes from the beginning that a good Protestant theology will automatically conform to Luther on the issue of justification. Now, I may very well be inclined to agree. Yet, his judgments on Jungel, Pannenberg, Moltmann, and Jenson (Bayer is the only one to pass the Lutheran Inquisition) are only legit if we buy the assumption that Luther’s view of justification is the hallmark and defining character of Protestant theology. If we do not agree with this starting assumption, all of his criticisms are rendered invalid. Perhaps, then, the greatest contribution that Mattes makes with this work is his challenging us to think. Often, we fall in love with theologians and their romantic ideas; and, as we are enamored with them as a lover, we overlook flaws. Mattes is right: if we are committed to Luther’s view of justification as an essential and non-negotiable element of Evangelical faith, than we had better think twice before we uncritically buy in to Jungel, Pannenberg, or Moltmann’s systems wholesale. Mattes challenges us to discernment. His audacious survey demonstrates rare intellectual courage to take on the giants of contemporary Protestant theology. Perhaps we should do the same.
[1] This is what Mattes means when he refers to justification as the “hub” of theology rather than a “foundation” for it. According to Mattes, justification must serve as a hub through which all other doctrines navigate; for a proper understanding of Protestant theology, all other doctrines must be subjected to justification, the central dogma. For further discussion see Mark C. Mattes, The Role of Justification in Contemporary Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 11.
[2] Mattes, The Role of Justification in Contemporary Theology, 15.
[3] Ibid, 11-13. It seems that Mattes blames the follies of liberalism and modernism on confusion over crucial doctrinal issues; namely, he accuses these movements of losing sight of Luther’s view of justification. Here, Mattes carries Luther’s torch of relentless criticism of secular reason.
[4] Ibid 53-55: Mattes criticizes Jungel essentially for his anthropocentric model of justification, which, in his mind, betrays the Lutheran requirement of a theocentric understanding: “Rather, with Jungel, we might say that God became human so that we might actually be able to discern our own humanity, accept it, and even grow in it” (53). Clearly, if we are playing by Luther’s rules, Jungel is disqualified.
[5] Ibid, 83.
[6] It has been said (mostly by Matt Martin) that Mattes misreads Moltmann, who, it is contended, holds to an orthodox view of justification. As I do not know Moltmann as well as I perhaps should, I will make no judgment on the accuracy with which Mattes reads Moltmann. However, in my limited experience in reading Moltmann, it seems that Mattes is pretty accurate in coming to the conclusion that, for Moltmann, we are essentially justified by hope.
[7] Ibid, 86.
[8] Ibid, 89. Emphasis mine.
[9] Ibid, 98.
Since space only allows for such, I will focus primarily on Mattes’ criticism of the theology of Jurgen Moltmann. After casting aside the neo-orthodox and existentialist Jungel[4] and Wolfhart Pannenberg (a personal favorite of mine) for his emphasis on a metaphysical connection to God and over-focus on ecumenism,[5] Mattes picks up in criticizing Jurgen Moltmann for an obviously un-Lutheran doctrine of justification. Though Moltmann is not confessionally Lutheran, he is Protestant, and this, says Mattes, is sufficient grounds from hauling him into Luther court. It is no surprise that Mattes’ verdict is “guilty.” As Mattes demonstrates, Moltmann’s understanding of justification is not purely Lutheran (whether it should be or not is another question). So, if we operate under Mattes’ assumption that Luther is the Protestant ideal, we ought to strongly reconsider allegiance to Moltmann. Mattes does well in expositing Moltmann’s theory of justification.[6] Keying on Moltmann’s Marxist emphasis on social and ecological transformation through solidarity with the oppressed and the alleviation of material concerns predicated on a hopeful anticipation of the future kingdom, Mattes arrives at the conclusion that Moltmann posits that justification essentially comes through hope.[7] Mattes is tenaciously critical of the revered theologian, correctly asserting that Moltmann’s ideas on justification can hardly be reconciled with Luther’s: “Politics has soteriological import for Moltmann. The Kingdom will save us. Moltmann does not hold to Luther’s view of keeping salvation to the promise, trusting that it liberates us from incurvation and returns us to creation.”[8] As it seems, Moltmann’s justification rests on active ethics, a living in light of the future; within this context, the Christian is justified on the basis of participation in the ideals of the coming kingdom of God. Put another way, for Moltmann, good works are of supreme importance in coram deo. Overall, Moltmann and Luther are at odds fundamentally over the issue of human agency; for Moltmann, humans are active agents for the transformation of the world. This flies in the face of Luther’s famous “passive righteousness.” Perhaps Mattes’ greatest critique of Moltmann is found in the latter’s political systematic theology. In Mattes’ estimation, Moltmann confuses the order of the theological enterprise. Instead of establishing justification as a hub to which all other doctrines are subjected, Moltmann values justification, but only as an ancillary doctrine that serves as a prelude to the real action: the advent of total global justice.[9] Thus, the fundamental problem is that Moltmann seeks to fit justification into a system rather than constructing his system around justification.
Mattes’ arguments are convincing, but they are not without their problems. My primary issue with Mattes relates to fundamental assumptions. Mattes assumes from the beginning that a good Protestant theology will automatically conform to Luther on the issue of justification. Now, I may very well be inclined to agree. Yet, his judgments on Jungel, Pannenberg, Moltmann, and Jenson (Bayer is the only one to pass the Lutheran Inquisition) are only legit if we buy the assumption that Luther’s view of justification is the hallmark and defining character of Protestant theology. If we do not agree with this starting assumption, all of his criticisms are rendered invalid. Perhaps, then, the greatest contribution that Mattes makes with this work is his challenging us to think. Often, we fall in love with theologians and their romantic ideas; and, as we are enamored with them as a lover, we overlook flaws. Mattes is right: if we are committed to Luther’s view of justification as an essential and non-negotiable element of Evangelical faith, than we had better think twice before we uncritically buy in to Jungel, Pannenberg, or Moltmann’s systems wholesale. Mattes challenges us to discernment. His audacious survey demonstrates rare intellectual courage to take on the giants of contemporary Protestant theology. Perhaps we should do the same.
[1] This is what Mattes means when he refers to justification as the “hub” of theology rather than a “foundation” for it. According to Mattes, justification must serve as a hub through which all other doctrines navigate; for a proper understanding of Protestant theology, all other doctrines must be subjected to justification, the central dogma. For further discussion see Mark C. Mattes, The Role of Justification in Contemporary Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 11.
[2] Mattes, The Role of Justification in Contemporary Theology, 15.
[3] Ibid, 11-13. It seems that Mattes blames the follies of liberalism and modernism on confusion over crucial doctrinal issues; namely, he accuses these movements of losing sight of Luther’s view of justification. Here, Mattes carries Luther’s torch of relentless criticism of secular reason.
[4] Ibid 53-55: Mattes criticizes Jungel essentially for his anthropocentric model of justification, which, in his mind, betrays the Lutheran requirement of a theocentric understanding: “Rather, with Jungel, we might say that God became human so that we might actually be able to discern our own humanity, accept it, and even grow in it” (53). Clearly, if we are playing by Luther’s rules, Jungel is disqualified.
[5] Ibid, 83.
[6] It has been said (mostly by Matt Martin) that Mattes misreads Moltmann, who, it is contended, holds to an orthodox view of justification. As I do not know Moltmann as well as I perhaps should, I will make no judgment on the accuracy with which Mattes reads Moltmann. However, in my limited experience in reading Moltmann, it seems that Mattes is pretty accurate in coming to the conclusion that, for Moltmann, we are essentially justified by hope.
[7] Ibid, 86.
[8] Ibid, 89. Emphasis mine.
[9] Ibid, 98.
posted by ryan tafilowski at 2:12 PM
4 Comments:
"Moltmann's tendency is to translate the gospel into a praxis, a 'doing.' For Moltmann, the aim of theology is not merely 'to understand the world differently; it wants to change the world as well." (98)
At first I wrote in my margin "so?" The more I understood Mattes, however, the more I understood the significance of this quote. Mattes, because of the polemic nature of this text, is concerned with an exclusive focus on grace. Consequently, he sees Moltmann's seemingly unproblematic emphasis on praxis as problematic from a Lutheran perspective. To this I say Yes and No. Yes for Mattes. No for less polemical Lutheran works.
Yes, many of Moltmann's works certainly come out of his background in Marxism and have a powerful focus on the role of Christianity in shaping the world. However, I would not argue this is Moltmann's predominate theme. Nor would I say that for Moltmann we are justified by hope.
For Moltmann, justification and salvation are as passively received by humanity as they are for Mattes. This is clear in Moltmann's picking up the Judaic theme of the Shekinah. God alone, by grace alone through Christ alone, brings justification and salvation. Hope for Moltmann arises out of the Crucifixion/resurrection event and the subsequently through the operation of the Holy Spirit. The subtly of Moltmann's work is that justification by grace indirectly serves as the condition for the possibility of salvation through hope. A major theme of Moltmann is empowerment/fulfilment. Hope because of the death/resurrection of Christ opens up space for humanity to begin to strive for the perfection of the Kingdom. However, at no point does Moltmann present this in a legalistic way. He constantly stresses the fulfilment of Creation is completed based on nothing other than the working of God in Her Creation. God, coming from the past through history and coming from outside the future into time, is in the process of continual creation unto fulfilment, when all Creation will serve as Her completed Temple and She will dwell in it and it in Her in the eschatological Shekinah.
Hope itself is a categorical gift AND a categorical imperative, one born out of God's grace. Because of God's grace (and election--after all, Moltmann's inclusion in the work is odd since he is playing a more Reformed than Lutheran game) we are given hope and this hope calls us to responsiblity now to become a part of God's working in Creation for its fulfilment in the eschaton.
clever title...i didn't read the rest.
Haha (ok, yeah, you probably could beat me up). But that aside, what you say is fair. Moltmann does have a strong overemphasis on the role of praxis in sanctification, and in this it makes perfect sense for Mattes to select him as one of the chief theologians straying from Luther's doctrine today. In Moltmann's work, there is definitely a conflation of the boundary between active and passive righteousness. His emphasis on Shekinah counters this somewhat, but not nearly to the extent that a Lutheran like Mattes would be impressed with.
I highly value Mattes work as an important polemical corrective to such theology recently. Influenced especially by Marxism and social activism, modern theologies in mainline academies tends to focus on praxis, and it was this focus that particularly annoyed me in Practical Theology. I agree with you and Volf that doctrine is on "foundational" importance, and perhaps often Moltmann simply assumes important doctrine and plays with praxis steming from it.
As much as I appreciate Moltmann, I wouldn't want to read him to the exclusion of Mattes.
I never saw it from that angle, but you are likely right that much of MM's concern comes from his devotion to Luther. I see now what you all seem to be perpexed about. These are intraconfessional debates. They are important, but they likely and rightly seem odd to non devotees. Let me take this opportunity also to commend the comment from MM. This is how we can affirm the value of Moltmann and understand what MM (the author not the poster) was doing.
Post a Comment
<< Home