Recherche – Detailansicht
Ausgabe: | Dezember/2023 |
Spalte: | 1227-1229 |
Kategorie: | Dogmen- und Theologiegeschichte |
Autor/Hrsg.: | Stjerna, Kirsi |
Titel/Untertitel: | Lutheran Theology. A Grammar of Faith. |
Verlag: | New York: T&T Clark 2021. 232 S. Kart. US$ 31,45. ISBN 9780567686718. |
Rezensent: | Paul R. Hinlicky |
If contemporary descendants of the Lutheran tradition which understand themselves to champion progressive causes in contemporary Western (post-)modernity are to sustain any meaningful theological connection to origins in the 16th century Lutheran Reformation, it will be thanks to the effort represented in this book. Yet it is reasonable to wonder whether the effort to remind contemporary progressives of »the rock from which they were hewn, the quarry from which they were dug« will prove quixotic. Moreover, whether the case for a theologically progressive Lutheranism squares with the sources Kirsi Stjerna mines in this book is, at the least, questionable as we shall see.
There is much of merit in S.’s account of the original Lutheran theology as found in the 1580 Book of Concord, albeit by a reading of it that is framed hermeneutically by the primacy S. accords to the early Augsburg Confession backed by Luther’s Catechisms and indeed, to the early theology of Martin Luther. Thus resourced, S.’s background in the Finnish school of Luther research fruitfully resolves neuralgic difficulties. She forcefully argues that Luther’s 1520 tract on the freedom of the Christian is key to interpreting justification by faith, where faith is not the believer’s good work but the Holy Spirit’s transformation to confidence in God’s love and care, liberating the believer to be a little Christ to the neighbor in need. Consequently, for S. this original Lutheran theology of freedom to love is a predecessor of contemporary theologies of liberation, as she repeatedly makes suggestions on how this tradition could connect with contemporary progressive concerns.
»[F]or Lutheran confessional theology, this remains the golden principle: freedom – not only freedom to believe and practice one’s faith, but freedom as a human being with all that it entails. The ultra-Lutheran term »justification« renders itself meaningful in a new way when understood in light of freedom as the basic human right and need. Justification speaks to this issue of justice, and then some. If not – then, what would be the more important for the purposes of confessing?« (60). The concluding rhetorical question, however, begs a retort. In terms of the 16th century sources what is most important is confessing before the world the name of Jesus Christ as the truly liberating lord by whom those in bondage to sin are reconciled to his Father in heaven and incorporated by their Spirit into the Eucharistic community which anticipates the coming of the kingdom of heaven upon the very earth on which the cross of Jesus stood.
S. is certainly cognizant of the solus Christus and works hard to show the Christological backbone of the doctrine of justification by faith, another flowering from the Finnish school of Luther research. As mentioned above, her treatment of faith lifts up the latent but crucial Pneumatology in the doctrine of justification by faith as the Spirit’s work and gift. But these important demonstrations of Trinitarian Christology are subverted by S.’s feminist demand for radical revision if not jettisoning of the gendered language of the gospel narrative from Scripture (88–89) for a non-binary »trans-perspective« doctrine of God (90). There are deep problems here. Certainly, there are also pastoral care issues here which demand sensitivity to people suffering under the contemporary sexual free-for-all.
But what helps theologically, aside from compassionate solidarity with the injured, is not the recommended liturgical bandaid, but creedal catechesis. In a nutshell: there is no way to articulate the vigorous Trinitarianism of gospel narrative apart from scripture’s faith-formative language of Jesus the beloved Son of his Abba Father, the God of Israel, in the loving unity of their Spirit who sanctifies believers as this very name of God is hallowed in them. And because there is no way to neuter this language without destroying it, critical attention must be turned to the obtuseness of a book that claims to provide a »grammar of faith« but seems not to know the difference between a metaphor and a name.
That the heavenly Father cares for his people as a loving mother is a metaphorical claim of Scripture. But Jesus as beloved Son names the God of Israel as Abba Father and invites followers into his fellowship so that they become in him beloved children of the same Father in heaven. A metaphor characterizes by transferring the meaning of something familiar to something unfamiliar: Israel thusly comes to know that the warrior God of the Exodus is also like a mother in caring for her own. But a name identifies this God of Israel so as to single him out from all other would-be deities to address him in prayer, praise and thanksgiving. Consequently, in Christ disciples pray to »our Father who is in heaven…« The prayer which Jesus taught disciples, who knew not how to pray, is, of course, not only the terse statement of the faith of the man Jesus and as such normative for Christian theology, but is integral to Lutheran confessional theology, articulated profoundly in Luther’s catechisms.
S.’s progressive advocacy here does not succeed in squaring with her sources. Nor does her endorsement of a »radical hospitality« which disregards the invitation addressed to disciples, i.e. minimally the baptized, to the Lord’s Supper (171–175). To build such a case for »radical inclusivity« from the Reformation’s doctrine of the priesthood of all the baptized saws off the branch on which it sits. Moreover, it should go without saying that any Lutheran theology of sexuality that simply ignores the »heteronormative starting point« (182) of Luther’s scriptural rehabilitation of the vocation of marriage from Genesis 1:26–28 as divine institution and truly good work commanded by God, as also his interpretation of chastity as fidelity to the spouse that God has given in marriage, betrays serious continuity with the tradition of theology that stems from Luther.