Deeper understandings Tradition
Radical freedom of gospel frees us to engage fascinating strands of church practice Editor’s note: This series is intended
to be a public conversation among teach- ing theologians of the ELCA on various themes of our faith and the challenging issues of our day. It invites readers to engage in dialogue by posting comments online at the end of each article at www.
thelutheran.org. The series is edited by Philip D.W.
Krey, president of the Lutheran Theologi- cal Seminary at Philadelphia, on behalf of the presidents of the eight ELCA seminaries.
By Robert C. Saler O
ne of the most beloved texts in the Lutheran canon is Martin Luther’s 1520 treatise “On the
Freedom of a Christian,” in which he offers the paradox that the Christian is “the most free lord of all, and sub- ject to none” but simultaneously “the most dutiful servant of all, and sub- ject to everyone.” With this paradox, Luther argues
that the gospel frees us from servi- tude toward those who put us in the bondage that comes with trying to justify ourselves before God. How- ever, this freedom from having to
Author bio: Saler is a research fellow and director of the Lilly Endow- ment Clergy
Renewal Programs at the Christian Theological Semi- nary in Indianapolis.
14
www.thelutheran.org
justify ourselves through our own works frees us to put our works at the service of our neighbor in need. This is a classic example of a truly fruitful paradox because the Lutheran insight that we do our “best” work from a position of freedom rather than obli- gation invites us deeply into involve- ment with the world in need. I would like to suggest that a simi-
lar paradoxical dynamic illustrates how Lutheran Christians interact with nearly 2,000 years of Christian “tradition.” Lutheranism is often caricatured
as having its roots in an act of “tossing off” tradition. Indeed, philosophers and popular culture alike often envi- sion Luther’s posting of the 95 Theses as a rebellious act in which the mod- ern Western notion of the individual as a free and autonomous agent was somehow born. We know from reading Luther, as
well as studying his historical con- text, that this picture of him as a mav- erick individualist vis-à-vis church tradition wasn’t true at the beginning of the Reformation, nor indeed at any point in his later life.
Leery of innovation Luther, like most of the opponents with whom he had theological con- troversy, was in fact deeply suspicious of innovation in matters of faith. The 16th century was still a time in which “innovation” in Christian doc- trine was virtually synonymous with heresy. As is clear in such writings as “On
the Councils and the Church” (1539), Luther understood his discovery of the gospel message that we are jus-
tified by grace through faith apart from works as being in harmony with original church teaching, teaching that had been corrupted by medieval Roman Catholic innovations such as intercessory prayer to saints, the doc- trine of purgatory, the sale of indul- gences and so on. This pattern—the impulse in
the present to retrieve a supposed purity of the early church against the narrative backdrop of some sort of decline—has in fact been common in the life of the church. For instance, the early social gospel advocate Wal- ter Rauschenbusch (1861-1918) argued that the early church had commitments to social justice that were subsequently lost in later centu- ries as the church became more pow- erful and concerned with its institu- tional influence. Numerous movements within the
church have advocated for “restora- tion” of what is imagined to be a sim- pler, more idyllic time in the church’s life, even as historians have made it pretty clear that there has never been a time in its existence when diversity and general messiness (doctrinal, ecclesial and so on) have not reigned. This has sometimes led to situ-
ations in which Lutherans (as well as other church bodies that identify even more strongly with what theo- logian Paul Tillich called the “Prot- estant principle” of being willing to subject every aspect of our ecclesial inheritance to evaluation based on contemporary needs) have signifi- cantly downplayed the importance of church tradition in order to empha- size the radical importance of what Lutheranism has called the “solas”—
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52