Martin Luther's Hidden God: Toward a Lutheran Apologetic for the Problem of Evil and Divine Hiddenness by Timothy Scott Landrum

Abstract

Reviewed by: Martin Luther's Hidden God: Toward a Lutheran Apologetic for the Problem of Evil and Divine Hiddenness by Timothy Scott Landrum Mark Mattes Martin Luther's Hidden God: Toward a Lutheran Apologetic for the Problem of Evil and Divine Hiddenness. By Timothy Scott Landrum. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2022. xvii + 113 pp. Questions about theodicy, how to defend the traditional view of God in the face of evil which seems incompatible with either God's power or goodness (or both), remain perennially vital. Such questions matter not only to professional theologians, but also to pastors who often must attend to inexplicable tragedies that their parishioners suffer. I cannot speak highly enough of this book, not because Landrum solves the problem of theodicy, but because he lays out in a systemic and constructive manner the issues with which we must wrestle and offers an approach to theodicy based on a reading of Luther on divine hiddenness, articulated by thinkers such as Oswald Bayer, Gerhard Forde, and Steven Paulson. Landrum notes that Luther offers no consistent approach to the use of the word "hiddenness," since it encompasses matters as different as God's counterintuitive presence in Christ's crucifixion, God's sustaining life through ordinary means, and the suffering that sinners experience as a result of God's wrath. To these Landrum adds the view that God's hiddenness encompasses his "naked majesty," his mysterious and terrifying omnipotence, those actions for which no rational explanation can be given. For the school Landrum represents, "Radical Lutherans," reason is aligned with law and the law cannot justify those divine acts which themselves appear to be lawless. In this case, only the proclamation of Christ, as both God's mercy and future vindication, can comfort those bewildered due to terror or loss. Landrum notes that most approaches to apologetics assume human free will. Once the rationality of God's behavior is justified by the [End Page 206] apologist, then doubters can exercise their free will to believe in God. Landrum opposes "free will" approaches to apologetics. However, I think that both he and "free will" apologetics miss out on another dimension to defending faith: Christians should focus less on arguing people to faith and instead unmask the fact that many criticisms of Christianity are scripted by an Enlightenment trope. Enlightenment biases may be compelling to contemporary ears but are not necessarily grounded in truth. For example, while many believe science and faith are incompatible, historians should acknowledge that Christian faith laid the foundation for modern science. If the Enlightenment trope conflates science with materialism, good apologetics becomes a form of public relations. Landrum, though, is quite on target to distance Lutherans from "free will" apologetics. After all, he notes that Luther's Bondage of the Will advocates God having two wills, one bound to Jesus Christ, and thus salvific, but another which is outside Christ, hidden to our comprehension, and sets forth a view of God who can appear capricious, unaccountable to his creatures. This latter view allows Luther to say that, with respect to this form of divine hiddenness, it is impossible to distinguish God from the devil, unless of course Christ is preached as delivering God's generosity to undeserving sinners. Landrum notes that some Luther interpreters such as Karl Holl, Gerhard Ebeling, and Werner Elert see the apparently capricious divine hiddenness as due to God's wrath and not his immutable necessity, which Luther highlighted in the Bondage of the Will. Theodosius von Harnack, Oswald Bayer, Gerhard Forde, and Steven Paulson see this kind of hiddenness instead as a result of God's immutable necessity. For Landrum, we should favor this second view since, among other reasons, God does not always seem to bind himself to his own law but remains free and sovereign over it. Landrum concludes: an apologetics schooled by the theology of the cross will be silent about evil's origins, will not speculate about God's will, nor will it explain why evil persists as long as it does. In light of Landrum's work, hiddenness by no means always indicates wrath. It may represent God's omnipotence which transcends our ability to comprehend. Both wrath...