Theology Of Glory Research Articles

Uma «nova teologia» para um tempo novo

Luther was, fundamentally, a theologian, but a theologian for a new time.He is, probably, one of the first fruits of the «new theology» heralded by Lorenzo Valla, founded on the Scriptures and the Church Fathers, both anti-scholastic and anti-speculative. Like others in Alcalá, Paris, Salamanca, or Louvain, hedesired a «positive» and pastorally relevant theology. Luther, moreover, championed an existential theology that impacted the believer’s daily life. This perspective was driven by his discovery, during years of teaching the Pauline letters, of the true meaning of justification by faith! He found in this theological theme the core of the Christian proclamation. Subsequently, he engaged in a struggle against the «theology of glory» (scholastic and speculative theology), to emphasize the true theology revealed by God, the «theology of the cross». He was not interested in an abstract God (the God absconditus), but in the God who communicates and relates with man. That is, the pro me of Lutheran soteriology.

Book Review: Exploring the Glory of God: New Horizons for a Theology of Glory

Book Review: Exploring the Glory of God: New Horizons for a Theology of Glory

Luther’s Theologian of the Cross and Theologian of Glory Distinction Reconsidered

This article argues that most of the contemporary appropriation of Martin Luther’s distinction between the theologian of the cross and the theologian of glory is mistaken, in five points: First, the distinction has a thin textual basis, found explicitly only a handful of times in Luther’s early writings. Second, recent scholarship and an examination of Luther’s wider writings call into question contemporary accounts as to what Luther meant by the distinction. Third, the theological tradition did not make use of this distinction until the 20th century. It would be a mistake, therefore, to demand that a distinction which was not popularly received until such a late time act as a normative framework. Fourth, when referring to God and His people, “glory” and “glorification” are useful biblical and theological terms, and this distinction casts these terms in a negative light. Fifth, a thorough-going theology of glory is crucial for Christian discipleship.

INTONATIONAL-SEMANTIC ASPECTS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IMAGES OF GLORIFICATION-PRAISE IN THE GERMAN PROTESTANT MUSICAL AND HISTORICAL TRADITION

The purpose of the article is to identify the intonational-semantic specifics of the implementation of praiseglorificationimages in the German Protestant liturgical and singing and creative musical and historical traditions. Themethodology of the work on the intonation concept of music from the perspective of stylistic, etymological analysis, aswell as on interdisciplinary and historical-cultural approaches that allow revealing the spiritual-semantic and genreintonationalfeatures of the interpretation of the designated figurative sphere of German spiritual culture and music. Thescientific novelty of the article is determined by the fact that it first generalized the poetic-intonational specificity ofdepicting praise-glorification images in line with the religious attitudes of Lutheranism ("theology of glory," "theologyof the cross"), as well as the work of German composers of the 18th-19th centuries. Conclusions. Glorious-gloriousthemes occupy one of the essential places in European Christian culture, in particular, in German Protestant, definingthe vectors of its spiritual and semantic orientation. Genetically dating back to the Byzantine Eastern Christian traditionand to the spiritual precepts of the early Middle Ages of the Undivided Church, the confessional tradition in translatingthe images of praise and glorification («Te Deum» and «Gloria» in their German version) was formed at the intersectionof the Protestant doctrines of «theology of glory» and «theology of the cross». The intonational-semantic specificity ofLutheran chorales associated with the designated figurative-semantic sphere demonstrates contact with a variety ofconfessional Christian traditions – Catholic (appeal to the intonational material of Gregorianiс), Eastern Christian(appeal to the spiritual texts of the early Middle Ages), thereby revealing the specificity of spiritual and creativeGerman composers of the 18th-19th centuries.

Passion for Nothing: Kierkegaard’s Apophatic Theology by Peter Kline

Reviewed by: Passion for Nothing: Kierkegaard’s Apophatic Theology by Peter Kline Ronald F. Marshall Passion for Nothing: Kierkegaard’s Apophatic Theology. By Peter Kline. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017. xvii + 204 pp. Kline’s book compares Kierkegaard and Meister Eckhart (1260– 1328) on nothingness. It argues that Eckhart’s “influence on Kierkegaard (directly or indirectly) is as important as it is silent” (5 n21). Kline believes that this nothingness is at the core of Kierkegaard’s negative theology (3, 34). Even so Kline does not believe that it leads to nihilism. Rather it undergirds a life “lived with abandon, with sorrowful longing and bewildered joy” (2). It drives toward “the most profound form of self-denial” (132). Because Kierkegaard believed that self-denial makes “the essentially Christian . . . so strange” and “difficult” when it “must be believed” (Christian Discourses, trans. Hongs, 146), any use of Eckhart’s nothingness would seem to be on track. But because Kline extends that nothingness into rank indeterminacy, it veers sideways. Kline uses the word “erasure” to knock down limits and boundaries so that to be “different by way of one’s indifference to the objective differences that separate one sufferer from another is to be absolutely, infinitely qualitatively different; different with a difference that cannot announce its difference or form itself into an identity around which a border could be drawn” (130–32). This indifference and indeterminacy strip Jesus of “any identity” (131), even of “any messianism” (129). But that goes too far (more than just keeping “its edges wild,” 40), leaving in the dust Kierkegaard who argued (contra 34) that Jesus “is the Redeemer, . . . a substitute who puts himself completely in your place” so that on Judgment Day “when punitive justice . . . seeks the place where I, a sinner, stand with all my guilt, with my many sins—it does not find me” (Without Authority, trans. Hongs, 123). Thinking of this sentence as “a perpetual beginning . . . that has no objective telos,” misses its point (38). You will lose Kierkegaard’s witness to Christ if you think that his “aim is to incite thinking and spiritual searching but never to give anybody direct answers” (39). Calling Jesus our substitute who guards believers on Judgment Day is clearly direct. [End Page 458] Missing the salvation Christ brings also enables Kline to call God a “lived whylessness” (22) who “demands or requires no placation, no appeasement” (xvi). Accordingly there is no judgment; Jesus being “an infinite roominess held open to the frailty and suffering of the world,” he sets “absolutely no conditions on his love” (131). At the end, Kline himself does not even follow this principle, saying that “God can shine in with his light” only after we first leave ourselves and utterly extinguish our own light (178). Kline’s roominess leaves out Christ whipping the money changers and castigating the scribes and Pharisees (Jn 2:15; Mt 23:27–33). It also misses Christ’s anger and judgment (Mk 3:5; Jn 9:39). Kierkegaard warned against this laundering of the scriptural account, saying “woe to you if you win them in such a way that you leave out the terror” (CD, 175). Kline thinks his Christological indeterminacy “repeats Luther’s opposition between a theology of the cross and a theology of glory” by “indicating that Jesus is only ever encountered through the work of his abandonment, his kenotic self-emptying, rather than his elevation into an accomplished object of belief ” (130–31). But Kierkegaard does not drive a wedge between these two. He knows, instead, that the Christian is the one who “clings to Christ” in faith (CD, 284). An added bonus to this book is the seven beautiful color plates at the end, painted by Kline himself. The last one is especially telling, a version of Matthias Grünewald’s Isenheim altarpiece of the Crucifixion (1516) with everything missing but the hands and feet suspended against a black background in their proper place. Without this absence, Kline argues, Christ’s “full and fixed presence” would “petrify” us leaving us in “despair” (153). But Kierkegaard knew differently. He thought true Christianity was “to suffer for the doctrine, to do good and suffer for it, and that...

THEODICY: A RESPONSE TO CHRISTOPHER SOUTHGATE

AbstractThis article is a critical and appreciative interaction with Christopher Southgate's theodicy and theology of glory. I critique in particular his rejection of all dualist moves in theodicy. I question why Southgate can ascribe evil to some human actions, many of which are automatic and unconscious, but not to any other level or form of consciousness. I argue that he may rely too heavily on rational scientific categories, which are not sufficient in themselves to carry the weight of key theological concepts. His use of poetry is powerful and suggestive, but in the end, he may not give it enough epistemic weight.

A Theology of Glory: Paul's Use of Δόξα Terminology in Romans

According to a common interpretation, Paul’s reference to the lack of God’s glory in Rom 3:23 alludes to the story of Adam and his loss of God’s image. This identification is problematic, however, as most of the evidence that can be cited in its favor is later than Paul. To arrive at a better interpretation, I pay close attention to the development of δόξα terminology in Romans as well as to Paul’s use of Israel’s Scriptures. In the LXX, δόξα refers to the tangible presence of God, a usage that also is able to explain Paul’s terminology. The sixteen occurrences of δόξα in Romans are rich in Septuagintal undertones, in the form of both Septuagintal terminology and more or less clear allusions to the Scriptures of Israel. Against this background, I argue that Paul uses δόξα language in Romans to express his view that God’s revelatory presence in Israel has been rejected but is renewed in Jesus Christ.

Theology of the Cross and the Experience of God's Presence: A Lutheran Response to Pentecostal Wonderings

AbstractAs Lutherans and Pentecostals begin an official international dialogue, the author, a Lutheran member of the dialogue, responds to two related sets of questions raised by a Pentecostal member of the dialogue during a preceding six‐year consultation between these traditions: whether there is a place in the Lutheran tradition for a “theology of glory,” considering the centrality of “a theology of the cross” for Luther; and how Lutherans speak about experiencing the presence of God, and the means through which one encounters God.

The Cross of Reality: Luther’s Theologia Crucis and Bonhoeffer’s Christology by H. Gaylon Barker (review)

Reviewed by: The Cross of Reality: Luther’s Theologia Crucis and Bonhoeffer’s Christology by H. Gaylon Barker Mark Mattes The Cross of Reality: Luther’s Theologia Crucis and Bonhoeffer’s Christology. By H. Gaylon Barker. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. xii + 480 pp. This book follows in detail the development of Bonhoeffer’s theology from early to late and shows how at every turn it was shaped by two of Luther’s most important doctrines (1) the theology of the cross and (2) the communication of attributes between the divine and the human natures in Christ. For Barker, the two doctrines are fundamentally interrelated in that the content of the theology of the cross is none other than Christ; likewise, Christ is the way that God comes deep into the world and so experiences its disdain and rejection. Barker notes that Bonhoeffer was deeply indebted to Karl Barth’s theological reform which countered Protestant liberalism’s grounding of truth in human experience. But, in contrast to Barth, who attempted to re-appropriate a “theology of glory” based on the fact that Jesus is now risen and glorified, Bonhoeffer countered that the resurrection does not trump the crucifixion. Instead, precisely as resurrected, Jesus Christ as the “man for others” continues his earthly ministry and presence (8). For Barker, Jürgen Moltmann’s designation of Jesus’ cross as the “cross of reality” (13) is an interpretive key for establishing a contemporary relevance for the theology of the cross as mediated by Bonhoeffer: Jesus’ ministry does not leave or bypass the violence or messiness of this world but instead engages it on behalf of the needy and oppressed. Throughout, Barker establishes a rich interpretation of Bonhoeffer’s deeply Lutheran Christology offering numerous insights. Appropriating a theme from medieval music, Jesus Christ is the cantus firmus, or [End Page 78] leading voice, from whom Christians can and should take their bearings (118). This is because Jesus’ ministry was for the sake of humans, a “vicarious representative action” (155). Hence, those united with Christ through baptism and faith share in Jesus’ ministry on behalf of others as the mark of their identity and continuity with Jesus. After all, Christ and his cross cannot be separated (164), and this means that Christians in seeking to live like Jesus will experience opposition, humiliation, and even defeat, just as Jesus experienced them. In addition to Christological themes, Bonhoeffer develops Luther’s anthropology centered in the thought that the sinful human is constituted by a heart turned in on itself (72). Bonhoeffer strikingly states that humans so curved in on themselves when encountering Jesus as self-sacrificial must either “die” to their self-centeredness or “kill” Jesus (231). Echoing the theology of the cross, the world searches for glory in one way or another but Christ’s place is on the cross (283). Christians then are not to look for God in some beyond or eternity, but instead in the world, to which the church must then bear witness (289). The phrase frequently associated with Bonhoeffer, “cheap grace,” should, following Jonathan Sorum, not be seen as a critique of the generosity of the gospel but instead as an attack on “merciless legalism.” Grace is costly precisely because it is a free gift (306). Justification by faith alone through grace alone then is wholly defined Christologically (324). Likewise, Bonhoeffer’s claim that the modern world has become “religionless” is not to be understood to say that modern people live in a spiritual vacuum, devoid of God, but instead that they can be free of caricatures of God. This is a well-written book, of interest and accessible not only to scholars but also to pastors and interested laity. Mark Mattes Grand View University Des Moines, Iowa Copyright © 2016 Johns Hopkins University Press and Lutheran Quarterly, Inc.

Embodied Cross: Intercontextual Reading of Theologia Crucis (review)

Reviewed by: Embodied Cross: Intercontextual Reading of Theologia Crucis Paul O. Ingram Embodied Cross: Intercontextual Reading of Theologia Crucis. By Arata Miyamoto. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2010. 150 pp. The author of Embodied Cross states his intention in the first sentence of his introduction: "This book aims to outline an intercontextual reading of theology of the cross . . . that flows across a global context," but in particular the context of Japanese Buddhism and, secondarily, Shinto tradition. Since Miyamoto declares this book is based on his doctoral dissertation submitted to the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago in 2009—and it certainly reads like a dissertation written for Lutheran theologians— it might be useful to begin with a general description of the meaning of "theology of the cross" and "contextual theology" in order to communicate Miyamoto's intention and conclusions to a wider audience. A major problem facing contemporary Christian theological reflection is the issue of power. The contemporary postmodern critiques of thinkers such as Jean-François Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, and particularly Michel Foucault assert that all claims to truth, including the claims of theology, are merely secret bids for power. Until the late nineteenth century, Christianity dominated the cultures of the Western Europe, not because Christian tradition is truer than other religious traditions, but because Christianity was culturally and politically more powerful than its rivals. The question is, where does power lie? How are clergy and church leaders to use their power? Such accusations have been strengthened by the sense that the church has often used [End Page 164] theology to legitimate its claims to domination. This style of theological reflection is the defining character of "theology of glory" (theologia gloriae), which generally asserts that: (1) God's ways can be generally understood by human reason; (2) God's favor is experienced in the circumstances of life, in particular, life's successes and victories; (3) God is pleased by sincere human self-effort; and (4) faith, meaning "trust," in the historical Jesus as the Christ is God's ultimate revelatory self-disclosure and is the only means of redemption, meaning Christianity is the only path to "salvation." Theologies of the Cross (theologia crucis) are quite different from theologies of glory. "Theology of the Cross" was first coined by Martin Luther to refer to theological reflection that asserts that the life, death, and resurrection of the historical Jesus on Easter are the only sources of knowledge concerning God and how God redeems human beings and the world. Luther first used this term in the Heidelberg Disputation in 1518, but he actually very rarely used it in his subsequent theological writings and preaching. Luther was an Augustinian monk at the time, representing his order, and first presented his theses that later came to define the Protestant Reformation. To perhaps oversimplify, in contrast to theologies of glory, theologies of the cross generally assert: (1) God's ways are paradoxical and hidden to human reason; (2) God's grace is manifested in the historical Jesus, particularly in his suffering, death, and resurrection; and (3) God is pleased only by the historical Jesus as the Christ. Lutheran theologians generally claim that theologies of the cross and theologies of glory are mutually exclusive. Contextual theology refers to analysis of the way theology has been conceived in particular contexts. Contextual theologians are concerned with the interaction between universal themes in theology and issues relating to the particular context in which theological reflection takes place. Christian theological reflection is required to take the cultural and religious pluralism of all human communities seriously. But the theological traditions of Europe and America tend to absolutize Western culture and political traditions. The problem is that any universal truth claim arising from the experience of a particular culture or community can only have particular value for that particular culture or community. Accordingly, Christian theologians unaware of the thought and beliefs of peoples elsewhere assert false claims to universalism. This is so because there is no completely universal perspective, since all human thought and beliefs are limited by particular cultural and historical boundaries. Even so, there can be openness to the universal. While theologians of glory object that theological reflection deals with...

FROM LUTHER'S THEOLOGY OF THE CROSS TO NIETZSCHE'S PROBING FOR THE ÜBERMENSCH: GROWTH IN THE MODERN RHETORIC OF SELF-DOUBTING INTIMIDATION

FROM LUTHER'S THEOLOGY OF THE CROSS TO NIETZSCHE'S PROBING FOR THE ÜBERMENSCH: GROWTH IN THE MODERN RHETORIC OF SELF-DOUBTING INTIMIDATION

Martin Luther and Buddhism: The Aesthetics of Suffering (review)

Reviewed by: Martin Luther and Buddhism: The Aesthetics of Suffering Paul O. Ingram Martin Luther and Buddhism: The Aesthetics of Suffering. By Paul S. Chung. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002. 434 pp. As a member of the Lutheran community (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America), I am struck by the fact that Lutheran theologians—referred to as "teaching theologians" when employed by Lutheran seminaries—seem little interested in religious pluralism in general and interreligious dialogue in particular. There are important exceptions, of course, one being Donald Luck of Trinity Lutheran Seminary in Ohio. And the most intense and coherent dialogue between Christians and Muslims now taking place in the United States is located at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota. But by and large, Lutheran theology seems unengaged with the realities of religious pluralism. Rather than dialogue, "missionology" is the focus of most Lutheran theological encounter with the world religions, which means that most Lutheran conversation with religious pluralism is best characterized as monologue. It's different for most Lutherans sitting in the pews of local congregations. Most lay persons understand that they must live their faith contextualized by their religiously plural neighborhoods. Lutheran laity are interested the religious practices and worldviews of their neighbors because they are in contact with their neighbors everyday. They desire to meet and know the religious "other" not as "other," but as fellow human beings seeking to live in community. My distinct impression, gained [End Page 235] from teaching adult education courses in local congregations (mostly Lutheran and other mainline denominations), is that Christian lay people are usually miles ahead of their pastors, denominational leaders, and teaching theologians in their encounter with the realities of religious pluralism and their desire for dialogue. For these reasons, Paul S. Chung's book, Martin Luther and Buddhism, is important, and I hope it will be the beginning of specifically Lutheran dialogue with the Buddhist tradition. Again, as a Lutheran, I can only say, "It's about time." Chung's goal is twofold: (1) engaging in critical dialogue with the theology of Martin Luther, and (2) Asian pluralistic theology of religions. Specifically, the author, himself a Korean Lutheran pastor and theologian, places Luther's theology of the Cross in dialogue with Buddhist understanding of suffering (duh.kha). His thesis is that what Christianity and Buddhism have in common is their understanding of suffering, albeit each tradition having different approaches and "solutions" to universal suffering. Accordingly, rereading Luther's theology of the Cross in dialogue with Buddhism's take on suffering, its causes, and its resolution is the center of Chung's hermeneutical approach to Luther. Surely, Chung is on the right track. Buddhism's focus on the experience of universal suffering and its resolution is one of its defining features. Chung's reason for placing Luther's theology of the Cross in dialogue with Buddhism lies mainly in the fact that Luther focused on the suffering of God on the cross incarnated in the suffering of the historical Jesus, which he placed in direct contrast to the "theology of glory" of medieval scholastic theology. Chung's claim is that Luther's understanding of divine suffering is a "liberation theology" that needs be contextualized by contemporary struggle for social, economic, ecological, and women's liberation from systemic structures of injustice. Because justice issues are not religion-specific, Luther's theology of the Cross in socially engaged dialogue with Buddhism should be a source of liberation for both Christians and Buddhists. Chung's work stands in a long line of Asian Christians seeking to translate Christian teachings and practices into the religious traditions foundational to Asian cultures, in Chung's case Korean Buddhism and, to some degree, Confucianism. One immediately thinks of Aloysius Pieris's dialogue with Buddhism in Sri Lanka, Seiichi Yagi and Masaaki Honda's appropriation of Mahayana doctrines in their attempts to relate Christian faith to Japanese cultural experience, or Raimundo Panikkar's interpretation of Christian faith through the lenses of Hinduism and Buddhism. All ofthese theologians note that Anglo-European intellectual and cultural traditions are not easily translatable into Asian cultural experience. Because Western forms of Christian tradition are foreign to Asian cultural values...

Contextuality in the Theology of Douglas John Hall

The theology of Douglas John Hall has much to offer us in a time of wanton warfare and social injustices. Hall contends that the modern paradigm, supported by an “eternal, universal theology of glory” proves inadequate for addressing the problems of the world in which we live, and offers us a “contextual theology of the cross.” This theology, unlike theologies of glory, is not afraid to “walk” into the darkness; in fact, Hall contends that is the only place where the light of God is revealed.

Theology of the Cross and Theologies of Liberation

"Theology of the cross" (as identified by Luther in contrast to "theology of glory") is most authentically itself in our time when it appropriates the key insights of "theology of liberation." Conversely, theology of liberation best fulfils its potential in the service of God's reign when, in faithfulness to Jesus Christ, it seeks to be a theologia cruces. This discussion is fitting, I believe, for a publication in honour of Professor David Demson, who is an unswerving advocate of theology of the cross in its commitment to solus Christus and sola gratia, and at the same time a sympathetic critic of the theologies of liberation.

Luther's Theology of Glory

Luther's bold contrast between the theologian of glory and the theologian of the cross is often interpreted as the key passage unlocking the door to his entire thought. In the famous theses 20 and 21 of the Heidelberg Disputation (1518), Luther insists that only a theologian of the cross can comprehend.., the visible and manifest things of God, and can correctly call a thing what it is. 1 The knowledge of the Christian God is accessible solely at the place of God's deepest humiliation, the rock on which every human ambition for glory is shattered: in suffering and on the cross. 2 As the starting point for theological reflection, Luther's theology of the cross cannot be considered to exhaust all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden in Christ (Col. 2:3). 3 In this brief essay, I intend to show that, for Luther, a theologian deserving of this name can also be fascinated by the glory of the triune God. On the basis of Luther's explanation to the Creed in the Large Catechism, I suggest that Luther's theology of glory consists of two interwoven narratives of trinitarian glorification. Together, they can be illustrated as a double helix of glorification: God is glorified for who God is, as well as for what God does.

“The theology of glory”; movement

“The theology of glory”; movement

A Theology of Glory

A Theology of Glory