LITMIR.BIZ

      Introduction

      Ecumenical Theology as Mutual Exchange of Gifts

       Tzum ersten bitt ich, man wolt meynes namen geschweygen und sich nit lutherisch, sondern Christen heyssen. Was ist Luther? ist doch die lere nitt meyn. Szo byn ich auch fur [1. Cor. 3, 4. 5.] niemant gecreutzigt. S. Paulus i. Corint. iij. wolt nit leyden, das die Christen sich solten heyssen Paulisch oder Petersch, sondernn Christen. Wie keme denn ich armer stinckender madensack datzu, das man die kynder Christi solt mit meynem heyloszen namen nennen? Nitt alszo, lieben freund, last uns tilgenn die parteysche namen unnd Christen heyssen, des lere wir haben. Die Papisten habenn billich eynen parteyschen namen, die weyl sie nit benuget an Christus lere unnd namen, wollenn auch Bepstisch seyn, szo last sie Bepstisch seynn, der yhr meyster ist. Ich byn unnd wyll keynisz meyster seyn. Ich habe mitt der gemeyne die eynige gemeyne lere Christi, der alleyn unszer meyster ist.

      “To begin, I pleadingly ask that people keep silent about my name and not call anybody Lutheran but Christian. What is Luther? The Christian doctrine is not mine. I was not crucified for anybody (1 Cor. 3:4–5). In 1 Corinthians 3, St. Paul did not permit Christians to name themselves after Paul or Peter. Instead, they were to plainly call themselves Christians. I am just a foul bag full of maggots, so Christ’s children must not be named by using my unholy name. No, my dear friend, let us delete the factions’ names and instead be named after Christ, whose doctrine we have. The Papists evidently bear a faction’s name, for they think that Christ’s doctrine and name are not sufficient and they want to be papal. So let them be papal for the Pope is their master. I am nobody’s master, nor do I want to be. I join the congregation abiding the one doctrine of Christ, who alone is our master.”²

      Martin Luther wrote these lines during his stay at the Wartburg in December of 1521. He had visited Wittenberg in secrecy for a few days before and hurriedly returned to his exilic post when rumour had it that he might be in town. We do not know much about the days the Reformer spent in Wittenberg, but apparently he had reason to be concerned. He wrote the pamphlet called Eine treue Vermahnung zu allen Christen, sich zu hüten vor Aufruhr und Empörung (A Trusty Admonition addressing All Christians to Refrain from Upheaval and Turmoil) after coming back to the Wartburg and sent it to Wittenberg to be printed immediately. Compared to the Invocavit Sermons delivered in March 1522 the Vermahnung is modest in tone and concentrates on the basics of the reform programme which Luther had in mind for Wittenberg. This makes it a document of enduring value still today.

      Luther compares the situation of his days to the one Paul was entangled in during one of his stays in Corinth. In 1 Corinthians, the Apostle complains that a number of factions exist which apparently named themselves after a leading person, Paul himself being one of them. In turn, Paul firmly rejects this sectarianism, calling himself a labourer together with God, who alone is the wise master builder, and calling Christ the foundation. Luther did not see factions among his friends (this, in fact, was the case only weeks after he had written the Vermahnung) but he compared Paul’s complaint to the beginning process of division within the whole Church. He emphasized that those who call themselves “papal” freely indicate their membership within a faction and that all others should refrain from doing so. This argument sheds light on a basic ecumenical motive of the Reformation. It is not meant to be the basis of a new denomination—let alone a new Church. Instead, Luther and his friends felt they were called to labour for the renewal of the one Church of Christ.

      Generally speaking, the Reformer’s admonition was not given much attention by his followers. They in fact named their denomination after him and thus ignored his own claim to be “a foul bag full of maggots.” Even more important, it is a widespread opinion among Lutherans in particular and Protestants in general that the Reformation created a new and modern Church, while Roman Catholicism is more or less a continuation of medieval Christianity. The ongoing debate concerning the formation of the modern period fosters the self-understanding among Lutherans that they have been one of the main factors to shape this modern context. Without itemising things here, there is good evidence to say that Luther and his friends did not—so to speak—invent modernity, but were medieval scholars influenced by humanism who sought answers to medieval questions. The dawn of a new era called modernity has something to do with the Reformation’s outcome but surely was not intended by the Reformers themselves. The same holds true for the ecumenical question related to it. Phrases like “the new faith of the Reformation period” are widespread in textbooks and even renowned editions of Luther’s works.³ However, they fail to account for the key insight that whatever might be “new” in Luther’s teachings is spoken as a corrective for what he perceived as modifications and falsifications of the Gospel’s truth.

      In contradiction to the self-understanding just mentioned the present book argues that the Reformation’s heritage is understood properly only when it is seen as a contribution to repentance and renewal of the entire Church of Christ. One should not call oneself “Lutheran” without respecting this basic self-understanding. Moreover, commitment to issues in ecumenism is not a supplementary endeavour of Lutheran theology but one of its core tasks and an indispensable aspect of its identity.

      The deliberations of the present book are committed to that intrinsic ecumenical dimension of the Wittenberg branch of Reformation theology. Through the use of case studies, I will attempt to explore how Lutheran theology is engaged in ecumenical endeavours and how it thereby faces a variety of specific problems and promises. A multi-faceted account of these endeavours will be examined along with the consideration of ecumenical hermeneutics in general with a view to offering a modest contribution to Luther’s statement that Christ alone is our master.

       Glimpses at the Present Situation

      It is next to impossible to draw a picture of the present situation in ecumenics given the variety of dialogue processes, their differences in style and outcome in the processes of acceptance or refusal. Furthermore, there are the countless projects in ecumenics fostered by individual theologians who are not part of official dialogue processes. Thus, it is hard to judge the sentiment or temper concerning ecumenism in general. However, the following can be stated: Active and committed ecumenical theologians repeatedly say that academic theology has already fulfilled its duty concerning ecumenics, but that it is still waiting for Church officials to adopt its insights. This, for example, is the case concerning eucharistic hospitality. Theologians claim that separate denominations such as Catholics and Lutherans have far more in common than they differ from one another. Therefore, since a jointly celebrated eucharist (often named “altar fellowship”) is not at hand, Catholics might rather invite Lutherans to the eucharist celebrated in their masses, and vice versa. Elaborate argumentations for this view have repeatedly been presented to the interested public so that this theological task may be brought to completion. However, an official appraisal has not yet been given by those Churches who do not celebrate open eucharist and/or who advise their members against partaking in another denomination’s eucharist. In German theology, it is Otto Hermann Pesch for example, who utters a prudent and considerate plea in favour of eucharistic hospitality.⁴ Then there is the somewhat

Скачать книгу