in class last week and the week before, we talked about "orthodoxy" (orthodoxy, according to its greek roots means correct teaching, which for many church goers means doctrine) and specifically the lutheran age of orthodoxy, which lasted from about 1570 until about 1740. during this time, scholars wanted to preserve, explain and elaborate, and systematize theological teachings. the goal of systematization was to define what it meant to be lutheran: what were the essentials and the non-essentials. up until this time, faith and religion had not been based as much in rational explanation, but during the age of orthodoxy, those doing systematic theology began to rely heavily on philosophical arguments to back themselves up. they went to great lengths to articulate precisely what was necessary for the church and what was not.
johann gerhardt was a proponent of the idea that scripture is the source for theology. this is not a bad thing, in fact it's a good idea, but it becomes problematic in how it has played out in christianity since then. since scripture is the source of theology, for gerhardt, it was made "normative, authoritative, and trustworthy" (from my class notes). this is not anything new, but with it came the idea that since it's the inspired word of god, it must be infallible. the logic is that since the holy spirit inspired the biblical writers, the words they wrote must be infallible, since god inspired them. the concept of the bible being dictated to humans by the holy spirit or the holy spirit moving the hand of the human writing is actually not a view held since the beginning of christianity. it was during this age of orthodoxy that it really took hold. that's in the late 1500s!! still, that is what gerhardt used to get to the idea that if doctrine comes from scripture, and if scripture is infallible, then doctrine must be infallible, too.
this is a viewpoint that is very evident in fundamentalist christianity today. people argue that since the bible is the inspired word of god, it must be infallible. they seem to change the definition of inspired from "imbued with the spirit to do something" to "dictated word for word by god or another heavenly being." that is a big difference. my call to ministry is inspired by god, but god did not sit down with me face to face and clearly state: "emily, i want you to be an ordained pastor in the evangelical lutheran church in america." it was something i had to discern and make sense of in my own way, which means it has my own personality in it, much like those who wrote and edited the various books of the bible.
once we get to scripture, however, we still have to figure out how to interpret it. this is where theology and doctrine coming from scripture (and therefore also infallible) is problematic. much of history has been written and recorded by men. not only that, but by fairly well-educated, probably middle or upper class men, who probably have quite a bit of power in their society. so, when they do theology, they come at it from their unique perspective. however, when we state that there is only one interpretation of scripture, we lose the impact their experience has had on their theology.
the core problem, however, is deeper than doctrine or the inerrancy of scripture. since theology in the age of orthodoxy became so focused on having inerrant doctrine to go with inerrant scripture, what it meant to have faith changed as well. faith became less about trusting god (as martin luther stated) and more about believing the right thing. again we recognize this in christianity to the extent that people are required to believe certain things about jesus and about god, rather than to trust god with the mysteries and the questions. it goes something like this: "if i believe the right thing in the right way, then i will have faith and i will be saved." note, if you will, the conspicuous absence of god in that sentence.
in making faith about specific beliefs about rather than trust in, god loses god's place in our faith. faith becomes individualistic and self-centered instead of centered in a god who loves and connects all people. so, while lutherans during the age of orthodoxy did bless us with many, many volumes of systematic theology, which few people will ever read in their entirety, they also set the ball rolling on a slippery slope, which has people believing that rather than believing in.
No comments:
Post a Comment