· 1. Where Lutherans were, and where they are
now in their thinking.
· 2. Post-modern relativism.
· 3. Gerhard Forde’s excellent book, written
during a time of “neo-orthodox” growth. Augsburg
Publishing House, Minneapolis, 1972.
· 4. Why this blog? This article [blog] began
as personal notes with regard to neo-orthodox trends at the time of Forde’s
writing. Having finished a draft, I
thought some people might wish to read.
The Neo-orthodox era, while a “correction” in the
midst of absolute chaos in 19th century European theology, did not
go far enough. I believe Forde goes far
enough. In some other article, I might
comment on that! His book on Luther’s
thinking is precisely to the point that way.
This article mainly references some “flags” that I tend to watch for
with reference to definitions and subjectivity.
Forde himself is extremely concerned about such things. References to page numbers sometimes are
followed by a lower case t, m, or b.
This is my method of indicating whether the quote is at the top, middle, or
bottom of the page.]
Thoughts
on neo-orthodoxy at time of writing – 1972. [note: My comments on the earlier
pages of this book of Forde’s is
prompted by my concern regarding “neo-orthodoxy”. This type of thinking was prevalent
in the American Lutheran Church (mostly a Midwest Scandinavian branch) which took its toll on
the Lutheranism in which I was raised in the 50s and 60s. It is, as Francis
Schaeffer points out, an issue regarding the objective importance of words, in
this case the words of the Bible. Objectivity is a key, and subjectivity is analogous
to that which is experiential. When undue emphasis is placed on what a person
experiences, what a person “feels”, as opposed to what God is granting him in
Christ (forgiveness and reconciliation through the divine promise, mediated to
us and brought to us through the written words of the Bible), things can
degenerate. This is my reason for writing the following responses. Yet my overall reaction to Forde’s book is
extremely positive.]
Page 15, last paragraph. …not “but rather”…insert but “also”….
Therefore, affirm written, objective Ten commandments, and also what the Law does to you…. Lines 11-14: Affirm: the
Law is a set of commands, yet it is more…. [new sentence]: It is not a “list of requirements you can
check off and dispose of by “doing a few things”. I.e., one could not possibly “do a few things”…and
thus fulfill the 10 commandments! (Yet man deceives himself into thinking he
can!)
Page 16: “the gospel also is defined primarily by
what it does.” Much powerful truth
here. But, is there a tone of
Neo-Orthodoxy which tends to dismiss or put in second place the actual words of
the gospel?
Page 17: …the gospel,
the voice which also has a function…””to turn this earth itself into a place of light and life and joy” (17m). 17b: “…a voice strong enough…make…and keep us
human….” Maybe misleading use of the term “human”. Adam and Eve were still human after the fall!
(they still had the image of God – imago dei). People who reject the gospel, even after distinguishing
between law and gospel – will still be human. They just will be lost humans. Maybe this kind
of phrasing is another earmark of the error of Neo-Orthodoxy. With Forde not so
serious; with some others, not strong in the gospel – very serious.
The function of Law is
a matter of power, as is the function of the gospel. This is God’s Word, not
man’s. And God’s Word does not return void, but rather accomplishes his
purposes. Yet, in our environment, talk of these functions sometimes become
analogous to the subjective, experiential approach , so prevalent in
Neo-orthodoxy and Post-Modernism: the objective nature of the written and
spoken words themselves can, ever so subtly, be minimized. Even relegated to second place. And as this repeatedly happens, it can morph
(in the minds of some hearers) into “this is how I experience…not God’s love in
Christ, but “unconditional love”. So, thing we’re discussing has now become “my
experience of unconditional love”, wherever that comes from, and whatever it feels like. It might involve God, but on the other hand,
it might just be a truly meaningful experience that swept me away.
Next, “unconditional
love” morphs into “human-to-human” experience.
(After all, being truly human,
is the goal of modern secular people). That hardly needs an explanation! From
there, many people migrate into situational ethics: the blurring of absolute
right and wrong, when difficult choices present themselves. It becomes a game
in the noble pursuit of the “best choice”, albeit a difficult one. The struggle of thinking it through becomes
an end in itself – something noble. [Such
questioning by me is not at all to imply that we should abdicate the process of
difficult decision making. To reject the premises of neo-orthodoxy and
subjectivism doesn’t mean one should fall headlong into simplistic categories
of right and wrong. Life indeed has blurred areas.]
Back to the thought at
hand: This migration, I believe, often ends with pure relativism. “What is there to be dogmatic about, anyway?!”
Dogmatism now becomes the problem. Does that sound familiar?
This is where the
Western World is today, I believe. Is it much different than the historical
thinking of the Eastern World, which leaves one ultimately with absorption into
a universal oneness? There remains,
in that thinking, no definitions, no one thing distinct from the other.
Distinctions are bad; blending is good.
Forde wrote this book
for a generation that still had a memory of scripture, and appreciated the
classic law/gospel framing of the Word of God. It seems that today’s audience,
even students in seminaries, are more post-modern. To affirm the written Word: page 21m does have these words (and the
entire book assumes the written
revelation is to be taken seriously!): “…what he actually said and does on earth.” And 23b has “…what he says in his Word.”
Meanwhile, moving toward my conclusion, I affirm
Forde and this book, lest my concerns about these matters confuse that point.
Forde is not part of the “drift” that seems to have gone over the post-modern,
subjective cliff. My thanks to him. But I trust these warnings and the final
paragraphs can help those trying to understand both classical Lutheranism and
the current deep divide. Before the
conclusion, here are a couple of points which seem to reveal how small matters
of definition in the 70s may have grown into large ones in the new millennium.
Page 17b: Forded ends –
not with “intended to live as children of God”, but as “creatures” of God. Well, horses are his creatures, too, and
amoebas. And we humans never ceased being creatures, even after the fall! [This likely is not central to my critique.
Nevertheless, I feel the terms are not used accurately here.] The neo-orthodox
pastors seemed to be moving always in this direction: a positive nod toward all
God’s creatures: first all humans, since
they are created in his image. And then,
it seems that inevitably, all his creatures, including the animals and plants,
get drawn into the “great circle of God’s care”. Further, we now have secular writers and
political and business leaders regularly using the word “stewardship”. This
often comes up in the context of the environment. It’s not the creation but the environment. And there is really no master to whom we stewards must render an account. The convenient thing is this: the language of
stewardship has a noble ring to it. It offers
to people with pleasant memories of an earlier “religious” era an emotional link. They too can join this growing group of
enlightened folk. To care for the environment is what makes life truly
meaningful. This stewardship is our true calling.
Having
written these caveats, I am
torn. Where God Meets Man is a fantastic book. I recommend it to anyone who wants to know why
Lutherans have historically been so unapologetic about their view of things. Even arrogant, dare I say? Yet, the conflict
is precisely this: that hordes of Lutheran leaders have now fallen into the
relativistic drift. (It seems to be a vortex.) These “post-modern Lutherans”
have no message to bring that anyone truly needs.
If
there is no distinction between people justified by faith in Christ and those
who aren’t (or have never heard of the subject), the whole discussion of a God
coming down to our level to save us and be with us forever – is moot! And certainly, if there is ultimately no
difference between that created in the image of God and that which is to be “stewarded”
by that first category, maybe we’re all off the hook. No one will be called to
give an account. All will simmer into a tasty
stew that has had time to truly blend into “one”.
