This post is admittedly a fusion of my meditations walking through Holy Week and my recent thinking and reading about the meaning of those events as explained in both Lutheran and Orthodox Theology.
And here is the fruit of that fusion. Scripturally, it seems to me that the cross is most often explained forensically. For instance:
Colossians 2:13-14 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
And this is why Lutherans love Jesus on the cross. As soon as we get Jesus out of the tomb, we like to hang him back on the cross. Most Lutheran preaching takes us only to the cross and not to Easter, with perhaps the exception of preaching in this season where the texts force a Risen Lord into our preaching. Our preaching often leaves us forgiven but not risen to new life.
Likewise, it seems that the empty tomb in the scriptures is most often spoken of in terms of newness of life. For instance:
Romans 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
And while I speak partially out of ignorance, I would suppose that Orthodox preaching rejoices in the resurrection and likes to dwell there. And at times, in my limited reading, it seems that the cross is swallowed up into the resurrection in Orthodox exposition. Little mention is made of forgiveness. The emphasis is certainly newness of life.
Humanity, in order to truly be right with God and live the abundant life he promises, needs both the cross and the empty tomb. With its sins ever before it, it needs a not guilty verdict pronounced by the Father for Christ’ sake. But in order to have the life that God offers, it needs the Living One living within it.
Perhaps truly pondering the forensic nature of the message of the cross and the resurrection message of the empty tomb, both traditions can do better job of expounding the fullness of the gospel. Leaving behind either the cross or the empty tomb is poor theology which results in either leaving the hearer in the guilt of their sin or in bondage to it. Christ has removed both.
He was crucified. We are forgiven. He is risen. New life it ours. Alleluia and Amen.
So do i get to say now, “come over to the EFCA and ‘share the love’ of perhaps the best of both worlds”? 🙂 I can get you hooked up Phil, I really can!!! 🙂 Nice post. Great thoughts. Need some time to reflect. But I thought I would end the maddening silence.
Tom, I thank you for letting me know someone it out there. But since you jested, I must comment. It would be my contention that most “evangelical” churches are “resurrection” churches also. While they would hardly follow the Orthodox down the path of deification, they tend to focus on living the resurrected life rather than being forgiven of the less than resurrected life we often live. Often in my listening, the cross is only for conversion in evangelical churches, and then one moves on. The lost are forgiven, the found are expected to listen and obey. Let me know your experience.
BTW, I am finally reading “The Emerging Church” by Kimball…
Phil et al.
Christos anesti! Alithos anesti! You have been patient with me to generate a response and now that I have some time, I will give you one. Please keep in mind, first of all, that this will perhaps be incomplete and need some further clarifications so bear with me.
Let me begin by reminding everyone and this goes especially for myself. Reading about Orthodoxy is not Orthodoxy. No one would dare suggest that reading a book of selected quotes from Luther makes one Lutheran or understands the Lutheran phronema, so to speak. Orthodoxy is practiced, it is experienced, it is believed, it is lived through the life of the Liturgy and the Offices and the partaking of the sacraments.
Let me also begin by reminding everyone that Orthodoxy has never been forced to establish a systematic approach to our theology. It has never been needed since our theology is in those things I mentioned above.
In our Orthodox litrugies, frequently we say “O Lord Jesus Christ, save us!” We usually add an appositive to Christ, which, on most Sundays, is “who has risen from the dead.” On feasts of the Lord or the Theotokos, we may add other appositives such as “who did enter Jerusalem triumphantly”, “who was incarnate for our sakes”, “who was baptized by John”, “Who did endure scourging, torture and death”, “who didst ascend into heaven”, “who didst breathe the Comforter upon the Apostles,” etc. My point that I am trying to make is that we ask Christ to save us. We beg him to save us in this life and for the Last Judgment. Our view is holistic. We do not parse out each day or event in Christ’s life and say that this event did x for us and that event did y for us. That is utter nonsense. The whole of Christ’s life, let me say that again, the whole of Christ’s life and his gifts to us in that life and what He continues to do for us as our God are so far beyond any kind of categorical necessity to parse up what Christ did on this day or that day. Quoting from Lossky’s Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, “The work of Christ is a ‘dispensation of the mystery, which from all ages has been hidden in God’, as St. Paul said (Eph. 3:9),’an eternal purpose which was realized in Jesus Christ.” (p. 138)
Lossky and Orthodoxy have always taught that Christ’s entire life and entire actions save us. To parse them up and to give each day a piece of the puzzle of salvation is to run two major risks, in my estimation. The first is that this leads to a pars pro toto methodology where one part starts to overshadow the holistic nature of Christ’s work. As you say Phil, “Lutherans love Jesus on the Cross.” So do we Orthodox, but we don’t want to see Him there permanently. The host of Issues, etc., Pr. Todd Wilken, whenever he analyzes sermons of other men, his criteria for whether it is a good sermon is if specifically the Cross is mentioned. That right there defines modern Lutheran theology. It is no longer “by grace alone, by faith alone, by Scripture alone,” we have now a fourth, “by the cross alone.” So then why isn’t every Sunday, or let alone every day Good Friday? This isn’t to say that the Orthodox have no less an appreciation for the destructive force of sin and what it does to us and that we do not weep for our sins especially on Great and Holy Friday, but where is the hope?
The second pitfall, as I see it, is the propensity to speak cataphatically, rather than apophatically, which is, of course, the Orthodox tradition. We speak only on what has been revealed to us by the Head, our Lord Christ. We have no need to say more or to group things in categories which are outside the phronema patron. Why is it not enough to say, plead and beg with boldness and daring for Christ to save us for the sake of his entire condescension. As St. John of Damascus says the incarnation and the passion, “[were] not a work of nature, but a mode of economic condescension.” “The Word, though remaining what It was, became what It was not,” says St. Theophilus of Bulgaia.
The lack of a holistic approach to Christ is the major problem. Christ has saved us from it all. Otherwise, why was he incarnate? It seems to me that Lutheans of late have become quite Nestorian in this regard. As St. Gregory the Theologian is famous for saying, “If nothing is unassumed [i.e. in our humanity] then we are unhealed.” St. Athanasius states that “God became Man so that man might become [as] God” which is an echo of the Second Epistle of St. Peter 2:14. But his becoming Man was not the end, He was born, He was circumcised, He was presented, He was Baptized, He preached repentance, He healed, He was Transfigured, He was betrayed, Scourged, died, buried, resurrected, asceneded, sits on the right hand of the Father, etc. Do you notice also this same holistic mode in the Nicene Creed which most Lutherans and Orthdox say before the Eucharist. It is the holistic nature that has been lost from Lutheran theology. As a result, you look at only the parts without interconnecting them and the part becomes the sole basis of your theology. How sad!
So many of our Orthodox hymns begin with the word “Today…” It is because the economy of salvation is repeated over and over again for the salvation of the human race. Our salvation is real, it is manifest and it is found entirely in the Lord Jesus Christ.
It is because of this Lutheran and Protestant and generally Western way of thinking, widespread as it is, that, unfortunately, Orthodox writers have had to contend. Lutheran bigshots, like Pr. McCain, Pr. Wilken, Pr. Williams, et al like to point out that Orthodoxy is not consistent and thus how Orthodoxy cannot be the True Chruch because its writers can’t agree how to put Orthodox theology into Western categories. Why authors try to do this is beyond me except to respond honestly to people who are asking. But to put Lossky against Florovsky or Schmemann or Meyendorff or Hopko is nothing more than the Schadenfreude of Lutherans who would rather speak ad hominem than truthfully. The fact is theology cannot be reduced to categories, it cannot be reduced to parsed situations or scholastic trains of thought or scientific method. The faith is a mystery, so says St. Paul, just as the Eucharist is also a mystery. We can’t hope to understand it with human faculties. Thus, when our theologians come to different modes of explanation it is because they are responding to Western criteria, not our own.
New life has been given to us. This has been given through Christ’s divine condescension. To say that we do not believe in forgiveness of sins, is rubbish. Again, reading about Orthodoxy is NOT Orthodoxy. Because not as many of our Holy Fathers use the terms “forgiveness of sins” does not mean that we do not believe in such a thing. To have a new life is to also have forgiveness of sins, but not vice versa. Before the Eucharist, I pray the pre-communion prayers (I should send you a copy of these; they are really quite profound). The last one is one of St. John Chrysostom which I also pray at the Liturgy with the entire congregation. “And vouchsafe, that uncondemned, I may partake of Thy Holy Mysteries unto the remission of sins and unto life everlasting.” St. John Chrysostom clearly lays it out and I suppose, according to Lutheran standards, this prayer would be fine. Others like St. BAsil the Great or St. Symeon the New Theologian do not couch their theology in exact formulae.
Let me put it to you like this: If Christ’s death is solely (Ger. allein) for forgiveness of sins, what’s next after that? If forgiveness of sins is like being acquitted before the judge, what then? Do we just leave the court as if nothing happened? Yes, but this is not holistic. We are not simply acquitted, we are made new, we are reborn, we are refashioned so that everything Christ assumed may make us live as little Christs! The flesh has become deified! We can live as Christ-like people. That is the wonder and mystery of salvation!
With all respect to your friend, Phil, we Orthodox are not like Evangelicals in our understanding of salvation. Evangelicals look at the forensic and juridical language of the Cross (which I have no problems with; it’s only by itself that I have the problem with) almost the same way as Lutherans do if not worse. THe Bellevue Christian Church which is right down the street from where I live had on their marquee to advertise their Easter services: “CSI: Jersualem.” I don’t honestly know if this is representative of Evangelicals, but, I fail to see how an act of divine love is such a crime!
Let me close with a hymn we sing at Matins for Holy Friday (actually sung hte night before) as the Priest brings in the Cross and hangs an icon of the corpus upon it. We repeat this hymn at the sixth hour (with some minor changes) on Great and Holy Friday.
Today, He who hung the Earth upon the waters is hung upon the Cross (3x).
He who is King of the angels is arrayed in a crown of thorns.
He who raps the heavens in clouds is wrapped in the purple of mockery.
He who in Jordan sed Adam free receives His blows upon the face.
The Bridegroom of the Chruch is transfixed with nails.
The Son of the Virgin is pierced with a spear.
We venerate Thy Passion, O Christ (3x).
Show us also Thy glorious Resurrection!
And the Paschal Troparion, which we sing incessantly until Ascension, “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by His death and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!”
Al-Masih Qam! Hakkan Qam!
Christopher,
It’s my guess that I am the token “evangelical” representative in the group just as you are the “orthodox” guy in the group. Just as i’m also guessing that i’m the ‘friend’ in your ‘with all due respect to your friend’ comment to Phil. And not that it probably matters to you either way but I wasn’t offended by your comment. Heck, I make fun of my own group at times, and get frustrated, etc. Frankly, dumb signs annoy me as well. When I pastored in the same town as Phil I had people in our church that wanted to put up signs on our ‘marquee’ I said no (in fact i even took down a couple of signs they had managed to sneak up!). There was a church right down the road from us that had a huge sign that had dumb sayings on it all the time. The only time I was tempted to put a saying on our sign it was to say this: Hey church down the road, stop putting dumb things on your sign. Just thought I would add the fact that just as not all lutherans are typical lutherans not all ‘evangelicals’ are typical ‘evangelicals’. Similarily, not all Baptists are typical Ba…wait, never mind.
Hi all
A couple of things. First of all, my quote from St. Gregory the Theologian should read, “If anything is unassumed, then we are unhealed.” Scratch the double negative.
Secondly, Tom, I’m relieved you took no offense to my statement. I forget that when I debate, I am not the mortal enemy of my opponent so I sometimes go over the top. For that, though, I do apologize.
Having said that, Phil, there are some very polemical things I say about Lutherans, especially the comment of Lutherans becoming Nestorian with regards to the incarnation. I know the Lutheran confessions lay out Nestorianism for what it truly is–a heresy, but I apologize for my insinuation that Lutherans are heretics in this regard. It is not my place to do so and I ask forgiveness.
Christos anesti! Alithos anesti!
Chris,
I must admit that I am always open and even enticed by this holistic view of Christ’s salvific life. No doubt without incarnation, there is no crucifixion. But yet, the NT places the primary emphasis on two events, the cross and empty tomb. and so I do not think it improper for us to do the same. Likewise, it seems improper to attribute specific salvific efficacy to events in Christ’s life that the scriptures do not ascribe such efficacy.
I am also taken back by this statement you made: “We speak only on what has been revealed to us by the Head, our Lord Christ.” Where did Jesus point when he spoke of salvation? Was it not to his coming crucifixion? Was that not where he placed his focus? He rarely pointed to any other event in his life. Even more generally, that statement do not ring true to what I have experienced of orthodoxy. So much of what is emphasized is hardly directly from Jesus. Surely what came out of the early church father’s mouth are just as important to orthodoxy. The liturgy composed over many years if not centuries is just as important. The councils are equally valued. No offense, Chris, but I don’t think you have once quoted Christ in defense of your statements.
Also you say, “To say that we do not believe in forgiveness of sins, is rubbish. Again, reading about Orthodoxy is NOT Orthodoxy. Because not as many of our Holy Fathers use the terms “forgiveness of sins” does not mean that we do not believe in such a thing.” Even your words here make forgiveness of sin a footnotes which is hardly how the NT speaks of it. Likewise, if it were more than footnote it would appear in the writings of EO theologians. Yes, how we worship determines how we believe, but how we believe also influences how and what we write.
Finally, you write:”Let me put it to you like this: If Christ’s death is solely (Ger. allein) for forgiveness of sins, what’s next after that? If forgiveness of sins is like being acquitted before the judge, what then? Do we just leave the court as if nothing happened? Yes, but this is not holistic. We are not simply acquitted, we are made new, we are reborn, we are refashioned so that everything Christ assumed may make us live as little Christs! The flesh has become deified! We can live as Christ-like people. That is the wonder and mystery of salvation!”
I agree whole-heartily that the mystery of salvation is much more than merely forgiveness of sins. I could have easily written ever word you wrote with the exception of those beginning with the words “little Christs” and continuing to the end. I agree that Lutheran practice and preaching has been woefully lacking in emphasizing the new life we have. I feel that orthodoxy is woefully lacking in proclaiming the forgiveness we have.
Phil,
Those prayers that I quoted to you which I say before the partaking of the Eucharist (unworthy as I am), did they not explicitly say that we partake “unto forgiveness of sins and unto life everlasting”? This is hardly a footnote. Again, you are pitting one holy father against another and then using that as proof that Orthodoxy cannot be the Truth simply because two different people did not say the exact same thing. I bet if we used this same standard with other Lutheran theologians, say Jacob Andreae and Martin Chemnitz, I’d bet that we would find disparity in theological language. Again, because St. Basil the Great or St. Symeon the New Theologian did not couch their theology into the categories invented by the Reformation does not negate their efficacy when prayed to the Lord nor distort the understanding of Christ’s condescension and gift of salvation.
Also, let’s be realistic. If forgiveness of sins were just a footnote, why has the Orthodox Church maintained regular use of confession and absolution? Granted the line at confession always is smaller than that for the Eucharist, but why would it still be there and encouraged if not even demanded, especially during Lent in anticipation of Pascha? I’ve found it amazing that Lutheran pastors and laymen do not practice, on the whole, confession though it is explictly praised and thought of as necessary by Luther, Melancthon et al especially before receiving the Eucharist.
Orthdoxy is in no way lacking the pronouncement of the forgiveness bestowed upon us. We are holistic and not content to be passive. We must also embrace holiness and grace and live the Christ-like life. Otherwise St. Matthew, when responding to our Lord’s call to discipleship may have just said, “No thanks. I prefer to be saved by grace alone.” The forensic metaphor by itself is incomplete.