Critical reviews (by Lutheran pastors and church musicians) of books and other resources for Christian worship, preaching, and church music from a perspective rooted in Holy Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions and good common sense. LHP Quarterly Book Review asks, "Is it worth the money to buy, the time to read, the shelf space to store, and the effort to teach?"
FW: “I’m neither religious nor spiritual–I’m a Lutheran”
Feed: Cranach: The Blog of Veith Posted on: Monday, January 23, 2012 4:01 AM Author: Gene Veith Subject: "I'm neither religious nor spiritual–I'm a Lutheran"
You know that viral video from the guy who says he hates religion but loves Jesus? Well, Anthony Sacramone kind of agrees with him:
I like to say that I'm neither religious nor spiritual — I'm a Lutheran. It's more than just left of pithy; it's true. I have zero interest in religion. I had plenty of it as a kid. Sunday school; religion classes in my Lutheran parochial schools; confirmation classes. I was an acolyte and a winner of some religion-essay contest at the tender age of 9. And then there was church. And the inevitable Monday morning role call. Every Monday, our home room teacher would ask whether we had gone to church, Sunday school, both, or neither. After about age 11 I was racking up an impressive list of neithers. I would do anything to get out of going. To this day, I cannot remember a single word any pastor ever preached on any text. Church was something to endure. And among many of the Lutherans of my childhood, it didn't seem to matter. They subscribed to Woody Allen's shallow philosophy: just showing up was good enough.
And when I was finally confirmed, I was not just an adult in the eyes of the church; I was also free. Free never to have to endure the brain-sapping banality that was my religion. And we're not talking about a denomination exactly given to legalism. In fact, it had very few rules. Really, it had just one: show up. Just show up. And that was enough to make my religion unbearable. Because I wanted to be anywhere but there.
If only someone had told me to read Luther. Real Luther, not Sunday school Luther. The Luther who killed religion. . . .
What exactly did the religious folk want of Jesus? They wanted a king. And Jesus gave them one "in the form of a slave." They wanted relief from oppression, and they got parables. They wanted a kingdom, and they got the cross — a young Jewish man of dubious parentage apparently crushed by the collision of church and state but in reality bearing the iniquity of us all to reconcile us to a holy God, to inoculate us against sin, death, and the devil, to bury us alongside him, so he could raise us to eternal life. Their prayers were answered in the most startlingly appalling way: they received not power but promises.
Christianity isn't a religion. It's a conundrum. And no one has ever wrestled with and wrung the truth out of that conundrum better than Martin Luther. And it took a class at NYU to introduce me to his inimitable voice.
Luther hated that God who demanded perfect righteousness from an original sinner but who had already rigged the game with election. How could this possibly be good news? Where was hope of being a saint when you were still a sinner? How could a perfect God understand the weight of guilt, the pain of betrayal, the agony of a broken body? Luther had failed to bridge the chasm between a wrathful God and lowly, raging, libidinous man with his fastings and law keeping. How could he possibly get from despair to hope?
It was in the communication of properties — the dual nature of Christ understood such that we can speak of the death of the Son of God and the true union of God and man — that Luther saw a way out and was able slowly to forge the key to the Christian conundrum: Jesus takes my sin and gives me his righteousness. His righteousness. There is real union, but it is predicated on faith, trust in the promises, not an ascent on our part, but a condescension on his. We are passive recipients of a gift, which is Christ's own flesh. He really took our sin into his own flesh on Calvary and he really communicates his favor and forgiveness by feeding us that same flesh. Because life is in the blood. The worst crime in history — he who called heaven and earth into being with his Word fixed immobile to two cross beams — is the only hope anyone has of true freedom.
The church should be the place where you hear the promises of God, and embrace them as your own. The Father's wrath at his broken law should terrify you such that you run from him to Jesus, from the Just Judge to the Righteous Redeemer, who delivers not a sentence but his own self. If what you get instead is therapy or law or even encouragement to try harder, climb higher, or even to just show up, then you have religion, and you are doomed.
This, of course, is the "theology of the cross" as compared to "the theology of glory."
Do you see what he is saying? I'm touched by the account of his childhood post-confirmation alienation from the church. If we could teach the radical nature of the gospel and the theology of the cross more consistently, as opposed to just memorizing answers and "just showing up," would that make a difference? Or are young people at that particular age more interested in a "theology of glory," being oblivious to the grace that is hidden in an ordinary, boring church service? Whereas, perhaps, after failing and suffering and becoming cynical for awhile, they are ready to come back?