Ruach Adonai
Clint has suggested a detour from the Lutheran Confessions to the Spirit. I'm game.
Why not start at the beginning? Genesis 1, 2 says: "the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters." Verse 3: "Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light." (NRSV).
The Old Testament uses the same word for wind and breath as spirit or Spirit. At any rate, the NRSV chooses to translate "ruach Adonai" as "a wind from God" rather than "the spirit of God." This choice choice corresponds to one set of prejudices to the text: that it is not appropriate to interpret the text from Christian presuppositions. The latter "Christian" reading does not compete with most of Rabbinic readings since many of the Rabbis argued that the Ruach of God, God's spirit or breath would not in any case be one thing in the act of creation and the other instances where the spirit shows up.
The reason we are leaving spirit in the lowercase is the ambiguity and place that the Spirit has in the Old Testament. Whose spirit is it? YHWH's and no others. There are other spirits and other 'powers' but there is only one that belongs to YHWH. But, can the Old Testament say that the Spirit is "The Lord, the Giver of Life" as we do in the Creed? To approach this problem is to come close to the difficulties early Christians had in calling Jesus and the one Jesus called Father both Lord. Paul's argument in 1 Cor 8: "...even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth ... yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist" of course is precisely the difficulty most Jews faced. How is it that the LORD, who is the Creator and all else is creation, can be both the Father of Jesus and Jesus? Here we approach the threshold of thinking about the Trinity.
The place of the Spirit in our passage from Genesis also has this problem. Creation is one thing and the Creator another. How do we split the difference when the Bible never sees things in terms of "grades" of God and gods. There is never one being who is 100% God, then one who is 85%, then 50% and so on. There is only one God, the Father of Jesus, says Paul. That much, makes sense. But how on earth do we make sense of the "One Lord, Jesus Christ," much less "The Lord who is the Spirit" (2 Cor 3)?
The second verse has many problems to it that make many biblical scholars decide against thinking of the "ruach adonai" as the Spirit. The chief one stems not from this verse but the first verse of the Bible: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Is this a summary of the whole creation story or is it the first act? If it is the summary only, then verse 2, our verse, describes the state of affairs before God began to create in verse 3.
So much for the sharp difference between Creator and creature? Not necessarily. But to understand the Spirit we do not have to solve this problem. Here we are talking about the Spirit as wind, as breath. This contributes to our understanding of the Spirit by pointing away from thinking of the Spirit as an impersonal blast of power or as a sort of spooky thing, a numinous reality that sort of is "out there." We do better to recognize that the Spirit's reality is intimate in creation. The Spirit is nothing supernatural but is grounded in the Creator's own will and love for you. The Spirit is not a something that is on the lose in the sense of "who knows what it will do next." The Spirit rather is deeply involved in the creation's life. The Spirit is there from the beginning of creation and belongs to the Creator's deep love for creation to exist. After all, the Spirit's brooding is intertwined with God's speaking: "let there be light."
In the broadest sense, thinking on this lesson together with Mary's Magnificat in Luke 2, Luther points the way: God has acted through his Spirit in Jesus, in you and me, in creation just as he has ever since the beginning. God takes something and makes it into nothing and takes nothing and makes it into something. God comes to a young girl who freely consents to be the mother of Jesus. God comes to the cross of that Jesus and says even in the face of death and the world of evil: I am still God, I am God and am glorified by the death of my beloved Son. And the Spirit comes, brooding over the grave, raising Jesus from the dead. And that same Spirit comes to you, giving you that smae cross and promising new life.
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
Monday, August 18, 2003
We recently printed a request in the church bulletin for people to submit topics on which they've always hoped to hear a sermon. A surprising number, in fact the greatest percentage, centered around the Holy Spirit. Sinning against the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit and freedom of the will. The gifts of the Spirit. Upcoming posts may shift away from the AC and onto some readings in a theology of the Holy Spirit.
Monday, July 28, 2003
TAG
A quick comment on the Atlanta Youth Gathering, Do Life! Ubuntu. As a pastor, it was a very helpful trip to share quality time with the group, get to know the youth and chaperones more deeply, all of that. I can't say enough how much I appreciated going away on retreat, just being with the group. The same might have been accomplished at a outdoor ministry center or on a service trip, but Atlanta was the center of this trip, so...
But I continue to be surprised by these two things: (1) the whole gathering is a media extravaganza of gigantic proportions (by my estimate, the program, not even counting hotel, travel, and food costs, runs to about $5 million per week) apparently because the gospel, in order to be communicated to this generation, needs the assistance of flash and noise (much of the flash and noise I enjoyed, to be honest), and 2) all youth gatherings seem to be centered around social action and certain political pet projects of the ELCA. Again, I happen to agree with the politics, and support the causes the Gathering supported. Nevertheless, I feel that my underlying theological presuppositions are radically different. Why can't there be a youth gathering that doesn't deal with politics? Why must all confession of the faith move immediately to- "so you can do this and that because of your faith". Why can't it center on this- "Christ has done thus and so for you". Why mightn't it not be more evangelical, focusing on the repentance and the confession of sin. That is likely a better place for the beginning of "renewal", in any event.
No postings this coming week as we are in Newfoundland.
A quick comment on the Atlanta Youth Gathering, Do Life! Ubuntu. As a pastor, it was a very helpful trip to share quality time with the group, get to know the youth and chaperones more deeply, all of that. I can't say enough how much I appreciated going away on retreat, just being with the group. The same might have been accomplished at a outdoor ministry center or on a service trip, but Atlanta was the center of this trip, so...
But I continue to be surprised by these two things: (1) the whole gathering is a media extravaganza of gigantic proportions (by my estimate, the program, not even counting hotel, travel, and food costs, runs to about $5 million per week) apparently because the gospel, in order to be communicated to this generation, needs the assistance of flash and noise (much of the flash and noise I enjoyed, to be honest), and 2) all youth gatherings seem to be centered around social action and certain political pet projects of the ELCA. Again, I happen to agree with the politics, and support the causes the Gathering supported. Nevertheless, I feel that my underlying theological presuppositions are radically different. Why can't there be a youth gathering that doesn't deal with politics? Why must all confession of the faith move immediately to- "so you can do this and that because of your faith". Why can't it center on this- "Christ has done thus and so for you". Why mightn't it not be more evangelical, focusing on the repentance and the confession of sin. That is likely a better place for the beginning of "renewal", in any event.
No postings this coming week as we are in Newfoundland.
Saturday, July 19, 2003
Excursus on Confessional Authority
An observation: when ordained to serve the ELCA, a new pastor has to promise to teach and preach according to the Lutheran confessions. This means the whole Book of Concord. Does this mean that the pastor is now bound to respect as equals the Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord? Not exactly. My German forebears are now turning over in their graves but my Danish relatives leap for Joy.
When the Reformation spread to other countries, including Denmark in Luther's lifetime, the main tool used was the Augsburg Confession. The Danes and eventually the Norwegians also took on the Small Catechism. After all, you have a formal document for public use and then the catechism to teach the faith. I don't know the situation in Sweden or in Finland.
This arrangement in confessional documents extended to many of the immigrant churches in the United States. When asked to list their confessional documents some Lutherans would say: "Augsburg and the Catechism," others would say: "Augsburg, its Apology, and the Catechism," while some would insist until blue in the face: "the whole Book of Concord." The latter would make fellowship dependent upon the whole Book of Concord, and that is the situation, at least in the letter, that we find ourselves in the ELCA, at least on paper.
Early in this interchange between this various Lutheran parties in the United States there emerged another problem: do I subscribe to the Confessions because they agree with Scripture or only insofar as the agree with Scripture. The parties that held to the whole Book of Concord scheme usually landed in the former camp and others across the spectrum. This question affects which confessional documents you recognize. It is worth mentioning that the Formula of Concord begins with a statement on Scriptural authority and that it more or less says: "in the case of a shootout between the Scripture and the Confessions, the Scripture wins."
Confessional authority, like Biblical authority, is a matter that emerges in the communities that used the documents after their writing and being brought together. Thus, it is difficult to look at the German situation with its collusion between the church and the rulers who adopted the confessions as legal norms for governing the churches and see this arrangement as the evangelical norm for confessional authority. Adherence to the Augsburg Confession was the bare minimum norm for the legal existence of Lutheran territories after the Peace of Westphalia. As Karl Barth repeated numerous times, "'back to' is never a good slogan."
When professing to teach and preach in accord with the confessions it makes sense to identify a hierarchy of authorities. The Augsburg Confession first and then the Catechism, and then the rest of the Confessions with the Formula at the 'bottom.' This is respectful not only of the non-German Lutheran traditions but also the Confessions themselves.
An observation: when ordained to serve the ELCA, a new pastor has to promise to teach and preach according to the Lutheran confessions. This means the whole Book of Concord. Does this mean that the pastor is now bound to respect as equals the Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord? Not exactly. My German forebears are now turning over in their graves but my Danish relatives leap for Joy.
When the Reformation spread to other countries, including Denmark in Luther's lifetime, the main tool used was the Augsburg Confession. The Danes and eventually the Norwegians also took on the Small Catechism. After all, you have a formal document for public use and then the catechism to teach the faith. I don't know the situation in Sweden or in Finland.
This arrangement in confessional documents extended to many of the immigrant churches in the United States. When asked to list their confessional documents some Lutherans would say: "Augsburg and the Catechism," others would say: "Augsburg, its Apology, and the Catechism," while some would insist until blue in the face: "the whole Book of Concord." The latter would make fellowship dependent upon the whole Book of Concord, and that is the situation, at least in the letter, that we find ourselves in the ELCA, at least on paper.
Early in this interchange between this various Lutheran parties in the United States there emerged another problem: do I subscribe to the Confessions because they agree with Scripture or only insofar as the agree with Scripture. The parties that held to the whole Book of Concord scheme usually landed in the former camp and others across the spectrum. This question affects which confessional documents you recognize. It is worth mentioning that the Formula of Concord begins with a statement on Scriptural authority and that it more or less says: "in the case of a shootout between the Scripture and the Confessions, the Scripture wins."
Confessional authority, like Biblical authority, is a matter that emerges in the communities that used the documents after their writing and being brought together. Thus, it is difficult to look at the German situation with its collusion between the church and the rulers who adopted the confessions as legal norms for governing the churches and see this arrangement as the evangelical norm for confessional authority. Adherence to the Augsburg Confession was the bare minimum norm for the legal existence of Lutheran territories after the Peace of Westphalia. As Karl Barth repeated numerous times, "'back to' is never a good slogan."
When professing to teach and preach in accord with the confessions it makes sense to identify a hierarchy of authorities. The Augsburg Confession first and then the Catechism, and then the rest of the Confessions with the Formula at the 'bottom.' This is respectful not only of the non-German Lutheran traditions but also the Confessions themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)