From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Wed Oct 08 2003 - 07:58:52 EDT
Don Winterstein wrote:
>
> George Murphy wrote in part:
>
> 'The approach you suggest seems to suggest Christ primarily as an example of
> God's love - an idea often associated with Abelard & "moral influence" theories & liked
> by liberal protestants. I think it's a viable option if one is careful with it. But
> there can be some problems. First, if the death of Christ is simply a demonstration of
> God's acceptance of us that already existed _before_ the cross then in a basic sense the
> cross was not _necessary_. Second, the cross should not be presented simply as a
> passive example. It must be an _active_ one, an example that actually does something to
> us. "I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.'
>
> Well, I believe that God has goals to accomplish with his creation, goals that absent the actual demonstration (i.e., Christ's sacrifice) would be thwarted. T
>
> '...It would be nice if everybody - not just you, Don - would forego
> the pop psychologizing of Luther.'
>
> You're right, I'm taking cheap, shallow shots. Luther probably doesn't deserve them. In criticizing his psyche I'm really thinking of some of his spiritual d
>
> (Incidentally, Bach's version of Christ lag in Todesbanden (BWV 4) is one of my all-time favorites. Merely reading the stanza you quoted and mentally hearing
>
> Don
>
> It was a strange and dreadful strife
> When life and death contended;
> The victory remained with life,
> The reign of death was ended.
> Holy Scripture plainly says
> That death is swallowed up by death,
> Its sting is lost forever.
> Hallelujah!
>
> My more or less literal (and unpoetic) translation from maybe 40 years ago:
>
> It was a strange war
> When Death and Life wrestled
> Life gained the victory
> He has devoured Death
> Scripture has proclaimed that--
> How one death ate the other.
> A laughingstock was made of Death.
> Hallelujah!
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> <?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" />
> George Murphy wrote in part:
>
> 'The approach you suggest seems to suggest Christ primarily as an
> example of
> God's love - an idea often associated with Abelard & "moral influence"
> theories & liked
> by liberal protestants. I think it's a viable option if one is
> careful with it. But
> there can be some problems. First, if the death of Christ is simply a
> demonstration of
> God's acceptance of us that already existed _before_ the cross then in
> a basic sense the
> cross was not _necessary_. Second, the cross should not be presented
> simply as a
> passive example. It must be an _active_ one, an example that actually
> does something to
> us. "I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to
> myself.'
>
>
> Well, I believe that God has goals to accomplish with his
> creation, goals that absent the actual demonstration (i.e., Christ's
> sacrifice) would be thwarted. The cross was necessary to bring
> about concrete effects (e.g., rise of Christianity) that would not
> have taken place without it. The cross was practical, a means by
> which God has been able to further his goals. This way of looking at
> it, I think, also satisfies your second objection.
So far, so good. One implication would be that without the proclamation of
the cross - & _bearing_ of the cross - there is no real Christianity.
> '...It would be nice if everybody - not just you, Don - would forego
> the pop psychologizing of Luther.'
>
>
> You're right, I'm taking cheap, shallow shots. Luther probably
> doesn't deserve them. In criticizing his psyche I'm really thinking
> of some of his spiritual descendants who sometimes seem to get
> perverse satisfaction from wallowing in their "wretched sinfulness"
> that to outsiders looks nothing at all like real sin. Why aren't they
> bolder, like David or the author of Psalm 119?! We have every reason
> to be bolder. And Luther himself was bold in many ways.
Yes, this is true for at least some Lutherans. When I was at Wartburg one of
the profs at the neighboring RC seminary said that an appropriate Good Friday service
for many Lutherans would be to come into the church & just have a big sign at the front
that said "It's all your fault!" (He wasn't being nasty, just commenting on some
aspects of Lutheran piety. RCs have their own problems with that. I saw one RC set of
directions for preparation for communion, the last step of which - just before receiving
the host - was "Now close your eyes and try to be very sorry for your sins.")
OTOH, Luther's "Pecce fortiter" - "Sin boldly" - often gets the opposite sort of
criticism!
Shalom,
George
>
> (Incidentally, Bach's version of Christ lag in Todesbanden (BWV 4) is
> one of my all-time favorites. Merely reading the stanza you quoted
> and mentally hearing Bach's treatment gives me chills.)
>
> Don
>
>
> It was a strange and dreadful strife
> When life and death contended;
> The victory remained with life,
> The reign of death was ended.
> Holy Scripture plainly says
> That death is swallowed up by death,
> Its sting is lost forever.
> Hallelujah!
>
> My more or less literal (and unpoetic) translation from maybe 40 years
> ago:
>
> It was a strange war
> When Death and Life wrestled
> Life gained the victory
> He has devoured Death
> Scripture has proclaimed that--
> How one death ate the other.
> A laughingstock was made of Death.
> Hallelujah!
Perhaps unpoetic but you've got the meaning of Luther's last line which the lBW
version misses: Ein Spott aus dem Tod ist worden. I can't think of a single shorter
word for "Spott" than "laughingstock."
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 08 2003 - 09:16:33 EDT