Read on Twitter
Fascinating article in Pro Ecclesia: Christopher Jackson argues that too much has been made of the distinction between theologian of glory & theologian of the cross. It is frequently offered as a key insight into Luther; Jackson deflates it.
Yes, it& #39;s in the 1518 Heidelberg Disputation, 19-22, and it& #39;s a powerful, tense little bit of Lutheran cut-and-thrust: In context, it& #39;s focused on soteriology & the role of good works rather than on, say, the doctrine of revelation & a corresponding theological method.
And then Luther never uses this language to make these points again. Never. So anybody who picks up "theologian of glory/the cross" dichotomy as a key to Luther has to promote it as an underlying framework explicitly formulated in 1518 & then laid aside, never revisited.
Well, how about the Lutheran tradition, then? It turns out the distinction between a theologian of glory (bad) and a theologian of the cross (good) isn& #39;t deployed in the Book of Concord, Melanchthon, Chemitz, Gerhard, or in the 19th c. revival of Confessional Lutheranism.
So when& #39;s it resurface? In 1929, (!) w/von Loewenich& #39;s Luthers Theologia Crucis: "For Luther the cross is the distinctive mark of all theology... not a chapter in theology but a specific kind of theology...the center that provides a perspective for all theological statements."
And away it goes: Forde & Kolb use it as a "hermeneutical or methodological guide." Missouri Synod theologians also treat it as key to a "Lutheran Mind." So it& #39;s no particular tribe in Lutherland that has taken it up; Jackson cites both Trueman & Revoice appealing to it recently.
"Be a theologian of the cross, like Luther, not a self-deceived theologian of glory" is certainly the way I learned Lutheran theology, both in a Methodist seminary using lots of primary texts plus Forde & company; and then later when studying with Lutheran theologians.
The most important phase of Jackson& #39;s argument is his case that Luther in fact develops a real theology of glory, in precisely the terms that would be rejected by the modern "theology of cross vs. theology of glory" paradigm (shoutout here to @theologygurl& #39;s 2000 article on this)
He also argues the Cross/Glory dichotomy, raised to a methodological key, mutilates Luther& #39;s teaching on Christian formation & exacerbates the cartoony view that Lutherans lack a theology of sanctification. Some modern Lutherans do, & use the cross/glory line to keep lacking it.
In a brief conclusion, Jackson says this methodologically inflated cross/glory dichotomy can be seen as another instance of what Yeago calls reducing Luther to a kind of Spitzensatztheologie:
Well, there& #39;s more interesting stuff in the fairly concise article. But it has jolted me out of a rut my thinking had got into. I still love the Heidelberg Disputation. But I& #39;m now alert to how some terms from it have been appropriated and recontextualized unhelpfully.
Okay, one more thought: this seems to me to be parallel to the way "The Wesleyan Quadrilateral" was formulated in the 20th c, linked tenuously to Wesley, & then employed not just as a supposedly Methodist way of doing things but exported to eager recipients in other traditions.
