Weak on Sanctification?

The Internet Monk has a current series on Luther. There are some excellent responses to the series. One response, by Dave 138, asks some interesting questions:

• “What if it’s not so much about appeasing the wrath of the angry Father as the loving Creator who called his creation “good” and who called the creature he created in his own image “very good” restoring his creation to the pre-Fall state– “putting the world to rights” as N.T. Wright might say?”

• “But what if he has provided a way for us to experience not only forgiveness, but the beginnings of a sharing of his Trinitarian love even while still on this mortal coil?”

Here is his full response:

“I’m not going to make myself very popular here, I imagine, but am I the only one who thinks there could be something to the whole “weak on sanctification” stereotype? I’m not saying that I haven’t benefited from Walther, but I still find myself questioning whether the law/Gospel dichotomy isn’t just as much an artificial framework as the Calvinistic TULIP.

Now, trust me, I was almost destroyed by “third use of the Law” morbid introspection. In fact, it still haunts me in my search. So, I’m not advocating that by any means. Having come from a heavily Wesleyan dominated area, I’m also not arguing for a truly Semi-Pelagian “lose your salvation at any moment” Revivalism, either. I am searching for a liturgical church– that I know. However, I keep tripping over the legal framework of both the Swiss and German Reformers. Is getting forgiven really all it’s about? Is there more? I keep asking myself these questions.

Of course, I know that morbid introspection and inward looking are no good. However, I wonder if this isn’t partially the fault of a non-Sacramental worldview. When one tosses out any number of means of grace, it seems all one is left with is one’s own effort. So, then, it seems like a choice between a Mongergism that often allows one to simply rest on their laurels, whether it is their infant baptism, their answer to an alter call, a vague philosophical acceptance of the notion of “the finished work of Christ,” etc., or a Semi-Pelagianism that leaves one constantly wondering if they measure up. This is why I am still leaning Orthodox or Anglo-Catholic and do not at this time (and I could certainly be proven wrong) consider Lutheranism the most promising option.

I just keep thinking there has to be more. What if it’s not so much about appeasing the wrath of the angry Father as the loving Creator who called his creation “good” and who called the creature he created in his own image “very good” restoring his creation to the pre-Fall state– “putting the world to rights” as N.T. Wright might say? Although I know it’s not about what I want and what I find attractive, I must say that the healing and hospital metaphor prevalent in the Theosis concept of the Eastern Church and some high church Anglicans such as Lancelot Andrewes warms my heart and makes me feel that God, maybe, just maybe, might actually love me. I guess this just makes sense to me, as it seems to tie up both justification and sanctification in a beautiful, relational package which seems, at its best (and it isn’t aways), able to circumvent the Scilla and Chharibdis of both legalism and antinomianism.

Do I want to be forgiven? Of course. Do I need to be forgiven? Without question. But if I love Christ, it seems I should want more. I know, like Bunyan, that I can call myself “the chief of sinners,” and that I could certainly not advance an iota towards God had he not himself provided the way. But what if he has provided a way for us to experience not only forgiveness, but the beginnings of a sharing of his Trinitarian love even while still on this mortal coil? I’m probably not making much sense, and I’m more than just an armchair theologian– I’m a total newb. However, although I think what Luther did was probably necessary given the direction Medieval Catholicism had taken, I just have some concerns which prevent me, at this time, from pursuing this avenue. Lutheran brothers, pray for me. If I am wrong, may God open my eyes.”

Are Lutherans trying to recapture an "experience"? A response to Issues Etc.

Energetic Procession offers a response to the Issues Etc. three-part series on Eastern Orthodoxy. In response to the 'Strengths & Weaknesses' segment, Perry C. Robinson states:

"Furthermore, he speaks of the purpose of worship to be slain by the law and resurrected by the gospel. And here seems to me to a case of the pot calling the kettle black. For all the disparagement of a therapeutic approach and a desire for “experience” the Lutheran approach is no less therapeutic and motivated by a recapturing of that “experience” of condemnation and liberation as fostered by their schema. Good Lutheran preaching should use the law to re-create the existential crisis of absolute condemnation by the law that demands all and gives nothing and then supplying the existential release with a gospel that gives all and demands nothing. The value of the gospel lies specifically in its cathartic nature. Here Reformation preaching is no different than what its advocates despise. It is there to create an experience and is evaluated on its ability to do so. It is no small wonder then that the kind of experientialism that we see in say the First Great Awakening with Whitfield and Edwards is manifested in the second, even though it decoupled itself from its theological skeleton."

I had never thought about "Law and Gospel" preaching in this way before. However, I think Perry is on to something here. I do "like" and "look forward" to the feeling when my pastor gives me the Gospel after the Law. There is a distinct emotional and psychological reaction. There is also a distinct reaction/experience when the pastor forgets to give the Gospel and the sermon is all Law.

It would seem that this is very similar to the Pentecostals looking for an emotional high during worship. Perhaps Perry is right that the "pot is calling the kettle black" when we criticize the Pentecostals.

Insight, Catharsis & Sinful Behavior

I have been thinking about the critiques of Perry Robinson and Drew. Essentially, the arguments are:

• Lutheran theology may cause a person to seek out a cathartic experience each Sunday.

• This cathartic experience does not necessarily lead to behavior change.

• The “insight” of Lutheran theology (simul justus et peccator, extra nos, etc.) does not necessarily lead to behavior change.

• This “insight” can actually become a rationalization to continue to sin.

• The cathartic experience can be an “opiate” that lulls the person to accept his sinful behavior.

• The cathartic experience can also lead to a rationalization that keeps the person from making a behavior change.

• Both the cathartic experience and insight may have no impact on motivation or desire to change sinful behavior.

• Finally, this whole situation is compounded by the fact that most Lutheran preaching, at least Confessional Lutheran preaching, does not focus much on Sanctification.

It would seem that one could argue that Lutheran theology is a ‘set up’ for sinning. A situation is set up in which a sinner seeks an emotional catharsis each week, yet keeps sinning. The sin is rationalized and the guilt is medicated by the narcotic catharsis each Sunday.

We are all sinners. However, we all have areas where we can improve. We have habitual sinful behavior that can change. The anger can be reduced, the pride lessened and the lust resisted.

I have never thought about this until now, but perhaps Lutheran theology takes away the desire, motivation and interest in changing sinful behavior (at least in some people).

I am not forgetting the role of the Holy Spirit in all of this. However, I wonder how much am I supposed to “work with the Holy Spirit” to change my sinful ways. Or, do I wait for the Holy Spirit to give me all the desire, motivation, interest, power and ability to change. If so, how long do I wait for the Holy Spirit to work in my life?

Perhaps Lutheran theology needs a warning label.