David W. Congdon Profile picture
Oct 31, 2017 37 tweets 5 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
1. Today is not just any Reformation Day, but #Reformation500 Day. That calls for another installment of #TwitterSeminary.
2. My reflections are prompted by the question: Just what was the Reformation really about? What was its essential aim?
3. In a recent WaPo article, Stanley Hauerwas weighed in on this question. washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-re…
4. Hauerwas says: "if there was a single characteristic at [the Reformation's] heart, it was the recovery of the centrality of Christ..."
5. Hauerwas thinks the Reformation was about recovering Christ & since Vat II did that, the #Reformation has finished its work.
6. Hauerwas is simply wrong—wrong regarding what the #Reformation was about & about the completion of its work.
7. The first part is the more controversial matter and there are as many different takes on this as there are Protestant churches.
8. Unfortunately some are in the habit of minimizing the Reformation on the grounds that "Luther wanted to remain Catholic."
9. That is to say, Luther wasn't trying to form a new church but simply to reform the old one. Ergo, it was just a minor dispute.
10. Now it's true enough that Luther himself was conservative in his reforms and only formed a new church when Rome rejected him.
11. But we mustn't reduce the #Reformation to a handful of practical changes (e.g., getting rid of indulgences).
12. We see the #Reformation correctly when we're able to assess the reforms as a kaleidoscopic whole.
13. In doing so we see: the #Reformation was a rejection of the necessity of the church as mediator. This is the Protestant heresy.
14. Admittedly, this is not the way the #Reformation is typically understood, so we need to look at the traditional interpretations.
15. Noll & Nystrom in "Is the Reformation Over?" boil it down to sola scriptura, sola fide &priesthood of all believers. Let's unpack these.
16. Sola scriptura means the Bible stands as authority over all church tradition. All doctrine is inherently revisable.
17. Sola fide (justification by faith alone) means our standing before God does not depend on performing any rites or practices.
18. Our justification—i.e., Luther's quest for a "gracious God"—is achieved by faith alone, that is, by God alone.
19. Priesthood of all believers means we don't have to go through a priest to find absolution. God meets us immediately & directly.
20. To be a priest is by definition to be a mediator between God & humanity. Protestants believe each person has this special access.
21. This means we don't depend on a church to serve that mediating role for us. God is available to all apart from the institution.
22. Brad Gregory is right to call this doctrine "utterly radical" (Rebel in the Ranks). It is a revolutionary idea.
23. Gregory calls it "an act of insurrection against a foundational pillar of Western Christianity," viz. that priests are special.
24. We need to see all 3 of these claims (sola scriptura, sola fide, priesthood of all) as essentially a single thesis.
25. To have 1 is to have the others. Each rejects the institutional church's claim to be the sole voice & agent of God.
26. If we want more than the Noll/Nystrom summary, we can quickly support these insights by looking at Luther's original 95 theses.
27. Thesis 2, e.g., says that repentance "cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance...**which is administered by the priests**."
28. It's crucial that we see the link between sacramental penance and the mediating role of the priests.
29. Barth says "undoubtedly the Protestant heresy, the Reformation, was fundamentally an attack on this primacy of sacramental reception."
30. The Protestant heresy is that Word, and thus faith, is the definitive relation between God & humanity.
31. Barth: "Faith is the condition of worthy & effective sacramental reception. Sacramental reception is not the condition of true faith."
31a. See Barth, Göttingen Dogmatics, p. 169.
32. In other words, God's relation to each person is the basis for the church, not the other way around.
33. This reversal is "the great venture of Protestantism" (Barth), a venture that is under attack by some Protestants today.
34. But first, back to Luther. He argues in theses 36-37 that Christians have divine grace apart from the church's official pardon.
35. "Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon" (36).
36. "Every Christian...has part in all the blessings of Christ & the Church; & this is granted by God, even without letters of pardon" (37).

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with David W. Congdon

David W. Congdon Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @dwcongdon

Sep 23, 2018
1. THREAD. I've been an editor in political science at the University Press of Kansas (@Kansas_Press) for over a year now, and ever since I started I've been struck by something: the highly conservative character of the political science field.
2. As someone who spent the last 5 years editing books for an evangelical Christian academic publisher, I can say that working with university press-caliber authors in political science has felt like a lateral move in terms of political culture. It's truly *that* conservative.
3. Indeed in many ways, based on my experience, the political science field is significantly MORE conservative than the field of Christian theologians I worked with previously. This thread documents my quest to understand this phenomenon.
Read 53 tweets
Sep 14, 2018
1. Time for a rant thread. There are few things I loathe more than the claim that an interpretation of some beloved classical thinker or text is "biased" or "eisegesis." There's a lot going on in such claims that needs unpacking.
2. First of all, these claims assume the illusion of an unbiased interpretation, as if there is the "real" text or person lying "out there" for everyone to objectively see and admire. This doesn't exist and never has. As Barth says, "there is no exegesis without eisegesis."
3. These charges often falsely appeal to authorial intention ("that author/person wouldn't have authorized this reading"). First, meaning is not exhausted by an author's intentions. Second, attempts to claim what that author would say now are speculative projections.
Read 10 tweets
Sep 12, 2018
THREAD. I'm often asked what the point of God-talk is given my thoroughgoing demythologizing approach to theology. Is theology reducible to politics? Is there any meaning to talk of divine action? These are perennial questions, but I have a few thoughts. 1/
This isn't going to be a thread on dialectical or existential theology. I'll simply say that God is an active subject in the sense that I define God as an event, a disruptive occurrence in the midst of life that mobilizes new forms of human existence and social action. 2/
Of course these events can be explained in natural or historical ways, and if the only way we can affirm divine agency is if there are occurrences that we can directly attribute to God and to nothing else, then talk of divine agency is going to be impossible. 3/
Read 13 tweets
Mar 1, 2018
I believe it's time for me to start my reflections on NT Wright's Gifford Lectures. I'll comment on each lecture after finishing it to simulate live-tweeting. Buckle up, folks. Here we go. #NTWGifford
The opening lecture is titled "The Fallen Shrine: Lisbon 1755 and the Triumph of Epicureanism" and looks at the modern age and how this relates to the study of natural theology & the historical Jesus. It is almost exactly what I expected.
NTW wants to show how modernity is this great atheistic orgy in which God is removed from politics, economics, science, and even Jesus. To make it sound a bit more respectable, he labels everything in modernity "Epicureanism."
Read 102 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(