Nordic Luther Research in Motion

Nordic Luther Research in Motion • Bo Kristian Holm 93 Nordic Luther Research in Motion By Bo Kristian Holm Abstract: Luther research in the Nordic countries is characterised by both continuation and discussion of its own legacy. Finnish Luther studies have a prominent position here, but are by no means the only actors in Nordic Luther research. Giving an overview of Nordic Luther research in the last decade, the article selects four main topics that have been the focus of special attention: politics and ethics, Communicatio idiomatum and Luther’s view on language, Luther as preacher, and Luther and the gift. The article concludes with some comments on the continuing role of creation theology, so strongly emphasised in last century’s Scandinavian Luther research. Key Terms: Nordic Luther research, ethics, communicatio idiomatum, preaching, gift, creation theology. The Legacy of 20th Century Luther Studies The impact of 20th century Luther studies upon contemporary Nordic research is immense. It was a century marked by the Scandinavian Luther renaissance, and the work of Luther scholars like Lauri Haikola, Lennart Pinomaa, Gustav Wingren, Inge Lønning, Regin Prenter, and Leif Grane. If we restrict our view to the last decade of the century, the baton that Finnish Luther research passed on to the new century was substantial in itself and significant for those inspired or challenged by it. Many, though not all, would agree that Luther research has not been quite the same since the “Finnish voice” made itself heard. An investigation of contemporary Luther research in Scandinavia reveals a continuation of old positions from a more or less glorious past, although often in new clothing. The Mannermaa school obviously is still very vivid in Helsinki. The Grane school, not surprisingly, is still existent in Copenhagen; and one can find traces of Regin Prenter’s work in Helsinki, Oslo and Aarhus. The tradition of Wingren also can be found, although not so much in Sweden as in Norway. Apart from in Finland, however, no distinctive schools can be identified, and in the other Nordic countries Luther research has more or less had to be created anew after the great masters of the past left the scene. The perspectives in general are, nevertheless, promising; new young scholars are beginning to make their mark. It is only in Sweden—the country previously fostering great Luther scholars—that Luther research really seems to be grinding to a halt. Finnish Luther research is still dominant in the area, and generally, Scandinavia seems to be split in two: one half reacting positively to the results of the new Finnish Luther research, the other half having the same sceptical attitude as the majority of German scholars. The dialogue between the different schools and positions, however, has benefited from what is now known as the Nordic Luther Network, which organises workshops and publishes research results. Scandinavia also has hosted two international Luther conferences in the last five years: the 10th International Luther Congress in Copenhagen in 2002, and the conference “Charisms & Contexts: The Future of Lutheran Theology” in Aarhus in 2003. Apart from bringing an international community of Luther Scholars to Scandinavia, these conferences also have fertilised intraScandinavian connections. So although Scandinavia is more or less ‘divided in two,’ the general atmosphere has been characterized by fruitful cooperation and debate. Indeed, when the Theological Bo Kristian Holm, PhD. is an Associate Professor in the Department of Systematic Theology, Aarhus University, and author of Gabe und Geben bei Luther, Berlin/New York 2006, and also co-editor of The Gift of Grace: The Future of Lutheran Theology, Minneapolis 2005. 94 Dialog: A Journal of Theology • Volume 47, Number 2 • Summer 2008 Faculty in Copenhagen—the Faculty with the strongest bonds to classical German scholarship— conferred an honorary doctoral degree on Tuomo Mannermaa a few years ago, the growing bonds of collegiality and recognition became evident. Since the Finnish endeavour has been thoroughly described elsewhere, this study will not deal particularly with the Finnish School. Instead, I will show how representatives of this school have contributed to the main themes occupying ongoing Luther research in this part of the world. I will concentrate on the following main topics: (a) ethics and politics in Luther’s thinking; (b) the impact of Chalcedonian Christology on Luther’s theology and understanding of language; (c) Luther as preacher; and (d) Luther’s use of ‘gift-language.’ Moreover, I will concentrate on representative works instead of giving a complete outline, keeping in mind that today’s research is not organised into proper schools, and that a more detailed reading of the published material is therefore needed. Lutheran Theology and Society Since the Nordic countries are nearly the only examples of truly mono-cultural Protestantism, it is not accidental that several studies are concerned with the relation between Lutheran theology and politics and, more generally, with the impact of the Reformation upon the formation of society. Writing about Luther’s and Lutheran ethics in Scandinavia often takes the form of a critique of K.E. Løgstrup and Gustav Wingren, who represent a general tendency in the second half of 20th century Scandinavian Lutheranism. Here it is claimed that there exists no special Christian morality, thus separating the preaching of the gospel from worldly life and its use of the law.1 This also applies to the works of both Antti Raunio from Helsinki and Ulrik Becker Nissen and Svend Andersen from Aarhus, the latter himself being a pupil of Løgstrup. Although it is possible to find continuations of the Wingren-line in, for instance, the work of Roger Jensen from Oslo,2 the line of Raunio, Nissen and Andersen represents a new more critical tendency toward their own tradition. Jensen, who placed himself between Karl Holl, Gerhard Ebeling, K.E. Løgstrup and Gustav Wingren, focuses on the similar constitution of the ethical subject within and outside of faith, and on securing the positive evaluation of the latter. Raunio’s concern is to show how the Golden Rule and the concept of God’s selfgiving permeates all Luther’s theology and, in fact, to some extent relativises the distinction between the two kingdoms, as Nissen does in his work.3 Furthermore, Andersen focuses on a contemporary and post-Kantian reformulation and reconstruction of a Lutheran view on the relationship between religion and politics. Luther and the Golden Rule Raunio, Nissen and Andersen all argue in favour of a close connection between faith and Christian living in society against an all too harsh separation, but with a slightly different accent. Both Raunio and Andersen emphasise the function of the Golden Rule in Luther’s thinking. Where most of the Finnish studies have been engaged in historical analysis, Svend Andersen has brought Luther’s understanding into contemporary political discourse. He argues that a modern understanding of ‘overlapping consensus’ like that found in John Rawls’ political philosophy, is the best way of transforming Luther’s original position into a position suitable for the present situation. “There is an overlap between acting out of neighbour love and acting in accordance with natural law, but not identity.”4 The difference here relates to the absence of the aspect of humiliation and suffering in natural law; in political life, self-sacrificial acting is misplaced. This means for Andersen that it must be argued, “that an essential feature of Lutheran political theology is that exactly from the religious, Christian, point of view the political realm must be understood as profane.”5 Although arguing in favour of a special Christian ethic, he nevertheless follows Løgstrup in the emphasis on the universality of natural law. Raunio stresses the similarities between divine and natural law from a slightly different Nordic Luther Research in Motion • Bo Kristian Holm perspective. In both public and private life, there is a demand for unselfish love. In his contribution to the book Lutheran Reformation and the Law, Raunio argues against a “usual dualistic interpretation of Luther’s understanding of natural law,” which makes a sharp distinction between “worldly natural law” and a “divine natural law of love.”6 In various works, starting with the book Summe des christlichen Lebens, Raunio has shown how the Golden Rule and the concept of divine self-giving form a unity and create the basis for a needoriented ethics, abolishing a value-based ordo caritatis.7 In the article “Divine and Natural Law in Luther and Melanchthon,” he shows that Luther develops a view of creation based entirely on the idea of love as continuous giving, and that a major difference between Luther and Melanchthon in this area is observable. This focus on creation theology, which apart from smaller studies has not been at the centre of recent Finnish Luther studies, may represent a traditional, strong tendency in Scandinavian theology to emphasise creation theology. A further discussion of this issue follows below. In his lecture at the 11th International Congress for Luther Research, Raunio reconstructed Luther’s theology using the relationship between the concept of divine self-giving love and the Golden Rule as the centre. In his reading, the Large Catechism “completes the thought presented in the Large Confession by saying that God gives himself to us completely, with all his gifts and his power, to help us keep the Ten Commandments. The aim of God’s self-giving is also the Christian living.”8 In Luther’s perspective, the core issue is not the fulfilment of the commandments in itself, but the right use of the divine gifts. Raunio’s interpretation resembles Andersen’s focus on what he calls the double role exchange in Luther’s understanding of Christian living in the world: “as Christ saw my need and gave from his surplus, so I see the need of my neighbour and give from my surplus.”9 If Raunio formulates his ideas against the background of a dualism between divine law and human law,10 Andersen formulates his position against the belief that the commandment of love only exists as a demand, which is impossible to perform. By this focus, both more or less implicitly emphasise the function of surplus 95 in Luther’s theology against a strong tendency in 20th century Lutheran theology that understands Luther’s theology from the perspective of human deficiency. Politics and Ethics Despite the rather minor differences between Raunio and Andersen, one might talk of a dynamic new line in Nordic Luther reception, which is critical of the dualistic legacy of traditional Lutheran theology of the past, and that focuses on the interrelatedness of faith and love—theology and politics without neglecting the distinctions between them.11 Consequently, both Raunio and Virpi Mäkinen in their work, and Andersen in his, find in Luther’s theology a foundation for a concept of rights, while at the same time admitting his resistance to a modern concept of individual rights.12 The difference between Raunio and Andersen raises important questions: in a theology of selfgiving, what does self-giving mean for the participating human being? Does it involve self-sacrifice? At the same time, these very questions show how the Kantian heritage separates Andersen from Raunio, and brings self-sacrificial aspects to the fore. In the Finnish Luther there cannot be any real selfsacrifice for the Christian united with Christ. Raunio’s work is a substantial contribution to the discussion of Lutheran heritage in the modern welfare state. Together with the work of Andersen this is a necessary reminder in an age where politicians use the two kingdoms doctrine as an argument for a total separation of religion and politics. The Lutheran Reformation has, however, a double legacy, and Reijo Työrinoja has been investigating the other side. He points to Luther’s position in the history of ideas. He sees a clear connection between Luther’s uncovering of the depth of human egoism, and the central position and positive evaluation of egoism in the contract theories of modern liberalism—and its transformations of the Golden Rule into the rule of selfish desire.13 Although the book Lutheran Reformation and the Law adds substantial material to the discussion, 96 Dialog: A Journal of Theology • Volume 47, Number 2 • Summer 2008 there is still work to do regarding the relationship between Lutheran theology and the Nordic welfare state. This would be an advantage, not only for the understanding of the development of Lutheran theology, but also for the ongoing discussion of the organisation and historical background of contemporary society. An investigation of political parties in the Nordic countries in the 20th century and their programs probably also would show that the majority are representatives of different understandings of the Lutheran view on society and its function. The question then becomes: will this continue to be so, or will politics coloured by a Lutheran heritage, of which it is not always aware, change in the meeting with politics coloured by the unintended legacy of the reformation as presented by Työrinoja? Christology cannot be said to be consistent or homogenous, and implies a slight modification of the Chalcedonian heritage due to Luther’s focus on soteriology. The soteriological shaping is clearer in the early writings than in the later disputations, where, according to Haanes, the reader “easily loses sight of the communicatio idiomatum as an expression of the struggle between God and humanity bound by the devil.” 16 Nevertheless, the real agenda here is also soteriological, and although his soteriology shapes his Christology, his intention never goes beyond the formula of Chalcedon. “On the contrary, this soteriological element is the real intention of the formula.”17 Communicatio Idiomatum and Luther’s View on Language The soteriological aspect of communicatio idiomatum and its impact on Luther’s understanding of language have also been the focus of attention for Anna Vind from Copenhagen. In most of her work, Vind has used the programmatic Christological postscript in Luther’s Anti-Latomus as her lens. She has shown the intimate connection between the understanding of Christ’s two natures in its Chalcedonian design on the one hand, and, on the other hand, Luther’s view on language and use of the rhetoric tradition, especially Quintilian.18 Turning towards Luther and rhetoric, she and others with her, concentrate on a subject previously unkindly treated by many Lutheran theologians: hearing the word of God has nothing to do with human rhetoric. In the article “Christus factus est peccatum metaphorice” she offers a detailed overview of Luther’s use of Quintilian, showing clear similarities between Luther’s understanding of metaphors and figurative speech in Anti-Latomus, On the Lord’s Supper, and in the Christological disputations. Both Quintilian and Luther work with the primary meaning of words and their derived figurative meaning, and they generally agree on the definition of metaphors. Luther, however, transcends the Quintilian framework when he argues that the reality of God, his intervention in and creation of the Much has been written since Regin Prenter, following Yves Congar in Creation and Redemption, stated: [the] “idea of a communicatio idiomatum is not in itself a genuine expression of Luther’s intention in his Christology and in his Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper,”14 seeing in this doctrine a touch of docetism and a tendency towards monophysitism. While Prenter thus somewhat surprisingly overlooked what might have become a uniting element in his own interpretation of Luther, many scholars in the past years have been more than willing to highlight the importance of the concept of communicatio idiomatum in Luther’s theology. Vidar L. Haanes from Norway summarises the discussion of the orthodoxy of Luther’s Christology in his article “Christological Themes in Luther’s Theology.” There, he argues in favour of Luther’s orthodoxy, and investigates the changes in Luther’s own view.15 Through no coincidence, Haanes pays close attention to Luther’s understanding of communicatio idiomatum and his understanding of theological language; these two elements are closely connected with his conclusion that Luther’s Luther’s Use of Quintilian Nordic Luther Research in Motion • Bo Kristian Holm world, happens in the Word. Here the metaphor becomes the place where eternal timelessness meets temporal motion. What lies beyond human words is itself the Word accessible only through human words. Vind uses the Swiss theologian Stefan Steiff to distinguish between “instrumental language” (which she finds in Latomus),19 and “mediating language” (which she finds in Luther) that expresses what lies beyond human understanding in a never-definitive form, e.g., the conjunction of natures in Christ. In this way, Luther’s elaboration of Chalcedonian Christology helps him in transcending and transforming the usual rhetorical form.20 She shows, like other studies dealing with Luther’s own tradition, how new insights in Luther research are often closely connected to studies in Luther’s role in the history of theology and of ideas. Reijo Työrinoja, building on his earlier works on Luther’s theological language, demonstrates how Luther’s theory of action also is shaped by the doctrine of communicatio idiomatum.21 To understand Gal 2:20, a new theological language is needed, otherwise the unity of Christological and human agency becomes incomprehensible, according to Luther.22 Only by using new Christological language about human agency is it possible to liberate human activity from the reciprocity of contract and covenant, which it was subject to in late medieval nominalism. Theology has to work with a logic or ‘grammar’ of gift that separates God’s giving from the obligation to reciprocate.23 Therefore, “the deed of faith (opus fidele)” surpasses the principle of rationality based on natural moral law, and in this sense it does not belong to the sphere of ethics at all. Luther’s Pneumatology Related to this theme, we find Pekka Kärkäinen’s study on Luther’s pneumatology. In his dissertation Luthers trinitarische Theologie des Heiligen Geistes, he follows in the footsteps of Regin Prenter in his attempt to make a comprehensive study of Luther’s theologies of the Holy Spirit.24 Although Kärkkäinen’s focus is directed towards Luther’s use 97 of the legacy of patristic-medieval trinitarian thinking, he offers several fruitful insights from a broader perspective as well. According to Kärkkäinen, only a trinitarian approach is able to grasp all aspects of Luther’s pneumatology, and he shows important parallels between Luther’s Christology and his pneumatology, mainly in the later writing. Although Luther in his late writings tends to understand grace as divine imputation, his understanding of the Holy Spirit as a divine gift of love remains unchanged. Also in the late writings, Luther follows the Ockhamist’s understanding of the Spirit as God’s love ad extra. In Kärkkäinen’s study, Luther’s incarnation theology forms his pneumatology and contributes to necessary distinctions in the discussion with the Antinomians. The law cannot reveal human sinfulness without the Spirit being present, but the Spirit’s proper work remains vivification and consolation. A distinction between the Spirit as God and the Spirit as gift here equals the distinction between deus in sua substantia and deus incarnatus, but only to some extent, since the latter distinction remains an exception regarding possible human formulations about God. Building on the distinction between the Spirit as God and the Spirit as gift, Kärkkäinen also can show the simultaneity of relationality and divine real presence, thereby contributing to the ongoing discussion about Luther’s ontology and its theological consequences.25 For Kärkkäinen, Luther’s pneumatology proves how extensively Luther could use the legacy of patristic-medieval trinitarian thinking. It could also be argued, however, that Kärkkäinen continues the line represented by Kjell Ove Nilsson in his 40-year-old monograph Simul ,26 a line that has become prominent not only in Scandinavian Luther research: Luther’s use of Chalcedonian Christology as a fundamental way of thinking. One could wish for more studies on the relationship between Luther’s soteriological and anthropological use of communicatio idiomatum, and the idea of the real presence of Christ in the believer and of deification as presented by Finnish Luther scholars. Especially studies on the background of Luther’s understanding of divine essence as selfgiving love27 would be interesting, as only the beginnings of that discussion have been marked out.28 98 Dialog: A Journal of Theology • Volume 47, Number 2 • Summer 2008 Simo Peura touched briefly on this aspect in his lecture at the 10th International Luther Congress. In his reading of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1535), he comments on Luther’s understanding of faith as “creatrix divinitas, non in persona [Dei], sed in nobis,” and concludes: “By this statement Luther means that the Christian through faith can and shall give God, what belongs to him.”29 If Luther research is called on to contribute to church life as a whole, this might be the way to walk: highlighting all the elements in Luther’s theology that transcend unilateral talking. Luther as Preacher Today there is a general tendency to pay more attention to Luther’s work as preacher and catechist than in earlier years.30 Formerly, Luther’s important catechetical work was more or less neglected, or was used to emphasise the communicative aspect of his theology.31 In her dissertation about the sacramentality of Luther’s preaching, Bernice Sundkvist points to the similarity between God’s giving in the sacraments and God’s giving in preaching, trying to place herself between an existential interpretation on the one hand and, on the other hand, an emphasis on the real-ontic change of the believer. In both sacrament and preaching, Christ himself is the gift, and he gives himself “for us” as well as “in us.” In both sacrament and preaching the objective content, e.g., the history of Christ ‘once and for all’ and the existential reception—the use of the promise—melt together.32 The gospel does not point at something as a mere sign, but is in itself reality, res. If previous research tended to emphasise that sacraments resemble preaching of the word, Sundkvist emphasises that preaching resembles sacramental distribution. In both sacrament and proclamation, Christ himself is given, and the result is union with Christ. How this union is understood, however, has not yet received its final explanation. The relationship between word, gift and being33 in Luther’s theology will attract attention also in the years to come. While Sundkvist deals with the theological aspects of Luther’s view on preaching, Ninna Jørgensen from Copenhagen and Sigurjón Árni Eyjólfson from Iceland have examined the practical side of Luther’s preaching and teaching. In the article “‘Sed manet articulus’: Preaching and Catechetical Training in selected Sermons by the Later Luther,”34 Ninna Jørgensen, in her examination of written records of Luther’s own oral performance, focuses on Luther’s rhetorical use of simple, repeatable formulations for the sake of pastoral consolation. By doing this, she places herself within a major trend in recent Scandinavian Luther research dealing with Luther’s rhetoric35 and pastoral care.36 Jørgensen emphasises that the basic role of preaching is to establish an unshakable ‘stronghold’ for the individual conscience; and that the way of reaching this point is to articulate the basic principles of Christian doctrine in simple, repeatable formulations. Although the viva vox evangelii plays an important role in Luther’s theology of preaching, the deliberate rehearsal of well-known formulas helps create an inner resource of reliance on the gospel, assisting the memory and thus also the inner imaging so important in Luther’s own pastoral care.37 Luther and ‘Gift’ One of the most interesting discussions in Nordic Luther research has been around the role of gift giving in Luther’s theology.38 Although it is now more than 20 years ago since Martin Seils characterised Luther’s theology as a theology of giving, it took a long time for the terminology of gifts and giving to place itself in the centre of Luther research. Helped by Finnish Luther research, Oswald Bayer’s proposal of elevating the word ‘gift’ to a theological primordial word (Ur-Wort der Theologie), and other gift-studies, the gift is no longer a strangely neglected word in Luther research. What Antti Raunio called for in his dissertation about the Golden Rule, when he wrote that more work needs to be done regarding the understanding of ‘gift’ in Luther’s theology,39 has now come Nordic Luther Research in Motion • Bo Kristian Holm about, in many ways. Raunio himself has been contributing to this discussion by emphasising the importance of understanding divine giving as divine self-giving in Luther’s theology and ethics. The identification of ‘giver’ and ‘gift’ distinguished in self-giving plays an important role in Simo Peura’s and Risto Saarinen’s works as well. This discussion, however, also reveals where there is still a need for more work. Raunio and Peura have emphasised Luther’s understanding of God’s giving as self-giving, but in many cases God or Christ seems also to give something different from themselves, e.g. the merits of Christ. The reformers themselves seem not to have considered this topic a major issue as they use both ideas, although it is quite apparent that Melanchthon prefers the latter and Luther the former. These ambiguities in Luther’s own writing seem to place some of Risto Saarinen’s gift-studies on the border of what we could call mainstream Mannermaa school—which indeed makes these studies worth reading—and closer to the German Luther scholar Oswald Bayer. If carefully elaborated, there could be basis here for the emerging of a constructive dialogue between Finnish and at least some parts of German Luther research. In God and the Gift 40 Saarinen begins with the following influences: (a) Wolfgang Simon’s study of sacrifice in Die Messopfertheologie Martin Luthers,41 where Simon shows how Luther transforms the Augustinian quadriga of sacrifice that distinguishes between actant, sacrificial gift, receiver and the beneficiaries; (b) Oswald Bayer’s concept of God’s categorical gift and poietic giving;42 (c) Raunio’s studies on the Golden Rule;43 (d) Peura’s analysis of the selfgiving of God;44 and (e) Seneca’s De beneficiis, with its stressing of the intention of the giver in judging the quality of the benefaction or gift. The aim of the book is to show the ecumenical relevance of Luther’s theology of giving. In the following chapters, he points at the centrality not only of God’s self-giving but also of the structure of giving and receiving in believing in God.45 Saarinen notes the “Johannine” perspectives of love in Luther’s exposition of Paul, as in Luther’s comments on Gal 1:4 and 2:20 in his Commentary on Galatians (1535). He is thereby able to show how the act of self- 99 giving “is not only an abstract act of economic or forensic redemption, but. . .is basically an act of gift-love, in which we are not only beneficiaries, but also recipients of love.” The quadriga of sacrifice is thus supplemented with the triad of gift-giving or even the dyad of self-giving, in which giver and gift are identical. This supplementation is the necessary consequence of Luther’s strong incarnation theology, and necessarily leads towards a strong notion of the believer’s union with Christ: “The gift is given for us, but also to us.”46 Divine Giving Luther’s understanding of divine gift-giving has something to contribute to the modern discussion about gift-economy, because the modern sociological investigation in and philosophical discussion about gift-giving, and the apparent reciprocal structure inherent in all social gift-giving seems to question the Lutheran claim on grace as a free gift. In “The Notion of “Gift” (Donum) in Luther’s Thinking,” Sammeli Juntunen has argued in favour of a theological notion of gift uncontaminated by an anthropological or philosophical analysis of the gift. Grace is, in Luther’s theology, a free gift, “even if it is true that free gifts that involve no expectations or reciprocity do not necessarily exist in human societies.”47 A similar conclusion can be found in Carsten Pallesen’s work with Luther’s theology of the Lord’s Supper, which is inspired by Eberhard Jüngel and Niklas Luhmann.48 According to Pallesen, the asymmetry of transcendence given in the First Commandment can be understood based on a corresponding asymmetrical gift motive. This, according to Pallesen, is the reason for Luther’s ending of Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper (1528) with a confession of God’s threefold self-giving. The content of faith is hidden under its opposite. The asymmetrical structure of divine giving evades the linguistic fixation of normative rationality,49 and is secured by the “quasi-objects” of the elements in the Lord’s Supper. There is no mutuality. The ‘economy’ of the gift in Luther’s Confession Concerning 100 Dialog: A Journal of Theology • Volume 47, Number 2 • Summer 2008 Christ’s Supper consists of the Father giving heaven and earth, the Son giving himself, and the Spirit giving the gift of the possible reception of these gifts with ungrateful freedom. Although in God and the Gift , Saarinen comes close to agreeing with Juntunen by stressing God’s free gift, and by making an important distinction between God’s giving and human receiving and the manifestation of the gifts given, he does not reach the same conclusion as Pallesen, since Saarinen is aware of the necessary activity involved in receiving. In a forthcoming article, Saarinen concludes that God’s free unilateral giving is determined by the possibility of reciprocity and reaction.50 However, this paradoxical nature of unilateral giving, according to Saarinen, is most visible from a ‘giver-oriented’ perspective. One of Luther’s major contributions to Western theology is his shift from a ‘receiver-oriented’ perspective, troubling both scholastic and post-Kantian Protestant theology, to a ‘giver-oriented’ perspective. Luther and Seneca In the article “Gunst und Gabe: Melanchthon, Luther und die existentielle Anwendung von Seneca’s ‘Über die Wohltaten,’” Saarinen shows the ambiguities in Luther’s own gift language. Using Seneca’s De beneficiis, Saarinen shows how Melanchthon’s and Luther’s understandings of favor dei are influenced by the post-Senecan logic of benefits, stressing the giver’s intention in judging the quality of a benefit shown or given. What makes a gift a good gift is not the gift in itself, but the intention in which it is given. According to Saarinen, the use of Seneca reveals that the dissimilarity between Melanchthon’s and Luther’s understanding of the distinction between gratia and donum may not be as great as commonly assumed. Both argue in favour of a close connection between favor and donum. In his interpretation of Luther’s Anti-Latomus, Saarinen emphasises the sanative dimension of Luther’s understanding of donum and consequently the non-identity of grace and gift . By this interpretation, Saarinen represents an interpre- tation of Luther that is slightly different from the one offered by his fellow Finn, Simo Peura, who in several articles has argued for the Christological identity of both grace and gift. The apparent difference between Saarinen and Peura seems to be caused by a barely recognised inconsistency in Reformation theology itself regarding the possible identification of God as giver and the divine gift. Here Seneca can function as a hermeneutical key, if handled carefully. If the gift is something different from the giver, Saarinen uses Seneca to show that it is of secondary significance what the gift is; it is the intention, the benevolence, that is the real gift. If the divine gift and the divine giver are separated, an emphasis on the forensic dimension of justification and the unilateral direction of it seem to be the necessary consequence. This is very clearly illustrated in Saarinen’s article on Melanchthon’s and Luther’s use of Seneca. On the other hand, if the divine gift and the divine giver are identified, as in the concept of divine self-giving, then there seems to be more room for mutuality between giver and receiver, since the receiver, by participating in the divine self-giving, him/herself becomes a giver.51 Such a strong element of mutuality can—as mentioned above—be found in Simo Peura’s work on divine self-giving52 and in his interpretation of Luther’s Commentary on Galatians (1535).53 Such an understanding is also detectable in Raunio’s work, although Raunio, due to his thematic orientation places special focus on the further circulation of God’s gift in inter-human relations. However, as has also been shown by Saarinen, the emphasis on the intention of the giver highlights the element of self-giving in every gift, and the difference between the two kinds of understanding therefore should not be exaggerated. Using Wolfgang Simon’s quadriga of sacrifice, Saarinen has elaborated on the simultaneity of the believer being beneficiary and being receiver, thereby connecting the two perspectives. The discussion in which Saarinen is engaged shows how philosophical and anthropological studies in gift-giving can sharpen the interpretation of Luther’s theology and give fruitful insight for future work—also in the field of systematic theology. Nordic Luther Research in Motion • Bo Kristian Holm Moreover, Saarinen has shown how gift terminology can present Luther’s theology in a non-confessional language suitable for ecumenical dialogue. Divine Gift-giving and Justification 101 as Luther from an Osiandric position, which might have been the purpose of his work. Vainio shows clearly both the advantages in understanding the unifying aspect of justification Christologically, and the cost—a somewhat mystical concept of divine presence.56 Luther’s Theology of Creation The question about the nature of divine gift giving leads almost immediately to the discussion about the nature of justification and the relationship between its forensic and effective aspects. In the field of historical theology, Olli-Pekka Vainio’s dissertation, Justification and Participation in Christ , provides a useful spectrum for identifying five different types of theology present during the Lutheran Reformation.54 Through an investigation of the development of Lutheran theology until the Formula of Concord, Vainio shows how the idea of participation in Christ was regarded as part of the doctrine of justification in almost all 16th century Lutheran thinking. He shows how justification in Melanchthon’s theology is never expressed as a purely forensic understanding, with the exception of a few years around his commentary on Romans.55 The greatest difference between Luther and Melanchthon lies in their different ways of understanding renewal. Luther understands renewal as participation in Christ. Melanchthon understands renewal as the causal renewal of the powers of the soul enacted by the Spirit. This difference is closely related to the difference between Luther’s understanding of justification as salutary exchange (commercium admirabile), and Melanchthon’s expression of the doctrine of justification in primarily cognitive terms. To continue the previous discussion, we could argue that Luther’s Christological concentration gives more room for an identification of divine giver with divine gift, whereas Melanchthon tends to separate the two. Although we might ask for more information about how open Melanchthon’s cognitive approach to ‘exchangist’ dimensions is, and what role the cognitive dimension plays in Luther’s salutary exchange, Vainio gives a valuable view on the difference between the reformers. He separates Melanchthon as well In a small but illustrative article about Luther’s doctrine of creation, Niels Henrik Gregersen from Copenhagen shows some other implications of a possible connection between Finnish Luther research and Oswald Bayer’s theology of creation.57 What binds the two trends, as Risto Saarinen’s later works shows, is the common focus on God’s giving. Gregersen’s article is important because it clearly shows the possible linkage between the two mentioned trends in recent Luther research and the traditional focus on creation theology in Scandinavian Lutheran theology. The history of creation theology in Scandinavia is long. It is related to the Danish theologian N.F.S. Grundtvig (1783-1872), who understood himself as deeply Lutheran, but at the same time was critical towards theological rejections of created life.58 The positive evaluation of created life also is found in the theologies of Prenter, Wingren and Løgstrup, who influenced mainstream 20th century Scandinavian Lutheranism. What’s more, creation theology in Scandinavia was not contaminated by misuse during World War II. Accepting the interpretation of the relation between favor dei and donum dei offered by Tuomo Mannermaa and Simo Peura, Gregersen shows how Luther’s understanding of the relationship between Creator and creation is shaped by a similar distinction. According to Gregersen, Luther can distinguish between pater pro nobis and pater in nobis, between “God’s fatherly love toward humankind (benevolentia patris) and the work of the Father within creation in the divine blessing (benedictio) of created existence.” The union of Christ and the believer finds its correlate in Luther’s doctrine of creation. This means that Gregersen focuses on the 102 Dialog: A Journal of Theology • Volume 47, Number 2 • Summer 2008 weight of God’s blessing in Luther’s understanding of creaturely life,59 a focus that converges with Saarinen’s focus on Luther’s “giver-oriented perspective.” Luther’s theology of creation, according to Gregersen’s reading, is deeply trinitarian and modelled on his soteriology, which means that both are based on the concept of divine self-giving. What Kärkkäinen has done with Luther’s pneumatology, Gregersen is doing here with Luther’s creation theology. On this basis, Gregersen supports Kenneth Hagen’s critique of Gustav Wingren’s interpretation of Luther’s doctrine of vocation. Wingren criticises Luther’s doctrine for not recognising that vocation pertains to both the temporal and the spiritual life and that God’s grace is operative in both realms, so that vocation cannot be reduced to the realm of the law. Luther understands creation as both vocation and blessing and finds that both at the same time give room for the participatory cooperation of human beings in the work of creation. According to Gregersen Luther’s doctrine of creation has the ‘form’ of the doctrine of Christ’s two natures.60 tion theology, financed by a two-year grant from the Danish Research Council for the Humanities. There remains, however much work for other scholars to engage in. It seems unnecessary to ask for more studies in the concept of giving in Luther’s thinking, since this discourse has already established itself with some weight. It has opened Lutheran theology both towards ecumenical discussion and to contemporary culture, where the almost all-encompassing economy discourse may build an environment in which the discourse of gift-giving can resonate. Should I, here at the end, dare to give a tentative explanation of some of the described tendencies in contemporary Nordic Luther research, I would submit that the concentration on themes like sociality, communication and interaction could be a reaction to a society that has reached a historically unseen level of individualism. It is almost a banality to say that Lutheranism has focussed on the individual. Under the present circumstances there could, however, be good reasons for more counterbalance. Perspectives Endnotes Scandinavian Luther research has a long and strong tradition. Since the era of the great masters has passed, Luther research in Scandinavia has been struggling to find its new nature. A fruitful cooperation around the Nordic Luther Network and local initiatives has facilitated the process; presently there seems to be an increase in the number of younger Luther scholars, and Norway seems again to be among the nations fertilizing future Luther research. We might expect more studies in the understanding of political ethics in Luther and Lutheran theology, and of the theological contributions to the Nordic welfare state, simply because they are needed. Some of the issues that remain to be undertaken in this respect are some critical studies in the history of Luther’s reception in the 20th century and its cultural effects. Some of this work will be carried out in Aarhus through a collective project on the reception and transformation of Reforma- Thanks to MDiv Linda Kristensen Bolet for improving my English. 1. See e.g. Ulrik Becker Nissen, “Reconciliation and Public Law. Christian Reflections about the Sources of Public Law,“ Studia Theologica 58 (2004), 27-44. 2. Roger Jensen, Subjektkonstitusjon og Gudstale. Drøftelse av konstitutionen av det etiske subjekt i moderniteten med særlig vekt på Martin Luthers antropologi og etikk (Oslo: Unipub, 2004). 3. Ulrik Becker Nissen, “Between Unity and Differentiation—On the Identity of Lutheran Social Ethics,” in The Sources of Public Morality—On the ethics and religion debate, Proceedings of the annual conference of the Societas Ethica in Berlin, August 2001, eds. U. Nissen, S. Andersen and L. Reuter (Münster: Litt Verlag 2003), 152-171. 4. Svend Andersen, “Kant, Kissinger, and other Lutherans: On Ethics and International Relations,” in Studies in Christian Ethics 20, no. 1 (2007), 28. 5. Ibid., 29. 6. Antti Raunio, “Luthers politische Ethik,“ in Lutherforschung im 20. Jahrhundert. Rückblick - Bilanz - Ausblick, ed. Rainer Vinke (Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 2004), 170. 7. Antti Raunio, Summe des christlichen Lebens. Die “Goldene Regel” als Gesetz der Liebe in der Theologie Martin Luthers von 1510 bis 1527 (Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern 2001); idem., “Divine and Natural Law in Luther and Melanchthon,” in Lutheran Reformation and the Law, ed. Virpi Mäkinen (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 21-62. A similar attempt to avoid a dualistic understanding of Luther’s notion of natural law is also found in Ulrik Becker Nissen, “Reconciliation and Public Law.” Nordic Luther Research in Motion • Bo Kristian Holm 8. Antti Raunio, “Faith and Christian Living in Luther’s Confession of 1528,” Conference Proceedings from the 11th International Congres for Luther Research, Canoas, Brazil Sept. 2007 , 12. See also Raunio, Divine and Natural Law in Luther and Melanchthon, 40f. 9. Svend Andersen, “Tankegangen i Luthers øvrighedsskrift,” Martin Luther: Om verdslig øvrighed. På dansk ved Svend Andersen (Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag, 2006), 32-72, 59. 10. See e.g. Raunio, Luthers politische Ethik, 151-170. 11. See e.g. Raunio, Divine and Natural Law in Luther and Melanchthon. 12. Virpi Mäkinen and Antti Raunio, “Right and Dominion in Luther’s Thought and Its Medieval Background,” Lutheran Reformation and the Law, ed. Virpi Mäkinen (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 63-92; Svend Andersen, “Kann eine evangelische Ethik ‘Menschenrechte’ unterstützen? Überlegungen zu Kant und Luther,” in Kant, Luther und die Würde des Menschen, ed. Friedrich-Otto Scharbau (Erlangen: Martin-Luther-Verlag, 2005), 81-100. 13. Reijo Työrinoja, “Communio sanctorum: Remarks on the ideal community,” in Lutheran Reformation and the Law, 111-127. 14. Regin Prenter, Creation and Redemption (Minneapolis: Fortress Press), 345. 15. Vidar L. Haanes, “Christological Themes in Luther’s Theology,” in Studia Theologica 61 (2007), 21-46. 16. Ibid., 30 17. Ibid., 41. 18. Anna Vind, “Ein Streit um Worte. Luther versus Latomus,” Neue Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 46 (2004): 448466.; idem., “‘Christus factus est peccatum metaphorice.’ Über die theologische Verwendung rhetorischer Figuren bei Luther unter Einbeziehung Quintilians,” Creator est Creatura. Luthers Christologie als Lehre von der Idiomenkommunikation, eds. Oswald Bayer and Benjamin Gleede (Berlin New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2007), 95-124. 19. Vind, Ein Streit um Worte, 448-466. 20. Vind, “Christus factus est peccatum metaphorice,” 95-124. 21. Reijo Työrinoja, “Opus theologicum. Luther and medieval theories of action,” Neue Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie und Religions philosophie 44 (2002), 119-153. 22. Ibid., 145f. 23. Ibid., 150. 24. Pekka Kärkkäinen, Luthers trinitarische Theologie des Heiligen Geistes (Mainz: Verlag Philip von Zabern 2005). 25. See ibid., 141-145. 26. Kjell Ove Nilsson, Simul. Das Miteinander von Göttlichem und Menschlichem in Luthers Theologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1966). 27. See WA 4:269.25; 3:303.20-21 and Raunio, Divine and Natural Law in Luther and Melanchthon, 40. 28. See the discussion between Bayer and Raunio in Luther und Ontologie, ed. A. Ghiselli et al (Helsinki/Erlangen: Luther-Agricola Gesellschaft/Martin-Luther-Verlag 1993), 94-141. 29. Simo Peura, “Iustitiana christiana in Luthers später Auslegung des Galaterbriefes (1531/1535),” in Lutherjahrbuch 71 (2004): 179-210, 194. 30. As in Ninna Jørgensen, “‘Sed manet articulus’: Preaching and Catechetical Training in selected Sermons by the Later Luther,” Studia Theologica 59 (2005): 38-54.; Sigurjón Árni Eyjólfsson, “Luthers påskeprædiken,” in Luthersk påskpredikan i Norden II. Traditioner og regioner, eds. Sven-Åke Selander and Christer Pahlmblad (Copenhagen: Nordisk Ministerråd 2001), 267-286. 103 31. As in Bo Kristian Holm, “Zur Funktion der Lehre bei Luther,“ in Kerygma und Dogma 51 (2005), 17-32. See also Vind, “Christus factus est peccatum metaphorice.” 32. This may be the case for the understanding of the function of doctrine in the late Luther’s theology as well. See Holm, Zur Funktion der Lehre bei Luther. 33. Under these three words an intensive seminar was held in Aarhus September 2006. A coming book is to be expected. 34. Jørgensen, “Sed manet articulus.” 35. Vind, “Christus factus est peccatum metaphorice;” Lars Christian Vangslev, “Den tyske Cicero. Luthers overvejelser over retorik og prædiken,” in Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift 66 (2003): 120-132. 36. Lakshimi Sigurdsson, Mulmet i hjertet. Tro, trøst og billeddannelse hos Martin Luther (Copenhagen: Anis, 2000). 37. Cf. ibid. 38. Risto Saarinen, God and the Gift. An Ecumenical Theology of Giving, (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2005); idem., “Gunst und Gabe. Melanchthon, Luther und die existentielle Anwendung von Senecas Über die Wohltaten’,” in Kein Anlass zur Verwerfung. Festschrift für O.H. Pesch, eds. Johannes Brosseder and Markus Wriedt (Frankfurt: Verlag Otto Lembeck, 2007), 184-197; Bo Kristian Holm, “Luther’s Theology of the Gift,” The Gift of Grace: The Future of Lutheran Theology, eds. Niels Henrik Gregersen et al (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 78-86.; idem., “Rechtfertigung und Gegenseitigkeit,” in Luther between Present and Past: Studies in Luther and Lutheranism, eds. Ulrik Nissen et al (Helsinki: Luther-AgricolaGesellschaft, 2004), 70-88.; idem., Gabe und Geben bei Luther. Das Verhältnis zwischen Reziprozität und reformatorischer Rechtfertigungslehre (Berlin - New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2006). 39. Raunio, Summe des christlichen Lebens, 369f. 40. Saarinen, God and the Gift. 41. Wolfgang Simon, Die Messopfertheologie Martin Luthers. Voraussetzungen, Genese, Gestalt und Rezeption (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). 42. Oswald Bayer, Gott als Autor. Zu einer poietologischen Theologie (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 1-18, 118-122; idem., Schöpfung als Anrede (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1986), 89-108. 43. Raunio, Summe des christlichen Lebens. 44. Simo Peura, “What God Gives Man Receives: Luther on Salvation,” in Union with Christ: The new Finnish interpretation of Luther, eds. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge: Eerdmans 1998), 76-95. 45. Ibid., 46f. 46. Ibid., 51. 47. Sammeli Juntunen, “The Notion of ‘Gift’ (donum) in Luther’s Thinking,” in Luther between Present and Past , 64. 48. Carsten Pallesen, “Objectum fidei – Luthers nadverlære i systemteoretisk belysning,” in Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift 64 (2001), 16-44. 49. Ibid., 41. 50. See Risto Saarinen “Im Überschuß: Zur Theologie des Gebens,” Paper written for the seminar “Word – Gift – Being,” Aarhus, Sept. 2006, forthcoming. 51. Saarinen, Gunst und Gabe. 52. Simo Peura, “Christ as Favor and Gift: The Challenge of Luther’s Understanding of Justification,” in Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther, eds. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998), 42-69; Peura, What God Gives Man Receives, esp. 81f. 104 Dialog: A Journal of Theology • Volume 47, Number 2 • Summer 2008 53. Peura, Iustitiana christiana in Luthers später Auslegung des Galaterbreiefes (1531/1535), 194. 54. Olli-Pekka Vainio, Justification and Participation in Christ. The Development of the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification from Luther to the Formula of Concord (1580) (Leiden: Brill 2008). 55. Ibid., 52-57. 56. Ibid., 153. 57. Niels Henrik Gregersen, “Grace in Nature and History: Luther’s Doctrine of Creation Revisited,” Dialog: A Journal of Theology 44/1 (2005), 19-29. 58. Concerning the relation between Grundtvig and Luther, see Theodor Jørgensen, “Der Mensch vor Gott in der Genesisvorlesung Luthers,” in Lutherjahrbuch 71, ed. Helmer Junghans (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 131-158; idem., “Grundtvig and Luther. How was Grundtvig influenced by Luther?” in The Gift of Grace: The Future of Lutheran Theology, eds. Niels Henrik Gregersen et al (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 194-204. 59. Gregersen is here also inspired by Dorothea Greiner, Segen und Segnen: eine systematisch-theologische Grundlegung, 3. ed. (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003), 383; as well as Magdalene L. Frettlöh, Theologie des Segens. Biblische und dogmatische Wahrnehmungen (Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser/Gütersloher Verlagshus, 1998). 60. Gregersen, Grace in Nature and History: Luther’s Doctrine of Creation Revisited , 28: “The Word and Works of God are as inseparable as are the two natures of Christ in the communion between the living creator, and the creatures that from moment to moment live out of God’s hand.”