Lutheran Theology in the New York Times

I found this on the "Lutheran Confessions" blog today.   I basically makes the argument that the German ethos of Austerity is a Lutheran value whereby we do with less so that we can help others help themselves.  You can read it here or click through to the Times by clicking on the underlined title below. 

By STEVEN OZMENT

Published: August 11, 2012

German Austerity's Lutheran Core

IF there’s one nationality the rest of the world thinks it readily and totally understands, it is the Germans. Combine their deep involvement with Nazism and anti-Semitism and, voilà! — 2,000 years of gripping, complex history vanishes.

Enlarge This Image

Illustration by Miles Donovan, images by Lucas Cranach/Hulton Archive — Getty Images, and Markus Schreiber/Associated Press

Since the beginning of the euro crisis, this reductionism, which can be found inside Germany as much as outside it, has come in the form of sifting through the fatal legacy of the Weimar era, the years of promising democracy that began in the defeat and humiliation of World War I and ended with the Nazi takeover in 1933. 

¶ On the one hand, we’re told, the 1920s legacy of destabilizing inflation explains Germany’s staunch aversion to expansionary monetary and fiscal policies today; on the other hand, the Nazi taint on the interwar years seems to prove for some that, even in 2012, the intentions of democratic Germany can’t be trusted when it comes to Europe’s well-being.

¶ But rather than scour tarnished Weimar, we should read much deeper into Germany’s incomparably rich history, and in particular the indelible mark left by Martin Luther and the “mighty fortress” he built with his strain of Protestantism. Even today Germany, though religiously diverse and politically secular, defines itself and its mission through the writings and actions of the 16th century reformer, who left a succinct definition of Lutheran society in his treatise “The Freedom of a Christian,” which he summarized in two sentences: “A Christian is a perfectly free Lord of all, subject to none, and a Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all.”

¶ Consider Luther’s view on charity and the poor. He made the care of the poor an organized, civic obligation by proposing that a common chest be put in every German town; rather than skimp along with the traditional practice of almsgiving to the needy and deserving native poor, Luther proposed that they receive grants, or loans, from the chest. Each recipient would pledge to repay the borrowed amount after a timely recovery and return to self-sufficiency, thereby taking responsibility for both his neighbors and himself. This was love of one’s neighbor through shared civic responsibility, what the Lutherans still call “faith begetting charity.”

¶ How little has changed in 500 years. The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, a born-and-baptized daughter of an East German Lutheran pastor, clearly believes the age-old moral virtues and remedies are the best medicine for the euro crisis. She has no desire to press a secular ideology, let alone an institutional religious faith, on her country, but her politics draws unmistakably from an austere and self-sacrificing, yet charitable and fair, Protestantism.

¶ If Ms. Merkel refuses to support so-called euro bonds, it is not because it would be like giving free money to the undeserving poor but because it would not help the redeemed poor take responsibility for their own houses and grow strong for both themselves and their needy neighbors. He who receives, recovers and profits from society in a time of need has a moral responsibility to pay society back by acting in turn as a strong citizen who can help fill the common chests and sacrifice for his now needy neighbors, who had once helped him. Such is the sacrificial Lutheran society.

¶ For this point of view Ms. Merkel has been derided as the “austerity queen,” and worse. But she is undeterred. She admits that austerity is the toughest road home but hastens to add that it is also the surest and quickest way to recover the economy and gain full emancipation from the crisis. Luther would agree.

¶ According to polls, so do Ms. Merkel’s fellow Germans. They hold tight to their belief, born of staunch Lutheran teachings, that human life cannot thrive in deadbeat towns and profligate lands. They know that money is a scarce commodity that has to be systematically processed, recorded and safeguarded before being put out to new borrowers and petitioners.

¶ And they take comfort in the fact that, unlike what they consider the disenchanted, spendthrift countries of Greece and Italy, those living in model German lands have obeyed the chancellor’s austerity laws and other survival programs designed for a fair, shared recovery.

¶ But if their Lutheran heritage of sacrificing for their neighbors makes Germans choose austerity, it also leads them to social engagement. In classic Lutheran teaching, the salvation of the believer “by faith alone” does not curtail the need for constant charitable good works, as ill-informed critics allege. Faith, rather, empowers the believer to act in the world by taking the worry out of his present and future religious life.

¶ It is true that Lutheranism, as a faith, has declined in Germany in recent decades, as the forces of multiculturalism and secularism have washed over the country. And yet witness the warmth with which Germans of all backgrounds embraced their new president, Joachim Gauck, a former Lutheran pastor.

¶ And it is true that Lutheranism is hardly the only social force alive in Germany today. Yet it is of a piece with the country’s two millenniums of history, filled as it is with redemptive self-sacrifice and bootstrapping. In the fourth century A.D., German warriors controlled virtually every senior military post in the Roman army. Later, Germans turned the wilds of northern Central Europe into a bountiful breadbasket — and, most recently, an industrial machine.

¶ What’s more, Lutheranism survived both right-wing Nazism and left-wing Communism, both of which tried to replace its values with their own. If anything, its resilience comes to the fore when challenged by change.

¶ With the steady advance of Islam into Europe over the last two decades and in the face of unrelenting economic pressure from their neighbors, it is no surprise that Germans of all backgrounds have now again quietly found “a mighty fortress” for themselves in their own Judeo-Christian heritage.

¶Steven Ozment is a professor of history at Harvard and the author of “The Serpent and the Lamb: Cranach, Luther, and the Making of the Reformation.”

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on August 12, 2012, on page SR10 of the New York edition with the headline: German Austerity’s Lutheran Core.

Corporate Generosity???

$314 Bonus

August 1, 2012 by faithandworkinitiative

I read countless journals, papers, websites, newsletters, and blogs about business, ethics, and faith. Yet if it weren’t for the keen eyes of Jonathan, my research assistant, I’d have missed this story. It takes place in China. It is a story about an unusual act of marketplace generosity. It took place at Lenovo, the world’s second-largest PC vendor, known to many as the company who acquired IBM’s former Personal Computer Division in 2005.  Here’s the upshot:

Click on the link in the title to read more about the Chinese CEO who gave away 60% of his year-end bonus to lower level workers to thank them for enabling the company to have  70% increase in profits.  David Miller then puts this story in perspective of the Parable of the vineyard owner who pays all the workers equally, no matter when they got to the job-site.  An interesting study in generosity.

The Church is Too Judgemental

I've been re-reading The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel, by C.F.W. Walther--this time more slowly and with greater purpose than when I rushed through it for my class at the Seminary.

It has been placed on my heart to figure out how we might bring more people to the faith which we hold so dear and as I talk with people one comment I hear so often is "I don't have a problem with Jesus, I have a problem with the Church--its so judgmental".  And when I hear that I immediately think, "How is that if we are the only religion which preaches grace?"  Well, since grace is such a sweetheart deal, we much not be preaching it, so this study of Law and Gospel might be helpful to me as I struggle with my weekly preaching task.  But I'm hoping you can help me flesh this out some more.  Read on, hear me out, and add your two bits.

In Walther's work he points out the obvious; that there is a difference in content between Law and Gospel.  Law = what we are to do.  Gospel = what God is doing.  He points out that so often we mess this up, even though it seems so simple, especially when it comes to faith and forgiveness. 

Many see contrition as an act of obedience on our part--a Law--and required for forgiveness.  A divine tit for tat, so to speak.  Likewise, they see faith as our act of complying to the work of the Spirit in us--not Gospel--again a give and take scenario requiring us to participate as one of the "do-ers".

Here Walther makes a very simple, yet graphic illustration to make the point that faith and forgiveness are always a gift from God and thus, purely Gospel/grace activities.  He likens us and our receipt of the Gospel to a starving man who is offered food at the dinner table.  "He would be foolish to say, "Bosh!  I will not take orders from you."  But, instead accept the invitation as a gracious gift from his host.  That's what the Gospel is--a kind invitation to partake of heavenly blessings." (p.9) 

The starving man is very keenly aware of his hunger as is the host by his gaunt and, perhaps, dull appearance and does not need to explain just how hungry he is and what exactly he is lacking so that the banquet host may feed him adequately.  So too, God knows our need, that is to say, he knows our sin and his forgiveness of that sin is not dependent upon any thing we do to acknowledge that sin.  We do not need to list every sin.  In fact, we sin without our even knowing it at times, so that requirement alone would doom every one of us to hell.  No, forgiveness, if we assume it is Gospel and grace, cannot be dependent upon us at all.

Yet we are called to know the law so that we would not accidentally fall into sin.  That also puts upon us the responsibility of not sinning on purpose!  And this is where I think we as the Church have fallen prey to our human nature too often.  In our quest to know or categorize sin in our life so that we can avoid it (and not have to ask forgiveness for it), we have stressed every extension of "thou shalt not..." to their greatest extent, and perhaps even farther. 

Now, while this might be helpful for mature Christians who are actively involved in partnering with the Holy Spirit in their continued Sanctification prior to the Resurrection, these "lessons" are not helpful to the new Christian or the pre-Christian who are still discovering what true grace and forgiveness in the Gospel is all about.  I would be willing to bet that most people who are new to the church, they have been laid low by something in their life and they are looking for healing.  And I would also be willing to bet that the thing which has laid them low has its roots in a particular sin or the sinful condition in general which has been amplified some way in their life.

This, then, brings me to Walther again, who says, "When the Law has laid us low, we can cheerfully raise our heads again because beside the Law we have another doctrine [Gospel] which proposes to us no demands of any kind.  Were we to ask Christ, [as the rich young man] , "What is expected of me in order that I may be saved?" He would answer "No works; I have done all the works that had to be done.  You need not drink one drop of the cup that I had to drink." (p. 11)

So, now, all this leads me to wonder, "do unbelievers "know" or "feel" the Law?  I fnot, perhps I want to be an unbeliever, for, surely , life would be much simpler, free-er, fun and exciting if I were not burndedn with the Law I find in God's word.

I would suspect, however, that since all are born with sin, and it was sin which caused Adam and Eve to feel shame for their nakedness (not the lack of clothing) then, surely this built-in defect would also lend itself to natural guilt.  

By observation is would seem to me that many, many people are living very unhappy lives because of guilt, perhaps over sin to a Law they have never heard, but which is written on their hearts.

When we hear people say "the church is too judgmental," perhaps that is true.  In order for us to rectify that characterization, what if we made the following assumptions:

• People we know understand they aren't perfect?
• People we know ennjoy recieving forgiveness from those they have wronged and will cultivate relationship where that behavior has occurred?
• Upon hearing the unconditional Gospel of forgiveness in Chris, thousands/millions will sit at the table and be fed the bread of life? 

If those were our assumptions then the following attitudes might be expressed in our churches:

• We assume you sin--like we do--and will receive Christ's absolution in worship.
• We assume you desire Grace--as we do--and wish to learn more about it from the Gospel through hearing it preached.
• We assume you seek Jesus in your life--as we seek him--and will ingest his Word and Sacraments so that he will dwell within us.
• We assume you will be moved to imitate Jesus--as the Holy Spirit has moved us--so that his grace may be given freely to others who starve for forgiveness and mercy.
• We assume you will be forever grateful--as together we respond to God's love through our time, treasure and talents, given freely to the God who gave it to us to manage for him and to use for his kingdom.

I would love to hear your feedback on this.  Send me a note, tweet me or post a comment.