appraisal, the first model is best at helping us in our task of joining theology with history in the life and work of Luther. The recognition by Althaus and especially by Loewenich of the place of the institutional church and its abuses in the formation of Luther’s thought addresses my concerns for contextual interpretation. Yet, even here the church is primarily thought of as a religious institution. The perception by the people of Luther’s day that the church was a political, economic, and social agent of power is acknowledged, but this plays no significant role in the understanding of the shape of his theology. The next chapters will seek to redress this neglect.
One other comment needs to be made regarding all of these interpreters. They all reflect on Luther’s development in such a way that historic distinctions inevitably dissolve in the rush to declare Luther an unwavering theologian of the cross. All of them claim that Luther is consistently a theologian of the cross throughout his career. A clearer exploration of the ways that Luther’s theology of the cross took shape at different times in his life and ministry, as well as the ways that his practice diverted in significant ways from this fundamental commitment, might present us with a more accurate picture of the reformer and his theology. For example, one might ask how Luther diverted from the theology of the cross and its basic commitments in his response to the Peasants’ Revolt. Similarly one might ask about how his theology of the cross functioned or malfunctioned in relation to the Jews of his day or in relation to divergent Protestant groups. Did Luther betray the theology of the cross in his own quest for power in relation to these and other groups? It is clear to me that the critique that Luther himself offered at specific times might be turned against him. There is a deep irony in the claim by Luther interpreters and followers that Luther was a consistent theologian of the cross throughout his whole life. The irony is that the claim that one is consistently a faithful theologian of the cross sounds like the pious claim of a theologian of glory. For the theologian of the cross knows that she or he cannot maintain such unbroken faithfulness. Luther knew this profoundly and painfully in relation to himself. Yet he was able to rejoice that his own lapsing would direct attention to the one who alone is faithful, the God we know in Jesus Christ. In conformity to Luther’s self-critique, we shall begin to critique him in his own historically embedded theological confession; we do this so that our own theological reflection might learn from his lapses as we speak to a new day. We also do this aware that, God willing, others shall so reexamine our lapses in the future.
Finally, the relative lack of interest in the questions posed here on the part of our six authors is not to say that I shall not use observations from each of these models as I pursue my own interpretation. Having revealed something of these diverse contributions, I am confident that the reader will be able to see the places where each has influenced my thought as well as the ways that I have broken company with them. We turn now to the task of mapping the context in which Luther lived and worked in order to understand how Luther’s theology of the cross functioned therein.
1. Loewenich, Luther’s Theology of the Cross.
2. Ibid., 221.
3. Ibid., 12, 18.
4. Ibid., 12.
5. Ibid., 22.
6. Ibid., 128.
7. Ibid., 113.
8. Ibid., 14.
9. Ibid., 18.
10. Ibid., 171.
11. Ibid., 30.
12. Ibid., 82.
13. Ibid., 13.
14. Ibid., 17, 18.
15. Ibid., 16.
16. Ibid., 27.
17. Ibid., 169 n. 2.
18. Ibid., 173 n. 2.
19. Ibid., 219.
20. Cited in ibid., 18, from LW 31.40. There are some problems with this translation that I will address at a later point in the dissertation.
21. Loewenich, Luther’s Theology of the Cross, 22.
22. Ibid., 27.
23. Ibid., 27.
24. Ibid., 28.
25. Disputation, cited in Loewenich, Luther’s Theology of the Cross, 28.
26. Loewenich, Luther’s Theology of the Cross, 69.
27. Ibid., 30.
28. Ibid., 33.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid., 34.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid., 37.
33. Ibid., 38.
34. Ibid., 37.
35. Ibid., 44.
36. Ibid., 50.
37. Ibid., 51.
