The Authority of the Good News - on Eric Gritsch

"The real issue between fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists is not biblical literalism (who wrote what and when) but inerrancy. Fundamentalists believe that 'all scripture is inspired by God' (2 Tim 3:16) and that 'no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,' but is instead uttered under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:20-21). Fundamentalist interpreters of the Bible are not so much concerned about the historical accuracy of these two passages (whether, for example, 'all scripture' means only the Old Testament) as they are about their theological inerrancy. They argue that something 'inspired,' can never be false. Their interpretive (hermeneutical) key to Scripture is not the modern historical-critical method, but the rational harmonization of inspired inerrant truth with the faulty reading of sinful persons. Such harmonization rests on the assumption that biblical truth is 'supernatural' even though its communication is 'natural.' Thus, by attempting to reconcile supernatural biblical truth with the variety of literary data, fundamentalist biblical interpreters are caught in a peculiar tension between literalism and non-literalist harmonization...

What then is the distinction between the authority of the Word of God and that of the Bible? Does the latter guarantee the former, or vice versa? Is it the work of the Holy Spirit when I become converted by reading passages of the Bible? Or are the passages themselves so inspired that they overwhelm me to the point of submitting my life to the 'truth' that Jesus is resurrected and in charge of my existence? The answer to these question depends on the kind of theological and philosophical decisions one makes concerning 'authority.'

If God is to be identifiable with words, idea, concepts, and world views disclosed in the Bible, then the Bible is truly divine and the highest possible authority. If God is to be identified with a specific tradition, then that tradition is absolute in relation to other traditions. If God is to be identified with a particular way of thinking such as Aristotelian syllogism, then that mode of thinking leads to God. As one Roman Catholic theologian is reported to have replied to an observer who thought there was no difference between him and a famous Anglo-Catholic: 'We are the opposite pole from X. He holds every doctrine we hold, but he holds them all for the entirely irrelevant reason that he thinks them true.'

Those who are aware of the difference between God (who cannot be reached through any human enterprise) and the human mortal existence in space and time, will not have ultimate trust in the Bible as a book. They will agree with the best ecumenical insight that God's revelation in Christ is self-authenticating. The 'Word of God,' which has become the code name for God's revelation, is a force in which one can participate, but which cannot be controlled...

... the Word of God is always a living voice, a message which creates a gathering of people held together by the speaking, hearing, and enactment of the good news of divine care for God's creatures. The gospel, therefore, gives authority to the Bible, not vice versa.

The issue is not whether biblical studies are faithful to certain doctrines, such as inerrancy or infallibility, but whether biblical study liberates the student from the straitjacket of original sin, that is, the desire to control the object of study and ultimately God, and so to become idolatrous... Those who confuse the Bible's authority of law and promise confuse creaturely humanity with divine power."

Eric W. Gritsch, Born Againism: Perspectives on a Movement (Fortress Press, Philadelphia: 1988) 53, 58-60

Conversations with Fundamentalists can be a challenge for me. I know that most cultural understanding of Protestant Christianity is tied deeply to fundamentalism in the American context, I value ecumenism and long for a unified Church (or at least a church that can be united at least in things like poverty relief), and many of my parishioners admire fundamentalists. It's part of my job. And yet - some of the fundamentalist readings I've come across seem, well, fundamentally at odds with Christ as he was preached and given to me; not to mention scripture as it was passed on to me. And not just in arcane and dense ways, but in "That's Shift and Puzzle dressed in a lion's costume talking nonsense, not Aslan" ways (I'm aware of the irony of making a deep-cut CS Lewis reference in describing "not arcane") (come back some other time for hot-takes on problematic elements of 63 year old allegorical high fantasy literature for children that I'll always be fond of) (Sometimes I'm ambivalent about the battles I choose and sometimes I fight everyone) (don't hold your breath for "some other time).

Gritsch roots this struggle in biblical authority - not so much about whether the Bible has or doesn't have authority (it does for both Fundamentalist and Lutheran), but what the nature of that authority and truth is/are.

Fundamentalism begins with the assumption that the Bible is inerrant and accurate in supernatural terms, which is to say it is independent and superior to critical analysis posed "against" their understanding of the scriptures. The Bible is, in and of itself, accurate and truthful. And when we read the Bible and think like the Bible wants us to, we become faithful and special and holy. Our search for the truth within scriptures' pages is vindicated and our journey is complete - because we come to possess the truth.

But Gritsch, myself, and I would argue the wider Lutheran tradition, finds this understanding of the Bible's authority to be somewhat disingenuous and inaccurate. In fact, it comes to look a lot more like a spiraling authority grab. The argument starts off like this: "The Bible is true, and it tells me that xyz." And perhaps the Bible does. But the claim goes a bit further as soon as it's brought into question. Because as soon as the content of the verse come into question or nuance (say someone were to ask "What does that mean?" "What did the author intend?" "How does this relate to another verse that says something different?"). Once the Bible, which is supposed to be authoritative and clear is brought into question, a matter of interpretation has to come in and a great deal is at stake - indeed one's entire righteousness can depend on "possessing" the correct biblical interpretation. So the fundamentalist will have to resort to favored interpreters who they are confident hold the correct doctrine - usually ones who are confident and part of the in-crowd to their preferred cultural setting. This can mean a personal pastor, or a successful mega-pastor, or a smart-ass theologian who writes on the internet for a dozen or so people to read.

... But do they know best? How do we KNOW they have the right interpretation? How do WE know we believe in the right things about the Bible? Why should should we trust their instincts and their so-called certitudes - especially when we've seen many of the pious authorities fall into disgrace? There's a real vulnerability in fundamentalism towards authoritarianism, and when the authority isn't up to snuff - the consequences can be dire for their followers.

Gritsch's response, and my response, is that when we focus on Biblical authority in this way - we will only focus on our selves. In doing so, we will never truly take comfort in a God who loves the world, and a God who has saved us. Because the Christian faith isn't about what WE think, it is about what God has done. It's not about our decisions, it's about God's grace. The alternative is to imagine walking up to Jesus and saying "Yup, you sure are savior" as though he didn't already know, or as though he had no love or authority without you recognizing it.

Gritsch encourages us to find comfort and strength in God's exercised authority to save. We don't have to worry about getting the Bible "right" because we believe that God gets the Bible right. The Bible's authority is then a derived one - it testifies to Christ and Christ bears the burdens of our doubts, our struggles, and our burdens in the mystery of his life, death, and resurrection.

We are then liberated from the need to be "right" or to make ourselves "righteous" through works of brainpower, assent, cultural inheritance, or our teachers. We are liberated from trying "control" what God says or doesn't say in scripture. We can only testify to a God who puts an end to sin, and brings about new life - all through Christ - all through the Church - all through the Gospel, through baptism, the Lord's Supper, through those things that create faith.

I'll add my own comment here that Fundamentalism isn't limited to Evangelical Christianity. You'll find it wherever people are more concerned about taking control of certain "fundamentals," and seeking assurance in those fundamentals as opposed to what those fundamentals are truly "about." You'll find it getting really bad when those who hold authority over said "fundamentals" get their priorities out of line. Now, there is in fact time and space for authority, and discerning what belongs to and what doesn't belong to an organization - the Church can self govern in the same way that baseball league should to play baseball as opposed to soccer. But there can be an awful lot of extra and arbitrary rules in churches that don't exactly hold up to rigorous theological study, biblical scholarship, or ethical conduct in the light of Jesus' cross and resurrection.

It's worth noting that the text I'm bringing you today contains a great deal more content - not all of which is critical - of the born again movement in its assorted forms, and to a lesser extent the charismatic movement as they were prominent in the 1980s. It provides a good historical overview of the hows and whys and groundings of its thought - and a more nuanced appraisal of the two (particularly the latter).

Read Eric Gritsch if you've encountered a ton of Christians who make you kind of raise your eyebrow. Read Eric Gritsch if you... kind of disagree with a how fundamentalists talk about God but don't really know how to articulate it? Read Eric Gritsch because he finds hope in Jesus and wants to share that hope with you in a fairly accessible but academic way.

On the Sabbath as Theological Truth and Confession - Oswald Bayer

Here sits a tired theologian

"Festivals and holidays (holy days) make harsh demands on the old nature, for it means that we must cease from our work: 'For our sinful nature is very unwilling to die and to be passive, and it is a bitter day or rest for it to cease from its own works and be dead.' This has been a bitter pill for modern theological anthropology, right up to the theology of Barth and Bultmann, in which humans are always seen as active subjects, as doers (for Barth analogously to God). We see this most clearly in Karl Marx. For him, the world exists only in 'self-production' through human 'work.' However, this overlooks the power of the Sabbath, of Sunday, to establish life, because on the Lord's Day human work ceases and God is active. If we receive this power as a categorical gift, the urge to realize ourselves, not only in our work but also in our actions, even in the act of faith, must die. This is the harsh side of the divine service understood as a festival, a holiday. We emphasize it when we say that preaching is a 'remembrance of baptism' (memoria baptismi) and that Baptism itself is constitutive for the divine service as a whole. It is impossible then, to ignore what Paul says about dying in Romans 6.

This kind of dying, however, makes room for life... It means that God, and God alone, does his work in us...

If it is true that we must rest from our work, die to the old self, to let God do his work, faith is primarily neither theory nor practice, neither a speculative life (vita contemplativa) nor an active life (vita activa), but, to use Luther's term for it, a receptive life (vita passiva)"

Oswald Bayer, Theology the Lutheran Way (William B. Eerdman's Press: Grand Rapids, 2007) 92-93

A few observations before I begin:

1.) This is coming out a day later than I had planned, because yesterday was a snow day, a holiday of its own sort.
1a.) Naturally, and in contrast to what Bayer would likely appreciate, I spent a good chunk of the day working on other things (newsletters, council reports, and of course household chores). Perhaps this will free up some time for me to enjoy my own sabbath day.
1b.) Mercifully there were also boardgames with my spouse, Neverwinter Nights, and a glass of scotch to close my night. Life has much to rejoice in.

2.) If it wasn't clear to you before, every theologian I've written about thus far has a wealth of wisdom that I barely scratch the surface of. This reflection by Bayer and on Bayer is no exception to the rule. I'm confident that I will write much more on Bayer (and the other theologians I've spent time on thus far).

Moving along,

I love this description of the true meaning of holiday, its association with death and resurrection, and what that means for the life, spiritual or otherwise, of all people.

Resting on a holiday (or any Sunday) is a lot trickier than people give it credit for. Sometimes people say the lack of blue laws effect the observation of the Sabbath. Perhaps they aren't wrong (though a thorough look at the longer scope of history will dispute it). They can't observe the Sabbath because they have to work, or the kids have a sport, or it's too early, or they get more out of brunch (incidentally - incentivizing/tempting other people to work).

And yet, so many people treat the Sabbath as though it is a work. People consider it a mark of pride for getting up on Sundays (or getting their children up on Sundays), and going to Church. As though it is something that we do to earn God's favor. In so doing - churchgoing becomes a work and a mark of pride as quick as anything else. So often, even our most "religious" appearances become signals to show to others or ourselves. God is not impressed.

We are more resistant to meaningful rest than we think we are. Many of us, even in our spirituality work ourselves to the point of death. We are slow to defy the modern myth that our capacity to "do, and to "prove ourselves" is what is important. Now Bayer puts this on Marx a little heavily, but it's by no means only a Marxist thing. If you have any doubts about "do"ing as the mark of one's value - simply listen to the way news programs and politicians speak of the poor, the unemployed, and the disabled. In my ears they're usually demeaned - either despised or sentimentalized (itself a "kinder" form of despising). Those who can't "do" much simply aren't given the same reverence as honor as those whom we believe can. There is little we want more than to be respected from our self-selected capacities - and we resist the idea of being defined by our weaknesses. We resist being defined by our lack of work.

Much of this resistance to resting relies on a critical misunderstanding of the Sabbath. When we understand the Sabbath as our choice - we rob its true nature as a revelation and as a gift. In the Holy Day, in observance of the Sabbath, we are kept from working to prove ourselves. We are revealed in our inability- in our helplessness and weakness. This is not the gift that people want. But in this gift, there is likewise a summons to the court of the One who has done it all. You are chosen! This is what matters, more than anything. God has made the choice, and has chosen to be with you. The Sabbath is the death of our own choices - and the reception of God's grace in Christ. In this - we do not simply find our own destruction - we find God's own favor and life.

Read Oswald Bayer because you're too damn tired of making choices. Read Bayer because you're sick of people showing off how pretty and precious they are. Read Bayer because he'll show you a life that witnesses to a God who slays and makes alive (but more on that another week), and chooses to do so to you.

Challenging traditional language for the sake of God's endangered people - On Delores Williams

"One of the results of focusing upon African American women's historic experience with surrogacy is that it raises significant questions about the way many Christians, including black women, have been taught to image redemption. More often than not the theology in mainline Christian churches, including black ones, teaches believers that sinful humankind has been redeemed because Jesus died on the cross in the place of humans, thereby taking human sin upon himself. In this sense Jesus represents the ultimate surrogate figure standing in the place of someone else: sinful humanity. Surrogacy, attached to this divine personage, thus takes on an aura of the sacred. It is therefore altogether fitting and proper for black women to ask whether the image of a surrogate God has salvific power for black women, or whether this image of redemption supports and reinforces the exploitation that has accompanied their experience with surrogacy. If black women accept this image of redemption, can they not also passively accept the exploitation surrogacy brings.

... For black women there is also the question of whether Jesus on the cross represents coerced surrogacy (willed by the Father), voluntary surrogacy (chosen by the Son), or both. At any rate, a major theological problem here is the place of the cross in any theology significantly informed by African American women's experience with surrogacy...

The practice [of historical theologians such as Origen, Anselm, and Abelard] was to use the language and sociopolitical thought of the time to render Christian principles [such as the atonement] understandable. This fits well the task of the black female theologian, which is to use the language and sociopolitical thought of black women's world to show them that their salvation does not depend upon any form of surrogacy made sacred by human understandings of God. This means using the language and thought of liberation to liberate redemption from the cross, and liberate the cross from the "sacred aura" put around it by existing patriarchal responses to the question of what Jesus' death represents.

... What this allows the black female theologian to show black women is that God did not intend the surrogacy roles they have been forced to perform...

... There is nothing of God in the blood of the cross. God does not intend black women's surrogacy experience. Neither can Christian faith affirm such an idea. Jesus did not come to be a surrogate. Jesus came for life, to show humans a perfect vision of ministerial relation that humans had forgotten long ago. As Christians, however, black women cannot forget the cross. But neither can they glorify it. To do so is to make their exploitation sacred. To do so is to glorify sin."

Delores S. Williams "Black Women's Surrogacy Experience and the Christian Notion of Redemption" Cross Examinations: Readings on the Meaning of the Cross Today (Augsburg Fortress, Minneapolis, MN: 2006) 19-32

Wow. That last bit is incredibly provocative. And I hated it the first time I read it. Then it started to do its good work on me. While I don't think Williams is strictly a Lutheran, this text does Law and Gospel to me.

Two essential things to keep in mind for everyone who does theology:

1.) Christian theology has historically been appropriated and weaponized against marginalized people. If his tomb was filled, Jesus Christ would be rolling in his grave. That people (even in high offices) within the Church have been harmful to others, and have used traditional doctrines in ways that really hurt people cannot be contested - it is a simple and lamentable fact.

2.) Mercifully, being at the right hand of the Father, Jesus instead chooses to send preachers and prophets within the Church to challenge it, and lead it out of sin. And there is always life to be found in Christian theology - in spite of (and perhaps to spite) the myriad ways it has been used to harm people. Faithful theologians do not simply parrot the lines that their predecessors loved, they bring Christ's life to people.

Delores Williams is a theologian who never fails to challenge me and give me life. I've wanted to write about her for some time. What I quote and speak of is only an aspect of her wider theological corpus. So I invite you to read much more. But I've been hesitant and perhaps still am hesitant to write about her for a few reasons. First - her words are a sword of the Lord to my ears - they condemn me and protect me at same time. Second, they reveal that my preferred language of the grace, solidarity, and love of God - the cross of Jesus Christ - can be harmful to people I want to help. And third - white dudes talking about womanist theologians can be patronizing - and I despise that and fear I might fall into that trap. But I want to do well by her words, and I want to honor her because she has helped me, and it's my not-so-well distributed blog so I can write about who I want.

Delores Williams is a Paul Tillich Professor Emerita of Theology and Culture at Union Seminary - and like Tillich, she refuses to witness to a Gospel of Jesus Christ that is bound to a culturally conditional experience. Even more, she is painfully aware of how sinister (or demonic, in the Tillichian sense) elements of culture can turn the most powerful and beautiful symbolic language which bears Gospel of Jesus Christ into bad news for the oppressed. The language we use can give death, not life. It can rob people of meaning, of their experience, and of the Truth, as opposed to giving, and illuminating the love and justice of God. Even the language I love most.

In this particular article - Williams witnesses to the experience of black women in the United States who have been sinfully pushed into roles of surrogacy - which could be the result of either violent coercion or social pressure. But when Jesus is put into a surrogate position (replacing humankind on the cross), there is the potential for misusing Jesus' name to justify human suffering, and divinizing oppression.

If, Williams puts forward, our suffering makes us "Christ-like", and if forgiving oppressors is "Christ-like," then can't the oppressors in some sick and twisted way turn themselves into the heroes of the story? Aren't they doing a favor to the broken and battered and abused - by making them models of "Christian" life?

And she's right. The ugly truth is I've heard those arguments before. I have heard men justify their own hatred and abuse, and their own right to not treat women as equals under God. I've heard men argue their own entitlement to forgiveness, and with forgiveness, their entitlement to never change or address their own shortcomings. The Christian use of the cross - originally intended as a subversion against Roman oppression and authoritarianism - can be fully reverted into a symbol of oppression again. When such a reversion occurs - traditional forms and language can do more harm than good. This doesn't mean we have to throw them away - but we have to be aware of our context, humble about our tradition, open to the experiences of others, and faithful in a God who loves the world.

This is Williams' skillful fight. When she "rejects" the cross - it's not really the Cross. Nor is it an attack on the incarnation. She objects to sin's power to warp the symbols of the Church. She challenges the Church's tendency to be satisfied with a status quo that does not reflect God's kingdom (or, to use a modern womanist parlance that I've seen gain favor - "God's kin-dom"). She uses the tradition, and her theological imagination, enraptured by the Holy Spirit, to envision new possibilities for proclamation to every age, for every nation. Because while God's life cannot be contained, it does choose to dwell among us. And this is Good News.

Read Delores Williams because sin has the power to warp even our most sacred symbols. Read Delores Williams because you know that the Holy Spirit won't stand for that - but continues to work for the liberation of the captives, and for life everlasting.

On taking part in God - Tuomo Mannermaa

"Union with Christ" containing many essays by Mannermaa and other representatives of the Finnish School of Luther Studies

" The theosis of a believer is initiated when God bestows on the believer God's essential properties; that is, what God gives of himself to humans is nothing separate from God himself.

God gives himself as the Word in the historical birth of Christ and in the spiritual birth of Christ in the faith of the believer.... [quoting Luther] 'Just as the word of God became flesh, so it is certainly also necessary that the flesh may become word... The Logos puts on our form and pattern, our image and likeness, so that it may clothe us with its image, pattern, and its likeness...'

... God is in relation to himself in the movement of the Word... In Christ the inner-trinitarian Word, which is the being of God, becomes incarnate. The presence of Christ's word and the word about Christ in faith are the presence of God himself.

This ontological basis has its epistemological side as well: the act of knowing and the object of knowledge are identical. God who illuminates and the illuminated heart, the present God and the God seen by us, are identical. God is both the object and subject, the actor and act, of faith.

...Christ himself, both in his person and his work, is the righteousness of man before God. Christ is both favor of God (forgiveness of sins, atonement, abolition of wrath) and gift (donum), God himself present. Faith means justification precisely on the basis of Christ's person being present in it as favor and gift. In ipsa fide Christus adest: in faith itself Christ is present, and so the whole of salvation.

... Faith means participation in the being and thus in the properties of God. And one of the properties of which the Christian in his faith partakes is love. Christ, who is present in faith as donum, brings love with him, because Christ is in his divine nature God, and God is love.

In love... believers give themselves freely to their neighbors and take upon themselves their neighbor's burden, misery, sins, poverty, and weakness as if these were their own burdens, their own misery, their own sin, poverty and weakness. Like Christ, then, Christians take upon themselves 'human nature', that is, the misery and burden of the neighbor... The Christian has become Christ to the neighbor: Christianus Christus proximi."

Tuomo Mannermaa, "Why is Luther so Fascinating?" in Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther Braaten, Jenson eds. (Eerdman's: Grand Rapids, MI: 1998) 10-12, 13-19

Mannermaa's theology is rich material for reflection for countless reasons. He has endlessly encouraging, interesting, and sometimes contentious*, theological beliefs. But we could also richly observe his work in his ecclesiological, ecumenical and geopolitical context. That a Finnish theologian was working in close consideration of Eastern/Russian Orthodoxy in the 20th century, while Finland was a border state to the Soviet Union, had a considerable amount of its land seized by the Soviet Union following the Winter War and the Second World War, adds a really deep context to his words.

For what it's worth, there was a lot of really interesting, nuanced Protestant theology and church work being done on the borders and boundaries of the Iron Curtain - be it Mannermaa, or Jüngel, or Hamel. But it wasn't just theology at the border of communist dictatorships, these are distinctly Protestant theologies at the boundary of both orthodoxy and atheism. I think this makes Mannermaa and many others valuable partners for discerning how to do theology faithfully in "secular" environments.

But while his circumstances add a ton to Mannermaa, let's turn our focus to the content of his writing.

You ever find yourself becoming more like someone you love? I see it happen in myself from time to time with my wife - little things like how I say "well," or when I give someone a "look" that shows I'm judging them. On the same note, my wife occasionally makes bad jokes, which were almost entirely my realm before marriage. I'm not saying it's always a good trade. Similar things have happened in some of my closest friendships as well. But this doesn't happen through intentional affectation, so much as it happens through closeness and love. Apply that to Christ and the Church (which, incidentally is often described as Christ's Bride). This is a key to understanding Mannermaa - most known for his re-interpretation of Luther's works over and against the German traditions.

A lot of Lutheran theologians put their focus on justification, but for Mannermaa lasting hope is found in God's abiding presence as made apparent through the incarnation (God's becoming part of creation, or literally God's "meat-ification"). It's not like the declaration of justification doesn't matter, it is in fact the start of the whole thing for a believer. But the incarnation is a huge part of this.

The incarnation is certainly in part God's incarnation in Jesus Christ, but it also has a lot to do with Jesus Christ's indwelling in the life of the believer. Mannermaa wants you to know that Jesus Christ is really with you and for you. And even more than that - you are part of the life and being of God through Jesus. Just as God is really with Jesus and for Jesus, and God and Jesus are at one.

Mannermaa might be so bold as to say that God pursues God's self, God acts as God, through being Jesus Christ. Christ in turn acts and is God to us, and through him we share what God is. We take part in the being of God through being taken up in the being of God. And as the Word moves according to its own divine way, we find ourselves going to our neighbors in faith. This in turn is what it means to be free from the power of sin and death. This is what freedom means.

When we are free/freed, we have faith. In faith we turn with love to our neighbors and become Christ to them. This is not done in the absence or inattentiveness of Christ - as though he were unavailable. It is because Christ is really present, truly present, in us.** It is Christ's presence - within us, beyond us, and in the pursuit itself - that draws us to our community, our neighbors, etc., not his absence.

This gives us a really great framework not only for understanding sanctification/theosis, but also evangelism, stewardship, and the like. And those are just a few reasons that you should read Tuomo Mannermaa

* Warning, deep-cut Lutheran history and in-house disputes follow

While this blog is typically for a simple appreciation of theology - I find it difficult to talk much about Mannermaa and the entire Finnish school of Luther studies without appreciating its points of conflict with the wider Lutheran tradition. While Mannermaa's writings definitely bring up Luther's themes - many traditional Lutherans are fiercely opposed to him. The most frequent accusation is that Mannermaa's writings are a revisitation of the Osiandrian Controversy.

After Luther's death, Andreas Osiander argued a nuance of Luther's view that was unacceptable to most of his contemporary Lutherans. Lutherans argued that justification is something proclaimed to sinners in order to save them. God says "you're forgiven," (usually through God's people) and you are forgiven, as stubbornly, simply, and faithfully as that. Osiander appreciated this (and wouldn't necessarily disagree with it), but he added the nuance that salvation (and sanctification) happen through Christ's indwelling of the believer through faith (given sacramentally). He lifted up being made part of God's body through Christ. Osiander's opponents saw this "infusion" of grace as a prettier version of Roman teachings, and dangerously undermining the very comfort of the Gospel. In some extremes this may have been true, but it's hard for any reader of St. Paul and recipient of the sacraments to be unsympathetic. A functional middle-ish ground was lifted up in the Formula of Concord, and yet, language of indwelling has been viewed with suspicion in the Lutheran Church ever since. Mannermaa and the Finnish school are the most recent recipients of this important, but not schismatic, suspicion.

** Notice how this language of presence parallels the Lutheran understanding of Holy Communion, and meditate on that for a while. That's why Holy Communion and the Real Presence is so important for us - it has a lot to do with who we are and who God is.