Theology of Cross vs Theology of Glory

[xenia]

You all did such a great job answering my first question that now I am emboldened to ask you a second one:

What is the meaning of a Theology of the Cross versus a Theology of Glory?

Thankful I am,

-Xenia

[Rechtgläubig]

You all did such a great job answering my first question that now I am emboldened to ask you a second one:

What is the meaning of a Theology of the Cross versus a Theology of Glory?

Thankful I am,

-XeniaTheologia Gloriae - :clap: :D
Theologia Crucis - :blush: :crossrc:

LOL sorry couldn't resist...



Theology of Glory glorifies man. Think of the self righteous pharisee

Theology of the Cross gives God alone glory. Think of the sinfull tax collector who has nothing to offer God, but his cries of repentance and pleads for mercy as he trusts in Chris's merits. Theologia Crucis's focus is on Christ's suffering and humiliation.

It is hard to give good clean cut definitions, examples are easier (plus I have a list I can cut and paste lol! :D )





There is no single definition or description to distinguish between the two theologies. Luther himself, however, provides examples (again without using the terms).

Theology of glory offers God its own merits. Theology of the cross trusts christ's merits.

Theology of glory wants to walk by what it sees rather than trusting God's Word. Theology of the cross trusts God's Word in spite of what it sees.

Theology of glory measures the gospel's effectiveness by the church's outward success. Theology of the cross trusts that God is working through the gospel in spite of outward appearances.

Theology of glory expects that God's children will rest on a bed of roses. Theology of the cross remembers that Christ wore a crown of thorns and that "we must through much tribulation enter the kingdom." Theology of glory asserts that God does not need and therefore does not use human words, water and the word, or christ's body and blood under the bread and wine as means of grace. Theology of the cross receives and relies on these means of grace. (WELS Q+A)

[Jim47]

Keep coming back with the questions, I might even learn something. I'll confess I didn't know that one. :wave:

[Tertiumquid]

You all did such a great job answering my first question that now I am emboldened to ask you a second one:What is the meaning of a Theology of the Cross versus a Theology of Glory?Thankful I am,-XeniaHi Xenia,

I enjoy studying Luther. Probably the book that most influenced me in my approach to Luther was Gerhard O. Forde's On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/080284345X/qid=1104492522/sr=2-3/ref=pd_ka_b_2_3/102-6958045-7074512 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/080284345X/qid=1104492522/sr=2-3/ref=pd_ka_b_2_3/102-6958045-7074512)). This book simply revolutionized the way I "do" theology, as well as give me an even greater respect for Luther. I reccommend this book to ALL Christians. Everyone should read it.



The following come from my notes, based on lectures I heard by Lutheran scholar Robert Kolb:


The circumstances behind Luther’s “theology of the cross” was the Heidelberg Disputation. Luther was invited to Heidelberg to present his teaching. He presents his, “theology of the cross” vs. “theology of glory” (founded on man’s wisdom and works). The disputation of 1518 creates a stir and attention.

The “theology of the cross” is a theology of foolishness. It denies man’s wisdom and works; it rests upon Christ’s work. We find God and salvation on the cross. It is in God’s action where we find salvation. The theology of glory is founded on man’s wisdom and works. It seems sensible and right by worldly standards. We have to “understand” by the use of our minds, and we have to “do” by our own moral energy to be right with God. By this, it attacked late medieval theology.

Other circumstances that contributed to the development of this concept of Luther’s was his experience of the medieval church. The late medieval church that Luther was confronted with was a church filled with “glory.” By “glory,” Luther meant that the emphasis was not on the achievement of Christ, but on the achievement of the Church, and those achievements were accomplished by the churches’ own power. This glory (of accomplishments worthy of praise without Christ) is the opposite from Luther’s “theology of the cross.” Luther encountered the theology of glory in three different ways. First he encountered the glory of human reason expressed in his earlier scholastic training. Scholastic theology had been strongly influenced by Aristotelian metaphysics, and this influence had misshaped the Biblical method. Secondly, Luther was confronted with the glory of human effort (works). He encountered this in his monastic order. Neither Scholastic theology nor monasticism helped him escape his psychological burdens. Thirdly, he also rejected the “glory of the church” and said the church is a suffering church, rather than a church of beauty and splendor. The church is not supposed to be a “glory” of political power and luxury.

In Luther’s Heidelberg disputation, he presented a series of theses in which he explained the theology of the cross. In theses one, He put forth the notion that the law of God cannot advance the human creature on the way to righteousness. The law hinders him on the way to righteousness. In theses two, he said that human works couldn’t lead to the “end” of righteousness. Thesis three explained that human works always seem attractive and good but they are most likely done apart from Christ. Theses four said that the works of God appear unattractive and evil, but are nevertheless eternal merits. These unattractive works are the “poor works of Christians daily life.” Theses five said that the works of God are works of God because God mediates His presence to us. These theses all have turning the glory of human effort “on it’s head” as their primary purpose. The theses also attack “free will” (in theses thirteen).


the Biblical basis for Luther’s theology of the cross

The revealed God is the God who has revealed himself to us “in a crib and on a cross.” He speaks to us as the word made flesh. He speaks through scripture. In 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:9, Paul says that God reveals himself in the foolishness and the impotence of the cross of Christ In 2 Corinthians 12:9, Paul explains that God’s power is made perfect in weakness. He reveals himself also in our weakness. This foolishness is the highest wisdom. The triumph of the dead body has the last laugh as it “gobbles down death.”

The last place human power and wisdom would look for God is in a manger, in diapers, on cross, on way to tomb, and this is precisely how the New Testament presents God in Christ. It is here that God has revealed what he is really like: he reveals his unconditional and absolute love for fallen sinners.

Luther did not reject natural theology completely, but he didn’t think it was worth much. God reveals himself in the scriptures, as the Word made flesh, through human language about this Word. He reveals Himself through the sacraments of baptism and the eucharistic feast. Here alone God becomes present to reveal Himself to us. Other descriptions of God contrary to the above, tell us more about ourselves than about Him.

In summary, Luther’s theology of the cross is a presupposition about God’s revelation of Himself in Scripture. Luther’s distinction of the “Deus absconditus” versus the “Deus revelatus” try to explain the “hiddenness” of God and His revelation of Himself in His Scriptures.

Luther rejected the “prove it” mentality expressed by those who demanded “signs” (empirical epistemology) and those who demanded “wisdom” (rational epistemology). Luther said that God has placed Himself above human control, revealing Himself in the promise that elicits faith. That promise was given in the theology of the cross, and set forth in the Scriptures.


God Bless,
James Swan

[ByzantineDixie]

Probably one of the most practical explanations of the Theology of the Cross that I have run across is presented by Richard Eyer in his book, Pastoral Care under the Cross.

…the “theology of the cross” and “the theology of glory”2. Luther coined these terms to express the distinction that St. Paul and the entire Scriptures make between God’s ways and man’s ways. …the theology of the cross is difficult to grasp because of its sheer foreignness (it goes against every human instinct) and “foolishness,”3 …

Luther says, “Without the theology of the cross man misuses the best in the worst manner,”4 because the theology of the cross is the only way God works. “God wished to be recognized,” not in health, wealth, and success, but “in suffering.”5 As much as parishioners may want to see the hand of God in nature’s beautiful sunrises, moving stories of conversions, or success in parish programs, it is in the cross of Christ and in bearing their own crosses that God chooses to reveal His heart to them.

In speaking of the theology of the glory Luther says, “A theology of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theology of the cross calls the thing what it actually is.”6…

In short, the theology of the cross says that God comes to us through weakness and suffering, on the cross and in our own sufferings. The theology of the cross says, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness”7 The theology of glory on the other hand says that God is to be found, not in weakness but in power and strength and therefore we should look for him in signs of health, success, and outward victory over life’s ills. … All of us hold to a theology of glory at times, not wanting to surrender all to God, but holding out for how we want God to appear and do his magic in the midst of our troubles.

If we do not understand the distinction between the theology of the cross and the theology of glory, we will find ourselves drifting toward a theology of glory in which our culture believes God works though the self affirmation of pop psychology and instant gratification. We will begin to demand that God justify himself to us in our sufferings by giving us healing and success. We will demand a God who does what we want him to do and we will reject the way of the cross by which he comes to us. We will become fearful of suffering and preoccupied with its avoidance at the expense of truth and faithfulness, calling the evil of euthanasia “good” and the good of suffering “evil”.

Footnotes
2. Luther Works, Volume 31, 52
3. 1 Cor 1:18 RSV
4. Luther Works, Volume 31, 55
5. Ibid., 52
6. Ibid., 53
7. 2 Cor 12:9 NIV


And Luther...

Luther on the Theology of the Cross (Heidelberg Disputation, Proof 21)

A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theologian of the cross calls the thing what it actually is.

This is clear: He who does not know Christ does not know God hidden in suffering. Therefore he prefers works to suffering, glow to the cross, strength to weakness, wisdom to folly, and, in general, good to evil. These are the people whom the apostle calls “enemies of the cross of Christ” [Phil. 3:18], for they hate the cross and suffering and love works and the glory of works. Thus they call the good of the cross evil and the evil of a deed good. God can be found only in suffering and the cross, as has already been said. Therefore the friends of the cross say that the cross is good and works are evil, for through the cross works are destroyed and the old Adam, who is especially edified by works, is crucified. It is impossible for a person not to be puffed up by his good works unless he has first been deflated and destroyed by suffering and evil until he knows that he is worthless and that his works are not his but God’s.

We were in the process of developing an FAQ for TCCL...we only got as far as the two FAQ questions--this was one of them. :sorry: The above two references and the Scripture references that support the Theology of the Cross can be found here (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=8536318&postcount=24). We consider this particular FAQ unfinished because it does not define and fully explain the Theology of Glory...:sigh: I am supposed to do that but the momentum for finishing the FAQ has waned.

Peace

Rose

[ChiRho]

[color=darkred]We were in the process of developing an FAQ for TCCL...

We are?

[ByzantineDixie]

We are?
We were....you were on sabbatical and Lotar was spearheading it. Need I say more? -----R

[SPALATIN]

We were....you were on sabbatical and Lotar was spearheading it. Need I say more? -----R
maybe we are afraid that if we let someone else spearhead an FAQ project again we will lose them to the RCC or EOC again. The only thing worse than those two would be the non-denoms or SBC. ;)

[Rechtgläubig]

maybe we are afraid that if we let someone else spearhead an FAQ project again we will lose them to the RCC or EOC again. The only thing worse than those two would be the non-denoms or SBC. ;)
WOF?


:sorry:

[SPALATIN]

WOF?


:sorry:
We lost LOTAR to the EOC and at the same time we lost Bradford to the RCC. Seems spearheading such a project is "DANGEROUS." ;)

[Rechtgläubig]

We lost LOTAR to the EOC and at the same time we lost Bradford to the RCC. Seems spearheading such a project is "DANGEROUS." ;)
LOL I think you misread that. LOL! That was WOF = Word of Faith, not uhhh... nevermind... :sorry:

:D

[ChiRho]

WOF?


:sorry:


WOF?

What does that mean?

[Tertiumquid]

We were in the process of developing an FAQ for TCCL...we only got as far as the two FAQ questions--this was one of them. :sorry: The above two references and the Scripture references that support the Theology of the Cross can be found here (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=8536318&postcount=24). We consider this particular FAQ unfinished because it does not define and fully explain the Theology of Glory...:sigh: I am supposed to do that but the momentum for finishing the FAQ has waned.Hi Rose,

I constantly have the paradigm of cross/glory running in my head. The other day I was in the local Christian bookstore, and I considered asking the owners if they would consider renaming the store "Glory books and trinkets". Of course, the only one who knew I was insulting them was me.

My 2 cents on a definition:

1. Looking for God outside of the Scriptures is a theology of glory
Luther:Investigating God outside the Bible is “devilish”

“nothing more is achieved than that we plunge ourselves into destruction; for they present an object that is inscrutable, namely, the unrevealed God. Why not rather let God keep His decisions and mysteries in secret? We have no reason to exert ourselves so much that these decisions and mysteries be revealed to us.”

“Whoever would travel the right road and not go astray with his faith, let him begin where God says and where He wants to be found. Otherwise he will surely miss the goal, and all that he believes and does will prove vain.



“For if Christ is passed by, there is no end of sects, of flitting hither and yon, and of error.”



“Those who indulge in their own ideas and speculate about God and His will aside from Christ lose God altogether.”


2.The theology of glory presents a god largely a reflection of our feelings, failings, and fears


Because human creatures are so angry with themselves for failing to meet their own expectation, the gods they fashion are gods of wraith.


Because humans find themselves so unreliable, the gods they fashion are capricious.


Because human creatures want to make it on our own, because we ultimately want to feel responsible for our ultimate well being the gods we fashion demand performance and accomplishment from sinful human creatures

3. Various examples of the theology of glory

-monasticism
-End times books
-"Purpose driven church" type of stuff
-"victorious christian life" theologies
-Signs and wonders pentacostal movements

Again, only my 2 cents.

God bless,
James Swan

[ChiRho]

Hi Rose,

I constantly have the paradigm of cross/glory running in my head. The other day I was in the local Christian bookstore, and I considered asking the owners if they would consider renaming the store "Glory books and trinkets". Of course, the only one who knew I was insulting them was me.

My 2 cents on a definition:

1. Looking for God outside of the Scriptures is a theology of glory
Luther:Investigating God outside the Bible is “devilish”

“nothing more is achieved than that we plunge ourselves into destruction; for they present an object that is inscrutable, namely, the unrevealed God. Why not rather let God keep His decisions and mysteries in secret? We have no reason to exert ourselves so much that these decisions and mysteries be revealed to us.”

“Whoever would travel the right road and not go astray with his faith, let him begin where God says and where He wants to be found. Otherwise he will surely miss the goal, and all that he believes and does will prove vain.



“For if Christ is passed by, there is no end of sects, of flitting hither and yon, and of error.”



“Those who indulge in their own ideas and speculate about God and His will aside from Christ lose God altogether.”


2.The theology of glory presents a god largely a reflection of our feelings, failings, and fears


Because human creatures are so angry with themselves for failing to meet their own expectation, the gods they fashion are gods of wraith.


Because humans find themselves so unreliable, the gods they fashion are capricious.


Because human creatures want to make it on our own, because we ultimately want to feel responsible for our ultimate well being the gods we fashion demand performance and accomplishment from sinful human creatures

3. Various examples of the theology of glory

-monasticism
-End times books
-"Purpose driven church" type of stuff
-"victorious christian life" theologies
-Signs and wonders pentacostal movements

Again, only my 2 cents.

God bless,
James Swan


Mr. Swan,

Fantastic stuff, as usual. I understand (perhaps incorrectly) that you belong to a Reformed Church. May I ask what keeps you from being Lutheran?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[Rechtgläubig]

Mr. Swan,

Fantastic stuff, as usual. I understand (perhaps incorrectly) that you belong to a Reformed Church. May I ask what keeps you from being Lutheran?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho
Hmmm yeah. Is it the hats, or lack of? 'Cause we are working on that...

:D

[ChiRho]

1. Looking for God outside of the Scriptures is a theology of glory


God bless,
James Swan


Looking for God (or seeking to define God outside of the Crucified Christ) of Scriptures is a theology of glory.

Just to clarify Luther a bit more!

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[Lutherrunner]

Hi Rose,

I constantly have the paradigm of cross/glory running in my head. The other day I was in the local Christian bookstore, and I considered asking the owners if they would consider renaming the store "Glory books and trinkets". Of course, the only one who knew I was insulting them was me.

.....

3. Various examples of the theology of glory

-monasticism
-End times books
-"Purpose driven church" type of stuff
-"victorious christian life" theologies
-Signs and wonders pentacostal movements

Again, only my 2 cents.

God bless,
James Swan
I'm still fairly new here so forgive me for being a bit naive. From some of my posted questions, you may remember that I am a lifelong Lutheran, raised in the midwest and transplanted to Texas....land of the uh, you know, more fundamental type religions.....I told you that I am dating someone from a non-denominational bible church and that I feel somewhat uncomfortable there, and that I feel that those type of folks seem to think of Lutherans as, how do I say this, well, you know, not fitting in with the way they think things should be......(in other words, I feel like the odd man out, ostracized, so to speak)....they are all about inerrancy, bible teaching sermons, home schooling, conservative politics, etc....(and I realize some of you LCMS folks are somewhat more conservative, yet in a different manner, so don't take that the wrong way, cuz you're probably not all into Falwell and Robertson, Moral Majority, etc....)....anyway, they also had the whole 40 days of purpose small groups and so on, and tried to get me to come, but I declined......

anyway, point being.....it sounds like some of these new, non-denominational, store front churches may be more along the lines of the Theology of Glory or pop religion?

I'm feeling better and better about being a Lutheran!.....they were bringing me down........:sigh:

[Qoheleth]

Looking for God (or seeking to define God outside of the Crucified Christ) of Scriptures is a theology of glory.

Just to clarify Luther a bit more!BAM! You hit the nail square on the head! Thanks

[Qoheleth]

May I ask what keeps you from being Lutheran?
My question also. James??

[Carl the Copt]

I only know that glory vs cross is a red herring when it comes to the theological issues and that all theology that one reads in books is and should be properly named as a sleep aide! We all suffer death and so we all know the cross up close and personal, and we all have times where glory seems to be the center of things so the answer Xenia is some are like the Nordics and love the depression that the Cross brings and others would prefer glory. Me give me Glory, as Orthodox that is a better reply.
Carl the Copt

[Qoheleth]

maybe we are afraid that if we let someone else spearhead an FAQ project again we will lose them to the RCC or EOC again. The only thing worse than those two would be the non-denoms or SBC. ;)

I'll help. Im especially focused on the Sacraments. Let me know

[Qoheleth]

I only know that glory vs cross is a red herring when it comes to the theological issues and that all theology that one reads in books is and should be properly named as a sleep aide! We all suffer death and so we all know the cross up close and personal, and we all have times where glory seems to be the center of things so the answer Xenia is some are like the Nordics and love the depression that the Cross brings and others would prefer glory. Me give me Glory, as Orthodox that is a better reply.
Carl the Copt
Carl, You have woefully misunderstood the distinctions between Glory and Cross.

The only Glory for a Christian is the forgiveness of sins. Without that we are unsaveable. The glory is found in the cross--the forgiveness of sins. Unless you believe one can redeem themself and without their sins being forgiven

[ByzantineDixie]

I'll help. Im especially focused on the Sacraments. Let me know
Well, we need a coordinator and we need writers. We already have a good list of questions to start with--and, of course, there are some that deal with the sacraments! I don't mind taking on the task of coordination if there are enough volunteers to write, review and edit the answers. I'll start a separate thread on this and lets see if we can get this done before Q goes Pentecostal on us! ;)

:D Rose

[Carl the Copt]

Carl, You have woefully misunderstood the distinctions between Glory and Cross.

The only Glory for a Christian is the forgiveness of sins. Without that we are unsaveable. The glory is found in the cross--the forgiveness of sins. Unless you believe one can redeem themself and without their sins being forgivenI grew up and was trained in the theology of the cross, I was a Lutheran for some years prior to hearing the Gospel and responding to the Gospel in an Orthodox Temple. I know all of it and it is just so many mind games as to cause the whole world to go into a slumber.
Carl the Copt

[Qoheleth]

I grew up and was trained in the theology of the cross, I was a Lutheran for some years prior to hearing the Gospel and responding to the Gospel in an Orthodox Temple. I know all of it and it is just so many mind games as to cause the whole world to go into a slumber.
Carl the CoptWould expound on what you mean by this?

Are you saying the Law does not exist and that the Gospel is not redemption offered to us?

[ByzantineDixie]

anyway, point being.....it sounds like some of these new, non-denominational, store front churches may be more along the lines of the Theology of Glory or pop religion?

I'm feeling better and better about being a Lutheran!.....they were bringing me down........:sigh:
Keep hanging around here and you'll not only feel better and better about being Lutheran, you'll understand why confessional Lutheranism is exactly where you want to be. We'll eventually get you on that "Scripture is infallible" boat as well. Well...we'll at least try! ;)

:hug: Rose

[xenia]

Thanks for all the answers. I type up a question and when I get back to my computer there's 25 answers awaiting me!

I belonged to a non-denom Theology of Glory church for most of my life. Of course, I didn't know the term back then. The Orthodox Church seems to lean much further over into the Theology of the Cross camp, with it's emphasis on continual repentance and suffering. I am not sure that I would put monasticism into the "Glory" camp but maybe someone can offer a rational for that. The continual Orthodox plea is "Lord have mercy on me a sinner."

In retrospect, I think I left my old non-denom church because of the "Glory" thing, even though, as I said, I didn't realize what the problem was at the time.

Last year, an another message board frequented by mostly Orthodox Christians, we found one of those quiz sites where you answer a list of questions and it tells you what church you resonate with the best. Of course, EO came out on top for all of us but Lutheranism came out second for each and every one of us, to our amazement. (I think answering YES on sacaramental theology and NO on the Pope is probably what did it. :) )

More on Law and Gospel: The reason I asked that one is because I teach at a small Evangelical high school (run by the same "glory" church I mentioned up above) and one of my favorite students is the son of a Lutheran pastor. Whenever I say something that he believes to be too legalistic he will sadly shake his head and say "Law and Gospel! Law and Gospel!" (We're on the same team when the subject of eschatology comes up, though. :thumbsup: )

Thanks so much,
Xenia

[ByzantineDixie]

I am not sure that I would put monasticism into the "Glory" camp but maybe someone can offer a rational for that.
Actually, I almost commented on that--but held back for other reasons. You are correct, not all monasticism falls into the "Glory" camp.

Peace

Rose

[xenia]

I've been thinking about the monasticism thing, and I do see where it could fall into the "glory" camp and that's where certain monastics have asked God to give them stigmata and the like. Asking for special signs and wonders rather then humbly submitting to whatever God gives is the difference, I think. (If I'm understanding all this correctly.)

[Lutherrunner]

Keep hanging around here and you'll not only feel better and better about being Lutheran, you'll understand why confessional Lutheranism is exactly where you want to be. We'll eventually get you on that "Scripture is infallible" boat as well. Well...we'll at least try! ;)

:hug: Rose
Aaaahhhh.....don't get too excited now....remember, I'm one of those liberal ELCA Lutherans......;)

[SPALATIN]

Aaaahhhh.....don't get too excited now....remember, I'm one of those liberal ELCA Lutherans......;)Yeah but when we get through with you, you will be a conservative confessional. ;)

just kidding. Don't be surprised though if you become more conservative by hanging out with us.

[ChiRho]

I grew up and was trained in the theology of the cross, I was a Lutheran for some years prior to hearing the Gospel and responding to the Gospel in an Orthodox Temple. I know all of it and it is just so many mind games as to cause the whole world to go into a slumber.
Carl the Copt

Mind games!? You wanna play mind games...how about combating doubt and searching for assurance in oneself, as the Orthodox do. Talk about a morbid addiction to terror! Please do not pretend to "know all" of Lutheranism...a rightly catechized nine year-old could identify, and defend against, the errors you have brought forth.

So, if you insist, let the peaceful sounds of the Cross lull you asleep, you sleepy virgin, but to us, the Cross is the music of triumphant awakening announcing the arrival of our Bridegroom and our lamps will be full...while yours runs dim and dry as you sleep the night away.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[CrossWiseMag]

Thank you, Carl. You have more effectively demonstrated the definition of a "theology of glory" than 100 of our posts might have done.

[filosofer]

I grew up and was trained in the theology of the cross, I was a Lutheran for some years prior to hearing the Gospel and responding to the Gospel in an Orthodox Temple. I know all of it and it is just so many mind games as to cause the whole world to go into a slumber.
Carl the Copt


I am truly humbled by this statement. I have been a Lutheran for 55+ years, and I am still learning, because I consider myself neophyte in all this. And you were a "Lutheran for some years... and I know all of it"? I guess I have more studying to do and life to experience.

Rose, CWG, ChiRho,...show me to the cross, please... I need to learn more of suffering, pain, etc. (1 Thes. 1:3-6; 2 Thes. 1:3-5; James 1:2; 1 Peter 2:21-25; 1 Peter 4:12-19; John 16:33...).

[filosofer]

The more I think about this the more disturbing this can be. In fact, if you look at 2 Cor. 1:3-7, the heart of the Christian's ministry and focus is to provide God's comfort in the time of trial, even as the Christian has received God's comfort in previous trials/afflictions.

2 Cor. 1:3-7
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. For as we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer. Our hope for you is unshaken; for we know that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort.

Methinks there is more to this suffering/Theology of the Cross than most people realize.

[filosofer]

I am not sure that I would put monasticism into the "Glory" camp but maybe someone can offer a rational for that.


Actually, I almost commented on that--but held back for other reasons. You are correct, not all monasticism falls into the "Glory" camp.

Perhaps it might be good to remember when and why monasticism developed. Once Constantine "legalized" Christianity, there was a great influx of people into the churches. Monasticism was an attempt to keep the church "pure" and rebel against the excesses - by withdrawing. the thought was that it was easier to be "holy" by oneself. Of course, this also became a substitute for martyrdom. However, as you read some of the monastic writers, you discover the issues of sin did not disappear. It was an illusion. Luther himself went that route, and saw the futility.

Monasticism is in its essence a form of the theology of glory.

Later historical development of monasticism tried to correct, and some even moved into "serving others" rather than self. But that does not deny the starting point - holiness is my attempt to get closer to God and away from others.

[ByzantineDixie]

Perhaps it might be good to remember when and why monasticism developed. Once Constantine "legalized" Christianity, there was a great influx of people into the churches. Monasticism was an attempt to keep the church "pure" and rebel against the excesses - by withdrawing. the thought was that it was easier to be "holy" by oneself. Of course, this also became a substitute for martyrdom. However, as you read some of the monastic writers, you discover the issues of sin did not disappear. It was an illusion. Luther himself went that route, and saw the futility.

Monasticism is in its essence a form of the theology of glory.

Later historical development of monasticism tried to correct, and some even moved into "serving others" rather than self. But that does not deny the starting point - holiness is my attempt to get closer to God and away from others.

I would agree with you that many (most) forms of monasticism and surely these early forms do fall into the "glory" camp. However, there is the old hippie living in me that thinks wouldn't it be great to live together with a group of believers, worship together, reach out to the community together and under the grace and guidance of the Holy Spirit heal physical and spiritual wounds of those in need.

There are monasteries like this...I am told there used to be a Lutheran one in California? Might have been associated with one of the old branches of the now ELCA, though.

I don't see where this kind of monastery is all "glory"... If I am wrong, please help me see that.

Thanks

Rose

[Carl the Copt]

Why all the fuss? Glory or Cross both go together. In my Lutheran background I remember the Good Friday services and then Pascha on the Sunday. Good Friday was a far better service. In Orthodoxy Pascha is the FEAST OF FEASTS. Pascha is the whole game if you ask me, without that we are all still dead. Yes of course I love the Cross but it is Pascha that saves.
Carl the Copt

[KagomeShuko]

Why all the fuss? Glory or Cross both go together. In my Lutheran background I remember the Good Friday services and then Pascha on the Sunday. Good Friday was a far better service. In Orthodoxy Pascha is the FEAST OF FEASTS. Pascha is the whole game if you ask me, without that we are all still dead. Yes of course I love the Cross but it is Pascha that saves.
Carl the Copt
I think you are still missing the point.

Theologia Crucis - preaching Christ and Him crucified. It has nothing, nada, rien to do with what people do at all!!! We are all sinners and it is only through Christ that we are saved.

Theologia Glorae - people bieng "good, doing what they are supposed to do, believing things in an exact certain way" saves them because it is what Christ taught (and they are completely missing the Theologia Crucis!)

Those are TWO very different things! Yet, you ask, "why all the fuss?"

Please, don't tell me you see these two things as THE SAME. . .

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[xenia]

Well folks, at first I thought Orthodoxy fit in better with the Cross idea, but now I'm seeing it has a huge amount of Glory-ness in it, too. Maybe even more Glory than Cross.

(Not that I consider this to be a bad thing.)

Love, Xenia

[sculpturegirl]

I would agree with you that many (most) forms of monasticism and surely these early forms do fall into the "glory" camp. However, there is the old hippie living in me that thinks wouldn't it be great to live together with a group of believers, worship together, reach out to the community together and under the grace and guidance of the Holy Spirit heal physical and spiritual wounds of those in need.

There are monasteries like this...I am told there used to be a Lutheran one in California? Might have been associated with one of the old branches of the now ELCA, though.

I don't see where this kind of monastery is all "glory"... If I am wrong, please help me see that.

Thanks

Rose
YEHAW! I am with you, Rose!

he he he I actually wanted to be a nun for awhile when I was young. Not being Catholic, I was out of luck. Good thing for my finace', though :P

[Organist]

"The Jesus told his disciples, "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me." Matthew 16:24 NRSV

[ByzantineDixie]

YEHAW! I am with you, Rose!

he he he I actually wanted to be a nun for awhile when I was young. Not being Catholic, I was out of luck. Good thing for my finace', though :PWell, I did grow up Catholic and I think just about every little Catholic girl thinks of growing up to be a nun...I understood the whole Bride of Christ thing in a way that is a bit different than what I know it to be today! ;) I truly thought nuns were the brides of Christ! :o

Actually, I did find a monastery that would be great to be a part of if I were Catholic, not married and didn't have to work to send two boys through college. Needless to say, since I am not, I am and I still need to, that thought was short-lived! ;)

Ya, your fiancee is lucky you weren't snatched up by some convent! :D

Peace

Rose

[Rechtgläubig]

Monestary schmonistary. How do you expect to carry out the Great Commission from behind locked doors and gates?

:D


It's all about me, myself, and I.

[Qoheleth]

There are monasteries like this...I am told there used to be a Lutheran one in California? Might have been associated with one of the old branches of the now ELCA, though.
Actually, there still is a Lutheran Monastery here in Michigan not so far from me.

Wouldnt ya know it Rose !

http://www.staugustineshouse.org/

[xenia]

Monestary schmonistary. How do you expect to carry out the Great Commission from behind locked doors and gates?


Actually, throughout history, much if not most missionary work was done by monastics.

[ByzantineDixie]

Actually, there still is a Lutheran Monastery here in Michigan not so far from me.

Wouldnt ya know it Rose !

http://www.staugustineshouse.org/And here I thought I was the one who was blessed to have escaped those freezing cold northern winters in exchange for the warmer climate and genteel ways of the South. Hmmmm....somethin' went wrong somewhere. :scratch:

Q, another Michigan gem? Does it never stop for you! :P

;) Rose

[Rechtgläubig]

Actually, throughout history, much if not most missionary work was done by monastics.
Sorry Xenia, I was joking around, but that is interesting. :D

[Dr. Martin Luther]

Looks like Luthers Rose has me covered. :)

[sculpturegirl]

Ever since I left Michigan it looks better and better each year. First the Frederick Meijer Gardens and now a monestary!! Holy Moley!

[Lutherrunner]

Ever since I left Michigan it looks better and better each year. First the Frederick Meijer Gardens and now a monestary!! Holy Moley!
hmm.....how many people here USED to be from Michigan?.......:wave: (me)

[SPALATIN]

Actually, throughout history, much if not most missionary work was done by monastics.
Yeah and many of them are Vintners. Suppose that's how they witness. One bottle per customer? ;)

[KagomeShuko]

hmm.....how many people here USED to be from Michigan?.......:wave: (me)
Well, I was born in Midland, MI. . .and we moved to Lake Charles, LA when I was five. . .so, LC LA is home. . .but I remember some of MI.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[ChiRho]

Well, I was born in Midland, MI. . .and we moved to Lake Charles, LA when I was five. . .so, LC LA is home. . .but I remember some of MI.

Stein Auf!
Bridget


Ever walk the Tridge?

[KagomeShuko]

Ever walk the Tridge?
Tridge? I have no idea. . .I don't remember all that much. .just maple seeds, dandelions, snow, and preschool. then, some other little things like "safety town" and VBS.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[ChiRho]

Tridge? I have no idea. . .I don't remember all that much. .just maple seeds, dandelions, snow, and preschool. then, some other little things like "safety town" and VBS.

Stein Auf!
Bridget


The Tridge!

http://www.watersongs.org/tridge2.jpg


I will end with this and allow for the topic to return to the conversation. I apologize!

Pax Christi,

ChiRho