Wisdom on reading well (part 3): Gustaf Wingren

Continuing my little series. We've heard from Torrance and Reeves. I hope we'll hear from Calvin and Lewis as well shortly, but for now here is Gustaf Wingren:

In the Bible men, as hearers, are not additions to the naked Word spoken into empty space. That, however, is just the presupposition when division into objective and subjective is made [...]

The scarlet thread that runs through the Bible is God and his people. As A. Fridrichsen has expressed it, 'God is the one pole in the power circuit, his people are the other.' [...] To think of the Bible, and not to think at the same time of Israel and the Church, is to omit from the Bible its character as message. The Bible does not acquire that character because we preach its Word, but already possesses it as a historic fact, and having that character it preaches. Our preaching, then, is just the Bible's own preaching [...]

There are, of course, sermons were men are not present from the first because there are bad sermons, sermons which do not set forth the Word. The main point which must be driven home is that the weakness of such bad sermons lies in the fact that the passage is never given its rightful place; the weakness is not that while the passage is correctly expounded the exposition is 'lifeless', 'uninspiring', etc. etc. If the passage is clearly and fully expounded the preaching is good. When the Bible lies open on the preacher's desk and the preparation of the sermon is about to begin, the worshippers have already come in; the passage contains these people since it is God's Word to his people."

(pp.25-26, Gustaf Wingren, The Living Word)

Wingren and Calvin on the Sacraments

"The question what the sacraments give over and above the Word often springs from a religion of works. The secret presupposition is: if it cannot be shown that there is some special advantage with the sacraments there is no point in making use of them, we should rather content ourselves with the Word. If, however, we start with the conviction that it is hard to believe and easy to fall as we journey, then the means of grace do bring grace, are gifts: then we receive them all with gladness when they all give us the same thing." (p. 158, Gustaf Wingren, The Living Word)

This is similar to Calvin, but I think it is better. Calvin seems to imply that ideally we wouldn't need the sacraments and the word would be enough, because the Word is more spiritual. He also seems to say that we go beyond the sacrament, so that we can leave it behind.

"the sacraments have the same office as the Word of God: to offer and set forth Christ to us" (Institutes, 4.14.17)

"our faith is slight and feeble unless it be propped on all sides and sustained by every means, it trembles, wavers, totters, and at last fives way. Here our merciful Lord, according to his infinite kindness, so tempers himself to our capacity that, since we are creatures who always creep upon the ground, cleave to the flesh, and, do not think about or even conceive of anything spiritual, he condescends to lead us to himself even by these earthly elements, and to set before us in the flesh a mirror of spiritual blessings" (Institutes, 4.14.3)

"One cannot coerce the summer into corning, one must wait for it"

The relation of the human to the created world around him is characterized in the first place by the fact that the human receives. God gives, we receive: that is the melody which Luther is always playing, in constantly new variations.

[...]

We must assert that it is God, not we or our neighbor, who is at work in the workshop which nature constitutes. The one who is at work in nature without interruption is God, and he is creating. The concept of nature belongs primarily to dogmatics, not to ethics. What God's work in creation demands of us is not first action, but faith. This is declared already in the Sermon on the Mount. The lilies of the field and the birds of the air instruct us, according to Jesus, about "care-free-ness" as the only completely natural attitude in life. Be not anxious for clothing or for food! God cares for you, he knows what you need.

(Gustaf Wingren, "The Doctrine of Creation: Not an Appendix but the First Article" in Word & World 4/4, 1984)

Death and life

"the gospels all witness to the fact that the triumph of life over death is there understood to be the decisive victory, much more important than the victory of knowledge over ignorance.

[Similarly...]

Baptism and Eucharist yield resurrection, not only forgiveness for the harassed conscience. The point in what is said about the restoration of creation (recapitulatio) is that everything which God has created has a part in the salvation which God gives in Christ. The great antithesis is between death and life, not between guilt and forgiveness."

(Gustaf Wingren, "The Doctrine of Creation: Not an Appendix but the First Article" in Word & World 4/4, 1984)

Distinctives of Irenaeus

The theology of Irenaeus has two distinctive characteristics:

first, the whole of his theology is marked by his contrast between God and the Devil, and the ceaselessly raging conflict between the two powers, a conflict which is fought out in the midst of our humanity; and

second, this humanity, independently of the conflict we have mentioned, is continually in process of change, developing and altering its form, but never remaining in the same fixed pattern.

(paragraph breaks mine, p.104, Gustaf Wingren, Man and the Incarnation: A study in the Biblical Theology of Irenaeus)

Happy Easter!

It's Sunday today!

The first Christians neither lived nor thought in terms of a [church] year; they lived in terms of a week and they thought of the work of redemption in terms of a week. In this way concentration on the cross and the resurrection was even more marked than it has ever since succeeded in being. Where the Early Church made a new beginning from the point of view of the calendar was the keeping of Sunday, the first day of the week, the day following the Sabbath. Sunday was a day of gladness, because Christ rose at dawn on that day, the first working day of the Jewish week (Mark 16.1 f.). Every week the earliest Christian congregations met for an Easter festival. Continually, with the interval of only a few days, Easter returned anew

[...but,] in the faith of the Early Church the resurrection is linked with the cross and with death. Therefore the suffering of Christ was given a place in the weekday and the Christian community early in its history came to regard Wednesday and Friday as two 'station days' in his suffering. Wednesday was the day of the betrayal, Friday the day of the death. Accordingly, the Didache and Hermas (beginning of the second century) speak of the keeping of these two days. In this way the whole week is devoted to Christ's death and resurrection. Station days are the feast of the cross, Sunday is the feast of the resurrection. On station days the rule was to bow down and bend the knee, on Sunday to stand up and look towards heaven, in free and erect position, singing praise.

pp. 192-193, The Living Word, Gustaf Wingren)

If weekdays are work in the world for most Christians, and Sunday is when we gather together and rest, then that I think that says something about the posture we ought to have as we engage with the world and do our work - i.e. it should be self-sacrificial.

True sovereignty

God is man's rightful Lord, Satan a false lord, a usurper, a thief, a robber. This distinction between God and the Devil, their contrasted claim on man, is not something which should be added to the contrast between life and death to complete that contrast, for Satan's subordination to God and his helplessness before God are implied in that very contrast itself. When it is said that God is life, it is implied that man becomes man by receiving from God; and when Satan is said to be death, it is implied that man loses his humanity when under the legitimacy of God's claim, and of Satan's, on man is a question that provides its own answer, as is always the case when true sovereignty emerges: the dispute is not settled in favour of the rightful claimant, instead it is clear that the rightful claimant never disputes with the underling but allows him to be just who he is, and thus proceeds with his work using the subordinate usurper as his tool without taking away his evil. So shall it be at the last day when the faithful of the Lord shall attain to fulness of vision and shall see that the death, discipline and evil under which they suffered on earth, ad in which Satan always works, but brought them nearer to life and destroyed the hold that sin, their enemy, had on their inmost being. The enemy executes that which God has determined shall be.

(pp. 93-94, The Living Word, Gustaf Wingren)

Which antithesis?

I'm reading The Living Word: A Theological Study of Preaching and the Church by Swedish Lutheran Gustaf Wingren. A wonderful £3 buy second-hand. I'm loving it.

It seems a shame to first blog some quotations from it in criticism of Barth, but I think his criticism is of far-reaching proportions. In short he sees Barth as locating a fundamental antithesis between God and humanity that he should instead find between God and the Devil, life and death, Gospel and law. I think this is of enormous importance.

for Barth God and man are opposed to each other, and the question with which he is faced is where the emphasis is to be placed. Liberal theology, against which Barth reacted, emphasized man's significance and put him centre. Barth's alternative is to emphasize God's significance and to put him in the centre. Negatively it is of fundamental importance that Satan and sin play a very uncertain and minor role in Barth's theological system. Thus in no way is the approach of the theology that preceded it corrected, but instead the speculative antithesis between man and God remains unchanged [...] It is striking that time and again in his writings Barth reiterates his criticism, most consistent and clear, of Luther's doctrine of the unity of human and divine in Christ, the doctrine of communicatio idiomatum ["sharing of attributes"].

The meaning of the communicatio idiomatum remains obscure until it is seen against the background of man's subjection to the Devil. God and man do not stand opposed to each other as two incompatible and parallel forms of being, but God and the Devil stand opposed as enemies. Man is God's creation who has been brought into captivity by the enemy of God. Christ's task is to enter human life, destroy Satanic might and free man. Christ's humanity is no limitation of the majesty of God, as Barth argues. Christ's humanity is the conqueror's - God's - presence on the field of battle where Satan is to be laid low in the conqueror's death and resurrection and forced to let go his grip on men [...]

The centre of gravity of the preaching of the Early Church was in Christ's death and resurrection, not in the incarnation [...] If the cross and the resurrection are to retain their New Testament position at the centre of the message, then a revision of the opposition between transcendence and immanence must be brought about. The Lutheran dualism of law and Gospel in the Word performs just that very revising, anti-speculative function. God's work meets us, sub contraria specie ["under contrary appearances"], hidden under the work of death. It must be so, since we are in thrall to sin; when our sin, which insists on ruling in our being, is killed, we receive life but it seems as though it were death. The lifegiving function of the Gospel is indissolubly bound up with the condemnatory and punitive function of the law; the cross is fast bound with the resurrection. If this intrinsic duality of law and Gospel is abandoned and replaced, as in Barth, by a single 'Word' above the law and the Gospel, then there follows also a new metaphysical cleavage, so that within the single Word we discover a higher, transcendent sphere, the Word of God (Gottes Wort) and a lower sphere, the word of man (Menschenswort). Thereby the Platonic doctrine of two worlds becomes supreme in theology. What is specifically theological and Christian is introduced later in the thesis that 'God' and 'man' meet and are brought together in the Incarnation. But in that case the mere meeting between God and man becomes the centre of the New Testament, while struggle and victory in the death and resurrection have lost their place as the centre of the kerygma. This is the chief accusation that must be brought against Karl Barth's theology.

(pp. 31f, 92, 1949, The Living Word)

Any thoughts on whether Wingren is reading Barth rightly?

I think that even if the critique doesn't stick to Barth, it sticks to much less sophisticated theology.