Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
68 Peter Manns and Harding Meyer, eds. in collaboration with Carter Lindberg and Henry McSorley, Luther’s Ecumenical Significance: An Interconfessional Consultation, Fortress Press,1984), xxiv = 288 pp., (Philadelphia: $24.95 ISBN 0-8006-1747-9, 1-1747 Reviewed by Donald Dean Smeeton* Among the many volumes commemorating the five hundredth anniversary of Luther’s birth, this one claims significance not only because it provides a needed status quaestionis of recent Luther studies but also because it contributes to ecumenicity. Since the publication in 1939 of Die Reformation in Deutschland by Joseph Lortz, Lutheran and Roman Catholic theologians have searched to identify points of agreement in their positions as well as to clarify those areas of divergence. This searching has generally centered on the theology of Luther himself rather than on his interpreters in either camp. Building on this foundation, this book brings together some of the most important contributors to this dialogue between the theological heirs of Wittenberg and Rome. Luther’s Ecumenical Significance updates the discussion and continues the investigation by providing much of the significant material from Oekumenische Erschliessung Luthers Referate und Ergebnisse einer internationalen Theologenkonsultation for the profit of the Anglo-Saxon world. The translation generally reads smoothly, but any translation from Germany will result in ambiguities concerning such key words as “evangelical”. (This word is not easy to define even if one limits the discussion to North America!) The good news proclaimed by Luther has importance for all Christians and Luther’s Ecumenical Significance deserves wide consideration, yet the topic itself deserves further definition. A perspective which limits itself essentially to the Roman Catholic-Lutheran perspectives is too narrow to comprehend fully Luther’s ecumenical significance. The token presence of a Mennonite, a Methodist, a few Calvinists, and other respondents hardly does justice to the breadth of the issues raised by the Reformation. There is limited acknowledgement of Eastern Christianity and the “free” churches in the European context. Because much of the previous discussion has centered on the Reformation creeds, especially the Augsburg Confession, several articles question how much these documents represent Luther’s thought and how much they must be understood as an early hardening of the theological categories. Other essays explore ecclesiology, as a natural extension of soteriology, with the varied implications. Of particular interest to this reviewer is the . . . 1 69 application of Luther’s simul justus et peccator theme to interpret Karlstadt, the Anabaptists, and the contemporary holiness- charismatic momement(s), but the variety of issues will provide practically every reader a point of particular interest. Rather than analyzing the complete set of papers, responses, and summaries, the remainder of this review will focus on Carter Lindberg’s “Justice and Injustice in Luther’s Judgment of ‘Holiness Movements,”‘ which critiques the holiness-charismatic renewal(s). This hyphenization of terminology is useful here because there appears to be an indiscriminate mixing of these terms. Many pentecostals-as well as charismatics-would object to any consideration of the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” as a subdivision of justification and sanctification. There appears to be similar interchanging of “renewal” and “charismatic” which results in a slippage in precision and vagueness in the argumentation. Watchman Nee and Morton Kelsey are cited as representing the charismatic position, but many would question their roles as spokesmen for the movement(s). Even if Larry Christenson is taken into the discussion, one wonders if his preaching and popularizing is best understood in opposition to Luther’s theo- logical treatises. There is no serious consideration of sanctification in the theology of Calvin or other variants within the Christian community. Luther, in the midst of his sixteenth century struggles, is used as a measuring rod by which all other understandings of salvation are proven. Dialogue thus stops at the bar of judgment. Even one of the respondents observed that this application of Luther’s theology reconstructs the German into “the great ecumenical naysayer.” Luther’s conclusions were too fluid and occasional to be dogmatic about his judgment on events so far removed from his time. Not only could one question if Luther really understood Karlstadt, but if he completely understood Augustine or even Paul. In all fairness, nevertheless, one cannot explore in an essay all the avenues that can be described in a book. One should pursue the topic further in Lindberg’s The Third Reformation: Charismatic Movement and the Lutheran Tradition (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1983). Here Lindberg studies the conflict in a wider sixteenth century context and compares this first reformation to pietism and contemporary charismata. Despite these criticisms, Luther’s Ecumenical Significance con- tributes to a fuller understanding of the great reformer and his importance to all Christians. *International Correspondence Institute, Brussels, Belgium. 2
