Differences between a Theology of Glory and a Theology of the Cross

Gerhard Forde, author of On Being a Theologian of the Cross, begins his book by saying “the cross is in the first instance God’s attack on human sin.”1 Lutheran piety has always been rooted in the power of the cross. It was this theology that separated Martin Luther from the other reformers and the Roman Catholic Church. For Martin Luther, there were only two ways of view God: either through a theology of the cross or through a theology of glory. It is necessary that the distinctions between these two theologies be studied more deeply so that the differences may be brought out.

Before one can note the differences between the two theologies one must first identify the key factors in each of the theologies beginning with the key distinctions in a theology of glory. In Martin Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, the document that defined Martin Luther’s theology of the cross, Luther does not make any mention between a theology of the cross and a theology of glory till later on in his disputation. In theses 19-24, particularly in theses 19-21, Luther begins to define the two different theologies and outright names the two theologies in Thesis 21. What is interesting to note is that Luther did not believe a theologian of glory deserved even the title of “theologian.” They miss the mark by only concentrating on a particular part of the story--i.e. solely concentrating on the resurrection. They are driven by earthly ideas of success rather than looking to God for the true answer of success--the way of the cross.

There are four distinguishing characters in a theology of glory. A theology of glory concentrates heavily on the works of human rather than on the works of God. They do not to take into account sin’s existence in the world and that “human beings are intrinsically and radically sinful, incapable of doing good or truly knowing God.”2 They believe that God needs to be sought out in mystical experiences, speculation, or merit. One must encounter God rather than let God encounter us. Moreover, one of the best distinguishing factor that sets a part theologian of glory is described in thesis 21 of Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation: “A theology of glory calls evil good and good evil.” Forde uses the example of suffering to best describe Luther’s point here. In the understanding of this particular theology “suffering is called evil and works good.”3 One should work to avoid suffering because it is seen as a weakness. It is seen as if we have failed and are, therefore, suffering the consequences of our work rather than the notion that bad things can just happen for no particular reason.

The theology of the cross has a completely different idea of God’s work in the world. The theology of the cross begins with the notion that humanity is sinful and is “incapable of doing good or truly knowing God.”4 Frederick Niedner, author of the article Precious, Inevitable Scandal, points out that in every single gospel, all roads lead to the cross: Mark’s gospel begins with the phrase “the beginning of the good news” with Mark describing a “rapid descent into tragedy” leaving readers with an ending that shows the disciples running away in fear rather than spreading the news of Jesus’ resurrection; Matthew’s gospel “finds a way to show how Jesus’ death worked forgiveness;” John’s gospel “from the moment John the Baptist identifies Jesus as ‘the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world...Jesus maintains tight control over everything and everyone involved in his dying;’” In Luke’s gospel “Jesus proceeds very purposefully...refusing to be dissuaded from setting his face toward Jerusalem” and teaches a “‘daily cross-bearing’ to a disciple who walks in his footsteps.”5 A theology of the cross takes into account that even though all of our actions may have good intentions, the resulting consequences of our actions are never positive.

It is through divine action, God’s direct action in humanity, that good does exist in the world and not by any kind of human interaction. The scandal of the cross, though evil in appearance, gives us the ability to know God. God can only been seen and sought through the Cross of Christ. Thesis 20 of the Heidelberg Disputation says that a theologian of the cross “comprehends the visible and manifest things of God through suffering and the cross.”6 The good works that a theology of glory promote are the same works that put Jesus on the cross. Jesus’ death was not because he committed a crime, but because he promoted such ideals such as caring for the poor, economic and social sustainability for all, and the pouring out of one soul so that all might know and experience God in a new way separate from the law.

To interpret Forde here, the ideals and norms that Jesus promoted in his teachings (and through his actions) were made known to us only through his suffering on the cross. Thusly, a theologian of the cross is someone “whose eyes have been turned away from the quest for glory by the cross, who have eyes only for what is visible, what is actually there to be seen of God, the suffering and despised crucified Jesus.”7 Namely, those who seek Christ in the Cross and not solely in his resurrection.

One final distinction here is that a “theology of the cross calls the thing what it actually is.”8 As mentioned above, Forde uses the example of suffering to explain this thesis of Luther. Forde argues that when one views suffering through the lenses of a theology of the cross, suffering is no longer seen as a failing of our work but rather “suffering is from God and it is good.”9 Further, we suffer because we are no longer in control and are “rendered totally passive by the divine operation through the cross and resurrection of Jesus.”10 When suffering is viewed in this matter, one can no longer call it evil but rather divine action. John Hoffmeyer, author of the article Torture and Theology of the Cross, makes the point that unlike the typical human response of desiring revenge “the resurrection of the crucified Jesus is God’s full identification with the victim who says no to continuing the cycle of victimization.”11 Jesus commits no acts of revenge but rather bears the marks of his torture for all to see. It was in bearing these marks and showing his disciples that they, particularly Thomas, are able to proclaim Jesus as Lord and God. Essentially, the act of victimization stops with Jesus because the cross bears the ultimate victim known to us as as the crucified Christ. It does not make sense in our human perspective to think that God is the reason for our suffering, but that is the scandal of the cross. In this scandal and suffering “God made use of our terrible practice of sacrificial victimization ‘so that victims of such acts would never be invisible--they look too much like Jesus.’”12 It is in this suffering that we are able to turn “away from ourselves, forsaking our own good works and spiritual experiences and [cling] to Christ’s blood and righteousness.”13 Suffering is no longer something to avoid, but is crucial for understanding God as not just resurrected, but rather crucified and resurrected.

This idea of understanding God deserves attention here. It is through the theology of the cross that we are able to have a clear sense of understanding God’s role in our world and in our lives. Understanding God through the cross does not simply mean to be plainly inform. Rather, Forde argues that it is more of like God attacking and afflicting us.14 As mentioned above, Forde believes in the divine passive model. We do not obtain knowledge of God but “knowledge of God comes when God happens to us, when God does [God’s self] to us.”15 It is by the cross that God does all these things.

There are notable distinctions that should be made between the two theologies. The first being to works of humanity and the works of God. For a theology of the cross, everything always begins and ends with God and the cross. Therefore, our action have no direct meaning in our existence, but God’s actions do. Secondly, as previously mentioned, Forde argues for a divine passive model where anything good in the world comes from God alone. This leads to the next distinction of sin’s true reality in the world. It is because we are sinful, no good can come from us. Our own works are not needed because God is in control. For example, if the world depended on humanity, Forde would argue, the world would have fallen a part a long time ago. It is because of God working through us, that good can and is obtained. Now how we know what is good comes from the cross and knowledge of God passed down to us by God. Thirdly, keeping the model of a divine passive, the cross seeks us out rather than we seeking out the cross.

The final notable distinction, and the main emphasis of this paper, involves thesis 21 of the Heidelberg Disputation:
“A theology of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theology of the cross calls the thing what it actually is.”16
It is here that Luther makes draws a clear line between the two theologies. A theology of glory takes joy in only living out the resurrection and leaping over the events that lead up to the resurrection. However, when one takes into the account the notion that the cross, once seen as evil, is now the key to knowing God, our entire system of norms is thrown out the window. A theology of the cross does not find glory in the cross, but rather finds the salvation of the world hanging there for all to see. Because of this fact, the cross is not the end but the beginning. It is here that “only through suffering and the cross that sinners see and come to know God.”17 The suffering experienced on the cross is good and shows us all the true reality that God wants. The scandal is no longer a scandal but a way of life.

The underlining distinction, then, is that throughout everything the cross needs to remain at the center. It is through the cross that we come to know God as the crucified God. We are not Easter Christians. If we solely concentrate on the resurrection we forget why Jesus was resurrected. To understand why the resurrection happened, we must always look at Jesus’ death first. It is here that “a new life can begin, and with it a new sense of self-worth can blossom.” Out of God’s love, God creates “anew out of nothing”18 and with that we can proclaimed with the entire church “Amen. Come Lord Jesus.”

_____________________
1 Forde, Gerhard O., and Martin Luther. On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518 (Theology) (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997), 1.

2 H, John. "Glory vs. the Cross." Confessing Evangelical, 14 June 2004, available from www.confessingevangelical.com /?p=1086; internet; accessed 12 March 2010.

3 Forde and Luther, On Being a Theologian of the Cross, 83.

4 H, John, “Glory vs. the Cross,” www.confessingevangelical.com /?p=1086.

5 Niedner, Frederick A. "Precious, inevitable scandal: theology of the cross in Mark." Currents in Theology and Mission 32, no. 6 (December 1, 2005): 417-419.

6 Forde and Luther, On Being a Theologian of the Cross, 77.

7 Forde and Luther, On Being a Theologian of the Cross, 79.

8 Forde and Luther, On Being a Theologian of the Cross, 81.

9 Forde and Luther, On Being a Theologian of the Cross, 86.

10 Forde and Luther, On Being a Theologian of the Cross, 87.

11 Hoffmeyer, John F. "Torture and theology of the cross." Dialog 47, no. 3 (September 1, 2008): 244.

12 Hoffmeyer, “Torture and Theology of the cross, 246.

13 H, John, “Glory vs. the Cross,” www.confessingevangelical.com /?p=1086.

14 Phrase is taken from Forde and Luther, On Being a Theologian of the Cross, 90.

15 Forde and Luther, On Being a Theologian of the Cross, 90.

16 Forde and Luther, On Being a Theologian of the Cross, 81.

17 Forde and Luther, On Being a Theologian of the Cross, 86.

18 Forde and Luther, On Being a Theologian of the Cross, 19.