Luther On Being a Theologian IV
August 12, 2010
OK, as we enter the fourth post in this series, I am conscious it might be starting to look a bit like one of those oh-so-godly-but-goodness-me-aren't-they-dull-as-ditchwater series one finds occasionally in reformed magazines, with titles such as `Reflections on the Life of That Eminent Servant of God, Rev. Ebenezer Ramsbottom, Vicar of Grimethorpe-Vasey, Part Seventeen: His Pre-Breakfast Devotional Habits, 1735-1737,' that I am confident bring such edification to so many. But this is Luther with whom we are dealing: if he comes across as boring, then please do blame the messenger. The man may have been an absolute menace and total social liability, but he wasn't dull.
So, to business. For Luther, the third thing that goes towards making a true theologian, after the grace of the Spirit and agonizing struggle, is experience. As we should expect after the first three posts, theology is never less than human; and to be human is to experience -- joy, despair, happiness, melancholy, surprise, boredom etc.
It is important to note two things in this context. First, when Luther talks of experience, he is really talking of something passive. Experience is not an action which we perform; it is something which comes as the result of something done to us. We might therefore say it is logically dependent upon something outside of ourselves.
Secondly, and following from the first, it is neither a contentless category, nor a purely subjective one. Luther made a famous statement in his Table Talk (no. 46) that `experience alone makes a theologian,' and this has been used at times to promote an anti-intellectual view of the theologians task, or even an existential/mystical one. In fact, both are off the mark. The full quotation reads as follows (I quote from the Philadelphia edition of Luther's Works, volume 54):
`A doctor of the Scriptures ought to have a good knowledge of the Scriptures and ought to have grasped how the prophets run into one another. It isn't enough to know only one part -- as a man might know Isaiah, for example -- or to know only one topic of the law or of the gospel. Now, however, doctors are springing up who scarcely have a right comprehension of one topic.
`Teachers of law can humble their students when the students try to put on airs about their learning, because they have a court and get practical experience. On the other hand, we can't humble our students because we have no practical exercises. Yet experience alone makes a theologian.'
Set in context, Luther's statement is clearly about those who whose task it is to study the scriptures, i.e., theologians; and his concern is to underscore the need for practical, personal engagement with the word of God. Thus, the experience that makes a theologians cannot be reduced to pure subjectivity: it is experience of the external word of God impacting upon the individual. Further, he is using `experience' here to refer to such work of the word in actual, practical, real-life settings, presumably and primarily pastoral contexts but, given his notion of the priesthood of all believers (of which more tomorrow) by implication the work of the word on each and every believer in their daily lives. One might say that his comment here reflects the perennial concern of all involved in training pastors: classroom and library learning is not enough in and of itself; only real-life engagement with the word of God can someone truly a theologian in the church sense of the word.
Thus, the third mark of the theologian, experience, is really a reference to the experience of the individual of the word of God in the context of their everyday life. Further, to state the obvious, this experience is therefore based upon a text, indeed, a clearly defined and delimited text; but it is not overly narrow because of that -- rather, it is wide ranging, touching on all areas of human experience: the word touches human beings as whole human beings. The voices of the Psalmists are thus great examples of the theological development brought about by this experience: it involves joy, sadness, setbacks, disappointments, triumphs etc etc. And experience is definitely not to be set in opposition to scripture, as both pietists and intellectualists tend so to do, albeit from opposite ends of the spectrum. Experience is caused by, grounded in, and defined by scripture.
One final point: this kind of experience takes time. For Luther, the growth of the theologian is gradual; it is not the equivalent of learning a logarithm table or a set of facts; it is the slow process of being interpreted by -- in fact, mastered by -- the word of God. Further, the passive nature of experience -- that it is the external word of God working on us -- indicates that there are no shortcuts, no educational programs, no techniques -- in short, no actions, nothing we ourselves can do -- to make this happen for ourselves. It is the work of the word, acting upon us, gradually making us that which we should be, in and through the lives we live. though Luther does not put it in quite these terms, we might say that the human contribution to such is patience in both the common and the more technical sense of the word.
So, to business. For Luther, the third thing that goes towards making a true theologian, after the grace of the Spirit and agonizing struggle, is experience. As we should expect after the first three posts, theology is never less than human; and to be human is to experience -- joy, despair, happiness, melancholy, surprise, boredom etc.
It is important to note two things in this context. First, when Luther talks of experience, he is really talking of something passive. Experience is not an action which we perform; it is something which comes as the result of something done to us. We might therefore say it is logically dependent upon something outside of ourselves.
Secondly, and following from the first, it is neither a contentless category, nor a purely subjective one. Luther made a famous statement in his Table Talk (no. 46) that `experience alone makes a theologian,' and this has been used at times to promote an anti-intellectual view of the theologians task, or even an existential/mystical one. In fact, both are off the mark. The full quotation reads as follows (I quote from the Philadelphia edition of Luther's Works, volume 54):
`A doctor of the Scriptures ought to have a good knowledge of the Scriptures and ought to have grasped how the prophets run into one another. It isn't enough to know only one part -- as a man might know Isaiah, for example -- or to know only one topic of the law or of the gospel. Now, however, doctors are springing up who scarcely have a right comprehension of one topic.
`Teachers of law can humble their students when the students try to put on airs about their learning, because they have a court and get practical experience. On the other hand, we can't humble our students because we have no practical exercises. Yet experience alone makes a theologian.'
Set in context, Luther's statement is clearly about those who whose task it is to study the scriptures, i.e., theologians; and his concern is to underscore the need for practical, personal engagement with the word of God. Thus, the experience that makes a theologians cannot be reduced to pure subjectivity: it is experience of the external word of God impacting upon the individual. Further, he is using `experience' here to refer to such work of the word in actual, practical, real-life settings, presumably and primarily pastoral contexts but, given his notion of the priesthood of all believers (of which more tomorrow) by implication the work of the word on each and every believer in their daily lives. One might say that his comment here reflects the perennial concern of all involved in training pastors: classroom and library learning is not enough in and of itself; only real-life engagement with the word of God can someone truly a theologian in the church sense of the word.
Thus, the third mark of the theologian, experience, is really a reference to the experience of the individual of the word of God in the context of their everyday life. Further, to state the obvious, this experience is therefore based upon a text, indeed, a clearly defined and delimited text; but it is not overly narrow because of that -- rather, it is wide ranging, touching on all areas of human experience: the word touches human beings as whole human beings. The voices of the Psalmists are thus great examples of the theological development brought about by this experience: it involves joy, sadness, setbacks, disappointments, triumphs etc etc. And experience is definitely not to be set in opposition to scripture, as both pietists and intellectualists tend so to do, albeit from opposite ends of the spectrum. Experience is caused by, grounded in, and defined by scripture.
One final point: this kind of experience takes time. For Luther, the growth of the theologian is gradual; it is not the equivalent of learning a logarithm table or a set of facts; it is the slow process of being interpreted by -- in fact, mastered by -- the word of God. Further, the passive nature of experience -- that it is the external word of God working on us -- indicates that there are no shortcuts, no educational programs, no techniques -- in short, no actions, nothing we ourselves can do -- to make this happen for ourselves. It is the work of the word, acting upon us, gradually making us that which we should be, in and through the lives we live. though Luther does not put it in quite these terms, we might say that the human contribution to such is patience in both the common and the more technical sense of the word.
