Theosis and preaching: implications for preaching in the Finnish Luther research

Over the course of the past several years research by Finnish theologians on Martin Luther has come to the conclusion that Luther shared a significant reality with basic Orthodox theology. This reality emerged in theological discussions that the Finnish Lutheran theologians have had with the Russian Orthodox Church. As the Orthodox advanced their theosis theology the Lutherans began to sense that very similar ideas were present in Luther's theology. Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson have edited a book titled Union With Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther (Eerdmans, 1998) which presents articles by several of these Finnish theologians. Stimulated by these articles, I am fascinated to see the implications that theosis has for preaching. This new Finnish research on Luther points to some problems in Lutheran preaching and to some creative possibilities of thinking about preaching anew as we move into the future.

Problems in Lutheran preaching

First, a word about a fundamental problem in preaching based on past assumptions in Luther research. The Finnish authors point to two problems in Lutheran studies that have a significant impact on preaching. Tuomo Mannermaa writes that

Finnish Luther research has come to the conclusion that Luther's idea of
the presence of Christ in faith can form a basis for treating the
question of divinization. The Lutheran understanding of the indwelling
of Christ implies a real participation in God and is analogous to the
Orthodox doctrine of participation in God, or theosis ... the core of
the often misunderstood patristic doctrine of theosis can be briefly
formulated as follows. Divine life has manifested itself in Christ. In
the church, understood as the body of Christ, human beings participate
in this life and thereby partake of 'the divine nature' [2 Peter
1:4] ... in order to restore [humans to their] original condition as
imago Dei (pp. 25-26).

Mannermaa goes on to indicate that classic Lutheranism was familiar with the notion of God's essential indwelling in the believer. A problem has arisen, however, in Lutheran interpretation. The Formula of Concord defines the relation between "justification" and "divine indwelling" in a manner different from Luther: "the inhabitatio Dei is distinguished conceptually as a separate phenomenon that is logically subsequent to justification" (p. 27). In this division of the concept justification is understood in a totally forensic manner, "that is, it is regarded as a reception of the forgiveness that is 'imputed' to a human being because of the obedience and merit of Christ. The inhabitatio Dei is considered merely a consequence of this 'righteousness of faith'" (p. 28). Luther, however, does not separate Christ from his work. "Christ is, in this unity of person and work, really present in the faith of the Christian" (p. 28).

Simo Puera makes the same point in his article. "According to the Formula of Concord the doctrine of justification includes only God's favor, that is, imputed righteousness.... This means that God is not really present in a Christian when declaring him or her righteous through faith for Christ's sake" (p. 45). This forensic (legal) understanding of justification gives justification a thoroughly objective ground. The problem that Perua sees, however, is that justification becomes something external to the Christian. Divine agency is separated from human agency. The divine agent has asserted that one is justified. The human agent is then called upon for a response. This is quite different from a view of theosis wherein the divine agent divinizes, transforms, the human agent!

This disjuncture between Luther and the Formula of Concord raises the question concerning which interpretation is normative for Lutherans today. This is an ongoing issue for each of us in the life of the Lutheran church in today's world.

Puera points to another factor that contributes to the same problem. The whole Finnish school seems to point a finger of blame here at Immanuel Kant's philosophy.

Characteristic of neo-Kantian theology is the radical separation of
God's being [esse] and his effects [Wirkungen] from each other....
Because of this separation, such theological ideas as the union of God
and the Christian become impossible. The neo-Kantian school has had a
wide and comprehensive influence on Luther research until now. (p. 46).

As I understand this, it seems to me to be a second way that the Lutheran tradition balks at divinization. We can't be related to God's being itself. Kant told us so! Divine agency is one matter. The effect of that agency and the role of human agency is another matter. The Formula of Concord, on the one hand, and a new-Kantian interpretation of Luther on the other hand, appear to mitigate against an understanding of theosis in Luther's theology as set forth by the Finnish school of research. The Finnish theologians find it necessary to combat these two streams of interpretation of Luther in order to assert their claims for divinization as fundamental to Luther's theology.