I find this so intriguing. I was a Lutheran for many years, and I do have to say: Luther’s uncompromising spirit and deeply divisive and polemical attitude have, at least for since my time at seminary, rubbed me the wrong way. Especially among conservative Lutherans, the response to Luther’s more unsavory qualities was either to emulate them or to say that they must be looked past for the sake of his profound theology. This has been so difficult for me, because I tend to think that theology is not simply about what is said, but how it is said. That it is a task that must be engaged in virtuously.
One of the things that drew me to the Anglican Church was the possibility of this more charitable theological spirit. It seems that, in Anglicanism, theology is not thought about apart from the virtuous life, but as continuous with our liturgical participation in Christ. And in this sense, as we grow in theological knowledge we are called to also grow into virtuous theologians, who love the church and the world.
I’ve never thought of Bucer as a way that this vision might be captured among the Reformers. But after reading your post, I am really excited to start reading him. He sounds a bit like Melanchthon, who is another helpful personality to blunt some of the Lutherans dogmatic and polemical edge.
If one is a novice to Bucer, where do you suggest starting?
Luther was a bull in a china shop, which was absolutely a double-edged sword that sometimes propelled him to great moments of triumph but also often spun him careening wildly out of control, alienating people who could have been allies. It was not always the proper disposition to have. I also find it a superb insight that in many ways Twitter inherits and fosters a Lutherian spirit in dialogue, and that is not for the better.
I find this so intriguing. I was a Lutheran for many years, and I do have to say: Luther’s uncompromising spirit and deeply divisive and polemical attitude have, at least for since my time at seminary, rubbed me the wrong way. Especially among conservative Lutherans, the response to Luther’s more unsavory qualities was either to emulate them or to say that they must be looked past for the sake of his profound theology. This has been so difficult for me, because I tend to think that theology is not simply about what is said, but how it is said. That it is a task that must be engaged in virtuously.
One of the things that drew me to the Anglican Church was the possibility of this more charitable theological spirit. It seems that, in Anglicanism, theology is not thought about apart from the virtuous life, but as continuous with our liturgical participation in Christ. And in this sense, as we grow in theological knowledge we are called to also grow into virtuous theologians, who love the church and the world.
I’ve never thought of Bucer as a way that this vision might be captured among the Reformers. But after reading your post, I am really excited to start reading him. He sounds a bit like Melanchthon, who is another helpful personality to blunt some of the Lutherans dogmatic and polemical edge.
If one is a novice to Bucer, where do you suggest starting?
Luther was a bull in a china shop, which was absolutely a double-edged sword that sometimes propelled him to great moments of triumph but also often spun him careening wildly out of control, alienating people who could have been allies. It was not always the proper disposition to have. I also find it a superb insight that in many ways Twitter inherits and fosters a Lutherian spirit in dialogue, and that is not for the better.