The Moors were tearing through what? Christendom? We need to define it? No, you need to define it.
"It seems that Christendom was something which existed both on the political and spiritual level, or at least that one was informing the other."
Wuzzah?
Sorry, but this reminds me of Dr. Jackson's description of freshmen in his 102 class writing about the "human condition" or "the permanent things." Let's be a little more concrete on what we're signifying. Christendom existed on a spiritual level? Really? What does that mean? So these levels are "informing" other. Huh. You want some permanent things with that?
Nope. Didn't avoid the issues raised. Actually, wrote an entire post about how historical disquisition swing wide of the theological heart of the matter.
This is a matter telos. The Church lives by faith in Christ's words that "the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." So Charles Martel stopped the Moors in France. That's wonderful. Really, it is. It's the type of thing about which people say "...and if it hadn't been for XYZ, we'd all be speaking Arabic/German/we'd be lampshades," or some suchlike historicist counterfactual. To say that the Church aided Martel, or stood to benefit in some way from Martel's victory does not mean that in doing so it acted in its Churchly office. I'm the son of my parents. Yet not everything I do is the execution of the duties of sonship, or expressive of the qualities of sonship.
The Church is created and sustained by the Word, Christ, through the office of the Holy Ministry. To make the metahistorical claim that Charles Martel "saved Christendom" at Tours is for that reason erroneous -- quite apart from the fact that it is a counterfactual statement which disregards other contingencies which could have come to pass had another historical outcome ensued, such as the Moors conquering. This says NOTHING necessarily about the fate of the Church, cause it's preserved by other means, see?
Also, I didn't "evade" the question of how Luther and Augustine actually understood the idea of two-kingdoms. I just didn't address it yet, but I've got some time....so...
Perhaps the error is mine in starting the discussion off last week with the intention, stated or implied, to out-Augustine the others in the conversation. I certainly won't pretend that I'm going to out-Luther anyone. You know as well as I do that the Lutheran church is the Church of the Augsburg Confession, not the Church of Martin Luther. A more fruitful reckoning of its theology and ecclesiology, then, is to be gained. So go and examine Melanchthon's Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, as well as Article XVI of the Apology. If all you're trying to say is that sometimes Luther the man was inconsistent with his own understanding of the Gospel, and inconsistent with the Augsburg confessors' orthodoxy, and that Lutheran practice has often not drawn out the correct distinction between the two kingdoms, then, well, you're right. That's like saying that sometimes, we break the Ten Commandments. But you're not saying that. You're being a doctrinal pragmatist, maybe even a crypto-papist. And that's fine, if you want to do it that way.
Yeah...the Lutheran church kind of started in opposition to Christendom, i.e., the papacy.
"Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, 'No, but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.' And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he repeated them in the hearing of the LORD. So the LORD said to Samuel, 'Heed their voice, and make them a king.' And Samuel said to the men of Israel, 'Every man go to his city'" (I Samuel 8.19-22).
Interesting post. Do you think that this issue could possibly be related to the tension between the corporate life of the church and the individual life of the Christian? In other words, Charles Martel is individually living out his duty to the church, yet what he did would be wrong if the church universal did it?
The Moors were tearing through what? Christendom? We need to define it? No, you need to define it.
ReplyDelete"It seems that Christendom was something which existed both on the political and spiritual level, or at least that one was informing the other."
Wuzzah?
Sorry, but this reminds me of Dr. Jackson's description of freshmen in his 102 class writing about the "human condition" or "the permanent things." Let's be a little more concrete on what we're signifying. Christendom existed on a spiritual level? Really? What does that mean? So these levels are "informing" other. Huh. You want some permanent things with that?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNope. Didn't avoid the issues raised. Actually, wrote an entire post about how historical disquisition swing wide of the theological heart of the matter.
ReplyDeleteThis is a matter telos. The Church lives by faith in Christ's words that "the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." So Charles Martel stopped the Moors in France. That's wonderful. Really, it is. It's the type of thing about which people say "...and if it hadn't been for XYZ, we'd all be speaking Arabic/German/we'd be lampshades," or some suchlike historicist counterfactual. To say that the Church aided Martel, or stood to benefit in some way from Martel's victory does not mean that in doing so it acted in its Churchly office. I'm the son of my parents. Yet not everything I do is the execution of the duties of sonship, or expressive of the qualities of sonship.
The Church is created and sustained by the Word, Christ, through the office of the Holy Ministry. To make the metahistorical claim that Charles Martel "saved Christendom" at Tours is for that reason erroneous -- quite apart from the fact that it is a counterfactual statement which disregards other contingencies which could have come to pass had another historical outcome ensued, such as the Moors conquering. This says NOTHING necessarily about the fate of the Church, cause it's preserved by other means, see?
Also, I didn't "evade" the question of how Luther and Augustine actually understood the idea of two-kingdoms. I just didn't address it yet, but I've got some time....so...
Perhaps the error is mine in starting the discussion off last week with the intention, stated or implied, to out-Augustine the others in the conversation. I certainly won't pretend that I'm going to out-Luther anyone. You know as well as I do that the Lutheran church is the Church of the Augsburg Confession, not the Church of Martin Luther. A more fruitful reckoning of its theology and ecclesiology, then, is to be gained. So go and examine Melanchthon's Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, as well as Article XVI of the Apology. If all you're trying to say is that sometimes Luther the man was inconsistent with his own understanding of the Gospel, and inconsistent with the Augsburg confessors' orthodoxy, and that Lutheran practice has often not drawn out the correct distinction between the two kingdoms, then, well, you're right. That's like saying that sometimes, we break the Ten Commandments. But you're not saying that. You're being a doctrinal pragmatist, maybe even a crypto-papist. And that's fine, if you want to do it that way.
Yeah...the Lutheran church kind of started in opposition to Christendom, i.e., the papacy.
"Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, 'No, but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.' And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he repeated them in the hearing of the LORD. So the LORD said to Samuel, 'Heed their voice, and make them a king.' And Samuel said to the men of Israel, 'Every man go to his city'" (I Samuel 8.19-22).
Man, that last part is ominous.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post. Do you think that this issue could possibly be related to the tension between the corporate life of the church and the individual life of the Christian? In other words, Charles Martel is individually living out his duty to the church, yet what he did would be wrong if the church universal did it?
ReplyDelete