Play all audios:
Carl Trueman on “the most glorious contribution of Martin Luther to theological discourse,” first revealed in Heidelberg during a meeting in 1518: > At the heart of this new theology was
the notion that God reveals > himself under his opposite; or, to express this another way, God > achieves his intended purposes by doing the exact opposite of that > which humans
might expect. The supreme example of this is the > cross itself: God triumphs over sin and evil by allowing sin and > evil to triumph (apparently) over him. His real strength is >
demonstrated through apparent weakness. This was the way a > theologian of the cross thought about God. > > Advertise on TGC > The opposite to this was the theologian of
glory. In simple terms, > the theologian of glory assumed that there was basic continuity > between the way the world is and the way God is: if strength is > demonstrated through
raw power on earth, then God’s strength must > be the same, only extended to infinity. To such a theologian, the > cross is simply foolishness, a piece of nonsense. Trueman goes on to
ask where the theologians of the cross are to be found today: > At this Reformation season, we should not reduce the insights of > Luther simply to justification by grace through
faith. In fact, this > insight is itself inseparable from the notion of that of the > theologians of the cross. Sad to say, it is often hard to discern > where these theologians of
the cross are to be found. Yes, many talk > about the cross, but the cultural norms of many churches seem no > different to the cultural norms of—well, the culture. They often >
indicate an attitude to power and influence that sees these things > as directly related to size, market share, consumerist packaging, > aesthetics, youth culture, media appearances,
swagger and the > all-round noise and pyrotechnics we associate with modern cinema > rather than New Testament Christianity. These are surely more akin > to what Luther would have
regarded as symptomatic of the presence > and influence of theologians of glory rather than the cross. An > abstract theology of the cross can quite easily be packaged and >
marketed by a theologian of glory. And this is not to point the > finger at `them’: in fact, if we are honest, most if not all of us > feel the attraction of being theologians of
glory. Not surprising, > given that being a theologian of glory is the default position for > fallen human nature. > > The way to move from being a theologian of glory to a
theologian of > the cross is not an easy one, not simply a question of mastering > techniques, reading books or learning a new vocabulary. It is > repentance. In another essay,
Trueman writes: > This argument is explosive, giving a whole new understanding of > Christian authority. Elders, for example, are not to be those > renowned for throwing their
weight around, for badgering others, and > for using their position or wealth or credentials to enforce their > own opinions. No, the truly Christian elder is the one who devotes >
his whole life to the painful, inconvenient, and humiliating service > of others, for in so doing he demonstrates Christlike authority, the > kind of authority that Christ himself
demonstrated throughout his > incarnate life and supremely on the cross at Calvary. You can read both Trueman’s blog post and article. See also Gerhard Forde’s _On Being a Theologian of
the Cross: Reflections on Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, 1518_ and Alister McGrath’s _Luther’s Theology of the Cross: Martin Luther’s Theological Breakthrough_.