Daphne Hampson, Christian Contradictions: the Structure of Lutheran and Catholic Thought - Book Review

Ecumenical Review, The, April, 2003 by Eric W. Gritsch

Cambridge, Cambridge UP, 2001, 323pp., US$59.95.

The author (who identifies herself as a feminist standing outside Christianity) presents the thesis that the differences between Lutheranism and Catholicism are to be viewed as "structures of thought": Lutheranism is "dialectic" and Catholicism is "linear". These structural differences have "philosophical underpinnings". The author's interest is the question of how one can conceptualize the human relationship to God.

Lutheranism is described on the basis of an analysis of Luther's thought centred in the affirmation of "being simultaneously sinful and righteous" (simul justus et peccator). The author presents much of Luther's theology, based on Luther's own works and selected Luther scholars, with a sympathy for the Scandinavian school and much praise for Rudolf Bultmann as one who uses the Lutheran structure to become "the most provocative advocate of Christianity in the modern world". Kierkegaard becomes the climax of the study since, in the mind of the author, he seems closest to providing an answer to the question of the relationship of the self to God.

Catholicism is presented on the basis of its roots in Thomism and the council of Trent. The author contends that there is a "Catholic incomprehension" of Lutheranism due to the fact that Luther is read as if he were an Augustinian. Even the most conciliatory Catholic interpreters of Luther (such as the Joseph Lortz school, represented by Otto Herrmann Pesch) have failed, contends the author, to comprehend Luther and Lutheranism. Thus a study of the structures of Lutheran and Catholic thought leads to the conclusion that they represent classic "Christian contradictions". But Hampson concedes that such a conclusion is also based on her own conviction that the particularity of any religion which claims a special revelation cannot deliver a satisfactory answer to the question of the relationship between the self and God. This is the dilemma of the "Christian dispensation".

It is unfortunate, indeed tragic, that the detailed work of the author is, in my opinion, misguided in the use of sources, especially in regard to Lutheranism. The standard work to which Lutherans subscribe as the formal "confessions" (or norms) is neither cited nor used, e.g. Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelischlutherischen Kirche (anniversary edition honouring the Augsburg confession of 1530, followed by many other editions, Gottingen, 1933), or, in English, The Book of Concord (latest edition by Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, Minneapolis, 2000). Moreover, widely used treatments of Lutheranism through interpretations of the Lutheran confessions (such as the one used by most Lutheran and other seminarians, Eric W. Gritsch and Robert W. Jenson, Lutheranism, 1976 and regular reprints) are equally absent as sources. It is puzzling why the long list of consulted scholars did not lead the author to these basic sources.

It would then have become clear that Lutheranism is shaped not only by Luther's thought, but even more by scripture and by the ecumenical tradition of the early church fathers before the Middle Ages, as affirmed in the extensive "catalogue of testimonies" in the appendix to the Lutheran confessions. Moreover, only three of Luther's writings are authoritative for Lutheranism (listed in The Book of Concord): the two catechisms and the Smalcald articles.

Finally, if there is any consensus in the vast literature about Luther it is the recognition that Luther was too unsystematic in his thought, actions and what might be called today "spirituality" to be presented in a contemporary thesis of "dialectical" thinking. Even when he himself once tried to write a systematic treatise on "justification" he did not finish it, calling it "rhapsodia". That is why article 7 of the Augsburg Confession speaks of true Christian unity as rooted in "word and sacrament"--a reminder that the "doctrine" of "justification by faith" is not only thought, but also celebration. The Lutheran-Catholic dialogue since Vatican II has begun to recognize that it is the structure of hierarchical offices, not just the structure of thought, that created the scandal of Christian schism in the West. Besides, the only time when Lutherans tried to summarize their faith in structures of thought was the very un-Lutheran "age of Orthodoxy" in the 17th century, when German Lutherans tried to defeat Trentine Catholicism. Only one contemporary Lutheran theologian, Werner Elert, has spoken of a "morphology of Lutheranism" (2 vols, 1932, translated as The Structure of Lutheranism, 1962). But he represented the well-known conservative school of Erlangen which, like many German theologians in the 17th century, tried to be "orthodox" through theological-philosophical systems. But even Elert did not limit himself only to structures of thought; he also included social and ethical "forms".

On the positive side, the book is well-written, presents some new insights and challenges theologians on both sides of the divide to look at new ways of ecumenism. Indeed, ecumenists standing outside Christianity have been quite helpful in providing new visions and helpful advice to Christians as they try to seek new ways towards unity. But they, like the insiders, must use the historical trajectory of the sources which define particular expressions of Christianity. Both Lutheranism and Catholicism define themselves in formal "confessions", be they the Augsburg confession or Vatican II. If structures of theological thought are only derived from a founding "father" such as Luther together with selected theologians, without reference to official church dogma or "confessions", they do not represent the real marks of a particular church, denomination or religious group. The author of this volume, however, wants to assess, indeed judge, Luther and Lutheranism--as well as Catholicism, though that only before Vatican II. Using this method becomes a severe pitfall when the aim is to make such decisive judgments on two churches as this author does, without consulting what they themselves regard as their treasures of faith.