LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Brock University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

16 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV Irenaeus sums up Paul’s teaching from Romans 5 in a similar fashion: [W]hen He became incarnate, and was made man, He summed up and began afresh [lit. “recapitulated”] the long line of men, and furnished us, in a brief, comprehensive manner, with salvation; so that what we had lost in Adam— namely, to be according to the image and likeness of God—that we might recover in Christ Jesus. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.xviii:1) 8 The Creed expresses this theology by framing its section on the Incarnation and salvation with forms of the word a;nqrwpoj—Christ became man to save us men. Could not the same point be made using a more “inclusive” term like “human” To a certain extent it could be. But the Creed confesses the Incarnation in a more precise way than simply saying that Christ became human. There is no generic “humanness” that exists apart from concrete people. To say that Christ became “human” is to confess the Incarnation far more weakly than to say He “was made man”. The ELLC text’s attempts to qualify “human” with “truly” or “fully” indicates their discomfort with the word. What the Creed confesses is that Christ became a man—both fully human and also a concrete male individual. The beauty of the word “man” is that it is capable of saying both things at once. Christ is “man” in the sense of both meanings one and four above. The feminist contention that Christ’s maleness limits salvation to males is not only contrary to the clear words of Scripture, but it is based on a linguistic misunderstanding. Furthermore, it neglects the vital significance of Adam. Christ became a man in order to 8 Irenaeus is particularly relevant for being the most significant writer from the era when the baptismal creeds were being formulated. The following additional citations from Irenaeus are also relevant: For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality. But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and immortality, unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had become that which we also are, so that the corruptible might be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that might receive the adoption of sons (Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.xix:1) Now this is His Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, who in the last times was made a man among men, that He might join the end to the beginning, that is, man to God. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.xx:4) [Christ] who, on account of His great love, became what we are, so that He might bring us to be what He Himself is. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies V:Preface) [T]he Word of God was made man, assimilating Himself to man, and man to Himself, so that by means of his resemblance to the Son, man might become precious to the Father. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies V.xvi:2)
WINGER: WHY MEN ANTHROPOLOGY IN THE NICENE CREED 17 redeem all those who sinned in the first man, Adam—and that includes both males and females of our race. That is St Paul’s teaching. In 1993 the Wisconsin Synod’s new hymnal Christian Worship adopted the ELLC text, reading “for us and for our salvation, he … became fully human”. The editors argued that since the Nicene Creed is an ecumenical text, we should use the universally accepted translation. Unfortunately, despite all the efforts of these pan-denominational committees, none of the modern proposals has become standard. The ICET and ELLC texts themselves have gone through numerous revisions, and many hymnals have modified the texts for their own use. 9 A good example of this is the recent prayer book of the Church of England, Common Worship (2000). After extensive public debate on the translation of the Nicene Creed, the Church of England decided to amend the ELLC text at this one point, reverting to the traditional “and was made man”. 10 Although American Episcopalians have adopted both instances of inclusive language in their 1979 BCP, most English-speaking Roman Catholics continue to use the traditional wording. Hence, the ELLC “inclusive” text is in no way fully ecumenical, but rather sectarian in both theology and usage. 11 The dilemma which our church has confronted over the translation of the creed is not entirely negative. For though we have found that none of the modern alternatives is entirely satisfactory, our reconsideration of the traditional translation presents us with a marvellous opportunity. With careful listening, objective judgement, and thorough catechesis, there is every hope that our church can come to a fuller understanding of the Gospel itself through deliberation on the beloved words of our creed. Rev. Thomas Winger, Th.D., is Assistant Professor of Theology at Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, St. Catharines, Ontario, deployed to Westfield House, Cambridge, England, as International Tutor. 9 The WELS hymnal, Christian Worship (1993), for example, modifies the ELLC text by changing “catholic” to “Christian”. The Lutheran Church of Australia has changed the ELLC’s “became fully human” to “became a human being” (Logia 3.1 [Jan. 1994]: 2). 10 Mark Beach, in an official companion volume, comments on this change: “Though the Church of England has clear guidelines for gender-inclusive language (detailed in Making Women Visible, 1989) it was felt that ‘human’ or ‘fully’ or ‘truly human’ were unsatisfactory either for stylistic reasons or because of resonances of fallibility (‘he’s only human’).” Using Common Worship: Holy Communion (London: Church House Publishing, 2000), 8. 11 A fuller discussion of this topic may be found in William C. Weinrich, “The New WELS Creed”, Concordia Theological Quarterly 56.2-3 (Apr.-Jul. 1992): 201-6; and Burnell F. Eckardt, Jr., “Who for Us Men”, Logia 5.3 (H. Trinity 1996): 77-78.
Page 1: LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW publish
Page 4 and 5: 4 STANDARD ABBREVIATIONS AE BAG BAG
Page 6 and 7: 6 Finally, Paul Landgraf reviews Da
Page 8 and 9: 8 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV pr
Page 10 and 11: 10 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV m
Page 12 and 13: 12 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV r
Page 14 and 15: 14 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV o
Page 18 and 19: LTR XV (Academic Year 2002-03): 18-
Page 20 and 21: 20 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV t
Page 24 and 25: 24 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV I
Page 28 and 29: 28 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV a
Page 30 and 31: 30 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV T
Page 32 and 33: 32 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV f
Page 34 and 35: 34 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV P
Page 36 and 37: 36 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV I
Page 38 and 39: 38 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV h
Page 46 and 47: 46 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV C
Page 50 and 51: 50 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV B
Page 52 and 53: 52 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV w
Page 56 and 57: 56 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV M
Page 58 and 59: 58 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV O
Page 64 and 65: 64 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV M
Page 66 and 67:
66 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV G
Page 68 and 69:
68 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV o
Page 70 and 71:
70 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV t
Page 72 and 73:
72 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV o
Page 74 and 75:
74 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV r
Page 76 and 77:
76 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV C
Page 78 and 79:
78 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV s
Page 80 and 81:
80 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV I
Page 82 and 83:
82 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV B
Page 84 and 85:
84 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV i
Page 86 and 87:
86 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV a
Page 88 and 89:
LTR XV (Academic Year 2002-03): 88-
Page 90 and 91:
90 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV W
Page 92 and 93:
LTR XV (Academic Year 2002-03): 92-
Page 94 and 95:
94 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV u
Page 96:
96 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV H
show all

LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Brock University

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?