On 31 October, Protestants, particularly Lutherans, celebrate Reformation Day. The 31st of October is also known as All Hallows’ Eve, the day preceding All Saints Day on 01 November. That is why most Americans know 31 October as Halloween.
As Lutherans are generally aware, on 31 October 1517, Martin Luther published his 95 Theses Against Indulgences. Indulgences are an invention of the Roman Church designed to shorten one’s time in an invented place called purgatory. Purgatory is conceived as a place like hell where one is “purged” of one’s remaining sin in order to be purified for admittance into heaven. This past summer, Pope Francis issued yet another indulgence in connection with World Youth Day held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, last July. To keep up with the times, this indulgence could be obtained in part by following the pope on Twitter!
In Luther’s day, indulgences were sold with the motto, “As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs.” Nowadays, the motto might be, “When the Pope on the internet tweets, purgatory-bound souls get treats!” As the 31 October is both Reformation Day and Halloween, are indulgences a trick or a treat? Luther would say that they are a trick. The pope would say a treat. Who is right?
When tempting Adam and Eve to take and taste the fruit from the tree in the midst of the garden, the serpent said, “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5 – ESV). This empty promise is full of subtle irony. In order to be like God, knowing good and evil, Adam and Eve would first disregard God and his word, would then disobey God, and would finally do evil against God. Since then, sinful humanity has not changed much, continually carrying on the same way deluded into believing that we are “like God, knowing good and evil.” Such is the nature and reality of human sin.
With such inborn propensity to be wholly unlike God, how can sinful human beings know the difference between good and evil at all? How can any of us judge what is right and what is wrong, and more personally, who is right and who is wrong. In relation to the church and its proclamation and practices, what in the name of God is a trick and what is a treat and who is right?
Rightly (or wrongly), to make a distinction between good and evil, one needs to make judgements. Being judged and judging are inescapable realities of human life. People make decisions for, about, and against us long before we can make our own judgements and decisions. With time, we either enjoy the benefits or suffer the consequences of our own judgements and decisions. Complicating matters further is the fact that the results and repercussions of our judgements and decisions are either not immediate or sometimes remain unknown to us. When known, what often seemed good or evil at one time can later be perceived as exactly the opposite, as Adam and Eve learned all to well for the rest of humanity.
In western culture, particularly where Christendom once held sway, the world’s mores are in disarray. Religious humanists are at odds with religious fundamentalists of all stripes. Secularists dispute the right and rights of faith-based approaches to societal structures and dynamics. Modern Christians, caught and confused in such complexities, scrambling for clarity and security, find themselves not only at odds with members of other denominations but also with members of their own denominations.
As a result, Christians today are often more divided by culture than by theological confession. For example, is prayer in schools right or wrong? Is abortion right or wrong? Is same-sex “marriage” right or wrong? While stating that church teaching is clear on such matters, even Pope Francis is reported as saying that he cannot judge. In contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court has made judgements on such matters but by whose standards?
In his book Kingdom of God in America published in 1937, H. Richard Niebuhr summed the overall modern situation as such, “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross” (193). Today, unfortunately, even this insightful assessment about “men” might be judged to be “too sexist” to gain a rightful hearing.
For better or for worse, Niebuhr’s portrayal of modern humanity’s vacuous understanding of “God’s righteousness” is a far cry from Luther’s experience prior to his Reformation discovery of a wrathful God raking souls over the coals of hell and purgatory. Reflecting upon his Reformation discovery, Luther described his religious life so,
“Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God, and said, ‘As if, indeed, it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the decalogue, without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!’ Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience” (Luther’s Works, 34:336-337).
What accounts for this monumental shift in perspective of both God and humanity between Luther’s day and secularized Christianity today? Could one not justifiably argue that Luther’s rediscovery of justification by faith alone (apart from works of the law) itself has led incrementally to modernity’s emasculation and evisceration of God and God’s law? Figuratively, is this not why Halloween (and bobbing for apples) has effectively supplanted nearly all cognizance of Reformation Day? Even the U.S. Supreme Court would not hazard an opinion on this matter. So, who is right and who is wrong? What is good and what is evil? Who can reserve for him- or herself proper justification to make judgements for justice? (Part II in November)
