Over on Kirby's blog, in the midst of a peculiar discussion of what Martin Luther believed, jh asked, “what would luther have said regarding mother theresa of calcutta.” I begged for more time, because I don't think this is an easy question, and I think it deserves a careful answer. And part of the complication, which I'll acknowledge, is that jh is himself a monk, and therefore imbedded in his question, intentionally or not, is a more than a little bit of “what would Luther think of me?” I'd like to give answers (to the former explicitly, to the later implicitly) that are both sensitive and accurate.
The big complication in the case of Mother Teresa, and a major part of the reason that I asked for time to research and think, has to do with revelations of the spiritual “emptiness” that silently dominated the last half-century of her life. This engages a major theological concern of Luther, albeit in an extraordinary way.
My approach to this question will be to view Mother Teresa of Calcutta from three different perspectives, each of which aligns with particular Lutheran concerns, and in order from greater certainty to lesser how I think Luther would have reacted to each.
Good Works
Mother Teresa is known for her work in Calcutta, attending to the sick and dying, and eventually to orphans as well. Teresa has received many honors from her work, from both temporal and religious authorities.
Luther surely would have applauded Teresa's good works. His concern about good works was that many of the people of the day felt that they needed to earn their way into heaven through good works, and that this was an impossible obligation. Indeed, he'd have vehemently rejected the possibility that even Teresa's good works were adequate in and of themselves to earn salvation. But Teresa never said they were. She didn't do good works to get into heaven, she did good works because she felt a very specific “call within the call,” and so her good works were a direct response to faith. Luther would have approved.
Teresa's calling as a Nun
The Augsburg confession is divided into two major parts. The first part consisted of a summary of basic theological commitments that the German princes thought were relatively non-controversial, the “Chief Articles of Faith.” They were wrong—the Catholics found plenty in that part to object to. The second part, “Disputed Articles, Listing the Abuses That Have Been Corrected” they knew would be controversial. Article XXVII, “Concerning Monastic Vows” belongs to the second part.
This article, in large part, sets up a distinction between monastic communities of Augustine's time (which were viewed favorably), with the monastic communities of Luther's day. It seems to me that many of the particular concerns he had regarding the monastic communities of his day have been dealt with by subsequent reformers within the monastic orders, and he would only have minor concerns about contemporary communities.
A principle distinction was that monasticism during the Augustinian era was seen as a voluntary association of adults, whereas the sixteenth century communities (at least in Germany) were not. Instead, pre-pubescent children were coerced into giving final vows of chastity, long before they could give informed consent. And once these vows were given, the church was able to use the full authority of the state to enforce them as contracts. Teresa took final vows in her mid-20's, and was certainly willing and able at that point to give informed consent. Moreover, there is no evidence that I'm aware of that coercion played any role in Teresa's call to be a nun, or to remain a nun. The evidence seems quite to the contrary. Luther never denied the possibility that a person might be able to make and sustain a commitment to monastic service, and I believe he would have seen Teresa's call as valid, and her accepting of that call as honorable and laudable.
The reformers were also concerned that monasticism was presented as something superior to baptism. Remember that part of the theoretical justification for indulgences was supererogation, the notion that the church possessed a reserve of excess merit created by the monastic orders which it could dispense to those it chose. I don't see that this kind of consideration was relevant to Teresa, or indeed to the contemporary Catholic church more generally. Teresa was inspired by missionaries, and sought to emulate them as the most fulfilling kind of life for her. Again, I think Luther would have approved.
Indeed, Luther would have been greatly reassured by the temptations that Teresa experienced early in her special ministry to the dying to give up, and return to the monastery, and with Teresa's ability to withstand that temptation. Luther expected the virtuous to be tempted, and to have to struggle, but that through Christ's grace, they would persevere.
“Emptiness and Darkness”
No account of Mother Teresa's life can be complete without acknowledging the despair she felt for the last half-century of her life. The sense of the presence of God, which figured so prominently in her “call within a call” departed. And she felt a huge spiritual emptiness: no sense of the presence of God at all, “neither in her heart or in the eucharist.”
Luther felt that the works emphasis of the Catholicism of his day lead to despair. But while Teresa had the symptoms, she didn't have the disease. Her despair was not based on a fear that she wasn't doing enough, it was on the exceptional circumstance that the sense of the presence of God, once so powerful and life directing, was gone, leaving an unfillable void behind. I don't believe that Luther ever conceived of this possibility.
Certainly, he believed that the cure to existential crises over salvation was to embrace Christ's promises fervently and with confidence. Critics of Luther sometimes say that he's replaced the question of “have I done enough?,” with an even more problematic “have I believed fervently enough?,” not without justification. Teresa's experience would not have been easy for Luther to explain, or to handle within his system. I believe that Luther's own existential crises would have given him tremendous sympathy for Teresa. But I do not know how he would have judged her, and I cannot rule out the possibility that he'd have viewed her as condemned for her own lack of faith. I hope that someone who knows Luther's work more fully than I do can point to something that would rule this out.
A Concluding Thought
1 Kings 19:11-12 Now there was a great wind, so strong that it was splitting mountains and breaking rocks in pieces before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a sound of sheer silence.
Teresa's experience is not unique among contemplatives. We're all familiar with St. John of the Cross's phrase, “the dark night of the soul.” This is what Teresa experienced. I cannot imagine how hard it must have been, yet she never departed from her “call within a call.” And although it would not have eased her pain to hear it, I believe that the LORD was in that sound of sheer silence in her soul.
Peace
14 comments:
by luther's day the apostolic orders the franciscans the dominicans had clearly distinguished themselves from the monastic culture of the previous 1000yrs...the sisters of loretto the order into which teresa entered grew out of that apostolic (work oriented) world...she then went on to establish her own order the missionaries of charity
monasteries were places where all kinds of people showed up orphans were taken in foundlings the sick even criminals were offered sanctuary and often found their lives turning around in monastery penitentiaries....i would argue that most monasteries in the whole of europe (augustinians were generally in the cities - benedictines were generally more rural)were places of genuine faith...corruption was always and still is a problem in human nature...religious life is frought with peril i tell you what...but we rarely hear of the life in the monasteries that were doing well and the lives of the monks and nuns were notable for the virtues of humility and piety...luther saw some of the corruption in the houses around rome...most of the establishments in and around the holy city were the property of the medici family and had taken on some of the qualities of resort hideaways
but there were many houses in france and spain and in bavaria which were undergoing reforms already and were re-establishing a sensible structure by which to practice liturgical life...i would argue that the good monasteries outnumbered the corrupt ones by far
from a catholic point of view the "dryness" of teresa's prayer life comes as no surprise and is not an occasion for wonderment at all...the implied point to be made is that it is about faith not about experience of god or some way of articualting "knowledge of god"
indulgences were a way of giving full expression to the religious cosmology in the way that the catholic church understood it...people believed in the power of sacramental grace and believed that that power extended beyond existential parameters...and to a large extent they still do...people still give money for masses to be said...the practice now is that it is made public during the prayers of the faithful or during the eucharistic prayer
kirby at least expresses a suspicion of the christian reliance on the concept of agape
i don't know to what degree mother teresa expressed this but it would seem that it is a response to what is understood as god's gift to us...being a practically minded person i suspect she observed the great workings of charity and prayer in the church and saw this as sufficient evidence of god's goodness that and the fact of human life and her seeming undying ability to see the beauty of god in even the most wretched of souls
she did say something in her nobel prize address about touching the wounds of christ in touching the wounds of the untouchables
from a catholic point of view teresa's experience was sola fides in a most complete sense and her works were exactly in line with the proscriptions of faith as articulated in the letter of james
technically the dark night of the soul is something a little more intense - it is not aridity per se - it is closer to full blown chronic depression...and i don't think she ever allowed herself the luxury of giving herself over to anything like that -- too much work to do --- the descriptions in catholic literature of the dark night are generally quite disturbing...you could read some of gerard manley hopkins dark sonnets to get a sense of it all
a person facing the dark night best have a spiritual guide to help the matter along...aridity in prayer is a common occurence perhaps not described with as much frankness and with reference to a time span like teresa's...but that only makes her case for sola fides all the more plausible from my point of view
your assumption that i may be implying a selfcriticism emerging from lutheran dialectics is interesting...it never occurred to me...my corporal works of mercy pale in comparison to teresa...i'm more of a bum... on a prayer schedule to be sure...but hardly motivated by zealouos activity of any sort other than reading and playing music...luther might find me hopelessly corrupt
good post
thanks for taking up the question
teresa once made the observation that the poverty in USA was far deeper and pernicious than that of india...for all around them the poor are faced with the display of cultural opulence
j
jh—
I'm going to break my reaction into little pieces, but let me begin by thanking you for your insights.
Regarding the situation in monasteries in Luther's time...
I certainly believe that there were good situations as well as bad. And I don't think that even Luther would have claimed that all of the monasteries of his time were iniquitous. And thank you for reminding me of Luther's trip to Rome. I think it was important in this context, and I'd forgotten about it.
One part of the framing of Luther's experience seems to have been a more general conflict between the Dominicans and the Augustinians, which predated Luther, and for which he became a lighting rod. The Dominicans (the bad guys in Lutheran histories) end up being portrayed as being self-satisfied, contentious, rigid apologists who sought favor for defending the status quo, whereas the Augustinians (the good guys) are portrayed as earthier and warmer, but also better educated, and "more modern." I'd be interested in your perspective here on the differences between these orders. As a Benedictine, I see you (perhaps inaccurately) as being something of a neutral third party, albeit with a possible lean towards the Dominicans, given how things played out.
Part of this was that Luther was (if my recollection here is correct) the principal correspondent for his monastery, and that he was therefore particularly well informed regarding Augustinian monasteries in Germany and beyond. So I think he was generalizing based on more than just local circumstances, and that his role as correspondent pushed him into contact and conflict on behalf of his order with the Dominicans before his particular issues came to the fore.
I'll also point to a few examples I know of—Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross—who were roughly contemporaneous with Luther, who were also involved in major efforts to reform (or even reconstitute) their monastic orders. And indeed, my recollection of their histories is that they were supported at times by some bishops, and suppressed at times by others, while themselves holding constant positions.
I don't think that Luther was an easy man to handle, but I also think that history played out the way it did because he was particularly badly handled—even more so than Teresa or John.
i would argue that the good monasteries outnumbered the corrupt ones by far
I'm not convinced of the "outnumbered by far" part. I don't doubt that there were good and bad. But Luther (and the others) weren't reacting to nothing. If problems were exceptions, and simply the inevitable result of human sinfulness, then I don't think there'd have been the kind of broad push for reforms across the monastic movements that occurred at that time (and of which Luther was a mere part). At the same time, if Luther saw nothing of value in the monastic orders, he'd have been calling for dissolution early on, and that was never really the case. Indeed, there are Lutheran monks even today, although very few.
jh—
from a catholic point of view the "dryness" of teresa's prayer life comes as no surprise and is not an occasion for wonderment at all...the implied point to be made is that it is about faith not about experience of god or some way of articualting "knowledge of god"
Let me unpack this a bit. I was under the impression that there were three distinct phases of Teresa's faith life.
During the first, "ordinary" phase, Teresa grew to adulthood, was drawn to a vocation as a nun, and embarked upon and committed to that life. During this phase, she was motivated by "common" belief and faith, by which I mean the least-common-denominator experience that the overwhelming majority of Christians have: God exists, but without a sense of profound personal engagement.
During the second phase, which began sometime after her final vows, she came to experience God (perhaps specifically Jesus, I don't know) in an intense, personal way. It was during this period that the "call within the call" occurred. And that call was direct and experiential.
During the third phase, that sense of personal experience was left with a void, and she was bereft of even the ordinary experience at God is at work in the world around us. This phase lasted most of her life.
The third phase, without the second, seems quite ordinary. It is the second phase, and its loss, that makes her story so poignant. And this is where I think the "dark night" comes from: not merely the absence of the sense of the presence of God, but the absence following the strongest possible sense of his presence.
Do you see her faith history differently?
jh—
indulgences were a way of giving full expression to the religious cosmology in the way that the catholic church understood it...people believed in the power of sacramental grace and believed that that power extended beyond existential parameters...and to a large extent they still do...people still give money for masses to be said...the practice now is that it is made public during the prayers of the faithful or during the eucharistic prayer
kirby at least expresses a suspicion of the christian reliance on the concept of agape
My perception is that Catholic practice has been reformed since the 16th century, so much so that Luther would have little to complain of today in this regard. I'm sure you're right as regards the religious cosmology of the time. Luther's objection wasn't so much to the cosmology, it was to the marketplace that was built upon it. I'm sure he saw parallels between what he was doing, and traditional explanations of what Jesus was doing when he overturned the money-changers' tables at the temple.
I'm not sure what Kirby's getting at. I think he sees "love" as soft and fuzzy, whereas "true Lutheran faith" is hard.
jh—
from a catholic point of view teresa's experience was sola fides in a most complete sense and her works were exactly in line with the proscriptions of faith as articulated in the letter of james
I think we evaluate Teresa of Calcutta in much the same way.
Regarding James, I'm currently reading the Hermeneia commentary on James. So far, so good.
A few points. James isn't a letter, its a (narratively disconnected) collection of wisdom sayings, with the merest suggestion of an epistelatory envelope, and that psuedo-letters were a common literary device of the era.
The commentator points to Tobit 4 as an analogous text, with others. Many of the wisdom sayings in James have a non-Christian provenance. This does not make them less true. He also points to the lack of an identifiable (or even plausible) audience, and also a lack of identification (beyond the name) regarding authorship. Indeed, the only real autobiographical detail that he can extract from the text itself is that James was teacher (cf. James 3:1). He also points to repetition of "keywords" in successive, but otherwise thematically unlinked, verses, as indicative of "paraenetic materials."
You'd like the quote at the beginning: "If the Epistle is ‘of straw,’ then there is within that straw a very hearty, firm, nourishing, but as yet uninterpreted and unthrashed, grain." Johann Gottfried Herder
jh—
your assumption that i may be implying a selfcriticism emerging from lutheran dialectics is interesting...it never occurred to me...
I think we're all central players in our own narratives, but the better mannered among us don't emphasize that.
my corporal works of mercy pale in comparison to teresa...
There are very few, and perhaps none now living, whose works of mercy eclipse hers. It's a good thing for all of us that she's a model, not a benchmark.
i'm more of a bum... on a prayer schedule to be sure...but hardly motivated by zealouos activity of any sort other than reading and playing music...luther might find me hopelessly corrupt
Hmm. Luther did criticize some monks as being lazy, and it's pretty clear that he didn't think much of them. The problem here for me is that I don't know how to interpret your self description. In comparison to Teresa, we're all bums. Luther loved music, he loved scholarship, and he even loved beer. He was notorious for having his favorite toilet seat. He might have found you hopeless corrupt. Of course, if you're doing useful work (e.g., teaching in the college), he'd have thought you were just fine. So you'd know better than I.
teresa once made the observation that the poverty in USA was far deeper and pernicious than that of india...for all around them the poor are faced with the display of cultural opulence
Yes and no. The poor in the US usually have TVs, and did so even when they cost 10x what they do now in real terms. There are very few starving poor in the US. And there are billboards in India, and a few very rich people (in relative terms). What I find more pernicious is the cultural sense in the US that the rich are rich, and the poor are poor, deservedly.
The only people in the US who starve are anorexics like Karen Carpenter, or people who forgot to pack their lunch before hiking, and then got lost.
I don't know what to say about what I find distressing about this whole helping others bit. I don't think it's right to do this. I do think it's right to show another person how to take care of themselves, but wrong to enslave them by making them reliant on you.
I also think capitalism is better than any kind of communal sharing. In the long run it puts everyone on their own two feet.
The notion that the government is going to make buying cars better, and insurance easier and cheaper is sheer folly, and will only degrade the government's currency, degrading all of us -- in the long run.
We need everyone to stand on their own two feet. The lazy and the indigent should not get equal rewards with the enterprising, as this enables the lazy to lie around and wait for the enterprising to take care of them. Everyone should have to function, except the totally nonfunctional, like the bubble babies and the bubble brains. Those people can be spoon fed, but everybody else should get off their duff and provide a service or a product, or capitalize on the fish in the river.
This whole idea of enabling others to be lazy while pumping ourselves up over how virtuous we are: virtue is the worst vice, and leads only to hubris.
I don't think anyone should ever help anyone else: it's an enormous trap for the soul. We should step lightly over bums who appeal to our pride -- a sin -- run screaming from them. They are the devil incarnate trying to trap us in the most subtle of sins, and the most completely damning.
Always try to get the other to function.
Unless of course they're bubble babies. You have to think of how the whole thing is playing out as a system. Capitalism is ultimately the best thing for everyone's soul, and to help others into the game, is a good.
To hurt others' souls by feeding them when they should feed themselves, is the utter crime of communism into which Mother Theresa fell. Mothers are useful to children, but they shouldn't try to infantilize fully grown adults and make them dependent on them.
That, in essence, IS communism. It simultaneously appeals to the sin of laziness on the one hand, and to the sin of pride on the other.
It's the most subtle of sins in the whole pantheon.
kirby you are misguided when having to face the basic communitarian teaching of jesus
the gospels insist that it is about community not about each man each individual for himself
teresa addressed a social stigma of caste system politics in india and she exposed it's inherent injustice and the people of india have responded
charity in truth
the new encyclical by the holy father
should be a must read for you
you are somehow perversely caught up in americanisms
the emphasis on personal advancement leads to grotesque images grotesque lives
and we see this everywhere parading around as "success"
the christian social message is essentially that we are all called to be christ to the wounds of the world adn we come to know who we are in life through our involvement with community
it is impossible to be christian without sacrifice
impossible to be christian without a commitment to the cross to the whole narrative of redemptive selfgiving
do you know the work of rene girard?
there's nothing so insidious in the world as the smiling indifference of the smug christian
teresa was able to see the face of christ in the people india was taught to not touch
i think you are called to see christ in the misguided marxists
it's just that you refuse to do that
perhaps at some level you're afraid of jesus
j
I think I understood Jesus to mean that there are two kingdoms, and when he was really going strong,he was talking about the other kingdom (the Sermon on the Mount was about the world to come).
He was up high to denote that this was what was coming.
I could be wrong.
I don't know much about Mother Theresa.
I would be happier if the community got on its own two feet instead of continuing reliance on western aid.
Most third world countries don't function due to local corruption.
If they could stop that, it would be nice.
Meanwhile, you're only enabling the bad people by sending aid to countries where corruption sneaks off with 95% of it.
You have to think about whole systems, rather than the spiritual lift that "giving" gives you -- a high as cheap s marijuana -- and should be illegal.
It should be illegal to give anything but knowledge to the poor. Knowledge is what they need.
People are too stingy with that.
The poor of the world should be given books about James Madison.
yes two kingdos
but the kingdom of heaven has come near and it is in the busines of destroying and remaking the kingdoms of this world the manmade kingdoms
are now to be infused with the values of the kingdom of heaven
manmade law imposes and entraps and oppresses..in much the same way it did christ himself in the final days of his ministry
either he offers us a way out of the insidious snares of manmade law or he is joking
either he shows a different way for people to contemplate their relationships with one another or he's joking
either he's insisting upon recognition of god alive in each individual or he's joking
john kenneth galbraith insisted that USA simply write off the debt india owed to USA...jfk responded...nobody was hurt by this
either were about lifting the burdens of others or jesus is a big old joker with teeth missing and an uproarious laugh
do justice have mercy walk humbly with your god
j
Kirby's the sort of loud fundamentalist (notwithstanding his "beat" get-up) who converts fence-sitters into doubters. At times he writes something interesting--now sounds like he wants a job at Fox.
Glenn Beck. Winston Churchill. Nixon. Really quite unbelievable.
J—
Kirby is quite the character. It is not always clear whether he believes the things he says, or whether he's just stirring the pot. I tend to the position that it's a mixture of both—that he really believes this stuff, but that he presents it with an extra measure of stridency and naivete because he knows it will get a rise out of folks.
And trust me when I say that you've entered the stream of his blog at a rather placid time. There are a couple of voices absent for the moment that inspire in you the same warm human feelings that his slaves felt for Cato the Elder.
But Kirby's blog remains an interesting place, if only because the cast of regulars is such that it divides in different ways depending on the question at hand.
Post a Comment