In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

10 Complementarity: Word and Sacrament How does anyone come to believe? From a purely empirical standpoint we might point today to three factors: socialization by parents, religious instruction or belonging to a particular group, and one’s own psychosomatic constitution, as described by Fritz Riemann in terms of basic forms of anxiety, which brings particular needs to light; finally, experiences in the course of an individual’s life may play a part. Of course, all those things could also lead to unbelief! In any case, this is no explanation for the origins of faith. In Luther’s understanding faith arises out of the encounter with the word of God in its verbal and non-verbal forms. The Augsburg Confession summarizes, very much in line with the Reformer’s idea, that: “To obtain such faith God instituted the office of the ministry, that is, provided the Gospel and the sacraments. Through these, as through means, he gives the Holy Spirit, who works faith, when and where he pleases, in those who hear the Gospel.” What are the questions associated with this approach today? Contemporary Questions In the Reformation period spoken language was meeting a high level of competition—technically because of the invention of printing and the rapidly rising level of education, at least in the cities, and in content because of the cultural significance of new humanistic ideas. In the interim that has changed decisively. On the one hand, at present we are suffering from an explosion of words: words provide the information society with such an abundance of data that an individual can no longer master it. On the other hand—especially as a result of the proliferation of television—optical impressions seem to be depriving words of their primacy. Add economic and political advertising strategies that, with or without images, seek to manipulate their willing or even unwilling recipients. In light of these developments the Sunday sermon 221 222 The Theology of Martin Luther is something of a wallflower. This can only be intensified by deficiencies within the church itself, namely when the preachers do not rely on their own theological competence and personal testimony of faith but copy their sermons from the Internet, for example, and then read them, with only minor alterations, to a bored congregation. There are also, of course, some basic problems with regard to the function of words and speech in general, and in particular about what should be understood by the phrase “the word of God.” What can words provide, beyond mere information? It is true that linguistic analysis presumes that a performative moment is always connected with any information, but how is the performative power of a speech intensified, and what are the criteria for its legitimacy? Must speakers stand behind what they say, or is a distanced communication sufficient? Does the subjective conviction of the preacher, sometimes paired with emotion, heighten the penetrating power of the word? Words may serve to awaken or sketch memories; they can arouse expectations whose fulfillment either occurs or remains forever lacking. What situational conditions in our dealings with words can we observe? Luther gave no thought to these things, even though he paid great homage to language itself. His problem was how to convey the word of God in such a way that it both confronted people with God’s law and communicated the consolation of the Gospel. How did the word of God become the vehicle of the Spirit of God? Does it have this function of itself, automatically, so to speak, although presupposing that the Spirit has the freedom to work “when and where it pleases God”? What is the role of experience in this? What can we say if people have no experience of the word of God (and the sacrament)? Is the word of God bound in any way to human words? What about inner experiences that occur when hearing music, looking at a work of art, meditating according to a method, or in the ecstatic act of sexual love? How is the word of God embedded in overarching contexts of experience and action? How and in what way does it arouse which reactions? When preaching at worship one is supposed—here I am loosely quoting Wilhelm Busch—to “sit firmly on the chair,” in church and also in school. Under those circumstances are concrete reactions even possible, such as would instigate or strengthen a process of dialogue out of which and in which...

Share