What Has Wittenberg to Do with Azusa? Luther’s Theology of the Cross and Pentecostal Triumphalism by David J. Courey (review)

Scholars know that Luther was hostile to much that is associated with modern Pentecostalism, such as direct spiritual inspirations and a prominent role for miracles. In The Third Reformation? Charismatic Movements and the Lutheran Tradition (1983), Carter Lindberg argued that Luther and charismatic Christianity are basically incompatible. Certain Lutheran charismatics notwithstanding, Pentecostals have not done much to dispel this view, preferring Luther the symbolic religious hero to Luther the theologian.

According to Courey, Luther and Pentecostalism can become constructive dialogue partners when one sees that in his supernaturalism, concept of priesthood of all believers, apocalypticism, and spiritual experience, “Luther actually demonstrates remarkable sympathies of heart with Pentecostalism” (2). Furthermore, Pentecostalism must be distinguished from “Pentecostal triumphalism,” a type of over-realized eschatology that draws on both restorationism and perfectionism. This, Courey asserts, is not true Pentecostalism, and it yields an uncompromising perspective with Pentecostals as a privileged class who experience mystical union with God and are assured present victory in spiritual warfare. Pentecostal himself, Courey is eager to rid his tradition of this triumphalism, which, as he says, raises expectations that are inevitably frustrated by experience and may be to blame for North American Pentecostalism’s institutional stagnation.

Luther enters as a “corrective” to Pentecostal triumphalism, which, as a theology of glory, is analogous to Luther’s opposition both Protestant and Catholic. As Luther suggests in the Heidelberg Disputation (1518), the only cure for a theology of glory is the theology of the cross. To refine Luther’s basic insight into “more than a damning bludgeon with which to decimate the entire Pentecostal project as a theologia gloriae” (115), Courey calls on Bonhoeffer and Moltmann. Bonhoeffer’s penultimate/ultimate distinction correlates to Luther’s internal/external categories, suggesting that for Luther internal spiritual experience can be seen as a positive but limited (penultimate) phenomenon. Moltmann articulates the resurrection theme that is inherent but largely latent in Luther’s theology of the cross.

From these sources, Courey elaborates on a pneumatologia crucis that reorients restorationism and an eschatologia crucis that reorients perfectionism. Between the two stands the Pentecostal baptism of the Holy Spirit, which “fills the gap between god-forsakenness as it is experienced in the broken reality of this age and the fulfilment of eschatological promises as it exists in the age to come” (198). Courey can thus correct three areas of Pentecostal spirituality while “honor[ing] the historical intent of Pentecostalism” (186). Spiritual experience is revealed as always penultimate and oriented toward service. Perfectionism is transformed into sanctification as the destruction of the project of self-justification, with the believer always in a passive role. The miraculous is understood sacramentally and therefore cruciform, with speaking in tongues interpreted as “groaning with creation” in eschatological expectation, and healing recognizing both Christ’s resurrection victory and God’s hidden presence where healing is not experienced.

The church and the academy need this type of cross-traditional historical theology. Courey is to be commended for his breadth of research in Luther, pietism, modern theology, and historical Pentecostal literature. His writing is meticulous and clear. Although Courey believes that the Pentecostal orientation towards resurrection may contribute to today’s Lutheran theology, his focus is on the Lutheran contribution to Pentecostalism. Historians of Pentecostalism and American evangelicalism will also find constructive discussion on Pentecostalism’s relationship to fundamentalism.

But theologians—particularly Lutherans—will spot some trouble. For instance, Courey fails to see assurance of salvation as Luther’s central concern regarding the enthusiasts, instead focusing on Luther’s disdain for enthusiasts’ mystical extremes (226). Also, Courey’s “sacramental” interpretation of healing and tongues rests on a misconception that for Luther, faith contributes to the essence of the sacrament (236). Finally, Courey obscures the categorical “death and life” nature of Luther’s theology of the cross, describing the cross as the “reduction of the self...