Improvisation as a theological method, part 4: Martin Luther and Conclusion.

 Martin Luther: speak more good than true

"'You are not to bear false witness against your neighbor.' What is this? Answer: We are to fear and love God, so that we do not tell lies about our neighbors, betray or slander them, or destroy their reputations. Instead we are to come to their defense, speak well of them, and interpret everything they do in the best possible light."

To speak well of our neighbors, that is the point of the seventh commandment (or the eighth, according to the Orthodox or Reformed reading). There are several aspects of interest here. To begin with, a good reputation is something invaluable for a person. To lose face has always been a disaster, but never has it been such a threat as in the internet era. To ruin someone's reputation has never been as simple to do as it is today. Once suspicion is leveled (about, say, sexual harassment or economic dishonesty) no explanations will suffice to restore the dignity of the suspected one. Even when the allegation is proved to be entirely false, the rumour does not vanish from the net. To speak well and to speak true is something we do not live without as human beings.
 

It is worth to note that Luther turns the prohibition ("do not!") into a positive commandment ("speak well!") Luther does the same with the other commandments, too. The fifth commandment does not merely preclude killing, but enjoins instead to "help and support [our neighbor] in all of life's needs." Is it fair to say that Luther anticipates the modern, positive pedagogics? It is largely known that prohibitions and bans have limited success in educating children. When I am told what I ought to do (or what I can do), it motivates me more than if I were just told what I am not to do.
 

  The seventh commandment has to do with our speech about other people, and not just that. According to the Genevan Catechism, it involves our thoughts as well. Calvin explains that we are "to think well of [our neighbors] as far as the truth will permit." Speaking about truth, it is noteworthy that Luther does not mention it here at all. Instead, Luther seems to think that one has to make up good things in favor of one's neighbor. To speak well is more important than to speak truthfully. That is indicated by the words "interpret everything they do in the best possible light." In a word, positive lies are allowed in the name of love?
 

What is the reason to speak more good than true - a principle that ultimately violates the objective truth? There are hardly other than theological reasons, since this kind of action is not tenable within a strictly human justice. The doctrine of justification through faith alone proclaims God who acts precisely this way. God sees us as holy and perfect in Christ, a vision that contradicts everything that is obvious. Behind the everyday truth there is a truth more deep and wide: if it is true that Christ has taken away the sin of the whole world, then God must see nothing in the world but "purification and righteousness", as Luther puts it in his Commentary on Galatians. A Christian must observe the world similarly to God. That is why it is proper to speak more good than true.
 

Thus a Christian is not only free, but also obliged to view other people and the world in a positive and creative way. Luther’s interpretation of the seventh commandment is one of his most innovative notions, something that is not anticipated – to the best of my knowledge – in patristic or medieval theology. It adds a crucial factor to the theological improvisation: if the Scripture is the sheet music of our faith, then love for neighbor is the key in which we play. Love does not here refer mainly to a subjective emotion but to the needs of the neighbor. “A Christian does not live within himself, but in Christ and his neighbor”, states Luther in his On the Freedom of a Christian. Liberated through faith, a Christian is free to concentrate on the needs of other people: A Christian life means that “all works should be directed toward the good of the neighbor, because everyone has enough for himself in his faith, and all other works and life are superfluous for him, so he may thereby serve his neighbor freely out of love.”

Conclusion

The above examination of theological improvisation, a lens through which I have been reading Gregory the Great, Bernard of Clairvaux and Martin Luther, demonstrates the tenets of recent scholarship, that is largely benefited by new approaches, especially of those whose voice has not been heard before. We may learn from the passionate and creative way the great Christian thinkers interpreted the Holy Scripture. In the words of The International Handbook of Practical Theology: "Instead of viewing a multiplicity of biblical interpretation as a threat to monolithic theological orthodoxy, practical theology entertains an openness to the ambivalent role of the Bible as both liberating and oppressive."

 
The idea of musical improvisation may prove advantageous to the discussion about sexual and gender equality that was introduced at the outset. The modern idea of human rights with gender pluralism included has generally been viewed as something that has been brought to the church from outside, as something non-Christian. However, it is impossible to think of modern human rights without the influence of Christianity. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28) True, Christianity is not the one source of human dignity: human rights stem as well from Judaism and Greek philosophy, other traditions not excluded. All these religious and secular traditions improvise the theme of love in turn. Western secular humanism was conceived within Western Christianity. It has been critical, sometimes even hostile to the Christian tradition, being nevertheless “haunted by Christianity”, to use the words of Rowan Williams. It has developed, or improvised, the Christian theme of love further and is now giving it back to the Church. 

Can Christians accept this gift of humanism and recognize it as something that originally belongs to them? Before answering that, it is fair to note that of course St Paul does not speak about homosexuality or plurality of gender to Galatians. Would he have approved that? Surely not. Could we understand “neither Jew nor Greek, neither male of female” in a way that includes the contemporary view of sexuality? Probably yes, in the spirit of improvisational attentivity. In terms of improvisation there are two major faults that the church can make. The first is to decline, or to refuse to accept the gift and challenge proposed by the new awareness of human rights. The second is to receive it unaltered, to reiterate the phrase without an own contribution. The models of the past generations, here exemplified by Gregory the Great, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Martin Luther demonstrate that the creative potential of Christianity is something that should not be underestimated. The best days of Christian theology are yet to come.