This summer, I came upon a blog review about Hammer of God from someone with a Catholic background. The review particularly felt there was little the book did to engage non-Protestant spirituality, so I naturally suggested Faith Alone (also by Giertz) since one of its main characters is a Catholic priest. My friendly co-reviewer not only went on to read my review of the book but at least one other post of mine on Giertz and the book itself. He later left me a comment linking his review which you can find here. I was rather shocked to find it accuse Giertz of pacifism against Nazi Germany, gnosticism, and neo-scholasticism. It also suggested a strong divide between Giertz and Luther. It will be the task of this blog post to offer a reply, and a defense of Giertz towards these accusations and clarify. I fear that it has terribly missed the mark. This appears to be a result of trying to understand Giertz according to a Catholic theological paradigm.
1. An Honest Assessment
I felt in general, the blog reflected a poor grasp of Lutheran theology (Giertz and the tradition he pulled from), something I already commented on in his review if Hammer (which he references in the post). He definitely does write from a Roman Catholic standpoint, and from that, I should not be surprised that he is not too positive in his view of Faith Alone in that there is a clear Reformational critique of the Catholic theological schema that he is still steeped in. This comes out especially in his concern of Giertz's critiques of self-righteous piety, alms-giving, prayer, etc. Both the passages of scripture he quotes and the other sources he cites gives the impression that faith is to be lived especially through imitatio Christi. And frankly, like his Catholic compatriots of the Reformation, faith seems to be entirely misunderstood as "knowledge". This is a similar misunderstanding for the Reformers, where faith is understood largely as an assent to a series of facts/events. Melanchthon was careful to stress that what the evangelical preachers mean by faith is something entirely different.
"The opponents imagine that faith is nothing more than a knowledge of history...But the faith that justifies is not only a knowledge of history; it is to assent to the promise of God, in which forgiveness of sins and justification are bestowed freely on account of Christ. To avoid suspicion that it is merely knowledge, we will add further that to have faith is to desire and to receive the offered promise of the forgiveness of sins and justification.
It is easy to determine the difference between this faith and the righteousness of the law. Faith is that worship which receives the benefits that God offers; the righteousness of the law is that worship which offers God our own merits. God wants to be honored by faith so that we receive from him those things that he promises and offers." (Apology IV)
In the Augsburg Confession, Melanchthon defines the fundamental difference as believing "not only the history but also the effect of the history" (Article XX, Latin text). The author responed to my comment to him that "Luther never taught faith as an understanding or idea but a living trust in the word of promise" but seems to misunderstand what I meant by that, seeing it especially as living trust as described by Ratzinger (who I would say emphasizes one's own action more than trust in the promise itself). Additionally, he does not see this as what Giertz taught. He sees the goal of Giertz's theology to be the "right mental password". Giertz however understood faith exceptionally as a trust more than a formulaic set of ideas:
"There is still one more thing that marks a great faith. "Say only one word." More than anything else, it is faith in the word of Christ. It needs this word. it takes a firm grip on his word and holds it fast." (Giertz, Preaching from the Whole Bible)
"This man [who cries 'I believe, help my unbelief'] reacts in a way that can teach us something about true faith. He trusts in Jesus." (Giertz, The New Testament Devotional Commentary Vol 1)
"...a faith which can never die must mean a real life fellowship with Christ...There is faith which is called Christian but which is nothing else than a theory without life." (Giertz, "Faith Which Can Never Die")
We will see later that this same understanding of faith is found in Faith Alone specifically.
It was interesting, however, to read a review from a Catholic frame of mind. I thought that to some degree there would be more interest because of the Catholic character of Father Andreas who is perhaps the most three-dimentional character in the book. Giertz went to I think a great extent to capture the character's spirituality and show deep Catholic piety and why one would be more drawn to it and think higher of it than the new evangelical faith that was Sweeping Sweden at the time. I was surprised that the review spent rather little time on that as a whole. Instead, he was only able to point out the places where he felt that Giertz might have short-strawed Catholicism: namely, in the decision of the priest to shift to a different sacrament when unction could no longer be offered, and the need for penance to offer absolution. I do not know if there was "wiggle room" as it were in those days to shift to say reconciliation if unction was no longer an option. It does seem to be a reasonable speculation, although we should grant that Giertz may be in the right here (he was an astute historian). While that seems logical to us, there were in various corners of Catholicism at this time extremely rigid superstitions that did not allow wiggle room in practices. Some groups insisted that a certain number of candles on the altar were necessary for the mass - but they did not agree on what that number was (see Bokenkotter, Concise History of the Catholic Church, p244). Prior to the Reforms of Trent (and this book is set in the years just before Trent), such rigid and competing ideas abounded. The author is right that absolution precedes the penance. However, it was conditioned on penance (see Spitz, The Protestant Reformation p76). And the absolution could only absolve the guilt, not remit the penalty. The acts of penance were sometimes referred to as "satisfaction". In fact, penance was the term often used for the sacrament as a whole because of its central role in the sacrament. What Giertz is speaking on when Andreas desires to speak the absolution was that it could not be given apart from penance, even if absolution precedes it in the sacramental rite.
Overall though, I found the inability to connect with Father Andreas' faith interesting. I don't know if it is because it simply does not accurately enough reflect the author's Catholic spirituality (although if so he does not say why not as his critique of Giertz's portrayal seemed focused on those sacramental inaccuracies) or because the author struggles with Giertz's ultimate critique of it and the Father's inability to in the end derive comfort from it. The book's ultimate charge of the shallowness of deep piety certainly seemed to strike on a nerve, but it is only the book's charge that is taken up, not the accuracy of its portrayal of the piety. This is (if I may infer here) telling.
2. Freedom of a Christian
To help clarify and really bring to the fore what Giertz is getting at, we need to look at a few things that live in the background of this work. First, we should bring up the chief Reformational document behind this book: the climax of Martin Luther's three great treatises of 1520: Freedom of a Christian.
Freedom was Luther's great reply to Leo's papal bull Exsurge Domine of that same year. This particular work stands out in his works that followed because of the accompanying open letter to the Pope that Luther included with the treatise. Luther asserts his reasoning for stirring up controversy and appeals to the pope. "Therefore, most excellent Leo, allow me this once to make my case here and to accuse your true enemies.". Ultimately, the work is Luther's attempt to lay out the relationship between his Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone with his teachings on good works. What particularly is the relationship between the two?
In this Luther ultimately asserts that a Christian who is justified by faith is freed for good works to the neighbor. This freedom comes by way of his entire spiritual condition being tended to by Christ. Therefore, the Christian may instead turn her focus to the neighbor with love. This causes Luther to propose two seeming contradictory theses:
1. A Christian is a perfectly free Lord of all, subject to none.
2. A Christian is a perfectly bound slave of all, subject to all.
These two ideas he probably best captures in his quote "We conclude therefore that a Christian lives not in himself, but in Christ and in our neighbor. Otherwise he is not a Christian. He lives in Christ through faith, in his neighbor through love. By faith he is caught up beyond himself into God. By love he descends beneath himself into his neighbor."
This view totally accords with Paul's words "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." (Eph 2:8-10).
And Christ's own words, "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers" (John 15:5-6).
An important background piece: this work was beloved to Giertz's first wife, who died shortly before he wrote Faith Alone. Along with more of the dark night of the soul spirituality that Faith Alone has perhaps in relationship to her death, the emphasis on this work also cannot be stressed enough. This is abundantly clear in Martin's conversations with Peder:
"God does not want to have my good works. My neighbor shall have them. God wants to have my faith. So I shall trust him, pray to him at every turn and receive the Word that works faith within me. Before God, I shall not try to be pious. There I shall recognize that I am a great sinner. I shall not come jingling my good works. That is only to tease and challenge God. They are still like worm-heavy apples. There is always something wrong about them, and before God, they do not do. But to the neighbor, they can be good. You can very well foster your children, be decent toward your wife, serve your king, and help the poor, though there is much pride and smugness remaining in your poor heart. So God will use you to serve your neighbor even though you are a great sinner. He will not make you into some saint that he can put up among his pure angels, but he will let you live by grace and all the more grace you receive from heaven the more shall you serve here on earth - without demanding to be rewarded or asking to get a halo for it." -p202
The author even quotes one line from this, but misses the whole thrust. The author's assessment of spirituality in the book as a "secret password" based faith that does not seem interested in "love of Christ, or imitation of Christ, or even love of neighbor". Read this whole section and tell me that love of neighbor, and a lived faith, or worship do not matter in Faith Alone. On the contrary, these things are important, but they are put into their proper places which happens by faith. When these things supplant faith it is then that the salvation history is disregarded. Even Matthew 25 (which the author references as a way of suggesting Jesus wants our good works for himself) does not place love of neighbor at the center of the Christian's faith. This is abundantly clear by the mere fact that they did not focus on the good they did in faith. Faith understood through works is ultimately faith in good works. Faith in Christ will result in good works. This understanding is totally lost in the author's assessment of the book, yet it theologically undergirds the entire story.
3. The Ordo Salutis
The next thing we need to note is Giertz's use of the ordo salutis (order of grace). This is essential to understanding what he is doing theologically with the narrative of Faith Alone (as well as in Hammer of God). I tried to point this out to the blogger when I encouraged him to read Hammer according to "spiritual impoverishment". This is Giertz's way of understanding how it is that God works upon a person. What is especially important is Giertz's understanding of it not (as the author) puts it "The will to salvation" but rather the opposite:
"How does man find his way to God? First of all, we must understand that it is not man who finds the way to God by eventually working his way to him. No, rather, it is God who finds his way to man's heart." (Giertz, "Life by Drowning").
This is a crucial misunderstanding on the author's part of Giertz's work and again almost certainly comes from a view of the will born from a Catholic theological framework. It is important to wonder how this difference (as well as Giertz's understanding of faith) could be so blatantly missed. Especially once we get Herr Peder's sermon at the end:
"What then would carry us to God? What would be able to make a bridge over the bottomless abyss? Nothing in either heaven or earth except for the Mediator that God himself put between him and us. Nothing other than Christ, God's own Son, who became our brother to build a bridge across the abyss...
"Then on that day, he opened a path to God for sinners...You can now walk in peace on the path I have built even into my Father's heaven...
"...So in his love, he has prepared us a salvation that depends on faith alone. He has let Christ prepare a perfect redemption so that nothing more is proven than that we in faith, receive this work that is already completed. And this faith is not a work that we do. That which we achieve with our own faith that which is strong and perfect, or a faith that we embellish with love or good resolve, with that we immediately make it into a wretched visible work of man, and then we have shoved a new work and a new sin between God and us. Now, this true faith is nothing other than this, that the soul that is poor, destitute, and naked receives the Savior who is rich, righteous, and holy. He who has nothing may receive Him who possesses everything." -p252-254
The order of grace describes a series of the soul's experiences as God works faith on a person. To better understand the ordo itself one would do well to read "Life by Drowning". There Giertz addresses what are the heart of the ordo: the call (awakening), enlightenment by the law, and enlightenment by the gospel. This theology drives the narratives of both Hammer of God and Faith Alone.
Giertz talks more about the order in his recently translated Shepherd's Letter (check out my review). He writes:
"[The order of grace] is directly contrary to that which it is sometimes considered to be. In typical conformity with a doctrine of works, the skewed view tends to conceive of the order of grace as a teaching about the soul's way to God through a series of reforms and purifications. What the order of grace really describes is the complete opposite, how God's Spirit reveals man's total inability to convert himself, to honestly love God and altruistically serve his neighbor. Just so he helps a man come forward to the Redeemer who alone can save him. Seen most deeply, the order of grace is a teaching about faith, not a description of stages that man must go through in order to be a true Christian. It is a description of all the obstacles in the heart of man that arise on the way of faith, and of the work through which God's Spirit broke them down. What is essential in the order of grace is not the order but the grace."
I couldn't help but note how Giertz says the order emphasizes grace while the author quite differently said "One does not enter heaven because of undeserved grace but because of one's belief in undeserved grace". He misunderstands faith as a work instead of a result. And the ordo describes the ways God's grace brings about that result. Faith Alone is not about formulaic belief, but about understanding humanity's need for a Redeemer. What troubles the author perhaps most is that it is a total need for a Redeemer. The author begins the review with a quote from Ratzinger (you may know him as Pope Benedict) that understands justification by faith alone largely as justification by faith and works, for it defines justification by faith as "walking in the way of martyrdom" and to "prefer what is right and true". Justification by works is defined as trying to save oneself by one's own efforts in "isolated concentration" and wanting "to make life a self-sufficient totality". The wording defines faith in such a way that its nature is ultimately in itself and not in God. Faith becomes defined by one's commitment. Justification by works is spoken of in a way that allows the pious to exclude their own works from its definition. They are not "isolated" or "self-sufficient" works since they still rely on grace and are connected to the way of Jesus. The quote reads more like a comparison of semi-pelagianism and pelagianism than a comparison between the views of Augustine and Palagian. Whether or not that is Ratzinger's full intention of the wider work, I cannot say for certain. But the thrust of his assessment is that Giertz replaces walking the way of Christ with saying the right words. This reading of Ratzinger on faith alone would make Giertz's work seem contrary to faith since that is a faith understood through religious works. What Giertz is presenting instead is (as I pointed out to him in regards to Hammer) faith understood as spiritual impoverishment upon which everything that is relied on when Christ should be is taken away. "It is precisely our crowns of glory that Jesus Christ must take from all of us before he can be our Savior" (p241). It is coming to experience how it is that Jesus could say "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 5:3).
We should here join our friend in quoting Jesus from Mark 12 in regards to the greatest commandment: to love God with the whole heart and the second like it, to love one's neighbor as oneself (Mark 12:28-31). The difference that Faith Alone (as well as Luther, as well as myself) assert is not that those things don't matter, but that man will never be justified by trying them. Love instead becomes active in faith (Gal 5:6), whereby it is enlivened by God's own love (1 John 4:19). This too was part of Herr Peder's sermon:
"When we have been justified by pure grace through faith alone - then works come. Between God and us, as reasons for salvation, there is nothing to place. Faith alone stands there. Works do not have their place between God and us but between our neighbor and us. When grace and forgiveness pour down upon us from above, then the stream floods further. We become endearing and cordial, we help, pray, and forgive. Yet, the more we receive of undeserved forgiveness, the more we have to give of the love that serves our neighbor without asking for reward. But these deeds that in truth could be called good deeds, they have nothing to do with the righteousness that applies before God." -p255
What was seen as a formula of belief in Faith Alone should not be seen as earning grace through right belief, but right belief that comes through the right sharing of the message of grace. "How can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" (Rom 10:14).
Indeed, this assertion by the author that one does not receive heaven because of undeserved grace but "one's belief in undeserved grace" is soundly incorrect in Giertz's theology in general or the story itself. See again the extended quotes from the sermon above. It is won for us and opened up for us by undeserved grace shown in Jesus'. That is what it means to receive it by faith! Only when it is seen as a result of God's message of grace in Christ can this be understood. Instead the author goes to the end of the story and references the phrase "I received back heaven when I was led to believe in the undeserved grace." This was the proof that it was not undeserved grace but belief in it that mattered. A wider look at the verse however helps reveal again the proper theological message:
"Peder," he said, "it is strange: today I have received back both heaven and earth...both the church and the kingdom." The priest looked at him, puzzled. "Yes, I mean I received back heaven when I was led to believe in the undeserved grace. Now heaven above is open to me, and I will never again barter with God, only thank him. But when I understood this forgiveness of sins, I also found peace on earth. Before, I bartered with men and left them because of their sins. Now I know that we all bear the same cross and that I am the greatest among sinners. Now I will gladly help and serve. Now I am glad to be able to sit like the others in the church pews. And now I believe that I will go back to my old place at the castle and do what good I can - and I can live every day in the forgiveness of sins." He was quiet for a minute. "Peder," he said, "isn't it strange that everything is so simple when one has the forgiveness of sins? Is it not the heart of the whole of our existence this atonement and the forgiveness of sins?" ... "Yes," he said, "so it is. This is the heart of everything: the atonement and the forgiveness of sins."
With exception to one line I omitted (to avoid spoilers) this is how the book ends. Tell me, does that quote teach one to rely on secret password or undeserved grace? Indeed the title (Faith Alone: the Heart of Everything) and the final line both speak of what is the heart of everything: Jesus Christ who our faith is in and who won our atonement and forgiveness of sins.
4. Giertz in World War II and Luther on Rebellion
Next we need to address the claim that Giertz was all about pacifism in the face of Nazi Germany. Faith Alone was written in the 40's. This led the author to assert that Herr Peder's insistent opposition towards rebellion was a message about resistance to Naziism, and that Giertz was either a coward or had a twisted philosophy. Before we get into Giertz and Nazi Germany specifically, it is important to see that Giertz is not simply making his own theological assertion here, he is instead espousing Luther's.
One thing about Luther was he did not believe that rebellion was godly. This is problematic to American Lutherans whose own national history is built on rebellion, it's troublesome as we look back and criticize German Lutherans under Hitler, but it's true. Luther felt God governed the left hand kingdom through the state. This becomes most pointedly shown in his response to the Peasants' Revolt of 1525. Luther was particularly appalled that the Gospel was being used as justification for murdering, pillaging, and taking by force. He also had a lot to lose as it risked his relationship with German authorities that were protecting him from the church if they grew sour on the Reformation. But, to his credit, Luther maintains this opposition even when it is in his favor with the Smalkald League against the emperor. It is not until Bekenntnis by Amsdorf and Flacius in 1548 (after the events of Faith Alone) that we have Lutheran theology of resistance.
Luther's view was that subjects were vocationally to be subject to those in authority, and those in authority were vocationally to execute justice. This meant it was the responsibility of authorities to deal with other corrupt authorities. "The fact that the rulers are wicked and unjust does not excuse disorder and rebellion, for the punishing of wickedness is not the responsibility of everyone, but of the worldly rulers who bear the sword." (Admonition to Peace).
Giertz takes a similar approach in Faith Alone:
"A Christian never rebels...To suffer injustice is hard but salutary. One should not try to escape the cross with violence...He who takes up the sword shall die by the sword. The Master said that just when Peter wanted to take justice into his own hands. God still allows the sword to go where it is needed. He can set one authority against the other. He can set the council against the king and the king against the Kaiser. And finally, he can use the sin of one to punish the other." -p199
We must therefore, first state that Giertz, whether one agrees with it or not, is pleased to see written at the time of Nazi Germany's tyranny or not, is
1) not advocating complete pacifism. This view expects other governments to act to stop the tyrant. It is rebellion that is seen as a trespass of one's God-given duties and often to avoid cross-bearing. Also,
2) this is a view that predates Hitler by four hundred years and was predominant among Lutherans. It brought a bad rap to a lot of prominent German Lutherans (not named Bonhoeffer) to espouse this view, especially because some used it inappropriately to support Hitler.
If anything, one can actually see from Giertz an honest struggle with this view as well played out in a few subtle moments, as if to suggest Giertz agreed with but nevertheless struggled with the view. Just before the quote above Martin asks Peder "Do you then mean that a man should never try to push a tyrant out of the way?" And then the recent history of Sweden's independence was brought to the fore of Martin's mind and before going into the quote I read above Peder prefaces it with, "You ask more than any man can answer." Also, from the conclusion of the conversation on p206 Martin asks a more pointed question to the issue at hand (I will not quote it here because of spoilers, but it began "But if the king now allows.." The priest's face becomes pursed, he starts to sweat, and it says the scrivener never received an answer to his question.
Also, Peder can hardly be seen as a champion to cowardly or silent pacifism. At the start of the story he put his wife in hiding so he could continue his pastoral duties, believing that it may cost him his life. When the rabble came to the troops, he was part of the intervention that tried to keep the tenuous peace. And at the end, he spoke so harshly the soldiers questioned his loyalty. Just because one does not suggest being a part of a plot to kill Hitler like Bonhoeffer did not mean they were cowards or advocated doing nothing in the face of Naziism. There are other forms of resistance.
Now let's note a few things about Giertz and World War II specifically, because Giertz does speak about it in several of his works. The World Wars were to Giertz the absolute epitome of humanity's inability to shake depravity.
"Three years after [1911] came the World War. Humankind was shocked. Was such a thing possible in a world that was to be guided by human reason and the indwelling power of goodness in the human heart?...Then at last came peace, and that was even worse - a permanent condition of crisis and chaos, revolution and reaction, rising international unrest, until we landed once again in a new war, compared to which the first one was only an idyll. In this world of lies and broken promises, of deportations and prison camps, of destruction, murder, and torture we no longer speak of man's natural goodness or of the "natural law of love";" ("The Big Lie and the Big Truth").
"A whole state can reject all belief in sin, as did Hitler's third Reich, but that does not hinder slavery, falsity and violence and other sins from bearing their bitter fruit." ("How Modern is the Grace of God")
Likewise, he felt that teaching people the old faith was important towards preventing giving up the faith for tyrany:
"And the Christianity which proved that it could stand fast when the storms really came and the totalitarian state showed its satanic face, that was a faith which was solidly grounded in the Word of God and would not yield an inch from what God had spoken. Germany is a real lesson to us. Those Christians who were counted as modern, up-to-date and undogmatic, were usually those who were swept away in the brackish waters. Those who recently had been liberal Christians became Deutche Christen. Those who remained steadfast were the despised conservatives and old-fashioned Christians who had never departed from the confession, and still remained loyal to the ancient hated confessions, those which have been despised by the world and yet have overcome the world." ("Faith Which Can Never Die").
These three quotes all come from Message of the Church in a Time of Crisis which was brought into English in 1953, meaning all these works are likely written within 10 years of Faith Alone and come in and around the time of World War II itself. But lest one assume that it is all talk, or that Giertz only did something after (since I cannot tell you the date all these were first put to pen), we do have another source on this matter: Birgitta Giertz (Bo's daughter). Several years ago, Birgitta shared memories of her father that were translated into English. These memories can be found at 1517.org. It is the second of these three posts that is relevant here as she shares memories especially during World War II. Here we can see that Giertz was particularly active in sheltering refugees from the war. This included a family whose father was in a concentration camp, a family whose father fought in the resistance, and a couple of Danish boys who he had no idea were coming or ever knew about but when they came to the border they were told to say they were coming to see Bo Giertz. When Bo was asked about it, even though he knew nothing about it, he said yes and took them in. With this atmosphere in the home, Birgitta recalls:
The presence of our Danish guests gave rise to many questions and discussions about society and politics; about right and wrong, and the different opportunities and obligations to take a stand and do something. Dad was very clear in these conversations. He clearly opposed Nazism and was just as clear when it came to how an individual should behave. One has to speak out when he encounters something that is wrong, and one has to set up and help those who need it. And this is something one has to do regardless of the consequences it might have for himself. A concrete example of this attitude showed in his conduct a few years later when he actively wrote and worked against the Baltic Repatriation. This was the first time I realized that which I later came to see was a foundational feature of dad’s personality; to fight for that which one thought to be right regardless of what it costs.
5. Neo-Scholastic and gnostic?
As the author tries to make sense of Faith Alone without assenting to his assertions, he ultimately makes two equally wild conclusions: either Giertz is a gnostic or a neo-scholastic. He uses gnostic as a means to categorize the "secret password" view and neo-scholastic to I think try to make sense of the ordo salutis, since he particularly sees it as trying to apply philosophical frameworks to theology and he makes a frankly strange assessment of ontology that I can not adequately say I fully understand. His case for neo-scholasticism is that ontologies instead of humans mediate salvation.
Giertz is not a gnostic. The author fails to understand the difference between gnosis and kyrgma. Faith Alone is not about secret passwords and formulas but about proclaiming Jesus Christ alone! Gnostics believed they possessed the secrets and only had to unlock them. True evangelical Christianity proclaims Jesus Christ. That is revelatory. Paul speaks of it this way, and we would hardly consider him gnostic:
"I became [the church's] servant according to God's commission that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, the mystery that has been hidden throughout the ages and generations but has now been revealed to his saints." -Colossians 1:25-26
This mystery revealed is the gospel, which Paul says is revealed "by faith for faith" (Rom 1:17). It is thoroughly biblical to understand that the gospel is only truly understood "by faith" and its message of undeserved grace is "for faith". Gnostic thought is also rather escapist in quality typically. This too does not reflect the story of the characters in Faith Alone.
Likewise, we cannot call this neo-scholasticism. The author misrepresents Giertz as speaking of devotion to devotion itself. "Perhaps Giertz believes ontologies but not humans mediate salvation. That is, while adoring Mary and Saints is excessively sentimental, adoring the doctrine of undeserved grace, "praying" to faith, etc. are valid methods of interpretation." This view is a total skew of the story. No one prays to faith in the story. Andreas prays "Dear Lord" not "Dear faith", together Peder and Andreas pray "You have redeemed us, Lord, faithful God." There are no grounds for this except that one assumes that if saints are done away with, something must be put in their stead. But the only thing the book tolerates in their stead is Jesus. Humans are vessels of mediating this message, but not primarily through the lives of saints but the preaching of the Gospel.
This reflects what Giertz has said elsewhere:
"We know very well that faith is not true so long as there is a secret or open trust in our own merits. Now the church's task is to let the Word work a true faith...the church preaches seriously and penetratingly about sin and grace, about the heart's corruption and Christ's atonement, about the contrast between self-righteousness and God's righteousness. Then she crushes all false supports of faith and anchors faith where it shall be anchored, on Christ the rock." (Giertz, A Shepherd's Letter)
Conclusion
The author's understanding of Giertz's theology as a "will to salvation" and "password" faith understand the entire book from the working of the individual who must truly desire God aright, and seek out and unlock the secret within him. This viewpoint is entirely unchristian. It leaves the work of Jesus and his church totally out of it. One can not read Faith Alone and adequately present its contents if one has left Christ and the church's ministry out of it. It is wildly antithentical to Giertz's theology in this book and beyond. This review sadly sells everything short and reads it according to a schema that is not there. His assessments of the implications of this story in the context of World War II are engaging, but come from an ignorance of the roots of that theological framework or of Giertz's engagement in life and theology around the topic. The devotion to Ratzinger's understanding of justification by faith will leave one struggling with Faith Alone because of the way Ratzinger (or at least as he was quoted and presented) offers a more semi-pelagian understanding of justification by faith that is frankly justification by faith and works, which will hardly make grace be solely from faith alone through Christ alone.
The author does get right this note in his conclusion: "Catholics often criticize Lutherans for taking steps designed to make reconciliation harder." This leads him to conclude of Giertz, "To those still under Giertz's teaching, though, the full weight of the semantic formula must be carried, so they believe, to enter Heaven." He is right in the assessment, that Catholic spirituality is easier. However, it is not comforting or correct in this matter. "Many people view Christian faith as something easy," Luther writes, "and quite a few people even count it as if it were related to the virtues. They do this because they have not judged faith in light of any experience, nor have they ever tasted its great power" (Freedom of a Christian). What the author is experiencing is what happens when Law and Gospel are rghtly distinguished. This will ultimately show one to be powerless in reconciling oneself to God.
Yet, as is the entire point of the book, the Gospel accomplishes all.
"All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation." -2 Corinthians 5:18-19
"One is not righteous who does much, but the one who, without works, believes much in Christ. The law says 'do this' and it is never done. Grace says "believe in this" and it is already done." -Martin Luther, Heidelberg Disputation.
-Bo Giertz, Faith Alone
