Image via WikipediaI am not a professional student of theology. Nor of the history of religion.
So when I ran across a reference today to "the thin tradition" of theologia crucis, I had not the slightest idea of what it might be. I tried looking up theologia crucia on Wikipedia to give me a place to start, which summarized theology of the cross as "a term coined by the theologian Martin Luther to refer to theology that posits the cross as the only source of knowledge concerning who God is and how God saves. It is contrasted with the theology of glory (theologia gloriae), which places greater emphasis on human abilities and human reason." Yet the theses associated with the position are mostly about how everything humans do apart from the spirit of God is wrong and almost assuredly sinful. The idea that humans are good and can cooperate in good things with God is associated with the position identified as the theology of glory. This sounds very much like the stirrings of what Calvinism would elaborate more fully in the notion of human depravity.
As someone who utterly rejects the human depravity position, those elements of Martin Luther's argument are not acceptable. But is that all there is to theologia crucia? Father Daniel Weir doesn't seem to believe so, and he cites others who have studied the topic, and the way he writes about it suggests that there is a greater message to be received. Indeed, the implications seem far removed/much more developed than what one might be lead to believe based on a quick historical review...
