Blog
This is the most secular and in many ways the most readable of the 1520’s treatises. Most Americans find the various abuses of power to be the heart of the issue and perhaps for princes, who had struggled for years with them, it was. But, for Luther and the theologians, these were comparatively minor, and there is some evidence that the research for this treatise was done by members of the Saxon court. Yet, the theological principles are clear: the right of secular authority to adjudicate matters of justice, the priesthood of all believers, and the equality of all Christians in faith.
Kathleen M. Batchelder
CH 1502—Online Seminar—Class #4
Martin Luther’s “To the Christian
Nobility of the German Nation”
Martin
Luther’s writing is more accessible now that I understand more about his life
story and his affinity for debate. I
have always enjoyed knowing about the lives of authors I have studied, and I
find the same is true of theologians. I
believe the meaning of a piece of writing is a joint effort between the writer
and the reader.
In the case
of Luther’s “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation,” I believe it is
essential to consider the context of Luther’s voice. When he was writing in 1520, the papacy had
elaborate programs of bureaucracy, indulgences, and priesthood in place. The Black Plague had been and was still
devastating Europe’s population. Luther
wisely uses the metaphor of three walls built by the papacy around itself
(beginning on page 10). The church in
Luther’s time was especially sensitive to any aristocracy which isolated itself
or walled itself away from general population.
During the Black Plague, people (clergy or laity) who had some means to
wall themselves away from danger were often scorned for being selfish or
uncaring.
In Dr.
Miller’s text The Modern Church, he points to Zwingli’s determination
not to “desert his parishioners” (page 28) as a brave and inspiring action
which served as a “subsequent model for faith” which showed “trust in the
sovereign God to deliver his people.” If
making oneself vulnerable to the dangers of life models “trust,” perhaps Luther
is consciously using the metaphor of the
papacy’s walls as indication of its untrustworthiness and isolation from true
Godly love.
Luther names
three “walls” which the papacy has erected.
The first wall he describes is that “pure invention that pope, bishop,
priests, and monks are called the spiritual estate while princes, lords,
artisans, and farmers are called the temporal estate” (page 12). Luther criticizes the self-aggrandizement of
the papacy and the church bureaucracy while he promotes the priesthood of all
believers. The second wall Luther
describes as a negative and isolating technique of the papacy is that “the
Romanists want to be the only masters of Holy Scripture” (page 18). Luther battles this claim by saying “it is
the duty of every Christian to espouse the cause of the faith, to understand
and defend it, and to denounce every error” (page 22). This belief not only makes it clear that the
papacy’s claim of sole authority to interpret Scripture is in error, but it
also makes it clear that Luther is justified in his debates and attacks on
Roman authority. The third wall
described by Luther is one which he calls his readers to help him topple. He writes that “when the pope acts contrary
to the Scriptures, it is our duty to stand by the Scriptures, to reprove him
and to constrain him” because “every member is commanded to care for every
other” (page 22).
Even through
Luther’s list of 27 specific changes that need to happen, to me the three walls
remain the extended metaphor of the essay.
Luther spoke from specific knowledge in his time of distrust of those who
walled themselves away from the plague.
In other times, it is human nature to distrust those who separate
themselves from the challenges and dilemmas of the masses. Edgar Allan Poe wrote “The Masque of the Red
Death” about Prince Prospero who invited his wealthy and beautiful friends into
his castle to party in safety while the world suffered with the plague. In Robert Frost’s poem, “Mending Wall,” the
very first line is “Something there is that doesn’t love a wall.” The New England neighbors in Frost’s poem
debate the necessity for walling their property and possessions “in” or
“out.” This reminds me of Luther’s
metaphor of the self-imposed walls of authority and power of the papacy.
Once again,
I have really enjoyed reading a primary source while we study the church’s
history. Luther’s concerns are different
than the issues of the church in 2008, but we still debate issues of
interpretation and of authority in the church.
Kathleen M. Batchelder
CH 1502—Online Seminar—Class #4
Martin Luther’s “To the Christian
Nobility of the German Nation”
Martin
Luther’s writing is more accessible now that I understand more about his life
story and his affinity for debate. I
have always enjoyed knowing about the lives of authors I have studied, and I
find the same is true of theologians. I
believe the meaning of a piece of writing is a joint effort between the writer
and the reader.
In the case
of Luther’s “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation,” I believe it is
essential to consider the context of Luther’s voice. When he was writing in 1520, the papacy had
elaborate programs of bureaucracy, indulgences, and priesthood in place. The Black Plague had been and was still
devastating Europe’s population. Luther
wisely uses the metaphor of three walls built by the papacy around itself
(beginning on page 10). The church in
Luther’s time was especially sensitive to any aristocracy which isolated itself
or walled itself away from general population.
During the Black Plague, people (clergy or laity) who had some means to
wall themselves away from danger were often scorned for being selfish or
uncaring. This is an interesting approach to Luther’s
metaphor. He seems to have envisioned
the image more in terms of the defensive walls that were part of every castle
and town. Of course, in his day, such
defenses were giving way to gun powder and the new
explosives. But the image works as you
have read it. Clearly, the walls produced
an isolation from many of the religious and
personal issues that were tormenting some of the church’s
most sensitive souls.
In Dr.
Miller’s text The Modern Church, he points to Zwingli’s determination
not to “desert his parishioners” (page 28) as a brave and inspiring action
which served as a “subsequent model for faith” which showed “trust in the
sovereign God to deliver his people.” If
making oneself vulnerable to the dangers of life models “trust,” perhaps Luther
is consciously using the metaphor of the
papacy’s walls as indication of its untrustworthiness and isolation from true
Godly love.
Luther names
three “walls” which the papacy has erected.
The first wall he describes is that “pure invention that pope, bishop,
priests, and monks are called the spiritual estate while princes, lords,
artisans, and farmers are called the temporal estate” (page 12). Luther criticizes the self-aggrandizement of
the papacy and the church bureaucracy while he promotes the priesthood of all
believers. The second wall Luther
describes as a negative and isolating technique of the papacy is that “the
Romanists want to be the only masters of Holy Scripture” (page 18). Luther battles this claim by saying “it is
the duty of every Christian to espouse the cause of the faith, to understand
and defend it, and to denounce every error” (page 22). This belief not only makes it clear that the
papacy’s claim of sole authority to interpret Scripture is in error, but it
also makes it clear that Luther is justified in his debates and attacks on
Roman authority. Notice the importance of
this. If every Christian is to defend
the faith, then every Christian needs to know the faith. The reformation was a profoundly educational
movement. The third wall
described by Luther is one which he calls his readers to help him topple. He writes that “when the pope acts contrary
to the Scriptures, it is our duty to stand by the Scriptures, to reprove him
and to constrain him” because “every member is commanded to care for every
other” (page 22).
Even through
Luther’s list of 27 specific changes that need to happen, to me the three walls
remain the extended metaphor of the essay.
Luther spoke from specific knowledge in his time of distrust of those
who walled themselves away from the plague.
In other times, it is human nature to distrust those who separate
themselves from the challenges and dilemmas of the masses. Edgar Allan Poe wrote “The Masque of the Red
Death” about Prince Prospero who invited his wealthy and beautiful friends into
his castle to party in safety while the world suffered with the plague. In Robert Frost’s poem, “Mending Wall,” the
very first line is “Something there is that doesn’t love a wall.” The New England neighbors in Frost’s poem
debate the necessity for walling their property and possessions “in” or
“out.” This reminds me of Luther’s
metaphor of the self-imposed walls of authority and power of the papacy. It might be fun to think of some other places
in literature where the wall is a potent metaphor. One thinks of the Berlin Wall that became a
metaphor for restrictive government.
Once again,
I have really enjoyed reading a primary source while we study the church’s
history. Luther’s concerns are different
than the issues of the church in 2008, but we still debate issues of
interpretation and of authority in the church.
CH 1502 Phyllis Merritt
Christian Movement II
Glenn Miller
for the week of
Luther: To the German Nobility
Luther’s letter to the German nobility was written in August of 1520. After an initial statement calling for reform, the rest of the letter can be divided into three parts: a discussion of the three walls he feels the Romanists have erected to protect themselves, a “bill of particulars, a specific indictment of ecclesiastical abuses with which a general council should deal,” (6) and “proposals for reform.” (6)
I am in debt to the translator, Charles M. Jacobs, as I found this treatise to be very readable.
Because the treatise is lengthy, I have chosen several elements on which to base comments. I think it is important that Luther acknowledges that attempts at reform have been tried in the past. He believes that the election of Charles V may signal the time when real reform can occur. He states that he and others “must tackle this job by renouncing trust in physical force and trusting humbly in God.” (10) He also states that [They] must seek God’s help through earnest prayer…” (10) Throughout the letter, he indirectly refers to those statements as he petitions the recipients to remember what the Holy Scriptures say about the issues at hand.
He offers a convincing argument about the walls that the Romanists have erected to protect themselves and the papacy. The first Romanist wall is that the pope, bishops, priests and the like are called to the spiritual estate. Princes, lords, and general working people are called to the temporal estate. That difference automatically makes the members of the spiritual estate more powerful, more important than everybody else. Luther believes “that all Christians are truly of the spiritual estate, and there is no difference among them except that of office.” (12) He supports his statement with evidence from I Corinthians …that we are all one body; that we each have different work to do within that body. He cites canon law as the support for the Romanist belief, and further states that canon law in the “invention of Romanist presumption.” (16)
The second wall is that the “Romanists want to be the only masters of Holy Scripture.” (18) In his argument to break this wall down, Luther states that there is no Scripture giving this power to the pope alone, and he argues that the “keys” given to Peter by Christ were “not given to Peter alone but to the whole community.” (20) I thought that the wish to be masters of Scripture might tie in well with our class discussion of the printing press. If people could actually read for themselves what actually was in the Holy Scriptures, might they more readily see through an unscrupulous clergy? This has been, of course, the Protestant hope from the beginning. An informed laity, trained in scripture, are the best guarantors of the church and its future. Alas, one of the great ironies of Protestantism, is that the text that Luther and early Protestants believed to be so clear was far from transparent in practice. Lay people, to Luther’s horror, found much in the Bible that did not fit his paradigm, and this same experience has been common wherever the Protestant movement has gone.
The third wall is that no one but the pope can call a council. Luther notes that such a belief could well call into question the work of previous councils called by emperors like the Council of Nicaea, for example. (23) If it is the pope who is being offensive and none but the pope can call a council, how can right meaning Christians bring about the reform of the sinful behavior?
As I read through the 27 items on the bill of particulars, I could see parallels in literature that I have read, in the behaviors of some of today’s clergy, and even in our current political process. Many of the sections made me feel as though meeting the ecclesiastics in the introduction of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales was just the tip of the iceberg. Sections 1-3 made me think of the bad name that some televangelists have earned for their group as a whole. Luther’s words “worldly and ostentatious” (26) seemed to describe exactly what I could see almost every weekend morning if I so chose. While I am quite sure we could find examples that fit the discussion on cardinals and Section 3 in the Christian media, I am positive that we could find examples in our political arena. (It seems to me that our politicians are busily trying to “out-Christian” each other during this particular campaign.) Religion remains the highest blessing of humankind and, at the same time, it can be one of humanity’s greatest burdens. When it is fully in bloom, faithful people may transcend the world of sense and calculation and become more truly what God wanted humankind to be, but when religion lacks purity of motive or resolve, it often masks its devilment behind almost endless appeals to the holy and the sacred and even to God. At times, this evil is banal: many TV evangelists were not great sinners, just small people, but its capacities for destruction and violence are almost unlimited. When joined with forms of the “will to power,” religion become almost heinous.
His list of what should be done involves radical moves—he
wants the financial, ecclesiastical (as it now exists), and temporal power of
We have read about the hope others will entertain later in the summer and fall of 1520, the hope that Luther will write a conciliatory letter to the pope and prevent a rift in the church. It seems like false hope to me. After reading this treatise, “the pope and his gang” (100) won’t buy the other. If a significant number of people feel as Luther does, an uneasy change is also “not just at the door, it is already in the house.” (107)
CH 1502
Christian Movement
Glenn Miller
February 26, 2008
Cathie Kimball
This is one of the most accessible of Luther’s
writings. Modern study has pointed out
that this was written with the advise and help of the secular authorities in
Wittenberg, and it is interesting how many of the specific
abuses that Luther mentioned, ranging from lies about crusades onward, had
already been condemned by the German
nobility in their Parliaments and equally amazing, how little had been done
about these complaints. In France and
Spain, where monarchs were stronger, many of these abuses were either
self-contained or, alas, incorporated into the royal
treasury.
We seem to be at the end of an age of the
Spirit. The Protestant passion, at least
as it was in the mainstream churches, appears to
have run out of spiritual vigor and power.
Church often seems to be one thing after another, not going anywhere,
and nothing seems to invigorate the soul to more
faithful action. Most of the the time,
the churches seem to embrace one side or the other of the political status quo
and not search deeply for the soul of things.
To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation
Martin Luther minces no words in his criticism of the Romanists. His wit takes on the form of sarcasm, which probably effectively squelched any opportunity for dialogue. He didn’t seem to think there was much chance of that.
His overall message of empowerment is quite compelling. He frequently refers to the rights and responsibilities of Christians, laying considerable significance on the priesthood bestowed by scripture. He remains as true to scripture as he can get, citing circumstance after circumstance where papal authority has overstepped its bounds. His image of a church responsible to its people, a church and a church leader whose role is to serve Christians hearkens back to the early church found in Acts.
I recently heard an interview of Shane Claiborne. He is an activist and one of the founding members of a community called The Simple Way. He and his community have been called The New Monastics, and they are trying to re-image the early church, going back to the very basics. I was thinking a lot about Shane as I read Luther, especially as he listed, over and over, the many ways that the Roman Church, in particular the papacy, was abusing its power for its own gain. He speaks articulately of the struggle to remain authentic, and I can just imagine how radical Luther’s words must have sounded to his audience. Yet, what a relief it must have been for many! If Martin Luther’s account of the abuses is in any way accurate, and I have no reason to believe it wasn’t, then the sins and greed of the hierarchy were many. The ill-gotten gains were on the backs of the poor, the destitute and the working man. And this is from a woman thoroughly embedded in a hierarchical church, fond of the rituals and even the pomp and circumstance. Yet, I too crave a simpler life, and I crave a more radical theology, one that looks hard at what Jesus did in this world, what he said, and how he left it, looks up at that cross without flinching and sees a man who was not at all interested in dying, who had plenty of work left to do on this earth, but who was willing to die to shake up the status quo. “The pope is not a vicar of Christ in heaven, but only of Christ as he walked on earth….Christ needs a vicar in the form of a servant, the form in which he went about on earth, working, preaching, suffering, and dying.” (pg 54)
Luther is not advocating simply throwing it all away, either. He is advocating a struggle, a struggle to come to terms with what it really means to say we are Christian, to be baptized into a community of faith that regularly celebrates the life and death of Jesus in bread and wine, feeding the flocks that follow him. He acknowledges the temptations along the way, yet counsels forging on in spite of them. “We ought to become bold and free on the authority of all these texts… If God spoke then through an ass against a prophet, why should he not be able even now to speak through a righteous man against the pope?” (pg 21-22)
Luther is not content simply to criticize the status quo. He is clear and detailed in outlining his vision of a reformed church. He is quite egalitarian in his vision – he notes that when a priest is murdered, the whole region is punished, yet nothing much happens when a peasant is murdered. “How does this great difference come between two men who are both Christians? It comes from the laws and fabrications of men.” (pg 17) His recommendations are pithy and to the point, in spite of the volume of text devoted to them. There are 27 specific criticisms and suggestions, to the church, to the authorities, and ultimately “to the Christian nobility of the German Nation.”
I admit I have been surprised at the readability of Luther. Though it seems as though he could have used a fierce editor, still I found myself caught up in his writing, as well as being surprised at how it continues to ring true in some ways today. It is likely to remain a useful resource for me in the future.
Michael Kasevich
Christian Movement II
February 28, 2008
“Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation"
I am a person who likes lists, as I have mentioned before. I will be writing about Luther’s list of suggested ways to correct the “ devilish rule is not only barefaced robbery, deceit, and tyranny of hell’s portals, but ruinous to the body and soul of Christendom, it is our duty to exercise diligence to protect Christendom from such misery and destruction.”[1]
However before I begin I would like to write about “Christendom.” according to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, Christendom is an occupied area inhabited by Christians. Answer.com give the meaning: the collective body of Christians throughout the world and history.
I believe that Christendom incorporates the Christian communities,
including their social, political, and religious believe or customs. This giving us an understanding that Luther
was protecting a way of life, not just an order in the Catholic Church. He was
trying to change the political machines that rules
First Luther tells the nobles not to pay the Pope their first fruits to
Second Luther states that the people should go against the Pope as they would any common
enemy. It is time to restore the rights and benefits of local Bishops and not
to accept the ordinations that come from
Third Luther writes that the Council of Nicaea be restored, that no
power can come from
Fourth, Luther states
the local communities should rule themselves. Temporal or worldly
problems should not go to
Fifth Luther writes that you may not inherit a place in court by being a relative of a priest, bishop or anyone in position of the Roman Church. No one from the Popes court can come in a dispute and rule one way or the other. Luther quotes Romans 1:32 as not to become the Romans themselves with this new found power.
Sixth Luther states, casus reservati. Remember that these were sins that only Rome or in some cases, a bishop, might forgive This is , just because you have a position in the Roman church , it does not make you infallible to sin and it will no longer give you rights that the position used to, such as extortion of indulgences from peasants. There is to be no secret pacts with God through the Pope or any of the hierarchy of the church. By this statement Luther levels the playing field between priests, bishops, and Pope.
Seventh Luther tells the Roman See should disband so the pope can pay for his own household. The Roman See is the Roman Church leadership; they head seats of the church. These are the one who make the decisions and make polity which included the taking of money to run the Popes household, from the poor church members. Luther state that if the church leaders had less wealth they could spend more time praying, studying, and dealing with what the King of Kings wants them to do. [2]
Eighth Luther writes that the bishop’s oaths should be abolished. They need to bend and swear to the Pope anymore. Luther says it is enough that the bishops are burdened in body, soul, and poverty, that he sees no reason for these foolish oaths and laws that only will make him a prisoner of the Pope. Luther is really breaking tradition, rules, and social church norms, as he writes these changing rules in his new church.
Ninth Luther states that the Pope should have no power over the emperor. This is separating church and state. Not actually Luther wanted a far closer relationship of church and state with the state actually functioning as the supervisor of the churches No kissing the Emperor in Luther’s church. Luther also talks about by giving the Emperor status within the church it is an invitation to welcome the Antichrist among us. Luther states that the Pope is pretty presumptuous thinking that he is in charge of the world and heir to the empire in any event of a vacancy. I love the correlation Luther makes with the Pope and Matthew 10: 9-10 : Get you no gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses; no wallet for your journey, neither two coats, nor shoes, nor staff: for the laborer is worthy of his food. Be a leader in the church because God called you and not for personal gain, or monetary gain, or social gain.
Tenth Luther writes, that the Pope should leave
Eleventh Luther states “No more kissing the Popes feet.” Luther justifies this by saying that the Pope is a sinful man and he should not allow holy men among him, the common folks, to be subject to such corruption. Christ cleaned the feet of his disciples and Luther claims the Pope has it backwards, that the common folks or disciples should clean his feet. Pride, the egoist pride of power and pomp, disfigures the mind and its thinking.
The twelfth statement that Luther wrote and the last one I will discuss
today is the abolishing of the pilgrimage to
To stop the destruction of te local church and the faith based communities in the Christendom, Luther is against going to any church center where the ego and pompous filled Pope is glorified and not our Lord Jesus Christ.
Doing some comparison reading this week I found that different interpretations of the reading by different publishing house s state different things. They mean the same but I thank you for choosing this one for its clarity.
Sandy Lucas
Blog #3
This treatise mixed the protest of the princes over clerical abuses with Luther’s theological critique. It was a potent mix that was much more popular than Luther’s more academic works,.
Thoughts on “To The Christian Nobility of the German Nation”
Despite its length and occasional need for an editor, Luther’s letter to the German nobility is beautifully crafted, strongly worded, and incredibly radical, especially given its historical context of 480 years ago (not to mention it’s a translation of the original). I found myself wanting to hear a contemporary theologian or clergyperson address the justice issues in her or his own denomination with the same vigor and honesty. I’ve thought of several who have done so in my denomination: Leonardo Boff, Gustavo Gutierrez , and Sr. Theresa Kane, who publicly challenged John Paul II during his U.S. visit to “consider the possibility of women in all ministries,” to name just a few. And I wondered how I would compose such a letter, in contemporary times.
Speaking of women in ministry, a strong argument for the ordination of women is Luther’s discussion about who and how a person is selected for priestly ministry. I liked his example that if ten laymen found themselves in a desert, the person selected by the group to say mass, baptize, pronounce absolution, and preach the gospel – would have the same mark of authority as one ordained by a bishop or other certifying authority. “Such a man would be as truly a priest as though he had been ordained by all the bishops and popes in the world. That is why in cases of necessity anyone can baptize and give absolution. This would be impossible if we were not all priests.” (p. 13)
I found myself wondering if the “all” included women and sadly concluded it did not, even though later Luther makes a strong plea for the education of young girls, not just boys (98-99). The ordination of women, or women in a prominent ministry role, was probably not culturally or sociologically possible for him to conceive, although his study of Scripture would certainly know the historical reality for deaconesses in the Church.
I was willing to forgive Luther his historical “stained glass ceiling,” but it seemed strange to me that the church that claims Luther as its founder only began ordaining women in the 1970 (ECLA) and the Missouri Synod still prohibits it. (An Internet search shows European Lutheran churches to be similarly divided and slow.) I guess Luther’s indictment, “This would be impossible were we not all priests,” was meant for men, then and now.
I found it interesting that absolution was once permitted by anyone in cases of necessity. In the Roman Catholic Church, anyone can baptize in an emergency – and during my CPE residency at Children’s Hospital there were many unfortunate circumstances in which it was necessary for me to baptize a child. But there was only been one time I was unable to find a priest and offered an emergency absolution at the bedside. I did so with fear and trembling, stepping into a forbidden arena, but the circumstances of the young woman dying of AIDS, dying alone, with a history of drug abuse and neglect of her children, necessitate my breaking the letter of the law to honor the spirit of the law.
According to Luther, priests and nuns – and perhaps by extension laypeople – should be able to confess their sins to anyone. “And so I advise these children, brothers and sisters…take them [one’s sins] to your brother or sister, whomever you like, and be absolved and comforted. Then go and do what you want and ought to do. Only believe firmly that you are absolved and nothing more is needed.” (70) God absolved the woman through me and she experienced peace before her death.
The final thing I will look at are the “butter letters.” Everyone knows about the selling of indulgences but this is the first time I’ve ever heard of the selling of butter letters. As far as I can tell from the text, the commoners ate a Crisco-like fat and could only eat butter with a butter letter. Since it’s in the context of a fast, it’s not clear if this applies only during designated fast times or at any time. But it was such a problem that Luther observes that the common people “think that eating butter is a greater sin than lying, swearing, or even living unchastely.” (75) During lent, the use of butter was prohibited, but some towns bought an exemption for their people.
It reminds me of the time when my Catholic cousin had dinner with us on a Friday night and inadvertently ate meat. My aunt worked at the parish every Friday, typing up the weekend bulletin, and cousin Karen ate with us. Out of respect, my agnostic mother always made a non-meat meal. (My father was a non-practicing Catholic and we kids attended the Presbyterian Church with the neighbors.) When Aunt Mary found out that my mother served spaghetti without meatballs, she scurried through the garbage and found the empty sauce can. “Ah, ah!” she screamed. “There’s a meat base!” She accused my mother of jeopardizing Karen’s eternal salvation. I remember wondering why, if six of us had eaten the same thing, only Karen was going to hell. It was one of those times I was glad I wasn’t Catholic.
My final final comment – this letter to the Christian nobility and Luther’s appeal to the temporal powers to take back their rightful areas of authority from the Church – is a reminder that the separation of church and state began as a way of keeping the church out of state matters, not the other way around as it is now sometimes interpreted and applied. For the first time, I see that striking down the blue laws in the Methodist-owned and operated Ocean Grove, NJ, by the state Supreme Court in 1981, was the right thing to do – even though I was one of those protesters blocking the entry of cars into our town on the Sabbath. Ah, sometimes it takes a while for things to click-in.
(My apologies for boring all of you with personal stories – however, a summary of what you have all read seems even more boring, at least the way I would do it!)