Blog
Feb 6, 2008
I am missing a few entries. If I missed yours in the storm of emails that I had last week, please let me know. In general, you seem to have done well with this assignment. We started with one of the milder of Luther’s polemics and one of the most systematic. Some of you noted that St. Plato was very much in evidence in the separation of the spiritual and the physical. Luther would later move away from this and stress in an even purer form his dialectic of sin and grace. Some of you were also close to the truth when you noted that Luther, like Augustine, tended toward a strong doctrine of election, and that he saw God as the primary actor in faith. For him, faith is not one of the virtues but the response of the believing heart to the God who continues to act according to the Biblical template. This is strong medicine theologically, especially, for moderns who persist in thinking that the highest complement that we can pay God is to believe that God exists (as if human opinion determined or did not determine such a question. All in all, a great read.
See you in class.
CH 1502
Christian Movement
Glenn Miller
February 6, 2008
Martin Luther, in The Freedom of a Christian from his Three Treatises makes a simple and eloquent case for grace. Some of this text is in the form of a letter to the Pope, to whom Martin Luther speaks as though to educate him. It is not yet clear to me the context of this letter, but my guess is that this was a bold move on Luther’s part. The second part is an essay which makes the case for the purpose of the Christian faith – faith in Jesus Christ and what he did for us, not because of whom we are but because of whom He is. Luther is speaking out against those who would argue that one’s soul was saved by what one did, not by who God is.
“…it is not enough on in any sense Christian to preach the works, life, and words of Christ as historical facts, as if the knowledge of these would suffice for the conduct of life; yet this is the fashion among those who must today be regarded as our best preachers.” (Luther, 292) This sentence struck me as very interesting. It is a statement made in the 16th century, yet in some ways it speaks to things happening today. I for one find the study of what we know historically about Jesus to be fascinating, as well as the history of the early church. (I agree, although my own inclination is to be somewhat skeptical about many of the supposedly assumed results of scholarship into the First Century. Part of the problem is we have so little data and there was the great earthquake of two major revolutions in Palestine. Yet, it was apparently true then and remains true today that faith takes us beyond what we know, because we can’t know it all, to something else. This is a key Reformation (and later Evangelical) distinction between lively faith and mre historical knowledge. For this tradition, to know something abstractly is not the same as incorporating it into one’s life. A poor sinner, uneducated but alive with the Spirit, would know more than many scholars. But that si a different kind of knowing. Luther goes on to say “Such faith is produced and preserved in us by preaching why Christ came, what he brought and bestowed, what benefit it is to us to accept him. This is done when that Christian liberty which he bestows is rightly taught…”. This is an important point to Luther, and he has already developed it by this point in the essay. Each person is given total freedom to accept or reject what Christ offers. Or to be accepted by him. Luther does not really believe in the Freedom of the Will.
In the spirit of freedom to choose, those who Christsee this
truth and accept it will then become
servants to their fellows. It is
a paradox. It is in paradoxes that truth
is often found. “A Christian is a perfectly
free lord of all, subject to none. A
Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all.” He develops these two seemingly opposite
ideas to show that it is by faith and faith alone, that we are justified. Works, the righteous behaviors of man,
regardless of how well intentioned and selfless, are nothing in the absence of
faith. Once faith has been established,
he goes on to say, the works will flow freely – dutiful servant of all.
Though somewhat repetitious, Luther is thoughtful and careful to develop his argument in a logical fashion. He makes good use of scripture, relying heavily on the works of Paul. It is quite well done, and there is this quality that pervades this writing that feels genuine. There is a kernel of truth that is woven through it that is compelling. The first part, to Leo, is in some ways patronizing and even sarcastic. It drips with the love of insult in renaissance literature. It would be interesting to know how Leo received it. He probably never read it. He had dictated Luther’s excommunication while riding to the hounds.
Gary Cyr
CH1502
“The Freedom of a Christian”
Described as an Augustinian friar, Luther leaves me wondering whether his logic is in the Augustine mold of reasoning. He clearly had studied Augustine, especially, the anti-pelagian treatises. In his writings, Luther speaks of the ‘twofold nature’ of man—a spiritual one and a physical one. His reasoning follows along logically in making his case for the priority of faith over the structure the church had adopted—that of works. So I am inclined to see a Platonic argument that Augustine would appreciate, but would Augustine agree? What I hear in this letter is the argument that faith is the work of God without which one is unable to free themselves from the bondage of sin. No amount of work, i.e. pilgrimages, papal taxation, indulgences, burning of candles, penance, etc. can free the mortal soul, only God can. It sounds Augustinian, but I’m not so sure. Augustine stood either at the beginning or before many of these practices, although some of them—such as relics—were strongly condemned by him. To fully understand what Luther is saying, I needed to know the man he was addressing.
Leo X proves to be very unsuited to challenge Luther; instead giving Luther ample ammunition for his theses. The political world and the religious world are very much intertwined. When Luther cautions the pope about the people he has surrounded himself with, he speaks the truth. The curia is very corrupt with cardinals eliminating their opponents—even popes. Leo X provides a good example of the political intrigue that the papacy had stooped to. An apostolic prothonotary at age seven and cardinal at 13, Leo was elected pope when he was only a deacon. Understanding this man gives me a better understanding of the tone Luther uses in this writing.
The tone of the
writings carries a condescending approach that is not lost on the intended
audience. Courtiers that are less
learned in spiritual matters and more in pleasurable ones surround Leo. Leo, in the end, is a hedonist and the papal
estates are nothing less than the equal of any principality. Luther needed to ‘instruct’ these people
about real spiritual matters. Though
sounding presumptuous, I find in Luther, not a man seeking to separate from the
Roman Church, but a man trying to return it to its principle mission: caring
for its people. Luther only reluctantly accepted separation.
Instead, Luther addresses correctly the imposition that the church has placed
on the common man. The church has
descended into superstition in order to finance its excessiveness. Yet, in thisese
writings,
there is a hint of separatism that I feel many in the German principalities
would find useful in challenging the yoke of the Holy Roman Empire. Or at least the church.
The empire lasted much longer/
Speaking of the free man as he does, Luther’s writing could very easily yield to political influences. Writing such as this could fuel the flame of rebellion that is simmering under the surface of the politics of this era. A feudal society that is seeing a rising merchant class is being challenged. Luther’s writing is just the impetus to defy nobility, especially as it has been presented in the papacy of this time period. Luther was to be shocked when the peasants took him up on his praise of freedom and rebelled. His political instincts were very conservative and his later thought was one of the foundations of the classical German practice of obedience.
A papacy that is modeled upon an imperial structure is far removed from the common folk. Luther’s instructions to the pope about the work of bishops, priests, and deacons is, I believe, very much in line with what scripture speaks too—caring for the people. And it is to scripture that Luther turns to provide the foundational support for his argument and instruction to Leo X. Luther truly feels that Leo is surrounded by ‘flatters’ who are Leo’s real enemy. Luther makes the case the he himself is not the enemy; the curia and those who support its hedonistic and worldly ways are. This letter gives me a good introduction to Luther’s thinking and why he appealed to many in his day. If only the church could have provided a better response, things may have turned out differently. From reading this, I don’t feel Luther sought to separate as much as reform the church, but politics and business matters played on Luther’s work. Only later.
CH 1502 Phyllis Merritt
Christian Movement II
Glenn Miller
for the week of
Luther: The Freedom of a Christian
The summer and fall of 1520 seems to be the time when matters
involving Martin Luther and his ideas of reformation came head to head with
Pope Leo X and the Catholic church. Yes. Good insightdo In June, the Roman Curia had issued the papal
bull Exsurge Domine “giving
[Luther] sixty days to recant or be declared a heretic.” (iv) It is not clear from our reading when
he unofficially heard that news. What
does seem clear is that recanting was not on his mind…his summer and fall were spent writing and publishing tracts that
“clarified his new evangelical theology for his ever increasing following.”
(262) In August, Luther published To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation
“calling for drastic reform in the church.”(262) In October, he published The Babylonian Captivity of the Church attacking the system by
which church officials “had gained control over all Christians.”(262) In November, he published The Freedom of a Christian which
outlined his “evangelical theology as applied to Christian life.” (262)
On
October 10, Luther officially received the Exsurge Domine.
Throughout the fall, he had met with Miltitz, Staupitz, and Link who encouraged him to write a letter to
Leo X “assuring the pope he had never intended to attack him personally.” (263) This Luther did, even
dating “the letter September 6 to indicate that he was not motivated by the
publication in
Because I felt Luther was almost coerced into writing the letter to Leo X, I was not sure how to interpret his words in the letter of dedication or in the letter itself. When I read Luther’s words to Mayor Muhlphordt in the dedication… that “it is a special pleasure to hear of someone also loves divine truth. Unfortunately there are many people, especially those who are proud of their titles, who oppose the truth with all their power and cunning.” (263)…I didn’t think they sounded like the words of a man who was going to write a “conciliatory letter.” (262) There is much sarcasm in this letter. Luther follows the medieval convention of pretending that the ruler was not responsible but was surrounded by evil advisors, but everyone know better. The first sentence in his letter to Leo doesn’t sound conciliatory either… “Living among the monsters of this age with whom I am now in the third year waging war…” (266) It is true that Luther does not call Leo despicable by name, but refers to his predecessors as foolish tyrants and calls those around Leo his “godless flatters.” (266) He despises the Roman Curia, denounces some of the men who surround Leo, and states that it was Leo’s duty, and that of his cardinals, to remedy the evils of the Roman Curia. (269) It seems that Luther is saying that Leo doesn’t have the power to change things even if he wanted to. Yes Luther further states that rather than repent, “[he has] determined to persist in that fervent zeal and to despise the judgment of men.” (267) He does allow that he would stop his challenge if two points are granted, one being that there be no fixed rules for the interpretation of the Word of God, a power given the pope by the church. (274) This does not sound like the type of communication, a letter that might prevent a rift in the church, that Miltitz may have had in mind.
The two propositions that Luther considers to be the theses for this tract are found on page 277: “A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none.” and “A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all.”
In explaining them, he discusses the twofold nature of human beings…spiritual and bodily. The spiritual, the soul, can do nothing without the Word of God; without that, there is no help at all for the soul. In Luther’s view, the Word of God is the Gospel which cannot be received by works. Since only faith will save us, our first concern is to strengthen our faith.
I found the section on commandments and promises to be interesting. According to Luther, commandments “show us what we ought to do but do not give us the power to do it.” (282) They are the Old Testament and are impossible to keep. Because we cannot keep them, we despair and seek help from God. Through faith, we gain grace, mercy, and all the promises we cannot attain through the law. Through the promises, we are able to fulfill the commandments, so the promises are the New Testament. This fulfillment will connect the soul to the Word. Nice summary
He discusses the concept of good works and faith. Without faith, works count for nothing; they are unbelief. With faith, we desire to do good works to God’s glory.
I had never thought of faith in the way he uses bride and bridegroom here. We so often hear that Christ died for our sins, but this seems to say that Christ lives for our sins as well. Each day that we are married to him, he takes that which is ours and gives us that which is his. Yes, it was a new use of a old mystical image. Soul is feminine in Latin.
Throughout the tract, Luther continues to discuss our inner and outer person and the gifts Christ brings to us. Luther’s way of looking at the freedom we have in Christianity does not fit the Catholic theology he has been given. I cannot see that either he or the Catholic church is going to move on those issues. The rift will come.
Barbara Chodkowski
To the Christian
Nobility of the German Nation
First of all, whether Martin Luther is nice or not, I don’t much care. There is much in this piece that needed to be said, given my historical knowledge. I know some folks here and now who really need to read what Luther has to say. If they actually understood his meanings and could see themselves, there might be some change of behavior in a few churches that I know today! If I were to approach some of his subject matter, I might go about it in a more diplomatic manner using different word choice; however, I can see myself saying many of the same things (definitely thinking them!) - aimed at some different targets. His aim is internal church reform. The church he seeks to reform is that of the Catholic Papacy. His task is huge and historic in proportion, and those of us who now call ourselves Protestant should thank him profusely. While I thought of about 35 tirades I would have liked to pursue while reading this piece, I have chosen one concentrate on for now (presuming that none of you would prefer reading a 25 page paper). That is true. Barbara you read the wrong assignment. This week was the Freedom of a Christian. The German nobility is next week.
Luther’s number 18 in his list of grievances is one that I see great parallels with today (pp 72-74). While I would not go to the extremes Luther suggests, cultural abuse of Christian holidays by self identified CHRISTIANS has always bothered me. Our holidays, like those Luther identifies are often equally as misused as those Luther describes. Christmas, Easter, and other ‘holy’ days are now seasons of greed and gluttony in the name of Christ. While I love a holiday parties and gift giving as much as the next person, I do believe that those festive practices need to in some way be connected with an understanding and practice of the reason for them in the first place - Christ. The activity during these times also needs to be connected to this reason and kept within the teachings that are the reason for the holiday season in the first place. When you think about it, St. Patrick’s Day really is a bit misdirected as well (but I wouldn’t say that too loud or my grandmother Mary Gibbons will surely try her best to punish me from beyond the grave).
Two years ago while preaching about the necessity for Christians to remember Christ in our lives all year long, rather than just during holiday seasons, I also challenged my congregation to look a bit closer to those holiday seasons and what they meant in the lives of each individual as well as the families to which they belonged. Rhetorically, I posed questions to them. How many of you include prayer in your daily life during Christmas and Easter Festivities? When your children receive a gift, do they have any recollection of its origin a month, week or even a day after it is received? Is Christ mentioned at your holiday gatherings? Many heads went down. The attendance of our Advent and Lenten activities doubled after that year.
Christmas and
Easter have become cultural holidays, especially for Americans. While the widespread acceptance of these
holidays by our temporal institutions gives Christians the time and ability to
worship and celebrate our holidays unimpeded, it also juxtaposes the sacred
within the shallow and challenges Christians with great temptations. Without reminder, it is easy to loose sight
of the real reason for the celebration in the first place. This is where Luther found himself and those
around him. While reforms throughout
history have pushed the pendulum from excess to austerity and back countless
times and in a myriad of degrees, the present situation is at least close to as
problematic as that Luther describes (perhaps more). Religious feasts and festivals were at least
theoretically controlled by religious authorities. Today, at least for Christians, the temporal
has taken charge and de-Christianized Christian celebrations. Luther was aware that many holidays in his time had
been misused, especially patron saints days, which were often occasions for
entire parishes to go on an alcoholic holiday.
But notice that the abuse is only part of his protest. His primary point is theological. Our holidays and other events do not please
God. We please God when we accept Christ as our
Sacrifice and accept from Him salvation.
A well observed holiday could lead people as astray as a poorly observed
holiday.
It is clear in our reading for this week, that Luther sees spirit at work in his times, but “not from the Holy Spirit but from the evil spirit (p 72).” So many of the issues Luther is dealing with in this literature are issues we are dealing with both socially and religiously today: clergy marriage, training of our religious leaders, the lack of scripture in message, bureaucratic misuse, scriptural misuse to social or political aim or advancement, . . . the list goes on. Whether you like Luther or not, he is courageous and is also correct in a vast number of his assessments. When I read him as an undergraduate, I remember thinking that I would like to someday have the power and courage to write like him and other reformers. Here and there I have done so. Thank goodness for those who have done so more than here and there.
Michael Kasevich
February 7, 2008
The Freedom of a Christian
I read these Treaties, as Luther’s proclamation against the slavery of Christians. As Luther writes to Leo X, I can see where Luther gets angry for the inconsistency in what is called Biblical practice. On page 291 of our book, I will quote Luther: “From this anyone can clearly see how a Christian is free from all things and over all things so that he needs no works to make him righteous and save him, since faith alone abundantly confers all these things.” This reeks of Paul telling us we are saved by grace. That was Luther’s intention. He was very self-consciously a student of Paul and a firm believer in Paul’s position.
Leo X was a man and a Pope who made Rome a cultural centre and a
political power, but he depleted the papal treasury. Be cautious here. He was one of a series of renaissance
pope’s—perhaps not the worse of them—who glorified the city. He is famous as the builder of St. Peters.
Therefore, to fill the coffers, he charged for every act that the church could
perform including the personal act of salvation.
In disagreeing with Leo, and I love how Luther calls him Leo, then
Father Leo, and blessed father. The act of respect and of credit for Leo’s
position diminishes in Luther’s writing. This may be just Luther’s personality
and writing technique although it may also be the fact that Luther is angry and
upset with Leo X and wants to discredit Leo’s position as Pope.
Sarcasm .Luther had
already seen that Leo’s papacy had many problems that were traceable to its
head, but he was always more concerned with the principles involved than the
abuses as such.
My theology is based on these treaties written by Luther combined with a
spattering of Calvin, and a touch of Zwingli. Therefore, the
words from Luther about works and grace ring true to my heart. “Good works do not make a good man, but a
good man does good works; evil works do not make a wicked man, but a wicked man
does evil works.”
One of the greatest social reformers in the 20th
century, William Wilson, founder of AA? wrote that by not putting God first in our lives we are
depriving ourselves of His help.[1]
By
reading Luther, I can see clearly that God’s love has no monetary price tag and
we who are believers live in Christ and not in our own being. We live through
faith as Luther says, and not by works as Paul says.