Full Text for The Lutheran Reformation: A Syllabus For Group Study. (Text)

THE LUTHERAN REFORMATION BY JEIFWLD C. BRAUER, Ph.D. JAROSLAV PEUKAIY, Ph.D. CONTENTS THE AGE LUTHER THE MAN LljrI'HER BECOMES THE REFORMER THE BREAK THE REFORMATION BECOJIES h MOVEMENT PRESSURES FROM RIGHT AND LEIT LbTHEHifNISXI BECOMES A CIlURCH LLiTt-IElt THE RIDLICAI. 'I'IIEOLOGIAN LIJ'~IIOS I.IFE "I'I I E [il;.'PI'L13Z EN?' '1'III.: ONL CHLRCII ,\h .\SSESSXlEN'I' 1. The Age Somebody has remarked that mankind comes into the world as into a furnished room. Most of the basic thin@ in both personal and social life ore simply given, and one must work with them. One does not choose his parents, geograph- id IocaLion, or the time when hc shall live, rind he is placed in the midst of a society already formed by long traditions and usap. &re cnr haa to Iire out hie life and make his contributinns, to be mold14 by hi3 age, and to help mold it. Becauw of the otsiaus fact that tht: age, or civilization, or total culture i~ IIIUCII grct~tar than my one indisidud, man)- wholars argue that eilher phyaicd or intellectual cnviron- ment, or both, dclcrrni~lc history. The inditidual ir of little irnponancc. This virw conknd3, for example, that there would havo been refvrn~otion even had there never been a Xarlin Lr~ther. If not Lutllcr, then sornehdy else nould hale provided the ilnpei~~s to tmak through Roman Cath- olic control. But liiataric eclunlity poitrts to a figure-Martin Luther, and becaue of the work of this rnnn and nf othcrv such as Zwingli, Crnrim~r, and Cnlvin, there was a rcfornialion of a certain kind. Thore might wcll have been a rcfarrnatian without Luth~t, but it certainly would nut haye hen the kind of reformation which accurrcd under his Icaderwhip. It is this pecdiar reforn~ation ~hich I~an helpd form wut- em civili;ration. We are not intemtd in whet might have heen but in what w~ls atd iq. Thus nz. n1uc.t rake seriously both the giicn conditicms which determine the cours of history in nny epoch and also the unique lhist5 bnd turns given to hidorlcal rlrstiny hy nwn operating ercalively with some fredom. Certainly Luther could he the reformer h wa only be- caux hc way horn and worked et a c~rtain lime in history. 'The proem of histnry rlnr* move in rn~terious ways to cer- tain poinu of fulne-s when n criais is reached and a new turn is taken. But no such turn i~ iner itahle, though it ih always a pousililitr. Divine Providence use% events, move- mcntr, end force3 to Hia own purpom. In deer to under- smnd the crivis of thc late medieval let us I~ok 11 thc age in which \he Reformation WRS horn. During the pprrcy of rnnacent I11 (1298-1216) the Ro- man Churrh achieted a high degree of control over western civilization. ,111 of life R* world out under the ovrrurch. ing bieu of lift Idd by thc Churrh. Thcrc wzs one swio- reIigiuus body-the Chtibtian body-with two anpposcdly qua1 aide, Church and state. But, of them two, the Church RS the ernbc~diment of ~pirilual power wau superior over the alalt. an guardiau r,f the tc~npord power. Innocent lnadr and broke kine and enipcrors. TIC td EngIand away from King John and give it back as n fief. The unity of life found its center in the Church as the guardian of rewlution and as the proclailner of reconcilia- tion hetwccn 3U the tcnaiona and conflicts in life. She wab the hearer of God's law an reicahd ir~ Scripture and trndi- tion, and so she was thc interpreter of God's Law rs revealed in nature. All quwlionu in law, in tcunomics, in politics, or UI mr~rality were to be decidd according to God's Ian as in- tcrprdcd by the Church. Thus it was diflicult to find any genui~le or Icgitimnte independence for thc state or secular affair.;. The Roman Church was co-terminous with westcrn civi1k:rtion and producd what some havc chosen to call the greatat Christian cii iliadtion ever achieved. Neverthel~s, even tlt the high water x~lnrb; of this YO-called Christian civilization, the thirteenth Century, there were present many non-Christian forces and Inany conflicts or tensir~ns which could not lw rrsolvd hy the law of Cod as interpret~d fry the Church. [n fact, many 01 the things which pawed for the Iaw of God were nothing hut thc divin- king of certain rnt.die\al eustonls. For miample, in wo11o1n- icr, ~hc Church was grc-rrtly concerned drat justice be done for all closes of men-the prinwa and nubility, the rising rnerchal~w the guild masters, the journeylticn, and the peas- at~ta or errs. However, under the sptern of thc so-callod just prirc, m rnuch injustice ws dune to the Iower ctasseq l~articulady th~ journeymen or epprctlticts in thc guilds and the pcar;ants on the land, as in arty ccmomie system where no rttcntkn~ wan paid 10 the lnam of Cod aa directed by thc Church. Tht mne could be assc?rted co~lcerrhg both Iocd and internatior~nl paIitics. In addition lo how inhcm~t med~ei 31 col~flicta hat Ronie 11eier conqucrrd or ~randormcd, them enlergd at thi:. timc an cnlird! mw set of disrupti\e force which slowly de- ~tr~pd men the external facade of the so-called unified Cliristia* westrrn &dization. Irtt-istibly thew forc~s moved OR la break the donlinatiu~l of 'the papacy o~cr he totality of life. Wlrn Komc found sllc could not subdue or conquer them, SIW attemlpted to nlanipuIate or uutmancuver them in diplomatic ncgotiation~ But, at that wry point in history rr-he11 Ro~ric nc~ded her most persuar;ivc powerr; in order to cupe with such things as the rising nnliond datc, the changing CCOlloNl)., and hoiitiIe new ideas, she was caught in dlc trap of intcrna! strife and cursttd with 3 seritv of \c-cak popm - - Through ~ivo great blunders, the papacy did more danlqe to ikIf and to the C11urc.h than anj~hing dotie by external forces. Tile first of ~hcw ~VUS the so-culled Babyloniuu cap- tivity of the Church whcn the papacy moved away from Romc and rcsidcd in Avignon (1309-1377), a territory un- der the domination of France. This was n terrible shock to we9tern Europe, and the papacy lost moral prwtige through tha bIunder. How was it posvible for a pope to abandon tho dernal city, to leave behind the holy relics, the very bones of the npostIeu Paul and Peter, to leave the moat an- cient Christian chuiehta'? It to cut the Church off from her very roow and to subject her in an ig~~onlinious way to the grecdy hands of an upstart monarch, Philip the Fair, of France. It is remarkable that the papacy did not bt-come e mere tool of France, but somellow it managed to retain soitle de- gree of integtity. Ihmer, on too many msions, the pap- acy succumbed to French intermta while at the same time it hounded the Holy Rw1.m Empire drnnst to destruction. Mennwhilt., the expnle of niaintaining an entirely new cell- tcr for the papacy drove it to a careful acfutiny of its hld~ and conlpellcd it to m.k new ways of raising money. The result was a gowth in sy~tenlntic pIundering of the various national church^ in order to raise funds. This period Lw came known as one aI thc motit avaricious periods iri the his- tory of the Church, y~* it aIsa marked the shill of the finan- cial hais of thc papicy from a land basis to a money Basis. In n new econvnlic age, thl: upp port of the Church had to be colIcctcd in a new way. This waw motnewhat of a shmk tu many simple, pious people. Thc sxond great blurider that undercut the moral power of the papacy waa the Great Schism (1378-1417) when Eu- ropc was horrified by thc scandal of two and itt times thrw rncn alt claiming to be the lcgitinmte vicar of Christ oil Ilr 1373, shortly after the papacy rcturncd to lZonic, a nc7r pop l~d LO bc elected. With the Roman croyd cry- ing for action, [he cardinals electcd on Italian, Urban VI, a~ pry. 3everul rnotllh..i later thc French cardinals, a major- ity, decided they had been presured inlo the election which wad, therefore, void. They proceeded to elect one of their Inm an pope, CIemnt VII. Beforc this split or schism wn* t-~:alcd, there were rhree rnerl clailning to be pup. The papacy sufl~mxl irreparable damage from this strange spcctade. Nations Eined up behind ~hc various pop. Each lacked ru5icicnt support arid ha3 to depcnd hertvilp on tl~osc from ~rho~n he drew support. For the fitd the since thr dLlminuiiuh ill the west, European natima ctrd pcopl~-: wtlre confroritod wilh dividd loyaltie, With all pops claim- ing fun IoyaItg and rights, the quation nelurally art)-c which rme ,+-as right? If nma was right, why WAS nny rlcwa- wry? Furtllermorr, iE each depend& for cxiritcnwe upon natiotml ~upprb how could any pope claim sonlrol wcr those who kept him in oflice? Thus the whote 111ora1 l~asis r,f TIIC papacy was djccted to ICI.~CJUS quecti~ning. C)nc of LIE mod difficult problems wirh which 10 dual W3b Iluw to coke [he dilemma of ~vernl pqws If tlw ppt: js X. ~uperior ovcr temporal powers, and he hod so claimed for centuries; if the pope was not subject to the control of his fellow bishops but was lord over all of them, and he had so claimed for centuries; how then couId the papacy hc cor. rectcd or refon~~ed hy anybody? Wnu nothing of higher authority in thu Church? An msrver given by the unhersitiu and advanced both by high prelates and princes, was thdt general councils of the Clinrch were high than the pope and couId, thvrefuru, solbe tfie problem of two or three popes clainling ultitnatc IoyaIty. John Gerwm (d.i429), Peter d'Ail1y (d.l420), and NichoIas uf Clcrnonges (d.1429) were t j picd of thokc men callcd c~~aciliarish bccau= they stremcd ~hc rights and privi- leges of church council^. 011 the whole, conciliaritrtu did not want to deny papal suprenrncy; ~llrp mcrdy wanted to xt ~pxific limits to that suprenincy hy Jtwying ppol nbsolutisur. Thc pope wa:, thought of as s king who rulcd suprcm but not alonc; hc ruId and ~hrough ~~9t.rnbIicu of the Church. Thee as- xmblir~ were rlceted by the clergy within thc \arious nu- ticms, and w they reprwnted Christians frorii a11 lands. 111 council, thy ucre thc 6naI organ of authority, and whct~ a pope went ntong or thr Church had 3 situation ,such as thl: whi~n~, councila fiad tlw righ lo depose a11 the popes and FI~T~ a ncw onr or ta find soma other solution. Many cm~iliari9ts werc wtm witling lo admit that coun- rilr had r~rcd in the paat, hut they srgucrl that it wm ps- rible for the rnora nf one cauncil to If: corrcctcd by an&- cr. Scripture and prcviuuh councils wcrc now tlrc Yource of authority ratItcr than past or prcxnL decisicm by thc pip- my. Thrw apecia1 councils were corivokcd to dtnl with rhrm burning iw~cs -- the schis~n in the papacy, the her- al John Hum, arid the much 11c.eded relam in the practices of the Clrurch. 'I'hc fir5t council held at Piaa in 1409 acrom- plislicd little, mtl as a consequrnct; illere mere three pqxa The seco~~tf, lield at Con~tance 1414-1418. put IIus to death a~~d sol\cd thc Grcat Schism but did nothing ahout reform. The third, Bmcl 1431-1438, nttempt~d lo deal with reform but ~ide liltle progrew us d~e rierr pope, Martin Y, had turncd his Ld trIi counr'iIs and rcesserted the suprrrnacl of the pnpaty. Thus thv schisrn was hdad but little ur no reform took dam in thc Ct~urrh and the cor~citiar niorerncnt was all but suppr~wvl. It nw not until the Reform~tiuri that it reah- ~rterl itrclf. 1hri11g &mstiii~ct o decrcc f"requcn\, 1417. tias issu~d to guarantrc the calling of future courlcila to rervc tm s chwk ntl papat nbolutiam and to assure! periodic rcfurnl of tlie Church. As it anid, "frecjucnt holding of gni- vrd cr~ul~cila is onr uf the chief means of cultivntirrg the YAJI~*B field. It wrlca to uprout thc briars, tllorus, and this- tles of hemiee, errom, and schisms, to correct esccsses, to restore what is marred, nnd to cause the !dorti's vine to brir~~ forth fruit of thc richest ferlility." The rejmtiqm of a11 such ideas was madc absoIutc by the papacy in tlm bull Execrubilis iwucd by Pius TI in 14.60. it etared, "An execrable abuse, unheard of in former ages, has grofim up in our time. Some persons, enhcd with the apirit of rckllion - . . to escape the consequences of their miedeeds, yrrsunlr to appeal to a future council from the Roman pcmtiff: he vicar of JWM Christ.. . . see how con- trary thia is ta the aacred canons and how injurious to Chri.;tei~durn . . . . tre condtmn such appeals and denounce them as erroneous and detmtablo." N'hile the papacy wns busy using conciIi~risnx to re-cutob- liah itm huprcnlacy, lhouAh denying it any continuing ralc in iht: life of the Church, gave abmm in church life continued and ware strengthened, hohtile form on the outsidle, too, were daily growing in strength. Reform had to wait while thc pnpncy re-estalli~hed itu ebsoiuk mpremacy aver the Church M~trnwhile, hating Io,*t a good deal of prestige through the Babylonian Captivity, the Great Sct~iml, and the continued necd for reform, the papacy was unabla to dcaI adequately with the new riaing form. Nstic~nalim was to plague Christianity in general and the papacy in pnrticuIar througl~aut modem history. The rise of CII~ nationd states such as Spin, France, or England was a =rims threat to the unitersal wedern sway of Rome. Nevcrthelm, Rome by hcr greed, hntred, and prenumption. hclpd to pro~r~otc the wry enemy that alnlbrrt proved her undoing. In poli~icl, thc ona major politid factor which prevented he rapid rise of nationahm ww the Holy Ru- ntnn Empire. It repreented ilnivcraalianl in polilics and found its strength not in a aingle notiond state but in a sin& powerful dynastic family which held to@er a variety of national states in a IOO~ cmpirc. The Holy Ro- man Enlpirr attclnpled to hold togeher uj~der me crown part oil Ttdj, ttw LowI~nds, Austria, Hungary, partv uf Po- Innd, and mwt of tho Germm territories. The papcp ieurcd the Empire as its chicf cornpetitor for the Ioyllics of Europc, and as a fotce which it was unable to mrltrol. Contir~uous conflict b~cm the papacy ad the crnpira markcc! the ~nedicval In 1450 Innocent IV sat$* Lo it the Frcdmick II went to hi3 grave with little hap for the luturr uf his family in the Empire. Rome was bent on the total snhjugahn of her memy, md mxeeded ill :&it- ing her gual tro far as a powerful ruling family in the Empire was cor~~crned. But the passing of the Empirc as a pditica! force w35 Lut me more factor encouraging the rise of powerful national: rrrtk~. Therc was no unusuaI political form Ioft to check the natiorlal spirit; Rome had destroyed the political powers of the Empire, Neverfieless, many d~er factors contributed to the rise of national states and their assertion of temporal supremacy as against the temporal claims of the papacy. The Crusades killed o£E many oi the get deudal princeri who stood in the jvny of n single prince consolidating his Idd on a nalional group. Thc ritc of towns rind n moncy economy gave thc national prince ncw nllics and n new form of wealth independ- ent from his feudaI supporters. Gunpowder and firearms made poesiLlc national arrnics rather than bands of soldiers hrmwad from various feudal barons. Humanimn and a re- newed inttx-FJI in c!msinl learning provided the mational rlah nith a body of law d~ich cuuld stand gain st the su- prrnlacy of ~hc Clmrch's canon Taw. With the breakdown of universal political ~mntrel, the papacy had ta find other means of dealing with plitical rcalitics. In Gcrmang, with the destruction of the Hohen- staufen family in 1250, cxh territorial prim became a Io- caI national lcadw nnd unlike Fnncq England, and Spain, Gcrnnny wag not unitcd Into a single political alate nhhough it d~clopcd n nationalistic spirit. The papacy was now forcd to deal with all the large or smaller princes ruling ah- dutcly in thcir rrqcctise natiortal or territorid states. Lit- tlc wuuder that !than U1c Rcforma~ion cam the papacy found no political inulrutnrnts to check it cffectually, The t~atiunal state or prince might bt for or against it; there was no univrrd dcfcn~e or opposition. 111 its dealings with tl~=-c.p many national ntatcs tho papacy ernploycd diplomacy. It drew up hewties called Conmrdnts whiclr spcifitd the righh of the Church and the state in sn maltera wlterc thcir luutud interests cl=hcd or cuincidtd. 'Though till claiming uitirnats spiritual authority crm owr ull tmlporal stotcs, the papacy adinittcd implicitly through the Concordats that it rrns dealing nith equal powcm. XIwnrr.hilt.. a frehh vital attitude of lhc heart md milld was dcvc.loping; and this new spirit, calIcd the Kenair;sance, nmrked profound ~hanp in the live3 of the people and in the papacy itdf. It war hoth a mnfinuation of certain forvcs inhermtb in rrnrdirval lifr and 3 Ir~jh di~covcry nf clawical Greek md l~omsn civi1irrution. These two forcck fud to pruduee a new attilrrde towards art, literature, phi- loraphy, religion, seiunw, politics, and economics. Ewry facet of life was touchcd. Briefly ~lut, tl~e Renaissmcc re- di~o\cred thc cenlrulil~. ni man and nature in life. 'h trnrhtior~d i icns 61 life incukated by the tmdit\nl Iiolnan Cntllolic Chu~ch were now ciiher openly or implicitly de- nied, hu~ thc Jwtri~m and morality of the Chrch but the lrcsh e'iciting crlmrieutes of hunranity were to yrrrridc the I,a*ia for life, The divine dill cor~trolld Iift* bu't not dtrough the Church or thc hierarchy-the dhine way found eupraa- iug itself creatikely through the humon spirit urld through the richnew and mystery of nature. The divine in marl was to mn~l life and not the divine exprmd through the Church. Rom& reaction to the Rmaiswce WQS mixed. At first it gmdly Irnr~d the praim of rnm'a creative capadties apart from the conhl of the Church. It was tluspicious of he cm- pbusis urr sex and the human paions, and it deplored tllc wngc (,I rIa&d Iitrrnture which embodied that spirit. Also, it decried the Henaimawe -don uf hunian autonomy in poIitb and economi~, for if man Iired according to thc law of ~UIIWIP neture he denied the ultimate laws of God rerenI~vl 10 tht Church. Slowly but sudy the papacy snccumbcd to the spirit of the Rarai-wnce. On the one hand it continued to deny the as.serLion of hu~nan autonomy, but 0x1 the other hard it ern- ployd the aAkb of he Rennisvance to decorate a~td enibel- lish the churches and chaych of the Church with an art that wa3 the bearer of this new spirit. More than one pope con- ceived of his role as a Renaissance Yrincc patronizing the ttrltr end Eghhg to expand his temporal territories in Italy ii~ urcler to have a more lwish wthg for thc ppwg. The rcligiouu and qiritual cuncenis of the Church \rere buried under the prwwre to obtain more and rnorc money ao build rnagnifimnt St. Y&dn in Rorne, to decorate it anti c&sr tuildinp, and ta equip annicd to fight Italian wars. Xkholas J' (1447-1455) bent his whok energy to making the yapoey the chiel patron of tho Rcnaimwc. Undcr him the Vatican library was founded ad Rorrit hame a vast "lac~ory of tt~n~lntic~n~.'' Alexander Yl (1492-1503) was more concernid with the poIiticn! forlunw of hi* infanwus non Cawar Borgia than he was with the religious role of thc papacy. JuIius I! C1503-1513) ucted 11s the mode! of a typi- cal IZenaiwancc prinec and was famed ,!or his wariike abili- ties; he w~re~lgthrmed he papal clain~s to the territories in,- ~ndiu~ely surrour~ding Rome. Lorenzo & Mdici, the fs- IIIOUS putrun of the Renaisance, was the father of Leo A' ( LSI3-LXll) whu waa XI busy enjoying the artistic balefits of the papacy that he had neither thc inturt3t nor the ill- clinotiorl to take aerioudy the Reforlidon when it occurred. 111 itdf it was ccrtilinly ~iot bad that the Church pro- ~llot~d the arl and atudieg oaf rho Rmaiaw~ce. Bur, wlien the LLIA of the Church was uonipletelr ig~lord or wbvertcd to SXYG thic new rnovcmrr~l l!wn banlething WUJ drasticillp W~.OIIL. 13ribt:ry u~td selling of offices were elicouraged b!. the! papacy to obtain large sums for artistic enterprisw Luxury, pomp, gmd, avarice, and in~nioruIi~y were tc~ bo f~u~~d a1 tlic heart of Clriste~~dorn cetllcring in the papacy jlwlf. The Church was over-ripe for reforni. 'The Ituliaw, caught in the ~yirit uf the Renaissance, might riot hatv Lce~l tow troubled Lp k- condition uf the Church, but the north- ~rn European peoples, wha took much ruort miously tlw V~~IIIJ end Iradershiy of Home, were dmply dirrt~rlcrl. 'The Rtmaisrallce made its way northward id a hver pace, a~rd when it arrived il found its gcatcst cxpr~~sion not 50 much in art or ~II thc new-found human autonomy a5 in litrrary critic!ir~rt itr~d a frr& npprcciatirm ol pli~ilofioph~ and Scrip~urc through the we h~th of arisind higuagtr and of rnorlcrl~ vcr~iacular ~ramlatitrns. P.:ndt?r the kacletd~il~ of man like RtuchIin, GIc- and Erasmus, northern Europcarls were led to a reappreciation of biblical litcralure ad to an hintnrical study uf the Church and the papacy. This was to bccrmc ii fruitful source of reform in the Iife of the Church. Out of i.t was to cmle he biblicd iranslations into the na- tive tongue of the. European pcopleu, end through it llw nwarra wrte found to brand fake the histaricd claims of thc papacy to absolutc supremacy. Mcariwhile ather fom for gw~d contu~ucd to operstc. In bpire of tile &gradation of rlw papacy and of most wctio~ls of the Chutclt, the Gospd R-a still bciog prcached occasion- ally, thc: sacritrncnts nrrc administered, thc poor were carcd for, and ;L ta*t mlaoil existed out uf which reforrn cuuld +ng. Shortly hcforc the IEeformation, the Church was marked by this obvious eunlradic~ion of extrcmcs. On the one hand, the papacy did nut hmitate LO use he Sacranwntnl hy~tcrn LO extort rnurc and more money for its various necde. Sq~r~tition was not ortIy condoned but in bomc caves en- cmmaged if it helpcd control those who had to suppart the papac)l. Flanhyant public dcnmnutrations of the faith wcrc po~nn~on. And all dliv was nut even disturbing to the Rcaaia- >ancc men Lu~y building a ri~agnificent Rorne. 011 he other hand, there were faithful parbh priests quietly working anlong their pcuple. There were conxien- tious bishop and 11ay1iw11 disturbed by the corrupticln and indiffem~ci: of the papacy. In tFtc homes of many common people, the Creed and Lord's Prayer were still taught, hymns wcrc sung, am! yeoph were found faithful. If hi* were not cu h would not tiaie ken pomible for Luther to receive the apontancum rnyonsc which IIC cxpriericed whcn he called for tin= reforrn of tl~e Church in head ad nieniLer3. In addition to the continuation uf the Christian life in quiet md unpretenhuv ways, Lhr vitality of the faith crying for reforni nns mnnife5t in a variely of striking nays. In England. John 1V)cliffe (1320-1384), disgusted ~ith rl11. clai~ns ui thc IJ~I~ICY and thc practice of the popes, particu. larly clurilrg the Great Schism, rethought the entire coriccpt of tho Cl~urcli, the rolc of tlu ppwy and thc hierarchy. Hc catlie lo tho radicirl co~iclusion that the pope was in no aen,sc thc hc.1c1 of the Church in a reprmentativc or any other way. 'The Church is coinposed ordy of t lie elect of God and not primarily of a11 tho* pruperly ordained. Thosc men ~htl giw eiidcnce rri grace in thcir liws are thc clect and arc to Iw follo.itccl, arid hose without such grace arc not to bc fol- luncd. TIIW it ~rcluld be possible fur tllc Church to ronsi*t only of lay people. Thc prince should we to it that thp rt~alth al~d tlic prctor~ae of Rome are set wide ill ~rJt*r tl~al Christ niigh~ rulc the Church lor purely spirituaI rw.Is. Wycliffe alrrr altackcd the rtolnan tucrarnentd system and ad! r~catcd the Uiblr irs the ultirriate bourcc ctf authority to 11t. rcdd it) tlle tiatilt; language of variuw peoplc. As a corix- qucnre of [hi* work, a r~iotemerit jib Englaud called LolIartl! aroN; John IIu* prcaclied rlnd Jsrotc ill~uut WycIiffc'5 idea in Hohemia. Thc Lallards went among ttrc poor rcciting L) ~~rcrnory from ari Eriglivh translation portions of Scripturc produced by W7ycliffc*~ followers. St1 poivcrful did thc mube- mcnl become tliet the English King Kcrlry IF' felt conlpellcd to move againvt it with force and, rrtorting in 1401, Lollards were put to d~nth and the movement driven underground. In Bohcmin, John Hum adr mted Wycliffe's idea with buch succes* that Iw dewloped a pon.erful following. His idcals for rtfonn cnmhined with Czech nalionalim plcading for a complete reform Loth poli~icaI and religious. WycIiffe 'em too powerful to he touchcd end died r noturn1 den& in 1384, but Hu~q, granted wf~ mndm to the Council of Constance, was betrayed ty the emperor and prehta and was burned at the stake in 1415. Czech notional fwling wns enraged by thia act and central Europe was plunged into a aeries of wars that kere lo rage for ahoak a century. Thus the feeling for wform run high in Europe. Other ayrnpoms of vital pi&y just before the Reforma- tion were to be found in the various mystics and the groups that dc+elopcrl out uE them. In face of the seculnr-minded payrtcy and preIaCe;t, the Chureh denloped at thia time a Iarp number of men and women who Ihed lives of deep piety and devotion. Though faithful sons and daughters of the Church, they mewed the union that existed between Christ and the believer ae the central ioct of the Chrietian life. Love, devotion, and service, not weal&, pomp, and glory, were the marks of the Chriviian life. In Germany, a miw of peat my~tics arose. Outstanding wim John TauIer Id.1361) md Hcnry Sus (d.1366). In the Lawlandq John Ru~~bromk (d.1381) and Gerhard Grmte (d.1384) fornled a hy brotherhood through their prraching. Thin group known du the Brethren of the Com- rnon Life cn~hodicd in practice tho highcst ideals of the pre- Reformation mystics. They ~trcwd preaching in the ver- nacular, rtrvico in lo\e to orphans and poor, teaching the young, and looked for thc imminent return of Christ. Pcr- 11ap~ the hnnt exnmpic of thcir piety is to bt: found in the 1~1ok coming ou~ of their group and ascribed to Thomas A. Kernpis (&14il), The lrrrimwn of Christ. In addition to the mystics, farther caamplm of dissatib- faction with the contemporary statc of Christianity and ad- tr~cob of a new ~piritultlily and reform were lo be found among a wries of outstiinding prenchcrs. The most famous nf thee was Savanarola, who was put to death in 1497 at the in&cnce of thc papacy which could not stand his sharp criticism of it* &reed, deceit, and nnspirituality. At one he, his ficry peaching won mod of J?Iorenm Ca his follow- ing, and Icd to temporary reforms in n~ords and customs. John Geilex nf Stmwbnurg (6.2510) wau another great whc~ advocated refomla in moral and social cus- tom>. People mrne from far nnd wide to hear him, Thus, on thc me of the Rcformahn, there were numerous men di~tisficd wid1 the worrdliness of the papacy. Some advnnccd Scripiure as the suprelne basis of authorily in thc Church as against tbe pope and his interpretation of tradi- tion. Others attnckcd the hierarchy, the mbnw of the sacra- mental syhteni, and sonw attacked Lhe abuse af selling indul- gences, Not a few men stressed the dietinc~ion between the visible and inr:isibIc Church, and decried rho false povition of the papacy. hH this was fermenting at the same time the national stales wrc beginning to feel their new born slrmgth. JIcanwhile tltc invigorating spirit of the Renaia- ' ~11ce was raising questions concerning the prerogtivcs of the papacy. But bcfore the Keforn~atior~ could emerge some- arie had to appear on the scelle with the fiiigioua conviction and ineights which alone could produc-c a thcologicnl and religious nlovemcnt which would strike at the center of thc corruptioli and move out from there to influence all of life, 1. What was both the s~rength and weakmeu of the so- ralled Christian civilization of !lit: medieval synthesis? 2. Is such a thing as n "Christian Civilication" psuiblc? If so, what makes it spccificnlly Christian? If not, what is the importance of Christian faith for civiliza- tion? 3. To what an extent was the pnpxy mponsible ituelf for the dirirrlegralion of ik "ideal" civilization? 4. What was the significalice both of the attempt and of dlc failure of conciIisrisni? How was it important for the Rcfornmtion? 5. E\.irluutc the role of ~lationalisrn in the disir~te~ration of the medieval ideal. (I. Can you say, as sonw Rortran GtPmtic historians, that the Refirrn~iltion wua prilnasily rcrpon~ihle for the rigc of natiotlalism? 8. Dktingobh herwcm 11e southcrn and thc northern Ke- nais+~ric.a: ~nd ~hcir rmpcctive rclcrtiona to the Church. 9. What wvrc sonie ponitive forces preparing for the Rcf- ormotion? W11y is WSclifle ft:rIleil the. ''morning stor of the Reformntion?" 10. In vie\+, of the preparation widen1 bcfore thc lieforma- tion, would thrc 1r;ive lwn the Reformati011 rvilhout Luther? 11. hiher !be Man In the fulnw of time, a nlnn appeared out of the age who 110th refltrtcd thc age and yet brokc through it. What kind of marl was this refonrier Martin Luther? Enemies show no hesitation in denouncing him aa a rnir~ion of the devil, R re. helliouv monk who ~hattnred the unity of the Church that hc might induIge in the lua~g of the flesh --a strange i~idict- ment from those who* Ieadrrii oftentimw indulged in limn- tiouvncss but never found it nwsmry to destroy the unity of the western Christendom. Them same men rtand convincxd that Luther was prtrfoundly irnrnoral, thoroughly dcpravttd, obseswl by hate;., !ears, drink, uud the sexual impulee. Hc supposedly canw from e hnily of drunknrds arid disorderly men, and wan hirmlf pycupthic. On the uppojite extreme nre those praiw Lut.her as the parngon of all virtues, a prophet nf Gad and a theolog- id gcniu.4. Some sin& nut his work of realfirri~ing the ccn- irality of Scripture and of founding pure Chrktinn doctrine as he true rneawre of Ilia grentnesn Others rrc mart: intcr- csted in the young Luther who= perscmul religious faith was K, profo~~~~d tht i~ *hatted the ehnina of Hnmm insh- ~ion~K~in and reamrtcd lllc yri~~wcy of C~C uonrarred Chria- ~ian in wwll ~c~msi~rced group. hhkmn delighted in caIlirlg him ;the hounder irf nrodean irrdir.itluaIian and liburty, Did he not rM) both clnpor and pope with the hrhd 6sl.ertion r,f the sacrcdr~ees of thz individud conscience? Waa hhe nut the ow w110 swept ;LII,U~ all nwdiators betweell God wid rnan '! 'The i~itcrpretations of the man hhcr arc ~IIICI~ a:, 1111- maroue as the works writtcn about hini. Swernl thousnrrtl I,onlis and ~rlo~~u~raphs have teen writtell im Luther ir~ nl- lx1o3t ewrj modern lnnguage. Flc himd prucluccd ;t bast Ixdy of literature, Little wonder hat it ih estrtmely tIihwlt lo fird a sir~tplr: clear, and objectively ctrrrert picturc of tllc mar,. 7'wo thine arc abundantly clear 110th LO his enernieh ard to hi3 dmirerr, Luther was a giant figure in histury. one of thc keys to modern western civilization. And, Luthcr wr?; a ron~plex and complicnted man. Perhaps this is trur of uny genius who is motivated by a simple ~et l~rofaur~d cvnvir[in~t which rcficctc itseIf in wryt thing hc rays ~IIJ th~ and ro marry times appears contratiiclory. I:or esi~m~le, the very things which draw- IIWI~ r~wn to I.,utI~c:r. rcpel othem. His full humnnity c.spresed in a hc for rnucic, for ~UIIW, for children and famil,y lif; tlnd hi3 abilit), to participate in all the common joys of humaniry, repel thox who conccivc of the twnce of rcligiom lifc iri tcrnms of celibacy. ~~overty, and obedience. Luther felt he ccluld accept all thew things as free gih of God. h<. ~wuItl participate in thcm both for thair RWII sakc and as: a mean* of scrvicc to his fcllow huirlm beings. I-Ie was fully a child of his age (witnew hi:, sc~ ere and uncouth Inngungc against ccrtain enemies) yet he was transfornietf by his rcligiouv es- pcrience into 3 1nm of R ncw ag~-flu: Rcfor~natior~. Lutllcr docs IWL hclor~g tu the wcallcd lileru[s, the seven- teenth century orthodox, thc childrcri of the crilightenment, or the pielisb. Certainly hc is not the rnm portrayed by his Roman enemies. He starrds forth as one graspcd by the re- demptive lore and forgiveness of Christ Jesus; as n conse- quence, he was drivcn to break thruugh the Rolnar~ pcrver- sions of the Goqrel, ad iri ao doing he nt~consciously let looee n flood hat was to change ~~&rn civilizatiori. AY he said, God had put blinders on hini as on a home and hod rlrivcn hini he knew riot where. 111 fact, Luther felt that had he known wllere he was to go, he prol~ablp would have been uuwilling to go, but so God works out His will in history. Irt order to urrderstrlnd the rim Martin Luther and why he hame the rcfornicr he did, it will kc nccmarp to Iook briefly AL hi* background, home, nnd erluention. In n very red ~IX, the child is father d~u nlarr. Born Novembt-!r 10, la?. in Eislrbcn, Luthcr w~s taken to hInnufeld the fol- lowing year. There his father, a poor struggling but conwi- entious lalorcr, raised Ilir~~rclf by shwr irtduatry fron~ bcing a coppw miner to being n part owtlcr in ;r little foundry. Lu- ther was thc second son irr tile family of cight childrcn. There 5%- nottring remarkaldl: ailour his homc Iife. AS WBS thc caw with 11103t medieval peauanta. Gmas-1-Iarls Luther had a long and terrible econon-ric slrupglc i~i order to get ahead. 'I'haugh Iris progrcgs was ncrcr great, he nchieved some little security. Mtnnwhile, the rhildrcn btre aubjccted to 3 vciy stmi upbringing. Typical 01 the ape, the witch aud hcntinp ircrc ~hc most colnrnon way to rok a fnrnily. arid your16 Martin received his eharc. the part of hia parents, nnd he mnid over n good many typical German peasant superstitions of his day. For lone pear he attended 4 heal school in Mansfeld, and then he went any to hlagdcburg and studied in n school operated by the Brethren of the Comnlon Life. There he had tu help py hia wrr) by singing with r lit& choir group that went about receiving alms for thcir efforts. Eben this was typical of the day. Luther's gifts and intcrcst in music had been arou-4 at Mansfeld aid were now increased at Magde- burg. Alao, in this town he beheld R sight that was firmly dchnl on his mind, and which I1c recalled many yenrv Iater. One a! Lhe grew princm uf the day had entered the Fran- ckmn order and went tu clitreinev in mortifying his body. Luther ma n boy MW this mendicartt prince, a ghost of a man, y& a 'truly holy marl by monastic standarch Neverthe- less, this appeared not to have uffocfed Martin's religious zeal at the time, Luther went to Ei~nnch in 1497 where he experienced one of he happiest perioda it1 his life. He attcnded St. Ckorge's school urtder on excellent master, John Trebonius. There he excelled in Latin nnd took grcat dcIight in his studies. Meanwhile, his voice attractmi the attention of rr wealthy merchant's wife, and young Martin was soon stay- ing in their hme and acting as r supervisor of heir young son. The Schdhe family was one of the most pious in Eise- nach, and young Luther was tden by the earneatness of the family. It is probably here hat ha first lcarned to take rc- ligion rmlly wiously. Ha\ing nmp!ctcd his work nc Eimlach, it was dctcr- mined to aend young hlartin to the outstanding university in Cerrnany. In 1501 he was in Eriurt whcrc he waa to ru- main until 1505. He quickly pzsed his bncheior's examina- tions in L502 and proceeded to the master's work. Here his training was typically rncdieval, following the schooI ol Occam. He #us trained in Aristotle'r rhetoric, logic, and poedm, and he partici~xitd in weekly dinlceticml debates. Thus the instrument of the mind ~vau sharpcr~d and pre- pard for it* b&. \?Thile LUIRC~ spoke diupamgingly of the content of hia education, tln~ugb oren this influenced him more than hc wodd admit, LC was almys gratefuI for the n~cthodicaL way it taught hiru to think nrd prepared him to engagc in useful polzmic. Certainly ~hc fact that he sa,s trained undcr the Owarn nominalirrtzi, hcIps nccvunt for his diw~tiufaction with thr traditional medieval wholnslic systems of Thorun~ Aquinas or Duns Scotus. Otcnrn's insistence that human reason can- not attain to the knowledge of di\ ine truth ur faith Icd to thc eicVetion of churchly dogm as the only source of certainty in mattere rciigioun. While the Occnn~ibt critique of reason wne employed hy Luthcr, he nwcr felt at home with its con- cIuaion*. In order to make certain the role of dogma in life, tllc Occamixts assrted the unIinlitcd quality of 1l1e human will through which one can lay hold and believe such dog- mas. Later Luther was to reject a11 this, but only after he had tried it fully in he monastic Iife. Mennwhile, Luther built quite a repuletion nrnotig his fel- low students nu one of the firlest disputar~b, and they dubbed hinz "the philouophcr." Also at Erfurt he lcarlred to play the lute ~Ilile hc wm convalmcing from e sevetc: wound caused Iy all nccirlent. His interc-t in music continued to grow. Although thwt here some humanids on the Erfurt campus, Luther w:m rlerer identified with them. During the ycar:. lic was privileged fur the hrsr rime LO handle a full copy of the Rihle, and ihr: imprmiar~ this n~& on him i11dicatt.s hat his interest in religion fimr strength~v~ed at Eiwnach was no1 dormant. Wheu hr mmplered his iuaster's work, his father decided thal Martin ww to proceed to a docturk dcgree in Lhe faculty uf law. A marriage with a wealthy girl could be arranged and perhaps the young law- yer c~ld find a position in a prince's court. Hans Luthcr had gwaL plarisffor his brilli~nl young son whom he now addrr+,wd in a formal way. Hut 3Iartin Lather'n lifc ws:, dewtincd to play a far diffur- el11 rolc from that of an ohscurc young court lawyer. lie had a period of one n~onth of frcv lime before ~hc lectures in law startcd, arid hc ir~dicatm that during this time he was pcmewd by a sadness and restleanem. What cauxd this? We realIy do not know, ~hnugfl he Inter *aid it was fear over the condition of his WOUI. Only two ~nontha after hc hepn his leclurm ,511 law, he travelcd home lo see his parents. Again, nobody knows why. It was on his return trip in JuIy of 1505 that he was throw11 to the ground by the air prm- wre created Ly a Iightr~ing bolt that atruck close by. In his fear, he cried out for help to St. Anna and promised to be- come a ~not~k if his prayer wsh unsrvered. Obviously this was not something which ~uddelrly entered Luther's mind. For acveral months prmious to the July cs- perience he had been worried ahout the htate of his soul. Any rcligiousl~ acmitive pormrl oC the age could not escape tl car~ful consideration of his ultimate end. 'The Church thruugh her ~rcrvicm, her monks: nncl her clorgy, and civili- zatiou arrd culture through its art, music, education, cus- tornn, and rnoralv con~ruitly kept before the individuuI the prwsing choice hutwwn hcavcn end hdl. LitlIc wo~tder that 1,uhcr had be~n worried nhout the $tale of his soul. I-low- wer, it look a sudden criais such us the 1hut1dt.rE30lt 10 forcc ri decision from him. It wtw no casy decision for even after uttcring the vow, hu carefully considr.red his obligation to it. Though his father was angry and several of his teachcrs tIwught it not binding, 1 uung Lulhes could not asoid goha through with his prom- iac. With hw~incso of heart, Re cleared up ell his affairs at the University, artd in the fall of 1505 he enled the Augux- tininn Order in Erfurt. It is in!rresting to mote that hc w- Tded the nto~ rigorous of thc locd monastic groups. Tllc hba~linian mendicants were famous in Erfurt for their pidy and asce!icism. dIdrnitted to the rnonastery ns a IIOV~CP, lie sought there he pcam of soul which he could not find outside. His search wag for no prrychological technique that would produce a mariipulated peace. Rather, hc was asking the hasic pea- lion--[-Iors. can sinful man find n merciful God? HOW can one ec-aprt the wrath of the Creator? As a uovice, Luther found hirnself in a methodical, busy routine deliberately constructcd to Iead one in a life of holinmg which would bring a m~e of wceptance in Cod's ~ight. AII nmnwtk novices haw to learn a prescribed mode of life wtrick includes manners, study, and menial tmh, m well as meditation, prayer, and performance of the hours of wor- irhip. Luthcr had to letlm how to conduct hinwlf m E monk, ttow 10 walk, it, eat, speak, and communicate. Great- wt stress rvas placed Dn confession and rzading the Scri1~- lures. %?tile this new and arduous routine brought Luther a pnuine degree of consolation, it was not long before: his baaic anxiely rea.wrtcd itself. Luther's fath conftnor, Grebcnutein, noted that the young novice was pial ally sen- fiitive ahout his spiritus1 condition. If one's rclationwhip to GsJ rrally depndb upon the perfect fulfillment of RII mu- nraric obiigaliom as well tts the fulfillmenr of the whole will nrld taw ah God, illen Luther found ninny, many thinpp ill which h. hiled. Grebenatein assured him thot God was nol: angrj with hint but that he was angry with ,Gad. Others Sn drc order not& the ardor and zed of the young novice. Rfhcn he was formally accepted into the order, nfter his par':^ novitiate, he was rcminded that he was now an UII in- I~(JC@ child who had just been baptized. %is secvtld Imp- tisrn rnuld be renewed each time a rrionk rcncwcd hid heao- lutiot~ to keep hiu rrronnvtic vow. Luther waj highly thought of in thc: order, probably bmue of his expert education. bctause oi his intellst! zeal, and undoubtedly becauac they helieved he had experienced a direct calI from Gud in thc thunders~orm. His nest atep was the priesthood, s~td he pre- pared t~imwlf for this office by one year's study of Gabricl Hiel's Canon o/ he MUSS. The occasion of Lutl~er'~ lirst cclcbraliolt of the mast. ( 1.37) pro~d mc~norsbIe for Luther beyond thc uiiusunl il-~iportnnce of the event fur any young priest. First, hc brought into sharp fnc.us all t.he spiritual anxieties which IIV fclt, and sccundly, it most intcresti~ig and strik- ing cornruoit from his father. 'I'hc Roman mas* was thc high point of medieval rcligiou5 lift-!, In it: ;lrrr)rding to thc teachings of thc Roman Catholic; Church, the celehrranz, through the power of hia ofice!, trans- formed the. ~ubstance of the bread and wine into the very hody and hlaod of Jmus Christ, and he ofiered this a racri- fice to God as a reptition of the sacrifice on the croes. Only the prim8 of the Church could do this; no prince, no man of 1s-calth, not the holiest of laymen, not cvcn the angels them- .+elvca could perform thia ~ocrifice. Little wondcr the new prie~t approached his first mass with awe and fright far hr had the Irolver of making Cod become man. The wrong vestments, improper words, a wrong nlovemcnt, thc prcrr- cnce of unconfcWd sins in ihc lmrt of tho relehrant-any of tltcse could invalidate the nut*. 111 addition to thee fear*, Luthcr carricd a deeper fear, that of God! Th Church had made ample proviviot~ for all such errors d6 thaw previoudy mentiorled. Centuries of praclicr yr~duccd practicat anwerp to the problems con. rhntiy arising oul of the first mass. What shocked Luthcr a3 he relwuted the words of thc dent mas was hi3 I~elief that he had in his hand* the holy of hoIic& Cod himself. Flow cnuld he rrtand hefore am11 a pretrcnm? 1Ir felt hinixlf ta he du~t ~nd ashes, a sinner, yet hcre hc was speaking to the living, eternal, t~oly Gocf! Ile later aid that the feeling of am and terror was M) great that he wished he could have fled Iran1 ihc rltar, but he saw it through. Hans Luther had come to Erru~t in grsnd style for thi* ctiwt. He was trcompanied by Irienda and brought tarenty horws carryill&; gifts for the monastery. After the tlm.;, o grmt fa~t was hid and all appeared in good humor. Luther turiwd to Ilia lathcr and a&ed why he hod bcen *a oppo~vd to his bccorriir~g a monk. To thi* Hans replic'd. "Ihc you nr\er heard of th~ cornrnandnrent LO honor your father and your motllict'?" At thc time this direct conflict nf 1oyalti~1. did not disturb Lutlier too much, but he was riot 5oon LU forget it, arrd Inter if nraa to help him irk Ilk hrenk ~vill~ rr~onadieinn. The next stcp br hther was the etudy of ~l~rulugy. UII- doubledly this wn good for him at thia pnrticular time as it kept him husy ad mupied. Between his etudieh and ntf~er dulics, he liad liltle he for xlf-inspection. So, frurn spring 1507 to the fall of lWi, he studied the Senhm-c~ of I'etcr Lol~~L~rtl undvr ~hc direction of a follower of Gabricl hl. All his sludicb were :dong the lines of rhe hcurnicrt twhool. Luther yrobnh1y had the far mme work in biblical ereprsis as wcll. Thus II~. laid the intellectual foundations fnr his hc- Iiefs which were to rcrnain unchallenged until after he start- cd his scrioua Lillical ~tudieg in 1511 and 1512. One thing is rcrtain, hc could not rr\nirJ in hi.s slutlirs thc pc.rmnnl qucstitwlrr hivh hd td~nnncnkd him for so lo~ig. Rather. thq- tlralt rlirit.tTy with such personal quedons as pcrft.c-t acts of contrition, rimn'n abilities to H in the grace of GorI, pddnution. and many others. LU~~KT'S order then aa.;ipd him to the ch-iir of moral Id~iIoauphy at the nndy founded I'niv~rsity nf Vilittenherg. In 1502 Fredetitk the Wije, Elector of S~sony, established a new university at the insjp~ficant rustic town of Wittcn- hcrg in order that hc might bring some distinction to thc mpitoE of his elcctoratc arid might compete with the duchy of Saxony's Uni~ersity of Lcipzig. The Augustinian order was rwponsiblc for filling two chairs in the school, one on tliblical exrgesis, and one on moral phitosophy in the school of arts. At twenty-hvc years of age, Luther found himself teaching a regular load and attending the theological 1%- turm as R student in the University. After the spring of 1509, he received his D.D., and thereafter taught unotlwr cunree on the Bible. He wag not ta afag rerg long el Wittrnberg on this occa- rrioa but teturrled to l&Furt in tlw fall of 1509. For the neat year, Re lectured in his own monastery, although as a uni- versity theological inntruetor, on the Senfciaces of Pckr Lombard. This was the medieval textbook of theolopg, a sort of compend of the cornmcnb of thc Church fathers u11d great tl~cologiana on the major lopies and quoationh of the- oIogy. Each schoal taught it from its own slant. The Thom- asists prcxmtd the material with their particular interpre- tation, and the Ocrarnim used it ta inculcata their point of view. Luther's awn note in the margins of the Senrenccs indicate that Ire was dill rntidied with the Occamivt ep- pr~ach. There were scvetal pints, howmcr, n-hers he had already mnarcd bcgond his masfere, mlthough he probably was not conkcioua of it. The Occamibts had ~trmcd Lhe rleccbsity nnd passihiii~y of r perfectly ordered will fur beyond whet Luther thought nccmary or possibIe. He was convinced, along with them, that God demanded pcrfcct lore from man, a fully God-centered life, and that n~an's will had to bc turned conlpletely and consistently toward God. What n man willed was far more important than what a man though^, for the will was the bighest faculty of malt. Be- cause this was so, it made little difference to th~~ men that man's reason and God's revelation did not complement or fulfili one another ' of tlienlogy play in Luther's protlsm'? What did Luther learn 011 his lrip to Iturne? Once more Luthcr found himself at Wittenberg, but he was still n man in deep anguish of soul. Forturiatcly, hc found there one who could give him some relief in his strug- gle. Stnupitz, vicar general of thc Augustinian order, turned out to be not only hiher'a piding rrtar with re~ard to his teaching career at the nebq university in Witteziberg, but also Luther's father confmr, He desperately needed ~uch aid in the fall of 1511. Riedievid monadcism refk~ted the dcept insight of Ru- rnan Catholicism concerning the relation of the eternal God to finite nlan, It lclt that in the 1-L analysis, a holy, right- eous, and just God could hare fellomhip with and aeceyt ordy a holy, jutor, arid gwd n~itn. Ifon could such a Gd uf perfection mcpt au His awn DI hinfuI man? Tkcrcforc, the real problem wa3 to make man sufliciently My RO that his acccptnnct: by Cod, if not ccrtain, was at least highly probable. Monadcism stmd both the sinfulmm of man or tlm dernanda of God nnd God's acceptonce nf man in such a way that e cmstnnt halnncc was struck in the apiritual life. They. nhova all, were aware of ihc great ,gull behwn the divinc and the human; hence their dernand that the monaeic fulfill 311 the law3 and cornrnands of God includirig povcrly, chas- tity; and obedience. Only in this way could Inan bring his hdy and spirit undcr subjection so the gracc of God couId opcratte uninipcd4. Thcn inan's fellowship wilh n hoty Gtrd was pcmiib~c. Mona?iticiti~n always bdanced thew dcn~ands of God with thc proniiscs of God's acceptance. The life of (Re monk tvaa terrilrlp hard, but it wnli also plca.411,~ to God. Thc lwriefi~r were rxttain and sure. It was the true reli,' LOU^ life which 11mt was certain of acceptaim before the throw of the most high. illnriasticisn~ knew that this concept of the balanced rr- ligious life, the fluctuation between despair and hope, hc- tween unbearable demand and partial fulfillment, would pro- duce doubts ud spiritud torment in rnany of the goud brothcn. Bnt this would only serve to keep them from conl- plilcency and eelf-righteousness. Onw their sinfu1nt.s~ was fulIp exposed, there: were ample ways to reassure the weak and troubled. At the ccnter uf the alisurarlces were the sacrit~ilcnt?, par- ticnlarIy those of penance and the Lord's Supper. Yenancc conuisted ir~ r deep cmcern for the evil of one's sins, co~itri- tion, the oral cunfcesion of a11 sins, and the abstrlution. Even if one did not feel the nece:sary contrition; if one was only genuinely fearful of his destruction at God's ha~ids, hi5 would aufice 66 the motivation to confession. Making sucll an act of confession nl~d receiving God's forgiveness through His priest, one was fm to da he nectvsary penailcc to make concrete one's spiritual mrrow. Luther availed himself of this coinfott, but it did not yro- rluce the desired results. Hc confMd every sin hc could reed but found after Icaving his confmqor that he had for- got others. Siris not confessed, were not covered by nbao- lution-how, then, could he stand hefore God? He knew rhnt many tintcs man dcliberotsly biotted sin out of memory. nnd it n~adt: little difference whether these wcre large nr am11 *ins. Stnupitr. codd not understand Lutbcr's constant preaccupntiun with wch trioid sina, rnJ once told him that he shauld not confes ut~tess t~t really had graw sins, such w tF~eft, adultery, or bl~~phemp of Cdl, to confess. Thiv is what Christ covered and not little insignificant sin$. But confmsior~ brought only temporary rclicf to Luther, riot the adjustmerit of balance from fear to hope Furthermore, mmonasrici~m provided, dxrough it3 form of life, a variety of ways in which one couId wash out his sin and improve his apiritual estate. Orre could fast, pray, medi- tate, prhm rna*g, bent his body, and engage in other php teal-spiritual exercim. Out of this would conie the defeat of thc body and of pride. Luthcr tried thiq so~netmies to an cstreilie. He fasted, Ile beat hin~self, engaged in endlcm prsycw IIC lricd to lose hirndf in study and in work for his Chapter, hut ~t hest it brought only Lemporary relief. Thc traditio~d methods of reliaf for wounded conxit.nceu did tlot work for Luther. Undoubtedly this was partially duc lo thc way Luther was trained under thc Occan~ist scholars. They Iteld a pic- ture of Gad as absolute sovereign will who did what Me did simply becausc t-Ic was God. There was 110 way to under- dad this in terinci of Ilunian intelIuct, arid thcre was 110 way to move to God through human reason. Although Gtrd was pure will shacklcd by i~o~l~ing, it was clear that he had de- ternlined how r~iiui was to find his way to God. Just as God was defir~ed as will rather than os reason or as Iovr, so man wag defiticd primarily as wilI. Gabriel Bid, one of the Oc. rmnist professors whonr Luther studied carefully, argued that is was psible for rrran through csertiori of his wilI to perform a perfect act of contrition and thus prcpare himaelf for tI~c reception of God's grace through the sncramcntu of the Church. Thus Inen wouId bc ~vcd. 'l'his simply didrl't work for Luther. First, hc had a pic- ture of God wllo, though a Cod of pcrfuct will, tramccnded 311 the cotegories of will, reason, or evcn Iovu. He bad a pr~fou~ltl wiw of tl~c holinw~ uf tlie Di\,irit: brlurc! Who~t~ all men were but dust. God is God and man is man. When Gad demands "bc perfect" Hc dcl~cr not ask for thc bevt that man can do; He demand3 what He asks, perfection. But who can be prfect as God wills? This is what bothered Luther in his constant confemions. To bt mum, Luther had conlrnitted no grcat crimes, hc was not tcntyted by women-usually the greatest of a11 sins for the monastic. lie was rrot confes~ing marclg a wries of litlle ains, though at the time he, and hiu eonfwsor, thought he tv~ ao doing. Rather, he was giving csprwsion to thc dcep ankiny oi his soul that nt heart he was u sinfuI rum, at odds wih Cd ia the very center of his life. He was swk- irq to rnakc the hns through which God would acccpt !rim, but fie knew that his was not possible. For what Cod dc~nar~dcd, perfection. he could not give, and with Paul he cricd out-wretclled rnan th~t 1 mu, who shall deliver 1ne from this dilentma. Not only waq Luther po-smd hy the sense of the abso- lute holiness of God, but in light of this he had a brutally horirt picture of him>clf aa a crealure. It is 90 eRny for man to piclure himself in the bmt pasible light, always ad- mitting some ~hortcornings but more than willing to counter- baIancc them with the ubvious good &at exists in each per- ma. Tlluu, il~ spik of his Iailurw and even uttreme seIl- cmtcrcdnesu, man in usualIy willing to forgivu hirnljelf and r~ylt assured thac God, too, has lorgiicn Lim. So lung ah one does he b~a hhah is i~s Rim, he is sure it is enough. Rut Luther Has too sensi~itt to & ?ietidied with the a\croge re- sponle. He mw hirnsclf nol ir~ terms of what he or other:. rxpected of him, but in terms of what his Creator espected of him, and what he saw was n self-centered sinful rnun still holding away under dw cover arid pretenw of monostic holinm. Lilth wondcr that his ~onfeq- or Staupitz couId not really under~and him. Hc looked upon yuung Luther es an out- standing, dcyout, holy. gifted monk who was bothered by temporary pan@ of ronzcience. So, he did his best to aid the ymng man through his troubled period. In fact, he felt that young Luthet probably couId not have iitd without thew torntents for they were "his meat and drink." They w7crc siniVI~ the way hi3 raligiouurrrss expressed itdt Sta+& did bring Luthrr temporary relief from time to time, hub rrbovc all he unconsciousIy set Luther to a re-ex- amination of hid entire theoIogica1 position and gave him the task of teaching biblical dleoIo,7r. At Stau~itz'y ir&b ence, Luther became a doctor of theology in 1512 with an appointmcrlt to teach that subject in Wi~tcnbcrg Univardy. M~nnwhik, Staupita reminded Luther hat he had been stri~ing too hard lo p!ease God, that God nas not angry \vith him but that Luther was angry with God, and that true re~ntatlce docs nor begin with human r~oIutiun hut with [lit lure of God. Little statctllenta, much ~s ~hcsc, l~rlpccl Lu- ther from tirnc to time. Hc Lurned Irm the conteinplatiun of the Ytern, ir~ecrutible God rsho predetcrmirtes thc fate of all men to the corltem~~lotion of the wounded Christ who suf- fcrcd for all sinnm. All thin did not advc the basic prob- lem for Luther, but it did bring him wme rclief. hi least, it turned his rrltentiorr iron1 thc vexing question of Iris pas- siLIc predestination lo hell. In 11-re firral analysis, evert Staupitz failed to underetartd Luther and gave him an answer which was still esxntiallg 13ornan. He ahiftcd the crnphrtais horn ~rrarx'a will striving to perform perfect act* mqtable to God, to Inan quietly and a,rsurerlly awaihg rn influx of divine grace whkh was certain to come tither through 'thc tritcrnrncnb or through s~iid divinu gifts. But the cconsequcrice Fa6 the dame rmn was enabIed to prfonn work* of merit which compkt. ed tha rr-crrk hcgun by Christ ot~ the uos. Staupitr proposed the nlyatic way in pbm uf the dltic-I atriving of the Oc- carnislr. Thuw the r icioua circle wr* marcly ~tnrkd from a diliarcnt point with tk drw v:owequences, The prohlern still wall - doc* Cad contime ta nfir His forgivencMF His mercy, and His gram to lllo~e who om re- ceived it but nppart:ntly did nnt rnnke of it W~RL they ought to have nchieued. It is bcitcr to shift fro111 man'* strivirlg to inan's acceptance of pet a3 tltr 11uirlt of departure, but if the conmquencc is still the mme, rtamely, the productio~~ of holy nicu ncccptahk in the eym of God, whut liaypcns rrhert such hcrlint.rs is nrtt achieved? The burr1c.n till reds 011 ntan'a achievcrnent as the ultimi~tc guarantee of Ihd's metcy and forgiven~q. Grace is given that man might become holy, might du w~tk* acceplabiu in tltc ~igltt of Cod. Agai~t, Lutlter found tha~ depeding on grace ratlrcr than trrt tht: striving of will @fill did no! make him the kid of 111;111 who c:ouId hc assured of God's acreptairce nf hinwelf. Pcrhapb he was one of the damned! In hc spring of 1513, Lutl~cr was busy l~repuring lectures on the Psalms for thc fall serliehter wheu he r~rcourrtcred once nlort!. in Rabn 30. n pnmogc which oftcn troubled him ---"in Thy riphtrouunces deliver me." Ilere was thc old prohletn! The demanding righlcouanw uf a holy God never Ict lrirn -ape. For shnrl pcriod~ hc rnight find tcm- 110rary surceaw but ever and again this dcrnanding right- rto~~srittss of the divine Judge woold find him nut. IIe fearcd end hated that tvord, hi: could hardly bring hilnself to read Rotnans because of it. Sotncthirtg cmiprllcd him lo turn to Hamans and orlcc murc H re& \+ ith the phx:m "1 he riglttt~~sncss d God." First, he fch that thc Gospel merely col~firn~ed the dreaded juridical inlcrpretaliun of God's righteuuanesa as dcmartd. Ah Paul put it, tlle Gospel is the pwcr of God for rahation to t.\ery one wllo has faith, for in it thc righteouunem of God is reie~tled through faith to faith. So, raid Luther, ebtx ttti:. "i- OIIIJ~ it re\els!iott ui punititc riglr~~~usr~rsw uf Cud. only a means of further torturing and tormenting men who are already fearfully burdened with original sin and the Ten Commandments." He would not let go of the padsage ay he struggled atid raged against. L~IG demands of a Cod Who kwps demanding that which mnn cannot give and damns him for not giving it. Out of this p~longd struggle to find a ntcrciful and for- giving Cod of Whom tc mrald be certain. Luther was grasped by thc good news of god'^ rebelation of HL nature and will to man as e~~eounbnd in Jms the Christ--& jubt rrlan Iives not by hls own rigf~tmuaness but by laith! This is how God shows forth IIis fighteouanes, not as ,a dcrnand- ing tyrant of the law but rn a redeernir~g forgiving God. Luther found r lrerrrcndous weight lifted from his soul; at last, aftrr yearn of ettug&, an anwwrr was ghan him r~ot through anything he had achievcd bur through Cod's oh11 Word, Jmus the Christ, as testified to by Paul in Holy Scripture. Luther discowered nothing new; he felt he had only recotcrcd the hart of the Gospel. This is the right- cuu5ne.s of God! Not what Gd Scrnaridu of marl but what Hc givm to aim shows forth GOB'S righteoumm. 'This k known to man only from faith and lo faith end in this tt~e truly jd man live. Whnl a vask differcr~ce from die intctprctution of the Cm- prwlaimed by Rome for a th~uwnd yeam. A man is not rigtltaous bcrcrue of what he achieves but si~nptp bacauv~ he's n man of iaih finding his being in Chrkt Jan Ha slrnply trwts God st His Word! He docs not try to lay dow~l the terms on which fcllowuhip occurs; he simply accepts ill truvt tllot God in Christ has ncccpted him as a sinner, has forgiven him-if only marl can helieve that! No act of will can bring mm to this estate for then man ~~1d still trust to hi* own efforts. When Inan is at the cnd of hia tether, seeing hi~nself as he rally is-a vain, sell-centercd, Capri- cious creature, pretending to be creator of hin life and deb- tiny-prcciscly at that point of his ~nfulnruq Cod finds him and acceptY him, coFera his sin 9 it11 nwq, ard gives him forgiveness and fellowship. Out of thiv thcrc c~rl arise m ntlp life in nl~ich God is God and man is truIy nlan ill dl of his limitation+ yet potentiali- tics. 13ut how can 111nn meountcr this God of mercy aid forgiveness? Here: is where Luther depended bearily on Paul. In Jesus the Christ, His life, death, and re.urrmtion, man is confronted by God's rigl~teouaneas, His struggle with wrath and judgrncnt, Hia victory o~t sin, dcah, and thc devii. God Himself, the Divine Lap, became man, er11erc.d history in IorvIy form. took upon Himuelf the min, suflrriug. ~nd frubtration of man, paid thc utter~nost price to uter- cornc sin and reveal thc redemptive In{ e and rncrcy of God. Tlius Luther's certainty of God's righteousness as found ir~ mcrcy and forgivenfin was nat founded on a personal vision or ecstasy, not on n miracle, or on the adjustment of his personality to he ter~sions he experienced, for none of thoac would have becn suGcient for him. He was certain he had bcen grasped by the Holy Spirit through Scripture which testified to God's action in Christ Jcsus. This was the Gospcl proclaimed by Pad, by the Church, and later distortcd by Rome. It was not a pcrsonal aberration or pe- culiar fancy; it w:~ God's own wvrd to man. God Lad shown Hirnsulf to bc a forgiving God and still rmeoled Him- self as such today. If only men could ccaM playing God in trying to determine their own salvation. Man's sit1 is for- given not through merit or effort before or af~er grace, in the Ro~nan sense "but alorrt: by the rnlutcy of God without ally rncrit." For the first time in his lifc Luther diwo~ered what pence mc~nt, nut a cheap *If-indu~d peam uf mind ur merl a profound rcdng *cure in an ancient and hallowed trodi- ti or^, but a childlike trust in God's uwil ytorni>e to mankind in Christ Jmufi. He was a forgiven sinner. Luther attacked his Iecture with renewed energy. It took a long tinie for this central inbight to work out ib i~nplicstiotis in a11 of thc young profemx'a work, but it tlhowcd itself immediately in his Iwturm on tile Yl~slrna (L513), Rontsrrs; (lSlS), and Gnlatiaria (15tG). Luther saw na rcmn lo brmk with the Church. It took him ywh uf cqxrience and frwtration before he disco\- rrd that nrw: could n& reform $lie Ctlurch of Hornc, and Ire wax thrown out and exctni~n~unicarcd by ~hc Pop. Thtw wm no doubt that hc would eventually clash with the au- thorities over some basic qumtion: but he ccrtainIy sought no cIash. Whcn he finally cnrne out in open cnnflict, it was nnly to diwuw with fellow profmsoru and trttdents Rrr nhuw M hich hc felt could and rnwt be correrted. Neverthekw, his new insights wcsu a wdirral dcpafiurc frotii the contemporary llornau view on suck things as grace, jurtification, und faith. Undoubtedly hey were but rcrlfiirrnations of thc Pauline pclsition a~id had found partial nc1voc:ltc.a throughout Christian history, but they were ut- terly alien to contemporary Kornan tl~ctll~ht and practice. They Here opposite both from the later wholauticu repre- sented either Ly Ayuinas or by Scotus and from the Occam- irts atid the Mystics One of Lutl~er's bnaic prob1em.s had alwayb been that of tt~c opcrotion ol grace in the Roman Church. It meant ir~ tlte tradition of hngustin~ a divine ih~ninatir~n thrtlugh thc I-Ioly Spirit wllid~ reconstitutes the niLLurt: of man Ly nink- i116 o~rc conscious of his misdirection in concupixenct. arid sin and turna hin~ to Rh proper end ill Goof. It is both through the sacranients rrd the cutire spiritual pilgri~niigc that one rtwiles this divine light. Those following Aquinas viewcd grace mote a3 B nldnphysical substance infu.wd into the person tlrrough the sacraments. This produces in man a ncw attitude su one can perform proper barks of lo\ c. In either caw, grncc: ia wed as the basiv to aclzieve proper works 5%-hkh make man holy and acceptable in Cod's sight. Salvation is aha}? dependent both on grace and works. Luthcr n6K MW gram not as a divine fight redirecting to good works or rrr a .wbtance producing a proper lrcnt or vharactcr but simply as Gds own attitude lawards man as rmealed in God'a apecifie and genera1 actions in bcltalf of - man. Grace is bur God's mercy and low toward man as shmrn throughout I1i.r dealings wirh His people from Abrn- ham to the present. More specifically, it is shown in Jesus, the Christ. Here man realiy sees how Gad not only feda toward man but acb towards man and how He is related to man both in wrath md forgivenes$ with mercy aa His last word. Faith, unlike thc medicral Ramen view, is not assent to the doctrinm of tha Church, or belief in the dogmas and practices of thc Church. It is not centered on the Church at a11 although it is encountered in the Church. Faith is tak- ing Cod at His word as Ile reveals Himself to be in His mercy or Cram It is n humble trust, a totaI aurrendcr of the whek pcrrrori in response to God's revelatian of His na- turr and will in Christ Jesus. It is the deepest a5rmation of tmd po&sibIc to man, to lrust God as accepting man even while man is a sinrlcr or is turned about from trust in self to bus; in God. Likcwisc, justification is not viewed as a physical miracle in which sin, as a a~bjtan~c in man, irr orvcrconle and drhen out by ithe supernatural infusion of mce. Nor docs it mean acxeptani* by God in virtue of mm's reception of gram ad its con~qucnt production of good works. It means that prior ta any worb or action on the part of mall, God in Christ reaches aut with His love and ccnvers the sin of man, knbwa it no more, smpb man in mercy and forgiven€-s. It is W'a act in Chi31 whereby He mccepts man into feilow. ship and know Fiini not 05 sinuef. Thc just man lites in this befief in thin confidrnce mnd trust. It is God done Who justifies him or Wlw accepu him as just. Thus God reriew the sinful man, recreates him, [urns him about, not in order that He might makc him holy so that He might have fellowship with him. This is the way God shows Himuelf to Lc khu grawful, creative, loving, redemptive God. In Chriht Jcsua, Hc accepts sinners and offers them forgive- nea cxac11) wherc lhep are ,ts sinners-they are justified. The just man believes God nt His word. Irr faith, he believes IR' is amepted by God in Christ and in reality at this point, he irj uhdcen loose from his pride, pretense, and self-idolatry. It now b&oi~te,s po~siblc to love God and serve Him in grati- tude not to use Him to will one'* security before Him! Sa the religious struggle of AIorlin Luthcr produced a rc- former which in turn was to product-, quik unknown to . him, a chaiu nf etcnts rnlrninutixig in the Reformntion. The original break thrwgh the Romsn system did not come be- muse of pditic'x, economic+, or rdiscovcrg of the cla4cs, or the new xienre. It came uut of the deep spiritnal turmoil sf a German monk who Wb9 intermtcd in only one basic question-haw docs sinful nwrl find o merciful God? The anawer given in the Codpel shattered thc control of Romc and reformed thc Chridan Church in he West. This fresh religious in~pulse to reform inevitably drcw into itself all !lie other eflorb at rcform. QUESTIONS Discu*s the mature of tht n~dnastic lifc as to ib purpose, mcana, strength, and shortcoming. Do you feel it has any place in the Church today? Why coddn't Luther find the anmer to his problem in the Bible at an earlier date'? Wlinr has this to Yay con- ccrning Luther's euplnr~ation of thc third articlc of the Creed? What to n view of Scripture? What was the valuc of Staupilz to Luthor during his prolongud drug&? XTigh this hug@ soniclhing po4- tive concerning confession? Was Luther'r wica of the righteousncbs of God somr- thing cornpl&!g ncw in Chridian history? What doc.. this mean about the Rcforn~ation '! What are poasibk Pn,tc*iant n~isir~~erpretatioris of Lu- ther's tie^ 011 grace, faith, and justification? What is the particular reletancc of 1,uther.s doctrine of justification for modern man? IV. The Break Thc irmh under~itn~ding of the Cavpel set Lutha free to engagx in inruly creative work es a profwor of biblical the- ology. 'Ihc rtudenls me~~& that herd was a man with some- thing unusual to zay, end his cI=- were soan the ~ilowt p~puInr in the l!niwrsify. Luther waa not content to engage in the traclilional old exegetical lecture.+. Already he was basing some of his work on the Greek New Testament al- though he had to u.w the Latin Vulgate for his studv~~t*. Also, he wan dissatisfied with the mcdicd four-fold inter- pretation of Scripture and sought primarily one mea~ling in cn trst, a meaning dater~nincd by thu Ianguagc and 11y the major insigh or concq~b of Scripture itdf. Hih new in- qipht inlo the Gospel was a basic point from which hc sur- veyed all Scripture. hleanwl~ilt; where) cr !ic found in he history of the Church Inelk or literature who uppard to agree with this undw rtanding of tlle Gosp~l, he turn& to thcnt with gre~t joy and ncknn~icd~ed rn indebtedness to them. In 1516 Ile pub- lishd a apwial edition of a mystical tract cntitled thc Cer- nrun TIe~ology. It utrwed the crmtrnlity of salvalion through n unity uf the belicvcr with Je,sus Christ. Although its point or view was Iry no means identical with Luther's, it was much cloxr to him thnn the prevnilixig practice, and so lie rcjoicd in it. lu ;I~&[~IMI 10 these rtindalirq lerluru*, Ludwr carricd OII cou~ltlccs other clutim in the ymrs l.515151;. llc rw sub-prior in Clig ~rtunsstery and vicar nver D nunrher uf (1rl1- cr Sawn rnurrastc~ics in his order. He wm ccngagcd in em- hLant rcorl and ~wrrespondtlwt in th~w poktiom. Thrr-l, hc &led tu hi3 regular preaching duties at trkc monoekry 1~). 1,ecoining o substirule prkt in the tonv. Were he wtts ctrn- [sclnted lq a ruugh, uncouth, superstitious people. 140~ could the Gospel he I~rought to these nwn a~td wolnun, and how could thcology be made releront so, thiough it, ttlq wcre confronted by God? It was in his role confwsor and prexhcr to these peo- l~le that Lulhcr hit head-on ngstinst irdulgence3, which hc felt complelely tlc.rtruyd the value of the confessional and, far rrrurw, endnngered the eternal welfarc of his people. 111- dulptmces firs^ arose in thc Roman Church at the tiwe of tlie Crusadv*. The practice depended upon two basic doctrines. First was tlie belicf that a sinnrr had to pay a spccific price lor pwalty for each sin cornniitkd. This took il twofold iorm--etcrnd pcrtalty. which could be rerniltcd rmly by Gad, and tcmpord penalty, which thc Church couId rcmit qmn propr satisfaction bcing donc. Purgatory was nece3- bary in ordm to purge away a11 remaining penalties by prow sati+fwtion. 'Thc secord basic doctrine was the lie- lief that CIrri*t, by Him mcrificc on the crops. had acquired a trtasrrry ul nicrit beyond lIis need, to which treasury cvrn srtintu atldd nwrh which they did nut nced for thcmse1~t.s. 'Tllis vust treasury of rncrit ans at the diposal of lhc! pope. At the lirnr of the Crusades popes began ddtiring indul- gences of the temporal penalties of sinners if they would engap in sr~rll a nreritoriouu act as a crusade. This was in effwt a penance hut often heyond the irnrnvdiate nced of pmancc. For this act thc papacy declared all indulgenw which transferred to the crusader ~nt.rit from the treasury nf gracv to co\ cr all tcmiyurd yenniiies iricurred through his aim; thus purgatory was rhorlcrwd or cstapcd. Of courw, his etrrnnl penalties ciluld LK remittd ordy by God through prop- confew-ion and nhmlution. Slon cash paynwnts took thc plwe of wrs ice, originally for tho= who for lariuua wa- wrrs could not partkipale in the crusadm, Thus tbbre aoorl ckr clopetf tlrc practice of wlhg indulgences. '1'hi.u rvw a 111o5t lucrative .and profitol~lc businesa Tor eR i~br,c-rt\ecl. I'ctrplc: codd 111uke their confmion to strange priesta wllc) I~arvlicd the inrfulgivicm undcr special nrtnnge- rnenk 11-~rougl~ lie papacy. !n due time people begarr to rorr- fuse ~hc purpow of thc indulgcnca, and it aau felt that one could ol-ttain ra~nissiorr from guilt and eternal puriiah~lcnt through thcni. In [act, they wcre often sold on thut haG ly un~c:riiprkv.m ngi:nt*. As early as 1516 Luther preached againsb t hi5 ~rr~dicv, including thu indulp-r~cm sold by thc agents of lrih vwi 13rince Frederick, the Elcrtor. F'redcrick. through the usud financial arrangcnlents, had procured frmn tlie papacy ~hc right to hell indulgences based OII the rncrits of his outstanding collection of relics kept ill the GIS- tle Church. Wdlem to say, the Elector was not too happy gence, particularly Tctzel and his Dornir~ican order, felt at this R.J the indulgcnces helped finarrce the very university cumpelled 10 deal with the thcues as a personal attack. So in which Luther rnught. the gear stone slowly started to roll. It is interesting that Luther's central attack even in 1526 did not center so much on the evtcrnsl abuse of indulgerlces (~nany had n~tacked this in the past), but hiu concern was the faIs wnre of security produced in dmse who purchased indulgcnces. The practice produced an attitude hat wah con~pletrlg contradictory LO the true meaning of rcpcntoncr. It did not driw people to a close scrutiny of dteir lives with the co~l);~vpcnl turning to God for forgivenesm and amua- am. Rather, it gave them, as one author stated, a spiritual clleck made clut to them to cover the tcmpotid pmalties for dl sins pad and a letter of confession guaranhing absolu- tion from all ordinary offenpes in the future. A11 this for a aum of money! Even. Roman hhtorianu admit the terrible sbuscs of thc syrtm, but Luthcr wtls conwrncd not only with the ohu- but with the false conception of repentance and ssluatisn. Thus, it is not str~nge ~hnt Lather found himself in open apposition to thc Church on precisely this point. Indul- gcnce~ were at the very CCntCr af medieval piety, and an st- tack ork them from this angle was different from a mere at- tack on their abuse, That which precipitated the entire crisis was a particularly flagrant example of the improper indul- gence. In order to obtain his third great eccIezirlstica1 office Albrect of %faint atruck fi deal with Leo X to pay a huge arnount for the privilege. The money watj to be raised by a special general indulgence of which the papacy war to get a ccrtztin percent to aid in the construction of St. Peter's, Al- brect was to get his particular cut to pay off his debt, and a percentage was to be pid the bunkir~g fatrlily of the Fuggerv for financing the whole project. The Dominicans werc carmisttionud to proclainl the in- dulgence, and they pursued their task with vigor. Although Frcdcrick the Ektor forbadc thc indulgunce agents in hie territory, the praple of Saxony, including Luther's parish- ionerr;, flmkerl xros the borders to obtain this highly fa- vorable docurnenr from Terd, the Dominican agent. Lu- ther felt the tiwe had tome for a thorough discussior~ of thew maltem, so he prepared 8 set of nincly-five thestlv to be dku.d hy pmf~~wrs and thaulogicnl students. This doc.u- nwnt was in Latin nrrd war quietly postd by him on the tjniverai~y billboard, thc door of the Castle Church in Wit- tenberg, OctoLcr 31, 1517. What Luther thought to k a perfectly harmless document aroused a whirlwind of dizcwGan and debate. Quickly the th- were printed in German and dislributcd throughout the nation. Some said they were spread as if by angels. Al- though they made no inlpnct in acadonlic circlaa, the popu- lar rapone was so great that thnre ir~vol\cd ill the induI- Whnt BYE so drastic about the them that they co~lmand- cd such mddcn attention throughout Germany'? Certainly nd their attack on indulgcnccs for this had heen done be- fore. Pcrhaps it was the hold sarcastic way in which it was donr. Mnre likely, the puoplc sensed that this was more than tlian B incre attack on abuses; it undcrcut the entire reli- giouv basia of indulgences, From the fimt tli~~is with its bold uords "Our Lord and Waetcr Jesus Chribt, in saying 'Repent yc, ctc.', meant the whole life of tln: faithful to be an ~t of repentance," to the last four them dosing with the words, "And so let all those prophets de~~rt who ray to Chrkt's people 'Pcacc, peace' and there ir na peace, And farcn.ell to a11 those prophets who eay fa Chrkt's people, 'CRc cram, the crod and there is no crow. Chriatianv are lo be crhorted to endeavor to follow Christ, thcir Hmd, through pains, deaths, and hells. And so IL* them trubt to cnkr heawn rather through many tdbuhriot~s than ~hrough the false confidence of peace." In tlw thc~es Luthm uttxkcd the belief that indulgcnces were eltibciouv beyond what the contrite believcr had avail- abIc through trruc repuntmncc. "Every Christian who is truly contrite has plenary remission both of penance and of wilt an his due, cvcn without o Ietter of pardon. Any true Chris- tian, living or dead, portnkcj of all the benefits of Christ and the Clrun.11, M hich is the gift of Cod, eren without letters of pardon." With onc bold atatcn~erit, Luther denied the wI101c: basis of lhc irrdulgmcc x:~tm. nanldf, the treasury of merit. "Thc true trmure of Lhe Church is the Sacrovnnet Gobpel of the glory and grace of Gd." Shortly after the written cschaagc letween Luther and Tetzel along with hid ItIlow Dominicans, Luther prepared some theological thew to be defended before the Gcrrnan cliapter of tllc Augwtinian meetir~g at Heidelberg, 1,513. In lhir way he wus to ahow tile orthodoxy al his rims on thc hasir: questions of sin and grxc. Here be w-d the the- ology of the cro* iis ~hich the Iloly, Mnjmtic Gad, Creator of dl, hunrbled Himutlf on Lllc croJs so that III~II must ac- kr~fi&dgc. hiw sin hfore auch a nrarvcIuuv event. This can **b on produce only a tespon* of srrrrender and gratefuhc- the part oi man. God's lmc dory is to bc sten uot in Idis wrqth or nlaje.4ty but in His self-giving hunriliation. Against this, nmr plnus a thlol6gg of glory whcrely he claims from God an acceptance of his rcligiousncss or hdinm. Thiv wab thc trouble with ~holahc theology both Thmnstic and Oc- cmilist; it waa built on the dory of man's intellccl. As a eoil,quencx of Luther's presentation, hc wRn ot er rnany young mrn including the luture grcat rcformcr of Slraab- burg, Martin Bucer. Further altacks and replics involicd Luthcr in conflict ~ith Jarhanrw Eck and othcr srhoIar:. All this was yet in- definite as the battle lines were not cIcarly drawn; at Ieast they were not evident to the disputants. Meanwhile, Rome could no langer ignore the uproar. The first reaction of the Pope Leo X was to write ofl the whole affair anothcr un- importtlnt dispute invoIving $ drunken Gcrman peasant. But thc probIern grew more serious each day until the Roman Curia decidc-d that Luther should appear in Rome to bc cx- atnined and ta be required to justify himself. At thia junc- lure, the politics of the Empire ilrtcrvcned to save Luther. The throne of the Holy Rornan Empire waa vacant, and tho papacy decided it would La safer to have a relatively unknown Chtman prince da emperor thun to haw the kine; of France or the jsung Hapburg king of Spnilr and the Neth- crlnnds. In view of this, tht papacy bent every effort, in- cluding the use of pat sums of money, to have Frederick the Elector of Saxony electcd einpcror. Thus he wished to placnle him with regard to Luther. Luther was looked upon by Frederick rru a tremendous asset who brought farile to the little Univerdy and town of Wittenberg. Thus he demand- ed that Luther be examined on German soil. In 1518 at Augsburg, Cajetan, one of the outstandi~~g cardinale, met Luthcr to remonstrate with him. Frederick had WC'CII to it hat the new jewel of his University was 11ut to be hundled ofl to Rome. At Augsburg, Cajetan held a se- ries of niaclings which showed only the col~descension of the: Curia for an ignorant German monk. He ~ricd to win Lu. ther oiwr a5 a superior teacher, but having failed, he de- ~nanded thnt Luther recant. Luther certainly did no1 np. prwiate the high-handcd treatment frorn thc cardina!, Lut Luther-s friend3 ~eri4~1i his danger and secretly got him out of Augsburg bchc Cajekan could have him arrested, Again Rome had faiIed in hcr clfort to silertce the Ger- man ~rlorik :III~ to restore peace in the pamphIet war that raged bci\veen Luther and tiis opponents. Still Ko~w wn~ playing fftr high stakes in the election of the etnpernr, so once more an attempt ttt pe*dul settlement was 111ade in tll+:: person a4 Miltitr, n German minor o[ficiaI of the Curia. It war fcIt that the goldm ro~e might lute Frederick away frorn I,uther thus leaving the papacy frm to deal with Ilini wi~hout antagonizing the Elector. This mi8sion uiao failetl. Xot only rr:w the EImtor not interested in becoming em- peror, but alw his advisers saw great political advantage ill prot~cti~~g Luther. All this was utterly unknowr~ Lo Lutlicr who was, in hi* own words, simply letting God work c.wt Hi3 will in th~ whole affair. He had only rcccntly conctudcd: with great shock to hilnaelf, that Cod was using hint for some purpare far beyond what Luther wanti tu atzmmpFrh. In 1519 Luther engaged in a thco!ogical dcbata with one of his esrlie~t opponents, the fan~ous Iiornan theologiair, Ju- ha~lnes Exk. Out of thia was to cornt. ii furtlier step in thr brcak with the papacy. Luther did not plunge into such a rupture hut dep hy rtep his new insight into the Gospel cornpclted him, under pressure frow his opponenl>! to rr- think many acccptcd traditions and beliefs about the Church. Shortly before the Leiprig debate of 1519, Eck and Luther exchanged the% in which it bwame apparent thnt the red issue would be the power of thc papacy. In the short thnc avnilnbIe, Lulher btudied history and found that the papacy did not have power over the entire Church until after the pontificate of Gregory ~hc Great in the sev- enth century, nnd mvcr did have it ovcr the Eastern Church. Thus hc argued, that many of the papacy's claim LO power were based on false documents and could not LC taken scriouslp. At L.ipzig Eck crouId no1 diliprove Luther's: position so he resorted to trickery and insirlua~ed that Luther was a I-Ius- site and maintained the same opinions for which t-Iusq was hurnerl. Luther finally replid tli~ bnr6ng thu dmtrinm of thc Hussitcs, were some that were Christian. At thia, Dukc George and the Leipzig pcoplc turned agsinat Lulhcr be- c:luse it was onIp two generations previous that their terri- tory hnd heen revaged by war over thia issue. Eck ride other e~rtiori* cormrning thc mivitier 01 the Church cau~~cil while Luther argued that even Cmciliarias adrni1tc.d councils could err nnd IX corrmted Ly other mun- ciIs. .{gain L7.k pounced on him. There was no final de- cisiorr on the debate though &k succeed& in cruuding the whole Issue !IF the Hltmite accuxtti~n. Luther came away determined to study mora hi*lory in order to understand the origin, n~ture, and ~mn2r of the papacy. ti* a consc- quence, he fau~ld pn&ti\-c docurneritarior~ foe his l~uncb illat [tic papary had tlo such divine right as it cluirned. At best, it dwrved n place of honor, a plnw with no juridical pow- cr. Furthermore, the nature of the Church in no way dr- pended on the papacy-wherever God's Word was preached and hclicvcd, thrrc was the Church ! Becauw of the papacy7$ arrogance and pride in seizing oti the prcrogntives of Christ ar Iwatl of the Church, it was in rcdity nnti-Christ! Now the break was inevitable. O11cc the papacy lobt it* political hattlt md Qlarh- IT, oi Spain and the Ncthcrlands, becaruc )idy Roman Emperor, and oncc- it I~ocarne widcnt lhn~ Luth~r's in~ightv were gain- . ing strength, it was delerrnilied to try him 3s a hltetic. In June of 1320 tho hull Erwrge Dornine wa.1 puhliahcd. 11 dcclarud tuthcr 3 heretic, and hc wm given sixty days irt 1 which to rrc;irlt or he escorn~nu~iicated ~itk his follorwrb. 'l'he affair ol J,utl~cr was now a dorrnal problctn Ior the whole of Europe---his books were to be burncd and his er- tots te~~unced. At fif~e hh~ did 11ut b4ics.r that the LulI ru~~tained nhnl runlor a.wrlecL Once he fwntl out thnt hi* trcati.~ were being da.troytd and thet the bull condetnncd him c\m ki~l~aut refutation, 11e replied by burnir~g ri c.c~py of the Ldl and oi thc canon law to show hi3 altitude toward t11c papacy. Luther roalized fully what this action qrnl~olizutl. Thc next day he optmed Iii5 lecture tcr 400 atucler~b 11). ir~rIir.atil~~ that thc die wn* cos~ Them were only two roads: hell nr rnartyrdonl. znd h~ found strength to tokc up thc slrugglc apinrt the falw Christianity of Rorne. even if this meant dralli. Hc found joy and str~ngth in the derihion. To Lu- ther, the hurning of the canon law waa far more signifirarlt than the hull, for this repudiated the HIIOIL. nmk of leg~listn 1):. whir+ the prpncy h~d bound sofiery and indh idunls to ml rrn-Christian syrtcm. 3les11whilr. tracts, nrticlcs. and Iiooka purcd from Lu- ther'd pen. hnn~ them, four werr f~u~slandjng and prcb- ~(rr~tr-rl in a hold cnw the fullest inaightr of the young rr- former. It book yl-ars to work them out fully. Thc firat to apptar in l5ZO was a Treafisc On Good TI70rk-s. Because ul Lut1-rcrwa a[\& on merit oa a necessity for salvation, his op- ponents accwcd hi~n of den)-ing good work* and upholding i~ninorelity and lswlemness. To rufutc this chargc. once and for alI. Luther wrotc a powerful treatiw on thc ~nrrming of thc Tcn Comr~iar~cl- ment*. In it hr argued tlint hc did not do sway with obrdi. rmcc to God's cornnlands hut rtrmgthencd surh obedicncc hy pin(-in~ it on n, nrw hasia. One in na to keep coni~r~o~rds in order to placate Gad's anger und nin mutit ot dvatiorr. That ir uttrrly contrary tn the mrnn~nnch thr-mrclvn which ask for lull lo5 e nnd rruiri in God rs (hc only true Gad. Olw. dicnce ha- notlring to do with wilmiug fi~vor in hJ'n nigli~: it can come only out of gratituck !lo Grd arising nut of f~ith in His nrcrcy and iocc 8s resealed in Christ. Living in rv- uponsivr trwt to God, one th~n wpkn to espre.s$ this faith and trust ill faithfu1 li%ing. The law doe* nol cornpcl one to be faitllCu1 c~t of fear or to be calculating for falor. but ruther Ime and faith (ornpcl the Chrixrian to b+= wti\ r in el- Ijr&ng hi3 faith in relation to his rwigAGar. Htw hsa a S~~ra~i~cntr The Opcrr I,cffer laid bare the tlirwfold bais on which the papacy controlled lilc, and it denied all thrrr. 'h polilical orr1r.r Kiln nut subject ta th= demiliation of t11c Church, cc~uncils had l~ecl~ and codd be called by odwr tll:ul thc pope nlonr. and the papacy alur~r did not Imc he right to determine what the Wurd of Gad rnram. SIrr~ing tlrstro!ed he wall bc-hind wllich the papacy hid. Luther tlicn 1urneJ to an aplleal fur rafarm. ]ill trmrherk of the Chri5tian community wcrc rcsponsi- bIc to God for carh othvr and for their fcllow hurnnn bc- inge. They were priests to each othrr: this was thc pricst- hood of hclievrrs. When the hierarchy wouId not reform the Church: thcn thoso lay priehls, holding rcsponuihility in the cornmut~ity. mu5t take actior~ lor the. aakc of the whoIc. Lady: henec the apprl to the nobility to uldcrlake rcforrn. Tbi~ irlcludd derer~t educntioli for children kw tlity codd rcd .tIw Gihlc, it der~~rrnclrd rcfurrri uf wcid fife and pLli~ ~iiorals. and it way r-umrur~rcd wit11 crol~ornk rcfnnn. 111 the R~b.dorrian Cnprir:irr, he undmtook n critique uf thr: Hcr~nn~~ wcnn~cntal rystcrn a* that which dex~ropd the true ~rlcaning of Sacramcni by wing Sacrarncnts to control and rnanipuIate mlvnh~. What was giver1 by God to co~- front the brlieicr Jiredy with His pxrrcr arid t~enehits WH pro~titutctd to a nleanr nT ifmnipEuti~~g the: rclstinn he- twmr God and man. He urgutci hat n[ tnost there wrc. only rtl~rrc Sat:rnnmlts. Baptism, tIw Lord'$ Supper, and I'rnsnm, mid prhsps the latter might nnl be a sacramen!. Hr shrr~wf how Iionic had diptorted ctch 01 the S;rcramc~lt~y, and calld for e ,wfarmatiun of the sncranienlul wpkm centcting or1 the Word whir:h brinks it into hei~ig and ITIR~~ it cflcctual. This 1va.j a radiral dc~rarture fro~t~ rncdieval yrirty find ~reatecl dis- may and shock in many canters. /rust. Yet tl~is frcctlarn find* it* center in loving ohi:dicr~cc. It cnr~not help but cxl~ress itself in ser\,ice and conccrll for the ncigliLor. Again, a rr~~udiation of Ihnor~ cthica! clcr the II~ mlprur, Chsrleb Y, T11e emperor naa &or- mined lo sttrp Luther buk his wnrv with Frantr, ~~rt'saure firm the Turks, and large dclt*, yrcvcntcd hint fr~m lakir~g any II~~L:, actiul\ that ~vould alic~latc thc GCT~I~II~. 11~ IICCCI- cd thcir fi~~aucinl ard nlilitary ruppurt. Ye\ erth[.lc+.;. M l~cn Lutlwr was hrcwght to Worm. he ron- fronted both thc hostile prrlatraq and a hostile rrnpcror. It was here. in .I)rril 1521. thclt Luthvr l~rewn~rd himd bc- fnre the ur=rullcd might of Church and ~t:lte. Hc was give11 no opportunity to defcnd trirnwlf clr wen Lo argue the ctwe; he was asked orrly oalc Lasir question--will you rrcant? On hi4 final uppcarancc before this nugurt group. ht= made il short addrrwi explaining his positir~n and concluded by say- ing that unIc.;s hc could IK provrd wrong Ly remon or Scriplure, hc could not rcrant his thcological po5ition. IJe fiad no ot11cr a1tcrnutive il he were to be faithful to God's 'iI;rnrd, his reason, arid hie conscience. Thc break was QUESTIONS 3. What Ira5 tllr sigl~ificl~nce of the Leipzig di~putation for What. accnrdirrg to Luther, is the rolc of repentallcc in Luther? Whal Learing does this ha\e on thc modrr~r Chribtian life? If one takes this seriously should it hale ecumenical rliovemcnt ? some &finite outward form or manifestation? 4. Whj should Christian5 oLc1 tht= Ten Co~rin~arrdruent. Whxt is the cip;nrfknnce of Luthcr*s lavt four thcs irt and lead n lire of reayon4bility irl sp~rifir rv,ays? r11~ 95 and of hia iheology nf th Cros for modern 5. L)id Luther's Appcal fu thrs t'crrrtari n'afiilit). la! thc bahis Protr+tant \ims of peace Lorn of religiou,. cxpericrrce? for thc modcrt) mdar state? v, The Rehrnalira Becomes a Movement The. Etnpcror, Charlcs V, had determined to stamp out Lu- ther and his Reformation irnmediatcly aftcr ~hc appenrnnce at Worms. In May, 1521, an edict was pawed aftcr a rua- jnrity ol the Diet had returacd home, irduding all crf Lu- ther's supporter^. and Luther was declared a convicted her- dic with only twenty-onc clays to rccnnt. At the end of that tirc~c hc was to lie hunted down and dcvhqxxI, liiv Looks werc "to be eradicated from the mcilnoty of nnn." n14d his irient1.s also mrc to Lc condornn~d. When Lather stnrted his returrl trip, hc ws3 anrbusltcrl LJ. a group of knish& and carried away prisot~cr to the Wart- Ilurg re&. Kobody rvra to know whnt happened. Ewn Frederick the Elcctor did not krrow cthcrc Luther was, ol- though he hod l~een abducted with Frederick'~ knowlcdgc. Only in that way wns it fvlt that he could he sad .from the wrath of R~III~. He remained in two sninll rooms in thc caa- tle until he Id gruwn a full iread uf' hair arid a n~agiificent beard. Thcn, disguised ns a knight, IIP could ino1.e ubuut Inore freely. 1,uhcr was !.cry unhappy in exile. ale was reri~o\cd fro111 tl~e front of the battle at a ~nost vtuciul priod, and he was lorbiddcn to ~wm~nunicslc with the ~wlfiide world except through A fer, carrlully choret~ correqmnths. In his .soli- tude hc brorded orr his pwition ovcr ag~ilmf Rome, nnil Illorc ths~ ol~c wondered if hc. had the right to stand agninst the \vhole Church. lIis only cunsolatio~r {rag his crr- t.~inly in the Word of Gcrtl; 11i.s was IIOL a Iwn, pnspel in- ~mttd from !ria fancy. Ill health Ill-ougl~t on I)? the sevcrc struin of over-strict monastic discipline plagued him. His only rt4ief came from his work and from Ilk ol~wrva- Lioris c~f naturc, lhc bcnutiiul Thuringiau hills s~rd tks littir 1,iri.l~ [hot sang so sweetly nrld phyd so gaj-ly. 111 uddilirm LO uunleruus 1ctte1-5 and ~milll tri~3r;. tur~ majr~r wde wrt+ produccd from lris pen during thiv pcuiud. Goth mere to It;~ir: trel~~crdous cnrwcqwrlr:cs for the life uf dw (31urch iltrd for the cc~nlmon people. Ry far onc of tl~c most i~nportmt ~o~krr c5r.r ricl~ierrcl I)! Luthvr {rap. hiu splrndirl tra~lslaticrn of ~hc Xair T~sta~ilrn~ into thc Gcrinan language. Wheri it tvus published ill thr fall of 1522, although written nt Wartburg. it l~ecan~v a lar~tl- mark for tile I~islory of the German pcoplc as rvcll as itrr tl~e Ct~rislian Church. It hclpcd to form the Gcrttra~r language as it was ud widely by dl the paoplc. RemorkaLlc i11 tlrc translation was the way Luther understood how LO rr-riclcs thc irlsights of the Creek text into a new form of tfw Gernml Inr~guugc. IIe was the first to usc n critical C;rd LCX~ as a Lasis for a translation of the rntirc Knv Tceiamcnt into the wrnacuIar. Tile rcal irriportatwc of this trausfatim is ils effwi mi the laity. Throug!~ the modern printing prcss it wad now pc15si- hlc to prirrt slrlficient copies at R low enough prim so ~lritl: thc rising nicrcharits and young ~tucfents cuuld afford copit-. Eve11 the poorer clnsws had nn opportunity to st^ and Irtrrr- cllc n copy of ~hc Ncw Tcatamcnt. For thc fir9 ~inlc in Chris- tian Iliatory thc Iioly Scriplures were a~ailnblc to rayn~cr~. Out of this wns to come profound c,onsequcnces for lay de- votiorral, piety, irlciterner~t tu lenrning. and a frcsh resource for daily Christian living. It marked o Lurning point in the history of the Reformation. The amond ilnportnnt work to conic fro111 Luthcr durilrg the 'iIJ.'nrtLurg years, WEIY produced under tlrc prewtrc of e~xnt-* at Wittznherg during hi$ absence. >-!ang. of the priwts and monks begsn to quwtion the entirc el.gtem of celihn? enforced Ly Hnnie. Carlutntlt, hther's fellow profcmr, took wriously certain state~ncnts of Luther conc-crning the inrporrvibitity of the la~y of Inen annuIling the lilt^^ of God. A true marriage hetween priest und wifc could not bc hrok- en. I.'urlhcrmorr, it was common knowldgc that many 1.1rit.51~ li\ett with their housekccprrs or wnle other wnmcn LII~ O~~CLTI had children. CarlsLadt struck a blow against this stare of affai ts by lrlkir~g a wik. Shortly after, tttccn monks witlldrcw frum the ;1(11pt initln cloiakr in '#itkrlkrc:rg. Coa.lroutrd with his situotiol~ and with crics for 11~1~) trot11 3IrlanrIlthon, his fellow thcolc~yinn at %:itte~lL~er~, Lu- ther .+at dowrl urd r~~nJe a careful etudy of tllc prd~lcn~ ill 5rilrturw. lle fhrrr \c~otc On Jiona.sric Yotta, dedicated to his falhcr. llis faher's srarcnrcr~t, ut lris ordinntion to thc lxicutl~oorl, rcturncd to I~im will1 hull Ftrrw. Lurhcr nns tur~ ~ir~ccd that he had actctl wro~rgly opiurt his father hu~ tti;il this was ford upon him Iry God in order that hc 111ig11t dis- slow refornl. men of evanpelical faith ,shouId not rush or push their weaker brethrm but should bear with them in patience. A man of faith is r;tcong in love and in concern for hi4 neighbor; therefore, he will tolerate his wcskcr hrethren whilr, at thc same time he mks to lead him to a decpcr comprehension of the faith. Luthcr had rernarknblc faith in the power of the Word to accornpii~h all ntxemary reforms if only it was given suffi- cient time, As a consequence, he felt that two basic shifts in wnmhip should hc made; lint, making the proclornation of the. Word central in the wrvicr; second, removing the canon of thc mess in or&r to eliminate the mcrificial as- pecb from the L.orde.s Supper; finally, the enlire wrviw should be read in German. This rnust rlot be done nuddenl) hut grndu~lly as the pmgle are prcpared for it. Also, in keeping with his biew of the law, he contended that monks al~nuld not bc forccd to marry hut shmM be dlowcd lo tfo so il they m ddtciclcd on the baais of their pemarraiun by thc cvanp4iml faith. Once pecrce had hefn restored in Wilten berg, Luther again picked up his task nf miniatering to tb people of the pariah, teachirig in the Ilnivereity, and proparing variour trtlcls and books. Onc of his ninst importnrlt work% mas 1~ clrtuuragc the cangrrgation to sing the hymns. Thio had falh into cornplcte wlipsc under the Romanista. Luther lovd ttl~uair and fitwnled it IT)H,c~ only than Theology. He 64t that pea- ple of faith could not avoid cqm-wing their faith in hyn~nx of adoration. joy, end thank~giving. 111 1524. 11c published a hymnal for uec in local parishes. Many of the% hymn* wert from his Inn. Later he was to write both the word. nnd music to "A Mighty Fortrcx~," a perfect example nf his pi&y and rdigiaus conviction, The pcople wcrr tr:linml to sing both by insiruciion at home and hy sjmial n.mMj. nwd- in7 of the c~n~regationo. The Lutherar~ Cliurch lr~ulr~r known ea a sinfing Church. Certainly tlli?r rm or~e of [he grentest contrilmtions of the reformer. Meanwhile, the Reformdion spread throughout Elrape and found a rmdy response in many pl~1~'~cs TPrcre wns rlu of how it w~uld spread bccaux a hdf dmen sourw srod ready to carry the rnmncmcnt. On? of the bnia c.Ral~- nels for the spread of thc evangdical faith nq\'aa th monablir movamcnt. Perhap [his wa3 because Luthcr himd aa3 an Auqstini~n and his ~enchinp reccived a quicker hear- ing among his fe1low monks. & that o~ it .mag, some uf th~ earlimt and truly outatanding rcforrners canre uut of monas- tic ranks to fn1lnw I,utherls teachings, IZIagins. hk.6 bet d Ingol?~adl, quit the Carndile ardm to embrace the cr angejical faith. Another outatanding example was John Rugcnhngen. As a thcologinn ol the Prcm~n*trattnsims, he was given the task of refuting Lather's Dnbyhnian Cnptirity of thr Chitrclr, bur rrm converted by it. The fact that many of thew mcsnastiew wme friars with thc right to pfeiwh anywhere trrcourqed the sprrad of thc Reformntioa. Given to much preaching anywQy, there de- vout rnrn now found a new rnewage 20 prmnt hnd preac-hud whcrcver the opportunity prt'wnted i~lf. Even sccular priwts und bishops declared lor hc Reformatinn. Modern printing jireatly farilitnted Rclorm~ian dcrdap- rncnts. It mnde possibIe a vast body of pamphtr-t litcraturc. Juch as the cartoons and other propaganda which could Le produced inexpensively. The intdligentsia and rising merchants in the city wcrc predisposed to thc Lutheran Refonnatiorr. hause they wcrc tired of papal control, greed, ond avarice, they quickly turned to the Reformation. A whole wtiw of then1o~;ians and lcnderv underlook reform in the light of htlrer's in- ++tg. The mobt in~portan~ of th were the fan~r~us Martin Bucer ar~d Malthew &H in Str~>Rurg, Ot~olampadiua and Rhagiu* nl AupLurg, Osiander of Kuremht.rE, and dozens of nth~r*. Above all, the s~uclentu at Wittenberg provided I.uthcr u ith tllc~u~anrlir of tnersengtrrr who were to go forth and sptend thc ~oad ncwa. Through thnr men the Scandi- Iba\ian r ountrim were later reformed, ant! the R~fonilntion spread throughnut Europe. I. What rvas and ir tlre eignifical~cc for thc life of the Church uf Luther's vicwrs on rnotia~lic vows? Might n~rrriastieiarn he possible udrr thew views? 2. Whrtt waa t!~ signifrcarire of his transtatinn of the New Tmtament ? 3. Wcrc Carlatadt and the Zwickau "proph~~b" only carr) - ing ~hrough 10 their lugical conc!u4ons hlhcr'o insights into thc cuqtel? :L, Di~cu'a 110th thc btrerlgth md AaliFr of ~hc hsclief that ~trorlger Cl~ri~tians Irwt drain from offending their weaker brcthrcn in matters QE dorn~. 5. What did L.uther fwl ~oufd ul~itnatclg accon~ylicrh the esmtisl reform? (1. Why and hm dirt the Il~formation *prrad so rpickly? VI. Pressores From Righi and Left With the rapid spread of thc Reforn~ation many forrcs aligned themwlvea wirh Luthcr, but they did nut untlerstand hir position or r~ally appreciate what he was trying to du. Olm in rhc niorncnt of frah creation in an historical move- ment trertain form initially atlac11 themdves to that rnovc- rncnt as c-xycessice of their own d~epmt intermb. Often it turns out later that thwc re.qxclive morerne.t~ts not only are not c.omplemcntiwy but often contradictorys, LutIwr was to discover this to his great sndnem Though he did nut go about weking support, his stand against Rornt rallied dl din- sa~iafied fc~rces to his aidu. From '1521 untiI 15'25, no reform rnovclnent repudiated Luther and ell thought they wcra building on him. The first such utrwanted support was offered by tRc cf- forts of certain knights who aought to rdorc the privileges of that clors ly overcorning the prince within various rtatn and by %tting nut on a reform of he nrr~ion which included breaking Inow from Rnnrc. Ulrith von EIutten and Frar~z von Sickingen wcrc tlte leadera of thiu abortive attcrnpt, i~nd they trird to persuade Lutlicr to become spiritual head and ay~nholic lender of the mowmt. 'rhcy felt there was rrcr basic difference in their intercat*. hther absolutely refused as he was not intermted in leading a political move~lwrtt or usi~g thc Gospel to establish what some men fclt to be ;I just form of society uuder the ledemhip of their class. The Hcf- ormation was rlot to be advnnccd by sword, 11Ioodahed. or politic:al chica~~ery. Enough ol this would be involved with- out revking it, this would emerge. itlcvitabIy from the con- flicts of history itdl, rather thun from thc ~nachinntions of a religiut~w leader. Sickirige~l tried a rebellion but it failed. and ~ritlr his rlcotl~ in 1523, the knights' rcbclliorr cunw to il tlo~. 'rl~is was but the first in a wri6 ol rnnven~enls from which Luther hart lo distinguish his cnuae. Insofar as they rcpre- mrled ~r.1 iltt.~nlpt to recapture the pant they reprcwnkd thr right, but irlvofar a3 dmg tried to nchievc thiu by reldiorr, tI~q represented the left. Luthcr was not intermhad ~II either. Tlrl: rwxL grent chaIlenge woa more itnprmi~z in xop and conxquencm. Since the late rncdievnl times tlw serfs, or i~easants had hwn gradually deprived ol the fcw righh k- laaging LO thcir class. 'Thc decline of the IeuJal system and the rive of capitalism put hcavj Lurdcns on the fe.udd lords whu in tur~ sought relief by greater c~plni~alion af thc peas- ant~. 'Tltcir Iot, nevcr an easy one, was made unbearallc. 'They hod arnple reason to sce.k a redress of grievnnccs Lut IittIc opportu~iity to achieve it. They made iul appenl rm lrlised grounds, that of their nreclieval rights n~id n tllrtul to rcvoIt a~d overthrow their oppreswrs. Fur cet~turies, the yuastcnts had revoltcd from tirne to time, Lut this particular I'ea.santa' Wnr HW one of the latcst as well as fierce.st. Me- dict'al seciariun group I-rat1 implanted in thern equalitarian itlenls in ternw of which they hoped to throw off their yoke n~~d achiesv t~ew right* IwYond tlreir feudal status. Though I~M all of thrvr found their way into the peasants' gcneral prograni. ttic spirit of equality certainly movd them. Also theJ- were further esci~ed Ly thr: crent.ive new move- ~nmt of the Rrformntion ~llich promised grwt possibilitiex for all Inen. Such things as thc priesthood of all bcliwew, the u+e of the \ernacular in worship and Scripture, the aban- don~nent of paymeritu to Rome, all hod a trcrtiendous appeal. They could rer* a new age dawning with new hopa for thew: nrtd tlw!; llcroked r~ Luther as the prophet of thiu age. 'I'liir attiludc: of excitement in the pmnce of a new ngc was mhawed hy another atrain that had long prcdoniinated nlnung the lower cla~s-npucdypticism. 'rhy fclt this \FIE hut a sip of what they had Iong believed: that Jcrus Chri3b was soan ping tu retrm and M up His Kifigdonl in \\hicIr .tky, the downtrodden, would rule am Ih ~ainta. ft 2va~ hut a short step ti, ad\ucilte violence lo ha,.te~l thc Kingdom or tu play the role of those who prepare for and makc ftraight thc way of the Tard. T11m the Ptmar~ts' War was caued by n rtmngc cmbination of cwo~~olnic, political. s~id religious rea.wns. The) drew up, from time to tin~c, stntemmits of 111eir purpox. The rnmt firrnourl of tl~ese was ~lte Twelve .bic.lrs in nvl~ich thty dcr~randed the aholilion of the titk and other unfair ezacfiona and askcd for a rc. turn of the-ir mdicvd rightr. Luther couid not avoid this wt~troversp bmu~c he was c~rigi'rlially ircm the parant dass rnd 1wmus.e of Ilia role as the refortwr. TheS' Imkd IV liirn lor Imdcrship. One con- t~ot cwq~e the conclusion in his writir~gy that 11e synlpa- th ized with the peasants' economic complaints. He nrotc harshly againrt \he princw rrrgirtg lhcrn to do sonlethit~g bc- fore it was LOO late. Ile placed full responsi1,ility or1 thr. priwes for the pcswnts' prewnl condi~ions and co~nplaii~ts. l'hcti he puhorteil tllc peaants not LO reaart to 1-iolencc to achiew thcir goal and certainly not to identify tl~e Goq~cl with heir cause. More anythins coul'd be: Joru 11y Lulhrr or others to ~nakt: sotue kind of adjustment possible beliveen the pea>- ants and prittcea, lhe peasants sirnplp arose in Bn unplanr~ed, IcadcrIcss revoIution. Their fnrv~rn~ion ut yeare of horrible iujuaticc expr~~wd itself in an escem of pillage ud n~urtler. Anarchy wultcd. At firs1 the princm were helplc3s but her1 they struck with fury. It WEU while the pea~anb ran wild and the princes wcte frozen into inactivity that Luthcr trrote his infarnoun tract Againsf die Robbiug and dfurder- ing Hordc in which occurred tho* oft quoted n-ordu telIing the princm to burn, stab, and kill. Thin was tlic Ianguagr of wrath md fear, and it is to be ngretted that he exprewed himself in such an extreme mallnet. Yet it cannot be dcnicd Lhst given his position, Luther had to oppoan the revolution. His wrath was kindled by the peas- ants' identificnlion of their program with the hpel. He felt that it wm impos3iblc to deduce program of aocial justice from the Good New8 of God's redemptive love in Christ Jcaue. This was n qucsrion od cconornic jud~ to bs se~tlcd hy Fcaron, greced~nt, common WW, and the law. 'ro bdsc bucb a claim on the Gospel is to make a law out of thc Go.q+el. To make matters worw in Lother's eyra, am ihc appeal to force lo uphold this progrikm of the Gwpel. Ile felt that it rvaa not po&bIo for a Christian 10 revolt againat tyranny. Only pamire acccptmm or rmistanct was pasihle. UrJcr 1% nrdoincd by God and man iu not to 'break it-certainly not the Christian man. If injur~ice mo in, God will deutroy and punigh ahat order. But man cannot play thr role of God in histoq and try to anticipate God's mme by forcing things through revolution. Thc peaganh were tryir~g to pIa! Cod and made ZI law out of the Gospel, said Luther. Furthermore, Luther saw in the war only u restleas out- tlurrt with no psible chsncc of achieving anyihing grml. Bloodshed was its only consequence. It wan In this conteht that he wrote his book. Somerhing bad to *tr~ the robing bands of peaasnb. Even ordered tyranny way to be pre- ferred to anarchy. Withiu swcrd month tht rt~olt was brokrn, and the princes wreakrd their Iengeance or! the pensank Then Luthcr once more turned against the pril~e~ ad. in the fact of the carnage and bhdstd, attacked thtm u11- m~rcifuUy. He upbraided them: first, for their hardnm uf heat in letting matterr rcach such a point oi injustice tlut rcvolu~ion was rmmry; second, lor Rm ing failed in heir initid duty to guppres the revsli with dilspntch and jnwtice: and finally, for thcir harrd erpr~wtd in terrible wts or fen- price against the peasants. IIc reminded ~hcm ah& Gad i. :I srwr md c~rkain judge Who would nob igriore their dint15 Inr which they would certainIy have tu pay. Thc ronscrluenctj of the re\ulu~ion were far reaching. it* a teuk of hi# stand, hther alienated a ~ood many of the ~x-mnts who could not forgive him for not having led thrir re\&. The Rciorrnation lost much ground among tl~e masm \vho cithcr lapcd into letI.lrrrg1: of becan= A~~~bapti~!r. Luther grew to distrust the common man and his pmi- hilities for ihe future. The prhm had tome out top by defeating first the knights and now the peaaant. Nobody was lcft to check thcir power. Luther dirtrurlad the~i~ a* much as the peasanta bccausc both proved ~nercilh* and self- ibh in the hour of need. Above dl, Luther found out that the IJOIV~~ of the Word could not atop either side. This pro- duced in Luther a real pessimism as to thc possibility of making basic sdjlletmcnb in smial ju~iw ~hrnugfr par~ful meens. During this same Tear Lrrthr brok~ with another eegnrent of the Rcforrnation. His es-coIlcague, Carlstadt, and a J oung radical. Thomas Mitntxer were i11 tlic forufront of n nme- nmit whirh made grmt heedway with the Vnts. Every- body in the evangelid camp had reacted ugainnt Rome's hierarchical and in.stitutional control. The rdiral~ went to tha oppasitc edrerno and dcrricd all in.4tutinns by upholding the dire, immediate operation of Gocl's Spirit es thc source of thc religious Iifc. Orte pre- pared himwlf for thia experience ol a new birth in the Spirit by a dcIiLetatc choice OI suflering and the Crass as a menna of purging onrwlf, the). taught. Oncc pax4 hy tlre Spirit, hc had no noed of the old political forms to prescne order and jmticc. In bct, the man in the Spirit H& to de- troy all such forms M productive of inju~tice and ungodli- ness; thus they \rere plitid radicnh. By 1525, Lnthct mgagtul in a ~igotous polemic with these men and corr~~letely dimsswinted himseIf from them, I-IF attncked thcir position as one of subjective iqsticiurn which distorted faith and the conccpt of the Holy Spirit. God's rpitit duty not operote directly on man apart from the Word ard Sacramtwntu. C~lil$etely npan from how one feels about it, the Word of Cod is he forewr. 'To b -re one mudt r~prirnce it. !rut for Luther the important thing was to n~ske certain the truth and ~didity of the Word which one experienws. ,\lho, he altnckcd theac men us introducing the law through he back door. The man in ~trc Spirit inoves into tha~ life and bta)s in it through a rigorouu *elf-control ac- mrcting lu ~hc cornrnandments or law. Thc laup is now a nlerrls through which oric draw closer tu his god of 8b- >otplion into the Spirit. Luthcr coritcndd. ngsimk ihrrtr. that the law iS nothing more than a roodaign pointing ttut tho way. FinalIy, Luther rvab opposed lo the utter lack af a sc~w of hktnrg di$a?;ed Ly thew so-cnlled radical*. They wanted to jump backward from the Rcformation to tln. Yaulinv Church. E~er~tl~ing in between was a falling .way, n cor- ropticrlr; hub, they wantd to break with all the pc~irrs of the Churrb- -theolugicd, liturgical, and dm otinnal. Luthcr argued that if you take God$ retelntiol~ in hktory nr something reat and important then you carmot ignore the historical durclopments that hare occurrcd in the Church. 11 is only through the channels, distorted though thcy arc at timm, that one encounters God. The problem was not the clilninntion of all previous practices and tried forma in or- der to undertake the rclorrnu1n~ion of prirnitivr. Chribtinnil). it n,m the dontutiot~ of forr~ end practim #hi&, knusc of their hidorkal devclaprnent, often contain much ;had strouId not IJC last. There hfw no doubt that Luther could not get along trith the* men. In 1524, a rltore serious low occurred whcn Erasmus, the prince of the clasical schoIaru, brake with Luther's concep- tion nf Refmnation. lie ass inelind to tulerute it at lirst. but thaw supporting him clcmandd some kind of anti- Lutheran ktatenlenl or he would he his fitiancid suppurt. Erusnius finally attacked Luhr in a tract cnritlcd The Frw rinrrr v/ the Will. In it Eremius ucd he typical Roman ar- gulnmt rrf tItc nrIequxy OC the ?iu~rian baing in his prewrt 5tnte to chnmw the good 61 er mgair~vt the eL il. Ernri~nus had also hern n rcfonrler of a rype, Lut his l!lr was uttrrly renmed frmi Lutlicr's position. As a murr of lcttem and wnie of sophktication, he apparently had no deep religious romiction5. TIC wna, Iiowrwr, a man wlto &.tcct- cd the grced, avarice, nnrl irnrnoratity ni thc papacy. Tic nt. tacked this through thc of: dm and hu~nnr. Irr nt\ way did hc appear to differ from the Bmic Rorntw thculogicnl orientation. Ermmw chow e subjmr ul~kh hc wag certain he could onpIuy against Luthcr. Ad c man who co~~ddc.rl*l n~ornlir~ m the center of the religinm iifc, he expread surprise md dismay at Luther'* driiial rif free will. Eras~nus felt, as did all good Romans, tha~ nlan as he lives in this world has the ~bility to choose thc gcsod and to foUow it. Without 1hi.c Irrvdom to rcelcct he good and follow it, man would 1101 Irt able to live a good life. TO be surc, 1112 often failed md ro fell into sin hut eitlicr thi~ was overcome by grace through the Sacramcnt-, or it hail no profound efkt on future rtctionu. Aftci &*Cawrig Luther of sepratirtg rcfigio~i and niorality, Emrinr went on to mp~l~rt his emlmtion through Scrip- turd excgr5is. Ey this technique, he hoped to de~nolish Luther's ~tand a11 &ripture for Emunwe one of the fore- nw5t Greek wholnra of hi? day. At no point did Eravlnua ])tIbk LeYond the traditio~~al \Fa) of handling the nrgurnent, and he entirely micsed the religious banis of the contruversy. 111 1523, Lmthr replird in the Bwnd R7t'll or Bondage o/ the Vill. I-Ir tired tag~i~rrt Erasmus an two grounds - one as to Scriptural interpretaticm and the second as to n theoIogicaI or religious rni4rtkrpretatiun. Erasnius, said Lu- thcr, did not excgetc Scripture in its ow11 term*, ~hoc is. in itrr oItn content in nhich deirrer paa.inpes dwap made sells out ol more ambiguous pawqr.r;. hauw Ernsmus did not this, he rttigwd the ~Iiole. qu4on in his expwitian of !hiplure. k'or Luthcr, the renll~ profound qucstio~t \cds that of tlw ~xterrt .of p\il nnd the Ireerlo~n of rwn to turn his back on tlw mil hj ~~~irig ~hc goiocl drtd thcn in followi~~g tlrc pod. l'hir wns n0t an acnd~rnic qutdcm for l.uthcr, it in! oh FYI his orun spiritual melfare. 31311. ah ne ki~o~ him. ik not frw to -r he good and to follow it. Man is n finik, sclfisll crea- ~urc. He doe3 not haw t~ fresh start with each problem. His padt decisions, hi3 very ~iature, prevent this. He is R sinner! Fur Luther, sill is sorrlethitig deep and pervasive that in- siliuales itself into dl of life. One does not overcome it ei- ther by heing a gentIeninl-I or by receiving infued grace. A rna~i is not free LO htort me\v 011 CXIL major decision or ei7cn ~tlii~or ones, rather, he is coaditioncd by his ~~1st ;lctio~i~, hnhils, and rlaturc. IIc redly docs not beck LO do God'$ will, and tnrrl rr1rc.n doing it, is only partiaIIy successful. I(ln11 r-milot e~rape the evil BII~ dcmrmic in life. Agaimt this. Lather pknrd ttx jm~ marl livir~g ill a rtew m-elation In Gnd nrrd rnon. Out of thia rclntionship of faith, producnl nlrolly Lp Gad, them 3if.w a nclr ilnpetus to re- a~)onsiMe arltion. Rut dl [Ilia conm frorn God through thc gift of faith. To thia .csLmI then, the \vilT is no longer bound, man finds his freedom in fctsua the Christ. But w-en tIlis i* an ut~going slruggk iu lib. dft nu 11oin.t dots man ncliievc th-tt dcgree of j~rriediirn where he is able aln-ays to we LJIC goor1 and do it. I-lc docs tlii~, but he also distorts it. Thus he is rrinflantly ill need uI mercy and tit,- only hg faith in ~~rd'a Imrr!- at mcv point in lift. Rdigious Eaitlr underlips all rnordity. it is not rnil~~'s aldity clr his n~clralit~ that ~II- derlim good actions! Luthcr felt Eraarnris handled tl~iu prcrh- lclrr ar mnir:thing nrlernnl lo hilnself, a strictly theoretical \it~diralion of ntan'a nhilitj-, nnd so was truIy ~1 I~CJI~BII C~trdic. Luther handId it an 3 digioua yrobleni ceritered in God's rlaiurt: rnd will rather than in n~an's, F'rc~rn tl~at point on the humanists and evnngclical~ went different ways. A far more ~eriouu break was that rvllich occurred LC- IWWI Zwi~igli, thc great rdormer of Zurich, Switzerland, atid Luthcr. Zwingli had reformed the territory arour~d Zur- ich 011 his nwtl ir~itiative, and he o~~d little to Lutl~er. He rvns a11 outstartding hunwniat, scholar; and n Roman priest wl-~e~r he broke wih Rome, 1523-1525. Reform went rapidly and it Ssor.iate his padion rsith 111:lt of wrne ancicrll or recent Iluretic: who*^ tear hi^^;; Itutl Imn rolldeirr~~erl 1)) the Clturr.11, and tlws icb show tI1,it Lu. tlrer's ~hcolo~!. II~ ulready colne under the Churrli's barl. Tlma dmc~at cvcry hcreticd lnhl, Trom he kinr~ of hv Irlurtl~ ccnturj to t11e Huwitc of the fifteenth, wau pir~~led tlr~ I.uttter. 'l'hough he sometimes diurt:garded this strategy and, Becomes a Church in the case of the Ifudw, even came to accept the labels, Lutlier gcnerslly repudiated thc suggestior~ that his teaching was the revival of sucient or recent heresy. On the contrary, Luther and his followers insistcd that they stood for the faith of the ancient nud true Church, while the red innova- tor* were their opponents. 'f hcrofore, they also refused to cmrde the name "catholic" to thcir opponents, for the Re- for~ncm clai~ned 10 be deferding the catholic, that is, the univer.wl faith. Ever since the Lcipaig I)eF~nte of 1.519, lhis wrpnient had I~ccn going on, At Auj$mrg, the Luthcrun side of llrc argument achieved it* dmisivr lilcr~r)' formulilliorr. [roniwllp, ils author was not hthe~: lnrt hi* younger colleague, Philip Mclanchtlin~i. [It: ~v-m mcrc ltmiied than Iuther, but rlso more irenic. .\ti a whdar, Irr ldicvcd that e tlarificntion of the theological ~*EUC* txtm~.~-n IIomc ad the, Itcforn~trs On the bais of rarcful nnalpsia would do II~I to remow thc misunder- stamlii~p kwmii tht.~n. R~~re~tiria the exco~w to which ilic hcut of orgumrmt had Id hth *id-! 3Ielanrhthon sought 11) !,ring thr r&!ar's calm rsnd clarity into the debate, and tu co~~cilia~e n'ihut compromising. kxau~c he was under the Imn ot bolh clrurrh aid cmpirc, hlwr did not rtrrrlo in ,Iug?;hurg~ hut had to vim. rlie procerdingrr from a distanc~. 'ha the task of composing ~hc confc~..ininr~ fell to 3ltlanch- thon. Though hc wodcl haw preferred a more exhaustive diwussion of thc mooted dwtrinal points-a discussion more likc the ~acalled "Apolog)." than like the Augeburg Con- fession-Mchchtiwn ww prevailed upon to write thc con- fession as 11ie eonxusus of the teaching of the churches, estates, and frw &tie tepiewnted at Augburg, not as the private position of sir individual thcolagisn. In the composition of the confmion, A!e.lanchthon died Ireavilg uprt the ~o-nllcd Marburg, Schwabach, and Tor- gau ArticIc*, rvhkh had been compo*d in the preceding !cars as wurn~nilrk of the Lutheran position in relati011 to Ro~m and in relation to other parts of the Heformation. This "middle way," w-hich wc described earlier, also carlle to voice in thc Auphurg Conf-ion, which thuz helped to define more prcciscly the plncc of Luthcntnisrn withill Chris- tvndom and in this way to n~ake it a "churcl~" in the mod- ern, de~ro~rli~~oriond sense of that word. Thcre are many aimiIarihs of fornmot and of language between the XU&- hurg Confwion end thew enriinr article-; as a conscquel~ce, Luther l-js able to say, "The Augsburg Confession is ~liinc." Speaking, then, as thc cunefnvuv of the churches and tlrswir~g ulm1 IIIW eiirlier fondntions, the 41ugalrurg (:OIL- fession attempled to mmmarize Lutheran teaching in such a way as to make clear both its simiiaritk to thc Roman &[and and its divergence from that stand. As the foundation fur thc entire discussion, Articles I, 11, and III discu~ed the doctrines of God, man, and Christ, respectively. In these articles, ench of which dealt with an imue on which there had been wrne difference* between the Lutheran and thc Romn approach, the Augburg Confe~~ion showed a m- straint in its tl~aught end a consematism in itu vocabulary that seem vmy remarkable to s rnodcrn reader. Article I de wribed the dac~rine of thc Trinity in terminology that ~wuld have bccn us~d by a mtdieval thmbpian; Artielc !I farrnu- lated the doctrine of original sin, which was H point of con- aidcrable controversy, in the language of e distinction corn- ing from the Middle Av: ond Articlc If! dixasscd the per- son and work of Christ in a brief pnruphraw of the Apoetlsl' Crcd On them three piiwtal dactrinr.3, Lutheranism and Rome were in sufficient egrcernent to makc possible their adoption of a single creedal slntehnmt. The Auphurg Con- Ee-sion opened with a testimony to the tbstcnt of this agree- nlent. ill1 the more tffcrti~ e, therefore, is the radica1 di\ ergrnce betwwn Lutheranism end Rome un the subject of Article IV, juslification. On tlie Trinity und on thc dortriuc of *-loll w39 Christ, ercn on original sin, the Aupburg C~nfc:~' willing to use conciliatory language. But when it came to thc cluctrine of justification by faith, it had to make clear tltnt the difference wan no1 one of language, nor ~'t of IIICW t:lnphmgis, but a fundart~cntal difference in thc intorpretntio~r of the Chridian Gnqd Though thc Ronlan Cd~olic Couu- cil of Trent (IM-1563) adopted s!aten~cr~tr on juhfication that &eem In go rather far in conciliating the Lutherans, the Iinrriilrl reactinn to At.ricle IV, togethcr with the Lutheran answer to that reaction ia rbc Apology of the Augwburg Confcesi~n~ revealed jurt how Iuriclamcntal tlw clifhrcnce was. OT1 uhat bnsiu dot- a tnan 1n:comc acceptable to God? 'I'ltc right answer LO thin questior~ war the kry In the mean- ing of tlie Gospel and of Christian doctrine. For this rcagon, rtflkle IV is the ccntral article of the :\upburg Con5rvsion. Its distinction betwren hunin~l merit and divine grece beca~ne basic for the yr~srt~tation of uther differtnces lwtween Roim and the Lutheran Reforn~ation. Thua Article V defined tht! Lutheran doctri~ac: uI tk Worcl on [his baqia, in cont~udi$tinetion to any other dac~rine ~hnr rruuld makc thc power of thc Word of Cod dcpcwdent upon hurr~etl preparation or wurk.r. i2rticlc VI nwlr it r.l+ur that rvrn the Chriylian couId r~ot hop to purchase the fabur of Gad wilh hia works. In Adicles VII and VIII, the Aup 1111rg ConTe4on ernpha&.d that the gummike of the pi- pnre and the unity 01 the Church was not LO Ile sought in human org~nizations, traditions, or works, but io the Wuni :rnd ill ihr sat-rarnents which Cod had indituttrl. 'Fhe dic- cus&v of thcae aucran~enh in the +utqucnt ar~irlm ndi. tlw snllw laoint with respect iu buptiaru. the Lord'o Supper. pcnancc, and ordination. FhiIc in csch care tlic vocabulary was c:iutious and conscrvotive, thc Augsburg Confession strovc to cInrify, betwwn or rather beyund the altenintivtn of Ron~c and estrcnie Prote,rtsntiarti, thc Lutheran undcr- standing of the mealis of grace, now that grace no longrr meant sorncthing in thc believer, bu~ the good ~dl and favor of God. In Articles XV to SXI, the Augburg Corlfeseiori picked up several issum dated LO prc~filenia discussed ill carlicr nr- ~i~ks. For exa~nplc, Articles XVI und XXI are cIosely con- nected to 11~~~ti~1.4 discu~wd in cnrrnection with the doc- trine uf the Church in Article3 V11 rrid VIII. Article XVIII rcalIy Pwlcmtlg to the doclrine of man prcsenterl in Article 11, just ub Artic4e XIX Lelone 10 Article I and Article XS to Article VI. The Inst seven nrtidca n-ere different from the first twenty-one, ill that lhey dealt with specific ulorreu wliirh cui~flktcd with divine or acclesiaaticul Iaw nnd which, in the e)cB of th evnfesora, need& cormtil~g. InciduntnlIy, it l~cloriga hot11 ta hirtorical honesty and to Chris~ian charity to point uut that at Trent arid subscquc~~lly: Roman Catholi- cism took many steps toward thc elimination of these abaws; nnd it is "nei~tier soft! nor honest" to yak us though this wcrc not true. Eliniinotii~n of moral or canonical abuws was not, how- iwr. the Iwrcltw of tlic ca.w again31 Roman CathoIicisnl. The divisiu~~ of the confes4or1 into the two parts syrnLolized 111at fact. TIic caw was to stand or fall on the strength of tht: thcologic:~l iswen dividing thc two, not on the moral puritj- or impurity of their clergy or laity. And the theologi- cal iwucr, in turn, were not to bc dvcd 011 thc boais vf dialei:tical skill or Icaming. Iml on the haaie of the Gosycl. lo defining and settling the iwue as it did: the Augshurg Crlnf(~sion clai~~~d to rtprwent he orthodox ~nd ratholic faith I)! the: Church. Spokesmen for that faith tutm ti~t only the bishop snt! ~fi~i3f theologians, hut tkr ritm11 ir~ the hnd. wh1 in ,hir worship rind prayers had I,ad ttwir Itopu of salvation on the mercy of God rather ~hnu rm their own merit. In the AugsLurg Confmion, BO thc Lu~hrran 11udogia11r ~nainlaincd, there eilcnt spokes- lriaI1 had last had 11-~cir ray; ad the real theology of an. rknt Cliristia~i thinkcrs like Aulgu~tins had t~l~o found its lrw expositinn. 56 the Lutht.ran Hdormation maintained. The ualitliry uf rhar daim i~ still a nliljor puint of con- flict bclirecn the cllurcl~ea uf Lhc. Augshrg Confc~don alld Ro111all Cathulicisni. Even more basic, of course, is the con- HicL over the n~enning of the Gospcl idf. Though they mlay 11ot all use the terminology of the Augsburg Confcsnion- and they hiwc newr all UM~ it, including and enpcially I,uthcu ant1 Xlelanchthon themxlws-thc theologians uf Lu- ihcraniwr hare suhghl Lo kccp ,lhcw gli~atiuns, and othem like them, -a! tlic miter of tlw dccbalc lx~wetn thc c1iurchea. Church I~i~torg detnon*tral~s lllat they have rtot always suc- I.P.&(~. It alw ~ilwme ll~i~t the) havr frcqucritlp failed in their effort to define thc meaning of the Lutheran church by the use of the Augsburg Confasinn, and this for a vari- ety of reaaonu. No confcstrro~~al docurncut can tiope to capture or to prc- wwe the ME gmius of a church body or a tradition. Tlie Aug*burg Confmion i4 no ~wxptiol~ to tllib ruIe. But it is :rlw the perormid sy~nbtll OI 1% hilt t11e churches of the Lu- thcrari Iiefwnwtion take lo bc thc ineaning of the C;ospd, wid an suvh it is the confes&n of the Iaymeli in thclst: churclm~ su mII 05 of thc theologia~is, Acceptance of thv Augshurg Confession is part of the constitution of mu~t Lu- ~ltersin cliuich-budiea and congregations, as well an at thc ordination forrnul~s used in I,uthernnism. Where rhis Er - nqtartcc. Itan not degenernted into a nwre formality, thc Xughurg Ccrnfc&m still wrtm to dehw the hltheran church in rd~tiw to ntlicr parts uf Christeniloni, cielt though, as we hare poirrtml ou~, it dm not e\bauut thc nwailil~g or geniug of the Lulh~run Reiorn~atioll arid of th~ church that rmergcd from it. QUESTIONS 1. I11 what ways doa the Augsburg Confession show the marks of the political situation surrounding it? What does this mean for rnodern Lutherans in their rclation to the Augsburg Confcsuion? 2. Does the acceptance of a confessional atandard like the Augsburg Confession hnmper frwdorn in a church? What arc the irnplicatiorls of this acceptmice for frmdorn of thought and action? 2. Wtich of ~hc condetnnalory clau~es in the Augsburg Cortfcssiari nre directed qainbt Rome, which against other Protestant*, which against arrcht her~sy? 5. Mat difference3 do you note between the trrn~iriology oI tlw Augshurg Confrvion and the hlguagc to which you arc accustomed, for enompk, in article^ VII-VIII or in Article S? IIow do you nccoutlt for the~e differ- ences? 5. The Aug&urg Confes~ion htn frequently hsr snggcsted ss the b&is for a disculmion oi church rcunion. After reding it, do you think it would be suitnblc as such a his? VIII. Luh *be Biblical Theologian If Luthcr wcrc tractring at a rncdern theological sctninary, we tend tr~ suppow that he ~vould he teaching the course ill (:hrir;tinn rloctrirle, usually titIed "ctng~natics" or "aystemati~. thc.ology." Ar a rr~atter of fact, his courws were in ~hc field ~,f I,iblicrtl i~lterprctation, more qccifically it1 thc Old Testa- mtlnt. At thr urging of his fritvicl Staupitz, Luthcr had he. mmc "r)oi:tor in Riblia" in 1512; mid as wc have wv in Chapter 111, it was in his fuwkion as n 1tx:lurcr nil Holy Scripture that Luther discovered and ftmnulated the in- sight3 that nlude hirn the Refnr~rwr. X ctin~ideratinn of his career atlit Iifc wo111d thcrclore be i~~cornplettt without sornc. attcnt ion to hi* wurli ar a biblical tllrologian. ronlcti~ncs long after his death. Thus Luther's biblical works oftcn show thc frwhrress of the spoken word, as well as the rt'petitiorl niadr nwemary l~y the teaching pmce-. Even in works that wrm: not ititcndcrl primnrily a3 expositions of thc billicn1 text, Lurher frcquently worked on the hasis of hiblical ~riatcrinls. Hi4 wtmons, orcov cover. often amountrtl LO liltlc morr t 1i:m verw-11y-t erse ho1nilic.3 on the lessor1 for the day. As a hiblical theolngiu~~, Luihcx ICYII-i~rd ti>urI~ frolt~ the Rildc. 111 addition to specific!. ddsclkriirol 3rd tl~eological ill- sight*, solnt: of which we have diwmd in earlier rhapter., I>ihIic.al theology gave htl~er a scl of perspcctivm that ran tl~rough all his theologicai insighta ad judgmenls. In linnic: ways thwr perrpn:tium arc cr-en more impurtanr than t ha particular jurlgmentcr that catne Prnrn thcm, for they provide us with an uncler+latding of the irtr~cr dynamics that shnped his thought and that cnebltd him to respond crs hc did 10 apecifi c doctrinal and theological issues. Ow surh ycrspcbire ir~ Luthvi* theology is {that l~ah ol1c11 t~ccn called his "biblicd rcaiimn." In tlw wq. IIC Ic~okcd at thc rtorld and in thr way he thougI11 aboui ethical decisions. Luthcr should be cldsaified as a "reslist" xather than an L'idenlist"--to the extent that such cIrnific~!ior~~ lln\r nriy rne,rning or valuc. That is to say; Ilc .stroic 5et. the wdd 8s it really is, not as be imagined it to be- We waa, therefore, quite willing to acknowledge the presence of mil---and of Eood!-where it appeared. He admined sin h hirnwlf end recognized it in uthcr~ with a csrdor lhnf tnsrly moderns would End crnbaras~iing. He did not upp post, as have many thea1ogian.r and Christian leadem sine, that the Gospel would change the natural order or rdors Paradise to earth. From his study of the Bible, wpccially of the Old Testament, he knew &oa the power and prescmx uf the Word of God docs not efftxt a miraculous transfonnatirxl in the world around the believer. and lhat the beIimes hirn- w1f is "righteous nnd fi ginner mt the same tirue." This Bill. licai realism about the world, about uther men, and .spmial- ly about hinlsell enabled Luther La escape, at Ieast to solm rneasurr, thc mcillntion betwecn naivc optimian~ and bitter diaillueionrnent that has rt~arkd much $0-called "Christian idealism." Hondvty about himself also aact'ted Luther's attitude to- ward thc rnntter af "having the truth." Luther's rq+ortrrl w~rds at Worms, "Here I stand," have bccn quoted so often that the popular conception picturis the Rcforrner as a man who was always sure of everything and who, nftcr a certain date, twer chnngd his mind about anything. It is, of course, true thnt in thological dehats Luther muld b fi~im to the point of stubbornnesg. Tile man who btuod m he did against the opprrilim that famd him no red ~hakcn by the wind. Yet rPtir. popular conccption ofcn igrtores &r other dde of the coin. The Worms quointion prcfxd "Hcie 1 stand" with the words, "Unleas I am persuaded , . ." Thuo he left himscIf open to persumion, ernd as e matter ol rccord did cl~nnge his mind frequently or1 various questions. He was able to prori=ed this way becausc he thought of him- self nu n biblical thcoIogian, obedient to the Word of God in the BibIe and, therefore, free of any ultimate ubligatinn to human thcoIogicnI theories, including the tb01%ical the- orit's of Marlin Luther. He strove to be, aa he Iiir~~wlf aayb sa ioftnn, a ppil of the prophets, dways ready to be inl;truct- d by thcm, buL meanwhile insistent Upl whar he had lmrned from them. To It a pupil 01 *the pru&tt~ and apo~leg did not mean merely rtyeabing &ha1 they had said in Phz way they mid it. Nor did it mean putting a~crgthing all of them bad *aid on the amnc lrd. For Luther, fideliry lo the pxuphetic and ~postolic %riPtutes 111citnt the de\eloymnt of what might be caIlod t11coIogicd proporhr, hut is, the capacity to rec- ognize what is central imd what is not. Such a capacity 1rri-13 nlho tlw mark of the truly biblical thuologien, for hillica! meant cvangdicd. In the erangefica! witnbs of spst!c.- and prophets to rht grace md mercy of God, promised to Israel and accotnpliehcd in Chris\ Luther aaw tl~c unity af the Scriplurra. Repeated17 hc refusd to let hin~df kame involved in controversies aver pcriphcra! rnrtttcn; and whi he did bec~lfla thuj invulved, he came to rcTrrt il after. ward% Wl~nl he was defcn&rg against Rome and all comers waa not, firai of all, dn: BiLb, but 12~5 Gwpl. As the Bible ibclf pointed oui LO Luther, written language was not thc primary means by which the Gospel was comniunicated, but the "living ~oicc of the GoqA.'' Biblical thcology fitrally meant a theology that deriied itr u~derlying convictions from thin living voice of the Goq~b, and its docu~ncntation from the Scriplurta. Corollary to thiv infcrpretation d tlrc relation betwccn theology arid the Bible was Lutlrer's interpretation of the connection between tlm~logy and preaching. Luthcr did not use the didrdon bctwtwr the theoreticnl: altd the practical thnt sppm su oftvn in rnodcru spccch, includiug tlieologi- cctl spc'td~ 5txauuc he tried to function ma ;I biblica1 thc- dogian. he kept out of his theology quebtionk that would be only of aeadenric or schoIarIr interest, withaut relevance to the Chrialian faith and Iifc of tl~e pmyle in he Church. On the otlier hand, he disc.ue4 the Christian faith and life of thc pcople on the baais of his biblical: theology, not from prudential considcrations. He objected that medieval the- rrlogy had Imquwdy lost crmtnct with tlt faith of thc Church rmd became mere qmxlation, nithout rclevancc. The fact that hie theology functioned a9 biblical theology helped hiin tn overcome tlr clcavage bciwepn scholarship and reletanrre. Indeed, thia fact made Luther what he was. At tho autm the it ,seam clear that Luther did much for biblical thcolugy, juat as it did much for him. For one rhing- his emphasis opon it arsurcd it at least thcoretical centrality in Lutheran and Protmtdnt theology ever since. The great creatite periods in the hi~t~r)' of that theology I~uve been the times when th~dogia~ib took nnothor lonk at the biblical message and sought to recover its meaning for their situation. Convewly, whcn Lutheran thc.oIo~ has lost itscIf in a concern for doctrinal puritj or moral purity as cuds in Lhm1selct3, it has uxd the Liblical mnqc to sup- port ita pr~or~uired no~ions. Rtpatedlg it has become nec- wary for Luthsia atress upon biblical theology to relurn 10 tlw Church, when dn: Church discorered the anomaly thnt it ~lai~ntd tcv dcicrld Lutl~erk tl~cology aitImut giving frrjl~ atlcrttion to the Scripturu from ~hkh he clnimtd lo derive that 11wulogy. But his refusal to mdroncrt his own tllt~ln~y and his irlvistcr~ce that theology 1x16 to be bil~liml, Lull~er ~uada it povsiblc and even nccesstg for hia theolugi- cal dercendan~ lo gu mlong with liirn, and to go beyond him, i~t their tl~eological thoug11t. Thus he made biblical cx- position, and 11ot private Lspcculation, the qurm of tltt the- c~lagical wiencm. In the courFe of his devdopmcnt, Luther ~nudc an evert greater contribution to the mcthod of biblical exposition it- self. While medicla1 theology had aIso claimed to be bibiicnl and some ntedie\al theologians had gone ralhcr far in their assertions of the primary authority of the Scripturm, they h,rd vihtcd 111uc.h of this L) rcaurting to allcgory in thcir actual i~~rt.aprdrtiinr (JI he %ripturn. Finding a fourfcrltl rlr vrpn n ~\mfold maw in th~ Haturncntb uf Scripture, thrg hrre rl~b tu force rhc Bible irtlo rot~fnrmity ~itlr tl~. turrerit or treditional vicm of theology and ethics. llllegory tlirrr hn~ aha!~ hct.11 in the Church: there ib more than a littli- in thr Rihlr- itwlf. Rut thc rrckIesa application of nl- legory in the interprerahn of $he Biblc mode it, in Lu. thrf* phrdr, ''a nn* of W~P" 1I1at anyorre muld twi\t into arir *%qw IIC rliow, Thix Lutller nhjaqml. ninde the thr- rdogie~i the Incrqtc'r of th~ Scriptures, who we* so hu*? dlrg- urixrng thnt he did not listen to them. in ~ppo~itioa to WIC~ afkgory 1.uthl.r wt what hi* caIled the "graninlahd" rndh- td of intrrpretation. and he wught ti) lnake thh ba~i~ for whatcvcr other iritcrprflatinn war; to foIlnw. It is. thcrcfnrc. not scvuratc to say, a* many bandbmkz; of rhurch history do, that Luther ir~sisrcd upon the literal wnw of Scripture and the Iiterai wnm aime. One has only to read his comnlhltarira on the OId Tmtanwnt tn hct him finding Christ thrnughoul tlw Old Testament as eonvistendy as any allegorist had done. The poiut is that for Luther this Christ-ceatertd intt*rpretetion of rllc Old Testanlent was the "Iiterd wnw." In other word*, the turn1 "litertrl" did not rncm to Luther what it has come to meon to many Pmtest- ants, the rigid application of individunl biblical proof-tcsts irrmpdvc of their historicel and therrIogica1 contest. Lu- thm viewcd thc Scripture as a tolali~y, ttnd hc interpreted tl~ern aa R totality. hinging the Iull wt'igh~ of 1)ihiical faith to ttwr rw the etrpt\siti~~~ rrd 11rIy inc!ividual part. 111 the art of finding thr rrd IIIP~II~II~ r)f the Bible by this tiiearlu, Lu- ther was ;LII ul~dia~uted master. His method of interpreta- tion wna faithful to the gra~nniatical emw of the Srripturc~ \r.ithout heirig literalistic; it wag theuIngically imapinntivc in it+ nnalym and cornhinatians without permitting dlegory ~tt abwure the nirrsap nf the roxt itdf. 111 eome WHYS, Luthex'n biblical In~erpretation itself was IWCV i~~llwrtxnt tlmn either his cstimntc of the ~etltrdily of 1riblic.d theology or his view of the proper mothod for its studJ.. 111 his trandation of IIH: %rii>tures, he made. thc Hi- Lit* slwak to tlw. rvrnima~\ riis~~ ahnut thc w~idror~e worka d (4 ;Ir it l~wl ncvcr ~sac~ken Irforc. Arid in his espositions, lit. espandetl hrr lhis work sf tra~rrrlaliim tu ~mkc thc meesqy ,,I tlte Hil~lr spmk 1.o his ti~rrc? al~d his c:hurrh His rot1tnit.n- tarirs nn ~lic Yrnlins lnatlc the rrptenc:e rind trust of 111r pnI~ni+~s o part c~f his own ~rit~ly md 11rged it up011 Iris rtratl- pry, His sertnonic. espositirw of selcrted chal~trrs froin rhtl hrpl of Jollli rarlks among thc outsta~~ding cc~mrnt.ntaric.~ rlf all tinre on that Curpel. His three cornmcntariw on thr Epistle to the Galatians sourd the themes of liberty in the Gospel and slavery to Christ in :t manner that still bpeaks to tbe needs of the Church. And this is n.s Luther wonted it. Wc wanted to bcrre as a window to tlic Scriptures. He wught to makc these cxpouitions o guide to thc bihlical rncs- sagr:, riot a suhtitufe for it. It is really this effort that makes Luthcr a biblical dwol- oginn. Sonic of Iris intcyretotions ha\e stood up urider closer scrutiny, vther~ hmc not. But wl~cr~ he rejection of hi,s inlcrprctation was 011 dtr basis of u more careful and ranqdeta rnalpria of tllc meaning of the tc-it, the rejection Was trurr to Eather than a traditiondisk accepta~icc would hart: kern. And whcn Inter *tudentb of thc Scripturcb hahe awepled his interpretation. they haw becn faithful to him if they did oo huuae, in hir ~~hmse, "the tcst forccd them," not kau.~ Luther had wid so. QUESTIOKS It i4 often said that Luther did not have a theological ~ystm. From what you know or can find out shout him, do you think this is true? Vihy do you givc thc answer you do? Was rnodern theology ju,stifid in defending il~ niethodb of biblicd criticism by rcfer~rce to Luther's views of the Scriptures? W7llnt significuncc does Lutheiu rejection of allegory have fur our study of the Ecripturm today? Undvr what circurnstanccs is thc allegorical interpretation of the Bible valid? It was raid that Lutlicr fourd Christ throughout thc Old Trsturne~it. To what esterlt was this justified, and rnay w.c proceed the sarnc way today? Critics of the Refor~natio~l have so~nctirues raid that L,utl~ctr's thought uvcrm~phasized the wrilings of Paul at the espcrrsc. of "the historical Jesur." Is this criticiani warranted? Due5 it seiml to you ihat tt~c Lutherrrr~ church has kept tlru licforn~er's stress upon the centrality of Liblical ill- terpretutior~? Why is it that Iry menher* of athr ctiurchm, especially oZ group that ~3311 Lo 1w cs~rcn~istr, habc a Inore dctailcd prwp uf the s.~ip~urt~ than niobt Lutherans? 111 ccmnection \+it11 the Iast park of que*ticm *ix, do you t~eliett: hat there is a tIifTprcnre in the way Lutherans in- krprct the Rible and the way others do? (Use the \+ ords of institutioli and the l:c\clation uf Johr~ ea esslnp1es.j IX. Lu*heranirm and the Common Life One of thc most fallacious criticisms directed against Lu- ther is the clairn hat hc was an eilemy of culturc, a coarve and ibsensitive man, who did not appmiats end, therefore, wanted to des~roy the beautiful and pi0u.i creatior~s of the mtdied church. Yet this very criticism has found its way into many history book% n& a few of them by Protestant writers who feel obIigeJ to apologize for Lutlicr at this point. The are marly points at which Luthcr needs apology, Prut this don not happcn to be one of d~en~. Ironically, his Protmt an t conte~tiporaries tcnded ro criticize him from ex- actly the oppasite angle--that he had retoiried enlirely too much of medieval culture end piety. V'hilc one may dis- ape with this criticism, at lenut it had the facts behind it, however one may interpret them. For it is a fact that in mat- ters of liturgy and piety, Luther kept whatever he could keep, and rejetted only what he felt hc Id Lu reject, of Lhc hcritage of the ancient and medieval church. Thc extent to which he did this is difficult fnr a modcrn Lutheran to Perhaps tlic best way to inairate the situation is to say that a twentidi century Roman CnthoIic would prohahlj fed mate at home in Luther's liturgy than a: tWmtieth cen- tury Protmtant. Yet the phse "Luther's liturgy" might it- wlf be misleading, for the variclur Lutheran rhusches in the iariaus Ianda of Germany arid Scandinavia actually derel- oped and ndoptrd liturgical fornls and custonm that differed fronl each other ruthcr xridely; but em3 in it* own way rep- resented ilrl adaptation of medieval patlcrrrs, with Yome sig- rlificmrt wh~ractions rrnd n few adtlitiar~s. The reason for his situ:ition la): in an attitude tow~rd the ~nerlieval dervelolr= rnerlt that rvm quite different from the attitude of the Znin- glian and Cnhinist Reformations. nnd cspccially from the nttitudc of the "left wing of the Refornlrttio~i." hIom ill liturgy perhaps than in any other ercpwt of the Church'- lifr doe tllc ''middle way" of the Luthcran Refarmahn, dis. rtrwd in Chapkr VF, ~nske itself manifmt. Far with ull dw allowonre inc the vnriationa, it is rrc~erthcltm arrurare tn say that the liturgin of sixteenth cenlury Luthcraniwn Herr R revid form of the Western Catholic cite tltat in1nicrlintr4j pr~wderl them. associates procccded in reviring the Rnn~nn rites; what one group regarded us nffmsivc nr nt Icnat exycndable, anath~r pOUp retained: nrrd thnt for a long time after the Refonna- tion. Vore mi1y discernihlo are same of the ninjor nd&- Zions to the service. Of those, tl~ mast significant religiow- ly and the mogt influential euTtnrally wm the contribution of the Lutlicran Rcformntinn to Christian hymnody. Congre- gaticmrl aingitlg had nwm died nu1 cornplct~ly in the his- tory nr he Chumh, md 31 timerr, even before the Rcforrna- tion, it had experiencd a revival. Rut it w-ss the work of the Refonnetion that gave it thc ndclcd [nipctus it had need- &. And it ia also ~hrauglr hymns more than 1hrwi;h litur- gics that the L~thcrtln Reforn~arion has dircet mntltrtion with the Prorwtant churchtfi nf our day. Luther himdl took a leading ptL in providing thm hymns. Rare indetd is the Protestant hymnal thnt doc* not contain at It~*t two or three of thelti. Some ware ori~;ioal cnmpositiu~rs in both words and music, others were adnpta- tiom of words or of music or of both. Hcre n?r ~lsewhcrc, hhar borrowed ns freely m he bnt. fn nddirion, contcm- poraries of Luther like Walther ond Lazarus Spengler con- tributd hymns hat belong to tllc thesaurus of Protestant worship ever since. Thew hymns, in turu, provided the ~timulus for the hynmody of Jol~arin Gcrhardt in the tribu- lation of the Thirty Yearsa War, and for 1111 N-ork of corn- pwra like Schuek nnd Bux~clmde that climaxed in Johanir Sebndan Bac:h. In this n:ly the hymnody of the Lutheran Reforntation niadt. a mignificant rantributior~ to ~hc history of Rre&ern culture. That is33 [lot, of COU*~, irzi primary prpu=. PrimariIY, he t1p111~ uf LIIC Lutheran Ilefor~~i~tior~ Mere rleJigrrcd to support. and 10 exprm the piety of tlw htlirra~l bcIiclers ira hir pi\& nitd corporate Christia~~ lifc. The close rela- tion to uric-dic.1 al pattern* ia lint rls el idmt iu the pirty of the Kciornlutiorl :IS in tlw liturgy, by the very n~ture of the caw. Rut an exai~ii~du~i of such elidcnce aa de\otional Louklets, grm m~onm, and permial c~rri'~p~ldeilct: and diarirs tiug- gedo that in inany stays the pioua likc and practices ul he &\out to~~tir~ued much an they had LcEorc tIw Keforn~a- riolx. Wlwi the al~plicot im of the priml:ipl~. "cuj uh regirr, cjus religio," whow it~q~orhi~cr be &all dizcues in Cllapt~r S, Lroughr ulwut shifts in ~ltc: rrligioud all~p;iuncc uf ~hdc ~~rotirima, his seems to ha\ c caused tl~c Gcrnrnn Lutli~ran?r ~rtr nwrc troublc thau u riin~lar drreloprlici~t caused t~ioct ,111glica11s at aLxrut the camc time. 'I'lic ctlusc of this indiAer- eiice is partly tht: lecb of thcolugieul knuir'l~dge or (oricern in i~icrq church ~iie~i~Lers, rtho could no1 tell the diffcrcr~cc. But tht: ir~diffcrmce wai partly &r also 10 thp fact that there was riot rrlurh diflermce to tell in the practical piety of the pcople. The problem this situation nugg~.qts was orie of which Lu- ther and his msociates were very colmious. To meet this problem, as they had Found it ir~ their visitation lo th: cl~urch~?; (II Snsony. they prepnrcd nm~anIs aE imtructicm, tlcvolinn. tnd pro~:lrmation for the urc of th clturcrhcs. From their cnnrcrn for this prubInu the Sl~rall and thr: I.,argv C~atrrrltirn~ of Luther, as their prcfnccs graphically pint nut. bcausc hc knew at first hand that 1,otli clergy and pcoplc ncederl help in the eul~ivation of n picty cmnsiet- eitt wid1 the teachings of 11ie Rcforlnrrtion, Luther atrwtrthletI his ~io~til*. ~onsi~tinp of wr1non.s and hnndics that pastors RII~ peoplr: ~truld uw for ruth cultivation. Luthc.r's asstxi,- atr 1lcIanchtho11 devotcd ere11 niora attention to the dsvcl- olmcr~l of educational ~~t~iloso~llies and practicw that WIUI~' ndratrw the work of the Refunnation among the rottrn1un per~ple and among the learned cla~sm. Regre-ttably, he per- mitted his enhmianm for the ancient Greek and Ronlarl cltwsics to dull the wlge of ~crrnt Rcformatio~r tcstchinfi and thus hr I~tquenttlrd it) later Lutheranism n theology, a piety, cmd ari cdu~:uticrnal philosclphy that fail4 edcquabry to tr;tnsn~it the teaching of Luther. Neverthelw3, M,lclancIi~hor~'s H-ork wati largely rewponaible for the diswmination of the Rcfornn~ion intcr the rducainn, and thus into the pi~y, ol the Lutheran chud~ Amording to Luther, one of tlrc rno?it vaIuable rmources for the growth r~l Cliristian piety wnrc the srcmnlmts. Bg a rutic-us misreading ol imlalcd sttite~nent~, Protestant hi>. forion* nwl thcolugians pill and give the imprcrsion tllat I,uther LR~ II Khk-ctwtered picty againet a sticrarn~rtt-ccrl- tt~cd picly, and thnt he opp~ged tIlc ndieval entphaais upnr tl~e Churcl~ with his emphasis upon thc individual. .\ctuull!-, nllr: of [nrthcr's chnrgc.9 ugaillst the rtledievnl c11urc.h was t11at il wsa cn~~hasiihg the unbloodj. sacrifice of the mars at the rxprrl* uf wmrrlurlioll. Thercft)re, onc uf tlrc difftxr- hetween Luthrrmn piety and Rnman Catholic piety ill 111~ period of the Refortnation war s~~lvrmd to be the Ida- 111r:rrn inristvrlcc upn tIw frrquem); of comn~uninn. T~P l~r ~hrt. for nhnttrt-r rrsaon, later h?le~hntis~n arid 1.11- ~)r~'tilt~isll~ !lave 105t [hi5 e~t~phaxin ought not obwurc Lu- ther'u rmI~!rnsk upm the Lord's Supper as a rueany of grew. :t tikr fate has l~clsllcr~ 1.uthcr's emphasis upon JupRiw~ end upn the Chrm.R A* fundirmental rlrlnrnt* in the Chri3- tist, life. He did iiot regard balltifin as a mete or~int ill th: $HA of the ildividual, much Iws as nu mmpty sy~1ltol. Ib loc~kcd II~I haptirnl sa a n13k hi rdation to 81~1 ir~ rv- lotion ttr the Churd~ of Chri3t. Chri?tian pic[), r:an~i,sted in living andtrr tha Word of God, ill dilily rcnletnbrnncc of Holy Raptisnl. in frcqucrlt reccplirrn of Holy Col~~n~unic~n, [rntl in n life of fellowship urld prayer in the cornpany of he CtLurch. &c\ing piety a3 hc did, Luther would 1101 rl-cc~g- nix, much less acknowledge, a Protcstunt.ism which ernpl~rr- .sizes the rclatiot~ of the individual to God, without niedia- tors or means, and which calls such a relnticln "the unhrer- 4 prie--sthood of Lelievera." All bdieveru were indc~d priests -not to tIiemselves but to each othcr. And as priestu, they ministered to each other hy the nleans of grace and what Luther cellcd "rhc rlrt~tueI conversation and col~aolation of the brethren." Hence the sacmrncnts wcre a prime means for tllc ~trengthenitbg of thc. Christiar~ life in its i~tdividual and corlmmk forms, always iri the co~ltrxt of the Church. . t I he Church was also thc contcxt for the uat. of the Word crf God in Chtktian picty. 1,utller trmslatcd the BibIe into the language of the people mtI IIC ~vant~d tllc people to read the Rihlc. Yet lw knew that it1 the liarlrl~ of knm cs the Biblc ~ras a dangerous book, and Ile esperierrced with l~ilterness thc rmuhs of a ~trcs~ upon the Biblc uithout the Clrurch. Such an expricncc confirnlecl him in his corlviction that thc Gospel ahould he pruclaird? ncrt nlerely writtcn, and in his insiuterlce upcm what he cnlted "the oral Word." But thc Word was not to Ltr preached irresponsibly; it was to be preachcd by and to the Church. In the actul~l practice of Lutheran piety, the atrcss upon the Word as preached could and sonictimes did Iead to fvrnialixtn m~d n reiigioli nf the clergy. ;It other tirncs, it produced a li\,ing and reqwnsilile. church nie~nher~hip that n,as nurtr~red Lj- the Word and the ~acranient9 end tried to live in the fcar of God. In Lutkm piety at its hest, such church ~r~cnlbership way nut re.atrictd to quetiona of church a~tcndnrbce and thc like. Wheb fhe Kefarlnntian s~uglit to xhiew in the corn- rnon life of Christian popk was an inkrprctotiorr of ilr du- tits as calls from God, rn that a.r citizen, father, or work ma^^ a rrian worked ill reqonse to Cod's call. Xo longer were the clergy the sole pacsesaora of a divine voc~tion; any honor- able work cuuId now be a calling from Cod, however hum- hle or ~nerlial it niighl appear in the eyes of men, The pur. ~wse of the Word and the sacraments in this wnnmtion was lo acnsirize ~11~: Christiarl'a uwarcneus of Gud's call to Aini in his wt~rk. sr~d it was the function of the Church to guidc and support him in the ~alwtiori elid llurauit of hir divine vocation. Thus the "imitation OF C?nri*" did not c.onsi*t in LI literal atloptioll of what Jesus Chriat had donc. It mmmant, ratlws, 11cing wr faithfu1 it1 onc's own calling as Christ had l~rn ill Ilia cdling. TIw I,utherar~ llcfonnation set this doc. trine of ~oc:ation it1 crppwitiorl Loth tn the monastic moral- ity of ttrt: 31iddlc Ages and to the picds of c.crtain Kelorrm- tion wta: against the fornlcr it emphasized the di\,inc call- ing ol ~ll Chritianu: against th~ lottor it insisted that tllis clivinc calling did not atroikti n1an.s riaturnl, crcclted situ- ation. One area in which this divint: calling could nianifcst it- =If tvas 1111: rtrca of culture and thc arts. Lutlier's owt intcr. cst. ability, and results in the ficld of music ~vould IJP rnough to esor~cratc him of the chrrrgt* that he wa.G an elterny of cullure. But beyond this, arti~tr Iike Cranoch and Diirer QUESTIONS owed nak o little of their impiration to Luther and the Ref- ormation, and in the &Id of literature it is no exaggeration 1. Examinc nu III~IIY diflerent 1ipn~nals as you can to deler- to say that by his own work, and through men Iikc Hans mine how marip of Lutl~r'r hyrnm appear in thcm. Note Sarhs, Lutffrr is tht father of modem German litcralure. at the same tinic thc varied denominalional origin of thc Unlike the dcvotaw of the ar~s who forgot everything eise, hymns in Lu~hemn hymnals. What possible aigrtificuncr howwer, Luther refused to let the artist be an aristocrat eie- does this hnvc? vated above the man who toiled with his hands. Each was using God's gilts in God's service. Therefore, each had n calling from God, in which, aa in nry %tew~r&fiip, it wer required that hc be found frifild. The history of German Lutherankm demonstrates tlm~ the dynanGe undemanding of Christittn piety and rhe Chris. tian calling which Luther advanced did not continue in his church. The culling became a static device by which men were compelled to keep their placcs in eociely; pi& J became a matter of confom~ity to certain rules of asternai conduct; worahip became a question af sporadic nttendtlucc. at forma1 services. Over and over, the dynamic of the Reformation understanding has broken through these static shells with ncw freshness and vigor; and it is doing YO still. 2. Colnpnrc tllc Ordcr of Holy Co~nmtrniou in thc Lutheran liturgy with the Rornan Catlwlic order of thc rt~ass and, i3 possible, with earlier Lutheran liturgim 3. Lt gomeone in the group wha is parkullary concerned with education urrdyze Lu&er's Small Ceteclliam for its n~e~hocl and approach of leaching, and ler the group dis- cum this anrrlysi~ and cvoluation. 4. What factora nre rmponsiblc for the di~appmrencc of Luther's idem obuut piety and the calling from Grman Lutheranism ? 5. In what apccific raeas of our church life could Luther's sunccpt vf "the universal pri~9thood of hEi~.r.ers'% more :~dequcltely applied than it i Being applied now? The Diet of Augburg, which we discued in Chapter VII, was intendcd to restore rcIigious unity in the Empire and so ta ~uarantee polilical peace. It acturlly did neither, and by the time it tw over both the emperor and ila Luth- eran princes knew that they were in for continucd political conflict. To prepare for this conflict', the princn banded to- gether early in 15.31 to form the Smalcnldic Leagoc? rvhoae purpo~ was to forcstaIl any enforcement of thc edict pwd at Angsburg that the LutIurans must return to thc Catholic fold. The coneolidation DE Lutheran political power which tho formation of thc Smalcaldic League effected Eirought the power grugglc to a virtual stalemate for fiftc-.cn yearrr, with occasional defections am3 victorie* on both widw but no real .wttlement. Various conferences, treaties, and diet* were nmmttary LO continue the dmate, while both ~idc% waited for an opportunity to decide the political conflict in a fa. vclrable way. Thi3 stalemate continued until juwt aftcr Luthhb dealh in F&runry. 153.6, when religious and political negotiation^ hetween the two aides broke down. In the summer of that year the Smalcaldic War broke out, lasting until 1547. Though the forces of the emperor were succedul in defeat. ing the German Lutheran princes, the war was actually in- ihi~i\c. Neither politically nor religiously did its redr effect any perrnanurlt spttlemcnt in Ccrniany. Religiuualp. irr immediate rmdt wao Lhe so-called "Interim of 15a8," which the trnpcror irngo.4 upon &nnany a3 an effort to restore rdigiws unity. Dmpite rorne conm,aions to r\nngelical partym. the Interim waa a C~tl~alic decree in itr tone and prolisions: snd where it was not Catholic, it was srnbiguoa~. Politically, the SrnalcaMic War meant further mancurers arid conflicts, and the actual peace settlemmr did not cnmc until aftcr these. Indtd. it was not till tight ymm after the Smaicddir War that tema of pence wcra prqared in thc Religiou* I'racr: of AugsLturg, 1555. Th~re tertns of peace made three lirm isions for the relation* betwwn Luthcra~~im ad Ca- tholicism in the religious and political life of Germany. First, the treaty recagized the Luthcran and the Catholiv as th? orrly It-gal Chridan groups in the German statcp. and it proscribed all others. Fecnnd, it provided that when u prince chme eithcr the Luthcran or the Ronian faith, his subjmtn had lo chmw kwkwer~ mpling his faith and emi- grating: thia qrau. the lan~cru~ doctrine of "CU~UY rcgin, eju?. religio." Third, it dpulatcd lhmt when a Romen bishop or other dniaaticul official beame Protcstnn!., he ?~hou!d lorre control of his territory ard be replaced by a Roman flu-- wr; this principIc wds called "ecclc.~i~tical rwervatiori." In rrrnfiniratiu!~ or elohoration of the povisiona. there nerc othcr qtipulationa on n~attrr- like prrplcrtp, juri*tliction, and the like. 1lto1etncnta urd tu cxylria just how itn approach differcd frum thcita. In addition, the theological situation H ith Lu- theranixu itself had become confused after the death of the inthers, and whnt hm been nlted "~hc confemiord gullera- tinn" hod to state the meaning of Lulhcrar~ism on the baais of the strugdm witl~in C~Y ow11 ra~tliu. A11 thrw of these dcvcl- opnicnts-the Col~llcil of Trcnt, Protestantisni, and the Lu- theran cit il war--1nel their match in thu grcat Lulllernn theologim II=rrtirl Chcmnitz; he and wiarsl uthcrs acconi- pliahed the rcsstatcrnent of thc Luthmu~ positirm in tile Fur- lr~ula of Concord. IJerhaps the principal problcrn addressed to Lutheran the- ology hy lntcr sistcenth century dcvclopmcots was the qurs- tiou of ~l~c relation belweerr Lulhcrnr~im and the Proleslunt cl~urch~s of the time. Git.ert thc break with Romt arid the separation from Western Roman Chriatmido~n, whu~ was the pa~ition uf Luthcrani*ni within non-Roman Wcster~~ Christendom now that it WLS no longer alone in its protest ag~inst Romc? In it4 eariietrt [orrn, the problem of tho re- lation ktwccen Luthrreniwn and Prutestankisrn had come during Luther'% liftqi~nc. Hlis controversy kith Zwingli on the Lord's Supper foreshadowed som af the issues that trcra to Ire hasic to rllnr rdation, but it was mpecinlly in hi* conflict with the "left wing of thc Iieftrrmdtion," discussed ilt Chapter VI, thal he enunciatd much of the Lutheran pro- gram agaimt what Lutheran theologians regarded as thc cx- trcr~ris~n of I'rotcstnnt thculogy. Yet that program did not achievc d~finite fonliuIstion till the confewiu~~al gencrntion. for this was thc gemration that was compelled to address itself to Calvinist t'rotmtanti~m. It did so in several oh tllc articles of the For~nula of Concord. ,\rticle XI of the E'ur~rlulil of COIICU~~, \vhich deals wit11 tlic doctrinc of election, nlanihts a coricern for the Church and o Llcsir~ tu for~i~ulate th doctrinc of clectiorr ill such a way as ~~ot to invalide~c the niinfatrotions of the Church. In tllc ~nelliev;~l nptcm, human nreril ad ~UIIIUI reqonsi- bility hod rcccived the e~rt~hasis wliich they did al leas1 prtIy to ~noke room for he $acrunlenrsl qsicm. When boll1 Luthera~iisu~ and Cnlvi~liwn took a strung stand url the bond- age of thc huwan will, they ran the dauger of igrturing thca Ilitwls of gracc: and of making the rclation bct~ecil tlli411 aid God depetdcr~t upoit the arbitrilry will of God rat11c.r than upall Gotl's ci~r~de~~:n~iw in Clirist and in the rnearls crf grace. 'Chat dengt~ herdlne u rmlity in the tkeo!ogy of rornc later C;i1vinists--thc~ugh, it .stxrnr ckar now, not in tl~e theology uf Calvin himrelf--and it wi* n0.t alwwt drorri the stand of certain extreme Lu[lr~~irrr~c. Articles I and I I of tl~c 1:ormula of Concc~rd, dealing as they do with arigi~lal sir1 and frcc sill. cxplicidy rule out any inlt!rprc?lalion ol citllcr that woulJ make a mockcry ol the nwaln af grarr.. And ill Article XI on election, the Forlnulu ronlinuall!. >trt:>ser the irqmrtance of the Word and the sachnmcr~t~ as rht. nlcans II~ which the e1wlio11 of God ac.tualizes itwlf. No lejs impo~ant are the other article* of the ForrnuIn devoted to Yrotestan~isrn, Articlm VV11 und VIII on the Lord's Suppar and on the person of Chtiu~. Many Protest- ant theoIogians had mode tbe validity of the Lords$ Supper depcndcnr upon the individual and upon hi* faith. The press unce of the body and bhd of Chtist was brought on by the faith of the individuals yarbicipbting in the sacrament. Some cxtrcme Protestants had even taken the pndion rhtlt the faith of the officiant helped make the sacrament vnlid. In opposition ta this, Articlc VII of the Forr~lula of Corlcord inairts that not the faith of man but the promke of God grunts validity to the aachtrntnt. Alnd in Article VIII, the Formula xeks to show that the understanding of the person nf Christ &ich Lutheranism hod defended against Prote- tantism was cor~vonarlt with Scripture and the ancient church. Thus the FvrmuIa of Crnlcord sought to turn the conflict between Lutheranism and Protestantism away iron1 the pokn~icnl extremes to which hh sidm had let thenrselvcs bc clruwn, and to center attention upon tl~e ~lleolngical isuw involved in their relation to tlte reaching of the Scriyturcw and thc tradition of the ancient church. That same canmrn dso predon~inates in thaw orticla of rhc Formula which take up theological questinns that had been raked within ~hc Lutheran camp ihelf. In ilj discus- sion oh pckphcra! ahedogksl problems, as in Article 1X. and in thc way it handles pro'blcmd of termincllugy, as in Afliclc~ V and VF, and in it* consideration of theologicnl erspgerations, ae in Artide IV, the Formula of Concord &how i~dl la be iubf that, a formula of concord. The ~wo principal p-rtie~ in Lntharanimn after Luther's death wwr thc Philippisfa and the so-called Gnesia-Lutherbins. FolIow- ing the example of thcir leader Melonchthon, the Philippi?its wrre willing to make all sorts of concessions LO both Roman- ism and Protestantism for bhe a& of &il nnd rdigiou. peacr:. Lirwd up againrt the111 were the Cnmio-htlxrans, who claimed to he more Luthrran than Luther hut were in mme way more Mehwhthonian than Afelanehtho~a They iiwisted upon a purging of dl ~hc~ elenwnls in Lutheran- ism who reI~rscd to follnw thcir linc of =If-shyled orthodox). It is morth noting that the two piiftie+ continued irltci rht. zcvc:nteenth ccnturg, and ha\e repcatdy occurrcd in di4. history of Lutheran theology bince. Bet1tct.n these LIIO parties the Forrnula of Concord war asked ft, rlwuw. "+inst both tlk-ce partia thc pure: tcrrehra uf ~llc Au@- burg Conlesion have taught and conlerderl"- -the% \curd* or similar ones occur 5t:\,etnl ~ima in the Formula. For thc Forrnula rcfuscd to take either side in the controversy be- trvecn Philippists and Gnmis-Lutherans, nor did it piucu itself aquarely Letwcl-n them in u n~ediating position. Rather, it pointed out that thr: alterntltivrrs were falw. In Articlc II, it sought to show that neither aide had graspcd thc truly complex character of the probfcm. In Article IV, it pointed out that the positions to which combaron!r had becn forced wrre both untenable. In Artide X, it displayed an awarv- ness of how apparently insignifitant external mattera rlrr become important i11 thc light of the church's total ~ituaiion. In~md of declaring that one or anuthcr formulation wag beyand the pnlt of the kingdom, thc Forrrrula aought to unify II~ distinguishing. and thus to rebtore clarity to the tltenlogicnl diucusuion. In the long run, it must bc aid that the Forn~ula did nol wcned in its aeltlemrmt much bctter than did thr Peace 01 ,!uphurg. Each repmcnted tt temporary settlement rather than a dec;sivc and final one. 7%~ par ti^ and posirions that had bm:n in cnnnict before rontinued to s~ruggle aftenvarda, rrm though each now claimed the wttle~ncnt for hie crm. Still thr ~ttlenimt did give some indication of ~hc directitla in which ~hc de~elopment was going. and it brwght tn the dc~fopnicnt n clarity it hod not pa~vzoed before. 1. \\'as the alliance bc~~veen hthctunisxn and thc political powers of Cerrnarty tcneficial or hnrn~ful to the cauw ul th(J Rt~lorn~ntiori? How rroufd you defend your answer? 2. Did Lutl~:r's nttitudc to the territorial prince and the of the Peam of Aug~bur~ preparc the way for the corning of Hitlcr? 3. Wha~ silnilaritiw nnd diffem~ce* can you find betwcati the dodrine of tht Lord's %qqxx in firtide X of the .tug~hurg Cunlmsion and Apology, and that found in Articlc VIII of the Formdn of Concord'? 1. Ilow doc% Article X of the Furr~iule ~narriimt the "wid- tlle \+a)"' diacu3d En Chapter VI? .i. Give specific irlstal~ees illustrating the Yorn~ulil's way of didrxtiou at~d defi~tilion in dealing with tlw.Jogical ~ur~troversiew. XI. The The Lutheran Reforinution-sutm 6r failure? This is the qumtion with which evety heir of the Refonndon must be coneerrled. Gch pneration of heirs rmst ask again whether the mwons that called for ~ht Reformation were valid, whether the Refonnation accomplihed what it was intended to accomplish, whether a new day with its rlcw problems may nok call for another anwcr. Particularly urgcnt is this ned in the quation of tho unity of the Church. The movement inaugurated by Lutlicr ~ught to mtddish the Chrc41 oi~cu tnare upon thc founda- tiuri of the Gvl, ad thug tn rook the unity of the Church ill the redcrnptivc nctivl~ 01 God rather than In hums11 ~nerit and I~unran rrrgnnixi~tionc. But an esaminalion of the con- temporary acme in Christendom will reveal that the Refor- mation, wltich wag intended to eelom the Church, hna is- wd instmd in divided CRris!endorn, with dozen8 of ecp nrate grtmp* and dcriinminatione, &at cvea the church that hats the rliune of Luther and claims his mesaage is unitcd. Bccaux of this situation, a cansideralinrr of the mcnning u[ the Lutheran Reformation ia iticornpltte unless it examines the Kcforma~ion am a rliuv:h rno\wwnt, as an action which Fa* performed in the name of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. Only from this point of virw does Luthet's break with Komc come irlto propcr prspectivc. The grounds for tfint brmk were churchly groondg, and Luther's hreak was basic- dl,. s ctlholic criticism of Roman Catholicism. Indmd, nothing clx awuld have lecr~ pmible in the light of Lo- ther'~ dmtrine af the Church. .r!murding ta Luther, the Church's life is tooted in he G0sp4. What calls the Church intn being is the Word of Cud in the CospcI. That Word, cu~rirnunicuted through geaehirrg and through the artra- men[% ie ths "consti[utivc elemerd' in the Church's life. Where the Word i~ being proclIairned nnd the sacraments are hing idministercd, thcrc tlw Church 13 pmnb. Organifin- tiod and liturgical order are n good thing for the Church, lwt they do not make the Church and it may be present Arm they mrc abwnt. ]Jut without the creative Word of the Go*$, thre is no church, rcgardle~s of what clse nuy h! PCt%Filt. & long a t!~ Gclspel id being proclaimed lhrough the qokcw Word and d~c: scra~nentv, die Church cuntinuw. And it does so in spite of tloctrir~al and ~ologicttl uhrrcl- tionv that map be prewut at a given time. These art. IIO~ for the Church; in time, they mny even destroy tlic Church--if they cIevtroy the Gospel, but only hen. For thc pmence of tl~e Church ib twt dependent upon puril; of thw- One Church trine, i~nportdllt as that is. The pmnce of the Church is dependent upon the il;uupcI, and the Church can continue rler;pitc error. In fact, Luther knew Irmu history that the Church Ills IIGVC~ Imn without ib rrmr and its errorists, but that it htld nevertheless contiuued whc:rever n11d when- ever the Gospel was procloilneci and the ~acranients were adr~~inieterd. From thia profound undrrstilnding of the besic ~iaiure of the Church's life, Luther developed nn cqurally profound in- ttq~rctation of thc 111ea1ri11g of the Church's unity. The unity of the Church is to be sought, first of all, in thc Gospel, and not in anything estcr11:il or l~un~an. Not what a ntan thinks about the GoapeI (theology) or what he wears when he pro- claims it (Iiturgy) or how hc organizes a church to ptmlaini it (polity), but God proclrrirnir~g the Gospl through Word atld sacriiniertts brings nhout tlic unity of the Church. And Luthr pronounced n "Wul:" upn the nian WIIQ WOUN, ill- tcrjwt himsdf bctrvcen the Holy Spirit and this proms--- tllc rnan who \vouId substitute rut artilkid, hunlrtn unity for he unity which God aIom cmates; and tl~c nlan who would tear rtaurdcr that which God hxrr joined togetiicr and frus- tratc thc unifYiiig work of the Holy Spirit l~y his orvn pridc. In the Iigl~t of this ductrine of the Church it is undcr- star~daLIc why Luther niaintairied tltroughout his life that tlx Church had always continued, even u~~cilcr rhc l'apac.s. To he: wrc, the shadow of human works had frcqtm~tly 01- xurtd thc light of the Gtrupel, nnd thc machi~t;rtions of an cdesimtical organixtltion had frrquenlly repIaced the pow- er of God. But Iikc the Icaven, thc GoepcI was still there; and rsl~erc Gospel is, therc tlic Church is, too. Againat this Churc41, pre~erved evcn under the mcdieval Pupncy, the gatc5 of ttcll had wtr prwailed, and muld ntvcr prevaiI; lor it am foundvd nn thc ruck of God's ptomise in Christ. 111 the cor~tiriuity oT Christianity despite ndieval liornan cr- Tor. I..uthc.r salr. hat pro~nisc fulfillrd. Therc he saw thc Church. Uf this Church, corrupt ad weak though it may oh havc hccn, Luther regardcd him,sp,1f as a rncmh. I'or with dl its frailties this Church I1ac1 baptized hi111 with a Laptisn~ thai wa5 his comfort in ill1 temptation. Sincc hc saw himwIf as standing in the "succ.saion of the faithful" uf all ages, irk- c:luding tlte Middle Age$ he mas highly rclwtmt to hrenk with the Church which had motl~end him. Hc did not talit: this lightly, this srqiarntion from the body of Wea~crn Chris- tcndoln. 'The protab he void were hayed upon his re- sl)or~siLiIity its a prieat and a ~heulogi~d professor. IIe roicctl thm not ;IS a rciolulior~ary, nor etw as n protesti~lg critic, but primarily as u member of the Church, as one of its doctors and professors. He addrd his appeal from one member of the Church to other rnembors of the Church for a consideraLion of that GovpcI which creates the Church. Othwa may have kft the Church in order to find greater purity of doctrine or life clewhere, but not Luther. Kc. stayed whcre he believed his calling had placed hint, and from that calling he spoke to tb Church of the peril which he suw threatening it. That peril he sought to correct, not by separation but by proclamation, not by schism hut by the Word. How long he would l~nve conrinud Lo do thia is a matter that is open to conjecture. The iact ia that the Papacy ar therl convtiluted could not tolrratc such a proclnmatiun of the C;o~pel in its mid*. And thedore, after .-era1 worn- inp- tho pup excomrnunicnted Luther. Luther rnninttlined that ly this adon the pope was declaring his unwillingnes to put up with th Gospel fur which Luther wrn coiitvndir~g 'I'o Luthcr this mcartt that the pope had coi~dernmcd not merely Luther but the Gospel itdf. I-l'e hrtd rpkan the Gospel to a church that was suppawdlyl built upon the Gos- pel. Now that church hnd forbidden him to speak that Go*. pel, and when he refuxd to Le restrained, had cxp4lc.d him. There mmed to bc no room any longer in that churdr for thia kind of Gospd From thiv situation the true elluructer of Luther's work in relation to the unity of the Church becomes appar~r~t. There Jecrns to have been room in thc Roman Cl~urcli Zac alrnan anyone and anything except Luther arid thc Gmpcl he was proclaiming. In the very Itnly from which Pope Lco S is- sued his dm.ree of escommunica~io~~, thme sere uwn whom pkcpticism denied baaic Christian tentls;. Irut they wcrr not excomrr~unictrted. Whntever may haw been 'the 5t~Lua of teo'9 own religious lifc-and our reports on thia vary somcwhat-mme of his predecmsorci on rhr. thne of St. Peter had been no more Christian, mid a goad deal les vir- tuous, than Cicero or Plato; but they were not cxcnmmuni- caled. Luther's owl contemporary, Eramius, ccrtsin!p dis- agreed with much of what Roman Cnthoficiarn rcyrcrented. and he made his disagreement escecdingly vclcnl; but Era*- .mun war\ not excomn~unicatcd. Yet Luther WAS. Why? The anpwcr to that quation is esceedingly cortiples. It* roots lie in tho situation of lmpcrinl and papal poIitics in 111r first half of thc sixtmth v&~tury, in that triangle of pcrpe. emperor, and prirm tha~ is fralncwork for MI ruuol~ of the Lutheruu Reformetion. In ndditim, there is a the. ololjical anewrx to th question, lying at the very founda- tian of Rclotmntion theoIogy. frrirating and truubFmnriw as thm otlm men and moverncnts may hvc hen to tin! Roman Cllurch, the Reformation alum comtitutcd n hasic threat to thc mmlieval theological and e6clcsiastical sy~tem. For the Re.forma~ion had as its central theologicnl tlr9i.s 1I:c citw~rilre of jufiifiatiozl hy faith mltrrw, tlre uwlrr>~~t.r.- of hunian or ecclesiavticel merit in thc prows of saIvation, the free forgiventxs of sins for the sake of Jesus Christ. If all this were true, then the traffic in merit and grace dis- pensed by the Iiierarcliy was worse than useless. This was the t11rcnt of Reformation lheulogy to that hierarchy, and against thiv threat the pope acted when hc excommunicated Lu ther. Yet 6y his [caching of justification by faith, Luther stoad in thc continuity of the faithful in all generatioria. IIe was pbclairning thc h:ospel by which and for ~hich thc Church liww. The pope excomrrrunicatod him ar~d mndrmn& jus- tihation by faith alone. As far as Luthcr wag m~mrned, tlw ppe had thereby dm mndcrnnd the Cospcl. And so, in Lutller's eyes, it was Rome that had left Luther, and no1 htlm thnt had left Rome. As long e?, the Roman Church would toleratc t!re Go~pcl, despi~e ils error, it rcn~ained the Church for Luther. But when it condemned tlic Gospel and furwd Luther out, it becnine sectarian. If, ma Luthcr maiir- tained, the Church is where the Gospel iw, then it folbwed that by condemning the +el Rome warn cnndemuir~g the Ciiurch. It was in this spirit, and not pti~~hilrily in spirit of boasting, that Luther said uf Worms: "Then I was the Church!" kfiuse he was contending for the GospeI arid the Goqd 1ndr3 the Church and Rome condcmned thc Gos- pl, Rome had ccrnden~ired the Church ns rcprewritbd in thin case by the Church's loyal ennnl, Luther. Luther bc- lieved he wa9 tand ding for rhu ram* Go,*pel for which tllc Church hd ~itood hefvrc it became corrupt and cwdenlnccl him. '&%en it cordenined him, w k bcliebcd, it wag for- saking the Gaspel to which it had pre\ionslp ken Ioyal. while he continued in his loyally. Thun Rime turned its back on the Church, while Luther remained with the Church, Such WtIY Luthcr'n ir~lerpre~~tion of what hnpp*ned when 11e wwred hii relations wit11 Kame. This interpretation is of great iniportaum irr tlw dc~cnni- nation of Luther's rmpon&hility lor a dividcd Christendom. 1-lc was corlr inccd thnt i~ drcrc wa8 no church aithout thv Gmpc!, thcre was nu church unity without tlw &qwl either. Therei~r~. the Coqxl was the only talid his for true church unity. It is i~tmuratc, then, to rnain~ain that Luther left the Ro~run Church kduse he was dis~tisfhd with this or that in it* doctrine or practice. I& did not kale tlw Church at :dl, but Rome left him. And owc thid split had come, it proked to hc increasirrgIy Jiffitdt la retrain the centrifug~l furccs in church and culturc, until now, after Iour wr~turic-s, wc see thc Cliurch divided into splinters and It i% caaier to exonerate the Rcformuhn of tnrm [hall its shere of rcsponsibilitp for n diiided Chri>tcndom than it is to drtenuine what th~ rnspo~t~ibili~y of its I~eh ou&t tu LL' rvitl~in a dividd Chrhtendurn. Evidcr~e fur the dificulty of this in the futi that in the current ccurrlcnitul rnrr\ernunt. .~i~l~rcl ~.t Irringing 111c drurr:lur.e rlo3er tog~uhcr, sowe Zu- therans have kn in the very lcad while others have been most vociferous in their oppasitian. h it Lutheran to lead nn interdanominatiunal movement, or is Lutheran to oppose the interdenominational movement? Only the most extreme positions at c.ither ad would maintain that the answer to this question is easy or that any answer can escape ambigu- ity. Luther's attitude toward Ronw cval after hiu escom- manication shows that hc regnrdd schism rmre gravely than most of us seen1 to. Luther's attitude toward Zwingli at Marhurg shows thut he took difikrmces oE doctrine more uriou~lg than mmt of us seem to. Which mtitude, or which corntination of uttiludm, $5 called !or in the prmt situa- tion of the churcheu? Tho answer to this que~tion ia clwly related to tht- an- nwer which tha Lutheran ehurchc~ of today must try to offer t~ the quevtion of our closing chaptcr: Was he Reforms- tion worthwhile? QUESTIONS 1. Wwi Luther's interpretation of his break with Rome realistic, or was it a ralionalization, like he proverbial, "I waen't tired; I quit" in rtVeme? 2. 18 the attitudc of the LutIlcron Refor~i~atiori to Roman Catholicism different from its attitude to Proteutnntism on the question of church unity? Why? 3. What is the relation Lctwecn rcligivus, political, atid ao- cia1 faclors in bringir~g about divisions in the Church? What does this meat1 for efforts to abolish those divi- Y ions? 4. Do you believe tile Rciorniatio~~ ivua permanent, or do you think that at some future tiliie ~hc Christian churche* will 311 be reunitrd, at lzabt in he West? Give restions for your answer. 5. What altitude k your church lorly 'taking toward cur- rent cfforb aimed a1 clmr fdations hetwcr.11 the rhutehm? Do you agnw with Lhi~ attitude? 6. Are the grounds of the Reformation division valid? Has Iioman Crttholicism chunged? Haw Lutllcranisrn changed? What bcaring docs this hnvc on the question of church unity? A iaihra to under~tirand Luther and the Luthcran Rtfor- mation in their lull scope bas caused various interpreters. mrne uf [hem ayrnpath&ic and some of them critical, to at- tribute hither's Refunnahn to false groundv and to evalu- ate it sn the basie of a iuhc aasessmcnt. AR a ca~isideration of the Refotw~atiou's meaning for tile unity of the Church is an mntial part of such a atudy as this, so an esamins- tion 01 various arxssinthntd of its meaning and vnIue also bulongs to thiv rtudy. One vcry mriour charge againat the Reformation is the claim that it hdped to dcvtroy not only the unity of the Church but ub the inffucnce of tllc Church upon Westerti culturc and lift., &ginning with a churchly protest against the medicvel church. Luther haa rpperently prudumd the great apostasy d mdcm timcs. Thin intcrpretotion of the Reformation has hman~c almost *tandarJ in Roman Cath- olic tcxtbr~oks-with the anoeprion of bookw like that of Pr~hsor Jo-h Lortz-whirh we the Middle Agm as thc. golden agc of Chrktian civili7ation and the Luthcmn Rcf- ormation as sle rulgarimtion and poganization of thc Wat. In this judgment Ronlan &tho& interpreters have sonie- times ken joined by IihroF students of the Reformalion, who interpreted it 3s thc beginning of the Iiberatio~~ of the tiurnat1 mind from tlicr out hority of rer cIuhn. Thus Ralph WuIdo Emerson maid that if Luther had known hi3 ninety- 61~. L~ERCS ~iould 1~9 to Bo~tm Uriitnriarkm he would mthcr hn\e cut his arm off tha~i have posted tliexn. Nor are Rornan Catholics and Iiberah alone in this view. More tliu~i unw, A~nericon Luthcral~s 'hate stated that Lu- tlirr's Rcfornution brought 011 the Dtdaration of Independ- rnce, and tliat thcrc is ;i dirmt line of Acwmt from Luther's doctri~w of the liberty of the Christian man to die feffer- sunion doclrine that all tr1t.n arc! created free and ccluul. tic- tuallj, thcre is a great gull fixed htt+tm the hwu doctrines. Luther n~aintained that tho only freedom thut mattered was the freedom irnni sin. dcuh, rtnd hd n\ailoble in Chrict to rnm who otherwise wen: enst\*ed; Icffcrmn mainthml thst freedom in politiwl BIIA monomic aflairw was provid- ~:d, hut ah lirnitod, by tlw natural law, ixnd tlrut it wau the functio~~ of hibturical religions ta tmh and support this natural law. It has hecn argued th~ Jcffermn'r idcaw arts clovcr to thox of other Proksta~it leadcra or to thaw of ccr- tain Rornan Catholic thinken than thvr arc to Luther's conception of freedom. Anothcr chargc frcqurntly heard frenr unsympathetic his- torians is the tiew thnt Luther'> hreok r+itl~ Romc !+as irio. tivakd by perwnal considerations. He devcloped solno the- nlogical notions, so runs thia view, or he decided that he wanted to brmk his monastic VOW and marry Katherine von Rara. And when Rome in hcr wisdom rcfused, he Ieft the Church in a huff and took aomc of his blind Eollowers along. The entirc Reformation, with ita theology, was noth- ing mare than the extension of the jrritations of one man, who* proud spirit refured to bow to the auprenic nuthoritp of the Holy Father. Such a shallow interpretation of the thought snd work of Luther is ~uspect on the face of it. But aina it has te- mivd such wide circulation, it needa examination. Thc fundnrncntal assumption of this interpretation is the cIaim that Luther was a schismatic, who we3 willing to divide the Church in order to retain his private notions. Even a cur- sory study of Luther's writinga will show that thia RWmp- tion is wrong, as the more moderate Roman Cntholic histori- ann ndmit. hther sought to subject Ibis private ncrhna 10 the Gospel; nrrd aa he said at Worn~s, his conscieme wus bund by the Word of God. We have pointhi out the re- luctance with which he came out against the prtvailing tc- ligious views of his time and his efforts to 3&y with the church of his day. He always remained willing to dicclrav the controverted poinb and to consider the reestablisllrneilt of church unity in his time. Thiv is what drove f~irri, in 1535 and 1536, 10 enter into negohtions with Martin Bucer of Strashrg und with the Bohemian Brethren. Idler's en- tire Iifc and ~Aou~l~t stand rn r refutation of thc claim that the Reformation nmr rrloti~ntcd by pemarial con aide ration^. Another interpretation of the Rcfurlnatiou that appear:. very frequently, especially in Yrot&ant and c~fi ill Lu- theran treatments, is the theyis that thc M%?iice of the Rcf- ormution consisted in the recovery of the authority of the Bible, and that Lather% great hivtaricd achimemmt wa~ tile fact that IIC replaced the nutl~ority of the Church with the authurity of the BiZ~lu. Like rnnny pf siatemeiits, this view can be. true and it can be false. In a sense, ib is true that Luther'o achiertntcu~ did con- jigt in the recovcry of ttlc Bible---but of ha Bihlc na the Ar.srcr of the Go~peJ. We had been leynl to the Bible evcn hefore hc disovered the mcnning of justification by faith alone, but it saa only with that discovery that, os 1w him- wiclf aaid, the Scriptures we= operrcd tn him. For that mat- ter, the Middle Ages wcre quitc articulate in their view of i~iblical authority, as well of bibIic.al inrrpirotion. In Lu- ther's day tlicre wcre werd theorks of biblical in3piratior1 circulating in theologiml circh, arid the doctrine of tllc su- preme authority, if not the role authority, of thc Scripturra was aln~ovt universally acknodedged by the latdiwaI who- ]astic thcologirrns. The Church did not need u Luthcr to tell it that the Bible was true. Rut it did need a Luther to teU it what the truth of hc I:iel'lc. i-. 'I.l~e distinctive contribution of tht: Rcfurrl~atiol~ to thc Christian underatonding of the Bible, as we saw in Chapter VTII, was its discovery that all theology is related to the Gospel, and that the purpose of the Biblc is not mere- ly to provide ~acxcd information but to conlmunicate thc Gospel of the forgivenes~ ;of sins. The Bibk mast be under- htaod ir! the light of Gdn redemption in Christ, or it ia not understood at all, regardley of how one thinks of hibli- cal authority or biblid irrspiration. Front thia insight Lu- ther devchpcr! his characteristic views uf biblira1 authorits and bihIicaI inspirttion, and, aa n- hnve mn, hi* chrrrac. teriatic. mcthod of biblic-al inlerprctatinn. Rut it is inw curate to designale his work as that of restoring he Bible to the Church. It would perhapa he more nccurate to intcr- preL i~ as the task of rmtoring thc Govpcl to the Bible. For he did not wk to enforce a carbon copy of New Tmtnmcn! Chriutiaility. Then Zwingli tried to do just tha~ in his rnodc of celebrating the Lord's Supper, Lu~her repudiated this mode as irtclevant. mat wan always r~lerant irr New Testament Christianity was its Gospel. There is another rnirconception of the Rcformotiou that has gnincd currency from time to tinte. mpccidy in so- called "evangelical" circlm. Thi~ is 'the claim that the basis of Luther's protest wss the low Icd of morality in the church of his time. The nrcrraIs of fifteenth and sixtec~lth cwtury HOIIIRIL Catholicism bere indeed nolhing to be proud of, althuugh sober scholarship does not eracrge with as hlack n picture as i* sometimeu painted by Protc-stant writ- ers and preachem It is a simple procedure, though not 4 completely I~cm~qt one, to dtwribe nlorul conditions in the pre-Rcforrnntion r.hureh with such ~ividn~bg a* LO shock tllc wader. thtri to purlray thc Iicfor~nation as the awaket~ing uf 3 ncw ~noral COIIWIOUJ~~~, the abolition of cl~caI &b- my 15ith its attendnrrt e$clvvs from the Church became of it. Petl~qm tile alod rrdnMt among them were the Donn~iats of the time of St. Augustim, who refued to acknowledge the validity of tha nlilli~try al etil merl in the Church. But LuLhcr wag no l)oaatist, and any inlerprdation of he Keformntion on thi~ hneia [ails tu strikr at the core of thc prohleru. Morn1 can- rlitions in dte Rurnon Church are not today what Ihry rere in rlle heyday oi the Renaimance, and it b neither fnir nor hone* to dwcribe them aa though they were. Not dam the Lutheran observer forget that the mord level of Lu~heran- ism has often left much to he drbired. For exarnpIq a rom- pariscm oi mcxul conditions in Lutheran courts and Romm Cathofic quurto of Germany during the mixteenth century mvc& nu apyrecial~lt: moral nuperiority on either side. It waa not moral degradation that brought on thc protest and the split, and no amount of moral improvement will heal thc eplit. With all this in mind, we can more intelligently relate Luther's Reform~tion to other protevt movements. The pro- tcata cuntcrnporriry to him were on several grounds. Men like Ulrich von Huttca and Franz von Sicki~qp are typical of the political and nationalistic rejection of medieval Ca- tholicivm. The Peasants7 War is m esample of the cconotnic opposition to the medievel feudal clrder. Eramu.q, Gior- dano Bruno, and many others typify the intellectuni protest oh the Renaissance againat what they rgardcd nu the oh- xurantism of medieval thought. Reprdles~ of their import- arm for other areas of life, thew rnovmlentv were all more or less anti-cccIesktica1 in character. Fnr that rmaon, as his writings on all three groups att~st, Luther rejected the politica'l, ;lie ecc~nomic, and thc intellectual as basic grounds for his criticism of Roman Catholicism. If it wm to be criti- cized at all, this had to be in the name of the Church and on the basis of the Gospel. Much the snme rerationuhip exists between Luther and thu modern ihnugllr to n-l~ich ht. is ofteu linked. As mcntioned earlier, i~ has become fashionable in aume quarters to at- tribe to Luther thc origins of modem individualism, the view of human life that uccn each man as the molder of hia own destiny. When applied to Christian thought, individ- ualism prudum an outlook that either is hostile to the Church or at best regards it na an afterthought in the Chris- tian life. But Luthcr was as opposed to such individualivni as he was to a falue eatirnate of the Church. With character- istic penetration, he saw that despite its emphasis upon the Church, mcdievol religion wa,s actually tery individualiutic. For it demanded that a man relate himself to God through his lnornl life. thus putting the ultimate reqwusibili~y for llu~nrtrl dcstiny into human I~arr&, with gmce ~rving as an auxiliary. Thuu, far from being an indi~idualid, Luther dcfcnded the doctrine of the Churcli against indiviclualiaru. It would %em, therefore, that hc cannot be praised or blamed for the rix of modern individualism, Protcstnnt or secular. The real a,u.cusment of the Reformation cannot Le on any of the grounds we have listed here, nor on other* that are fre- quently cilcd in defense or criticism of Luther. Fairncw would WC~U to require, after all, that a man or inohement Le cvnluatcd on thc basiv of thc goals and dircctionv he set for himself. Seen in this light, both the "success" and the "failure" of the Reformation-if we ruay usc these word* Irecome clear. On dlc povitivc side, the Refornmtion did wrre as an agency in the hands of God ta ntakc the Gospel clearer and to gforify His mercy in Christ. It has made the cenlrs! message of the Chridan faith more meaningful to many people. But on the negative side, the Reformation did involve r loss as ~cll as a gain, marc perhaps in its by-pro- ducts than in its produck. For many Protestant Chrisdms, it has nleant a severance wi~h the traditions of the Christian etnturi+thcoIogie3IIy, liturgically, emolionally. Only in our own time have some of them corne to appreciate the depth and tlru trrrgcdy of that severance. Ultirnatcly, the vuc nasessment of the Luthera~~ Reformn- tion in our time wilt have to corne in the faith and lift: of the cor~temprary church, and in the way it interpret9 the meaning of [he Gmpel of Jcsun Christ to its world. QUESTIONS 1. Is Luthcr the "father of modern democracy"? If yo, wllg has 40 little of Lutheranism developed democratic gowrnnwnt? If riot, what cun Lutherans in o democ- racy do to combine the two? 2. Exartiiue the interprctalion and asecsmont of Luthcr's work in wwnl Roman Catholic biographicu. Divcusk them. 3. Esalr~ir~e tlie intcrprehtion and aswment of Luthcr's work in ~everaI wcular and Xlarxi~t histories. Discuss them. 4. In what way3 can contemporary Lutherans adrninistcr the heritage of the Reforrllntiort faithfully and meaning- fully? SUGGESTED Rainton, RoIund H., Here I Stand. New Ynrk, 1950. Bainton, Kolar~d H., The ReJormotion oJ the Sixteenth Century. Bmton, 1952. Billing, Einar, Our Calling, tr, by Conrad Bergcndoff. Rock Island, 1947. Bochmer, Heinrich, Rmd to Re/urniation, tr. by John W. Doborutein and Thcodore G. Tappurt. Philadelphia, 1%. Cad-% Edgar, Th Rei~tetpretolion 01 hhr. Phila- delphia, 1948. Grirnm, Harold, The Reforma~ion Era. New York, 1954. Krauth, Charles P., The Conrarun~it:~ Relorma~ion and it.$ Theology. Philadelphia, 1913. Luther, Martin, Rslorrnn!im Rri~irrgs, tr. by Bertram Lee Woolf. Landon, 2952. Luther, Martin, Work.9 (6 vols.) . Philadelphia, 1943. Pauck, Wilhlm, TIcrr Heri~agc oJ the Re/orrnotion. Bos- ton, 1950. Peliknn, Jaradsv, From Luther to k'ierkegcmrcr'. St. Louis, 19.50. Plam, Ewald, This Is Lu~1u.r. St. Louih, lW. READINGS Prcntcr, Regin, Spiritus Crcaiur, tr. by John M. Jensen Philadelphia, 1953. Reed, Lutber D., The Lutheran LBurgy. Philadelphia. 1947. Heu, Michael, Luther and the Scriptures. Columbuu, 1944- Rcu, Michael, Lutker's Cermnn Bible. Columbus, 1934. Rupp, Emmt G., Luther's Progress to the Diet of Worm. tondon, 1951. Rupp, Emat G., Martin Luther, Hider's Cau~e or Cure? London, 1945. Rupp, Ernest G., Tire Rigl~mwnes oJ Cod. London, 1953. Saaw, Herman, Here We Stand, tr. by Theodore G. Tap- pert. Xew York, 1938. Schwieher~ Ernmt G., Luther and his Times. St. Loui~, 1950. Smith, Yreuerved. The Age 01 the Rc/ornzadion, New York, 1920. Smith, Preserved, 7'hu Life and Letters of Martin Lutkr. Xew York, 1911. Watson. Philip, Let God Be Cod. Philadelphia, 1949. Thb SyUobus can be orrlerod from: NATIONAL LUTHERAN COUNCIL Division o/ Sludent Service 327 S~UT~I LA SALLE STREW CHICAGO 4, l~~~nors THE LUTHERAN CHURCFI-MISSOURI SYNOD Student Service C~lntrnission 77 WEST WASHIKCTOX STREET C~rchco 2, ILLIXOIS