Friday, February 18, 2011

How to Read Luther

February 18 is the day we Lutherans pay homage to our leader.  Reformation is supposed to be less about Luther and more about the Reformation but today is about Luther.  On this day he fell asleep in the arms of His Lord, having fought the good fight.  The only problem for us is the question of how to read Luther.

Interpreters make much of the differences between the early Luther and the later Luther.  Some things are more clear in this regard but in other ways the later Luther and the early Luther are the same.  It seems clear, for example, that Luther held to the ever virginity of Mary and even the immaculate conception of Mary late into his life.  These oddities have caused some angst among those who desire a very Protestant Luther.

There is a movement for a "new" Luther that has arisen from the Finns and there has been much debate about seeing Luther and the issue of justification largely through the lens of "union with Christ."  I am not going to debate this here except to suggest that Luther may be dead but our understanding of Luther is definitely not static.

Bainton, a Congregationalist, had the definitive Luther biography for years [Here I Stand].  Now others, some Lutherans included [Kittelson, for example] have added to and even replaced this book.  But Roman Catholics have also ventured to review the life and legacy of Martin Luther, the obedient rebel.  Now another book, this one by Franz Posset, attempts to find the REAL Luther.  Apparently, the real Luther still holds some mystery to us.

Concordia Publishing House and Fortress Press partnered in the monumental endeavor of bringing Luther's works into the English speaking world.  Theirs was not a finished effort and CPH is working on its own to finish the job with many more volumes yet to come.  In addition, the number of Luther biographies and theological reviews of Luther is greater than the number of books translated into English.  This alone could keep a publishing house busy for quite some time.

I would propose something far different.  I think that we must read Luther through the lens of the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.  Some would try to reverse that and read the Confessions through Luther's works but I think this does a disservice both to Luther and to the Confessions which are his priimary legacy (even those he did not author).  I believe that Luther himself would defer to those Confessions as the documents which both define and give an identity to the movement he helped to begin and to the church which, for good or ill, bears his name.

It may be naive on my part or reveal a lack of critical scholarship from a parish pastor who sometimes thinks himself more learned than he is, but I believe that for Lutherans, the Luther that counts most of all is the Luther who is revealed to us in those Confessions.  This Luther is not the wild eyed rebel who wrecks havoc upon the church of his day but the evangelical and catholic Luther, careful to preserve the faithful heritage that passed down to him, concerned enough to make sure that this deposit of faith was not tainted by invention or innovation, and foresighted enough to make this the formal legacy of those who lived and died with him and who followed after him.

Pelikan, an erstwhile Lutheran who, it is said, left Wittenberg when he feared it had become a protestant sect, wrote a book entitled Obedient Rebels.  This title encapsulates the perspective I have of Luther and, I believe, the perspective of the Confessions.  Luther rebelled in order to be obedient to the faith, to the Scriptures, to the Gospel, and to the catholic identity bequeathed to him from the church that came before.  His obedience to that living tradition forced him to make the radical departure from the boundaries of the Roman Church -- at least to risk this expulsion.  Lutherans, at their best, have always maintained this perspective.  We insist that the Reformation was not about rebellion but about obedience, not about personal interpretation but about the Gospel that is yesterday, today, and forever the same, and not about Luther or authority or power -- but faithfulness.

That is why I get so upset when modern day Lutherans see the Reformation and Luther as primarily a rebellion and rebels who sought to free themselves from the shackles of tradition and do something new, something free, and something unbounded by any rule or law.  This antinomian spirit has resulted in worship that betrays our Lutheran and confessional identity, in a view of sexuality in which clear words of Scripture are trumped by a Gospel principle, and in a radical congregationalism which refuses authority, accountability, and relationship with others.

Luther, I believe, would have us see as his primary legacy the formal Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.  So if we would read him, let us read him through the lens of these Confessions.  Whether Roman or Congregationalist or Lutheran, those who read Luther are obligated to connect him to those confessional statements which he regarded as defining and binding upon the movement that bears his name. So, if we would beat our chests in pride over Luther, let us show it most of all by taking seriously and observing faithfully those Confessions.

8 comments:

bz said...

The confessions treat tradition as a shackle broken by Christian freedom in the Gospel. Just as Christ and the Apostles taught regarding traditions like food rules. And similarly, it is because of that Christian freedom, Lutherans need not abandon tradition, and can fully embrace it to the extent it does not compromise the Gospel, as they said they were prepared to do with Rome to preserve order. But Christian freedom is not looking to preserve tradition for its own worth, it looks only to preserve love and order, and similarly can embrace innovation if needed to preserve love and order.

To teach that the confessions require obedience to tradition is gross error, compromises justification and Christian freedom, and paves the way to destruction in Rome or Greece.

Anonymous said...

Luther's "Theology of the Cross" is
one of his great legacies. See his
Heidelberg Theses of 1518.

Ultimately God revealed Himself in
the flesh of Jesus Christ on the
cross to take away the sin of the
world. Only faith in the crucified
and resurrected Christ can save us.
As sinners we are saved by God's
grace.

A theology of glory says that man
can capture God's favor by sheer
human effort. This mis-use of the
Law tries to manipulate God so we
can earn our salvation and be saved
by our goodness.

Carl Vehse said...

"It seems clear, for example, that Luther held to the ever virginity of Mary and even the immaculate conception of Mary late into his life. These oddities have caused some angst among those who desire a very Protestant Luther."

While Luther likely held to the pious opinion of semper virgo, though it is not a confessional Lutheran doctrine, the claim that, late into his life, Luther maintained Mary's immaculate conception is simply not supported by the numerous Luther quotes provided in your December, 2009, thread, "The Problem with Mary." These Luther quotes and their associated dates make abundantly clear that one might find mentions of Mary's "immaculate conception" Romanist fairy tale by Luther from his earlier years. But after 1529, there is no solid indication of Luther holding such a view, especially at the end of his life, and indeed the provided quotes from 1532, 1534, 1538, and 1540, show that Luther rejected the immaculate conception notion.

Romish mariolatrists sometimes slyly point to a Luther quote carefully excised from a 1545 pamphlet, "... the pure Virgin Mary, who has not sinned and cannot sin for ever more." But Luther's pamphlet was actually a diatribe agains the pope, whom Luther refers to as "Your Hellishness," and in fact the "...the pure Virgin Mary..." quote is a mocking reference (among other insults) to the pope himself. The quote with its context is provide in the Dec. 2009 thread and comes from page 264 in Against the Roman Papacy: An Institution of the Devil, 1545; translated by Eric W. Gritsch, in Luther's Works, ed. Pelikan, 41, 263-376.

Chris said...

"Romish mariolatrists sometimes slyly point to a Luther quote carefully excised from a 1545 pamphlet, "... the pure Virgin Mary, who has not sinned and cannot sin for ever more." But Luther's pamphlet was actually a diatribe agains the pope, whom Luther refers to as "Your Hellishness," and in fact the "...the pure Virgin Mary..." quote is a mocking reference (among other insults) to the pope himself."

So you think that in the same article where Luther mocks the pope by referring to him as "Your Holiness", that same spirit of mockery must also be attached to the Virgin by referring to her as the "pure Virgin Mary"? That's a slippery slope if I ever saw one.

One more thing, Carl, calling the BVM, pure or holy or ever-virgin or any other epithet is not worshiping Mary. And one need not subscribe to the Immaculate Conception to refer to her in those terms (I certainly don't). Maybe you can't tell the difference between honor and worship; I certainly can.

But one thing that you cannot escape is that if the the semper virgo is merely a pious opinion, why do the Confessions consistently refer to her that way. You must also prove that such has not been the kerygma of the church from the beginning since the those who reject the semper virgo are the innovators, not the other way around.

Anonymous said...

<>

Hi, Pastor Peters! Isn't this more descriptive of Carlstadt than it is of Luther?

God bless!
Pastor Kevin Jennings

Carl Vehse said...

Chris said: So you think that in the same article where Luther mocks the pope by referring to him as "Your Holiness", that same spirit of mockery must also be attached to the Virgin by referring to her as the "pure Virgin Mary"?

What could possess you to conclude from anything I have said in my earlier post or my posts at the link I provided that this was even remotely what I think? Furthermore, the excerpt from Luther's pamphlet speaks for itself.

Chris: One more thing, Carl, calling the BVM, pure or holy or ever-virgin or any other epithet is not worshiping Mary.

I agree.

Chris: if the semper virgo is merely a pious opinion, why do the Confessions consistently refer to her that way

While semper virgo is merely a pious opinion, they don't... as explained in the references I provided in thread, "The Problem with Mary," and also explained by Rev. Paul A. Rydecki's various posts here, and in posts by a blogger, Prince Valiant, here.

Chris: You must also prove that such has not been the kerygma of the church from the beginning

Prof. Jack Kilcrease does more than an ample job of showing that there is nothing in Scripture on which to build a doctrine of semper virgo, and, even more, Scripture suggests Mary had other children after Jesus. And without Scripture, teaching a pious opinion as doctrine is teaching false doctrine.

Chris said...

Carl,

You write: "Prof. Jack Kilcrease does more than an ample job of showing that there is nothing in Scripture on which to build a doctrine of semper virgo, and, even more, Scripture suggests Mary had other children after Jesus. And without Scripture, teaching a pious opinion as doctrine is teaching false doctrine."

Professor Jack is wrong. REgarding Mary as semper virgo in no way, IN NO WAY, denigrates marriage or regards it as superior. I wonder if Professor Jack would have you toss out the Pauline corpus simply because he states that virginity IS superior to marriage.

BTW, pious custom refers more to when one kneels or makes the sign of the cross when others do not. The semper virgo is dogmatic, not a mark of piety!

Professor Jack's little post is telling in many ways. This little number: "Although Luther and the majority of the Lutheran tradition prior to the Enlightenment held to the doctrine of the perpetual virginity, Lutheran theology must be wary of accepting this idea for several reasons."

What this says is that the rejection of semper virgo is in perfect line with the tenents of the Enlightenment and its focus on reason, not the truth revealed from God. It's unreasonable that a married woman would not have intercourse, so therefore it couldn't have happened. That seems to be more in step with modern sexual ethics than Jewish sexual mores. The Enlightenment has perverted Christianity more than helped it proclaim the truth.

I could go on and on. His analysis of scripture is incomplete without the consensus patruum. I question how much he actually knows about Jewish law and custom.

He is wrong and you are wrong.

Carl Vehse said...

Writing on this subject, Concordia Theological Seminary Professor David Scaer states in his article in Logia, "Semper Virgo: A Doctrine":

"Some self-styled confessional Lutherans have gone one step further in raising the hypothesis of the semper virgo, that is, Mary’s perpetual virginity, near to the level of doctrine. It qualifies as a question of biblical interpretation and not a doctrine. What Luther and the Lutheran fathers said about this question may be of historical interest but is not determinative....

"The semper virgo cannot in any sense be regarded as a doctrine or even a pious opinion, especially if the opposing view is seen as unequal or lacking in piety....

"Whether Mary remained semper virgo or had children by Joseph, some of whom rose to prominence in the early church, is an open question and cannot be proclaimed as doctrine. For me the New Testament evidence supports the latter position and there matters will rest."