MARTIN LUTHER and HIS ENEMIES
From the lectures of Dr. Philip Cary
In this lecture we move from political conflict to theology conflict.....
We will look at how Luther fought with theological opponents. As Luther says, we fight with the word not the sword, as he says over and over. He does tell people who fight with the sword, when to fight with good conscience; he takes credit for all the peasants killed in the peasant war. Because his word instructed the Prince to kill all those peasant.
But fundamentally his work is about the word not the sword. his job is about prayer, preaching, and writing.... For Luther this is God's words at work, not just mere words.... So Luther just preaches God's word, it's up to God to do the rest....
Luther picks out how wicked some were and just says we have to let them go.... You would think that would give his writings a peaceful face; seen not to control everyone; he just preaches. I wish that was so; I wish his writing had a peaceful tone; but the fact is it is not so!
His theological attacks on his opponents are fierce and bitter, they are ABUSIVE, and they leave lasting wounds....
So we must think about what's going on with Luther's vile and abusive language.....
We shall get a fix on what is destructive about Luther, and what is wonderful and great.....
WHY is Luther so ABUSIVE towards his theological opponents? WHY is he so NASTY? Was he just getting bitter and pessimistic in his old age? Racked by illness and pain, because he was a very sick man in the last 15 years of his life. Did his illness lead to inhibitions.... So he just let fly at his opponents? That may be part of it, but it can't be the whole story. There is a deliberate strategy in Luther's writing.... He knows how to use words, and he's accomplishing something definite I think towards strategy with abuse.
I need to give you one example of this. So you get some notion of how profoundly abusive he could be.
Luther is famous for scatological abuse..... Let me give you one example; it's hard to believe this would be in a theological debate.
Luther says, to one of his opponents, I'm paraphrasing now, "Now look, why don't you do it in your pants, roll it up into a sausage, put that sausage around your neck, and then gobble it down."
Can you imagine this in a theological debate? There it is! And there's lots more like it! especially in his later writings. You just have to read this stuff to believe it; it's impossible to tell you it's there unless you read it.... Luther is flinging filth at his opponents all the time.
WHY?
Well to start with let's go back to one of those dualities Luther is always playing around with, a key I think to understanding the why.
He makes distinction between FAITH and LOVE. Faith is inward.... frees your conscience; LOVE is outward, it addresses your service to your neighbor; so that means in love you should never personally attack someone. Leave their person out of it. Don't attack their moral lives. Even when he attacks the Pope, he doesn't satirize the Pope, as Irasmas does - like: oh well you have all these children. your gready, your enriching your family, your fighting in wars. That is not how Luther attacks his opponents.
He attacks them on the issue of FAITH! On the issue of DOCTRINE, on Christian doctrine, Christian teaching. But here's a crucial point, when you are dealing in love with another person, you can compromise with them. Love does not stand on principle, giving up your principle for sake of your neighbor. But FAITH - faith doesn't back down on anything. Faith hangs on to the word of God, and you don't compromise when it comes to the word of God. You don't compromise the Gospel. You don't compromise Christian teaching. With love you can compromise all you want, give up your principles out of love for your neighbor. That's fine. But NOT with FAITH!
NO compromising with faith, no backing down. And that I think tells us a lot about Luther's strategy.
When he attacks his opponents, he's attacking not their moral life, he's attacking their conscience!
Luther is always writing about people's conscience. With his theology opponents he basically says they are lying against their conscience. And here's the worst part, THERE ARE SPEAKING FOR THE DEVIL!
Remember his break with Rome, he said the Pope was speaking as the anti-christ!
And with his Protestant opponents he's continually saying they speak for the devil!
Some of his Protestant opponents play into this, like Thomas Muntzer..... Leader of the peasant rebellion. So when Muntzer talks about the Spirit, he says, "Yes I know your spirit, it's a spirit of rebellion and violence, it's not the Holy Spirit, I know what's in your conscience Muntzer, not the Holy Spirit, but the spirit of violence. You have this voice speaking to you, and you should know better. This voice isn't God's word. So in your own conscience your giving in to the devil."
This is the fundamental attack Luther gives over and over again!
For instance, when he critics Carlshart, he says, it's stunning but typical of Luther's rhetoric, "It aught to surprise no one, that I call him a devil, for I am not thinking of Dr. Carlshart, I'm thinking of him whom Carlshart is possessed, for whom he speaks, namely the devil."......
So with Luther defending the Gospel against its enemies, it is always a fundamental battle with the devil, the spirit who speaks through his enemies.
We need to talk about what Luther thinks about this battle with the devil. Why he speaks so persistently of his own battle with the devil, persistently and casually. it's striking.
....................
TO BE CONTINUED
MARTIN LUTHER AND HIS ENEMIES - HOW HE CONFRONTED THEM #2
Part of it all is the medieval notion of the Devil's assault on you. Your lying on your death bed. The Devil comes and whispers in your ear: You're a sinner and God wants to condemn you. You've committed this sin and that sin, therefore you should despair and curse God and die. Everyone knows about that. So that's when Luther talks a bout the assaults of the Devil, temptations by the Devil, whispering in your ear, nobody is too surprised by it; luther doesn't have to explain what he means.
But I think there is a distinctive way Luther has about talking about the Devil, pretty much Luther's own. He talks casually about the the theological arguments he's had with the Devil. He's got a lot of experience that way. So one time at the dinner table he said, "Oh yes earlier this morning the Devil was arguing with me about Swingly." He just drops that down and starts talking about something else.
He talks about his battles with the Devil at night, much more bitter than his battles with his enemies during the day. "They only annoy me; they write these insane, stupid theological arguments. And I have to waste my time refuting them. But the Devil, now he confronts me with real theological arguments. The Devil is better with theology than my opponents."
Well.... what experiences with the Devil does he have to say this?
Most strange of all, most striking of all; one treatise he has, a writing against a Catholic practice in the "mass" - in the middle of it he says, "The Devil woke me up in the middle of the night, with this against me." Then there is a five page argument from the Devil. A dead pen argument, where it turns out the Devil is right; you can quote anywhere from the 5 pages and it's Luther's view that is being presented by the Devil. When, at the end, Luther says, "Devil your right; Devil you've got me; that's a good theological argument, I have to repent. I was participating in this Catholic, it was sin, I was wrong. Your right, I was wrong; but I've just confessed my sin, so I win."
WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?
Let me make a few remarks.
Luther does not have any visual sighting of the Devil. No superstitious stuff where you see this darkened, pitch-fork, nothing like that. It's always these argument in the middle of the night. We know Luther was sick during the writing of this treatise, and he changed his mind on these points. We have his outlines, where he actually changes his mind. So in the middle of the night, he listens to the arguments of the Devil, and changes his mind.
WHAT'S THAT EXPERIENCE LIKE?
Well, I think it's what lots of us insomniacs have had. If you are an insomniac and work with words for a living, like myself, you often wake up in the middle of the night with and argument running running in your head; sometimes a critical argument against you, like, "Philip Carly, don't you know these lectures you're going to give for the Teaching Company, is wrong! Look at that text, look at this text, you can't possibly say that's what Luther thought, you've got it all wrong."
You wake up in a sweat, feeling accused, guilty, wrong.
With Luther leading thousands upon thousands of souls, breaking with the Pope, who are you to say you are right? Look at all the Papal traditions, who are you. Look at this argument, look at that argument; look at this Scripture, look at that Scripture.
Luther is good at generating arguments.
I think he did indeed wake up in the middle of the night, with all these theological arguments attacking him. And it's not surprising in the medieval context he attributes all these arguments to the Devil.
That's his experience with the Devil. I think it happens all the time; I think think he respects the Devil a whole lot more than his opponents, for the ones he gets in the middle of the night are better arguments.
So that why Luther so casually talks about his frequent arguments with the Devil.
So then, let's go on to Luther's human opponents, that are more trivial for Luther. He wants to get at their conscience......
TO BE CONTINUED
MARTIN LUTHER AND HIS OPPONENTS -
HOW HE DEALS WITH THEM #3
He's thinking of people like Swingly, also waking up in the middle of the night; imagine Swingly waking up in the middle of the night, with the text, "This is my body given for you" - Luther's favorite text in the sacramental controversy. Surely it must stick in Swingly's conscience like a splinter. Because if Luther was Swingly he's wake up with this text on his mind, and argue: "how can you interpret this text symbolically, it doesn't make sense".... tara tara tara tarar. The Devil would be going at you like that. "And Swingly nonetheless sticks at his own opinion, even though he's uncertain about it. And so again you have the uncertain conscience. Luther's target is the uncertain conscience. Swingly sure must be uncertain of the interpretation of this text, but he presents his own interpretation as if it's the foundation of Christaian faith, when he not certain of it, when he knows he's not certain of it; well then he's speaking for the Devil for one thing, and he's lying against his own conscience. He knows he's uncertain, he's dishonest."
The phrase that Luther uses over and over again "Lying against his own conscience" and a certain kind of dishonesty. You need to be certain about this, this faith, God's word. You should be certain what you believe in. This is Luther's attitude.
Another way of getting at this: If your generating these theological arguments, even though your uncertain, Luther thinks it's a kind of backtalk against God. Here's God's word saying "This is my body given for you." And you say, "Huuummm, I think God must mean this, because it doesn't make sense if it's Christ real body." Luther would say, "Your using your own judgment, own reasoning; God can't say that, that would be stupid. God's being stupid then, so I'd better correct Him. I'm so much cleverer than God; I'll fix God's word and make it right."
And this trust in reason and not faith, Luther has always been attacking. It's a kind of back-talk to him, "God what do you think your saying." Lord, it's enough to have sinned without trying to justify yourself afterwards. Swingly has the wrong view of the Lord's Supper. He cooks up some argument to justify himself. This is not tolerated in a household Luther says, the father of the house doesn't allow it.
It burns in the heart if you try to justify yourself. You know you are wrong. You try to defend yourself - this is just too much. So is Luther's attitude of mind towards Swingly and others.
You see the sense of anger in Luther: Where does this guy get off, cooking up these flimsy arguments. I could poke holes in these arguments so easy; flimsy - they must certainly seem flimsy to Swingly also. Where does he get off doing this?
At one point he compares to a shrew: a woman hen-pecking her husband - attacking. She knows she's wrong, she's just good at inventing up these arguments "she's lying against her conscience,"
That's what it is like with these opponents of Luther; you just get fed up with no creativity in arguments to justify themselves.
So that mean: that the aim of these attacks on Luther's opponents, is not to persuade them, he doesn't think you can persuade people like Swingly; they are more or less lost! Swingly doesn't have to just or modify his opinions, or learn a thing or two from Luther. Swingly needs to change sides. He needs to REPENT!
....................
TO BE CONTINUED
MARTIN LUTHER AND HIS OPPONENTS #4
From the lectures by Philip Cary
Luther continued with his rebuttal against Swingly.
"To give up his diabolical back-talk against God, that would require a conversion, and God can do a miracle like that, but we don't have much record of God doing it, of leaders of great heresies who convert and return to the faith."
So Luther pretty well gives up hope on Swingly, and when writing against Swingly he's not tying to persuade Swingly or his followers. Luther is trying to persuade his own followers. He is basically trying to say, stay away from this stuff, don't believe Swingly. Or don't don't believe it when Swingly says, "Oh, Luther if you would be just a little more consistent you would be with me. I Swingly know what your deepest thought is, the spirit of Luther is heading in my direction, so if Luther was only a bit more clear-headed about what his own thought was, he'd be with me."
Luther's response is, "NO WAY, I do not want to be ANYWHERE NEAR YOU!."
AND that's where the HARSH language functions so powerfully. He's FLINGING FILTH at people like Swingly. It HITS and STICKS! And Luther's followers, the Lutheran Germans, say, "Oh, Yuck, that STINKS, we don't want anything to do with that guy."
And in fact it succeeds in its aim. He makes sure nobody who is Lutheran wants anything to do with the Swinglian's view of the Lord's Supper.
To this day the Lutherans will use the word Swinglian as a bad word, we don't want to be anything like THAT!
SO THE HARSH RHETORIC DOES WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO!
It's not just an accident of Luther loosing control, or expressing himself and blurting out nasty stuff. He's deliberately using this litorical strategy to achieve a litorical purpose. He's solidifying the Lutheran opposition to this devilish rejection of the Lord's Supper by Swingly.
But of course there's a lot of unintentional consequences of this hard and nasty rhetoric. It leaves a hard feeling between the Lutherans and the Reformed. In Zurich they hated the name of Luther for a long time to come, and you can't blame them. It left a legacy of kind of contentiousness among theologians in the next generation or two.
....................
TO BE CONTINUED
MARTIN LUTHER AND HIS ENEMIES
from the lectures by Professor Phillip Cary
Poor Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560), who outlived Luther by a decade and a half, had to live in the middle of swirling controversy. Poor Philip, is a man who like to compromise; he likes to come to agreement with his opponents. He's willing to give a little to make peace with his theological opponents, and the authentic Lutherans as they call themselves say, "Oh, those Melanchthonians they are crypto Calvanists." Because Melanchthon was in correspondence with Calvin. And they agreed about a lot of things. So the true, the authentic Lutherans just attacked poor Philip, because he was willing to compromise, willing to make peace.
When Philip Melanchthon died as matter of fact, he left a scrap of paper by his death bed, with a list of why you shouldn't be afraid to die. you get to escape all kinds of evils by dying, like: you no longer have to sin, and you escape the rabid fury of the theologians. Isn't it nice you are no longer involved with these controversies, people ripping each other to shreds, attacking each other's conscience.
It's a terrible legacy. Let me give you an example of this.
Luther attacks one person: the man writes a conciliatory treatise: :Mr. Luther, don't you mean it's a more spiritual view than what you said before. You really want to be more spiritual. I'm sure the Lord's supper is more a spiritual event; isn't that really your intent?"
And of course that's the thing that will really get Luther off.
Don't tell me that I agree with you. I have nothing to do with you! Attitude of mind.
So Luther's reply by the messenger to this man is:
"Dear Sir messenger, tell your man I have received from you the booklet and letter. i wish to God he would be silent! That mad fool processed by the Devil, does not understand anything. Does not know what he's babbling! If he doesn't stop it let him at least stop bothering me with these books the devil spits and blurts out of him. And give him this as my final judgment and answer: THE LORD REBUKE YOU SATAN and the spirit that called and the course your taking!"
Getting into a theological argument with Luther left WOUNDS; you talk about ABRASIVE!
In his eulogy for Luther, Melanchthon said this:
"Some people, and by no means evil minded ones, have complained that Luther had displayed too much severity. I will not deny this."
This is Luther's best friend at his funeral in 1546.
"But my answer in the language of Erasmus: Because of the magnitude of the disorders, God gave a violent physician. When God raised up this instrument of Martin Luther against the arrogant enemies of the truth, he spoke as he did to Jeremiah - Behold I place my words in your mouth - destroy and build - OVER AGAINST THESE ENEMIES, GOD HAS SET THIS MIGHTY DESTROYER - MARTIN LUTHER - IN VAIN DO THEY FIND FAULT WITH GOD."
THAT'S QUITE THE EULOGY ISN'T IT!!
Luther is HARSH - TOO SEVERE - but He's God's instrument - we can't find fault with God.
That's Luther's best friend speaking at his funeral.
(Of course Luther was NOT God's instrument. He was a man who found SOME truths only, and could see the corruptions in his Roman Catholic church. He remained for the most part a Roman Catholic - he called the book of James "an epistle of straw"! He remained totally blinded to the 4th commandment and the true weekly Sabbath. Luther was just a man used by Satan the Devil to fulfil prophecy, whereby the Mother church would bring forth daughters - various daughters but keeping various beliefs, practices, and customs and traditions, from their mother. God was standing by watching what He had said would come to pass in prophetic history - Keith Hunt)
WELLLL....... I don't know if it's finding fault with God. There IS something to find fault with here!
Let me try to zero in on what going wrong with Luther's polemics. Because this will be important when we talk about Luther and the Jews in our next lecture.
I would suggest, what drives the most destructive aspect of Luther's rhetoric against his theological opponents, is the desire for CERTAINTY!
Not just the desire for TRUTH, but for CERTAINTY!
There's nothing wrong with thinking your beliefs are true, the logic of belief is to believe something is true. So everyone believes their beliefs are true. But CERTAINTY is different!
CERTAINTY is STRONGER! AND MUCH MORE DANGEROUS!
IT'S RELATED TO THE DESIRE THAT IT'S RIGHT!
DESIRE TO BE RIGHT IS VERY MUCH DIFFERENT FROM THE DESIRE FOR TRUTH!
Because if what you DESIRE is TRUTH, you'll be glad to learn WHEN YOU ARE WRONG!
Because that gets you closer to TRUTH. SO SOMEONE WHO DESIRE TRUTH IS NOT AFRAID TO BE WRONG!
But someone who wants to be RIGHT, is someone who NEVER WANTS TO BE WRONG!
Someone who wants to be right is someone who never wants to be wrong.
Therefore someone who wants to be right all the time, is someone who wants to be CERTAIN!
If you are CERTAIN, then you don't have to consider the possibility you are EVER WRONG!
AND THAT I THINK IS PROFOUNDLY DESTRUCTIVE!!
THE ONLY WAY YOU DON'T HAVE TO CONSIDER YOUR EVER WRONG, IS TO KILL ALL YOUR OPPONENTS!
WE SHOULDN'T WANT THAT, IT SEEMS TO ME.
CERTAINTY IS NOT WHAT WE SHOULD BE AIMING AT.
BUT CERTAINTY WAS WHAT LUTHER WAS AIMING AT.
His impatience with his opponents, that they have no right to be saying what they are saying, that flow out of his sense that you've got to be basing this on certainty. If your opponent is wrong, if YOUR telling the truth, and they have it wrong, then you just argue with them: you say: "I don't think that is true." But if your certain, and it obvious, it's clear what is truth, and your opponent doesn't get it, then your opponent is being STUPID, or DISHONEST, or SPEAKING FOR THE DEVIL!
....................
TO BE CONTINUED
I THINK CARY IS RIGHT ON THE BULLS EYE IN SHOWING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING CERTAIN, AND DESIRING THE TRUTH.
IN DESIRING TRUTH YOU LISTEN, YOU READ, WHAT OTHERS SAY. YOU STUDY IT ALL TO DESIRE THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER. IF YOUR ALREADY CERTAIN, AND YOUR OPPONENT DOES NOT SEE IT YOUR WAY, THEN YOU DO NOT ENGAGE IN THE ARGUMENT, FOR TRUTH, BUT YOUR OPPONENT IS STUPID, AND SPEAKING FOR THE DEVIL.
IN THIS ATTITUDE YOU CAN EASILY BE A TOOL FOR SATAN THE DEVIL TO USE FOR HIS DECEPTIVE WORK ON EARTH.
MARTIN LUTHER WAS INDEED A TOOL FOR THE ADVERSARY, AS WERE OTHERS AT THE SO-CALLED REFORMATION - THEY ONLY REFORMED IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THEOLOGY AND PRACTICES. SO THE DAUGHTERS OF BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION CAME INTO BEING. NONE OF THEM WERE A PART OF THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST.
Keith Hunt
MARTIN LUTHER AND HIS ENEMIES
from the lectures by Professor Phillip Cary
This "certain" for Christianity, this is especially on interpretation of Scripture. You have to base theology, the teaching of the faith, on a clear text of Scripture, what later is called proof-text. Protestants love to talk about a clear text of Scripture. Which means you can be certain as to what it means. Not just certain that God will keep his promises. Seems to me this is what every Protestant needs to keep hold of, certain that God keeps his promises. But being certain of our interpretation of God's promises is a different thing. It is being certain of something you have done, as your own achievement as an interpreter; but it also means you end up disguising your achievement as an interpreter, because human interpretation is fallible. Therefore your going to have to disguise the fact that your interpreting the text, saying: "Oh the other guy is interpreting the text. I'm just reading the text. It's clear what God's word says."
So it's their human interpretation against God's word. My act of interpretation sort of just disappears; I'm no longer interpreting at all. They are the ones interpreting, because interpreting after all is uncertain.
This puts all kinds of pressure on the Protestant doctrine of the Scriptures. The clarity of Scripture which Luther insists upon.
Originally the doctrine of interpretation became the doctrine that denies we're interpreting. That's the actual effect of it in later Protestant doctrines of Scripture.
It makes it difficult for Protestants to admit that their interpretive judgments come from a distinctive theological tradition. Because traditions are also human. Traditions don't come straight out of the Scripture; they are a human thing. And if your tradition comes from a human thing, then it must be uncertain. Which is very true.
The clarity of Scripture, a good way of getting at this issue, the clarity of Scripture, is in a way obvious. That does happen, there are many texts which are obvious in meaning, for anyone who knows the language. But obvious I think is relative to tradition. What I'm getting at is this: what is obvious to one person it not obvious to another person. And that depends on what you know, your skills, your training. It's obvious to someone who reads Hebrew, to open a book written in Hebrew, and be obvious; but for me I can't understand it at all. If you know the language, have the skill, it's obvious.
There are things obvious to an expert and not to a novice. Like: the example I gave earlier of the car mechanic listening to my car and knowing what is wrong, but to me I have no clue. It's obvious to him but not to me.
So what's obvious to you in the interpretation of Scripture depends what tradition your from. Some things will be obvious to Catholics, and some things obvious to Protestants. Some things are obvious to academic experts in Biblical studies. Rival traditions produce rival senses in what is obvious and clear.
Protestants do not always know that they are part of "tradition." Catholics know they have tradition, but Protestants often do not know they are part of traditions.
Modernity often does not know they are part of traditions. Modernity itself is part of a tradition it does not recognize is part of a tradition. Protestantism is first in modernity that does not know it is part of tradition. Therefore can not recognize the argument about interpretation in an intelligent way, it seems to me.
What Protestants will tend to do in response to 19th century critical movement is "Well that's all human interpretation, but I'm just reading the obvious sense of Scripture." And that's the move that gets you fundamentalism. The 19th century critical movement is still with us. It pushes some Protestants into a very individualistic direction. Like: "Oh well, I don't need scholarship. Just my heart, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit, and can be certain as to what God is speaking to my heart."
That means from a LUTHERAN PERSPECTIVE your going into a "spiritualistic route" - where it's spirit and not word.
THAT'S A RESOLVE LUTHER DID NOT INTEND!
To get an intelligent theological argument about tradition you need to recognize it's one tradition arguing with another tradition. There is no certainty here. You don't get certainty by going deep into your heart.
There is just God's word and you are going to have to argue about it.
That argument is on going. We'll talk about that in the next lecture also.
....................
THE NEXT LECTURE FROM PROFESSOR CARY IS LUTHER AND THE JEWS
No comments:
Post a Comment