The Theology of Martin Luther: A Critical Assessment

Preface

According to Luther, theology should be about the kernel of the nut, the interior of the wheat, the marrow in the bones. He wanted to find out what matters in life and death and to distinguish the essential from what is inessential or even hurtful. As regards his own time, he may well have been largely successful. But in the meantime half a millennium has passed, and the question arises whether from today’s point of view he was able to separate the chaff from the wheat, whether he succeeded in getting to the marrow of the bones, and whether the heart of the nut he cracked is still tasty today and will continue to nourish in time to come.

It is nearly impossible to get a complete overview of the literature on Luther; his own works, in their various editions, represent a challenge to anyone studying them. Where is the core, the marrow, the innermost part of the wheat to be found? What is strong and nourishing here, what is digestible? There is need for a critical examination in view of a radically altered socio-cultural situation and the theological questions that require an answer today. The present book seeks to make its contribution in this context.

I myself am thus returning to my theological beginnings, though Luther has accompanied me throughout my entire life. I always especially enjoyed giving lectures on his theology in Marburg, and they were not devoid of laughter. At the end of a summer semester we got together to eat Luther bread I had brought from Wittenberg. Every lecture was introduced with a word from Luther, followed by a minute of silence.

Having grown up in a Lutheran state church, I was later able to get to know worldwide Lutheranism, in Lutheran centers for theological study in Hungary, Japan, and India. I gave guest lectures on topics in Lutheran theology in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and in Saõ Leopoldo, Rio Grande do Sul. Ecumenical communication of Luther was the subject of lecture series at the Istituto di Studi Ecumenici, first in Verona and then in Venice and at the Waldensian seminary in Rome. I was even able to introduce Luther into the interreligious dialogue at the Buddhist Otani University in Kyoto. All this lent me a plethora of insights, experiences, and materials to which I can now have recourse. This book summarizes my decades of engagement with the Reformer, which became more and more critical over time.

My companion in study, Prof. Dr. Bernhard Brons of Nuremberg, reviewed the manuscript with great theological-historical and systematic-theological skill. Quite a few of his objections and comments would be worth a separate publication. I am grateful to my former doctoral student, Prof. Dr. Gernot Schulze-Wegener of Rauschenberg, for help in correcting the text and for a number of suggestions, and likewise—as with all my previous publications—to my wife, who in our many conversations about Luther has done great honor to her middle name, Käthe. Frau Inge Radparvar has again been brilliant in overcoming the technical problems of producing the manuscript. Diedrich Steen, lector and program director at Gütersloh, has earned my gratitude by his attention not only to overlooked typos but also to the appealing presentation and composition of the book. I regret that in this book once again I have not succeeded in making meaningful use of inclusive language.

Retired Landesbischof Prof. Dr. Gerhard Müller has read some of the chapters, and I am grateful to my Marburg colleague, Prof. Dr. Hans Schneider, for some helpful suggestions. Not all my conversation partners agreed with all my theses. Some of them pointed out that those who did not share my decisions would express criticism. Meanwhile, someone else has warned me that I should not be too critical. The frame of reference for my critique has been my understanding of Christian faith as I expressed it in my work on dogmatics (in its third edition of 2008). Every reader will have to work out a further critical examination of Luther’s theology for herself or himself. The numerous footnotes are primarily for specialists.

While I was working on my dissertation (on Luther) I made a reference card with a quotation from Luther that I had found by accident (WA 17/1, 81, 30-31): Utut mecum sit, tamen Deus est Deus: whatever may become of me, God is still God. For me, that is the kernel of the nut.

Marburg, Reformation Day 2008

Hans-Martin Barth

I

Approach: Points of Entry and Difficulties of Access

1

Luther: Objectively and/or Subjectively

Luther at First Glance

In our part of the world Martin Luther is one of those historical entities everyone has heard about, but only a few people can say anything more precisely. That is certainly true for the bulk of our society; probably it is equally true of the situation within the churches themselves, at least the Lutheran church. In Catholic theology and the Catholic Church the Reformer is occasionally perceived as an authentic witness to Christian existence despite the remaining dogmatic reservations in his regard, but within our own ranks he is often approached with a certain bewilderment.

Evidently there are difficulties in gaining access to Luther, and also a certain suspicion that it might not be worthwhile. Important authors have played their part in spreading a negative cliché about the Reformer. In his famous Washington speech of 1945, Thomas Mann asserted that Martin Luther, a gigantic incarnation of the German spirit, was exceptionally musical. I frankly confess that I do not love him. Germanism in its unalloyed state, the Separatist, Anti-Roman, Anti-European shocks me and frightens me, even when it appears in the guise of evangelical freedom and spiritual emancipation; and the specifically Lutheran, the choleric coarseness, the invective, the fuming and raging, the extravagant rudeness coupled with tender depth of feeling and with the most clumsy superstition and belief in incubi, and changelings, arouses my instinctive antipathy. I should not have liked to be Luther’s dinner guest. . . .[1]

Is Martin Luther really a medieval German lout who has no place in today’s civilized Europe, with its absence of internal boundaries and its lively economic and intellectual exchanges? It could seem that way. Karl Barth, the Swiss theologian, found at the beginning of World War II that the German people suffered from the heritage of a paganism that is mystical and that is in consequence unrestrained, unwise and illusory. And it suffers, too, from the heritage of the greatest Christian of Germany, from Martin Luther’s error on the relation between Law and Gospel, between the temporal and the spiritual order and power. This error has established, confirmed and idealized the natural paganism of the German people, instead of limiting and restraining it. . . . Hitlerism is the present evil dream of the German pagan who first became Christianized in a Lutheran form. . . .[2] Are these the words of the disappointed theologian and professor who experienced the beginnings of National Socialism and as a result lost his professorship, or is this an indictment of a genuinely false development in Protestant theology?

At the beginning of the twenty-first century negative judgments like those expressed by Thomas Mann or Karl Barth are scarcely comprehensible—for lack of a comparable state of knowledge. Luther has become an unknown. Even fifty years ago someone could speak about fear of Luther.[3] Nowadays if there is any fear, it is fear about Luther: is he a disgrace to Protestantism? What remains true, in any case, is that he either attracts or repels those who occupy themselves with him. Anyone who takes him seriously must adopt a position; you can’t just shrug your shoulders at Luther or you haven’t really encountered him.

The uneasiness many feel toward the Reformer may also be rooted in the fact that he is so hard to classify. Obviously he is not a saint like Francis of Assisi, who is able to win the hearts even of modern people with his sympathetic naïveté; Francis is lovable, undemanding, not a figure subject to aesthetic or spiritual approval or disapproval! Just compare the cheerful atmosphere of Assisi, which today still manages to glow with the spirit of the Poverello, with the grey everydayness of the northern German provincial city of Wittenberg. The tourist business, no matter how hard it tries, can’t make much business out of Luther! His life and work are connected with an atmosphere of struggle and resistance: I was born to go to war and give battle to sects and devils and to fall in the field; hence, he says, his books are stormy and bellicose. I must root out the stumps and trunks, hew away the thorns and briars . . .; he was the one, he said, who had to pioneer and hew a path.[4] It is not always evident that a cheerful, ironic humor underlies such pithy words: I eat like a Bohemian and drink like a German, thanks be to God for this. Amen.[5] In saying this Luther wanted to reassure his worried wife Katherine that he was really in good health. Often such boorish language is actually used for a theological purpose that can turn your stomach. Characteristic of Luther is the decisive alternative, the exclusive either–or.[6] We will have to deal with that later. There is no middle kingdom between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan.[7] Are these the words of a reflective theologian or of an incurable fundamentalist? Luther is not a saint, but he is also not a broad thinker like Thomas Aquinas or Descartes, who offered models for interpreting the world and mastering the problem of being that were subject to discussion. Why should we bother with him? The crisis of dealing with Luther in some sense reflects the crisis of Protestantism: it is not a pious movement intended to improve the world through meditation and ascetic forms of life, nor is it a secular ideology providing ideological perspectives and advice for political action. There is no path from Reformation piety to esoterica, and the secular and secularizing elements of Protestantism do not gain it the sympathy of intellectuals, not anymore at least. Protestantism represents a third way whose dangers and opportunities become clear especially in dealing with Luther.

Objective Observations

In the public imagination Luther stands behind a portentous development in Western history that probably would have happened without him but is ineradicably connected with his name: the division of Christianity, the collapse of the unity of a socio-economically shaped culture and religious determination of meaning, pluralism, individualization, the rise of a modernity whose blessings appear highly dubious to us today. Certainly 1517 by no means marked the first division within Christianity; in the year 1054 the Latin church had separated from the East, and the paths between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Christianity had already diverged as a result of the Council of Chalcedon in 451. There never was a unity of the church like that dreamed of by romantic ecumenists today; we only need to think of the abundance of competing and mutually combative movements in the ancient church or the multiple voices in the New Testament. Nevertheless, Luther’s name is connected to the awareness that the unity of Europe is broken. Even if one should be inclined to minimize his role in this development, there remains the notion that (though without really intending it) he founded a Christian confession. He is thus regarded as the instigator of a confessionalism we today find offensive and in need of overcoming, involved and involving itself in political entanglements. Even within Protestantism itself it was difficult for a long time to convey that the Protestant church did not have its beginning in 1517, but in the New Testament! Likewise, the political position of the Reformer is designated, with very little regard for subtlety, in terms of the labels Peasants’ War and servant of princes.

It is true that Luther’s statements on the Jews are a horrible strain. Julius Streicher, the Gauleiter of Franken and one of the worst anti-Semites of the Third Reich, said during the Nuremberg trials that if Luther were alive he would be taking Streicher’s place in the dock. Hans Asmussen asked in 1947: Does Luther have to go to Nuremberg?[8] Of course, none of the anti-Semitic Nazis read Luther to find out how to behave toward the Jews. To that extent we can only speak in a very indirect sense of the influence of Luther’s anti-Jewish sayings in history. But it is bad enough that anti-Semites could appeal to applicable sayings of Luther at a time when he was still regarded as an authority in Germany!

All the difficulties we have listed as standing in the way of a positive relationship to Luther probably weigh little in face of the fact that no self-reflective person focused on his or her own self-realization is able to be fully open to the fundamental concern of Luther’s theology: the idea of the grace of God as the basis of all things and controlling all things. The eschatological horizon that was taken for granted by Luther and most of his contemporaries, which oppressed them on the one hand and consoled them on the other, has vanished. What we regard as important is not what may happen after death but what happens before it. The idea of a last judgment, hell, and eternal damnation seems medieval and passé. What we are looking for is help with living, not forgiveness of sins. That free will is nothing (from the German translation of Luther’s De servo arbitrio), that human fate could itself be nothingness, is an idea those unconcerned with religion as well as our ecclesially socialized contemporaries set entirely aside, and yet in fact it calls for discussion.

Subjective Experiences

What might still make us want to concern ourselves with Luther? Why is it that he has repeatedly accompanied people throughout their lives, in person so to speak, and that even I have wrestled with his thought for decades and am now writing a book about him? Luther’s theology, and still more intensely Luther’s faith, were impressed on me as things that would strengthen and deepen my own faith, and for that reason I seem to have a need to communicate both to others. Occupying myself with Luther has always somehow done me good. I have been increasingly disturbed by the detritus that has to be removed in order to get to the source, and yet I constantly find it is worth it.

I probably met Luther first in my father’s study. A reproduction of the famous painting by Lucas Cranach, showing Luther in the pulpit of the church at Wittenberg, hung there: in the center the crucifix, on one side Luther in the pulpit with his arm outstretched and pointing to Christ, and on the other side the sermon’s audience. Luther was certainly not the primary subject, but he was part of it. As a university student in my fourth semester I heard Paul Althaus’s lectures on Luther’s theology that became his book on the subject.[9] That was the only lecture series I carefully studied during my university years. I went to the library and looked up the passages in the Weimar edition of Luther’s works that Althaus had cited. That gave me not only intellectual but in a sense physical contact with Luther’s works. Besides that, it was during these years that I met someone who, as I sensed, lived wholly in the spirit of Lutheran devotion: the elderly Frankish dean, Friedrich Graf, in Thalmässing. Luther’s Small Catechism was his book of devotions; every day, from Monday to Saturday, he meditated on one of the major parts, from the Ten Commandments to the Table of Duties. He took Sundays off because on those days he preached. I was uncomfortable when he asked me about particular passages in the catechism and saw that I did not know them correctly. But I know he didn’t want to expose me; he wanted to call my attention to something that for him was the bread and elixir of life. In the end he gave me the hundred-volume Erlangen edition of Luther with commentary, which he greatly preferred to the Weimar edition because one could take its handy little volumes to bed, something that was impossible with the mighty Weimar volumes. His love for Luther was probably the impulse that caused me ultimately to write my dissertation on Luther’s theology.[10] I would criticize that book in many respects today, for at that time I did not possess sufficient distance from the subject. That has changed. I find Luther’s statements about the Jews simply unbearable, in spite of all the well-known theological and historical attempts at explanation. Luther’s views on women and their roles in the church, as progressive as they may have been at the time, are obviously altogether inadequate today. But above all the utter fixation on sin and forgiveness, the radical Christocentrism that in Luther’s time had a legitimate and necessary function, today represents a reductionism that must be reintegrated in the whole of trinitarian faith; that is something I learned in the course of my ecumenical work.[11] I have discovered yet another new context through my encounter with the world religions, and yet there also Martin Luther remained for me a guiding presence and source of orientation.[12]

In most depictions of Luther the Reformation is presented as a great theological conflict, a struggle for the truth that was about life and death. That, of course, is not wrong. But I would like to put the accent somewhere else. In my view the Reformation was primarily a pastoral movement. The struggle was not about correctness but about the truth that makes free and sustains freedom. Hence Luther’s theology has to be presented, considered, critiqued, and communicated from a pastoral-therapeutic perspective.

Anyone who has worked with Luther’s theology has entered into the innermost heart of Christian faith. Much of what the Reformer has to say is edifying in the best sense of the word. It is an impulse to spiritual growth and an aid in personal crises. In that sense, for example, Luther’s writings belong not on the desk but on the nightstand. Those who occupy themselves with Luther arrive unexpectedly at the center of the Christian church and have no chance of busying themselves in the niche of a Lutheran sect. In Luther we encounter a person who had no fear for the church and therefore was ready to criticize it radically. Luther knew that we are not the ones who can preserve the church, nor were our forefathers able to do so. Nor will our successors have this power. No, it was, is, and will be he who says, ‘I am with you always, to the close of the age.’[13] Luther would not bother to conduct constant polling and study the affinity profiles of the church members, as the Lutheran Church in Germany has, in its anxiety, repeatedly attempted. Nor was Luther satisfied with the results of the Reformation he had set in motion. But he knew that he had to surrender himself to God’s project. God’s word and grace was, in his experience, a passing shower of rain which does not return where it has once been.[14] The Reformer was realistic in his view of the church without being gloomy.

Those who occupy themselves with Luther get to the center of Christian theology. From here one can understand and unlock the whole; here, as in a kaleidoscope, the most important problems are brought together. Erwin Mülhaupt has written a book called Predigten mit Luthers Hilfe;[15] I can also imagine a book called Dogmatik mit Luthers Hilfe.[16] Anyone who has understood Luther has, at any rate, broken through to a place, has found a lead by which to orient herself or himself in life. Certainly the crucial break in European intellectual history was completed not with the Renaissance and Reformation, but in the Enlightenment. This naturally raises the question of the extent to which Luther’s theology can still be relevant to modern Protestantism, which is clearly shaped by that rupture. One can critique Luther from the point of view of modern Protestantism, but in turn one can also put modern Protestantism under a critical microscope from Luther’s point of view. Both procedures make sense, and they are mutually productive.

But in spite of every precaution, any author who presents a version of Luther’s theology is also in some way presenting his or her Luther.[17] Love for Luther may excuse this in individual cases. Still, there are enough different interpretations of Luther to make a mutual questioning and correction possible.

Quoted from Glaser/Stahl 1983, 286. English: Don Heinrich Tolzmann, ed., Thomas Mann’s Addresses Delivered at the Library of Congress, 1942–1949 (Oxford and New York: Peter Lang, 2003), Germany and the Germans, 45–66, at 52.↵

Quoted from Glaser/Stahl 1983, 262–63. Cf. Gerhard Ebeling, Über die Reformation hinaus? Zur Luther-Kritik Karl Barths, 33–75 in Joachim Heubach, ed., Luther und Barth (Erlangen: Martin-Luther-Verlag, 1989). English: Karl Barth, A Letter to Great Britain from Switzerland (London: The Sheldon Press, 1941), 36–37, as cited in Charles E. Ford, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Resistance, and the Two Kingdoms, Lutheran Forum Reformation (1993): 28–34.↵

Kurt Ihlenfeld, Angst vor Luther? (Witten and Berlin: Eckart-Verlag, 1967).↵

WA 30/2, 68, 12-16; cf. WA 30/2, 650, 16-17. Published English translations vary.↵

Martin Luther to his wife Katherine, 2 July 1540, LW 50, 208 (WA.Br 9, 168, 5-6).↵

Jörg Baur, Extreme Theologie, in idem, Luther und seine klassischen Erben (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1993), 8.↵

LW 33, 227 (WA 18, 743, 33-34).↵

Quoted in Glaser/Stahl 1983, 8.↵

Althaus 1962 (1981).↵

Barth, Hans-Martin 1967a.↵

Cf. Hans-Martin Barth, Begegnung wagen—Gemeinschaft suchen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000).↵

Barth, Hans-Martin 2008a.↵

LW 47, 118 (WA 50, 476, 31-35).↵

LW 45, 352 (WA 15, 32, 7-8).↵

Erwin Mülhaupt, Evangelisch leben! Predigten mit Luthers Hilfe (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958).↵

Respectively (and somewhat loosely) Luther Helps you Preach and Luther Helps you with Dogmatics.—Trans.↵

Cf. Nikos Kazantzakis, God’s Pauper: St. Francis of Assisi: A Novel, trans. P. A. Bien (London and Boston: Faber & Faber, 1975).↵

2

Methodological Problems

How should we present Luther’s theology? There are essentially two possible approaches: historical-genetic or systematic-theological. But we need to clarify the guiding perspective we are following and at what point its flagrant theological falsities should be treated.

Historical-Genetic Presentation

In attempting a historical-genetic presentation one will first try to clarify the preconditions for Luther’s theology: his psychological problems with his parents, late medieval piety, scholastic theology with its two currents, the Thomistic-oriented via antiqua and the via moderna derived from Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, principal currents in Augustinian theology,[1] humanism, and the new technological opportunities such as printing and leaflets.

Then it will be necessary to trace the development of Luther’s theology. The first question to arise will be when the reforming shift should be seen to begin, as early as 1514 or only in 1518; probably this represents a process of maturation. One must then make clear how Luther’s theology acquired specific accents in the course of its various confrontations: with Rome, with the enthusiasts, in the Peasants’ War, and ultimately in the consolidation phase of the Reformation churches.[2] Did Luther experience a midlife crisis (1527/1528)? Was there for him some sort of aging crisis, senility, eleventh-hour panic? What about the relationship between the young and the old Luther? If we assume this kind of contrast, when was the transition phase or turning point? It is striking how comparatively little interest scholars have evinced in the aged Luther.[3]

Finally one should ask about what in Luther’s theology survived and whether there are revocations, self-corrections, and self-critique in his work. One could also start at the end of Luther’s development and look back from there to the beginnings.

Systematic-Theological Presentation

Luther did not compose a major systematic-theological work like Calvin’s Institutes. Melancthon’s Loci communes, which is regarded as the first work of Lutheran dogmatics, is no substitute. Luther was an occasional author whose writings were evoked by particular situations. This confronts us with the question whether it is even possible to present Luther in systematic-theological terms.[4] Whoever attempts such a thing must take care not to clothe Luther’s thought with her or his own system and possibly make use of Luther to legitimate his or her own opinion. In some sense this accusation applies, among others, to Paul Althaus’s version of Luther.[5]

How might we organize the work? Without adopting the outlines of classical dogmatics in detail we could consider the structure of Luther’s theology in terms of the three articles of the creed. But that would scarcely give expression to the specific profile of Luther’s theology. Albrecht Peters attempted to develop Luther’s theology in terms of the principal articles of the catechism.[6] While that is very revealing in detail, it does not offer a clear overview. Finally, we could consider commenting on a basic writing such as De servo arbitrio or the Smalcald Articles. Gerhard Ebeling developed a comprehensive Lutheran theology by examining and commenting on the theses of the 1536 Disputatio de homine.[7]

However, the particular profile of Luther’s theology appears in the fact that he thinks on the one hand in alternatives and on the other in complementarities. Philosophy is contrasted with theology, human or church tradition with the word of God, a theology of self-determination and self-development with the theology of the cross: these are some of the alternatives. Complementary, though not symmetrical, are Law and Gospel, God’s rule with the right and left hands, action and contemplation, God in hiddenness and revealedness—or is this last a contradictory opposition? Positions are developed against negations, and therefore from time to time positive and negative correspond. Luther’s theology moves between assertio and damnatio, between Yes and No!

If we link the leading concepts in Luther’s theology with and—Law and Gospel, both justified and sinner—we must from time to time attempt to convey the specific content of this and. That may be difficult in some cases, but it is the best way to make clear the dynamics of Luther’s theology in its clarity and its complexity.

The present book attempts to make this dynamic clear in the individual chapter titles. To avoid the impression that the Reformer fell victim to a dualistic principle throughout his work we will begin each chapter with a key concept, followed by the alternatives and complementarities, in order to indicate the particular character of the individual polarities. While the confrontation between theology and philosophy, scripture and tradition, true and false church is a matter of conflict, rivalry, and struggle, the relationship between Law and Gospel, freedom and righteousness, word and sacrament is one of tension, dialectic, and genuine complementarity. Again, speaking of God in divine hiddenness and revealedness, of human existence in sin and righteousness, and of the two divine governments is a matter of breakthrough, identity, and division of labor. In turn, action and contemplation in daily life, as well as time and eternity in God’s salvific and integrative action, exist together without tension.

How should Luther’s theology be located and evaluated today? I see it as a stage in the history of Christianity at which the message of human justification was more deeply grasped than ever before. Luther’s comprehensive conception of faith reveals anew the dignity of the human being and at the same time motivates and liberates to the acceptance of responsibility. Finally, the model of church emerging from his initiative, namely one of mutuality, community, and freedom grounded in the Gospel, has never yet been realized in the Lutheran churches. Luther’s theology acts, without making headlines, as yeast for all Christianity. I also regard the Reformer’s theological approach as supportive in the midst of the present social and cultural chaos. The more opaque the situation, the more depends on the spiritual groundedness of one’s own existence. The fundamental idea of conciliarity, derived from the thesis of the universal, mutual, and common priesthood of the faithful, is the only conceivable model for the future church and for society as well. In that sense some basic ideas in Luther’s theology may still have their greatest impact in the future, even though not in institutional form.

The Place of Theological Misjudgments

In many accounts of Luther’s theology the Reformer’s wrong judgments are given no place, or at any rate not an adequate one. The matter of witchcraft, which had a shocking subsequent history especially in regions that were confessionally attached to the Reformation, is usually left out. Jörg Haustein’s monograph on the subject was simply ignored.[8] The problem of the Turks is not discussed at all in the comprehensive works or, if it is mentioned, it is considered within its historical circumstances and is not regarded as a systematic-theological theme.[9] Luther’s dreadful statements about the Jews are dismissed in a few sentences. Here, in any event, little can be explained, scarcely anything understood, and nothing excused.[10] In Bernhard Lohse’s theology of Luther the attitude of the Reformer toward the Jews appears as an excursus at the end of the book.[11] The effect is to compromise everything that has been said before about Luther’s theological achievement, for the question of course arises whether Luther’s writings on the Jews were a theological deviation or whether these inexcusable attacks do not disqualify Luther’s theological approach altogether.

The problem of the Turks and the Jews is frequently treated in connection with Luther’s eschatology, but the texts themselves show that this is too narrow. We must pursue the question of how Luther’s statements on these topics relate to his theology of justification, the cross, and faith. Since the writings on the Jews in particular, but also those against the Turks, and ultimately also belief in the devil and witches are a severe burden on Luther’s theology from our contemporary perspective, these murky points will be treated at the beginning of the present book. The subsequent presentation will then have to show whether Luther’s theology can stand in the face of these objections raised at the outset.

Questions and Guiding Perspectives

The works on Luther’s theology currently on the market make an effort to clarify the historical situation and to understand Luther within that system. They find support in a multitude of special studies.[12] Gerhard Ebeling’s acute analysis has set some standards for this. His concern was to liberate Luther and his work in multiple ways from the alienations of the history of his influence, e.g., those of national, confessional, Enlightenment, and political images of Luther.[13] The Luther Handbuch (2005) attempts to offer an overview and to bring together the results of previous research; no guiding perspective can be discerned. The internal Protestant quarrel over Luther was shaped in particular by Karl Barth’s invective against the Reformer. Catholic research on Luther, which seems to have slackened in recent years, had its own questions and was sometimes aimed at bringing Luther back home.[14] Orthodox voices are beginning to be heard, but they are few in number and cautious in their opinions.[15] The issue for Marxist interpretation was, in any event, not a more acute understanding of Luther’s theology.

Is there such a thing as a central question, a guiding theme in Luther’s theology? It is a popular assumption that Luther’s primary concern was with the question: How can I find a gracious God? In this light Luther’s theology appears to be psychologically conditioned, oriented to an egoistic notion of salvation that is no longer conceivable today, and thus completely out of date. Theodosius Harnack placed the doctrine of reconciliation and redemption at the center of his presentation of Luther. In the context of liberal Protestant theology in the second half of the nineteenth century, that was a courageous and demanding task. The American Methodist theologian Philipp S. Watson sees Luther’s theology from the point of view let God be God! and views the Reformer as having been concerned with God’s divinity. It is certainly just as appropriate to begin with Luther’s theologia crucis (Walther von Loewenich, differently also Klaus Schwarzwäller) or to make the victory of faith the guiding thread (Lennart Pinomaa). Gerhard Ebeling understands Luther’s theology as a language event resulting from a hermeneutics of the word of God and likewise aiming toward such a hermeneutics.

In my view Luther’s theology points toward something that is twofold and at the same time singular, namely the glory of God and the salvation of human beings. According to Luther, evangelical doctrine is directed to God’s glory and human salvation, something that, however, as Luther bitterly avows, does not interest people.[16] The glory of God consists in this: that God is our benefactor.[17] Here Luther is connecting with a guiding thread from the ancient church as expressed by Irenaeus of Lyons in his phrase gloria Dei vivens homo—the glory of God is the human being fully alive.[18] It is not that every individual theme in Luther’s theology can be derived from this phrase, but it does constitute a scarlet thread throughout his altogether pastoral theology. It is in service of liberation from sin, death, and the devil and is meant to encourage toward life, action, and the joy of living: ubi Christus, ibi gaudium est.[19] The Reformation was a pastoral movement!

Luther’s works still serve as a treasure trove of lovely citations. Paul Althaus, and also Oswald Bayer, may have had an unspoken desire to make them available and not allow them to become things of the past. But that is by no means enough any more. It is no longer adequate to place oneself, in thought and language, within the sixteenth century and there rejoice in Luther’s pithy expressions. The Enlightenment, the technological revolution, and globalization have all too obviously inserted themselves between Luther and the people of today. It is therefore striking that—apart from some confessional shadow-boxing—there has still never been a real theological confrontation with Luther. Walther von Loewenich was probably the last to warn impressively against treating Luther uncritically. The challenges he articulated in his broadly conceived work, Luther und der Neuprotestantismus,[20] have by no means been laid to rest. It is also inadequate to do theology as a follower of Luther without really confronting him in the first place.[21] Whereas the concern of Luther scholarship in the twentieth century was to liberate Luther from the encrustations acquired in the history of his influence and to arrive at the genuine Luther of the sixteenth century, the task of today’s work on Luther must be to bring the Reformer into contact with the present confessional, religious, and cultural situation.[22] That is impossible apart from the critical question of what in Luther’s thought can still be usable, still be acceptable, and where theology, even a theology consciously rooted in Luther, must distance or even separate itself from him. It is a matter of questioning the quasi-normative authority accorded [Luther] in Protestantism, for which we can scarcely name any comparable parallels in other Christian confessions,[23] and possibly of rejecting it. For that reason the individual chapters in this book will be framed, at the beginning by an attempt at placing the particular problem complex in the context of current theological discussion, and at the end by a critical evaluation. The questions posed at the beginning may arouse curiosity about how Luther attacked the problem complex at issue. In the course of the exposition of his views, however, other questions may emerge. The critical evaluation will look back again at Luther from the perspective of current perceptions and test those places where his position can be defended and where it must be corrected or augmented.

Cf. Hamm 1982. Recently Johann von Staupitz has emerged more prominently in research; on him see Berndt Hamm, Johann von Staupitz (ca. 1468–1524)—spätmittelalterlicher Reformer und ‘Vater’ der Reformation, ARG 92 (2001): 6–42, and Leppin 2006, esp. 72–76; 78–88; 97–100.↵

On this see especially Leppin 2006, who sees the Reformer as moving more and more toward the margins of the Reformation process after 1525.↵

But cf. Junghans 1983.↵

Cf. Lohse 1995; Bayer 2003; Korsch 2007 (2006); Suda 2006.↵

Compare Paul Althaus, Die christliche Wahrheit. Lehrbuch der Dogmatik (Gütersloh: Mohn, 51957) with Althaus 1962.↵

Peters 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994.↵

Ebeling 1989.↵

Haustein 1990. It is not even mentioned in the Luther Handbook edited by Albrecht Beutel (Handbuch 2005).↵

Cf. Lohse 1995, 355.↵

Bayer 2003, 303. Bayer devotes three lines to this problem on p. 4 and ten lines on p. 303.↵

Lohse 1995, 356–67.↵

Cf. the annual Luther bibliography in the Lutherjahrbuch!↵

Karl-Heinz zur Mühlen, in Handbuch 2005, 483.↵

Cf. Jos E. Vercruysse, Luther in der römisch-katholischen Theologie und Kirche, LuJ 63 (1996): 103–28.↵

Cf., e.g., Luther et la Réforme Allemande dans une Perspective oecumenique. Les Études Théologiques de Chambésy 3 (Chambésy: Editions du Centre orthodoxe du Patriarcat oecuménique, 1983), as well as Marios Begzos, Luther im Licht der Orthodoxen Theologie, EEΘΣΠA(EETHSPA) 37 (2002): 467–79.↵

WA 47, 483, 22: . . . doctrina nunc ist gerichtet ad gloriam Dei et salutem hominum.↵

LW 25, 516 (WA 56, 520, 20): . . . gloria eius est, Quod beneficus in nos est.↵

Adv. Haer. IV, 7. Quite appropriately, in Luther’s sense, the Protestatio of the evangelical Estates in Speyer formulates: this is about matters touching God’s glory and the salvation and beatitude of our souls. . . . Quoted from Bayer 2003, 301.↵

WA 20, 365, 13-14: where Christ is, there is joy.↵

von Loewenich 1963.↵

Cf. Dietrich Korsch, Dogmatik im Grundriss. Eine Einführung in die christliche Deutung menschlichen Lebens mit Gott (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 5–6; but cf. Korsch 2007!↵

Korsch 2007, 4, wants to see his interpretation understood as a touchstone for the possibility of a productive relating of Protestantism to the current culture of conflict.↵

Kaufmann 2005, 484.↵

3

Entry Points

We can imagine the widest variety of points of entry into Luther’s theology: by way of biography, the history of influence, the various interpretations of Luther, the attempt to locate Luther within the history of theology, and finally even by way of a reflection on Luther’s philosophical abilities. All these approaches have their specific advantages and disadvantages.

Luther’s Biography

If anyone wants to get acquainted with a difficult intellectual oeuvre, an approach by way of the author’s biography has much to recommend it. Especially in the context of Christian faith, theology and biography should have a lot to do with one another. In many cases the correspondence is impressive and revealing: consider Dietrich Bonhoeffer or Karl Barth, but equally Augustine or Paul. It is true that this approach remains ambivalent: looking at biography can also obscure a theological approach or muffle a theological statement; in any case it remains subordinate to the analysis of a theoretical approach. Truth is incarnate in biography but also transcends it. This basic consideration alone can give a preacher the courage to enter the pulpit. The Reformation is not founded on Luther’s biography! This is not the place to go into detail,[1] but we may be permitted a few remarks:

We can turn to Luther’s image and ask: what does this face say? New portraits emerged again and again in the course of Luther’s life: in 1520 the ascetic monk, in 1521 the innocent Junker Jörg, in 1523 the scholar with the doctor’s hat surrounded by a halo, and finally the elderly Luther, portly and wearing a fur collar. How do these pictures relate to his writings?

We can leaf through Luther’s table talk and letters. In contrast to Thomas Mann, I would very much like to have been Luther’s dinner guest. I am not surprised that in the course of years a good deal of this table talk was written down and ultimately published. It conveys a vivid portrait of the Reformer, who was less discreet in weighing his words at home than he was in his public appearances.[2]

An approach to Luther through his letters also recommends itself, especially the last letters to his wife, the dear wife, Katherine von Bora, preacher, brewer, gardener, and whatsoever else she may be.[3] It makes sense, of course, to look for theologically oriented biographies of the Reformer, that is, depictions that attempt to blend biographical and theological development.[4] In the process one may encounter psychological discussions: what was Luther’s relationship to his parents? Is his concept of God explained by a father-complex? How should we interpret his anxiety neuroses and depressions? Was Luther’s theology the ideological systematizing of the emotions of a man subject to melancholy?[5] Is it the result of an identity crisis that did not reach a proper resolution?[6] Quite certainly the basic forms of a theology have to do with the basic forms of fear in the one who proposes it. The fundamental connections are undeniable. No faith and no theology comes to be without psychological implications. The question, of course, is whether it remains mired in fixations or arrives at a fruitful crisis, whether there are indications of irreversible destructive movements or signs of an intellectual and spiritual process of growth. The psychological approach, in isolation at least, can offer only limited progress toward the goal. At the same time, the psychological approach is helpful when inquiring about the present-day relevance of Luther’s individual theological statements.

Another possible way of approaching Luther’s theology by way of his biography would be to search for his understanding of himself.[7] How did he see himself; what was his estimation of himself? Apparently he experienced his mission as a task given him by God. He calls himself the prophet of the Germans.[8] But he also asks himself: Do you suppose that all previous teachers were ignorant? Are our forefathers all fools in your eyes? Are you the one latter-day nest egg of the Holy Spirit?[9] He had to deal with the fact that people took him as their reference, but he finds that they believe not in Luther but in Christ himself. The word has them, and they have the word. They pay no heed to Luther, whether he be a knave or a saint. God can speak through Balaam as well as Isaiah, through Caiaphas as well as through Peter, yes, even through an ass. I subscribe to their opinion. I myself do not know Luther either, nor do I want to know him, nor do I preach anything about him, but about Christ.[10] I myself do not know Luther: try plugging your own name in there if you want to be clear about what that statement means!

History of Influence

Access to Luther’s theology by way of the history of its influence is difficult to the extent that it has been variously interpreted and evaluated depending on one’s standpoint: compare only the evaluation of Luther in the former German Democratic Republic with that in the Federal Republic; it is also different in western and southern Europe from what it is in Germany. It is true that many Protestant churches throughout the world celebrate Reformation Day and sing A Mighty Fortress in translation, but in the Protestant world (numbering about 380 million members in 2008) Luther has a much lower standing than the Lutheran churches (some 60 million members) imagine. Besides, the history of influence is hard to grasp and to judge according to well-defined criteria.

Of course, it is easiest to perceive the effects of Luther’s theology in the spheres of church history and the history of theology, but the consequences in the politico-social sphere should not be overlooked either. His understanding of the universal, mutual, and common priesthood of the faithful is unquestionably part of the early history of modern democracy. His active engagement on behalf of schools and education as well as for an organized diaconal service was not without consequences. His new valuing of one’s work or profession as a calling contributed, over the centuries, to an understanding of professional work as not primarily a job in which one engages in order to support oneself, but as fulfillment. In view of the current situation of the labor market, however, and the demands for mobility and flexibility, here also new theological paths must be opened. In the realm of intellectual history Luther’s significance for the German language and respect for the word in general can scarcely be overestimated.[11] In the field of music as well, especially church music, Luther has left his traces. The Lutheran hymnal contains more than thirty songs that are traced to him in whole or in part, in text and/or melody: new versions of psalms, hymns, liturgical pieces, and free poetic compositions.

Here let me add a few of the more technical difficulties that impede a further history of influence. Essential parts of Luther’s oeuvre are in Latin, and a knowledge of Latin is something almost no one possesses any longer. But even Luther-German presents a problem today: what was once noted as a strength of the Reformer, his way of working with language, now appears as a handicap, as evidenced even in reactions to the revised Luther Bible. The ability to read early modern high German texts in the original must be deliberately revived and practiced. Apart from that, however, the world of language itself has changed; Luther’s images and comparisons no longer have the same impact they once did. The agrarian-patriarchal culture of a small provincial Saxon town with, at the time, about two thousand inhabitants is most certainly not our own. Luther is hard to take! While he could still be regarded as modern in the nineteenth century, he appears today as pre-modern or even anti-modern. We will have to see how and to what extent he could come to be regarded as postmodern.[12]

Luther’s theology cannot be understood solely in terms of the history of its influence, but that history does place it in a critical light. We certainly cannot make Luther responsible for everything that came of the Reformation. Nevertheless, we must examine the connections that may be there.

Interpretations of Luther

Interpretations within Protestantism

In the course of time, socio-cultural developments, and trends in fashion, interpretations of Luther have obviously changed as well, though in every age they depend on the particular point of view. Within Protestantism people have repeatedly appealed to Luther to legitimate themselves, support their own opinions, or advance them as critique of others. For Lutheran orthodoxy, Luther represented the guarantee of correct teaching: God’s word and Luther’s teaching will never fade away or vanish! But there was serious theological inquiry about Luther’s place in salvation history. Orthodox dogmatics was familiar with a piece on Luther’s calling: De vocatione beati Lutheri.[13] Reference was made to the angel in Revelation (Rev 14:6) with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation and tribe and language and people. Sermons on this text were common on Reformation Sunday. A song composed in southern Germany (but no longer included in the Lutheran hymnal) rejoiced that out of midnight came an evangelical man who took up the Scriptures, let human teaching fail and revealed the plans of God’s word; salvation illumines us all and none can turn it aside.[14] This was written during Luther’s own lifetime.

Pietism was ambivalent with regard to Luther: on the one hand he was seen as an example of an enlightened human being, on the other as a reformer whose work still required completion. Philipp Jakob Spener, in his reforming program Pia desideria and in his writings on the spiritual priesthood, referred specifically to Luther; Gottfried Arnold, in contrast, turned Luther’s critique of Rome against the Lutheran church of his own time. For him Luther was by no means an unassailable authority. At least since the rise of Pietism there has been no fixed interpretation of Luther even within Lutheranism.

The Enlightenment exalted Luther as one who prepared the way for reason and freedom of conscience, someone who led humanity out of the Middle Ages! But some Enlightenment figures desired to continue Luther’s work. Frederick the Great found that in any case the secularization of church property had done good things for the public treasury. Only with the beginnings of research on Luther in the nineteenth century came the first efforts at an objective picture of Luther’s person and theology. Of course, an essential precondition for that was the work, beginning in 1883, on a critical edition of Luther’s works, the Weimarana. Theodosius Harnack made the first major attempt to understand the uniqueness of Luther’s theology in a two-volume work in which he developed the tension between Law and Gospel and recalled Luther’s words about the hidden God, something that until that time had been almost forgotten.[15]

The so-called Luther Renaissance, which tried to understand Luther’s theology apart from its embeddedness in the history of theology, is associated with the name of Karl Holl. Holl himself interpreted Luther’s faith with a strongly ethical accent, as a religion of conscience. This view survived well into the time between the two World Wars, preparing the way at the same time for the Nazi alienation of Luther by means of the German Christians. There was a search for a species-specific German religion and a pride in the fact that the Germans did not need to derive their religion from Palestine because they had their Luther. His theology was located between German mysticism and German idealism and augmented with misty statements about belief in fate and the primeval sentiments of Nordic humanity.[16] The church historian Hans Preuss, subjectively pious but politically naïve, who played a prominent role in the burning of books in the palace square at Erlangen on the orders of the Nazis, wrote a book entitled Martin Luther, der Deutsche.[17] After the war the Marxists in East Germany set about reconstructing their Luther. First he was seen as a servant of princes whose emancipatory significance was far inferior to that of Thomas Müntzer. But the more the DDR was stabilized, the more intensely was Luther claimed as the pioneer of the early bourgeois revolution and an opponent of established relationships, until finally he was prized as a source of foreign exchange.[18]

Current interpretations of Luther within Lutheranism strive for a historically objective picture. There seems to be no overarching theological perspective, probably because at the moment there are no ideological positions anyone hopes could be sustained by reference to Luther, or because Luther is no longer suitable for such a campaign.

The conclusion: in dealing with Luther’s theology one must be on guard against oneself so as not to impose models of interpretation that may, without one’s noticing it, import one’s own prejudices or preferences. Obviously, particular caution is required in the case of those who claim Luther’s support for their own positions. Ultimately Luther’s theology demands not imitation but transposition and further development.

Ecumenical perspectives

In the nature of things, Roman Catholic interpretation of Luther took a different course. For centuries the polemic of Johannes Cochlaeus governed the Catholic image of Luther, and at the end of the twentieth century there were still those who appealed to it.[19] After Luther’s death it was said that he committed suicide; a wound he caused accidentally with his dagger during his days as a student of jurisprudence was said to have resulted from a duel and even a murder. At the beginning of the twentieth century the Dominican Heinrich Denifle interpreted Luther’s break with church authority pansexually: according to Denifle the Reformation served the purpose of moral and especially sexual liberation. He saw in Luther a preponderance of the three great passions of lust, anger, and pride; Luther’s gospel proved at first to be a school, a seminar of sins and vices.[20] Hartmann Grisar, also a Dominican, did not reproach Luther on moral grounds but attributed his theology to psychosomatic suffering, morbid fantasies, and an exceptional degree of self-absorption. With Joseph Lortz began a Catholic interpretation of Luther that can be taken seriously. He interpreted Luther as the victim of truly regrettable conditions in the church of his time but reproached him for not having fully listened to Sacred Scripture. In a certain sense Otto Hermann Pesch still followed this line of thinking when he saw Luther as the victim of an isolated philosophical tradition and regretted that the Reformer was not a Thomist.[21] Ultimately there were advocates of the thesis that Vatican II would have been Luther’s council. Peter Manns was able to praise him as a spiritual figure and Pope John Paul II affirmed Luther’s deep piety, driven by his burning passion for the question of eternal salvation.[22]

What has been Luther’s reception in the Orthodox churches? First, it is striking that Luther’s works are not accessible in Greek or Russian. The Reformation is regarded as a Western phenomenon, a heresy that arose out of a schism. It characterizes the crisis of the West and represents a reaction to the institutionalization of the church; from that point of view it is history’s revenge for the separation of the Roman church from Byzantium. It can be positively interpreted when regarded as a development made necessary by the schism of 1054. Orthodox opinions on Luther should be evaluated against the background of the fact that Orthodoxy, from many points of view, has become a battleground between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, with both sides seeking to win converts there. A synod in Constantinople in 1836 called Luther a heresiarch, an arch-heretic. It seems natural to Orthodox theologians to accuse the Reformation of having introduced an unneeded new principle into theology and not having paid attention to the criteria of the ancient church. The results have been an overvaluation of the individual, subjectivism, and ultimately rationalism. What is seen as positive in Luther is his critique of the Roman system, his appeal to Sacred Scripture, and his emphasis on the position and value of theology.[23] Of course, from an Orthodox perspective the question remains: Did Luther bring to light the true Gospel and simultaneously lose sight of the church?

It is obvious that today Luther has to be encountered and responded to in an ecumenical context. Precisely the critical questions directed at Luther from non-Protestant churches lead us farther. They are concentrated in four areas:

Gospel without church?

Christ at the expense of trinitarian faith?

The human being without a proper God-given potential?

Faith without love?

But Luther must, in turn, be brought into the ecumenical context. He is not Protestant property![24]

Within Protestantism it is necessary to ask again about Luther’s position in salvation history. The Reformation, contrary to its intention, did not encompass all Christianity; it did not fully succeed. Lutheran theology—despite being exported to the United States—seems to remain in some sense tied to central and northern Europe, and indeed to German-speaking regions. This raises again the question of the meaning of the Reformation, the present function of Protestantism, and the task of the Protestant diaspora. Finally, I find it to be a theological and spiritual challenge that the de-Christianization of Europe has advanced most rapidly in the core territories of the Reformation.

Luther as Theologian

Anyone who wants to understand Luther’s theology must of course locate it within the history of theology, in the context in which it arose.

Traditions

As an Augustinian monk, Luther from the outset had a particular affinity for Augustine, whom he understood more as a theologian than as a philosopher. He was aided in this by a special interest in Augustine in Erfurt at the time. What is especially interesting today in theological disputes and discussions is his relationship to Thomas Aquinas. We now know that Luther did study Thomas, but the man from Aquino was not the center of his theological interest. Thus, for example, he did not write a tractate contra Thomam, and we must suppose that he had Thomists more than Thomas in mind when he called Thomas the source and wellspring of all error and heresy on earth and the destruction of godly doctrine.[25]

It is true that in the Reformer’s time Thomas did not hold the dominant position in theology that would be accorded him later: it was only after Luther’s death, namely in 1567, that he was named a Doctor of the Church, and in 1923 that he was called the Universal Doctor; since 1879 his work has been considered the guideline for teaching Catholic theology. The new Code of Canon Law of 1983 still says that those studying theology are to learn to penetrate more intimately the mysteries of salvation, especially with St. Thomas as a teacher.[26] In some sense the intensive adoption of Thomas in the Roman Catholic Church is a reaction to Luther’s theology!

Three points of view are especially significant with regard to Luther’s dependence on nominalism, or particularly on William of Ockham. According to Ockham knowledge begins with the analysis of the individual object; this puts a strong accent on experience. Then Ockham emphasized the authority of revelation, since we can have no immediate experience of the transcendent world. His idea of God is ultimately connected with this: he attributed to God a potentia absoluta, namely, a freedom with respect to everything outside God that borders on caprice, and at the same time a potentia ordinata by which God limits God’s own self. We cannot deny that there are points of contact here with Luther’s theology; the extent to which there is direct dependence is a matter of discussion. On the whole it seems that Catholic research on Luther has overestimated the influence of nominalism on him. Ockham himself, indeed, criticized the court conditions of his time, the papacy and its involvement in political power games, something that may again suggest we should see in Luther a certain degree of affinity with Ockham.[27]

Luther’s relationship to neo-Platonism and mysticism is disputed. All those who desire in some sense to claim Luther for esotericism try to find some appropriate positive material here,[28] while those authors who share the traditional Protestant prejudice against all mysticism and enthusiasm try to make counter-arguments. As regards the historical Luther, we can mention three primary strands of mysticism:

The young Luther took account of Dionysius the Areopagite and praised him, though with some reservations: mystical theology is not garrulous, but is aware of the spirit’s leisure and of silence, being drawn into ecstasy, and this creates the true theologian.[29] In his early years he had a special admiration for Johannes Tauler.[30] But he was already skeptical about mystical speculations on the inner obscurity of God; Luther considered Christ’s sufferings much more important. Ultimately he warned against a mystical theology that was more inclined to follow Plato than Christ. It is very revealing to compare Luther’s words about the hidden God with those of Nicholas of Cusa.

Fields of work

Luther was not a specialized dogmatist, church historian, or practical theologian; it was only in the seventeenth century that the various theological disciplines were separated. Luther saw himself as an interpreter of Scripture and a theologian in a broad sense. He is an exegete who concerned himself with translation from the original languages, seeking to discover the literal meaning of a scriptural passage and interpret it with a clear purpose: his interest was in the glory of God and the salvation of humans. This is expressed most clearly in his sermons and in his catechisms, which grew in part from his preaching. As a systematic theologian he drew his insights from Sacred Scripture, while as a scriptural interpreter and translator he was guided by his systematic-theological insights. The result was an astonishing coherence in his thought, even though throughout his life he remained averse to closed theological systems. For him Scripture and its interpretation were at the service of proclamation and pastoral care; his objective was an applied theology. His theological method consisted of a back-and-forth of listening to Sacred Scripture and systematic reflection on it in the service of human beings. Especially in the present situation, when theology is drifting