Our Friend Luther

So I've been reading this massive history of Christianity book the past couple months. This week I finally got up to the Reformation and Martin Luther. One interesting thing this author is pointing out is that there are three possible reactions to a new paradigm: reject it, buy into it, or postpone it. So, when Luther comes along we see the first two. On the Southern (Catholic, Italian) side we see a rejection of Luther's theology. In the North (German, 'fed up with Catholic') we see a wholesale adoption of Luther and the other Reformers of the time.

Now in the case of rejection, it is obvious that it's purely a resistance to change. Much like American Christianity in the face of postmodernism. Then on the other side there's adoption, which is actually a funny thing. If you've paid any attention to the 6000 church denominations that have followed Luther's example of 'protesting', you will realize that just about none of them exist for more than 25 years before their own system becomes as rigid and stale as the traditional church they are rejecting. It's the whole "movement vs. institution" phenomenon that plagues all religions.

Then there's the postponement option. The funny thing here is that postponing a paradigm shift is a lot like damming up a flood: you can put it off, but when the dam breaks the end result is considerably more disasterous than the original flood would have been. As a tangent: in the Reformation Luther prefered Platonic philosophy over that of Aristotle. So, he tried to play down the influence of Aristotle (he shelved it). So, a couple hundred years later, modernity comes onto the scene, pulls Aristotle off the shelf and uses it to crush much of the Protestant thought that had "oppressed" Aristotelian thought. Just one example of the way in which suppressing ideas typically ends up destroying the work of the supressors . . .

Anyway, it should be no secret that Luther (and his followers) ended up in a long, nasty fight with the Pope (and his followers), and the bitterness is the grand inheritance of the religious scene we have grown up in. The book I'm reading refers to it as "mutual vilification". Both sides digging in trenches to win a war that we no longer know why we are fighting, save all the hear-say and propaganda we've been fed for centuries concerning the other side.

In his reaction to Catholicism, Luther came up with three "buzz words" that have, ever since, determined the trajectory of Protestant faith: sola scriptura, sola Christus, sola gratia. These have become the indoctinating structure for us all, but I think we often forget that they can betray us.

sola scriptura = Scripture alone as our rule of faith. For Luther this was a reaction against the Pope's claims toward infallibility. The Pope was making claims completely contrary to the gospel. So, in essence, Luther dethroned him and placed a Bible in his chair. After all we now hold up the Bible as the infallible "spokesman" of God. Before Luther divine authority began with the Pope and had a trickle down effect through the bishops and priests, who eventually disemminated it to the people as they saw fit. Luther declared that instead Scripture was the source that emminated God's will and grace. And, I have no desire at this moment to directly challenge this, but instead to point out a few things. It was after this that we can witness the rise of several things in the church. First we can see the Bible becoming the source of spirituality, which is then much in the fasion of the Pharisees used to gain 'political' power. Those who memorized the most Scripture, or could best employ the Bible in exegetical debate became "little popes" over the people they influenced. This influence was in discontinuity with that of elders/shepherds in Paul's writing. It was also in dissonant to the idea of leadership we find Christ himself voicing: that of service and selflessness. Instead we find men using the Bible for micro-political authority. This leads also to the rise of intellectualism in the church. That spiritual respectability is linked intimately to whether one has a Ph.D. and the class of the seminary they were taught at. Though Luther propagated the "priesthood of all believers" in the end, the movement he created, resulted in a structure not wholly different from that of the Catholic church. Lastly, Luther also failed to see one more influencing power: marketing & Christian consumerism. In the end it is not those who know Scripture best who win, but those who present it in the best way commercially. I find this trend to be very closely connected with the over-emphasis on preaching in all the decendents of Luther.

sola Christus = Christ alone as the center of Scripture and faith. As this is most likely thin ice to critique, I'll briefly say this: if Christ himself did not see equality with God as something to be grasped (Php 2:6), and encouraged people to not call him good, but only God (Lk 18:19), then exactly how valid is it to treat all Scripture as though it speaks of Christ alone? Jesus was one who continually dodged the praise of others so that it might be given to God instead. So, doesn't it seem instead that YHWH should be the center of Scripture and the rule of faith?

sola gratis/sola fide = grace alone as the means of salvation, received through faith. On the one hand I think Luther had it right here. He was offering this as a contrast to the Roman piety of works. Catholicism had for a long time held that grace was from God, but that it was separate from him. God manufactured grace and the Church distributed it. Luther opposed this openly, claiming that grace came strait from God, through Jesus, to the faithful. I agree. Yet, Luther's concept was one where the grace of God stopped there, and that is where I disagree. Luther saw the individual as the vessel into which grace was poured, and this was the final resting place. But, this does not seem to be the way Jesus treated it, nor Paul. Certainly we are to receive it ourselves, but the Church is called to mimic its Lord and pour out what we receive onto the world which God loves (Jn 3:16, R 8:20-25). We are now the means, not the end. So . . . no, grace is not achieved by works, but it is received for works!

I'm learning that I like Luther, because he was just a man. He does not deserve canonization, as we often tend to attempt (inadvertantly) with him. Nor should we see him as another Messiah. He was just a man, who helped shift the Western world into a new paradigm. Still, if we continue to hold onto his ideas as though they are the only true form of Christianity, we stand to miss out on the fact that God is looking to further change the world for the better if we will move beyond tradition into the freshness of faith that will make all things new.