DBQ: Luther's Reformation Reading:
For this Document Based Question, you are to analyze Chapter 13 The Early Reformation (Pgs. 357 - 368) and review the sources provided below. You are expected to answer the guiding question in full depth with specific historical evidence and supporting details. Please ensure you cite your documents in the paragraph. |
The Reformation of the Western Church in the sixteenth century was precipitated by Martin Luther. A pious German Augustinian monk and theologian, Luther had no intention of founding a new church or overthrowing the political and ecclesiastical order of late medieval Europe. He was educated in the tradition of the New Devotion, and as a theology professor at the university in Wittenberg, Germany, he opposed rationalistic, scholastic theology. Sympathetic at first to the ideas of Christian humanists like Erasmus, Luther too sought a reform of morals and an end to abusive practices within the church. But a visit to the papal court in Rome in 1510 left him profoundly shocked at its worldliness and disillusioned with the papacy's role in the church's governance.
In 1517, Luther denounced the abuses connected with the preaching of papal indulgences in his 95 Theses. The quarrel led quickly to other and more profound theological issues. His opponents defended the use of indulgences on the basis of papal authority, shifting the debate to questions about the nature of papal power within the church. Luther responded with a vigorous attack on the whole system of papal governance. The principal points of his criticism were set out in his Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate, published in August 1520
In 1517, Luther denounced the abuses connected with the preaching of papal indulgences in his 95 Theses. The quarrel led quickly to other and more profound theological issues. His opponents defended the use of indulgences on the basis of papal authority, shifting the debate to questions about the nature of papal power within the church. Luther responded with a vigorous attack on the whole system of papal governance. The principal points of his criticism were set out in his Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate, published in August 1520
Key Concept: Martin Luther criticized Catholic abuses and established new interpretations of Christian doctrine and practice
Guiding Question - Skill: Contextualization
"Luther was both a radical and a conservative"
Assess the validity of this statement in regard to Luther's ideas and actions.
"Luther was both a radical and a conservative"
Assess the validity of this statement in regard to Luther's ideas and actions.
Sources:
Source 1: Martin Luther, Letter to Archbishop, 1517
- As a young man, Martin Luther became increasingly bothered by the practice of granting sinners indulgences to buy their way out of punishment for their sins. In 1517, Luther decided to write up his criticisms of indulgences and to send them to the Archbishop of Mainz. The passage is an excerpt from the letter Luther sent to the Archbishop of Mainz with the 95 Theses.
The grace of God be with you in all its fullness and power! Spare me, Most Reverend Father in Christ and Most Illustrious Prince, that I, the dregs of humanity, have so much boldness that I have dared to think of (writing) a letter to someone of your Sublimity (grandeur)…
Papal indulgences for the building of St. Peter's are circulating under your most distinguished name. I do not bring accusation against the outcries of the preachers, which I have not heard, so much as I grieve over the wholly false impressions which the people have conceived from them (the indulgences). The unhappy souls believe that if they have purchased letters of indulgence they are sure of their salvation.
Papal indulgences for the building of St. Peter's are circulating under your most distinguished name. I do not bring accusation against the outcries of the preachers, which I have not heard, so much as I grieve over the wholly false impressions which the people have conceived from them (the indulgences). The unhappy souls believe that if they have purchased letters of indulgence they are sure of their salvation.
Source 2: Martin Luther, Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate, 1520
"The Romanists [traditional Catholics loyal to the papacy] have very cleverly built three walls around themselves. Hitherto they have protected themselves by these walls in such a way that no one has been able to reform them. As a result, the whole of Christendom has fallen abominably.
In the first place, when pressed by the temporal power they have made decrees and declared that the temporal power had no jurisdiction over them, but that, on the contrary, the spiritual power is above the temporal. In the second place, when the attempt is made to reprove them with the Scriptures, they raise the objection that only the pope may interpret the Scriptures. In the third place, if threatened with a council, their story is that no one may summon a council but the pope.
In this way they have cunningly stolen our three rods from us, that they may go unpunished. They have [settled] themselves within the safe stronghold of these three walls so that they can practice all the knavery and wickedness which we see today. Even when they have been compelled to hold a council they have weakened its power in advance by putting the princes under oath to let them remain as they were. IN addition, they have given the pope full authority over all decisions of a council, so that it is all the same whether there are many councils or no councils. They only deceive us with puppet shows and sham fights. They fear terribly for their skin in a really free council! They have so intimidated kings and princes with this technique that they believe it would be an offense against God not to be obedient to the Romanists in all their knavish and ghoulish deceits.... "
In the first place, when pressed by the temporal power they have made decrees and declared that the temporal power had no jurisdiction over them, but that, on the contrary, the spiritual power is above the temporal. In the second place, when the attempt is made to reprove them with the Scriptures, they raise the objection that only the pope may interpret the Scriptures. In the third place, if threatened with a council, their story is that no one may summon a council but the pope.
In this way they have cunningly stolen our three rods from us, that they may go unpunished. They have [settled] themselves within the safe stronghold of these three walls so that they can practice all the knavery and wickedness which we see today. Even when they have been compelled to hold a council they have weakened its power in advance by putting the princes under oath to let them remain as they were. IN addition, they have given the pope full authority over all decisions of a council, so that it is all the same whether there are many councils or no councils. They only deceive us with puppet shows and sham fights. They fear terribly for their skin in a really free council! They have so intimidated kings and princes with this technique that they believe it would be an offense against God not to be obedient to the Romanists in all their knavish and ghoulish deceits.... "
Source 3: Martin Luther, Table Talk, 1535
- As Luther gained popularity, some of his followers began to write down things that Luther said in private. These notes were known as Luther’s Table Talk and were collected and published in the 1560s. The following is presumed to be from Luther’s Table Talk in 1535.
The main reason I fell out with the pope was this: the pope boasted that he was the head of the Church, and condemned all that would not be under his power and authority. He said, although Christ is the head of the Church, there must be a physical head of the Church upon earth. With this I could have been content, if he had taught the gospel pure and clear, and not introduced human inventions and lies. Further, he took power, rule, and authority over the Christian Church, and over the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God. No man can explain the Scriptures. The pope did and he made himself lord over the Church, proclaiming her (the Church) at the same time a powerful mother, and empress over the Scriptures. This could not be tolerated. Those who, against God's Word, boast of the Church's authority, are mere idiots. The pope gives more power to the Church, which is begotten and born, than to the Word (the bible), which has conceived, and born the Church.
Source 4: Martin Luther, A Mighty Fortress is Our God, hymn, 1527 - 1528
- Martin Luther believed that congregational hymn singing was an important part of a church service and an effective way to teach people about theology. In this tactic he anticipated modern advertisers, who recognize the power of a song or jingle in influencing people’s choices. The two hymns excerpted here show Luther’s ability to convey theological issues into song.
A mighty fortress is our God, A sword and shield victorious;
He breaks the cruel oppressor’s rod And wins salvation glorious. The old satanic foe Has sworn to work us woe! With craft and dreadful might He arms himself to fight On earth he has no equal No strength of ours can match his might! We would be lost, rejected. But now a champion comes to fight, Whom God himself elected. You ask who this may be? The Lord of hosts is he! Christ Jesus, might Lord, God’s only Son, adored. He holds the field victorious Though hordes of devils fill the land All threat’ning to devour us, We tremble not, unmoved we stand; They cannot overpow’r us, Let this world’s tyrant rage; In battle we’ll engage! His might is doomed to fail; God’s judgment must prevail! One little word subdues him. |
Source 5: Martin Luther, Lord, Keep Us Steadfast In Thy Word, hymn 1541 - 1542
Lord, keep us steadfast in thy Word, And curb the pope’s and Turk’s vile sword,
Who seek to topple from the stone Jesus Christ, thine only Son. Proof of thy might, Lord Christ, afford, For thou of all the lords art Lord; Thine own poor Christendom defend, That it may praise thee without end. God Holy Ghost, who comfort art, Give to thy folk on earth one heart; Stand by us breathing our last breath, Lead us to life straight out of death. |
Source 6: Martin Luther, Against the Murdering, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, Wittenberg, May 1525.
- In 1524 the peasants rebelled in Southern Germany and demanded that taxes, serfdom and the sovereignty of the Scriptures be reduced. They were led into rebelling by Thomas Müntzer, a former monk who was in favor of a radical reform. Confronted by the peasants’ war, Luther called for peace, and denounced the deceitful prophets who deluded the people. He described it as the devil’s work even though he was accused of having started it with his ideas. The rebelling peasants were beaten, the repression was terrible and Müntzer was beheaded.
The peasants forgot their place, violently took matters into their own hands, and are robbing and raging like mad dogs. It is clear that the assertions they made in their Twelve Articles were nothing but lies presented under the name of the Gospel. This is particularly the work of that devil, Thomas Müntzer, who rules at Mühlhausen. The peasants are not content with belonging to the devil themselves; they force and compel many good people to join their devilish league. Anyone who consorts with them goes to the devil with them and is guilty of all the evil deeds that they commit.
... I will not oppose a ruler who, even though he does not tolerate the gospel, will smite and punish these peasants without first offering to submit the case to judgement. He is within his rights, since the peasants are not contending any longer for the gospel, but have become faithless, perjured, disobedient, rebellious murders, robbers, and blasphemers, whom even a heathen ruler has the right and authority to punish. Indeed, it is his duty to punish such scoundrels, for this is why he bears the sword and is "the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer," Romans 13(:4).
... I will not oppose a ruler who, even though he does not tolerate the gospel, will smite and punish these peasants without first offering to submit the case to judgement. He is within his rights, since the peasants are not contending any longer for the gospel, but have become faithless, perjured, disobedient, rebellious murders, robbers, and blasphemers, whom even a heathen ruler has the right and authority to punish. Indeed, it is his duty to punish such scoundrels, for this is why he bears the sword and is "the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer," Romans 13(:4).
Secondary Sources:
Did Martin Luther’s Reforms Improve the Lives of European Christians?
If we admit that reform was needed, the next question becomes, “was the reform movement initiated by Luther worth the theological, political, and especially, human cost?” for Bernard M.G. Reardon, Luther was a man completely in tune with his time. Although he remained medieval and unmodern-untouched by the new humanism of people such a s the Dutch thinker Erasmus of Rotterdam-Luther was filled with the dynamism that sprang from his spiritual conviction. Believing himself divinely called to a holy mission, he was able to inspire others to an intense, personal relationship with the God of History and the redeemer of human frailty and despair. Richard Marius is willing to grant that Luther brought a simplicity and clarity to religious practice that was and is a comfort and a welcome spiritual discipline for many people. But he wonders whether the challenges introduced by Erasmus might have brought about a less traumatic, if slower, path to reform that would have left Christianity intact and avoided much suffering and death. Many would have lived more normal lives if Luther had followed a different life journey, with less hatred and bloodshed and perhaps a more serene history for all of us. |
Source 7: Bernard M.G. Reardon
Martin Luther: The Religious Revolutionary
Martin Luther: The Religious Revolutionary
- Bernard M.G. Reardon, retired head of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, contends that Martin Luther was neither a political nor a social reformer. Instead, he was a spiritual genius who created a new religion within Christianity that remained true to its traditional orthodoxy
The influence of Luther’s beliefs and ideas on the whole protestant movement can hardly be overestimated. There were elements in it, no doubt, both doctrinal and ecclesiological, which did not stem from him and which, on certain matters, he vigorously opposed. The divergences in outlook between himself and the Swiss leaders were sometimes…sharply edged. Yet all but the most radical, perhaps, owed him much, and often far more than they were disposed to admit. Spiritually he was a true creator, the Reformation’s most powerful personality and most fertile mind. When he died, prematurely aged, early in 1546, his disciple Melanchthon, the always-faithful ‘Master Phillip’, could only lament, ‘Alas, gone is the horseman and the chariots of Israel!’ For the protestant cause had lost one who, as history already had shown, did more for it than any other human agent. But although Luther proved so great a force for change, giving rise to what was virtually a new religion in Christendom. His though still stayed within the orbit of Catholic orthodoxy. Essentially, his viewpoint was medieval and he was little drawn to the insights and attitudes of the Renaissance. Thus his break with Erasmus resulted not simply from a theological difference, however significant: the two men were remote from one another, in outlook as in temperament, Luther’s resting on the Theocentricity of traditional belief, the humanist’s on his sense of the inherent capacity of men to fashion their own destiny. The former’s medievalism is apparent in his insistence on the objectivity, the sheer ‘giveness’, of revelation and grace, which is the real reason why the charge, so often brought against him by his critics, of individualism and subjectivism is misdirected. The Protestantism in some of its aspects was soon to manifest both is not in question. But Luther himself cannot rightly be accused of them, for what he strove to do was to make religion at once prophetic and personal, to teach men to see it as a relationship between God and humanity which the Almighty in his sovereign freedom himself determines but which is also to be gladly acknowledged and gratefully accepted by each and every man who recognizes himself to be a sinner.
Source 8: Richard Marius Martin Luther: The Christian between God and Death
- Professor emeritus Richard Marius views the Reformation as a catastrophe in the history of Western Civilization. He sees Martin Luther’s challenge as inaugurating more than a century of religious bloodshed that could have been averted if Luther had remained silent.
…My estimation of Luther’s Reformation is much akin to Simon Schama’s of the French Revolution or Richard Pipe’s of the Bolshevik Revolution. They believe that these great upheavals were disasters for the peoples involved, and I believe that Luther represents a catastrophe in the history of Western civilization. This is not to say that the catastrophe was all his fault. All sides have a share of blame in the boiling hatreds and carnage that consumed Europe for well over a century after Luther died. But in my view, whatever good Luther did is not matched by the calamities that came because of him.
Our own bloody century was destroyed for the time being the easy vision of progress that prevailed in the West after the Enlightenment and continued through the nineteenth century. In that vision great historical events represented a forward march across time. Revolutions were part of progress, and although people go hurt in them, occasionally even beheaded or shot, they still marked a moral leap forward in a human crusade toward ever-expanding moral consciousness and virtue. It is impossible for a historian today to hold such a rosy view of the past. We know now that things can go terribly and catastrophically wrong and that all the good that comes from great events does not necessarily or even usually overbalance the evil. Some good came from the Reformation as Luther shaped it, but I remain convinced that our world would have been far better off had events taken a different course.
Luther was successful in that he lived to die a natural death, and the movement he began continued, offering spiritual renewal to many through the intervening centuries. Yet in a myriad of ways his movement failed, and the failure has about it the inevitability of tragedy. In a strict accounting, uncongenial to the religious spirit, we might argue that his movement produced as much spiritual woe as it did consolation
Our own bloody century was destroyed for the time being the easy vision of progress that prevailed in the West after the Enlightenment and continued through the nineteenth century. In that vision great historical events represented a forward march across time. Revolutions were part of progress, and although people go hurt in them, occasionally even beheaded or shot, they still marked a moral leap forward in a human crusade toward ever-expanding moral consciousness and virtue. It is impossible for a historian today to hold such a rosy view of the past. We know now that things can go terribly and catastrophically wrong and that all the good that comes from great events does not necessarily or even usually overbalance the evil. Some good came from the Reformation as Luther shaped it, but I remain convinced that our world would have been far better off had events taken a different course.
Luther was successful in that he lived to die a natural death, and the movement he began continued, offering spiritual renewal to many through the intervening centuries. Yet in a myriad of ways his movement failed, and the failure has about it the inevitability of tragedy. In a strict accounting, uncongenial to the religious spirit, we might argue that his movement produced as much spiritual woe as it did consolation