Three Great Scapegoats, Part I
This post got rather long. Feel free to read it in installments. For that matter, as Lemony Snicket would say, you're welcome to set it aside right now and read something more pleasant, such as Peter Rabbit.
Well, my wife and I just took a new step into the 21st Century the other night when I came home with our first DVD player - nothing fancy, just one of the little "Symphonic" players that Wal-Mart is selling by the crateload for $38. But it's doing the trick. Soon I intend to get the complete boxed set of Jackson's "Lord of the Rings", but for now our DVD collection includes "Mary Poppins 40th Anniversary Edition", "10 Roy Rogers Episodes" (that one was the most promising selection in the bargain bin), and the 2004 "Luther" movie starring Joseph Fiennes - which brings us to the main subject of this post.
It's a shame that "Luther" barely made a dent in the box office. It's really pretty good, though perhaps not an all-time classic. Curious that it bombed in the same year that "Passion" was so popular, though my wife offered an explanation that makes sense. Perhaps people thought the Luther movie looked too "churchy". Ironically lots of people in our society don't see Jesus as being "churchy." People who would never step inside a church still find Jesus interesting (sometimes they project their own wishes & pet beliefs on Him rather than getting to know Him as He really is, but that's a subject in itself). People stay away often because they feel hurt by the Church in some way. Yet many of them don't blame Christ for it.
It's right, of course, that Jesus is more popular than Luther (for that matter, He remains more popular than John Lennon and the Beatles, but I digress...). I think Luther himself would say with John the Baptist, "He must increase and I must decrease" (John 3:30).
It does look, though, like video sales are pretty good - the DVD is ranked #162 at Amazon, which is pretty good. Perhaps right now lots of fellow members of "Thrivent Financial For Lutherans" are doing what I'm doing - getting the video in time to send in a $5 rebate coupon in time for the Feb. 15th deadline.
In Church History I see Three Great Scapegoats, namely Constantine, Augustine, and Luther. All three were Christian leaders who rightfully are praised for their strong points (Augustine & Luther especially had very large minds), are rightfully criticized for their weak points, but even more so, wrongfully get blamed for lots of things that really aren't their fault. I was originally going to call them THE Three Great Scapegoats, but there could be other ones I haven't thought of, and none of them has received a fraction of the blame as what Christ Himself has received. Come to think of it, Paul falls into the "scapegoat" category too, certainly occupying a position above the "Three", though of course still below Christ in every way.
Martin Luther, for his part, gets blamed for a host of things. Some decry him as a "rebel", though no reformer tried harder to avoid a schism than he did, and nobody wanted a denomination named after himself less than he did. He had a bull-headed, cantankerous streak, but that's not the same thing as being deliberately rebellious. Some Protestants think he didn't go far enough as a reformer, by leaving in "Catholic" doctrines such as baptismal regeneration. Some call him "deranged", some consider him a proto-Nazi, though the things he said against the Jews (which I think he was wrong to say) were no harsher than things he said against Roman church officials, or "murderous hordes of peasants", or Calvinistic reformers, or anyone else who became his adversary. Some blame him for doubting the canonicity of certain Bible books such as James, though in fact other Augustinians before him had done the same thing - it wasn't his own innovation (and his opinion of James, etc., improved as he got older).
On the other hand, some who like him create him in their own image, and credit him for things he would have rejected. An admissions rep from a well-known Calvinistic grad school (at which I didn't matriculate) once told me, "I understand Luther was a Calvinist." He intended it as a compliment. He meant that in his mind, writings of Luther such as "The Bondage of the Will" logically led to Calvinistic conclusions about grace and election. Yet it was part of Luther's very nature "not to go there", not to let reason lead him to any conclusion that diminished Christ's free offer of salvation to all.
So like the other Great Scapegoats, he produces a sharp divide among those who behold him. "The thoughts of many hearts are revealed" (Luke 2:35). As for me, I actually come away from my first viewing of the movie, appreciating Luther the most that I have at any time since my seminary days. He had a large mind, and a sincere desire to have a right relationship with God and to serve Him faithfully. He rightfully protested the multiple errors related to the sale of indulgences, the commercialization and corruption of the Church, and the lack of clear teaching about salvation by grace through faith in a loving God revealed in Jesus Christ (though of course it was not totally absent from the Church - the movie does a good job with Luther's superior in the Augustinian order, Johann von Staupitz, a God-loving, compassionate man of integrity who did much to steer Luther in the right direction). As for Joseph Fiennes, it was a bit hard for me to get used to his narrow face when I'm so used to the stocky, square-jawed look of Luther's actual portrait. It was easier than I expected to put behind me the memory of Fiennes' role as a viciously amoral Nazi in "Schindler's List". I partly agree & partly disagree with Roger Ebert that Fiennes put too much wavering doubt and too little conviction into his portrayal of Luther. I think he did overplay the "doubt" thing, but in real life I believe Luther truly was stunned by the unexpected consequences of his attempt to reform the Church from the inside, and I doubt that he reacted to it like some kind of marble statue. As for the conviction, I think there was plenty of it in the film. He clearly is portrayed as one who said and did what he thought was right, regardless of how terrified he may have been of the outcome.
His theological development, especially his key doctrines concerning faith and grace, isn't developed very thoroughly, though there are some interesting vignettes. Orthodox viewers may find a scene interesting, in which Luther is in class listening to the professor lecture on the then-recently reaffirmed doctrine that "outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation", to which Luther replies, "what of the Greek Christians? Are the saints of the Greek Church damned?" Whether that's based upon an actual classroom event I don't know. I know he wrote on the subject.
The movie is more honest than the old 1953 "Martin Luther" film about the Peasant Wars - more honest in that I don't think they get touched upon at all in the older film.
Anyway, I overall give a positive recommendation to the film, at least as a good discussion starter, an introduction to Luther, but by no means the final word. As for Luther himself, he is neither as perfect as some people hold him to be, nor as bad as others consider him. His impact came partly because people in Germany were already angry with the Roman Church. He didn't march in and stir up trouble where none existed before. It came partly because he truly had a large mind and a large vision. It came partly because of his sincerity and love (the movie gives some vignettes which, though probably fictionalized, show a neglected truth - that he wasn't just a lofty leader, but a parish pastor loved by the people in his church, winning them over by his integrity and compassion). And I believe (not just because I happen to be a Lutheran by affiliation) that he truly had some important things to say from Scripture that people needed to hear.
There's a multi-volume, encyclopedic edition of Luther's Works edited by church historian extraordinaire Jaroslav Pelikan. It represents much of Pelikan's life work. Pelikan was Lutheran for most of his career, but in 1998 joined the Orthodox Church, which has its quarrels with both Augustine and Luther. It's interesting in that light that no quotes from Pelikan are floating around which pooh-pooh the importance of either Augustine or Luther. In Pelikan's "The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition", written while he was a Lutheran, he speaks of their importance, neither fawning over them nor belittling them, but acknowledging their tremendous influence and originality, giving credit where credit is due. Never has Pelikan said that all the time and effort he spent on Luther was wasted. Whatever our persuasion or affiliation, let's not be too quick to dismiss genius or slow to acknowledge the best that Luther offers.
Well, my wife and I just took a new step into the 21st Century the other night when I came home with our first DVD player - nothing fancy, just one of the little "Symphonic" players that Wal-Mart is selling by the crateload for $38. But it's doing the trick. Soon I intend to get the complete boxed set of Jackson's "Lord of the Rings", but for now our DVD collection includes "Mary Poppins 40th Anniversary Edition", "10 Roy Rogers Episodes" (that one was the most promising selection in the bargain bin), and the 2004 "Luther" movie starring Joseph Fiennes - which brings us to the main subject of this post.
It's a shame that "Luther" barely made a dent in the box office. It's really pretty good, though perhaps not an all-time classic. Curious that it bombed in the same year that "Passion" was so popular, though my wife offered an explanation that makes sense. Perhaps people thought the Luther movie looked too "churchy". Ironically lots of people in our society don't see Jesus as being "churchy." People who would never step inside a church still find Jesus interesting (sometimes they project their own wishes & pet beliefs on Him rather than getting to know Him as He really is, but that's a subject in itself). People stay away often because they feel hurt by the Church in some way. Yet many of them don't blame Christ for it.
It's right, of course, that Jesus is more popular than Luther (for that matter, He remains more popular than John Lennon and the Beatles, but I digress...). I think Luther himself would say with John the Baptist, "He must increase and I must decrease" (John 3:30).
It does look, though, like video sales are pretty good - the DVD is ranked #162 at Amazon, which is pretty good. Perhaps right now lots of fellow members of "Thrivent Financial For Lutherans" are doing what I'm doing - getting the video in time to send in a $5 rebate coupon in time for the Feb. 15th deadline.
In Church History I see Three Great Scapegoats, namely Constantine, Augustine, and Luther. All three were Christian leaders who rightfully are praised for their strong points (Augustine & Luther especially had very large minds), are rightfully criticized for their weak points, but even more so, wrongfully get blamed for lots of things that really aren't their fault. I was originally going to call them THE Three Great Scapegoats, but there could be other ones I haven't thought of, and none of them has received a fraction of the blame as what Christ Himself has received. Come to think of it, Paul falls into the "scapegoat" category too, certainly occupying a position above the "Three", though of course still below Christ in every way.
Martin Luther, for his part, gets blamed for a host of things. Some decry him as a "rebel", though no reformer tried harder to avoid a schism than he did, and nobody wanted a denomination named after himself less than he did. He had a bull-headed, cantankerous streak, but that's not the same thing as being deliberately rebellious. Some Protestants think he didn't go far enough as a reformer, by leaving in "Catholic" doctrines such as baptismal regeneration. Some call him "deranged", some consider him a proto-Nazi, though the things he said against the Jews (which I think he was wrong to say) were no harsher than things he said against Roman church officials, or "murderous hordes of peasants", or Calvinistic reformers, or anyone else who became his adversary. Some blame him for doubting the canonicity of certain Bible books such as James, though in fact other Augustinians before him had done the same thing - it wasn't his own innovation (and his opinion of James, etc., improved as he got older).
On the other hand, some who like him create him in their own image, and credit him for things he would have rejected. An admissions rep from a well-known Calvinistic grad school (at which I didn't matriculate) once told me, "I understand Luther was a Calvinist." He intended it as a compliment. He meant that in his mind, writings of Luther such as "The Bondage of the Will" logically led to Calvinistic conclusions about grace and election. Yet it was part of Luther's very nature "not to go there", not to let reason lead him to any conclusion that diminished Christ's free offer of salvation to all.
So like the other Great Scapegoats, he produces a sharp divide among those who behold him. "The thoughts of many hearts are revealed" (Luke 2:35). As for me, I actually come away from my first viewing of the movie, appreciating Luther the most that I have at any time since my seminary days. He had a large mind, and a sincere desire to have a right relationship with God and to serve Him faithfully. He rightfully protested the multiple errors related to the sale of indulgences, the commercialization and corruption of the Church, and the lack of clear teaching about salvation by grace through faith in a loving God revealed in Jesus Christ (though of course it was not totally absent from the Church - the movie does a good job with Luther's superior in the Augustinian order, Johann von Staupitz, a God-loving, compassionate man of integrity who did much to steer Luther in the right direction). As for Joseph Fiennes, it was a bit hard for me to get used to his narrow face when I'm so used to the stocky, square-jawed look of Luther's actual portrait. It was easier than I expected to put behind me the memory of Fiennes' role as a viciously amoral Nazi in "Schindler's List". I partly agree & partly disagree with Roger Ebert that Fiennes put too much wavering doubt and too little conviction into his portrayal of Luther. I think he did overplay the "doubt" thing, but in real life I believe Luther truly was stunned by the unexpected consequences of his attempt to reform the Church from the inside, and I doubt that he reacted to it like some kind of marble statue. As for the conviction, I think there was plenty of it in the film. He clearly is portrayed as one who said and did what he thought was right, regardless of how terrified he may have been of the outcome.
His theological development, especially his key doctrines concerning faith and grace, isn't developed very thoroughly, though there are some interesting vignettes. Orthodox viewers may find a scene interesting, in which Luther is in class listening to the professor lecture on the then-recently reaffirmed doctrine that "outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation", to which Luther replies, "what of the Greek Christians? Are the saints of the Greek Church damned?" Whether that's based upon an actual classroom event I don't know. I know he wrote on the subject.
The movie is more honest than the old 1953 "Martin Luther" film about the Peasant Wars - more honest in that I don't think they get touched upon at all in the older film.
Anyway, I overall give a positive recommendation to the film, at least as a good discussion starter, an introduction to Luther, but by no means the final word. As for Luther himself, he is neither as perfect as some people hold him to be, nor as bad as others consider him. His impact came partly because people in Germany were already angry with the Roman Church. He didn't march in and stir up trouble where none existed before. It came partly because he truly had a large mind and a large vision. It came partly because of his sincerity and love (the movie gives some vignettes which, though probably fictionalized, show a neglected truth - that he wasn't just a lofty leader, but a parish pastor loved by the people in his church, winning them over by his integrity and compassion). And I believe (not just because I happen to be a Lutheran by affiliation) that he truly had some important things to say from Scripture that people needed to hear.
There's a multi-volume, encyclopedic edition of Luther's Works edited by church historian extraordinaire Jaroslav Pelikan. It represents much of Pelikan's life work. Pelikan was Lutheran for most of his career, but in 1998 joined the Orthodox Church, which has its quarrels with both Augustine and Luther. It's interesting in that light that no quotes from Pelikan are floating around which pooh-pooh the importance of either Augustine or Luther. In Pelikan's "The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition", written while he was a Lutheran, he speaks of their importance, neither fawning over them nor belittling them, but acknowledging their tremendous influence and originality, giving credit where credit is due. Never has Pelikan said that all the time and effort he spent on Luther was wasted. Whatever our persuasion or affiliation, let's not be too quick to dismiss genius or slow to acknowledge the best that Luther offers.
2 Comments:
Thanks for stopping by, Archangel, and no offense is taken for the extra post. I'm curious how far you believe "the knife needed to cut." There's the matter of the truth of the Faith once delivered, and there's the matter of what power Constantine did (or didn't) have to change Christianity.
I think the Lutheran pastor you're thinking of is Herman Otten, who publishes (or published) the "Christian News". We used to get that paper when I was a teen, but we jettisoned it when it became clear that he was obsessed with the bigotry of Holocaust-denying "historical revisionism".
He has served as a pastor in a Missouri Synod church for decades, but was never approved for their clergy roster.
I think a good book for understanding the real relationship between Augustine's & Luther's thought is "Luther Discovers the Gospel" by Uuras Saarnivaara, published by Concordia Publishing House. A good source to put Lutheran teaching on predestination in perspective (which is not double predestination), is the Formula of Concord, which comes in two parts, the "Epitome" and the "Solid Declaration". Article XI of both deal with the subject of election, and are very illuminating, especially the Solid Declaration, which I personally think is easier to understand.
Epitome: http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.html#XI.%20Election.
Solid Declaration:
http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-sd/election.html
I suppose it's clear that I'm definitely not a Calvinist, but let me say that I've have some wonderful Calvinistic Christian friends, and have appreciated the works of many who happened to be Calvinists. I especially appreciate Francis Schaeffer, who must have been some kind of Calvinist since he was a Presbyterian, though he studiously avoided promoting it, and instead tried his best to promote "mere Christianity", which is one of the things that made him great, IMO.
Post a Comment
<< Home