Bishop Barron: Looking at Luther with fresh eyes

  • Thread starter Thread starter JPUSC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JPUSC

Guest
Looking at Luther with fresh eyes

Bishop Robert Barron

…It is obvious to everyone, Ryrie argues, that Luther was a fighter, taking on not only fellow intellectuals, but the curia, the Pope, and the Emperor himself. And it is equally clear that he bequeathed this feistiness to his followers over these past five centuries: Zwingli, Calvin, Wilberforce, Lloyd Garrison, Billy Sunday, Karl Barth, etc. There is always something protesting about Protestantism. But to see this dimension alone is to miss the heart of the matter. For at the core of Luther’s life and theology was an overwhelming experience of grace. After years of trying in vain to please God through heroic moral and spiritual effort, Luther realized that, despite his unworthiness, he was loved by a God who had died to save him. In the famous Turmerlebnis (Tower Experience) in the Augustinian monastery in Wittenberg, Luther felt justified through the sheer mercy of God. Though many others before him had sensed this amazing grace, Luther’s passion, in Ryrie’s words, “had a reckless extravagance that set it apart and which has echoed down Protestant history.” It is easy enough to see this ecstatic element in any number of prominent Protestant figures, from John Wesley to Friedrich Schleiermacher to John Newton. Luther was an ecstatic, and the religious movement he launched was “a love affair.”

This is why I say Ryrie has caused me to look at Luther in a new light. One of the standard matrices for understanding religion is the distinction between the mystical and the prophetic, or between the experiential and the rational. On the standard reading, Luther would fall clearly on the latter side of this divide. He is, it would seem, the theologian of the word par excellence. And indeed, we can find throughout his writings many critiques of priestcraft, sacramentalism, and what he called Schwarmerei or pious enthusiasm. Nevertheless, if Ryrie is right, this is to get only part, indeed a small part, of the story. At bottom, Luther was a mystic of grace, someone who had fallen completely in love—which helps enormously to explain what makes his theological ideas both so fascinating and so frustrating. People in love do and say extravagant things. So overwhelmed are they by the experience of the beloved that they are given to words such as “only” and “never” and “forever.” If you doubt me, read any of the great romantic poets, or for that matter, listen to a teenager speak about his first crush. After a lifetime of scrupulosity and interior struggle, Luther sensed the breakthrough of the divine grace through the mediation of the Bible. Hence, are we surprised that he would express his ecstasy in exaggerated, over the top language: “By grace alone! By faith alone! By the Scriptures alone!”…

aleteia.org/2017/06/17/looking-at-luther-with-fresh-eyes
 
I have also studied Luther and believe had he access to godly spiritual direction and not been so scandalized by what he saw and witnessed in Rome at the time, the church would not have suffered the ruptured wound it bleeds profusely through today.
 
Looking at Luther with fresh eyes

Bishop Robert Barron

…It is obvious to everyone, Ryrie argues, that Luther was a fighter, taking on not only fellow intellectuals, but the curia, the Pope, and the Emperor himself. And it is equally clear that he bequeathed this feistiness to his followers over these past five centuries: Zwingli, Calvin, Wilberforce, Lloyd Garrison, Billy Sunday, Karl Barth, etc. There is always something protesting about Protestantism. But to see this dimension alone is to miss the heart of the matter. For at the core of Luther’s life and theology was an overwhelming experience of grace. After years of trying in vain to please God through heroic moral and spiritual effort, Luther realized that, despite his unworthiness, he was loved by a God who had died to save him. In the famous Turmerlebnis (Tower Experience) in the Augustinian monastery in Wittenberg, Luther felt justified through the sheer mercy of God. Though many others before him had sensed this amazing grace, Luther’s passion, in Ryrie’s words, “had a reckless extravagance that set it apart and which has echoed down Protestant history.” It is easy enough to see this ecstatic element in any number of prominent Protestant figures, from John Wesley to Friedrich Schleiermacher to John Newton. Luther was an ecstatic, and the religious movement he launched was “a love affair.”

This is why I say Ryrie has caused me to look at Luther in a new light. One of the standard matrices for understanding religion is the distinction between the mystical and the prophetic, or between the experiential and the rational. On the standard reading, Luther would fall clearly on the latter side of this divide. He is, it would seem, the theologian of the word par excellence. And indeed, we can find throughout his writings many critiques of priestcraft, sacramentalism, and what he called Schwarmerei or pious enthusiasm. Nevertheless, if Ryrie is right, this is to get only part, indeed a small part, of the story. At bottom, Luther was a mystic of grace, someone who had fallen completely in love—which helps enormously to explain what makes his theological ideas both so fascinating and so frustrating. People in love do and say extravagant things. So overwhelmed are they by the experience of the beloved that they are given to words such as “only” and “never” and “forever.” If you doubt me, read any of the great romantic poets, or for that matter, listen to a teenager speak about his first crush. After a lifetime of scrupulosity and interior struggle, Luther sensed the breakthrough of the divine grace through the mediation of the Bible. Hence, are we surprised that he would express his ecstasy in exaggerated, over the top language: “By grace alone! By faith alone! By the Scriptures alone!”…

aleteia.org/2017/06/17/looking-at-luther-with-fresh-eyes
I agree with some of the sentiments, and it’s clear that Luther was honest in his writings. But isn’t the cautionary tale that, in spite of all of his learning and talent, he pridefully missed the point and ended up rejecting an orthodox interpretation of the Bible?

I agree that Luther was scandalised, and rightly so, by some of the abuses of his day. But he very quickly moved beyond criticising the abuses to criticising the Church and much that Christians believed. From that point he became detached from Christian theology as it had been known for 1,500 years and denied most of the Sacramemts. It was that point he ceased to be a “reformer” and instead sadly became another schismatic heretic.

The “true reform” came through the Council of Trent a few decades after Luther, which clarified the Church’s position in a number of areas and corrected many misunderstandings which Luther had exploited to promote his own personal interpretions of scripture. In rejecting the Church’s authority he asserted his own, a situation which led to schisms within a few years of the founding of his church when rival theologians made their own claims to interpret scripture authoritatively.
 
I respect Bishop Barron and his theological treatises. Having stated this, I have difficulty rehabilitating the Catholic perspective on Luther through rose-colored lenses, simply because of the Reformation’s (Revolutions) quincentennial being popular in some circles of the Church. Luther’s supposed infusion of grace through study of the Scriptures did NOT ease his vulgar pronouncements, extreme antisemitism (even for his day), nor other unacceptable acts – I have a difficult time believing that whatever spirit Luther received was in fact Holy.
 
I respect Bishop Barron and his theological treatises. Having stated this, I have difficulty rehabilitating the Catholic perspective on Luther through rose-colored lenses, simply because of the Reformation’s (Revolutions) quincentennial being popular in some circles of the Church. Luther’s supposed infusion of grace through study of the Scriptures did NOT ease his vulgar pronouncements, extreme antisemitism (even for his day), nor other unacceptable acts – I have a difficult time believing that whatever spirit Luther received was in fact Holy.
Yeah I agree and while I respect Bishop Barren quite a lot, when you have a one sided presentation of someone like Luther it does provoke a reaction in the opposite direction for those concerned with truth and wary of political correctness and the damage this has done to our church over the preceding decades.
 
I read a book several months ago"The History of Anti-Semitism" and was totally amazed at the anti-semitism of Luther --in fact, the Church apparently was negative and not very happy about his feelings for Jews.
 
I read a book several months ago"The History of Anti-Semitism" and was totally amazed at the anti-semitism of Luther --in fact, the Church apparently was negative and not very happy about his feelings for Jews.
Luther and anti Semitism

Yes, when you read Luther’s comments and Bishop Barrens description of Luther as being in love with God and coming from a place of grace then there really has to be some clarification and a more detailed description.
Reinhold Lewin writes that “whoever wrote against the Jews for whatever reason believed he had the right to justify himself by triumphantly referring to Luther.” According to Michael, just about every anti-Jewish book printed in the Third Reich contained references to and quotations from Luther. Diarmaid MacCulloch argues that Luther’s 1543 pamphlet On the Jews and Their Lies was a “blueprint” for the Kristallnacht. Shortly after the Kristallnacht, Martin Sasse, Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Thuringia, published a compendium of Martin Luther’s writings*; Sasse “applauded the burning of the synagogues” and the coincidence of the day, writing in the introduction, “On November 10, 1938, on Luther’s birthday, the synagogues are burning in Germany.” The German people, he urged, ought to heed these words “of the greatest anti-Semite of his time, the warner of his people against the Jews.”
Christopher J. Probst, in his book Demonizing the Jews: Luther and the Protestant Church in Nazi Germany (2012), shows that a large number of German Lutheran clergy and theologians during the Nazi Third Reich used Luther’s hostile publications towards the Jews and their Jewish religion to justify at least in part the anti-Semitic policies of the National Socialists. Published In 1940, Heinrich Himmler wrote admiringly of Luther’s writings and sermons on the Jews. The city of Nuremberg presented a first edition of On the Jews and their Lies to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, on his birthday in 1937; the newspaper described it as the most radically antisemitic tract ever published. It was publicly exhibited in a glass case at the Nuremberg rallies and quoted in a 54-page explanation of the Aryan Law by Dr. E.H. Schulz and Dr. R. Frercks. On December 17, 1941, seven Lutheran regional church confederations issued a statement agreeing with the policy of forcing Jews to wear the yellow badge, “since after his bitter experience Luther had [strongly] suggested preventive measures against the Jews and their expulsion from German territory.”
I know men are complex but I find it very difficult to reconcile this with Bishop Barron’s claim that Luther was coming from a place of grace.

I understand the desire to be closer to our Lutheran brothers but we must be honest and give a balanced critique.
 
Luther and anti Semitism

Yes, when you read Luther’s comments and Bishop Barrens description of Luther as being in love with God and coming from a place of grace then there really has to be some clarification and a more detailed description.

I understand the desire to be closer to our Lutheran brothers but we must be honest and give a balanced critique.

I know men are complex but I find it very difficult to reconcile this with Bishop’s Barron claim that Luther was coming from a place of grace.
I think people are missing Bishop Barron’s point. Luther was passionately pro-Jewish, early on, more so than was common through most of prior Christian history. But, when he realized his Jewish contemporaries were going to continue to reject the claims of Jesus, he just as passionately turned on them—horribly so. My surmise is that he was so passionate above all about the gospel of grace, as he had experienced it and understood it in the tower, that he turned like a zealous, mad dog on those he thought were spurning Christ.

Luther does not need excuses made for him. Some things he did were inexcusable. But as a description—not an excuse, but a description of what drove Luther—I think Bishop Barron is likely to be close to the mark. God only knows.
 
I agree, being passionate about grace, rather than passionately grace-filled. Big difference, like the difference between studying prayer and actually praying; or learning about Catholicism vs. Practicing the faith
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top