T
Topper17
Guest
Hi CS,
In fact, Luther had a rather ‘special’ and intimate relationship with the devil, a relationship that should be explored. Protestant Biographer Heiko Oberman, who is generally very ‘generous’ towards Luther makes the following comment:
“One delicate question – one that might even be unfitting for any respectable home – may lead back to Luther’s upbringing. The problem cannot be ignored: **if a man is so obviously preoccupied with ideas about and visions of the Devil, does he not require a psychiatrist, or might he not be at least subject to psychological inquiry?” **(Reformed) Oberman, “Luther, Man between God and the Devil”, pg. 106
Later Oberman goes on to make even more pointed comments about Luther’s psychological health.
“He would not likely be offered a professorship (at the University of Wittenberg, now a part of the University of Halle), nor would it be any different in Heidelberg or Marburg……He would be an indisputably successful teacher, but as a colleague he would be irksome and unwilling to bow to majorities…….He would be driven by singular notions about the Devil and the Last Judgment…………
He would be biting and sometimes overly rough toward colleagues with whom he disagreed. Where generalized judgments were concerned, he would outdo anyone, working himself up to furious tirades. He would rant against papists, Jews, lawyers, and high officials………………
A psychiatric analysis would rob Luther of whatever chances he had left of teaching at a present-day university. The diagnosis would be persuasive – Paranoia reformatorica – but the grounds for it must remain irritatingly uncertain, ranging from neurosis to psychosis, from Oedipus complex to mother fixation. Fear of the Lord and abhorrence of the Devil are indicators of disturbed childhood development. And disturbing is what they really are…………….
Nevertheless, there is something to be learned from trying to imagine Luther as our contemporary because **it is his personality and character that are at issue. **Our anachronistic test is so illuminating because questions regarding his commitment cannot simply be shunted aside in an analysis of his person. The man and his cause are both intimately linked that any separation of the two will be at the expense of both. Even this speaks against offering Luther a professorship in our time, which prefers objective scholarship to a personal commitment and vision.” Heiko Oberman, pg. 313-314
This is an interesting combination of comments from this Protestant writer. He admits that Luther had obvious psychological issues, and while he also admits that Luther’s problems would preclude the possibility of being allowed to teach in a modern university, he somehow fails to connect the dots in that he does not bring up the possibility that it could have been Luther’s psychological problems that led to his certainty of his authority, and also hindered him from recognizing that he had no such authority whatsoever.
Biographer Richard Marius, from his excellent biography, describing a letter Luther wrote to Leo in the year before he was excommunicated:
**
“He never had much talent for apology. **Now **he addressed [Pope] Leo in the firm tones of a good German Schoolmaster admonishing an inept but well-meaning child. ** Although he had not attacked Leo personally, he nevertheless declared unremitting war against the papacy itself, he said, Leo was counseled to give up his ‘glory’ – that is, the title of pope – to retire to the parish and live on the income of a simple priest, and to accept all of the doctrinal definitions Luther had proposed. **Then Leo could help Luther reform the Church. In effect, Luther said peace could reign between them if Leo helped destroy the Church. **
The letter looks like a calculated insult, couched in a vocabulary of meekness and friendship but aimed at showing friends as well as enemies – the elector and Spalatin as well as Miltitz and the pope – that no compromise was possible between true Christians and the Antichrist at Rome. But who can tell? Maybe Luther was so swept up in the righteousness of his cause that his letter to the pope seemed to him only a statement of obvious fact to a world in danger.” Marius, pg. 266
Here we have a young priest, monk and university Professor at one of Europe’s least distinguished colleges suggesting that the Pope should abolish his office and help him ‘reform’ the Church.
From these comments, it seems unlikely that Luther was actually capable of seriously considering the views of others, which would mean that even if he had been able to see the consequences of his ‘Reformation’ he would not have been able to alter his course.
ISTM that this display of arrogance demonstrates that Luther was incapable of altering his course and that the ‘final results’ of his Revolt were less important than his belief that the Church needed to be defeated.
God Bless You CS, Topper
I think you are right to raise the issue of Luther’s mental health. After all, he might have been psychologically incapable of truly considering beliefs other than his own. In fact, the literature is full of hints in this regard:
In fact, Luther had a rather ‘special’ and intimate relationship with the devil, a relationship that should be explored. Protestant Biographer Heiko Oberman, who is generally very ‘generous’ towards Luther makes the following comment:
“One delicate question – one that might even be unfitting for any respectable home – may lead back to Luther’s upbringing. The problem cannot be ignored: **if a man is so obviously preoccupied with ideas about and visions of the Devil, does he not require a psychiatrist, or might he not be at least subject to psychological inquiry?” **(Reformed) Oberman, “Luther, Man between God and the Devil”, pg. 106
Later Oberman goes on to make even more pointed comments about Luther’s psychological health.
“He would not likely be offered a professorship (at the University of Wittenberg, now a part of the University of Halle), nor would it be any different in Heidelberg or Marburg……He would be an indisputably successful teacher, but as a colleague he would be irksome and unwilling to bow to majorities…….He would be driven by singular notions about the Devil and the Last Judgment…………
He would be biting and sometimes overly rough toward colleagues with whom he disagreed. Where generalized judgments were concerned, he would outdo anyone, working himself up to furious tirades. He would rant against papists, Jews, lawyers, and high officials………………
A psychiatric analysis would rob Luther of whatever chances he had left of teaching at a present-day university. The diagnosis would be persuasive – Paranoia reformatorica – but the grounds for it must remain irritatingly uncertain, ranging from neurosis to psychosis, from Oedipus complex to mother fixation. Fear of the Lord and abhorrence of the Devil are indicators of disturbed childhood development. And disturbing is what they really are…………….
Nevertheless, there is something to be learned from trying to imagine Luther as our contemporary because **it is his personality and character that are at issue. **Our anachronistic test is so illuminating because questions regarding his commitment cannot simply be shunted aside in an analysis of his person. The man and his cause are both intimately linked that any separation of the two will be at the expense of both. Even this speaks against offering Luther a professorship in our time, which prefers objective scholarship to a personal commitment and vision.” Heiko Oberman, pg. 313-314
This is an interesting combination of comments from this Protestant writer. He admits that Luther had obvious psychological issues, and while he also admits that Luther’s problems would preclude the possibility of being allowed to teach in a modern university, he somehow fails to connect the dots in that he does not bring up the possibility that it could have been Luther’s psychological problems that led to his certainty of his authority, and also hindered him from recognizing that he had no such authority whatsoever.
Biographer Richard Marius, from his excellent biography, describing a letter Luther wrote to Leo in the year before he was excommunicated:
**
“He never had much talent for apology. **Now **he addressed [Pope] Leo in the firm tones of a good German Schoolmaster admonishing an inept but well-meaning child. ** Although he had not attacked Leo personally, he nevertheless declared unremitting war against the papacy itself, he said, Leo was counseled to give up his ‘glory’ – that is, the title of pope – to retire to the parish and live on the income of a simple priest, and to accept all of the doctrinal definitions Luther had proposed. **Then Leo could help Luther reform the Church. In effect, Luther said peace could reign between them if Leo helped destroy the Church. **
The letter looks like a calculated insult, couched in a vocabulary of meekness and friendship but aimed at showing friends as well as enemies – the elector and Spalatin as well as Miltitz and the pope – that no compromise was possible between true Christians and the Antichrist at Rome. But who can tell? Maybe Luther was so swept up in the righteousness of his cause that his letter to the pope seemed to him only a statement of obvious fact to a world in danger.” Marius, pg. 266
Here we have a young priest, monk and university Professor at one of Europe’s least distinguished colleges suggesting that the Pope should abolish his office and help him ‘reform’ the Church.
From these comments, it seems unlikely that Luther was actually capable of seriously considering the views of others, which would mean that even if he had been able to see the consequences of his ‘Reformation’ he would not have been able to alter his course.
ISTM that this display of arrogance demonstrates that Luther was incapable of altering his course and that the ‘final results’ of his Revolt were less important than his belief that the Church needed to be defeated.
God Bless You CS, Topper
)