Martin Luther is known as the father of the Protestant Reformation. There is no denying that he was a very smart man. Initially, it seems his heart was in the right place in terms of pointing out some of the things that needed to be addressed in the Church at that time. It is important to remember that prior to Martin, there was one Church, the Catholic Church.
In its 2,000+ year history, the Church has never denied that, at times, it found itself in a place that called for change. At the same time, it never abandoned belief that Jesus would make good on His promise to send the Holy Spirit to protect its teachings in matters of faith and morals. When those times occur, the Church convenes Ecumenical Councils to address the issues. Through the Holy Spirit, the Council guides the Church from the darkness back to the light. That is the fulfillment of the “gates of the netherworld” promise from Christ. What many do not know is that prior to Martin and the Reformation, the Council known as the Fifth Lateran Council had been convened and was addressing the exact issues that Martin raised.
The dictionary defines reform as making changes in something to improve it. It defines revolution as a forceable overthrow in favor of a new system. Perhaps it is more accurate to call what was taking place in the Fifth Lateran Council a reformation, and what took place with Martin a revolution.
Protestant history has been kind to Martin, which is understandable. Books have been written extoling his intelligence, courage, wisdom, and insight. He has been referred to as the savior of the church (although Catholics would give that honor to Christ). While some of that is true, as with any human being, there are some not-so-complimentary things about Martin that never seem to be addressed in many of those books and biographies. If they are addressed at all, it is more in passing. A conversation with many Protestants will reveal a lack of knowledge about Martin in general, about Martin specifically, and certainty about why they believe what they believe. To be fair, there are some Catholics with the same issue about their faith.
Fairness requires an honest look at both sides of Martin’s story. The Catholic Church has certainly been held accountable for its actions for 2,000+ years, as well it should be. But perhaps it would be reasonable to look at some things for which Martin and Protestantism should also be held accountable in the 500 years since the fracture of the Church. In doing so, the intention is not to point fingers, but to simply expose the fact that there is another side to the story. An honest review of Martin’s early life provides obvious clues to what turned out to be his adult life. The beginning would be a good place to start. Many of his biographies focus on his adult life, with only a brief mention of his childhood. We will look at both.
Born in 1483, Martin grew up in a very strict, and some would say, abusive home. His father worked in a copper mine and was an extreme disciplinarian. In fact, Martin said “My father once whipped me so severely that I ran away from him, and he was worried that he might not win me back again.” Further details describe his being “flogged until he bled” and whipped as many as fifteen times a day for minor issues. A first-year psychology student would recognize that this type of environment can lead to neurosis including, isolation, fear, obsessive compulsive disorder, lack of self-esteem, and maybe a clue for his adulthood, disdain for authority. It is also well documented that throughout his life, Martin suffered from severe bouts of depression and mania, as well as serious chronic physical conditions.
Later, as a law student, Martin was walking home and was caught in a violent thunderstorm. Lightening crashed close enough to throw him to the ground. He prayed to St. Anne for help and vowed that if he survived the storm, he would become a priest. It is not unreasonable to view his entry into the priesthood, not as a calling by God that he properly discerned, but rather an in-the-moment deal to save himself. The issue with this is that Jesus gave us the example of how leaders in the Church are to be chosen. They are called by Christ, just as He called the apostles to serve. He did not make a deal with them based upon their fear. He simply called them to follow Him and to teach what He taught them. The importance of that calling and discernment process by those entering the priesthood then, and now, cannot be overstated in terms of the commitment to serve and teach exactly what Christ taught and is now preserved through the very Church He founded.
Another fact rarely discussed about Martin is that as a priest, he was always fearful and never fully trusted that he would live up to the teachings of Christ and the Church in terms of what is required for salvation. He did not trust God’s mercy. He spent an inordinate amount of time pursuing reconciliation to the point where his fellow priests talked with him about his scrupulosity and lack of trust in receiving mercy. Again, given his childhood environment, it is understandable why he might feel unworthy and doubt his acceptance by a figure of authority which in this case is God and the Church. This sense of not living up to what was required became the foundation of the protestant doctrine of Sola Fide, or “faith alone” as being the sole requirement for salvation. In other words, if he could not feel worthy or able to receive God’s mercy through the truth that the Church received from Christ, then he might be able to receive it if faith, alone, was the only thing he really needed. He had faith, so in his mind, by Sola Fide, he could meet that single criterion and make it to heaven. The problem is that Sola Fide is a doctrine of his own making to suit his own situation and insecurities. It is not what Christ taught. Martin had only his self-serving authority to make the requirements for salvation fit his mindset. He took it a step further when translating the bible into German, he added words needed to support his doctrine. When questioned about it he said “I will it. I command it. My will is sufficient reason.” He is clear this is about his will. God’s will is not mentioned.
If fairness is the goal, then it is perhaps most important to understand that Martin had a very dark side that is rarely discussed in writings about his life and influence on fracturing Christianity. To deny it is turning a blind eye which leads to blind faith which leads to a pursuit of salvation that is, in some important ways, contrary to the teachings of Christ.
As the revolution progressed, Martin focused on the conversion of Jews to Christianity. He believed that his teachings should be enough to quickly convert all Jews. When that did not happen, he took it as a personal afront and developed a very hostile relationship with the Jewish community. Again, while this is briefly touched upon in an “oh by the way” manner in many writings on Martin, it is never a focus. Perhaps it should be.
Historically, it is a known fact that the level of Martin’s anti-Semitism in terms of influence was like another well-known historic enemy of the Jewish people. Martin’s view on German nationalism was also eerily like others. Because his deep-seeded hatred of the Jews resides in the shadow of his accomplishments, fairness requires shining a light on it.
Martin referred to Jews as he did all his enemies, as devils. He considered them as public enemies of Christianity and preached that they were deserving of God’s mercy only if they converted.
Most shockingly, he produced several writings indicating his hatred for the Jewish people. The most famous, which is a relative term because translators of the book were convinced that there is a well-organized effort to keep the book hidden, is called Of the Jews and their Lies. As Martin’s frustrations with the non-converting Jews grew, he wrote to fellow Christians, “next to the Devil you have no more bitter, more poisonous, more vehement an enemy that a real Jew who earnestly desires to be a Jew.” Sadly, that is the softer version of what was to come later. He strongly urged other protestant ministers at the time to follow his example and issue warnings against the Jews. In the book, he spells out what he thought should be done to Jews who refused to convert to Christianity. To any person with knowledge of history, this should sound scarily familiar. Martin says that they should: burn their synagogues; break into and destroy their houses; take away their prayer books; forbid their rabbis to teach; abolish their escort and ban travel; prohibit the usury; and force young Jewish girls and boys to work. This exact loathing of Jews flourished again in the early 1900s with the Nazi party and its leader, both of which acknowledge publicly their admiration of Martin Luther.
Today, Protestants should not be held accountable for the failings of Martin the same as Catholics should not be accountable for failings of the past. The Church teaches that our protestant brothers and sisters are joined to the Church as members of the mystical body of Christ through their baptism. That is exactly how Christ designed His Church. Unfortunately, Martin and his contemporaries fractured the Church and rejected doctrine (Sacraments, including the Eucharist, etc.) taught by Christ, accepted, and practiced by every Christian for 1,500 years. Without any authority, they added new doctrine that was never true to fit their narrative of what Christ “really” meant. What has resulted is one true, apostolic, and universal Catholic Church teaching the exact same teachings of Christ for 2,000+ years; and thousands of individual denominations each teaching something different based on their own interpretations.
Anyone should have compassion for Martin and the environment in which he grew up. With that said, we must also bring to light that his becoming a priest was not a calling but rather a deal he made during a thunderstorm; he struggled with authority; he struggled with his spirituality in thinking he would never live up to Christ’s commands for salvation; he revolted against the Church that he felt stood in the way of his salvation by protecting those very commandments of Christ; he developed his own road to salvation; he fractured the universality of the Church for which Christ prayed; taking advantage of the timing of the political nature of the times he changed things that every Christian believed for 1,500 years; and he fostered a deep seeded hatred of Jews that historians link to the anti-Semitic world of the 1940s.
Christ is the founder and architect of the Catholic Church. That is historically undeniable. Martin was the founder and architect of the protestant ecclesial community. We know who Christ is, but few who follow Martin’s teachings really know who he is.
The only way to make an informed faith decision is to get to know both Christ and Martin in an honest and unhidden way. That is not to say that Martin was not faithful or that he did not pursue heaven. However, he went about it in a way of his own choosing. Christ has already given us the way. He tells us that he is the way and the truth, not a way and a truth. The revolution fractured Christianity and created Martin’s way resulting in many different “truths.”