2.28.2012 MARTIN LUTHER

in the field of morals many felt that his preoccupation with religion was dangerous. particularly his insistence that upright conduct constitutes no claim upon God was believed to undercut the most potent motive for good behavior. the same retort was given to luther as to paul. if we are saved not by merit but by mercy, 'let us then sin that grace may abound'. both answered, 'God forbid'. and anyone who had followed l closely would have known that he was far from indifferent to morality. nevertheless the charge was not altogether perverse. l did say things at times which emphatically sounded subversive to morals. the classic example is the notorious pecca fortiter, 'sin for all you are worth. God can forgive only a lusty sinner'. to make this the epitome of l's ethic is grossly unfair because it was a piece of uproarious chaffing of the anemic melanchthon, who was in a dither over scruples of conscience. l's counsel was essentially the same as that given to him by staupitz, who told him that before coming so frequently to the confessional he should go out and commit a real sin like parricide. stau was certainly not advising l to murder his father and l will knew that his jest would not induce the impeccable mel to jettison the 10 commandments. l was saying merely that it might do him good for once to spoil his record.

this is a point which l did make at times, that one sin is needed as medicine to cure another. an unblemished record engenders the worst of all sins, pride. hence a failure now and then is conducive to humility. but the only sins which l actually recommended as record spoilers were a little over eating, over drinking, and oversleeping. such controlled excesses might be utilized as the antidote to arrogance.

he did say something else with an unethical ring, however, mainly, that good works without faith 'are idle, damnable sins'. ..l never meant to say that form the social point of view decency is no better than indecency. what he meant was that the decency of the man who behaves himself simply for fear of damaging his reputation is in the eyes of God an idle, damnable sin and far worse than the indecency of the contrite offender. luther's statement is nothing more than a characteristically parodoxical version of the parable of the penitent publican.

but perhaps the deepest menace of l to morals lay in his rescue of morals. he would suffer no attenuation of the appalling demands of the new testament. Christ said,
give away your cloak,
take no thought for the morrow
when struck turn the other cheek
sell all and give to the poor,
forsake father and mother, wife and child
the catholic church of the middle ages had several devices for attenuating the inexorable. one was to make a distinction between christians and to assign only to heroic souls the more arduous injunctions of the gospel. the counsels of perfection were consigned to monasticism. l closed this door by abolishing monasticism. another distinction was between the continuous and the customary. strenuous christians should love God and the neighbor uninterruptedly, but ordinary christians only ordinarily. l was scornful of all such casuistry; and when reminded that without it the precepts of the gospel are impossible, he would retort, 'of course they are. God commands the impossible'. but then comes again the old question, if the goal cannot be reached, why make the effort?

here one must be clear as to precisely how much l meant by calling the goal unattainable. he very clearly meant that the noblest human achievement will fall short in the eyes of God. all men are sinners. but they are not for that reason all rascals. a certain level of morality is not out of reach. even the jews, turks heathen are able to keep the natural law embodied in the 10 commandments. (note: really? why can't i then?) l wrote,' "thou shalt not steal" should be place by the miller on his sack,
the baker on his bread,
the shoemaker on his last,
the tailor on his cloth, and
the carpenter on his ax.
temptations of course cannot be avoided, but because we cannot prevent the birds from flying over our heads, there is no need that we should let them nest in our hair'. there is then a wide basis for genuine moral conduct even apart from christianity. (note: what about Jesus' commandments?)

but once more the danger to ethics arises because all this is not enough. God demands not only acts but attitudes. He is like the mother who asks her daughter to cook or to milk the cow. the daughter may comply gaily or grudgingly. not only does God require that we refrain from adultery, but he exacts purity of thought and restraint within marriage. these are the standards to which we cannot attain. ' a horse can be controlled with a golden bit, but who can control himself at those points where he is vitally touched?' even our very quest for God is a disguised form of self-seeking. the pursuit of perfection is all the more hopeless because the goal is recessive. every act of goodness opens the door for another; and if we do not enter in, we have failed. hence all righteousness of the moment is sin with respect to that which must be added in the following instant. even more disconcerting is the discovery that we are guilty of sins of which we are not aware. l had learned in the confessional the difficulty of remembering or recognizing his shortcomings. the very recognition that we are sinners is an act of faith. 'by faith alone it must be believed that we are sinners, and indeed more often than not we seem to know nothing against ourselves. wherefore we must stand by God's judgment and believe his words by which he calls us unrighteous'.

once again l's critics arise to inquire whether if man in the end has no standing with God he should make the effort to be good. l's answer is that morality must be grounded somewhere else than in self-help and the quest for reward. the paradox is that God must destroy in us all illusions of righteousness before he can make us righteous. first we must relinquish all claim to goodness. the way to eliminate feelings of guilt is to admit guilt. then there is some hope for us. 'we are sinners and at the same time righteous' - which is to say that however bad we are, there is a power at work in us which can and will make something out of us. l wrote, 'this is wonderful news to believe that salvation lies outside ourselves. i am justified and acceptable to God, although there are in me sin, unrighteousness and horror of death. yet I MUST LOOK ELSEWHERE AND SEE NO SIN. this is wonderful, not to see what i see, not to feel what i feel. before my eyes i see a gulden, sword, fire, and i must say, 'there is no gulden, no sword, no fire'. the forgiveness of sins is like this. (note: in what way is this true and not pretense.) and the effect of it is that the forgiven, unpretentious sinner has vastly more potentialities than the proud saint.

the righteousness of the sinner is no fiction. it must and it will produce good works, but they can never be good if done for their own sake. they must spring from the fount of the new man. 'good works do not make a man good, but a good man does good works'. l variously described the ground of goodness. sometimes he would say that all morality is gratitude. it is the irrepressible expression of thankfulness for food and raiment, for earth and sky, and for the inestimable gift of redemption. again morality is the fruit of the spirit (note: Spirit?) dwelling in the heart of the christian. or morality is the behavior becoming the nature of one united with Christ as the bride with the bridegroom. as there is no need to tell lovers what to do and say, so is there no need for any rules to those who are in love with Christ. (note: romans says love is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. why then is it not so with me. why do i show hate for God by refusing to keep His commandments and why so open a hated of man? would You shed it abroad Spirit..i believe...how do i believe effectually? come Spirit, shed Your love abroad in my heart.) the only word that covers all this is faith. it removes all the inhibitions arising from worry and sets man in such a relationship to God and Christ that all else will come of itself.

no where does l set forth his views in more rugged and glowing words than in the canticle 'on the freedom of the christian man.
'the soul which with a firm faith cleaves to the promises of God is united with them, absorbed by them, penetrated, saturated, inebriated by their power. if the touch of Christ was healing, how much more does that most tender touch in the spirit, that absorption in the word convey to the soul all the qualities of the word so that it becomes trustworthy, peaceable, free, full of every good, a true child of God. from this we see very easily why faith can do so much and no good work is like unto it, for no good work comes from
God's word like faith. no good work can be within the soul, but the word and faith reign there, what the word is that the soul is, as iron becomes fire-red through union with the flame. plainly then faith is enough for the christian man. he has no need for works to be made just. then is he free from the law.

but he is not therefore to be lazy or loose. good works do not make a man good, but a good man does good works. a bishop is not a bishop because he consecrates a church, but he consecrates a church because he is a bishop. unless a man is already a believer and a christian, his works have no value at all. they are foolish, idle, damnable sins, because when good works are brought forward as ground for justification, they are no longer good. understand that we do not reject good works, but praise them highly...paul said, 'let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who being on an equality with God emptied himself, taking the form of a servant and becoming obedient unto death'. paul means that when Christ was fully in the form of God, abounding in all things, so that He had no need of any work or any suffering to be saved, he was not puffed up, did not arrogate to himself power, but rather in suffering, working, enduring and dying made himself like other men, as if He needed all things and were not in the form of God. all this He died to serve us. when God in His sheer mercy and without any merit of mine has given me such unspeakable riches, shall i not then freely, joyously, wholeheartedly, unprompted do everything that i know will please Him? i will give myself as a sort of Christ to my neighbor as Christ gave Himself for me'.

this is the word which ought to be placarded as the epitome of l's ethic, that a christian must be a Christ to his neighbor. l goes on to explain what this entails.
'i must even take to myself the sins of others as Christ took mine to Himself. thus we see that the christian man lives not to himself but to Christ and his neighbor through love. by faith he rises above himself to God and from God goes below himself in love and remanis always in God and in love'.

luther' answer at worms...eck confronted luther with a pile of his books and asked whether they were his. in a voice barely audible he answered, 'the books are all mine and i have written more'. eck, 'do you defend them all or do you care to reject a part?' luther, 'this touches God and His word. this affects the salvation of souls. of this Christ said, 'he who denies me before men, him will I deny before My Father.' to say too little or too much would be dangerous. i beg you, give me time to think it over'.

the next day, 4.18.1520 luther was summoned for 4 pm but the press of business delayed until 6. this time his voice was ringing. eck reiterated the question of the previous day. l responded: 'most serene emperor, most illustrious princes, most clement lords, if i have not given some of you your proper titles i beg you to forgive me. i am not a courtier, but a monk. you asked me yesterday whether i would repudiate them. they are all mine, but as for the second question, they are not all of one sort'.

this was a skillful move. by differentiating his works l won for himself the opportunity of making a speech instead of answering simply yes of no.

he went on: 'some deal with faith and life so simply and evangelically that my very enemies are compelled to regard them as worthy of christian reading. even the bull itself does not treat all my books as of one kind. if i whould renounce these, i would be the only man on earth to damn the truth confessed alike by friends and foes. a second class of my works inveighs againt the desolation of the christaian world by the evil lives and teaching of the papists. who can deny this when the universal complaints testify that by the laws of the popes the consciences of men are racked?'

'no!' broke in the emperor.

l, unruffled, went on to speak of the 'incredible tyranny' by which this german nation was devoured. 'should i recant at this point, i would open the door to more tyranny and impiety and it will be all the worse should it appear that i had done so at the instance of the holy roman empire'. this was a skillful plea to german nationalism, which had a strong following in the diet. even duke george the catholic took the fore in presenting grievances.

'a third class contains attacks on private individuals. i confess i have been more caustic than comportss with my profession, but i am being judged, not on my life, but for the teaching of Christ, and i cannont renouce thses works either, without increasing tyranny and impiety. when Christ stood before annas, He said, "produce witnesses".if our Lord, who could not err, made this demand, why may not a worm lide me ask to be convicted of error from the prophets and the gospels? if i am shown my error, i will be the first to throw my books into the fire. i have been reminded of the dissensions which my teaching engenders. i can answer only in the words of the Lord, 'i came not to bring peace but a sword'. if our God is so severe, let us beware lest we release a deluge of wars, lest the reign of this noble youth, charles, be inauspicious. take warning from the examples of pharaoh, the king of babylon, and the kings of israel. God it is who confounds the wise. i must woal in th fear of the Lord. i say this not to chide but because i cannot excape my duty to my germans. i commend myself to your majesty. may you not suffer my adversaries to make you ill disposed to me without cause. i have spoken'.

eck replied: 'martin, you have not sufficiently distinguished your works. the earlier were bad and the latter worse. your plea to be heard from scripture is the one always made by hereticss. you do nothing but renew the errors of wyclif and hus. how will the jews, how will the turks, exult to heear christians discussing whether they have been wrong all these years! martin, how can you assume that you are the only one to understand the sense of scripture? would you put your judgment above that of so many famous men and claim that you know more than they all? you have no right to call into question the most holy orthodox faith, instituted by Christ the perfect lawgiver, proclaimed thoughout the world by the apostles, sealed by the red blood of the martyrs, confirmed by the sacred councils, defined by the church in which all our fathers believed until death and gave to us as an inheritance, and which now we are forbidden by the pope and the emperor to discuss lest there be no end of dbate.

i ask you, martinanswere candidly and without horns - do you or do you not repudiate your books and the errors which they contain?

luther replied, 'since then your majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, i will answer without horns and without teeth. unless i am convicted by scripture and plain reason - i do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contracited each other - my conscience is captive to the word of God. i cannot and i will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. amen'.