What a Lutheran Isn't
Whenever we Lutherans (so-called) enter a discussion on social media, we can count on people avoiding whatever issue we want to discuss, and instead pivoting to salacious accusations against Martin Luther.
I had a recent debate online that is a case in point.
In response to my contribution to the discussion, a Roman Catholic traditionalist dismissed me as a “heretic” and included a “quote” from Martin Luther - authoritatively presented by means of a meme, complete with a portrait of Luther, no less (who can argue with that?) - in which Luther is attributed with the following quote: “I am absolutely convinced that the handicapped are merely demonically possessed pieces of meat without souls which should be drowned.” Of course, the use of the word “handicapped” in the quote looks “sus,” as the kids say - not to mention the lack of any citation whatsoever, not even from a secondary source.
When pressed, my interlocutor admitted that he just googled it, and could not find any evidence that Luther ever actually said it. But he assured me that Luther was a bad guy, and he included a link to a screed against Luther called something like “the dark side of Martin Luther” or some such.
I read the piece, and it was laughable for its lack of scholarship. One of the evidences against Luther (and therefore, somehow against me) was the Judensau at St. Mary’s Church in Wittenberg, where Luther preached. But here’s the problem: the Judensau was placed on St. Mary’s Church in the year 1290 - by Roman Catholics when it was a Roman Catholic parish church.
Oops.
When I brought this up, my interlocutor had no idea what I was talking about. Obviously, he had not even bothered to read the article that he tagged me with. He just googled for some dirt on Luther, and that was enough to dismiss anything I had to say. See how that works?
And it gets better. There are Judensaus all over Germany and the surrounding countries. Each and every one of them, without exception, was placed by Roman Catholics in Roman Catholic churches, centuries before the Reformation. So in citing this as evidence against me, to dismiss my opinion on something entirely unrelated to our discussion, he was engaging in an ad homenem against his own Roman Catholic Church.
He then continued disparage anything I had to say because Luther is my “founder.” I told him that Jesus is our founder. He just laughed at that suggestion, still caught up in the lazy production of The Wizard of Fallacies, featuring the Straw Man, the Steel Man, and the Red Herring (alas, no Cowardly Lion or Wicked Witch of the West)
I pointed out to my traditionalist Roman Catholic friend that Lutherans are not considered heretics by his own Roman Catholic magisterium, as we are now referred to as “separated brethren” by the Second Vatican Council, which contradicted Trent, of course. Interestingly, I’m routinely asked to certify baptisms that I conducted so as to satisfy the Roman canon law requirement that a person in an upcoming Roman Catholic wedding be validly and sacramentally baptized. The traditionalist Joseph Ratzinger - who would go on to become Pope Benedict XVI - criticized Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes as, in the words of the National Catholic Reporter, because it “breathes the air of Teilhard de Chardin, the French Jesuit, but not enough of Martin Luther.” Moreover, Ratzinger also wrote (to a Lutheran bishop in 1993):
“I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.” [Briefwechsel von Landesbischof Johannes Hanselmann und Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger über das Communio-Schreiben der Römischen Glaubenskongregation, Una Sancta, 48 (1993): 348.]
The dialogues to which the to-be Pope Benedict XVI refers includes a concluding statement from fifteen elite Roman Catholic theologians - including bishops, priests, and professors - proposed to the “authorities of the Roman Catholic Church” that they:
recognize the validity of the Lutheran Ministry and, correspondingly, the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the eucharistic celebrations of Lutheran Churches [Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue IV: Eucharist and Ministry (1970), p. 32]
Obviously, our churches are not in communion with one another, but the facile denunciation of anything that a Lutheran (so-called) may have to say is not an opinion shared by even the most conservative and traditionalist pope in recent memory. Cardinal Ratzinger even wrote a personal letter commending our own Rev. Dr. John Stephenson for his treatise on the Eucharist.
And here is a stamp issued by the Vatican:
Of course, none of this matters. All that matters is Luther was a scoundrel, and therefore so am I. I could say “2+2=4” and he could simply reply: “But you’re a Lutheran!” And to be clear, we do not require recognition from Rome, and have gotten by just fine for five centuries without it. I am presenting these facts to clarify that things are more nuanced than as portrayed by my ham-fisted opponent.
The real issue is that very few people know what a Lutheran is. Or perhaps more accurately, what a Lutheran isn’t. They think it means Lutherist or Lutherolatrist. They think it means that we see Luther as a kind of pope of our own, an infallible oracle of God. And all that one must do to discredit anything we say is to find something that Luther said (or did) that was wrong or offensive, and down comes the whole Lutheran house of cards!
In fact, the very opposite is true.
We were called “Lutherans” as a slur by Luther’s opponent Johann Eck. So the grift is about 500 years old. We keep the name as a delicious irony, for it means the opposite of what our critics think it means. In fact, we specifically reject a word of Luther as non-authoritative in the same way that we reject a work of Pope Benedict or Pope Francis as non-authoritative. And we will consider Luther authoritative in the same way that we will consider Popes Benedict or Francis authoritative: if, and only if, their words are borne out by the Word of God.
To be a Lutheran is not to put one’s faith in Luther, rather it is not to put one’s faith in Luther, but instead Christ, as revealed to us in the Word of God.
We are “Lutheran” only in the sense that we hold the same confession of Luther that he made at the Diet of Worms:
Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason—for I believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves—I consider myself convicted by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one’s conscience is neither safe nor sound. [Here I stand; I can do no other.] God help me. Amen.
It is simply a fact that popes and councils have erred and contradicted each other. To either consider Lutherans either as heretics or as separated brethren requires the rejection of one council or another. And it is a fact that all men, whether popes, bishops, pastors, synods, presidents, or Martin Luther, are fallible. Only the Word of God is guaranteed to be without error. And so, we follow the path of Luther at Worms - rejecting the word of men, including Luther’s, unless they are faithful expositions of Scripture. This is how the creeds and confessions of the church are authoritative for us: they are witnesses of the Word of God. And when a man speaks the Scriptural truth, he speaks infallibly, whether he is pope or pastor or toddler. When a man presents his own opinions - whether he is Martin Luther or the pope, or anyone else - he is subject to error, and cannot be the basis of divine revelation or faith.
So to be a true Lutheran is not to put one’s faith in Luther… unless Luther is speaking according to the revealed Word of God.
We see this in the New Testament.
When the holy apostle St. Paul preached to the Bereans, they “received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so” (Acts 17:11). They received Paul as an apostolic witness and authority, but nevertheless, still held him to be accountable to the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God: the “norming norm.” And St. Paul encourages this, not placing himself, nor even an angel, as an authority in and of himself: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal 1:8). Even St. Peter, whom the Roman Catholic Church considers to be the first pope, was publicly corrected by his fellow apostle and bishop, St. Paul (Gal 2:11-13):
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
And lest we forget, our Lord Jesus Himself once referred to the putative primary vicar of Christ as “Satan.” This was because he was not setting his “mind on the things of God, but on the things of man” (Matt 16:23).
Roman Catholics will admit that popes are capable of error, and indeed have erred. They only believe the pope is infallible when he says he is infallible - speaking ex cathedra. As much as this is a circular argument, one that did not become a dogma for Roman Catholics until 1870, it means that Luther is right, since according to their own dogma, the pope has only been infallible of himself and his office twice, and only in the last 150 years.
And while they use “dirt” (real or imagined) about Luther as a fallacious argument against any premise proposed by a Lutheran (so-called), their own history of popes, such as in the “pornocracy” (their word), as well as the situation in Avignon where there were two, and then three, rival claimants to the papacy, and the open sewer that was the lives of the Borgia popes (buggery and bastardy), and the ubiquitous practice of simony - well, none of that matters. There are many traditionalist Roman Catholics who cannot even bear to call the current occupant of the chair their “holy father,” instead calling him by his last name. But in spite of all that, all that matters are salacious assertions such as Luther married a former nun because he was sexually aroused. By a woman, no less (the horror!). Somehow, the scandalous lifestyle of Luther’s opponent, Pope Leo X - including credible assertions of his affection for sodomizing young boys - generally falls off the radar screen by those with a desire to turn Luther into an immoral monster as a rhetorical ad hominem to sling against modern Lutherans.
And in fairness, I don’t believe that these facts about papal corruption disqualify statements of Roman Catholics any more than critiques of Luther - whether true, false, or clever half-truths - should matter. I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of the use of such assertions.
But as far as authoritative statements go, we do not hold Luther to be a higher standard than we do Pope Francis. Indeed, we do not hold any of Luther’s writings to be authoritative in and of themselves, by virtue of the man or his office as priest, professor, theologian, or reformer. For example, we do not accept the famous 95 Theses as authoritative, as some of them are false. But we will accept statements of Pope Francis as authoritative equally as we will accept Luther’s - insofar as both both men are measured against Holy Scripture. The statements of all men are normed by the Bible - including popes, councils, pastors, bishops, professors, district presidents, synod presidents, CTCRs, conventions - and everyone else. That is how we are “Lutheran.” We are Luther-like in our conviction by Scripture and by Scripture’s teaching on human fallibility because of original sin.
For there are statements from Popes Francis and Benedict that we accept, and statements of Luther that we do not. It seems that many Roman Catholics and so-called Protestants alike erroneously believe that we see Luther as a kind of pope, whose words are authoitative for us. In reality, Lutherans accept the Bible as the primary witness, the only infallible norm. We do accept other secondary authorities that are under Scripture - including some writings of Martin Luther, (and a very small percentage of his total literary output, at that). We include his two catechisms, his Smalcald Articles, and some other citations in our confessional documents (including a sermon excerpt in the Formula of Concord) as authoritative, again not per se, but as correct explications of Scripture.
In fact, the bulk of our confessional documents were not written by Luther, but by Philip Melanchthon (who wrote the lion’s share), as well as Formula of Concord authors: Jacob Andreae, Martin Chemnitz, Nicholas Selnecker, David Chytraeus, Andrew Musculus, and Christopher Cornerus. And yet, nobody calls us Melanchonists, and nobody googles dirt on Chemnitz as evidence against our assertions in public debate.
Moreover, our confessions do cite popes and councils as authoritative (again, under the Scriptures, not above them). For example, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, and Gelasius. We have never been tagged as Gregorians by our detractors. Our confessions also similarly appeal to councils and canon law and to the authority of other men, including Augustine, Aquinas, Ambrose, Bernard, Dominic, Francis, Chrysostom, Cyril, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Athanasius, Theodoret, John of Damascus, Origen, Cyprian, Hillary, Bede, Jerome, etc. But again, we are never called Augustinians or Thomists or Franciscans. Furthermore, many editions of the Book of Concord include the Catalog of Testimonies as further explication, including authoritative statements by a plethora of church fathers, including Oecumenius, Vigilius, Nicephorus, Eustachius, Epiphanius, and others. Amazingly, our opponents never refer to us by any of these other names whose statements are more authoritative to us than some statements of Luther. For again, all of these men are fallible. Sometimes, our confessional writings reflect disagreement or criticism of them (such as Thomas Aquinas, Jerome, and Gregory), while at the same time, recognizing their Biblically correct statements to be as authoritative as any quote from Martin Luther.
Roman Catholics will argue that the problem with using the Bible as the highest authority is who interprets the Bible? Their answer is the pope. This was the answer given to Luther during the Reformation. Of course, this question is not to be dismissed facilely. Interpretation of the texts is an issue. But they are merely kicking the can down the road. For who interprets the interpreter? Who interprets the papal texts? The same problem exists for those texts as well. Roman Catholic theologians interpret encyclicals and other papal decrees differently, debating about various readings, and drawing differing conclusions. And papal decrees from different eras and popes do indeed contradict one another, and contradict councils as well. And based on simple logic, A is A. A cannot be not A. Contradictory statements both cannot be true. So again, if the pope is the final interpreter of Scripture, who interprets the pope? And again, unless he is speaking ex cathedra, according to Roman Catholic dogma, the pope can err.
The ideas that Luther is our “founder” and that we are members of a different church are not borne out by our confessions, by the historical reality of whom we consider to be authoritative, nor by how we hold all theological statements - including the creeds - to be authoritative based on their submission to God’s Word.
We indeed confess “one holy catholic and apostolic church” in our confessions. And nowhere in our confessions is the word “Lutheran” ever used.
The Athanasian Creed also reveals an interesting issue. It defines “the catholic faith” in terms of Trinitarian and Christological statements. It never defines the papacy as a constituent part of the catholic church and its faith. And the name “Athanasian” is illustrative. For nobody who confesses this creed is mocked as following a church founded by Athanasius. In fact, during the Arian crisis in the period of the early ecumenical councils, the conflict was described as being between two sides, identified by their leaders: the Arians (heretics) and the Athanasians (catholics). The name “Athanasian” stuck to the Catholic Christians for several centuries. This is why the sixth century creed is known as the Athanasian Creed, even though Athanasius had been dead for centuries. It is because the Catholic Christians were known as Athanasians as a kind of nickname with staying power. To be an Athanasian Christian is to be a Nicene Christian, that is, a Catholic and Orthodox Christian. The label “Athanasian” eventually fell out of use, but we still have this vestige in the very name of the Athanasian Creed that bears historical testimony of a precedent when faithful, orthodox, catholic Christians were identified with the name of a specific confessor. Athanasius was not their founder, but rather the champion of orthodoxy during a crisis, the leader of a Reformation that beat back the significant inclusion, advance, and embedding of false doctrine into the church's hierarchy during a divisive period of crisis.
And who would argue that Franciscans, Dominicans, and Benedictines are named for their “founders” whom they follow instead of Christ? It’s simply preposterous.
I do want to clarify that my argument with this particular person is not indicative of all of my contact and conversation with Roman Catholics in general, and traditionalists in particular. We can, and do, generally disagree with one another with respect and without resort to ad hominems and other rhetorical chicanery. And it is true that this is a temptation for all of us when engaging in discussion.
Whether we are arguing against those with whom we disagree, or whether we are confessing together, it’s important that we are clear in our own minds about our relationship to Luther, and what it is that makes us Lutheran. And it is also important that we know what a Lutheran isn’t.