Who's on first?

 I was confirmed in a Lutheran church (ALC synod) in 1976. But it was only last month I learned that Luther's translation into the vernacular (German) was not the first. "The Luther Bible was not the first German printed edition, for there were already 18 printed Bibles before it, the so-called pre-Lutheran Bibles. In addition to the Martin Luther Bible 1522-1545, the Zurich Bible and the Low German Bible were also published around the same time." It was really Gutenberg, not Luther who enabled people to read the Bible. Before that, it was too expensive for the average person to own, although some did. And then maybe a week later I came across an article that St. Jerome wasn't the first to translate the Greek Bible into Latin (Latin Vulgate), also a move to enable people to read in their heart language and understand the Mass. It seems there were a number of Latin translations, but they weren't very good, so the Pope asked him to translate the definitive edition. One article said Jerome didn't use the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament used by Christians) and another said it was his primary source. I wouldn't want to get in the middle of that argument since it's probably political, but had believed he was the "first,"

Was Luther’s Bible the First German Language Bible? | Veracity (sharedveracity.net)

8 things to know about the Luther Bible – DW – 01/05/2022  If you read these 8 things, you would have no idea Luther wasn't the first to translate the Bible into the common language of the people (Germans).

Timeline - Jerome's Bible Legacy (christianity.com) One thing most articles agree on is that Jerome was a disagreeable, difficult to get along with, cranky scholar.  And he taught himself Hebrew in order to translate the Old Testament. 

The Vulgate: Jerome’s Latin Translation of the Hebrew Masoretic Text in 384 AD (bible.ca)

St. Jerome, the Vulgate, and Our Biblical Heritage - Ascension Press Media

2022 is the 500th anniversary of Luther's New Testament, 1522-2022

"German translations of the Bible have been around since the Middle Ages. After Gutenberg printed a Latin Bible in Germany around 1465, vernacular Bibles in German quickly followed. A Bible in High German was issued by Johannes Mentelin in Strasbourg in 1466. Low German vernacular Bibles were issued in Cologne in 1478 and 1479. In all, before Martin Luther issued his famous translation of the New Testament in 1522 (Luther’s full translation of the Bible was published in 1534), there were at least 18 editions printed of the complete Bible in German and several dozen editions of portions of the Bible, such as Gospel books and Psalters." https://scblog.lib.byu.edu/2013/04/24/german-bibles/

So, I suppose you could say this is a Brigham Young University Library (Mormon) source, but that's not the only source that reports on the many Bibles available in German before Luther's famous translation. Here's another one:

"By the time of Luther's birth in 1483, no fewer than nine such editions of the complete Bible in High German and two in Low German had appeared, with further ones still to come before the publication of the Reformer's "September Testament" in 1522. In fact, by the latter date, the total had increased to fourteen High-German and four Low-German editions of the entire Bible, to say nothing of editions of portions of Scripture and manuscript copies." https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/books/86/

Excerpt from the book, "German Bibles Before Luther, The Story of 14 High-German Editions," by Kenneth Strand, 1966. So why do I open a magazine from Fall 2022 (Lutheran Bible Translators Messenger) and read:

"Five hundred years ago, the German people lived in darkness. They needed relief and deliverance of the Gospel message. The church used a Latin translation, something only the educated understood. Some translations were available in other languages, but they were not very good."

Here's my take (and I'm a Lutheran in NALC, one of the newer synods):

1. To the victor belong the archives (this is a librarian axiom). All the easily available church history books are published by Protestant scholars and publishers, each of which has its own bias on the Bible and history,

 
2. Misinformation and disinformation is not a feature of just the 21st century. What we read, hear and "know" is cumulative, paraphrased, folded in on itself and sometimes just gossip. I read a few paragraphs in the Strand book (you can download it), and it would seem that before the early 20th century, no one even looked for older German translations.

3. Technology was changing lives and creating revolutions in the 15th century also, and Gutenberg did more for our learning and making information available quickly than Zuckerburg.

Just my thoughts.

Letter to a promoter for an interview

As my friends and family know, I've been writing this blog for almost 20 years (began October 2003). That's how I met some nice people whom I now follow on Facebook. So, I get offers to review books and do interviews. I did review some books, but I don't anymore, and have republished some canned interviews. Sometimes I get snarky and write back my opinions. I have no idea if anyone reads them. The one I received on Monday, January 17, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day wanted to let me know that young people aren't educated about MLK Jr. because "only 81%" knew about his "I've got a dream speech," and "only 82%" knew about the March on Washington. I think that's fantastic--they probably don't know the year their parents were born, or what happened on July 4. So, here's my response.

Dear XXXX

You’re not making a good case. Considering how LITTLE anyone, let alone youth, know about our history, if 81% know about the “I have a dream speech,” that’s fantastic! I know some who graduated from high school in 1986. One day I asked them a fairly simple question, "Which came first WWII or Vietnam War?" and they didn’t know! That’s the level of history education in our country, and we live in a great school district with high scores. What makes you think this is a lack of resources? I’ve seen Martin Luther’s statue on the internet identified as Martin Luther King! Our young people may know who King is but have never heard of Martin Luther. How many know Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican? Or that there were over 200 bills in Congress to fight lynching, and Democrats voted against all of them? You’ve got some buzz words in this message that tell your mission. . . “democratizing education,” “equal access,” “cause for equality,” “diverse backgrounds.” If you need to know how ignorant U.S. youth are, watch some of the Prager U videos or the Will Witt interviews on college campuses, “What is a conservative?” https://youtu.be/jVJO1IETjC8 Also notice how inarticulate the students are—except for the one or two who can define conservatism.

Also, MLK Day was the day I got your message—how would I do an interview BEFORE today?

Pope Francis, what's going on?

I'm not a Catholic (I'm Lutheran), but even I know the recent decision (word? opinion? comment? letter? leak?) by the Pope about divorced and remarried Catholics (considered adultery by the church) receiving Holy Communion is going to be very divisive. 500 years ago a not so important man named Martin Luther decided to change 1500 years of church teaching, ignoring the teachings of Jesus, all the church fathers, reinterpreting the writings of Paul and eliminating some books of the Bible; and it started wars, chaos, splits, and evolved into 35,000 denominations many of which don't even call themselves Protestants (called Bible churches, or non-denominational), nor believe in the Trinity, baptism or communion. If Luther could have seen what would come of his agonized searching for peace with God, he probably would have stayed in his house and just continued translating.

May 15, 1525, The Peasants' War

It’s only recently I learned about the Peasants’ War which began in May 1525. Imagine. Forty years as a Lutheran, and not a word or sermon on an event that killed over a hundred thousand and in many ways involved Martin Luther. As I’ve watched the Trump phenomena unfold, I thought back to this--exciting the masses about injustices and then flip flopping.

Martin Luther added to the unrest that had been going on for years—at least the hopes that ordinary peasants had for liberation from both the clergy and the ruling classes. There were many societal and economic changes happening, a rising middle class, the creation of free towns, displacement of agrarian workers, the importation of precious metals from the "new world," the rise of banks and money becoming the source of wealth instead of land, and rampant inflation. The feudal system of the old Roman empire in Europe had become like slavery by the fifteenth century—the peasants couldn’t even marry without approval of their lord and if the head of household died, the lord could take the best property from the family for his own use They couldn’t hunt or fish on the lord’s properties even though there were ancient agreements to this freedom that were being ignored. (Sounds vaguely familiar, doesn’t it?) The nobility classes were growing by creation of titles and becoming impoverished, with the poorest taking offices in the church because there was no more land. The clergy also had both wealthy and poor classes.

And then Luther declared Christians no longer had to answer to Rome or any other man. I don’t know how common the ability to read was among the peasants, but through their radical and extremist leaders they knew about Luther’s The Freedom of a Christian and his Babylonian Captivity. Those pamphlets in that day were like social media flare ups of today.  Luther declared that “no Christian was under the obligation to comply with any law which was enacted upon him by another man.” For thousands of peasants looking for justice for losing their rights, that was like throwing gasoline on the glowing embers of a simmering revolution.

At first Martin Luther encouraged the Peasants, who themselves were divided among the radicals and moderates and had many justifiable grievances going back a century, and he criticized the nobility and princes for being oppressive. He said he was one of them, even bragged about being from a family of peasants. But then he did an about face, “with the release of his pamphlet Against the Murdering Robbing Rats of Peasants. In it, he provoked and encouraged the nobles to shed blood in order to suppress the revolt, “stab, kill, and strangle.” Luther publicly exhorted the princes to exterminate the peasants. He called peasants pigs, stupid and incorrigible. He went as far as publicly proclaiming that the princes were not only ‘God’s swords’ but that it was also their sacred duty to preserve law and order on earth by punishing these most heinous and atrocious criminals [the peasants]. He believed that perjury, rebellion and hypocrisy called for harsh punishment.” (The Inconsistencies of Martin Luther Before, During, and After the Peasants’ War, 2011)

On May 15, 1525, and its aftermath, over 100,000 peasants were massacred—they were no match for their nobles’ soldiers. Luther, who had vowed to stand by the peasants, betrayed them and took the side of the nobility. Some reformers, who originally were Lutherans but abandoned Luther, said the new Lutheran church had less freedom of speech than the Turks (Muslims) and that Luther was taking more power than the Pope.

http://www.oakwood.edu/historyportal/Ejah/2011/The%20Inconsistencies%20of%20Martin%20Luther%20Before.htm

 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11597a.htm

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgZzuY4NSCE

 http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/Luther-Peasants.html

 http://store.afcanada.com/store/product/1584/Luther-Works-Volume-46

Luther and Trump

If you know your church history, you know that Martin Luther split the church by deciding that Scripture meant what he said it meant, not what the Church declared. He discarded a number of books of the Old Testament, or said he didn’t like them (like James, Revelation, Esther, and Hebrews which remained canon, and he much preferred John to the other Gospels) all the while declaring “sola scriptura” to be the basis of faith. He changed the Catholic church’s definition of original sin and justification to one he created. 

  

But the implications went far beyond the church—probably because there were many forerunners of revolt who didn't like papal control, and the church was in great need of reform. Or, scratch a religion, any religion, and you get politics. Once that Bible cat was out of the bag, all sorts of interpretations began cropping up among others, and one was the horrible conditions of the peasants of Europe, who were virtually slaves to the local Lords. This was ready to explode even before Luther since their lives were so awful, not unlike slavery in the U.S. but often worse. So when the peasants got word of what Luther was saying and posting and writing (liberty in all things), they thought he could be their leader against both the church and the lords. Wrong. Luther sided with the German power structure, not the peasants. They rioted; Luther didn’t support them. Over 100,000 peasants died, as well as people in other classes who were poor or had less power. 

 

Let’s jump ahead 500 years. Luther was hot headed, intemperate, nasty, prone to deep depression, but brilliant in gathering supporters and translating Scripture into the language of the people, German. He touched a nerve both spiritually and politically. His ideas exploded all over Europe.

 

Does that sound familiar? Like today’s headlines?

Why do Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians use different Bibles?

It's an important question, especially since there are non-denominational and fundamentalist Christian churches that claim to base their faith only on the Bible (and some only on King James Version) and not on historical church teachings or traditions (although they all have their own traditions which govern polity, sacraments, music, Sunday School, etc.)  Technically, there was no Bible for the first almost 400 years of Christianity, but there was written sacred scripture of the Jews, and that was primarily in three languages, Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. So Jesus read and preached and taught from a "Bible" we Protestants don't use--the Septuagint, or Greek Old Testament. That scripture includes the following:

• Tobit (or Tobias) emphasizes the importance of the sanctity of marriage, parental respect, angelic intercession, as well as prayer, fasting, and alms giving for the expiation of sins, as noted in the Archangel Raphael's speech in Tobias 12:9.

• Sirach offers both moral instruction and a history of the patriarchs and leaders of Israel.

• First and Second Maccabees are historical works which describe the end of persecution by the Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes through Mattathias and his sons the Maccabees. And so began the independent Hasmonean Dynasty of Israel from 165 to 63 BC. The Rededication of the Temple by Judas Maccabeus (1 Maccabees 4:36-59, 2 Maccabees 10:1-8) is commemorated yearly during the Feast of Hannukah. First Maccabees was first written in Hebrew, but only the Greek version has been preserved. In addition to its historical value, Second Maccabees affirms the theology of martyrdom and resurrection of the just (7:1-42), intercessory prayer of the living for the dead (12:44-45), as well as intercessory prayer of the saints for those still on earth (15:12-16).

• Judith describes the deliverance of the Jews from the hands of Holofernes, general to Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon.

• The Book of Wisdom is witness to the trend in late post-exilic Jewish thought that looked forward to life after death: immortality is a reward of the just (3:1-4, 19). The book also notes that all living creatures reflect the perfection of the Creator (Wisdom 13:5).

• The Book of Baruch, the scribe to Jeremiah, describes the prayers of the Babylonian Exiles and includes the Letter of Jeremiah.

  Martin Luther in his 1534 translation differed from St. Augustine and considered the Apocryphal books "good for reading" but not part of inspired Scripture. The King James Bible of 1611 included the Apocrypha but in a separate section. While there are no direct quotations in the New Testament from the Apocrypha, there are also no direct quotations from Judges, Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, Nahum, or Zephaniah. http://biblescripture.net/Canon.html
  

My Luther bookmark

I was pretty sure I’d found this in Luther’s writings and then designed the bookmark, but couldn’t figure out which, so I googled, “if you were able and did not” and sure enough found it was LW 51,9.  It was on a page for sex and gender diversity at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa.

English services in Whittenberg, Germany

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDO2LlQRnhA

In 2 years (2017) we'll be celebrating the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. The cathedral in Whittenberg, Germany, shown in this video is being renovated for the influx of tourists.  There is an English language ministry here of visiting Lutheran pastors for English speakers and tourists at Whittenberg.  You'll hear some really ragged congregational singing of "A Mighty Fortress," but lots of heart. Pastor this week (earlier this month) is Rev. Ronald Stehl of Red Wing. MN.  "How are you going to get to heaven" was addressed, and even Lutherans in his own congregation got the answer wrong, he says.

Martin Luther and his namesake

Martin Luther perhaps never saw an elephant, but he was very familiar with donkeys. He said that the old Adam is "the obstinate donkey, fixing for a fight," against whom the new man wages "constant battle."

When Michael King, Sr. a Baptist minister changed his name to Martin Luther King after the great reformer, his son Michael Jr. also changed his name and became Martin Luther King, Jr. They were Republicans. His friends and family continued to call him Mike.

Democrats were so oppressive to blacks in the South, using lynching to terrorize, they instituted the "Jim Crow" laws and resegregated the schools. In order to vote at all, many blacks became Republicans. The push for civil rights was done by the Republican party in the 40s and 50s, and was fought tooth and nail by the likes of powerful Democrats like Lyndon Johnson, LBJ. But when it became an opportunity to put them under the control of government, LBJ changed his tune with the Civil Rights Act, a Republican cause, and his "War on Poverty."

This lesson on black history will probably not be taught in the public schools this month.

Where is Martin Luther when you need him?

When I listen to our local Catholic radio (St. Gabriel's, 1580 am, which includes many programs from EWTN), I’m still hearing the 16th century abuses of the church about which Martin Luther spoke and wrote: purgatory (a special place of judgement and penance we Protestants know nothing about since it's not in the Bible), indulgences to reduce time in purgatory (out of favor after the reforms of the 1960s, but returning since 2000 and becoming more popular), merit dispensed by the church (tradition), transubstantiation (consuming the real physical body and blood of Jesus), special privileges, rights and positions of honor for ordained priests (one in particular who resides in Rome, called the Pope) rather than the priesthood of believers with a single high priest, Jesus Christ, worship (veneration) of Mary the Mother of Jesus and other saints and praying to them for protection and guidance, proving various miracles after death of some believers to achieve sainthood for them, complex doctrines and stories completely unfamiliar to me like visions and relics. And it's not hard to hear at least a reference to all of these in just a day or two, with only a nod or a few minutes for grace and trusting in nothing but the merits of Christ. But that's where the freedom is, and that's what changed the whole western world 400 years ago, and is creating revolutions today in Africa and Asia.

On the other hand, if I choose to listen to so-called "Christian radio," which is a hodge-podge of Baptist, Pentecostal, dispensational, non-denominational, and personal opinion groups bound together with syrupy praise songs and Vineyard tunes, I can practically starve, spiritually speaking.

Bare foot walking, pt. 3

When I was a student at the University of Illinois I used to pass two disabled students at lunch time--I think it was in Lincoln Hall (now closed for renovation). I believe one may have been blind and in a wheelchair and the other had no arms. The U. of I. was a forerunner in services for the disabled, beginning I believe with disabled veterans after WWII. The armless man would push/guide the wheelchair with his pelvis, and ate his lunch using his feet as his hands. He was quite limber, as was I at age 19, and his toes functioned as fingers. Blind students attending college didn't surprise me because my grandmother was blind and I'd seen her do many remarkable things that sighted people didn't or couldn't, including distinguishing her many grandchildren by voice (she often mistook me for my sister, but so did sighted people). But I'd never seen someone hold a sandwich with his toes. (Don't know who prepared his sack lunch.) At that time I could pick up objects with my toes, I know, because I tried it after seeing him. But walking barefoot the last few days I discovered that the joints in my toes no longer are flexible--at all. I have no idea when this ended, because I so rarely go barefoot, I haven't tried to move anything with my toes in probably 40 years.

I suspect that a healthy, limber foot should be able to pick up objects. Aren't joints supposed to move? What do you think?

Today I wore hose on my barefoot walk. The temperature has dropped about 30 degrees and we've had a lot of rain, so I thought I'd just check this out rather than not do it at all. It works fine (assuming you aren't planning to use those hose for anything else) and washing your feet afterwards is much easier because anything that sticks, is probably on the hose. Not sure why, but I found the wet grass less slippery. I thought it would be the other way.

When walking barefoot in the grass you certainly see and hear and feel more of nature, even listening to Luther's Catechism on CD. A multi-sensory experience, this barefoot walking.

Give us this day our daily bread And let us all be clothed and fed. Save us from hardship, war, and strife; In plague and famine, spare our life, That we in honest peace may live, To care and greed no entrance give.

Luther wrote his small catechism in 1529, but this hymn of the Lord's Prayer in catechetical form was 1539. The tune on the CD is not the one Luther wrote.

Something's lost in translation

I've apparently blogged about this wonderful CD from Concordia before--at least I had the photo in my file. It's the text and music of Luther's Small Catechism narrated by Rev. Dr. Ken Schurb (1986). When we joined UALC in 1976, they weren't using the regular small catechism for adults--and I don't think that my kids got one either when they were confirmed in the early 80s. But now I have a nice hard bound copy. The explanations of the 10 commandments, the Apostle's Creed, the Lord's Prayer and the sacraments are really amazing--and he intended the explanation for fathers to teach their children and other family members. It is by far the clearest summary of Christian faith I've ever read, and I've seen a lot of Christian books--most full of "me, my, mine and myself."

What is interesting is that older translations from German to English read:

“The Simple Way a Father Should Present it to his Household “
but the modern English reads
“As the head of the family should teach them in a simple way to his household.”

Similar but not the same. Today, a head of the family could be a single mother--widowed, divorced, never married--or grandparent or foster parent, or anyone designated "head" in the census. But I don't think that's the one Luther meant--he meant fathers, not priests, not the church, not the Sunday School teacher, have the God given responsibility to train up the child. In 1529 many people didn't know how to read, and even some of the priests were barely literate.

I've been using this disc on my walks--the question/answer format of the catechism and the wonderful hymns keep it from getting boring. I believe Luther wrote all the hymns on the CD, although I'm not sure about the tunes. "These are the Holy Ten Commands" was written before the catechism in 1524. He even versified the Nicene Creed--not an easy task. "Our Father, Who from Heaven Above" was written in 1539, and the hymn about our Lor'd baptism "To Jordan Came the Christ, Our Lord" in 1541. We saw the River Jordan on our recent trip to the Holy Land.

"These truths on Jordan's banks were shown
By mighty word and wonder.
The Father's voice from Heav'n came down.
Which we do well to ponder
"This man is My beloved Son,
In whom My heart has pleasure,
Him you must hear, and Him alone,
And trust in fullest measure
The word that He has spoken"

To us a child is born, to us a son is given

That must be on a million Christmas cards, that passage from Isaiah 9, and it is just one example of the gospel in the Old Testament. Martin Luther writes in his "A Brief Instruction on What to look for and expect in the Gospels," [1522]:

"When you lay hold of Christ as a gift which is given you for your very own and have no doubt about it, you are a Christian. Faith redeems you from sin, death, and hell and enables you to overcome all things. O no one can speak enough about this. It is a pity that this kind of preaching has been silenced in the world, and yet boast is made daily of the gospel. . . Christ as a gift nourishes your faith and makes you a Christian. But Christ as an example exercises your works. These do not make you a Christian."

He could almost be talking to the speakers in the 21st century pulpits and the congregation in the pew, waiting expectantly through warrenized, emerging and peace and justice sermons. Luther's warning almost 500 years ago has fallen on death deaf ears, because people prefer reinventing ways to find God and push away the gift--even in this gift giving season.

"Be sure, moreoever, that you do not make Christ into a Moses, as if Christ did nothing more than teach and provide examples as the other saints do, as if the gospel were simply a textbook of teachings or laws."

In proofing this I noticed I'd written "death" instead of "deaf." But isn't that the end result when churches forget the gospel and preach either law or example, and not the gospel, which Luther says is briefly summarized in Paul's letter to the Romans, 1:1-4.

"The gospel is a discourse about Christ, that he is the Son of God and became man for us, that he died and was raised, that he has been established as a Lord over all things. . . even the teaching of the prophets, in those places where they speak of Christ, is nothing but the true, pure, and proper gospel--just as if Luke or Matthew had described it."

I don't have the almost 60 volumes of Luther on my bookshelves, but I did recently buy from a used book dealer Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings, edited by Timothy F. Lull (Fortress Press, 1989). There is a 2005 edition and parts of it have been scanned by Google. I'm perfectly happy with my $9 used copy because I don't like to read books on a CRT. But if you do, the material I quoted is on pp. 94 and 95 of the 2005 edition.

A sermon on preparing to die

Martin Luther wrote some very practical material. This one written November 1, 1519, might be a good to read while listening to Henry Paulson and other government officials try to explain all the bailouts that will ruin us. Luther actually makes 20 distinct points, but only the first three matter, because 4-20 expands on three. At my other blog.

Martin Luther on baptism

Somewhere I'm sure there is a collection of just this topic. Luther had a lot to say to the "blockhead" reformers who followed him, because he wouldn't budge on this one. When we were in confirmation classes in 1976 our pastor said a wise thing, and I paraphrase, "We can argue all you want on matters of theology or polity, or meanings of different verses, but if baptism is going to be a problem for you, you'll need to find another church." Because we attend the traditional service and not many young families do, we don't participate in as many baptisms as we used to. Many years ago when our son was very small (the children at that time were always called to the front to sit around the font while the baby was baptized, our little guy returned to the pew and whispered to me, "Mommy, I can still feel the water of my baptism on my head." Visually, it's a beautiful experience of grace, like no other. The baby has done nothing, said nothing, accomplished nothing.

"Our baptism, thus, is a strong and sure foundation, affirming that God has made a covenant with all the world to be a God of the heathen in all the world, as the gospel says. Also, that Christ has commanded the gospel to be preached in all the world, as also the prophets have declared in many ways. As a sign of this covenant he has instituted baptism, commanded and enjoined upon all heathn, as Matt 28:19 declares: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father," etc. In the same manner he had made a covenant with Abraham and his descedants to be their God, and made circumcision a sign of his covenant. Here, namely, that we are baptized; not because we are certain of our faith but because it is the command and will of God. For even if I were never certain any more of faith, I still am certain of the command of God, that god has bidden to baptize, for this he has made known throughout the world. In this I cannot err, for God's command cannot deceive. But of my faith he has never said anything to anyone, nor issued an order or command concerning it.

True, one should add faith to baptism. But we are not to base baptism on faith. There is quite a difference between having faith, on the one hand, and depending on one's faith and making baptism depend on faith, on the other. Whoever allows himself to be baptized on the strength of his faith, is not only uncertain, but also an idolator who denies Christ. For he trusts in and builds on something of his own, namely on a gift which he has from God, and not on God's Word alone. So another may build on and trust in his strength, wealth, power, wisdom, holiness, which also are gifts given him by God. . .

If I were baptized on my own faith, I might tomorrow find myself unbaptized, if faith failed me, or I became worried that I might not yesterday have had the faith rightly. But now that doesn't affect me. God and his command may be attacked, but I am certain enough that I have been baptized on his Word. . . nothing is lacking in baptism. Always something is lacking in faith. However long our life, always there is enough to learn in regard to faith."

Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings, (Fortress, 1989) ed. by Timothy F. Lull, p. 364-365. The 2005 ed. has been google scanned.

Having a chat with the Devil about fear

In 1527 Martin Luther provided some theological and practical thoughts on how Christians should respond to the plague. The Black Death (bubonic plague) had swept across Europe several times since its initial appearance in 1350 brought there through trade with Asia. It was discovered in Wittenburg in August, the university was closed, and the students sent home. Luther was busy so he stayed, but in November replied to a pastor on what Christians should do. Luther was always very practical, and of course, people of that era didn't know about bacteria (lived in the intestines of rats and could be transmitted to animals or humans through fleas) or how the disease was spread, but he did know what Scripture said about helping one's neighbor.

He provides almost a script in confronting fears, horror and disgust when caring for the sick (it was a truly ugly, disgusting way to die). His advice is useful when confronting fear of any kind:

When anyone is overcome by horror and repugnance in the presence of a sick person he should take courage and strength in the firm assurance that it is the devil who stirs up such abhorrence, fear, and loathing in this heart. He is such a bitter, knavish devil that he not only unceasingly tries to slay and kill, but also takes delight in making us deathly afraid, worried, and apprehensive so that we should regard dying as horrible and have no rest or peace all through our life. And so the devil would excrete us out of this life as he tries to make us despair of God, become unwilling and unprepared to die, and, under the stormy and dark sky of fear and anxiety, make us forget and lose Christ, our light and life, and desert our neighbor in his troubles. We would sin thereby against God and man; that would be the devil's glory and delight. Because we know that it is the devil's game to induce such fear and dread, we should in turn minimize it, take such courage as to spite and annoy him and send those terrors right back to him. And we should arm ourselves with this answer to the devil:


"Get away, you devil, with your terrors! Just because you hate it, I'll spite you by going the more quickly to help my neighbor, I'll pay no attention to you.

I've got two heavy blows to use against you. The first one is that I know that helping my neighbor is a deed well-pleasing to God and all the angles; by this deed I do God's will and render true service and obedience to him. All the more so because if you hate it so and are so strongly opposed to it, it must be particularly acceptable to God. I'd do this readily and gladly if I could please only one angel who might look with delight on it. But now that it pleases my Lord Jesus Christ and the whole heavenly host because it is the will and command of God, my Father, then how could any fear of you cause me to spoil such joy in heaven or such delight for my Lord? Or how could I, by flattering you, give you and your devils in hell reason to mock and laugh at me? No, you'll not have the last word! If Christ shed his blood for me and died for me, why should I not expose myself to some small dangers for his sake and disregard this feeble plague?

If you can terrorize, Christ can strengthen me.

If you can kill, Christ can give life.

If you have poison in your fangs, Christ has far greater medicine.

Should not my dear Christ, with his precepts, his kindness and all his encouragement, be more important in my spirit than you, roguish devil, with your false terrors in my weak flesh? God forbid! Get away, devil. Here is Christ and here am I, his servant in his work. Let Christ prevail! Amen.

The second blow against the devil is God's mighty promise by which he encourages those who minister to the needy. He says in Psalm 41:1-3, "Blessed is he who considers the poor. The Lord will deliver him in the day of trouble. The Lord will protect him and keep him alive; the Lord will bless him on earth and not give him up to the will of his enemies. The Lord will sustain him on his sickbed. In his illness he will heal all his infirmities."


Are not these glorious and mighty promises of God heaped up upon those who minister to the needy? What should terrorize us or frighten us away from such great and divine comfort? The service we can render to the needy is indeed such a small thing in comparison with God's promises and rewards that St. Paul says to Timothy, "Godliness is of value in every way, and it holds promise both for the present life and for the life to come" I Tim. 4:8. . . [and continues for more pages] from "Whether one may flee from a deadly plague," in Martin Luther's basic theological writings, ed. by Timothy F. Lull, Fortress Press, 1989, p. 736-755

A note with this passage says Luther suffered a severe attack of cerebral anemia in 1527 followed by deep depression which may be one reason for the mild tone!

The 2005 edition of this title has been google scanned.

Reformation Sunday

We both forgot to wear red; looking around the 8:15 service I see many others did too. In the Cornerstone this week Pastor Eric Waters writes

"Because we were the first of the Protestant churches, many of our fellow Protestants look on us with suspicion as being "too Catholic." They point to our practice of infant baptism, belief that the bread and wine of Communion really is the Body and Blood of Jesus, and the recitation of the Creed as proof that we're still stuck in the superstition of the Middle Ages. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic church looks on our longer sermons, various liturgies, and disagreement with the Pope as proof that we went too far. In short, most of our fellow Christians look on us as neither fish nor fowl: too Catholic for some, too Protestant for others."

My husband was baptized as an infant (Presbyterian), and I was about 12 (Church of the Brethren). If you ever want to see a Lutheran pastor go pale in your adult confirmation/transfer class, just ask to be re baptized. On the other hand, there are Protestant churches that would want to do mine over, because they wouldn't trust the minister or denomination who presided at mine. Lutherans and Catholics see infant baptism as done by God, not by man, so Lutheran pastors don't do that. I think Luther himself gave a good explanation, because he really had more problems with the reformers (in my opinion) who came after him (he called them dolts and blockheads) than the Catholics and Humanists. To the argument that you don't remember your baptism, he replies

Were I to reject everything which I have not seen or heard, I would indeed not have much left, either of faith or love, either of spiritual or of temporal things

He asks the anabaptists. . . How do you know who your parents are. . .you don't remember your birth, so why should you honor your parents? Why should you obey the government if you haven't seen the leader. How do you know the apostles preached. If you can't believe anything you haven't seen, felt or experienced, says Luther, you're in the devil's pocket.

To the argument that you need to believe before baptism, Luther really works up steam

For if they follow this principle they cannot venture to baptize before they are certain that the one to be baptized believes. How and when can they ever know that for certain? Have they now become gods so that they can discern the hearts of men and know whether or not they believe? . . . You say that he confesses that he believes. Dear sir, confession is neither here nor there. The text does not say, "He who confesses," but "He who believes."

And how many times would you be rebaptized asks Luther. Each time you have a fresh sense of your faith, or after each doubt is put down.

So when next day the devil comes, his heart is filled with scruples and he says, Ah, now for the first time I feel I have the right faith, yesterday I don't think I truly believed. So I need to be baptized a third time, the second baptism not being of any avail. You think the devil can't do such things? You had better get to know him better. He can do worse than that, dear friend. He can go on and cast doubt on the third, and the fourth and so on incessantly. . . the end result? Baptizing without end. All this is nonsense. Neither the baptizer nor the baptized can base baptism on a certain faith. . .

Since our baptizing has been thus from the beginning of Christianity and the custom as been to baptize children, and since no one can prove with good reasons that they do not have faith, we should not make changes and build on such weak arguments. . .

When they say, "Children cannot believe," how can they be sure of that? Where is the Scripture by which they would prove it and on which would they build? They imagine this, I suppose, because children do not speak or have understanding. [goes on to tell the story of John and Jesus in their mothers wombs as an example that children can know and understand and believe]. . .What if all children in baptism not only were able to believe but believed as well as John in his mother's womb?

He gives another example from a betrothal and wedding where a girl marries reluctantly and without love then after 2 years, she loves her husband.

Would then a second engagement be required, a second wedding be celebrated as if she had not previously been a wife, so that the earlier betrothal and wedding were in vain?. . .

Rebaptism is relying on works, says Luther. God's Word is unchanging even if the person doing the baptism does not have faith.

The unchanging Word of God, once spoken in the first baptism, ever remains standing, so that afterwards they can come to faith in it, if they will, and the water with which they were baptized they can afterwards receive in faith, if they will. Even if they contradict the Word a hundred times, it still remains the Word spoken in the first baptism. Its power does not derive from the fact that it is repeated many times or is spoken anew, but from the fact that it was commanded once to be spoken.

You can read Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings ed. by Timothy Lull on-line.

Luther recommended book burning--his own

There's nothing like the political season to enjoy some good name calling and personal smears. No one mastered this like Martin Luther, who struggled with the Roman church whose defenders thought he'd gone too far in his reforms, and the other Reformers who thought he hadn't gone far enough. Coxcombs and blockheads, he called them. Today at my other blog, I write about his suggestion that his own books be burned because he'd learned so much from his critics.

If you're skipping Sunday worship . . .

This week I've been reading "A history of Lutheranism" by Eric W. Gritsch (Fortress Press, 2002). Very readable. In chapter 3 (p. 71) there is this interesting explanation on "a catechetical way," and I say interesting because I didn't get much catechism, i.e. instruction, (became a member in the loosey-goosey 70s), and it's not clear to me what our Lutheran (UALC, Columbus) congretation does to instruct new members these days--looks like 2.5 hours on a Sunday afternoon.

"Because Luther had advocated a spiritual equality between clergy and laity based on baptism, he made the ordained and nonordained partners in Christian formation through worship and education. Accordingly, participants in worship need to understand and become part of the Sunday liturgy, and they need to experience their station in life as a divine calling to make faith active in love. Thus, there is an intimate link between the Sunday celebration of God's love in Christ and the Monday obligation of love of neighbor."

Isn't that nicely said? Loving God, and neighbor as yourself begins with Sunday worship. Then the author goes on

"Worship through word and sacrament is the inhaling of divine power, as it were, and making a living in the world is exhaling."

Some of the music in our worship service geared to the youth and gen-x families is so loud and thumpity-bump-bang-crash that I suspect some are mistaking an increase in heart rate for divine power, but then Bach and some Wesley hymns do that for me.

"(p.40) Worship and education were to Luther the twin pillars of Christian life. That is why he urged everyone, especially pastors, to use the liturgy of word and sacrament, together with the catechism, as the bridge from false security and vanity to proper conflict with the world's evil. . . his pedagogical theory is fundamentally collaborative and reinforcing, with the emphasis on voluntary education at home, enforced in church and school."

Sounds quite modern to me. Luther thought that the monastic schools were poor and advocated public schools so that parents could be involved, and he also recommended the establishment of public libraries! I didn't know that. I think we skipped that in the history of librarianship when I was in graduate school.