Luther and Liberation: A Latin American Perspective

This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:20:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

13 Resistance and Violence Admonition to Peace, A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia (1525)1 We have no one on earth to thank for this disastrous rebellion, except you princes and lords, and especially you blind bishops and mad priests and monks, whose hearts are hardened, even to the present day. You do not cease to rant and rave against the holy gospel, even though you know that it is true and that you cannot refute it. In addition, as temporal rulers you do nothing but cheat and rob the people so that you may lead a life of luxury and extravagance. The poor common people cannot bear it any longer. The sword is already at your throats, but you think that you sit so firm in the saddle that no one can unhorse you. This false security and stubborn perversity will break your necks, as you will discover. (19) The peasants have just published twelve articles, some of which are so fair and just as to take away your reputation in the eyes of God and the world and fulfill what the Psalm [107:40] says about God pouring contempt upon princes. Nevertheless, almost all of the articles are framed in their own interest and for their own good, though not for their best good. (22) 1. Martin Luther, Admonition to Peace, A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia (1525) in Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehman, eds., Luther’s Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1955–), 46:17–43; hereafter referred to as LW. Page numbers for the following block quotes also refer to this source. 281 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:22:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

In the first article they ask the right to hear the gospel and choose their pastors. You cannot reject this request with any show of right, even though this article does indeed make some selfish demands, for they allege that these pastors are to be supported by the tithes, and these do not belong to the peasants. Nevertheless, the basic sense of the article is that the preaching of the gospel should be permitted, and no ruler can or ought to oppose this. Indeed, no ruler ought to prevent anyone from teaching or believing what he pleases, whether it is the gospel or lies. It is enough if he prevents the teaching of sedition and rebellion. (Ibid.) [To the peasants:] . . . [I]t is easy to prove that you are taking God’s name in vain and putting it to shame; nor is there any doubt that you will, in the end, encounter all misfortune, unless God is not true. For here is God’s word, spoken through the mouth of Christ, “All who take the sword will perish by the sword” [Matt. 26:52]. That means nothing else than that no one, by his own violence shall arrogate authority to himself; but as Paul says, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities with fear and reverence” [Rom. 13:1]. How can you get around these passages and laws of God when you boast that you are acting according to divine law, and yet take the sword in your own hands, and revolt against “the governing authorities that are instituted by God”? Do you think that Paul’s judgment in Romans 13 [:2] will not strike you, “He who resists the authorities will incur judgment”? You take God’s name in vain when you pretend to be seeking divine right, and under the pretense of his name work contrary to divine right. Be careful, dear sirs. It will not turn out that way in the end. (24–25) . . . [E]ven a child can understand that the Christian law tells us not to strive against injustice, not to grasp the sword, not to protect ourselves, not to avenge ourselves, but to give up life and property, and let whoever takes it have it. We have all we need in our Lord, who will not leave us, as he has promised [Heb. 13:5]. Suffering! suffering! Cross! cross! This and nothing else is the Christian law! But now you are fighting for temporal goods, and will not let the coat go after the cloak, but want to recover the cloak. How then will you die and give up your life, or love your enemies and do good to them? O worthless Christians! Dear friends, Christians are not so commonplace that so many can assemble in one group. A Christian is a rare bird! Would to Luther and Liberation 282 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:22:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

God that the majority of us were good, pious heathen, who kept the natural law, not to mention the Christian law! (29) Now, dear sirs, there is nothing Christian on either side and nothing Christian is at issue between you; both lords and peasants are discussing questions of justice and injustice in heathen, or worldly, terms. Furthermore, both parties are acting against any God and are under his wrath, as you have heard. For God’s sake, then, take my advice! Take a hold of these matters properly, with justice and not with force or violence and do not start endless bloodshed in Germany. For because both of you are wrong, and both of you want to avenge and defend yourselves, both of you will destroy yourselves and God will use one rascal to flog another. (40–41) Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants (1525)2 In my earlier book on this matter, I did not venture to judge the peasants, since they had offered to be corrected and to be instructed; and Christ in Matthew 7 [:1] commands us not to judge. But before I could even inspect the situation, they forgot their promise and violently took matters into their own hands and are robbing and raging like mad dogs. All this now makes it clear that they were trying to deceive us and that the assertions they made in their Twelve Articles were nothing but lies presented under the name of the gospel. To put it briefly, they are doing the devil’s work. This is particularly the work of that archdevil who rules at Mühlhausen,3 and does nothing except stir up robbery, murder, and bloodshed; as Christ describes him in John 8 [:44], “He was a murderer from the beginning.” Since these peasants and wretched people have now been misled and are acting differently than they promised, I, too, must write differently of them than I have written, and begin by setting their sin before them, as God commands Isaiah [58:1] and Ezekiel [2:7], on the chance that some of them may see themselves for what they are. Then I must instruct the rulers how they are to conduct themselves in these circumstances. (49) The peasants have taken upon themselves the burden of three terrible 2. LW 46:45–55. Page numbers for the following block quotes also refer to this source. 3. Reference to Thomas Müntzer. Resistance and Violence 283 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:22:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

sins against God and man; by this they have abundantly merited death in body and soul. In the first place, they have sworn to be true and faithful, submissive and obedient, to their rulers. [. . .] Since they are now deliberately and violently breaking this oath of obedience and setting themselves in opposition to their masters, they have forfeited body and soul. (49–50) In the second place, they are starting a rebellion, and are violently robbing and plundering monasteries and castles that are not theirs; by this time they have doubly deserved death in body and soul as highwaymen and murderers. (50) In the third place, they cloak this terrible and horrible sin with the gospel, call themselves “Christian brethren,” take oaths and submit to them, and compel people to go along with them in these abominations. Thus they become the worst blasphemers of God and slanderers of his holy name. Under the outward appearance of the gospel, they honor and serve the devil, thus deserving death in body and soul ten times over. I have never heard of a more hideous sin. (50–51) For in this case a prince and lord must remember that according to Romans 13 [:4] he is God’s minister and the servant of his wrath and that the sword has been given to him to use against such people. If he does not fulfill the duties of his office by punishing some and protecting others, he commits as great a sin before God as when someone who has not been given the sword commits murder. If he is able to punish and does not do it—even though he would have had to kill someone or shed blood—he becomes guilty of all the murder and evil that these people commit. For by deliberately disregarding God’s command, he permits such rascals to go about their wicked business, even though he was able to prevent it and it was his duty to do so. This is not a time to sleep. And there is no place for patience or mercy. This is the time of the sword, not the day of grace. (52–53) Therefore, dear lords, here is a place where you can release, rescue, help. Have mercy on these poor people! Let whoever can stab, smite, slay. If you die in doing it, good for you! A more blessed death can never be yours, for you die while obeying the divine word and commandment in Romans 13 [:1-2], and in loving service of your neighbor, whom you are rescuing from the bonds of hell and of the devil. And so I beg Luther and Liberation 284 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:22:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

everyone who can to flee from the peasants as from the devil himself; those who do not flee, I pray that God will enlighten and convert. As for those who are not to be converted, God grant that they may have neither fortune nor success. To this let every pious Christian say, “Amen!” For this prayer is right and good, and pleases God; this I know. If anyone thinks this too harsh, let him remember that rebellion is intolerable and that the destruction of the world is to be expected every hour. (54–55) Open Letter on the Harsh Book against the Peasants (1525)4 [T]he little book that I published against the peasants has given rise to so many complaints and questions, as though it were un-Christian and too hard. (63) [. . .] my little book was and remains right, even though the whole world take offense at it. (66) There are two kingdoms, one the kingdom of God, the other the kingdom of the world. I have written this so often that I am surprised that there is anyone who does not know it or remember it. Anyone who knows how to distinguish rightly between these two kingdoms will certainly not be offended by my little book, and he will also properly understand the passages about mercy. God’s kingdom is a kingdom of grace and mercy, not of wrath and punishment. In it there is only forgiveness, consideration for one another, love, service, the doing of good, peace, joy, etc. But the kingdom of the world is a kingdom of wrath and severity. In it there is only punishment, repression, judgment, and condemnation to restrain the wicked and protect the good. For this reason it has the sword, and Scripture calls a prince or lord “God’s wrath,” or “God’s rod” (Isa. 14 [:5–6]). (69–70) The Scripture passages which speak of mercy apply to the kingdom of God and to Christians, not to the kingdom of the world, for it is a Christian’s duty not only to be merciful, but also to endure every kind of suffering—robbery, arson, murder, devil, and hell. It goes without saying that he is not to strike, kill, or take revenge on anyone. But the 4. LW 46:63–85. Page numbers for the following block quotes also refer to this source. Resistance and Violence 285 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:22:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

kingdom of the world, which is nothing else than the servant of God’s wrath upon the wicked and is a real precursor of hell and everlasting death, should not be merciful, but strict, severe, and wrathful in fulfilling its work and duty. Its tool is not a wreath of roses or a flower of love, but a naked sword; and a sword is a symbol of wrath, severity, and punishment. It is turned only against the wicked, to hold them in check and keep them at peace, and to protect and save the righteous [Rom. 13:3–4]. (70) The merciless punishment of the wicked is not being carried out just to punish the wicked and make them atone for the evil desires that are in their blood, but to protect the righteous and to maintain peace and safety. And beyond all doubt, these are precious works of mercy, love, and kindness, since there is nothing on earth that is worse than disturbance, insecurity, oppression, violence, and injustice. Who could or would stay alive if such things were the rule? Therefore the wrath and severity of the sword is just as necessary to a people as eating and drinking, even as life itself. (73) Therefore I wanted to do two things: quiet the peasants, and instruct the pious lords. The peasants were unwilling to listen, and now they have their reward; the lords, too, will not hear, and they shall have their reward also. However, it would have been a shame if they had been killed by the peasants; that would have been too easy a punishment for them. Hell-fire, trembling, and gnashing of teeth [Matt. 22:13] in hell will be their reward eternally, unless they repent. (84) This [. . .] is my answer. (84) I. Context Do people who profess the Christian faith have the right and perhaps the duty to resist the constituted authorities? What would be legitimate means for a necessary resistance, and what would not? These questions will guide us in this chapter in our examination of Luther’s theology. We selected the main passages from the writings of the Reformer around the Peasants’ War. Still, to deduce Luther’s theology on the question of resistance to authorities only from these writings (a period of a few months) gives only a partial and thus, Luther and Liberation 286 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:22:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

distorted picture. Therefore, one must take into account Luther’s positions in different situations, as well as listening to his motivations and the circumstances for his intervention in the Peasants’ War.5 Indeed, it is a very difficult undertaking to evaluate Luther’s position in this conflict, which ended up siding with the princes, urging them to massacre the rebelling peasants. It is true that there are still those who advocate Luther’s positions, without qualification, in this episode, basically arguing that he had no other option in the face of the triggered revolt. Luther’s position would have been the lesser evil and would have also helped to preserve the continuity of the Reformation. In any case, the peasants would not have been able to win the war, and a different position of Luther would have resulted in a setback in other areas. Thus, for example, Mario R. Rehfeldt could argue in the introduction to the writings of Luther 5. On the theme of the Peasants’ War, see Gottfried Maron, “Bauernkrieg,” TRE, v. 5, (New York: de Gruyter, 1980), 319-38 (with a full bibliography); also Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: Ordnung und Abgrenzung der Reformation 1521-1532, v. 2 (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989), 172–93; Marc Lienhard, Martin Luther: Un Temps, une Vie, un Message (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1991), 413–28; Julio de Santa Ana, “Lutero e os Movimentos Sociais na Alemanha durante o Periodo de 1517-1525,” Perspectiva Teológica 15, no. 37 (1983): 337–49. On the life of Thomas Müntzer, see Walter Elliger, Thomas Müntzer: Leben und Werk (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976). In relation to his theology see Siegfried Bräuer and Helmar Junghans, eds., Der Theologe Thomas Müntzer: Untersuchungen zu seiner Entwicklung und Lehre (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989) and Martin Dreher, “O Profeta Thomas Müntzer, um Profeta?” REB 45, no. 165 (1982): 128–43 and in Estudos Teológicos 22, no. 3 (1982): 195–214. The works of Ernst Bloch, Thomas Müntzer als Theologe der Revolution (Leipzig: Reclam, 1989) and Friedrich Engels, “The Peasant War in Germany,” in The German Revolutions: The Peasant War in Germany and Germany: Revolution and Counter-Revolution, ed. Leonard Krieger (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967), 1–120, are interesting as interpretations of a Marxist nature, but are surpassed with regard to the status of the research. On the theme of resistance in Luther, see Karl Dietrich Erdmann, “Luther über Obrigkeit, Gehorsam und Widerstand,” in Luther und die Folgen: Beiträge zur Sozialgeschichtlichen Bedeutung der Lutherischen Reformation, ed. Hartmut Löwe and Claus-Jürgen Roepke (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1983), 28–59, especially the summary, 53–55; Oliver K. Olson, “Zwei Reiche und meine Republik,” in Gottes Wirken in seiner Welt: Zur Diskussion um die Zweireichelehre, v. 1: Dokumentation einer Konsultation, ed. Niels Hasselmann (Hamburg: Lutherisches V, 1980), 106–12, especially 107–9; Mário L. Rehfeldt, “Lutero e a Guerra dos Camponeses,” Igreja Luterana 30, no. 3/4 (1969): 103–10; and Paul Schempp, “Ist Luthers Stellung zum Staat Heute Revisionbedürftig?” in Gesammelte Aufsätze, ed. Ernst Bizer (München: Chr. Kaiser, 1960), 221–57, especially 241–44. Resistance and Violence 287 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:22:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

concerning the Peasants’ War, in Luther’s Works in Spanish, that Luther’s position, in spite of the harsh criticisms that he made, “is consistent, and the principles that guide him are profoundly biblical,” adding that the same principles could guide Christians along the path of solving today’s social question.6 On the other hand, however, it is common that even people who generally admire Luther demonstrate certain dismay and embarrassment for this chapter of his action. Indeed, already in Luther’s time, some of his best friends felt strongly deceived.7 What then of those who are driven by a critical spirit in relation to Luther on other issues as well? The writings of which we presented sections cover an extremely short period of time but nevertheless were decisive in Luther’s action: February/April 1525 to July of the same year. For many, this is a watershed in Luther’s life and work; before then the Reformation movement would have been eminently popular; after, the Lutheran Reformation would have lost completely its roots in the people. Before, it would have been a movement with revolutionary facets; after, it would have constituted a factor in the conservative stability of society. There is a portion of truth in that position, due to the depth of the impact of those events and the consequences of the outcome. However, one cannot see historical development in such a schematic way. It would be even more problematic if we wanted to assign such a radical change to Luther’s own theological views, as if he had espoused revolutionary ideas before 1525 and conservative thereafter. That would be a schema coming from premises completely unrelated to the texts available from the Reformer. In the final part of this section, we will mark some of the other 6. Mario Rehfeldt, “Introduction,” [to Luther’s Exhortación a la Paz], in Martin Luther, Obras Selecionadas, v. 2 (São Leopoldo: Sinodal, 1987), 237; hereafter referred to as OL. 7. See Mario Rehfeldt, “Introduction,” [to Luther’s Carta abierta], in ibid., 279; especially: Martin Brecht, 184–93. Luther and Liberation 288 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:22:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

positions and manifestations of Luther on the question of resistance, generally forgotten but able to nuance the understanding of Luther’s beliefs and positions in this matter. First, however, it will be necessary to recapitulate the writings and the main events related to the Peasants’ War. It is not possible to do so, of course, dispassionately– in our case with great sadness-; still, one must make an effort to approximate the texts and facts in the most rational and open way possible. 1. The Demands of the Peasants and the Historical Changes in Their Situation It has been observed repeatedly in this book that in Luther’s lifetime there was an historical transition of society from feudalism to incipient mercantile capitalism, with its economic, political, social, cultural, and religious developments. The changes also deeply affected the living conditions of the peasants, who accounted for the majority of the German population then. About three quarters of the fifteen million Germans lived in the countryside. The changes affected equally the civil laws and rights of the peasants, since to suit the new times the old Germanic law was being replaced by Roman law. In the feudal order, the peasants lived in servitude. Although their living conditions were burdensome—and obviously they were—having to work and provide lifelong obedience to their respective feudal lords, they also had secured certain rights, for example, that of living and supporting family on the assigned land, the enjoyment of production needed for family consumption, free access to hunting and fishing, and so forth. However, numerous changes were taking place in the social and economic order, such as the replacement of an exchange economy by a monetary economy, the growth of cities, the creation of new independent professions Resistance and Violence 289 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:22:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

in the craft sector, the expansion of the mining sector, the political strengthening of the centralized state apparatus around the territorial princes. The administrative-political centralization led to a substantial increase in financial obligations, with the increase of taxes and duties, restricting rights and exemptions. In fact, in this context the phenomenon of inflation appeared. The peasants found themselves deeply affected as the feudal lords, a powerful class now in sharp decline, transferred these new obligations to the peasants, and if possible, multiplied them. The very system of serfdom had entered into crisis, opening certain gaps also favorable to the peasants. It was not at all impossible for peasant servants to turn into small farmers, producing, for example, to supply the expanding cities. Others were released or escaped to the free cities,8 where they turned into independent craftsmen. However, the majority of the population, which still consisted of the peasants, continued in the field and experienced the constant curtailment of their already meager civil rights. It is in this context that we should view the claims and peasant uprisings that had been occurring with increasingly frequency. In Germany, there were important peasant revolts in 1492, 1502, 1513, and 1517, before the Peasants’ War of 1524 to 1525. Among the numerous protesting writings9 one stands out: the Twelve Articles of the Peasants of Swabia, from the end of February 1525. In short, they demanded (1) the right to elect their own pastors; (2) abolition of the “small tithe” (of vegetables), but not of the “large tithe” (of cereals);10 (3) liberation from serfdom (since they all were redeemed by Christ); (4) freedom to hunt and fish; (5) the right to chop wood in the forest 8. Germany then was not a united nation, but a conglomerate of hundreds of territorial units (rural and urban) with a good deal of autonomy. 9. See Werner Lenk, ed., Dokumente des Deutschen Bauernkrieges: Beschwerden, Programme, Theoretische Schriften (Leipzig: Philipp Reclam, 1983). 10. The tithe was the share of production that had to be delivered to the feudal landowner. Luther and Liberation 290 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:22:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

for domestic consumption; (6) recompense for compulsory labor; (7) pay for extra work for the lord; (8) reduction of rents; (9) elimination of arbitrary punishments; (10) restitution for pastures and fields taken from peasant commons; (11) abolition of inheritance taxes, which burdened widows and orphans; and (12) examination of these claims in the light of Scripture. One cannot say that the claims were uniform; on the contrary, they reflect the complexity of the peasant movement and hence the diversity of claims, some radical and maximalist, others moderate enough and without a fundamental challenge to the existing system. Some proposed nothing less than the very abolition of the system, for example, by suggesting the abolition of serfdom. Others asked only for some relief in living conditions, such as the end of arbitrary punishment. Finally, others just wanted the restoration of medieval rights that were no longer being respected by the lords, such as free hunting or fishing. The influence of the Reformation, and Luther in particular, is also clearly detectable, for example in Articles one, three and twelve. Moreover, Luther, along with Prince Frederick of Saxony, was mentioned by farmers as a possible arbiter in these matters. 2. Luther’s Writings On April 19, 1525, Luther wrote his Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants of Swabia. His objective is absolutely clear in the title and throughout the writing: he urges peace and understanding between the parties. In addition, however, Luther confirmed his attitude against any uprising as expressed in 1522.11 He was convinced that an uprising is never just, no matter how good 11. A Sincere Admonition by Martin Luther to All Christians to Guard against Insurrection and Rebellion (LW 45:57–74), 1522. In it, Luther countered the accusation of the Edict of Worms, which outlawed him, that with his preaching on freedom he had incited violent revolt. Resistance and Violence 291 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:22:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

the cause that motivates it because in the uprising irrational values would prevail, which would make it impossible for the subsequent establishment of justice. Still, Luther, in his Admonition to Peace, in no way justified the princes. On the contrary, it is to them he directed harsh criticism in the first place, accusing them of being responsible for the injustices that had become intolerable. God would be against them, and could raise up peasants from the stones (and this when three quarters of the population were peasants already!). The princes were exercising unjust and intolerable tyranny. Due to this, the princes themselves were responsible for the unrest in the country, not Luther.12 Next, Luther urged the princes to enter into an agreement with the peasants, reducing taxes and easing their plight. He sought to demonstrate that there would be indirect benefits for the princes themselves in the conciliatory attitude that he proposed: they would have nothing to lose, while the use of force represented various risks. In a second step, Luther turned to the peasants. The crux of his argument was that the peasant movement would be compromised if it interpreted itself in the name of Christ. In the name of Christ, a Christian person would have only one right: to suffer violence but never practice it.13 Redeemed by Christ, Christians could also be servants. That is, every claim presented as a direct result of the redemptive action of Christ, Luther rejected as compromising evangelical freedom itself. Using another line of reasoning, however, Luther showed himself far more open to the peasant claims: they should use human and 12. One can perceive here, once again, an attitude of self-defense in the face of the very common accusation of his opponents that he, Luther, would have, in his preaching and action, true responsibility for the peasant uprising. 13. Remember, for example, the rejection of the crusades and “holy wars,” explained in the previous chapter, in which the line of argument would be exactly the same, showing that Luther was not being arbitrary but consistent with his theological convictions. Luther and Liberation 292 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:22:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

natural law for their claims, not divine. There, he could support them. At this point, Luther obviously made the familiar distinction (not separation) between the spiritual and the secular order. He feared, therefore, that the peasant movement was making the same identification of the spiritual and the secular that in medieval Catholicism had produced such disastrous consequences. At the end of the treatise, Luther urged both parties to reach an agreement. However, when the writing was published, the revolt had exploded in various regions of Germany. Luther decided to travel through Thuringia, counseling and trying to convince the peasants not to use violence. He was no longer heard, however. On the contrary, in some places he was met with undisguised animosity. Luther could not understand the unfolding events as a result of the accelerating historical process, being on the contrary, convinced of the deceitfulness of the peasants who, even when he was invoked as a possible arbiter, neither waited for his speech nor were willing to hear it. He concluded that irrationality was prevailing among the rebels. Not without some reason, he also detected the spirit of Thomas Müntzer behind the events, who in this final stage had joined the peasant movement, contributing through his impressive rhetoric to the radicalization of the movement.14 With this sense of deception, Luther believed that it was time for the princes to use force to restore order. He produced then, on May 6, the notorious writing Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants, in truth a libelous pamphlet published as an appendix to the second edition to the Admonition to Peace. There he harshly accused the peasants of: 1. having broken their oath of obedience to the authorities; 2. having turned into robbers and murderers; 3. having 14. The current idea that Thomas Müntzer had always been identified with the life and cause of the peasants is a mistake. Instead, his action was developed principally in small towns, joining the peasant movement only in its decisive final moment. (See the detailed biography by Walter Elliger; also Martin Brecht, 148–58.) Resistance and Violence 293 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:22:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

tried to cover up their crimes with the name of Christ. Addressing the princes, he urged them to stop being timid and to employ the power of force, in order to restore and maintain order. He wanted them to suffocate the revolt with all available resources, without any hesitation. Blessed be the one who in this task stabs, hunts, and kills seditious peasants like mad dogs! The last sentence reveals his state of mind: “If anyone thinks this too harsh, let him remember that rebellion is intolerable and that the destruction of the world is to be expected every hour.”15 By his apocalyptic tone, we can perceive that Luther understood his advice as an inevitable price to pay for the world to survive! Once again, developments tragically overtook Luther. When the writing saw the light of day, published, the war was over, the peasants devastated, and Thomas Müntzer was dead. The decisive battle occurred in Frankenhausen, May 15. On that day about six thousand peasants died, who, poorly armed with sickles and other work tools, faced soldiers armed by the princes and among whom there were only six casualties. Müntzer, who in the decisive moment of confrontation convinced the peasants in a pathetic speech that God was on their side when he was able to point to a “providentially” formed rainbow in the sky at that moment (the same symbol on the flag of the rebels), managed to escape but was later captured, forced under torture to retract his positions, and was then beheaded. The princes took the victory as a good opportunity to extend the indiscriminate killing.16 Just then the terrible writing of Luther was published, taken as “theological” legitimation of the complete repression and the bloodshed in motion. On the other hand, no one 15. LW 46:55. 16. Throughout the Peasants’ War about a hundred thousand people died, the overwhelming majority of whom were peasants, a tragedy from which the peasant movement could not recover. Luther and Liberation 294 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:22:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

made use of Luther’s observation that one should show mercy to the peasants, once defeated or imprisoned. The princes felt legitimated, the peasants betrayed, and even Luther’s closest friends could not hide their disappointment and their shock. In July 1525, Luther wrote his Open Letter on the Harsh Book against the Peasants. Despite everything that happened, Luther ratified his earlier positions. He was still convinced that the rebellion had to be suppressed. However, he reminded his readers that he had also said that, after the rebellion, the princes should exercise mercy both to the innocent and to the guilty. It would therefore be illegitimate to refer to him to justify the continued repression when the peasants were already hopelessly defeated. II. Questions and Reflections 1. A first set of questions could be: did Luther have a static view of society? Was he opposed to structural changes? Major structural changes were taking place during his time. His appeal to the Christian nobility of the German nation against the tutelage of the Pope was in itself a call to perform a radical structural transformation. He may not have advocated in favor of all the changes perceived as necessary or already emerging in his time, and which would come to fruition only much later. However, there is no doubt that he advocated and provided for very radical structural changes in Germany. The ascent of the bourgeoisie, the emergence of the early stages of absolutism, the transition from feudalism to early forms of mercantile capitalism—all this constituted profound historical changes. In general, Luther did not attempt to impede them; on the contrary, he became the spokesperson for some of them. At first he was even a leading figure of change. It is true that sometimes we can observe Resistance and Violence 295 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:22:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

medieval values or concepts, for example, in his view of commerce. This simply shows that the general issue is too complex, making it impossible to answer in a simplistic way whether Luther was in favor of structural changes or often just proposed palliative solutions. 2. A different question is to consider whether he sacrificed social reform in favor of religious reform. Certainly, Luther’s priority was to maintain the evangelical freedom that the Reformation movement had rediscovered. This for him was more important than any social reform he may also have defended. When he had to choose between the two kinds of reform, there was no doubt which way he would tilt. Religious reform should proceed. It is likely that his belief that the rediscovery of the gospel could be lost again in the chaos deeply influenced the positions taken by Luther in the Peasants’ War.17 On the other hand, one should not be tempted to overestimate Luther’s influence on historical events, even if he had been one of their most decisive protagonists. To think that the action—and even a simple word—of one person, no matter how remarkable it is, could irrevocably determine the course of historical events, is no more than a naïve idealistic perspective.18 There were many other factors and forces that led the historical process forward. Now, in particular, in relation to the Peasants’ War, many of the critical appraisals of Luther work with an underlying assumption of such idealism. The entire episode can be presented as if he, Luther, had been the cause of events and how it had been in his power to determine the outcome. It should be obvious that Luther was a historical human being deprived of this kind of omnipotence. It is true that he intervened in the course of events, but as we 17. But also in relation to the pacifist religious movements (see chapter 7, section III, item 2.1, including the citation in note 48, and chapter 12, section III, item (e.) and also note 12). 18. The term “idealist” is used here in its philosophical sense, according to which reality is shaped by ideas. A naïve idealism can be characterized also by a strong dose of individualism, as if a single individual could determine history. Luther and Liberation 296 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:22:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

saw, on both sides of the conflict, his advice arrived tragically late, as events occurred faster than his publications. Thus, his appeal ended up influencing the princes not as the courage to fight the rebels but served them with legitimacy for the massacre of the peasants after they were already defeated. However, in no way had he been a decisive factor in the defeat of the peasants. 3. More significant for us, if we want to ask about the current relevance of Luther’s teaching, is the following question: had Luther been, always consistently, against all forms of resistance from below? It is necessary to call into question the presumed position on this issue. Let us see. Luther had already opted to support the princes in 1520 when he wrote To the Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate. 19 At that moment, he could still count on widespread national unity to configure some consensus around his cause. He could count on the support of several social segments, including the peasants. His credibility with the peasants in 1525 was such that he was considered a possible arbitrator in the conflict, although one should not rule out the possibility that the call for Luther’s mediation had an element of the tactical in the peasants’ and their leaders’ consideration. Yet, it is not irrelevant that already in that first moment Luther had on his part a link with and an option for the princes, conscious of the historic role they played. His loyalty to the princes could have deepened further after 1521, when Luther received the decisive protection of the Elector-Prince Frederick, the Wise. Certainly, Luther also conceived of society as hierarchically structured. In this, he was rather medieval in mentality. In any case, Luther remained fundamentally faithful to this option from the start. 19. LW 44:123–217. See also, above, chapter 9: The Political Calling and the Church. Resistance and Violence 297 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:22:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

When the peasants’ issue sharpened, he attempted at first a negotiation; however, when the inevitable social explosion occurred, he urged the princes to put an end to the revolt. He never regretted it. In later texts, he always maintained that his position was necessary in the circumstances. However, after the annihilation of the peasants, there are times when Luther expressed more openness on the issue of resistance and violence from the grassroots. In this context, we should also consider the many and acute protests against the economic and political tyranny of the pope, the bishops, and clergy. In this, he was not completely consistent; one would expect him to remain faithful to his hierarchical perspective. However, his attitude is clearly one of disobedience. In this point, precisely, he had called upon the princes—and then counted on the support of a broad national movement—to break the connections with these foreign ecclesiastical authorities. Now, in a traditional sense, this was rising from below against the established order because, according to the medieval system, princes were inferior to the papal authorities. There are other texts in which Luther explored the possibility that subordinate authorities rise up against superior authorities in cases where the law was being broken. It is well known how difficult it was for Luther, who wanted to remain loyal to the emperor, even many years after being banned by the Imperial Diet of Worms, to accept the idea of a league of Protestant princes acting against the attempts of Charles V to subject those princes sympathizing with the evangelical cause, forcing them to put an end to religious dissent. Under the influence of legal advice, Luther ended up finally admitting that the princes could resist the emperor, since the imperial order itself also stipulated that the emperor depended on the princes.20 There are even some texts, principally from the 1530s, in which 20. See Olson, 108. Luther and Liberation 298 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:22:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Luther claims it is legitimate for the state apparatus authorities to revolt against the princes. Here, his primary interest lay in preserving his basic evangelical discovery. It is not yet the right of the lower levels of society to rebel against the higher but only the right of immediately subordinate authorities to resist violations of law by immediately higher authorities. In any case, however—and this is significant—it is a rupture with his past contributions in the sense of simply being obedient to higher powers. However, already in 1523, in On Secular Authority, Luther had defended not only the right but also the duty of disobedience and resistance, even if passive, when personal belief was not being respected by the prince. There are also texts that recommend disobedience when the second table of the Decalogue, understood as concerning social and political context, is not fulfilled by the secular authority. For example, as explained in the previous chapter, disobedience is lawful and even required when war is unjust. With regard to the means of resistance, there are many texts in which Luther indicated the Word as a means of resistance, backing this up with references to biblical texts, such as Acts 5:29, for example: “We must obey God rather than any human authority.”21 Luther also could argue that the rulers and theologians are those who are made captive most easily by Satan. The good ruler is a rare bird, he liked to say; for this, one has to be criticized on the basis of law. That 21. The same biblical text is evoked in Article Sixteen of the Augsburg Confession. See The Book of Concord: The Confession of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 48 and 50 [translation of the German text] and 49 and 51 [translation of the Latin text]; hereafter referred to as BC. This reference served as a confessional basis for the Lutheran Church of Norway to resist the authorities of the Nazi occupation, classified as an illegitimate State, which could be resisted. See Torleiv Austad, “The Doctrine of God’s Twofold Governance in the Norwegian Church Struggle from 1940 to 1945: Fifteen Theses,” in Lutheran Churches—Salt or Mirror of Society?: Case Studies on the Theory and Practice of the Two Kingdoms Doctrine, ed. Ulrich Duchrow (Geneva: LWF, 1977), 84-94. Resistance and Violence 299 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:22:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

is: resistance through the Word, through prophetic testimony, is not only permitted but also required in certain situations. Then, we can find in Luther some elements that are essential in non-violent active resistance: the principles of law and justice; the willingness to suffer before inflicting suffering on others; the refusal to deny the absolute possibility of the conversion of the oppressor in the face of criticism; and the willingness to suffer on the part of the victims of injustice, thus unmasking and disarming the oppressor. Would this defense of non-violent active resistance be a general principle in Luther? It would be a fundamental misunderstanding of all Luther’s theology to aim to find in it, in regard to issues of an ethical nature, any absolute or general principle; the numerous contradictions demonstrate this. Strictly speaking, they are only apparent contradictions because they are derived from positions in different situations and these should be taken into account in the process of ethical discernment. Occasionally, Luther would come to defend the use of violent methods, although—as is obvious, we repeat—not advocating it as an absolute principle, applicable to all kinds of situations. Here is one of those particularly clear statements of Luther in 1530, referring to the figure of a tyrant: “If a tyrant attacks and persecutes one subject, he attacks and persecutes all the rest as well, one after another; from that would follow that if one allowed that to happen, he would disrupt, devastate, and destroy the whole regiment and realm.”22 Or, bluntly: “So one is more obligated and indebted to obey rights and laws than [to obey] a tyrant. . . . If he were to take by force from one man his wife, from another his daughter, from a third his lands and goods, and the citizens and subjects got together, and could not tolerate his violence 22. From Dr. Martin Luthers Sämtliche Werke, Vol. 62 (Frankfurt-Erlangen, 1854), 190 quoted in Widerstand Gegen die Staatsgewalt. Dokumente der Jahrtausende, ed. Fritz Bauer (Frankfurt: Fischer, 1965), 97. [English translation by MS.] Luther and Liberation 300 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:22:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

and tyranny any longer; they would be within their rights to kill him, as they would any murderer or highwayman.”23 Hence the deduction: “We are committed to obey the law and the laws more than a tyrant.”24 4. One can conclude that Luther had a fundamentally hierarchical vision of society, a legacy of medieval times. He broke with the authority of the church over the political realm, a highly significant and liberating contribution for his time. He basically left unchallenged, however, the hierarchical structure of society as a whole. From here derives his frequent emphatic commitment in favor of obedience to the authorities and his aversion to insurrection. In the episode of the Peasants’ War, he assumed that the very cause of the gospel was being threatened. His evangelical concerns and hierarchical view of society came together to compel him to oppose the peasants in their revolt, encouraging the princes to choke it violently. It was not a position, which it is possible to be proud of today; on the contrary, we must be ashamed of it, particularly concerning his wrathful pamphlet Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants. At the same time, however, once the hierarchical view of society is overcome, replaced by a radically democratic perspective, a new approach can flourish. The intense solidarity Luther demonstrated with people in need, on economic issues, for example, can also bear fruit in the political sphere. It is significant that Luther himself could open cracks in the construction of the first monolithic view of his schema of authority and obedience. There remains a theological task for us: to proceed on this path and deepen these perspectives, in a sense of active solidarity, 23. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar: Hermann Böhlau, 1983) TR 1, 559 (n. 1126). [English translation by MS.] 24. Bauer, 98. [Translation by T. Cooper.] Resistance and Violence 301 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:22:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

centered on achieving justice and peace. We are Christian people who live in different times and contexts, and with a new awareness of the prevailing social and political structures in the world today. It is not for us to repeat Luther’s words, but in a radical critical freedom, commit ourselves to a creative reconstruction of his basic discoveries and perceptions. Luther and Liberation 302 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:22:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

14 Luther—Defender of the Jews or Anti-Semite? A good hermeneutic understands the effort toward objectivity but not the pretense of neutrality.1 The subject “Luther and the Jews”2 is an illustrative example. The study is to be done in the context of the oppressive weight of the history of the persecution of the Jews and in the full consciousness of Jewish suffering. Without losing sight of this frame of reference, one has the duty to seek to expose and evaluate the question as objectively as possible.3 1. This is a revised version of an article originally published: Walter Altmann, “Lutero—Defensor dos Judeus ou Anti-Semita?,” Estudos Teológicos, 33, no. 1 (1003): 74–82. 2. In the first Brazilian edition of this book (1994) I employed the expression “the Jewish people.” I have abandoned that now, in favor of the simple expression “the Jews,” for two reasons. First, the concept of a people, in the modern sense, was not current in Luther’s time. Second, the use of the concept of “people,” in relation to the Jews, in an ethnic sense, which is suggested by the current use of the term, became problematic after the substantial work of the Israeli historian Shlomo Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People, trans. Yael Lotan (New York: Verso, 2010). Ironically and tragically, the ethnic conception of a Jewish “people” both nourished Nazi ideological fury in the terrible attempt at total extermination of the Jews, as it has nurtured to this day the Zionist ideology and dream. According to Sand, Jewish identity throughout history is based on religion, not an ethnic characteristic. 3. Helmar Junghans began his essay on Luther and the Jews observing how difficult a task it is “especially” for a German Lutheran, as Luther’s writings were evoked as legitimation for the extermination of the Jews by the National Socialist regime in Germany (Helmer Junghans, “Martin Luther und die Juden,” Die Zeichen der Zeit vol. 50, no. 5 (1996):162–69). But it also is not easy for Lutherans of any nationality, in my case as well, being of German descent. As Junghans also noted, “all distinctive analyses of Luther’s writings on the Jews can easily 303 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:23:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Jews have suffered a long history of prejudice, discrimination, persecution, and violent death. Much of this suffering was inflicted by Christians and in the name of Christian values, when not in the name of God and Christ himself. Therefore, our reflection, as Christian people—and, particularly, as Lutherans of German descent—should be a self-critical look at our past and a combative stance against the anti-Semitism still with us today. In October 1992, the Eighteenth General Convention of the IECLB, held in Pelotas/RS, engaged the theme of the resurgence of the issue of racist demonstrations in many parts of the world, in particular (though by no means exclusively) against the Jews. In reunified Germany and in other European countries increased prejudice and attacks against foreigners in general were registered. Xenophobia is still a serious problem in the so-called “advanced” societies, given the persistent and growing animosity toward immigrants today. Actions of an anti-Semitic nature have also been registered in Brazil. The Council instructed the Directorate of the IECLB to develop an official condemnation of this resurgence of racist actions and expressions. The declaration of the IECLB, dated the 9th of December 1992, and signed by Presiding Pastor Gottfried Brakemeier, then also President of the LWF, led with the title God is not racist. 4 Contrary to the current conception that Brazilian society was not racist, the declaration reminds Brazilians that racism has been exercised throughout our history against indigenous people, the black seem like a desperate attempt to clear the reformer’s name” (Ibid). But to avoid this, should he “take pains to cumulate Luther with condemnations? Or should he prefer silence?” (Ibid.) I understand that, as neither of these options is acceptable, it is necessary to run the risks inherent in the project of addressing the issue. [Translations from the Portuguese by T. Cooper.] 4. Deus não é Racista (God is not racist). “Declaração da Igreja Evangélica de Confissão Luterana no Brasil.” Boletim Informativo do Conselho Diretor da IECLB, no. 131, (1992). (Also accessible through http://www.luteranos.com.br/conteudo/deus-nao-e-racista.) The quotations that follow in this and the next two paragraphs are from this document and are translated by the T. Cooper. Luther and Liberation 304 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:23:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

population and the Jews, mentioning also the “Northeasterners”5 as targets of recent racist actions. Even if it is a multi-ethnic country, “there is still the reality of open and camouflaged signs of racism, hidden and yet blatant.” Next, the document denounced, in particular, the ideologies, such as apartheid in South Africa, then still not abolished, ideologies that support racist practices, establishing “a hierarchy of races,” and legitimizing the use of violence against the “other” race. In contrast, the document postulated: “The peaceful coexistence of races, ethnicities and cultures arises again as urgently needing to be addressed.” Nor can the Christian point of view justify “racism of any kind,” because diversity is the “mark of creation,” without any distinction in value or dignity. Thus, “racial discrimination amounts to contempt of the Creator God.” The statement also denounced that “anti-Semitism has played an especially heinous role” in history. Regarding the “Holocaust of the Jewish people in Nazi Germany,” it stated: “Only blindness or deliberate falsification are capable of negating the historicity of this genocide and its evidence.” On the other hand, the document recalled that racism has multiple causes: psychological, social, economic, educational, and so forth. In any case, however, the IECLB recognized it was summoned, along with the “sister Churches and all segments of Brazilian society to combat racist attitudes in their own ranks,” remembering not least that “Christians and Jews are united by faith in the same God.” In the examples developed here, we intend to confront the reader with a selection of Luther’s writings about the Jews. We believe that the content will be more than sufficient to provoke reflection, doubts, 5. In fact, “the northeasterners” again became the target of angry and deeply prejudiced invectives on social networks after the presidential elections of 2014, when President Dilma Rousseff received a large majority of the votes in the Northeast region. Luther—Defender of the Jews or Anti-Semite? 305 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:23:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

and, even, indignation, accompanied by shame for those who are heirs of the Lutheran Reformation and, in other ways, committed to it. It will also be striking that Luther did not always exhibit the same opinions on the Jews. A task of hermeneutics, of course, is to try to capture what may be common in the different manifestations and also the reasons and the consequences of the dramatic change of Luther’s discourse, in particular his practical recommendations. It is especially disturbing that Luther’s thinking developed from a position relatively open and favorable to the Jews, and this in an environment of multiple prejudices and discrimination in relation to them, into a frankly aggressive position of taunting exhortations to discrimination and exclusion. Therefore, one must also ask about the implications of Luther’s thinking also in our time, especially in Nazism. At the same time, it is necessary to ask whether, despite the change in Luther’s position there is still some constant theological category, with which we could detect Luther’s primary interest in this matter. Finally, it is necessary to reflect on what would be the proper theological basis that could effectively counter the always present temptation of racist practices and ideology. These issues will be addressed in the final reflections. Among Luther’s writings about the Jews, two stand out in particular: That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew (1523) and On the Jews and their Lies (1543). We present the translation of some passages from these writings, preceded by a stanza of an Easter hymn. I. Texts That Show Sympathy for the Jews Easter Hymn Our great sin and heavy iniquity nailed to the cross Jesus, the true child of God. Luther and Liberation 306 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:23:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Therefore, we should not with hostility scold you, poor Judas nor the multitude of Jews; the fault is entirely ours.6 That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) I will cite from Scripture the reasons that move me to believe that Christ was a Jew born of a virgin, that I might perhaps also win some Jews to the Christian faith. Our fools, the popes, bishops, sophists, and monks—the crude asses’ heads—have hitherto so treated the Jews that anyone who wished to be a good Christian would almost have had to become a Jew. If I had been a Jew and had seen such dolts and blockheads govern and teach the Christian faith, I would sooner have become a hog than a Christian.7 They have dealt with the Jews as if they were dogs rather than human beings; they have done little else than deride them and seize their property. When they baptize them they show them nothing of 6. Dr. Martin Luthers Sämtliche Werke (Frankfurt & Erlangen, 1854–) 56, 359; hereafter referred to as EA. We cite here a verse of the hymn, not included in the official hymnal of the IECLB, Hinos do Povo de Deus: Hinário da Igreja Evangélica de Confissão Luterana no Brasil (São Leopoldo: Sinodal, 1981) nor in LW or the Lutheran Book of Worship (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1978), not even, to my knowledge, in any contemporary hymnal. Luther’s authorship is not fully proven, though it is likely. Anyway, the point of view of this musical genre is a significant variation in the spirit of Luther’s theology from the known songs which accompanied the popular “flogging of Judas,” a practice where a puppet of Judas would be beaten up on the streets (still present today as a folk tradition in various regions of Brazil on Good Friday and Hallelujah Saturday, the Saturday before Easter Sunday). The songs that accompanied this practice always had a strong anti-Judas tone when not anti-Jewish. In Luther’s version, the blame for the death of Jesus is no longer attributed to Judas and the Jews, but is assumed by the author or community that sings the hymn (see D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar: Hermann Böhlau, 1883-) 35, 576; hereafter referred to as WA). The original text reads: Unsere große Sünde und schwere Missetat Jesum, den wahren Gottessohn ans Kreuz geschlagen hat, Drum wir dich, armer Judas, dazu der Juden Schar nicht feindlich dürfen schelten, die Schuld ist unser gar. See also Hans-Martin Barth, The Theology of Martin Luther: A Critical Assessment (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), 305. 7. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehman, eds., Luther’s Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1955–) 45, 199–229; hereafter referred to as LW. Luther—Defender of the Jews or Anti-Semite? 307 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:23:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Christian doctrine or life, but only subject them to popishness and monkery. When the Jews then see that Judaism has such strong support in Scripture, and that Christianity has become a mere babble without reliance on Scripture, how can they possibly compose themselves and become right good Christians? I have myself heard from pious baptized Jews that if they had not in our day heard the gospel they would have remained Jews under the cloak of Christianity for the rest of their days. For they acknowledge that they have never yet heard anything about Christ from those who baptized and taught them. I hope that if one deals in a kindly way with the Jews and instructs them carefully from Holy Scripture, many of them will become genuine Christians and turn again to the faith of their fathers, the prophets and patriarchs. They will only be frightened further away from it if their Judaism is so utterly rejected that nothing is allowed to remain, and they are treated only with arrogance and scorn. If the apostles, who also were Jews, had dealt with us Gentiles as we Gentiles deal with the Jews, there would never have been a Christian among the Gentiles. Since they dealt with us Gentiles in such brotherly fashion, we in our turn ought to treat the Jews in a brotherly manner in order that we might convert some of them. For even we ourselves are not yet all very far along, not to speak of having arrived. When we are inclined to boast of our position we should remember that we are but Gentiles, while the Jews are of the lineage of Christ. We are aliens and in-laws; they are blood relatives, cousins, and brothers of our Lord. Therefore, if one is to boast of flesh and blood, the Jews are actually nearer to Christ than we are, as St. Paul says in Romans 9 [:5]. (200–201) Accordingly, I beg my dear papists, should they be growing weary of denouncing me as a heretic, to seize the opportunity of denouncing me as a Jew. (201) If we really want to help them, we must be guided in our dealings with them not by papal law but by the law of Christian love. We must receive them cordially, and permit them to trade and work with us, that they may have occasion and opportunity to associate with us, hear our Christian teaching, and witness our Christian life. If some of them should prove stiff-necked, what of it? After all, we ourselves are not all good Christians either. (229) Luther and Liberation 308 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:23:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

II. Texts That Show Aversion to the Jews On the Jews and their Lies (1543) I had made up my mind to write no more either about the Jews or against them. But since I learned that these miserable and accursed people do not cease to lure to themselves even us, that is, the Christians, I have published this little book, so that I might be found among those who opposed such poisonous activities of the Jews and who warned the Christians to be on their guard against them. I would not have believed that a Christian could be duped by the Jews into taking their exile and wretchedness upon himself. (137)8 This is my reply to you and to him. It is not my purpose to quarrel with the Jews, nor to learn from them how they interpret or understand Scripture; I know all of that very well already. Much less do I propose to convert the Jews, for that is impossible. (Ibid.) They claim to be God’s people by reason of their deeds, works, and external show, and not because of sheer grace and mercy, as all prophets and all true children of God have to be. (175) Now we come to the main subject, their asking God for the Messiah. [. . .] So convinced are these most holy and truthful prophets that the Messiah has not yet appeared but will still come. (176) [We want to discuss this matter], in order to prove that our faith is true and that they are entirely mistaken on the question of the Messiah. (177) [Next follows the approach to the alleged defamation of Christians, Jesus and Mary, by the Jews. Following this, Luther defended the need for religious unity, culminating with the suggestion of the territorial expulsion of the Jews.] What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? [. . .] We cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath [. . .] nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already 8. LW 47, 137–306. I limit myself here to reproducing the most drastic of the passages of writing. However, in the year 1543 there are two other treaties in which Luther attacks the Jews strongly: On Shem Hamphoras and the Lineage of Christ (WA 53, 579–648) and Treatise on the Last Words of David (LW 15:267–352). Also in 1546, just three days before his death, Luther issues an equally blunt Warning against the Jews (WA 51, 195–96). Luther—Defender of the Jews or Anti-Semite? 309 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:23:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

has them by the throat. I shall give you [to the authorities] my sincere advice: (268) Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is:9 First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire. That would demonstrate to God our serious resolve and be evidence to all the world that it was in ignorance that we tolerated such houses, in which the Jews have reviled God, our dear Creator and Father, and his Son most shamefully up till now, but that we have now given them their due reward. (285) Second, that all their books—their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bib1e—be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted. (286) Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country. They may do this in their own country or wherever they can without our being obliged to hear it or know it. (Ibid.) Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it. He who hears this name from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away. And may no one be merciful and kind in this regard, for God’s honor and the salvation of us all, including that of the Jews, are at stake! (286–87) Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the country side, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like (270) Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. (Ibid.) Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen. 3 [:19]). (272) 9. The following is a composition of two series of recommendations made by Luther, partially repeated. Luther and Liberation 310 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:23:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

[If all this would prove ineffective, he had an additional suggestion:] If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews’ blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country. Let them think of their fatherland. (288) III. Questions and Reflections The National Socialist ideology in Germany post-1933, when Adolf Hitler came to power, evoked Martin Luther as a precursor and advocate of their own anti-Semitic policies and ideology, which, as is known, culminated with the attempt at the total elimination of the “Jewish people.” It is true that a good hermeneutics also requires us not to fall into the error of pure and simply attributing to a figure of the past—in our case, Luther—the atrocities committed by future generations. The history of effect [Wirkungsgeschichte10] of a historical character always includes a multitude of factors that are not reducible to one single cause. This includes that one has to be open to the possibility that the historical process presents different developments or, at times, developments even contrary to the intentions of a person at the beginning of the events. That is to say: not everything that followed the Reformation movement necessarily corresponds to the intentions of the Reformer. However, we are also not morally permitted to fall into another grave error of excusing a figure in the past from his misguided or even intensely shameful positions, because he is important to us for other reasons. Obviously, neither behavior is compatible with good hermeneutics. It is precisely this, however, that often happens with Luther. Since for many people he is important for the rediscovery of evangelical freedom, of justification by grace through faith, for the emphasis on scriptural interpretation, and so on, there are in 10. On this hermeneutical concept see Horst Georg Gadamer, “The Principle of History of Effect,” in Truth and Method, trans. Garrett Barden and John Cumming (London: Sheed & Ward, 1975), 300–307. Luther—Defender of the Jews or Anti-Semite? 311 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:23:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

those same people the propensity to face him with kindness although he took absolutely reprehensible positions eventually with tragic consequences, as in relation to the peasants, Anabaptists, and Jews, to mention a few concrete examples. Although the attempted extermination on the part of the Nazi regime did not correspond to Luther’s intentions, as he did not advocate the physical elimination of the Jews, he belongs ineluctably to the pre-history of the atrocities committed against the Jews in the twentieth century. Therefore, the first question we must face is: how can we understand—obviously without justifying—Luther’s thought on the Jews? There is a stark contrast between his positions of sympathy and aversion to the Jews. Let us try to make our observations, briefly: 1. Despite the illegitimate harshness of Luther’s observations on the Jews in his writing of 1543, there was much abuse in the direct appropriation of Luther by National Socialism. Thus, one cannot assign to Luther all the atrocities committed by National Socialism. It is true that the Germans, and therefore, German Lutherans, in the majority, joined in on this abuse, or at least, remained silent in the face of it. Direct responsibility, however, rests with the people and the generation that committed the criminal acts. There would be a lack of historical consciousness or an extremely idealistic conception of history to want to simply assign to one person’s thought, in this case Luther’s, what came to be committed throughout an ideological, political, and militarized criminal regime four centuries later. It should also be noted that Lutherans in other countries could reach diametrically opposed conclusions to the majority of German Lutherans, as occurred, for example, in the Norwegian resistance against the German occupation in World War II (1940–1945), which not only opposed State interference in the internal life of the Church, but also encouraged civil disobedience, resorted to active resistance, and turned against the persecution of the Jews.11 The Danish Luther and Liberation 312 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:23:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Lutheran theologian Regin Prenter positioned himself similarly.12 And even among the Germans, one cannot forget the decisive action and the bold theology of the Lutheran Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was executed by the National Socialist Regime, in 1945, due to his involvement in the conspiracy against Hitler. Bonhoeffer turned publicly, from the outset, against the National Socialist Regime and against all its discriminatory laws and policies and the persecution of the Jews.13 All this shows that the atrocities committed against the Jews by National Socialism also had other roots, though National Socialism could, for its macabre purposes, lay claim to positions espoused by Luther in 1543 (leaving aside completely those of 1523). It is quite plausible that the Lutheran Church of Norway has been faithful to Luther and especially to the spirit of his work, considered in its entirety, and that National Socialism has distorted it for their ideological purposes, to legitimize their actions using the shameful writing of 1543. 2. It is also true—and one can see this clearly—that the “antiJudaism”14 of Luther has no grounding in racial conceptions, but religious ones. Although it can be argued, correctly, that from the point of view of the suffering—in the case of Jewish victims, throughout history—it makes no decisive difference if the persecution they suffer is caused by racial or religious motives, the distinction will 11. See Torleiv Austad, “The Doctrine of God's Twofold Governance in the Norwegian Church Struggle from 1940 to 1945: Fifteen Theses,” in Lutheran Churches—Salt or Mirror of Society?: Case Studies on the Theory and Practice of the Two Kingdoms Doctrine, ed. Ulrich Duchrow, (Geneva: LWF, 1977), 84–94, esp. 86 and 90–91. 12. See Henrik Fossing, “The Attitude of the Danish Church toward Authority during the German Occupation, 1940–1945,” in Ibid., 111–13. 13. See Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Theologian, Christian, Man for his Times: A Biography, trans. Eric Mosbacher et al. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 206–12, esp. 206–10. Also Eberhard Bethge, “Dietrich Bonhoeffer und die Juden,” in Die Juden und Martin Luther—Martin Luther und die Juden: Geschichte—Wirkungsgeschichte—Herausforderung, ed. Heinz Kremers et al. (Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1987), 211–48. 14. The term “anti-Semitism” originated only in the nineteenth century and has clear racial overtones, while the “anti-Judaism” of Luther developed associated with a religious motivation. Luther—Defender of the Jews or Anti-Semite? 313 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:23:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

be important when we want to find the most effective way to fight the anti-Semitic views and feelings still existing within communities arising from the Lutheran Reformation. Therefore, it is essential to give attention to Luther’s theological argument. On a smaller scale, it is necessary to pay attention also to the nature and style of writing. One can observe in both writings above, Luther’s main interest in defending faith and doctrine according to his rediscovery of the gospel, so understood, in an era of great perversion in relation to faith and morals within the Church. The attacks on the papal system were of a particular hardness and harshness. Allied to this is a particularly offensive style, often frankly disrespectful, quite typical of the time in controversies, even theological ones. This motivation of the defense of evangelical faith is common in both of Luther’s writings, although there is radical difference in the attitude toward the Jews. 3. On the other hand, one can also observe the concept of “Christendom” as regards the organization of society, a concept with which Luther never broke, not having wanted to give origin to a “new” church but only to reform the one Church of Christ. Confessional unity was to him of utmost importance. It is important to remember also that the “older” Luther lived in a situation where the principle of the “territoriality” for the confession of the Reformation had been established,15 as protection for the Reformation and the possibility for its consolidation. One has to consider his “suggestion” that the Jews be established in “their” territory, in this context—something, regardless of other critical considerations, such as the characterization of forced migration, virtually unenforceable in the German territories of the sixteenth 15. We know that Luther’s expectation was that the territorial organization of the Reformation Church, under the command of the respective princes, was something emergency and passing. It became, however, something permanent. (See chapter 6: The Church—Poor People of God, section III.2.) Luther and Liberation 314 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:23:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

century, as the Jews had been banned from many of them.16 As such, although Luther defended the freedom of personal belief, he did not concede public dissent internal to society. He would classify this as “blasphemy,” which constituted a crime prohibited by law. In other words, Luther respected “heresy,” a personal conviction discordant with orthodoxy, but judged “blasphemy,” the public manifestation of doctrinal disagreement, as intolerable.17 4. In an attempt to explain the development of Luther’s thinking on the Jews, one has to discard the schema, often adopted, of the contrast between the “old Luther” and the “young Luther.” The younger would have been revolutionary, and in this case, defender of the Jews. And then, in senility, would have moved backward and, thus, become an enemy of the Jews. As with other matters,18 this explanation is not satisfactory. Even in the 1523 writing—in fact, soon translated into Spanish by “marrano” Jews19 residents in Spain and contemporaries of Luther!—we can detect the root of a religious 16. “In 1499, the Jews had been expelled from Würzburg, Mecklenburg, Magdeburg, Nuremberg, Esslingen and Ulm. In 1510, the same fate struck them in Regensburg and, later in 1524, in Hesse. At the time of Luther, Worms, Frankfurt and Prague, were the only major cities of the Empire where Jews were still tolerated.” See Marc Lienhard, Martin Luther: Un Temps, une Vie, un Message, (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1991), 260. [Translation by T. Cooper.] 17. Needless to say, this distinction, already problematic then, and sadly evoked by Luther also in relation to the Anabaptists, is absolutely unacceptable in a post-Enlightenment and plural society. 18. For example, Luther was always extremely critical of the business and financial practices of the so-called “incipient capitalism” but he was especially so toward the end of his career. Or, the explanations of the “old” Luther on the commandments, the Apostolic Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer are much more concrete and “materialist” than the explanations of the young Luther, in his more “spiritualizing” form. 19. “Marrano” is the designation, originally highly pejorative in nature, signifying etymologically “pig,” given to the Jew who, by desire or the necessity of remaining in the Iberian country where he resided, was, in fact, compelled to convert to Christianity, when the Jews were expelled from Spain (in 1492) and Portugal (in 1496). It came to designate the converted Jews on the Iberian peninsula. Those who did not accept migration nor chose conversion were subject to the death penalty. Later, the “new Christians,” as they also came to be called, would have to face the Inquisition, whenever the suspicion arise that they had secretly kept their Jewish faith. Luther—Defender of the Jews or Anti-Semite? 315 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:23:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

thought which continues to be present in the 1543 writing, namely: the Jews rejected the Messiah. In 1523 Luther still took this fact as perfectly understandable, in view of what he considered to be the perversion of Christianity under the aegis of the Roman papacy. With the evangelical renewal through the Reformation, the attitude of the Jews could change, the Reformer thought. With evangelical freedom regained, the conditions would exist for the Jews to recognize the Christian truth and embrace faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah. However, this expectation did not materialize and in the 1543 writing Luther came to the conclusion that it would be “impossible” to expect the conversion of the Jews.20 Luther, even, would have received information (or perhaps rumors) of some conversions of Christians to Judaism. There he went on to assign the non-conversion of the Jews to Christianity, to their “stubbornness” and their “hardness of heart,” or, even, their being instruments of Satan. Luther then became a victim of his own theological conception that “the Jews rejected the Messiah” and came to welcome into his own argument the wide range of prejudices, libel, and slander toward the Jews that circulated freely in his time.21 5. We have already referred to Luther’s “Christological” argument, 20. LW 47:137. However, in his Warning against the Jews, written three days before his death, Luther, despite the accusations known to be made by him, exhorts that “we exercise toward them [the Jews] Christian love and intercede on their behalf, so that they may convert” (WA 51, 195, 39–40). [Translation by T. Cooper.] 21. See, in this regard, among others, Lienhard, 259–61; Junghans, 162–65 (where clearly biased conceptions, even by the humanist Erasmus of Rotterdam, otherwise famous for advocating for tolerance and peace, are pointed out) and Carter Lindberg, The European Reformations (Cambridge: Blackwell, 1996), 367–70. “Jews were slaughtered thousands at a time in pogroms, and were expelled wholesale from England (1290), France (1306), Spain (1492), and Portugal (1497).” (368) Lindberg also mentioned the creation of the Jewish ghetto in Rome by Pope Paul IV, in 1555, and observes: “What is surprising in light of this tradition is Luther’s initial departure from the medieval anti-Jewish legacy.” (Ibid.) As for Erasmus, see Heiko A. Oberman, The Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Age of Renaissance and Reformation, trans. James Porter (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 38–40, culminating with the statement: “the entire body of Erasmus’ thought is permeated by a virulent theological anti-Judaism.” (40) Luther and Liberation 316 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:23:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

namely, the Jewish rejection of the Jesus as Messiah. This “antiJudaism” was already present in Luther’s first writing, in the sense of attributing to the Jews a false understanding of the Old Testament and a false faith for rejecting Jesus as the Messiah. According to Heinz Kremers et al., this same anti-Jewish premise was behind both the “tender mercy” in 1523 and the “sharp mercy” in 1543.22 HansMartin Barth argued, in his critical assessment of Luther’s position in relation to the Jews, that Luther, “fixated on his own understanding of what the truth is,” had made his own statements “in the shadow of a reductionist concentration on Christology” with a certain neglect of the doctrine of the Trinity23 when a better account of the first article of the Creed could have given him a more adequate open perspective. Hans Junghans pointed to the fact that Luther had defended on other occasions that the messianic kingdom can not be established with “the sword and the spear,” but only spread using the “tongue” and, therefore, Luther was “unfaithful to his Reformation theology” having called upon authorities to use these coercive and repressive instruments mentioned against the Jews.24 Where in all this was the exhortation to the practice of love that Luther in other contexts so clearly knew derived from the Gospel of Jesus Christ? 6. The proposals on how to deal with the Jews, made by Luther in his 1543 writing, in particular to the political authorities, are truly taunting, although by no means new or created by him but already practiced in many places. They reveal a shameful discriminatory spirit to which Luther is adhering, and through his influence, feeding. There cannot be on our part any hesitation in denouncing all of them as arbitrary, shameful, and anti-gospel. As heirs of the Reformation, we can only ask, in word and solidary conduct, forgiveness from the 22. Kremers et al., xiv. 23. Barth, 39. 24. Junghans, 168–69. [Translation from the Portuguese by T. Cooper.] Luther—Defender of the Jews or Anti-Semite? 317 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:23:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

victims. In 1983, on the occasion of the 500th anniversary of Luther’s birth, a committee of the Lutheran World Federation, charged with dialogue with Jewish representatives, issued a statement, in which appears: We cannot [. . .] either approve or excuse the rude anti-Jewish writings of the Reformer. Lutherans and Jews explain the Hebrew Bible differently, but we believe that a Christological interpretation of Scripture should not lead to anti-Judaism or anti-Semitism in any way. [. . .] We note with deep regret that the name of Luther came to give, in the National Socialist era, justification to anti-Semitism and that his writings gave rise to such abuse.25 Still, Nazism, by appropriating Luther’s proposals as legitimation for their own ideology and genocidal racist practice not only substituted the religious premise with a racial one but also surpassed in its practice by far all that Luther—shamefully, we repeat—dared to propose. At least two differences between Luther and the National Socialist practice seem to me to be crucial. First, while National Socialism started from the ideology of the superiority of the Aryan race, Luther, even in the 1543 writing, never negated the full humanity of the Jews. This is the first premise of inequality, the scope of which should not be underestimated. Second, contrary to National Socialism, Luther did not advocate at any time the physical extermination of the Jews. This fact is not without importance, if we consider the genocide perpetrated by National Socialism in the twentieth century. However, on the other hand, one cannot fail to recognize that Luther’s proposals, such as destroying the synagogues and all religious books of the Jews and prohibiting them from prayer and worship, obviously harmed the base of the Jewish soul. Having recognized the humanity of the Jews, as creatures of the same God professed 25. Kremers et al., xv. Also cited by Junghans, 167. [Translation from the Portuguese by T. Cooper.] Luther and Liberation 318 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:23:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

by the Christian faith, respect for their “exteriority”26 would require complete respect for their own religious expression. 7. One of Luther’s theological merits was, undoubtedly, to have consistently warned that we should not give undue importance to Luther himself. We remember in this book his famous selfclassification as “a poor and stinking sack of worms,” whose name was totally inappropriate for designating followers of Christ.27 On the contrary, Luther always pointed to Christ himself and, as witness to him, to Scripture. This was understood as an instrument in favor of life. From Scripture itself and the recognition that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23), one should decidedly abandon as a ruling theological principle the notion that “the Jewish people rejected the Messiah.” On the contrary, we will rediscover in the Bible, also in the New Testament (see Rom. 9–11), Israel as the “chosen people of God.” Luther knew that also in the Old Testament the God of mercy revealed Godself who admonishes people to live according to God’s will. On the other hand, he was convinced that many Old Testament passages pointed to Christ and the Jewish exegetes misread them to reject Christ as the Messiah. He also reproduced, in relation to the Jews, his critique of the Catholic theology of the time, as defending justification “through works.” Both the direct association of passages from the Old Testament to Christ as well as the accusation of justification by works, which led Luther to reject without quarter the theological convictions and the faith of the Jews, cannot be reproduced today by those heirs of the 26. Concept widely used by Enrique Dussel, with help from the French Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Levinas. (See Enrique Dussel, Philosophy of Liberation, trans. Aquilina Martinez and Christine Morkovsky (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1985), 39–49; Enrique Dussel, Para uma Ética da Libertação Latino-Americana, v. 1: Acesso ao Ponto de Partida da Ética (São Paulo: Loyola–UNIMEP, 1977), 93–145; and above all: Enrique Dussel, Método para una Filosofía de la Liberación: Superación Analética de la Dialética Hegeliana (Salamanca: Sígueme, 1974), 170–74. Literally translated, the Spanish word “alteridad,” used by Dussel, is “otherness.” 27. LW 45:70. See above, chapter 1: Luther at the Crossroads Between the Old and the New. Luther—Defender of the Jews or Anti-Semite? 319 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:23:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Reformation. On the contrary, one must recognize that the Bible—in what is called the “Old” Testament by Christians—is common to Jews and Christians, Jews having precedence and Christians welcomed by adoption. As “listeners” to Scripture, to the word of God, Jews and Christians (among them, Lutherans) can, and hopefully will, meet again as children of the same God. Luther and Liberation 320 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:23:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

PART IV Luther’s Legacy and Liberation Theology This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:24:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:24:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

15 What Did Luther Want, in the End? Luther seems to have many faces—in part, for external reasons. He lived in a turbulent time of profound transformations in all sectors: in culture, economy, social and political order, religion, and in morality. Luther never had the privilege or the misfortune of being able to reflect with an inner or outer distance on the historical process in upheaval. Not only was he forced to think, speak, and act in the middle of events; the facts themselves, so to speak, rained down on him, while others barreled him over. Generally, however, he retained a peculiar and surprising freedom of belief and action. Much of what he said and did was in reaction to the events that demanded he take a position. An ahistorical consistency was not, nor could it be, his concern. Add to this that Luther was an internally agitated human being, who went through profound personal transformations. He was a human being matched to his time, we can see. To this end, we remember not only the young monk anguished by the question of a merciful God, and therefore, by his own salvation but also the later Luther in his intimate, frequent, and intense tribulations.1 Effectively, 323 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:24:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

one could not expect from him a “systematic theology,” an absolutely logical and coherent doctrinal framework, a summa theologica. I. Images of Luther Anyway, Luther lends himself, as few others do, to many diverging images. If we add that both the individual researcher (does this exist?) as well as groups and eventually entire eras have particular lenses with which to see the events and people of present and past, we understand why Luther can have assumed so many images, in part contradictory, in the five centuries that separate us from him. Lutheran orthodoxy praised him as the prophet, the obstinate and unyielding defender of pure doctrine. Pietism celebrated in Luther the “convert,” who had found, through the Bible and through faith, peace with God. The Enlightenment, in turn, welcomed him as the “liberator of narrowmindedness”2 that had been caused by the tyranny of the authoritarian doctrinarism of the church. Pan-Germanists exalted Luther as a German national hero. Some time ago the psychologist Erik H. Erikson attempted to explain Luther based on his relationship with his father, an extremely harsh man in his way of educating his children.3 Dieter Forte wrote a play in which he characterized Luther as—partially naïvely, partially selfishly—a lackey of the princes.4 Finally, post-Tridentine Catholicism came to discern in Luther the very embodiment of the devil.5 1. Without doubt, one of the most significant contributions of Luther was to reflect theologically on reality, even on the believer—better: especially on the believer—even coining brilliant formulas of theological precision for the Christian experience, such as simul iustus et peccator. However, this is not the place to develop this aspect. 2. Franz Lau, Luther, trans. Robert H. Fischer (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 13. 3. Erik H. Erikson, Young Man Luther: A Study in Psychoanalysis and History (New York: Norton, 1962). 4. Dieter Forte, Martin Luther & Thomas Müntzer oder die Einführung der Buchhaltung (Berlin: Klaus Wagenbach, 1971). Luther and Liberation 324 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:24:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

In some of these characterizations, the apologetic interest is all too clear, in others, their own preconceived values are evident. Practically all, however, contain also, here and there, to a greater or lesser extent, points of reference in Luther himself, his life, and his work. 1. Is Thinking about Luther a Waste of Time? What did Luther want, in the end? In view of the above, would it not be a waste of time to try to answer this question? The title of a book, What Luther Really Said, would seem to indicate that this is an absurd claim.6 However, we cannot avoid the question. On the one hand, Luther is still very much alive and present not only because there is a Lutheranism that comes from him but also because much of him underlies even other churches7 and the modern world. It is necessary to point out that an enormous effort has been invested in the discovery of Luther in the last one hundred and some years. Beginning in 1883 the monumental Weimar edition of Luther’s writings were published (more than one hundred bulky tomes). From this textual base, beginning in 1917, what is conventionally called the Luther Renaissance has developed (especially with Karl Holl8 ). With the continued need for supplementation through further studies from the historical, cultural, and sociological realms, this 5. See Harding Meyer, “Lutero na Opinião da Igreja Católica Apostólica Romana,” Estudos Teológicos I (1961): 3–28; also Paul Schempp, “Der Mensch Luther als Theologisches Problem,” in Gesammelte Aufsätze (Munich: Christian Kaiser, 1960), 258–95, especially 265–77; Hans Joachim Iwand, “Luthers Theologie,” in Nachgelassene Werke, Vol. 5 (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1974), 52–60; Erwin Iserloh and Harding Meyer, Lutero e Luteranismo Hoje (Petrópolis: Vozes, 1969), 7–19, 85–102. 6. Gottfried Fitzer, Was Luther Wirklich Sagte (Wien: F. Molden, 1968). 7. Otto Hermann Pesch, a Catholic theologian, spoke of his anonymous presence as “Junker Jörg” (Luther’s pseudonym during his May 1521 to February 1522 exile in the Wartburg Castle under the protection of Frederick the Wise) “in present-day theology—also and above all in Catholic theology.” See “Estado Atual do Entendimento,” Lutero Ontem e Hoje, Concilium 118, no. 8 (1976): 125; edition in Spanish, 292. 8. See, Karl Holl, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte, v. 1: Luther (Tübingen: Mohr, 1923). What Did Luther Want, in the End? 325 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:24:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

research seems to have brought to light some fundamental and irreversible data for the understanding of Luther. These points should be made. But it is equally important that they be reflected on in the context of our own questions and needs. So the question, “Luther, in the end, what did he want?” could and should be addressed not from a distance and out of simple curiosity but engaged, in the sense of “and us, in the end, what do we want?” For a time, research around Luther in the Lutheran context diminished, while in Catholicism an unusual enthusiasm was registered for him.9 Cardinal Willebrands, of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, came to classify Luther, in 1970, in the Fifth General Assembly of the LWF, Evian (France), as the “common master” of the churches. With the 500th anniversary of Luther’s birth in 1983, however, there was a whole series of new research around the Reformer, within Lutheranism, but significantly also among Marxist historians of the Former German Democratic Republic.10 In Brazil, in different proportions, one can see similar experiences. There are members and representatives of the pastoral college of the IECLB who have classified Luther as “uninteresting and passé” while in ecumenical gatherings one can find a great curiosity in learning about him. On the other hand, however, there has also been in the IECLB a serious attempt to better understand Luther. The number of publications, not only of primary sources, Luther’s own texts, but also of works about Luther and his theology, both translated and from Brazil, is respectable. The decisive reason for this is the question of the confessional identity of the church, in the face of the competition among divergent theological currents within the 9. See Lutero ontem e hoje, Concilium 118, no. 8 (1976). 10. See, for example, Hans-Joachim Hoffmann et al, Martin Luther und unsere Zeit: Konstituierung des Martin-Luther-Komitees der DDR am 13. Juni 1980 in Berlin (Berlin: Aufbau, 1980). Luther and Liberation 326 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:24:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Lutheran Confession, as well as the growing religious pluralism in the country and in the world. I do not believe that it is utopian to think that Luther is playing the same ecumenical role within the IECLB that he also played between the churches. I believe we can see in the past, precursor of the present IECLB, that every “void” in Luther ended up being filled by other values, especially “German-ness” or even, partially, in its way, by the emergence of the “sister-church,” the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Brazil (IELB), related to the Missouri Synod, which has always focused intensely on the Lutheran confessional origin. Even so, having only a confessional motivation to deal with Luther seems to me insufficient and even secondary. This is because it is a defensive concern and unlike the characteristic observed in Luther himself, who was always “offensive,” that is, he was not concerned with preserving traditions but in proclaiming the gospel fearlessly into new situations. Therefore, I consider as relevant only the focus on Luther that, together with research, also asks how Luther can represent help (or, possibly, an impediment) for the evangelical life and testimony in the challenges that the Christian community faces in reality in our country, continent, and world. The upcoming 500th anniversary of the Reformation, to be celebrated in 2017, also gives a new impetus to research on Luther. Even when not explicitly declared at each step, this is the focus with which we address the question: “What did Luther want, in the end?” 2. Luther’s Limitations In an attempt to answer the question, “What did Luther want, in the end?,” it is undoubtedly necessary to analyze Luther’s errors and limitations. The view that made Luther a hero or an “evangelical saint” is as wrong as the polemic that saw in him a demon. We What Did Luther Want, in the End? 327 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:24:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

should, therefore, speak of the points where Luther was wrong, was limited, or superseded, or even issues around which there are particularly sensitive disputes. It is not the purpose of the chapter to go into detail about these aspects.11 In order not to omit the whole, however, I mention briefly the following controversial areas, from different points of view: 1. There are wild accusations that come from outside the realm of the churches. We have already mentioned Dieter Forte’s play. Even if we try to be as objective as possible, Luther’s relationship with the princes had significant fluctuations. Although he was in no way uncritical in relation to authority, his almost general acceptance of its legitimacy is nonetheless problematic both theologically and in light of its historical effects, although not intended by the Reformer. In the same context, we find Luther’s position in the face of the peasant revolt, which swung from supporting certain concrete claims to the call to the princes to massacre the rebels. 2. There are reservations that come from the ecumenical realm, even among those researchers who in general admire Luther. On the one hand, one can speak today, at least in reference to Catholic theology involved in ecumenical theological dialogues,12 of a wide acceptance of Luther’s doctrine of justification,13 precisely the foundational article for Luther himself. Pesch,14 for example, considered controversial the doctrines of the doctrine of the two 11. Some of the issues are discussed in other chapters of this book, for example, the sacraments. There are also sections specifically related to the Peasants’ War and Luther’s positions against the Jews. 12. For the text of the Joint Catholic-Lutheran Declaration, see Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, by the LWF and the Catholic Church: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/ pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-jointdeclaration_en.html. 13. Critiques such as Juan Luis Segundo’s, The Liberation of Theology, trans. John Drury (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1988), 138–49, constitute an exception today. (See also, chapter 17: The Reception of Luther’s Concept of Freedom in Latin American Liberation Theology.) 14. Pesch, 122–24 (966–68). Luther and Liberation 328 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:24:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

kingdoms and servo arbitrio, 15 limiting the sacraments to two (the Eucharist is not the problem itself).16 3. Among the reservations raised by Lutherans themselves, we will take as an example those made by Erwin Mühlhaupt.17 He disapproved of Luther’s vulgar language, his inconsistencies in the reconstruction of an evangelical church (giving ecclesiastical power to the territorial princes), and in the Peasants’ War (supporting them at first, then later urging the princes to repress them), as well as his “relapses into medieval thought,”18 acquiescing with the persecution of the Anabaptist reform movement from 1531-1536,19 and with the formation of a Protestant confessional state, as well as the persecution of the Jews, toward the end of his life. Mühlhaupt also thought he detected an “imbalance”20 in Luther’s use of Scripture and in the question of Holy Communion. Along these lines, one could argue that there are inconsistencies in the definition given by Luther to the sacraments and his legitimation of infant baptism.21 15. Indeed, many Lutherans also have their difficulties with this fundamental doctrine of Luther. See, positively, Kurt Dietrich Schmidt, Gesammelte Aufsätze (Göttingen: V&R, 1967), 96–110, 128–36; and the studies of Hans Joachim Iwand, “Die Grundlegende Bedeutung der Lehre vom Unfreien Willen für den Glauben” and “Studien zum Problem des Unfreien Willens,” in Um den Rechten Glauben; Gesammelte Aufsätze, ed. Karl Gerhard Steck (Göttingen: Chr. Kaiser, 1965), 13–31 and 31–61 respectively. 16. As for the doctrine of the two kingdoms, improper terminology strictly speaking, it is noteworthy that for some it is an integral part, most essential, and indispensable to Luther’s theology, while for others it is responsible for many of the evils of Lutheranism and political movements in Lutheran lands. Studies conducted in the LWF during the 1970s and ‘80s contributed much to elucidate the true value of Luther’s distinction (placed in the context of Christ’s struggle against Satan, in favor of God’s kingdom), parallel to the damaging effects of its misrepresentation in Lutheranism, when understood as a dichotomy between the temporal and the spiritual realms. See in this volume, chapter 8: The Reign of God in Church and State. 17. Erwin Mühlhaupt, “Was ist an Luther Überholt und was Nicht?” Luther 41 (1970): 111–19. 18. Ibid, 113. 19. Meanwhile the Lutheran-Mennonite dialogue led to the formal apology from the Lutheran communion to the Mennonite family and the granting of this apology on their part in a deliberative session and a worship of reconciliation, both loaded with much emotion, in the eleventh assembly of the LWF in 2010, in Stuttgart, Germany. 20. Mühlhaupt, 114. 21. See chapter 7: Sacraments: Tomb or Cradle of Christian Community? See also Walter Altmann, What Did Luther Want, in the End? 329 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:24:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms