The Complaint of Professor Luther

Posted on September 30, 2024 by Matthew Phillips

“I am a very busy person. Four persons are dependent on me, and each of them demands my time for himself. Four times a week I preach in public, twice a week I lecture, and in addition I hear cases, write letters, and am working on a book for publication.”*

BAG13642 Portrait of Martin Luther, 1525 (oil on panel) by Cranach, Lucas, the Elder (1472-1553); 40×26.6 cm; © Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery, UK; (add.info.: Luther (1483-1546) German religious reformer;); German, out of copyright

Many pastors (or theology professors) and likely every history professor probably smiles a bit when reading Martin Luther’s complaint here. Luther laments the demands on his time while he is seeking to publish a new book. He mentions his familial obligations first then turned toward his professional duties: preaching, lectures, writing letters, and hearing marriage dispute cases. One can imagine today committee meetings, teaching, and emails while trying to finish an important publication. Luther concludes with a commendation of his wife, Katharina, for her taking care of the household duties.

*Martin Luther, Table Talk no. 154, Luther’s Works, volume 54, pp. 22-23.

Posted in Martin Luther, teaching | Leave a comment

The Big Lie and the Truth

Posted on August 25, 2024 by Matthew Phillips

“I know it is the fashion to say that most of recorded history is lies anyway. I am willing to believe that history is for the most part inaccurate and biased, but what is peculiar to our own age is the abandonment of the idea that history could be truthfully written. In the past people deliberately lied, or they unconsciously coloured what they wrote, or they struggled after the truth, well knowing that they must make many mistakes; but in each case they believed that ‘the facts’ existed and were more or less discoverable.”*

George Orwell wrote these words in 1943 during the middle of World War II. We can see Orwell developing the ideas that would be central to his famous novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, in his writings. He wrote that before this time most people agreed upon a ‘considerable body of fact’ and describes how the Encyclopedia Britannica‘s article on World War I used material from British and German sources. Despite strong interpretive disagreements, British and German historians could agree that neutral facts existed. Now (in 1943) Orwell argued totalitarianism has done away with this. He explained:

“Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as ‘the truth’ exists. There is, for instance, no such a thing as ‘science’. There is only a ‘German science’, ‘Jewish science’, etc. The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, ‘It never happened’—well it never happened. If he says that two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs—and after our experiences of the last few years that is not a frivolous statement.”**

If studying history is the not search for “truth” then what is it? What good is ‘science’ if it’s not based on agreed upon data and evidence which different scientists can debate? Who will decide what is ‘real’ history and what is the accurate science? Consensus alone cannot be the way to determine this. Consensus can be bought, cajoled, and even enforced with the barrel of a gun. Most newly-accepted interpretations of historical events once were considered false or even dangerous.  Orwell gave an ominous warning:

“Before writing off the totalitarian world as a nightmare that can’t come true, just remember that in 1925 the world of today would have seemed a nightmare that couldn’t come true. Against that shifting phantasmagoric world in which black may be white tomorrow and yesterday’s weather can be changed by decree, there are in reality only two safeguards. One is that however much you deny the truth, the truth goes on existing, as it were, behind your back, and you consequently can’t violate it in ways that impair military efficiency. The other is that so long as some parts of the earth remain unconquered, the liberal tradition can be kept alive. Let Fascism, or possibly even a combination of several Fascisms, conquer the whole world, and those two conditions no longer exist. We in England underrate the danger of this kind of thing, because our traditions and our past security have given us a sentimental belief that it all comes right in the end and the thing you most fear never really happens. Nourished for hundreds of years on a literature in which Right invariably triumphs in the last chapter, we believe half-instinctively that evil always defeats itself in the the long run. Pacifism, for instance, is founded largely on this belief. Don’t resist evil, and it will somehow destroy itself.  But why should it? What evidence is there that it does?”***

*George Orwell, ‘Looking Back on the Spanish War’ (1943) in Orwell on Truth (Boston, 2019), p. 83. [Emphasis added]

** Ibid., p. 84. [Emphasis added]

***Ibid., pp. 85-86. [Emphasis added]

Posted in George Orwell, grammar, philosophy, reason | Leave a comment

A Burning Passion for Domination

Posted on July 31, 2024 by Matthew Phillips

“There is a clear difference between the desire for glory before men and the desire for domination. There is, to be sure, a slippery slope from the excessive delight in the praise of men to the burning passion for domination; and yet those who long for true glory, though it be the glory of merely human praise, are anxious for the good opinion of enlightened judges. For there are many good moral qualities which are approved by many, though many do not possess them. And it is by those moral qualities that glory, power, and domination are sought by the kind of men who, as Sallust says, ‘strive for them in the right way’. But if anyone aims at power and domination without that kind of desire for glory which makes a man fear the disapprobation of sound judges, then he generally seeks to accomplish his heart’s desire by the most barefaced crimes.”*

In this section of The City of God, Augustine of Hippo (d. 430) examined the virtues and vices of the Romans. The pagan Romans had argued that the Roman Empire’s recent military failures resulted from the rise of Christianity as the predominant religion. In fact, Augustine died in Hippo as the Vandals were approaching the city in North Africa. Alternatively, Augustine argued that the Romans’ own vices resulted in collapsing imperial society in the early fifth century. To prove his assertion, he used the Roman sources like Sallust above.

When Sallust described the moral and societal decay of the late Republic, he described greed for money and the lust for power as the most significant vices. Avarice replaced trust and pride and cruelty displaced virtue. However, ambition caused Romans to become liars and hypocrites who only valued relationships for personal gain. This ‘plague’ of vice led to the end of justice and the emergence of unbearable cruelty. Sallust made a distinction between those who seek glory, honor, and power in the right way and the wrong way. While ambition might drive any Roman to seek these things, Sallust notes that most in the late Republic sought glory, honor, and power via the accumulation of as much wealth as possible.  Even if they obtained the wealth through deceit and cruelty, it didn’t matter to them.**

Augustine states that the desire for glory had restrained some Romans because they also desired the approbation of their fellow citizens. However, others reject glory and desire only to dominate.  He wrote, “Some of the Romans were men of this kind, who, while caring nothing for the opinion of others, were possessed by the passion for domination. History shows that there were many such; but it was Nero Caesar who first scaled, as it were, the heights of this vice, and gained the summit.”***

*Augustine of Hippo, The City of God: V. 19. trans. Henry Bettenson (London 1972). p. 212. [Bold added]

**Sallust, Catiline’s Conspiracy 10-11, trans. William W. Batstone (Oxford 2010), pp. 14-15.

***Augustine, City of God: V. 19, p. 213. [Bold added]

Posted in Augustine of Hippo, government, Politics, Rome, Sallust | Leave a comment

Speaking Before Kings

Posted on June 25, 2024 by Matthew Phillips

“I am tremendously pleased to have lived to this moment when Christ, by his staunch confessors, has publicly been proclaimed in such a great assembly by means of this really most beautiful confession. And [so the word] is fulfilled: ‘I spoke of your testimonies in the presence of kings.’ What follows will [also] be fulfilled: ‘And I was not put to shame.’ For ‘whoever will confess me’ (so he who does not lie states) ‘before men, him I also shall confess before my Father who is in heaven.’*

In early July 1530, Martin Luther wrote these words in a letter to his colleague, Conrad Cordatus, in a report on the recent events at the Diet of Augsburg at that time. Holy Roman Emperor Charles V ordered the Lutheran princes to submit a confession of their beliefs to the imperial meeting. He clearly intended to settle the religious division in the Empire. Since Luther was an outlaw under imperial edict, he remained at Coburg Castle near the southern border of Electoral Saxony. Luther’s most significant colleague, Philip Melanchthon, led the Lutheran theologians and became the primary author of the Augsburg Confession. He wrote and re-worked portions of the document until its official presentation to Emperor Charles V on June 25, 1530.

The individuals who confessed their faith before their emperor were not theologians, but rather secular rulers. The original signers of this document included Elector John of Saxony (known as the “the Steadfast”) and his son John Frederick (later called “the Magnanimous”), Philip of Hesse, George, margrave of Brandenburg, Duke Francis of Lüneburg, Wolfgang of Anhalt, and the leaders of Nuremberg and Reutlingen. These princes and civic magistrates risked their wealth, power, and lives by signing this document. Why were these princes and civic magistrates the primary confessors that day?

This was primarily a political event to reconcile the division within the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. No one in the sixteenth century, except some Anabaptists, believed that princes and city councils should not have authority to govern religious practice in their realms. In fact, in 1520 Martin Luther had called upon the German princes to initiate reform within the Church as laymen if the bishops would not do so. Both Catholic and Lutheran princes had implemented ecclesiastical reforms in their territories.

Neither Luther nor any of his theological colleagues saw this as wrong or unusual. They advised rulers on religious matters and exhorted them to restrict the public teaching of false doctrine. Christian rulers called pastors for congregations and appointed theologians to universities. Luther approved all of these actions. Simply put, Luther and these rulers saw it as their duty to uphold proper Christian public practice in their territories. For this reason, they had defied the emperor’s and the pope’s exhortations to stop their reforming activities.

*To Conrad Cordatus, Luther’s Works, vol. 49, p. 354.

Posted in Augsburg Confession, government, Martin Luther | Leave a comment

Helena Found a Cross

Posted on May 21, 2024 by Matthew Phillips

“For in the night a glowing man appearing to [Constantine] showed him the sign of the Holy Cross, and promised a victory to him through this sign. After he was awakened, he recalled the dream to friends, and the cross having been made with a banner, he set it before the troops.”*

Dream of Constantine in Kaysersberg, Alsace

In this sermon on the Finding of the Holy Cross, Honorius Augustodunensis, recounted the story of Constantine the Great’s dream of the sign of the cross before the famous battle of the Milvian Bridge in AD 312. This sermon from the early twelfth century demonstrates how this story became a standard part of sermons on the Holy Cross.  After this description of Constantine’s victory, Honorius describes how Constantine’s mother, Helena, went to Jerusalem in search of the piece of wood on which Christ was crucified.

According to the tradition that Honorius repeats here, Helena believed a group of Jews had hidden the relic of the Holy Cross.  Therefore, she brought them together and offered them a reward or punishment for the location of the relic. After Helena ordered a certain Jew to be thrown into a pit, that man, Judah, showed her the place where the crosses of Christ and two thieves were hidden. Honorius described this event in the following way:

“Indeed the queen met with the people, and went to the place, [and] poured forth prayers on bended knees. The place shook, the smoke of incense rose up from the earth. Then, they opened the earth with shovels and found three crosses. A dead man was carried to the cross of Christ and placed upon him it raised him from the dead. He bore witness to the power of the Holy Cross by his own resurrection and voice. Also then they found the glittering nails by which the Jews stabbed the hands and feet of the Lord.”**

As a result of this event, Honorius explains, numerous Jews believed in Christ and were baptized. Judah became the bishop of Jerusalem and took the name Quiriacus.  According to the legend, he suffered martyrdom under Julian the Apostate later. Honorius then describes how Helena built a magnificent church in Jerusalem for a piece of the Holy Cross and brought another piece back to Constantinople.

*Honorius Augustodunensis, De inventione sanctae crucis, PL 172:947B [my translation]

**Honorius, De inventione sanctae crucis, PL 172:947D-48A

Posted in Cross, Honorius Augustodunensis, medieval, theology | Leave a comment

Hanging Thieves

Posted on April 23, 2024 by Matthew Phillips

“Kings and princes ought to look into this matter and forbid them by strict laws. But I hear that they have a finger in it themselves, and the saying of Isaiah [1:23] in fulfilled, ‘Your princes have become companions of thieves.’ They hang thieves who have stolen a gulden or half a gulden, but do business with those who rob the whole world and steal more than all the rest, so that the proverb remains true, ‘Big thieves hang little thieves.’  As the Roman senator Cato said, ‘Simple thieves lie in dungeons and stocks; public thieves walk abroad in gold and silk.’ “*

Martin Luther wrote these words in 1524 in his treatise, Trade and Usury. The expansion of international trade and particularly the availability of more gold and silver caused prices to rise in the first half of the sixteenth century in Europe. In this treatise Luther followed the philosophical and traditional Christian teaching regarding usury: it was sinful greed.  Additionally, he excoriated the ‘trading companies’ that were acting as monopolies and, in his view, driving up prices greedily. In the section above, Luther has already written extensively about these trading practices. Here he is discussing the struggle of different greedy factions of society. Merchants complained about taxes and low prices, while nobles borrowed large sums from bankers. God sends knightly robbers as a punishment on both of them because the princes do not fulfill their duties by holding the merchants’ greed in check. Luther had already explained:

“Thus he [God] uses one rascal to flog the other, but without thereby giving us to understand that the knights are any the less robbers than the merchants, even though the merchants rob everybody every day, while a knight robs one or two people once or twice a year.”**

*Martin Luther, Trade and Usury, Luther’s Works, vol. 45 (Philadelphia, 1962), pp. 271-72.

**Luther, Trade and Usury, LW 45:270.

Posted in government, Martin Luther | Tagged | Leave a comment

Court In Session

Posted on March 8, 2024 by Matthew Phillips

“And if those three should come to court, namely God, man, and the devil, the devil and man would have no objection to make against God. For the devil would be convicted of the injury which he did to God by fraudulently stealing and violently retaining his servant, namely man.  Man also would be convicted for having done injury to God by holding his commands in contempt and submitting himself to another’s dominion. The devil would also be convicted of the injury to man because first he deceived him with a false promise, and then harmed him by subjecting him to many evils. And so the devil, on his own part, unjustly kept man in bondage, but man justly was so kept; the devil never merited to have power over man, but man, by his fault, merited to suffer the tyranny of the devil.” Peter  Lombard, The Sentences, Bk 3. Dist. 20. Chap. 4 (65), trans. Giulio Silano, (Toronto, 2008), p. 86.

Peter Lombard’s Sentences

Peter Lombard taught theology and philosophy at the Paris schools in the 1140s and 1150s. He became the bishop of Paris before he died in 1159. Here Lombard examines the central teaching of medieval Christianity: the redemption of sinful humanity. Inspired by debates in the cathedral schools and monasteries in western Europe, theologians focused on the nature of Christ’s redemptive act in relation to power and authority.

Lombard’s Sentences became the standard theology textbook in the Western Latin Church until the early 16th century. The Sentences were based on excerpts from well-known theologians, often known as the Latin Church Fathers. Lombard’s favorite theologian, Augustine of Hippo (d. 430), played a major role in his discussions of the doctrine of redemption in his writings too.  He focused on the relationship between power and legitimate authority. The devil may have power over humanity by default, but all legitimate authority rests with God.

Posted in Christ, medieval, Peter Lombard, theology | Leave a comment

Liberty, Fraternity, Equality

Posted on January 31, 2024 by Matthew Phillips

“The process of execution was also a sad and heartrending spectacle.  In the middle of Place de la Revolution was erected a guillotine, in front of a colossal statue of Liberty, represented seated on a rock, a cap on her head, a spear in her hand, the other reposing on a shields.  On the side the scaffold were drawn out a sufficient number of carts, with large baskets painted red, to receive heads and bodies of the victims.  Those bearing the condemned moved on slowly to the foot of the guillotine; the culprits were led out in turn, and if necessary, supported by two of the executioner’s assistants, but their assistance was rarely required.  Most of these unfortunates ascended the scaffold with a determined step–many of them looked up firmly on the menacing instrument of death, beholding for the last time the rays of the glorious sun, beaming on the polished axe: and I have seen some young men actually dance a few steps before they went up to be strapped to the perpendicular plane, which was then tilted to a horizontal plane in a moment, and ran on the grooves until the neck was secured and closed in by a moving board, when the head passed through what was called, in derision, ‘the republican toilet seat‘; the weighty knife was then dropped with a heavy fall; and, with incredible dexterity and rapidity, two executioners tossed the body into a basket, while another threw the head after it.”*

This is an eyewitness account of the executions in Paris during the French Revolution.  In 1789 the upper middle class began a revolution that initially led to a Constitutional Monarchy and the end of early modern feudalism and aristocratic privileges in France.  In August 1789 the self-proclaimed National Assembly wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen.  This document included the basic concepts of freedom of speech and association, rights to private property, representative government, and the right to a fair trial.  Over the next few years a process of radicalization took place for a number of reasons: War with other European powers, resistance from within France, and the complete collapse of any royal authority.  

The Civil Constitution of the Clergy (July 1790), condemned by the pope, gave the new French government authority over the Catholic Church and led to civil war within France between the revolutionaries and traditional Catholic peasants. By 1793 France had become a Republic and its new leaders had executed the king. This new government promoted an official “de-christianization” policy of French society that included a new calendar, destroying religious art, vandalizing church property, and the arrest and sometimes execution of many priests, monks, and nuns.  

File:Robespierre.jpg

Maximilien Robespierre

In 1794, turning the tide of war in their favor against the First Coalition, the republican government sought to first ensure its own survival and then to possibly expand French territory. To accomplish this, the government had created the Committee of Public Safety in 1793 and it gradually became a the most powerful nine-person committee in France. They ordered a brutal repression of traditionalist resisters and eventually turned on one another. Maximilien Robespierre emerged as the most significant leader who ordered the execution of many fellow revolutionaries. He justified his ideas in February 1794 with the publication of Report on the Principles of Political Morality in which he wrote:         

“If the spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the springs of popular government in revolution are at once virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country’s most urgent needs.”**

*J. G. Milligen, The Revolutionary Tribunal (Paris, October 1793) [Bold print added]

**Robespierre’s Report

Posted in French Revolution, government, Politics, virtue | Leave a comment

Ceremonies

Posted on December 26, 2023 by Matthew Phillips

“In the meantime, I have considered your wish, and it seems wise to me that I should shortly publish something setting forth (as I have written) a form of the celebration of the mass.  Meanwhile, abolish all private masses if you can, or as many [as possible]. But I do not see why we should alter the rest of the ritual, together with the vestments, altars, and holy vessels, since they can be used in a godly way and since one cannot live in the church of God without ceremonies.”*

Martin Luther wrote these words in a letter to Nicholas Hausmann, a pastor in Zwickau, in late October 1523. At this time, Luther and his colleagues had begun to implement reforms to the Christian liturgy in Electoral Saxony. Others sought Luther’s counsel in relation to theological issues related to the Mass and the nature of the Lord’s Supper.  Notice he instructed Hausmann to abolish the Private Mass (late medieval priests celebrated private masses in intercession for departed souls) as quickly as possible.  However, Luther advocated retaining traditional forms of worship based in the Western Catholic Rite.  As he stated here, “one cannot live in the church without ceremonies.”

In December 1523, Luther fulfilled his promise to Nicholas Hausmann when he published his Formulae Missae et Communionis pro Ecclesia Vuittembergensi (An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg).  It often surprises devout Lutherans that Martin Luther wrote his first revision of the late medieval mass in Latin and changed as little as theologically possible.  Despite the fact that Luther did publish liturgical works and hymns in German, many early modern Lutheran churches, particularly those in the cities, continued to use the Latin liturgy.**

*Martin Luther, “To Nicholas Hausmann,” in Luther’s Works 48:56.

**Luther, An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg, LW 53:19-40. On this text see Jon S. Bruss, “The Formulae Missae: Amputating the Dragon’s Tail,” For the Life of the World (Winter 2023): 7-9. Bruss

Posted in Martin Luther, Reformation, theology | Leave a comment

In Remembrance of Amalek

Posted on November 27, 2023 by Matthew Phillips

On October 28, 2023, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began his speech to announce the invasion of Gaza in response to an attack by Hamas with a reference to the enemy of the ancient Israelites: Amalek. He referred specifically to King Saul’s attack on the Amalekites. Some have interpreted his rhetoric as a call for the utter destruction of a group of people.  Others have argued that this appeal only focused on Hamas as a terrorist group and not the entire Arab population of Gaza. However, Netanyahu’s reference to Amalek reminded me of the theological rhetoric related to the preaching of the First Crusade.*

Pope Urban II preached a sermon at the council of Clermont on November 27, 1095. This event led to a massive armed pilgrimage known as the First Crusade. According to Baldric of Bourgueil (a monastic chronicler and eyewitness of the sermon), Urban concluded his sermon with a reference to Amalek as a forerunner to the Turks and other Muslims in the Middle East in the late 11th century:

“And he turned to the bishops: ‘You,’ he said, ‘you brothers and fellow bishops, you fellow priests and co-heirs of Christ, announce this very thing throughout the churches entrusted to you, and preach the way to Jerusalem powerfully and with complete eloquence.  Secure in Christ, agree a swift pardon to those who have confessed their sins committed through ignorance. Moreover, you who are going to make the journey, you will have us praying for you; let us have you fighting for the people of God.  It is our part to pray; let yours be to fight against the Amalachites [sic]. With Moses we shall stretch out unwearied hands to heaven in prayer; as fearless warriors you are stretching forth and brandishing the sword against Amalech [sic].’ “**

In the quote above, Baldric has Urban refer to Exodus 17:8-14 .  This text records a battle when  Joshua led Israelites against the Amalekites while Moses stood with his hands raised on the hill overlooking the area.  Here Urban and bishops are to play the role of Moses as they pray for the success of the First Crusaders against the Muslims, that is, the new Amalekites. The chroniclers of the First Crusade interpreted the armed pilgrims as the new Israelites going into the Promised Land in fulfillment of Old Testament events. In so doing, they borrowed from their (mostly) monastic theology that followed the earlier patristic allegorical tradition of interpreting the Old Testament. The early twelfth-century theologian, Honorius Augustodunensis, compared the procession at the beginning of the Mass to the ancient Israelites carrying the holiest of objects into battle:

“The priests carried the ark of the covenant, and Aaron the high priest follows in his vestments, and Moses, the leader of the people, with his rod. On their way, Amalek met the with his army and tried to block their way. But Joshua came out victorious and opened the way for the people toward their fatherland.”***

In this section, Honorius explained how the Church’s processional march during the liturgy spiritually fulfilled the ancient battles led by Moses and Joshua against the Pharaoh, Amalek, and the Canaanites at Jericho.  The reference to Amalek seemed like a common exegetical trope around 1100 that also appeared in sermons.  For example, Ivo of Chartres, bishop of Chartres from 1090 to 1115 identified Moses’ lifting up of his hands in prayer as the sign of the cross by which Jesus conquered Amalek.****

These references to the fulfillment of the Old Testament victory over Amalek as a pre-figuration of Christ’s victory on the cross and to the Crusaders’ victories became a standard part of the exegetical tradition related to the First Crusade.  They also appear in liturgies prayed and sung to intercede to God for later Crusades’ success.  I highly recommend two excellent books that show how Christian theologians and devotional writers did this:

M. Cecilia Gaposchkin, Invisible Weapons: Liturgy and the Making of the Crusade Ideology (Ithaca 2017).

Katherine Allen Smith, The Bible and Crusade Narrative in the Twelfth Century (Woodbridge 2020).

*“You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible: ‘Now go and attack[a Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ And we do remember. And we are fighting.” Netanyahu’s Speech in which he quotes:  I Samuel 15:1-10

**Baldric of Bourgueil, History of the Jerusalemites, trans. Susan B Edington (Woodbridge, 2020), p. 49.

***Honorius Augustodunensis, Jewel of the Soul, vol. 1, chap. 68, trans. Zachary Thomas and Gerhard Eger (London, 2023), p. 131.

****Ivo of Chartres, Sermo V, Patrologia Latina 162: 541A.

Posted in Crusades, Honorius Augustodunensis, preaching, Urban II | Leave a comment