(Or a Close Approximation Thereof). Some Among

'!10} !SX6!nc:?l l?l+ , MAR?.l'lN L[iTHii'M. , . B lil'i ?l l '.', The Theology of Marttn Luther. '11mm ll? l lllll'l m'l A Critical Assessment, By Hans- l m l 14 f 111 i ls' l!,I Martin Barth. Translated by Linda l 1 l' ill 1811 } 41i l I Thll I l:i l J 1 :!l IW l'.a .1 i'i l l Malony. Minneapolis: Fortress l :l l t 111 yaim m l :ll l -l W Press, 2012. W l mm mmmPl :!17 f Ql l ix 11 mmsl l l fl. m il mm r 11 # ti im l N l m l I !i l 11 m H s llffil l I m mil ffl mi l s ! n a Y m & .i N Jjkl nkl sii l m l 11 l i W i Ul 11!iill *!l l s ll l m & I'kll lk s m l m i l l mli m 411114 anli a ir im Renaissance over a century ago, nu- s ii fflilailjiM iMii W j&&l l a ?ir 1 vmimlJlm mmmi s mms l l a 111111 imi "The Theology of Martin Luther" (or a close approximation thereof). Some among these have aimed at a more systematic presentation (notably the contri- butions of Theodosius Harnack, Paul Althaus, and Oswald Bayer), while others have mixed chronological and systematic approaches (notably Julius K5stlin and Bernhard Lohse). Nev- erthe}ess, all such treatments have generally focused on what they considered to be valuable about their subject and have at- tempted to highlight the Reformer's positive contribution to theology, Hans-Martin Barth's presentation of Luther stands in both continuity and discontinuity with these studies. Although largely systematic in his presentation (much like the first group of scholars), Barth generally lacks sympathy for Luther's over- all approach as a theologian for reasons that will be discussed below, Barth is a German theologian, now retired from Marburg University. During his student days, he studied under Paul Al- thaus at Erlangen and published a number of works on Luther's theology. As of late, his scholarly focus has mainly been on ecumenism and dialogue with other world religions. From the beginning of his book, one is impressed by the unusual love/hate relationship that the author has with the Reformer. On the one hand, Barth views Luther as a cultural ancestor of his politicaliy left-leaning and progressive form of unionistic Protestantism. On the other hand, Barth finds Luther both unbearably intolerant, superstitious, and naNvely credulous regarding the claims of revealed religion. This approach has rarely been seen in the twentieth century, and in many respects echoes the smaller presentations one finds of Luther in the writings of Albrecht Ritschl and Ernst Troeltsch. Barth begins the book with an extremely lengthy chapter charging Luther with a series of injustices and false beliefs (29-76). Throughout the introductory chapter, Barth is oddly fixated on Luther's unfortunate (and extremely late) tirades critique present throughout the rest of the book. In criticizing against the Jews. He charges that other Luther scholars (notably Luther, Barth not only reveals a general contempt and deep- Lohse and Bayer) have been negligent in their discussions of seated antipathy towards most of what the Reformer taught but Luther's relationship to the Jews. Instead of mentioning these also assumes his audience will automatically agree with him. tirades in passing (Bayer) or making them into an appendix in This comes out even more clearly in the sections of the a larger work on Luther's theology (Lohse), Barth believes that introductory chapter in which Barth deals with Luther's at- it should be treated as a more prevalent theme in the theology titude towards Islam, the Peasants' Revolt, and witches. Ap- of the ]Reformer (29). Nevertheless, in light of the fact that the parently, Barth's audience will automatically agree with him current Weimar edition of Luther's works runs to s3o volumes in his judgment that Luther was unkind and unfair to Islam in length and the treatise Ori the Jews and Their Lies (monstrous in his charge that Muslims rely on their works for salvation though it may be!) comprises but a few pages of it, this review- and that Mohammed was an enthusiast (3g-4g). Implicit in er remains far more sympathetic to the presentation of Lohse most of this discussion is a belief that Islam (as well as all other and Bayer than he does to Barth. Moreover, it is difficult to see faiths) leads in one way or another to God. The polemic that how anything fundamental in Luther's theology is expressed in Barth launches here (and in other parts of the book) has to his late belief in the need for secular governments to persecute do witb what he characterizes as Luther's supposedly "limited the }ews for their religion, along with other heretics. In fact, it Trinitarianism," which focuses exclusively on the person of could be argued (as it indeed has been) that this is a moment in the Son. In other words, if Luther were more Trinitarian in which Luther, out of personal weakness, actually broke with the his thinking, he would see that people of other faiths have ac- principles of his own theology. That being said, although it is cess to God by means other than the Son, presumably through of course impossible to analyze the author psychologically, one nature (the Father?) and non-Christian religious experience suspects that Barth's fixation on this theme might have more (the Spirit?). Not only is this the very definition of enthusiasm, to do with the concerns of post-World War u Germany and its but it would seem to break the unity of the Trinity into three war-guilt, than with Luther and his theology. distinct entities that can be dealt with apart from one another. Barth further complains that Luther scholars have tried to In light of the recent trend in Protestant dogmatics towards marginalize the Reformer's invectives regarding the Jews by "social Trinitarianism" (Moltmann, Grenz, etc.), perhaps this characterizing this as an attitude of his later life and not a part is what Barth intends. Nevertheless, such an approach can- of his early or middling years. Not so, claims Barth; Luther not seriously be entertained as either biblical, confessional, or also made negative statements about Jews earlier in his life. even broadly catholic. Although he did not believe in or promote their persecution Barth also assumes that his readers will agree with his judg- in his earlier writings, he nevertheless stated that Judaism was ment that Luther should have been more favorable towards de- a religion of the law and that Jews could not be saved as long mocracy (which he could have gleaned, according to the author, as they trusted in their works. Also, he claimed that Jews did from the example of the Swiss confederation) and supported not understand their own Scriptures because they did not see the peasants (in spite of their mad rampage of burning and kill- Christ as the fulfillment of them (3o-34). ing). Barth apparently believes that minus a free and developed Of course, none of these criticisms has anything to do with press, universal literacy, and a sufficiently developed wealthy a hatred of the Jews (racial or otherwise), or a belief that they and educated middle class, some form of modern European so- should be persecuted by secular governments. In these state- cial democracy would nevertheless have worked as a system of ments, Luther merely reflects the teaching of the New Testa- governance in the sixteenth century. ment regarding the incredulity of the old Israel and also a basic On one level, to accept any of these judgments one must recognition that there is no salvation apart from Christ. Indeed, ignore many salient facts about the nature of non-Christian what never seems to occur to Barth (as well as other so-called faiths, the law of noncontradiction (all religions cannot be Christian Universalists) is that if salvation in Christ is optional, right), and the vast array of historical data that tells us under then atonement and the mission of the church are pointless. what conditions some form of democratic government has a Theology like this might explain why both the Europeein state chance of working. More importantly, theologically speaking, churches and the American mainline churches are utterly fall- one must largely buy into the values of so-called progressive ing apart. If the work of Christ and the mission of the church and unionistic European Protestantism, or mainline Protes- are in fact optional, why bother with them in the first place? tantism of the American variety. In these sections of the mod- Moreover, Luther's criticisms of the Jews in these regards do not ern chutch and in these sections alone is there an assumption single them out, and therefore does not suggest a kind of special? that social democracy, ecumenism, and religious universalism hatred of the Jewish people. Rather they would equally apply to are self-authenticating goods present. And so also from this all man-made religion that focuses on salvation through works. perspective, Luther was a force for good to the extent that he Indeed, Luther's view of Judaism is no different than his view of took positions that would la,ter move modern liberal Christians Roman Catholic or Islamic works-righteousness. in the direction of these values and conversely a source of evil Nevertheless, these last criticisms are very revealing for Barth to the extent that he hindered the adoption of these values.

Load more