If It Is Broken, Please Fix It (or) Originally Was And Still Is About Jesus

(Just for fun, you can be insulted by Luther here.)

Martin Luther.

Is there anyone more controversial right now, who actually deserves to be controversial, and actually earned being controversial?  Yeah... there probably is.

(insert political rant of any slant here)
(insert soap box sermon about any athlete here)
(insert your disgust for a song/musician/genre here)
(et cetera, et cetera, et cetera)

None of that matters right now, because, in a little over a month the Church will be remembering, even celebrating, the 500th anniversary of when a non-tenured professor at a relatively new university lost his cool momentarily while struggling with how in the heck he is to stand by and watch as the organization he is part of destroy itself by completely lying to those who desperately need help.

That's a long sentence, and I'm not sure its grammatically correct.  Shorter version is: the church (as an organization/government) stopped preaching the Gospel, and started, instead, preaching that people can earn salvation.  Luther got fed up with it, started researching, and kicked off what should have been a discussion to figure out what went wrong.  Instead of doing the right thing, the organization calling itself the church simply said "no, you don't get to question what we've said, and no, we don't care if the Bible says otherwise, just sit down and shut up and tow the line."

(Okay, so it wasn't shorter.  But hopefully it was more coherent.)

The papacy's response to Luther was a blunder.

If the first great blunder is "never start a land war in Asia," and the second is "never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line," the third most certainly is "never force a German to deny undeniable fact simply because you said so."

Especially when that German is one of the leading experts in biblical research.  Seriously, Luther was fluent in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin.  He wasn't going to simply go quietly while the people were openly and flagrantly lied to about what the Bible actually taught.

Obviously this post would be better in a month and a half, and I probably will write something more on Dr. Martin Luther.  But I'll probably post it on his birthday in November.  This though, is sort of in response, or rather at least because I took the time to watch, a PBS special about Luther.

Near the start of the documentary the show claims that this time period was a showdown between the medieval and the modern.  While there is truth to that, since the 16th century is when "modern" history begins, that wasn't what happened with the nailing of the 95 Thesis.  Luther's actions against the lies of the church was not a postulating of new ideas.

Rather it was a battle between the new/old lie and the timeless truth.

The assumption being made is that Luther arrived at an idea, either new or radical, that shook Western Civilization.  The reality is, however, simultaneously much more simple and much more complex.  You see, Luther, in his daily struggle with the undeniable fact he, a sinner, deserved Hell, found the answer in the last place peopled dared look, for it was the most dangerous place: the Bible.

What he found there was revolutionary, not because it was new, but because if was radically in opposition to anything a human could have ever thought up.  The idea which drove everything Luther ever wrote or said is that all of salvation is the Cross, nothing more, nothing less.

I should note that the documentary overlooks that the indulgence sales were RCC sanctioned, though the salesmen's methods were not specifically prescribed.  The RCC had given indulgences, and still do, as a way to "bypass" Purgatory (another RCC lie).  But selling forgiveness was a new thing, at least at that level and that openly.  Giving money as a "suggested offering" was common, as was paying for a mass to be performed, or other such "works of merit" which earned some sliver of grace.  Tetzel, though, was the patron saint of used car salesmen.

It was at this point that the church should have had the discussion.  But instead, they chose to ignore while the printing press allowed Luther the means to tell everyone.

There are periods of time when everything just waits for a spark to set a wildfire off.  In the early 20th century it happened in Bosnia.  In the 18th century it was in Boston.  In the 16th century it happened in Wittenburg.  The Western World was ready for things to shift, drastically.  Politics as usual were not being tolerated.  Technology was on the move.  People wanted their lot in life to improve.  The idea of identity, both individual and national, was popular.  The world was ready for a change.  But that was not why Luther wrote what he did.  What Luther wanted was to reform the church and rid it of the false teachings.

When presented with canon law, which even Luther could not deny within its own authority, it was clear he was wrong.  But when looking to Scripture, which even the church is compelled to agree is the first, last, and only determining factor regarding the Christian faith, there was no doubt who was in the wrong: the church based out of Rome.

Any time an entity places something above Scripture, they don't just stumble into heresy, they leap head long.  Be it a pope, a council, a tradition, the use of reason, the use of willpower, the use of freedom, or anything else.

"Luther's rejection of the pope's authority is the central difference between catholics and protestants to this day."  Um... no.

(Though, I do joke that the only difference between Lutherans and Catholics is that we don't have the pope.)

There is a difference between Roman catholic, Protestant, and Lutheran more substantial than the lack of a "vicar of Christ."  (I wish I could just say "protestant" and mean Lutheran, but, thanks to the likes of Calvin and the "great awakenings" I can't.  Should call them "reformed protestant," "radical protestant," or "liberal protestant" since that's what they are.).  Lutherans believe that salvation is by grace* through faith without works.  This is the difference between us and the church in Rome.  They add "merit" (that is to say, works) to faith.   Most "protestant" churches do the same, or similar, focusing on mysticism and emotion, or on rationalization.  Lutheran's don't play nice with others because we take the doctrines, and by extension Scripture, seriously.

*(And, yes, Luther did insert the word "alone" here in his translation of the New Testament into German.  But remember, he was a doctor of the church, and a Greek scholarly rock-star.  His translation was as faithful as he could be, and even he admitted that if you don't like it, you can ignore his translation, for it is just a translation.  If you want the best version, get the original languages.  However, the text, context, and grammar are of such that the use of the word "alone" is appropriate, since it is implied in St. Paul's statement.)

Did you know German doesn't have a word or phrase for "small talk."  The closes to that is "lying."  Germans get to the point, say what they mean, and mean what they say.  Blunt.  So when someone complains about how the Lutheran's aren't "cooperating" perhaps its because they are not willing to compromise their values and integrity by agreeing to something that is likely wrong.

(I had promised myself this was going to be a quick thing, and not a "scathing treatise" on the Reformation.  Clearly that promise fell through.  I'll at least tried to keep the controversy down.)

Faith without works is dead.  But works without faith is to be damned.  God does judge all humankind based on works, but a Christian is judged, at Judgement Day, by only one work: the Cross.

#stillaboutjesus