Could I have been Luther?

A Millennial Catholic Reflects on the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation

In 2012, I made the decision to become Catholic and in a sense, walk away from my previous understandings of Martin Luther’s Protestant Reformation, which today, marks the 500th anniversary. This was a life changing decision for me. I do recall that when I was experiencing these sweeping changes in my life, I had the thought, “This is likely how Martin Luther felt when he was breaking away from the Catholic Church. He left people he loved and the church he loved, but his understanding of God and the church transformed to a point that a break in some sense came to be inevitable.” In my case though, I was doing the opposite as I went from Protestant to Catholic.

Originally, I wanted to write a reflection for today on the question “What does the Reformation mean for Catholics and Protestants in 2017?” I could dive in and talk about how in some sense “the Reformation is over” for many of us after the joint declaration on justification by Lutherans and Catholics in 1999 came about, which essentially stated that though each group is using different languages, in essence we agree on the root idea of justification. Wow! This was a gigantic moment in history as scholars and ministry leaders actually listened to each other in love and used Biblical language to unite their seemingly vast differences.  I could also talk about how Catholics and Lutherans have also made large strides in our common understanding of Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist or Holy Communion. We believe he is actually spiritually and physically present though veiled to our eyes. I could also talk about how we no longer kill each other over religious or political matters, but how we now see a common mission to spread the Gospel throughout the earth and serve the least of these with heartfelt devotion to our Lord. However, after further reflection, I decided I wanted to take this post a different direction. I think a better question arose in me that I would like to try and answer, “Could I have been Luther in 1517?”

This obviously is an impossible question to answer. I live in the new millennium, not the Middle Ages. I live in a world completely shaped by Luther and the events that followed the Protestant Reformation. However, though I have been tremendously shaped by the 21st century, I am also someone who has tried his best to be shaped by the 1st Century. What do I mean by that? Well, like Luther, I really care about what the Bible means and what it originally meant to Jewish Christians living in 1st Century, Palestine where Jesus lived and walked. Through the 1st Century, God gave an authentic and real revelation of Himself in the Incarnate Jesus. As Hebrews 1:1-2 states,

“Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, 2 but in these last days (the 1 Century) he has spoken to us by a Son,[a] whom he appointed heir of all things…”

The 1st century became in some sense holy because God walked among us, and therefore it should shape all future centuries that have come and will come before us. What is interesting is that Catholics like Protestants have always believed that public revelation ended within the 1st century once the last of the apostles gave witness to the Face of Jesus. This is why both Catholics and Protestants do not add any other books to the Sacred Scriptures. The New Testament image of Jesus is complete. There is nothing left to add to the first century Bible which is truly apostolic and composed by the eye witness accounts of the apostles. 

Martin Luther, like many Bible scholars after him, saw that as he discovered the beauty of the 1st century Church and the face of Jesus while translating the original languages of the Bible, his 16th century church looked very corrupt in comparison, and he was ready to confront the issues. Just like how the apostle Paul confronted Peter in Galatians 2, Luther was ready to confront Peter’s successor, the Pope, along with the bishops, and entire church on corruption and poor theology that had crept into it. Many examples could be listed but the heart of the matter was the issue of selling grace which was meant to be freely given by God.

Selling grace is the sin of simony, and this particularly sin received its titled from a guy named Simon in the book of Acts, chapter 8. He was sorcerer and desired to buy the power of healing from the apostles so that he could also perform these great miracles. Here is Peter’s response,

“May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23 For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.”

The sin of Simony happened in two primary ways during Luther’s day. First, the positions of bishops were being sold off as promotions in order to expand political power and wealth. The gift of leadership and ministry is a grace or charism in the New Testament and like Peter stated, should never be purchased. Secondly, indulgences were being sold, which again, is grace being sold. Grace is free and turning God’s temple into a den of thieves infuriated Martin Luther like someone else I know.

What would I do in the face of the matter? I certainly hope I would not have been complicit in the corruption! I hope that I would not stand idly by while the People of God were led astray by people who cared more about power, status, and wealth. I hope that I would have been moved like Luther by the power of the Holy Spirit to confront the sin of simony which was the selling grace like a commodity when it was a pure gift from God.

Thankfully, after a few decades, the Catholic Church did indeed reform itself of these practices and gave direct decrees that bishops behave like pastors and teachers and not like princes (or high rollin CEOs or rich tv evangelists). Luther’s plea was eventually listened to. However, much happened between 1517 and the Council of Trent when the Church implemented these policies. Luther generally was not listened to with charity and was put on trial for heresy. Up to this point, Luther had generally not said anything significant that actually was against Catholic teaching, but he was using different language that was being misinterpreted, which in turn, led to a heresy trial. Catholics and Lutherans today both regret how this moment unfolded. The two churches have jointly recounted the moments in history through a profound document called, “From Conflict to Communion,” stating,

“On 13 October 1518, in a solemn protestatio, Luther claimed that he was in agreement with the Holy Roman Church and that he could not recant unless he were convinced that he was wrong. On 22 October, he again insisted that he thought and taught within the scope of the Roman Church’s teaching.”

“Before his encounter with Luther, Cardinal Cajetan had studied the Wittenberg professor’s writings very carefully and had even written treatises on them. But Cajetan interpreted Luther within his own conceptual framework and thus misunderstood him on the assurance of faith, even while correctly representing the details of his position. For his part, Luther was not familiar with the cardinal’s theology, and the interrogation, which allowed only for limited discussion, pressured Luther to recant. It did not provide an opportunity for Luther to understand the cardinal’s position. It is a tragedy that two of the most outstanding theologians of the sixteenth century encountered one another in a trial of heresy.”

Unfortunately, if I were Luther at that time, I am not sure how I would have done things differently. When there is no atmosphere of dialogue, especially concerning theology, how does one put forth their convictions with love? Mutual understanding becomes impossible. Today, in a globalized world, we are more capable of seeing that though there is one truth, many cultures and people-groups can potentially communicate in wildly different ways. This can occur even when people are using the same language or family members are living under the same roof! Communication without love always leads to division. Today, there is a greater ability in the Church of God to understand one another among theologians and Biblical scholars.

One major reason is that Biblical scholarship across denominational lines has recognized that even the Biblical authors use different languages at times even when agreeing on the essence of ideas given to them by Christ. The profound example is how Paul and James use the word ‘justification’ in different ways. Scholar and philosopher Peter Kreeft has noted that Protestants have primarily used the Apostle Paul’s language regarding justification while Catholics have defaulted to James’ language.

As the years went by however, Luther’s theology began to certainly step outside of the basic teachings of the Catholic Church. This is why some historians have given portraits of the “Early Luther” who was very Catholic and looking for authentic reform and the “Later Luther” who developed ideas that rejected the authority of the Pope and bishops, purgatory, and the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. However, he still retained much that was Catholic including the Rite of Confession, reverence for Mary and the saints, infant baptism, and the list could go on and on.

Again, Luther was responding to his love of that 1st century world and his own understanding of Scripture, with the church father, St. Augustine, as his primary guide. Every Biblical scholar does this. They fall in love with scripture and desire to bring Christ fresh to every generation in new language with new relevance. This is missionary discipleship which we are called to as Pope Francis today has stated over and over again. I truly believe that this was Luther’s primary goal and much of what he did from writing hymns, grand sermons, and catechisms to translating Bible into German for the people to read for themselves was an effort to help people see Christ. In this sense, I hope that I would have been very much like Luther, and again, if I had been put into his shoes, perhaps my path would have led similar directions.

Luther In Reverse

In the early 1990s, a Presbyterian pastor named Scott Hahn made the decision to become Catholic believing that Biblical scholarship along with new insights regarding the Church Fathers brought him back to the Catholic Church. His wife called him, “Luther in Reverse.”  The same process that took Luther out of the Catholic Church brought Scott Hahn into it. The same original Greek texts of the Bible that Martin Luther poured over day in and day out had the opposite effect.  A phenomenon must be admitted today and that is this–the same Bible that took Luther out of the Catholic Church is bringing people who deeply care about the Bible back into full communion with it. (Or in full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches who have legitimate apostolic successors and sacraments ). How can this be? Isn’t this the same Bible?

It must be admitted that the Bible has the potential to make someone more Protestant or less as it also has the potential to make someone more Catholic or less. Even among Protestant circles this occurs. An Independent Pentecostal and a Reformed Calvinist simply see different things in the text. They certainly agree on the big stuff surrounding who our Lord is, but concerning other issues, the Bible can take us more than one direction. This is why Martin Luther wisely relied on more than just the Bible and the Bible alone for his understanding and interpretation. Sola Scriptura was also ironically accompanied by the readings of St. Augustine who lived 1,000 years before him. This method of Luther opens up a door to the Church Fathers, particularly the Apostolic Fathers, who were early Christian leaders that were mentored by the apostles or their associates at the end of the first century. 

Do you recall when I mentioned the importance of the 1st century to both Martin Luther and myself? Well, there is a lot more information we have today regarding the 1st century. Insights into Jewish culture, archaeology, and early accounts by the Church Fathers of what the Church looks like at the end of the first century and beginnings of the 2nd century. All of this information, in my opinion, now better shapes our understanding of the world of the first Christians and their ancient practices. Though much could be said around those topics, the greatest acknowledgement is that now nearly every scholar believes that the 7 letters by St. Ignatius of Antioch, an Archbishop of the Early Church, are authentic. Ignatius died add just the tale end of the apostolic era in 107AD. He was martyred by Rome, but most importantly, he laid down his life for his flock. No greater love is this than he who lays his life down for his friends. He was a Catholic bishop who did the opposite of taking the money and running away from his congregations like some bishops did during Luther’s day. He entirely rejected the sin of simony. He sacrificed everything, and therefore what he says certainly holds some weight due to his time and place in history as well as the holiness of his life. Just as Abel’s blood spoke condemnation to Cain in the opening kick off of human history, so Ignatius’ blood (from the opening kick off in Church history) speaks life to us today and for generations. Again, what he says matters.

This is a game changer, because the reformers such as Luther and Calvin believed them to be inauthentic and fictitious during their day though they accepted the writings of many of the church fathers.  Everyone must admit that if Ignatius is an authentic witness (along with Justin the Marytr and St. Ireneaus) and if he represents the thinking of the majority of bishops and presbyters of the first and second centuries, it would be difficult to not seriously reconsider re-joining the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Early Church looks too Catholic too early in history.

Would Luther had transformed his opinions if he knew these letters were authentic? No one can say! I imagine if St Francis of Assisi, who longed for a poor humble church and a reformer himself, came back from the dead, cancelled the heresy trials,  and held a dialogue with Father Martin that certainly could have led to an improved outcome! I imagine if Luther was welcomed to a Church Council and it had the charitable and humble atmosphere of Vatican II, that would have also helped. Again no one knows, and we cannot rewrite history. However, all I can do is stand as Luther did and state, “my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe.” For Luther this meant leaving the Church with Popes and Bishops. For me, it meant returning to the Church with Popes and Bishops.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Kyle King