I dressed up as Martin Luther for Halloween

October 31, 2011 9:36 PM

Besides Halloween, today also marks another holiday: Reformation Day. On October 31st, 1517 (warning: auto-playing video) Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of Schlosskirche in Wittenberg, Germany essentially starting the Protestant Reformation.

Johann Tetzel, a Dominican priest, was sent by Pope Leo X to Germany to sell indulgences as a way of financing the renovation of St. Peter's Basilica. Whoever received an indulgence did not have to undergo penance for a sin that was forgiven. "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from purgatory springs." (a popular saying by Tetzel)

Martin Luther did not agree with the selling of indulgences along with several other practices. He wrote what he called the Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences but it became popularly known as The Ninety-Five Theses (Project Gutenberg, file also contains original Latin). On the Vigil of All Saint's Day, Luther wrote a letter to archbiship Albert of Mainz and Magdeburg (listed as "Albrecht, Archbishop of Mainz") which included a copy of his Theses. He then nailed a copy to the door of Castle Church that same night. However nailing it to the door was not an aggressive act but was meant to start scholarly debate. The chuch door commonly acted as a bulletin board and since Luther's Theses were written in Latin, only the clergy could read it. In January of 1518 it was translated to German and quickly spread.

The Archbishop never responded to the letter but instead sent it to the Pope. After several debates and attempts to quiet Luther, the papal bull Exsurge Domine (trans: "Arise, O Lord") was issued on June 15, 1520 demanding Luther retract some of his statements. Luther did not comply and publicly burned the bull in Wittenberg on December 10 and then wrote Why the Pope and his Recent Book are Burned and Assertions Concerning All Articles. On January 3, 1521 Pope Leo X issued Decet Romanum Pontificem (link to Word doc) (trans: "It Pleases the Roman Pontiff") which excommunicated Luther from the Roman Catholic Church.

Emporer Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire was directed to by the Pope to try Luther as he was a threat to the nation. So Luther was summoned to the Diet of Worms which lasted from January 28-May 25, 1521. During his defense is when he reportedly said one of his famous quotes, "Here I stand. I can do no other. May God Help me. Amen." However the first two sentences are not believed to have actually been said by Luther. On May 25 the Edict of Worms was issued declaring Luther an outlaw. It was planned that Luther would be captured as he left Worms, however Prince Frederick III, Elector of Saxony abducted Luther to safely hide him in Wartburg Castle. While at the castle Luther continued to write and translated the New Testament into German.

Luther went on to continue spreading the Protestant Reformation by writing, giving sermons, and organizing churches. He died at the age of 62 on February 18, 1546 and was buried underneath the pulpit of Castle Church.

(previously)

posted by Deflagro (46 comments total)

Five years from now, Protestants are going to be having one hellacious celebration.
posted by darkstar at 9:38 PM on October 31, 2011 [1 favorite]

And I just found this Previously on some of Luther's other writings.
posted by Deflagro at 9:38 PM on October 31, 2011

Dammit!

"six years from now"
posted by darkstar at 9:38 PM on October 31, 2011

One of the amusing things about Luther that the church (especially the Lutheran church) is at pains not to reveal is that he was notoriously potty-mouthed. Not when writing about dogma or scripture of course, but when battling or provoking the Catholic hierarchy.

The only example I'm finding now is an anti-Luther page, but it does give you a feel for how he treated his enemies (at least verbally).
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 9:48 PM on October 31, 2011 [1 favorite]

One dour and pious celebration, goodman Darkstar. All the old-gold protestant peeps standing around in a circle, sippin' their watered-down untransubstantiated vino, munchin' stale untranselementated crackers, debatin' whether too true a black in the clothes is immodest, and whether therefore one's black itchy sweaters and black floor-length dresses shouldn't be laundered with harsh soap a few times before the first wearing. "Timothy 2:9, you know. Timothy 2:9."
posted by Your Disapproving Father at 9:55 PM on October 31, 2011 [2 favorites]

he was notoriously potty-mouthed

Luther was also an anti-Semite. Not sure where that falls on the scale, though.
posted by basicchannel at 10:13 PM on October 31, 2011

basicchannel: Who wasn't an anti-Semite in 16th century Germany?
posted by Grimgrin at 10:22 PM on October 31, 2011

The Jews?
posted by filthy light thief at 10:29 PM on October 31, 2011 [10 favorites]

You know who else wasn't an anti-Semite in 16th century Germany?
posted by kmz at 10:29 PM on October 31, 2011 [10 favorites]

The anti-Semitism is probably a little more well known. That, and like witchcraft trials, seemed to ebb and flow during that period. Ferdinand and Isabella started the Inquisition and kicked the Jews out of Spain around the same time (1492).
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 10:34 PM on October 31, 2011

How is selling indulgences any different from Pledge Week on Pat Robertson's 700 Club show?
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:55 PM on October 31, 2011 [2 favorites]

> Five years from now, Protestants are going to be having one hellacious celebration.

As someone whose family has parts traced back to the mayflower, I can say that this celebration will mostly include yachting, lobster, live oyster bar, and lots of insults veiled in compliments. Also, jacket and tie are required.

Complimentary parking for SAABs included.
posted by mrzarquon at 11:56 PM on October 31, 2011 [4 favorites]

The 95 theses are quite ranty, to be honest. Today the clergy would just scribble "tl;dr" at the bottom and move on, not engage him in debate.
posted by Harald74 at 12:43 AM on November 1, 2011

How is selling indulgences any different from Pledge Week on Pat Robertson's 700 Club show?

I bet Martin Luther wouldn't be too happy about those either.
posted by sour cream at 12:58 AM on November 1, 2011 [1 favorite]

something something 95 theses and indulgences ain't one … scansion needs work …
posted by hattifattener at 1:05 AM on November 1, 2011 [1 favorite]

That's what being a Protestant's all about. That's why it's the church for me. That's why it's the church for anyone who respects the individual and the individual's right to decide for him or herself. When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in 1517, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was doing. But four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas. And Protestantism doesn't stop at the simple condom. Oh no! I can wear French Ticklers if I want.
posted by Jimbob at 1:10 AM on November 1, 2011 [6 favorites]

On a site like this, discussion of Martin Luther should probably also cover the fact that he and his friends were able to take advantage of new technology to spread his message much further and faster than any other reformer had before.

It wasn’t until January 1518 that friends of Luther translated the 95 Theses from Latin into German, printed, and widely copied, making the controversy one of the first in history to be aided by the printing press. Within two weeks, copies of the theses had spread throughout Germany; within two months throughout Europe. (wiki)

posted by memebake at 1:32 AM on November 1, 2011 [2 favorites]

The excesses of the church needed to be challenged, and for this I appreciate what Luther did, but he could have been a great reformer in the vein of Saint Francis. Instead he sowed division and irreparably divided Christendom. He was used by princes and various secular powers to establish the Lutheran Church and did so knowing that they were no less corruptible than the Church authority he rebelled against.
posted by dgran at 2:27 AM on November 1, 2011 [2 favorites]

Because my Sunday School teacher was notoriously prone to a curious mixture of mumbling, blurred pronunciation, and snappy, irritable delivery of his lessons, and because I had the attention span of a caffeinated chipmunk, what I understood Martin Luther to have done was to nail 95 feces to the church door. This is important, because the surreal direction that class discussions took as a consequence of this misunderstanding would otherwise paint me in a negative light.

"I mean, how did he even nail those things up there? Were they dry?"

"What?"

"How did they even hold together up there?"

"They were resolute, Joseph."

"Well, I guess they had to be, but why would the church even consider taking the guy seriously once he did that?"

"It's a pretty clear demonstration of how serious he was, and of what he thought of the church at the time."

"Yeah, but it's not very civil, is it?"

"What?"

"Nailing all that crap to a door. Why didn't he just build consensus?"

"That 'crap,' as you call it, is the foundation of our faith as protestants. That 'crap' is ultimately why we're here in America, enjoying the freedoms we have here."

"But...it just seems like such an extreme action."

"They're just ideas, Joe. Ideas aren't extreme. This is how we make progress."

"Really?"

"Yes, really."

"With bowel movements?"

"What?"

That's around the time it occurred to me that religion would never make much sense to me, and those 95 lonesome turds, dangling on handmade iron nails hammered into massive doors in Wittenburg, were just another volley in the dadaist performance of religion for me. Long after I saw "95 theses" in print and realized my error, they're still hanging there somewhere in the back of my head, at the start of all the freedoms I enjoy in America. Had I paid better attention, I'd be an altogether different person today, I think.

These days, though, the story is a lot more interesting to me, and it really does look like it leads to where we are today, fighting tooth and nail over crap.
posted by sonascope at 3:41 AM on November 1, 2011 [25 favorites]

Instead he sowed division and irreparably divided Christendom.

Great comment dgran. The fire Luther started lead eventually to the 30-years war which was one of the most destructive wars in Europe's history. By the time the Peace of Westphalia was signed, the population of the German states was reduced from 20m relatively prosperous and peaceful citizens to 5m starving, destitute people living in an utterly devastated landscape.

Quite a price to pay for what was at its core an academic, theological dispute.

Jesus must have been so proud of both of his flocks.
posted by three blind mice at 3:59 AM on November 1, 2011 [6 favorites]

Luther also threw the peasants under the bus in the Peasants' War with Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants.

Luther was also an anti-Semite. Not sure where that falls on the scale, though.

The thing is that Luther is influential enough that his anti-Semitism had long-reaching implications and that's arguably more important than the actual degree of his anti-Semitism on some 16th century scale because, well, he's Luther. Sure, Luther's coming from a culture of 16th century anti-Semitism, but something like On the Jews and their Lies is codifying that anti-Semitism. He wants the Jews to convert, but when they don't, he decides they're morally bankrupt and wants them out of society.

There's part of me that sees Luther's anti-Semitism as truly pernicious and virulent and another part of me that thinks it's probably par for the course for Luther's treatment of people who disagree with him. He really turns on Judaism when he realises the Jews aren't all converting to Lutheranism (previously having said 'Well, they'll convert, so I suppose we'll put up with them for now', which is perhaps slightly on the enlightened side for the 16th century, but it a product of 16th century attitudes towards Jews) and he turns on the peasants when they don't stop revolting. (The Twelve Articles are all about what the Bible says a just society is and how the peasants think they're being treated unfairly. Of course, Luther reads the Bible as reinforcing the status quo (given that he's not a peasant), tries to talk the peasants down a bit, it doesn't work, so he says 'Fuck it, just kill them all.')

What's interesting to me is the gymnastics Lutherans sometimes put themselves through to reconcile Luther's nastiness with the fact that their religion is named after him. I don't know that it's that different than any other religion's skeletons in the closet, but perhaps the name changes things.

tl;dr I think Luther's an asshole.
posted by hoyland at 4:01 AM on November 1, 2011 [3 favorites]

This was a good post, and helped me with some areas of ignorance. Thanks.
posted by bystander at 4:13 AM on November 1, 2011

He really turns on Judaism when he realises the Jews aren't all converting to Lutheranism (previously having said 'Well, they'll convert, so I suppose we'll put up with them for now', which is perhaps slightly on the enlightened side for the 16th century, but it a product of 16th century attitudes towards Jews) and he turns on the peasants when they don't stop revolting.

I don't have time to search for a cite (well, OK, there is this, but I haven't looked at the paper), but I read a number of times that there is evidence that Luther suffered from some sort of progressive disease that would have made him increasingly uncomfortable as he got older. Which might go some way (along with general hardening of attitudes with age) to explain how he got angrier and more extreme as he aged. Not that it's an excuse, but it casts the situation in a different light -- rather than saying "they will eventually convert," he just ran out of energy for being empathetic or dealing with dissent. So, he may still have become a bad man, but a different sort of bad man, I suppose.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:26 AM on November 1, 2011

What's interesting to me is the gymnastics Lutherans sometimes put themselves through to reconcile Luther's nastiness with the fact that their religion is named after him.

They learned that from the Catholics!

It is a bit strange that Luther is being condemned in this thread for his anti-semitism which is a mere footnote to the terrible things that resulted from his anti-catholicism.
posted by three blind mice at 4:48 AM on November 1, 2011

If anybody finds this interesting and likes boardgames, I can absolutely recommend finding five like-minded friends and playing a game of Here I Stand.

^{(If you don't have five friends nearby who wants to play, there's an active PBEM community. Just solicit on BGG.)}
posted by brokkr at 5:31 AM on November 1, 2011

As an Episcopalian who is unwilling to convert to Roman Catholicism because of their stances on homosexuality, the ordination of women, and the authority of the Pope, but finds Christian unity and Apostolic succession very important, I hate Reformation Sunday. I just skip church, even though it means I usually miss out on singing "Onward Christian Soldiers."
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 5:39 AM on November 1, 2011

Eh. The reformation was gonna happen whether Martin Luther came along or not - The Renaissance had pretty much broken the stranglehold the church had on intellectual life. Laying the 30 Years War or European antisemitism at his feet is a bit blinkered to what was going in in Europe at the time.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:54 AM on November 1, 2011

The leadership in Rome had not exactly been acquitting itself well at the time. That huge conflict didn't come out of nowhere, and I think it's a bit unfair to lay it at ML's feet.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 6:03 AM on November 1, 2011

Instead he sowed division and irreparably divided Christendom.

Wasn't Christendom already pretty well divided at this point in its history? You know, those bearded dudes out East.
posted by NoMich at 6:09 AM on November 1, 2011 [1 favorite]

Yeah, but they were out east. I mean come on, that's all the way over there.
posted by oddman at 6:11 AM on November 1, 2011 [3 favorites]

oneswellfoop: "How is selling indulgences any different from Pledge Week on Pat Robertson's 700 Club show"

With indulgences, the Church is actually saying that you will reap some sort of benefit for giving money. "You buy this, you will get this." With any sort of donation or pledge drive, you get what you put in just like any donation. (ie, if you give thousands to show how holy you are, that won't look good in Heaven. Give what little you can spare in hopes it will do some good, baby Jesus smiles.)
posted by charred husk at 6:25 AM on November 1, 2011

The reformation would have happened even without Luther. Jan Hus had tried a hundred years earlier and gotten himself burned for his troubles. Zwingli was contemporaneous and Calvin followed soon after. Luther cannot be exclusively blamed for the 20 years war. Even being a complete asshole in the service of Christianity has a long and proud history. St. Athanasius of Alexandria, one of the fathers of the church, led mobs into the churches of the Arians to interrupt their services and destroy their altars. Luther didn't do anything first. He perhaps did it best, which is why we remember him.

On the other hand, both his antisemitism and his condemnation of the peasantry both go above and beyond the cause of being a complete and utter cock in the name of Christianity. For those and those alone, I have little respect for him. On the other hand, Athanasius is one of my favorite saints.
posted by Hactar at 6:42 AM on November 1, 2011 [2 favorites]

For completeness sake: The Wittenburg Door. (Static since 2008.)
posted by The Deej at 6:42 AM on November 1, 2011 [1 favorite]

The Reformation: A History is a very accessible, if very detailed (long) history of the Reformation by Diarmaid MacCulloch. For a condensed version, you can always pick up MacCulloch's A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years.

This thread has also failed to mention that Luther married a nun (Interesting fact #27).

Despite Luther's bad qualities, what he initiated on that day and in the following months leading up to Worms (When in the full spotlight, Luther pretty much told the Catholic heirarchy to heck with ya in person), I'm very proud to be a Protestant. As a Christian, I firmly believe that Protestantism has allowed for a practice of Christianity closer to its original form and shed a lot of baggage developed over the 1500 odd years that it's been in existence. It also helped encourage a culture of defying the status quo and speaking one's mind (for good or bad), you know, protesting.

Going back to the Reformation, it's an amazing and complex event with numerous figures popping up all across Europe, like Zwingli, as Hactar mentions above. It went beyond religion and made people re-examine how their very communities were structured, such as education and family units. It covered the whole spectrum, including free love (i.e. same as found in the 60's). It also brings the awesome story of a wooden statue of Mary.

A protestant mob stole the statue of Mary from a church and denounced her as a witch. Naturally, you can't call someone a witch without putting them to the test. To see if Mary was a witch, they tossed her wooden statue into the nearby river to see if she floated (like a witch) or sank to the bottom (like a good non-witch). The wooden statue, like a proper witch, floated (shocking)! At which point, the mob grabbed the bobbing witch and burnt her at the stake.
posted by Atreides at 6:51 AM on November 1, 2011 [1 favorite]

Atreides, that is a great book recommendation and I agree with your comment.
posted by snap_dragon at 8:06 AM on November 1, 2011

Wasn't Christendom already pretty well divided at this point in its history?

The great schism was (and is) quite different. The eastern churches remain largely in unity with themselves, whereas the Lutheran reformation at its core pitted private interpretation against authority of the Church, thereby opening the doors for division upon division. There estimated to be 30,000 protestant denominations. In the Eastern churches there are approximately a dozen and their differences aren't generally hostile.

The great schism is notable that neither the Catholic Pope nor the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch would talk to each other and a long standing excommunication stood between the two figure heads for nearly a thousand years. In practice, communion was often made between parishioners and the differences are more ceremonial than theological these days. As recently as 2004 Pope John Paul II made the bold move to meet with the Patriarch and they lifted the mutual excommunication.
posted by dgran at 8:56 AM on November 1, 2011

Sonascope, your story of the 95 feces totally cracked me up.
posted by leahwrenn at 9:00 AM on November 1, 2011

I don't have time to search for a cite (well, OK, there is this, but I haven't looked at the paper), but I read a number of times that there is evidence that Luther suffered from some sort of progressive disease that would have made him increasingly uncomfortable as he got older.

I've heard this same thing. Granted, I heard it from a Lutheran in the midst of doing gymnastics around Luther's anti-Semitism. (I guess the argument was that he wasn't in full command of his faculties, so he can be let off the hook. Or something. It's a slightly weird argument to me, but then I'm not a Lutheran.) The article you linked to doesn't seem to be available in full online, or at the very least I don't have access to it, which is a pity.

Atreides: I'm very proud to be a Protestant. As a Christian, I firmly believe that Protestantism has allowed for a practice of Christianity closer to its original form and shed a lot of baggage developed over the 1500 odd years that it's been in existence. It also helped encourage a culture of defying the status quo and speaking one's mind (for good or bad), you know, protesting.

I'm giggling at this comment because it seems like a nice encapsulation of some of the cultural differences between Protestants and Catholics. The part of me that wishes it was still Catholic is going "That's 1500 years of history and theological thought you're calling baggage!" I have a great soft spot for Anabaptism and the Radical Reformation, but I'm conditioned to think the entire thing is predicated on nuttiness. (Though, damn it, I think you should only baptise adults.)
posted by hoyland at 9:09 AM on November 1, 2011

I think some of the talk of Luther's nastiness and anti-Semitism misses a bit of cultural and historical context.

First, it’s probably inappropriate to think of Protestants in U.S. terms – I am not sure the “WASP” stereotype applies to Canada or Scandinavia in any meaningful way. US Lutheranism seems to get entangled in some confusing discussion around whatever schism happened in Missouri or Wisconsin. The Protestantism and Lutheranism I am talking about was created and spread mostly in Europe, especially Germany.

Anyway looking at history, the German(ic) people from Roman times were clannish and distrustful of authority - centralizing figures rarely received much support (we are familiar with some breakdowns which don’t support the trend). I don't recall too many people who dared call themselves "King of the Germans". Local princes pretty much ran things and local politics and rivalries reign supreme in most of Germanic history.

From this point of view, you can chose to look at Luther as the guy who stirred up enough trouble to keep the pope (in Luther's day, and throughout most of history - an Italian prince) from meddling too much in local affairs and religious life. This reinforced the role and value of home and hearth - the core of the Germanic psyche.

If Luther’s a liberator and you belong to a cultural that tends to reject central leadership, it’s easier to swallow some other parts of this personality.

The other part of the discussion is that once you question the role of the church in society as Luther did, it becomes an acceptable topic of discussion. I am not sure history gets to the enlightenment without going through the reformation.
posted by Intrepid at 10:57 AM on November 1, 2011

I love this story, probably one of my favorites in European history.

Just behind Rasputin's in 'Wow, he actually did that? To those guys? Damn.'
posted by Slackermagee at 11:03 AM on November 1, 2011

holyland: What's interesting to me is the gymnastics Lutherans sometimes put themselves through to reconcile Luther's nastiness with the fact that their religion is named after him. I don't know that it's that different than any other religion's skeletons in the closet, but perhaps the name changes things.

I don't think any gymnastics are required. It's not like Lutherans worship Luther himself. In fact, the man himself would probably be aghast at the idea. After all, he put a considerable amount of energy into fighting the pope, pope-worship and the idea that the pope is infallible.

Also, the fact that someone is totally wrong about something (e.g. Luther on the Jews) does not mean that his ideas on everything else are wrong as well. Yes, by all accounts, Luther was an asshole, but he was still right about the need to curb the influence of the catholic church. Incidentally, he also was the first to translate the bible into German (way before it was translated into English etc.), thereby making it accessible to the commoner who didn't speak Latin. That by itself should secure his place in history.
posted by sour cream at 12:46 PM on November 1, 2011

I got 95 theses, but the Pope ain't one.
posted by 4ster at 1:33 PM on November 1, 2011

One of the amusing things about Luther that the church (especially the Lutheran church) is at pains not to reveal is that he was notoriously potty-mouthed

Actually, all the Lutheran churches I know don't mind his potty mouth. In fact, in the The Lutheran Quarterly a few years back, there was a great article about his use of the word "shit."

US Lutheranism seems to get entangled in some confusing discussion around whatever schism happened in Missouri or Wisconsin.

Actually, there's not a lot of schism there in regards to the bodies that make the ELCA, Missouri, and Wisconsin. The conversation there is really about where they come from - namely immigrant groups, their understanding of Lutheranism, and how they carried that from their roots through the 1800s to today. There are some schisms, sure, but nothing like the Reformation.

The eastern churches remain largely in unity with themselves, whereas the Lutheran reformation at its core pitted private interpretation against authority of the Church, thereby opening the doors for division upon division.

Actually, no it didn't. The Lutheran reformation is (really) the conservative reformation of this period. If private interpretation was a valid form of expression, then Luther would never have condemned the Anabaptists, attacked Zwingli, or attacked all the other Reformers around him. His catechism writings show how he wasn't really for private interpretation. Rather, he was against the idea of the church dictating (and changing) what it considered the rules for salvation - rules that, he thought, rendered Christ's death as meaningless. What helped create division was that Luther got political backing. Plenty of divisions had existed prior to the Reformation, and the early church was more diverse than even the churches today - Luther got lucky and was able to get the backing that would allow a separate church to exist in his day.
posted by Stynxno at 3:28 PM on November 1, 2011

I've heard this same thing. Granted, I heard it from a Lutheran in the midst of doing gymnastics around Luther's anti-Semitism. (I guess the argument was that he wasn't in full command of his faculties, so he can be let off the hook. Or something.

I hope it's clear to you that I am not interested in letting Luther "off the hook."
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:35 PM on November 1, 2011

Atreides: "This thread has also failed to mention that Luther married a nun (Interesting fact #27). "

Yeah. When writing it I was kinda just aiming for Luther's effect on the Reformation instead of a full biography of his life. I also left out the anti-Semitic stuff because that is what the second previously was entirely about!
posted by Deflagro at 10:20 PM on November 1, 2011

Lutherans didn't mean to start a new church and even after the break they didn't consider themselves part of the general reformation due to the different goals and theology of English, French and Swiss Calvinists and German-etc. anabaptists.

Also, the credit for the start should really go to old Jan Hus, whose similarities to Luther Johann Eck successfully pinned on Luther at their famous debate. It was a terrible moment as until then, Luther had claimed he would obey the pope, but since Hus' theology was condemned, Luther was forced to stand with Hus to hold his position and add a redefinition of the church to his theology.

Also, Luther only began to condemn the peasant revolt because of all the lawlessness raping and murdering. It wasn't exactly a bunch of Frederick Douglasses he condemned. Though, he was certainly pressured to write something by the German lords supporting Luther.
posted by michaelh at 5:36 AM on November 2, 2011