The ideas set out by Martin Luther sparked a reformation in the idea of authority itself

History Today ^ | March 22, 2017 | By Frank Furedi

[Brad from Tennessee]

It is unlikely that Martin Luther set out to shatter authority. Yet the Reformation, which started with the publication of his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517, set in motion a chain of events that fundamentally undermined the idea of authority itself. Luther demanded that the papacy respond to his criticisms of the Church’s moral failings. His actions did not simply call into question the moral authority of the Church. His defiant stand gave voice to a sentiment that would eventually provide legitimation for disobeying all forms of authority.

Luther’s challenge to the papacy’s moral status converged with the ascendancy of secular political forces that challenged its power. This intermeshing of religious and political conflict, which eventually led to the disintegration of a united Christendom, also provoked an irresolvable debate about the locus of religious authority. Luther’s claim that Christians could have direct access to God without the need for an intermediary threatened the role of the clergy and the Church hierarchy. His theology of reform also opened up a wider debate on obedience and resistance to political rule. The very idea of authority – religious and political – became, for the first time, a focus for philosophical debate. Until this point, authority was rarely questioned explicitly: the authority of individual rulers or the legitimacy of a particular claim to authority was challenged, but not authority itself.

Did Luther really hurl the legendary words – ‘Here I stand, so help me God, I can do no other’ – at his accusers? In a sense it does not matter. . .

[buffyt]

This article is 100% pure HOGWASH!!! He was against things like paying for you forgiveness with Indulgences. He was against the things that were wrong in the church. Go back and read about some of the very bad popes including the one who tried to have a Luther KILLED.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Well a state church had it coming sooner or later. I do not mourn that one iota.

[Tench_Coxe]

"His defiant stand gave voice to a sentiment that would eventually provide legitimation for disobeying all forms of authority."

Luther was railing against obvious abuses of those entrusted with positions of authority. Not *all* forms.

[HiTech RedNeck]

State churches were the problem. Luther was onto something here but until churches (even Lutheran) ceased to be state churches, his core idea was not fully realizable.

Romans 13 never left the bible. However an ungodly fusion of church and state mostly left the world.

[nathanbedford]

"His defiant stand gave voice to a sentiment that would eventually provide legitimation for disobeying all forms of authority."

I subscribe to the thesis of this article, in fact, I have got into a rather serious row on these threads by declaring that without Martin Luther you would have no Thomas Jefferson and no Declaration of Independence. Please note the quoted sentence above contains the keyword "eventually" which makes the assertion historically accurate.

Luther was born into a world which was medieval that is, there was a strict hierarchy running from God to Pope and King, both of whom were divinely ordained and therefore bestowed with absolute authority, through the clergy and ultimately to the, surf. This hierarchical arrangement not only endorsed political authority but formed an epistemology which is very similar to Islam today. In addition to fixing in place an authoritarian political world, it shaped how man knew what he knew. Questions of morality and theology and even science were determined by deductive not inductive reasoning.

In other words, the world was flat because the authorities said so and they were to be believed because they were ordained by God. Compare that to the epistemology of jihad today which tells the zealot outlandish myths of 72 virgins or the idea that the present-day world is controlled by the will of Allah.

When Martin Luther tacked his 95 theses to the church door, he was not just attacking the excesses of the church he was attacking the source of its authority. He would substitute the Bible (Sola Scriptura ) for papal bull and faith (Sola fide) for indulgences. Once the source of authority of church over man and of King over man is so questioned, the Reformation and the Enlightenment could flourish.

That is why Thomas Jefferson would vest the right to overthrow a King as a right which comes directly to every man from "nature's God" bypassing both church and state hierarchy just as matters of conscience come from the same source, revolutionary concepts nailed to a church door and found sublime is not divine expression in the Declaration of Independence.

[ifinnegan]

Yeah.

I saw this as quite a positive headline.

But this: “His defiant stand gave voice to a sentiment that would eventually provide legitimation for disobeying all forms of authority.” Seems too much.

All?

Maybe any, but not all. Recognizing the basis for authority and thus valid authority, and that there can be false or unearned forced authority are good thing.

[Rashputin]

"State churches were the problem."

LOL. So Luther advocating that the head of State be the head of all religion in each country fixed that problem, right??

[Ace's Dad]

without Martin Luther you would have no Thomas Jefferson and no Declaration of Independence.

You subscribe to the thesis of this article. So do I!

But I confess I'd never thought about that subject. Well chosen word, "subscribe." Well said!

[jocon307]

“...but until churches (even Lutheran) ceased to be state churches, his core idea was not fully realizable.”

I’m not really sure about all this, but I think in Europe there are still state churches (and my guess if that if there are, some are Lutheran).

[tired&retired]

I understand that the Pope is headed to Wittenberg for reconciliation this October for the 500th anniversary of Luther’s nailing the 95 theses on the door.

[tired&retired]

Anna Freud (Sigmund’so daughter) wrote that the the period of reformation was the beginning of the empowerment of common man. Bibles were translated to common man’s language.

[tired&retired]

I spent a few days in the Vatican and then went directly to the reformation museum in Geneva. What a sharp contrast!!!

[iowamark]

The author, Frank Furedi, is a founder of the ‘Revolutionary Communist Party’.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Furedi

[Yashcheritsiy]

Luther started the process, but it was Calvin who really legitimised the idea of burning Catholics at the stake.

[hopespringseternal]

Keeping in mind that Israel had no king until they demanded one, and God described the desire for an earthly king as a rejection of His authority.

Leftists clamoring for ever more state power fall into the same curse that was placed on faithless Israel when she demanded a king. Ultimately it is all cost and no benefit.

[sphinx]

It is perhaps better to pose the question as "who is the final judge when traditional sources of authority fall into opposition?"

There are three sources of authority: scripture, authority, and right reason. In principle, all three should be in harmony and should operate so as to reinforce one another. But since the world is complicated, and since people ask complicated questions and fall into error, conflicts do arise.

The immediate question for Luther was how to respond when "authority," in the form of the hierarchy of his day, had fallen into obvious error. Luther argued for the primacy of scripture as understood through right reason. The status of hierarchial "authority" rested ultimately on the deference owed to a teacher who has devoted his life to the study of scripture, including the historical exegesis of the church, as guided by reason disciplined by a lifetime of prayer and rigorous personal discipline.

Luther held such authority in high regard. He did not challenge it lightly. And he certainly did not think laymen should run off and invent their own theologies at the drop of a hat. Luther had a deep respect for learning, and for the class of people (the clergy) who had devoted their lives to its pursuit.

The issue, however, was that much of the hierarchy of Luther's day had fallen into grievous and obvious error and, in doing so, had forfeited the deference that would otherwise come naturally. When the Pope acted like a petty Italian warlord, with the higher clergy often living in scandalous luxury, with cardinals and bishops keeping mistresses and treating church properties as tokens in dynastic intrigues, continued deference would have required a willful closing of one's eyes.

That said, I presume that Luther would have stayed within the church had the Pope not forced his hand. Luther didn't leave voluntarily; he was excommunicated. And he refused to recant because he was being ordered to perjure himself (a mortal sin) by a clearly corrupt judge. And so: when the judge is corrupt, who is the final authority?

[Yashcheritsiy]

God described the desire for an earthly king as a rejection of His authority.

Not necessarily,

When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother." (Deuteronomy 17:14-15)

In the law, God had already indicated Israel would have a king, AND made provision for the regulation of that office. Israel's problem in I Samuel was the way they went about it, not the desire itself.

Indeed, the Scripture teaches lords and kings, not presidents and democracy.

[rigelkentaurus]

As a Missouri Synod Lutheran, I still have zero interest in reconciling with the catholic church.

Many of Luther’s issues with the catholic church remain as issues to me today. They may have finally ended the selling of indulgences, but other important issues remain unresolved.

[Chicory]

Look at what this is saying: it is a prophecy, a prophecy that came true.

When you arrive there... and say, “I want a king over me, like the other nations have,” you will have a king, one whom God will chose from among you all; you will not be allowed to have a foreigner as a king.