Freedom from the Burden of Sin

Luther seems to have freed Christians from the tedious, immoral indulgences and rituals conducted by the Catholic Church. He announced that the Pope doesn’t have authority to be a God ruling over the lay Christians. In On Christian Liberty, the heart of the Protestant reformation, Luther suggests that a Christian is free from all sins once she has faith. However, the Protestants are not much better off then their Catholic comterparts when it comes to freedom. 

Faith does not free if it is too difficult or impossible to attain. For Luther, faith means to believe in the Words of God, including the story of Jesus, his sacrifice, and the exaltation of Christian souls above all else. However, how can a person believe the right Word of God if she does not know the exact meaning of the scripture? What if she believed in the wrong thing, does it mean she does not have faith? Then again, who is it that determines the content of the “Word of God”? With the invention of printing press in the West, Bible was no longer a luxury. Everyone had the chance to read the face of the “Words” and determine the content of the Word personally.  This change in history was bound to result in a plethora of opinions concerning the meaning of the Word. For example, Calvinism and Anabaptism were later born from the Protestant root (Fiero). But who’s rightly leading the souls of their followers to salvation? Providing there can’t be multiple right answers which, obviously, the Catholics didn’t agree to exist. Christians took off the burden of work, but had put on the burden of interpretation. If one doesn’t have the ability to interpret correctly, or happens to have the wrong definitions, one is not saved. This is rather a somber consequence for babies, those who are disabled and those with strong faith in the wrong things.

Using the concept of Love, Luther explains away the problem that Christians can just be lazy with their faith securing their salvation. However, whether Love is a work or not is unclear. Luther explains Love is a natural product of having faith, or in his words, “faith is active through Love” (49).  Interestingly, he reasons that Christians naturally practice Love because Christ’s virtues passes down to the Christians and sort of takes over the Christian body and the body starts Loving (62). This is “true love” and the “genuine rule of a Christian life” (62). He states that if one does not Love, one is not a Christian. This Love has a particular meaning of taking on sins of others and helping others with no desire for reward. Christians Love unconditionally because they are satisfied in faith already, they do not need anything else. Luther’s argument goes: One has a evil unbelieving soul, the soul accepts faith and becomes a righteous believing soul, then the soul will start Loving. Therefore, if one’s soul does not Love, one does not have the righteous believing soul. This can be simplified as: if A then B; not B; therefore not A (62). The logic is valid. However, we don’t know if A necessarily leads to B. If it’s possible for one to have faith and not Love, then one’s lack of faith is not accurately predicted by lack of Love. In this case, the believing person must do the work of Love to gain acceptance into the club of saved souls.

A more severe problem follows: we will never be able to know if anyone is Christian or not, including ourselves. It is impossible to peer into other’s souls to see whether they Love according to Luther’s ideal, or they only love with the desire for rewards such as satisfaction or brownie points (Andrea’s point). How can one know for sure that when one loves, it’s for love’s sake and not anything else unconsciously? This ambiguity and uncertainty puts a burden on the Christians. They never know if they really have faith and if their souls are really saved. This is the burden of Love. 

A final thought hit me: isn't it true that a person who doesn't concern herself with the salvation of the soul has the freedom to be much freer than anyone who does?

Luther, Martin, William A. Lambert, and Harold John Grimm. On Christian Liberty. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Print.

Fiero, Gloria. The Humanistic Tradition Book 3 The European Renaissance, the Reformation, and Global Encounter. N.p.: McGraw-Hill College, 2010. Print.

Dispelling Associations?

    In the first day of class we discussed Mitt Romney's religion. He is Mormon. He is the first of his religion to reach the position of presidential candidate. He has kept rather silent about his religion in recent months due to America's perception of Mormonism. A relatively new religion, Mormonism does not have a foundational influence in America the way other religions do. Because of this, many people have various negative views and uncertainties about Mormon believers. Romney could be making a very good call in not discussing his Mormonism because it could sway voters against him. Dr. J referenced a poll in which people said they ranked atheists' trustworthiness only above that of pedophiles. This means in a list of various attributes, the majority of Americans categorize atheists in a similar way to pedophiles- who as we know from yesterday's discussion, most people view in a very heinous way. What does trustworthy mean? For someone to trust another person based on attributes, it means they are generalizing what sort of people can be found reliable, truthful, or worthy of confidence. A trustworthy person is a person with virtues one would value. When choosing a presidential candidate, it makes sense to look for someone you would find trustworthy.

     These associations do not end at the voting booth. When discussing Martin Luther, we discussed his definition of a faithful person or a Christian. Based on the conversations we had in class, I would observe that when most people think of Christians, they think of the good works those Christians do as a consequence of their faith. This is not an unfair association; churches are constantly helping raise money for charities, hosting group volunteer sessions, etc. Each of these actions would be defined as a good work by most people. He argues, however, that good works can do nothing for one's faith because nothing can be done that 'wins' forgiveness. As Dr. J mentioned, this theory sounds good until we have to conflate our preconceived ideas of a Christian person and Luther's definition. Using his definition, there are no 'good' Christians. There are those who are Christian and those who are not, and separately there are those who are good people and those who are not.

     The problem with the association of a good person and a Christian is that people take correlations and turn them into assumptions. People would rather vote for a Christian than an atheist because they believe, based on previous notions, that the Christian will be a good person. The very fact that so many people kept trying to re-define a 'good Christian' and a 'bad Christian' proves that most people believe that the defining quality of being a Christian is synonymous with 'good person'.

Do you all think Luther's definition is correct? Do any of you think Christian is synonymous with good person?

Faith and Good Works

   

In his essay, On Christian Liberty, Martin Luther dissects the relationship between the spiritual and physical nature of man and the roles faith and good works play in that relationship. Faith, or the true use of the Word of God, is the only thing a man needs to become a true Christian. Works serve no purpose in attaining salvation. The purpose of God’s commandments is to show man his inability to be good rather than provide guidelines for a Christian lifestyle.

We have spent the last two class periods analyzing these words and especially Luther’s ideas on good works. We have argued about the possibility of a truly selfless act since Luther denounces good works that are done for temporal or eternal gain. However, I do not believe Luther is against gaining from performing good works, but instead performing good works for the sole purpose of gaining from it. Luther states that good works are necessary to a Christian lifestyle for keeping oneself upright and away from sin and lusts of the flesh. Also, works are very important when it comes to faith. He stated in his essay, “Here faith is truly active through love,” meaning faith can be expressed through selfless acts done to benefit ones neighbor. This is one of the main points I took from Luther’s writing. If a person has faith and, therefore, is Christian, his works will be good. It is then his responsibility to spread love to others and, through his works, help spread the Word of God. Many of the examples of works we brought up in class were eternal and good, but not done in the sole interest of one’s neighbor. I believe the argument over good works cleansing the soul to be irrelevant. Instead, I believe one with faith to be inherently good and free from committing purposeful sin. Once one has faith and follows the Word of God then they have attained salvation and entered into a union with Christ. Christ took on all of the sins of the soul and blessed it with his grace and salvation. Therefore, now that we are one with Christ, it is now our responsibility to act in his image by performing good works. Faith finds expression in the selfless acts Christians willingly performed by one that is wholly satisfied by the wealth of his faith.

Works of Faith

           In my opinion, action on the behalf of one’s faith is one of the greatest qualities of humanity today. If faith does in fact exist, acting on it is almost divine. I believe it is that action that defines one’s faith. Ironically, the exact qualities of faith are still an enigma to me. In simpler terms; I can recognize a work of faith when I see it but it is still difficult to define. What gives us the ability to trust in something beyond our own understanding? Why are we then forced to act on our faith? Is faith derived from some social context or is it all psychological? Do we mistake faith for something else? It certainly cannot be conditioned like other behaviors or else it would not be faith.

            Last week our class tried to define morals and virtue in the name of a better understanding of Machiavelli. I know it sounds pretty corny, but faith is fundamentally impossible to define. I believe this is why Luther faced some harsh criticism from the Church in his time. Faith is not a singular belief nor is it some social construct or mental misconstruction. It is too easy to rationalize something in terms of another article already understood.  To do so would detract from its significance. I therefore think that we should not try to define it as singular belief but instead recognize the works from faith.

            I believe we act on our faith because not to do so would destroy or fundamentally alter the faith that you have. So in that way, I fundamentally disagree with Luther. One cannot be a Christian and not be defined by their works, the two are connected fundamentally. You are a Christian through your works of faith. I am not saying that you cannot sin, but if you have the ability to recognize a situation in which your faith calls you to act, you are obliged to act.

            In this way, there are good and bad Christians. I understand the counter argument during our discussion in how there are good and bad people who happen to be Christian.  Yet with my non-definition of faith, I believe there are some circumstances under which there are indeed good and bad Christians. The good are those who both believe and act on their faith, while the bad only act part of the time. I realize I lack concrete proof, but it is really difficult to put faith in a pressure cooker and expect some indisputable answer.

            In closing, the recognition of faith is the best we can do to understand it and we can only recognize it through its works.

The Two Theses

        Throughout the past two lectures, our class has attempted to define what it means to be a Christian according to Martin Luther. After reading Luther's short essay entitled, "On Christian Liberty," I finally realized why Catholics and Protestants differ in beliefs in so many different areas. Don't get me wrong, I knew that Martin Luther was responsible for the Protestant Reformation, and from the reformation came many different religions with their own creeds. I always just left it at that, with no research as to how or why Protestants believe what they believe, and I realize now that that was very close minded of me. However, after reading this essay, there are several issues and topics in which I disagree with Martin Luther. For instance, Luther believes that if you have faith, you will do good work. I believe it is possible to have faith without doing good work. First we must define "good work." If a monk has taken on an oath of silence, and he is left in complete solitude to pray for the duration of his life, is that considered "good work?" To me, I interpret Luther's definition  "good work" as outward and public signs of good will, such as community service, or collecting money for the poor. I believe that Luther made a hasty generalization here. I believe that part of having faith is having the outward desire to do good works, but the two don't go hand in hand. Just because you have faith doesn't mean you will automatically begin performing good works, but you should have the inclination to because it is the Christian example. When thinking about this conundrum, I found myself asking myself what the true message of the Bible is. In the Hebrew Bible the message strongly suggests that faith in God will lead you to success. When looking at many of the characters of the Old Testament, are they really remembered as doing good work? King David definitely had faith in God, yet he is remembered for having committed adultery with Bathsheba. The message of the New Testament deals a great deal with redemption and forgiveness, which would imply that one has sinned to begin with.  I understand that Luther never said that if you have faith you won't do bad work, but I feel as if it is implied.

        My second major problem that I had with Luther's writing is that he treats all sins equally. Is stealing a candy bar from a convenience store the same as robbing a bank at gunpoint? Obviously not because there are different levels of sin. There is a difference between murder and gossip, and it is the very difference between venial and mortal sins. According to the Catholic belief, having faith isn't enough. Just because someone is "saved" doesn't mean they are given a free pass to paradise. In my own personal opinion, the quest to gain entrance into heaven is lifelong. Don't be mistaken, faith is a very big part of any Christian's life, but the attempts that one makes to try and live a moral life is just as important. It is impossible to judge the content of another's soul. That is why I think it is impossible to determine who is saved and who isn't, and who who is going to heaven, and who isn't. 

        With that being said, I completely understand where Luther was coming from when he posted his ninety-five theses. The Catholic Church was becoming incredibly corrupt, and the selling of indulgences is an immoral act far beyond what can be forgiven. As Luther says in this essay, "It does not help the soul if the body is adorned with sacred robes of priests or dwells in sacred places or is occupied with sacred duties or prays, fasts, abstains from certain foods... Such works produce nothing but hypocrites. (pg.4-5)." I believe in this statement. I believe that power corrupts, and the best way live a moral life and have faith is to humble yourself. Part of being a Christian is acknowledging that you have sinned. This acknowledgement of fault is a step in the process to becoming a better Christian, as well as becoming a better person. . I apologize in advance if this comes across as preachy, but when commenting upon an essay like this, it is very difficult to remain objective.

Convicted Clergy

Martin Luther believes that “works reduce the body to subjection and purify it of its evil lusts, and our whole purpose is to be directed only toward the driving out of lusts.” Immediately after reading this statement, I thought about the countless news stories I have seen over the years about members of the clergy being convicted of crimes such as molestation of a child, rape, and even murder.  If good works reduce the inner evils of a Christian then how are some Christians able to commit such heinous crimes? To make sure I was not over exaggerating the cases of clergy committed crimes, I did a little research and found out that in the last 17 years, 75 clergymen have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to child molestation charges. These convicted child molesters included Roman Catholic priests, Baptists ministers, Pentecostal ministers, Methodists ministers, and Episcopal priests. To some 75 might be a small number but don’t forget to consider the unreported cases of victims who were afraid to speak out against the clergy. Also, there are some cases that are settled outside of court in which victims are paid by the church to keep quiet. That however is another topic for another day. The point I am trying to make is that if works suppress the inner evils of the soul, how are Christians that supposedly do good works still able to molest children, rape, and murder. Members of the clergy probably perform more good works than the average Christian. Were their works not good enough to suppress temptation? Are these members of the clergy even Christian? While contemplating my own questions, I thought about another passage I read in On Christian Liberty. Martin Luther claims that “the more Christian a man is, the more evils, sufferings, and deaths he must endure.” Maybe this could be used to explain why so many members of the clergy have fallen to temptation. Maybe they are Christians. In fact, they are more Christian than the average Christian which is why their temptation is greater and they succumb to it so often. 

Fiero, "Protest and Reform"

As background to the Protestant Reformation, please read Fiero's "Protest and Reform" here.