Romanticizing the Reformation
Yesterday, in addition to being Halloween, was Reformation Day; at least according to tradition, 31 October 1517 was the date that Martin Luther famously posted his 95 theses at the cathedral church in Wittenberg. I am rather intrigued by the way that this event gets discussed by Latter-day Saints. In my experience, Luther is usually portrayed as heroically challenging the corruptions of an apostate church, as a man genuinely called by God, even a kind of proto-Joseph Smith. The Reformation is framed as the prelude to the Restoration. The apostasy narrative formulated by B.H. Roberts and James E. Talmage in the early 20th century–which drew heavily on now quite dated Protestant histories and absorbed their anti-Catholic biases–continues to influence our ways of thinking; we still talk about the Middle Ages as a period of spiritual and cultural decline, and conceptualize the Renaissance and Reformation as the resurgence of a divine light which had all but disappeared.
I am actually quite fond of Luther; it was studying his writings which lured me from the discipline of history to that of theology, and I find his thought rich and fascinating. However, I am somewhat baffled by the romantic view of the Reformation so often articulated by Mormons. When it comes to the religious questions at stake, it seems to me that we overwhelmingly side with the Catholics. Sure, we agree with Luther on some points, such as married clergy. But do we argue for sola scriptura, instead of scripture plus tradition? Do we believe in a fall so complete that human nature is thoroughly corrupt, and a human will which can therefore contribute nothing to salvation? Do we emphasize justification by faith alone? Do we reject an ecclesiastical hierarchy with one person at the top as God’s representative on earth? Do we believe in double predestination? On all of these issues, I would put Latter-day Saint teaching firmly in the Catholic camp.
Even more striking, however, is the fact that Mormons do not generally see it as a positive thing to rebel against one’s religious authorities. I was at BYU in the early 1990s, and I remember one of my history professors posing a provocative question to the class about why we saw Luther’s acts as admirable, but not those of the September Six. There is a bit of irony in holding up past religious rebels as heroic figures while emphasizing the importance of obedience to the contemporary leaders of one’s own church.
I think it’s also worth at least mentioning that the Reformation did not unilaterally increase religious toleration and lead to a new age of religious enlightenment. Some historians would argue that it actually pushed things in the reverse direction; as long as the Catholic church was the only church in Western Europe, it could allow a fair amount of diversity, despite the occasional persecutions of heretical groups. But the Reformation resulted in sharply drawn battle lines, and therefore less room for religious tolerance (on the part of either Catholics or Protestants). And it seems irresponsible to discuss the glories of the Reformation without at least noting the wars of religion which followed in its wake.
One of my earliest encounters with Luther was reading an article about him in the Friend when I was a kid. I periodically see Ensign articles on the Reformers. I appreciate that we acknowledge their accomplishments; we Latter-day Saints tend to be so insular that it’s usually refreshing to hear about any religious figure outside of our tradition. But I’d love to see this appreciation broadened to include medieval and/or Catholic figures as well.
- 1 November 2007
Great points! Mormons often talk about the Reformation as important because it created the political and cultural space for the Restoration. Yet it seems easy to argue that the Enlightenment actually did that — not the reformation. So maybe we should be celebrating heretics like Isaac Newton and early proto-atheists like Spinoza in the way we sometimes lionize early Protestants.
RT, that’s a great idea. I can’t wait to see a glowing Ensign article on the life and thought of Spinoza.
Great post. Interestingly enough, Bruce R. McConkie, who in many regards carried on that apostasy narrative started by Roberts and Talmage, was quite openly critical of Luther in a speech delivered at a BYU Devotional in 1984. He does acknowledge that “Luther’s break with Catholicism was part of the divine program” but that qualification does little to diminish his idenitifaction of the “second greatest heresy” with Martin Luther.
That’s interesting about McConkie; thanks for the link! I can’t say I’m terribly surprised that he wasn’t enamored of the whole justification by faith alone idea. Interestingly, though he clearly admired them in some ways, B.H. Roberts also has some pretty pointed criticisms of the Reformers–he objects to the idea that the Bible can be interpreted privately and the denial of free will, and he especially goes after them for persecuting those who disagreed with them.
he objects to the idea that the Bible can be interpreted privately and the denial of free will, and he especially goes after them for persecuting those who disagreed with them
And are any of those criticisms objectionable to you?
RT, don’t you think that the argument can be made that the Reformation paved the way for the Enlightenment? As such, it is curious that you pose the Enlightenment as an alternative for LDS romanticization. But don’t you think that LDS revere the enlighteners too? (I think we do.)
Lynette wrote we Latter-day Saints tend to be so insular that it’s usually refreshing to hear about any religious figure outside of our tradition.
This is a discouraging statement that seems like a gratuitous insult rather than much of a valid observation. My perception has been different. Latter-day Saints speak highly of many people not of their faith. Now, if your lament is that we don’t (as a Church) systemmatically study the writings of the Church Fathers, the Scholastics, or medieval philosophers, then that is something different — but do you really think we should do that? Isn’t it perhaps good enough that certain individuals who are interested in such material choose to study it on their own? And are you sure that Latter-day Saints don’t have appreciation for medieval and Catholic figures as well?
Nice post, Lynnette.
Mormon scholars in recent years have been breaking out of the hidebound Roberts/Talmage Apostasy tradition (witness for instance _Early Christians in Disarray_), so you might actually get your wish for an Ensign article on some medieval/Catholic figure as well at some point in the future.
I cannot tell you how many times I’ve had the argument with Mormons who think that the Reformation returned doctrinal purity to the Gospel. The Protestants really screwed it up, like you said.
But, what medieval thinkers would you include in the narrative sweep of God revealing parts and portions of the Truth to? Frankly, I think the Great Apostasy narrative is too entrenched to admit lauding of pre-Reformation types.
Good point, Kevin. Early Christians in Disarray is available for free from the FARMS website. Eric Dursteler’s chapter “Inheriting the ‘Great Apostasy’: The Evolution of Latter-day Saint Views on the Middle Ages and the Renaissance” is particularly relevant to this discussion. An expanded version of the same paper was published in Journal of Mormon History 28:2 (Fall 2002), 23-59.
johnf,
And are any of those criticisms objectionable to you?
I’m not sure what you’re getting at with this question; sure, I think Roberts makes some valid points. I wasn’t trying to critique or commend him; I was simply observing that while he played a significant role in shaping LDS thought on the apostasy, and he drew on a lot of anti-Catholic writings in this, he also wasn’t an unqualified supporter of the Reformation.
And I’m certainly not arguing that everyone needs to systematically study the writings of the Church Fathers (or for that matter, of the Reformers). However, I do think the Reformers play a role in popular church discourse that I don’t see medieval and Catholic figures playing.
Kevin, I agree that some of the contemporary scholarship looks promising; it’s encouraging to see things like Early Christians in Disarray, and ideas about the apostasy which challenge the “decline of civilization into the Dark Ages” narrative.
alea, just to clarify, my personal view isn’t really that the Protestants “screwed it up.” With many of these issues I can see valid points on both sides. And when you really get into the theological debates, I’m not actually sure that Luther and the Catholics were all that far apart on a number of issues–a lot of the clashes seem to arise from the differing frameworks they were using. (In 1999, Catholics and Lutherans actually issued a Joint Declaration on Justification, which essentially frames their positions as differing emphases, as opposed to substantive disagreement.) And I rather like a number of Protestant thinkers.
What interests me is that Latter-day Saints seem to generally side with the Reformers (so to speak), despite a number of reasons why one might think we’d side with the Catholics.
Good question about medieval thinkers. I’m no medievalist, so doubtless there are others who could answer this better, but I’m thinking of people like Anselm, Duns Scotus, Thomas Aquinas, Abelard. There’s a lot of fascinating medieval thought–some of which has arguably influenced our own theological thinking (for example, Anselm’s notion of the atonement).
This is a discouraging statement that seems like a gratuitous insult rather than much of a valid observation. My perception has been different. Latter-day Saints speak highly of many people not of their faith.
I didn’t mean to sound quite as snide as that statement may have come across. But I wasn’t talking about whether Latter-day Saints have anything positive to say about people of other faiths generally. I was specifically thinking about how, at least in my experience, it’s not terribly common to hear much about non-LDS religious figures of any stripe in a church context.
This is an interesting post, Lynnette. I particularly like the point your history professor made. It’s certainly easier to praise past reformers than present ones because the past ones are safely dead and (in many cases) their reforms have become mainstream. This parallels points that are sometimes made by Church leaders about dead versus living prophets: It’s easier to believe in the dead ones because they’re safely gone and we can pick and choose and reinterpret their words, but the living ones are stubbornly still here, and so are harder to listen to.
We’re dealing with medievalism here.
Joesph Smith, Jr.
June 16, 1844
We praised Luther and criticized Catholicism because Mormons are kiss-ups.
Protestants are popular in America. Mormons really want to be popular. So we kiss up to the Protestants in the hopes of being part of the American privileged class. If beating a few Catholics on the playground helps curry favor with the school bully, so be it.
I agree with you that it would be nice to see showcased some of the accomplishments of medieval Catholicism, but I’m having a hard time taking the Luther/Sept. 6th thing seriously. It seems that the painfully obvious difference is that the Sept 6th were flouting legitimate priesthood authority and Luther wasn’t.
Now, if you don’t think that that is what the Sept. 6th were doing, that’s an entirely different issue, of course.
Lynette wrote we Latter-day Saints tend to be so insular that it’s usually refreshing to hear about any religious figure outside of our tradition.
This is a discouraging statement that seems like a gratuitous insult rather than much of a valid observation.
Although Lynnette’s already clarified this, I just have to add that as I read her, she’s speaking as a theologian, not as a cultural critic. She’s not wagging her finger at all of us insular LDS; she’s merely observing, correctly, that we LDS don’t have much intellectual dialogue with other theological traditions. It’s just a tame factual observation, nothing insulting about it.
Julie said,
From a Mormon perspective, the difference may be obvious. But I think if you step outside of the Mormon perspective and consider the two situations as a religious scholar, for example, the similarities do become striking. And it’s precisely those similarities that make our lionization of Luther so ironic. Lynnette’s professor’s comparison reminds me of my BYU Dante professor’s observations about Dante’s placement of Pope Boniface VIII in one of the deepest circles of hell. My professor made the point that we Mormons of all people shouldn’t be too quick to cheer when Dante lambastes the pope, since we’d hardly take it well if someone published a description of hell that situated our prophet in graphic and eternal torment for his sins.
John F., every major event in history has obviously conditioned the way every other subsequent important event took place. Nonetheless, the Enlightenment happened in both Catholic (e.g., France) and Protestant (e.g., England, Netherlands) places. So the relationship is probably a bit complex, in any case.
Do Mormons romanticize the Enlightenment in ways analogous to our romanticization of the Reformation? Not that I’ve seen. Does the Ensign print hagiographies of Paine, Voltaire, Rousseau, Montaigne, Descarte, Locke, etc.? Again, not that I can remember. These figures, it seems, simply aren’t remembered by most of us as central elements of our religious history, yet it’s difficult to imagine Mormonism existing without them and the cultural forces that brought them to prominence.
Soory - I live in the South. (and I am sure the attitude exists elsewhere), but I hear a lot of “My daddy was a baptist , my Grandaddy was a so it’s good enough for me.
Good groundwork and an open mind for spiritual intellectual discouse…
Just an observation.
The comparison between Luther and the September Six is especially interesting. If we accept Mormon claims to exclusive legitimate priesthood authority as self-evident and widely agreed-upon, then, as Julie indicated, the comparison breaks down: Luther dissented from a false church and then founded another false church; the September Six dissented from a true church. Obviously apotastitizing from a false church is good, but from a true church is bad.
If, however, we give the benefit of the doubt to believers of other faiths and assume that the Catholic church is genuine in believing its own claims to authority, the similarities are striking. Luther suggested reform for and finally dissented from a hierarchical church claiming exclusive access to salvific rituals and right to the appropriate interpretation of scripture.
It seems to me that as Mormons we’re very uninterested in Luther’s doctrine. What we laud about him specifically is his willingness to dissent. And for an authoritarian church, this is truly ironic.
Interesting conversation. While I certainly think you could argue for ways in which Luther and the September Six aren’t parallel, I do think the situations raise some similar questions. If you are Mormon, Catholic, or anyone else with a commitment to a religious institution which you genuinely believe is divinely authorized, when (if ever) is it legitimate to dissent?
Seth (#19), while you may have a point in some respects, I think it’s a lot more complicated than Mormons wanting to be popular. For one thing, just thinking about our history–given that the Church started in New England, and that a lot of the early converts were coming from Protestant Europe–I suppose it’s not really all that surprising to see evidence of a Protestant cultural heritage lingering in our discourse (even if I do find it in many ways theologically odd).
Mark (#14), thanks for mentioning that JS quote.
I wish I could remember the author or the academic journal I read this article in…
Basically, it’s about Catholic and Mormon apologetic writings in the USA at about the turn of the century (19th to 20th) and how they both tended to make hay out of criticizing each other.
You’d get Catholic theologians writing, “hey, we may be different, but at least we aren’t weird like those MORMONS!’ And you’d get LDS general authorities writing “hey we may be different, but at least we aren’t like those CATHOLICS!” The author cited several examples of such writings on both sides.
She called it “underdog syndrome” where one unpopular group tries to make itself more accepted by attacking another unpopular group.
Seth, are you referring to Matt Grow’s “The Whore of Babylon and the Abomination of Abominations: Nineteenth-Century Catholic and Mormon Mutual Perceptions and Religious Identity,” (Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture 73 (March 2004): 139-167)?
Sounds about right, although I coulda sworn it was a female author…
[...] Yet in addition to Lynnette’s thoughtful and honest post for LDS on “Romanticizing the Reformation“, I feel inclined to print the English translation of one of my favorite items in the [...]
Wow, Lynnette. I really like your Catholic-Protestant belief breakdown — I’ve never put those pieces together quite like that. “When it comes to the religious questions at stake, it seems to me that we overwhelmingly side with the Catholics.” Really interesting point.
As for Luther and the September Six, you’re right to note that, to an outside observer, they do look pretty similar.
A few potential differences to an LDS viewer:
First, Luther recognized the apostasy. Thus, he becomes a sort of proto-Joseph Smith. Breaking ground, if you will, for the idea that the Catholic church was wrong.
Second, the Reformation set the stage for Joseph Smith. For example, it changed the way that scripture was read, and those changes permitted Joseph Smith to exist. Without the reformation, it’s unlikely that Joseph would have had the ability to form his church. Absent Luther, could the LDS church have even existed?
I think that Luther is praised not because the Reformation is viewed as right or correct, but because it is viewed (correctly, I think) as a structural prerequisite for the Restoration.
On the other hand, there is more recognition of good pre-Reformation things in different places. That more nuanced view of medieval times is a good thing.
Seth, that underdog syndrome you mention is such an interesting dynamic; I’m wondering what forms it might take in a contemporary context. (Mormons distancing themselves from Scientologists? “Sure we’re weird, but at least we don’t believe in Xenu.”)
Kaimi, good points. I think you’re right about the Reformation being valued for producing a context which made the Restoration possible (though I think RT’s question about the role of Enlightenment is a fascinating one). But I think it’s more than that; it’s also the appeal of the romantic narrative of the courageous individual who resists the oppressive institution. And that kind of narrative is one which reflects American cultural ideals, I would argue, at least as much as specifically Mormon ones.
Lynnette, I think it’s a bit different today.
My own personal opinion is that modern Mormons do it by siding up with the Christian Right in bashing gays, poor people, and Democrats, But I’ll be the first to admit there are probably some real holes in that argument.
But I’ll be the first to admit there are probably some real holes in that argument.
I sure hope so.
[...] 19th-century Mormonism, Archives, Christopher Modern Mormons, it seems, are quite fond of ”romanticizing the Reformation,” meaning that Mormons often portray Luther, Arminius, and other Protestant Reformers as [...]
[...] Mormons, it seems, are quite fond of ”romanticizing the Reformation,” meaning that Mormons often portray Luther, Arminius, and other Protestant Reformers as [...]
As I medievalist, I’ll suggest a medieval figure Mormons should read: Gregory the Great, the sixth-century monk turned pope. He was not a groundbreaking theologian, but he advocated a missiological program with great cultural sensitivity, and he wrote insightfully about the difficulties of simultaneously maintaining a meditative spirituality while serving in demanding public offices. Many Mormons would find his book, The Pastoral Care, written as a guide for ecclesiastical leadership, very similiar to many talks given in General Conference.
I know this thread is kind of old, but I’d like to read the historians you (Lynnette) mentioned who argue that the Reformation pushed religious tolerance backwards. Can you give me any citations?
Sorry for the slow response, but if you’re still around (or anyone else is interested in this topic), one place to start might be with Grell & Scribner’s book of essays, Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation.
Thanks!