Luther and the Arts
“Luther and the Arts: Bumbling Idiot or Practical Theologian?"
Christopher R. Gillespie
Luther Text Spring 2009
18 May 2009
Introduction Modern aesthetics consider the arts as parallel expressions of theology or a “sensuous mode of theology.”[i] According to Brown, “Christian theologians have commonly acknowledged that the various arts, when properly supervised, prove themselves of religious use in several ways.” Citing Aquinas and Bonaventure, he suggests such appropriate use is “in religious instruction, in aiding memory, in warming the hearts of the “sluggish” for prayer and praise.”[ii] Brown acknowledges for many theologians, the arts have limited religious value compared to such things as catechesis, preaching, prayer. Augustine insisted that even the highest human and sensuous art exists far beneath the divine truth probed in a superior way by theological reflection.[iii] The Lutheran Reformation restored God’s Word as the only norm for doctrine and practice. How did its founder, Dr. Martin Luther, approach the appropriateness of dramatic, musical, and visual art? Was he consistent in his approach to each form? This paper will consider the aforementioned three artistic disciplines in the thought of Luther, with an emphasis on visual art. It will evaluate Luther’s practical handling of their use. It will briefly consider the practice of the following generations of followers. Finally it will conclude with an synopsis and consideration of the codified confessional statements in the Book of Concord. Luther’s background Education at the time of Luther was rooted in the classical modes of the quadrivium and the trivium. Beginning with the trivium, Luther’s latin schools of Mansfield, Magdeburg, and Eisenach taught grammar, logic and rhetoric - as well as music, part of the quadrivium.[iv] “Music, chiefly ecclesiastical and liturgical played a significant role in the school.”[v] The students learned Latin hymns, participating in the ordinary and special masses. The liturgy and especially the antiphonal responses served as the primary doctrinal education. When Luther first enrolled at the University of Erfurt in April or May of 1501, the first humanists were joining the faculty. In the liberal (philosophical) arts, they placed more emphasis on languages and rhetoric than dialectics. Humanist nominalism, marked by increased abstractness and subtlety, made it “increasingly more difficult to maintain the traditional practice of holding disputations” and would “definitely have problematic effects on theology.”[vi] Erfurt, at the time of Luther entrance, did not yet see humanism in conflict with scholasticism but rather as a supplement. Luther’s education began in the liberal arts and only when it was completed, could he move on to theology, jurisprudence, or medicine. This included a review of grammar, treated in his trivial school, and logic, physics, psychology, mathematics, astronomy, and certain philosophical knowledge of music. Upon receiving his Doctor of Arts degree, his professors were the notable humanists on faculty, Jodokus Trutfetter and Bartholomäus Arnoldi von Usingen. The abstract humanist approach to theology was rejected by Luther, who instead elevated the Bible and the fathers. The Erfurt nominalism was marked by a coexistence of philosophy and theology. Priority in Biblical interpretation was given to patristic exegesis. The ruling philosophy of theology was not Thomist or Scotist but of William of Occam. Concepts, words, and sentences operated on an abstract level, creating an image of things. Clear, logical derivation and conclusion was necessary to determine the real being. For Luther, this methodology posed a serious challenge to preaching, where such “artistry of thought”[vii] would not be helpful and not considerate of the desired use and effect. As he considered the appropriate use of the arts, Luther would return to the theme of use and effect, over method or theory. “The arts” as we understand the term was not coherent in Luther’s time. Music and visual arts were considered “crafts.”[viii] While the humanism of the 15th and 16th century is responsible for the renaissance of the artistic crafts, Luther of the same era did not understand arts in a comprehensive way. Visual art, drama, and music are treated differently yet are all placed in service to the Scriptures. The intellectual world waited until Immanuel Kant for a unified philosophy of art. Instead, Luther approached these crafts as a theologian. Music & Liturgy"There is no doubt that there are many seeds of good qualities in the minds of those who are moved by music. Those, however, who are not moved [by music] I believe are definitely like stumps [of wood] and blocks of stone. For we know that music, too, is odious and unbearable to the demons. Indeed I plainly judge, and do not hesitate to affirm, that except for theology there is no art that could be put on the same level with music, since except for theology [music] alone produces what otherwise only theology can do, namely, a calm and joyful disposition. Manifest proof [of this is the fact] that the devil, the creator of saddening cares and disquieting worries, takes flight at the sound of music almost as he takes flight at the word of theology. This is the reason why the prophets did not make use of any art except music; when setting forth their theology they did it not as geometry, not as arithmetic, not as astronomy, but as music, so that they held theology and music most tightly connected, and proclaimed truth through Psalms and songs."[ix]Music held a close place to Luther’s heart. From the above quote, we recognize Luther placed greater value on music over the other disciplines of the quadrivium. He wrote frequently about music and consequently further studies continue to reveal Luther’s understanding of music and theology.[x] One such excellent text is Robin Leaver’s Luther’s Liturgical Music: Principles and Implications.[xi] Leaver documents Luther’s training and value of music, his theological understanding of music, his use of music in catechesis, his use of music for liturgy and pedagogy, and his musical understanding’s impact on later Lutheranism. Despite Luther’s personal emphasis on music, he never wrote a treatise, although he planned to write one according to his correspondence to Senfl and Johann Agricola from Coburg in 1530.[xii] Leaver asserts that Luther’s proposed thesis would stress the fundamental practice of music in contrast to the medieval treatises which were concerned with music theory.[xiii] Leaver draws a parallel between Luther’s doctrine of justification to theology of music. Where mere historical knowledge of the cross does not justify unless it has entered the heart and “is a busy, active, mighty thing … a living, daring confidence in God’s grace.”[xiv] Similarly, an intellectual approach to music is insufficient until it has created vibrations in the air and in the ear, that are perceived and move the heart.[xv] This may be a bold assertion, but follows from Luther’s assertion that music is the donum Dei, the gift from God. Luther makes a profound connection between music and theology when he says: “the devil […] takes flight at the sound of music almost as he takes flight at the word of theology.”[xvi] Music thus is next to theology because both accomplish the same results. Leaver also seeks to redeem Luther’s approach to liturgical reforms, asserting he approached them with the same priority of the Word.[xvii] “For Luther, the heart of the Gospel is at the heart of every question of theology and every practical concern.”[xviii] Luther’s starting point was the doctrine of justification. He wrote to pastors in Lübeck in 1530,
"Although we believe it unnecessary that you should be admonished by us, we nevertheless both beg and urge you most earnestly not to deal first with change[s] in the ritual, which [changes] are dangerous, but to deal with them later. You should deal first with the center of our teaching and fix in the people’s minds what [they must know] about our justification; that is, that it is an extrinsic righteousness—indeed it is Christ’s—given to us through faith which comes by grace to those who are first terrified by the law and who, struck by the consciousness of [their] sins, ardently seek redemption. It does not help to talk to the others of God’s grace, for they understand nothing but the external change[s] in the ritual, with which they are titillated for one hour, but as saturated people they soon loathe all sound teachings. Adequate reform of ungodly rites will come of itself, however, as soon as the fundamental[s] of [our] teaching, having been successfully communicated, have taken root in devout hearts."[xix]This priority to correct doctrine provides a view at the pragmatic Luther. While his liturgical reforms may appear willy-nilly, he operated under the premise of preserving the Gospel, whether in the reform of the canon of the mass and the verba being read out loud and not whispered. Leaver asserts, “Luther was totally consistent in applying the doctrine of justification as the controlling principle to liturgical as well as to all other theological and practical questions.”[xx] Drama A common practice in Luther’s day was cathedral plays especially during Passiontide and Easter. Many were irresponsible theatrics, performed without faith. Luther remarks in his Sermon von der Betrachtung des heiligen leidens Christi (1519), treating Isaiah 29:13[xxi],
“What pleasure, think you can he [God] have in such saints, who outwardly act as though they were real children of God, reading and singing the Gospel, employing the most beautiful words and celebrating a glorious Easter festival in processions, with banners and candles, and yet, do no try to understand or believe it, but rather oppose it by their doctrine and life? For if they understood and believed it, they would not cling to their mockery and vanities.”[xxii]The mockery and vanity is the ceremony being without performed without faith. Luther may have in mind also the practices of these plays regarding the “Harrowing of Hell.” Luther commends Christians to keep to the simple words of the Apostles’ Creed in regards to the descendit ad inferno, rather than move into figurative, imaginative thoughts. In another portion of the sermon quoted by the Formula of Concord article IX,
“Accordingly, one has also used to paint on the walls, how he descended wearing a choir cloak and with a banner in his hand, how he arrived to Hell and fought with the Devil, chasing him away, assaulted Hell and collected his own ones. In the same way a play has been performed for children during Easter night. It suits me well that one paints, plays and sings for the simple-minded in such a way. To put it differently: One should preserve it this way so that one does not assert oneself through lofty, subtle thoughts concerning how this might have happened, since it did not happen literally, as he remaining those three days in the tomb.”[xxiii]While this quotation might appear to reject dramatic renditions of the Passion, Luther is articulating the Reformation sola scriptura principle. These plays filled out the testimony of Scripture that Christ descended into hell with imaginative mythologies. These ought to be rejected and instead return to the clear teachings of the Bible, namely, that “the entire person, God and human being, descended to hell after his burial, conquered the devil, destroyed the power of hell, and took from the devil all his power.”[xxiv] The rejection of the harrowing plays was textual not practical. In a letter dated April 5, 1543 to schoolmaster Joachim Greff of Dessau, Luther writes in support of Greff’s dramatic texts. Greff’s Easter play printed in Freiburg in 1542 was rejected from performance by two clergymen. Greff travelled to Wittenberg to attain letters of support from both Luther and Melancthon. Luther writes: “such neutralia should be accepted because they do not harm nor vex.”[xxv] Since there was no abuse of theology, Luther judged the practice pragmatically. Visual Art Luther from 1516 to 1520 considers the use of visual art is a matter of Christian freedom, yet bound to the sale of indulgences in Rome.[xxvi] The year 1522 represented a turning point for the Reformation in Germany. Already in the fall of 1521, radical reformers like Karlstadt were pushing for large-scale reform. In December of 1521, Martin Luther returned secretly from the Wartburg to Wittenberg for a three-day conference. By the Christmas mass of 1521, Karlstadt instituted many of these radical reforms such as not requiring confession before communing, removal of iconography, abolishing rules of fasting, as well as administering the sacrament in both kinds. Along with the Zwickau prophets, Karlstadt taught direct illumination of the Scriptures by the Spirit, making theological education unnecessary. As expected, these radical reforms led to the closing of city schools, the near collapse of the university, and violent destruction of icons and altars. When Luther became aware of this situation, he again traveled in secret to Wittenberg on March 6th, 1522. After meeting with Melancthon and others, he resolved to rectify the situation with a series of sermons beginning on March 9th, Invocavit Sunday. Luther preached every day until the following Reminiscere Sunday on the topics plaguing the early Reformation church. Luther’s sermons meditate on Christian liberty, specifically addressing the forceful reformation of images, eating of meats during Lent, and concerning both kinds of the Sacrament of the Altar. The Reformation rejected relics and the intercession of the saints and veneration of them, particularly as depicted in paintings and sculptures. Luther’s understanding of images and the danger thereof flows from the prohibition in Exodus of the creation of graven images, that is, images made to resemble or represent gods.[xxvii] The nations encountered around the people of God are marked by their idolatry, and that, of images. Everything is open to abuse and therefore idolatry. Images might be abolished, not by physical removal or destruction, but by the Word rendering them ineffective. The patriarchs did erect some images that were used in rightful worship. For example, the altars of Noah, Abraham, and Jacob (Gen 8:20, 12:7, et al.), and the bronze serpent of Moses (Num. 21:9). When the bronze serpent became an icon of worship King Hezekiah broke it (2 Kings 18:4). Luther outlines his approach to the abuse of images in his fifth Invocavit sermon from 1522:
You [Karlstadt] should rather have taught that images are nothing, that God cares nothing for them, and that he is not served nor pleased when we make an image for him, but that we would do better to give a poor man a goldpiece than God a golden image; for God has forbidden the latter, but not the former. If they had heard this teaching that images count for nothing, they would have ceased of their own accord, and the images would have fallen without any uproar or tumult, as they are already beginning to do. We must, therefore, be on our guard, for the devil, through his apostles, is after us with all his craft and cunning. Now, although it is true and no one can deny that the images are evil because they are abused, nevertheless we must not on that account reject them, nor condemn anything because it is abused. This would result in utter confusion. God has commanded us in Deut. 4[:19] not to lift up our eyes to the sun [and the moon and the stars], etc., that we may not worship them, for they are created to serve all nations. But there are many people who worship the sun and the stars. Therefore we propose to rush in and pull the sun and stars from the skies. No, we had better let it be.[xxviii]His sermons had the effect of restoring order to the region almost immediately. Unfortunately for Luther, Karlstadt’s influence continued even after Wittenberg, from both Zurich and Basel, Switzerland, where he received support from Zwingli, Bucer, Oeclampadius, Bullinger, and Calivn.[xxix] Luther responded publicly to Karlstadt again in Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments (1525). In this text, Luther offers a significant analysis of the biblical passages pertaining to images.[xxx] “I say at the outset that according to the law of Moses no other images are forbidden than an image of God which one worships. A crucifix, on the other hand, or any other holy images is not forbidden.”[xxxi] Karlstadt has made another law where there is none. Images are external matters, left to Christian freedom. “One is obligated, however,” Luther says, “to destroy them with the Word of God, that is, not with the law in a Karlstadtian manner, but with the gospel. This means to instruct and enlighten the conscience that it is idolatry to worship them, or to trust in them, since one is to trust alone in Christ.”[xxxii] Luther points out the irony that the iconoclasts read out of his German Bible which featured illustrations of God, the angels, men and animals.
“Pictures contained in these books we would paint on walls for the sake of remembrance and better understanding, since they do no more harm on walls than in books. It is to be sure better to paint pictures on walls on how God created the world, how Noah built the ark, and whatever other good stores there may be, than to paint shameless worldly things.”[xxxiii]Luther makes a striking connection between the primacy of the hearing the Scriptures and the image. This Word, when it is heard and meditated upon, forms mental images in the minds of the hearer:
“Of this I am certain, that God desires to have his works heard and read, especially the passion of our Lord. But it is impossible for me to hear and bear it in mind without forming mental images of it in my heart. For whether I will or not, when I hear of Christ, an image of a man hanging on a cross takes form in my heart, just as the reflection of my face naturally appears in the water when I look into it. if it is not a sin but good to have the image of Christ in my heart, why should it be a sin to have it in my eyes?”[xxxiv]Later in 1525-26, Charles V once again focused on the “Lutheran” movement in Germany. According the the diet at Nürnberg of 1524, the Edict of Worms was to be enforced and resolution between the Catholic and the protestants sought. The Regensburg League of the south and the Dessau League of the north sought to curb the rise of the “Lutherans” through an alliance of rulers and bishops. In the summer of 1525 Elector John of Saxony and Landgrave Philip of Hesse both declined to join the Dessau League and joined with Margrave Casimir who declined to join the Regensburg League. Under the resolution from Dessau, Casimir called a commission who drew up their protestant defense, the Evangelische Ratschlag (1524-25). Elector John of Saxony upon his receipt forwarded it on to the theological faculty at Wittenberg for review. On the whole, Luther and the faculty agreed with the content of the letter, except on its statement on images. The Ratschlag read:
“Since the creation of images and their possession is undertaken without any specific commandment of God, [and] to the contrary, is done against God’s expressed prohibition and the threat of [his] punishment, it is only right that such open, prohibited, sacrilegious abuse of the idols be abolished.…”[xxxv]Luther disagreed especially with the latter half, that God had prohibited images. Luther here does not speak positively of the use of images but nor does he reject them. He wrote to Elector John:
"In the one article in which [the authors] oppose images, we do not completely agree with them. Although we also do not attach any importance to images, yet we think that people who have pictures painted for themselves, or who own them, should not be condemned as if they acted contrary to God[’s will]. Christ himself did not oppose the emperor’s coin but used it (Matt. 22:19), even though it bore images and still does today."[xxxvi]In his commentary on Genesis 35:3 from the Genesis lectures[xxxvii], Luther speaks directly to what characterizes the idolatry of Jacob’s household “foreign gods.” Namely, the household rejected the “oneness of God” and instead “plunged into a multitude of unknown gods.” His treatment of images in these Lectures from 1542-44 is consistent to his repudiation of Karlstadt nearly twenty years previous. Luther acknowledges that these gods were statues or idols of silver and gold. The idolatry does not come from their figure but rather by the worship of them.
Jacob does not only understand them to be golden or silver images but what is attached to them or the state of mind produced by them, which is the head, so to say, of a silver or golden statue, namely, the worship. For otherwise there is nothing sinful in a statue, but I can make use of it, just as Rachel above used the idols of her father Laban when she put them under her bottom. But the sin that condemns is the trust of the heart which is offered to a statue, although the image itself is the occasion for evil. […] Therefore Jacob is not only paying regard to external images, but before all things he wants God to be worshiped sincerely and the doctrine to be pure, and so he begins his reformation from the First Commandment.[xxxviii]Dürer and Cranach For Lutheranism, the visual arts were not removed from the domain of the church. The church made extensive use of woodcuts, altar triptychs, and other paintings to teach the faith. This medium illustrated the narratives of the Scriptures consistent with the verbal content. It is also apparent that the theology of Luther led to changed emphasis in the Renaissance art of Germany compared to southern Europe. For example, there is an interest in depicting passion scenes, the Lord’s Supper (in contrast to the Mass of Rome), and Jesus with the little children (against the Anabaptists), instead of the classical depictions of the saints, for example. Dillenberger notes that the most distinctive theme in the art of Dürer and Cranach the elder is “the heritage of the law and the gospel, the former portraying our condition and driving us to the latter, the free gift of God’s grace.”[xxxix] Both were aware of Lutheran theology and intentionally communicated it through their work. Dillenberger suggests there is a strong Law-Gospel connection between Luther’s Commentary on Galatians and the works of the Cranach workshop from the same time, implying a close working relationship.[xl] Luther, in his treatment of Psalm 101 (1534), may have had Dürer and Cranach the elder in mind when he wrote concerning the conversion of man, not by reason or intelligence but rather by the way of His Word and Spirit, even operating through painting (images):
"Therefore it is no wonder that worldly kings, princes, and lords are enemies of God and persecute His Word. This is the natural thing for them; they are born that way. It is a natural and innate characteristic of reason that it has neither grace nor intelligence to think or to act otherwise. Therefore Psalm 2 paints that kind of color on their helmets and shields, calling them adversaries of God and of His Christ. […] If reason or a high degree of intelligence were sufficient for such extraordinary work, then our kings and princes and lords in the German lands would long since have taken a different attitude toward the Word of God. For there is no shortage of great intelligence. God’s Word is presented so powerfully, lucidly, and clearly in preaching, singing, speaking, writing, and painting that they must concede it is the true Word of God. […] What is missing is the fact that God did not choose them to be such extraordinary leaders and to do such miracles by His Word and in His service."[xli]Luther’s seal Luther used a specific image to his spiritual benefit and the benefit of the Gospel. As early as 1516 and by 1519/20, Luther’s Rose became his emblem of theology. This seal continues to this day to be an icon of the Lutheran confession. In a letter dated July 8, 1530, Luther, writing from Coburg, describes the theological significance of each element of the seal to the secretary of the town council in Nuremberg, Spengler, to aid in the commission of a large execution on stone for Duke John Frederick:
Honorable, kind, dear Sir and Friend! Since you ask whether my seal has come out correctly, I shall answer most amiably and tell you of those thoughts which [now] come to my mind about my seal as a symbol of my theology. There is first to be a cross, black [and placed] in a heart, which should be of its natural color, so that I myself would be reminded that faith in the Crucified saves us. For if one believes from the heart he will be justified (Rom 10:10). Even though it is a black cross, [which] mortifies and [which] also should hurt us, yet it leaves the heart in its [natural] color [and] does not ruin nature; that is, [the cross] does not kill but keeps [man] alive. For the just man lives by faith (Rom. 1:17), but by faith in the Crucified One. Such a heart is to be in the midst of a white rose, to symbolize that faith gives joy, comfort, and peace; in a word it places the believer into a white joyful rose; for [this faith] does not give peace and joy (John 14:27) as the world gives and, therefore, the rose is to be white and not red, for white is the color of the spirits and of all the angels. Such a rose is to be in a sky-blue field, [symbolizing] that such joy in the Spirit and in faith is a beginning of the future heavenly joy; it is already a part [of faith], and is grasped through hope, even though not yet manifest. And around this field is a golden ring, [symbolizing] that in heaven such blessedness lasts forever and has no end, and in addition is precious beyond all joy and goods, just as gold is the most valuable and precious metal. May Christ, our dear Lord, be with your spirit until the life to come. Amen.[xlii]Practices after Luther Two-hundred years after Luther, musical expression found its pinnacle in the Passions and Cantatas of Johann Sebastian Bach. The weekly church cantatas of Bach’s Leipzig were part of an extended service of the Word, being based on the appointed readings from the lectionary for a given Sunday. Bach continued the Passions of Holy Week, setting the gospel texts concerning the suffering and death of Christ in large-scale musical renditions. Unfortunately, this practice has waned in the intervening years. The Schloss Hartenfels in Torgau, Saxony was built in 1544, following Luther’s ideas for sacred space and to fit the Lutheran liturgy. Luther personally consecrated the chapel for use. This chapel served as the paradigm for the chapel in Dresden built by Elector Moritz (1549-55), the chapel in Schwerin built by Duke Johann Albrecht I of Mechlenburg (1560-63), and the chapel of the Castle of Frederiksborg from 1601-1623, built by Christian IV.[xliii] An interesting feature of these chapels are the use of 24 marble inscriptions telling the narrative of salvation history. These inscriptions represent the represent the central focus of the Word of God in the life of the church. The final tablet at Torgau (now missing) was of the prophet Elijah against the idolatrous worship of Baal.[xliv] As the congregation would read through the history, the culmination of the iconography was the proper worship of Elijah towards God. A similar technique was employed by altar pieces in young Lutheran churches. These “catechetical altars”[xlv] were chosen to teach and confess the foundational doctrines of the Augsburg Confession. Their iconography were signs given for the illiterate. Similar practices continue to this day, where pulpits feature depictions of the four evangelists and altars feature the Last Supper. If a sanctuary did not depict images, it might feature the Word in painted letters, carved or etched like the inscriptions of Torgau. The use of the crucifix with the corpus continued in Lutheran churches, in contrast the majority of Protestants. This is strikingly similar to Luther’s interpretation of the inscriptions of the prophets as told in Isaiah 30:8,
“This is customary procedure with the prophets: When the ungodly refuse to believe the bare Word, the prophets add an external sign. So Jeremiah, getting no results when he predicted the Babylonian captivity, wore a chain around his neck as an external sign (Jer. 27:2). So here the writing drawn on the tablet is a sign. Thus in our time the Word is read and taught by means of the tongue, the pen, songs, and paintings as a witness to the ungodly. So he says here: Write it on a tablet, or “slate.” In a book, that is, “on a sheet.” Inscribe, “engrave.” That it may be for the time to come, that is, “the future,” so that this may be a prophecy.”[xlvi]Conclusion Even yet during the lifetime of the church of the Augsburg Confession, the Reformers articulated an approach consistent with Luther toward outward ceremony and practice. The Latin Text of Article VII of the Augsburg Confessions (1530) states,
“It is not necessary that human traditions, rites, or ceremonies instituted by human beings be alike everywhere.”[xlvii] “Concerning church rites they teach that those rites should be observed that can be observed without sin and that contribute to peace and good order in the church, for example, certain holy days, festivals and the like. However, people are reminded not to burden consciences, as if such worship were necessary for salvation. They are also reminded that human traditions that are instituted to win God’s favor, merit grace, and make satisfaction for sins are opposed to the gospel and the teaching of faith. That is why vows and traditions concerning foods and days, etc., instituted to merit grace and make satisfactions for sins, are useless and contrary to the Gospel.”[xlviii]The same approach to traditions is outlined in greater detail in AC XXVI. Regarding the distinction of foods and similar human traditions, they were to be rejected because they “obscured the teaching concerning grace and righteousness of faith.”[xlix] Secondly, they were to be rejected since they “were preferred far more than the precepts of God.”[l] Thirdly, they were rejected because they burdened consciences with the perception they were necessary acts of worship.
“Nevertheless, many traditions are kept among us, such as the order of readings in the Mass, holy days, etc., which are conducive to maintaining good order in the church. But at the same time, people are warned that such acts of worship do not justify before God and that no punishable sin is committed if they are omitted without offense.”[li]After the death of Luther, the church of the Augsburg Confession once again found the need to articulate its practice concerning “indifferent things” in Article X of the Formula of Concord (1580):
“We should not regard as free and indifferent, but rather as things forbidden by God that are to be avoided, the kind of things presented under the name and appearance of external, indifferent things that are nevertheless fundamentally opposed to God’s Word (even if they are painted another color). We must not include among the truly free adiaphora or indifferent matters ceremonies that give the appearance or (in order to avoid persecution) are designed to give the impression that or religion does not differe grealy from the papist religion or that their religion were not completely contrary to ours. […] In the same way, useless, foolish spectacles, which are not beneficial for good order, Christian discipline, or evangelical decorum in the church, are not true adiaphora or indifferent things […] We believe, teach, and confess that the community of God in every time and place has the right, power, and authority to change, reduce, or expand such practices according to circumstances in an orderly and appropriate manner, without frivolity or expense, as seems most useful, beneficial, and best for good order, Christian discipline, evangelical decorum, and the building up of the church.”[lii]Luther’s classical education led him to prioritize music in both his writings, theological practice, and personal life. The humanists of Erfurt helped correct the Occamist emphasis on theory and logic in the practical matters, instead focusing on use and effect. He did not disqualify drama from ecclesiastical use, calling Greff’s Easter dramas neutralia that do not “harm or vex.” Music was considered “next to theology” as God’s gift to drive away the devil. Liturgical reform focused on the proclamation of the Gospel. Ceremonies and traditions not complementary were removed from Luther’s church orders. Luther upheld images and visual forms against the iconoclasm of Karlstadt. His exegetical treatment of Genesis 35:3 concludes consistent to his other artistic approaches. Images are permissible if they are not the objects of worship, thus disobeying the first commandment. Luther’s rose was and is used as an emblem of the Lutheran faith, to teach and edify. Luther upheld and sustained working relationships with both Albrecht Dürer and Lucas Cranach the elder. Both created art for the churches of Augsburg Confession, used in sanctuaries, homes, publications, and illustrations to the German Bible. Later Lutherans such as Bach continued Luther’s approach to the arts, even increasing it. Luther’s approach to the various crafts we call “the arts” is centered on whether the use is edifying for the faith and does not contradict doctrine. This pragmatic ideology is evident in his writings on drama, music, and the visual arts. While Luther favors preaching over art, he understands the arts are useful in service to the Gospel. As with Lutheran Confessions, practices and traditions can be useful, so long as they do not inhibit or contradict the Gospel and its central article, justification. The doctrine of justification served as his consistent practical principle not just liturgical reform but also in his approach to music, drama, and visual art. Works Cited
- Brecht, Martin. Martin Luther. Translated by Schaaf, James L. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985-1993.
- Brown, Frank. Good Taste, Bad Taste, & Christian Taste. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press, 2003.
- Dillenberger, John. Images and Relics: Theological Perceptions and Visual Images in Sixteenth-Century Europe. Oxford studies in historical theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
- Dillenberger, John. A Theology of Artistic Sensibilities: The Visual Arts and the Church. New York: Crossroad, 1986.
- Gutmann, Joseph. The Image and the Word: Confrontations in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Religion and the arts, no. 4. Missoula, Mont: Scholars Press for the American Academy of Religion, 1977.
- Kolb, Robert, and Timothy J. Wengert, eds. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
- Leaver, Robin A. Luther's Liturgical Music: Principles and Implications. Lutheran quarterly books. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2007.
- Luther, Martin, John Nicholas Lenker, and Eugene F. A. Klug. The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2000.
- Luther, Martin. D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesamtausgabe. Weimar: H. Böhlau, 2000.
- Luther, Martin, Luther's Works, Vol. 6 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 31-37. ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan et al. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1970.
- Luther, Martin, Luther's Works, Vol. 49 : Letters II. ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan et al. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999, c1972.
- Luther, Martin. Luther's Works, Vol. 51 : Sermons I. ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan et al. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999, c1959.
- Luther, Martin. Luther's Works, Vol. 40 : Church and Ministry II. ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan et al. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999, c1958.
- Luther, Martin. Luther's Works, Vol. 13 : Selected Psalms II. ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan et al. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1956.
- Petersen, Nils Holger, Jens Fleischer, and Eyolf Østrem. The Arts and the Cultural Heritage of Martin Luther. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanums Press, University og Copenhagen, 2003.
- Spinks, Bryan. Luther’s Liturgical Criteria and His Reform of the Canon of the Mass. Bramcote: Grove, 1982.
[i] Frank Brown, Good Taste, Bad Taste, & Christian Taste, (Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press, 2003), 6-7. [ii] Brown, 33. [iii] Augustine, Confessions, X.xxxiii. [iv] For a complete discussion of Luther’s classical education, see: Martin Brecht, Martin Luther, trans. James L. Schaaf (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985-1993), 12ff. [v] Ibid., 15. [vi] Ibid., 29. [vii] Ibid., 37. [viii] Nils Holger Petersen, Jens Fleischer, and Eyolf Østrem, The Arts and the Cultural Heritage of Martin Luther (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanums Press, University og Copenhagen, 2003), 10. [ix] LW 49:427. [x] See Timothy J. Wengert, The Pastoral Luther: Essays on Martin Luther's Practical Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2009); Mark S. Sooy, Essays on Martin Luther's Theology of Music (United States: Blue Maroon, 2006); Daniel Zager, Richard C. Resch, Johnathan Brouwer, Christopher Boyd Brown, Kevin Hildebrand, Martin Jean, Robin Leaver, Carl Schalk, and Stephen P. Starke, Singing the Faith Living the Lutheran Musical Heritage (Fort Wayne, Ind: Good Shepherd Institute, 2008). [xi] Robin A. Leaver, Luther's Liturgical Music: Principles and Implications, Lutheran quarterly books (Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2007). [xii] Ibid., 86. [xiii] Ibid., 87. [xiv] LW 35:270. [xv] Leaver, 87. See Luther’s treatment of the Psalm 68:25; 45; 9:1; 101:8. [xvi] LW 49:427. [xvii] Leaver, 173ff. Luther’s liturgical reforms of 1523-26 are repudiated, namely by Hans-Christoph Schmidt-Lauber, Frank C. Senn, William Maxwell, Brilioth, and Gregory Dix, among others. Leaver’s treatment relies on Bryan Spinks, Luther’s Liturgical Criteria and His Reform of the Canon of the Mass (Bramcote: Grove, 1982). [xviii] Leaver, 174-175. [xix] LW 49:262. [xx] Leaver, 190. [xxi] “This people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me.” (Is 29:13 ESV) [xxii] Martin Luther, trans. John Nicholas Lenker, and Eugene F. A. Klug, The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2000), vol. 1, 264. Martin Luther, Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar: H. Böhlau, 2000), Schriften, Teil 3, 37. Band, 71. (hereafter WA) [xxiii] WA Vol. 37, 62-72, quoted and translated by Petersen, 14. [xxiv] Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, eds., The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 634-635. Consider also Acts 2:27; Acts 2:31; 1 Peter 3:19–2; 1 Peter 4:6. [xxv] WA Briefwechsel Vol. 10, 286. trans. Petersen, 16. “Solche neutralia weil sie ynn unschedlichen brauch und nicht ergerlich, solt man lassen gehen.” [xxvi] See Luther’s early lectures on Romans 1:19-21; Romans 14; and the Ninety-Five Theses numbers 50, 51, and 86. For a nearly complete overview of Luther’s many references to images, icons, and the like see: John Dillenberger, Images and Relics: Theological Perceptions and Visual Images in Sixteenth-Century Europe, Oxford studies in historical theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 89-95. [xxvii] Luther connects Ex 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” to the following verse “You shall not bow down to them or serve them.” [xxviii] LW 51:84. [xxix] Carl C. Christensen, “Patterns of Iconoclasm in the Early Reformation: Strasbourg and Basel” in Joseph Gutmann, The Image and the Word: Confrontations in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Religion and the arts, no. 4 (Missoula, Mont: Scholars Press for the American Academy of Religion, 1977), 107ff. [xxx] LW 40:84ff. [xxxi] Ibid., 84-85. [xxxii] Ibid., 91. [xxxiii] Ibid., 99. [xxxiv] Ibid., 99-100. [xxxv] LW 49:129. [xxxvi] Ibid., 129. [xxxvii] LW 6:230. [xxxviii] Ibid., 230. [xxxix] John Dillenberger, A Theology of Artistic Sensibilities: The Visual Arts and the Church, (New York: Crossroad, 1986), 52. [xl] Dillenberger, Images and Relics, 95-96. [xli] LW 13:168. [xlii] LW49:356. [xliii] Petersen, 82-84. [xliv] WA 5:640, no. 6396. [xlv] Petersen, 89. [xlvi] LW 16:255 [xlvii] Kolb-Wengert, 42. [xlviii] Kolb-Wengert, 43. [xlix] Kolb-Wengert, 75. [l] Kolb-Wengert, 77. [li] Kolb-Wengert, 81. Many more examples are found in the Lutheran Confessions: Augsburg XXVII; XXVIII; Apology V.112-118; Ap VII/VIII. 32-46; Ap XXV; Ap XXVII; SA II.5-6; SA XV; Epitome X. [lii] Kolb-Wengert, 637.
