Despite the fact that I was extremely disappointed at not watching a movie about Lex Luthor (which was what I assumed the movie was about, due to the fact that I couldn't read the opening text very well), Luther was still an interesting movie. I have read about Martin Luther, of course, but this movie gave me a more in-depth study of his life and works. I was pleasantly surprised that the movie actually portrayed Luther as a real person, and not as a hero figure. They showed his struggles with Satan and his anger at his constant straying from God as well as his triumphs and successes.
Martin Luther was born in Germany, part of the Holy Roman Empire, on November 10, 1483. He was a brilliant scholar; however, he was also a disappointment to his father. Despite his father's wishes for him to be a lawyer, Martin instead opted for a religious vocation when, after having a near-death experience involving lightning, he vowed to become a monk and serve God. He kept his word, but eventually lost "the point", as many Christians even today are wont to do. In his own words, he "lost touch with Christ the Savior and Comforter, and made of him the jailer and hangman of my poor soul." (Kittleson, James. Luther the Reformer. pg 79)
Upon going to Rome and seeing the horrible corruption on the hands of the Roman Catholic Church, Luther was shaken from his stupor and called to action by God. As a result of this, he wrote his famous (though at the time infamous) 95 Theses. These theses were a combined criticism of the corruption in the Church and a doctrine of faith. Naturally, the Pope did not receive these criticisms well. What resulted was a near-catastrophic "revolution" of the common folk, who had misinterpreted Luther's message as one of condemnation of the Church. The Reformation, as it came to be called, was the first step in what I like to call "the Wussification of the Western Church".
See, here's how I see it:
For hundreds of years, the Roman Catholic Church has been telling people, "You have to do things to get into heaven because you're unholy sinners destined for hell and the only way you can get into Heaven is by paying us money and doing lots of things, and this is all in the Bible somewhere but we're not worried about you figuring out that it's not because you can't read the thing."
Then Luther comes along and says, "Uh, that's not anywhere in the Bible," and proceeds to explain to both the common people and to the papacy that Jesus, the kind and loving Savior of Man, would never condone such a thing, and in fact negated it by the very thing He's best known for: dying on the cross for our sins and conquering death three days later. And in a perfect world full of sensible and right-minded people, this would be the beginning of a better church.
But, as we know, both of those things aren't true. So here's my theory on what happened.
Because of Luther's boldness in standing up for the little man against the Big Bad Church, lots of other people got the same idea. All across Europe, people started to "stick it to the man", as it were, and say "Nuts to the Church, Jesus loves me, and you don't have to tell me how to worship!" Which is true, of course: no man's method of worshiping God is subject to another man's authority. If that were the case, we'd all be heathens. But this lead to something a bit worse.
Let me jump ahead a few centuries to 1960's America.
It's the mid of the Hippie movement, and everyone's getting caught up in the swing of free will--even the churches. New Age philosophies are turning everyone into pulp fiction machines. Pretty soon, we're all saying, "You can interpret the Bible anyway you want, as long as it means whatever it means for you." Sadly, I've seen this philosophy expressed even at our own school. The Bible doesn't say anywhere that you can freely interpret anything you want from it--if it did, it would defy its own purpose of being objective Truth, the Word of the One God!
But back to Luther...
Despite what I've said, I don't think Martin Luther's idea to say something about the atrocities happening was a bad thing--in fact, I applaud him, if he even cares anymore. If there were more people willing to stand up for what's right and speak out against injustices, there would probably be less reason for them. Luther set the precedent for a whole new uprising. No longer was religion mandated and regulated by the Church. No longer was Jesus made to be an idol, a tool of man for money and power. No longer was the Bible to be kept from the people it was meant to be sent to. I can tell you with certainty that without Luther's work, I would not be here right now.
But let's remember that Luther didn't just fight for the people. He fought for the reformation of the church, not the destruction of it. He wanted the bishops and the deacons and the archbishops and all the people to see the true nature of Christ: a nature of love, not of damnation and demands. It's sad that what happened was exactly what he didn't want--people to get angry with each other about God. But I'm happy (in general) with the Church today--we've got our bad spots, but we're generally a bit better off than we were half a millennium ago.
Unless, of course, you go to Westborough Baptist Church, in which case, you are a sad and warped person.
Anyway, goodbye guys. This year's blogging experience was pretty fun! I liked the whole deal. Thanks, Mr. M, for the move to technology-based assignments--it really helped me out this year.
Adios, amigops!
Your Friendly Neighborhood JesusFreak.
(Sources)
Martin Luther's Wikipedia Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
Another site (mainly for his history): http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/martin-luther.html
