Whether Martin Luther was a pre-modern thinker, the first modern thinker or to what degree he was some of both is a perennial debate among historians. How one comes down on this question has as much to do with how one defines “modern” as it does with how one understands Luther’s thought. My own (mostly undefended) opinion is that Luther was much less modern than many historians have thought.
Modernism’s optimism about human progress is no where to be found in Luther’s writing. Luther’s synopsis of the human potential is that
The world is like a drunken peasant. If you lift him into the saddle on one side, he will fall of again on the other side. One can’t help him no matter how one tries. He wants to be the Devil’s (Eric W. Gritsch, The Wit of Martin Luther [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006], 117).
The are a variety of evils into which one can fall, and the history of the world is but the story of how the world falls from one evil into the next.
Luther’s pessimism is not about humanity in abstraction. His belief about human progress is born out of his view of each particular individual. Thus he is pessimistic about the progress of humanity precisely because he is pessimistic about the individual. Luther despairs of human ability to reason properly, to recognize beauty, to understand what is good and certainly to perform what is good. Because of this, what is truly good, true and beautiful according to God is called evil, false and ugly by humanity. In his Heidelberg Disputation, Luther argues that
Although the works of God always seem unattractive and appear evil, they are nevertheless really eternal merits….This is understood to mean that the Lord humbles and frightens us by means of the law and the sight of our sins so that we seem in the eyes of men, as in our own, as nothing, foolish, and wicked, for we are in truth that. Insofar as we acknowledge and confess this, there is no form or beauty in us, but our life is hidden in God (i.e. in the bare confidence in his mercy), finding in ourselves nothing but sin, foolishness, death, and hell….And that is which Isa. 28[:21] calls the alien work of God that he may do his work (that is, he humbles us thoroughly, making us despair, so that he may exalt us in his mercy, giving us hope), just as Hab. 3[:2] states, ‘In wrath remember mercy.’ Such a man therefore is displeased with all his works; he sees no beauty, but only his ugliness. Indeed, he also does those things which appear foolish and disgusting to others.
This ugliness, however, comes into being in us either when God punishes us or when we accuse ourselves, as I Cor. 11[:31] says, ‘If we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged’ by the Lord….In this way, consequently, the unattractive works which God does in us, that is, those which are humble and devout, are really eternal, for humility and fear of God are our entire merit (Martin Luther, “Heidelberg Disputation” #4, quoted in Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, ed. Timothy F. Lull [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989], 35).
This extended quote captures Luther’s pessimism about the individual. When we consider our condition, despair is the only right response. Yet, because we want to exalt ourselves we call what is truly beautiful, true and good its opposites.
Luther’s message should resonate with postmodernists. His words promote many postmodern themes: despair over the human condition, the faultiness of human ability to recognize truth, beauty and goodness, and the need for a constant state of humility. Unfortunately, postmodernism has no where to go from here. It leaves us in this state. Luther himself remained in this state for a while. He knew he should despair but he had no idea what came next. He knew there was no hope in himself or humanity and when he looked to God he saw only wrath. Of course this was before his new understanding of the Psalms and Romans 1:17 (“The righteous shall live by faith.”). Luther would spend his lifetime learning and proclaiming that hope is only found in the wounds of Christ. This hope becomes his message for Christian engagement with culture and, by extention, the proper critique of postmodernism.
Luther has a word for our time and our culture of toleration and relativism. He wrote that “absolute tolerance is total persecution.” In an age of tolerance, the culture expects the church to be silent. It must not proclaim a message of judgment against sin and of salvation in Christ alone. Luther wrote that “the Devil is endangering the Church with the greatest conceivable persecutions, namely without persecution, with tolerance and security. Woe to us, who are dazzled by satiety and well-being that we fall into the Devil’s trap” (Heiko Oberman, Luther: Man between God and the Devil, 256-7). The powerful and wealthy church received by all the world is actually a church in captivity.
Before the kingdoms of the world become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, the church must endure severe persecution. She is not the church militant (as Calvin taught). She is the church triumphant, but only as she shares in the wounds and sufferings of her Lord.
So our final outlook is neither despair nor optimism in humanity itself. Ironically, both of these outlooks are varieties of self-focus and obsession with our humanity. Instead of despair or unbridled optimism, we are to be those who are “hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body” (2 Corinthians 4:8-10).
It is not enough just to be hard-pressed. Nor is it enough not to be destroyed. In this life we are always carrying in our body the death of Jesus so that his life may be found in us. Modernism has no room in its message for being persecuted and struck down, and certainly no room for death. Postmodernism forced modernity to make room for death. But postmodernism would have us both hard-pressed and crushed; perplexed as well as in despair.
Luther’s message is neither modern nor postmodern. It expresses the proper critique of each, as well as the proper sympathy. Luther reminds modernism that optimism can be found only when we despair of our humanity and hope only in the new humanity – Christ. He speaks to postmodernism by saying that we must not wallow in despair because in Christ there is life beyond it.
John –
Thanks for putting this post together. Not only does it inform us about Luther but it also informs us of the times that we live.
I have thought much about the issues of suffering, despair, and hope lately, mostly because I have been reflecting on Tolkien’s life and The Lord of the Rings, but also because I have been reflecting on some of the Psalms which speak to these issues so poignantly. Psalm 88 is a Psalm that is not preached on frequently. The interesting oberservation about this Psalm is that it is a Psalm that actually begins and ends in despair. The last line according to the NIV reads, “You [Yahweh] have taken my companions and loved ones from me; the darkness is my closest friend.” Of course, I am not saying that this Psalm teaches the postmodern version of despair. The psalmist clearly knows that his sufferings and trials are coming from the hand of the LORD his God, thus he calls out to the Lord in faith despite the surrounding circumstances. I am simply trying to say that this Psalm does not resemble the typical pattern that we usually see in the Psalms: distress, yet turn to the Lord for help, and the Lord hears and answers the psalmist’s cry.
Perhaps Luther may have some comments on this Psalm in his sermons and commentaries on the Psalms. I will look into it. Again, thanks for this post.
-john
John,
I think you’re exactly right about Ps 88. Often there will be times when despair is not immediately met with hope. I’ve mentioned in a much earlier post that Luther’s view of lamentation is that in lamenting we are believing in the word of the Lord because we are asking him to do what he has promised. It is when we stop crying out that we are truly hopeless. In 88:1-2, the psalmist says, “O Lord, the God of my salvation, I have cried out by day and in the night before you. Let my prayer come before you; incline your ear to my cry.” Later in v.14 he cries out, “O LORD, why do you reject my soul? Why do you hide your face from me?” As you point out he certainly recognizes that his suffering and affliction is from the LORD and is crying out for deliverance, and yet, in this psalm there is no answer.
I wonder how the reality of living in the New Covenant should cause us to think about this Psalm. The psalmist did not have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous and as New Covenant believers we do. How do you think this should affect our understanding of despair in the New Covenant? Is it appropriate tto relate this psalm to Christ in his suffering under God’s wrath on the cross?
John –
You raise the New Covenant. I am not sure entirely how to relate this Psalm to the NC. I suppose we could relate it to Christ and his suffering, yet the Lord answered him in his distress. BTW, Luther believes that it is Christ speaking throughout this Psalm. Luther says on v. 10, “First, you must raise me [Christ], for you cannot perform wonders for the dead. Nor is there anyone else who can raise the dead, so that You can perform wonders for the revived dead. For physicians will not raise the dead; therefore You alone must do it.” He goes on to say, “But in a mystical sense he is speaking of others, those who are to be raised through His resurrection. These no physicians, that is, no human doctors, can revive, nor were they revived except through their resurrection” (Luther’s Works, vol 11, 187-8).
I am inclined to think that Luther is correct in that he relates it to Christ, though I would not place the words on the lips of Christ as he does. I do think this is an exilic Psalm composed by someone who is experiencing the fierce judgment of God. I was thinking about this Psalm in its context in the Psalter, and I think we can arrive at an answer which involves Christ as the answer to the dejected soul in Ps. 88. Of course Psalm 89 follows Psalm 88. Psalm 89 is an exilic Psalm that speaks of the promises made to David and his house (reyling on 2 Sam 7). The psalmist is concerned that God be faithful (hesed) to the covenant that he cut with David and his house. The exile causes the psalmist to question God, yet he still lamentingly trusts in God. He trusts the promises of God to David to be fulfilled at some point in the future, though Lord is hiding Hisface from him at the present.
The Lord’s answer to the dejected souls in Ps 88 and Ps 89 is the new David. I think we can make a case for it based on the ordering of the exilic Psalms (Ps 89 answers the psalmist’s lament in 88 by lamentingly trusting in God’s faithfulness) and the fact that I see no evidence in the NC for this kind of despair in the Christian’s life.
Caution (and I know you know this). The Christian may share in the despair of the Ps 88 person, but the long anticipated answer to the exile has already come. Therefore, when Christians despair today, it is a real despair, similar to the exile, but the Christian should know to run to the fulfilled promises in the Word of God for consolation. Paul’s sufferings may have equaled the Ps 88 person, but Paul always knew that it was for Christ’s sake he suffered and that his temporary and light afflictions were storing up an eternal weight of glory. The exiled person did not have this assurance, his hope was in the anticipation of what would become the very foundation of Paul’s hope.
Does this make sense? I have practically written a post on it.
-john
For the record, scholars usually place the beginning of the modern period with the publication of Rene Descartes’ Discourse on Method, which I believe was 1636. Luther was most definitely premodern, since he was the previous century.
John,
Not having read Luther on Ps 88 as you have, it doesn’t appear as though Luther’s putting words in Jesus mouth as much as he is applying the psalm to Christ in a rhetorical way. I favor taking Ps 88 messianically (though this doesn’t preclude an OT exilic interpretation as you point out). Any application that this psalm would have to the NC believer is by extention of Christ’s suffering. As Paul mentions, we are always carrying about in our body the death of Jesus (2 Cor.4:8). There is a difference though between what Christians SHOULD do (which is what you mention) and what Christians ACTUALLY do. The fact is that we sometimes do despair at the level of the psalmist. We should be led to view our afflictions as Paul does, but we do not always do this. So I can see Christians resonating with this psalm.
I’m not as confident as you are though that we should see Psalm 89 as the resolution of Psalm 88. It’s unclear that even the redactor(s) intended this connection. I’m not saying that its impossible just that its unclear to me. I’m even less certain that the psalmist of 88 intended something like 89 as the resolution of his psalm or that the psalmist of 89 intended his to resolve the kind of despair in 88 (though I realize you did not contend this).
I think though that we’re actually talking about a different kind of despair than Luther had in mind in the quotations I used in my post. Luther is referring to despair over our human ability, not despair over the promises of God. This kind of despair is not momentary. It is dangerous to lose the kind of despair that Luther intends. Luther also uses the word “humility” to describe it. Luther thinks that faith and confidence in the promises of God is the only way to not be destroyed by despair over ourselves. The psalmist in 88 doesn’t seem to be despairing in this way. He seems to be quite confident in his ability to assess the situation. He seems to know what is going on. Luther on the other hand, calls us to stop using human reason to assess our situation. Only eyes of faith can see that God is really faithful to us even when we feel like the psalmist of 88. But when we think like the psalmist of 88 we are in despair of God and not of ourselves, when in fact we should reverse the entire order. The psalmist of 88 needs more despair of the Luther variety. Though as I’ve said, there’s a difference between what we should do and what we actually do.
Jeremy,
Thank you for your comment. Perhaps the beginning of the modern period becomes most clear with Descartes, but its hard to make the case for such a clear dividing line. Without much of modernism already in place, Descartes wouldn’t have even been allowed a forum to put forth his methodic doubt.
Many church historians view Luther as the first modern man or at least one of them because he rejected the power structure of the catholic church to follow the dictates of his conscience. They hold that he believed in the right of the individual over the that of the empire. This is a flawed interpretation of Luther for many reasons, not the least of which that Luther argued that the citizen never has the right to take up the sword against the government. Furthermore, Luther was fully prepared to submit to the fate that the authorities chose for him as a consequence of expressing his views. Luther’s consent to the death of the peasants in the Peasant Revolt is also hard to reconcile with a view that he believed in the right of the individual over the empire.
I’m inclined to think that the arrival of the modern period was more of a process and less of an event.
If Descartes was primarily influenced by any one person, it would be Thomas Aquinas, who is as clearly premodern as can be possible. The method of doubt goes back to the ancient Skeptics, who predated Christ. Most of Descartes’ particular arguments come from them, and most of his responses to skepticism rely on the kind of argument Aquinas and the later scholastics would give. I don’t think Descartes’ modernism is coming from someone earlier. I think rather that he is pretty much one of the first (with Hobbes) to be giving the new emphasis that really didn’t take hold strongly in the general culture until David Hume. The medieval scholastic model still dominated in philosophy during the time of Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, and Berkeley.
I agree that it’s a process, but I would place that process as starting in the 17th century. I think of Luther as simply a man who was forced out of the structure of his time and then had to make do with what was left. Perhaps that did influence the modern developments in Protestantism, but I don’t think Protestantism developed its truly modern elements until later.
John –
You may be right about Luther’s view of Ps 88. So although Christ did not say the words directly, we read the Psalm now as said rhetorically by Christ.
I agree with your distinction between SHOULD and ACTUALLY. As Christians, we live in the ‘already not yet’ and thus despair actually happens, even though we should turn to the ‘already’ of our eternal salvation from sin and death and the fear of death to escape despair.
Do you have any suggestions for why Ps 89 follows Ps 88? It seems like a fair reading of the two psalms for a reader to despair in 88, but then be immediately reminded of the promises of God to David (the new David in Ps 89) to come out of despair (though even this psalmist questions God at the end). I will see if there are any explicit linguistic connections between the two psalms.
I am not sure how much the psalmist of 88 knows? I think he can account for his experience from the prophets and from the promises of curses in the Torah for disobedience to the covenant. By faith, I think he knows what is going on. The problem in Ps 88 is not “what is going on” but why is this happening (v. 14). God’s abandonment does not comply with the promises given to Abraham and David. So if it is a despairing of God, I think it is an informed despairing. How much more does this person have to despair of himself? He already considers himself as dead, and cut from the care of the LORD. He then wonders if God cares for the dead. This is why Luther looks to Christ in his interpretation. The question in Ps 88 is rhetorical, No, God does not care for the dead, so he raises the ones for whom he cares is Luther’s conclusion.
You may be right that Luther and Psalm 88 are speaking of different types of despair. Though I think they are connected for the believer, who already knows he is inable (Psalm 88 admits of inability in vs 3-5). But what is the person, who recognizes his inability, to do when his experience is not lining up with his interpretation of the revelation of Scripture? He knows that he needs God’s salvation every day, but now God is no longer answering his prayer, and he is left all alone with a correct understanding of self, and yet his understanding of the promises of God is not matching his experience. So in Psalm 88 could both despair of self and the promises of God be in view?
-john
Jeremy,
Certainly skepticism goes back to the pre-Socratics such as Democratis. Given that you’ve studied much more philosophy than I have, I must nevertheless disagree that Descartes method was influenced so heavily by Aquinas or early Greek skeptics. There’s nothing like his cogito anywhere in either of these sources. The Greek skeptics were not attempting to use doubt to find truth. Furthermore, if what you say is true then it argues even less for the unique contribution of Descartes in bringing in the modern era.
But I suspect the real difference betweeen my view and yours is that you are interested in pinpointing precisely when the modern era began. I’m interested in how modernism grew into social consciousness gradually. I don’t see how all of modernity could begin with one man, or even just a handful. Therefore, I don’t have such neat and clean categories for the timing of its inception. I see traces of modern ideals in various thinkers that are still best classified as pre-modern. Luther is perhaps a good example of this. And there are traces of pre-modern thinking in figures that are best calssified as modern. Because it’s such a gradual shift, determining the exact line between these periods is as difficult as finding the line between the night and the dawn. Your argument for the timing of the modern era also concerns only philosophers. This seems too narrow a focus to describe such a broad and multi-faceted movement. Did all other changes follow the trend of philosophy?
John,
I don’t have an explanation for why Ps 89 follows 88, but I don’t think that I need one. There may not be an earthly reason for the order. I dare suspect we don’t know why a lot of the psalms follow others. I’m not saying that I disagree with the reason you give, only that it may be the case that we can’t know.
Also, I think it makes it harder to apply 88 to the suffering of Christ, if you are saying that the psalmist of 88 is experiencing despair of the kind Luther talks about. Having looked at the psalm several times and from what I already new of it, I don’t see anything that looks like the kind of despair Luther mentions. You mention vss. 3-5. In these verses the psalmist is despairing at what God has done to him, not his own inability to know what is true, good and beautiful. This is why I say that the psalmist is quite confident about what is true: God has abandoned him and afflicted him.
You’re right to point out that the psalmist is concerned with why these things are happening, though I hardly see why it excludes any concern of the psalmist with what has happened. In order to be concerned with why something has happened he must be concerned first with what has happened, and of course this is clear from the fact that most of the psalm is descriptive in just this way (vs. 14 excluded).
You asked: “What is the person, who recognizes his inability, to do when his experience is not lining up with his interpretation of the revelation of Scripture?” As I’ve said, I’m not sure that the psalmist recognizes his inability in the way Luther means. The psalmist understands his inability due to the affliction of God, whereas Luther’s talking about an inability in humans whether afflicted by God or not. But to answer the question, I think anytime that there seems to be a conflict between our experience and what God has promised, we should believe in what God has promised over our experience. Though we need to be careful that we have interpreted God’s promise correctly. As we’ve both mentioned though, real Christians do despair in this way at times and don’t believe the promises of God over their experience. I have at times been one of them.
This is a good discussion on Psalm 88. It is pushing us to look more closely at the text. That’s always a good thing.
John –
I am in the middle of preparing a small exegesis of Psalm 88 and I will post on it shortly so we can talk a bit more intelligently about this text than we are already. I was talking with an OT student who wrote a paper on Psalm 80 and has done a lot of work on the third book of the Psalter which ends with Psalm 89. He admitted he has not looked at Ps 88 enough, but he was able to tell me that Book III of the Psalter is generally considered by scholars to be the book of despair in the Psalter. As we have looked at already, the psalms in it are quite grim. However, he also said that the general consensus of scholarship understands Ps 89 to be placed at the end of Book III to bring final hope to the reader. I am still wondering if Ps 88 is placed near the end of the grimmest part of the Psalter because it is indeed the grimmest of the Psalms, but grim is not the final word, rather hope in the new David should be the final word.
This discussion has helped me understand more of what Luther means by despair. I will need to think more about if Psalmist and Luther have different meanings of despair. If Luther uses the words despair and humility interchangably, I would want to know why. Is this rhetorical hyperbole from Luther?
-john
John,
I think a post on Psalm 88 is a great idea. This discussion has morphed beyond the original post in some ways.
I think that its certainly possible that your understanding of the third book of the Psalter is correct. I’ll be interested to read your thoughts on the connection of the psalms in the third book. I’m certainly not opposed to this interpretation.
I’m not sure what you mean by rhetorical hyperbole in Luther. The place where I see him connecting humility and despair is in the above quotation. He says, “he humbles us thoroughly, making us despair, so that he may exalt us in his mercy, giving us hope.” I don’t see hyperbole in this quotation. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by this.
I am not familiar with how Luther is using the word humility. He seems to use it in a stronger way than we do today. We do not closely associate humility with despair as he is doing here. That is why I wondered if Luther really meant despair, or is he simply using the word to make a hyperbole of the word humility, to give humility a stronger meaning.
-john
Fraiser,
I really enjoyed this post. It was quite encouraging to my spirit.