Many aspects of Martin Luther’s body of work present challenges to
historians both in content and tone. At
the same time, they are critical to understanding the core of Protestant
theology, the origins of the Reformation, and the manner of scholarly discourse
in the sixteenth century. These
attributes are particularly evident in “The Bondage of the Will”, “The Pagan
Servitude of the Church”, and “An Appeal to the Ruling Class”, all of which
were written and published between 1520 and 1525.
“The Bondage of the Will” was Luther’s response to Erasmus’ The Freedom of the Will. Luther’s argued that contrary to Erasmus’
assertion that individuals have free will to strive for grace and salvation,
that men and women lived in a state of bondage.
All people live in a state of bondage either to God or to Satan. Those bound to God have the will to achieve
grace only through the grace they receive directly from God through their
faith. In contrast, Luther contends,
since even Erasmus agrees that people can only use their will to strive for
grace effective only through the power of God, they really have no will of
their own. He extends this argument to
assert that without God’s grace, free will makes them “the permanent prisoner
and bondslave of evil.”
While understanding Luther’s stance is important, his tone
throughout “The Bondage of the Will” poses a challenge to historians reading
only one side of the argument. Having
only one side of a conversation is always challenging, but Luther’s tone is
sarcastic and ridiculing Erasmus throughout.
In this case, Erasmus’ work is still available for historians to compare
to “The Bondage of the Will,” but what of situations where a historian has only
on side of a debate of this nature, which seems to spiral into personal
antipathy that does not appear warranted by subject of the debate? This sometimes occurs in sources dealing with
accusations of war crimes – accusers both within and without the Army are
routinely castigated by political figures and defenders of the accused as weak,
effeminate, or traitorous for even considering that a war crime might have
occurred. This phenomenon appeared after
the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War, and after revelations of abuse of prisoners
at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Without having
evidence and commentary from both sides, it is quite difficult to separate the
hyperbole from events. There is also the
danger of erroneously discounting useful information that comes from sources
that engage in emotional or personal attacks.
The second part of Luther’s “Appeal to the Ruling Class” is also a
useful example of challenging documents.
Luther’s primary concern seems to be theological in nature, as he
attempts to argue for reform in the Catholic Church. However, beneath the surface focus on
theology lies a fundamentally political argument about the rights and duties of
secular rulers regarding exploiting their domains and caring for the people
beholden to them. Reading only in terms
of Luther’s conflict with the Church hierarchy might lead historians to ignore
or neglect his commentary on political affairs of the Holy Roman Empire, which
not only suffered from division of political authority, but also suffers loss
of revenues to Church officials, and Church interference in secular rule.
The problem of interpretation of evidence on many levels is
obviously not restricted to Luther.
Looking at Cold War political behavior in the United States, historians
have to examine both the political and cultural messages embedded in the
discourse. When Sen. Joseph McCarthy
launched attacks on individuals and institutions looking for Communist spies,
he simultaneously was attacking homosexuals, civil rights activists, and
pacifists as being somehow less than American.
It is easy to dismiss this second part of his campaign as mere excess,
when it might also be viewed as a method to stifle change and dissent within
society. This phenomenon also occurs in
my research into Vietnam era war crimes – vigorous defense of individuals may
also be a defense of the entire war, of policy makers, or of the entire army
against radicals and anti-war activists.
How to weight these levels in my analysis is a significant concern.
No comments:
Post a Comment