Sunday, September 23, 2007

Martin Luther in His Own Words

"I could use two secretaries. I do almost nothing during the day but write letters. I am a conventual preacher, reader at meals, parochial preacher, director of studies, overseer of eleven monasteries, superintendent of the fish pond at Litzkau, referee of the squabble at Torgau, lecturer on Paul, collector of material for a commentary on the Psalms, and then, as I said, I am overwhelmed with letters. I rarely have full time for the canonical hours and for saying mass, not to mention my own temptations with the world, the flesh, and the Devil. You see how lazy I am."

(Replying to Sylvester Prierias, who drafted a reply to Luther’s 95 theses on behalf of the pope)
"I am sorry now that I despised Teztel. Ridiculous as he was, he was more acute than you. You cite no Scripture. You give no reasons…You call me a leper because I mingle truth with error. I am glad you admit there is some truth."

"Luther once, when asked how he envisaged the appearance of the apostle Paul, answered with an affectionate guffaw, 'I think he was a scrawny shrimp like [Philip] Melanchthon.'"

(In a debate with John Eck)
ECK: Are you the only one that knows anything? Except for you is all the Church in error?
LUTHER: I answer that God once spoke through the mouth of an ass.

(Reply to the papal bull against Luther)
"They show their ignorance and bad conscience by inventing the adverb 'respectively.' My articles are called 'respectively some heretical, some erroneous, some scandalous,' which is as much to say, 'We don’t know which are which.' O meticulous ignorance! I wish to be instructed, not respectively, but absolutely and certainly. I demand that they show absolutely, not respectively, distinctly and not confusedly, certainly and not probably, clearly and not obscurely, point by point and not in a lump, just what is heretical. Let them show where I am a heretic, or dry up their spittle."

"I was wrong, I admit it, when I said that indulgences were 'the pious defrauding of the faithful.' I recant and I say, 'Indulgences are the most impious frauds and imposters of the most rascally pontiffs, by which they deceive the souls and destroy the goods of the faithful.'”

"I was wrong. I retract the statement that certain articles of [the heretic] John Hus are evangelical. I say now, 'Not some but all the articles of John Hus were condemned by Antichrist [i.e. the pope] and his apostles in the synagogue of Satan.' And to your face, most holy Vicar of God, I say freely that all the condemned articles of John Hus are evangelical and Christian, and yours are downright impious and diabolical."

"Workers with brawn are prone to despise workers with brain, such as city secretaries and school teachers. The soldier boasts that it is hard work to ride in armor and endure heat, frost, dust, and thirst. But I’d like to see a horseman who could sit the whole day and look into a book. It is no great trick to hang two legs over a horse. They say writing is just pushing a feather, but I notice that they hang swords on their hips and feathers in high honor on their hats. Writing occupies not just the fist or the foot while the rest of the body can be singing or jesting, but the whole man. As for school teaching, it is so strenuous that no one ought to be bound to it for more than ten years."

Saturday, September 15, 2007

You Say Po-tay-to, I Say Po-tah-to

First of all, let me apologize for the drought of posts recently. After a year off, I returned to seminary three weeks ago. I am working full-time and taking six hours of credit, so I am a little busier than I was a month ago. I will endeavor to post more frequently (it is a good escape from my academic rigors), but it will likely be less than before. And now, on to the post...

I have always disliked the abuse of the idea that the difference between two words is "mere semantics". Certainly, there are times where any number of synonyms will do the job quite nicely (i.e. there is overlap in their semantic maps). Also, in casual conversation, trivial emails, etc, there is no need to be precise all the time. On the contrary, there are times that every "jot and tittle" plays an important role and must be precise. (And I would add, in any type of writing where one wants to be taken seriously, one should strive for precision.) For example, take the following sentences:

God causes sin.
God allows sin.
God orders sin.

This debate came up in a discussion in one of my classes. One participant indicated that he felt that causing and allowing were basically the same thing in this context--using one or the other for theological reasons was "mere semantics". This, I feel, is not the case. The sentence, "God causes sin," implies that God is the originator of sin. "God allows sin," implies that God does not originate it, but at the same time He does not stop it from happening. The third sentence, "God orders sin," implies that God does not originate it, but He allows it so that it might accomplish His purposes. Each of these three sentences, then, carries with it different theologies proper and hamartiologies, and a simple dismissal on the grounds of "mere semantics" is not acceptable. To quote a famous radio talk-show host, "Words mean things."

This is not meant to belittle anyone who isn't anal-retentive about English like I am. I understand that not all people have a "bad grammar" sensor that plagues them every day, and that's okay. What this post is meant for is to dispel the notion that because you have formed a certain opinion about something, any slight change in wording of the proposition is "mere semantics" and can safely be ignored. This is most definitely true with respect to the Bible. If you don't believe me, pick up an academic commentary sometime. In an inspired book, one must allow for the possibility that one word may indeed make or break a certain theology. A famous example is John 1:1. Most of us read it, "The Word was God," but Jehovah's Witnesses will tell you it says, "The Word was a God." This is a drastic difference--all because of a one-letter word! (By the way, the former translation is preferable because of the rules of Greek grammar.)

Semantics is an often abused word. It is in the same position as the word "academic", which in the vernacular of our day often means "insignificant". I would urge you to help the little guy out--pay attention to him once in a while. Do a word study. Take the time to think critically about a proposition (or even a preposition). It may not be "mere semantics" after all.