Blog 3: Against Social Change

Martin Luther’s “Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles” (April 1525), and Martin Luther’s “Against the Murdering and Robbing Hordes of Peasants” (May 1525), pgs 106-113 and 130-134 of The German Reformation and the Peasant’s War: A Brief History With Documents by Michael G. Baylor

Summary:

In Luther’s earlier “Admonition to Peace,” he wrote to the “princes and lords” and to the peasants separately.  To the princes and lords, he basically condemned them for their injustices toward the peasants, and placed the blame for the rebellion squarely on their shoulders (and off of his own).  He recommended kindness towards the peasants.  The peasants Luther also condemns, criticizing their use of the sword, as well as “trying to give [their] unevangelical and un-Christian enterprise an evangelical appearance” (page 111).  He advised the peasants and lords to “arbitrate and settle this dispute amicably” (page 113). 

On the other hand, in Luther’s “Against the Murdering and Robbing Hordes of Peasants”, he pulled out all the stops.  He condemned the peasants for three main sins, asserting that each alone was worthy of death: breaking their oaths of obedience to their rulers, starting a rebellion, and blaspheming Christ by calling their cause a Christian enterprise.  Luther then proceeded to recommend that the uprising peasants be killed without mercy, saying, “This is the time of the sword, not the day of grace” (page 133), assuring the lords that theirs was the side of heaven!

My Opinion:

In his “Admonition to Peace,” Luther talks about the social injustices of the lords and princes, but his only recommendation for combating them is for the peasants and the lords to discuss it peacefully and come to a mutually beneficial solution. What he does not address is the fact that the nobility would never have considered any kind of solution (or even acknowledged a problem) had not there first been some sort of conflict.  Luther seems to pay lip service to the existence of social problem without being in favor of any kind of social change.  He makes this even more clear in “Against the Murdering and Robbing Hordes of Peasants,” claiming that God is on the side of the status quo, and that justice should be swift and harsh to those who rebel.  From these pieces, I gather that Luther was not the rebel that his opponents labeled him as, or even quite the pioneer I thought he was.  Certainly, Luther’s opinions must be viewed in light of the time in which he was born—well before revolutions like those in England, America and France that so shape our mindset of “inalienable rights” today.  In the minds of Luther and most of his contemporaries, “everybody” did things in the feudal system they were used to—and that must be for a reason.  It must be ordained by God.  At this time, the idea of taking destiny into one’s own hands and trying to change the world would have been considered heretical, even diabolical.  God, and God alone, would ordain and dictate change.  It’s still very hard for me to read what Luther wrote, though.  It was quite bloodthirsty at times.  Don’t get me wrong, Luther’s teachings and writings were very important, and did sow seeds that would prepare Europe for later social movements.  But he certainly was not ahead of his time when it comes to social change.