Luther’s legacy contested

When Martin Luther died unexpectedly in 1546, Philip Melanchthon was his obvious heir. But as we know from bitter disputes among Lutherans that erupted almost immediately after Luther’s death and which lasted for several decades, Melanchthon’s authority was never accepted by all of Luther’s disciples. Indeed, it seems only a minority considered him to be Luther’s true successor. How can this be explained? First, in all of his writings Luther produced no systematic summary of his theology. He addressed specific problems, discussing at great length controversial issues which were brought to his attention, and spelled out in his answers many specific positions which served to characterize his theological approach. But he never wrote a large treatise explaining dogmatic matters in a comprehensive way, a piece which could be compared to Calvin’s Institutio. Perhaps one could say that his translation of the New Testament and later also the Old Testament, together with the longer and the shorter versions of the Catechism, represented the sum of his theological insight. But just as Luther had always insisted on his own understanding of the biblical texts, after 1546 others, including some of his students, friends and followers, were tempted to do so also. Luther’s German Bible and the two Catechisms were a solid base on which all of his disciples stood, but this base did not provide them with a common theological approach.

The rise and decline of Pietism

In the period between the end of the Thirty Year’s War and the era of the French Revolution, no religious movement changed the face of continental Protestantism more than Pietism. The followers of Pietism, as this religious revival soon came to be called, developed new centres of social, cultural, and political activity for all Protestants. But more importantly, perhaps, those Protestants who were inspired by the ideas of Pietism exhibited a new kind of self-esteem. They believed, it seems, that they were completing whatever had remained unfinished in Luther’s Reformation. In short, they saw themselves as a better kind of Protestant.

Philipp Jakob Spener was the undisputed leader of the first generation of Pietists. Born in 1635, Spener received theological training at Strasbourg and rose to the leading position of pastor to the Protestant Church in Frankfurt by the 1660s. Deeply concerned about the sincerity of the members of the flock who were entrusted to him in this thriving centre of international trade, he decided in 1670 to assemble some of the most devout members of his congregation in special meetings. In Spener’s view, this first Frankfurt conventicle (or ‘ecclesiola in ecclesia’) was an attempt to form a kind of Christian elite that in turn would, he hoped, help to better the condition of his congregation and even contribute to reforming the church as a whole. A few years later, in 1675, Spener explained his ideas in some detail in a preface to the new publication of one of the works of Johann Arndt.

In the late 1950s and early 1960s Paul Tillich was celebrated in the Federal Republic of Germany as an apostle of international understanding and peace. In 1956 the city of Frankfurt awarded him its Goethe Medal. In order to appreciate the significance of this distinction, one must first recall that in postwar Germany, Goethe symbolized not only German idealism but also the best features of the German tradition of humanism and cosmopolitanism - values that stood diametrically opposed to the chauvinism of the Nazi regime. In 1958 Tillich was again honored by the city of Hamburg with the prestigious Goethe Prize; and in 1962 he received the even more prestigious Friedenspreis des deutschen Buchhandels, the peace prize of the Society of German Publishers, which was awarded in a public ceremony in the Paulskirche. These events testified to the desire of Germans to demonstrate that they had learned the lessons of recent history and from the experience of Nazi terror and aggression. Tillich, the distinguished theologian and philosopher, now served as a German crown-witness to international peace.

The remarkable role that Tillich played in postwar Germany raises questions about his views on peace and pacifism during the interwar period. It is fitting to begin with an episode that changed the life of one of Weimar's leading Religious Socialists. On November 6, 1928, Pastor Günther Dehn lectured in Magdeburg's Ulrichskirche on “The Church and International Reconciliation.” Here Dehn declared that Christians should not regard the Fifth Commandment as a strict principle, but rather as a guideline to be discussed and redefined as the political situation changed. He then questioned whether national interest was a valid justification for going to war.

A comprehensive history of modern Christianity on both sides of the Atlantic has yet to be written. There are several difficulties that must be overcome before such a project can be undertaken. First, there is a remarkable unevenness of research. Although there are many studies on religion in America, and although American historians with few exceptions acknowledge the role of religion in nineteenth- and twentieth-century American history, within a largely secularized European historical profession a secularized conception of modern history has led to the result that the impact of religion in the periods after the Reformation has often been neglected, if not ignored. Before a comparative study of religion in the Old World and the New World can be undertaken, what is needed, therefore, is a series of penetrating studies on religion in Europe that can be matched with corresponding American works.

What we know, moreover, is very contradictory. In particular, views on religion in America are quite controversial. On the one hand, there are strong voices that serve to demonstrate the strength of religion in America. Alexis de Tocqueville was among the first foreign observers to point out that “there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the soul of men than in America.” In America, he stated in the 1830s, Christianity “reigns without obstacle” and “by universal consent”; in the United States “religious zeal,” in his view, was “perpetually warmed” by “the fires of patriotism” as “despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot.” While in France “the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom” were “marching in opposite directions,” “they were intimately united” in America and “reigned in common over the same country.” The strong materialism of Americans, Tocqueville concluded, produced an even stronger interest in things immaterial.

In statistical terms, Jews were but a small minority within the predominately Christian society of early modern Germany. Of course, from the fourteenth to the eighteenth century the figures changed; of course, there were villages and towns with a somewhat larger proportion of Jewish citizens; and of course, early modern German society was not uniform but divided up in numerous ways - legally, culturally, economically, and politically. In relation to the ständische Gesellschaft (society of estates) of early modern Germany, the Jews have to be seen not as a innerständische (intra-estate) group but as a nebenständische (group existing alongside the estates) minority with a special legal status and with its own cultural and social hierarchy. The essays in this volume analyze some aspects of the life of this minority and some aspects of Christian-Jewish relations. In my brief comment, I want to focus on the changes that took place in the history of the Christian majority from the fifteenth through the eighteenth century, with particular reference to the effect that these changes may have had on the relationship between the Christian majority and the Jewish minority.

In somewhat simplified terms, one can say that by the High Middle Ages the Christianization of central Europe was complete. Notwithstanding the rivalry for leadership between emperors and popes, both secular and ecclesiastical rulers were determined to promote the hegemony of Christianity. Whatever non-Christian or pre-Christian beliefs still existed were suppressed and lived on, at best, only on the local level if at all.