Martin Luther On The Use of Images Part II

I have been out for quite some time. I apologize. I plan on posting now on a regular basis. Here is part 2 of the paper on Luther and images if you missed part one click on 2007 and you will find it about 1/3 of the way down the page.
In Christ,
Tyler

While it may appear that Luther is naïve he understands that images can be abused. Luther acknowledged that images were being abused, he held that when this was happening images should be abolished from worship. Luther stated in his fourth sermon of the Invocavit, “…I wish they were abolished everywhere because they are abused,--it is useless to deny it.”[1] While Luther held that images were good and useful he knew the destruction they could cause. He concluded when they were worshipped they should be destroyed, just as King Hezekiah broke the brazen serpent when it was worshipped (2 Kings 18:4). Luther did not think that because someone could abuse images they should be abolished. He felt if images were to be smashed because they were tempting the people to idolatry then all of God’s commands should be carried out. This would mean that believers would be responsible to stone adulterers, execute murderers, etc. Luther thought the way Karlstadt encouraged the masses to destroy images promoted madness, foolishness, and unconsciously it accustomed them to a revolutionary spirit.[2] He felt that to abolish images completely was to harm the believer who may have benefited from them. Although, most people will not be nourished from images some will and for that purpose they should remain. Luther taught that as long as a believer did not put their trust in images that would not be lead into idolatry.
Luther believed that it was the responsibility of the church to teach its people that images mean nothing to God and that he is not served nor pleased when his people erect an image in honor of him. Luther argued that if the church had taken the time to teach its people that images count for nothing they would have given them up freely without an uproar. Luther warns Christians that Satan’s desire is to deceive them into believing that anything that is abused is sinful and should be abolished. Luther provides an example from Deuteronomy 4:19, here Moses commands the Israelites not to worship the sun, moon, or stars because God has commanded that to do so is an abomination to him. However, there are many people who worship these celestial bodies, therefore, should they pulled from the sky? Luther responds by saying of course not! He continues by saying that wine and women bring many a man great misery and make him appear very foolish, therefore, should he kill all the women and pour out all the wine? What about gold and silver they can cause much evil in the world should they be condemned? Here Luther is trying to show how ridiculous it is to destroy something simply because of its probability of being abused. Rather Luther identifies who man’s worst enemy is,
…”if we would drive away our one worst enemy, who does us the most harm, we would have to kill ourselves, for we have no greater enemy than our own heart, even as Jeremiah says, ‘The heart of man is crooked,’ or, as I take the meaning, always twisting to one side or the other.”[3]

Luther also affirms that if he rose up and condemned images the devil would still be crafty enough to find one individual whom images has help. He would use this to bring pain and suffering upon Luther for condemning something that has brought another believer closer to God.
Many people during the time of the Reformation where uneducated and illiterate. Therefore, the question often arouse whether the average laity would be able to understand that the image they saw was not the true God and should not be worship? Karlstadt had a very low view of the laity he did not feel they were able to avoid abusing images. Luther however, demonstrated a greater trust in the average laities' ability to reason and understand the purpose of images. Luther did not believe that if the average laity looked at an image of Christ on the cross that he would be moved to worship it. Rather, he trusted that the individual would understand that the image merely represented the one true Christ who is seated in heaven.[4] Like eating meat or drinking alcohol, Luther felt that images were a matter of Christian freedom. Luther argued that the church cannot say that a believer must or must not participate in the veneration of images, because to do so is to remove the freedom they have in Christ. To force a believer to worship in a way that pleases oneself is to forsake the idea that Christians are to demonstrate love in all areas of life. Luther argued that if a Christian forces another believer to abstain from images he causes him to doubt his faith and vice versa.[5] For Luther images were amoral, they could be used for good or for evil, therefore, since images did not posses any moral standard Christians could choose to use them or abstain. Luther taught that in areas where the New Testament did not give a clear teaching there was to be freedom of conscience. He writes, “Where doing or to refrain from doing is in question, and concerning which God has taught, commanded, and forbidden nothing, there we should permit free choice as God himself has done.”[6] Some during Luther time tried to say that Jesus did not participate or teach the use of images in worship. Luther answered the iconoclasts arguments by saying if they are going to say believers may or may not participate in acts that Jesus affirmed or condemned then they had better be prepared to walk on water, perform miracles, refrain from marriage, and abandon all earthly pleasures.[7] Therefore, based on this idea Luther felt that the use of image must be an issue of Christian freedom.
[1] Martin Luther, Works of Martin Luther: Volume 2 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1932), 407.

[2] Carl C. Christensen, Art and the Reformation in Germany (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1979), 49-50.
[3] Martin Luther, Works of Martin Luther: Volume 2 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1932), 408.

[4]Sergiusz Michalski, The Reformation and the Visual Arts: The Protestant image question in Western and Eastern Europe (London: Routledge, 1993), 20.

[5] Martin Luther, Works of Martin Luther: Volume 2 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1932), 396.

[6] Carl C. Christensen, Art and the Reformation in Germany (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1979), 51.
[7] Ibid, 51.