Customer Reviews

Martin Luther: The Christian between God and Death

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

Marius the author appears to have been a Roman Catholic. He is a former academic (he died in 2001) and has written a number of books including one on Thomas More which sold reasonably well.

This book is not so much a biography but is an account of Luther's early life and his break from the Church. It is more an explanation of the doctrinal divergence which led to the Reformation. A number of people who have reviewed the book have suggested that Marius is biased against Luther. To some extent this is true and the last chapter of the book is a summation of what Marius sees as the negative aspects of Luther?s legacy. The fragmentation of Christianity the over reliance on Scripture and other problems. Some of these are a bit far fetched for instance Marius suggests that one of the reasons for the falling away of Christianity is that the key to worship in the evangelical church is preaching. This depends on the quality of the individual minister in a parish. The Catholic Church depends on ritual and thus even mediocre priests can keep a congregation because of the power of the ritual.

Despite what is said in the last chapter this is a readable and simple account of what is a complex subject. The Catholic Church in the 15th Century had developed doctrinal practices that were very different from the early church. The role of Mary, the importance of the saints, the importance of purgatory as a doctrine and the role of the Pope and the church were things which would have been difficult for those in the early church to understand. Luther believed that the key to an understanding of Christian doctrine lay with reading Scripture which he thought was the word of God. He placed no faith in the role of the Church as an institution and believed that all men could spread Gods word. He in fact called for the secular authorities to intervene in the affairs of the church and to reform it. The Church believed that it was an organisation which had been established by the word of God and that if no bible had been written then it and Christianity would still exist.

Marius is able to explain these two positions clearly giving justice to both sides of the debate. He in fact is able to talk about how the church had evolved and he is able to explain how reformers would be appalled by the veneration of relics and the use of the Popes powers over suffering after death to generate income.

The one weakness of the book is the overplaying of the suggestion that Luther was driven by a fear of death. An alternate explanation is simply that he was appalled by some of the practices of the contemporary church and he was a man who thought he had an insight in how it could be reformed.

The one weakness of the book is that it looks mainly at Luthers life and doctrine. It fails to explain why Luther was protected by the princes in Northern Germany and the institutional reasons why his message was accepted. Never the less an interesting and well written book.

Marius has performed an incredible task in bringing Martin Luther, and his times, to life for us in this new book.

I found the author's knowledge of Luther; Luther's writings and temperament; the history of the sixteenth century and the theological issues at stake during the Reformation, to be superb. I was especially impressed by the author's knowledge of the theological issues, and his insights regarding them.

I wasn't quite sure what to expect when I first got the book, but I soon discovered that I had found not only an excellent biography of Luther, but simply a very well written book. The material is very interesting, and Marius presents it in a very readable, and captivating style. The chapters are only as numerous, and as long, as necessary (which makes the reading easier). It was an enjoyable read from begining to end, and I doubt that a better biography of Luther has ever been written.

I hate that I finished it, and I am sure that I will read it again.

Did Luther truly follow his own standard of sola scriptura? Was Luther one of the first Higher Critics of the Bible? Did he really say: 'Here I stand, I can do no other' at the Diet of Worms? Were the ninety-five theses really posted on the church door at Wittenburg?

Read the book and find out!

I consider myself a secular humanist, so while some of the most interesting figures in history are religious , I am always apprehensive reading about them because I fear a story told with a religious bent. Here, however, there is too much of a good thing. The author uses Luther's story to continually make examples and preach his personal atheistic philosophy. At first it becomes distracting but eventually it becomes repetitious and then, finally, plain annoying and out of place. This biography had great potential, because after the intial point had been made, if an editor would have cut the repetition, the biography would have been first rate. One can get a sense of the horror of living during the plague and the psychological effects that had on individuals, and how that may have helped shape Luther's neurosis and theology. It is a shame that so much of this book was so heavy handed.

I think that Marius is simply wrong on a number of points and his disdainful attitude toward Protestant Christianity in the present makes it difficult for him to really understand what was going on in the Reformation. If you want a more even-handed and multifaceted picture of Luther, look at Heiko Oberman's book, where Marius obviously got some impetus for his title, or even Roland Bainton's older but still useful book, Here I Stand. A lot of this is just rehashed Erik Erikson, and Erikson does it a lot better.

I found the book to be an excellent balance of biography, history, and religion. The author describes Luther's early and middle life deliberately leaving out his later life for good reasons. The author also does a good job of describing the times of Luther, although I personally would have preferred more of this. Finally the author does an outstanding job of describing the doctrinal differences between catholicism and Luther. This thorough examination may test the prejudices of some readers, depending upon their faith and tolerance. But the learning that I got from the book was worth whatever personal disagreements I found myself in with the author.

Marius' obvious biases are evident from the outset of this book. Snide references to the delusion and superstition of people who took their faith seriously are only the start. Over and over again, Marius makes his disdain for anyone who believes in the supernatural quite clear. How then can we expect an unbiased biography of such an influential Christian reformer as Martin Luther?

To be sure, many of Marius' criticisms have merit. The Church at the time had been reduced to anti-intellectual superstition (from the masses of believers) and self-servince opportunism(from the majority of the clergy). And I agree that many at this time period who claimed to be believers were simply offering lip service so that they were not branded atheists by the Church. THIS, however, is what Luther sought to change. By combating the corruption of the Roman church, Luther was trying to bring the people of Germany into a more meaningful, less superstitious faith. That he did not succeed should not totally condemn his efforts.

Having said this, I find that I did enjoy the book. I am a conservative religious historian, but I enjoy reading books that challenge my own ideas, and often find I can learn a lot from people I disagree with. I have learned a lot about Luther's life from this book, and Marius has inspired me to look further into the life of this great Reformer. I recommend this book with one caution -- do NOT make this the only book you read about Martin Luther.

As noted by some of the other reviewers, Marius's work is severely biased against Luther. Marius seems to blame Luther for the chaos of the last 500 years, starting with the wars that followed Luther's death. In my opinion, he seems to forget the chaos that has always surrounded our history.

In spite of his disapproval of Luther, he is not a liar and through his views of Luther's actions and ideas I was still able to see Luther as an extraordinary man of great talent. In some ways, Marius was even more complementary of Luther than other authors I have read.

If you are religiously inclined and are looking for a general work on Luther I would suggest instead Roland Bainton's Here I Stand or even the more recent work Luther the Reformer by Kittelson.

I knew Richard Marius quite well and can assure you he had as little use for Roman Catholicism ans Protestantism--if you don't believe me read his book on Thomas More. Richard was a great debunker--esp of people held up as icons. I cannot vouch for the scholarship of Richard's book but trust me if you think he is taking a Roman Catholic line you have been drinking too much Communion Wine.

A wonderful biography and an impressive history of the Medieval church besides. Marius has done a terrific service for scholars by treating, in considerable depth and profound insight, the development of Western religious tradition, the conflicts it wrought, and the prevailing conflicts as personified in Martin Luther. The biography will also provide interesting reading for a general population because Marius allows Luther's voluble temperament to shine forth especially vividly. Agree with his positions or not, Marius, like his subject, is a writer of considerable power.

I noticed that a few of the other reviwers here aren't in favor of the book. I think I can sort of feel for them because Maurius, generally speaking, is critical on Luther. For some people who were raised up with the notion of Luther being the ultimate good guy hero figure, this book might not be well suited for them. There are other excellent books out there that they might like such as one by Heiko Oberman.

What Richard Marius has done is a kin to taking a complicated machine apart and trying to analyze it item by item. One of the chief parts and items Marius looks at in this book is death. Just as the title suggest, "The Christian Between Life and Death" the author is trying to examine Luther's stance on death and how it shaped the reformer's theology.

He also shows how the many paradox ideas that Luther championed were simply too difficult for the half literate population of Germany to understand. There was simply not of enough education around at the time for people to understand. The two concept of Law and Gospel, and the relations of these two, that he preached so much was hard over the years - was simply beyond the grasp of many poor folks of his time. The result was a lot of misunderstanding, miscommunication, and a lot of terrible bloodshed. As you try to read the text and leave out your own personal bias, you sort of sympathize for Erasmus who at first was sympathetic to Luther, but later becomes the reformer's greatest enemy.

Considering the fact that the author is a university theology professor, he probably knows a lot about religious wars and bloodshed all in the name of religion - the result, his inclination is with the Erasmus.

As you probably know, Luther made a few sermons at the end of his life that were quite harsh on the Jews. Marius does a pretty good job on examing this topic. Though it would have been interesting if he could have expanded on this a little bit more.

So what didn't I like about the book?

It was a little bit too harsh. It's like someone writing a book about a US President and concentrating a lot of the text on the bad things that president did.

Ok, I admit my comparison with a US President is a little far fetched, but I hope you get what I'm trying to get at. We need to know both the good and the bad of these people. We can't just go running around thinking this President was a saint. And we can't go running around thinking he was a demon. He was a human being both good and bad. This President had to make tough choices and there were a lot of serious reprecussions because of it.

Marius could have written a lot on the negative qualities of Luther, and also have written a lot of the positives as well.

But it was slightly bias to towards the negative side - and that's what ruins a good enertaining read. This book is not your hero's tale that leaves you feeling tall after you put it down.

No. It's more or less written with academic's microscope.

This book might be good for let say, a graduate level university course, but it's might not be too good for someone looking for a good story about their favorite hero.