A little more than a year ago, I wrote this blog post, expressing my annoyance that Martin Luther is often incorrectly associated with certain liberal ideas such as a mistrust of organized religion and the subjectivity of biblical interpretation. Seriously, Martin Luther is among the most misquoted historical figures of all time. According to the Editor’s Introduction to the Augsburg Confession in the 2006 publication of the Book of Concord, the time-honored tradition of grossly misquoting Luther dates back to 1519 in a book written by John Eck for the purpose of turning people against Luther. But I think that some of the current non-Lutheran viewpoints associated with Luther actually have the opposite purpose; they come from some people’s desire to claim that Luther’s reforms were heading in the direction that certain current denominations are going. At any rate, Luther never wanted the Bible to be subject to personal interpretation and he by no means believed that religion is a one-on-one individualistic relationship with God that doesn’t have anything to do with church. That’s basically what I said in the aforementioned blog post from last summer.
It has come to my attention since then, though, that Martin Luther’s name has also become associated with transcendentalist ideas. There are a number of popular bogus Luther quotations that get posted all over the internet, and I am aware of one particular facebook page that bears Martin Luther’s name, but has posted the words of Romantic-era transcendentalist poets with the assertion that they have some connection to Luther’s teachings. I later unfollowed that page after noticing that the admin had done that kind of thing on several occasions, but I am disturbed to know that such a page exists and that there are many people who repost those things with the idea that those heretical (or, at best, heterodox) quotations are profound, true, and consistent with Lutheran beliefs.
Transcendentalism is the philosophical idea, associated with Romantic-era literature as well as with a few much older beliefs, that nature is itself divine. Depending upon who is being quoted and what the context of the statement is, transcendentalists may assert either that there is no God apart from the natural world, that God speaks to us directly through the natural world, or that He can be studied by immersing oneself in the natural world. Transcendentalism can be rectified with various different beliefs about what God or the gods are like, but it is not consistent with biblical Christianity. In all fairness, I suppose it is technically possible for someone to be a Christian with a transcendentalist point of view, but this cannot be supported by scripture and is not in keeping with Lutheran doctrine. (I am here defining “Christian” as a person believing in the existence of the triune God, viewing the Bible to be God’s Word, and having faith in the salvific work of Jesus Christ, who was both true God and true man and who lived a sinless human life and died on the cross and rose from the dead to pay for the sins of all humankind so that we may have eternal life in heaven.)
There are several fake Luther quotes out there that speak about finding God in nature. The most famous of these is “God writes the Gospel not in the Bible alone, but also on trees, and in the flowers and clouds and stars.” Another one, which is very similar and perhaps is just a variation on the same quotation, says, “Our Lord has written the promise of resurrection not in books alone, but in every leaf in springtime”. There are others out there on the internet that are along the same vein. Not only have the people of the internet been unable to cite a source for these statements, but they don’t even sound like Luther. Martin Luther’s rhetoric is not known for being cutesy and fluffy. He certainly had a way with words, but he often used it to disagree with people who taught false doctrine. Basically, if you can use a quotation as the caption for a beautiful and inspirational picture of the natural world, either it’s probably not a Luther quotation, or you’re probably pretty bad at captioning your pictures. Here’s a website that gives genuine Luther quotations. (I would like to point out for the record that Luther did not specialize exclusively in insults and name-calling; he also had much of importance and significance to say about God.)There’s also a twitter page where someone posts these Luther insults in response to false doctrine that Joel Osteen puts on Twitter. Frankly, I think that Martin Luther would approve of this posthumous use of his words. It’s very much in keeping with the way he used them when he was alive. It’s certainly more consistent with Luther’s personality and his beliefs than are vague transcendentalist statements about finding God in nature.
I have no doubt that Martin Luther was as capable as anyone else of acknowledging the beauty of certain aspects of the natural world, and that he appreciated the fact that God had created that beauty. You don’t have to look any farther than the Small Catechism (for example, the explanation to the first article of the creed) in order to see that Luther saw creation and every good thing in it as a direct gift from God. But there’s a big difference between acknowledging that God created something good and thinking that he communicates with us through it.
It is commonly said by Christians of all denominations that we can see God’s hand in the natural world, and this is certainly true to some extent, but God does not literally speak to us through nature. In fact, the existence and beauty of the world around us obviously does not constitute proof of the existence of God, because if it did, there would be no atheists or agnostics. Even if someone was to conclude that there is a God just by looking at plants and rocks and shining lakes and majestic sunsets, they wouldn’t be able to know anything else about God from those sources of information.
One truth that we can learn from the natural world is that people aren’t the only beings that experience disease, destruction, and death. Even in a relatively wild and untouched place, there will be plants and animals that suffer and die and rot, and that may suffer and/or look ugly in the meantime. While it’s true that the creative hand of God can be seen in nature, the destructive effects of sin are also written there very clearly. And nature doesn’t tell us which is which; if it wasn’t for the actual real Word of God, we would have no way of knowing that God gave us a perfect world and that it was sin that damaged it. Many people actually do see the imperfection of the world as evidence that God either doesn’t exist or that he isn’t entirely benevolent. Those are the doubts that come from ignoring the Biblical teachings about sin. Furthermore, the natural world doesn’t inform us that this destruction caused by sin isn’t the end of the story, that God has already fixed things for us. There is nothing in nature that tells us about Jesus’ incarnation and death and resurrection. To receive all of that crucial information, we need the real Word of God, which is the Bible. And Luther never said anything to the contrary; he firmly believed in Sola Scriptura.
Anyone who claims that Luther said or believed otherwise is misrepresenting him. And anyone who says or believes otherwise themselves is placing faith in something other than God by reading divine messages into something that God has never said He would use to communicate with us. It’s essentially a belief in omens and signs, no different than in many pagan religions. At best, it’s a form of superstition that shouldn’t blend with Christianity, and at worst, it’s a completely non-Christian religion that is particularly evil because it falsely calls itself Christianity.
DEP
May 10, 2014 @ 11:50:04
I appreciated your pointing out the quotes are not Martin Luther’s, and appreciate your points on nature vs the bible. I was raised Christian, educated in Christian schools and familiar with the Word. I encourage others not to take an either/or, good/evil approach to seeing God’s handiwork in nature. There is an entire spectrum in spiritual journeys. Just as fishing requires different bait for different fish, so also in capturing souls. Some may attend church every day, pass the plate, read and hear the word, and never, ever, get Jesus Christ or walk his walk. Some have to go through hell on earth. Some find Him in music. Some in their children. Some in nature. And so forth. There will be some who never will accept Jesus Christ, yet will accept a power, creator larger than themselves that makes them a happier, kinder, compassionate, more productive human being, and that is a good thing. Would I like them to accept Jesus? Sure, but Jesus is a choice not a forced commodity. If nature opens the door and the path to Him, by all means embrace it…and let God decide the fate of those who do not accept him, yet walked a similar path in life… Some enlightening biblical references to nature…
http://www.goddidcreations.com/bibleverses.php
kaleidoscope49
May 10, 2014 @ 14:42:11
Thanks for your comment.
It certainly is true that we can see God’s handiwork in nature, and that, for Christians, this can serve as a powerful reminder of God’s existence, of His creative power and might, and of His goodness. And there’s nothing wrong with taking a moment to appreciate God’s creation and to feel gratitude for it. If that kind of experience strengthens someone’s faith and carries them through a time of doubt, or if it leads them to reflect on the salvation that they have through Christ, that’s great. I don’t mean to deny that there can be value to thinking about God while appreciating nature, but personal reflection is not synonymous with faith, nor is it a means of theological learning. There’s nothing about God that can be learned or discovered through nature that isn’t given to us more directly and more clearly in scripture. For that reason, the natural world doesn’t have the capability of giving faith to the unbeliever; faith comes only from God Himself and from the Word and sacraments that He has given us for that purpose.
In your comment, you describe faith as a personal spiritual journey and equate it with individual experiences. While I don’t doubt your faith and your sincerity in your acceptance of Jesus, I would posit that faith isn’t as much of an individualized, personal thing as it may seem to us in our individual personal lives. Sure, we all have different backstories, and we each have experienced a slightly different set of emotions, and we may even disagree on some aspects of what we believe. But faith isn’t a form of self-expression or an emotional state of being, it’s the receiving of a gift. That gift- forgiveness and salvation and eternal life through Jesus’ death and resurrection- is the same for every Christian. Since our faith should always be about Jesus and not about our own emotions and experiences in life, the differences that we have in terms of those emotions and experiences are irrelevant to faith.
DEP
May 10, 2014 @ 15:08:59
That one cannot come to know of and about Jesus through nature alone is obvious, one needs to be informed about Him. However, intellectual knowledge of the Word and who he was/is; nor simply mouthing the words, ‘I accept him and the gift as my savior’ is not faith. (Debatably, it might get you in the gate, depends on if you are Protestant or otherwise :^)) Its all in the heart and soul, not the head; and in the walk, not the talk, particularly in troubled waters… Some just ‘see,’ ‘find,’ ‘get/understand’ and ‘communicate’ better with Him in nature, finding or renewing faith better there than within 4 walls…which is not to say they can’t enter 4 walls or need to retreat to Waldon… it is a tool that God himself has pointed us to…who am I to argue that or presume all of His ways? :^)
kaleidoscope49
May 10, 2014 @ 16:38:28
I certainly agree that faith is distinct both from intellectual knowledge and from going through the motions of Christianity. But I’m a little confused about where you’re coming from. In the first few sentences there, it sounds almost as if you’re making a distinction between a passive acknowledgement of Christ that gets the believer into heaven but doesn’t really count as faith, and an active, righteous Christian life that does have faith. Am I picking up that distinction correctly, or am I misunderstanding your definition of faith and your remark on Protestantism? If that is what you believe, that makes me wonder how exactly you define “faith”, where you fit Jesus into that definition, and whether you agree with the doctrine that Christians are “simultaneously saint and sinner”.
I’m also confused by your assertion that “some just ‘see’, ‘find’, ‘get/understand’ and ‘communicate’ better with Him in nature, finding or renewing faith better there than within 4 walls”. It sounds as if you are equating faith with an emotional state in which one feels God’s presence more strongly. On the one hand, I think we can all identify with the fact that sometimes we just feel a lot closer to God than at other times and that those moments feel good and can be reassuring when life is rough, but on the other hand, that doesn’t mean that we don’t have faith or aren’t really Christians when we don’t ‘feel’ God on an emotional level. I’m not aware of anything in the Bible that equates faith with feelings. (Not counting the use of the word “heart” as a reference to emotion, since the rhetoric of the ancient and classical world had a wider set of connotations regarding the heart than that of twenty-first century English) I, for one, am extremely glad that my faith and salvation are distinct from my emotions, because emotions are constantly changing and are subject to things as trivial as weather changes and busy schedules and current state of health.
One other question I have is what you mean by saying that God has pointed us to nature as a tool for finding/communicating with him. There are many, many Bible passages (including those listed in the link you shared) that refer to nature in the context of creation, that say that God has power over the natural world, or that use plants and animals in their imagery, but nothing that says that God intends for us to communicate with him directly through nature.
DEP
May 10, 2014 @ 17:36:50
…and the greatest of these commands is…love…a feeling, an emotion. From love flows faith and actions…I leave it to God to split hairs on his requirements for entry into heaven, and I don’t worry about it much…
One example…Psalm 19:1-4 – The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard; yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world…
Moses found God in the mountains speaking through a burning bush… Jesus delivered his sermons on the mount and went to pray on the last day in the gardens of Gethsemane, etc…
Peace be with you…love
kaleidoscope49
May 14, 2014 @ 20:36:55
Is love really an emotion? If so, then love is the utmost form of selfishness and narcissism, because it leads us to treat other people according to whether or not we have positive feelings about them, rather than out of genuine care for them. And that’s just if we’re talking about human love. God’s love is certainly something greater than an affectionate emotion, because affectionate emotions don’t lead one to become human, live in a messed-up world, and die a horrible death for the sake of the people towards whom one feels affectionate. The Greek word αγαπη, which is what we usually translate as “love” refers specifically to selflessness, and selflessness is not an emotion, it is the willingness to put other people first, which usually requires sacrificing one’s own quest for personal happiness and comfort.
In terms of Psalm 19, that was one of the passages I was referring to when I said that nature references in the Bible are often about creation, but they don’t claim that God conveys messages to us through our relationship with nature, or that we can learn anything about Christ’s salvific work by trying to feel God’s presence through the natural world.
Jesus’ preaching and prayers are a completely different matter. Yes, God can be found in nature when God becomes an incarnate human being and He preaches outside. But He could only be “found” in nature in the sense that he was physically, bodily presence and that His word could be heard there, not in the sense that He was communicating via the flora and fauna and scenery that happened to be there. And we still have His physical, bodily presence and His Word available to us through the church, so we don’t need to seek mystical, transcendent, indirect messages from Him in other places. That’s not to say that God’s Word loses its power when it’s proclaimed outside; of course the physical church building has nothing to do with God’s presence. But God’s Word comes from the Bible, not from the natural world.
DEP
May 15, 2014 @ 10:57:56
We can choose our feelings and emotions and/or our subsequent actions (to be selfless) with our intellect…that does not make them nonemotions.
I suggest that choosing to comply with God’s commands out of obedience is not the same as love, it is simply obedience, a call to duty. However, once the choice has been made to be obedient and is practiced, it often turns into a more willing feeling and emotion of love, than was the original intellectual obedient choice to comply. It is a much better place to be in, in my personal experience. It is not capricious nor narcissistic and becomes closer to the selfless, unconditional love of God, as much as we mortals can attain.
That passage says it “speaks” to all the world. Speak is speak.
If a person hears God through nature, via the Holy spirit or otherwise, then He has spoken. It is arrogance and egocentrism to suggest He could not do so. We are told in the Bible, that not all has been revealed to us of God’s ways, so I find it best not to presume I know all.
The Word of the Bible is indeed important and essential to learn of God and Jesus. The church may help with this communication. However, the churches and the humans running the show are often fallible, hypocritical and damaging. It is no wonder people seek Him elsewhere. I wonder if Jesus would be appalled at the state of many of our churches…
DEP
May 16, 2014 @ 03:25:06
more food for thought….
http://www.intouch.org/you/bible-studies/content?topic=how_god_reveals_his_will_study
Stray thoughts on Trinity Sunday – Ordinary Time
Jun 16, 2019 @ 18:43:52
Eric Rachut
Apr 02, 2021 @ 09:31:02
Thank you for pointing out that the quotation re the promise of resurrection NOT ONLY in books/the Bible, but in every leaf of springtime, is not legitimate (upon reading that, I had one of those Dr Watson moments – exclaiming it’s obvious, AFTER Holmes laid out his reasoning). It certainly has elements of Enthusiasm and Transcendentalism in it, beyond what the Psalmist and Paul say of God’s presence being seen in nature.