In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Conclusion Luther’s contentious theological claims—claims that ultimately resulted in his excommunication from the Church of Rome—are first and foremost the result of a different perspective. Like the problem of drawing a round world on a flat sheet of paper, everything depends on where you start. When historian and cartographer Dr. Arno Peters first introduced his “area accurate” map in 1974, it was met with indignation, especially by Europeans accustomed to the map they had always known. Peters argued that his new map represented a more accurate view of the land masses. The traditional map of the world—the 1569 Mercator map—had been drawn from the perspective of Western Europeans.1 Politically, it seemed good to Peters to point out that Europe is not, in fact, the center of the world. Luther likewise drew his theological map knowing full well that it would be offensive; but like Peters, he was hoping to arouse a new consciousness. The church, he thought, was playing a dangerous game, and an impious one. If some were oblivious to God’s terrifying gaze, Luther was not. He saw himself and the whole world teetering on the brink of eternal chaos and terror. But Luther drew his theological maps with God always in the center, and so tended to push everyone else out of the picture. As with Peters, the provocation was a serious one. Some worried that Luther’s theological remapping would spur a dangerous moral collapse; others felt that his assertions were offensive to truth itself. God had set human beings into a position of responsibility from the very beginning. From the perspective of those Luther was trying to displace, his refusal to acknowledge the dignity, purpose, and value of human beings was an affront not only to them but also to God. But Luther was a man on a mission; and the mission was to put God back into the center. Like Peters, Luther was convinced that his approach to the theological remapping represented a more accurate rendering of what is real. For Luther, this was a matter of infinite importance; he believed he was dealing 1. The Mercator map was particularly helpful for navigation because the lines on Mercator’s map matched the compass readings that ships in those days used to find their way. The size and shape of the land masses reflected a choice made by Mercator to draw the land according its real shape as these land masses actually appear in nature. If Mercator had opted instead to draw them according to size he would have had to distort their shape in order to do it. Thus it was not an error but a conscious choice to make the land masses smaller so as to maintain their natural shape. (See http://www.petersmap.com/page2.html, accessed January 2013.) 191 with nothing less than the future of humanity, judged and condemned, under the wrath and the mercy of Almighty God. Luther was certainly not the first to see things this way. He was the bearer of a tradition within the church that boasted a very prominent lineage, but a lineage that had, in those days, fallen out of favor. And so, in his own day, he sounded like a prophet. He not only (inadvertently) started a reformation, but he also ignited a new religious enthusiasm. Luther’s prophetic voice effectively renewed and enlivened the faith of many; but it is also the case that from the very start there were those who thought his pronouncements were excessive and dangerous. The most recent have been offended by his teaching with regard to gender issues in particular. For those already on the margins, Luther’s theological therapy has sometimes been experienced as destructive rather than restorative. He was aiming at the people who put themselves in God’s place; but his scattershot hit many who didn’t, and don’t. Thus the focus of this project has been to consider these concerns and look for resources within the Lutheran tradition that might be helpful. I began in the introduction by highlighting some of the key issues in Luther’s theology that have concerned feminist theologians. Daphne Hampson, reflecting the teaching of prominent post–World War II Luther scholars, has cogently identified key anthropological factors that complicate Luther’s theology, particularly for women. Luther, in Hampson’s assessment, fails to provide the ontic structures required for a self that can persist through time. And, she explains, this presents a...

Share