Literature of Luther: Receptions of the Reformer ed. by A. Edward Wesley and J. Christopher Edwards (review)

This is an eclectic collection of essays from a conference on theology and literature. They reflect on the influence and legacy of Luther’s life and thought in theology and literature (vii). They range in theme and genre from assessing the first responses to Luther’s theology given in the English language to appraising Cormack McCarthy’s recent novel, The Road.

Amongst essays approaching Luther from a historical-theological perspective, the keynote address of J. Patrick Hornbeck II stands out. Hornbeck relates Thomas More’s and King Henry VIII’s criticisms of Luther’s theology. Hornbeck demonstrates that, unlike other early Catholic responses to Luther such as that of Cochlaeus, Henry’s rejoinder was a theological point-by-point refutation of Luther’s views of the seven sacraments couched in an appeal to the historic orthodoxy of Catholic tradition (6, 8–10). Henry’s ultimate test of whether or not a view is heretical is determined by its originality; theological originality equals heresy. Henry thus stood firmly within the mainstream of patristic and medieval theology (11–12). More’s critique of Luther, while no less theologically motivated, takes on more colorful language, comparing the reformer’s views to vomit and excrement (7).

Hornbeck’s scholarly and lively work is followed by others on the reception of Luther by subsequent generations. Gilbert Meilaender illustrates how post-Enlightenment thinkers emphasized Luther as an individual demonstrating his freedom by speaking his mind (38). Jean Wilson discusses Heinrich von Kleist’s imaginative, but historically inaccurate, use of Luther as an authority to whom a persecuted individual appeals in vain for help in moving beyond his society’s militarism (56–57).

The theological commitments of the authors shine through in some essays. Virgil Thompson unambiguously subscribes to the radical nature of Luther’s theology. Drawing on the legacies of Donald Juel and Gerhard Forde, Thompson argues that Luther’s radical insight is that the gospel of Christ performs “God’s work within human speech” so that human barriers to salvation are knocked down and God is glorified in the justification of the ungodly (118). R. J. Matava and Jeffery K. Mann, on the other hand, fail to acknowledge their theological disagreements with Luther. In his assessment of Luther’s teaching on vocation, Matava argues that this teaching remains too limited by “the doctrine of justification that drives it” (102). Matava purports to undertake comparative work between Luther and the Catholic Germain Grisez on vocation. The result is not comparative but polemical, with Matava claiming that Grisez’s view is superior because it is doctrinally Catholic (102). Similarly, Mann’s use of Luther’s theology and Christian literature together in the service of virtue ethics is completely undercut by Mann’s assumption that the human will is free to cooperate in God’s saving work, a position Luther utterly opposed.

The essays on literature illuminate a flaw in this volume: a lack of cohesion. The uniting theme to these essays is supposedly Luther’s influence. Elaine Lux’s inspection of John Osborne’s drama Luther and C. S. Lewis’ novel Till We Have Faces demonstrates this with their discussion of the theme of grace. Stephen Sicari’s discussion of hope in Cormac McCarthy’s The Road never once mentions Luther or his thought. This is especially disappointing, because Sicari’s interpretation that McCarthy emphasizes hope in a hopeless situation begs to be compared to Luther’s notion of God’s salvation hidden under its opposite (173).

Many commendable essays here may spur readers to further thinking on the influence of Luther and possible comparisons between literary works and the reformer’s thought. The volume’s main drawback is its lack of cohesion. Perhaps this is intentional on the part of the editors. Perhaps they desired a kaleidoscopic vision of the reformer in a post-modern age. If so, that has been accomplished.