Not a dime

Sometimes we look to back at heroes who came before us as a way of understanding ourselves. We may reflect on a historical character who changed the world, a political figure like a founding father, famous athlete or often a family member like a parent or grandparent. As I have spent time studying Martin Luther during this half millennial celebration of The Reformation, I have found myself identifying with much of what I read about him.

You might think that is a bit prideful since Luther is recognized as a man who changed the world. Its not his magnificent impact with which I feel a kinship, but its his thought, skepticism and disruption he used as his weapon instead of wealth, political power, or physical feats. It wasn't in his circumstances that he was motivated to act. It was his insight. Luther looked at his world in light of what God was revealing to him and he thought, "this is not right." It was not easy to buck the system and often he was lonely. It was easier if he didn't question those in charge, if he wouldn't make waves. But he was compelled. My south Ala definition for compelled is "can't not do it." At this point in my life, I can identify with how he feels. Its easier to just let the institutional norms of the day remain as is. But, I just can't let go of this this nagging unction in me.

Luther received not a dime for his efforts. Others have benefited financially from his writings and memorabilia of his life. I'm sure Luther would liked to have been paid for his work. After all, he preferred to be treated fairly, as we all do. I can see how Luther would have wanted more rewards for his efforts, but reciprocity was never a motivation for taking ideas where others wouldn't. Luther was intrinsically motivated where the rewards are internally supplied.


At the heart of Luther's passion was the question of authority. He lived at a time where the Pope was recognized as the final say in church matters and monarchs were the unquestioned head of government. Luther sought truth in scripture and found the prevailing norms of authority in his day were in conflict with God's way. His dissent was to restore man's reliance on faith and grace as the source of an abundant and virtuous life.

In studying the history of thought through philosophy and psychology, I find that while Luther unknowlingly ushered in a protestant reformation, man has continued to attribute authority everywhere he/she can except in the sovereignty of God. While Luther ended ungodly practices of indulgences and Papal infallibility, nothing really changed in secular and religious thinking about how truth is determined and what governs man's conduct. What existed for thousands of years prior to Luther and the hundreds since are just variations of how man can view utility (usefulness) or logic (reason) as the ultimate authority for truth.

Without over simplifying the many great minds that have dedicated themselves to the questions of knowing, here is a brief summary of the collective knowledge of man's authority for truth about the abundant and virtuous life:
1. empiricism - the human mind can determine knowledge of truth obtained from sensory perceptions either through experience or experiment.
2. sentimentalism - humans have within themselves emotional responses to experiences that guide them to know what is right and wrong
2. reason - humans use innate "common sense" about universal principles established by some detached creative super natural power that governs the natural order of the universe
4. deism - man recognizes that the super natural source is God, who is the creative power that provides laws man can search to know and obey what is true (using 1, 2, or 3 above)

There's not a dime's worth of difference between these four when it comes to knowing truth. Regardless of the approach, man sets himself up as the authoritative source for knowing and acting correctly.

Luther saw a different source than human's for truth, the authority of scripture. There was an important caveat, however. Luther concluded we must hear (receive) the Word of God, not just read the words of God. Heeding Luther, shouldn't we look to scripture to inform us about how God intends for us mere mortals to "hear God"? We can start with what Jesus' told Peter as Peter claims that Jesus is the Son of God. "Flesh and blood did not reveal this but my Father in Heaven." Flesh and blood is man's way. It seems that revelation may be God's way. That doesn't appear in the list above. Romans 8 tells us several times that the Holy Spirit bears witness to us. That doesn't appear in the list above. Jesus tells Thomas that he believes because he sees (in the list above), but blessed are those who believe and yet do NOT see (not in the list above). How did Philip KNOW what to do when he met the Ethiopian eunuch (not listed above)?

Why then do we not train our young people to use reason and see their emotions through revelation they receive rather than become experts in one or more ways listed above? How do we teach our young people to be secure in what they understand based on what they know from the grace bestowed on them more than how to find truth on their own? How do we train our young people to trust a Sovereign God rather than seek cause and effect explanations for their experiences in the world from techniques listed above? How do we encourage young people to be the Luther of their day and act intrinsically on insight GIVEN to them by God rather than concern with rewards and what others think?

Can we transform our young people to believe that none of the ways in the list above are worth a dime regarding God's way to the life He has called them to? This is our challenge. This is where I feel like Luther, calling the church to revisit it practices in light of what Scripture really says about determining truth.

And like Luther there's not a dime in "beating this drum", but the intrinsic return on an investment in this mission is "out of this world." This is my passion. This is what I ponder in my times of reflection. This is how I understand myself.