Rating: 
Summary: Gently sidestepping Luther's masterpiece
Review: Most modern Christians have trouble accepting Luther's denial of free will even though they admire Luther the man. Marty proves to be no exception. Luther considered his The Bondage of the Will (1525) his best work, but the best Marty could say about this was that Luther never retracted his views in this book. (p. 130) That's an understatement, to say the least. Also, in The Bondage of the Will Luther emphasized over and over that we humans have no free will or free choice, but Marty chooses to discuss Luther's views of the nature of God instead. Luther did talk about this subject, but that's not the main issue of his masterpiece. Marty's adjectives for Luther's greatest work include: "raucous", "drastic", "shocking", "dark and risky", "bursts", "could not be more radical".Marty reminds me of Bainton's biography, which tried to sweep Luther's The Bondage of the Will under the carpet, without so much as mentioning the title. I find it hard to believe that Marty is a Lutheran. Even when a theologian cannot agree, it is a biographer's duty to faithfully report the facts as they are. As Martin Brecht says, The Bondage of the Will sums up Luther's theology in concentrated form. The reluctance to discuss this work in full and at length mars an otherwise competent biography.
Rating: 
Summary: Martin Luther
Review: The author has given us a very short biography of one of the most significant historical and religious figures known to history. I have sought for a balanced biography of Martin Luther and believe that this work largely fits the bill. Although I sense that the author fails to fully understand Catholic theology, he does appear to accurately portray how Martin Luther understood that theology. Whether Luther was theologically correct or incorrect, whether he accurately understood his opposition's theology is an argument for theologians. The historian's emphasis is to accept Martin Luther's understanding and write the history of how the man struggled with his own understanding. Far too often, biographies of Luther focus on the theology of the man, either approve or condemn his theology and, depending on the result of this judgment, either praise or condemn the man. To that end, the reader should not look for a thorough explanation of religious thought in this book, whether it be Catholic or Lutheran. Luther is here portrayed as a man of extremes and contradictions. Unlike other biographies of Luther, Luther is not portrayed as spotless, saintly, or entirely in the right. In contrast, Luther is not blamed for every evil or atrocity during the Reformation committed on behalf of freedom from Rome. What particularly interested this reader, was the author's handling of how Luther failed to deal with the political forces he set in motion. How he compromised in some rather essential moral questions in order to retain his core theological ideas of salvation by faith alone. In short, the reader is presented with Martin Luther, the politician, and theologian, but most importantly the man. I found this work to be a very quick read and a good jumping off point for more research on Martin Luther. I recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: A Well Balanced Portrayal
Review: The author has given us a very short biography of one of the most significant historical and religious figures known to history. I have sought for a balanced biography of Martin Luther and believe that this work largely fits the bill. Although I sense that the author fails to fully understand Catholic theology, he does appear to accurately portray how Martin Luther understood that theology. Whether Luther was theologically correct or incorrect, whether he accurately understood his opposition's theology is an argument for theologians. The historian's emphasis is to accept Martin Luther's understanding and write the history of how the man struggled with his own understanding. Far too often, biographies of Luther focus on the theology of the man, either approve or condemn his theology and, depending on the result of this judgment, either praise or condemn the man. To that end, the reader should not look for a thorough explanation of religious thought in this book, whether it be Catholic or Lutheran. Luther is here portrayed as a man of extremes and contradictions. Unlike other biographies of Luther, Luther is not portrayed as spotless, saintly, or entirely in the right. In contrast, Luther is not blamed for every evil or atrocity during the Reformation committed on behalf of freedom from Rome. What particularly interested this reader, was the author's handling of how Luther failed to deal with the political forces he set in motion. How he compromised in some rather essential moral questions in order to retain his core theological ideas of salvation by faith alone. In short, the reader is presented with Martin Luther, the politician, and theologian, but most importantly the man. I found this work to be a very quick read and a good jumping off point for more research on Martin Luther. I recommend it.
Rating: 
Summary: A good theology, perhaps; but, disappointing history
Review: This is a disappointing book. Now, that's on a personal basis and not necessarily on the merits of the book as written. Quite frankly, it's not much of a biography; I found more details about Luther's life in the 1958 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica; my disappointment is based on Marty's emphasis of Luther's religious ideas and development instead of the society in which he lived. On a religious basis, examining how Luther reached the positions he did, the book may be superb; I'm not a theologian, so I can't judge it on that basis. Marty is an exceptionally fine theologian, and he may well have done a superb analysis on that basis. The editors at Penguin are not fools, and they don't necessarily target excellent works at my interests; so if they missed the mark with me, it may well be my loss. Having said that, Marty gives little attention to the "small, poor, ugly, stinking, hideous, wretched, unhealthy, smoky, full of slop, populated by barbarians and sellers of beer and not by real citizens" town of Wittenberg in 1512 where 2,100 people lived in 400 houses. True, some 172 houses had licenses to brew beer; but, the town also had a newly created university and a printing press (Johann Gutenberg has "invented" the printing press by 1450) . Talk about casting pearls before swine; yet, this "pearl" of Luther was part of a worldwide enlightenment that changed the entire nature of Christianity. Luther lived at the same time as Erasmus, in Roterdam; and when King Henry VIII was challenging the authority of the Pope. The Roman Catholic church of that era was clearly an early example of globalisation; this early international insensitivity to local independence led to a rise in nationalism which culminated in the worldwide wars of the last century. Clearly, northern Europe was reacting against the endemic corruption of the Roman Catholic Church, and in support of the growing nationalism. Luther was hardly a courageous dissident marching to a different drummer and thus liberating the exploited masses; instead, he was a brilliant evangelical spokesman for local autonomy and freedom from the dictates of Rome. It was also a time of bitter anti-Semitism. Marty says Luther's support of such prejudice was unfortunate, but he avoids the issue of what might have happened had Luther developed a religion based on tolerance instead of bigotry. Granted, speculation is not the duty of a competent historian. But, in my view, passing lightly over the issue of Luther's anti-semitism avoids one of the major faults of Luther and this biography. Yet, on a religious basis, Marty is succinct, clear and relevant. Perhaps there is no better basis for a biography of a major religious leader. If so, Marty has done a good job. It's all that anyone should expect from any book.
Rating:
Summary: A noble theology, but a poor history
Review: This is a disappointing book. Now, that's on a personal basis and not necessarily on the merits of the book as written. Quite frankly, it's not much of a biography; I found more details about Luther's life in the 1958 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica; my disappointment is based on Marty's emphasis of Luther's religious ideas and development instead of the society in which he lived. On a religious basis, examining how Luther reached the positions he did, the book may be superb; I'm not a theologian, so I can't judge it on that basis. Marty is an exceptionally fine theologian, and he may well have done a superb analysis on that basis. The editors at Penguin are not fools, and they don't necessarily target excellent works at my interests; so if they missed the mark with me, it may well be my loss. Having said that, Marty gives little attention to the "small, poor, ugly, stinking, hideous, wretched, unhealthy, smoky, full of slop, populated by barbarians and sellers of beer and not by real citizens" town of Wittenberg in 1512 where 2,100 people lived in 400 houses. True, some 172 houses had licenses to brew beer, so it couldn't have been all bad; and, the town also had a newly created university and a printing press (Johann Gutenberg has "invented" the printing press by 1450). Talk about casting pearls before swine; yet, this "pearl" of Luther was part of a worldwide enlightenment that changed the entire nature of Christianity. The Pope Luther challenged was one of the most corrupt in the history of the Roman Catholic church; it raises the question of how much Luther would have achieved had he challenged an honest Pope. A second question Marty overlooks -- what would have been the fate of Catholicism had Luther not challenged its fetid corruption? Luther lived at the same time as Erasmus, in Rotterdam; and when King Henry VIII was challenging the authority of the Pope in England. The Roman Catholic church of that era was clearly an early example of globalisation; this early international insensitivity to local independence led to a rise in nationalism which culminated in the worldwide wars of the last century. Clearly, northern Europe was reacting against the endemic corruption of the Roman Catholic Church and in support of a rapidly growing nationalism. Luther was hardly a courageous dissident marching to a different drummer and thus liberating the exploited masses from a dark tyranny; instead, he was a brilliant evangelical spokesman for a resolute freedom that sought local autonomy and freedom from the dictates of Rome. It was also a time of bitter anti-Semitism, one of the enduring failures of Europe. Marty says Luther's support of such prejudice was unfortunate, but he avoids the issue of what might have happened had Luther developed a religion based on tolerance instead of bigotry. What if he had preached religious toleration for Islam, even while opposing the Islamic attempt to conquer Europe? Granted, speculation is not the duty of any competent historian. But, in my view, passing lightly over the issue of Luther's anti-semitism avoids confronting one of the major faults of Luther and this biography. Yet, on a religious basis, Marty is succinct, clear and relevant. As a non-Lutheran, I wanted more history and less theology. Perhaps there is no better basis for a biography of a major religious leader. If so, Marty has done a good job. But it's less than I expected.
Rating:
Summary: A noble theology, but a poor history
Review: This is a disappointing book. Now, that's on a personal basis and not necessarily on the merits of the book as written. Quite frankly, it's not much of a biography; I found more details about Luther's life in the 1958 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica; my disappointment is based on Marty's emphasis of Luther's religious ideas and development instead of the society in which he lived. On a religious basis, examining how Luther reached the positions he did, the book may be superb; I'm not a theologian, so I can't judge it on that basis. Marty is an exceptionally fine theologian, and he may well have done a superb analysis on that basis. The editors at Penguin are not fools, and they don't necessarily target excellent works at my interests; so if they missed the mark with me, it may well be my loss. Having said that, Marty gives little attention to the "small, poor, ugly, stinking, hideous, wretched, unhealthy, smoky, full of slop, populated by barbarians and sellers of beer and not by real citizens" town of Wittenberg in 1512 where 2,100 people lived in 400 houses. True, some 172 houses had licenses to brew beer, so it couldn't have been all bad; and, the town also had a newly created university and a printing press (Johann Gutenberg has "invented" the printing press by 1450). Talk about casting pearls before swine; yet, this "pearl" of Luther was part of a worldwide enlightenment that changed the entire nature of Christianity. The Pope Luther challenged was one of the most corrupt in the history of the Roman Catholic church; it raises the question of how much Luther would have achieved had he challenged an honest Pope. A second question Marty overlooks -- what would have been the fate of Catholicism had Luther not challenged its fetid corruption? Luther lived at the same time as Erasmus, in Rotterdam; and when King Henry VIII was challenging the authority of the Pope in England. The Roman Catholic church of that era was clearly an early example of globalisation; this early international insensitivity to local independence led to a rise in nationalism which culminated in the worldwide wars of the last century. Clearly, northern Europe was reacting against the endemic corruption of the Roman Catholic Church and in support of a rapidly growing nationalism. Luther was hardly a courageous dissident marching to a different drummer and thus liberating the exploited masses from a dark tyranny; instead, he was a brilliant evangelical spokesman for a resolute freedom that sought local autonomy and freedom from the dictates of Rome. It was also a time of bitter anti-Semitism, one of the enduring failures of Europe. Marty says Luther's support of such prejudice was unfortunate, but he avoids the issue of what might have happened had Luther developed a religion based on tolerance instead of bigotry. What if he had preached religious toleration for Islam, even while opposing the Islamic attempt to conquer Europe? Granted, speculation is not the duty of any competent historian. But, in my view, passing lightly over the issue of Luther's anti-semitism avoids confronting one of the major faults of Luther and this biography. Yet, on a religious basis, Marty is succinct, clear and relevant. As a non-Lutheran, I wanted more history and less theology. Perhaps there is no better basis for a biography of a major religious leader. If so, Marty has done a good job. But it's less than I expected.
| 
