Lull, Timothy F. & Derek R.

Nelson, Resilient Reformer: The Life and Thought

of Martin Luther (Minneapolis: Fortress), 2015.
Another biography of Luther? Another one? That may be the question springing
immediately to mind when potential readers of this volume first hear of it. Why, they will
ask, do we need yet another biography of Luther? There are dozens. Hundreds. And if
readers have German, tens of hundreds of them. What can possibly be said that hasnt
already been said over and over again? Every possible stone has been overturned in the
quest for the historical Luther and with the nearness of the 500th anniversary of the
beginning of the Lutheran reformation in 2017 there will doubtless be more. So what
could we learn from another book on the portly German?
It turns out, quite a bit. The following excerpts will hopefully serve as illustrations
of the fact that Lull and Nelson have found enough worthwhile material to fill a 400 page
book. Excerpts, unfortunately, have no page notation because I have at hand the
electronic edition of the volume. Apologies in advance for that.
Luther was really angry at Wittenberg and determined not to return. My
heart has become cold, so that I do not like to be there any longer.
So our authors in the opening pages of their volume of Luther in 1545. But what could
have pushed Luther over the edge in 1545 so that he truly wished never to return to the
town he made famous?
One of Luthers own maids, who had worked her way into their household
with a phony story, was now pregnant and abandoned by her lover. He
[Luther] called the city Sodom after the biblical city that so displeased God.

Luther, in short, had grown tired of preaching and teaching to no apparent effect.
What we have in this volume is a portrait of Luther the Reformer and Luther the
resilient; the man who wished numerous times to abandon the work which cost him so
dearly and yet who remained faithful to it because of both internal motivations and
external pressures. We also have here other facts about Luther which may not be so
commonly known:
Luther had a good but rather high singing voice and was also able to play the
lute.
Our authors also debunk some of the supposed facts of Luthers career. They rightly note
that the story of Luthers nailing the 95 theses to the door of the Church in Wittenberg
has no basis in fact and seems to have originated with Melanchthon, who wasnt even in
Wittenberg in 1517.
Similarly, Lull and Nelson understand 1525 to be the decisive year in Luthers life
and I suspect they are correct. The Peasants War changed everything for Luther and, in
my view, it had a great deal to do with his turn to bitterness and anger as manifest in his
condemnation of the peasants and his call for the Princes to slash, slay, and kill. It was
then, I think, that Luther began to understand what he would understand fully in 1545that his preaching was having little authentic effect in changing the common mans life.
It was in 1525 as well that Luther began to be attacked by others engaged in Reforming
efforts so that his war with Rome now broadened into a two front war from Rome and
Muhlhausen. Lull and Nelsons explanation of Muntzers vitriol aimed at Luther is superb
analysis.

But Lull and Nelson get a number of things wrong. When they opine, for example,
that
Philip Melanchthon wrote the most important document of the Reformation,
the Augsburg Confession
They surely have erred. As important as that document was, it pales in comparison to
Calvins Institutes. Unless they meant to say that the Augsburg Confession was the most
important document of the Lutheran Reformation. And if that was indeed their
intention, then they have made the all too common mistake of thinking that THE
Reformation was Luthers and have forgotten the fact that Luther was simply one
Reformer among many. And at that, not the most gifted.
Lull and Nelson dont shrink from bringing readers face to face with the ugly side
of Luther either. They fearlessly examine his attitude toward the Jews. And they are right
to do so. But they are wrong to assert that Zwingli held the same views. Indeed, they
write
Hatred of Jews was not limited to the lower classes. On the contrary, many of
the leading intellectuals of the day, including Erasmus and Eck on the Roman
side and Zwingli and Luther on the evangelical side.
To prove their case they cite Ozment. They dont bother examining Zwinglis own works
in their context and they ignore the better work on Zwingli written before and after
Ozments partisan volume. In short, they have made the mistake of accepting without
justification a view of Zwingli which has no basis in historical fact. They will do the same
thing again in reference to Zwinglis death at Kappel.

So, while Lull and Nelson are very, very good at Luther they are much less reliable
when it comes to Zwingli:
Zwingli died leading his troops in battle against imperial (Catholic) forces.
That is simply false. Zwingli did not lead the Zurich troops, he was a part of the
contingent serving only as a Chaplain, not a combatant. The unending perpetuation of
the Lutheran lie that Zwingli died wielding a sword is just that, a lie. Lull and Nelson
ought to have spent more time with reliable Zwingli biographical material than simply
passing on received Lutheran (biased) tradition. They treat Luther honestly, they should
show Zwingli the same respect.
In sum, then, this is an excellent volume when it comes to what readers will learn
of Luther and his stick-to-it attitude. It is not so reliable on Zwinglian matters. You
should most definitely read it. Just ignore the parts about Zwingli and youll be better off
for having done so.