Theology Thursday - Luther On Pigs, Beasts & the Abuse of Liberty

Martin Luther wrote his Small Catechism after making visits to various parishes in Saxony, in the Fall of 1528. He was apparently astonished and disgusted with what he found. This is evident from the tone of the preface, which is reproduced here:1

Grace, mercy, and peace in Jesus Christ, our Lord, from Martin Luther to all faithful, godly pastors and preachers.

The deplorable conditions which I recently encountered when I was a visitor constrained me to prepare this brief and simple catechism or statement of Christian teaching. Good God, what wretchedness I beheld! The common people, especially those who live in the country, have no knowledge whatever of Christian teaching, and unfortunately many pastors are quite incompetent and unfitted for teaching. Although the people are supposed to be Christian, are baptized, and receive the holy sacrament, they do not know the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, or the Ten Commandments, they live as if they were pigs and irrational beasts, and now that the Gospel has been restored they have mastered the fine art of abusing liberty.

How will you bishops answer for it before Christ that you have so shamefully neglected the people and paid no attention at all to the duties of your office? May you escape punishment for this! You withhold the cup in the Lord’s Supper and insist on the observance of human laws, yet you do not take the slightest interest in teaching the people the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, the Ten Commandments, or a single part of the Word of God. Woe to you forever!

I therefore beg of you for God’s sake, my beloved brethren who are pastord and preachers, that you take the duties of your office seriously, and that you have pity on the people who are entrusted to your care, and that you help me to teach the catechism to the people, especially those who are young. Let those who lack the qualifications to do better at least take this booklet and these forms and read them to the people word for word in this manner.

In the first place, the preacher should take the utmost care to avoid changes or variations in the text and wording of the Ten Commandments, the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, the sacraments, etc. On the contrary, he should adopt one form, adhere to it, and use it repeatedly year after year. Young and inexperienced people must be instructed on the basis of a uniform, fixed text and form. They are easily confused if a teacher employs one form now and another form – perhps with the intention of making improvements – later on. In this way all the time and labor will be lost …

If any refuse to receive your instructions, tell them that they deny Christ and are no Christians. They should not be admitted to the sacrament, be accepted as sponsors in Baptism, or be allowed to participate in any Christian privileges. On the contrary, they should be turned over to the pope and his officials, and even to the devil himself. In addition, parents and employers should refuse to furnish them with food and drink and should notify them that the prince is disposed to banish such rude people from his land.

Although we cannot and should not compel anyone to believe, we should nevertheless insist that the people learn to know how to distinguish between right and wrong according to the standards of those among whom they live and make their living. For anyone who desires to reside in a city is bound to know and observe the laws under whose protection he lives, no matter whether he is a believer or, at heart, a scoundrel or knave.

In the second place, after the people have become familiar with the text, teach them what it means. For this purpose, take the explanations in this booklet, or choose any other brief and fixed explanations which you may prefer, and adhere to them without changing a single syllable, as stated above with reference to the text. Moreover, allow yourself ample time, for it is not necessary to take up all the parts at once. They can be presented one at a time. When the learners have a proper understanding of the First Commandment, proceed to the Second Commandment, and so on. Otherwise they will be so overwhelmed that they will hardly remember anything at all.

In the third place, after you have thus taught this brief catechism, take up a large catechism so that the people may have a richer and fuller understanding. Expound every commandment, petition, and part, pointing out their respective obligations, benefits, dangers, advantages, and disadvantages, as you will find all of this treated at length in the many books written for this purpose. Lay the greatest weight on those commandments or other parts which seem to require special attention among the people where you are.

For example, the Seventh Commandment, which treats of stealing, must be emphasized when instructing laborers and shopkeepers, and even farmers and servants, for many of these are guilty of dishonesty and thievery. So, too, the Fourth Commandment must be stressed when instructing children and the common people in order that they may be encouraged to be orderly, faithful, obedient, and peaceful. Always adduce many examples from the Scriptures to show how God punished and blessed.

You should also take pains to urge governing authorities and parents to rule wisely and educate their children. They must be shown that they are obligated to do so, and that they are guilty of damnable sin if they do not do so, for by such neglect they undermine and lay waste both the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world and are the worst enemies of God and man.

Make very plain to them the shocking evils they introduce when they refuse their aid in the training of children to become pastors, preachers, notaries, etc., and tell them that God will inflict awful punishments upon them for these sins. It is necessary to preach about such things. The extent to which parents and governing authorities sin in this respect is beyond telling. The devil also has a horrible purpose in mind.

Finally, now that the people are freed from the tyranny of the pope, they are unwilling to receive the sacrament and they treat it with contempt. Here, too, there is need of exhortation, but with this understanding: No one is to be compelled to believe or receive the sacrament, no law is to be made concerning it, and no time or place should be appointed for it. We should so preach that, of their own accord and without any law, the people will desire the sacrament and, as it were, compel us pastors to administer it to them.

This can be done by telling them: It is to be feared that anyone who does not desire to receive the sacrament at least three or four times a year despises the sacrament and is no Christian, just as he is no Christian who does not hear and believe the Gospel. Christ did not say, “Omit this,” or “Despise this,” but he said, “Do this, as often as you drink it,” etc. Surely he wishes that this be done and not that it be omitted and despised. “Do this,” he said.

He who does not highly esteem the sacrament suggests thereby that he has no sin, no flesh, no devil, no world, no death, no hell. That is to say, he believes in none of these, although he is deeply immersed in them and is held captive by the devil. On the other hand, he suggests that he needs no grace, no life, no paradise, no heaven, no Christ, no God, nothing good at all. For if he believed that he was involved in so much that is evil and was in need of so much that is good, he would not neglect the sacrament in which aid is afforded against such evil and in which such good is bestowed. It is not necessary to compel him by any law to receive the sacrament, or he will hasten to it of his own accord, he will feel constrained to receive it, he will insist that you administer it to him.

Accordingly, you are not to make a law of this, as the pope has done. All you need to do is clearly to set forth the advantage and disadvantage, the benefit and loss, the blessing and danger connected with this sacrament. Then the people will come of their own accord and without compulsion on your part. But if they refuse to come, let them be, and tell them that those who do not feel and acknowledge their great need and God’s gracious help belong to the devil.

If you do not give such admonitions, or if you adopt odious laws on the subject, it is your own fault if people treat the sacrament with contempt. How can they be other than negligent if you fail to do your duty and remain silent? So it is up to you, dear pastor and peacher!

Our office has become something different from what is was under the pope. It is now a ministry of grace and salvation. It subjects us to greater burdens and labors, dangers and temptations, with little regard or gratitude from the world. But Christ himself will be ur reward if we labor faithfully. The Father of all grace grant it! To Him be praise and thanks forever, through Christ, our Lord. Amen.  


1 The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, translated and edited by Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1959), 348-341.  

2847 reads

There are 9 Comments

TylerR's picture


If a Christian leader used this kind of language today, he'd be castigated for being unloving. Forthrightness and bluntness are lost virtues today, especially in Christian circles.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Aaron Blumer's picture


Why are they virtues?

For my part, I hear no shortage at all of bluntness... though the blunt are not always forthright, and more of that would be nice.

What we're called to is speech that is fitting --appropriate for the occasion. So sometimes, rebuking and other times (most other times) patiently explaining. A huge part of fitness lies in asking "What is most likely to be effective?" And "effective" depends on what the goal is. Am I trying to stir up people who already agree with me or win over people who don't, or just inform someone who is open, or maybe inform someone who isn't interested? Lots of possibilities. 

I can't think of very many where blunt helps much, other things being equal.

Pr 25:11 11 A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold In settings of silver.

Pr 15:1 1 A soft answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Pr 15:23 23 A man has joy by the answer of his mouth, And a word spoken in due season, how good it is!

Col 4:6 6 Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one.

1 Th 5:14 14 Now we exhort you, brethren, warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

TylerR's picture


Perhaps honesty ​is a better term to get my point across. Of course, that involves an appropriate amount of contextual sensitivity, but the end goal should be to communicate truth - especially if it's uncomfortable truth.

There is an epidemic of weakness today; most of it the product of our sissified culture. This is particularly problematic in bureaucracies. It is also epidemic in pastoral leadership. I have seen and observed leaders in the military, civilian, pastoral and state government sectors. I've been in leadership positions in three of those contexts. My analysis is that the very worst leaders I've ever seen have been pastors and deacons in Christian churches. To be sure, I've seen some good leaders in ecclesiastical positions. But, I've seem more that are truly awful. I know, because I've made plenty of mistakes, myself.

My point is that I believe many pastors and deacons have lost (or never had) the ability to speak truthfully and honestly. Instead, we often wallow in a sea of mushy mediocrity; a morass produced by well-meaning but spineless Christian leaders who:

  1. owe their very position to other weak men who were too nice to tell them they're unsuited to any leadership position, let alone a pastoral one (i.e. don't ordain a wimp who has shown no ability to lead anybody to do anything, no matter how nice he is), and
  2. are too timid to confront and address unrepentant sin in their church, and
  3. attempt to camoflague and spiritualize their weakness with appeal to "love." I've been around long enough, and been through enough, to identify the cries for "love" as the smokescreen it too often is; a "pious" subterfuge for inaction and timidity.

By and large, churches do nothing to prepare men for leadership. Sure, your church may be awesome, and have a great intern program, and have a program Dever would be proud of. Whatever. 99 out of 100 churches don't do that, and we all know this. I think leadership experience in the "real world" would do wonders. I've always found polite, kind, but firm and unyielding honesty do wonders in difficult situations. Too often, leaders are afraid to be honest. They'd rather pretend nothing is wrong, or they're too cowardly to deal with the issue. In short, they shouldn't be leaders, because they aren't leaders.

Luther was honest. He was contextually appropriate. His words are jarring, but that isn't always ​a bad thing. That is what I appreciated. These are qualities few people in leadership seem to have, today. Just look at state government. In order to give somebody a critical performance evaluation, you have to consult a multi-page flowchart and ensure you followed the appropriate disciplinary steps, so as to avoid a union grievance. Often, the employee who receives the critical eval will be crushed and mortified, because he's so used to warm and generic platitudes on his evals; he's likely never received critical feedback in his professional life, or actually been held to a performance standard. If you successfully navigate these tricky waters and get the critical eval through, then you'll develop a reputation as a hatchet man. Your fellow managers and supervisors will be in awe of you; the superman who held people accountable. It's quite funny, actually. People will tell you, in hushed tones, "I wish I could be like you!" No kidding. I was told that today.  

Honesty ​isn't a synonym for nasty. People assume it is, but they're wrong.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Aaron Blumer's picture


That's an interesting perspective. I would agree that that there is a dearth of good leaders. I haven't observed a general spinelessness problem though. I've seen plenty of spine but about the wrong things or in the wrong way.
Luther was sometimes that way as well. Letting loose with both rhetorical barrels, but not always with accurate intel and the right target. And he comes across as arrogant and nasty in some of his polemic pieces.
God used him, and I do appreciate his courage, but I wonder what he might have accomplished with equal courage + a lot more wisdom.
My biggest frustration with conservative Christianity in general these days is lack of intellectual honesty & diligence in understanding the Scriptures, the times, and human nature.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

TylerR's picture


A few things:

  1. I think being honest saves everyone a lot of time
  2. I think we need to remember to be contextually sensitive. I'm much more blunt (if necessary) with leaders than with normal church members.
  3. Honesty isn't a synonym for nastiness. We should always remember that.
  4. The leadership culture in the Pacific Northwest is perhaps the wimpiest I've ever seen in my life (no, I'm not simply referring to church - I'm talking about everywhere).
  5. In a church setting, when your leadership is weak, people get hurt. The stakes are higher.

My position here has evolved, and I;ve undoubtedly been shaped by my own experiences. I've allowed people to be hurt by trying to be "loving." One overarching thing I've learned is that I should have moved faster to address a problem in my church. I didn't. I tried the political approach. I tried to "gently confront," while praying for a base of support to arrive and the balance of power to shift so I could move against the troublemaker. I should have moved sooner. I learned a lesson. The one regret I have is that I didn't move sooner; I would have spared some wonderful Christians so much heartache. I would have lost. But, then again, I tried to wait for a base of support and ended up losing anyway . . . Smile

So, I have vowed to never make that mistake again. I've become ruthless. That could be interpreted as "mean," but I'm not convinced that it is. I'm also not certain whether I'd ever be able to work in a pastoral role again; not because I'm unqualified, but because I fear I'll be perceived as too "mean" by too many people. 

This isn't my "confession time." I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from. I'm intrigued by how ruthless ​Luther sounds in his piece, above. I'm not sure he really is being ruthless. I think he's just being honest. And, I think the gravity of the situation warranted that kind of bluntness.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Bert Perry's picture

Think of this in view of what I'm told is often said at Lutheran funerals; "trust in your baptism".   A life spent away from church  and in varying degrees of unrepentant sin is often excused by this.  It would be interesting to see what use Spener made of this as he saw the 17th century "evangelische" church in Germany inhabited by adulterous pastors who got their jobs as "low motivation 2nd sons of noblemen", preaching to pews filled with those who lived and thought about the same.

I would also tend to agree that leadership is often a huge problem, but here, I think Luther is primarily excoriating leaders who simply don't have their eyes on the ball.  Strong or weak, it seems to be a huge issue there that nobody is concentrating on the basics of the faith.  Big lesson for our movement as well, I think.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

TylerR's picture


Bert - I recently saved a pastoral article written by a conservative Presbyterian,, who sought to comfort parents about why their children "left the faith." One thing he offered to the parents was to "cling to your children's baptism," as though that means something. How sad. How unbiblical.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Ron Bean's picture

I've heard Baptist pastors comfort parents of wayward children (including my own mother) with the same words. "Ronnie was saved when he was a child and baptized. He's just backslidden. Once saved. Always saved."


"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

TylerR's picture


That is very sad.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Help keep SI’s server humming. A few bucks makes a difference.