11:00 Worship hour tradition

[Gail]

Today at church we learned where that tradition started.

It was started by Martin Luther. An earlier hour did not suit him to begin the church service, as he would go drinking the night before and often was not coherent enough the next morning that he found it difficult to preach an earlier service or do an earlier mass.

Anyone heard of this before?

[Gary K]

Today at church we learned where that tradition started.

It was started by Martin Luther. An earlier hour did not suit him to begin the church service, as he would go drinking the night before and often was not coherent enough the next morning that he found it difficult to preach an earlier service or do an earlier mass.

Anyone heard of this before?

No. That doesn't fit with the Martin Luther I've read about. The man who flagellatted himself with a whip while climbing stone stairs on his knees trying to get right with God is going to get so drunk the night before he is to preach that he is incoherent the next morning?

That doesn't sound like the same man at all.

[aldona]

We are talking about the fearful, legalistic Martin Luther of his Catholic days, vs. the same man after learning about grace and starting the Protestant Reformation.

It is often the case (and I am sure you will have observed among some Adventists) that those who are the most legalistic and focused on strict standards and their own works, later swing to the most extreme liberalism and permissive behaviour.

Besides, Luther was not an Adventist. He would not have known any prohibitions against drinking alcohol. It was a common practice in Europe, and remains so to this day, that both Protestants and Catholics commonly drink alcohol.

I can totally imagine Luther spending time in the taverns. He may have been a great reformer, but he was certainly not perfect. Besides, where else would he have come up with the great beer-drinking song melodies for some of his hymns?

AJ

[Woody]

Quote:

It is often the case (and I am sure you will have observed among some Adventists) that those who are the most legalistic and focused on strict standards and their own works, later swing to the most extreme liberalism and permissive behaviour.

Many don't wait for a later swing. They preach conservative but live liberal.

[Haldog]

" He would not have known any prohibitions against drinking alcohol".

What prohibition would that be? I hope you aren't implying that there is a biblical prohibition.

[ClubV12]

Haldog, must be that one about strong drink and such...

[aldona]

" He would not have known any prohibitions against drinking alcohol".

What prohibition would that be? I hope you aren't implying that there is a biblical prohibition.

No, quite the contrary. Because Luther had the Bible and the Bible alone, he would not have known that he was not supposed to drink alcohol. There is no biblical prohibition against consuming alcohol, although there is plenty of counsel about the fact that it is a bad idea to get drunk.

AJ

[Gail]

And wine is such a vital part of the mass, too. I seem to remember reading about the excesses of wine-drinking among the priests but can't place the source at the moment. Anyway, I do agree with the point made that wine-drinking was a common everyday occurrence in Europe, much as it is now.

[Gary K]

The number people on this forum who are so eager to slander the servants of God amazes me. The seeming eagerness to believe the worst of men of faith, men who fought serious battles for God, men who risked their lives to speak truth are viewed as if they were nothing more than common drunks.

I know the following will change no ones mind, but will give this link anyway. I will be curious to see who then says Martin Luther was a fraud and hyporcrite. What follows is the first few paragraphs from a Martin Luther sermon. The entire sermon can be found at the link.

http://www.wittenberghall.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=4&BlogID=287

Quote:

A Sermon on Soberness and Moderation against Gluttony and Drunkenness by Martin Luther I Pet. 4:7-11, May 18, 1539

This part of [the first] Epistle [of Peter] is an exhortation to good conduct. Those who are Christians are to see to it that they are grateful for grace and redemption and conduct themselves modestly, moderately, and soberly, so that one does not go on living the swinish life that goes on in the filthy world. For this Epistle was written to the Greeks, who were great high livers. In those regions there was gluttony just as in Germany today.

Where one can find sermons which will stop the Germans from swilling I do not know. We might just as well have kept silent altogether. Christ says that the coming last day will come upon men unawares and snatch them away (Luke 21 [:35]), and Paul says the same thing in I Thess. 5 [:2], and also the prophets likewise. The Italians call us gluttonous, drunken Germans and pigs because they live decently and do not drink until they are drunk. Like the Spaniards, they have escaped this vice. Among the Turks it is really the worst sin for a man to be drunk. So temperate are they that they do not even drink anything which inebriates. This is why they can make war and win; while we drunken sows sleep they keep awake, and thus can consider their strategy and then attack and conquer. When the time comes for us to defend ourselves and be prepared, we get drunk. This has become so widespread that there is no help for it; it has become a settled custom.

At first it was the peasants who drank to excess, then it spread to the citizens. In my time it was considered a great shame among the nobility. Now they are worse than the citizens and peasants; now those who are the greatest and best are beginning to fall, indeed, even the princes; and among those who are the ablest it has become a noble and princely virtue. Now the ten-year-old milksops, and the students, too, are beginning, and ruining themselves in their flower; when the corn should be growing and flourishing it is beaten down by a storm. We preach, but who stops it? Those who should stop it do it themselves; the princes even more. Therefore Germany is a land of hogs and a filthy people which debauches its body and its life. If you were going to paint it, you would have to paint a pig.

[Dr. Rich]

Gary K., Well then, let me be the first to say that Martin Luther was a fraud. Why? Because his whole belief was built upon a foundation of lies given to us by Paul's words. No go and try to find anywhere in his words where they say the same as the words of Jesus Christ given to us by His eyewitnesses? You can't.

[Gary K]

Today at church we learned where that tradition started.

It was started by Martin Luther. An earlier hour did not suit him to begin the church service, as he would go drinking the night before and often was not coherent enough the next morning that he found it difficult to preach an earlier service or do an earlier mass.

Anyone heard of this before?

Gail,

My wife is insistent that I ask you the following question.

Was this slander against Martin Luther presented from the pulpit?

[Gary K]

Gary K., Well then, let me be the first to say that Martin Luther was a fraud. Why? Because his whole belief was built upon a foundation of lies given to us by Paul's words. No go and try to find anywhere in his words where they say the same as the words of Jesus Christ given to us by His eyewitnesses? You can't.

I'm not surprised at all by you accusing Martin Luther of being a fraud. You accuse other men blessed by God of the same thing.

In some ways you make me laugh. Below is how Peter refers to Paul, and Paul's writing. He, in fact, recommends Paul's epistles to those to whom his letter written.

IIPeter 3: 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

I guess you're going to have to reject Peter now too, as he obviously contradicts what you have to say.

[LynnDel]

The person who preached about Martin Luther's drinking may have gotten it from a PBS program that presented "Ten Things You Didn't Know About Martin Luther" with very little documentation. Here is the first item refuted:

PBS Claimed Luther said:

1. "Alcohol cures all evils" - Luther thoroughly approved even advocated drinking heavily. When a young man wrote to him complaining of despair at the prospect of going to hell, Luther wrote back advising him to go and get drunk. That, he said, was what he did when he felt despair.”

Research shows:

The historical record nowhere documents Luther ever being drunk. It does provide evidence that he did drink alcohol, and that he enjoyed drinking. One needs only to survey the massive output of work that Luther produced to settle the matter that Luther was not an alcoholic, nor did he have a “drinking problem.”

Luther preached and wrote against drunkenness throughout his entire life with vigor and force. As biographer Heinrich Boehmer notes, “Luther attacked the craving for drink with word and pen more vigorously than any German of his time. He told even princes his opinion of it, in private and public, blamed the elector himself publically for this vice, and read the elector’s courtiers an astonishingly drastic lecture” [source, Heinrich Boehmer, Luther and the Reformation in the Light of Modern Research (London: G. Bell and Sons LTD, 1930), 198]. One example among many is Luther’s Sermon on Soberness and Moderation against Gluttony and Drunkenness (1539). Luther complaining about excessive drinking states:

“What, therefore, shall we do? The secular government does not forbid it, the princes do nothing about it, and the rulers in the cities do nothing at all but wink at it and do the same themselves. We preach and the Holy Scriptures teach us otherwise; but you want to evade what is taught. Eating and drinking are not forbidden, but rather all food is a matter of freedom, even a modest drink for one’s pleasure. If you do not wish to conduct yourself this way, if you are going to go beyond this and be a born pig and guzzle beer and wine, then, if this cannot be stopped by the rulers, you must know that you cannot be saved. For God will not admit such piggish drinkers into the kingdom of heaven [cf. Gal. 5:19–21]. It is no wonder that all of you are beggars. How much money might not be saved [if excessive drinking were stopped].” [LW 51:293].

[LynnDel]

I got the previous info from this site:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/10/pbs-presents-facts-that-luther.html

[Gary K]

LynnDel,

Thanks for the link and source of the slander.

I read the list yesterday and short refutations of it, but the site didn't say where the accusations originated. It gave the short version of what you posted and none of Luther's actual words. That's why I did further research and posted Luther's sermon stating his views of gluttony and drunkeness.

[Gail]

Yes, it was presented from the pulpit.

Thanks for the information! I would have no clue as to how to go about researching it. I doubt very much that the pastor made it up. He was most likely misinformed. I'll try to ask him where he got his information from and get back here.

[LynnDel]

I googled Luther drunk, and that was the first hit. Just call me Google Queen.

LD

[Gail]

If you Google the subject, you will find information on both sides of the issue, including this quote:

Quote:

"We old folks have to find our cushions and pillows in our tankards. Strong beer is the milk of the old." Martin Luther, who married brewster Katharina of Bora in 1525.

The above from a pro-drinking site.

He was also reportedly an anti-Semitic. For me, this wouldn't detract from who ML was and his role in the history of God's people. It's just evidence that God uses "cracked pots" sometimes. In truth, I think He does it more than we'd like to admit.

[Gail]

Okay- I found this (link to be provided below):

Quote:

Martin Luther's Sinfulness

Martin Luther has been accused of many things, some true, some not. A favorite in the house church movement, a myth popularized by Gene Edwards, is that Protestant services begin at 11 a.m. because Luther liked to stay up late drinking and tended to have a hangover on Sunday morning.

It is true that Martin Luther drank. Absolutely forbidding alcohol is a quite modern idea. In the 1520's, he said his appetite for beer had increased quite a bit.

However, Martin Luther was no drunk, and he opposed drunkenness his entire life.

The sins he decried so vehemently in the monastery were not outward ones. Philip Schaff tells us that "he was already held up as a model of sanctity" (History of the Christian Church, vol. III, p. 116).

Instead, "he had to contend with temptations of anger, envy, hatred, and pride. He saw sin everywhere, even in the smallest trifles" (ibid.)

Later faults, such as some atrocious battles with the devil and severe battles with depression, are real. It is not true, however, that Luther lived an unrestrained life. On the contrary, he would likely have shamed almost all American Christians, as used as we are to living in luxury and comfort.

A Reformation Website

[ClubV12]

"...God uses "cracked pots" sometimes."

Well, that's a message that gives me hope! :)

[LynnDel]

Good info, Gail. It takes careful attention to sources to determine the truth, and even then one can't always know for sure. Your "cracked pot" statement is so true.

LD

[Woody]

Quote:

It's just evidence that God uses "cracked pots" sometimes. In truth, I think He does it more than we'd like to admit.

AMEN. Ain't that SO true. Excellent statement. I am a cracked pot and I haven't come across many humans who are not. Just read the Bible. All of them folks are cracked if there ever was cracked folks. BTW ... being a cracked pot gives me the ability to recognize other cracked pots. And there are plenty of 'em around.

[Flyboy]

As for the reason for the 11:00 service, I would guess it had nothing to do with ML being hungover. I would also suspect that *if* it was not already in practice when ML began shifting away from the RC Church, then it was probably established for two reasons. First, because ML was trying to set up a church environment that was different from the Catholic ans second, because, remember this was not a time when people just woke up, got in their cars and drove to church. There were morning chores to be done, distance to be traveled, etc. 11:00 was likely the most logical time, no matter who established the tradition.

I don't think ML was a drunk, although I do think he probably did drink sometimes. For him not to have drank would have been *completely* out of place. In Europe during this period the church was a provider of much of the alcohol that was consumed; it was their mission, their public service. This was because water typically wasn't the drink of choice due to the germs that could have been in it, causing sickness, death, particularly in children, who also drank plenty of beer. In England every village had a church and a pub. To not have drank beer or wine would have been quite out of place. So, ML's drinking of beer, even large amounts of it, was almost a certainty, but of his being a drunkard.... another story completely.

The idea that he started the 11:00 hour service tradition because he was hungover sounds like an urban myth to me, just has the right feel to it, too good to be true.

Martin Luther was, in fact, a violent anti-semite. His writings contain entire pages devoted to what things should be done to the Jews, including burning their places of worship, taking away the word of God from them, never allowing them to worship again, and other nasty stuff. This too was something that was common in his day, he did not make it up, he was not the first anti-semite.

As for the feeling that if ML was drunk on Saturday evening and couldn't make it to the service before 11:00 somehow being an effort to tear down the servants of God, I think there is really only one response, and that goes for BOTH those who A) are Christians and think that such accusations rip at the credibility of ML, and those who are NOT Christians and think that such accusations rip at the credibility of ML... the response is that one cannot apply 21st (or is it really 19th?) century North American religious/social constructs to a 14th century man in a different religious/social environment. His credibility is what it is. He started the reformation and because of him Protestant Christianity thrives. Based on this, are the motives not clear? Do we always insist on lifting God's servants up to God's status? ML, EGW, etc.

Further, just because someone wrote, or preached, that we should not do something doesn't mean that they themselves didn't to it. If it wasn't in the Bible would any of you tolerate accusations that Moses murdered a man? If it wasn't in the Bible would any of you tolerate accusations against David that he slept with another man's wife and then had that man placed on the front lines where there would be certain death? I'd wager that no one would accept such accusations if there was not Biblical evidence and people would accuse the accusers of trying to bring down the word of God, or to bring down His servants. We should not try to hold any man to perfection.

Quite honestly, if it turned out to be true, that ML did schedule services at 11:00 so he could recover from his hangover, I would find it somewhat amusing, given the time period. I don't think it is true though and in modern times I would not think it amusing at all.

[Gary K]

Here's a letter of Luther's.

Quote:

Now since the golden light of the Gospel rises and shines, the hope is at hand that many of the Jews will be honestly and sincerely converted and drawn in earnestness to Christ, like you and some others have been, who are the remnant of the seed of Abraham, which is supposed to be saved through grace. For the one who has begun it will also lead it to completion and not allow his word to return to him empty. It therefore seemed good to me to send this little book [Luther’s treatise That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew] to you for the strengthening and reinforcement of your faith in Christ, whom you recently learned to know from the Gospel and into whom you now finally also are baptized in the Spirit and are born from God. I also would wish that through your example and your work, Christ might also be made known among other Jews, who were predestined, are called, and shall come to their king David, in order that he might lead and save them, whom our priests and Pharisees in unbelievable madness reject even though they are ordained for this purpose, so that this judgment might come upon them. Conduct yourself well in the Lord and pray for me.

It is found at the following link: http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.lutherbernhard.html

[Gary K]

The following is "proof" of Luther's supposed anti-semitism. The rest of the excepts from his "Jesus was born a Jew" can be found at the following link: http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/p...272-luther-1523

Quote:

MARTIN LUTHER, "That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew" (1523) - excerpts Print E-mail

Written by Martin Luther

1.

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ, but that she conceived Christ through Joseph, and had more children after that. Above and beyond all this, I am supposed to have preached a new heresy, namely, that Christ was [through Joseph] the seed of Abraham. How these lies tickle my good friends, the papists! Indeed, because they condemn the gospel it serves them right that they should have to satisfy and feed their heart's delight and joy with lies. I would venture to wager my neck that none of those very liars who allege such great things in honor of the mother of God believes in his heart a single one of these articles. Yet with their lies they pretend that they are greatly concerned about the Christian faith.

But after all, it is such a poor miserable lie that I despise it and would rather not reply to it. In these past three years I have grown quite accustomed to hearing lies, even from our nearest neighbors. And they in turn have grown accustomed to the noble virtue of neither blushing nor feeling ashamed when they are publicly convicted of lying. They let themselves be chided as liars, yet continue their lying. Still they are the best Christians, striving with all that they have and are to devour the Turk and to extirpate all heresy.

Since for the sake of others, however, I am compelled to answer these lies, I thought I would also write something useful in addition, so that I do not vainly steal the reader's time with such dirty rotten business. Therefore, I will cite from Scripture the reasons that move me to believe that Christ was a Jew born of a virgin, that I might perhaps also win some Jews to the Christian faith. Our fools, the popes, bishops, sophists, and monks-the crude asses' heads-have hitherto so treated the Jews that anyone who wished to be a good Christian would almost have had to become a Jew. If I had been a Jew and had seen such dolts and blockheads govern and teach the Christian faith, I would sooner have become a hog than a Christian.

2.

They have dealt with the Jews as if they were dogs rather than human beings; they have done little else than deride them and seize their property. When they baptize them they show them nothing of Christian doctrine or life, but only subject them to popishness and monkery. When the Jews then see that Judaism has such strong support in Scripture, and that Christianity has become a mere babble without reliance on Scripture, how can they possibly compose themselves and become right good Christians? I have myself heard from pious baptized Jews that if they had not in our day heard the gospel they would have remained Jews under the cloak of Christianity for the rest of their days. For they acknowledge that they have never yet heard anything about Christ from those who baptized and taught them.

I hope that if one deals in a kindly way with the Jews and instructs them carefully from Holy Scripture, many of them will become genuine Christians and turn again to the faith of their fathers, the prophets and patriarchs. They will only be frightened further away from it if their Judaism is so utterly rejected that nothing is allowed to remain, and they are treated only with arrogance and scorn. If the apostles, who also were Jews, had dealt with us Gentiles as we Gentiles deal with the Jews, there would never have been a Christian among the Gentiles. Since they dealt with us Gentiles in such brotherly fashion, we in our turn ought to treat the Jews in a brotherly manner in order that we might convert some of them. For even we ourselves are not yet all very far along, not to speak of having arrived.

When we are inclined to boast of our position we should remember that we are but Gentiles, while the Jews are of the lineage of Christ. We are aliens and in-laws; they are blood relatives, cousins, and brothers of our Lord. Therefore, if one is to boast of flesh and blood, the Jews are actually nearer to Christ than we are, as St. Paul says in Romans 9[:5]. God has also demonstrated this by his acts, for to no nation among the Gentiles has he granted so high an honor as he has to the Jews. For from among the Gentiles there have been raised up no patriarchs, no apostles, no prophets, indeed, very few genuine Christians either. And although the gospel has been proclaimed to all the world, yet He committed the Holy Scriptures, that is, the law and the prophets, to no nation except the Jews, as Paul says in Romans 3[:2] and Psalm 147[:19-20], "He declares his word to Jacob, his statutes and ordinances to Israel. He has not dealt thus with any other nation; nor revealed his ordinances to them."

As you can see Luther was a hater of Jews.... Not.