Theology 1.0: The meeting of Luther and Zwingli

Martin Luther, German Reformer

The first official meeting of Protestants
As mentioned in my Reformation post, both Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli led the Protestants movements in Germany and Switzerland respectively. As the enemies of Protestantism gathered, the political supporters of the Reformation found it practical to attempt to unite the differing Protestant camps. Thus from 1st October to 4th October 1529, the two leading Reformers Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli met at Philipp I of Hessen's castle in Marburg. This event was known as the Marburg Colloquy.

Were Luther and Zwingli agreeable?
While Zwingli had read Luther's works before, he often claimed to have come to the doctrine of justification by faith alone independently (Reeves, 2009). This claim seemed to be supported by how Luther and Zwingli presented their doctrines. For instance, while Luther argued that humanity inherited guilt when Adam sinned, and thus needs Christ to be clothed in His righteousness. Zwingli on the other hand believed that each time we sin we are more guilty but Christ makes us righteous in ourselves. In fact a generalisation between Luther's and Zwingli's theology would be the statement "agreeable, but in a different way".

So it was not a big surprise at the Marburg Colloquy that the two Reformers found themselves in agreement with 14 out of 15 articles of faith. The one they could not agree on is the Lord's Supper.

Luther's view
Although Luther rejected the Roman Catholic's view of 'transubstantiation' (that Jesus Christ Himself was physically present at the Lord's Supper), he upheld instead a view of sacramental union (that bread and wine are both sacramentally in union with the body and blood of Jesus). In other words, God both reveals and hides Himself at the same time. While sounding only superficially different from the Roman Catholics, Luther seemed to be happy to alter the understanding behind the practices without changing the rituals.

Zwingli's view
For Zwingli, God's presence at the Lord's Supper was largely symbolic. In other words, the Lord's Supper is a public testimony to affirm the grace of God. Due this view, Zwingli's supporters tended to have simple ceremonies during the Lord's Supper, as compared to Luther's and the Roman Catholics'.

Why so serious?
To the most readers, this one difference seemed rather trivial and the Reformers looked unnecessarily pedantic. However, this disregards the point that both Luther and Zwingli were willingly to tolerate their differences in theology in their 14 articles of faith they agreed upon. Despite the political pressure, both Luther and Zwingli were unwilling to compromise on an issue they felt was essential to the understanding of the Christian faith.

To Luther, making the Lord's Supper symbolic was a compromise to the doctrine of justification by faith alone. To make this sacrament commemorative for Christians to be reminded to do something, would give a doctrine of works. Furthermore, Zwingli took away the true meaning of celebrating the Lord's Supper.

To Zwingli, Luther was being irrational. Zwingli affirmed God's omnipresence and omnipotence by stating that God is not simply present only at the Lord's Supper. Zwingli also felt that Luther was too afraid to cut ties with Rome and leave the old ways.

Conclusion of Marburg
After harsh words were exchanged over the days, Luther and Zwingli wept together and forgave each other for their bitter tones. Both agreed that the Reformations in Luther's Wittenburg and Zwingli's Zurich would go their separate ways.

One thing learnt from studying the event is that the leaders of the Reformation were willingly to tolerate varying beliefs, but were unwillingly to compromise on whatever they felt were vital to Christianity.

Let's pray that the Lord's Supper would proclaim the body of Christ broken for us, and let's not slip into the temptation that makes it purely ritualistic.

References
Reeves, M. (2009) The Unquenchable Flame

For further reading
Luther VS Zwingli