Argula von Grumbach: Speaking Truth to Power
What should be done when those in authority misuse their God-given power? The most striking example is that of Jesus’ willing submission to the human systems that persecuted him and ultimately crucified an innocent man. Pilate reminded Jesus, “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?” Yet, Jesus’s reply reveals who he was truly submitting himself to: “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above” (John 19:10-11).
Is God calling us to a blind,
unquestioning submission to those in power? The apostles’ response to the
elders of the Sanhedrin demonstrates how we should act. When the command of
humans is opposed to the command from God, we must choose to submit ourselves
to God’s higher authority (Acts 5:27-29). Jesus warned his disciples to use
discernment when encountering those who presumed to speak for God by examining
the fruit of their lives (Matt 5:15-20). We must exercise similar judgment in
submitting ourselves to authority.
Throughout the history of the church,
those in authority have shaped doctrines and ecclesiastical practices. For the
Roman Catholic church, the apostolic procession of authority was seated in papal
succession. During the Reformation, believers questioned the fruit of some of
the church’s practices and found it was rotten. Seeking to submit themselves to
the authority of the apostolic word in the scriptures, they challenged those in
power to amend their doctrines and practices.
One such woman was appalled at the
coercive practices of theologians of the University of Ingolstadt when they
threatened the life of a teen student for his Lutheran beliefs. Shaped by her
personal study of the scriptures and compelled by the concept of a priesthood
of all believers, Argula von Grumbach went against the grain of societal norms
and spoke up with boldness as a Protestant confessor citing God as her ultimate
authority.
Argula von Grumbach was born into the
noble von Stauff family. After her parents’ early death Argula married and had four children. During her time as a young mother, she was
influenced by her systematic study of scripture and protestant writings that
were circulating. She was part of a larger group of lay reformers who corresponded
with Martin Luther and exchanged ideas with others in her social circle. An eighteen-year-old
student at a local university, Arascius Seehoffer, occasionally acted as a
courier to deliver her letters. Argula, along with her letters, would have likely
disappeared into obscurity had she not written one in particular.
In 1523 Arascius was arrested and found
to have materials containing Lutheran ideas. At trial he was threatened with
death and his sentence was commuted to prison only after he publicly recanted Lutheran
ideas by swearing on the Gospels. Argula was shocked at the use of bullying
tactics and abuse of power by spiritual leaders and theologians. With no power
herself, she was compelled to action and wrote a private letter to the
university. She explained both her reason for writing and her timidity: “I
suppressed my inclinations…heavy of heart I did nothing. Because Paul says in 1
Timothy 2: ‘The women should keep silence and should not speak in church.’ But
now that I cannot see any man who is up to it, who is either willing or able to
speak, I am constrained by the saying: ‘Whoever confesses me before men, I also
will confess before my Father who is in heaven.’”[1] She took seriously her
duty as a Christian to speak up without regard to her gender. She justifies her
actions stating, “This is why I am compelled as a Christian to write to you.
For Ezekiel 33 says: ‘If you see your brother sin, reprove him, or I will
require his blood at your hands.’”[2]
That she would write at all was
unheard of, but the content of the letter reveals her fierce spirit and
confidence in her cause. Her words convey a deep faith and are richly peppered
with scripture references and allusions. Though she speaks demurely in her
rationale for hesitation to write in the first place, she pulls no punches when
she confronts the rector and entire council of the university with their sin.
Like the prophets of old she speaks with clarity as she points out the
injustice of their abuse, saying, “How in God’s name can you and your
university expect to prevail, when you deploy such foolish violence against the
word of God; when you force someone to hold the holy Gospel in their hands for
the very purpose of denying it?”[3]
She challenged them to explain to her
why they considered the writings of Luther and Melanchthon heretical. Though
she acknowledged the importance of obeying the authorities, she considered the
Word of God a higher authority. In her view, to deny these protestant teachings
was denying God and his word. She scolded them for condemning the teachings
without refuting them and pointed back to the fact that even Christ and the
apostles never imprisoned, exiled, or murdered people. She was not afraid to
engage with them and suggested an open debate where she could listen, discuss,
and ask questions. In her closing she insisted the Spirit of God was speaking
through her and provided the authority for her letter: “What I have written to
you is no woman’s chit-chat, but the word of God; and (I write) as a member of
the Christian Church, against which the gates of Hell cannot prevail.”[4]
Unsurprisingly, the response from the
university was not contrite. The faculty theologians ignored her and dismissed
her as a “shameless whore” and a “female desperado.”[5] It was not her initial
plan to launch a public campaign against them, reflecting in a later letter, “I
would have thought that they would have kept the matter to themselves.”[6] Undeterred by their
silence she also wrote to other religious and secular authorities and continued
to implore those in power to consider the matter through Scripture. Handwritten
copies of her original letter to Ingolstadt began to circulate and were later
printed. By the next year, demand for her letter had triggered fourteen editions
as well as the publishing of seven other pamphlets. She became the first
protestant woman to be published and around 29,000 copies of her letter were
printed and dispersed.
Though popular with the public, her
writing had severe ramifications for her private life. The theologians of
Ingolstadt indirectly made her the target of their bullying, and they cowardly
used coercive tactics in attempts silence her. Through their influence and
social connections her husband was fired from his magisterial position, and
they faced financial hardship and marital stress. He did not share her
protestant sympathies. Their marriage was tense at best but had likely become
abusive. It is inferred that he took out his frustrations on her physically after
critics pointed out his inability to control his wife. In writing to a friend,
she called for God’s help because her husband was “doing all he could to
persecute the Christ in her.”[7]
Outside the home others used their
spiritual authority and leveraged their pulpits to verbally abuse her. Professor
Georg Hauer gave angry sermons against “heretical bitches and desperate fools”
and more lewd names were slung at her. Powerful men of academia called for the
duke to “tame the hag” and ban more publications of letters like hers.[8] She apparently had additional
physical threats against her. Yet, she was willing even to die for her beliefs
and entrusted herself to God: “I hear that some are so angry with me that they
do not know how best to speed my passage from life into death. But I know for
sure that they cannot harm me unless the power to do so has been given them by
God. He will keep me safe, for His name’s sake.”[9] She took courage from
knowing her suffering was not in vain and consoled herself with the thought
that even if they succeeded in taking her down it would cause other women to
rise up: “I am persuaded too, that if I am given grace to suffer death for his
name, many hearts would be awakened. Yes, and whereas I have written on my own,
a hundred women would emerge to write against them.”[10]
What compelled a woman to risk her
life in this way? Far from acting on feminist ideals, Argula had likely internalized
the Catholic view of women as sinful daughters of Eve. Even in reading Paul,
her new protestant commitment to the authority of the word seems to have
reinforced her belief that women should not speak out on spiritual matters. The
event with Arascius may have forced a crisis in her mind as the injustice of his
situation became crystal clear. She saw it as matter of life and death. After initially
suppressing her inclination to action, she emerged convicted that she would be
in sin if she did not speak up to defend him. She again used scripture to justify
her actions, explaining that Matthew 10 states whoever confesses Jesus,
he too will confess. Likewise, she adds that Luke 9 says whoever is
ashamed of me and my words, I too will be ashamed of them. She concludes,
“Words like these, coming from the very mouth of God, are always before my
eyes. For they exclude neither woman nor man.”[11]
The verbal attacks against her
continued in the form of an anonymously published poem full of vulgar and
derisive slander. She responded with a poem of her own appealing to scripture’s
confirmation of a priesthood of all believers that justified her continued
writing:
“In
Corinthians 3 we are acclaimed/ The temple of the Lord we’re named. /God’s
spirit is within you, read, / Is woman shut out, there, indeed? / While you
oppress God’s word, / Consign souls to the devil’s game/ I cannot and I will
not cease/ To speak at home and on the street. As long as God will give me
grace.”[12]
God’s grace supported her, and she
did not allow fear or inhibitions and insecurities to keep her from speaking
against ecclesial abuse and sinful structures of society. Instead, she trusted
God to give her the words to say through his word. She rebutted the critique leveled
at her that women were too emotional to handle religious issues by quoting 1
Corinthians, “Didn’t St. Paul say that every baptized member of the church is a
temple of the Lord?”[13]
Peter Matheson’s excellent work on
her life leads him to believe her understanding of Luther’s teaching on baptism
was pivotal. She concluded it empowered all believers to exercise a priesthood
of all believers, a conclusion which had not been drawn before.[14] In an obvious nod to her
supposed theological superiors at Ingolstadt she asks, “What doctor (of
theology) has made a greater vow in baptism than I have?”[15]
She had a deep and abiding sense of
grace that went further than normal social convictions of the day. Contradicting
the Roman Catholic church, she did not believe grace was routed through the
institution of the church, but rather as a result of salvation from God. She
persisted in writing because of her conviction of doing his will and saw his
grace as the sustaining force: “By God’s grace I shall not be afraid; I will
not hold my peace, either, though it cost me my neck a thousand times.”[16] There are letters that
also speak to her holding out grace for others, though not a cheap grace that simply
overlooked sin. She believed Arascius could be forgiven for his recantation and
likened his position to that of Peter after his denial of the Lord. To her son after
some youthful sin, she advised him to confess completely, and God would be
gracious to him if he remedied his ways.
Another facet of her theology comes
across not only in her writing, but in her actions: her humility. She talked of
herself as a “poor, weak feminine creature,” not out of a false humility but a
true faith in God’s ability to use the lowly to shame the powerful.[17] Her gentle and gracious response
to her critics was in imitation of God’s grace towards her. She did not lash
out in anger but chose to appeal to truth with a firm patience: “We must not
hit out with weapons, but love our neighbor, and keep peace with one another…”[18] The practical expression
of her theology in a life of grace towards her enemies and those in sin is
exemplary.
Her love of scripture is evident. Thoroughly internalized, it came out of her freely as she strove to appeal for God’s truth to prevail in people’s hearts. She did not quote word for word from scripture but rather it flowed out of her pen indiscriminately, revealing a life dedicated to understanding and applying its principles. Her references were not generally linear and didactic, instead she utilized and combined allusions, concepts, and metaphors to bolster her conclusions. In her writing, she was not reliant on the power of her own persuasive words but the power of her obedience to God.
Discernment and Compromise
While her published works were completed in the years of 1523-24, her letter writing to friends and correspondence with protestant contemporaries continued. Although Luther never considered her a theologian in her own right, he did admire her tenacity and endurance, and commended her to others. Luther fondly mentions her in his letters and in turn she strongly urged him to marry and later provided advice for the weaning of a child. She made a personal visit to Luther in Coburg, likely to ascertain his sense of what the outcome of the Diet of Augsburg would be.[19] Her desire for unity among the reformers prompted her to arrange for Melanchthon to meet Martin Bucer to engage in discussions about the nature and understanding of the Eucharist. Doctrinal issues interested her, but she didn’t strain the gnat and swallow the camel (Matt 23:24). Theology was important; however, she believed the fruit produced by the theology was evidence of the quality of the ideas. Her deepest desires were to defend the vulnerable and advocate for social change rather than quarrel over words. She was dismayed over the licentious behavior of priests and grieved the general lack of biblical literacy. “If as much attention were given to God’s word as to eating, drinking, banqueting, gambling, masques and the like, things would soon improve.”[20] Most lay people were content to leave the theologizing to the professionals who had access to libraries and education to guide them. Matheson states, “Popular as it was, the doctrine of priesthood of all believers did not mean that Jack was as good as his master.”[21] Argula never presumed that she was as good or better as the male theologians, but she did not believe their spiritual authority made them infallible. The printing press aided her in this process by allowing her as a lay person to circulate her ideas without censorship and social control. Not only are positions of authority sources of power, but words can be used to gain power of influence. As reformers utilized these tools it created a way for theologians and clergy to be publicly accountable.
Modern Day Argulas
Almost 500 years later, with the
advent of the internet, we are experiencing a similarly dramatic increase in
the way ideas are spread. Female Bible teachers, theologians, and writers have gained
access to a larger audience that was formerly unavailable. While theological
study is still primarily taught and controlled by men, more women now have
access to training and resources and are using their gifts accordingly. Unfortunately,
when women dare to challenge men in power it seems there is nothing new under
the sun. Modern day Argulas like Beth Moore and Aimee Byrd have faced enormous personal
attacks[22], foul epithets[23], and unfair critique[24] simply for speaking up
about injustice or pointing out flaws in the doctrine of complementarianism.
Perusing the comment section of social media posts leaves one disturbed at the
behavior of men with “Husband, Father, Pastor” in their bio. Many times, these
men write from an anonymous account to personally insult or hurl accusations of
heresy, twisting the scriptures, or questioning a woman’s salvation. But it is
not just men hiding behind a screen. Who can forget when a prominent pastor
used scripture to publicly abuse Beth Moore by making her the butt of his joke,
dismissively telling her to “Go home.”[25] It all feels eerily
similar to the vulgar poem presumably written by Hauer about Argula but
published cowardly under a pseudonym:
‘For
Scripture is twisted to your fancy. / Auntie dear, are you really that loony? /
Do you think we’ve never read Scripture before? / So none can withstand your
wondrous lore? / So arrogant, and without control / As if the Bible you’d
swallowed whole.’/ It’s not a woman’s place to strut / With the words of God,
or lecture men / But to listen like the Magdalene.’[26]
Even pastors who don’t stoop to public name calling find more subtle ways to demean and call into question their credibility without engaging in a substantive analysis of their content. Prominent seminary professors have used questions about these women to weed out potential applicants and others mention texting other pastors to discuss “how to handle” a female scholar.[27] Like those who got Argula’s husband fired, men in power are still seeking ways to silence women who have the audacity to speak truth to power. Instead of welcoming critiques and engaging their content they insulate themselves and make moves to protect institutions. Even if their education is pristine and their doctrine is solid, if they feel threatened by pushback, they are just brilliant men with blinded eyes.
Fear Over Faith
At the core of this reaction is
insecurity and fear. When someone uses power to silence critiques, we must
question whether their intent is truly to defend the faith or shield themselves
from intelligent debate. If the strength of one’s doctrine can only be maintained
by eliminating discussion of the weaknesses, it will never stand firm. Doctrinal
issues are notoriously complex. Foundational theologies required the body of
Christ wrestling together for years to hammer down statements of faith to adequately
reflect seemingly contradictory truths. For issues of primary importance, we
must be committed to defending the truth no matter the personal cost. However,
secondary and tertiary doctrinal issues do not require the same ardent
protection.
Furthermore, there is a fear of
failure and lack of faith that drives legalism and lazy biblicism. Theological
paradoxes require a continual nuancing and an openness to shift in context that
can feel hard to hold in tension. There is a rush to simplify these issues and
make them easier to understand and obey. Some Christian leaders silence
discussion of vulnerabilities by saying, “The Bible clearly says…” Others
resort to attacking someone with a different interpretation other than a
straightforward literal reading by saying they don’t believe in the authority
of scripture. To uneducated believers these deceptive tactics can easily
persuade.
Similarly, regarding the commands to
obey authorities, it seems easiest to just check our brains at the door, but we
never have been called to a blind submission to earthly powers. Like the Sanhedrin who partnered with the Roman
government to commit the atrocity of the crucifixion, the Church has a sordid
history of using power to imprison, exile, and even execute those with
differing beliefs. While good doctrine is valuable, there are lines we should
not cross in the effort to defend our conviction of what is true.
Indeed, many in the Bible are
commended when they did not submit to those abusing their power. Shiphrah,
Puah, Rahab, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego all defied the powers over them
and could have faced death had not God protected them. Even Jesus did not
submit to the ruler of this world when he faced temptation in the wilderness.
So, how do we know when to submit and when to speak out? We must discern God’s
will.
Unquestioning loyalty and absolute
submission are lazy and legalistic solutions to complex issues. We must test
and approve what the will of God is because he is the ultimate authority to
whom we must submit (Rom 12:2). We gain wisdom as we feed ourselves on God’s
Word and use it to grow into maturity so we can distinguish good from evil (Heb
5:12-14). Examining the fruit of a person helps us discern whether they can be
trusted teachers. Perhaps we must also probe the fruit of certain theologies to
see if they also can be trusted.
It is an unhealthy church where doctrinal debate is not welcomed or is seen as a threat to the institution. When honest conversations are squashed and people are exiled from a community, one must wonder whether the motivations are really to defend sound doctrine or protect fragile egos. Those pushed out echo Argula’s comment, “a disputation is easily won when one argues with force not scripture.”[28] Following her example, our commitment to doctrinal integrity should be measured by how much we are willing to endure, not how much we are willing to enforce. We must cultivate our discernment so we can submit to God and know if he is calling us to faithfully endure persecution or faithfully challenge those in power.
[2]
Von Grumbach, “To the University”
[3]
Von Grumbach, “To the University”
[4]
Von Grumbach, “To the University”
[5]
Kirsi Irmeli Stjerna, Women and the Reformation. (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Pub,
2009), 79.
[6] Argula von Grumbach and
Peter Matheson, Argula Von Grumbach : A Woman's Voice in the Reformation.
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995), 67.
[7]
Stjerna, Women and the Reformation, 74.
[8]
Stjerna, Women and the Reformation, 79.
[9]
Von Grumbach and Matheson, Argula Von Grumbach, 119.
[10]
Von Grumbach and Matheson, Argula Von Grumbach, 120.
[11]
Von Grumbach, “To the University”
[12]
Von Grumbach and Matheson, Argula Von Grumbach, 178.
[13]
Von Grumbach and Matheson, Argula Von Grumbach, 178.
[14] Peter Matheson, “A
Reformation for Women? Sin, Grace and Gender in the Writings of Argula von
Grumbach.” Scottish Journal of Theology 49, 1 (1996): 44, https://search-ebscohost-com.gordonconwell.idm.
oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0001012796&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
[15]
Von Grumbach and Matheson, Argula Von Grumbach, 142.
[16]
Von Grumbach and Matheson, Argula Von Grumbach, 103.
[19] Peter Matheson, “Martin
Luther and Argula von Grumlach (1492-1556/7),” Lutheran Quarterly 22,
no. 1 (Spr 2008): 8, https://search-ebscohost-com.gordonconwell.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=
lsdar&AN=ATLA0001652067&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
19 Von Grumbach and Matheson, Argula Von
Grumbach, 108.
[22] One example of how female theologians are treated: https://aimeebyrd.com/2020/06/19/genevan-commons-and-the-qualifications-for-church-office/
[23]
https://religionnews.com/2021/03/09/bible-teacher-beth-moore-ends-partnership-with-lifeway-i-am-no-longer-a-southern-baptist/
[24]
https://aimeebyrd.com/2020/07/08/i-guess-this-time-the-woman-has-to-open-the-door-responding-to-denny-burks-review-of-my-book/
[25]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO9JWqJJmdo
[26]
Von Grumbach and Matheson, Argula Von Grumbach, 167.
[27]
https://baptistnews.com/article/the-year-of-being-threatened-by-smart-women/#.YmKmI4XMJPZ
[28]
Von Grumbach and Matheson, Argula Von Grumbach, 82.
Bibliography
Kapic, Kelly M, and Hans Madueme, eds. Reading Christian Theology in the Protestant Tradition. London, UK: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2018.
Matheson, Peter. “Martin Luther and Argula von Grumlach (1492-1556/7).” Lutheran Quarterly 22, no. 1 (Spr 2008): 1–15. https://search-ebscohost-com.gordonconwell.idm.oclc.org/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0001652067&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Matheson, Peter. 1996. “A Reformation for Women? Sin, Grace and Gender in the Writings of Argula von Grumbach.” Scottish Journal of Theology 49 (1): 39–55. https://search-ebscohost-com.gordonconwell.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar& AN=ATLA0001012796&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Matheson, Peter. 1996. “Breaking the Silence: Women, Censorship, and the Reformation.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 27 (1): 97–109. https://search-ebscohost-com.gordonconwell. idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0001010164&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Pak, G. Sujin. “Rethinking Prophecy: The Functions of Prophecy in the Writings of Argula Von Grumbach and Martin Luther.” Reformation & Renaissance Review 14, no. 2 (2012): 151–69. doi:10.1179/1462245913Z.00000000012.
Shiels, Leenane. 2017. “Argula Von Grumbach: Irenic Woman Reformer.” Touchstone 35 (2): 59–65. https://search-ebscohost-com.gordonconwell.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true &db=lsdar&AN=ATLAiC9Y170613002960&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Stjerna, Kirsi Irmeli. Women and the Reformation. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Pub, 2009.
Von Grumbach, Argula. “To the University of Ingolstadt (1523).” Accessed April 22, 2022. http://www.gjlts.com/Church%20History/Reformation%20History/Primary%20Source%20-%20Argula%20%20letter.pdf
Comments