Lidija Matošević

Iconoclasm as a Side Effect of the Reformation

UDC: 7.04
274/278 Lidija Matošević
Center for Protestant Theology Matija Vlačić Ilirik, University of Zagreb
lidija.matosevic@tfmvi.hr

The article deals with the question of the relation of the Reformation to images and the question of the phenomenon of
the iconoclasm associated with the Reformation events. The article focuses on two thematic clusters. First, it tries to explain
the theological motives, which set apart the members of the Reformation from late medieval devotion – including their
distance from the devotion associated with the icons. After that, the article focuses on the question of varying ranges and
consequences of this separation, in particular the question of the appropriateness of this separation in relation to the very
foundations or principles of Reformation. This second issue is divided into three sub-questions. First, the meaning of the Ref-
ormation’s sola scriptura principle regarding its attitude towards the multidimensionality of God’s speech in human history
is considered. After that, the gradual formation of Luther’s attitude towards visual art in liturgy and devotion – which on the
one hand was determined by his criticism of late medieval devotion, including the late medieval attitude towards icons, and
on the other hand by his gradual affirmation of the value of visual art in devotion and worship – is considered. And finally,
attention is paid to the attitude towards icons and the emergence of iconoclasm in the Swiss area.

Keywords: late Middle Ages, Iconoclasm, Martin Luther, Andreas Karlstadt, images, Word of God, Lutheran tradition, Swiss
tradition

Introduction

There is a well-known and prevailing hypothesis in almost every handbook of Church history - the state-
ment that Christianity in the late Middle Ages was in an extremely poor and decadent condition. This hypothesis
is correct, because the situation in the late medieval Church was indeed problematic. It was a Church with nu-
merous scandals, often with poorly educated ministers, greedy and baffled clergy, who had by means of simony
accumulated church positions and money, and did not hesitate to misuse the anxiety concerning the ultimate
questions inherited in human beings – sometimes also by producing very problematic theological constructs,
such as theories that accompanied the sale of indulgences.1 Concerning this description, the Reformation could
be seen as a kind of denial of medieval Christianity – described as very similar to the humanist movement that
anticipated and preceded it, and which criticized and sometimes also derided the late medieval situation, as for
example in Erasmus’ writing The Praise of Folly (Enkomion moriae seu laus stultitiae). However, such an interpreta-
tion of the genesis of the Reformation – although it is correct in one part – is far from being satisfactory. This is
because such an interpretation loses sight of two facts.
The first fact is that the late Middle Ages, and especially the fifteenth century, were not only the period of
decadence and scandals within the Church, but also and at the same time one of the most devout periods in the
history of Christianity. This is the period for which it is often said, and not without reason, that the appetite for the
divine was its checkmark.2 That means that people in the late Middle Ages – in spite of decadence in ecclesiastical
IKON, 11-2018

structures – were deeply preoccupied with seeking God, longing for him with their whole being, thirsting for him
with their whole soul and spirit. In a special way, this referred to the area north of the Alps, and particularly to the
German-speaking region.3 Such an increase in devotion was primarily an expression of religious fervour among
the lay people, or in other words among the ‘folk’. This is because in the late Middle Ages, the ‘folk’ itself became
an important driving force of religiosity, creating its own forms of devotion.4 Although the late medieval search for
new forms of devotion contained a dimension of human and Christian authenticity, the late medieval quest for God
was burdened by elements of imagination. These occasionally crossed the boundaries and moved to the sphere of
nebulous imagery of God and his power – such that at the same time he could help but also harm.5 All this led to the
late medieval (lay)men – scared of not finding a merciful God or not receiving his grace – becoming desperate and
sometimes impatient. Therefore, they tried to simply grab God, or basically, bring his divine power under control,
or – just localize it, that God or, more precisely, his divine power could be more accessible and not scary, but helpful.
The late Middle Ages witnessed an unlimited number of such localities believed to be places of God’s power
or even more of his presence. There was, for example, a dominant belief in the localization of God’s power in the
Virgin Mary and the saints, which became available to the believers through their relics, icons, and statues. Very
important was the belief in the presence of God’s power in the regular clergy – who were considered sacred due
to the clerical status as such. Another important belief was that in God’s power and presence within the institu-
tion of the Church and especially in its sacraments. The most important locality in which the power of God, or God
Himself, was believed to reside, was the host – whereby the ‘folk’ reached for the doctrine of transubstantiation.
Of course, the belief in God’s power and presence in certain places, in certain people and in some ecclesiastical
institutions was not problematic in principle. This belief basically stands in line with the Biblical teachings about
God’s salvific ubiquity. The problematic aspect was that the coincidence – of uncertainty with regard to salvation
on the one side, and of desire for salvation and a sort of cry for salvation on the other - led to a desperate and end-
less multiplication of loci of God’s presence in the late Middle Ages. Therefore, the loci associated with the idea
and with particular experiences of God’s presence began to be observed as miraculous in themselves and had
soon become independent cult objects. Medieval devotion often exceeded the limits and ended in a confusion of
the spiritual and the temporal, human and divine.6 But all this does not change the fact that the late Middle Ages
was one of the most pious periods of Christianity.
The second fact that raises suspicion about the interpretation of the Reformation as merely a negation
of medieval Christianity is that the Reformation itself, and from its very beginning, was not just an intellectual
movement that – as a successor of humanist criticism – simply appointed, criticized, analysed, and derided the
situation in the Church from an academic distance. If we really want to understand the genesis of the Reforma-
tion, then we have to – just as Jesus said in the Gospel of John (4:35) – raise our eyes for at least one moment and
look at the fields; at the fields of uncountable late medieval pilgrims who were seeking God. We have to do this
because the Reformation – which was primarily a movement of religious renewal rather that a purely academic
movement – was born in those fields. It is specifically in those fields – mostly located in areas north of the Alps7 –
that one finds the later followers of the Reformation, including some of their prominent leaders like Luther.
Nevertheless, the reformers were also such participants, who separated themselves from the mass of pil-
grims. It is precisely this separation that one should see as a context in which it is possible to consider and answer
the basic questions of this article: the question of the attitude of the Reformation towards the images and the
question of the phenomenon of iconoclasm associated with the Reformation events.

Theological motives behind the Reformation’s separation from the forms of late medieval devotion

It would not be out of line to say that the Reformation’s separation from the forms of medieval devotion
started because the followers of the Reformation could not easily find peace of the soul in any of the loci that
the late Middle Ages offered as those of the presence of God’s power or of God Himself; neither simply through

104
 Matošević, Iconoclasm as a Side Effect of the Reformation

the saints, nor through the relics, or through the icons, or through the institution of the Church itself with its
ministries and sacraments. Many of them tried almost everything that was offered. Like Luther, who boundlessly
believed in the institution of the Church, the papacy, and their salvific power, and who – as well as many pilgrims
of that time – travelled to Rome (in the year 1510) and spent four weeks there, tasting, wholeheartedly and de-
votedly the whole religious offer in late medieval Rome. He fasted, he did penance, he walked the stairs of the
Lateran Palace on his knees and he prayed Our Father on every step on behalf of his grandfather Heine Luder.8
In other words, in spite of the fact that they made use of all the medieval resources to obtain God’s grace, the
reformers were individuals who still, and in spite of everything, felt distant from God – just like Luther, who wrote
in his youthful records about the shaking of the soul, which is filled with fear, sorrow, and horror because of the
feeling of abandonment by God.9 This frustration – maybe even a cry – because of the feeling of God’s distance
is not what distinguishes the reformers from their contemporaries, because many of their contemporaries were
also frustrated at not being able to find God’s presence and his mercy within the loci that were offered. The differ-
ence lies in the way the reformers tried to get out of that frustration. Namely, instead of a desperate and recur-
rent search for new loci, they simply understood that no new locus in itself can bring peace to man. Thus, they
searched for a kind of alternative religiosity.
In this regard, the reformers had a pattern and a forerunner in the late Middle Ages, especially in the late
medieval movement known as devotio moderna, whose important promoters were the Sisters and Brothers of Com-
mon Life.10 As emphasized in the most important record of this movement, which directly influenced Luther him-
self11 – De imitatione Christi by Thomas à Kempis – the substance of Christian devotion was to overcome reliance on
purely external elements and to replace it through an intimate personal relationship of the believer with Christ.12
Mostly inheriting what was taught by the devotio moderna movement – a significant number of whose
members later joined the Reformation – the reformers showed themselves ready and determined to get out of
the vicious circle of medieval religious consumerism, to overcome the boundaries of the medieval religious offer,
and to persist in a personal spiritual quest. Such a reformatory quest was – also in line with the inheritance of
devotio moderna13 – closely related to the reading of the Bible which was – for the reformers – considered a book
in which privileged inspired testimonies of God’s revelation were collected and thus a book which allowed those
who were not the contemporaries of that revelation to enter into communion with God himself. That happened
by the Spirit of God who was active both in the Revelation and in writing up the biblical testimony of that Revela-
tion, also affecting the ones who were confronted with them.14 By encountering that testimony one could face
the very reality of God that the Bible testified to, without interfering with the sometimes relatively problematic
loci, which (for example) the late medieval religious offer had marked as places of God’s presence. In this regard,
the opportunities that arose from encountering the Bible represented a kind of imperative. That imperative was
that even those moments when the religious community or any part of it were deficient in the proclamation of
God’s reality were not to become a reason to despair, but quite the opposite. Because of the inspiration of the
biblical testimony of God’s revelation and because of the Spirit of God affecting the one who encountered this
testimony, it was possible to meet God’s reality and thus find the authenticity of one’s own existence, and as such
act for the renewal of the wider Christian community. Precisely that is what the Reformation wanted to express
with its sola scriptura principle.15
This Reformation message resounded very strongly. Its strength was in that it was not really anything new.
It was an ancient biblical belief that God was a person and, as such, an incomprehensible being. It was an ancient
Biblical belief that man, who is also a person and as such in some way an incomprehensible being, meets God in
a completely personal and free way: by listening and accepting in his ‘heart’ the Word of God – which is neither
‘too hard’ nor ‘far away’.16 That is why man should give up his anxious efforts, such as “ascending to heaven” or “go-
ing over the sea”17 in order to grab God. That is why, as Luther said in his Large Catechism, “to have God... is not to
lay hold of Him with our hands or to put Him in a bag, or to lock Him in a chest. Rather to apprehend Him means
when the heart lays hold of Him and clings to Him” and “to obey his voice in the very centre of human reality while

105
IKON, 11-2018

sitting, walking, standing, and rising ...”.18 In this sense, this attachment to God, which happens through affection
by his Word in everyday, living reality cannot simply be replaced by any other locus or medium – no matter how
magnificent and wonderful this locus or medium might seem.

The meaning of the Reformation’s sola scriptura principle and the multidimensionality of God’s speech in
human history

The Reformation’s sola scriptura principle emphasizes that the Revelation, which has its culmination in Je-
sus Christ and which the Bible testifies to, is the definitive revelation. This definiteness means that the Revelation
cannot be surpassed by any other, later human speech of God. That does not mean that after the time when the
Biblical texts were written, or after the completion of the canonization process, every other talk of God ceases,
is absent, or simply loses value in terms of its proclamation potential. On the contrary, the definiteness of the
Revelation culminating in Jesus Christ, to which the Bible witnesses, does not exclude that God speaks even in
times after the canonization: thus using people and their qualities and abilities. This happens in a variety of proc-
lamation forms that are taking place in and by the current living community of believers. One of those forms is
preaching and another – closely related – sharing the sacraments. But there are, in principle, many ways in which
God speaks in and through the Church; for example, God’s speech that happens when Christians address each
other with comforting words, or God’s speech through extraordinary appearances such as prophecies, visions,
working miracles, a number of God’s speeches through different artistic expressions, or God’s speech through
the way of life, and the overall lifestyle of those who believe.19 It is important to note here that the reformers, in
principle, never doubted the multidimensionality of God’s speech in the history of Christianity after the canoniza-
tion process. This is particularly characteristic of Luther. In this respect, it is also important to note that, according
to Luther the written fixation of the testimony of the Revelation represented a kind of necessary measure. This
measure resulted in preventing a distortion of the original testimony of the Revelation. But, if the original nature
of the tradition of the testimony of the Revelation as a living and engaging speech of people who are affected
by the reality of the Revelation is taken into account, then it is possible to say that written fixation cannot simply
replace the multidimensionality and vitality of the engaging testimony of the people living here and now.
That is precisely why Luther emphasized the importance of the Word of God, which is happening, being
proclaimed, and literally ‘shouted out’ by people who live here and now. However, it is true that Luther preferred
the proclamation in the form of sermon.20 Such emphasis on the value and importance of sermon comes from
the fact that the sermon is directly complementary to the Bible as a privileged testimony of God’s Revelation.
This close connection with the Bible is the reason why the sermon cannot simply be omitted or merely replaced
by rituals, pilgrimages, icons, music, by pastoral care, by different religious experiences of believers, or by the
sacraments. For, without the preaching based on the Bible, the whole proclamation and activity of the Christian
Church would remain without its core content, and thus would be unable to perform its task of awakening the
faith that comes – at least as a rule – by listening to Biblical messages of salvation proclaimed in preaching.21
However, in spite of this great appreciation of preaching – which has remained characteristic of Protestantism
until today – the proclamation is, for Luther, a much broader term than preaching itself and, therefore, cannot be
reduced to preaching or to exposing the Biblical text. He leaves the door open for an essentially unlimited num-
ber of other forms of proclamation, such as art - Luther was a special admirer of music. However, it is important to
bear in mind the fundamental Reformation principle: none of these forms of proclamation can be simply equated
with the original Revelation of God’s reality, which the Bible witnesses. The Revelation, which has its culmination
in Jesus Christ, has the character of definite Revelation, in the sense that – as long as we live on earth – no form
of Christian proclamation after the time of canonization, either by the Church as a whole or by an individual be-
liever, can surpass that Revelation or be considered as equal to it.22

106
 Matošević, Iconoclasm as a Side Effect of the Reformation

The formation of Luther’s attitude towards visual art in liturgy and devotion

This fundamental understanding of the role of the Bible determined Luther’s evaluation of various forms of
medieval devotion. Luther did not a priori refuse the legacy of late medieval devotion. He considered that some
of its forms could remain, but only to some extent, provided that they do not serve as a means of occupying man’s
attention and de facto hinder him in his search for God, but on the condition that they serve as a sign which does
not point to itself, but to God – which is testified to by the Scripture.
In Luther’s theology there was still room for the role of the so-called saints and Mary, that is, for the role of
their testimony in the awakening and living of Christian faith. The saints and their testimony are, for Luther, part
of the Church as a transhistorical communio sanctorum, and so it is not appropriate to simply cast the saints out
of devotion and forget them.23 But it is problematic for Luther when the saints, as witnesses of the effectiveness
of God’s reality in human life, are identified with this very reality and viewed as independent loci of God’s pres-
ence, and as such de facto as means of salvation. The consequence of such inappropriate identification – whereby
the images of saints, parts of their body, clothing, or places related to the events from their lives are expected to
have an effect of salvation as direct sources of divine power – is that the saints lose their role of signs pointing
to something that goes beyond them and become independent objects of devotion. These objects are blocking
man both in his desire and in his courage to go further towards a personal encounter with God,24 and in meeting
with the holy with whom they live on earth – the ‘neighbours’ who are in need.25
Luther’s attitude towards the icons should also be considered in this context. This issue was for the most
part articulated during his conflict with Andreas Karlstadt, Luther’s colleague at the University of Wittenberg. Dur-
ing Luther’s absence from Wittenberg,26 Karlstadt took over the leadership of the Reformation in Wittenberg and
began implementing certain reforms among which was the ‘cleansing’ of worship from all ‘problematic’ medieval
forms. In his endeavours, Karlstadt was guided by the principles of Erasmus.27 Namely, Erasmus advocated the
need to restore Christianity to its primitive purity and he contributed to discrediting those forms of piety that
were associated with any material objects. Preferring the faith of the heart that focused on the spiritual or invis-
ible, he idealized devotion from the early Church and the patristic period, which in his opinion was spiritual or
immaterial and invisible, at the expense of the contemporary forms of piety, as far as this devotion focused on
external practices such as images, relics, veneration of saints, Eucharistic devotion, and pilgrimages.28
Although Erasmus considered the medieval objects of devotion, such as images and statues, as dangerous
in the sense that they could lead to a wrong conception of the holy, he never advocated their forcible removal
from sacral space, and even less so their destruction. Moreover, these material means, according to Erasmus, were
needed for the weak and those who were still immature in faith and, therefore, should be allowed. Their value
was in the fact that they were like steps on the road leading towards true Christian devotion and should, as such,
be overcome only gradually. Exactly because of that, Christianity should, on principle, stop with superstition re-
garding images and statues. However, this should not be done by forcibly removing images and statues and by
destroying them, but rather by teaching people the true nature of Christian devotion that is always spiritual. In
this sense, Erasmus blames the clergy who – because of their own greediness, laziness, or indifference – do not
teach people about the true Christian faith and worship.29
Karlstadt made a significant step further compared to what Erasmus taught: he began to remove the ‘idols’,
but not by way of teachings that disputed their use and by advocating the need of their gradual eradication, but
by discrediting them and by approving of their violent removal. Karlstadt literally took the Old Testament ban of
images, which he – also differently from Erasmus – interpreted verbatim. Apart from his literal interpretation of
the Old Testament, Karlstadt’s approval of iconoclasm was motivated by the fact that images and statues were
often becoming a means by which the clergy – while financially profiting – kept the Christian masses in ignorance
and in a state of dependency. Ultimately, Karlstadt’s criticism rests on the argument that, since images and stat-

107
IKON, 11-2018

ues are merely material objects, man cannot use them to attain any spiritual reality. Although de facto worthless,
images and statues are not harmless. On the contrary, when once allowed to be used in churches, people will
– because of their psychological need – fall into idolatry. It is, therefore, entirely justified to remove and destroy
them. Moreover, iconoclasm in this respect means doing God’s will itself.30 Soon after Luther’s departure to Wart-
burg, Karlstadt took control in Wittenberg and started with his iconoclastic measures – inviting ordinary people
to take the matter of removing icons and statues into their own hands.31 Since these iconoclastic ‘measures’ were
accompanied by riots, Luther returned – at the insistence of Prince Frederick – to Wittenberg in order to restore
peace and clarify things. Upon his arrival, further acts of iconoclasm – at least those connected with violence –
were prohibited and Karlstadt was forced to leave the city.32
It is important to note here that Luther, in his first statements after his return from Wartburg, agreed with Karl-
stadt regarding his evaluation of the late medieval forms of devotion. These forms – among them images and stat-
ues – represented the inadequate externalization of Christian devotion for Luther (similar to Karlstadt), encouraged
spending money on worthless things instead of giving it to the poor and finally misguiding people into believing
that they could obtain salvation by buying artworks for the Church. Therefore, Luther basically expressed scepti-
cism about the value of such kinds of devotion. What he did not agree upon with Karlstadt was that the latter justi-
fied forcible removal of these forms of devotion, and in this regard Luther’s attitude was similar to that of Erasmus’.33
Nevertheless, Luther gradually distanced himself both from Karlstadt’s and from Erasmus’ dualist understanding
of true Christian devotion as based on the spiritual and the invisible – whereby the spiritual and the invisible were
understood as opposed and superior to the external and material forms of devotion. During this distancing – which
occurred in the period between 1524 and 1529 – Luther developed a kind of ‘theology of outward things’.
This new attitude first occurred in Luther’s treatise Against the Heavenly Prophets (1524-1525). In this discus-
sion, Luther condemned Karlstadt for inappropriately interpreting the Old Testament ban of images. For Luther,
this ban was related to the images of God made with idolatrous purposes, and not to the images made without
such purposes. Additionally, Luther considered Karlstadt’s literal interpretation of the ban of images inconsistent,
since Karlstadt did not interpret literally some other Old Testament’ commandments – such as the Sabbath regu-
lations or other Old Testament rituals. Further, Luther claimed that the problem of idolatry could not be solved
by ‘removing’ the idols physically from the churches, but rather by removing them from the human heart. And
finally, Luther reproached Karlstadt for having created a new idol out of iconoclasm itself by identifying it with
performing God’s will and presenting it as necessary for salvation. Luther, however, did not rule out the possibility
that there were situations when the images and statues were actually used exclusively for idolatrous purposes. In
those cases, it was best to remove them in a peaceful manner, by the authorities and not by groups or individuals
who took the matters into their own hands. In themselves, however, images and statues were something neutral
and harmless and not of some particular spiritual benefit. Because of that, they needed to be removed from the
human heart but not necessarily destroyed. 34 Nevertheless, Luther gradually made room for the possibility of
tolerating images in worship, or in church space. He began to talk about the educational value of images, which
was comparable to the educational value of woodcuts in Bible editions. In this sense, it was, according to Luther,
much better to put images on the walls of the churches than some secular content. In this way, Luther’s notion
of material objects as neutral and in themselves harmless, gradually turned into the perception that the material
objects had their spiritual value in worship and devotion, and not just concerning their educational value, but
also concerning their role as a means in helping man to focus on God and to meet Good.
This idea was clearly articulated at the Marburg Colloquy, where Luther disputed with Uldarik Zwingli
and his followers in 1529. This discussion focused, among other things, on the question of Christ’s presence in
the Eucharist. Zwingli denied Christ’s real presence, referring precisely to the inability of matter to communi-
cate something spiritual. He, thereby, quoted Erasmus’ favourite Biblical verse: John 6:63. Unlike Zwingli, Luther
recalled Christ’s humanity and derived from it the idea that there was no strict separation between the spiritual

108
 Matošević, Iconoclasm as a Side Effect of the Reformation

and the material.35 This attitude of Luther’s – which also influenced the understanding of the relationship be-
tween the spiritual and the material in worship in the Lutheran Church – became crucial for his evaluation of
the material objects in worship and devotion, and especially for his evaluation of art, including his appreciation
of visual art. Although for him the written word (the Bible) and the word of the sermon had the advantage as
forms of proclamation, he clearly demonstrated some understanding for the value of art. And not only for the
art of music, which, in the form of church songs, was very prominent in the Reformation tradition,36 but also for
the role of visual art - not only in the form of woodcuts in the Bible, which had educational purposes (or wood-
cuts in the pamphlets, which were supposed to indicate the fallacy and deviation of the Roman Church37), but
also in worship and devotion itself, where visual art had a function of proclamation itself. There visual art had
its worthy place as one of the forms that belonged to the multidimensionality of the Christian proclamation
in the history of Christianity. This new attitude can be described, on the one hand, as the affirmation of its role
in worship and devotion, and on the other hand as turning away from the problematic use of images as was
present in the late medieval devotion in the Christian West. In this respect, one may say that Luther stood in
line with what was stated about using images in devotion and worship by the Second Council of Nicaea.38 And
so, in the Lutheran strand of the Reformation, the message of the Gospel continued to spread through visual
art, with a special emphasis on the topics that the Reformation theology placed in the centre, such as the free
grace of God. Such an affirmation of visual art, as a means that allows humans to experience the totality of
faith visually, was partly due to the influence on Luther of the impressive artistic opus with religious themes of
painter Lucas Cranach the Elder.39

Attitude toward icons and the appearance of iconoclasm in the Swiss area

The attitude towards the role of visual art in worship and devotion as crystallized by Luther was character-
istic neither of the Swiss wing of the Reformation, nor of its radical wing. Although not entirely, one part of such
a development could be explained by Karlstadt’s influence on individual Swiss theologians. Namely, although his
influence was suppressed in Wittenberg, he continued to develop his iconoclastic theory and strongly influenced
the Protestant communities throughout Europe, particularly in Switzerland. Thus, Karlstadt’s influence is recog-
nizable in the treatises written by Uldarik Zwingli,40 Heinrich Bullinger,41 Martin Bucer,42 and others.
Similar to the works of Karlstadt, the reference to Erasmus’ arguments about the inadequacy of icons in
worship prevails in these works as well, whereby Erasmus’ assertion that worship in the early Church was of spiri-
tual nature, which simultaneously means invisible and immaterial, was of particular importance.43
Still, it should be noted that the theologians who opposed images in piety and worship were not (ex-
cept for some who literally repeated Karlstadt’s call for their violent removal) directly responsible for breaking
the images.44 Their role consisted mainly in the fact that they declared them as worthless and harmful, and
thus encouraged the reform of worship in the direction of worship deprived of the elements of visual art. In
accordance with such theological guidelines, the municipal authorities took reform measures to counter the
devotion that included elements of visual art – in a quiet way and not disturbing the peace and order. But for
some portion of the masses of believers, the theological devaluation of the role of visual art in worship and
devotion was often a sufficient argument to turn to actual destruction. Thus, the devaluation of images at the
level of theology often led to its radical realization. In that sense, one may say that despite the differences in
the intensity and the modalities, iconoclasm often happened following a similar model: from proclaiming the
images worthless and superstitious at the level of theology to creating measures of removal and destruction
of images and statues at the level of popular devotion, which would often get out of control – despite the fact
that the destroyers of sacral art were brought before the court and punished. In the area of Switzerland, which
was a cradle of both reformed and radical Reformation, iconoclasm escalated to such an extent that these re-
gions were completely cleansed of images and statues. 45

109
IKON, 11-2018

Although it could be said that devaluation of visual art and its role in worship, which was present in theo-
logical writings, could affect the emergence of violent iconoclasm, its scope and its unstoppability cannot simply
be explained by theology, which negated the value of visual art in devotion. Iconoclasm is also to be seen as a folk
movement, which developed and occurred independently of the theological theories that criticized the use of vi-
sual art in worship, or – at least partially – as a movement that had no purely theological motives.46 In this respect,
it is interesting to point out that Switzerland was one of the regions in which images were especially widespread
in popular culture and worshipped as independent cult objects before the time of iconoclasm, in one of the most
radical versions of late medieval confusion between the human and divine. The vehemence of the iconoclasm in
these areas can be explained by the disappointment of the believers who had great expectations from images,
and actually got little or nothing in return and hence – after some kind of conversion – broke images fairly inde-
pendently of any argument regarding their worthlessness.47 In that sense, it is particularly important to keep in
mind that in the popular consciousness the devotion associated with images was very often identical with the
devotion associated with relics. Thus, the spontaneity and intensity of iconoclasm can be explained by the same
fate that befell both images and relics.48 Further, in order not to exaggerate the influence of theology itself on the
appearance of iconoclasm, it should be recalled that one of the important motives behind iconoclasm was also
social in nature. Iconoclasm had a dimension of resistance against the luxury of the Roman Church and its clergy,
which made enriched itself by deception – in among other ways, by deceiving people regarding the divine power
attributed to the sacred images.49 And finally, in popular culture, icons were understood as an invention and a
symbol of Rome and as ‘papal things’, and were as such destroyed.50
Regardless of the fact that theology cannot be directly charged with destroying sacral art, it may be said
that the common result of theological defamation of visual art in worship and devotion, and of the violent icono-
clastic tendencies in popular culture was that visual art completely disappeared from the Swiss part of Protestant-
ism as well as from Protestantism, which developed as an heir to the radical Reformation.

Conclusion

The phenomenon of iconoclasm, which in one part followed the Reformation events, can be understood
and critically assessed only in the wider context of the question on the Reformation attitude towards late medieval
devotion. Two facts are of particular importance here. The first is that the later followers of the Reformation had of-
ten belonged to late medieval devotion, and that they had very often been its very zealous members. The second
fact is that the followers of the Reformation were people who, at a certain point, resolutely separated themselves
from a great part of late medieval piety. Precisely, this separation is the context in which it is possible to consider
and answer the basic questions of this article: the question of the Reformation attitude towards visual art in wor-
ship and devotion and the question of the phenomenon of iconoclasm associated with the Reformation events. In
terms of this second question, particular attention should be paid to two issues: the issue of reason and the issue
of the reformer’s manner of separation from the forms of worship and devotion that preceded the Reformation.
The answer to the first issue could be summarized by stating that the followers of the Reformation dis-
tanced themselves from late medieval forms of devotion because the late Middle Ages’ desperate and endless
multiplication of loci of God’s presence often ended up identifying the loci with the God whose presence had
been experienced, expected, or prayed for in a particular location, whereby the loci of God’s presence soon be-
came independent cult objects. This motive is more or less shared by all types of Reformation in their criticism of
late medieval devotion and their separation from it. The answer to the second issue is far more complex because
of the fact that within the Reformation movement varying and partly opposite ways in which separation from the
forms of medieval devotion occurred existed simultaneously.
In this sense, particular examples are, on the one hand, Luther, and on the other hand Karlstadt and the
Swiss Reformation. Luther’s attitude toward visual art crystallized during the discussion with Karlstadt. Luther’s

110
 Matošević, Iconoclasm as a Side Effect of the Reformation

way could be described as a gradual discovery of the need to distinguish between two things. One was a perfectly
justified endeavour to distance oneself from late medieval forms of devotion as long as they identified God with
the means by which God could communicate his Revelation. The other, unjustified and inadequate, was the nar-
rowing of the means of God’s speech to the verbal dimension which occurred through reading Biblical texts and
preaching. Luther gradually rejected this narrowing – despite his high appreciation of the Holy Scriptures and
preaching. In the background of this, there lies Luther’s understanding of multidimensionality of God’s speech in
the history of humanity and Christianity. This multidimensionality refers to the very event of Revelation, which
did not happen as a set of ideas, truths, or certain knowledge and information about God, but as God’s proximity
that occurred in the multidimensionality of existential situations and salvation events. This multidimensionality
also refers to the process of tradition of the testimony of the Revelation. Namely, both by the original witnesses
and by the living community of believers in the later periods of the history of Christianity, the witnessing of the
Revelation is always happening through the multidimensionality of the living and existentially engaging speech
of people affected by the Revelation. It is important to note here that for Luther, the written fixing of the testimo-
ny of the Revelation was a kind of necessary measure with the purpose of preventing a distortion of the original
testimony. The intention of the fixation in writing was not to replace the multidimensionality of the engaging
testimony of the people living after the time of canonization.
This understanding, which does not diminish the value either of the Bible as the criterion of Christian proc-
lamation or of the central importance of preaching, still leaves room for a wide spectrum of forms in which Chris-
tian proclamation is happening. And one of those forms is visual art. The way in which Karlstadt and the Swiss
reformers related to late medieval forms of devotion, that is images and statues, differed a lot from this.
Referring to Erasmus’ argument that worship in original Christianity was exclusively spiritual (and what
they identified with the immaterial and the invisible), the Swiss reformers began the process of “purifying” Chris-
tian worship and devotion from the material elements that had been integrated into Christian worship during
the centuries of its development. This iconoclasm at the theoretical or theological level, which was to result in
the elimination of surplus material elements from Christian worship, including images and statues, occasionally
escalated into violence during which Church artworks were literally destroyed. It is important to keep in mind
that iconoclasm at the theoretical level was not necessarily a stimulus for violent iconoclasm and that violent
iconoclasm may have had a number of motives that were independent of theology. But, if one takes into account
that the violent removal of images was an unwanted development and that it was not initiated by theology itself,
it is necessary to say that iconoclasm is also problematic at the theoretical level.
Theoretical iconoclasm is problematic for several reasons. One of them is that theoretical iconoclasm
starts from an understanding of the spirituality of worship in Christian Antiquity, not taking enough account
of the fact that absence of material or visual elements in worship in Christian Antiquity was largely due to the
circumstance that Christianity was a marginalized and persecuted minority. Such an approach is also prob-
lematic because it looks at the New Testament simply as a model for the spirituality of Christian worship in
the future, instead of understanding it as a testimony pointing beyond itself, which as such allows freedom in
proclamation and the introduction of new forms and models of worship and devotion. And ultimately, such
an understanding is also problematic because it leads to the narrowing of the wide range of forms of Christian
proclamation to merely reading Bible texts and preaching (because of their spirituality, which is identified with
the absence of material elements), with possible enrichment in music or singing. It could also be said – without
denying the central importance of preaching as a medium of Christian proclamation – that this narrowing is
associated with unrealistically high and basically unattainable expectations, which are in a large part of the
Protestant tradition placed on the preacher, and finally, sometimes leads to the uncritical identification of ser-
mons with the Word of God itself. In this way, Protestantism came close to a problematic, specifically Protestant
version of the late medieval attempts to satisfy the human need of catching God, which the Reformation itself
originally criticized.

111
IKON, 11-2018

1 Extensive history of indulgences can be found in: T. SCHIRMACHER, Indulgences. A History of Theology and Reality of the
Indulgences and Purgatory, Bonn, Culture and Science Publ., 2011.
2 This hypothesis was voiced for the first time by Lucien Febvre, who spoke on the “immense appetit du divin” of the late
medieval man. See: L. FEBVRE, “Une Question Mal Posee. Les Origines de la Reforme Francaise”, in: Au Coeur Religieux
du XVIe Siecle, Paris, S.E.V.P.E.N., 1957, pp. 1-70.
3 See: B. MOELLER, “Froemmigkeit in Deutschland um 1500”, in: Archiv fuer Reformationsgeschichte, vol. 56, 1965, pp. 5-31.
4 See in: C.M.N. EIRE, War Against the Idols. The Reformation of Worship from Erasmus to Calvin, Cambridge- New York-
Melbourne, Cambridge University Press, 1990, p. 10 ff.
5 Ibid., p. 12 ff.
6 Ibid., p. 15. See also: J. DILLENBERGER, Images and Relics. Theological Perceptions and Visual Images in Sixteenth-Century
Europe, New York- Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 15 ff.
7 See note 3.
8 About Luther’s stay in Rome and the influence of this pilgrimage on his reformist profile, see: H. SCHNEIDER, “Martin
Luthers Reise nach Rom – neu datiert und neu gedeutet”, in: Studien zur Wissenschafts- und zur Religionsgeschichte,
W. LEHFELDT (ed.), Berlin- New York, Walter de Gruyter Gmbh & Co.KG, 2011, pp. 1-157; see also in: T. KAUFMANN,
Geschichte der Reformation, Frankfurt am Main- Leipzig, Verlag der Weltreligionen, 2009, p. 138 ff.
9 M. LUTHER, Weimarer Ausgabe, Graz, Metzger Verlag, 1883-2001, WA 1, 557, 33-558, 15.
10 About Devotio moderna see in: J. VAN ENGEN, Sisters and Brothers of the Common Life. The Devotio Moderna and the
World of the Later Middle Ages, Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008.
11 On the relation between Luther und Devotio moderna, see: R. KEKOW, Luther und die Devotio Moderna, Hamburg, G.H.
Nolte, 1937; H. OBERMAN, Luther: A Man between God and the Devil, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008, pp. 96-
98; E. BARNIKOL, “Luther in Magdeburg und die dortige Bruederschule”, in: Theologische Arbeiten aus dem Rheinischen
Wissenschaftlichen Prediger, Verein N.F. 17, 1917, pp. 1-62; J. WALKER, The Effect of the Devotio Moderna in the Formation
of Martin Luther’s Doctrine, Niagara University, NY: Niagara University Press, 1966.
12 T.A. KEMPIS, The Imitation of Christ, book. II, ch. 1.
13 On the relation between the Reformation and Devotio moderna see: U. HINZ, Die Brueder vom Gemeinsamen Leben im
Jahrhundert der Reformation: Das Muenstersche Kolloquium, Tübingen, Mohr Seibeck, 1997.
14 This is well summarized in Luther’s following sentence: “In spiritu loquentem audi in spirit”, in: Weimarer Ausgabe WA
5, 42, 28.
15 Luther: “Wie haben wir den nun Christum? Denn er sitzt im Himmel zur Rechten des Vaters. Er wird nich zu uns har� -
absteigen in unser Haus. Nei, das tut er auch nit. Wir erlang und hab ich aber den? Ei, den magst du nit anders haben
denn im Evangelio .... Und also kommt Christus durch das Evangelium in unser Herzh, der muss auch mit dem Herzen
angeneommen werden. So ich nun glaub, dass er im Evangelio sei, so empfahe und hab ich ihn schoen”. Cf. Weimarer
Ausgabe WA 10 III, 349, 17; 18, 606, 29.
16 Deut 30, 11 ff.
17 Ibid.
18 M. LUTHER, Large Catechism, www.sacred-texts.com/luther/largecat.htm (last accessed 15 April 2018).
19 See in: O. WEBER, Foundations of Dogmatics, vol. I, Michigan, Grand Rapids, 1988, p. 185 ff.
20 One of the quotations in that sense from Luther’s opus: “Evangelion … heysset nichts anders, denn ein predig und
geschrey von der genad und barmhertzigkeytt Gottis, durch den herren Christum mit seynem todt verdienet und
erworben. Und ist eygentlich nicht da, das ynn buecher stehe und ynn buchstaben verfasset wirtt, sondernn mehr
eyn mundliche predig und lebendig wortt, und eyn stym, die da ynn die gantz wellt erschallet und offentlich wirt
ausgeschryen, das mans uberal hoeret”. - Weimarer Ausgabe WA 12, 259, 8 – 13.
21 About the importance and the central role of preaching for Luther see: Weimarer Ausgabe WA 40 II, 410, 37; 411, 1.
– 50, 240, 31; 10 I, 1, 13, 19. Luther’s high ranking of sermon is particularly strinkingly pronounced in the so-called
‘Torgauer Formel’ which speaks of sermons as such in which “nichts anderes darin geschehe, als das unser lieber Herr
selbst mit uns rede durch sein Heiliges Wort ...” - Weimarer Ausgabe WA 49, 588.
22 Thus Luther. See in: Weimarer Ausgabe WA 38, 206, 16; 38, 208, 14; 12, 417, 4.30; 419, 20; 38, 208, 18; About Luther’s
relativization of the Church’s proclamation, but also about the relativization of the testimony of individual believers,

112
 Matošević, Iconoclasm as a Side Effect of the Reformation

see in: P. ALTHAUS, Die Theologie Martin Luthers, Gerd Mohn,Guetersloher Verlagshaus, 1983, pp. 291 ff. About the
Reformation sola scriptura principle in a broader sense see in: A. ADAM, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, II, Mittelalter
und Reformationszeit, Gerd Mohn, Guetersloher Verlagshaus, 1992, pp. 137, 142, 326, 357, 387, 158 and 302.
23 Weimarer Ausgabe WA 15, 789, 21. 36.
24 WA 17 II, 100, 14.
25 WA 17 II, 50, 28. About Luther’s extension of the concept of saints to the whole Church – including its living members
- see in: P. ALTHAUS, Die Theologie Martin Luthers, Gütersloh, Gütersloher Verl.-Haus G. Mohn, 1963, pp. 256-270.
26 Luther stayed at Wartburg from May 1521 to 1522 for security reasons because he – as an excommunicated person –
also had the status of a person persecuted by the state authorities.
27 It is fairly certain that Karlstadt was influenced by Erasmus. About the relationship between Erasmus and Karlstad see
in: R.J. SIDER, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt. The Development of his Thought, Leiden, Brill, 1974, pp. 85, 149 ff., 240.
28 This is the central theme of Erasmus’ Enchidrion. About Erasmus’ appeal for interiorization and spiritualization of reli� -
gion see in: C.M.N. EIRE, op. cit., 1990, pp. 28 ff.
29 Erasmus von Rotterdam Ausgewaehlte, Schriften, W. WELZIG (ed.), Darmstadt, WBG, 1968, vol. I, pp. 178-80, 206, 230.
(Further: AS). Erasmus judged differently about the devotion associated with Mary and the Saints. He felt that it was
necessary to keep it – provided that the wrong understandings related to it were removed. This came to the fore, for
example, in Erasmus’ Liber de sarcienda ecclesiae concordia from 1534, in which he tries to offer a mediating view-
point between the Protestant and Roman-Catholic attitudes. See in: https://books.google.hr/books?id=cW4-AAAAcA
AJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false (last accessed 15 April 2018).
30 Condemning the images, Karlstadt also condemns the cult of saints, which was closely related to the images. Karl�-
stadt claims that man’s help can only be expected from God, and not from the saints, and even less from their images.
Very significant for Karlstadt’s theoretical computatio on images and statues is a pamphlet Von Gelübden Unterrich-
tung from the year 1522. An important pamphlet in which Karlstadt decisively criticizes the images and statues and
justifies iconoclasm is the pamphlet Von Abthung der Bylder und das Keyn Bedtler unter Christen seyn Sollen from the
year 1522. These Karlstadt’s pamphlets are the most influential texts of the Reformation concerning the theme of
iconoclasm. See in: https://www.dropbox.com/s/dnub3hy8bosx1wr/Karlstadt%20Bilder.pdf?dl=0 (last accessed 15
April 2018).
31 These specific iconoclastic measures – which took place in the wider ‘bundle’ of cleansing the churches from medieval
forms of devotion (specifically focused on the abolition of the Mass) – became a model for iconoclasm at the time of
the Reformation. See in: N. MUELLER, Wittenberger Bewegung, Leipzig, Heinsius, 1911, pp.73, 152 ff.
32 C.M.N. Eire, op. cit., 1990, p. 66.
33 This kind of Luther’s attitude comes to the fore in his Invocavit sermons, which he held during March 1522, imme-
diately upon his return from Wartburg. See in: Weimarer Ausgabe WA 8, 676, 687. In this sense, Luther spoke of these
forms of devotion also in his earlier writings, such as in Vorlesung ueber den Roemerbrief (1515/1516). See: Weimarer
Ausgabe WA 56. This sharp criticism of the external elements of devotion was reiterated in 1522 in Kirchen Postilla writ-
ten by Luther in Wartburg before returning to Wittenberg (see: Weimarer Ausgabe WA 10, 39). See in: J. DILLENBERGER,
op. cit., 1999, p. 89 ff.
34 M. LUTHER, “Wider die himmlischen Propheten, von den Bildern und Sakrament”, in: Weimarer Ausgabe WA 18. 62-
84.62. Also in “An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation” from 1520 Luther actually calls for the destruction of some
pilgrimage churches, claiming that the believers are deceived and think that pilgrimage is a way of earning salvation
(see in: Weimarer Ausgabe WA 6, 404, 469). In accordance with this, in the Lutheran areas many paintings and statues
were temporarily covered or sheltered on a safe. See in: J. DILLENBERGER, op. cit., 1999, p. 90.
35 W. KOEHLER, Das Marburger Religionsgespraech 1529. Versuch einer Rekonstruktion, Leipzig, Schriften des Vereins fuer
Reformationsgeschichte, 1929, p. 27.
36 This is clearly explained by the fact that song, because of its verbal dimension, was very close to preaching and can
be understood as a kind of continuation of preaching. But Luther considered not only the songs, but the instrumental
music as well as precious God’s gift. For Luther music is not merely a supplement of sermons, but music itself has the
role of communicating to man the reality of God.
37 J. DILLENBERGER, op. cit., 1999, pp. 55 ff, 79 ff.

113
IKON, 11-2018

38 Ibid., p. 13.
39 Ibid., pp. 96 ff.
40 In that sense, his treatise is particularly important: “Eine Antwort, Valentin Compar Gegeben”, in: Huldrich Zwinglis
Saemtliche Werke, Berlin/Zuerich, 1905-, 4, 48-159, and also his latin treatise: “Commentarius de vera et falsa religione”;
online edition: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zn7pig2j51dioyg/De%20vera%20et%20falsa%20religione.pdf?dl=0 (last
accessed 13 April 2018).
41 In that sense, his treatise is particularly important: H. BULLINGER, De origine erroris, Zürich, Tiguri- Officina
Froschoviana, 1563.
42 In that sense, it is particularly important his treatise: “Das Einigerlei Bild bei den Gutgläubigen an Orten da Sie Verehrt,
Nit Moegen Geduldet Werden (1530)”, in: Martin Bucers Deutsche Schriften, R. STUPPERICH (ed.), Paris- Gütersloh, 1960,
vol. IV.
43 Such argumentation is present in all Swiss theologians. See in: C.M.N. EIRE, op. cit., 1990, pp. 29f.
44 Ibid., p. 74.
45 Ibid., pp. 1 ff., 106 ff. See in: L. PALMER WANDEL, Voracious Idols & Violent Hands. Iconoclasm in Reformation Zurich, Stras-
bourg, and Basel, Cambridge, Cambridje University Press, 1994.
46 Precisely because of its ingrowness and popularity in folk masses, the iconoclasm of the sixteenth century differs from
that of the earlier centuries of Christianity which have devised but also inspired by theological elites, emperors and
bishops. See in: L. PALMER WANDEL, op. cit., 1994, p. 7.
47 C.M.N. EIRE, op. cit., 1990, pp. 13 ff, 26. More about the iconoclasm in the area of Switzerland see in: L. PALMER WAN-
DEL, op. cit., 1994, pp. 16 ff.
48 The difference between the image and what the image shows, as expressed in the Second Council in Nice, was not
always clear to the West. That is why in the west images were often identified with relics, and why it was considered
that they, just as it was believed for relics, themselves contain divine power. C.M.N. EIRE, op. cit., 1990, p.17 ff.
49 J. DILLENBERGER, op. cit., 1999, pp. 13f; C.M.N. EIRE, op. cit., 1990, pp. 24 ff, 95.
50 C.M.N. EIRE, op. cit., 1990, pp. 143, 144.

Lidija Matošević

Ikonoklazam kao posljedica Reformacije

U tekstu se raspravlja o fenomenu ikonoklazma unutar reformacijskog pokreta. Pitanje ikonoklazma primarno je stav-
ljeno u širi kontekst teologije reformacije, osobito u kontekst razumijevanja Božje riječi kao višedimenzionalne stvarnosti.
Razmatra se fenomen kasnosrednjovjekovne pobožnosti te razlozi zbog kojih je Reformacija napadala neke od elemenata
te pobožnosti. U ovom kontekstu, članak tematizira stav prema likovnim umjetnostima prije vremena Reformacije, kao i
prosudbe reformacijskog pokreta o štovanju vjerskih slika. Članak najprije raspravlja o Lutherovom stavu prema vjerskim
slikama. U tom smislu, pozornost se posvećuje Lutherovom sukobu s tzv. Wittenberškim reformatorima. Posebno se rasprav-
lja o razlikama između Luthera i Karlstadta, ili njegova spora s Karlstadtom nakon što se Luther vratio iz Wartburga, a koji se
tiče Karlstadtovih postupaka oko uklanjanja vjerskih slika tijekom Lutherove odsutnosti. Imajući u vidu Lutherovo šire razu-
mijevanje načela tumačenja Svetog pisma, posebna se pozornost posvećuje razlikama između Lutherovog i Karlstadtovog
razumijevanja autoriteta Staroga zavjeta, osobito glede starozavjetne zabrane slika. U kontekstu razmišljanja o Lutherovom
sukobu s Karlstadtom opisuje se razvoj Lutherove teologije, koji je doveo do afirmacije vrijednosti likovne umjetnosti u bo-
goslužju i pobožnosti. Nadalje, raspravlja se o stavovima prema vjerskim slikama u švicarskoj grani Reformacije, kao i o pita-
nju ikonoklastičkih događanja na švicarskom teritoriju, koji su rezultirali činjenicom da je ‘reformirani’ dio Švicarske potpuno
‘očišćen’ od religijskih slika.

Primljeno/ Received: 22.02.2018.

Pregledni rad

114