Erik Erickson's view of Martin Luther

According to Erikson, Luther suffered through an environment that fomented crisis, and succeeded in a healthy resolution, thereby becoming more fulfilled than if the crisis had not been experienced. In the end Luther chose the obedient, provincial leadership path his father had wished for him, rather than the national fame he could have easily pursued after his celebrity and wealth, but only after Luther had disobeyed and suffered many years in an identity crisis.[1]
Summary
Erikson believed that rebellion is most likely to manifest in the youth stage of life. He suggested that before the rebellion can occur intensly, young people must first have believed in the thing they are rebelling against. Luther was thirty-four, and he had believed desperately in the authority of the very church he was rebelling against, for failing to follow the Bible. The most vocal critic will have been the most devoted and attached
Erikson's interpretation of Martin Luther's life is that "great figures of history often spend years in a passive state. From a young age, they feel they will create a big stamp on the world, but unconsciously they wait for their particular truth to form itself in their minds, until they can make the most impact at the right time
Erikson makes the point that Martin's standing up to a Holy Roman Church can only be understood in the context of his initial disobedience to his father. Luther was not, Erikson suggests, rebellious or disobedient by nature,[1] but having done it once, he was the reluctant "expert" who was not. He also observes that although Martin Luther made a theological point, the church was not particularly out of line with the times of the era, but it was simply Martin Luther's own personal, internal issues with himself, that manifested against the church, and by projection, a crisis of identity