The issue, I think, comes down to these two considerations:
1. May someone in authority impose laws that effectively institutionalize a particular Christian church? Anti-Catholics were always afraid that a Catholic president would effectively make Catholicism the state church. Whether or not that was ever true, it surely was not by the time John F. Kennedy was elected--necessarily relying on votes from southern states where the Roman Catholic Church was not in high favor. It has been suggested that the very strong majority for Nixon in Oklahoma may have been increased by anti-Catholicism, but his strong wins through most of the South (he lost Virginia, Florida and Texas) suggests that this was no longer a major factor. While he met with Pope John XXIII, there has never been any sign that the Pope influenced any of JFK's policies.
Today liberals and leftists are claiming that conservatives are attempting to impose a "theocracy". First, I think that's absurd. Donald Trump, whose Christianity is about skin-deep but supports certain policy positions which Christians also for the most part support, is hardly a theocrat. His son-in-law is Jewish and his daughter has converted to Judaism. (Remember when liberals, confronted with a conservative who said he was not anti-Semitic, would sneer, "But would you let your daughter marry one?" Trump did, and his son-in-law has been a firm supporter of his.) Has anyone suggested that we suppress non-Christian religions (or non-"Judaeo-Christian") religions? Of course not. So the left's idea that anyone now in power or in position to influence power seeks a "theocracy" is absurd.
But let's suppose that some now-tiny faction grew in power to the point of enforcing an official Christianity in which other religions were suppressed, maybe letting Judaism into the tent? What would that look like? An effort to impose Levitical Law that says "if a man lie with mankind as with womankind, that is an abomination; let him be put to death"? Again, in a Trump administration that includes Scott Bessent and Rich Grenell, and in which Tammy Bruce is a spokeswoman, is that even remotely likely? No. But should Lutherans consider such a state desirable?
The answer, from our Confessions, is "No." The power of the state and the power of the Church are separate, per AC 28, Ap. 28 and the Treatise. Anyone suggesting that Luther's pamphlet, "Against the Jews and Their Lies", is of any influence or effect, can be answered as follows:
1. Read "That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew," in which Luther's words on the Jews are the kindest imaginable.
2. Luther had a tendency to hear about something and fire off a pamphlet immediately with little reflection on the implications of what he had just written. Everyone knows that he almost immediately regretted his pamphlet urging the princes to suppress the Peasants' Revolt. He heard about atrocities committed by the peasants and fired off that pamphlet. The princes took that pamphlet as license to suppress the peasants brutally. No one remembered that he had previously urged the princes to consider, and as much as possible, grant the peasants' demands.
3. The situation with the Jews was very similar. There had been a Jewish apocalyptic sect that had seized control of a few cities, certain that the Lord would send his Messiah to re-establish David's kingdom, and they committed some atrocities. How did Luther hear about it? He heard that "the Jews" were doing all this, and his infamous pamphlet was the response.
4. Hardly had Luther fired off that pamphlet when every other leading Lutheran--Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, Cruciger, Dietrich, Amsdorf--disavowed it. It is in no way representative of any Lutheran teaching but only an outburst of Luther's notorious temper. It remained entirely obscure until it was brought to a certain Austrian's attention. Even then, very few significant Lutheran theologians endorsed it.
All that said, does this mean that, as Mario Cuomo suggested in his famous Notre Dame speech, a Christian in government must put his faith aside and govern by purely secular considerations? Also no. Christianity must inform the judgment of every Christian governing, even the most marginal Christian. John Adams, though the Congregational churches had not yet divided into the Unitarian and Trinitarian branches, leaned, like most of the Boston aristocracy, toward the Unitarian. But he understood quite well and took very seriously the moral precepts in the Bible. Thomas Jefferson, at the most liberal edge of the newly-formed Episcopal Church, likewise understood this.
No one until the last two generations would have endorsed the libertinism and sometimes anti-Christianity that infects today's Left. (I was going to say "anti-theism", but they can be quite solicitous of Muslims, and many of them profess the sort of Christianity now taught in "main line" Protestant churches today--TEC ("affirming Catholic" pretensions notwithstanding), ELCA, PCUSA, RCA, UMC, UCC, and others.)
A Christian President, Senator, Representative, or Justice still has to make determinations of right and wrong. Where does a person in such a position look for guidance on what is right and what is wrong? To the latest academic fashion at prestige colleges? Or to the Word of God, the Law delivered to Moses and the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ? If a person in such a position cannot let his judgment be informed by the Law and the Gospel, then he is no Christian at all.
The article is a lot like the bumper sticker that reads Feminism is the Radical Notion That Women Are People. I'm an ex-Calvinist who thought he escaped the madness and ambiguous language of the Federal Vision by becoming Lutheran but now Lutherans are quoting Federal Vision guys like Leithart. The Federal Vision isn't even acceptable to mainstream Reformed and Presbyterian Churches and so they started their own. They're hyper-Zwinglian in their embrace of the sword as can be seen in Doug Wilson's activity. Nobody denies that rulers should be called to repentance or that it would be nice if rulers were Christian. But as Pieper points out they serve as scaffolding in spite of themselves. They don't need to become Christian to serve as scaffolding since Pieper is talking about civil righteousness. The early church refused to engage in politics and didn't even think Christians rulers could be Christian nulers but they acknowledged the ruler as given by God. The article refuses to take a stand on whether or not conversion by the sword is acting bad and then goes on to Pharasize the situation by suggesting some forms of coercion might be acceptable without saying which ones. Nathan won't even tell me what laws he wants to change. Luther says every heresy ends in the sword and he accuses the Jews, Papists, Anabaptists, and Zwinglians of embracing the heresy of Islam. He says the fact that Zwingli died with a sword in his hand was proof he was a heretic. It is true that later Lutherans were not consistent in this but their inconsistency doesn't disprove the point. Also, the fact that rulers shouldn't be tyrants doesn't mean it's your duty to replace them. God is in control and gives power. And those who have the power are the ones in authority. That's what Luther and even Calvin says.
The article defends Christian Nationalism as "nations turning to Christ" but that's not what those words mean. Christian Nationalism is a man-made ideology that is Nationalistic and the term "Christian" describes the type of Nationalist you are. Christian Nationalism as used by its adherents clearly indicates an adoption of 18th and 19th Century views of nation states and then insists within that Nationalist framework that laws should be instituted to promote Christianity.
The article confuses godly laws based on reason and natural law with laws that legislate Christianity. Constantine made Christianity legal but he didn't legislate it. He continued to support pagan temples too. The article confuses the removal of canon law with asking for new Christian laws.
The Anabaptists were disciples of Zwingli and revolutionaries trying to Christianize the State. This is mentioned in the Book of Concord. It's all the failed attempts and dying that made them argue for religious liberty. It's really enlightenment Philip that argues for religious liberty. Neither Walther nor Luther argued for religious liberty and they were both pretty hostile to the concept of rights.
The article is an effort to get Lutherans thinking more about what not only Luther but the Lutheran Confessions say about the issues regarding church and state.
Do you agree that all the quotations from the confessions and McKenzie are accurate?
You say "later Lutherans were not consistent". Do you think that, generally speaking, Luther was consistent in his view?
How does the article confuse godly laws based on reason and natural law with laws that legislate Christianity? Would there, for example, be something wrong with a Christian people passing "Sabbath laws" on Sunday (referencing Christianity but following the view that Sunday is freely set aside by Christians for good order), but not rulers making Sunday a secular day off?
Your point about scaffolding is fair, even as you agree it would be better to have a Christian ruler.
The quotations are accurate but McKenzie doesn't honestly represent the situation. I doubt he's read much Walther. I think Luther was pretty consistent. Since the Apology of the Augsburg says the Gospel doesn't introduce new laws but that we obey the existing laws whether written by heathen or others, and all your deductions lead you to believe that we should introduce Christian laws, do you think the Apology is wrong? Ramirez ignores the context of these Luther quotes and it's pretty clear Luther is worried about sedition. They seem presume a false dichotomy between some type of theonomist view and American enlightenment philosophy while pretending it's Anabaptist. Yes, you can have days of rest. I don't think that's really the issue. But when people are talking about amending the Constitution to make it Christian, that's prohibited by the Confessions and so is all that calls itself Christian Nationalism today. Christian Nationalists talk like nationalists not Christians concerned about God's judgement for America's treatment of the poor and outsider and the idolatry of the church especially in the way things like the LCMS reconciliation process persecutes and encourages pastors to engage in mortal sin. If Lutherans can't make their synodical laws Christian they sure aren't going to make America Christian. Bad rulers and bad laws are the result of the idolatry of the church. The fact that Lutherans think the laws need to be changed shows the atheistic Egyptian darkness they live in. While complaining about LGBT stuff among the Gentiles, the church protects pedophiles. Wake up! Read Romans 1 and 2 and figure out what's going on.
teachers of the Gospel should do both; they should exhort incontinent men to marriage, and should exhort others not to despise the gift of continence. Gee it sounds like Melanchthon was advocating for the magistrates to do their duty to make better laws regarding penalties for adultery!
If Christian Nationalists were real they would be trying to keep Christians out of America. They're just a tool of the same philosophical movement as the French Revolution
Thank you. You might need to unpack your statement about Christian nationalists and the French Revolution a little bit for people to understand what exactly you're thinking.
The Apology is dealing with Carlstadt and his revolutionary attitude. He wanted to reestablish the laws of Moses by force from below. it mentions this directly. Clearly Christian magistrates create and enforce laws, and for a Christian people, these laws will be in accordance with Christianity. Luther did this throughout his career, as the article demonstrates. The Lutheran confessions follow in his train.
"Even if it [John 21:25] were said about human laws and works, which cannot be, should one therefore seek to write so many books that the world could no longer contain them, and therefore do precisely what the apostle wants to leave undone? Truly, there is more than enough written in Scripture so that there is no need for more commandments and laws. Indeed, there is no longer any power on earth to make Christian laws, as I have proven many times."
Luther, Martin. 1999. Luther’s Works, Vol. 39: Church and Ministry I. Edited by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
"Beware of the illusion that you are winning freedom for your body when you are really losing your body, property, and soul for all eternity. God’s wrath is there; fear it, I advise you! The devil has sent false prophets among you; beware of them!
And now we want to move on and speak of the law of Christ, and of the gospel, which is not binding on the heathen, as the other law is. For if you claim that you are Christians and like to be called Christians and want to be known as Christians, then you must also allow your law to be held up before you rightly. Listen, then, dear Christians, to your Christian law! Your Supreme Lord Christ, whose name you bear, says, in Matthew 6 [5:39–41], “Do not resist one who is evil. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. If anyone wants to take your coat, let him have your cloak too. If anyone strikes you on one cheek, offer him the other too.” Do you hear this, O Christian association? How does your program stand in light of this law? You do not want to endure evil or suffering, but rather want to be free and to experience only goodness and justice. However, Christ says that we should not resist evil or injustice but always yield, suffer, and let things be taken from us. If you will not bear this law, then lay aside the name of Christian and claim another name that accords with your actions, or else Christ himself will tear his name away from you, and that will be too hard for you."
Luther, Martin. 1999. Luther’s Works, Vol. 46: The Christian in Society III. Edited by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
For more on Nationalism and the French Revolution you can start with the Nationalism article on Wikipedia.
The first is from vol 39 page 170 "Answer to the Hyperchristian, Hyperspiritual, and Hyperlearned Book by Goat Emser in Leipzig—Including some Thoughts Regarding his Companion, the Fool Murner"
The second is volume 46 page 29 Admonition to Peace A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia
What these discussions miss is that Luther and Frederick the Wise and all the princes at Augsburg in 1530 and all whi signed the Book of Concord in 1580 all were Christian nationalists. So we're all their opponents. The whole west was Christian nationalists. Secularism did not arise until after the peace of Westphalia. In all the Lutheran lands the Lutheran Church was supported by the state and given privileged status. Heresy carried legal consequences. It is anachronistic to project modern conceptions of secular governance into the 16th century.
It's anachronistic to project Christian Nationalism which is a later development on to these earlier people just because of you live in a false dichotomy. Christian Nationalism and secularism aren't the only possibilities. Were the early Christians who refused to participate in politics Christian Nationalists too?
They did not live in a democracy so they did not have politics. Christian nationalism began with the conversion of Constantine at least the way I am using the term. Though Ethiopia might have gotten there earlier. The problem with terms like Christian nationalism is it can mean so many different things. In the sense that the early Christians sought to make disciples of all nations they were. In the sense of luvibg in a culture shaped and infused with Christian faith the way it once was in the west no. That cultural shift is what Nuetzche meant by the death of God. So yes I want Christian nationalism a culture infused with Christ. A government reflective of such a culture as well. I doubt I will live to see it. I doubt it will come to pass again in the west. But how can we not aspire to it? How can we not pray for it?
Ancient Rome had politics. Christians were persecuted because they refused to take part. Constantine made Christianity legal but continued to support pagan temples and didn't make them illegal. Maybe try reading some Pieper where he discusses the different understandings of the church and state so you aren't just controlled by politicians and involved in the secularization of the church.
The article mentions "private redress." It never touches on what follows right after the Apology says private redress is prohibited by command. What follows is this: "Public redress, which is made through the office of the magistrate, is not advised against, but is commanded, and is a work of God, according to Paul, Rom. 13, 1 sqq.
Now the different kinds of public redress are legal decisions, capital punishment, wars, military service." In other words, making laws through the office of the magistrate IS commanded and is a work of God. Furthermore no one mentioned the final part of the Declaration. In the final section of the Declaration, 4 particular errors of the Anabaptists are mentioned:
-That under the New Testament the magistracy is not a godly estate.
-That a Christian cannot with a good, inviolate conscience hold the office of magistrate.
-That a Christian cannot without injury to conscience use the office of the magistracy in matters that may occur [when the matter so demands against the wicked, neither can its subjects appeal to its power.
-That magistrates cannot without injury to conscience inflict capital punishment upon evil doers.
If someone is interpreting the other parts of the confessions in such a way as to justify these errors of the anabaptists, they probably are reading the confessions incorrectly. Clearly, the confessions DO in fact teach that it is a work of God for a Christian man to hold the office of magistrate and write and uphold godly laws.
Comment removed for defamation. User banned.
The issue, I think, comes down to these two considerations:
1. May someone in authority impose laws that effectively institutionalize a particular Christian church? Anti-Catholics were always afraid that a Catholic president would effectively make Catholicism the state church. Whether or not that was ever true, it surely was not by the time John F. Kennedy was elected--necessarily relying on votes from southern states where the Roman Catholic Church was not in high favor. It has been suggested that the very strong majority for Nixon in Oklahoma may have been increased by anti-Catholicism, but his strong wins through most of the South (he lost Virginia, Florida and Texas) suggests that this was no longer a major factor. While he met with Pope John XXIII, there has never been any sign that the Pope influenced any of JFK's policies.
Today liberals and leftists are claiming that conservatives are attempting to impose a "theocracy". First, I think that's absurd. Donald Trump, whose Christianity is about skin-deep but supports certain policy positions which Christians also for the most part support, is hardly a theocrat. His son-in-law is Jewish and his daughter has converted to Judaism. (Remember when liberals, confronted with a conservative who said he was not anti-Semitic, would sneer, "But would you let your daughter marry one?" Trump did, and his son-in-law has been a firm supporter of his.) Has anyone suggested that we suppress non-Christian religions (or non-"Judaeo-Christian") religions? Of course not. So the left's idea that anyone now in power or in position to influence power seeks a "theocracy" is absurd.
But let's suppose that some now-tiny faction grew in power to the point of enforcing an official Christianity in which other religions were suppressed, maybe letting Judaism into the tent? What would that look like? An effort to impose Levitical Law that says "if a man lie with mankind as with womankind, that is an abomination; let him be put to death"? Again, in a Trump administration that includes Scott Bessent and Rich Grenell, and in which Tammy Bruce is a spokeswoman, is that even remotely likely? No. But should Lutherans consider such a state desirable?
The answer, from our Confessions, is "No." The power of the state and the power of the Church are separate, per AC 28, Ap. 28 and the Treatise. Anyone suggesting that Luther's pamphlet, "Against the Jews and Their Lies", is of any influence or effect, can be answered as follows:
1. Read "That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew," in which Luther's words on the Jews are the kindest imaginable.
2. Luther had a tendency to hear about something and fire off a pamphlet immediately with little reflection on the implications of what he had just written. Everyone knows that he almost immediately regretted his pamphlet urging the princes to suppress the Peasants' Revolt. He heard about atrocities committed by the peasants and fired off that pamphlet. The princes took that pamphlet as license to suppress the peasants brutally. No one remembered that he had previously urged the princes to consider, and as much as possible, grant the peasants' demands.
3. The situation with the Jews was very similar. There had been a Jewish apocalyptic sect that had seized control of a few cities, certain that the Lord would send his Messiah to re-establish David's kingdom, and they committed some atrocities. How did Luther hear about it? He heard that "the Jews" were doing all this, and his infamous pamphlet was the response.
4. Hardly had Luther fired off that pamphlet when every other leading Lutheran--Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, Cruciger, Dietrich, Amsdorf--disavowed it. It is in no way representative of any Lutheran teaching but only an outburst of Luther's notorious temper. It remained entirely obscure until it was brought to a certain Austrian's attention. Even then, very few significant Lutheran theologians endorsed it.
All that said, does this mean that, as Mario Cuomo suggested in his famous Notre Dame speech, a Christian in government must put his faith aside and govern by purely secular considerations? Also no. Christianity must inform the judgment of every Christian governing, even the most marginal Christian. John Adams, though the Congregational churches had not yet divided into the Unitarian and Trinitarian branches, leaned, like most of the Boston aristocracy, toward the Unitarian. But he understood quite well and took very seriously the moral precepts in the Bible. Thomas Jefferson, at the most liberal edge of the newly-formed Episcopal Church, likewise understood this.
No one until the last two generations would have endorsed the libertinism and sometimes anti-Christianity that infects today's Left. (I was going to say "anti-theism", but they can be quite solicitous of Muslims, and many of them profess the sort of Christianity now taught in "main line" Protestant churches today--TEC ("affirming Catholic" pretensions notwithstanding), ELCA, PCUSA, RCA, UMC, UCC, and others.)
A Christian President, Senator, Representative, or Justice still has to make determinations of right and wrong. Where does a person in such a position look for guidance on what is right and what is wrong? To the latest academic fashion at prestige colleges? Or to the Word of God, the Law delivered to Moses and the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ? If a person in such a position cannot let his judgment be informed by the Law and the Gospel, then he is no Christian at all.
The article is a lot like the bumper sticker that reads Feminism is the Radical Notion That Women Are People. I'm an ex-Calvinist who thought he escaped the madness and ambiguous language of the Federal Vision by becoming Lutheran but now Lutherans are quoting Federal Vision guys like Leithart. The Federal Vision isn't even acceptable to mainstream Reformed and Presbyterian Churches and so they started their own. They're hyper-Zwinglian in their embrace of the sword as can be seen in Doug Wilson's activity. Nobody denies that rulers should be called to repentance or that it would be nice if rulers were Christian. But as Pieper points out they serve as scaffolding in spite of themselves. They don't need to become Christian to serve as scaffolding since Pieper is talking about civil righteousness. The early church refused to engage in politics and didn't even think Christians rulers could be Christian nulers but they acknowledged the ruler as given by God. The article refuses to take a stand on whether or not conversion by the sword is acting bad and then goes on to Pharasize the situation by suggesting some forms of coercion might be acceptable without saying which ones. Nathan won't even tell me what laws he wants to change. Luther says every heresy ends in the sword and he accuses the Jews, Papists, Anabaptists, and Zwinglians of embracing the heresy of Islam. He says the fact that Zwingli died with a sword in his hand was proof he was a heretic. It is true that later Lutherans were not consistent in this but their inconsistency doesn't disprove the point. Also, the fact that rulers shouldn't be tyrants doesn't mean it's your duty to replace them. God is in control and gives power. And those who have the power are the ones in authority. That's what Luther and even Calvin says.
The article defends Christian Nationalism as "nations turning to Christ" but that's not what those words mean. Christian Nationalism is a man-made ideology that is Nationalistic and the term "Christian" describes the type of Nationalist you are. Christian Nationalism as used by its adherents clearly indicates an adoption of 18th and 19th Century views of nation states and then insists within that Nationalist framework that laws should be instituted to promote Christianity.
The article confuses godly laws based on reason and natural law with laws that legislate Christianity. Constantine made Christianity legal but he didn't legislate it. He continued to support pagan temples too. The article confuses the removal of canon law with asking for new Christian laws.
The Anabaptists were disciples of Zwingli and revolutionaries trying to Christianize the State. This is mentioned in the Book of Concord. It's all the failed attempts and dying that made them argue for religious liberty. It's really enlightenment Philip that argues for religious liberty. Neither Walther nor Luther argued for religious liberty and they were both pretty hostile to the concept of rights.
Charles,
Thanks for responding.
The article is an effort to get Lutherans thinking more about what not only Luther but the Lutheran Confessions say about the issues regarding church and state.
Do you agree that all the quotations from the confessions and McKenzie are accurate?
You say "later Lutherans were not consistent". Do you think that, generally speaking, Luther was consistent in his view?
How does the article confuse godly laws based on reason and natural law with laws that legislate Christianity? Would there, for example, be something wrong with a Christian people passing "Sabbath laws" on Sunday (referencing Christianity but following the view that Sunday is freely set aside by Christians for good order), but not rulers making Sunday a secular day off?
Your point about scaffolding is fair, even as you agree it would be better to have a Christian ruler.
Probably enough for now.
+Nathan
The quotations are accurate but McKenzie doesn't honestly represent the situation. I doubt he's read much Walther. I think Luther was pretty consistent. Since the Apology of the Augsburg says the Gospel doesn't introduce new laws but that we obey the existing laws whether written by heathen or others, and all your deductions lead you to believe that we should introduce Christian laws, do you think the Apology is wrong? Ramirez ignores the context of these Luther quotes and it's pretty clear Luther is worried about sedition. They seem presume a false dichotomy between some type of theonomist view and American enlightenment philosophy while pretending it's Anabaptist. Yes, you can have days of rest. I don't think that's really the issue. But when people are talking about amending the Constitution to make it Christian, that's prohibited by the Confessions and so is all that calls itself Christian Nationalism today. Christian Nationalists talk like nationalists not Christians concerned about God's judgement for America's treatment of the poor and outsider and the idolatry of the church especially in the way things like the LCMS reconciliation process persecutes and encourages pastors to engage in mortal sin. If Lutherans can't make their synodical laws Christian they sure aren't going to make America Christian. Bad rulers and bad laws are the result of the idolatry of the church. The fact that Lutherans think the laws need to be changed shows the atheistic Egyptian darkness they live in. While complaining about LGBT stuff among the Gentiles, the church protects pedophiles. Wake up! Read Romans 1 and 2 and figure out what's going on.
Accordingly, at this time,
marriage ought to have been especially
defended by the most severe laws and
warning examples, and men ought to have
been invited to marriage. This duty
pertains to the magistrates, who ought to
maintain public discipline. [God has now so
blinded the world that adultery and
fornication are permitted almost without
punishment; on the contrary, punishment
is inflicted on account of marriage. Is not
this terrible to hear?] Meanwhile the
teachers of the Gospel should do both; they should exhort incontinent men to marriage, and should exhort others not to despise the gift of continence. Gee it sounds like Melanchthon was advocating for the magistrates to do their duty to make better laws regarding penalties for adultery!
If Christian Nationalists were real they would be trying to keep Christians out of America. They're just a tool of the same philosophical movement as the French Revolution
Charles,
Thank you. You might need to unpack your statement about Christian nationalists and the French Revolution a little bit for people to understand what exactly you're thinking.
The Apology is dealing with Carlstadt and his revolutionary attitude. He wanted to reestablish the laws of Moses by force from below. it mentions this directly. Clearly Christian magistrates create and enforce laws, and for a Christian people, these laws will be in accordance with Christianity. Luther did this throughout his career, as the article demonstrates. The Lutheran confessions follow in his train.
+Nathan
This is what Luther says to you:
"Even if it [John 21:25] were said about human laws and works, which cannot be, should one therefore seek to write so many books that the world could no longer contain them, and therefore do precisely what the apostle wants to leave undone? Truly, there is more than enough written in Scripture so that there is no need for more commandments and laws. Indeed, there is no longer any power on earth to make Christian laws, as I have proven many times."
Luther, Martin. 1999. Luther’s Works, Vol. 39: Church and Ministry I. Edited by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
"Beware of the illusion that you are winning freedom for your body when you are really losing your body, property, and soul for all eternity. God’s wrath is there; fear it, I advise you! The devil has sent false prophets among you; beware of them!
And now we want to move on and speak of the law of Christ, and of the gospel, which is not binding on the heathen, as the other law is. For if you claim that you are Christians and like to be called Christians and want to be known as Christians, then you must also allow your law to be held up before you rightly. Listen, then, dear Christians, to your Christian law! Your Supreme Lord Christ, whose name you bear, says, in Matthew 6 [5:39–41], “Do not resist one who is evil. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. If anyone wants to take your coat, let him have your cloak too. If anyone strikes you on one cheek, offer him the other too.” Do you hear this, O Christian association? How does your program stand in light of this law? You do not want to endure evil or suffering, but rather want to be free and to experience only goodness and justice. However, Christ says that we should not resist evil or injustice but always yield, suffer, and let things be taken from us. If you will not bear this law, then lay aside the name of Christian and claim another name that accords with your actions, or else Christ himself will tear his name away from you, and that will be too hard for you."
Luther, Martin. 1999. Luther’s Works, Vol. 46: The Christian in Society III. Edited by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
For more on Nationalism and the French Revolution you can start with the Nationalism article on Wikipedia.
Charles,
You got page numbers for those? Esp.the first one? Or at least which essay in the volume?
+Nathan
The first is from vol 39 page 170 "Answer to the Hyperchristian, Hyperspiritual, and Hyperlearned Book by Goat Emser in Leipzig—Including some Thoughts Regarding his Companion, the Fool Murner"
The second is volume 46 page 29 Admonition to Peace A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia
What these discussions miss is that Luther and Frederick the Wise and all the princes at Augsburg in 1530 and all whi signed the Book of Concord in 1580 all were Christian nationalists. So we're all their opponents. The whole west was Christian nationalists. Secularism did not arise until after the peace of Westphalia. In all the Lutheran lands the Lutheran Church was supported by the state and given privileged status. Heresy carried legal consequences. It is anachronistic to project modern conceptions of secular governance into the 16th century.
It's anachronistic to project Christian Nationalism which is a later development on to these earlier people just because of you live in a false dichotomy. Christian Nationalism and secularism aren't the only possibilities. Were the early Christians who refused to participate in politics Christian Nationalists too?
They did not live in a democracy so they did not have politics. Christian nationalism began with the conversion of Constantine at least the way I am using the term. Though Ethiopia might have gotten there earlier. The problem with terms like Christian nationalism is it can mean so many different things. In the sense that the early Christians sought to make disciples of all nations they were. In the sense of luvibg in a culture shaped and infused with Christian faith the way it once was in the west no. That cultural shift is what Nuetzche meant by the death of God. So yes I want Christian nationalism a culture infused with Christ. A government reflective of such a culture as well. I doubt I will live to see it. I doubt it will come to pass again in the west. But how can we not aspire to it? How can we not pray for it?
Ancient Rome had politics. Christians were persecuted because they refused to take part. Constantine made Christianity legal but continued to support pagan temples and didn't make them illegal. Maybe try reading some Pieper where he discusses the different understandings of the church and state so you aren't just controlled by politicians and involved in the secularization of the church.
The article mentions "private redress." It never touches on what follows right after the Apology says private redress is prohibited by command. What follows is this: "Public redress, which is made through the office of the magistrate, is not advised against, but is commanded, and is a work of God, according to Paul, Rom. 13, 1 sqq.
Now the different kinds of public redress are legal decisions, capital punishment, wars, military service." In other words, making laws through the office of the magistrate IS commanded and is a work of God. Furthermore no one mentioned the final part of the Declaration. In the final section of the Declaration, 4 particular errors of the Anabaptists are mentioned:
-That under the New Testament the magistracy is not a godly estate.
-That a Christian cannot with a good, inviolate conscience hold the office of magistrate.
-That a Christian cannot without injury to conscience use the office of the magistracy in matters that may occur [when the matter so demands against the wicked, neither can its subjects appeal to its power.
-That magistrates cannot without injury to conscience inflict capital punishment upon evil doers.
If someone is interpreting the other parts of the confessions in such a way as to justify these errors of the anabaptists, they probably are reading the confessions incorrectly. Clearly, the confessions DO in fact teach that it is a work of God for a Christian man to hold the office of magistrate and write and uphold godly laws.