Luther and Liberation: A Latin American Perspective

preserved. However, the concept can itself become discriminatory and authoritarian when it is used to exclude the religious from the public sphere, confining it to the private sphere or just the temple environment. Now, religion is notoriously one of the most public manifestations. And it would be absurd and arbitrary to deny it democratic expression and participation in matters in the public interest. In sum: we need to affirm a “secular State,” characterized by respectful consideration and inclusion of religious diversity existing in its midst, but reject a “secular State” understood in a sense of the exclusion of the religious from public space. One can show easily that Luther, in speaking of “secular” authorities, had in mind a delimitation of functions, not a qualification of the autonomous nature of the political burden. Incidentally, Luther did not surpass the concept of “Christendom,” in which civil and religious society are identical in magnitude. His distinction is made within the system of Christendom, although one can argue its significance even more when Christendom has faded as a system or project. Luther asked of the German nobility, however, the improvement of the Christian estate! This deep link became definitively clear in his educational positions.4 Luther wanted to universalize the school system, placing it as a duty of the State, in particular of municipal authorities. He advocated a new pedagogy, fundamentally humanist. But he wanted a Christian school. The basis of teaching would be the Bible. And he fits the office of teacher into the spiritual charter. 2. Models of Relationship Between Church and State Luther’s position will become clearer as we seek to illustrate in diverse 4. See chapter 10: Education. Luther and Liberation 180 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

ways the relation between Church and State. I take the liberty to schematize them. 2.1. Model of the Separation of Church and State In this first model, whose terms of illustration could be multiplied, the State and Church are intended to be separate quantities like those in watertight compartments. Each has its field of competence, perfectly separated from the other. It is said, generally, that the State has to do with the secular order, and the Church with the spiritual order. Or, it is said that the Church has to do with internal organization, while the State regulates society as a whole. On the one side is the public order, under the responsibility of the State, on the other the private intimate order that fits the proclamation of the formal Church. In a simpler way it is said that the State cares for the body, while the Church nurtures the soul. The Church makes use of the word, the State of the sword. The Church preaches the gospel; the State applies the law. The State must ensure order and punish the unlawful; the Church is the instrument of love and must forgive. We must recognize that this model of separation has been defended with frequency by Protestant churches and movements, as well as secular movements with a liberal perspective. We should, however, note that this model of separation can assume form in two variants, apparently exclusive, but fundamentally based in the same premise of the separation of the Church and State. The Reign of God in Church and State 181 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

We can call the first variant “demonization of politics.” This affirms that whatever occurs in the political sphere is fundamentally and essentially characteristic of the fallen world, an expression of human sin or, even, the work of the devil. Politics is something dirty, in which Christians renewed by the gospel should not participate. Christians are already living in the new world, regenerated, amid the old and fallen, and have then new lives that would be wasted, if they were to participate in politics. They restrict themselves, therefore, either to the private sphere or to living in communion with those who are saved. It is quite possible to observe people and groups formed with this line of thought and attitudes in all the churches, including Catholic, but no doubt it is more frequent in Protestant churches or in sectarian groups of apocalyptic nature. This tendency was particularly accentuated in the Pentecostal movement in its infancy, although here also we should not generalize. Either way, such groups demonize the political order of the world, and therefore the State, seeking refuge in the spiritual order. They tolerate the world since one has to live in it, but they do so in anticipation of heaven. Variant 2—I understand that it seems antagonistic, but paradoxically it leads to the same effects—is characterized by “the autonomy of politics.” This variant shares the basic view that the competencies of the State and of the Church are clearly separated. This does not have the effect, however, of demonizing the political. On the contrary, it expresses a clearly optimistic vision of the State. It is understood to be part of God’s creation, and is therefore good. The same goes for the social and economic realms. In relation to the economic realm, for example, it is common to hear that the “market,” if it is permitted to act “freely,” will regulate on its own all economic relationships, providing “naturally” the best outcome for the common good. Therefore, the Church should never interfere or meddle in the Luther and Liberation 182 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

specific realm of the State. This is because the State, politics, economics, and society would be ruled by laws inherent to themselves. Their own rationality would be inherent in them, whose laws our technical reason would discover and apply. The Church would pervert everything if, in these specific and technical fields, it were to raise questions from its own spiritual order, which would be the gospel, the will of God, the Spirit of Christ. The Church which speaks of God, Jesus Christ, and the gospel in the private realm, awakens and strengthens the personal morality of the people, promotes family life, but it does not address political, social, and economic issues, that technical rationality treats. These spheres, therefore, would be autonomous, and it would not be lawful for the Church to invade them. Note, therefore, that there is here a great optimism, almost unlimited with politics, through the application of technical knowledge and reason. The State has its own competence and its inner logic; we put, then, or better, heed technicians, politicians, and economists in positions of command—and they will resolve all well in our place, with their technical expertise. This variant is also particularly tempting to Protestantism. Lutheranism experienced acutely the tragedy of such a vision, when in Germany it sought to legitimize Nazi ideology and the National Socialist system of the Third Reich (1933–45) with these same arguments. However, this vision can be registered also on a large scale in the United States, a country in which was established eventually the principle of the separation of Church and State, permitting capitalism to develop with its own rationality, legitimized by the ideological backing of that theological conception. Note, thus, that the two variants presented have in common the premise of separation of Church and State. Consequently, both serve to legitimate the status quo. It matters little whether one deifies and The Reign of God in Church and State 183 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

the other demonizes politics; both leave it untouched in the contingent form in which it presents itself or in the rationality that guides it. It is for this also that individually or in groups one can oscillate with relative ease from one variant to the other, in fact, taking part uncritically in an order, which in theory may even be demonized. This would be an intermediate variant—though frequent, due to the inevitable weight of real life—of the model of separation between Church and State. 2.2 Model of Alliance Between Church and State The visualization of this model is simple: church + state At first glance, one supposes this model to be antagonistic to the previous one. That would be, however, a mistake, because here too there is a division of spheres of competence. The only difference is that the separation is transformed into active, conscious, and deliberate cooperation. The fields of action are divided, but both cooperate in a common project, for which an alliance is made, leaving one task to the Church, another to the State. Also in this model we can observe two variants, because when two entities are disposed to cooperate, the question of the division of power inevitably arises. Who will have the upper hand? Who determines whom? Ultimately, will the Church dominate the State or will the State dominate the Church? Whoever studies church history records occasions when this question was acute, such as in the long period of the Middle Ages, in the conflicts between the Pope and the Emperor. Church and State are not put there as two complementary authorities, on the same level, but one exercises dominion over the other, limiting it and using it. The first case, the dominion of the Church over the State, is Luther and Liberation 184 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

characterized by the authority of “spiritual” power over “secular” power. The State would be submissive to the Church. The Church would hold the “sword,” as well as the “word,” and the State would exercise its task by delegation and commission of the Church, being controlled by it. We had this relation in periods of the Middle Ages. Nowadays, a better example of this model would be outside of Christianity, namely, in radical wings of Islam in which political decisions are conditional on the previous or subsequent approval of the religious authority. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to find such radical examples in Christianity today. Observe that the evolution of the modern State and the process of secularization in the West either led to the separation of Church and State, or tended to reverse the roles, with the Church becoming dependent on the State. The State came to be the determining power, which either conceded to the Church a more limited specific field, or used the Church to strengthen its own power and for ideological legitimacy. I give two examples of this second variant, the dominion of the State over the Church. The first example refers to the Lutheran churches. Luther, in his time, judged it necessary to protest against the authority of the Church over the State. The historical development brought rupture and division in Christendom into two ecclesiastical bodies—against Luther’s desire, who wanted an evangelical restoration in the one Church of Christ. In the conflictual political relationship that was established between Catholicism and Protestantism, which came to include religious war, the task of the Reformation, from the point of view of its institutional organization, was carried out in Germany by the princes, who could count on Luther’s support. Thus, they implanted measures permanently which Luther had advocated only as emergency, such as the establishment of territorial churches (in which the religious affiliation of the subjects The Reign of God in Church and State 185 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

was decided by the choice of the prince [the principle of cuius regio, eius religio]), the confiscation of goods and the allocation of church properties, and even the appointment of priests and bishops—all measures that were in force until relatively recently. Lutheran Churches of the State persist still today, such as in Scandinavian countries, although recent constitutional reforms have ensured relations between Church and State more consistent with the spirit of modernity. The second example comes from Latin American history. The history of its conquest and colonization is marked by the alliance between State and Church. Certainly there were many tensions and also resistance but the dominant project was precisely that of “Christendom,” in which State and Church were allied. The cross and the sword were combined for the submission of this continent, its indigenous population, and for the importation of black slaves. Also this alliance is one of the dominion of state over ecclesial power. The model was of Christendom, which combined the political and economic system of the colonizing project with the implantation of the Iberian culture and the Christian faith. Through the system of patronage, it was the State who sent and paid missionaries and who, therefore, in situations of conflict could also call them back to the home country. By establishing a comparison between the model of the separation and that of alliance between Church and State, one can observe that both, in any of their variants, end up having an analogous effect: the strengthening of dominant interests. To place the Church in direct service, as in the last example, or to limit the Church to the private and spiritual sphere in relation to the soul or else concede autonomy to the State—each of these models always favors the dominant interests. If we want to reach other principles for the political action of Luther and Liberation 186 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Christians and the churches, we will have to face the issue from another angle still, in search of a truly alternative model. For this, I suggest the following question: who are those notably absent in the schemas so far traced? The people are one, and God is another. In these models one thinks at the level of institutions—State and Church, and their relations—but one does not start from the concrete needs of the people nor does one question the real will of God. The following model must, therefore, have precisely this starting point. 2.3. Model of the Dialectical Relationship between Church and State in the Context of the Struggle for Justice Under this somewhat sophisticated title, we are addressing the issue of the “two kingdoms” in Luther. It is an extraordinarily controversial subject, difficult to resolve, with notable disagreements among specialists. It has even been said that this doctrine configured a theological “labyrinth,” in which it would be extremely easy to get lost.5 Ulrich Duchrow deeply researched the biblical and theological roots of this theme in Luther, with rich material of biblical sources, ancient and medieval theology.6 In him, basically two sources for the categories used by Luther are detected: a biblical-apocalyptic (with its dramatic view of the end times and the conflict between God and the devil) and another Augustinian of two “cities,” the divine celestial and the earthly human. Luther inserted the second duality into the greater frame of the first, configuring his highly dialectical thinking on this issue. Between 1970 and 1977, Ulrich Duchrow, then director of the Department of Theology and Studies of the LWF, coordinated a comprehensive research project, with the participation of a large number of theologians from various continents, on the developments 5. See Johannes Heckel, “Im Irrgarten der Zwei-Reiche-Lehre; Zwei Abhandlungen zum Reichsund Kirchenbegriff Martin Luthers,” Theol. Ex. NF no. 55, (1957). 6. Ulrich Duchrow, Christenheit und Weltverantwortung: Traditionsgeschichte und Systematische Struktur der Zweireichelehre (Stuttgart: Ernst Klett, 1970). The Reign of God in Church and State 187 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

of the categories of Luther, especially in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, both in the theory and practice of the churches. The key question was to identify forms of the “use and abuse” of the socalled doctrine of the two kingdoms. The controversy that ensued, revolved in large part around the question of to what extent one could attribute to this doctrine certain ecclesiastical behaviors in questions of politics (whether in its use, or its abuse), since their respective behaviors were not only contradictory, but also parallel behavior could be observed in other churches, with other theological influences. In Lutheranism, one could observe that the positions varied from critical postures or even resistance to constituted regimes and authorities (for example, in the separation of Church and State in the USA or in the resistance to the Nazi occupation of Norway, already mentioned) to positions of acceptance and total support to totalitarian regimes (for example, national-socialism in Germany, Pinochet in Chile, and apartheid in South Africa). As the project of studies of the LWF sought to denounce conservative ecclesiastical behaviors (the “abuse” of doctrine) and support the socially critical behaviors (the “use” of doctrine), it had to face a virulent debate of whether the entire project had an improper “ideologization” of the question.7 It is certain that Luther himself never elaborated the doctrine of the two kingdoms in a systematized form; it was, on the contrary, a product of the theological effort of the last two centuries (or even just the twentieth century). It is also undisputed that the categories Luther used are more dialectical than the simplified concept of the “two kingdoms” is generally supposed.8 In the following I try to lay out, in adapted form, Luther’s position.9 The relationships are far more complex than the schemas 7. On this debate, see, among others, the two volumes by Niels Hasselmann, ed., Gottes Wirken in Seiner Welt: Zur Diskussion um die Zweireichelehre. v. 1: Dokumentation einer Konsultation; v. 2: Reaktionen (Hamburg: Lutherisches V., 1980). 8. See also chapter 13: Resistance and Violence. Luther and Liberation 188 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

presented above, precisely because both the Church and the State, as well as the human being, have to be placed in the larger framework of the struggle of God against the idols,10 in favor of the establishment of the kingdom of God. 9. This diagram is a modification of one elaborated by Ulrich Duchrow in his “Introduction” to Lutheran Churches, 6–7. 10. On “God and idols,” see also chapter 2: The God of Life against all Falsehood of the Idols of Death. The Reign of God in Church and State 189 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

However, this does not mean that creation and humanity have stopped being objects of struggle. There are plenty of terms that could characterize what is at stake. We made a selection of these possible terms in the side columns. God advocates justice against injustice, truth against falsehood, liberation against domination, and so on. The final result is not uncertain, since it became reality in the death and resurrection of Christ, in whom the idols (devil) are overwhelmed. This victory is marked by the symbol of the cross and the reference to the theme of Christus victor. 11 First observe the “frame” of the picture above, that is, the top and bottom lines, as well as the columns on the right and left. The situation in which we find creation and humanity is in no way characterized by neutrality. On the contrary, creation is disputed territory; humanity lives in a situation of conflict. The dispute is ongoing between God and the idols (in traditional language: the devil). It is not a question of dualistic Manichaeism, because the outcome of the dispute is no longer open. God is superior to the idols and victorious over them. The final result will be God’s kingdom, the new heaven and the new earth. However, this struggle did not occur in an ahistorical manner or without human involvement. History is justly the field of battle in this struggle, in which humanity and creation are inevitably involved. Incidentally, they are the disputed objects. Human beings are not just spectators but protagonists. They may form themselves into instruments of oppression or liberation. Faith centered on Jesus Christ crucified but risen gives the certainty of victory, even in the moment “against all appearances.”12 Against the appearance of the success 11. On the theme “Christus victor,” see chapter 3: In the Cross of Christ, Victory over all Evil. 12. “Large Catechism,” in The Book of Concord: The Confession of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 391; hereafter abbreviated as BC. The English translation here is “in the face of this apparent contradiction” but it is not really correct. The German phrase is “wider solchen Schein” (“against all Luther and Liberation 190 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

of injustice, hopelessness, oppression, and death, faith clings to the divine reality and promise, trusting in the supremacy of justice, hope, liberation and life. I tried to sketch this situation of conflict in the “core” of the diagram above, that is, the central columns. History, human beings, and institutions become a theater of conflict between justice and injustice, characterized in the schema as “new” and “old” realities. All present reality is permeated by the “new” and the “old.” And when evaluating the human being, the Church and the State, one has to always pose this question: which is it serving, the “old” or the “new” reality? We can see that “old” and “new” here are characterized by quality, not a chronological sequence. “Old” is all that in light of the victory of God is bound to pass, even though it is still very active and seemingly prevalent. “New” is all that in the light of the kingdom of God is destined to prevail, even as in the present it still seems to be very weak. The line between “old” and “new” permeates all reality, the human being, the Church and the State. Thus, it is traced above with a dotted line. To the extent that the kingdom is still awaited in its fullness, no one nor any institution, including the church, can claim to be totally characterized by “new.” On the other hand, however, no one needs to resign herself to the current virulence of the “old,” because from Christ the kingdom is already a present reality, although challenged by that which is already overcome. At each step one experiences the anguish of the old reality but one also sees the signs of the “new.” The concurrent and antagonistic “old” and “new” realities can be reflected everywhere. The relationship between Church and State, which we have enjoyed, will be too narrow if it is not placed within the larger context of appearances,” “against what it appears to be”). On Luther’s expression, see also the chapter referred to in note 10 above. The Reign of God in Church and State 191 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

God’s will and the conflictive and antagonistic reality. What matters, therefore, is not the Church-State relation in and of itself but whether it walks the walk of justice. With regard to persons and institutions, one needs to always ask the question, to what extent they reflect the “new” or the “old” reality, whether they favor justice or protect injustice. Within this outline, we can imagine many different variants. It could be (variant 1) that we have a situation so oppressive and distorted that both the State and the Church are part of the “old” reality. One finds in the “holy” alliance the instruments of domination. It could be, second (variant 2), that the inverse situation is assumed, in which the Church is fundamentally a means of communion and liberation, and the State stands in defense of the oppressed and the promotion of an egalitarian and participative society. As we have not yet found the path of the consummated reign of God, that possibility will not occur in a “pure” way but always only relatively, requiring a permanent critical vigilance toward both institutions. In the third place (variant 3), we can imagine a perverted State, an instrument of domination, and a Church truly in the service of Christ, which, therefore, is placed in critical resistance to the State and, possibly suffers persecution. However, we can also imagine the inverse (variant 4), in which the Church perseveres in being a defender of the “old” realities, aims for its own institutional preservation and is installed with privileges, while the State is an instrument of the popular will of transformation and construction of a just society. Pure cases, however, will be difficult to find. Most times there will be a complicated game encompassing people, the Church, the State, and all the institutions. In the final analysis, it is always a question of discovering within the framework of the struggle between God and the idols, the move toward the kingdom of God and asking who and what values it is serving. Luther and Liberation 192 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

2.4 The Distortions of the Dialectical Model of the Church-State Relationship If this dynamic distinction between the so-called “two kingdoms,” without undue separation or identification, is apparently so clear in Luther, we must address, albeit briefly, the question of why the Lutheran churches have been so vulnerable to such distortions. In this moment, we abstract it from the multiple historical reasons of economic, political, and social character, which undoubtedly played a very significant role.13 Theological reflection often reflects these developments, strengthening them in turn. Therefore, the alterations that were produced or introduced into Luther’s schema are interesting. The hypothesis outlined here sees that these alterations move invariably toward the dissolution of the dialectic inherent in Luther’s conception, producing dualisms of various orders. I try, one more time, a schematic, with two variants.14 13. For example, remember the process of the formation of territorial churches (see chapter 6: The Church—Poor People of God, section III.2). 14. One could classify these schemas as caricatures. In fact, in practice it will be difficult to find fully consistent models of this type. However, they are able to indicate present and effective trends through the history of the churches and Western society. The Reign of God in Church and State 193 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

2.4.1. Religious Dualism What are the most significant changes to this schema, compared to the previous? Most fundamentally, reality is neatly divided between “new” and “old,” which is marked by the continuous line of separation. Consequently, the cross of Christ, as a sign of victory, is shifted to that sphere attributed to God, while the “old reality” is a distinct sphere of dominion of the Devil (symbolized in the schema by §). Both humans and the Church are separated into areas of salvation and damnation. Evangelical preaching aims, through the call to conversion, to expand the space of salvation or attract people who, abandoning the old reality, enter into the new space in communion with others already saved. In turn, the state, with all its institutions and specific areas (for example, economics and politics), is seen as sinful and a space for the action of the devil. The saved must not engage with them. Finally, “heaven” and “world” are not related in a dialectical process but as separate sealed entities. One belongs to one or the other. Strictly speaking, there is no hope for the world, only for people who can get away from it. Luther and Liberation 194 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

2.4.2. Secular Dualism This schema differs from the previous one, fundamentally, by renouncing the classification of “good” and “bad.” This is a separation within a reality that is, on the whole, good. The image of a victorious Christ no longer makes sense and, therefore, the sign of the cross is deleted from the schema. Also, the figure of the devil disappeared and even God is, so to speak, on hold: God can exist or not. Indeed, the alienation of God to areas more distant from reality is characteristic of the process of secularization. All that has to do with religion is restricted to the spiritual realm and the private sphere. So the churches have jurisdiction there and must not interfere with the State’s jurisdiction. The public order, in turn, is governed by its own laws, which are discovered and used through autonomous reason. So, the way opens for the specialists and technocrats. This then is the proper framework for State action. Finally, there is no heaven in this schema. Or, perhaps, one could say that heaven is already given in the present reality of the world. A final observation is that in both variants the public order and its authorities are maintained, surrendering the task of its transformation The Reign of God in Church and State 195 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

in the light of God’s will. In the first schema, this is because it is a sphere that is demonized in principle, in the second because it is a positive realm restricted to autonomous reason. If one wants to recover the critical dimension in favor of a transformation also of the State according to the precepts of justice and of life it will be indispensable to recover conceptions of a dialectical nature, as outlined in 2.3. 3. Criticism of Secular Power Although the image of a Luther subservient to political authorities, in particular to the princes, is widespread, one can recognize his many criticisms—sometimes bitter—of the authorities. One of the best-known writings is from 1523, on secular authority.15 In this writing, dedicated to Prince John, Duke of Saxony, Luther explained the dignity and the weight of public office. The work was written under the impact of the confiscation of copies of his translation of the New Testament by several German princes16 and of the killing in Brussels of the early martyrs of the Reformation, the monks Henry Voes and John Esche, of Antwerp, by the imperial authority.17 Luther argued that the holders of political office have no authority over the consciences of people, and cannot make use of their coercive power to impose a faith. He bluntly stated that rarely does one find a good politician who aims to follow precepts of justice and equity; calling it a “mighty rare bird.”18 In the face of abuses in 15. LW 45:81–129. The theological consciousness is widely shaped by the assumption that Luther advocated for strict obedience towards secular authorities. However, the title and specially the subtitle of Luther’s treatise (Temporal authority: to what extent it should be obeyed) indicate clearly that it deals not primarily with obedience towards secular authorities, but rather with the limits for such obedience, which therefore cannot be seen as absolute. 16. Gert Wendelborn, Martin Luther: Leben und Reformatorisches Werk (Berlin: Union, 1983), 203. 17. Karl Heussi, Kompendium der Kirchengeschichte, 12th ed. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1960), 320–21. 18. LW 45:113. And yet: “It is not impossible for a prince to be a Christian, although it is a rare thing and beset with difficulties.” (LW 45:121) Luther and Liberation 196 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

matters of this order, Christians must obey God rather than human authorities, criticizing and peacefully resisting at their discretion. If necessary, they should be willing to suffer martyrdom. However, we see how strong Luther’s critique could be, with regard to civil issues not only religious conviction, in his interpretation of Psalm 82, in a little-known text and symptomatically not found in any of the popular or selected editions, available to me in Portuguese, Spanish, English, or German.19 It is worth mentioning that it was written in 1530—a few years after the Peasants’ War (1525)—since it is frequently interpreted that Luther was revolutionary until 1525, and became conservative after that conflict. I quote Psalm 82 from the Revised King James Version: 1God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment; 2 “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? 3 give justice to the weak and the orphan; maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute. 4Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” 5They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk around in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. 6 I say, “You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you; 7nevertheless, you shall die like mortals, and fall like any prince.” 8Rise up, O God, judge the earth; for all the nations belong to you! This is, according to Luther, a political psalm.20 The first verse 19. LW 13:41–72, especially 41–61, 67–72. 20. Luther developed political interpretations also from other Psalms, for example, Psalm 127 (LW 45:317–37) and even the Magnificat (LW 21:297–358). See the introduction of Karl Gerhard The Reign of God in Church and State 197 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

describes God as standing in judgment, in the midst of the congregation, to judge the “gods,” that is, the political authorities, the princes. The trial of these happens in the congregation, that is, the Church is the vehicle for the judgment of the word of God on political authorities. In his introduction, Luther explained how the princes, after being liberated from the tutelage of the papacy by the Reformation proclamation of the gospel, now would seek to be liberated from the gospel itself, in order to dominate and place themselves even above God. They would want to shut the mouth of each preacher who criticized them: “Whoever rebukes them is seditious, rebels against the authority ordained by God.”21 But the gospel, according to Luther, is precisely subversive and, therefore, it is part of the office of the preacher to point out evil. Luther understood verses two through four as a description of political office. Each prince should have them inscribed, “in his room, over his bed, at his desk and also on his clothes.”22 There are three tasks that Luther distinguished here: first, to guarantee the free preaching of the gospel, precisely this critical and prophetic preaching; in second place, to defend the law and justice to the weak and helpless; finally, to guarantee order, peace, and protection to the needy. The sequence of the tasks is not casual. The free preaching comes first, so that through its critique, political power will be permanently limited, contested in its claim to absolutism, and reminded of its duties. In second place comes the establishment of the law and justice, as premise for the fulfillment of the task of maintaining order, peace, and protection. The law must not be broken but observed. And, finally, all the tasks, according to the psalm, are not in the service of dominant interests but always from the Steck in Das Magnifikat. Der 127. Psalm: zwei Auslegungen, by Martin Luther, ed. Karl Gerhard Steck (Munich: Goldmann, 1961), 5–21. 21. LW 13:43. 22. LW 13:51. Luther and Liberation 198 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

perspective of those who are weak, helpless, needy, oppressed, and downtrodden. According to Luther, the princes would have seriously injured their duties, getting rid of the gospel, putting themselves above God, doing politics to their own advantage and oppressing the people. So it would be essential for the preachers to serve as the voice of God’s judgment. In this point, Luther moved to criticize the classes of preachers who avoid this mission. He distinguished, between these, three types. First, there are the infidels and lazy ones, who through convenience and fear of reprisals prefer to omit this. In second place, there are the sycophants, who for their own interests and connivance support the political arbitrary actions. Finally, there are the slanderers, those who prefer to criticize privately, sneakily, but do not have the courage to make it public in worship. Against all these, Luther contrasted the true preacher, who does not shirk the task of critiquing injustice and oppression, does not defend their own interests, and does not bend out of fear of the personal consequences of persecution that he may come to suffer. “So then, this first verse,” Luther wrote, teaches us that to rebuke rulers is not seditious, provided it is done in the way here described: namely, by the office to which God has committed that duty, and through God’s Word, spoken publicly, boldly, and honestly. To rebuke rulers in this way is, on the contrary, a praiseworthy, noble, and rare virtue, and a particularly great service to God, as the Psalm here proves.23 Truly, one must note: it is impossible to legitimately use Luther to argue for the total autonomy of the political and the Church omitting itself from politics, restricting itself to the so-called spiritual realm. 23. LW 13:50. The Reign of God in Church and State 199 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

III. Conclusion: The Liberating Reign of God in the Church and Latin American Politics We conclude that this dualistic view of the so-called “doctrine of the two kingdoms,” separating gospel and politics, church and state, cannot be legitimately attributed to Luther. He made a distinction relative to competencies, the relevance of which we have already outlined when we reflected on the relation of the BECs with political and historical performance.24 1. The Prophetic Function of the Christian Faith To have broken the authority of the Church over politics was, without doubt, a liberating historical contribution of Luther. Equal resistance is necessary to oppose any claim or system of the absolute autonomy of politics. And, in fact, the situation of modern states, at least Western, does not resemble in any way ecclesiastical tutelage over the political, but of course is much more analogous to the situation described by Luther in his exposition of Psalm 82: the autonomy and the secularization of the State. Consequently, Luther’s warnings in favor of obedience to secular authorities, in today’s reality have lost their relevance, but the call to critique and to resistance in face of injustice and oppression has gained it. How can we concretize this discovery in the historical moment and reality we experience in Latin America? First, we can recall what happened in the passage from the military dictatorships to democracies in our continent. Obviously, there was not a uniform role exercised by the churches in that moment. In many countries there was overt or covert complicity of churches with the discretionary governments. It can be said, however, that where the movement of base communities and the influence of 24. See chapter 6: The Church—Poor People of God (section III.3). Luther and Liberation 200 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

liberation theology were felt strongly, dictatorial governments were faced not only with the critical voice of the churches exercising their prophetic office, but moreover, concretely with the strength of popular organization and often mainly in the religious sphere. Even if they had been able to capitalize on representative social segments, each time with more difficulty however, they had to confront a growing vindicatory and demonstrative mobilization of workers, peasants, students, housewives, civil servants, and so on. This was, undoubtedly, one of the most decisive factors that led to the end of the military dictatorships and the transition to democratic regimes. This political contribution in favor of democracy should not be minimized, although the expectations of the popular movement in relation to the social and economic question have not been fulfilled in any way, initially. On the contrary, poverty and misery grew across the continent throughout the 1980s, not least under the weight of the crippling interest rates applied unilaterally by the creditor countries on the external debt of Latin American countries. Meanwhile, however, thanks to consistent social policies and, in certain moments, more favorable conditions in international trade, there have been in many countries of Latin America a significant reduction in hunger, poverty, and misery. The political leaders who have directed these social policies are frequently from the popular social movement or even were imprisoned and tortured under the dictatorships. The influence of the Christian base communities and liberation theology was felt in this process. In second place, in times of democracy the churches have the chance to realize anew their closeness or their historic task with the people. They abdicated inevitably, but willingly, their past role of being the voice of those without a voice, as they were obliged to be in periods of more severe repression and captivity. The question prefixed to the churches in the new political condition was whether The Reign of God in Church and State 201 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

they would be satisfied in being an assisting voice for a people who moved to having a space to speak their own language. In fact, it should be seen as a positive fact for the churches themselves: they no longer need to be the voice for those who have no voice25 but can rejoice in the speech of the people themselves and be willing to echo them. Consequently, the churches should not forget—and, on the contrary, welcome as a significant step forward—that they have stopped being the only space of the organization of the people, which in some of our countries they were during the repressions. There will be rejoicing always in being “only” a help for those forms of organization that the people rehearse in popular movements, trade unions, parties, and so forth. This way, they cannot fall into the temptation of being the victims of an unnecessary frustration for having lost control of popular organization. It is true that here and there emerged an inverse risk, namely the exploitation of the churches by political interest groups constituted in society. That always can be a real problem; so the churches have the right, as any other organized group, of critique and vigilance around their own identity. However, the mark of the true Church is not caution but courage; it is not withdrawn within its walls but has missionary zeal; it is not allied with dominant powers but in solidarity with the oppressed. For this, it will be cause for gratitude and happiness if Christians and churches can be simply an auxiliary voice, instead of a voice on behalf of other; they can be a channel of help for the organization of the people, instead of aiming to organize in place of the people. Third, much less yet could the churches aim to control the people and, therefore, in the future, at a suitable moment, make use of the State itself in favor of the churches’ interests—whatever they may be. All those ideas must be rejected, thus, which in many variants 25. Moreover, any claim to that effect would be completely anachronistic. Luther and Liberation 202 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

usually reappear repeatedly in Christendom, whether in traditional Catholicism, or also in Evangelical Protestantism, as well as in Pentecostal and Neo-Pentecostal churches, in the sense that the churches should sponsor a whole model itself, a political, social, and economic alternative model, perhaps the exclusive authorship of Christians and churches. Proposals of this type come either with the mark of nostalgia in relation to power that one has in the past of the Church or with the desire of a future and renewed “Christian society.” It is worth, therefore, emphasizing again: the fundamental option is not between Church and State, but between justice and injustice, truth and lies, freedom and oppression, life and death. This option, the gospel requires of both the Church and the State. Therefore, strictly speaking it is not to defend the State from the undue interference of the Church, neither the Church from arbitrary control of the State. It is always about the concrete struggle in favor of justice and law, of democracy and popular participation, both in the order of the State and in the churches themselves. 2. Typology of Political Action in the Dynamics of Faith We come to the last developments of this theme. If the situations are different, how can and should the Christian people and churches position themselves concretely? To respond to this question we turn again to Ulrich Duchrow, specifically a typology created by him.26 For the concrete action of Christians, we describe, in the first place, the type of adaptation (type 1) to the power structure and the existing economic-social-political system in the form of two variants: the integrated (variant 1.1) and the dualist (variant 1.2). In either case, the status quo is accepted in an uncontested way. Whatever the form 26. This typology is taken from Duchrow, 300–307. The Reign of God in Church and State 203 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

of full adaptation to the existing systems, it always loses the critical dimension indispensable for one to take as a standard the reality of the kingdom of God. In the integrated adaptation (variant 1.1) there is an uncritical adaptation to the given structures of power. An adaptation of this kind is precisely the model of alliance outlined above. In it, the church adapts itself seamlessly to an existing economic-politicalsocial system, conferring on it full support and giving it ideological legitimation. The churches and Christians come to identify with the purposes of the respective regime and renounce their critical role. The seamless adaptation, although very common in the history of the church, is not consistent with the Christian faith. This is evident when it comes to an oppressive regime, but even if it were possible to classify the supported regime basically as an instrument of justice, the Christian faith always has an indispensable role in safeguarding the awareness that we are constantly on a path, so all institutions are improvable and provisional. When Christians and churches renounce the right and the duty of criticism, they are already settled in this order and become, in the words of Jesus, “insipid” (Matt. 5:13). They lost the perspective of the kingdom of God. In the dualistic adaptation (variant 1.2), Christians and churches also adapt to the given power structures. However, this is not through lack of criticism, but through omission of practice. The dualistic adaptation occurs whenever Christians and churches, conscious of the new reality in Christ, remove themselves from politics, because it would be “worldly,” “dirty business,” and so on. There, Christians intend not to get involved, seeking refuge in their “spirituality” or ascetic practices. Or they limit their sphere of activity to the private and intimate realm, leaving the public order as it is and the State, uncontested. In this moment God is limited to the private realm and to intimacy, and the kingdom of God is “spiritualized.” Luther and Liberation 204 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Despite the demonization of politics, the effect of this position is the consolidation of the given structures. Neither is this position a conceivable alternative for the Christian faith because with this it would be renouncing politics, removing divine reach, and delivering it to the dominion of idols. That is, in both variants of adaptation, albeit apparently antagonistically, the effect is the same: the strengthening of the existing structures of power. It is necessary, therefore, to move to the transformation types of variants (type 2). This will be a dialectic posture, making the necessary distinctions, and always postulating a critical participation in the existing order. It avoids any identification, whether theoretical or practical, of the established structures with the kingdom of God. On the other hand, one should note that the concrete action of the Christian people, even in this dialectic, will still be subject to variations according to the specific historical situation. In the first place, we mention critical-constructive participation (variant 2.1). For many, only participation of this kind would be permitted by the Christian faith in any situation. Christians would participate positively in the given social order, although they would do so with their critical contribution, for the constant improvement of the existing order. It is assumed in this model that the subjective and objective conditions for the promotion of greater justice exist, despite the possibly observable difficulties and failures. Objective conditions: the system and its structures permit the advancement of justice, promote participation, and equality. Subjective conditions: the people in power and citizens are trained to make use of the structural possibilities of the promotion of justice and the political structures permit their substitution, for example, through elections. In such a situation, the Christians and churches fundamentally express support and are willing to cooperate. They do not renounce, however, the critical stance of faith and of the word of God, being The Reign of God in Church and State 205 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

ready for constructive criticism: bettering situations, overcoming difficulties, correcting errors. As this criticism, however, rests on a fundamental agreement, the participation of Christians and churches takes on a constructive nature. However, absolutizing this model, independent of the specific circumstances of a given situation, configures an unacceptable ahistorical view. It may be legitimate in a prevalence of situations with democratic mechanisms for participation of the civilian population in the destiny of a country but it will not serve where the existing system is hopelessly tainted by injustice and oppression. It is known that such situations occur quite often. What to do, then, when the objective structural conditions that enable a critical-constructive participation of Christians and churches do not exist? One of two of the following variants is necessary. The political action of Christians and churches should assume the form of passive-critical resistance (variant 2.2), when the structures are, on the one hand, fundamentally flawed and unjust, not permitting the constructive-critical participation, and, on the other hand, so oppressive that they do not give space for active transformation. That is, people cannot find ways to confront openly and actively a regime of unrestrained violence and injustice. Any attempt in this sense would be equivalent to suicide. In these circumstances the only viable alternative for critical Christians could be the way of suffering, intercession, and maintaining critical memory. Passive-critical resistance would be, in this situation, renouncing direct confrontation with the system, accompanied by the refusal to abdicate the freedom of intimate critical conscience. A clear example would be that of the martyrdom of Christians of the early church under the yoke of the Roman Empire. Christians constituted a minority so marked that already by this (apart from other factors) they had no real chance of action on Luther and Liberation 206 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

behalf of mounting a social or political transformation. Their posture assumed then the form of passive-critical resistance, always without denying the faith but rather being willing to suffer martyrdom if necessary. Therefore, to preserve a critical conscience in periods of oppression and captivity, often lengthy, is a fundamental contribution not only for the integrity and identity of the people and churches themselves but equally as a strategy in favor of future times in which the historical circumstances will enable transformative action. Finally, in times in which spaces for direct transformative participation are given or are conquered, the option imposed on the Christian conscience is that of active-critical transformation (variant 2.3). There the critical conscience assumes a form of active action, which aims at radical transformation of the existing system. That is, this variant presupposes existing structures of power so unjust and vicious that the form of constructive-critical action is not adequate; it could mitigate harm here or there, but leave intact and even legitimated an established system of oppression. Therefore, the system cannot be improved within but has to be overcome and abolished. For this, radical transformation is necessary. On the other hand, however, the system is not so strong or oppressive that it can prevent the existence of certain spaces for the active involvement of overcoming it. There, it is not for Christians and churches to limit themselves to passive resistance but to explore the possibilities of active transformation. The Christian faith strengthens the disposition not only for suffering but, before all, the struggle against the causes of suffering and injustice. In fact, in the process of political and social transformation, there may be sometimes abrupt ruptures, but most of the time there is a period of transition more or less time consuming, at times accelerating in a determined moment of maturation. Thus, in the The Reign of God in Church and State 207 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

final stages of dictatorships, both objective and subjective conditions develop for active-critical transformation. Massive street demonstrations in Latin America, for example, forced the transition of the military dictatorships to civilian governments elected by the people, and in Eastern Europe there were also massive street demonstrations that forced the collapse of the bureaucratic Stalinist regimes. This would not have been possible, however, if there had not previously been a stage of passive-critical resistance with the potential to develop into an action of active-critical transformation. However, the result of this action, even if successful—which, obviously, only happens occasionally or at the end of long processes of historical development—does not amount in any way to the kingdom of God but constitutes, instead, a step in the direction of a reality less characterized by injustice and oppression and more by the search for fraternity and participation. Reaching this stage, one could move to forms of constructive-critical action. Conversely, forms of constructive-critical action could be constituted in preliminary steps and in partial measures in a longer process of active-critical, radical transformation, therefore. In short, active critical transformative action is imposed when the following two conditions are given: a) the recognition of a fundamental system of injustice, which is characterized by structures of social oppression; b) concrete possibility for action, given by the historical process and moment in time. Both conditions seem to exist in the actual situation of the majority of Latin American countries, even in in a world of a globalized economy. The first condition is given by a discriminatory and exclusionary social and economic system that exacerbates inequalities. The second condition is given by the existence of democratic mechanisms, albeit relative, for political action. On the other hand, however, the globalized capitalist system has today a forcefulness so strong, and the alternative projects remain Luther and Liberation 208 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

so diffuse with the fall of the classical socialist regimes, that a constructive-critical action is inevitable in the present moment, although an active-critical transformation is desired in the long term. The slogan that best expresses this social and economic activism is that advocated by the World Social Forum: “Another world is possible.” It is implicit that this is not easy, but it is possible. It is worth it to engage in this transformation. There remains, finally, to draw attention to the concrete vehicle of transformative action in the constructive-critical or active-critical sense in the moment we are experiencing. This concrete vehicle is no other than popular organizations, like neighborhood movements, joint action groups, associations, unions, and parties originating from or constituted by the grassroots. It follows, therefore, that in the current political scenario, following the gospel implies that the Christian communities and the churches support Christian participation in these, aiming at the transformation of the current system of injustice. On the other hand, the strengthening of democratic mechanisms, giving real chances for an effective action for transformation in the system of existing social injustice, would be the condition for the move to a phase in which constructive-critical participation could succeed in becoming active-critical participation. A final consideration is necessary: none of these three variants of transformative participation can be considered as the only Christian model. It will always depend on the situation and the moment. Christian people and the churches should be grateful when they can limit themselves to constructive-critical participation but should not fear the consequences if the situation demands an active-critical transformative action or even passive-critical resistance. In such situations, limiting oneself to the constructive-critical participation is not very different in its effects from the types of adaptation rejected as a possibility for the Christian faith. Neither could be considered The Reign of God in Church and State 209 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

an expression of fidelity to the gospel but rather a result of clinging to established privileges or received benefits. Ultimately, Christian people and the churches do not live as a result of their action but by the free gospel of Jesus Christ. This gives them (or could give) a particular freedom for action. Luther and Liberation 210 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:14:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

PART III Exercises on Luther’s Ethical Positioning This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:17:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:17:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

9 The Political Calling and the Church To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate (1520)1 The time for silence is past, and the time to speak has come, as Ecclesiastes says. I am carrying out our intention to put together a few points on the matter of the reform of the Christian estate, to be laid before the Christian nobility of the German nation, in the hope that God may help his church through the laity, since the clergy to whom this task more properly belongs, have grown quite indifferent. (123) The Romanists have very cleverly built three walls around themselves. Hitherto they have protected themselves by these walls in such a way that no one has been able to reform them. As a result, the whole of Christendom has fallen abominably. In the first place, when pressed by the temporal power they have made decrees and declared that the temporal power had no jurisdiction over them, but that, on the contrary, the spiritual power is above the temporal. In the second place, when the attempt is made to reprove them with the Scriptures, they raise the objection that only the Pope may interpret the Scriptures. In the third place, if threatened with a 1. Martin Luther, To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate (1520), Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehman, eds., Luther’s Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1955–), 44:123–221; hereafter referred to as LW. Page numbers for the following excerpts also refer to this source. 213 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:17:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

council, their story is that no one may summon a council but the Pope. In this way they have cunningly stolen our three rods from us, that they may go unpunished. They have ensconced themselves within the safe stronghold of these three walls, so that they can practice all the knavery and wickedness which we see today. (126) Let us begin by attacking the first wall. It is pure invention that pope, bishop, priests, and monks are called the spiritual estate while princes, lords, artisans, and farmers are called the temporal estate. This is indeed a piece of deceit and hypocrisy. Yet no one need be intimidated by it, and for this reason: all Christians are truly of the spiritual estate, and there is no difference among them except that of office. Paul says in I Corinthians 12 that we are all one body, yet every member has its own work by which it serves the others. This is because we all have one baptism, one gospel, one faith, and are all Christians alike; for baptism, gospel, and faith alone make us spiritual and a Christian people. (127) The second wall is still more loosely built and less substantial. The Romanists want to be the only master of Holy Scripture, although they never learn a thing from the Bible all their life long. They assume the sole authority for themselves, and, quite unashamed, they play about with words before our very eyes, trying to persuade us that the pope cannot err in matters of faith, regardless of whether he is righteous or wicked. Yet they cannot point to a single letter. (133) Besides, if we are all priests, as was said above, and all have one faith, one gospel, one sacrament, why should we not also have the power to test and judge what is right or wrong in matters of faith? . . . We ought to march boldly forward and test all that they do, or leave undone, by our believing understanding of the Scriptures. We must compel the Romanists to follow not their own interpretation but the better one. (135) The third wall falls of itself when the first two are down. When the pope acts contrary to the Scriptures, it is our duty to stand by the Scriptures, to reprove him and to constrain him, according to the word of Christ, Matthew 18, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell it to him, between you and him alone; if he does not listen to you, then take one or two others with you; if he does not listen to them, tell it to the church; if he does not listen to the church, consider him a heathen.” Luther and Liberation 214 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:17:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Here every member is command to care for every other. How much more should we do this when the member that does evil is responsible for the government of the church, and by his evil doing is the cause of much harm and offense to the rest! But if I am to accuse him before the church, I must naturally call the church together. (136) I. Context and Content This treatise is one of the most important from 1520. That year Luther’s relationship with the Catholic Church was extremely tense, even more than in 1517, the year he wrote the 95 Theses. 1. General Considerations and Objectives One can distinguish four basic objectives of this treatise: 1. to solicit the German nobility to act decisively against the poverty prevailing all across the German estates; 2. to denounce the exploitative and conservative action on the part of the institutional Church in this situation; 3. to defend the cause of the Reformation, stripping the Roman Church of its claim to political power; and 4. to discredit the ecclesiastical ideology and theology that legitimated the status of the institutional Church and its power over secular authorities. Turning to some general considerations, we observe at the outset that this is a programmatic writing. The title of the work is significant; from it can be inferred various elements particularly worthy of our attention. First, there is a specific group of people: “the Christian nobility.” Luther urged precisely these people to assume the tasks of the reforms that he considered necessary to undertake both in the Church and in society. In particular, Luther detected in the princes the class that The Political Calling and the Church 215 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:17:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

would have the possibility and capacity to act and forge what he termed a “better Christian estate.” This should be understood less as a political institution in the modern sense (State), and more as a socioeconomic position of various hierarchically stratified segments (status group). That is to say, it is the situation of Christendom in general that should be improved, according to the Reformer. Luther urged, therefore, the princes to be the instrument for this bettering of the situation of German Christianity. Second, in emphasizing the competence of the German nobility for the social-political task that he considered necessary, Luther did so at the expense of the claim to political authority by the Roman Church. According to the classic medieval understanding, the Pope was the holder of two swords, spiritual and secular, it being within his jurisdiction to delegate the latter to the emperor. According to Luther, the Pope should have no sword but only the instrument of the word, leaving to the secular authority only the sword as a tool to exercise political power. Third, it is of extraordinary theological significance that Luther developed precisely in this writing his doctrine of the universal priesthood of all believers. Contrary to what is often thought, this doctrine does not mean that all the members of the body of Christ are equally qualified for the task of proclaiming the gospel in the church but, in that all people through baptism and faith are equal before God, each must assume their specific function, and therefore in wide variety, within Christianity. Luther understood that in the precarious situation of the Church and society, the nobility, particularly the princes, had the specific function to make the necessary social and ecclesiastic reforms. This precisely was their task as priests (in the sense of universal priesthood) in the body of Christ. Fourth, it is interesting to note that the criticisms of the Pope for abuse of his specifically spiritual authority are, in this work of Luther and Liberation 216 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:17:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1520, much more radical than those in the 95 Theses of 1517. For a long time, Luther believed that the Pope was oblivious to the abuses committed by the Church in Germany, and even unaware of them. By 1520, however, he had lost this illusion. Moreover, he had deepened his ecclesiological studies, and in the debate at Leipzig2 (1519) he was led by his opponent, the shrewd Catholic theologian Johann Eck, to deny papal infallibility. Hence, his critique became much more acute. In this way, the Reformer’s profile appeared in this writing for the first time, clearly, not only as reformer of the Church, but also, as we shall see, of the social and political realms. Finally, the broad support that this writing received, by its rapid dissemination, demonstrates again that Luther interpreted well the expectations and latent demands present in his time. At that moment, there was broad accession from various levels of the German people to the theses defended by Luther. 2. The Overthrow of “Paper Walls” In the first part of the writing Luther spoke of the three “walls” that sustained papal authority. Luther dared to describe them as “paper walls.” With brilliant sharpness, he unmasked the hidden function of these “walls”: to maintain as incontestable and unshaken the situation of power of the Roman ecclesiastical structure.3 The first “wall” consists of the thesis defended by Rome, according to which ecclesiastical power was above secular power. The Pope thus arrogated the right to be the ultimate authority not only in all ecclesiastical matters but also in all secular issues. Against this thesis, Luther argued that all Christian people, without distinction, are members of one body, the Church. All members, regardless of the 2. LW 31:313–25. 3. That is, some centuries before the emergence of the concept of “ideology,” Luther already was able to accurately detect the frequently legitimating function of certain theological conceptions. The Political Calling and the Church 217 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:17:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

distinct functions they perform, have the same power. That is to say, the distinction to be made is not one of inferior or superior quality, nor one of greater or lesser power, but only of function. From 1 Corinthians 12, Luther made a clear and consequential distinction between secular power and ecclesiastical power. The distinction itself was already present in some way in the medieval idea that the Pope had two swords, with jurisdiction over the ecclesiastical as well as the political. For example, the Pope attributed to himself the power to institute kings and emperors, which, as is known, caused many conflicts in the Middle Ages. Two swords, two powers, but they were bundled in the hands of the Pope. Luther extended this distinction and stripped the Pope of his claim to political power. In this eminently political and, at the same time theological, context, Luther developed his doctrine of the universal priesthood of all believers. The commissioning as priests is given in baptism, which is unique and equal for all people. Thus, he urged the nobles, as baptized Christians, priests of the body of Jesus Christ, to take the necessary task to strip the ecclesiastical institution, specifically the papacy, of its claim to jurisdiction in the political realm. Note, therefore, the extraordinarily revolutionary potential of the doctrine of the universal priesthood of all believers, when so formulated. The same idea of the universal priesthood would have radical consequences within the Church itself. There also, in the body of Christ, the priests were no longer considered superior to “lay” people but came to be distinguished from them only through their specific function of proclaiming the word of God and administering the sacraments. Indeed, all the baptized are priests and all, even the priests, are “lay” people, in the sense of belonging to God’s people (laós, in Greek). So, this idea, developed in this context, which unfortunately has received much less attention than the political implications of this Luther and Liberation 218 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:17:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

writing of Luther, is that the ecclesiastical authorities should not exercise their function in an arbitrary, boastful, or exclusive way, but ecclesially, in the sense of the encompassing of the entire body. They are not self-sufficient but dependent, and precisely through this they cannot arrogate power to be superior to the other members of Christendom. Here the universal priesthood is valued always, clearly, with the attribution of diverse specific functions. Still, what mainly interests us in this chapter are the implications of the theological concept for the political arena. The second “wall” Luther identified and wished to see overthrown, consisted of the exclusivity of the ecclesiastical authority and principally of the papacy in interpreting the Bible. Luther went on to argue that the idea of papal exclusivity in the interpretation of Scripture was an ideological artifice to legitimate the political authority of the ecclesiastical institution. The same person who wrongly laid claim to maximum political power also held the monopoly on the interpretation of Scriptures. This, of course, meant that no one could raise biblical objections against ecclesiastical authority. For whatever the argumentation was, its own consistency was not valued; it would be disqualified automatically by the simple fact of turning against the authority that held the power to interpret Scripture legitimately and authoritatively. Again, Luther returned to the theme of the universal priesthood of all believers. He argued that the Bible should be available to any Christian and that anyone has the right and even the duty to argue with the Bible. The monopoly on biblical interpretation was a fable to indefinitely maintain power in ecclesiastical hierarchical instances. In truth, however, the keys to the interpretation of the biblical text have been given to all people. Luther argued this with many different biblical texts and even with the Apostolic Creed. He said, for example, that when we confess that “we believe in one holy The Political Calling and the Church 219 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:17:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

church,” this is the object of faith and confession, and therefore not an institution that is imposed by its power structures. The third “wall” consists of the exclusive authority of the Pope to call a council. Luther reached this point from the following question: what paths could we take in cases where we observe ecclesiastical abuses or arbitrary power? If the Pope holds a monopoly on the interpretation of Scripture and, therefore, no one can argue biblically against ecclesiastical authority, the only path that remains to make the necessary reforms would be the convocation of a council. In fact, for some time Luther himself maintained confidence that the desired reform of the Church would come from the work of a council. However, if only the Pope has the authority to call a council, there would be no feasible paths. This would be the third wall protecting the Roman ecclesiastic institution. This is why Luther also argued the theoretical principle that any Christian had the authority to call a council. Once again, it is the revolutionary consequence of the principle of the universal priesthood of believers. Without doubt, however, Luther was sufficiently shrewd and realistic enough to realize that, in practice, not just any Christian could effectively call a council. So his thinking turned again to the nobility and the princes. According to Luther, the princes would have the right (acting as priests within the people of God) and, having the necessary effective means, also had the duty to call a council to make the necessary reforms in the Church. In the Leipzig debate (1519), mentioned above, Luther had already reached the point of discrediting the idea that councils were infallible. Despite this, however, he still insisted in 1520 on the importance of a council, this time called by the princes, to make the needed reforms. He argued there, for example, that in Acts 15 it was not only Peter but also all the apostles who called the Jerusalem council. In this sense, Luther and Liberation 220 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:17:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

we can situate Luther in the conciliar tradition that, as we know, existed long before his era. To conclude, we say that Luther got to the heart of the problem: he unmasked and destroyed the ideology that legitimized the system he perceived as oppressive, delivering a magnificent call to those people who held effective ways of making the necessary changes. Surely, this call did not have only positive consequences and connotations. On this basis—plus a series of other social, economic, and political factors—the absolutist State later developed, which, as is known, also became oppressive for the masses. Therefore, it is indispensable that we study the actual scope of Luther’s position. 3. Proposals for the Reform of the Church, Society, and Politics There is no doubt that the unmasking of the ideology of papal power, from the theological doctrine of the universal priesthood of believers developed by Luther, is most fundamental in his writing. The greatness of the Reformer and the impact he had in his time consisted, however, in the fact that he had not only been a brilliant theorist, but also someone capable of coupling radical and courageous practical suggestions with his theoretical discoveries and analyses. Luther would make numerous concrete proposals for the necessary reform of the Church and society. We present some of them here in brief. In relation to the ecclesiastical reforms, Luther affirmed that it would not be up to the Pope to appoint bishops, because the Pope is a foreign authority. He is in Rome, remote from the problems of the German nation. Luther suggested, therefore, the creation of an organization at the national level for the appointment of bishops. Undoubtedly, this is a very problematic proposal for its attachment to the criteria of nationality, yet still one can detect a decentralizing The Political Calling and the Church 221 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:17:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

principle and the radicalness of Luther’s Reformation proposal. As the nobility was, according to Luther, a member of the body of Christ, in accordance with the concept of the universal priesthood, Luther’s proposal was made, in his perspective, with theologicalecclesial criteria. Regarding reforms in the political order, Luther advocated that the Pope should not hold power superior to that of the emperor, as it does not correspond to his office. He suggested, on the contrary, that political power was independent in the application of civil jurisprudence. That this was not to be in the hands of ecclesiastical authorities, constituted a recommendation of deep practical consequences, in that many bishops (who were also princes!) had accumulated political power in addition to their ecclesiastical power. Luther thought that the bishops should be limited to their ecclesiastical functions. Moreover, in this writing he proposed that the Church did not have the right to inherit the fiefs where the feudal lord had passed away without issue— a practice corresponding to the existing order. Luther suggested, instead, that the fief, rather than moving to the Church, would pass to a national political organization. He also advocated the abolition of the entire tax system of the Catholic Church. Now, at that time there were multiple ways in which the Church raised funds: masses, numerous feast days, payment for funerals, indulgences, fees for the transfer of properties such as inheritances, among many other mechanisms. This was the base of economic support for the ecclesiastical system, which Luther intended to dismantle with his proposals. Observing all these proposals, one can raise the following question: what did Luther recognize as the Pope’s function? Luther argued that the Pope would not be the representative of the heavenly Christ but the representative of Jesus in flesh and blood who preaches, suffers, Luther and Liberation 222 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:17:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

and dies. Therefore, he should abandon all ostentation of institutional power. As a representative of the peculiar divinity of Jesus, his only instrument would be the word, admonition, renouncing all forms of judicial, economic, and political power. Luther also made a number of proposals for social reform. For example: to reduce trade and encourage agriculture, taking advantage of the idle land. This is, without a doubt, a medieval element in Luther’s argumentation, incompatible with the emerging new economic order. It led him, however, to be concerned with the needs of the people, with basic food, and not the consumption of luxury goods by the wealthy strata of the population. Luther also proposed to abolish begging. In large part, this suggestion was also at that time a criticism of the mendicant orders. The Reformer wanted the mendicant monks to abandon this practice, which represented a burden to society, and to engage in useful work, which would result in a benefit to society. Another suggestion was to replace the study of Aristotle’s works with the teaching of the Bible. As we know, Aristotle’s books were fundamental to medieval scholastic theology. In the context of educational proposals, Luther also proposed the establishment of schools for women in each city.4 These are some of Luther’s concrete proposals for reforming the Church, society, and politics contained in his writing to the Christian nobility of the German nation. Of course, not all are of equal relevance and timeliness. They give, however, a clear idea that Luther did not exempt himself from contributing to all areas of social organization in his time. The set configured a broad program of reforms that had a profound impact on his contemporaries. 4. Luther’s concern with the condition of women, equal participants in the universal priesthood, was reflected also in his suggestion to abolish the practice of prostitution. The Political Calling and the Church 223 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:17:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

II. Questions and Reflections A basic question is: what are the implications of Luther’s appeal to the princes? Was this the best option for the welfare of his people in his time? Or did he have other alternatives? Finally, how should we view this question today, living in very different contexts and situations? Luther’s position on the relation between the Church and the political sphere had many consequences, some of them quite tragic. By conferring on the princes such an important and expanded role as outlined in this writing, he gave impetus to the development of absolutism in politics and the emergence of absolutist states, although in Germany this occurred with great territorial fragmentation. Something similar can be observed in relation to the emergence of regional or state churches, as Luther came to trust the princes with the responsibility of organizing the Reformation Church. Supposedly this was intended to pave the way for a more appropriate political structure for the doctrine of the universal priesthood of believers and for his notion of the Church as the people of God. In some treatises he delegated the task of organizing the Christian community to the congregation, to the community itself.5 At the level of ecclesiastical organization, however, he appealed to the princes, as he was confronted with a number of practical problems impossible to immediately resolve, including the dismantling of the traditional church structures, the poor qualification of the clergy who adhered to the Reform, and the general lack of the evangelical education of the people. The profound transformations underway in the old economic system led to situations of serious impoverishment also for the Reformation Church. The princes, who like any emerging political 5. See That a Christian Assembly or Congregation Has the Right and Power to Judge All Teaching and to Call, Appoint, and Dismiss Teachers, Established and Proven by Scripture (LW 39:305–14). Luther and Liberation 224 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:17:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

power were concerned with strengthening themselves, took advantage of the situation to seize property formerly owned by the Roman Catholic Church, most often without considering any social benefit, as Luther had in mind when he made the proposals of confiscating ecclesiastic goods. In any case, Luther did not intend to form a new Church. The idea of creating something like a “religious denomination” was by no means on his horizon. He only aimed to reform the Church. He might have wondered: “Where to begin?” and came to the answer, “Where I live!” The German national elements that can be perceived in his argument are not absolute but rather they identify his ecclesiastic, political, and social context. His hope, however, was to reform all of Christendom, not only the part existing in his nation. Regarding the question of to what extent Luther’s decision in favor of the princes corresponded to a strategic vision or was configured merely as a temporary tactical option, it seems clear that in 1520 Luther was not conscious of the distance, let alone any antagonism, between the princes and the people. With some amount of naïveté, he did not consider seriously in this moment the possibility that the interests of the princes could be diametrically opposed to the interests of the people. In a sense, he voiced in this writing the historical grievances of the German nation as a whole, detecting in the princes, more by intuition than by a rigorous analysis of reality, the ability to make the proposed changes. Maybe his mistake was in not fully realizing the potential danger contained in his proposal. An equally problematic assessment reappears, as we have seen, in the question of the organization of the Church. Given the current political circumstances, Luther granted the princes the responsibility of organizing the Reformation Church. Later, he came to criticize the princes bitterly6 in treatises often omitted from critical assessments of Luther. At a certain point, for The Political Calling and the Church 225 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:17:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

example, it became clear to Luther that the princes also were oppressors. He then went on to say, for example, there were Christian princes worse than the Turks, alluding to the invasion of Europe by Ottoman forces,7 constituting a serious threat to the very existence of the German nation. However, in 1520, Luther could not verbalize this potential danger of the princes. If we move forward one year and recall the The Magnificat, 8 of 1521, we can see that Luther still thought the princes, as Christians, were able to carry out the reform of the Church and society. As baptized Christians, however, they should exercise political office in the manner described in The Magnificat, that is, they should exercise political power from the perspective of one who is humble, poor, and weak. Again, however, Luther did not explore the possibility—very real, as we know—that the princes who had power could be rather ill equipped and unlikely to exercise it precisely from the suggested perspective. In our contemporary situations, we must go beyond the mere transplantation of Luther’s position into our own context. We welcome Luther’s claim that Christians should exercise their political responsibility always in favor of the well-being of the people, particularly the most destitute and wronged. It is also worth noting that political responsibility requires deep social reforms in situations of injustice, exploitation, and oppression. In The Magnificat, Luther emphasized that political responsibility must be exercised from the perspective of those who are poor and weak not from those who are rich and powerful—a perception of great relevance not only for 6. See, for example, Luther’s explanation of Psalm 82, referred to in chapter 8: The Reign of God in Church and State, section II.3. 7. In 1526, the Ottoman forces, under the command of the Sultan Suleiman II, would defeat Hungary, in the battle of Mohácz; in 1529 they even besieged Vienna. Of course, from today’s perspective, we can observe a biased tone in Luther’s comparison. 8. LW 21:297–358. Luther and Liberation 226 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:17:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Latin America today but even for highly developed countries in the economic sense. The same point is also relevant for international economic relations. However, we cannot succumb to the temptation to simply appeal to the conscience of those who are in political office on the assumption that they will follow this wise suggestion. On the contrary, our modern democratic perception makes us aware that political power should be exercised by the people themselves and be steadfastly supervised. Taking into account the perspective of The Magnificat, we can say that political power must be constituted from below. Political action will then be focused on those processes through which the poor and oppressed are strengthened to take for themselves the political responsibility of shaping their own future. In all this, we move necessarily beyond what Luther came to advocate in his time. The Political Calling and the Church 227 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:17:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:17:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

10 Education To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools (1524)1 First of all, we are today experiencing in all the German lands how schools are everywhere being left to go to wrack and ruin. The universities are growing weak, and monasteries are declining. [. . .] The carnal-minded masses are beginning to realize that they no longer have either the obligation or the opportunity to thrust their sons, daughters, and relatives into cloisters and foundations, and to turn them out of their own homes and property and establish them in others’ property. For this reason no one is any longer willing to have his children get an education. “Why,” they say, “should we bother to have them go to school if they are not to become priests, monks, or nuns? ‘Twere better they should learn a livelihood to earn.” (348) Even though only a single boy could thereby be trained to become a real Christian, we ought properly to give a hundred gulden to this cause for every gulden we would give to fight the Turk, even if he were breathing down our necks. For one real Christian is better and can do more good than all the men on earth. (350) A second consideration is, as St. Paul says in II Corinthians 6 [:1-2], 1. Martin Luther, To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools (1524), in Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehman, eds., Luther’s Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1955–), 45:347–78; hereafter referred to as LW. Page numbers for the following excerpts also refer to this source. 229 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:18:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms