Luther and Liberation: A Latin American Perspective

that we should not accept the grace of God in vain and neglect the time of salvation. Almighty God has indeed graciously visited us Germans and proclaimed a true year of jubilee. We have today the finest and most learned group of men. . . . (351) Is it not evident that we are now able to prepare a boy in three years, so that at the age of fifteen or eighteen he will know more than all the universities and monasteries have known before? Indeed, what have men been learning till now in the universities and monasteries except to become assess, blockheads, and numbskulls? For twenty, even forty, years they pored over their books, and still failed to master either Latin or German, to say nothing of the scandalous and immoral life there in which many a fine fellow was shamefully corrupted. (351–52) The third consideration is by far the most important of all, namely, the command of God, who through Moses urges and enjoins parents so often to instruct their children. . . (353) . . . even if parents had the ability and desire to do it themselves, they have neither the time nor the opportunity for it, what with their other duties and the care of the household. Necessity compels us, therefore, to engage public schoolteachers for the children—unless each one were willing to engage his own private tutor. (355) It therefore behooves the council and the authorities to devote the greatest care and attention to the young. Since the property, honor, and life of the whole city have been committed to their faithful keeping, they would be remiss in their duty before God and man if they did not seek its welfare and improvement day and night with all the means at their command. Now the welfare of a city does not consist solely in accumulating vast treasures, building mighty walls and magnificent buildings, and producing a goodly supply of guns and armor. Indeed, where such things are plentiful, and reckless fools get control of them, it is so much the worse and the city suffers even greater loss. A city’s best and greatest welfare, safety, and strength consist rather in its having many able, learned, wise, honorable, and well-educated citizens. They can then readily gather, protect, and properly use treasure and all manner of property. (355–56) Therefore, my beloved Germans, let us get our eyes open, thank God for this precious treasure, and guard it well, lest the devil vent his spite Luther and Liberation 230 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

and it be taken away from us again. Although the gospel came and still comes to us through the Holy Spirit alone, we cannot deny that it came through the medium of languages, was spread abroad by that means, and must be preserved by the same means. For just when God wanted to spread the gospel throughout the world by means of the apostles he gave the tongues for that purpose. (358) In proportion then as we value the gospel, let us zealously hold to the language. For it was not without purpose that God caused his Scriptures to be set down in these two languages alone—the Old Testament in Hebrew, the New in Greek. (359) Hence, it is inevitable that unless the languages remain, the gospel must finally perish. (360) Now if (as we have assumed) there were no souls, and there were no need at all of schools and languages for the sake of the Scriptures and of God, this one consideration alone would be sufficient to justify the establishment everywhere of the very best schools for both boys and girls, namely, that in order to maintain its temporal estate outwardly the world must have good and capable men and women, men able to rule well over land and people, women able to manage the household and train children and servants aright. (368) By the grace of God it is now possible for children to study with pleasure and in play languages, or other arts, or history. Today, schools are not what they once were, a hell and purgatory in which we were tormented with casualibus and temporalibus, and yet learned less than nothing despite all the flogging, trembling, anguish, and misery. If we take so much time and trouble to teach children card-playing, singing, and dancing, why do we not take as much time to teach them reading and other disciplines while they are young and have the time, and are apt and eager to learn? For my part, if I had children and could manage it, I would have them study not only languages and history, but also singing and music together with the whole of mathematics. For what is all this but mere child’s play? (369–70) My idea is to have the boys attend such a school for one or two hours during the day, and spend the remainder of the time working at home, learning a trade, or doing whatever is expected of them. In this way, Education 231 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

study and work will go hand-in-hand while the boys are young and able to do both. Otherwise, they spend at least ten times as much time anyway with their pea shooters, ball playing, racing, and tussling. (370) Finally, one thing more merits serious consideration by all those who earnestly desire to have such schools and languages established and maintained in Germany. It is this: no effort or expense should be spared to provide good libraries or book repositories, especially in the large cities which can well afford it. (373) I. Context and Content Luther’s first treatise on educational issues, written in 1524, is mainly what will be considered here, being a more programmatic writing.2 The second, A Sermon on Keeping Children in School, 3 from 1530, contains essentially the same ideas but is a more casual and pastoral piece. After six years, some cities had created schools, following Luther’s proposals. The problem was then parents’ resistance in sending their children to school, as they would lack their labor as workhands. The 1530 treatise is, then, an exhortation to parents to send their children to school. 1. The Necessity of Educational Reform The old medieval educational system was in crisis, a localized reflection of a greater crisis, namely, that of medieval society in transition to market capitalism. Originally, in the medieval period, there were only the schools of the monasteries. Their educational track was Aristotelian-Thomistic and the possibilities for higher education were limited to ecclesiastic careers. There had been a time when these religious schools enjoyed a 2. On this subject, see, among others James Kittleson, “Luther the Educational Reformer,” in Luther and Learning: The Wittenberg University Luther Symposium, ed. Marilyn J. Harran (1985), 95–114. 3. LW 46:213–58. Luther and Liberation 232 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

strong reputation, through the unique opportunities they provided. However, with the gradual social transformations underway, they had already stopped meeting the expectations and needs of the time. In Luther’s time it was already possible to see an expansion of the educational system. For example, the prince-elector Frederick the Wise had created a university in Wittenberg, where Luther was sent by his order to teach Theology. On the one hand, we must recall that the Reform would undermine the foundations that sustained the medieval system both in economics and in its content. The political authorities would expropriate church property. The religious career would now require the personal sacrifice of those who undertook its study. Regarding content, the emphasis of the old educational system was in priestly formation, which excluded preaching. The new system had a broader base of training, aimed also at preparation for new professions. Luther’s emphasis would fall squarely on the teaching of the Bible and, in regard to the training of pastors, on preaching. At the same time, the new socio-political and economic situation entailed the need for a new type of school. The training of qualified personnel was needed, particularly in the areas of commerce and public administration. There was a transition toward more centralized political institutions in progress, which demanded advisers and experts in business and law. Commerce, in turn, was expanding and also needed skilled people. All this made it necessary to reform the old system that no longer corresponded to these emerging needs. Moreover, Luther emphasized the demand that education cease being inaccessible to the majority of the population and that it be more comprehensive in scope. In this context, he emphasized the importance of citizens financing the schools. He asserted that it would be necessary not only for them to recognize the need for the Education 233 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

education of their own sons and daughters but also to economically sustain the schools. He argued, for example, that there was no more reason to spend money on indulgences, relics, pilgrimages—abuses from which the Reformation had freed people—so why not give the money that would have been spent on useless and superfluous things to something as important as education? He even stated that one should give all they had to sustain the schools, for education was the most important activity of all. However, this challenge to the citizens was not the key for him. It would always be dependent on the good will of the parents. As will be shown later, Luther would give responsibility to the municipal political authorities for the creation and maintenance of the schools. Another reason that made it necessary to reform the educational system, according to Luther, was to preserve the rediscovered gospel. This rediscovery, he argued, was like a summer rain, which would soon pass. In no way could one take it as assured forever. It is necessary, therefore, to work to not lose it. One of the devil’s tasks would be to convince us that education is not something important. Thus, Luther admonished parents who did not want to send their children to school, arguing that they were being the devil’s victims: in this way, the devil pursued the goal of cutting off their chances of being able to continue the evangelical freedom the people had received and experienced. For this reason of preserving the gospel, we can see the interest and concern of the Reformer with the educational question. Luther, however, also emphasized the importance of developing good citizens for society. It was clear to Luther that it was no longer possible to return to the old educational system. It was not possible to rewind the reforms that were being prepared. Disparagingly, he came then to classify the old schools as stables of asses and schools of the devil (and they were schools in monasteries!). That system could not Luther and Liberation 234 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

be reformed. There was only one alternative: to abolish it, to create a new one. Finally, Luther added a key theological point. He affirmed that education is a mandate from God, which he based on abundant biblical quotations. The will of God is that we teach that schools are necessary. One can see, at this point, another consequence of the theological principle of the universal priesthood of all believers4 within the social order. Now, the logical consequence of this principle was precisely the requirement for universal education. For if all people are priests, then all without distinction should have access to the study of the biblical message of the good news of the gospel. The old school, which reached only a few privileged people, should be replaced by a new school covering all people. This result was inevitable, yet it was not implemented in its entirety in Luther’s time, because of the practical difficulties of such a radical change. Nevertheless, the influence of the Reformation on the educational process and system was remarkable. 2. The Agents of Educational Reform Luther realized that it was not sufficient to warn parents to send their children to school or to urge citizens to economically sustain the schools. Everything would be too dependent on the good will and the often-limited possibilities of the persons so urged. Nor could the Church be required to take charge of the educational task in the broad social sense. Educational reform was recognized as a political task. Who in particular, then, should he challenge to establish schools? In this point lies, with certainty, one of Luther’s most remarkable insights. One might think that he would urge the princes, because the current image of the Reformer places him close to them. 4. See the earlier chapter on this concept. Education 235 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

However, that was not his choice. Luther knew that the princes were involved with interests, concerns, and tasks on another level, and were not able to establish schools everywhere. He proposed the task to the municipal councils. That is, the State was assigned the responsibility of establishing schools and organizing the educational system—not the macro-State, but local political institutions, especially in the cities. Some of Luther’s suggestions are of particular interest because they allow us to see the significance ascribed to the educational task. We see above, for example, that for each guilder that was invested in military spending, one should invest “a hundred gulden” in education.5 Imagine the adoption of such a formula today! On the other hand, he even affirmed that the municipal authorities had the right and even the duty to force parents to send their children to school. He insisted, therefore, on universal schooling, introducing the idea of compulsory education, which was much later adopted by all modern states. 3. The Church and the State as Beneficiaries of the New Education A new educational system would entail, according to Luther, benefits for both the Church and the State. Consider, first, the benefits for the Church. These consisted not of material benefits, obviously, but of benefits to preaching itself and the understanding of the gospel. Now, the Church needed preachers fit and prepared for this quick rain, this summer shower of the gospel, to continue its effects. Therefore, Luther emphasized the preparation of pastors. In urging parents to send their children to school, he also harbored the expectation that some of them would become pastors, because there would be no more important work than this. Then, doubtless revealing his 5. LW 45:350. Luther and Liberation 236 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

priorities, he added that if someone was not fit to be a minister they could become a teacher, which would be the second most important job. Eventually, however, he recanted, in part saying that strictly speaking he did not know which of the two activities was more important; perhaps the craft of teaching could be more important. He placed, then, particular emphasis on the necessity of good preparation for these tasks. Given the doubts of some parents regarding the possibility that they would send their children to be prepared for the pastoral vocation and then later they would be without work, Luther, to reassure them, even showed statistics of the number of existing parishes and how many vacant posts there were for pastors and sextons. He added that even if it were true—and, in fact, it was—that there would be pastors with economic difficulties, even to the point of starving, they should trust in the promises of the Lord. It would be necessary still to risk oneself, because this was part of the task of Christians, and no charge would be more noble than to preach the gospel. Luther’s pedagogical proposals were similar to those of humanist pedagogues. For example, he strongly proposed the teaching of ancient languages, Greek and Hebrew.6 It is true that Luther’s reasons are somewhat different, because he wanted to allow direct access to the original text of the Bible, which he described as superior to access mediated by a translation, whether in Latin or German. The Bible would be the most important book in the school, according to his proposal. It is clear, therefore, that Luther was not thinking of a secular school in the modern sense but a Christian school, although public. He did specifically call them Christian schools. Emphasizing the need for study, he argued that the Holy Spirit is not foolish. On the other hand, he also added that the study of history should 6. Latin was already traditionally taught, and could be used even, particularly in higher education, as the language used for teaching other disciplines. Education 237 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

occupy a prominent place in school, because, he affirmed, we learn from the experiences, failures, and successes of the past. Studying history meant it would not be necessary to repeat everything from the beginning. Turning to the benefits for the State, Luther observed that, if schools are built for all people, citizens would be better prepared for their societal tasks. He remembered, moreover, that the State resented the lack of officials. He mentioned men and also women explicitly—a bold step at that time—although he thought of women specifically as teachers for girls’ schools. However, as noted above, Luther placed the vocation of teacher along with pastor at the top of his scale of values. It is, again, a consequence of his doctrine of the universal priesthood of believers that there were no exceptions. For tasks in the political sphere, he considered the study of law important. He also valued the study of medicine, for the social service that it represented. 4. Concrete Educational Proposals Regarding methodology, Luther was willing to learn from the humanists. For example, he was categorically opposed to the repressive education that was the fundamental methodology of the old school system. This was based on physical punishments, such as flogging, in addition to putting permanent psychological pressure on students through derision and memorization of all the material. Luther, on the contrary, advocated in favor of a playful education. He affirmed explicitly that one should learn by playing, singing, and dancing. The second very revolutionary proposal, which arose maybe more from pragmatic intuition than from a rigorous analysis, was of connecting school with work. That is: together with the common subjects, he suggested studying, in addition, a vocation, an occupational craft.7 Many parents did not want to send their children Luther and Liberation 238 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

to school because they needed the income that the work of the children could provide. With his proposal, Luther found a practical and feasible way to do justice to the need felt by parents without renouncing his aim of universal education. He advocated for good libraries, including making suggestions—some, from our current perspective, somewhat questionable—for works which should be included in the collections. The first call—how could it be otherwise?—was for the Bible.8 Next followed, logically, commentaries on the books of the Bible. Thirdly, he mentioned books for language learning; fourthly, history books; fifthly, law books; sixthly, medical texts. In contrast, Aristotle’s works would be unnecessary; underlying this last recommendation was the fact that the medieval system he criticized was based on Aristotle’s philosophy. 5. Conclusions For Luther, education was both a secular and spiritual task. The school proposed by him was a Christian school. Obviously, he moved within the social framework of Christendom. He did not think of a school of the secular State, which he could not know of, much less would his theological conception advocate it, although he may have contributed to its emergence, by the rescue of the political vocation from ecclesiastical tutelage. Let’s repeat: the school that he demanded and that the municipal authorities were to institute and support to the extent that it be free and compulsory was the Christian school. This is more than clear from the disciplinary contents that he proposed. As 7. Incidentally, in this, Luther’s vision was more advanced than that of humanism in general, which was quite prone to bourgeois elitism, and Luther’s was more adequate for the real conditions of life of the majority of the population. 8. We must remember that, although the extraordinary recent invention of the printing press (by Gutenberg, 1394/99–1468) had greatly facilitated and cheapened the production and dissemination of books, it was still far from being possible for all people (or families) to possess a copy of the Bible. Education 239 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

for the teachers,9 they would not be simply public officials, but they also exercised a spiritual vocation. It should be noted, moreover, that Luther, in general, accepted the pedagogical principles of the humanist school. Regarding playful pedagogy, he seems even to have exceeded them. Reportedly, for example, the celebrated humanist Erasmus of Rotterdam demanded that his three-year-old son memorize important lessons. As for Luther, a beautiful example comes from a letter he wrote in 1530, when staying in the Coburg Castle, as the nearby Diet of Augsburg unfolded, to his four-year-old son Hans (John), whom he addresses as “Hänschen,” which in German denotes much affection. In it he told a story about a beautiful garden where it would be possible to freely pick fruit, play, sing, play instruments, and dance. Without employing the words “heaven,” “paradise,” “kingdom of God” or anything similar, it conveyed its reality at a level appropriate for a small child—without threat of punishment, only accompanied by an incentive to learn and pray.10 With the humanists, Luther advocated the teaching of ancient languages, albeit for somewhat different reasons: the humanists for their programmatic desire to return to the literature of the ancient world, Luther for his emphasis on the Bible and his interest in continuing the rediscovery of the gospel. Though Luther had at this point affinity with Renaissance humanism—and, in fact, there were notorious humanists who joined the evangelical cause of the Reformation, as was the case with Philip Melanchthon, the closest collaborator of Luther—there were also radical divergences. The most acute controversy occurred between Luther and Erasmus of Rotterdam, in 1525. While Erasmus believed it absolutely essential to 9. Luther advocated, in fact, as we have seen, the possibility of women being teachers in schools for girls. 10. The text of this letter can be found in LW 49:323–24. See also Walter Altmann, “Lutero escreve uma carta a seu filho,” O Amigo das Crianças, 53, no. 36 (1990): 3. Luther and Liberation 240 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

defend the so-called “free will,” according to which the human being has the capacity to choose God and collaborate with God in one’s own plan of salvation, Luther argued sharply, with what he called the “servant will” or “bondage of the will,” whereby—without excluding the capability of “cooperation” with God in secular issues—the human being is totally dependent on God in the history of salvation.11 Finally, it should be emphasized that it is precisely in education that one can find one of the most striking and enduring social influences of Luther, not least in his own Lutheran churches, and through these, in the societies in which they were inserted. These churches, where they spread, also through the establishment of communities of immigrants and their descendants in Latin America, left their fund of schools and other educational initiatives. II. Questions and Reflections As we have seen, for Luther, education was both a secular and religious task. He proposed a Christian school, not just a public school in today’s secularized sense. Luther’s efforts and proposals had an extraordinary historical influence in education, both within the Lutheran tradition and beyond. The universalization of education has one of its roots there. Not coincidentally the German territories experienced a strong development of the educational system in their societies. As for the influence on the life of the churches, one can observe that Lutheran migrants who arrived in Latin American lands and other continents, carried with them the priority of education. Invariably, where they put down roots, building a school constituted their first task for the common good. Only later did they build a 11. See Luther’s polemic writing On the Bondage of the Will, in LW 33:3–295. Education 241 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

temple-church. Normally, the school itself could serve as a place of worship. These schools were, in their origin, clearly communitarian, that is, built by the community itself, maintained by it, and intended for all the children in their midst, regardless of their economic conditions. In the Brazilian case, this community initiative even filled in for the failure of the State in the educational arena. Only in recent decades has there been on the part of the public sector a growing universal school system also in rural areas. This fact, coupled with the progressive social stratification even in rural areas but particularly in the urban areas originating from German colonization, along with the growing cost of the maintenance of schools, has dramatically changed the nature of the community school. It has become increasingly elite, running a serious risk of ending up in a true perversion of its initial purposes and origins. Note that in the Latin American case, what is called mission Protestantism, although not Lutheranism, in particular Methodism, Presbyterianism, and also Baptist Churches always placed a special emphasis on education. The difference is that the school was not, at first, an initiative of the community for the community itself, but rather a privileged instrument of the mission itself in a new context. Allied with a project of the modernization of the traditional Latin American oligarchic society, this proposal was directed preferentially to the middle class on the rise in cities. This led to educational institutions that, over time, could develop even toward the establishment of universities. Again, however, though by a different path, comes the question of the gradual elitism of education, now by the fact that a proposal focused on the growing middle classes of society would necessarily find it difficult to meet the demands of those affected by the process of impoverishment happening in the same societies. Luther and Liberation 242 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

Hence, we should raise the critical question: would Protestantism not just end up contributing to the development of an education system for the local elites, without benefitting the masses? How can we relate Luther’s educational concepts to this development? We emphasize, first, that Luther’s historical moment and ours are profoundly different. It is essential to highlight this truism to dilute the frequent criticism that Luther had spoken prophetically but the practical means he chose had corrupted his “word.” This criticism would be relevant in relation to education initiatives today, if one tried simply to reproduce Luther’s position, without adapting to the profoundly altered reality. However, it is essential to take into account the historical and contextual differences. The question to be asked is: who are the emerging subjects in the historical process today? Certainly, they are not the same subjects from Luther’s time. Taking into account the differences, we can observe: Luther’s call to the municipal authorities and to the new emerging bourgeoisie, in the sense of their assuming responsibility for education, was a distinctly progressive step. Luther showed acute sensitivity when, in this question, he did not appeal simply to the authority of the princes but came much closer to the base and the everyday, choosing municipal authorities more directly linked to the concrete needs of their inhabitants. In fact, it was a choice that came to be proven through the expansion of educational opportunities. It was, however, above all a feasible option for the reality of cities, then in full swing. As for the rural areas, the proposal was far less feasible and the peasantry remained largely without access to the means of education. Could Luther’s proposal have been different, more consistent with the universalizing implication of his educational conception?12 The peasants, though they still constituted the vast 12. The doctrine of the universal priesthood of believers has, as we saw, the unavoidable implication of universal access to the educational process. Education 243 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

majority of the German population, did not have the conditions to assume a decisive role in the new society that was emerging. One could argue that the vision outlined here reflects the perspective of the victors of the peasant revolt that took place in 1525. The premise of this question is the hypothesis that, if Luther had thrown his prestige decisively in favor of the peasants, they, rather than being massacred, could have been successful in their enterprise of social liberation, constituting a different society centered on the true interests of the majority. Unfortunately, there is no evidence or historical parallel that can corroborate this assumption, which is the result of sympathy rather than an objective analysis of historical factors.13 However, whatever our historical speculation, the decisive question concerns our educational responsibility today, and this cannot be retracted. Can those impoverished today be the critical actors in history? By “critical actors,” I mean here those forces able to move history, politics, and the social structure in the direction of a new system, a new order capable of overcoming the accumulation of wealth and the mass of misery, leading to a society able to reduce inequalities and effect the social inclusion of marginalized peoples. We have been accustomed to speak of the importance of popular education, a kind of education that does not impose the contents, values, and patterns of external life that alienate people. On the contrary, it speaks of an education that is built on the basis of the ability of poor and oppressed people to reflect on their own lives, coming to a new awareness of the conditions of their existence, discovering their own resources, and developing their potential. It is not geared mainly to the formation of individuals, but rather to strengthen the community. Certainly these new perspectives must be integrated into the educational concerns arising from Luther. 13. See chapter 13: Resistance and Violence. Luther and Liberation 244 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

11 The Economy and the Community Trade and Usury (1524)1 I have been asked and urged to touch upon these financial evils and expose some of them so that, even though the majority may not wish to do right, at least some people—however few they are—may be delivered from the gaping jaws of avarice. For it must be that among the merchants, as among other people, there are some who belong to Christ and would rather be poor with God than rich with the devil, as Psalm 37 says, “It is better for righteous to have a little than to have the great possessions of the wicked.” For their sake, then, we must speak out. (245–46) At this point, therefore, I wish to tell of some of these tricks and evil practices which I have myself observed, and which good and pious people have described to me. This I do in order that one may realize how necessary it is that the rules and principles which I have set forth above be established and put into practice, if consciences are to be counseled and aided in matters of trade. (261) . . . [T]here are some who have no conscientious scruples against selling their goods on time and credit for a higher price that if they were 1. Martin Luther, Trade and Usury (1524) in Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehman, eds., Luther’s Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1955–), 45:245–310; hereafter referred to as LW. Page numbers for the following excerpts also refer to this source. 245 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:19:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

sold for cash. Indeed, there are some who will sell nothing for cash but everything on time so they can make large profits on it. Observe that this way of dealing- which is grossly contrary to God’s word, contrary to reason and every sense of justice, and springs from sheer wantonness and greed—is a sin against one’s neighbor; for it does not consider his loss, but robs and steals from him that which is his. The seller is not trying to make a modest living, but to satisfy his lust for profits. According to divine law he should not sell his goods at a higher price on the time payment plan than for cash. Again, there are some who sell their goods at a higher price than they command in the common market, or than is customary in the trade; they raise the price of their wares for no other reason than because they know that there is no more of that commodity in the country, or that the supply will shortly be exhausted, and people must have it. That is the rogue’s eye of greed, which sees only the neighbor’s need; not to relieve it, but to make the most of it and get rich at his expense. All such fellows are manifest thieves, robbers, and usurers. (261–62) Again, there are some who buy up the entire supply of certain goods or wards in a country or a city in order to have these goods entirely under their own control; they can then fix and raise the price and sell them as dear as they like or can. (262) Some of them, when they see that they cannot otherwise effect their selfish profiteering transactions and establish their monopolies because others have the same goods and wares, proceed to sell their goods so dirt cheap that the others cannot meet the competition, and are forced either to withhold their goods from sale, or to face ruin by selling them as cheaply as their competitors do. Thus, the greedy ones get their monopoly after all. Such fellows are not worthy to be called human beings or to live among men; they are not even worth admonishing or instructing, for their envy and greed is so open and shameless that even at the cost of their own losses they cause loss to others, in order that they might have the whole place to themselves. The temporal authorities would do right if they took from such fellows everything they had, and drove them out of the country. It would scarcely have been necessary to tell of such practices, but I wanted to include them so that one might see what great villainy there is in trade and commerce, and to make evident to everyone what is going on in the world in order that everyone may know how to protect himself against such a dangerous class. (264–65) Luther and Liberation 246 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:19:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

How could it ever be right and according to God’s will that a man in such a short time should grow so rich that he could buy out kings and emperors? They have brought things to such a pass that everybody else has to do business at the risk of loss, winning this year and losing next year, while they themselves can always win, making up their losses by increased profits. It is no wonder that they quickly appropriate the wealth of the whole world, for a pfennig that is permanent and sure is better than a gulden that is temporary and uncertain. But these companies are always dealing with permanent and sure gulden for our temporary and uncertain pfennigs. Is it any wonder that they become kings and we beggars? (271) This is why no one need ask how he may with a good conscience be a member of a trading company. My only advice is this: Get out; they will not change. If the trading companies are to stay, right and honesty must perish; if right and honesty are to stay, the trading companies must perish. The bed is too narrow says Isaiah, one must fall out, the covering is too small, it will not cover both [Isa. 28:20]. (272) Fraternal Agreement on the Common Chest of the Entire Assembly at Leisnig (1523)2 Property, Resources, and Receipts for the Common Chest In order that our Christian faith—in which all the temporal and eternal blessings won by our Lord and savior Christ out of pure grace and mercy are granted unto us by the eternal God—may bear fruit in brotherly love, and this love truly express itself in deeds of tender kindness, we, the aforesaid general parish assembly, acting unanimously, for ourselves and our posterity have ordained, established, and set up a common chest, and by these presents we do now ordain, establish, and set up this same chest on the authority of this our fraternal agreement as to purpose, scope, and form, as follows. (178–79) Disbursements and Assistance from the Common Chest 2. Luther, Fraternal Agreement on the Common Chest of the Entire Assembly at Leisnig (1523), LW 45: 176–94. Luther wrote a preface to this document. Page numbers for the following excerpts also refer to this source. The Economy and the Community 247 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:19:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

We, the members of this parish and our posterity, therefore solemnly purpose and promise henceforth to provide food, sustenance, and support through our ten elected directors out of our common chest, to the limit of our resources as God grants us grace, and as occasion demands to make the following disbursements, namely: (186) Disbursements for the pastoral office (186) [. . .] Disbursements for the office of sacristan (187) [. . .] Disbursements for the schools (188) [. . .] Disbursements for the poor who are aged and infirm (189) [. . .] Disbursements for the support of orphans and dependent children (190) [. . .] Disbursements for home relief (ibid.) [. . .] Disbursements for the relief of newcomers from without (ibid.) [. . .] Disbursements for the maintenance and construction of buildings (191) [. . .] Disbursements for the purchase of grain for the common stores (ibid.) [. . .] Whatever grain is bequeathed by will or given as gifts of love by farm laborers from the city or peasants in the country for the common good, and remains over after support of the poor as noted above, shall also be added to this common store and, as we have just heard, shall be used for the needs of the whole parish. (191–92) I. Context In 1520, Luther wrote a sermon on usury. In 1524, he picked up the theme again, writing the work Trade and Usury, which is the main subject of this assessment on Luther’s conception of economics. The writing on the “common chest” of Leisnig from 1523 was selected to represent a creative and innovative attempt to tackle the main social problems that Luther detected. In 1539/40 Luther would again focus on issues of economic policy in a specific and particularly virulent writing against the practice of usury,3 demonstrating how 3. To Pastors, That They Preach Against Usury, D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimer: Hermann Böhlau, 1983), 51, 331–424, hereafter abbreviated as WA. This text, Luther and Liberation 248 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:19:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

this particular concern was not merely occasional but corresponded to a deep theological and ethical interest.4 Germany was in a phase of social and economic transition. With regard to the latter, it moved from a natural resource economy to a money economy. This transition was a result of the gradual development of trade and the growth of cities. There developed, therefore, an increasingly diversified economy, incongruous with the feudal system based mainly on the self-sufficiency of the fief and the exchange of goods. The role of money became increasingly important in the economy of the sixteenth century. This general situation is the backdrop of Luther’s economic writings. In 1524 social unrest increased, particularly in rural areas. The peasant uprising began to appear on the horizon, with the Peasants’ War beginning in the following year, with tragic consequences. At the end of his writing of 1524, Luther was more pessimistic. He said, for example, that if he could convince one person of his arguments—though he had not much hope of achieving it—it would be an important result. Evil had reached such proportions that God surely would exercise justice by other means. It is likely that Luther was already envisioning the subsequent social confrontation, the Peasants’ War. However, even then, there is no doubt that they had not yet reached such an acute situation as the one occurring in the particularly sharp, was not included in the selection of LW. It was in the selection in Portuguese (Martin Luther, Obras Selecionadas (São Leopoldo: Sinodal, 1987–), 5, 447–93; hereafter abbreviated as OSel). These choices most probably reveal different perceptions within different contexts, the North American and the Latin American. See the particularly acute appreciation of the implications of some of the theological categories in Luther’s writing, in Vítor Westhelle, “Luther and Liberation,” Dialog: A Journal of Theology 25 (Winter 1986): 51–58. 4. For a more comprehensive study of Luther’s economic conception, see Hans-Jürgen Prien, Luthers Wirtschaftsethik (Göttingen: V&R, 1992). Ricardo Rieth, “Habsucht” bei Martin Luther, proves, through a careful investigation of sermons, biblical expositions and other writings not specifically economic, that Luther’s concern with the material conditions of human life was not only permanent, but also highlights the consistency of the positions taken throughout his life. See Ricardo Rieth, “Habsucht” bei Martin Luther: Ökonomisches und Theologisches Denken, Tradition und Soziale Wirklichkeit im Zeitalter der Reformation, Doctoral Thesis (Leipzig, 1992). The Economy and the Community 249 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:19:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

following year and perhaps Luther’s writing should be understood as one of his efforts to prevent the worst from happening. His goal, in writing Trade and Usury, was to draw attention to the widespread unjust behavior of merchants. He also related the difficulties some people had confessed to having, who want to be good Christians and, at the same time, merchants. It is because of those who would prefer “to be poor with God than rich with the devil” that Luther wrote this treatise. He then went on to study the problems concerning abuse in economics and finance, that is, the sins committed in commercial practice. 1. Establishing the Price of Goods Luther’s main criticism focused on the pricing of goods, determined by the merchant. He argued that the pricing of a good should not be subjected to what we would now call the law of supply and demand but rather be determined according to the cost, on the one hand, and the need of the population, on the other. Offering many examples, he reported that prices were being manipulated by the sellers, according to their own interests and conveniences. However, the sole purpose of selling something was to meet the need of the buyer; this, therefore, should constitute the guiding and decisive criteria. Acutely, Luther detected that the level of commercial exploitation grows in proportion to the need. That is, the greater the need for the product, the higher the price. The merchant who had a product that was scarce in the market, increased the price, as demand was greater than supply. In this case, the merchant would be taking advantage of a situation of need. Therefore, commerce became no more than pure and simple theft- Luther employed this word repeatedly. Accordingly, the product would be much more expensive as the need Luther and Liberation 250 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:19:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

for it increased. That is: the need of the neighbor was the reason for theft. By paying a higher price, the one who suffered the need still bought out of his or her own shortage, making it more acute. The following passage is characteristic: Among themselves the merchants have a common rule which is their chief maxim and the basis of all their sharp practices, where they say: “I may sell my goods as dear as I can.” They think this is the right. Thus occasion is given for avarice, and every window and door to hell is opened. What else does it mean but this: I care nothing about my neighbor; so long as I have my profit and satisfy my greed, of what concern is it to me if it injures my neighbor in ten ways at once? There you see how shamelessly this maxim flies squarely in the face not only of Christian love but also of natural law. How can there be anything good then in trade? How can it be without sin when such injustice is the chief maxim and rule of the whole business? On such a basis trade can be nothing but robbing and stealing the property of others. When once the rogue’s eye and greedy belly of a merchant find that people must have his wares, or that the buyer is poor and needs them, he takes advantage of him and raises the price. He considers not the value of the goods, or what his own efforts and risk have deserved, but only the other man’s want and need. He notes it not that he may relieve it but that he may use it to his own advantage by raising the price of his goods, which he would not have raised if it has not been for his neighbor’s need. Because of his avarice, therefore, the goods must be priced as much higher as the greater need of the other fellow will allow, so that the neighbor’s need becomes as it were the measure of the goods’ worth and value. Tell me, isn’t that an un-Christian and inhuman thing to do? Isn’t that equivalent to selling a poor man his own need in the same transaction? When he has to buy his wares at a higher price because of his need, that is the same as having to buy his own need; for what is sold to him is not simply the wares as they are, but the wares plus the fact that he must have them. Observe that this and like abominations are the inevitable consequence when the rule is that I may sell my goods as dear as I can.5 So Luther vehemently rejected this law, which he considered unjust. 5. LW 45:247–48. The Economy and the Community 251 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:19:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

But then, how to fix the price of a commodity? Although Luther did not reach a properly developed proposal, he offered some clues and some guiding criteria. The starting point for fixing the price of a good should be what a worker received for one’s daily work. That is to say, it would be necessary to include the hours invested in preparation of the goods. He also granted the inclusion of a moderate risk assessment, the costs of preparation and freight, the purchase of raw materials. The price of the good would be obtained from this data. It would, moreover, be an established and fixed price, regardless of any economic situation. The price calculated in this way would not be changed, even if there were increased demand and decreased production. We return to Luther’s own words: The rule ought to be, not, “I may sell my wares as dear as I can or will,” but “I may sell my wares as dear as I ought, or as is right and fair.” For your selling ought not to be an act that is entirely within your own power and discretion, without law or limit, as though you were a god and beholden to no one. Because your selling is an act performed toward your neighbor, it should rather be so governed by law and conscience that you do it without harm and injury to him, your concern being directed more toward doing him no injury than toward gaining profit for yourself. But where are there such merchants? How few merchants there would be, and how trade would decline, if they were to amend this evil rule and put things on a fair and Christian basis!6 Certainly, Luther recognized the demand and therefore the legitimacy of trade. He came to see that the simple exchange of goods was already an insufficient business arrangement. In this sense, his vision took account of the new situation that arose from the social and economic transformations of the previous centuries. On the other hand, however, he introduced some criteria that should serve as the basis for business transactions, from his point of view. He opposed the purchase of superfluous and expendable goods such 6. Ibid., 248–49. Luther and Liberation 252 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:19:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

as spices and silk, which were introduced in Germany, originating from the East. Again, one can observe a distinct trait in Luther, giving priority decidedly to the German people in their needs. The criterion was that one should sell what was really needed, limiting trade to such items. There is here, in large part, a critique of the concentration of political and economic power together with the introduction of a limiting criterion for market relations. 2. The Critique of Usury and Christian Trade Practices Luther’s criticism turned to finance, loans, obtaining profits through interest, and sales on credit, among other things. In matters involving money he argued, not without some irony, that there are four Christian ways to deal with the neighbor: First, allow others to take and steal our goods. Surely no one will be surprised with his finding that this kind of attitude is unpopular among merchants—at least when practiced by customers. However, to tolerate the taking of our goods would be a Christian way to selflessly deal with the other, according to the Sermon on the Mount. Second: give freely to each what one needs. That would be ideal. Luther, however, noted, with obvious realism, the difficulties of putting this precept into practice, for surely there would be few merchants willing to adopt it. Third: lend my goods, retrieve them when returned, and count them as lost when they are not. This type of loan would be granted only to those who really needed it. Thus, we should be willing to give you what you need, even if you become unable to return it. Therefore, one should not ask for any advance guarantee for returning the goods borrowed. The Christian way of lending would be precisely to take the risk of non-recovery. And whoever lent to obtain something more or better in the return of the borrowed goods themselves, would be a “notorious and damned usurer.” The Economy and the Community 253 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:19:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

To avoid this and other abuses, according to him, Luther emphasized the need for the state to regulate such financial activities. To justify this state intervention, he stated that his proposals would be achievable only by and between Christian people. It would not be possible to apply this rule to society as a whole. Therefore, it would be for the State to intervene to prevent abuses, since without such legislation all would want to borrow, and no one lend. In addition, state intervention should ensure that those who were able to give back what they had received in loan, did so in fact. That is to say, Luther accepted the existence of rules governing trade as something of value. On the other hand, he suggested that those who grant loans be able to make do with what is left without borrowing for one’s family, children, and servants. For if one were to borrow what he needs, one would inevitably fall into the situation of having to obtain immediately the loan given, which would lead one to put pressure on the other who had received the loan. So if someone lends, it should be of that portion that he would really be willing to give, according to his ability. Fourth, buy and sell in cash, or pay with merchandise. Luther rejected paying with credit. His conclusion was that: if there were no such thing in this world as becoming surety, if the free lending portrayed in the gospel were the general practice, and if only hard cash or wares on hand were exchanged in trade, then the greatest and most harmful dangers and faults and failings of trade and commerce would be well out of the way. It would then be easy to engage in all sorts of business enterprises, and the other sinful faults of trade could the more readily be prevented. If there were none of this becoming surety and this lending without risk, many a man would have to maintain his humble status and be content with a modest living who now aspires day and night to reach an exalted position, relying on borrowing and standing surety. That is why everyone now wants to be a merchant and get rich. From this stem the countless dangerous and wicked devices and dirty tricks that have today become a joke among the merchants. There Luther and Liberation 254 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:19:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

are so many of them that I have given up the hope that trade can be entirely corrected; it is so overburdened with all sorts of wickedness and deception that in the long run it will not be able to sustain itself, but will have to collapse inwardly of its own weight. In what has been said I have wished to give a bit of warning and instruction to everyone about this great, filthy, widespread business of trade and commerce. If we were to tolerate and accept the principle that everyone may sell his wares as dear as he can, approving the practice of borrowing and forced lending and standing surety, and yet try to advise and teach men how to act the part of Christians and keep a good and clear conscience in the matter, that would be the same as trying to teach men how wrong could be right and bad good, how one could at the same time live and act in accordance with divine Scripture and contrary to divine Scripture. These three errors—that everyone may sell what is his as dear as he will, also borrowing and becoming surety—these are like three fountainheads from which the whole stream of abomination, injustice, low cunning, and trickery flows far and wide. To try to stem the flood without stopping up the source is a waste of effort and energy.7 Later, Luther will denounce a number of specific practices that merchants used to achieve their goal of increasing profits at the expense of others. We can also register an awareness of the causes and effects as well as a sense of structural causes in the rules governing economic organization. 3. Merchants’ “Lies and Tricks” Luther did not mince words when condemning commercial practices he considered objectionable. Selling on credit at a higher price than for cash—this is theft. Many merchants would only want to sell this way. Another complaint: some merchants acquired a monopoly of an item, allowing them to fix the price they wanted. He also decried the cases where merchants with greater financial power sold the same item as other merchants but below the cost price, in order to break 7. Ibid., 260–61. The Economy and the Community 255 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:19:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

competitors and thus achieve a monopoly over that item, which would then allow them to return to charging abusive prices. There were cases in which merchants, knowing the financial needs of their competitors, would buy the items they offered at less than their value, taking advantage of their situation of poverty. Luther described the merchants who took advantage of others as murderers and stranglers. There were even cases where some merchants, predicting either future shortages of an item or an increase in its demand more than production, organized for the advance purchase of all production and, having obtained exclusivity, came to sell it at far above the purchase price. The list of “lies and tricks” is extensive, as shown. Luther denounced, among these, also the cases of financial pressure among merchants themselves. For example, by not paying a loan taken, although they were able to do so. Luther opposed the charging of interest, basing his position on biblical quotations.8 The merchants could be right in complaining of robbers—which was in fact a fairly common problem in unprotected paths at that time—but Luther argued that this would be a minor problem in relation to the continuous theft committed by these merchants. According to him, the merchants, who always stole, complained of occasional robbers. It is interesting, moreover, to note that Luther already denounced the large companies that had only recently begun to emerge, expanding in a diversified way their production or trading. They held, according to Luther, a very powerful instrument of pressure that, in fact, was used to cause the breaking of small merchants and producers. To obtain a trading monopoly, they could easily sell a product below its cost, making up the difference with the increase 8. In other passages, however, particularly in To Pastors, That They Preach Against Usury, Luther, would admit, as a concession to human weakness and to avoid further perversions, an annual interest rate of four or five percent, eventually six. Luther and Liberation 256 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:19:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

of the price of another product. Thus large companies would be exploiting the people and, finally, all the money would be in their chests. The owners of these companies would become more powerful than kings,9 and convert the population into beggars. Would it be necessary to lengthen further the list of “lies and tricks”? 4. Regulating Economic Activities In large part, the treatise aimed to question the conscience of merchants who wanted to be Christians. Luther sought to point out what would be permitted and what would not. For example: Christians who were working in monopolistic companies, who wanted to make peace with their consciences, had to abandon them because they are not about to be reformed. However, Luther acknowledged that it would be unrealistic and inappropriate to attack the whole issue with only the admonition to people’s consciences. He realized that regulation of commercial and financial activities by State action would be necessary, in particular with regard to pricing, control of goods, and a ban on financial speculation. The State and the princes should suppress the exploitation of the defenseless population, although Luther would also come to denounce the princes for punishing the petty thieves, while the major thieves remained their friends. Thus, he observed, it would fulfill the saying according to which the large thieves hang the little ones. Nevertheless, it seems that Luther did not spot another 9. In fact, historical research has shown how the royal houses, the princes, and even the pope were dependent on the financial institutions in expansion, as in the house of Fugger, in Nuremberg. “The Fuggers, and their rivals the Welsers, both of Augsburg, had interests extending from the edge of Hungary to the Spanish colonies in America; they and their like had contact with every government of the day.” See G. R. Elton, Reformation Europe: 1517–1559 (New York: Meridian, 1963), 22. The Economy and the Community 257 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:19:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

better and viable alternative in this respect than to appeal to princes to regulate and control economic activities. Could there be, however, other alternatives for the population? 5. An Alternative: The Community Chest The community chest was, within the Reform and under its influence, an attempt to seek economic alternatives that were viable at the local level, inspired by another ethical perspective, in line with a society geared to meet the needs of its population. Now the social needs were undoubtedly very acute. All those who had left the monastery because of the Reformation were in extreme poverty. There lies the root of Luther’s suggestion that the church properties be confiscated for community use. It is known that many princes took advantage of that suggestion simply to increase their own properties. Luther’s idea, however, was that they were intended for community use, which would serve to financially support people who had left the monasteries and convents but also those who chose to remain in those institutions. It would create a chest of common help both for pastors, teachers, the elderly, sick, widows, unemployed, and all people who were for some reason abandoned. It should also sustain economically the renewed church and aid in the creation of schools. In other words, this was a very ambitious proposal, which practically meant a comprehensive system of social security, something unusual, surprising, and certainly revolutionary for that time. It is known that in some places, such as, for example, in Wittenberg itself, where it was introduced in 1522, this system was reasonably successful for some time. It was so true that very soon it became necessary to include a clause in the original regulations, according to which economic aid was restricted to people in need from Wittenberg and did not extend to people from other places. Luther and Liberation 258 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:19:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Other places, applying themselves to the principle of “cleverness,” came to send people in need to Wittenberg, sparing themselves thus in a very convenient way from their own responsibility. Luther did not author the statute of the community chest reproduced above, in excerpts. The Reformer was, rather, the inspiration for these community chests. And when the Leisnig community organized its own chest, in 1523, it sent to Luther the draft regulation asking his opinion. It is this regulation whose structure is briefly reproduced above. Luther abdicated the possibility of suggesting any amendment and limited himself to writing a brief introduction, an expression of support. It is, therefore, a fine example of how Luther, though jealous of his views in situations of conflict, could fully embrace the product of the efforts of a community that was known to take responsibility for itself in the face of the word of God. Quite characteristically, the purposes of this chest were understood to be support for church-community activities and school, the support of people in need, and even the maintenance of regulated grain stocks, in order to avoid abusive price increases when crops are bad or their degradation when crops are abundant. As for the administration, the regulation provided, for example, three meetings a year and each year members of the executive committee of the chest were elected, with two merchants, three craftsmen, three peasants and two representatives of the municipal government—a highly democratic representation, if we wanted to classify it! However, in the Leisnig community the chest did not work for long. It failed due to the unsurprising fact that the municipal authorities, who represented the interests of the urban bourgeoisie, no longer financially supported the chest. Still, the establishment of community chests is a concrete and significant example of how, under the influence of the Reformation, there was an aim to organize The Economy and the Community 259 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:19:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

in a different way social and economic activities, profoundly taking into account the actual material needs of the population. II. Questions and Reflections A basic question in assessing Luther’s economic position refers to Luther’s own class position and the impact this might have had on his economic views. We know that his father was a former peasant who managed to climb the social ladder, becoming an entrepreneur in the mining sector. In relation to his son Martin, he harbored dreams of greater social mobility, through the study of law, which could open the way for a career in public administration. On entering the monastery, Luther dispelled his father’s dreams, indicating that upward mobility had already ceased to be one of his own ideals. Early in his reform activity he lived in a state of penury sometimes because as a monk he did not receive payment for his activities as a university professor. Only as a community pastor did he see some modest benefit. Later he came to achieve a lifestyle that would probably be described, using contemporary standards, as middle class. In any case, he was always far from living in affluence. However, neither did he live in poverty. Luther could live, with his family, at the former Black Convent of Wittenberg, which in 1532 was presented to him by the ElectorPrince John the Constant. It was a much larger building than was adequate for the needs of his family, so that it not only gave him necessary housing but also entailed the heavy burden of conservation, which work was undertaken largely by his wife Katharina. In the same year, 1532, the fall of a wall nearly took the lives of the couple. Katharina also was encumbered with such mundane tasks as brewing, as Luther inherited the convent’s license.10 10. See Gert Wendelborn, Martin Luther: Leben und Reformatorisches Werk (Berlin: Union, 1983), Luther and Liberation 260 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:19:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The house always housed students, often fugitives from other territories, numerous guests11 and even impoverished relatives, including the adoptions of children from Luther’s poor brothers. The Reformer received food donations with some frequency but most of the food, both plants and animals, was produced by the tireless work of Katharina. In later years, his wife would often complain about the difficulty of maintaining a large house with many guests and limited resources at their disposal. A particularly picturesque episode is one in which Luther bought, on one of his trips, his favorite beer, spending a little money that his wife economized making homemade beer herself. Upon discovering the fact, Katharina strongly reprimanded her husband. Although in his time no one had as many books sold as he had, Luther never received compensation for his many writings. In fact, one cannot say that Luther had, in his heart, a compulsion for social ascension. Could this have been determined by his social condition described above? Luther’s economic writings reveal, without a doubt, a deep compassion for the poor. His denunciations of economic abuses reveal a strong concern and commitment to justice. His economic views were radically focused on the basic needs of the people not profit. In fact, he saw an ongoing conflict between both dimensions. In this sense, perhaps it can be said that Luther’s condition of life, with its day-to-day difficulties, had some influence on his position. But it would be wrong to pretend to exhaust the interpretation of Luther’s writings from that perspective. The Reformation movement was, at least until 1525 and to some 263–64; also: 422–24; see also Martin Brecht, Martin Luther; Ordnung und Abgrenzung der Reformation; 1521–1532 (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989), 412–15. 11. Luther took pleasure in having guests, particularly students, who also shared with regularity his table, and they came to record many of his informal talks during meals (published in WA TR–Tischreden; selections in, LW 54). Guests could be some source of income helping to maintain Luther’s home, but their presence also entailed many additional burdens for his wife Katharina. The Economy and the Community 261 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:19:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

degree even after, a popular movement. Various segments of the population, including the peasants, identified with Luther’s thought and aims, treating him as a respected authority. In 1525, when Luther found himself compelled by circumstances to make a choice he had originally wanted to avoid, directing the princes to crush the peasant rebellion, his popularity and the Reformation undoubtedly suffered profound damage. However, even after the Peasants’ War, the Reformation persisted, at least in part, as a movement with a popular range and roots. Its historical success or failure, though, depended largely on the policies of the princes. Could they be expected to establish justice in economic relations? This leads us to a second question: to what extent are Luther’s analysis and proposals accurate and workable? Moreover, do we note a sense of the structural dimensions of economic exploitation or did Luther hope to contribute to improving economic relations by addressing the consciences of individuals? In the treatise on Trade and Usury, in fact, ethical considerations and exhortation to individuals predominate, whether to merchants or princes. It is, however, significant for its time that it also exhibits a clear, still incipient, perception of structural problems, as well as relations between the princes and the emerging large corporations. Luther saw some connection between the princes and wealthy merchants. In this context, he even claimed, as pointed out, that the major thieves were killing the minor ones. However, taking into account this fact, the recommendation that the princes regulate economic activity is naïve, and, in its simplicity, wrong. Maybe this position is based on Luther’s fear of social disorder that could endanger religious reform or, more accurately, the rediscovery of the gospel; perhaps his apocalyptic vision had influenced his thinking on the political and social sphere. Today, it is clear that we cannot share or accept this view. In a macroLuther and Liberation 262 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:19:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

structural sense, however—and here lies the main core of Luther’s suggestion—the implicit demand that the democratically constituted State regulate and control the economy, in the interests of the basic needs of the population, was relevant and remains an indispensable requirement. We must recognize that Luther’s critique is better elaborated than his practical suggestions. To some extent, he resisted making proposals, despite having made not a few. For his denunciation, Luther received high praise from Karl Marx,12 who declared that Luther was one of German history’s greatest economists. Maybe we would be a little more reticent than Marx; still, however, his judgment is considerable. Luther’s proposals could be creative, for the most part, but maybe a little devoid of the necessary dose of realism. To a large extent, they were, in addition, suggestions that continued to presuppose the medieval system. His position on usury, for example, reiterated criticism common in the Middle Ages, an indication perhaps that he had detected and reported the characteristic mechanisms but had not yet been able to recognize the importance of capital accumulation for the emergence of a new economic system. So his suggestions tended to be naïve at this point. Luther had difficulty seeing clearly the structural links between the emerging political and economic powers. The proposal that the state control economic activity is redeemable, but to the extent that this was simply delegated to the princes, who were closely linked to the more economically powerful merchants—not to mention their dependence on financial support from the banking houses—it was mortally contaminated. The viability of Luther’s proposal remained dependent on the goodwill of those causing the evils that he denounced. It could not thrive. 12. See Joachim Fischer, “Lutero e o Capitalismo Incipiente,” in Reflexões em torno de Lutero [v. 1]: Estudos Teológicos, ed. Martin N. Dreher (São Leopoldo: Sinodal, 1981), especially 90–91. The Economy and the Community 263 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:19:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

On the other hand, the community chest was a much more promising attempt than appealing to the princes, perhaps because, similar to Luther’s educational proposals, it called for action at the local level, where there was some potential to develop an alternative. In general, however, Luther did not recognize that trade and the financial system were mobilizing the economic development of his time toward a new historical stage. He supposed that trade could be returned to medieval conceptions, that is, his proposals obviously did not advance beyond capitalism, but reflected a preparatory stage before it, in which he affirmed some values of the Middle Ages. In any case, we can be proud of his harsh criticisms—even at the ethical and moral level—of the merchants and usurers, and of his solidarity with those who had to pay the price of the process, the exploited. His proposals, however, ran against the movement of the historical process. We can be inspired by his prophetic voice; he left us, however, today with the enormous task of building an economic system centered on the people’s basic needs. Luther and Liberation 264 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:19:31 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

12 War Whether Soldiers, Too, Can be Saved (1526) 1 What men write about war, saying that it is a great plague, is all true. But they should also consider how great the plague is that war prevents. If people were good and wanted to keep peace, war would be the greatest plague on earth. But what are you going to do about the fact that people will not keep the peace, but rob, steal, kill, outrage women and children, and take away property and honor? The small lack of peace called war or the sword must set a limit to this universal, worldwide lack of peace which would destroy everyone. (96) This is why God honors the sword so highly that he says that he himself has instituted it (Rom. 13:1) and does not want men to say or think that they have invented it or instituted it. For the hand that wields this sword and kills with it is not man’s hand, but God’s; and it is not man, but God, who hangs, tortures, beheads, kills, and fights. All these are God’s works and judgments. (Ibid.) The office of the sword is in itself right and is a divine and useful ordinance, which God does not want us to despise, but to fear, honor, and obey, under penalty of punishment, as St. Paul says in Romans 13 [:1-5]. For God has established two kinds of government among men. The one is spiritual; it has no sword, but it has the word, by 1. Martin Luther, Whether Soldiers, Too, Can be Saved (1526) in Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehman, eds., Luther’s Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1955–), 46:93–137; hereafter referred to as LW. Page numbers for the following block quotes also refer to this source. 265 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:20:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

means of which men are to become good and righteous, so that with this righteousness they may attain eternal life. He administers this righteousness through the word, which he has committed to the preachers. The other kind is worldly government, which works through the sword so that those who do not want to be good and righteous to eternal life may be forced to become good and righteous in the eyes of the world. And although God will not reward this kind of righteousness with eternal life, nonetheless, he still wishes peace to be maintained among men and rewards them with temporal blessings. He gives rulers much more property, honor, and power than he gives to others that they may serve him by administering this temporal righteousness. Thus God himself is the founder, lord, master, protector, and rewarder of both kinds of righteousness. There is no human ordinance or authority in either, but each is a divine thing entirely. (99–100) [. . .] he [God] desires peace and is the enemy of those who start wars and break the peace. (119) No war is just, even if it is a war between equals, unless one has such a good reason for fighting and such a good conscience that he can say, “My neighbor compels and forces me to fight, though I would rather avoid it.” In that case, it can be called not only war, but lawful selfdefense. . . . (120) The third question is whether overlords have the right to go to war with their subjects. We have, indeed, heard above that subjects are to be obedient and are even to suffer wrong from their tyrants. Thus, if things go well, the rulers have nothing to do with their subjects except to cultivate fairness, righteousness, and judgment. However, if the subjects rise up and rebel, as the peasants did recently, then it is right and proper to fight against them. That, too, is what a prince should do to his nobles and an emperor to his princes if they are rebellious and start a war. Only it must be done in the fear of God, and too much reliance must not be placed on being in the right, lest God determine that the lords are to be punished by their subjects, even though the subjects are in the wrong. This has often happened, as we have heard above. For to be right and to do right do not always go together. Indeed, they never go together unless God joins them. Therefore, although it is right that subjects patiently suffer everything and do not revolt, nevertheless, it is not for men to decide whether they shall do so. For God has appointed Luther and Liberation 266 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:20:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

subjects to care for themselves as individuals, and has taken the sword from them, and has put it into the hands of another. If they rebel against this, get others to join them and break loose, and take the sword, then before God they are worthy of condemnation and death. (125–26) “Suppose my lord were wrong in going to war.” I reply: If you know for sure that he is wrong, then you should fear God rather than men, Acts 4 [5:29], and you should neither fight nor serve, for you cannot have a good conscience before God. (130) Army Sermon against the Turks (1529)2 For the Scriptures prophesy to us about two cruel tyrants who, before the last days, will devastate and destroy Christendom, one spiritually, with cunning or false worship and doctrine against the true Christian faith and the Gospel. [. . .] That is the pope with his papacy, of which we have written enough elsewhere. The other will do it with the sword, physically and externally, in the most horrible way. Daniel prophesies this categorically in Chapter 7 [:25], and Christ, in Matthew 24 [:21], speaks of a tribulation without equal on the earth. This is the Turk. Given then, the imminent end of the world, it is necessary that the devil attack Christendom beforehand with all his power in the most terrible way, giving us the truly mortal blow, before we rise up to heaven. Whoever wants to be a Christian in these times, should fix his heart on Christ and think no more of peace and good days. The hour of this tribulation and prophecy is at hand. At the same time, our trust and comfort in the coming of Christ and our redemption are not far from us, either, but rather they will follow immediately, as we will soon hear. Wherefore persevere and be assured that the Turk is surely the last great rage of the devil against Christ, with which he will reach his limit and 2. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimer: Hermann Böhlau, 1983), 30/2, 160–97 [Heerpredigt wider den Türken], hereafter abbreviated as WA. [Spanish: Martin Luther, Obras de Martín Lutero (Buenos Aires: Paidós-Aurora, 1967–1985), v. 2, 205–33; hereafter referred to as OL. Page numbers for the following block quotes refer to this source.] [Selections translated from German into English by MS.] Unfortunately, this text is not included in LW or in Luther’s works in Portuguese. Fortunately, the decision was different for the Spanish edition. The reason for the decision of the Portuguese and English editors resides presumably in that they have considered this work of Luther’s to be repetitive but also problematic for its stern and strikingly apocalyptic tone. They limited themselves in this matter to including the previous text, although published in the same year, On War Against the Turk [1529] (LW 46:161–205). War 267 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:20:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

pour out all his fury against the kingdom of Christ. Beyond that, he is the greatest punishment of God upon the earth against the thankless and godless detractors and persecutors of Christ and his Word, and is without doubt the harbinger of hell and of the eternal punishment. For Daniel says that, after the Turks, will follow rapidly the judgment and hell. (162) It is sufficient for them that they are Christians and saints of God through Christ our Lord, as Daniel says. . . . This is not to say that they should throw away their weapons and shields and defenselessly let the Turks kill them, as the martyrs outside of war have done, which they still do and should do. But rather because Christians are subject in body and goods to worldly authority, and all of them, having been called each one by his respective authority to fight against the Turks, should act as faithful and obedient subjects—which they surely do if they are Christians—using physical force with gusto, striking, killing, destroying, and bringing about all possible damage with complete confidence as long as they are able to move a muscle. For this is what their secular authority is ordering them to do, and that to which they owe obedience and service, which is what God wants of them, even unto death, see Romans 13 [:1], and Titus [1]. (179) I. Introduction to the Army Sermon against the Turks The situation to which this writing of 1529 responds is very clear. At the time of writing, the Ottoman Turkish forces were besieging Vienna and threatened to take all of Europe. At the time of its publication, the resistance had managed to break the siege. However, while writing, Luther thought that Vienna was falling and his feeling was that the threat to Europe was extremely dramatic and real. Luther chose the suggestive literary genre of an “army sermon” and adopted an intensely apocalyptic tone. Because that trait does not appear so clearly in other writings, it is all the more important for us to record and study it here. For its drama, this writing describes an imminent end and calls not for resignation but decided action. It is, therefore, another clear example of how Luther’s theology in no Luther and Liberation 268 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:20:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

way leads to ethical passivity but rather to the very intensification of responsible action, even if we can or should judge his decision as problematic and subject to criticism from today’s perspective.3 We find an allegorical interpretation of the book of Daniel, in the apocalyptic literary genre. When confronted with the concrete and dramatic situation of the seemingly irresistible advance of the Ottoman forces, Luther seemed to find in Daniel’s text elements to interpret the historical situation in which Europe was living. It is also interesting to observe the unique way he incorporated the distinction of the so-called two kingdoms. He distinguished there two rulers: one spiritual, which would be the pope, and the other earthly, which would be the “Turk.” The latter is a tyrant at the devil’s service, but the devil, finally, serves the purposes of God. The hierarchy Luther adopted here is interesting. The devil was advancing against Christ, punishing the Christians, pious and impious for the infidelity in their midst, but ultimately could not help but serve God, the God of Jesus Christ. Luther also distinguished four beasts, according to the book of Daniel. They represented four empires. This allowed Luther to draw a historical retrospective in which the last beast is the Roman Empire. But the Turkish Empire, he said, was part of the Roman Empire itself! This would be its epilogue, before the end times. It constituted one of the horns mentioned in Daniel, the lowest horn of all. In this fight of the devil against Christ, there would be a time that would produce many martyrs. The question that arises is obviously the following: if all this would serve a divine purpose, if somehow everything was contained in God’s plan, would it be permissible to stand up against events and 3. The phrase “If I were to know that the world would end tomorrow, I would still plant an apple tree,” has been attributed to Luther. Though it has not been possible to prove its authenticity, it adequately reproduces the thought of the Reformer. War 269 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:20:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

fight? The logical consequence, so it seems, would be that one should submit and suffer. However, Luther categorically denied this possibility, saying that to accept suffering is the correct attitude as an alternative to any kind of holy war, crusade. This is not, however, what is happening at the moment, according to him. Luther always consistently rejected the idea of holy war, organized by the pope, with the help of emperors and kings, against the Turks. Instead, the war against the Turks was to be understood and undertaken as a “secular” political activity, in defense of the people, in which all Christians should participate, including women and children. From this perspective, there are three purposes for the writing. First: to console. The war against the Turks should not be pursued in the name of Christianity, nor should one fight against the Turks, as enemies of Christians. Instead, the war should be made under the banner of temporal authority. The army should be called imperial troops not Christian troops. The Christians would be protected by angels; they were given grace but they should by no means lay down their arms. Once again, remembering the question of the alleged passivity of Lutheran ethics, we can see that grace does not limit active human participation. On the contrary, grace leads to struggle, Luther affirmed. At the same time, however, the consciousness of grace establishes limits that prevent any attempt to inflict all possible damage on the enemy. Secondly, there is in the writing a call to repentance. Christians must repent of their sins and unbelief and the Turks should be considered as a divine punishment for Christian unfaithfulness. Finally, Luther issued a challenge: risk both body and goods. One should be thankful for the previous time of peace but understand that it was now a time of war. There is, therefore, the call for a complete mobilization, in which appears once again the dialectic of grace and action of prayer in action. Those who fall into captivity Luther and Liberation 270 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:20:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

should remain faithful to the Christian faith and be consistent with the second article of the Christian creed. In other ways, however, they should obey their new masters, excepting when the Muslims wanted to force them to fight against Christians. In this case, they should prefer the punishment of death. In On War Against the Turk, also in 1529, the apocalyptic tone, also present, is a little more restrained. It reaffirmed that “the Turk” is a representative of the devil but ultimately an instrument of God’s wrath to an unfaithful Christendom. “He [the Turk] is God’s rod and the devil’s servant.”4 The threat of the end times is present. But this does not mean resignation. Luther addressed the princes, urging them to put aside their differences with one another and to unite under the banner of the Emperor, in defense of his subjects against the powerful forces of the “Turkish” enemy. Before this, he also deepened the distinction between the spiritual and secular task. It is not for secular authority to undertake a crusade in defense of the faith. “If I were a soldier and saw a priest’s banner in the field, or a banner of the cross, even though it was a crucifix, I should run as though the devil were chasing me.”5 Faith is only defended and spread through the Word, which in this case, should consist of the call to repentance on the part of Christians for their lack of faith and for the abuses committed to their neighbor, whether superior or subject, and through the teaching of the Catechism. To the proclamation of the Word (for which Luther makes specific recommendations to preachers) should be added penitential prayer and also persevering for peace (but also for the success of the defensive military enterprise), in confidence of God’s action that governs all.6 In the case of defeat—Luther seriously considered this 4. LW 46:170. 5. Ibid., 168. Consequently, Luther also rejected that Emperor Charles V be titled “as head of Christendom and as protector of the church and defender of the faith” (185). 6. In 1541, in the face of the new advance of Turkish troops into European territory and at the War 271 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:20:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

possibility—it would be necessary to trust that God would mercifully grant blessings. On the other hand, the secular authority, specifically the Emperor (in this case Charles V), supported by the princes, cannot abdicate his duty to protect his subjects. “The Turk is attacking his [the Emperor’s] subjects and his empire, and it is his duty, as a regular ruler appointed by God, to defend his own.”7 Thus, one should organize in the most powerful way possible, and all the subjects, obviously also or in particular Christians, should willingly provide themselves for the struggle. Having met these prerequisites—penance, prayer and the willingness to fight under the secular authority—there would still be hope.8 II. Introduction to Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved This is an earlier writing, from 1526, one year after the Peasants’ War. For this reason, much of the treatise reflects on whether it would be permissible to wage an uprising against those in political power. At the beginning of the writing, Luther approached the vocation request of Elector John Frederick, the Magnanimous, of Saxony, Luther would return to the subject of the importance of prayer, in Appeal for Prayer Against the Turks (LW 43:219–41). 7. LW 46:184. 8. In this writing Luther also expanded on his understanding of the Islamic faith. Referring to the Qur’an, he understood that, although it is flattering to Jesus and his mother, Mary, it, by denying the divinity of Jesus and his work of salvation, and placing Mohammed over Jesus, one must conclude that “Mohammed is a destroyer of our Lord Christ and his kingdom” (LW 43:177). Moreover, in the Qur’an, according to Luther, “there is much glorification of the sword in it” (LW 43:176). It is not possible to expand here on this point, in a chapter on Luther’s conception of war, but observe that the critical revision of Luther on the Islamic faith is extremely important and indispensable, when one has in mind such shocking and lamentable phrases as: “He [the Turk] is a destroyer, enemy, and blasphemer of our Lord Jesus Christ, a man who instead of the gospel and faith sets up his shameful Mohammed and all kinds of lies, ruins all temporal government and home life or marriage, and his warfare, which is nothing but murder and bloodshed, is a tool of the devil himself” (LW 43:195). This task of critical revision is especially important in our time, where the often indiscriminate use of warfare in international relations is notorious and the relationship between Christianity and Islam is, in many ways, tense. It is urgent to seek lines of convergence and understanding that overcome the causes of tension, including therein the assessment of the difficult and problematic positions of Luther. Luther and Liberation 272 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:20:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

of war. He said that the vocation as such is good, however, it would be important to know when to fight. War was not in any way embellished there; on the contrary, it was classified as a “plague” and should be undertaken only when its purpose was clear and could be classified as just when it struggled against injustice and when it was a lesser of two evils, to somehow prevent a greater evil. Luther distinguished three types of war. The first refers to the war that subjects make against their superiors. This is not permitted for Christians, in spite of a few paragraphs in which Luther left the door open a crack. In an historical overview, he showed that it was precisely this kind of war, which God used to punish wicked rulers. He did not admit, however, that the subjects themselves could assume to represent God’s punishment to bad rulers. On the contrary, even against a tyrant, the subjects should not stir up trouble, except for the case where the ruler, and tyrant, was also insane. The second type would be war between equals, for example war between kings. Luther did not legitimize any form of war of conquest. Just war would only be a defensive war. One should not engage in unjust war, even at penalty of death. The crusades, on the other hand, would never be just war. God does not want people to make war for their faith but to preach the word. In the case of a crusade, then, one could not participate in the war but, on the contrary, would have to disobey to the bitter end. However, if it were a war of defense and one could not prove that the war would be unjust, one should participate in it even as the risk of losing one’s life. The third type is the war of superiors against subjects. This was precisely the experience that had been lived through the year before this treatise was written. Luther was persuaded of the right of the superior to make war against an uprising. This would amount to a war of defense. If there are unjust rulers who do not promote War 273 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:20:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

peace, still it would be preferable to endure injustice than to promote insurrection. A new issue that loomed at that time was that of professional armies. It was a new alternative at the time. Previously, in the feudal system, servants, who were not soldiers specifically trained for war, were called to join the army in the face of any threat—or even comply with the warmongering plans of one’s master. Luther’s position was one of support for regulating the new military career, the professionalization of the armies to be prepared for any eventuality. He explained that the Christian soldier should participate when the war was just. But if the war was unjust, even though a professional soldier, one should disobey and refuse to participate in it. To conclude, Luther rejected the concept of holy war. War would be a secular activity that has to do with social organization, with the protection necessary to people and their lives. He completely rejected a holy war as a method of promoting faith and affirmed that this included calling a war holy that was waged to defend the social organization and the integrity of a nation. On the other hand, it is clear that Luther was also opposed to pacifism because he understood that in the secular arena war is a constant possibility for which one should be prepared. III. Questions and Reflections First, we can address the question of whether an apocalyptic view, such as Luther takes in these writings, would end up in ethical passivity or if this entails, instead, a more intense motivation to act. This precisely is the theme of the apocalyptic writings in the Bible and in history. Here is a point of commonality between Luther and Thomas Müntzer. Müntzer also had this vision that compelled him to fight with greater determination. In other words, the apocalyptic vision in no way implies in consequence, on ethical grounds, lack of Luther and Liberation 274 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:20:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

motivation to act. On the contrary, there is a dialectic here, which leads to an intensification of action. A second question relates to the concepts of holy war and secular war. One of the keys to understanding Luther is that he did not make separations or identifications but distinctions. If we read Luther’s texts applying the concept of separations or identifications we will not do justice to his thinking. Obviously, for Luther, there was no secularized war, in the sense that it has nothing to do with faith. Nor is there, according to him, anything like a neutral or secular profession; this is precisely what is perceived when we examine Beruf, which is both profession and vocation. So, too, the profession of soldier is holy. Everything a Christian person does should be holy because one does it precisely as a Christian person.9 It is something completely different, however, to make war with the purpose of spreading the gospel or defending the faith. At this point, Luther felt compelled to make the distinction that the legitimate purpose of war was to protect life, property, and the nation, never to propagate or defend faith. This kind of “holy war” could not happen for him; it was automatically unjust. However, participation in a “secular” war of defense would be permissible and even obligatory for a Christian soldier. There he would be participating in the war as a Christian person, and in this is “sanctified.” We repeat: it is a dialectic of distinction but not of separation. Luther never argued that the war would be a completely secular institution in the sense that it had nothing to do with faith, 9. This statement must be understood strictly in the theological sense, not in any way as a sociological observation, as if all that a Christian person will do is coated in holiness. On the contrary, Luther affirmed radically the simultaneousness of sin and righteousness in the experience of the Christian person. Looking at oneself, for one’s moral quality, the Christian must always confess oneself as a sinner; looking at the prospect of God’s action, however, one is recognized as just and, therefore, moved to do good in relation to one’s neighbor. War 275 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:20:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

with the beliefs of a Christian person, with the will of God and the message of the Bible. The same concept applies to the professions, to politics, the economy, education, home, and so forth. A third question is whether we can draw parallels between Luther’s situation and ours. For example, what are the powers that threaten us today? We cannot accept Luther’s hierarchical perspective: that which comes from above is presumably good and what comes from below is evil. According to this principle, uprisings would not be lawful but repression would be. In the structures established in the Southern Cone countries and many others in the decades from 1960 to 1980 with their military dictatorships, people were confronted with the terrible and terrifying evil of repression. Therefore, the threat did not come from those who tried to organize in order to produce changes necessary for the good of the people but rather those who maintained the power structures against the people. In these countries the doctrine of national security was, as we know, an instrument of justification for the domination over the people. This is why it was legitimate and even necessary to fight against it. For Christian people, there is no alternative but to struggle for human rights and justice. The fact that Luther could reconcile the concept of authority with the principle of the soldier’s disobedience if the war is not just shows, fortunately, that his concept of authority is not absolute but rather open to new situations and perspectives. In an attempt briefly to systematize the comments made here, we can highlight the following points: 1. The desacralization of war represented a step forward in Luther’s time. It represented a radical break with the whole concept of “holy war.” 2. To a large extent, Luther was in agreement with changes such Luther and Liberation 276 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:20:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

as the professionalization of the army, which occurred as a result of the transition from feudalism to the modern age. 3. The concept of “just war” comes from the Middle Ages. Luther adopted it because it restricted the possibility of war and limited the participation of Christian people in it not because it legitimized it.10 That is, in his presentation, Luther established conditions for participation in a war. He was by no means of the opinion that a Christian person should participate in a given war simply because the ruler ordered it. 4. Today, there are evident and profound transformations in the nature and scope of wars.11 The sophistication of weapons, their highly destructive character, the speed of their effects, and the interconnectedness of global factors mean that it becomes 10. See the studies sponsored by the LWF: Götz Planer-Friedrich, ed., Frieden und Bekenntnis: Die Lehre vom Gerechten Krieg im Lutherischen Bekenntnis (Geneva: LWB, 1991); and Viggo Mortensen, ed., War, Confession and Conciliarity: What Does “Just War” in the Augsburg Confession Mean Today? (Krieg, Konfession, Konziliarität: Was Heißt “Gerechter Krieg” in CA XVI Heute?) (Hannover: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1993), a bilingual publication. The Augsburg Confession stated, in Article Sixteen, that it is legitimate for a Christian person to be in military service and participate, always under the law, in wars, but also it indicates the criteria for refusal to participate: according to Acts 5:29, one must obey God more than human beings. See Augsburg Confession (AC) Sixteen in The Book of Concord: The Confession of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 70, Latin version; hereafter abbreviated as BC. The German version of the Augsburg Confession says “wage just wars” (AC Sixteen in BC, 35), but the Latin text, displayed and read in the Imperial Diet, before Charles V, avoided the ambiguous concept of “just war,” saying instead, that what is permissible is “to wage war according to the Law” (iure bellare). Unfortunately, the BC in translating the Latin text into English, did not preserve this important nuance and simply used again the expression “to wage just war” (BC, 49), adopting it from the German version. 11. On the use of the concept of “just war” in liberation theology, I examined the subject in my article: “Recurso à Violência e Transformação Social: Perspectivas da Teologia da Libertação,” Estudos Teológicos 30, no. 2 (1990): 126-42. In it I stress that for liberation theology it is not a question of adopting an absolute principle but of the instrumental use of the concept in question of whether and under what conditions would Christians be allowed—or have the duty to- “participate in the struggle for the liberation of an oppressed people against a constituted authority, including a system established at the national and international level.” (138) And I concluded: “the essential task of eliminating the causes that lead oppressed and exploited population groups and people to resort to violence, requires the establishment not only of a right recognized by all parties, but in equal measure of a national and international order that meets the basic needs of human beings—including freedom and participation” (Ibid.). War 277 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:20:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

virtually impossible to determine by traditional criteria of judgment whether a war is just or unjust. All parties declare the enemy as aggressors and their own war action as defensive or preventive, and always as justified. 5. Therefore, our commitment to peace should be much more radical than Luther’s.12 Although he imposed some limitations on war, although he classified it as always a plague, he also declared that, in particular situations, it could be a lesser evil to avoid a greater evil. Our commitment to peace must be more immediate and direct. The Lutheran churches should move closer to the churches of the pacifist tradition, such as the Mennonites13 and the Quakers. Luther’s criticism of pacifists was largely unfounded and unjust, even in his own time; his appeal to the princes, in the 1530s to repress pacifists was completely reprehensible from a theological point of view.14 12. On some aspects of the task of constructing peace today, see Simón Espinoza, ed., Hacia una Cultura de la Paz (Caracas: Nueva Sociedad, 1989), in particular the contributions of Julio de Santa Ana (“Fundamentos de la Paz: Una Reflexión Teológica,” 53–69) and myself (“Educación para la Paz,” 41–52; also in Walter Altmann, “Não à Dívida—Sim à Paz,” Estudos Teológicos 29, no. 2 (1989): 153–75). 13. On the occasion of a panel, in which I participated in 1988 in Holden Village, Washington, USA, the theologian John Yoder, Mennonite and therefore in the pacifist tradition, insisted that if the non-pacifist churches were at least consistent with the limiting criteria established by the doctrine of just war, the legitimacy of virtually all current wars would be denied. See also Walter Klaassen, La Guerra Justa: Un Resumen (Bogotá-Ciudad de Guatemala: ClaraSemilla, 1991); differently: Michael J. Stelmachowicz et al., Peace and the Just War Tradition: Lutheran Perspectives in the Nuclear Age (St. Louis: Concordia, 1986). Proponents of the idea that the concept of “just war” is currently superseded, do so due to the impact of the deadly consequences of current weapons and the possibility that a global war could lead to the extinction of humanity itself. So what sense could there be in speaking of a “just” war? On the other hand, the defenders of maintaining the concept of “just war,” cite, for example, the need for the orderly use of military means in accordance with internationally valid legal norms, by international forces, to curb gross systematic human rights abuses or uncontrolled fratricidal conflicts. From a Lutheran perspective, recalling the fact that the Augsburg Confession, article sixteen, does not speak strictly of “just war,” but a “war under the law,” the use of the phrase “legal use of military means” (in Latin: iure bellare, not iustum bellum) has been suggested. See Wolfgang Lienemann, “Vom Gerechten Krieg zum Gerechten Frieden?,” in Planer-Friedrich, 47–71. 14. How can we understand how Luther even came to this proposition? The background to his appeals was, it seems, his acceptance of a hierarchical society, accompanied by his conviction Luther and Liberation 278 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:20:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

6. The commitment to justice and peace, as well as the ultimate purpose of establishing peace are, according to Luther part of the functions and content of the political task. In this sense, there is a point of convergence between Luther and us that we should assume and develop positively. 7. Today we can no longer assign the task of defending rights and promoting justice only to those who govern, as Luther basically did. It is, currently, a task for the whole of society. Thus, the contribution of peace movements should be valued. Through this active joint commitment, the commitment for peace becomes real and effective. 8. Tragically in the twenty-first century, after the terrorist attack on New York’s Twin Towers (September 11, 2001), and even before with the “crusade” (President Bush) against the Iraq of Saddam Hussein, we record a striking increase in the use of military resources by governments and radical groups. In light of the devastating effects of current weapons, it is imperative politically and legally, though it is now a seemingly distant target, that we seek to abolish the institution of war as an instrument for the resolution of national and international political conflicts.15 that the political order should be preserved for social stability. Now, the peace movement represented a deep cut within Christendom, to the extent that it fostered the creation of independent communities, willing to not accept in principle orders emanating from authorities in conflict with their vision. This would break the necessary social cohesion. That is, except for the specifics, Luther’s reasons were similar to those argued in his controversial intervention in the Peasants’ War (see the following chapter). 15. This proposal was made, repeatedly, decades ago, by the German physicist Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, who was also an ecumenically committed Christian. See, for example: Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, The Politics of Peril: Economics, Society and the Prevention of War, trans. Michael Shaw (New York: Seabury, 1978) and Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, Die Zeit Drängt: Eine Weltversammlung der Christen für Gerechtigkeit, Frieden und Bewahrung der Schöpfung (Munich: Hanser, 1988). War 279 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.140 on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:20:58 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms