Luther's Essay on Secular Authority - Part 3

Luther’s Essay on Secular Authority – Part Three

Luther’s Aim – Explain how a prince should go about exercising his authority

Luther’s Audience – Those who want to be Christian rulers and lords and who give some thought to their salvation

Luther’s Points

• “Do not lord your authority over your subjects”
• Must use his own reason to firmly control the Law and the Sword and apply it correctly
• Look to his subjects and see that he is rightly disposed to them
• Direct all his efforts towards being of use and service to them
• It is possible to be a Christian and a Prince
• “Be aware of one’s counselors”
• Despise no one, but trust no one (ie don’t leave everything to someone) [Example of Balaam’s donkey and Lucifer’s fall]
• “You cannot know if anyone is a Christian or how long he will remain one.” Did Luther believe you can lose your salvation?
• Rulers must do things themselves
• “Let a prince take care how he meets out justice to wrongdoers”
• A Prince must punish the wicked in such a way that he does not cause his country chaos for one man’s head
• “He is to look to the unjustices suffered by others and not the damage he suffers himself, considering what others will suffer if he exacts punishment” 39
• Do not wage war with your superior
• When you fight a war consider your subjects first
• Acts 5:29 If your leader is unjust, follow God, not the leader
• A prince must act like a Christian to God
• Debts among Christians should be settled to the extent that the other person still has what he needs
• If it is among non-Christians, let a secular judge settle it. Why a secular judge?

Luther once again presents interesting points, but similar to the previous parts, I am not sure how practical these ideas are. Also, the questions I have posed in my summary of Luther are worthy of consideration. Luther does not address why, in the last point, a secular judge should settle a non-Christians dispute. It seems that a Christian would be better suited to settle any dispute, not just that of other Christians.

Luther’s Essay on Secular Authority – Part 2

How far secular authority extends…

Luther’s Aim: To establish how far secular authority extends.

Luther’s Points

• The kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Man each have their own law.
• Secular authority cannot mandate laws upon the soul because that is God’s domain. To do so would be giving blasphemous commands unless God specifically ordered it.
• Secular authority must admit it has no power over the soul for one can kill the body but not the soul and if one has no authority, how can one command?
• Faith is free so no one can be compelled to believe.
• Romans 13:1 is speaking of outward obedience: obedience to one whom has authority over you.
• Matt. 21:22 clarifies what Paul and Peter were saying, “Give to Caesar what is Caesars and give to God what is God’s.”
• Acts 5:29 – “We must obey God rather than Men.” Seemingly contradictory, but this is setting a limit upon secular authority.
• Princes and Kings will generally be wicked rather than just and this is to be expected. Isaiah 4
• The sword is not useful to put down heresy. That is Scripture’s duty and if it fails then the sword could not succeed. 2 Cor. 10:4
• Christians are all equal with one another. Only Christ is at the head.
• The Bishops of the church are servants rather than leaders based on the previous statement.
• Christians do not need the sword to rule them if they do everything good as Christians should.
• Non-Christians need the sword because nothing else governs their behavior.

My first observation is that I agree with Luther’s point of limited authority. Christians are only constrained to obey as far as one has authority over them. I also agree that Christians are overall, equal. Obviously, one Christian may be wiser than other, but that does not give them authority over the other person. The wiser Christian simply renders the other Christian a service by instructing him.

Luther's Essay on Secular Authority - Part 1

Luther: On secular authority, how far does the obedience owed to it extend?

Luther’s Aim: “To teach princes and secular authorities how they can remain Christians yet leave Christ as Lord, without reducing Christ’s commands to mere ‘counsels’ for their sake.” (4)

Luther’s Preface: Those who are acting as “Christian, obedient princes” in Germany are actually scoundrels who subvert the Christian faith. Luther believes he must oppose these men. (5-6)

Luther’s Points

1. Authority and the Sword have existed since the beginning of time. (6-7)
a. Romans 13:1-2 “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.”
b. Many scriptural examples of authority. Moses, Cain and Abel, Christ

2. Though Christ says to “Love your enemies” (Matt. 5:22) and this seems contradictory to the previous statement, we must reconcile them rather than simply say that Christ was providing “perfect counsel”

3. Kingdom of God
a. Possesses the Holy Spirit
b. Would not need the sword or the law because it is just (1Tim1:9)

4. Kingdom of the World
a. Requires the Sword and Law to live rightly
b. Rom. 13:3 – “The sword is not a terror to good works, but to the wicked”
c. Without the sword the world would tear itself apart
d. An ultimately Christian state could not function because the non-Christians would destroy the Christians (example of sheep, lions, wolves in a sheep pen all mixed)
e. Christians should not rule themselves with the Sword

5. Christians follow the law because they are helping their neighbors by doing so even though it is of no benefit to themselves. Rom. 13:1

6. Christians in power are simply helping their neighbors in the same way they would be to obey laws
a. Is Luther a covenant theologian? Page 16…
b. It is not unchristian to bear a sword. Ex. Luke 3:15 with John the Baptist and the Centurion
c. It is not unchristian to bear an office. Ex. Acts 10:34ff
d. God has given the Christian the authority to rule, but he may or may not exercise it.

These are my observations regarding Part 1 of Luther’s essay on secular authority. I agree wholeheartedly with all of the points he has presented. Luther has provided adequate scriptural support for his thoughts and they are logically sound.

Rhetoric Quiz - November 5, 2007

Prompt:

"The Prince is a concise statement of Machiavell's belief that classical and Christian political theory is unworkable in a world that defines politics as the exercise of power and the struggle for power. It is also implicitly a rejection of a nihilistic counterethic, that only power and brute force matter."

Discuss to what extent you agree or disagree with this statement. What evidence can you bring to support your position?

(Dante Germino, Machiavelli to Marx: Modern Western Political Thought, p. 32)

By classical Christian political theory, I would assume that Professor Germino means modes of governing controlled by a Christian ethic and worldview, which I think he would consider a kind, peaceful, and generous state. Under this definition, he says Machiavelli thinks a Christian prince would be ill-suited to actually rule a country and I would agree with him. Machiavelli’s work is not merely one of conjecture. In most situations, what he says is true and he supports it with many historical examples.

Now, on the grounds of Machiavelli stating these “Christians” do not possess a workable politic, I believe Germino is mistaken in his interpretation of what a Christian princedom would look like. It is certainly true that some Christian prince would probably try to create a country similar to the one aforementioned, but I would assert that a real Christian prince would not have these problems. The fact that one is a Christian does not make him an incompetent ruler; one can easily act in some, and I emphasize some, of the forms Machiavelli describes. Obviously a Christian or any somewhat moral person would not use criminal actions to become a prince and would not advocate cruelty as a method of peacekeeping to name a few examples.

In furthering the argument against Germino’s assertion that Machiavelli’s politic shows a Christian political theory is not practical, one may consider a few examples. Take generosity as discussed in Chapter XVI. Machiavelli says that the generous prince will soon be hated by his subjects for the taxes and other things he levies upon them (The Prince, 41-42). For a Christian to act in this manner would not only be unwise from a political standpoint, but also from a Christian perspective. One is to be frugal with one’s money and to not waste anything. Another example of this is war from Chapter 14, most people would expect a Christian to be opposed to war, and rightfully so, but simply because one is opposed to war does not mean he cannot fight well and use war as the tool it is. A Christian can be an effective student of warfare and lead his nation to victory on many occasions without taking pleasure in them.

There is however, an area in which Germino does have a point. In Chapter XVIII, Machiavelli addresses virtue by saying, “It is not essential, then, that a Prince should have all the good qualities mentioned above…, but it is most essential that he should seem to have them; I will even venture to affirm that if he has an invariably practices them all, they are hurtful, whereas the appearance of having them is useful.” (The Prince, 46) This statement is contradictory to Christianity in that he says it is hurtful to possess these virtues, but I believe it can be reconciled through the application of those virtues. If a prince is kind, compassionate and generous to his subjects, he can harm his rule, but it is possible to practice these virtues with wisdom and not ruin your princedom.

The latter of the two statements that Germino makes is relatively obvious in Machiavelli’s The Prince. Throughout the entire book, he does advocate character and wisdom in a prince as well as power and force. One specific example of this is generosity as I referenced previously. A prince must know how to balance his incomes and his expenditures while keeping his subjects content. While Machiavelli shows that one can wield force as an effective tool, he does not advocate it as the exclusive way to control an area. In Chapter VIII, Machiavelli addresses the issue of a criminal prince, but he simply presents it as an effective way to control a princedom, not as a proper or correct way. Machiavelli recognizes that crimes and cruelty are evil (The Prince, 23) but that they are also effective. On the other hand, Machiavelli is very emphatic in Chapter IX that one must secure the friendship of the people and in Chapter XVIII, he emphasizes the necessity that the people perceive you as virtuous. These things are not force oriented, yet Machiavelli places a good deal of stress upon these and other non-force related aspects throughout The Prince.

With that said, I would not lift up The Prince as an ideal handbook for a Christian prince to follow. It does not state in any substantial way that Christians cannot be good princes, but it does promote concepts which a Christian could not use. Machiavelli presents multiple strategies for maintaining a strong princedom and he does outline which are more effective than others, but he does not seem to believe that there is only one way to have a strong state and I cannot therefore say that he disallows any possibility of a Christian princedom succeeding.