O’Donovan, Oliver and Joan Lockward O’Donovan, Editors. From Irenaeus to Grotius: A Sourcebook in Christian Political Thought. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1999)

In his treatise on the Christian’s response to Temporal Authority, Martin Luther states, “It is out of the question that there should be a common Christian government over the whole world, or indeed over a single country or any considerable body of people, for the wicked always outnumber the good…the world and the masses are and always will be un-Christian, even if they are all baptized and Christian in name.” (587)

Luther’s words here provide the foundation for which much of his work in the Reformation would arise out of for he portrays a clear distinction between the nature and purpose of royal and ecclesiastical rulership, a defining view of the eschaton which would later determine his soteriology, and the function of humanity and political community here on earth. Luther first claims that a thoroughly Christian government is inherently unattainable given the nature and disposition of man. He hints at the depravity of man and the outworkings of that depravity as inhibitor of peaceful human existence. Christian government, he claims, is characterized by a lack of need for “law and the sword” (587) which indicates less earthly government, and greater spiritual government. This certainly is a critique on the Constantinian turn and the supposed Christianity of the early Byzantine empire.

Luther argues for a distinction between the two types of government, earthly and spiritual, and that both must be permitted to remain. The former’s purpose is to externalize peace and retrain evil, the latter to promote righteousness, a negative and positive approach, respectively. Earthly government alone cannot bring about righteousness. The absence of earthly government prohibits earthly righteousness while the absence of spiritual government allows rampant wickedness. Thus, Luther makes a clear distinction between the purpose of secular institution and sacred institution.

True Christianity cannot and will not be attained by all those on earth at the same time. Thus, the rule of Christian government must in itself be restrained, because it cannot account for the nature of earthly humanity. The world never has and never will be populated entirely by Christians and thus Christian government is an invalid goal for the church. It is clear from this statement where Luther’s quarrel with the Catholic church in this respect arises. For the Catholic church to claim sovereignty over political authority is unfounded and unjust in Luther’s view and can never accomplish that which it sets out to achieve. A question we might ponder here asks if this is the source of the Founders idea of separation of Church and State? Luther and likeminded reformers saw a clear distinction between Christian cultural actualization arising out of Christian government and realistic redemption brought about by secular government guided by the holy spirit.

Luther states, “If anyone attempted to rule the world by the gospel and to abolish all temporal law and sword on the plea that all are baptized and Christian, and that, according to the gospel, there shall be among them no law or sword, or need for either, pray tell me, friend, what would he be doing? …Certainly it is true that Christians, so far as they themselves are concerned, are subject to neither” ...Is this correct?

2. How does Luthers view on Christian government (587) play into our understanding of separation of church and state?

3. Is Luther’s critique of trade and usury a critique of freemarket capitalism?