Copyright © 1994, Word & World, Luther Seminary.
Word & World, Supplement Series 2, pp. 96-107.
First published under the title "Foreign Policy" in Luther and
Culture, ed. George Forell, Harold Grimm, and Theodore
Hoelty-Nickel (Decorah, Iowa: Luther College Press, 1960) and
delivered first as a lecture presented at the 1959 "Luther
Lectures" at Luther College. Used with permission.
[1] Martin Luther lived in an age of profound international
tensions. Europe's political situation was in a state of flux. The
reasons for the unrest were numerous. In 1519 Emperor Maximilian
had died. Shortly before his death he had attempted to make sure
that the empire would be passed on to his grandson Charles, who had
recently inherited the Spanish crown. But Maximilian had died
before he could achieve this ambition. Nevertheless, with the help
of complicated international negotiations, expensive bribes, and
the pressure of the early version of what one would call today
"public opinion," the election of Charles V as emperor was finally
brought about in June 1519. Because of the new emperor's
considerable military and political resources as ruler of Spain he
was in a position to try to be emperor in fact as well as name. For
the last time the idea of a universal European empire had the
chance of being realized. Charles V almost accomplished the feat,
but the effort caused tremendous tensions, and Luther was often
unwittingly in the very center of these international political
maneuvers.
[2] A second factor which contributed greatly to the
international conflicts of Luther's time was the pressure which the
Turks exerted upon the eastern frontiers of the empire. Large parts
of southeastern Europe were under Turkish rule. During the early
years of the reformation the Turkish threat constantly increased.
In 1521 Suleiman II captured Belgrade. In the battle of Mohacz of
1526 he routed the Hungarian army and struck terror into the hearts
of Christendom. While this danger from the Turks abated temporarily
during some periods of Luther's ministry it increased again towards
the end of his life. Thus all during his ministry Luther was forced
to comment on the meaning of this threat and counsel his followers
in regard to their responsibilities in this conflict.
[3] A third element contributing to international tensions was
the papacy, which in the sixteenth century was still a major
political power. The papacy made alliances, fought wars, and acted
like any other political kingdom. As a matter of fact, the actions
of the papacy in the international conflicts of the first half of
the sixteenth century were inspired almost exclusively by political
and economic considerations. Luther knew that and was bound to use
this obvious political partisanship of the papacy as material for
his criticism. Because of the deep involvement of the papacy in the
international intrigues of the time any criticism of the papacy was
bound to have political overtones.
[4] Fourthly, one of the major political power-blocks which
eventually came into being in Germany was the so-called Smalcald
League. The participants in this confederation were joined together
for the defense of their right to reformation. They were followers
of Luther and forced into this defensive alliance because their
stand at the Diet of Augsburg had made them into outlaws in the
eyes of the majority of their princely neighbors. Only by standing
together could they hope to be allowed to worship God according to
the faith expressed in the Augsburg Confession. We cannot be
surprised that among these confederates the judgments of Luther,
even on matters of foreign policy, were sought and respected.
[5] What then was Luther's counsel in these many international
conflicts? What was his attitude towards Emperor and Turks, Pope
and Smalcald confederates? We must begin by stating the theological
presuppositions of his advice in matters of foreign policy. First
of all, international conflicts are ways in which God shows
ultimate lordship over history. Secondly, they are ways in which
the devil shows his provisional power in this age to obstruct the
advance of God's word. But it is essential to understand that
nothing the devil does can ultimately frustrate God's plan. The
sovereign power of God over all history is a basic element of
Luther's theology. It is clearly expressed in one of his major
theological works, the powerful attack against Erasmus of Rotterdam
which he called On the Bondage of the Will. Here he quotes the
115th Psalm, "Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he
pleases."[1] And he cites Jer 18:6: "Can
I not do with you, O house of Israel, just as this potter has done?
says the Lord. Just like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you
in my hand, O house of Israel."[2] "The
Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the
day of trouble" (Prov 16:4).[3]
[6] In his exposition of the Second Psalm of 1532 Luther
describes this sovereign power of God most eloquently. The
judgments of God are not hidden. The wrath of God, whom the godless
consider asleep and unwilling to bother with their deeds, will
finally overwhelm them.
The examples are before our
eyes. The empire of the Romans was indeed most powerful and yet
this empire, which contemplated the destruction of Christ's
kingdom, was itself destroyed and perished. The church, however,
which kept the faith in the promises, remained intact, even though
gravely afflicted.[4]
[7] And Luther continues,
The prophet says here that
God will speak in his wrath. For it is certain that at this word
entire nations will collapse and will in no way be able to protect
themselves against this fall. Thus God spoke in his wrath when he
sent forth the Romans against the holy city Jerusalem and later
when he sent the Vandals and the Goths against Rome. These were
powerful and overwhelming words and a voice of iron which overthrew
the mightiest ruler.[5]
[8] We see here that for Luther the kingdoms of this world and
their rulers are tools in the hands of a sovereign God who through
them accomplishes a sovereign purpose. But Luther does add that
conflicts may also be the result of the demonic powers which try
vainly to obstruct God's holy purpose. Thus when the gospel is
being preached Satan will use every device at his disposal in order
to create national and international chaos and drown out the good
news of Christ. This is why Luther can say:
Here you can learn why in
our age seditions and godless opinions emerged in the church. Satan
cannot tolerate the word. Christ thunders now through his gospel in
the whole world and reveals the papal idolatry and abomination. Do
you expect Satan to keep silent and accept such damage to his
empire lying down? Didn't we see how terribly he raved when some
moral questions (moralia) were corrected by that holy man John Hus?
For unlike us he did not condemn the sacrifice of the mass and
merits and other religious observances but only doubted the primacy
of the pope, contested the sale of indulgences and denied
purgatory. And yet he so affected Satan that he involved Germany
and Bohemia in a long and terrible war. [6]
[9] International conflict is here seen as a demonic device of
the devil to obstruct the path of the gospel. Yet, to Luther it is
evident that such interference, however terrible, can only be
provisionally successful. Ultimately it is doomed with its
originator the devil. The sovereignty of God over the nations is
the fundamental premise which undergirds all of Luther's statements
on foreign policy.
[10] But once this basic theological premise has been stated it
is apparent that the basic political premise for Luther's
participation in foreign policy is a great and astonishing
readiness to accept the facts of political life. In this practical
area Luther's thought is characterized by an unexpected combination
of realism, conservatism, and pragmatism. His analysis of the
political situation is singularly free from the common sentimental
illusions of amateur politicians. His advice is a lively
combination of caution, courage, and prudence.
[11] Of course, politics in general and foreign policy in
particular belong for Luther in the realm of the law. It is,
therefore, proper that reason should rule and guide people in these
decisions. It is not even necessary that a ruler in order to rule
competently should be a Christian. Luther says, "Caesar does not
need to be a saint."[7] For the
ruler it suffices that he uses reason; in this way God maintains
all government, even that of the Tartars and Turks.[8]
[12] Luther writes to the Christians in Riga:
You have just heard that
those in authority should be watchful and diligent, and perform all
the duties of their office: bar the gates, defend the towers and
walls, put on armor, and procure supplies, In general, they should
proceed as if there were no God and they had to rescue themselves
and manage their own affairs.[9]
[13] Of course, God rules even the international affairs of
nations, but for Luther this does not excuse the political leaders
and the individual citizens from taking their proper responsibility
in these matters. For Luther insists that God has chosen to
exercise authority through human beings. All the preparations and
activities of humankind are ways in which God accomplishes his
purpose. "Indeed," Luther states, "one could very well say that the
course of the world, and especially the doing of his saints, are
God's mask, under which he conceals himself and so marvelously
exercises dominion."[10]
[14] Those who exercise the function of government should,
according to Luther, face the complexities of the political life
realistically. This is not at all easy. Most people have no idea
how complicated the decisions in the realm of politics actually
are. Yet Luther observes that as a matter of fact,
Nobody thinks he is too
clumsy or inept. If he were the government, he would really do
splendidly; and he is dissatisfied with anything done by others in
the government....Those are the Master Smart Alecks who are so
clever that they can bridle a steed in its hind end. All they can
do is to condemn other people and to improve upon them. When they
do get control of things, they ruin everything. It is as the saying
goes: "Whoever watches the game knows best how to do
it."[11]
[15] Luther is convinced that spectators who see the clash of
political interests from the outside and who have to assume no
responsibility are never aware of the intricacies of international
relations. Such people think that all these problems can be figured
out logically. They say: "How can it fail? It is as certain as the
fact that seven plus three make ten." And indeed, this is good
mathematics, here seven and three do make ten. But in real life
this may happen: God may melt seven pieces into one and thus make
out of seven one or divide three into thirty and it turns out that
the result which was supposed to be ten and was so certain in
theory is quite different in actuality.[12] And then Luther continues
to illustrate this point with examples taken from the international
scene as he observed it. In 1525 Pope Clement and the King of
France had been sure that they had the emperor in their power. Yet
at the battle of Pavia France was defeated and the king became a
prisoner. Luther observes that pope and king certainly learned then
that in international politics three and seven do not necessarily
add up to ten.
[16] Luther was especially sceptical about the specific
political advice which the clergy might give in such international
questions. He felt that they tended to add mostly pomp and ceremony
and little expert information and opinion to such international
consultations.[13] Furthermore, there was
always the danger that political and international tensions would
be merely complicated by the injection of ideological
considerations. In the Magnificat, dedicated to John Frederick,
Duke of Saxony, Luther described this problem as follows:
Oh, this is a thing that ought to be known to all princes and
rulers who, not content with confessing the right, immediately want
to obtain it and win the victory, without the fear of God; they
fill the world with bloodshed and misery, and think what they do is
right and well done because they have, or think they have, a just
cause. What else is that but proud and haughty Moab, which calls
itself worthy to possess the right...while if it regards itself
right in the sight of God, it is not worthy to live on earth or eat
a crust of bread, because of its sins.[14]
[17] Luther has little patience with those defenders of
ideological warfare who try to camouflage their attitude by saying:
"I am not doing this out of hostility to the person but out of love
for righteousness. I am a friend to the person but an enemy to the
cause." He quotes such phrases and adds that they seem so gentle
and beautiful that they obscure the beam in one's own eye and see
only the splinter in the brother's eye.[15]
[18] Luther was a realist when examining the actual causes of
international tensions and war. He cautioned against the false
pretense which is always at the bottom of ideological warfare. He
proclaimed the involvement of all participants in sin and preferred
that if wars had to be fought they be fought for the defense of a
city or the preservation of a border rather than in defense of the
Christian faith or of the Holy Trinity. From this point of view he
wrote in his book On War Against the Turks:
Therefore the urging and inciting with which the emperor and the
princes have been stirred up to fight against the Turk ought to
cease. He has been urged, as head of Christendom and as protector
of the church and defender of the faith, to wipe out the Turk's
religion, and the urging and exhorting have been based on the
wickedness and vice of the Turks. Not so! The emperor is not the
head of Christendom or defender of the gospel or the faith. The
church and the faith must have a defender other than emperor and
kings. They are usually the worst enemies of Christendom and of the
faith....That kind of urging and exhorting only makes things worse
and angers God deeply because it interferes with his honor and his
work and would ascribe it to men, which is idolatry and blasphemy.
And if the emperor were supposed to destroy the unbelievers and
non-Christians, he would have to begin with the pope, bishops, and
clergy, and perhaps not spare us or himself; for there is enough
horrible idolatry in his own empire to make it unnecessary for him
to fight the Turks for this reason. There are entirely too make
Turks, Jews, heathen, and non-Christians among us with open false
doctrine and with offensive, shameful lives. Let the Turk believe
and live as he will, just as one lets the papacy and other false
Christians live. The emperor's sword has nothing to do with the
faith; it belongs to physical, worldly things.[16]
[19] Added to this sober realism of Luther in questions of
international politics was a cautious conservatism which made it
impossible for him to identify change and improvement. Concerning
rulers in general he would say that "There is as great a difference
between changing a government and improving it as the distance from
heaven to earth. It is easy to change a government, but it is
difficult to get one that is better, and the danger is that you
will not. Why? Because it is not in our will or power, but only in
the will and the hand ofGod." [17]In
matters of politics and international relations experience and
precedent are most important. After all, the existing laws
represent the distillation of the wisdom of the ages. It would be
foolish to discard them without having the assurance that something
better would be put in their place. Luther said,
The imperial law, according to which the Roman Empire still
rules today and will continue to rule until the Last Day, is
nothing more than heathen wisdom, established and set down before
Rome had ever heard a thing about Christians or even about God
Himself. Yet I dare say that if all the wise men were brewed into
one drink, they would not only leave all the cases and disputes
unresolved but would even be unable to speak or think this well
about them. Those who set down the law had to be experienced in big
deals and to be familiar with the thinking of many people; for this
they had been endowed with a high degree of intelligence and
brains. In other words, those who had such wisdom in secular
government lived once and will never live again.[18]
[20] All utopian political hopes were alien to Luther. In view
of his frequently expressed hope that the end of the world was at
hand he was convinced that only the most urgent changes should be
made in the political structure and in the relationship of the
nations to each other. He said:
Because there is no hope of getting another government in the
Roman Empire, as Daniel also indicates (Dan. 2:40), it is not
advisable to change it. Rather, let him who is able darn and patch
it up as long as we live; let him punish the abuse and put bandages
and ointment on the smallpox. But if someone is going to tear out
the pox unmercifully, then no one will feel the pain and the damage
more than those clever barbers who would rather tear out the sores
than heal them.[19]
[21] No victory or defeat could ultimately affect the destiny of
nations unless God had so ordained it. For this reason Luther did
not feel that the decisions for change or reform of the
international pattern were as significant as those affecting the
proclamation of the gospel. As radical as he was in his insistence
that the word of God be preached in its purity, whatever the cost,
so conservative was he in his political views. Since no change in
the area of foreign politics would affect the ultimate destiny of
humankind these changes were to be made cautiously. An existing
international situation might present great problems, yet these
problems are known. When advocating change we are dealing with an
unknown situation. What might at first appear as an improvement
could turn out to be the very opposite. By recklessly promoting
changes we may actually be jumping from the frying pan into the
fire. So Luther could say:
Temporal power is in duty bound to defend its subjects, as I
have frequently said, for it bears the sword in order to keep in
fear those who do not heed such divine teaching and to compel them
to leave others in peace....Yet this defense of its subjects should
not be accompanied by still greater harm; that would be to leap
from the frying pan into the fire. It is a poor defense to expose a
whole city to danger for the sake of one person, or to risk the
entire country for a single village or castle, unless God enjoined
this by a special command as He did in former times. If a robber
knight robs a citizen of his property and you, my lord, lead your
army against him to punish this injustice, and in so doing lay
waste the whole land, who will have wrought the greater harm, the
knight or the lord? David overlooked many things when he was unable
to punish without bringing harm upon others. All rulers must do the
same. On the other hand a citizen must endure a certain measure of
suffering for the sake of the community, and not demand that all
other men undergo the greater injury for his sake. Christ did not
want the weeds to be gathered up, lest the wheat also be rooted up
with them. (Matt. 13:29). If men went to war on every provocation
and passed by no insult, we should never be at peace and have
nothing but destruction. Therefore, right or wrong is never a
sufficient reason indiscriminately to punish or make war. It is a
sufficient cause to punish within bounds and without destroying
another. The lord or ruler must always look to what will profit the
whole mass of his subjects rather than any one portion. That
householder will never grow rich who, because someone has plucked a
feather from his goose, flings the whole goose after
him.[20]
[22] This long quotation shows also that hand in hand with
Luther's conservatism goes an attitude in political questions which
could best be described as pragmatism. This is here not a
philosophy but a common sense approach to life which judges
political action not according to theories but according to its
effect on the welfare of the citizens. Luther's counsel in
questions of foreign policy always expresses this concern for the
practical political results of an action. In the Treatise on Good
Works of 1520 he wrote:
A prince must also be very wise and not always try to impose his
own will, even if he has the right and the best of all reasons to
do so. For it is a far nobler virtue to put up with a slight to
one's own rights than [it is to risk damage] to life and property,
where this is to the advantage of the subjects. As we know, worldly
rights are valid only with respect to the things of this
world.[21]
[23] He called the slogan, fiat justitia et pereat mundus,
[22]which happened to be the
motto of Ferdinand of Austria, "absolutely foolish."[23]
[24] And he praised the Roman Emperor Augustus because of the
Roman historian Suetonius' report that he did not wish to wage war,
however just his cause might be, unless there were sure indications
that the result would produce greater benefit than harm, or at
least that the damage would be bearable. The saying of Augustus
which Luther liked particularly well and which he quoted repeatedly
with approval was: "War can be likened to fishing with a golden
net-you never catch as much as you risk losing."[24]
[25] About those who hold responsible positions in government
Luther said:
He who drives a cart must act differently than if he were
walking alone. When he is on his own he can walk, jump, and do what
he likes, but when he is driving he must control and guide so that
the horse and cart can follow. He has to pay greater regard to the
horse and cart than to himself. A prince is in the same position.
He stands at the head and leads the multitude, and must not go or
do as he wants but as the multitude are able. He has to pay more
regard to their needs and necessities than to his own will and
pleasure.[25]
[26] Any other behavior on the part of those who govern is bound
to lead to disaster both for those who rule and those under their
care.
When a prince rules according to his own mad will and follows
his own opinion he is like a mad driver who rushes straight ahead
with his horse and cart through bushes, hedges, ditches, streams,
uphill and downdale, regardless of road and bridges. He will not
drive for very long. He is bound to smash up.[26]
[27] It was Luther's concern with the practical results of
statecraft as they affect people in their daily life which led him
to suggest that it might actually be better, politically speaking,
to have a competent and intelligent ruler who is personally evil
than to have a ruler who, though personally a model of virtue, is
politically incompetent and stupid. Indeed, Luther insists that a
good and wise ruler is the ideal head of government, but if this
ideal is not available it may turn out to be in the long-range
interest of the commonwealth if a personally evil person rules the
state intelligently and with skill than if someone who is
personally virtuous rules without intelligence and competence. This
is how he puts it:
The question has been properly raised whether a prince is better
if he is good and imprudent or prudent yet also evil. Here Moses
certainly demands both. Nevertheless, if one cannot have both, it
is better for him to be prudent and not good than good and not
prudent; for the good man would actually rule nothing but would be
ruled only by others, and at that only by the worst
people.[27]
[28] Luther had too much respect for the technical demands of
competent government to believe that good intentions were all that
a ruler needed.
[29] In view of this political pragmatism with its concern for
the practical consequences of all political thoughts, words, and
deeds, how does Luther conceive of the possibility of international
order? International order should be the result of wise decisions
by peace-loving princes. If the rulers were virtuous they would
avoid war and work for peace. But Luther has no illusions about the
sincerity of their desire for peace. He said, "Who is not aware
that a prince is a rare prize in heaven."[28]
[30] He was sure that there would not be many rulers present
"when the roll is called up yonder." Yet God had made provisions
for peace, not through the moral excellency of princes but rather
through the balance of power which is the result of the multitude
of peoples and interests in this world. He said,
But if a lord or prince does not recognize this duty and God's
commandment and allows himself to think that he is prince, not for
his subjects' sake, but because of his handsome, blond hair as
though God had made him a prince to rejoice in his power and wealth
and honor, take pleasure in these things, and rely on them. If he
is that kind of prince, he belongs among the heathen; indeed, he is
a fool....God restrains such princes by giving fists to other
people, too. There are also people on the other side of the
mountain. Thus one sword keeps the other in the
scabbard.[29]
[31] Thus peace is the result of the multiplicity of forces and
interests which tend to check each other and prevent even a wicked
and foolish ruler from dominating everybody else. Not in the
goodness of an individual, who wants peace, but in the goodness of
God, who has created this variety of interests and pressures which
require compromise and make war risky, rests our hope for peace.
Luther carries his basic ideas through with amazing consistency.
The powers of this world have to play God's masquerade. Through
them he punishes evil-doers and presses towards peace. Even in the
international relationships of the nations God rules and
accomplishes his own ultimate purpose.
[32] It is in the light of these basic insights that we must try
to understand Luther's specific counsel in the international
conflicts of his time. He warned the emperor against crusades, yet
encouraged him to defend the borders of Germany and protect the
life and property of its citizens against the Turkish
attacks.[30] He condemned the military
machinations and the international intrigues of the pope and saw in
them further proof for the fact that the papacy is in truth the
Antichrist proclaimed in the prophecies of the Bible. By allying
himself with the pope the king of France fell under the same
condemnation.[31] In Luther's relationship
to the League of Smalcald it was the gradual attainment of greater
technical knowledge of the legal problems here involved which
eventually led him to the position that the defense against the
attacks of the emperor and the Roman Catholic princes was not only
a right but also a duty for those princes who were loyal to the
gospel. [32]But in all these specific
questions of foreign policy Luther was guided by the principles
which we have here observed.
[33] A final question may now be asked. Is there anything in
Luther's utterances on foreign policy which might give us some
counsel in our own complex foreign-political decisions? Is this
merely ancient history, of interest to us because of Luther's
significance for the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession,
but without relevance to the political life in the second half of
the twentieth century? Or did Luther in wrestling with the
political questions of his revolutionary age with the help of
biblical revelation come upon answers which may have something to
say to our time?
[34] It seems that a number of Luther's insights are as helpful
and correct today as they were in the sixteenth century. First of
all, international conflicts are ways in which God shows ultimate
lordship over history in our time as in the days of Luther. In an
age which tends to understand all events as governed only by
chance, Luther reminds us that the God who once used the Persian
ruler Cyrus may today use the Chinese ruler Mao Tse Tung. World
history is not the "tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing." For those who believe in God's revelation in
Jesus Christ it is within history that God executes judgment. As
one great secular historian of our time has said,
If men put their faith in science and make it the be-all and
end-all of life, as though it were not to be subdued to any higher
ethical end, there is something in the very composition of the
universe that will make it execute judgment on itself, if only in
the shape of the atomic bomb.[33]
[35] Luther never lost sight of this ultimate judgment of God.
He can remind us not to lose sight of it either. No view of foreign
politics which does not keep in mind the ultimate lordship of God
over history is truly realistic.
[36] Secondly, Luther sought, and we should learn from him, to
heed the biblical warning: "Like a roaring lion your adversary the
devil prowls around, looking for someone to devour" (1 Pet 5:8).
The reality of the demonic powers as they affect the relationships
of nations has been demonstrated with terrifying force in the
twentieth century. We have seen whole cities incinerated by the
command of relatively moral leaders. Can we doubt the power of the
devil? We have seen millions dying in gas-chambers upon the order
of people possessed by the devil! We know that even today we live
every minute at the brink of total disaster. Can we question the
power of him whom Luther calls "the prince of this world"? In an
age in which we are tempted to explain international conflicts and
tensions with the aid of some individual villain, allegedly
responsible for all our difficulties, whose removal will usher in
the reign of peace, Luther reminds us that there are principalities
and powers in the service of evil which utilize individuals but
which are hardly affected by their removal. If we take this
biblical insight of Luther seriously we will judge international
conflicts with greater realism and become aware of a dimension of
our existence which has been obscured by the superficial
rationalism of our age.
[37] Thirdly, Luther made some very practical suggestions for
the day-to-day conduct of foreign policy. They are especially
important for those who desire the responsible participation of
church people in the formulation and execution of a nation's
foreign policy. Luther advocated a sober realism in regard to human
beings and their possibilities. He had no illusions about their
innate goodness. He had no utopian hopes that humans could through
their efforts establish God's kingdom on earth. While some
Christians have added great confusion to the conduct of foreign
politics with their attempts to use the state as an instrument of
the gospel, Luther finally rejected ideological warfare and
crusades as blasphemous efforts on the part of humankind to usurp
the work of God. The sobriety with which Luther judged the
international conflicts of his time could well be imitated by
Christians today. When Herbert Butterfield says, "It is essential
not to have faith in human nature. Such faith is a recent heresy
and a very disastrous one,"[34] he is
enunciating an insight which was part and parcel of Luther's
counsel in foreign politics. It is an insight which when ignored by
christendom has led to Schwärmerei, the enthusiastic confusion
of law and gospel. This confusion is an obvious and unfortunate
aspect of some of the pronouncements on international questions
made by Christians in our time. Here, too, Luther's counsel is
certainly very much to the point in our own discussions.
[38] And this evaluation applies certainly also to his
conservatism. Here, again, Herbert Butterfield has made a very
"Lutheran" observation. He says,
Somewhere or other there exists a point at which our ambitions,
however well‑meaning, do become a defiance of the
providential order. At that point there would be better hope for
the world if we would try to see rather how to make the best of it,
and accept some of our limitations and discomforts as the decree of
Providence, lest by too feverish an activity we only make matters
worse.[35]
[39] Luther said, "To change is easy, to improve is troublesome
and dangerous." This piece of practical advice could be of special
benefit to an age which has shown a fantastic talent for bringing
about changes in the map of the world without demonstrating any
talent to bring about substantial improvements for the people of
the world. The naive assumption that any change is an improvement
is as false in the overthrow of governments as in the change of
borders and the relocation of peoples. Here, too, Luther's
conservatism might supply some counterbalance to the prevailing
naive identification of change and betterment.
[40] And finally, Luther seems to have suggested that politics
in general and international politics in particular is the area
where we ought to ask concerning every policy, "Does it work?"
While absolute trust in God is basic to the Christian faith such
absolute trust in international schemes and political panaceas is
blasphemous and an offense against the First Commandment. "When a
prince rules according to his own mad will...he is like a mad
driver who rushes straight ahead with his horse and cart through
bushes, hedges, ditches, streams, uphill and downdale, regardless
of road and bridges."[36] In
politics bushes and hedges, ditches and water, hills and valleys
ought to be most carefully and patiently studied. Foreign policy in
particular should concern itself most attentively with the building
of roads and bridges. Here the questions, "What will work? What
will reduce conflict? What is in the interest of all concerned?"
are most important. They ought to be answered using all the
resources of intelligence and imagination at our command. If we
participate in this effort as actively and intelligently as we are
able we will have the privilege to know that we are dancing in
God's masquerade and that God uses us and others to guide the
nations of the world to the goal which his providence has destined
for them.
© January 2002
Journal of Lutheran Ethics (JLE)
Volume 2, Issue 1
[1] LW 33:68.
[2] Ibid., 203.
[3] Ibid., 174.
[4] Sermons (1528), WA 27:418.
[5] Sermons (1528), WA 27:418.
[6] Sermons (1528), WA 27:418.
[7] Sermons (1528), WA 27:418.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid., 149.
[12] Ibid., 149.
[13] Ibid., 150.
[14] LW 21:336-337.
[15] The Sermon on the Mount
(1530-1532), LW 21:223.
[16] LW 46:185-186.
[17] Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be
Saved (1526), LW 46:111-112.
[18] Psalm 101, LW 13:198.
[19] Ibid., 217; cf. also George W.
Forell, Faith Active in Love (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1959)
154ff.
[20] Magnificat, LW 21:337-338.
[21] LW 44:94.
[22] ["Do justice and the world is
vanquished." Ed.]
[23] LW 44:94.
[24] Ibid., cf. Psalm 82 (1530), LW
13:56-57.
[25] LW 44:94.
[26] Ibid., 94-95.
[27] Ibid., 94-95.
[28] Temporal Authority (1523), LW
45:120.
[29] Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be
Saved, LW 46:122.
[30] Cf. George W. Forell, "Luther's
View Concerning the Imperial Foreign Policy," Lutheran Quarterly
4/2 (May 1952) 153-169. [Reprinted in the present volume, pp.
135-146.]
[31] Cf. George W. Forell, "Luther and
the War Against the Turks," 14/4 (December 1945). [Reprinted in the
present volume, pp. 123-134.]
[32] Cf. Johannes Heckel, Lex
Charitatis: Eine juristische Untersuchung über das Recht in
der Theologie Martin Luthers (Munich: Verlag der Bayrischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1953) 184 ff.
[33] Herbert Butterfield, Christianity
and History (London: Fontana, 1957) 82f.
[34] Ibid., 66.
[35] Ibid., 135.
[36] Treatise on Good Works, LW
44:94-95.