Luther, Church and Politics: Then and Now

Bishop Susan Johnson,
National Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada

March 12, 2008

It is a pleasure to be with you today. And I’m thankful to the Rev. Canon Dr. Harold Munn, Rev. Brenda Nestegard Paul and Bishop Gerhard Preibisch who have together extended the gracious invitation for me to be here in Victoria. I am especially grateful that this has allowed me the opportunity to escape from the cold of Winnipeg and enjoy the daffodils and blossoms!

As I begin, I want to give credit in advance to the Rev. Dr. David Pfrimmer, Principal-Dean of Waterloo Lutheran Seminary and a very good friend of mine, who has helped me immeasurably in preparing for this presentation.

People say……

Church & State: These mega-mergers are getting out of hand

There are many perceptions regarding the public role of the church – shared by those in and those outside the churches. One perception is that the church is TOO involved. All of us have heard church members say that “The church should stay out of politics!” The other is that religion in general, and the church in particular, is a source of division in the world. Many of us would suggest that these views are not entirely accurate. But, we would have to agree, they are in the public mind. And both of these perceptions have led many both in and outside of the church to argue for a separation of church and state. Although I noted on the drive in from the airport that at least one local winery would argue that church and state belong together!!

Ironically, when churches and faith communities try to insulate themselves, they may make an even stronger public witness that contradicts the very beliefs they profess. These examples serve as a reminder that to not accept the summons to engage other actors in the public commons is in fact to avoid responsibility.

Luther’s 2 kingdoms

Martin Luther took seriously the importance of government and endeavored to articulate an appropriate role for government in his own times. Luther argued that there were two kingdoms, the “Kingdom of God” and the “Kingdom of the World.” There were correspondingly “two governments”, a spiritual government under the auspices of the Church and secular government that was the responsibility of duly constituted civil authorities.

These sixteenth century categories of church and state are no longer adequate.

The world today is much different from the realities of Luther’s time. However, Luther’s doctrine of the “two kingdoms” and “two governments” – spiritual and secular - does provide some useful affirmations concerning the important role of government.[1] Walter Altmann (president of the Lutheran church in Brazil and the current moderator of the WCC) points out that, “Luther distinguished three tasks (for government): (1) to guarantee the free preaching of the gospel – critical, prophetic preaching; (2) to defend justice and the rights of the weak and abandoned; (3) to guarantee order, peace, and protection of the poor.”[2]

Altmann points out that “the sequence of the tasks is not coincidental.” Luther argued that rulers did not have the right to exercise their office in a way that served their own interests but had a particular responsibility to those most in need. While recognizing its imperfections, Luther would not accept a minimalist view of governments.

Luther was also clear that all people were called to live lives in service to their neighbour. Thus today, in advocating for more democratic societies all members, not just “rulers,” share this responsibility. Democracy is important because it is a means for people to participate and to exercise their moral agency for others.

Reality now

This is in many ways in direct opposition to current realities. In our world, the relentless pursuit of a minimalist role for government has been prescribed for both rich and poor nations alike. Corporations with global reach have assumed a powerful place that has often supplanted government. Governments too have increasingly adopted the business organizational culture with an executive style of governing that centralizes decision-making among a smaller group of leaders. Governments themselves are no longer the same as they once were.

In this much more complex and interconnected world, a new “politic” is emerging in the public commons. Whether because of the domination of the market or the abdication of governments, politics has become too important to be left to formal political institutions. The former categories of public-private or church-state no longer adequately describe the arena of our collective decisions. While legislation, the rule of law, treaties, and intergovernmental agreements remain crucial, increasingly it will be the encounter and engagement of these various actors in the public commons that will generate the directions for the earth community. Nurturing, sustaining, safeguarding and in general exercising responsible stewardship for this public space of creative encounter will be central to the vocation of government and important for resituating the churches’ public witness.

New Role

This leads us to ask “what is the role of government today? What is the role of the church in public life and in helping reclaim the vocation of government?”

My friend David Primmer conducted a study through structured interviews with politicians from 4 of the 5 political parties on the federal and provincial levels. He did not conduct interviews with the Bloc Quebecois since quite frankly language was an issue. This was a qualitative not quantitative study so the results must be taken to be some what anecdotal.

But when he asked the question, what does government expect from the churches, there were two interesting insights that emerged;

· All parties agreed that the churches had a definite role to play. Some would even say that if churches expected to enjoy freedom of religion, they had a responsibility to insure the political system that made that freedom possible.

Additionally, it became clear that many churches did not understand the adversarial system of politics where debate and controversy enable the best policies and approaches to emerge. Church politics are much more subtle as unity is valued over genuine debate and animated engagement. (e.g. politicians were disappointed by most of the preaching they heard).

So what does this imply for the relationship between church and state?

David Pfrimmer proposes that we need a framework that understands the importance of the “public commons” (or “public space”), that critical arena where the public interest is articulated and the common good pursued. The role for the churches is to help preserve the public space and to engage other actors there – economic, governments, civil society. The problem is that when one actor dominates this public commons, the public interest and Common Good is not considered, or worse, is corrupted. For example, governments have largely been marginalized by the market or economic actors under the regime of economic globalization. We need to help governments reclaim their vocation in the public commons.

Most of the politicians Dr. Pfrimmer interviewed would agree that the church brings at least four constitutive elements of a public theology to bear on policy decisions;

Human Dignity founded in God and Human Community
Vocation in service of Neighbour and the Common Good
The Sufficiency and Sanctity of Creation
Empowering People and Communities

While there would be some agreement with these broad elements, translating them into actual policies can be a source of real debate. Churches need to be prepared to be precise in addressing these challenges. We will not be perfect and there will be disagreements, to say nothing of the unintended consequences of any policy choice. As Reinhold Niebuhr reminded us, the seeds of future injustice are contained in our proposals to address current injustice. But we must take the risk.

The public commons is also complicated. The actors – people, groups, organizations and institutions - themselves may be occupying multiple roles at the same time. For example, those in government may also be part of civil society organizations as volunteers. Those in business can often be members of churches/faith communities. Churches/faith communities or their agencies too can function as major economic actors and in some cases as public officials. To recognize these multiple roles is also to recognize our interconnected responsibilities – and in cases of suffering and oppression, our culpability – to seek justice and the common good.

Albert Einstein is reported to have once said, “The problems of this world cannot be resolved by the same level of thinking that created them.” Where will this “new thinking” come from? I would suggest in the encounter of various sectors in the public commons, which is why it is so important to the future of the global community.

As evidenced by their exponential growth, civil society organizations today are increasingly critical institutions to the generative and life-giving functioning of the public commons. As allies with churches/faith communities, they will be an important force in summoning governments to accept their responsibilities.

As evidence one only need look at how civil society organizations organized the largest anti-war movement in history with demonstrations that involved tens of millions of people worldwide to oppose the war against Iraq early in 2003. Though the war proceeded, political leaders were forced to address the challenges that were raised. Former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien stated that public opposition, much organized by non-governmental organizations and churches, enabled the Canadian government’s decision not to participate. This opposition led the New York Times to describe international civil society as the world's "second greatest superpower."

Today we too, face a crisis of global disorder. Lutherans recognized this crisis in choosing the theme, “For the Healing of the World,” for the Lutheran World Federation’s Tenth Assembly in 2003. In a time where the threat to individuals and communities is the abuse of economic power, civil society organizations allied with churches/faith communities have a role in serving as both a both a defense against such intrusive abuses of economic power that destroy relationships and communities, to ensure governments understand and are accountable to fulfill their responsibilities.

Today, helping governments to be governments is an important contribution of churches/faith communities and civil society organizations. Governments have a role that is more than merely facilitating commerce. While governments do need to make laws and preserve peace, they have an additional role – the stewardship of the public commons. In addition to protecting human rights, working for economic justice, securing peace and preserving the environment, governments need to serve as stewards that nurture and safeguard the public commons from which they will draw their vitality, effectiveness, authourity and in the end, their legitimacy.

A Public Theology for a Public Church in the Public Commons

If governments are to be stewards of the public commons, what role does the church play in this new configuration of the global ‘polis?’ As Leslie Newbign reminded us, the churches have “a public truth to tell” that challenges the reigning assumptions of our collective life.[3] In this task the churches need to articulate a public theology that empowers its witness as a public church to participate with others in the body politic on the public commons.

Within the churches, there have been many recent efforts to revisit our faith tradition to develop a ‘public theology’ that takes seriously different contexts, new voices -particularly those from the global South and of women - and varying approaches to social change to strengthen the churches’ public witness. A public theology helps Christians speak in intellectually credible ways about our deepest faith convictions in a language that the world can understand and which is constructive of the common good. Public theology is a critical theology that takes place at the intersection of theology, ethics and our various contexts.

Among the churches themselves, it is important to note that public theology is often articulated and debated on a contested and sometimes conflicted terrain. Gregory Baum offers one example of how this is being done in reviewing various understandings of the Lutheran doctrine of “justification by faith.” He notes that there are at least “. . . six different theological approaches, all of them claiming fidelity to the Lutheran tradition.”[4] Each of these approaches takes what Lutherans believe to be the core of the Gospel and applies this conviction somewhat uniquely to the realities it encounters. To effectively participate in the public commons, churches need to continually work to articulate a public theology, which for Lutherans honours our confessional heritage and asks “What does this mean for us today, here?”

A public theology acknowledges that the church is fundamentally a public church. Much has been written about being a “public church.” In response to Robert Bellah’s arguments about ‘civil religion’, Martin Marty described the “public church” as “. . . a family of apostolic churches with Jesus Christ at the center, which are especially sensitive to the ‘res publica’ that surrounds and includes people of faith.”[5] More recently Cynthia Moe-Lobeda argues that a public church is “. . . what it means to be Christ’s body – a people of the incarnation – in public.”[6] What is important for our discussion here is the need for churches to understand their public character and its possibilities for their ministry in the public commons.

Before proceeding, I do need to acknowledge that at times churches too have tried to abdicate their public role. It is also true that there have been occasions when the churches have been complicit with the principalities and powers in furthering oppression and marginalization. Equally true is the reality that churches can be culturally captive to their contexts, confusing a “public theology” with a “civil religion.” To avoid such pitfalls biblical study, theological dialogue, social analysis, and joint efforts must inform an ongoing dialogue among churches and with other faiths, to remind us of who we are and to insure a more authentic public theology.

I want to turn more specifically to some of the implications for the churches’ witness to summon government to a more honourable vocation. Recognizing the limitations mentioned, churches have nevertheless played some constructive roles in summoning governments in particular and society more generally to their higher calling of service to others in the face of the minimalist expectations of neo-liberal economics. Let me mention, if only briefly, some of the helpful contributions churches have made and that may illustrate the contribution churches/faith communities can make. If you want to keep track, let me tell you in advance that there are going to be twelve of them!

Churches can embody a justice-based worldview. What you see depends on where you are standing. Insofar as churches have been able to stand with the least, the last and the lost, they offer those in power a different view of what is happening in the world. This perspective is also guided by a long-term moral horizon– what Christians understand as the Reign of God - that can provide a direction toward a more hope-filled future.
Churches can be centers of resistance against the arbitrary or abusive use of power. Certainly the long history of work by the churches in helping to develop Human Rights instruments such as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and their persistent efforts to document cases in order to defend human rights is an important contribution to helping governments act more responsibly.
Churches can be a means for public truth telling. The most notable work by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa is one example that sought to bring about reconciliation by exposing and acknowledging the brutal and evil reality of apartheid. There have been other similar commissions in countries with histories of conflict and repression, including the current “Remembering the Children” tour that seeks to address the painful history of residential schools.
Churches can be an imaginative source of new ideas and strategies to address problems and challenges. Recently the Jubilee Campaign mobilized 17 million people to petition governments to cancel the debts of the most highly indebted poor countries. While only some debts were actually cancelled, this campaign made debt cancellation an issue for the governments of rich nations and presented them with very specific ways to address complex questions that were raised.
Churches can be centers of moral formation, deliberation, and action. When at their best governments need to reflect the values of their citizens but they do not create them. Communities of people are the crucible in which values are identified and shared. Churches can help in articulating the ethical questions that must be addressed.
Churches can motivate formal political participation and reformation. Politicians often describe public service as a calling. Churches support the political process by encouraging their members to participate in the public debate of issues, in serving in public office, in fulfilling their civic responsibility to vote, with pastoral support and counsel to those in public office, and by supporting changes in the political system to insure participation and integrity. Churches can play a role in increasing the “civic literacy” of their members. For example, in Chile during the 1988 plebiscite on a proposed constitutional amendment that would have enabled General Augusto Pinochet to remain president for life, churches undertook a massive popular education campaign. They helped people understand the plebiscite question, taught them how to cast their ballot, and then monitored the results to ensure a fair result.
Churches can articulate and enforce higher standards of corporate social responsibility and stakeholder participation in the decisions of corporations. In managing their own investments, over the past forty years churches have led the way in being active shareholders. They gave birth to the growing Social Responsibility Movement among investors and have articulated Codes of Conduct and “Benchmarks for Corporate Social Responsibility” that have been used by organizations and investment funds worldwide. These efforts have pushed back market encroachment of the public commons and reaffirmed the regulatory responsibilities of governments.
Churches can be a means to strengthen the bonds of human solidarity and build more inclusive communities. Churches have facilitated many visits, delegations, exchanges and “Companion” church programs between people from very different parts of the world. In addition to the ideas, perspectives and even the joint work on projects or programs that are shared, when disaster strikes or human rights are violated, faces and names come to mind that break down the “fear of the other” and affirm our common humanity.
Churches can facilitate appropriate responses to public moments of celebration, grief, and recreation. For example in the wake of a tragic Swiss Air crash off Nova Scotia in 1998, Canadian churches prepared “Guidelines for Religious Ceremonies Involving More Than One Faith Tradition.” These have been used to plan appropriate public religious observances across the country.
Churches can defend the freedom of religious belief and the right to dissent, to differ and be different than the dominant culture and belief. Yale Law Professor Stephen Carter argues that insuring freedom of religion from the intrusion of the state helps avoid tyranny by insuring religion is an independent center of power.[7] Many of the churches in Eastern Europe and in Latin America created these spaces during the dark times of repressive regimes.
Churches can provide a means to serve the needs of the “neighbour” across the street or around the world. In North America for example, religious conviction is one of the principal motivations for charitable and philanthropic financial gifts and for volunteers serving in their communities. Churches are one of the largest and most effective providers of social services and international relief and development assistance.
Churches can be “story-tellers” that preserve the social memory of our collective history. It is tragically true that our national stories can also fuel the memory of bitter hatreds and divisions. Nevertheless, churches know the value of what it means to be part of an unfolding community-building story in ways that mere ‘nationalism,’ in whatever form, often forgets. This is the subject of much longer discussion. However, what is important here is to note that helping people find their place in the human story in the earth community makes better citizens who in turn help governments fulfill their vocation.

No doubt there may be other ways the churches contribute to enriching the public commons. The degree to which these efforts build a more inclusive and more sustainable earth community is the measure of the churches/faith communities’ contribution. Christians understand that “Nothing is anything without everything else.”[8] Churches can help governments in their vocation to insure that human dignity is respected, the environment is protected, social security guaranteed, livelihoods protected, economic justice pursued, cultural identity recognized, participation encouraged and the inclusion of those who are excluded. This is what God’s justice requires of us together. Thus churches too exercise a stewardship over the public commons, summoning governments to their responsibilities when they abdicate them and creating public space when they fail to fulfill them.

In Closing

How can churches help governments reclaim their vocation? I have argued that the minimalist economic expectation of governments is unacceptable and conversely the sixteenth century theoretical framework of ‘church and state’ is no longer sufficient in describing the current situation. Economic globalization threatens the public commons through the privatization of the public and commercialization of the private. Governments have a role in exercising a stewardship that safeguards the public commons and looks to it for its vitality, purpose and legitimacy. Along with civil society organizations, churches/faith communities summon governments to resist the domination of economic principalities and powers that seek to replace the public commons with the ‘market.’ Furthermore, they can press governments to accept their responsibilities and ensure that people are respected, their needs are met and the global community can flourish.

In these turbulent and in some ways brutal times, churches have both a prophetic and pastoral contribution to make in helping governments reclaim their purpose. The churches’ public task may be marked not so much by our urge to speak, but more in how we listen. The churches’ public ministry may not so much be characterized by our eagerness to direct, but more in how we accompany people and communities. The churches’ public witness may not so much be characterized by our status or size, but more in how we serve others. And our fidelity to the Gospel may not be so much in how we hold onto the past, but rather in how the past focuses our gaze on the future Reign of God and its meaning for us and our institutions today. These will mark the way for our contribution as churches to what I would describe as a politics of hope in the public commons.

[1] There has been a much-contested debate over the years about Luther’s doctrine of the “Two Kingdoms.” I will leave it to others to engage in that debate. For our purposes here, it is important to note that Luther took seriously the importance of government and endeavored to articulate an appropriate role for government in his own times. Luther argued that there was the “Kingdom of God” and the “Kingdom of the World.” There were correspondingly, “two governments”, a spiritual government under the auspices of the Church and secular government that was the responsibility of duly constituted civil authorities. See Temporal Authority To What Extent Should It Be Obeyed (1523) LW 45, 81-129; Whether Soldiers, Too, Can be Saved (1526) LW 46, 93-137; and The Sermon on the Mount (1532) LW 21, 3-294.

[2] Walter Altmann, “Reinterpreting the Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms,” Faith Born in the Struggle for Life, ed. Dow Kirkpatrick (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1988) p. 151.

[3] Leslie Newbign, Truth to Tell, The Gospel as Public Truth ( William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan and WCC Publications, Geneva, 1991).

[4] Gregory Baum, “Critical Theology in the Lutheran Tradition,” The Ecumenist Vo. 38 No. 4,

Fall 2001 p 2.

[5] Martin Marty, The Public Church (The Cross Road Publishing , New York, N.Y., 1981) p.3.

[6] Cynthia Moe-Lobeda, “Public Church in Public Life” August 2003 unpublished.

[7] See Stephen L. Carter, The Culture of Disbelief, How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion (Harper Collins Publishers, New York, New York, 1993).

[8] Remarks attributed to Larry Rasmussen at the 1998 World Council of Churches Assembly.

Part of the 2008 Lenten Noon Series