Lutherna View of Church and State

LESSON EIGHT

A LUTHERAN VIEW OF CHURCH AND STATE

I. “Practicing What We Preach”

A. Begin 3rd major division of course.

B. Lutherans have often agreed on theological fundamentals.

C. Lutherans have often disagreed on what those mean in practice.

D. Confusion has resulted.

II. The Failure of Two Extremes

A. Critical to debate are questions:

1. How directly Lutheran churches should become involved in addressing the state.

2. How substantially Lutheran churches should become involved in addressing the state.

B. 20th Century

1. Two diametrically opposed approaches evidenced.

a. Uncritical acceptance of the state.

b. Political lobbying.

2. Both have had largely negative results.

III. German Church Struggle against Naziism

A. After unification of Germany in 1871.

1. State church’s vision: help state build and maintain German society.

2. Niebuhr’s “Christ of Culture” model (Lesson 5, II, D, 2)

B. Imperial Germany defeated in 1918.

1. Major crisis

2. Weimar Republic, created as a democratic republic.

a. Many Germans opposed.

b. Seen as opening for immorality in the 1920’s.

c. Klaus Scholder (quoted by CTCR on page 56)

“The solemnity of this view, which has become alien to us today, should not cause us to overlook the fact that at the time it represented a vital claim-of undoubted truth and seriousness. The connection between religion and morality formed the centre of this common Protestant world-view. The conviction was that the meaning of individual human existence and of humanity as a whole lay in the development of an even higher, ever more perfect morality; and that the Christian religion was the goal as well as the instrument of this development.”

d. Many Protestants supported re-establishment of more traditional German state.

(1) Submission to a sovereign leader (Fuehrer)

(2) Many eminent German theologians supported rise of Adolf Hitler for restoration of German culture. (e.g. Gerhard Kittel and Paul Althaus)

(3) Robert P. Ericksen (quoted by CTCR on page 56)

“The theology that Althaus developed contains no single unacceptable element, but in retrospect it is apparent that one of his emphases proved very suitable for National Socialism. In his ‘orders of creation’ theology, he concerned himself with law more than gospel. This focused his attention on morality, order and stability and allowed him to view the Weimar Republic as a breakdown of God’s intended order. By equating the traditional, pre-Weimar order of society with God’s will, Althaus opposed progressive and revolutionary ideologies of the left which hoped to remake society in a new and better form, and he affirmed the authoritarian and paternalistic emphases of National Socialism.”

C. Hitler came to power on January 30, 1933

1. Immediately moved to consolidate various Protestant state churches into one Reich church.

2. Supporters proclaimed a perversion of Lutheran two-kingdom theology.

3. Some spiritual opposition, including Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Herman Sasse.

a. Drafted the Bethel Confession in June, 1933 (perhaps more insightful than better known Barmen Declaration of May, 1934).

b. Bonhoeffer helped create the “Confessing Church” of Lutherans and Reformed.

c. Proclaimed the creed of “German Christians” to be apostate.

4. Reich church never succeeded in setting aside traditional state churches.

5. Many German Protestants content to “look the other way” when Hitler postponed serious confrontation with the churches.

6. Both Hitler and church leaders sought to avoid direct confrontation.

7. The two-kingdom ethic had become a rationalization for looking the other way when the state became demonic.

8. A failure of application of Lutheran two-kingdom teaching.

D. Present perspective

1. Must not separate the two realms to point of divorce of “sacred” and “secular”.

2. Need to prevent two-kingdom theory from merely legitimating the state.

IV. Big Government and Religious Lobbies

A. 1951 study by Luke Eugene Ebersole.

1. Identified 16 church offices in Washington D.C.

2. Surfaced a complaint that would become commonplace.

“In many cases...church lobbyists promote the causes in which groups of church leaders are interested rather than the views of church members in general.” (quoted by CTCR on page 59)

B. After election of J. F. Kennedy as President

1. Pace of these offices quickened.

2. Became full-scale lobbying

3. In 1960’s, mostly by mainline churches.

4. In 1980’s, religious conservatives weighed in.

C. Emergence of “Liberation Theology”

1. Coincided with advocacy interests of many mainline church bodies.

2. Admittedly sympathetic to Marxism.

3. After 1970, themes and ideas common in social statements of mainline American churches.

D. Emergence of the New Christian Right in late 1970’s.

1. Opportunity to use same approach.

2. Also could use “scorecards”.

3. Paul Weyrich (quoted by CTCR on page 60)

“We’re radicals working to overturn the present structure in this country-we’re talking about Christianizing America.”

E. Present perspective

1. Has gone too far.

2. Charles Colson (quoted by CTCR on page 60)

“Both liberals and conservatives have made this mistake of aligning their spiritual goals with a particular political agenda.”

3. Political alignment compromises Gospel.

4. Politics

a. brings church into contradiction with itself.

b. saddles church with role for which it is not equipped.

c. promotes partisan intolerance among its members.

5. Churches, to preserve creditability, must be careful with their speaking.

6. Christians can disagree on how best to accomplish goals and concerns.

V. Next week: “Moral Authority without Political Partisanship”

A. Message

B. Messenger

C. Means