Questions Raised from Luther's "On Secular Authority" (Parts 1 & 2)

There is little point in rehashing what Martin Luther expressly said in his text of On Secular Authority; anyone with a book and half a brain can figure that out for themselves. Rather, there are a couple of interesting, perhaps unrelated points which I would like to discuss further after having read the first two parts of his writing.

First, regarding Luther's idea of the true Christian as presented in part one and mentioned occasionally in part two. Luther seems to be of the ideal that, if this world were populated solely with Christian inhabitants, the need for law would disintegrate, as everyone would be doing exactly what they should be doing. If all men are forgiving injury and all men are attempting to keep others from injury, there seems to be little for any sword to do. Luther does, however, admit that such an idealized world of Christianity is impossible in the following quote,

But since no man is by nature a Christian or just, but all are sinners and evil, God hinders them all, by means of the law, from expressing their wickedness outwardly in actions. (Luther, "On Secular Authority", pg. 10)

Luther clearly states that no man is a Christian by simple nature, going on to say that they are all hindered, not just those who are wicked, but all of them, as they are all wicked in the beginning. It is interesting, then, to see the passage noted in part two of his discourse, where he writes,

Christians, on the other hand, do everything that is good, without any compulsion, and have all they need in God's word. (Luther, "On Secular Authority, pg. 34)

According to Luther, does a true Christian really exist? Is there a man in existence who actually does everything that is good, without compulsion, living solely off God's word and finding the law unneeded at any point in life? It would be impossible to answer affirmatively.

Luther's idea of the true Christian, the true believer, appears to be idealistic in nature and unrepresented in the current world. Following Luther's own arguments, laws, then, apply to all men, as none of them are truly Christian enough as to be able to correctly function without them. Are there, then, varying degrees of Christianity? Does man only reach true Christianity upon death? Luther's proposed answers bring with them yet more questions that I cannot pretend to know the answers to.

Secondly, I would like to bring notice to two particular phrases Luther uses in part two of his writing. When speaking of the differences between the kingdom of man and the kingdom of God and how Christians are to react to the evil doings of the leaders of the kingdom of men, Luther writes,

But I say to you: if you do not resist him and let him take away your faith or your books, then you will truly have denied God. (Luther, "On Secular Authority", pg. 29)

How curious, then, that not half a page further down, Luther writes,

Evil is not to be resisted, but suffered. (Luther, "On Secular Authority", pg. 29)

Luther's meaning seems clear enough; man is not to obey the worldly leaders when they are going deliberately against God's law, doing so being to deny God Himself. But somehow Luther has found a balance to strike between resisting evil enough so as not to deny the Lord, and not resisting it at all, but suffering it. Of course, this begs the obvious questions as to whether Christians should really sit by and not attempt to resist the evil of the world as it goes about, polluting all that it touches.

Do I have answers for these questions? Hardly. It's getting late at night and my brain feels like it's about to spontaneously implode. But Luther does raise interesting questions in his writing that deserve attention, even if I can hardly give it the attention it deserves. Perhaps it will make more sense in the morning sunlight.

And then again, maybe not.