The Limits of Secular Authority - Essay Example

?The Limits of Secular ity: Luther and Calvin Introduction In Luke’s Gospel, mention is made of two swords as Christ was presiding at the Passover supper with his disciples in attendance. These two swords were presented to him by his disciples after one of his enigmatic lectures that advices the sale of one’s garments in order to own a sword. After seeing the swords, he uttered “It is enough” (Luke 22:35-8). This passage came to be associated with the doctrine of the swords and later interpreted to mean that God recognized that the world is governed by two separate powers: that of the spiritual and that of the temporal. Several centuries later, Martin Luther wrote the book On Secular Authority, whose very principles are said to be the foundation of the principle of the separation of the Church and State. Luther crafted the doctrine of the two kingdoms or the theory that God wields authority in two ways: one through the laws, and; two, through the Gospel. Hard on the heels of the Lutheran Reformation was Calvinism, which was founded by John Calvin. Echoing Luther, Calvin believes that mankind is under two kinds of government, the spiritual and the secular. In the last chapter of Book V of his book Institutions, Calvin essays the role, duties and functions of secular authority. While both men acknowledge the importance of secular authority to maintain order in society, Luther cautions it from encroaching into the business of the spiritual on the ground that secular power carries no importance in the eyes of God and is confined to a kingdom separate from that of God. Calvin, on the other hand, believes that there is no sense in severing God’s laws from manmade laws considering that to do so is to ignore the ascendancy of God’s law. In this respect, it is fundamental upon secular authority to enforce God’s laws as well. Luther and Secular Authority In leading the ecclesiastical reformation that would call for the defiance of Rome, Martin Luther sought the help of secular authorities. Such an act by a member of the clergy in times of ecclesiastical reforms was considered traditional and was done by church reformists before him (Estes 355). At the time after he published his Ninety-five Theses, for example, Frederick of Saxophony supported him. Since Frederick was entitled to a vote in the election of the Holy Roman Emperor, Luther was almost untouchable (Noble et al 392). This call for help for secular support was not however, an easy decision for Luther and gave his writings dimensions not found in other reformists before him. Thus, although he ascribed to secular authority divinity to which people owed obedience to, he was quick to qualify this divinity as exclusive of the obligation to establish and maintain true religion (Estes 356). Prior to seeking support from secular authorities, however, Luther appealed to popes and bishops to spearhead the reform movement, believing that the responsibility belong to them although he opined that such personalities had no special authority to rule the church. Failing to get their support, Luther turned his attention to the German princes (Estes 356). In his works Treatise on Good Works and On the Papacy in Rome, Luther approaches the idea of secular authority with respect even attributing it the characteristic of being a divine institution. He qualifies however, that secular authority’s jurisdiction only applies to temporal matters and the punishment of violation of the second table of the Decalogue such as murder, theft, adultery, and the like. Nonetheless, Luther believes that there are situations in which secular authorities may have ascendancy over members of the clergy, such as when a clergyman commits a crime. Matters pertaining to preaching the Gospel and giving absolution are however, beyond the authority of secular powers. However, property and property rights may be conceded by secular authorities, which exercise power over them, to members of the clergy (Estes 362). In Treatise, Luther defends the right of the secular authority to demand obedience from men where temporal matters are involved finding basis in St. Paul’s words: “Submit yourselves to the king as supreme, and to the princes as his ambassadors, and to all the ordinances of the worldly power” (Romans xiii). As a temporal power, secular authority, according to Luther, should be obeyed even if it is unjust because God would have it obeyed without treachery and deception. The rationale for this theory is that temporal power cannot harm the soul, but may even improve the soul as when an innocent person is made to suffer without reason. On the other hand, Luther declares that a different treatment is to be ascribe to spiritual entities, such as the Roman papacy, that harm the soul because of intentional injustice and/or neglect. In such a situation, Luther recommended resisting that power. Luther’s rationale for the difference in treatment is that spiritual powers serve as example to men and therefore inflict considerable harm when they exhibit the wrong example as opposed to the secular power which does not have the distinction of serving as an example to others. In addition, secular power does not merit much in the eyes of God and therefore disobeying it, whether it does wrong or right, has no significance. In his book On Secular Authority, Luther divided mankind into two: the first, which belongs to the kingdom of God, and; the second group, which belongs to kingdom of the world. Evidently, the first group consists of the righteous men who have genuine faith in God. Luther believed that the role of the secular authority is to rule over the second type of men or those who are wicked and sinful because it is they who need the sword and the law, but where the first group is concerned, the secular authority finds no function for. In pursuing its function, secular authority must wield the sword to stop the un-Christian from doing their evil deeds. In this sense, Luther seems to believe that secular authority plays a significant function outside of the kingdom of God considering that the wicked outnumber the good. Moreover, the function of the secular authority, which is to keep the wicked in check, cannot be conferred to the spiritual authority because the wicked will resist it. Thus, the two governments/kingdoms must be kept distinct and must continue to flourish separately. Regardless, however, of the dichotomy and the lack of ascendancy of secular authority on Christians, the latter must still submit to it because the Christian spirit necessarily means living for others and serving as examples to the wicked. This reasoning also justifies, according to Luther, the fact that Christians can be sword bearers or part of the secular authority. This is to strengthen secular authority and not diminish its power over wicked men. Luther also discusses the extent and breadth of the jurisdiction of secular authority. Luther contemplates the two extremes of giving it too much power and giving it too little. Both, he says, are dangerous, but it is better to err on the side of the latter than on the side of the former. Having too much power might result in secular authority overreaching even into the domain of the spiritual authority, which is not good because it will be harmful to the soul. It is at this point that Luther stresses the need for the secular power to keep out from the business of spiritual power, which is imposing on the soul. Manmade law imposed on the soul is blasphemy as it contains nothing of God’s word and is not within its authority to do so. Luther stresses that secular power extends only to taxes, duties, honor and other external matters in accordance with Romans 13:7: “Give to each what is due to him, tax where tax is due, customs duties where customs duties are due, honor where honor, fear where fear.” Calvin on Secular Authority Like Luther, Calvin speaks of civil and secular governments. In the last chapter of Book V of Institutions, which Calvin devotes to the subject of civil government, he justifies the role of secular authority as necessary to preserve “purity of the faith.” It is important, according to Calvin, to make a distinction between the spiritual and the secular and not to make the mistake of substituting one for the other. The promise, for example, of liberty in the Gospel does not imply living without constraints and laws that interfere with liberty. At this point, Calvin criticizes the Jews for doing exactly that: extending the elements of the spiritual kingdom to that of this world. The bottom line in Calvin’s understanding of the secular and spiritual is that the elements of both must be confined within their own spheres and must not extend to the other. Despite the fact that the two spheres are not identical, but separate from each other, neither it is right, according to Calvin to say that they are antithetical to each other. Calvin classifies secular authority or civil government into the Magistrate, which guards the law, the Laws, which embody the rules of society, and the People, who are governed and must obey the laws. According to Calvin, the function of secular authority is to ensure that a public form of religion may exist on earth and humanity among men. This it can do by providing an environment for mankind to thrive in peace and develop themselves into good Christians perfectly capable of obeying the laws of God. Secular authority therefore, enforces true religion by preventing men to violate and blaspheme it. Calvin discusses the role of the Magistrates, one of the pillars of civil government, extensively and even goes far as to declare that it is ordained by God. He justifies this declaration with some biblical passages including St. Paul’s teachings in Roman 12:8 where God’s gifts include offices of rule. As such ministers or people who minister the laws are a terror not good people, but only to evil ones. Thus, according to Calvin, some of the renowned saints held the offices of kings and lawgivers such as David, Josiah and Hezekiah and even Moses and Joshua, who were civil magistrates. Magistrates, therefore, should endeavor their best to be just at all times because they represent God in their dispensation of justice. Calvin discusses also the different forms of government and their advantages and disadvantages. In the end, he accepts favoring aristocracy because monarchy has the tendency to be tyrannical, while popular ascendancy invites sedition. On the other hand, while aristocracy might be a government of a select few, a form that is modified by popular ascendancy would result in a more supreme form of government. He gives as an example the aristocracy that God established in Israel and states that the best form of government is one that sets limits to liberty so its exercise is in moderation. Nonetheless, staging a rebellion to change a form of government, any form of government that God has already ordained, is considered dangerous, according to Calvin, as well as foolish. Calvin’s rationale for maintaining the status quo is that variation in forms of governments in regions is akin to having different temperatures. A government in one region may be suited to that region, but not in others in the same way that the temperature of that region is different from the temperatures of other regions. While Luther stresses that secular authority keeps to its own business and does not dip its fingers on spiritual ones, Calvin thinks that secular authority not only has the right to encroach on the latter, but doing so is its obligation. This is because laws whose fundamentals do not rest on spiritual laws disregards God and are therefore, absurd. Calvin finds it ridiculous to sever any connection between God’s laws and manmade laws. Since secular authority is presumed to be ordained by God, it is therefore, its obligation to defend and enforce God’s laws. In this regard, Calvin cites Psalm 82: 3,4 which states, “Defend the poor and fatherless; do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy; rid them out of the hand of the wicked.” Calvin also justifies secular authority’s right to punish people even to the extent of executing them, the right to wage war and the right to levy taxes from its subjects. Punishing criminals is an act of piety to do God’s will in avenging the innocent as well as the right tp wage war, according to him. If this were not so, what is the use then in giving the sword to it to bear? Calvin cites Moses act of slaying three thousand Egyptians a day to avenge his people and David’s order to his son Solomon to kill Joab and Shimei. The right to punish criminals is consistent with justice and with God’s laws, according to Calvin. A similar underpinning also justifies the right of government to wage war because the right to defend its subjects from crimes extends to its duty to protect them from hostile invasion. Finally, Calvin defends secular authority’s right to demand taxes from its subjects to maintain and sustain the government, but not to fill the private coffers of government officials. Conclusion Both Martin Luther and John Calvin subscribe to the idea that there are two kingdoms and these kingdoms perform separate and distinct functions. The two refer to the kingdom of God and the kingdom of mankind that is governed by secular authority. Both acknowledge the significance of secular authority’s function in the world of mankind and agree that secular authority is necessary to police the world from violent and wicked men. Nonetheless, an essential distinction exists between the two perspectives: while Luther believes that secular authority has no business whatsoever in matters of the spiritual, Calvin believes that it is the obligation of secular authority to enforce God’s laws on men. Calvin believes that secular authority cannot ignore God’s laws, which must fundamentally underlie the principles of manmade laws as far as justice and fairness are concerned. Calvin even believes that secular authority is preordained by God and therefore merits the respect and obedience of Christians. Works Cited Estes, James. The Pastoral Luther: Essays on Martin Luther's Practical Theology by Wengert, Timothy (ed). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. Luther, Martin. On Secular Authority. Luther, Martin. Treatise on Good Works, 1520. Noble, Thomas and Barry Strauss, Duanne Osheim, Kristen, Neuschel and Elinor Ann Accampo. Western Civilization: Beyond Boundaries, 1300-1815. 6th Edition. Cengage Learning, 2010. Phillips, Andrew. War, Religion and Empire: The Transformation of International Orders. Cambridge University Press, 2011. Read More