The Practice of the Lutheran Churches since the Reformation

The doctrine of the Two Kingdoms is not the same as the American principle of the separation of church and state, which has its roots in the Enlightenment. We might like to think that it gave theological underpinning for that principle, but the truth is that the Reformers and their successors did not see it that way.

            The application of this theology has not always been sound. One DISASTEROUS

misapplication of the doctrine of two kingdoms is now constantly brought up - the participation of the Lutheran churches in Hitler's Third Reich. Church authorities mostly capitulated to the demands of the National Socialists, who rode to power on, among other things, the promise to restore Christian virtues to the demoralized society that was the Weimar Republic. The Right Hand of God was put in the service of the Left Hand of God. German nationalism and the superiority of the Nordic race was incorporated into the church's message to the world. The "deutsche Christen" (German Christians) were as uncritical of Hitler's agenda as were the Hitler Youth. This rendered them impotent and mute in the face of the unfolding horrors of the Third Reich. There were notable exceptions, thank God, like the Confessing Church and the men who subscribed the Barmen Declaration, but their resistance to National Sociaiism stands in stark contrast to the passivity of the vast majority of Christian iay people and their spiritual leaders. The activist role of Dietrich Bonhoeffer was exceptional and praiseworthy. It is noteworthy that LUTHERANS, of aI/ people, fell into this gross misuse - the very thing Luther sought to denounce. 

                Dietrich Bonhoeffer                              

An Old Doctrine for Today's World

Which brings us to contemporary America and the place of the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms in shaping the consciences of Lutherans who want to fulfill their calling as Christian citizens in a republic "of the people, by the people and for the people," where the people elect the men and women who rule them as servants of Christ's Kingdom of the Left.

To begin with, the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms rules out the legitimacy of a theocracy-even a republican (note the small "r")-theocracy. To call America a Christian nation from its inception is true only in the sense that it was settled by an overwhelming majority of Christians, who in writing a constitution for a new nation were determined not to recreate the European model of a Christian state on these shores. Jews and atheists were a minority who enjoyed the rights and privileges of the secular constitution. The American experiment was explicitly designed to avoid the religious conflicts that had plagued Europe and even some of the American colonies.

While no one of any significance is calling for the establishment of a Christian theocracy in America today, there are many Christians who believe that the government should legislate and govern in a way that conforms to Christian values as these are defined by a strong and vocal segment of the Christian community. To make that happen, they either have to form a Christian party (like the Christian Democrats in Italy and Germany) or work to control the agenda of an existing party, which is what appears to happen, from time-to-time, in the Republican Party. There is no conflict with the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms in this effort, as long as it is the work of individual Christians. Problems emerge when it becomes the action agenda, as opposed to the teaching agenda, of the
church. Christians can and should speak and vote their convictions (as should non-Christians) but they do so as citizens of the State, working in God's Left Hand.

The church, speaking with the authority of Christ as the kingdom of his right hand, has the undoubted duty of preaching and teaching the word of God. Its primary witness consists of the gospel of our Lord, Jesus Christ, which has the power to forgive the sins that the proclamation and experience of the law exposes. Its "law" words certainly include judgments on moral and ethicalissues facing the nation. Because we are a divided church, the judgments thus spoken will not be uniform. Even a cacophony of witnesses is better than none. The churches seek to persuade the public of the rightness of their positions on such matters as capital punishment, the "right" to health care, even the unrestricted "right" to own guns.

The churches also have the duty to inspire and train men and women for public service. Politics is no more a dirty business than coaching a football team. To support Christian politicians in their vocation is a religious duty, such support always contingent on how faithful they are to the word and will of the Lord Christ who rules secular society through his kingdom of the left. The Lutheran theology of "vocatio" applies equally to both Kingdoms.

No one should question that the church's preaching and teaching should influence attitudes and actions in the political life of the nation, the Left Hand of God. But for the church as the church, whether it be a denomination, a congregation or a loose confederation of congregations to get actively involved in party politics is to abdicate or compromise the unique and imperative responsibilities as the Kingdom of the Right. The mission of the church is not to create a kingdom of this world. Militant Islam is trying to do that very thing; we do not want to go there.

How about political pastors like Jesse Jackson and AI Sharpton? They have been directly and actively involved in party politics. Do they fall between the cracks of the categories of the right and left hands of God because they do not speak and act officially as ministers of a church or denomination? Perhaps. There is an Episcopal senator from Missouri (Danforth) and several decades ago there was an LCMS congressman from Ohio who fit the category of ordained ministers actively serving as servants of the kingdom of the left .. A Roman Catholic priest served as a congressman until the Pope ordered him to stop. We would say that ordination does not disqualify from governmental service, with the caveat that they not present themselves as speaking for the church; they are simply CHRISTIAN individuals, speaking their convictions and acting accordingly.

Until the presidential election of 1960 there was a strong majority who believed that a Catholic candidate was unacceptable because of the powerful influence of the Roman hierarchy, which could use spiritual discipline to force conformance to Catholic teaching. (Remember the bishops who would not commune John Kerry in 2004?) John Kennedy convinced the Baptists in Houston that he would not let the bishops control his decisions and actions. He meant it and was elected. In a curious historical turnaround, the same Baptist preachers are now hard at work to elect candidates and pass laws that conform to their position on public issues.

Is that wrong? Not until and unless these churches, as churches, move from advocacy of
issues to involvement in political action. We are seeing a lot of that today. There are religious leaders in America today who are singing the siren song of Christian nationalism. They would like to transform the GOP into God's Own Party. The reality is that men like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Ted Haggard and other church leaders (whom the confessors would define as bishops) have moved beyond advocacy for an agenda to direct political action. They do not see themselves as merely Christian citizens working within the system (that is, the kingdom of the left), but as power brokers who would control the system as the church - as the Right Hand of God. In cases like these, they are moving the church out of the column of the Right Hand of God's governance into the column of the Left Hand of God. They are leftists of an unintended sort.

When the kingdom of the left intrudes on the kingdom of the right, engaging in protest is
certainly a legitimate work of the church and its leaders. We Lutherans have experienced precious little of that here. The actions of Nebraska in WW I in outlawing Lutheran schools because they were instructing in German and the actions of Arkansas in disallowing the use of wine in the Eucharist during the Prohibition era come to mind. More recently and more seriously were attempts to intimidate and penalize churches in the South for advocating and agitating for civil rights. Civil disobedience was certainly an appropriate response from the churches and their leaders. Making it a crime to feed and clothe and house illegal immigrants is a more contemporary (and thus controversial) illustration of laws of the kingdom of the left infringing on the mission and ministry of the kingdom of the right.

The Kirchenkampf in Nazi Germany was between the churches and the government and also between different camps in the German church. Passive obedience to government edicts was the drilled-in response of most German Christians. The church leaders who insisted that the government had no business limiting the preaching/teaching witness of the church were persecuted. The choice was between preaching a false gospel of racial purity and national destiny and remaining faithful to the Lord and his word.

We have had nothing like that here, of course, but there are subtle and not-so-subtle pressures on the church to support the government in times of war and refrain from criticizing it from the vantage of the word of God. It will be interesting to see how the government makes out in threatening to divest that Episcopal Church in Pasadena of their tax-exempt status for their preacher's strong advocacy of peace just before the last election.

Today's world is very different from the world of the Reformation. The powers that be (the left hand of God) look very different in a constitutional democracy than they did in the era of the divine (and often absolute) right of kings. But in 21^st century America as in first century Rome or 16^th century Germany ultimate authority to govern comes from God. In America today the penultimate authority is the vote of the citizens acting under the authority of the constitution. The legal doctrine of the separation of church and state helps to maintain the distinction between the right and left hand kingdoms of God, although it is not identical with it..

Whether American Lutherans are Republicans or Democrats, it falls on them particularly to distinguish between the work of the right and left hands of God. It is, after all, a confessional position that distinguishes us from many Protestant groups. Witnessing to the word of God in addressing the great moral issues of the day in pulpits, classrooms, and national assemblies is essential as well as legitimate. Individual members may certainly enter the political arena with the blessing of the church. But for the church or its officeholders to enter that same arena as church violates the biblical distinction between the two kingdoms, and it compromises and undermines the mission and ministry assigned to us by our gracious Lord.