In a recent article for The Nation, “How Martin Luther Paved the Way for Donald Trump,” Michael Massing discusses the Two Kingdoms Doctrine at some length. Unfortunately, Massing incorrectly states that Luther taught that “Christ’s Gospel was to apply only in the spiritual realm; in the secular, the government’s role was to maintain order and punish evildoers, not to show compassion or mercy.”

From October 2017 until October 2018, Protestants around the world, especially Lutherans, are commemorating the five hundredth anniversary of the church catholic’s Reformation. The coincidence of these celebrations with the rise of populist political movements has led some to ask: Is it important to understand Martin Luther in order to understand our political moment? Various writers have announced that Luther was the Trump of 1517 or that Luther and Trump have much in common. We’re told that Luther “spawned” Trump.

Unfortunately, few of these hot takes engage with Luther’s distinctive theology governing religious engagement in politics, which theologians call the “Two Kingdoms Doctrine.” In a recent article for The Nation, “How Martin Luther Paved the Way for Donald Trump,” Michael Massing discusses the Two Kingdoms Doctrine at some length. Unfortunately, Massing incorrectly states that Luther taught that “Christ’s Gospel was to apply only in the spiritual realm; in the secular, the government’s role was to maintain order and punish evildoers, not to show compassion or mercy.”

Luther never taught this—though many Lutherans throughout history seem to have understood him in this way. My research on the 2016 election shows that Trump’s victory was probably obtained by capturing a big swing among American Lutherans. Is it the case that Lutheran theology favors brute political realism, mercilessness in state operations, perhaps even docility in the face of tyranny? Historically, the answer has often been “yes.” But it needn’t have been, if Luther’s Two Kingdoms doctrine had been understood correctly.

The Two Kingdoms Doctrine originates in Martin Luther’s 1518 tract, “Two Kinds of Righteousness,” though before that it has resonance with Augustine’s City of God, which had influenced Christian church-state relations in the West for a millennium. In the 1518 tract, Luther lays out an idea that is central to all Lutheran teaching: There are two kinds of righteousness, civil and spiritual. By civil righteousness, Luther meant that people, by the powers of reason with which they are endowed, can refrain from murdering one another, or stealing, or lying. But no amount of civil righteousness amounts to spiritual righteousness, that is, the right-acting that may earn salvation. Perfect civil righteousness does not undo the basically sinful nature of man; only spiritual righteousness does that, and spiritual righteousness is nothing else than faith in Christ. Without faith in Christ, no amount of civil righteousness obtains salvation. With faith in Christ, no felonious indecency can forestall the saving power of grace.

From the 1430s until Luther’s day, German peasants had periodically engaged in large-scale uprisings, protesting excessive taxes, corrupt churchly authorities, and other grievances. In the early 1520s, Luther’s preaching against the power of the Roman Catholic Church served as a rallying cry, helping give these peasant revolts a higher sense of purpose, and providing them with a language of spiritual and political critique. What had been smaller regional uprisings became widespread; hundreds of thousands of peasants rose up and began seeking to overthrow the Roman Catholic Church in Germany, as well as their feudal lords.

Luther condemned the Peasants’ War, reminding the peasants that secular authorities are divinely instituted for human good. He called for the uprisings to be crushed, even as he advised the feudal lords that the revolts were their own fault, thanks to their oppression of the peasants, which oppression they should cease.

Luther is sometimes criticized for not supporting the peasants, as if he owed complete loyalty to the populist wave. But we should note that the rebels were not democratic reformers, but apocalyptic radicals seeking the institution of heaven-on-earth. When a group of radicals took the city of Münster in 1534, they formed a polygamous death-cult centered around charismatic leaders who duped their followers into a disastrous siege, in the hope of initiating the End Times. Their campaign was more Jonestown than Yorktown. Thus, when Luther condemned the rebellion, he did not condemn a political platform. Indeed, he supported many of the practical reforms the peasants demanded, and pushed the German nobles to adopt them! Rather, he condemned the mobs for trying to institute cultic theocracies based on their idiosyncratic and often violently repressive readings of scripture. He argued that the conflict was basically civil in nature—neither side could claim to be representing God.

Read More