If anyone breaks into my home, tries to do violence to my family or myself, or to cause us harm, I am bound to defend myself and them in my capacity as master of the house and head of the family. If brigands or murderers had tried to harm me or do me wrongful violence, I should have defended myself and resisted them in the name of the prince whose subject and servant I am. These people would not have been attacking me because of the Gospel, as a minister and member of the Church of Christ, but as a subject of the prince and obedient to his authority. So then I must help the prince purge his counry of bad subjects; and if I have the strength to cut this bandit's throat, it is my duty to take the knife to him, and I shall feel no remose on receiving the sacrament. For it is part of my duty to save a good citizen from peril, and still more to save my prince's country. But if I am attacked on account of the divine word, in my capacity as preacher, then I must endure it and leave God to punish him and avenge me. A preacher must not defend himself. So you do not see me taking a poniard when I go up into the pulpit, but only when I go on a journey or a walk in the country. As to the Anabaptists, I despair of these bad subjects; they refuse to bear arms and boast of their unlimited patience.
- Martin Luther, Table Talks
Martin Luther tried to take seriously the admonitions in the New Testament, exhorting the discipleship community to a stand of non-violence, but could find no other way to reconcile these teachings with the need of the fledgling Protestant movement to find acceptance among the various states and nations they fled and spread to. His recourse was fairly ingenious: to impose an artificial division on the teachings of scripture, where the motives of the attacker and the social role that the Christian was engaging in at the time stood over the straightfoward and generic teachings in scripture (e.g. 1 Peter 2:18-20, Rom. 12:17-21, 1 Thes. 5:15, Matt. 6:14, 15, 18:21, 22, 1 Cor. 6:7, 8).
There is no distinction in the statement not to return evil for evil. There is no clause following it that begins, "Unless..."
What's more, I have to wonder why Luther does not think that a pastor in the pulpit is still being a good citizen of his prince. What is the pastor doing that is inimical to his citizenship? If nothing, then why does the usual logic of defending a good citizen not apply? And of course, if he is doing something inimical to good citizenship, then Luther's whole point is undercut, as the Christian is not a good citizen of the prince.
Furthermore, when is a pastor not a pastor? When he is traveling from one place to another? If that's the case, what happens to Luther's beloved priesthood of all believers? Where does the Lordship of Christ in the believer's life apply. It is radically false to say that Christian discipleship is a private matter, that only applies in the religious sphere. Luther himself argued that we are to carry out the preaching of the gospel in every act of our daily lives. Except, apparently, when we are beset with brigands?
In sum, it is a sad fact that Luther, fearless reformer that he was, was so beholden to the nation-states that he had to arbitrarily divide the gospel for the sake of appearing a good citizen in the eyes of the world.
-NDSR
Comments (7)
While I have never seen or heard the above from MLK, he is my hero in regards to the I Have a Dream Speech.
His passion in emotion and sincerity with regards to that speech is awesome!!!
I can't attest to anything past that speech, :)
Cheryl
Oh, and one more thing, if that is what he said, you have to remember, even as a Christian and a white, I have never received the racial abuse that he or his race received, and if you are white, I'm certain you haven't either. Simply stated, it's always easier to assess someone for something they said or did when we haven't walked in their shoes. I think his speech clearly reflects the burden his race carried. But, if you note, his tombstone all says, If I'm not mistaken, "free at last, thank God I'm free at last." That tells much about the burden he carried.
And doesn't the BIble ALSO say an eye for an eye?
Very interesting post, :)
Cheryl
@JUSTAVAPORHERE@xanga - No, no, no, no, no. This is Martin Luther, the 15th century Protestant reformer, founder of the Lutheran church. MLK is one of my heroes also, and MLK never advocated violence for any purpose, whether self-defense, or for fighting societal injustice, nor for revenge, nor for supporting a nation's military.
One of my favorite quotes from Martin Luther King, Jr., is when he heard the news of Malcolm X's assassination, and one of his thoughts was that "Nothing can be accomplished by violence - it only leads to new and more complex social problems."
It is, of course, even more impressive that King never resorted to violence when you consider the things he faced in life, from the active fight for civil rights to the bombing of his home when his wife and daughters were there.
As for eye for an eye, it was actually a law restricting the amount of violence one could wield. Nobody needs a law telling them to take revenge; eye for an eye limited the amount of revenge to equivalent levels to the loss. Before such a law, it was, "You injured my eye, I'll kill you."
And then Jesus took that restriction on violent revenge and made it even stricter, when he said, not eye for an eye, but turn the other cheek, just as he took the restriction on adultery and said, not just no adultery, but no lusting.
Thanks for the comment, and if you like the I Have a Dream speech, check out his Letter from Birmingham Jail, which he wrote in the margins of newspapers he had there, since his jailers wouldn't allow him writing paper.
-NDSR
I love your blog. :) ...and I am lutheran! lol! er, or well at least I have usually attended a lutheran church for most of my life. I kind of dislike boxing myself into that denomination.
The quote itself is fascinating. I've never heard it, but I know that basically all of the pastors and sem teachers I know would agree and probably push it even further to the limit. Personally, I hate these vague "if someone did blank, then I could be allowed to do whatever back to them..." stories. As if they justify something. I cannot tell you what I would do if someone came into my house and threatened my children/family whatever. I would hope that I could deal with it in a Christ-like way, without violence, but honestly, I might fight back. But if I did fight back, that doesn't mean that I can justify it biblically, you know? Is that crazy? :)
I'm with you on the eye for an eye thing, but I have NEVER heard anyone else (in my denom.) desribe it that way. It is always used in defense of violence.
Also, do you find it interesting that the only time Christ used "violence" was when He was IN His temple? When He threw out the moneychangers? That just randomly occured to me, what are your thoughts on that? :)
@rachelserine@xanga - I think it's fascinating when people try to use the temple incident to justify self-defense or participating in the military. I don't think it justified any violence, of course, because I don't think it was an especially violent thing Jesus did. Any sober reading will come to the conclusion that he made a spectacle and a scene, and used a "whip" to cause a minor stampede. He didn't lay anyone out, he didn't attack anyone. It's a justification of public protest and disruption of church services, maybe, but not of violence.
But if it were a justification of violence, it would not be a justification of self-defense, because those people weren't trying to harm Jesus or anyone else. And it wouldn't be a justification of military service, because it was a vigilante action. If it does justify violence, what it justifies is terrorism done in the name of religion! Surely that's not the interpretation that patriotic Christians want to take from the story.
And yet.
Thanks for the comment. I've always appreciated your input. When are you going to have that kid?
-NDSR
@sirnickdon - you pretty much just said what I was thinking about the temple thing... i don't think it justifies violence in any way - or anger, actually. I mean, personally I have a really hard time even being angry and not sinning. It just was funny to me that ML was advocating violence outside the church and the only incidence we have that could come close to being "violent" on Jesus' part was inside, not on the street.
Great point in mentioning that if anything it shows terrorism in the name of religion. Somehow I find it funny that so very few people can come to that conclusion, the logic just escapes them. I can't talk right now, obviously, my brain is baby-fried, but I know so many people who thoroughly ridicule the idea of pacifism or the idea that it might be wrong to NOT kill in defense or when the government tells you to.As I said, I cannot say that I would not use violence in the heat of the moment - but I hope and pray that I wouldn't and I wouldn't defend it as right or the best option. It would be not trusting God, trying to be in control over a situation that only He can control. And it seems like an obvious conclusion that putting even that awful, hard situation into His hands should be our highest endeavor, not something that needs to be justified.Violence is human nature, and so is trying to defend our problems.I would so be turned in for heresy right now if some of our fellow seminarians and families on campus could hear me saying that! :P (okay, exaggeration, but you get the point!)Sorry I took over the comments section. Been thinking about this a lot lately.
And... hopefully the baby will be here soon. I am going crazy! :)
as to the Anabaptists, I despair of these bad subjects; they refuse to bear arms and boast of their unlimited patience.
this sentence bugs me too. bad subjects? grrr. ooookay...