Was Luther a Christian Nationalist?
And does it actually matter?
One problem with Christian Nationalism is that its proponents can't consistently define what 'Christian' or 'nation' means. This obviously makes debates more than a little tricky. However for the sake of the debate, we might define Christian Nationalism as the belief that rulers should enforce both tables of The Law, protecting and promoting a specific confession of Christianity within their jurisdiction.
If this is a fair definition, then only someone extremely ignorant of history would deny Martin Luther’s Christian Nationalism.
Quickly let’s review the historical facts:
Luther enjoyed the protection of his prince, Frederick the Wise, without which his Reformation would have been dead on arrival. Luther never would have argued that Frederick had no interest in promoting the evangelical faith, to the contrary, he and the other Lutheran reformers often argued that it was the biblical duty of the princes to protect the preaching of the word from persecution. This is clearly first table of the law.
But while he would argue for tolerance for the evangelical faith, against the persecution of Rome, Luther was also not a promoter of blanket religious freedom. One need look no closer than how he viewed the Anabaptists and Jews. Again, while Luther was moderate and would use liberal-rhetoric, especially early in his career, he ultimately had no reservations towards the state suppressing what he considered heresy, even despite his own status as a “heretic” according to Rome. It’s also worth noting that he considered it a fundamental duty that the princes defend Christendom against the only non-Christian state he was aware of: The Turk.
With this in mind, what does this mean for the Lutheran in the United States of America? Are we to reject liberal democratic order as totally incompatible with our faith?
It seems like some people are under this very impression. Moreover they seem to feel that if only more people were aware that Martin Luther was not a postwar liberal, they would rally to their cause.
But I’m puzzled by this.
Are so many people truly under the impression that Luther believed in liberal democracy? Do they also think Luther was a champion of gun rights? Or that he would have fought for the religious liberty of Southern Baptists? Do they also think Luther dressed in denim and drove a Ford truck?
Surely not.
What help is it to point out that Luther did not share out politics any more than he shares our zip code? I do think that for those under the ridiculous impression that Luther was a Capitalist and voted Republican, there is some value in the exercise. But for the rest of us the question is absurd anachronism.
The Lutheran confessions are by self-proclamation not political and not radical. It does not demand liberal democracy, nor does it reject it. It can be practiced faithfully under different regimes as long as the regime will tolerate it. Lutherans should feel free to engage in politics (or not engage) in Christian freedom. We can freely question the value of liberal democracy as Christians as well as argue for its merits. Our consciences are not bound to one form of government.
Perhaps this is where we should be most careful with any co-belligerence with the Reformed. I started this by making the point that one characteristic of Christian Nationalism is that it’s impossible to define but one thing seems clear in that the Reformed do not share the Lutheran view of the Gospel, the spiritual, or temporal kingdom.
From our confessions:
Neither does the Gospel bring new laws concerning the civil state, but commands that we obey present laws, whether they have been framed by heathen or by others, and that in this obedience we should exercise love. For Carlstadt was insane in imposing upon us the judicial laws of Moses.
…
Julian the Apostate, Celsus, and very many others made the objection to Christians that the Gospel would rend asunder states, because it prohibited legal redress, and taught certain other things not at all suited to political association. And these questions wonderfully exercised Origen, Nazianzen, and others, although, indeed, they can be most readily explained, if we keep in mind the fact that the Gospel does not introduce laws concerning the civil state, but is the remission of sins and the beginning of a new life in the hearts of believers; besides, it not only approves outward governments, but subjects us to them, Rom. 13:1, just as we have been necessarily placed under the laws of seasons, the changes of winter and summer, as divine ordinances. [This is no obstacle to the spiritual kingdom.] The Gospel forbids private redress [in order that no one should interfere with the office of the magistrate], and Christ inculcates this so frequently with the design that the apostles should not think that they ought to seize the governments from those who held otherwise, just as the Jews dreamed concerning the kingdom of the Messiah, but that they might know they ought to teach concerning the spiritual kingdom that it does not change the civil state.
This is as political as our confessions get and it should immediately close the door for Lutherans on so many Reformed ambitions and articulations of Christian Nationalism. And yet it seems that as long as someone shares our vibes, if not our confession, we’re happy to listen to them and promote their thinking in the Lutheran church against the clear teaching of our very own confessions.
To be clear, as confessional Lutherans, we aren’t conscience-bound to liberal democracy, Christian Nationalism, medieval feudalism, capitalism, socialism or any political order other than the one God has placed us under.
That should be our starting point but it also raises an abundance of questions for American Lutherans: What about the American Revolution? What about our civil rights? What about wicked laws? What about our civic duties in a democracy? What if the magistrate won’t tolerate our faith? What if the magistrate is a heretic? What if we’re a minority faith and can’t command political power?
What indeed. And here is where Luther is less helpful, not as a thinker but as a man of his political age. How his medieval politics map onto the cultural quagmire of the United States seems like a futile exercise. (Are we really pining for a return to the Holy Roman Empire? The 30 Years War followed by the Prussian Union?) But where I think Luther will not help us as a political operator, perhaps he might be more instructive if the root of our sickness is spiritual.
If you approach the Lutheran confessions seeking inspiration for a radical political project, I cannot imagine a more disappointing set of documents. The most they have to say about politics to a layman is: “obey your authorities”. These are meager crumbs for the hungry Christian Nationalist.
But before we dismiss them, I would suggest they are remarkably rich documents for a society in spiritual crises.
If our hunger is spiritual, if our crisis is spiritual — then the confessions will be a feast.