Genius and Courage

Late in 1821, Rev. Frederick Schaeffer presided over the cornerstone laying of a new building for the Evangelical Lutheran Church of St. Matthew* in New York City. Afterward, he sent his homily to James Madison, the “Father of the U.S. Constitution,” and chief author of the Bill of Rights.

Pastor Schaeffer’s address was rather strongly Lutheran, in spite of the general weakness of American Lutheranism prior to 1840. Madison replied:

Montpellier, Dec. 3rd ,1821

 

      Revd Sir,–I have received, with your letter of November 19th, the copy of your address at the ceremonial of laying the corner-stone of St Matthew’s Church in New York.

      It is a pleasing and persuasive example of pious zeal, united with pure benevolence and of a cordial attachment to a particular creed, untinctured with sectarian illiberality. It illustrates the excellence of a system which, by a due distinction, to which the genius and courage of Luther led the way, between what is due to Caesar and what is due God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations. The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.

 

In return for your kind sentiments, I tender

assurances of my esteem and my best wishes.

 

James Madison

Schaeffer had struck several notes that resonated with Madison, so much so that the aging former president and constitutional patriarch noted “a due distinction, to which the genius and courage of Luther led the way, between what is due to Caesar and what is due God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations.” Wow. The drafter of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”), wrote, “The genius and courage of Luther led the way.”

What is the “due distinction” “between what is due to Caesar and what is due to God”? This is a reference to Luther’s two kingdoms doctrine. Historic, pre-Reformation Catholicism perpetuated the myth of the “Donation of Constantine”–that the Emperor Constantine (ca. A.D. 317) had given authority to the papacy to rule the Roman Empire, and that the Church was supposedly given the divine right and authority to govern both itself and the world. This was used to justify all sorts of mischief through the centuries following, where the Church meddled in governmental affairs and vice versa.

A second approach emerged at the time of the Reformation among the so-called radical reformers. They asserted that society should be ruled only by the Bible. This led to either a radical withdrawal from participation in civil society (e.g., the Amish), or to the view that a “Christian government” is needed to institute biblical principles upon society (e.g., the Puritans and their legacy). The views of both the Roman Catholic as well as the radical reformers resulted in a “mixing the kingdoms.”

Luther’s view, however, is unique. In view of texts like “The truth shall make you free” (John 8:32) and “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s” (Matt. 22:21), Luther asserted that the conscience, the religious convictions of the individual Christian, belong to God and not the government. The Bible teaches two distinct realms.

The “right hand” realm or kingdom is that of the Church. In this kingdom there is to be no coercion, no force, no corporal punishment. It is a kingdom ruled solely by the Word of God in service to the Gospel of Christ. “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). It is a kingdom whose glory is hidden in weakness, small numbers, persecution, reviling, etc. It makes no sense to reason whatsoever–things like “the resurrection of the body,” “baptismal regeneration,” “the body and blood of Christ,” in the Lord’s Supper, etc.

The “left hand” kingdom is temporal government. This kingdom, too, is established by God (Rom. 13:1–7). It flows form the Fourth Commandment (“Honor thy father and mother”). This kingdom operates not by revelation, but by reason or natural law. The Gentiles, “when they do the things of the law, demonstrate that the law is written on their hearts” (Rom. 2:14) The governing authorities “do not bear the sword in vain” (Rom. 13:4). Temporal government is established by God for maintaining good order, peace, to thwart evil (by just war and other means), etc. When government forbids the Gospel, however, or commands us to act against a Christian conscience informed by the inerrant Word of God, then “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

When natural law or reason is functioning properly, it agrees with the Ten Commandments. In fact, the law “written on the heart” is the point of contact with the Law revealed in the Ten Commandments. That’s why the preaching of the Law hits home with people who don’t know Christ. God designed it that way as preparation for the Gospel! When it is commonly said that America was founded as a “Christian Nation,” that is only true in the sense that the overwhelming number of the founders were Christians, and that they recognized the benefit Christianity affords government.

      Our founders recognized that “Christian morality” agreed with reason and natural law (law evident to any reasonable person). What was new in America was that there was no nationally established church or religion. But from the beginning, the national government was favorably oriented toward religion and acted to promote it. Even Jefferson (who moved from Deism to Unitarianism) went to church every Sunday of his presidency at Christian services held in the House Chambers! Offering government facilities today for services would be viewed by many secularists and courts as a gross violation of the “separation of church and state.” Yet, there are dozens of such examples of our founders recognizing the great blessing of religion. For the government to thwart religion–so far as it contributes to morality and peace (and this is why orthodox Islam is problematic)–is foolish and self-destructive.

As James Madison indicated to Pastor Schaeffer, our founders had a view of the relationship of church and state that was much closer to Luther than that of modern secularists. The Church serves the state by providing a moral, charitable and decent people. The state serves the Church by providing peace and order, a context in which religious ends may prosper. The state is not to legislate matters of religious conscience. The church is not to meddle in the affairs of the state, nor is it to expect the state to operate according to anything other than sound reason.

“Luther rendered greater services to mankind. . . . At present it is more extensively admitted than formerly that no religious or political institution can be salutary and prosperous, unless it is established on the principles for which he become the successful champion.”

I agree with Pastor Schaeffer . . . and James Madison.

, ,

The Lutheran Witness — Providing Missouri Synod laypeople with stories and information that
complement congregational life, foster personal growth in faith, and help interpret the
contemporary world from a Lutheran Christian perspective.

9 Responses to Genius and Courage

  1. January 5, 2015 at 12:42 pm #

    This is a very good read – I will post this on our Iowa District East International Lutheran Laymen’s League Blogpost http://idelutheranlaymensleague.blogspot.com/ and our Facebook page.

    We as LCMS Lutherans need to be able to remember the main points presented in this post. With the prevailing trend of falling away from corporate worship in America, it is important we know how to properly object to people chipping away at our right to practice our religion as we have for so many years in the past.

    Thank You for making this a terrific read for inquiring minds, it is through confidence of picking the proper wording will we maintain the separation of these two kingdoms, for our children and grandchildren.

    If we don’t like something about other religions or sects, it is our personal responsibility to present our Synod as a perhaps, better understanding of natural or moral law, the word of our Lord, and governmental legislation in our daily lives.

  2. January 6, 2015 at 3:45 pm #

    Excellent piece characterizing the distinctions between the ‘ways of the Word of God’ and the ‘ways of the world’ in a governance construct!

    If we could ever come to the place of a deep dialogue across secular and religious lines–this would certainly be affirmed by all those who would take the time to sort out the texts and knowledge of man informed by the wisdom that arises through the Grace of our Creator and Lord.

    This all comes down to ‘application’ of truths informed through the natural interplay between man and God striving to govern life across many contexts. Thank you President Harrison for bringing forth the affirmation of one of our great ‘civil’ Presidents.

    Wouldn’t it be amazing for the LCMS to convene a ‘summit’ gathering of religious and civil leaders so to present to the world the essence of these truths–providing a strong context for the Disciples of Christ to serve and proclaim the Will of our God in Building both His Kingdom and our community.

    Mark
    Executive Director
    Americans Building Community In the Name of Christ

    • January 7, 2015 at 2:27 pm #

      This would be a great year for a discussion like this. But who has the power and connections to make it happen before our next bigger election day?

  3. January 8, 2015 at 12:20 am #

    EXCELLENT article…very heady, informative (almost a course) so downloading to re-read and STUDY! Thank u!

  4. Carol Donaldson January 8, 2015 at 10:23 am #

    My mother [age 91] took an ELLIC [previously Elderhostel] class on the subject a year ago … the Instructor was a locally well known speaker … he stated …. The United States is the only Country which was established with a government decidedly based on Moral and Ethical Concerns. [All others were created after conquests of one sort or another. Some grew into governments which addressed morals and ethics. The United States was specifically created with a moral and ethical base.] The founding of the USA was not actually based on Judeo-Christian Principles, but on Moral Principles. God, but not openly the Christian God, per se. It is not Judeo-Christianity that is being attacked by liberals, but Morality in general. However the left (liberals) attack Christianity as a cover for their attack on Morals and Ethics. We should not concentrate on defending Judeo-Christianity but should actively and voraciously attack the left for their lack of Ethics and Morals. When confronting liberals give concrete examples of the immoral and unethical behavior of politicians and not equate this with any form of religion. Keep their actions and behaviors in the forefront for people to examine. Most people want their leaders to be Moral whether they’re Christian or not.

    Look at it as Renaissance rather than Reformation. Speak to morality rather than Christianity. Make the connection between moral behavior and immoral behavior rather than Christian and non-Christian. Don’t allow Alinsky Tactics to take the focus off the real issue:

    • Rev. Kent G. Wartick January 27, 2015 at 9:03 am #

      Very good point! Well stated! Well taken!

  5. John Friedrichsmeyer January 16, 2015 at 3:22 pm #

    Very good read. Today too many churches do not see the distinction between the 2 worlds we must live in. Instead they attempt to mix the profane with the holy either by using Jesus words to give credence to their political aspirations of “social justice” or by attempting to create a “New Israel” in which our founding fathers become modern day equivalents of Moses or King David. We need to be the voice of common sense and biblical truth.

  6. Bernie Schaeffer January 22, 2015 at 10:34 pm #

    Excellent article. Meanwhile, has most moral progress as a whole the last century or two been the inspiration of biblical teachings and the power of faith or have science, reason, and secular government led the way and the organized Church eventually fallen in line? We can divide up the world any way we choose but real life does not always match our beliefs and expectations.

  7. January 31, 2015 at 8:56 pm #

    Sorry to throw cold water on your thesis, but Jesus meant precisely what he said, and his words defy your misinterpretation. “Give Caesar what is Caesar’s/” means precisely that. And if you have nothing belonging to Caesar, give him that–viz., nothing. And to make his point clear, Jesus added, Give God what is God’s.” The Hebrew Scriptures by which Jesus consistently justified himself and his action is also unequivocal, for it says at least six times, as in Psalm 24:1, “The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it,” which leaves nothing for poor old Caesar. Jesus was an adamant foe of taxation, as the gospels make clear.

    As for Paul’s Roman’s 13:1-7, if you fail to see that he was speaking ironocally, you must not know the state of the Roman empire and Roman authorities under Nero, who ruled at the time Paul wrote that pericope, probably to protect the bearer of his letter from the wrath of the Roman authorities as it travelled from Corinth to Rome entirely withing territory controlled by the Empire and subject to inspection at almost anytime by a nosey Roman administrator. The Christian community in Rome living under Nero’s thumb would not have been deceived, and would have realized his words were not to be taken at face value. If Paul wasn’t using irony, he would have to be declared stupid or dishonest in saying Nero’s taxes were used for anything other than Nero’s pleasure and to pay the thugs who worked for him persecuting Christians.

LCMS News & Information