“[The two kingdoms doctrine’s] great contribution to the problem of social ethics is exactly to strip men of their mythologies. For the very fact that it insists that whatever other Kingdom there is, the eschatological one comes solely and absolutely by God’s power alone means that the only real task for men is to repent, to turn around and take care of this world as best they know how – without myth, but with reason, love and justice; to be pragmatic: to solve problems concretely.
The eschatological vision makes it clear that the secular is our sacred task. It tears the mask from our pretensions and bids us become human beings. That, I think, is the real significance of Luther’s resistance to the Peasant’s Revolt, whatever we may think of his final action. He saw quite clearly that if one is to apply this principle, then there could be absolutely no exceptions. Not even those who undertake revolutions for the sake of so-called ‘Christian principles’ can be excepted. Nobody, Prince, Peasant, Preacher, President or what have you, carries out a revolution or a political program in the name of Christ. That is so first of all because Luther categorically refused to allow Christ to become a club with which to beat anyone (a ‘New Law’ as he called it), and secondly because revolutions and political programs can be carried through only in the name of humanity without appeal to either myth or religion. Luther means that quite radically. You don’t need Christ, or even the Bible, necessarily, to tell you what to do in social matters. You have reason, use it!”[1]
“Take Christ out of the Scriptures and what will you find left in them?” (LW 33:26).
“In our deliberations, the wisdom of Scripture and the tradition cannot be cited as ‘God’s answer’ to the matter, but neither ought that wisdom be summarily dismissed as irrelevant or outdated.”[2]
[1] Forde, “The Revolt and the Wedding: An Essay on Social Ethics in the Perspective of Luther’s Theology,” in The Reformation and the Revolution. Sioux Falls, S. Dak.: Augustana College Press, 1970, pp. 79-88.
[2]Don Juel, “Homosexuality and Church Tradition,” Word & World 10:2 (Spring 1990) 168-69.