Martin Luther and Just War

A Soldier Questions the Invasion of Iraq
by
W. Terry Miller

Agony over the dilemma of participation in war is not new in Christendom. Questions regarding not simply the Christian understanding of war but also Christian participation in it are as perennial as any other in the faith. May a Christian serve as a soldier? May a Christian 'prince' or governing authority initiate and engage in war? May a Christian rebel against governmental authorities? Today in the United States, these questions are more often than not prompted by the United States' invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the continuing efforts to suppress insurgency. All across our country, parishes have presented innumerable Sunday school classes and adult forums in response to concern over the morality of the war. In these contexts, the discussion might understandably remain largely abstract, addressing the topic of 'war,' 'peace' and 'just war' in general terms. But it is in the pastor's office that these questions become immediately concrete. A young man, or woman, comes seeking advice from the pastor regarding whether they can in good conscience participate in the war as a Christian. The counselee might already be in the armed services, or they might be considering joining, or they might even be concerned about being drafted into the conflict. But regardless of the particular circumstance of the individual, the questions they raise all revolve around two issues the morality of war and how they should respond to it. And it is the pastor's bounden duty to guide and assist the congregant in making a responsible decision in light of what the Church discerns as God's will for that person, as a member of Christ's holy church. To this end, pastors must avail themselves of all their knowledge of the Bible, Christian theology, Church history, and current events. To be sure, pastors today are not the first to encounter this dilemma, and they might take not only comfort, but also counsel from those who have gone before them who have faced these very questions. One such pastor to which pastors might look for guidance is the magisterial Reformer, Martin Luther.

Martin Luther faced a situation in 16th century Germany which was quite similar to that facing the pastor mentioned above. The question of whether soldiers could be Christians and continue in their profession was the subject of a conversation between Luther and Assa von Kram in Wittenberg in July, 1525. The occasion of the conversation was related to the recent assumption of the throne of Electoral Saxony by Prince John. Von Kram, a counselor of Duke Ernst of Braunschweig Lüneberg and a professional soldier, appears to have been troubled in conscience and unable to reconcile his confession of the Christian faith with his profession. He and others urged Luther to publish the views the Reformer apparently had shared with them on a prior occasion.? Luther consented, and by October, 1526 the treatise, Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved was printed.

Whether Christians Can Be Soldiers

Before taking up the substance of this treatise, we ought first to consider the socio political context in which Luther wrote, for there we shall see why his counsel to von Kram was so necessary. The Reformation, both in its intellectual and socio political expression, had called into question the whole structure of medieval society, beliefs, and practices. Luther's teaching loosed a dynamic in human affairs that upset conventional controls and justifications in ways that even he was not always able to control. Better stated, he uncovered, by his insistence on the free justification of the sinner by grace alone, profound struggles of conscience which had been concealed in the medieval system of graded levels of perfection in the Christian life. This was especially the case in the practice of war. For centuries Catholic priests and monks had not taken up arms; their prayers and their dispensation of the Church's grace provided a welcome remedy for souls endangered by engagement in the military profession. But this hieratic system was no longer practical when all Christians were called priests, and grace, with the life in Christ that flowed from it, was in full measure for everyone. For, over the centuries a carefully elaborated moral structure of salvation by works, directed by the sacrament of penance, had been developed to ease and guide the conscience of warriors in the initiation and conduct of war. What now, when this whole system had been swept aside and Christians found themselves commanded to participate directly in community life and governance? Some caught by this spirit drew its consequences without qualification: the Christian is a witness, and as such, the Christian will not take up the sword, will not participate in the coercive power of government in this world, nor resist it save by the Word that announces judgment and redeeming love of Christ. This was not the response of all Christians, nor was it an attractive one to von Kram. Nor was it consistent, according to Luther, to evangelical theology.

In Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved, Luther affirms the legitimacy of the military profession as a "legitimate and godly calling and occupation."(1) The occupation of a soldier, he wrote, is a function of the temporal sword and temporal government which, according to Romans 13 and 1 Peter, has been instituted by God for the punishment of wrong, the protection of right, and for the preservation of temporal peace. Luther candidly admits that the office of the soldier can be abused, and so that which is godly and right may become evil and wrong if the person engaged in it is evil and unjust. Also such a person's work may be evil when it is carried out in a way that is not in accordance with the purposes for which God instituted the office. But misuse by no means invalidates its legitimacy and function. But that a soldier may rightfully serve in his occupation Luther affirms, first of all by the fact that war itself may be rightfully waged. This is the case when the divinely instituted governmental authority undertakes the war; and it is undertaken for the sake of those divinely instituted purposes for which the governing authority was established by God. Luther understood the divinely instituted governmental purposes to constitute the restraint and limitation of wickedness, to the end of retarding the natural chaos which would result otherwise, which would destroy everyone.(2) People may condemn war as the greatest evil on the face of the earth, he acknowledged, and if sin had not corrupted human nature, or if everyone was a perfectly sanctified child of God, war would indeed be the greatest plague on earth. But, he argued, unfortunately, sin motivates people to rob, steal, murder, rape women, abuse children, greedily grasp for international power and attempt to enlarge one's international boundaries at the expense of weaker countries. The governing authority was instituted by God in order to defend the people against those who would threaten the commonweal, from both within and without. This divine charge must, he reasoned, include the authority to wage war.

In developing this basic thesis Luther discusses how a soldier must execute his God given office. First, Luther deals with the question of fighting against overlords, i.e., the legitimate government. To do this is to rebel against the order instituted by God. The Reformer is quite aware that there are rulers who distort, abuse, and debase their office; nonetheless, their misconduct cannot harm the soul. Subordinates do not have the right to rebel. Second, Luther treats the question of whether a soldier may fight in a war in which equals war against equals. Here he enunciates the principle of self defense. If it is right for the ruler to punish an individual thief or murderer, then it is all the more right to punish "a whole crowd of evildoers who are doing harm in proportion to the size of a crowd."(3) Self defense is "a proper ground for fighting" a war against an aggressive state in the same way as an individual who kills another in self defense "is innocent in the sight of all men."(4) Defense, however, is the only ground for war; Luther did not allow for an aggressive war in any circumstances. And as a ruler is charged by God to defend and protect his people when they are attacked, he needs soldiers who serve him because God has appointed him to be their ruler. At the same time, however, Luther cautions that a soldier must not trust in the justness of the cause for which he fights. Confidence and trust must be in God, who alone gives victory.(5) Finally, the question of whether soldiers may participate in wars waged by rulers against their subjects is treated. Here Luther elaborates upon his position that such action is justified in the event of rebellion. (It is obvious that the memory of the Peasants' War is still fresh in his mind.) But Luther reminds his readers that lords and rulers, even the emperor himself, are, ultimately, subjects of God. He does not give a military carte blanche to those in authority. Christians in authority are to understand the inherent tragedy in the need for coercive justice, an awareness that modifies their severity and makes them seek opportunities for constructive love to the offender, even in their carrying out of their God given duties. In summary, then, the soldier's duty is to exercise his legitimate and divinely appointed office in the service of God and neighbor under the judgment and accountable to God.

In this treatise, we recognize, Luther is responding not only to the soldier's troubled conscience, but also to the problem of pacifism, specifically the pacifism of the Anabaptists. Like the Anabaptists, Luther wrestled with the question of how to relate Christ's admonitions in the Sermon on the Mount to Paul's justification of the sword in the hands of the state. How, he asks, can the soldier's deeds of "slaying and robbing" be called "works of love"?(6) In reply, Luther insists that they are in fact works of love. He compares a soldier with a good surgeon, who in order to save a person from a terrible illness must amputate a hand, foot, ear or eye. Looked at from the point of view of the amputated organ, the surgeon appears cruel and merciless. From the point of view of the body as a whole, however, the surgeon is "a fine and true man" doing "a good and Christian work."(7) Thus the soldier's office may seem completely contrary to Christian love, until we look at it from the point of view of society as a whole, when we "think of how it protects the good and keeps and preserves wife and child, house and farm, property and honor and peace. Then I see how precious and godly this work is. For, if the sword were not on guard to preserve peace, everything in the world would be ruined because of lack of peace."(8) Luther cites John the Baptist, who, "as a Christian teacher...praised the military professional" at the same time as "he forbade its misuse" (Lk 3:14). He also cites the words of Jesus in John 18:36 as legitimating war for secular kings.(9) The soldier's occupation, he concludes, is not forbidden by God, as it is not forbidden by Scripture.

In earlier treatises, as in Whether Soldiers, Too, Luther showed himself to be particularly interested in the consciences and responsibilities of the individual (Christian) soldier. According to Luther, subjects are bound to obey their magistrates and follow them into war. In the essay On Temporal Authority, Luther brings to this argument, too, his strong preference for existing authority, even if tyrannous. To be sure, God is the judge in human affairs, and tyrants must expect that they will be punished for their cruelty and oppression, even by external conquest. But the perspective of the soldier should be different. His job is to maintain order even if tyrannous, for no good comes of trying to overthrow a tyrant in the vain hope of getting a better ruler. Reason and experience combine to tell us that the violence done by warriors in the service of legitimate, even if unjust, authority prevents far more serious and general warfare: "The small lack of peace called war of the sword must set a limit to this universal, worldwide lack of peace which would destroy everyone."(10) The obedience owed to a prince is not, however, absolute. If the prince is in the wrong (for example, the war is an attempt to conquer territory), Luther is explicit that his people are not bound to follow, with the implicit assumption that they also should not, even upon pain of loss of position or property:

It is the duty of subjects to obey. They must diligently and carefully do or leave undone what their superiors desire of them,....But if, as often happens, the temporal power and authorities, or whatever they call themselves, would compel a subject to do something contrary to the command of God, or hinder him from doing what God commands, obedience ends and the obligation ceases. In such a case a man has to say what St. Peter said to the rulers of the Jews, "We must obey God rather than men"... [It is] as if a prince desired to go to war, and his cause was clearly unrighteous; we should neither follow nor help such a prince, because God had commanded us not to kill our neighbor or do him a wrong. Likewise, if the prince were to order us to bear false witness, steal, lie or deceive, and the like, [we should refuse]. In such cases we should indeed give up our property and honor, our life and limb, so that God's commandments remain.(11)

The subject should therefore "with all possible diligence find out" whether a war in which he was called to fight was just or not.(12) But, what if the soldier is not sure about the moral status of the war? If a soldier does not know and cannot find out the moral status of the conflict, the soldier may obey the prince and he does so without peril to his soul.(13) He should not forfeit certain obedience for the sake of uncertain justice. He should rather, out of love (1 Cor 13:47), give his ruler the benefit of the doubt.(14)

Just War Principles

Having thus allowed a soldier to refuse to fight in an unjust war, it is appropriate now to articulate Luther's criteria for a just war. But first, it should be pointed out that Luther did not accept war uncritically nor did he delight in fighting. In fact, Luther regarded war as a great evil. For him all war is a "great plague."(15) Aggressive wars are "of the devil," and even defensive wars are "human disasters."(16) Again and again he condemns those who begin wars unnecessarily. In the end, they cannot escape God's judgment, he warns, and always either lose the war or come to disaster somehow. He cites various Old Testament examples to prove this. He also repeatedly quotes Psalm 68:30: "He [God] scatters those who delight in war."(17) It is important to note Luther's own attitude towards war, lest his reflections on the Christian practice of just war suggest that he was, as it were, a war hawk of sorts.

The most characteristic aspect of Luther's theory of just war is its well known backdrop of the "two kingdom" doctrine, or the two ways in which God reigns. The essence of this view, which is developed, nuanced, and expounded in many places and contexts,(18) is that, by birth, all belong to the kingdom of this world, whose criterion is works and which is disciplined by the law under a secular government; whereas all true believers belong to the Kingdom of God under a spiritual government, whose membership is by grace and faith. God's 'proper' kingdom is the spiritual Kingdom of God. It is this Kingdom (not the other) over which Christ is "king and lord." In it God rules by means of His Word and His Spirit. This Kingdom exists for the eternal salvation of people. But God has another kingdom, his 'strange' kingdom. The secular kingdom is instituted by God to serve the welfare of humanity and to restrain sin, but Christ and the Church are not directly involved in the government. God rules this kingdom not through Christ and by means of the Spirit, but through the secular government and by means of the 'sword.' The sword, meaning all forms of violent coercion, is the legitimate instrument of civil authorities in fulfilling their office, which is to keep the civil peace and defend the nation. In this first Kingdom, then, law and compulsion are appropriate; in the second, love for one's enemies, mercy and forgiveness. While a 'citizen' of the Kingdom of God, the Christian participates in the world through stations, vocations, offices or callings (such as prince, lord, soldier, spouse, parent, or minister) which allow service of neighbor ruled by justice but motivated by love. The Christian is thus a part of the secular world and office as "a Christian in relation" with responsibilities to others.(19) The Christian should not resist evil against him or herself, but "be willing to suffer every injustice and evil without avenging himself."(20) He should, however, be willing to protect others from injustice, and the prince or governing authority is there to do the same.

Unsystematically, Luther offers a series of principles on which "to act here [concerning war] as a Christian."(21) In general, the list does not represent a significant departure from the medieval rules for jus ad bellum (just war) and jus in bello (just action in war).(22) A just war, according to Luther, must be first of all waged by the lawful ruler. Luther is concerned to determine the social hierarchy involved in the conflict. As noted above, there is a strong stress on obedience to superiors that Luther begins with the dramatic command that a prince should never go to war against his overlord.(23) Luther is bitterly opposed to the idea that any revolution could be just in God's eyes, on the basis of Scripture and because of the chaos that revolutionary mobs bring: "The mob neither has any moderation nor even knows what moderation is. And every person in it has more than five tyrants hiding in him. It is better to suffer wrong from one tyrant, that is, from a ruler, than from unnumbered tyrants, that is from the mob."(24) This command applies even if a ruler is an absolute tyrant: tyrannous rulers must be left for God to deal with.(25) "The difference between changing a government and improving it is as vast as that of heaven and earth."(26) War is thus reserved for situations in which the combatants are equal in social position or against an inferior. Conflicts against foreign governments are considered to be against equals.

Having determined that a just war must be engaged in by a rightful authority, Luther identifies another crucial criterion for a just war that it must be a war in defense of a territory against an aggressor. Luther states explicitly, "whoever starts a war is in the wrong," and usually in the end is defeated or punished.(27) All permitted military action must be defensive, that is, it must be a war in response to prior attack. The war must thus be a last resort, a "way of necessity" that is the "only miserable way left of defending ourselves."(28) The ruler must seek to settle the conflict by means of arbitration, waiting until the situation compels him to fight. Unreservedly, Luther rejects as a motive for war spiritual matters (relating to the freedom of the gospel and especially barring any restriction on Luther's teachings).(29) Accordingly, Luther rejects wars sponsored by the Church for religious causes. Against the Turks the emperor had the right to wage war if it was purely defensive and for political reasons. He had no right to do so for religious reasons, however, because spiritual battles were to be fought with spiritual weapons. War for the sake of religion was always wrong, Luther believed, because it confused the two Kingdoms. "The emperor's sword has nothing to do with the faith."(30) Luther thus made a sharp distinction between the just war and the holy war.

Luther offers an additional set of requirements for the conduct of the conflict. First, there are limits to the destructiveness permitted in war. "The prince must at least see that everything does not go to ruin. Where wrong cannot be punished without greater wrong, let him waive his rights, however just they may be."(31) If the cause is just, then it is both Christian and an act of love to kill without hesitation, to plunder, burn, and injure the enemy by means of war until he is conquered. Luther does add moral limitations that "one must beware of sin and not violate wives and virgins."(32) Finally, when victory has been achieved, the prince is required to offer mercy and peace to those who surrender. Luther adds a specifically Christian condition: war must "be fought in the fear of God."(33) Those who go to battle, even if they are defending their country, must not be filled with pride in their own cause or trust in it to give them victory. Instead, they must humble themselves before God and trust in his sheer grace and mercy. Otherwise, it is their defeat that will be just.(34) Again, Luther shows himself to be particularly concerned about the consciences and responsibilities of the Christian participant in war.

While making allowances for a just war of necessity, Luther is insistent that none of this justifies war, the soldier or the ruler he serves. At best, it is an adjustment to the rough judgment of God in a world under the reign of sin and the devil, as incomprehensible in the light of Jesus Christ as some other events in nature and history which must be accepted as divine providence. The awfulness of war remains; such external, approximated justice stands still under the judgment of God. Rather, it places the Christian soldier in the middle of a dynamic dialectic between the grace of God and the compelling evil of war. Only by turning away utterly from the desire to justify the self, to ensure his own salvation, only by throwing himself completely on the mercy of God, can a Christian live in the midst of the necessities that compel him in this world. All works need forgiveness above all, making war. When one finds oneself in the context of God's unmerited forgiving grace, then, within these necessities, discernment of those ways in which justice may become more sensitive to love becomes possible, and responsible action is informed by it. Luther is explicit and concrete on this. Having before condemned the peasants for the presumption and self assertion in their rebellions, he condemns here the indiscriminate cruelty and the selfish motives by which the nobility suppressed them.(35) Even external justice must be sensitive to degrees of guilt and the cry of human need. The defense of a country, he says, must be attempted with caution, with constant awareness of the way in which defense is mixed with greed and the lust for power. It is better to suffer loss than to let these baser motives get the upper hand. Peace, and not lust for power or wealth, must be the goal. And when the sovereign goes to war wrongly, then the soldier should fear God rather than men and "neither fight nor serve, for you cannot have a good conscience before God." He should refuse, not resist, and accept the loss and danger he incurs thereby, counting on the promises of the gospel. None of this, we should recognize, is either self justification or escape from the ambiguities of sinful choices. Rather, it is guidance for living responsibly in a world wherein faithful witness to the saving power of God requires accepting the disgrace associated with right service of the neighbor.

Conclusion: Implications and Applications Today

Having thus noted the theological and ethical framework in which Luther lays out his criteria for a just war, the pastor today, who wishes to appropriate Luther, must now seek to apply it to the situation today, namely to the young man or woman in the pastor's office seeking guidance on whether to fight in the war in Iraq. The pastor, following Luther, would first affirm the profession of soldiery as an honorable and good career, or as Luther described it, a "legitimate and godly calling and occupation." The vocation of soldier, the pastor might say, serves God as an extension of the state's ("prince's") right of the sword, and, when used for the purposes and towards the ends for which it was divinely instituted, in no way endangers one's soul. Practically speaking, a Christian may choose to serve God as a soldier in the US military. A soldier who is a Christian does have additional ethical expectations placed upon them in their profession which do affect one's relationship with God. These include respect for and obedience to one's superiors, the obligation to discern the morality of a war in which one is asked to fight, humility and fear of God, mercy, justice and righteousness in combat (i.e. no raping or bringing to utter ruin). But these can be legitimately and piously carried out by a Christian in military service. This says little, however, concerning the concrete question of whether a Christian soldier can in good conscience fight in the war in Iraq.

Taking Luther's criteria and adapting them for today, participation in the US led war in Iraq is difficult to justify. Luther requires first that the war be waged by a legitimate authority against an equal or inferior. The war does appear to fulfill the first requirement, as the Baathist government of Iraq and the insurgents are to the United States equals and inferiors (respectively) in sovereignty. Luther also restricts just wars to wars which are waged in response to attacks on a state's property or subjects (citizens). Despite the US administration's initial attempts to connect the government of Iraq with the Al Quaeda regime in Afghanistan, which instigated the 9/11 attacks, no claim has been ultimately asserted, let alone established, that the invasion of Iraq was in response to prior attack on the US. The stated motivations for the war were multiple to enforce a UN resolution prohibiting WMDs, to liberate the Iraqi people from authoritarian rule, and to preempt a future attack on the US, to name a few none of which meet Luther's requirement for just cause. The argument that Iraq's non-compliance with UN weapons inspectors presented the US with "clear and present danger" was questionable, in and of itself, when it was first asserted, and it has since been found to be completely unsubstantiated.

While no one in the US administration has articulated an explicitly religious motive (notwithstanding the president's one lapsus linguae referring to the war as a crusade), the argument can be made that an assertion of beliefs was, at least in part, the motivation for the war. If we might expand "religion" to include ideology and even political philosophy, it is fairly simple to identify the war as an imperial attempt to expand the intellectual and political "territory" of the US. Even in the efforts by the US and her allies to reconstruct the country, there is blatant imposition of Western values (individualism, gender equality, respect for ethnic, behavioral, and intellectual diversity), political forms (representative democracy), and economic systems (capitalism). While this 'expansion' of the definition of "religion" might be immediately justifiable, I do not, however, think it is too unreasonable to compare the war in Iraq and the war in Viet Nam. Both are instances in which the US/ the West has attempted to wage an ideological war with physical weapons. Luther warned the emperor against engaging in a similar ideological (religious) battle against the Turks with physical weapons, an endeavor he recognized was illegitimate and doomed to failure.(36) If one was to add to this the specter of greed (hopes for generous US Iraq oil trade agreements, expensive government reconstruction contracts going to friends of the administration, etc), it is all but certain that the war in Iraq fails the criterion of just cause (ad bellum) as articulated by Luther.

Lastly, the pastor might look at the conduct of the war to determine if the present conflict in Iraq fulfills the requirement Luther stipulated for jus in bello. There are indeed efforts being made by the coalition, and the US in particular, to limit the relative destruction that is a consequence of the conflict (though we might wish those responsible might be more successful than they currently are). And the US and her allies are committed to the reconstruction and modernization of the country's infrastructure and municipal facilities. Nevertheless, the Abu Grab scandal, the high "collateral damage" body count, and other similar instances of war time injustices would suggest that this war is also in danger of failing Luther's test for just conduct in war. One might also point to some of the triumphalist rhetoric and nationalistic pride expressed by US citizens and especially the nation's leadership as an indication that, despite the repeated invocation of God's name, the war itself is not being waged with humility and under the fear of God. This assessment is highly subjective, I admit, and appearances may not actually reflect the truth of the matter. But from its ill planned inception, the conduct of this war has been morally questionable, to say nothing of its prudence.

From this cursory examination of the war in Iraq, it would appear that the war fails to meet the criteria which Martin Luther has identified for a just war. Consequently, our pastor should counsel the young man or woman that, while the profession of soldiery is a noble and godly office, participation in the war in Iraq does not meet the conditions of just war. The counselee should then be advised against joining the military at this time and, if already contracted to the armed services, to refuse to be deployed on the grounds of conscientious objection. Should the counselee decide to do this, he or she should be made aware of the consequences for these actions, including imprisonment, and the pastor should pledge the support of himself and of the parish in their decision. In this way, the young man or woman might live faithfully before God and serve, with the parish, as a witness to justifying grace bestowed upon them by faith.

Endnotes

1 Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved, (1526) LW, 46: 100, 2 Whether Soldiers, Too, LW, 46:96. 3 Whether Soldiers, Too, LW, vol 46, p98f. 4 Whether Soldiers, Too, vol 46, p120. 5 The careful balance between spiritual and temporal dimensions of just war can be seen in the model prayer Luther wrote for the Christian soldier:

Heavenly Father, here I am, according to your divine will, in the external work and service of my lord, which I owe first to you and then to my lord for your sake. I thank your grace and mercy that you have put me into a work which I am sure is not sin, but right and pleasing obedience to your will. But because I know and have learned from your gracious word that none of our good works can help us and that no one is saved as a soldier but only as a Christian, therefore, I will not in any way rely on my obedience and work, but place myself freely at the service of your will. I believe with all my heart that only the innocent blood of your dear Son, my Lord Jesus Christ, redeems and saves me, which he shed for me in obedience to your holy will. This is the basis on which I stand before you. In this faith I will live and die, fight, and do everything else. Dear Lord God the Father, preserve and strengthen this faith in me by your Spirit. Amen. (LW, vol. 46, p135 136)

This prayer may not have been appropriate for use in the heat of battle, but it does nicely illustrate the theological balance Luther was attempting to construct between the spiritual and temporal aspects of war. 6 LW 46: 96. 7 LW 46: 96. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 LW 46:96. 11 LW, 44: 100. 12 LW, 45: 126. 13 LW, 45: 124 5, 126. 14 LW, 45: 126. 15 LW, 46:96. 16 LW, 46:121. 17 LW, 46: 96f, 118 122. 18 E.g. Temporal Authority, LW 45:88, 91 2, 110; Whether Soldiers, Too, LW, 46:99; Sermon on the Mount, LW 21: 105; On War Against the Turks, LW 46: 166, 186.. 19 Sermon on the Mount, LW 21:109 110. 20 Temporal Authority, To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed (1523), LW 45:101. 21 Temporal Authority, LW 45:124. 22 Luther is closer to Aquinas' emphasis on war as a justified good if it benefits peace and community than to Augustine's emphasis on just war as an avenging of injuries. 23 Whether Soldiers, Too, LW 46:104. 24 Whether Soldiers, Too, LW 46:106. 25 Whether Soldiers, Too, LW 46:107. Although he leaves an opening for action in the case of a ruler gone mad (46:104), Luther states that he cannot foresee a situation in which the mandate not to fight against one's superiors would not hold. Governing authority should not be resisted by force, but by confession of truth. Such a confession, combined with non resistance, may lead to death, but in that case, the individual must realize that his or her soul is saved, even if his or her life is lost. 26 LW 45:96. 27 Whether Soldiers, Too, LW 46:118. 28 Whether Soldiers, Too, LW, 46:118, 123 5. 29 Luther, Temporal Authority, LW 45:105: "The temporal government has laws which extend no further to life and property and external affairs on earth for God cannot and will not permit anyone but himself to rule over the soul. Therefore, where the temporal authority presumes to prescribe laws of the soul, it encroaches upon God's government and only misleads souls and destroys them." 30 On War against the Turks, LW l46: 185f. 31 LW, 46:126. 32 LW, 45:125. 33 LW, 46:125. 34 LW, 46:123 5. 35 Whether Soldiers, Too, LW 46: 93 137. 36 On War against the Turks, LW, vol46, p185f.

W Terry Miller
November 19, 2004