Doctrine of two kingdoms

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As the doctrine of two kingdoms , Protestant theology summarizes various situation-related statements by Martin Luther about the relationship between the kingdom of God and the world , the gospel and the law or church and state .

The term only became common in the 20th century to systematize Luther's theology. Since Luther did not clearly define political terms, it was a matter of dispute in research for a long time how far the dualism of the “empires” also affects and co-determines the “regiments”, i.e. the actual power factors on earth. Various theologians have postulated Luther's "two-regiment doctrine" as an alternative or in addition to the two "realms".

The term

The term “doctrine of two kingdoms” comes from Harald Diem (1938). Before that, Karl Barth's dialectical theology had been using the expression "doctrine of the two realms" since around 1920. After 1945, however, Johannes Heckel's entourage preferred to speak of the "two-regiment doctrine". In doing so, they went back to what was probably the first publication on the subject: Billings "Doctrine of the Two Regiments" (1900). Here, the facts are simply called "two-kingdoms doctrine", but their inner differentiation is observed: Actually, one should speak of a "two-kingdoms-and-regiment doctrine". This already indicates the problem: "Reich" is the spatial domain of domination, and "regiment" is the actual exercise of power. "Reich" was often understood depending on the prevailing Luther interpretation

The situation-relatedness of Luther's statements

Luther himself never spoke of a “doctrine of two kingdoms” or anything like that and did not draft a systematic theory of religion or church and state . His writings always responded to current problems which, as a reformer , he tried to solve from the biblical word of God . Central here are above all the writings On secular authorities, how far one owes their obedience (1523), on the peasant uprisings with the Against the Murderous and Reubian Rotten der Bawren (1525), Whether warriors can also be in a happy position (1526) and his sermons on the Sermon on the Mount (1530–1532). It is questionable whether a “system” can be derived from this. The 20th century “systems” derived from Luther's writings, which were developed by systematic theologians , therefore vary and accentuate Luther's statements differently.

The theological starting point

In “Of Secular Authority…” Luther initially distinguishes the kingdom of God from the kingdom of the world . He assigns both kingdoms to certain groups of people: only the "orthodox" Christians live in the kingdom of God, all other people in the kingdom of the world. Accordingly, a Christian lives in both realms at the same time; for he lives according to the principles of Christ and in a state according to its laws.

In addition to these two kingdoms, there are now the two regiments of God, with which God only rules the kingdom of the world. The kingdom of God exists independently of the regiments: Luther distinguishes the spiritual regiment, which "makes pious", that is, awakens the faith through the preaching office of the church in word and sacrament "through the Holy Spirit and under Christ ", from the secular regiment, which by the sword Office of authority to the evil , the non-Christians, that is to protect the pious and the war fights, that is peace creates. The distinctions between two empires and two regiments must not be mixed up. Man now finds himself either in the kingdom of God through justification out of faith alone, in which there is no need for regiments, because good works flow automatically from faith, or in the kingdom of the world, of unbelief, by and swordship is confronted and ruled. Out of charity, however, Christians submit to the authorities or the secular government, although they actually do not need it. So the problem arises for the Christians to what extent they are entitled to activate themselves politically in the state / world. Luther says that in the kingdom of God the Sermon on the Mount and the commandment of love apply and that people should not judge one another (thesis). On the other hand, Christians are called upon to wield the sword, especially in the kingdom of the world, to which they certainly do not belong as citizens . Because evil and injustice must be punished (antithesis):

Specifically, “with one [ie in the kingdom of God] you look to yourself and yours, with the other [ie the kingdom of the world] you look to your neighbor and what is his. You keep yourself and yours according to the gospel and suffer injustice for your neighbor. In the other and in his own you stick to love and suffer no injustice for your neighbor - what the gospel does not forbid, but rather commands elsewhere. "

The synthesis now consists in the fact that Christians voluntarily suffer injustice for themselves under the authorities, but prevent injustice for the other. This is especially true for the non-violent passive right of resistance against an unjust prince: At this point, the binding rule of conduct applies: "One must obey God more than men." (Acts 5:29)

The worldly regiment, the authority , only has authority and power over the external man, that is, his body, but not over the inner man, that is his soul or his faith.

In the third and final part of this work he gives the princes in the classical form of the prince mirror advice for his behavior towards citizens.

In summary, it can be seen that Luther consistently applies his doctrine of justification ( sola gratia - sola fide - solus Christ ) to the relationship of Christians to the authorities: The individual Christian, spoken righteously through faith in God's word, is called to voluntarily submit to the To act in authority through the office of sword and preaching and thus to serve the neighbor, that is to say to all people, including the unbelievers, so that peace in the kingdom of the world is preserved. He does not belong to the kingdom of the world, but remains a citizen of the kingdom of God. In conclusion, it should be noted that, due to the situational character of his writings, Luther was not in a position to stick to his conception drawn up in the 1520s: In the years that followed, the terms empire and regiment were interpreted differently and used reciprocally. Later he is even of the opinion that Christians are citizens of the “kingdom of God” and the “kingdom of the world”, that is, citizens of two kingdoms.

Luther's sources

Of course, such ideas do not float in the “vacuum”, but are for the theologians of then, as we are today, given traditions from which Luther also drew. Three sources can be identified: the doctrine of the two eons, which can be found in part in the Old Testament (OT), the New Testament (NT) and in the apocalyptic tradition, the idea of ​​the God state in De civitate Dei in Augustine and the two swords theory in the Middle Ages .

Biblical ideas

The Old Testament and early Jewish apocalyptic conception of the two aeons states that the old current aeon will be replaced by a new one when the reign of God begins. In the NT this idea is changed to the effect that the old aeon is no longer replaced, but with the coming of the Messiah Jesus Christ the new breaks into the old "wedge-shaped". Since the coming of Christ, our time has been marked as "already-now-and-not-yet". This can also be seen in Luther's conception of the doctrine of two kingdoms and regiments (ZRRL): The kingdom of God can thus be characterized as “already now” and the kingdom of the world as “not yet”. This important eschatological- dynamic determination is essential for the understanding of the ZRRL with Luther. Without this perspective, it becomes a rigid constant that justifies what exists.

Augustine's State of God

St. Augustine took up this biblical teaching and tightened it in the direction of a dualism : civitas terrena or diaboli (under the rule of the devil ) and civitas caelestis (under the rule of God) stand opposite one another. Both face an eschatological struggle in which the civitas terrena will perish and the civitas Dei will be redeemed. Both “states” are associations of persons. The secular state , the res publica , is not simply the kingdom of the devil, i.e. civitas diaboli, but an association of convenience that is supposed to create peace and justice . He is not consistently judged negatively by Augustine. It has the task of protecting the material aspect of life, in which this will ultimately fail in the absence of the hope of salvation. Believing Christians live in anticipation of the dawn of the state of God, which through faith is realized in them, but not in the framework of the world. With Luther, the dualistic opposition between God (kingdom of God) and the devil (kingdom of the world) is completely rejected because the kingdom of the world must be understood under God's action. Historically, a real dualism between good and evil only existed in Manichaeism .

Medieval two swords theory

In conclusion, it turns out that Augustine's dualistic doctrine had considerable effects on the two-sword theory : the church is given the secular sword by the emperor as well as the spiritual sword by the pope . The worldly power is actually subordinated to the spiritual. One of Martin Luther's goals was to break this network of power and thus to grant politics and the church a certain autonomous area - albeit not in the sense of independent legality.

Impact history

Lutheran Confessions

Luther's doctrine of two kingdoms and regiments (ZRRL) has not found direct entry into Lutheran dogmatics and confessional writings : However, it forms the background for Article 16 "Of the police (state order) and the secular regiment" of the Confessio Augustana ( CA). There it is stated that the worldly orders were created by God and that Christians are allowed to participate in all worldly offices. Accordingly, the enthusiasts' abstention is condemned by them. These orders exist for the "interim" until the kingdom of God in the eschaton is completed. As long as the authorities are to be obeyed, unless the authorities induce sin . In this case you have to proceed according to Acts 5.29  LUT .

Article 28 of the CA “On the power (authority) of the bishops” warns against a confusion of the two regiments of God. "That is why one should not mix and throw the two regiments, the spiritual and the worldly, into one another" . The condemned tradition of the two swords theory serves as an example . The spiritual regiment, i.e. the power of the keys, is exercised only through word and sacrament. If a bishop commands his congregation to do something that is contrary to the gospel, resistance must be offered against the church in the name of the gospel. However, the ZRRL is not explicitly listed in the CA as a separate dogmatic article of faith.

In the apology of the CA it is expressed that Article 16 in the Confutatio was not offended, but was apparently in accordance with canonical and civil law, so that Philipp Melanchthon only had to go into it briefly. But it becomes apparent very early on that the later misunderstandings in the interpretation of Luther's ZRRL in the 19th century were encouraged here in the 16th century, when Melanchthon, for example, calls the kingdom of Christ (Luther: Kingdom of God) a regnum spirituale .

Both the Small Catechism and the Large Catechism (1529) contain the ZRRL in Luther's interpretation of the 4th Commandment (the parents implicitly represent the authorities, see GrKat) - in contrast to the 1st Commandment, according to which we God over all instances ( including the state) should "fear, love and trust". The state is therefore neither towards unconditional love nor unconditional trust, but - like the parents - simply respectful authority (because set by God, cf. Rom 13 : 1-7  LUT ).

More reformers

Melanchthon

Philipp Melanchthon , the author of the most important Lutheran confessional document, the Confessio Augustana, has a decidedly different view than Luther, both on questions of regulatory policy and on state church law in general and on canon law in particular. All in all, it can be said that he is far more open to legal questions than Luther and thus also much more positive about secular power and its role as an authority set by God. If in CA 28 he still speaks of the fact that the worldly authorities do not protect souls, but rather call bodies and physical (= worldly) things against injustice and call people to order with the sword and physical punishments , he says in 1556 Scripture De iudiciis ecclesiae , that the office of government concerns the external supervision of both tables of the law (i.e. the commandments that concern God and the neighbor) so that it is directly instituted by God to enable the course of the gospel (“ cura religionis ”) and to remove all related obstacles out of the way - with which he can also defend the burning of Servet in the last step .

Zwingli

Ulrich Zwingli, on the other hand, does not start from the ZRRL, but "From divine and human justice" (1523): He assigns God's iustitia to the Lutheran kingdom of God (opus proprium) and God's misericordia to the Lutheran kingdom of the world (opus alienum) . Divine righteousness belongs to the inner man and human righteousness to the outer man. Divine and human righteousness are intertwined with him.

The scholastic tradition still understood the human to be subordinate to the divine, while it saw Luther standing side by side. Zwingli is of the opinion that with the Sermon on the Mount perfectly policy could be made: The discipline was the expression, for example in the marriage tribunal, as the human rights could be determined by the divine. Basically he wanted nothing more than a theocracy , which was clearly rejected by Luther and the Lutheran confessions. In addition, Zwingli called for active resistance against the authorities (Luther: passive resistance) if they should violate divine justice. However, despite all political ethics, it must be remembered that Zwingli has the late medieval city of Zurich in mind and thinks more of a city-state , not of a principality like Luther.

Calvin

Even John Calvin takes up the idea of ZRRL in IV, 20 of the Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559) back. In his conclusions for the relationship between government and church, he differs clearly from Luther: He calls for a political and spiritual unity of the worldly order. This led to the fact that he considered it conceivable that “the authorities would rule in God's place” and even carry out death sentences . The city ​​of Geneva executed the anti-Trinitarian Michael Servet at Calvin's insistence.

Bucer

Martin Bucer went in his last work De regno Christi , which he wrote (1551) in exile in England , in a similar direction when he speaks of the "kingdom of Christ". By this he understands the application of decidedly Christian laws to all citizens of a country. The secular authorities there become the vicarious agents of the church, for example when they are supposed to ensure that the Sunday rest is enforced by force .

philosophy

It is interesting that the ZRRL had a strong influence on the political theory of philosophy : Hobbes in the Leviathan refers to it in a clear demarcation and rejection. In his opinion, the church should be placed under the authority of a sovereign ruler chosen by divine grace, while Locke agrees with the ZRRL in his liberal Christian social theory.

Theology of Lutheran Orthodoxy and the Enlightenment

In the time of Lutheran Orthodoxy , the ZRRL was almost forgotten. Lutheran dogmatics were more interested in the three-tier doctrine and the orders of creation . In addition, Protestant theology as a whole, including the Enlightenment , does not seem to have given any thought to the subject of power and politics .

Interpretations in the 19th and 20th centuries and their criticism

In the 19th century, authors such as Christoph Luthardt , Karl Holl , Rudolph Sohm , Wilhelm Herrmann and Friedrich Naumann again turned their interest to the ZRRL, which they understood in the sense of a complete separation analogous to the separation of state and church. The Lutheran distinction between Christian and world or official person was understood in the dualistic sense of inwardness and outwardness. Ernst Troeltsch therefore accused the ZRRL of constructing a “double moral”. He observed a retreat of Christians into the private sphere and thus the abandonment of politics in its supposed autonomy. According to Troeltsch, this resulted primarily in the common interpretation of the state as a God-given order, whether dictatorship, monarchy or republic, it is subject to unconditional obedience.

Uwe Siemon-Netto criticizes Troeltsch Deutung for the fact that it does not penetrate the complexity of the ZRRL and simplifies it impermissibly. On the one hand, Luther had always advocated making his opinion known publicly (i.e. doing so non-violently); But if a head of state is obviously crazy, for example enacting laws that allow all sorts of outrageous acts (see, for example, the Magdeburg Confession ), one has to oppose him. According to Siemon-Netto, this started a chain of misunderstandings by the ZRRL that does not do Luther justice.

The German Christians continued this tradition of the 19th century in the Third Reich : The Nazi state is God's good order and makes total claims on people ( Gogarten ). The state serves the people and is to be understood by God as a parable of the kingdom of God. Resistance to this is a violation of the majesty of God, which can result in the legitimate death penalty ( Paul Althaus ). God reveals himself in history, also in the form of political orders: According to Emanuel Hirsch, the Nazi state is such a divine revelation. Like the other two authors, he was concerned with a harmonious integration of state (German nationality) and church.

It was therefore not without reason that Karl Barth was able to draw a historical line from Luther via Friedrich the Great and Bismarck to Adolf Hitler and thus criticize the ZRRL. His conception of Christ's rule as kings appears in the second thesis of the Barmen Theological Declaration of 1934. He was concerned with defending politics against its own laws . Christ, on the other hand, is lord over all areas of life in the world, as Luther also stated with the concept of secular regiment. However, Barth starts from the idea that there is a heavenly, true, perfect state, from which light shines on the earthly church and from there on the earthly, imperfect state . Human law should therefore be based on the divine. Thus the church is political because it tries to transform the earthly state in the sense of the heavenly one.

Interpretations after 1945

After 1945, both political-ethical programs of the ZRRL, i.e. theology of the orders and the kingship of Christ , i.e. the christological foundation of political ethics , were understood antithetically, as they were brought together in the second and fifth thesis of the Barmer Theological Declaration , so that both Lutherans and Reformed people were able to unite. Only together, that is, through the mutual correction of both theories, is it possible to live and act responsibly as Christians in the political community. If the danger of theocracy was identified as the weakness of Christ's kingship, the weaknesses of the ZRRL were diagnosed as the separation of Christian and world person, which would result in an uncritical acceptance of the existing, a retreat of the Christian into the private sphere and a policy based solely on its own individual character . In summary, different interpretation models or accents can be identified in the interpretation of the ZRRL.

Functional interpretation

Althaus and Franz Lau are representatives of a functional interpretation of the ZRRL : Due to the rigid distinction in the tradition of the 19th century between the two regiments, excluding the eschatological dimension and thus the dichotomous separation of Christian inwardness and a worldly behavior in adaptation to the supposed autonomy of politics everything is accepted as given by God, criticism and resistance are no longer possible. The result is a conservative- quietist policy. Christians are citizens of both kingdoms and are subject to both regiments from the beginning, but this contradicts the early Luther. Here the emphasis is placed on the late Luther and the doctrine of the regiments, i.e. on the modes of rule and the functional-institutional orders.

Personal interpretation

The advocates of a personal interpretation (for example Johannes Heckel ) place the early Luther, in which Christians are only citizens of the kingdom of God, in the foreground. The doctrine of the empire, i.e. the personal domains, is the focus of the author. Luther is thus brought closer to Augustine, that is, in the sense of a depossedation of the world.

Scandinavian Luther Research

In Scandinavian Luther research, the two regiments are now assigned the terms redemption and creation, actually following the functional interpretation. Both regiments and empires are threatened from outside by sin, death and the devil. This brings Luther close to the high scholasticism, which had strengthened the rights of the world against transcendence.

Eschatological threat

Ulrich Duchrow focuses on the eschatological threat to the two realms from a third realm of evil . Because the human being is a fellow campaigner of God (cooperator dei) , he fights with him as a “tool” of God against the devil.

Fundamental theological interpretation

Gerhard Ebeling interpreted the ZRRL fundamentally theologically . He sees the ZRRL in connection with the relationship between law and gospel. Coram deo only counts justification and thus justice from faith and coram mundo only the justice of works (action).

Martin Honecker joins Ebeling, but is more interested in the socio-ethical orientation of the ZRRL. He sees reason as an instrument to do justice to this orientation and to constantly criticize both the ZRRL and the kingship of Christ as models of Christian-political ethics. However, for him the ZRRL remains as the main option against the concept of Christ's kingship.

Connection of ZRRL and Barmen

Ulrich Duchrow, Wolfgang Huber , Heinz Eduard Tödt and a working group of the GDR Church Federation spoke out in favor of a connection between ZRRL and Barmen II . In this way, God's commandment is ascribed a corrective and legitimizing power over natural reason.

Summary

A distinction must therefore be made between Luther himself and the various interpretations of his ZRRL. Specifically, this means: Luther's "distinction between two kingdoms and regiments [is] not actually a 'doctrine' or even the draft of a fundamentally valid political ethic for the evangelical cause", but was made by the interpreters and continues to serve as a political legitimation Ethics and state and church doing and not doing. Against this abuse and for a clear separation of the regiments, Bonhoeffer has to formulate: “ Authority [secular regiment] and church [divine regiment] are bound and bound to one another by the same Lord. Authorities [external righteousness: punishing evil and educating them for good] and the church [guardianship] are separated from one another on their behalf. Government and church have the same sphere of activity, people. None of these conditions may be isolated ... ”This clear separation of the orders results in the religious neutrality of the state. By neutrality is meant the regulative behavior of the state towards religions and world views. Of course, every decision made by individuals or associations, including the state, is never neutral. But the neutrality of the state grants every religion and worldview the same rights and duties in the community. There can be no preference. This is precisely what is guaranteed by the distinction, not the separation, of the two divine regiments in the realm of the world. The state has no authorization to intervene in the area of ​​religion or the spiritual regiment.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Luther, WA 11, 229–281
  2. ↑ Augsburg Confession, Art. XXVIII From the power of bishops. In: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Göttingen 1979, 8th edition, ISBN 3-525-52101-4 , p. 122.
  3. ↑ Melanchthon, cf. CR 12 col. 143
  4. ↑ Zwingli, CR 88, pp. 458-465.
  5. ↑ Christofer Frey in particular draws attention to this fact in his work The Ethics of Protestantism from the Reformation to the Present , GTB 1424, Gütersloh 1989, ISBN 3-579-01424-2 , p. 57.
  6. ↑ Christofer Frey: The ethics of Protestantism from the Reformation to the present. Gütersloh 1989, ISBN 3-579-01424-2 , p. 67.
  7. ↑ cf. Bergholz, Art. Sunday. In: TRE 31.
  8. ↑ Uwe Siemon-Netto: Luther - teacher of resistance . Ed .: Fontis. ISBN 978-3-03848-092-1 , pp. 102 f .
  9. ^ Karl Barth: A Swiss Voice , 1938–1945. 3. Edition. Theological Publishing House Zurich, Zurich 1985, ISBN 3-290-11573-9 .

swell

literature

  • Paul Althaus: Art. A. Luther's doctrine of the two realms and B. On the current criticism of Luther's teaching. In: EKL Vol. 3, Göttingen 1959, pp. 1928–1936.
  • Karl Barth: Christian community and civil community . Munich 1946.
  • Dietrich Bonhoeffer : Theological reports: State and Church. In: DBW 16, pp. 506-535.
  • Harald Diem: Luther's Doctrine of the Two Realms (1938). In: Gerhard Sauter (Hrsg.): On Luther's doctrine of two kingdoms. Theological Library 49, Munich 1973.
  • Ulrich Duchrow: Christianity and global responsibility. Traditional history and systematic structure of the doctrine of two kingdoms. Stuttgart 1970.
  • Gerhard Ebeling: The necessity of the doctrine of the two realms. In: Wort und Glaube, Vol. 1. Tübingen 1962, pp. 407-428.
  • Hans-Joachim Gänssler: Gospel and secular sword. Background, history and occasion of Luther's divorce between two realms or regiments. Wiesbaden 1983.
  • W. Härle: Luther's two-regiment doctrine as a doctrine of God's action. In: Marburger Jahrbuch Theologie I (Marburg theological studies, vol. 22). Marburg 1987, pp. 12-32.
  • Johannes Heckel: Art. C. The development of the two-kingdom doctrine as imperial and regiment doctrine. In: EKL Vol. 3, Göttingen 1959, pp. 1937–1945.
  • Guido Kisch: Melanchthon's legal and social theory. Berlin 1967.
  • F. Lau: Art. Doctrine of two kingdoms. In: RGG Vol. 6, 3rd edition. Tübingen 1962, pp. 1945-1949.
  • Wolfgang Lienemann: Art. Doctrine of two realms. In: EKL Vol. 4, 3rd edition. Göttingen 1996, pp. 1408-1419.
  • Volker Mantey: Two swords, two empires. Martin Luther's doctrine of two kingdoms against its late medieval background. Tübingen 2005.
  • Gerhard Müller: Luther's two kingdoms teaching in the German Reformation. In: Ders .: Causa Reformationis. Contributions to the history of the Reformation and the theology of Martin Luther. Gütersloh 1989, pp. 417-437.
  • Joachim Rogge , H. Zeddies (Ed.): Church fellowship and political ethics. Result of a theological discussion on the relationship between the doctrine of the two kingdoms and the doctrine of Christ's kingship. Berlin 1980.
  • Heinz-Horst Schrey (Ed.): Kingdom of God and World. Luther's teaching of the two realms (= ways of research 107). Scientific Book Society, Darmstadt 1969.
  • Max Weber : Theories of the stages and directions of religious world rejection. In: Collected essays on the sociology of religion, vol. 1. pp. 536–573.
  • G. Zimmermann: The two kingdoms doctrine with John Locke. In: ZEE 34/90, pp. 206-217.