Luther on Islam

mindlight · Aug 28, 2011

Walking with Martin Luther - Luther on Islam

Luthers doctrine of the two kingdoms as applied to Islam seems to imply that Muslims are a scourge of God on ordinary Christians and a punishment for their sins e.g. Mammon worship, greed , sexual immorality etc (so much like to day really!)

The requirement on the Emperor was to defend Christians from Islam with the use of the sword.

Why therefore are Lutherans today so soft on Islam when it comes to the use of force against Islamic terrorism? What has changed to make Lutherans change their mind?

alexnbethmom · Aug 28, 2011

mindlight said:
Walking with Martin Luther - Luther on Islam

Luthers doctrine of the two kingdoms as applied to Islam seems to imply that Muslims are a scourge of God on ordinary Christians and a punishment for their sins e.g. Mammon worship, greed , sexual immorality etc (so much like to day really!)

The requirement on the Emperor was to defend Christians from Islam with the use of the sword.

Why therefore are Lutherans today so soft on Islam when it comes to the use of force against Islamic terrorism? What has changed to make Lutherans change their mind?

who in the world says we have? what would make you even ask that question?

mindlight · Aug 28, 2011

alexnbethmom said:
who in the world says we have? what would make you even ask that question?

I think the Lutheran church in Germany may well be more liberal and pacifist than that in the USA. I am asking this question after some fairly direct statements from various Lutherans over here and just wanted to check what Lutherans believe.

So if I read you right you are saying that Gods appointed secular authorities have the power and even duty to use force to defend Christians against the advance of Islam, to prevent the immigration of large numbers of Muslims intent on converting the locals to Islam and even to wage wars such as in Afghanistan to remove extreme Muslim regimes.

Much as Luther said all those years ago.

QuiltAngel · Aug 28, 2011

Are you talking with Lutherans who attend a State Church? If so, you are going to get the answers you are getting. Since the State Church is run by the government, they will toe the government line.

There are some Lutherans in Germany who do not attend the State church and attend smaller more confessional Lutheran Churches which are independent from the State Church.

mindlight · Aug 29, 2011

QuiltAngel said:
Are you talking with Lutherans who attend a State Church? If so, you are going to get the answers you are getting. Since the State Church is run by the government, they will toe the government line.

There are some Lutherans in Germany who do not attend the State church and attend smaller more confessional Lutheran Churches which are independent from the State Church.

In Germany the Lutheran church is no longer the official state church but along with catholicism it might as well be as church taxes and education are all handled through the state authorities.

Read the following if you want an example of my experience of Lutheranism in Germany. It might be you would be horrified by a Lutheran woman bishop who divorced her husband , was a drink driver etc and also some of her theological views seem very liberal compared to Martin Luthers.

Margot KÃ¤Ãmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

QuiltAngel · Aug 29, 2011

Thanks for that. It looks like this particular Lutheran denomination is very liberal. When my daughter lived in Germany, she attended a SELK church which is much more in line with Luther.

Having said that, when you are talking about a church that accepts anything, they are going to accept anything and that would also include Islam. I also wonder if part of the reason why they feel this way goes way back to the time of Hitler and they fear another genocide, this time of the Muslims. I know that the Germans I know are very sensitive to that.

alexnbethmom · Aug 29, 2011

mindlight said:
In Germany the Lutheran church is no longer the official state church but along with catholicism it might as well be as church taxes and education are all handled through the state authorities.

Read the following if you want an example of my experience of Lutheranism in Germany. It might be you would be horrified by a Lutheran woman bishop who divorced her husband , was a drink driver etc and also some of her theological views seem very liberal compared to Martin Luthers.

Margot KÃ¤Ãmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i honestly have NO IDEA what this has to do with islam - and it sounds to me as if the woman you posted about is part of what we call in America the ELCA, which is the highly liberal form of Lutheranism.

Confessional Lutherans do not ordain women or homosexuals, and if a Lutheran pastor divorced his wife, he would not be allowed to receive a call for a time.....

QuiltAngel · Aug 29, 2011

It has to do with the question I had as to which Lutherans he is talking with so I could get a better handle on how to answer the original question.

alexnbethmom · Aug 29, 2011

QuiltAngel said:
It has to do with the question I had as to which Lutherans he is talking with so I could get a better handle on how to answer the original question.

ah - ok.....i was having a hard time following his logic - i must have misunderstood, sorry....

Kalevalatar · Aug 29, 2011

Lutherans do not take Martin Luther for some sort of infallible prophet, beholder of absolute Truth, or some such. We recognize that Luther was a sinner just like the rest of us and in need of salvation just as much. Rather, we recognize Luther as one of the leading reformers who took the doctrine back to its roots, no more no less, and for which he should be praised, but also as very much a man of his own time and place in his societal views toward his contemporary "foreign" minorities, both the Muslims and the Jews. Luther was very much a 16th Century European man; Lutherans today, 500 years later, are 21st Century Arabs, Africans, Chinese, you get the picture.

The best defense against anything that is not of Christ is to stand firm in our faith in Our Lord and lead by example. Not by indulging our own sinful nature, including bloodthirst: not fighting evil with evil but with good (and God), not sinking to the devil's level but sticking to the high ground footsteps of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because, at the end of the day, what those who do not follow our Lord Jesus Christ do in this world does not matter: they'll get their desert, but it is not up to us to deliver it. However, we are tasked to try and lead them, all of them, including Muslims, to our Lord Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:18-20). We do not accomplish this by spreading cruelty and hatred and prejudices; only kindness, compassion and leading by our Christian example will fulfill this commandment of ours.

Rechtgläubig · Aug 29, 2011

Kalevalatar,

I believe the original post was asking for thoughts about a secular government's duty to protect its citizens, not actual actions taken by the Church or individual Christians.

At least that is how I understood him. :sorry:

Basil the Great · Aug 29, 2011

mindlight said:
I think the Lutheran church in Germany may well be more liberal and pacifist than that in the USA. I am asking this question after some fairly direct statements from various Lutherans over here and just wanted to check what Lutherans believe.

So if I read you right you are saying that Gods appointed secular authorities have the power and even duty to use force to defend Christians against the advance of Islam, to prevent the immigration of large numbers of Muslims intent on converting the locals to Islam and even to wage wars such as in Afghanistan to remove extreme Muslim regimes.

Much as Luther said all those years ago.

Some say thyat it was the horrors of WWII and the Holocaust that has made Germany much more pacifist that the USA.

Kalevalatar · Aug 29, 2011

Rechtgläubig;58424458 said:
Kalevalatar,

I believe the original post was asking for thoughts about a secular government's duty to protect its citizens, not actual actions taken by the Church or individual Christians.

At least that is how I understood him.

Well, maybe it is my insufficient English

sorry

, but wouldn't "secular government" itself turn into an oxymoron if it were made to mean Christian/Lutheran-interest government only, supposedly set against the non-Christian Muslims/Jews or non-Lutheran Catholics/Orthodox Christians? The de facto duty of the secular government is to protect its citizens, right? Regardless of the sex, ethnicity, culture, religion, amount of melanin, mother tongue, marital status, etc. of the taxpayer-citizens, right?

I mean, the government = meaning the individual MP's in my country are Lutherans by majority, as opposed to non-believers/atheist/cultural Christians only, other Christians (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox), non-Christian Muslims, Jews (in fact, our one and only Jewish MP is married to a Muslim lady, so that's minority upon minority, to be sure! And they make a lovely & stylish couple indeed!

)

The government is not to make a war against its own citizens and taxpayers, that's the basic rule, right? So, if the government/country accepts/welcomes refugees/workforce of non-Lutheran faith, it is the government's/country's (Christian) duty to protect the "foreign" people it lets in, right, or otherwise, if unwilling to accept responsibility of, say Orthodox Christians of Russian origin or Muslims of Tatar origins or Jewish of Baltic origin, not let these people in in the first place. But once it does, comes the responsibility, as long as we are talking about a democracy here: government of the people, by the people, for the people-- no matter who "the people" are.

The Lutheran/Christian Church is free to discriminate: it's our Lord's way or it's the highway, baby, you choose. But with our government, it's our citizen-taxpayer-voter way and no other way. And I do say this as a partisan Christian Democrat championing for a Lutheran-Christian theocracy, by using the democratic tools at our disposals.

mindlight · Aug 29, 2011

Kalevalatar said:
Lutherans do not take Martin Luther for some sort of infallible prophet, beholder of absolute Truth, or some such. We recognize that Luther was a sinner just like the rest of us and in need of salvation just as much. Rather, we recognize Luther as one of the leading reformers who took the doctrine back to its roots, no more no less, and for which he should be praised, but also as very much a man of his own time and place in his societal views toward his contemporary "foreign" minorities, both the Muslims and the Jews. Luther was very much a 16th Century European man; Lutherans today, 500 years later, are 21st Century Arabs, Africans, Chinese, you get the picture.

The views of Luther I quoted from my original link could equally apply too today in my view. His sermon on "Jews and their lies" was misguided to an extreme in my view (because of Gods specific promises to the Jews and because of various prophecies concerning the return to Israel etc which he failed to spot the significance of), but his view of islam as a scourge from God to be met by BOTH personal pietism AND political activism by the relevant authorities seems like a sensible strategy in my view. He was not a crusader but he did view that the political authorities had an active role to play to protect their citizens against Islam. His views on freedom of religion did not apply to false religions but rather concerned the possibility of correcting Christian heresy.

The best defense against anything that is not of Christ is to stand firm in our faith in Our Lord and lead by example. Not by indulging our own sinful nature, including bloodthirst: not fighting evil with evil but with good (and God), not sinking to the devil's level but sticking to the high ground footsteps of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because, at the end of the day, what those who do not follow our Lord Jesus Christ do in this world does not matter: they'll get their desert, but it is not up to us to deliver it. However, we are tasked to try and lead them, all of them, including Muslims, to our Lord Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:18-20). We do not accomplish this by spreading cruelty and hatred and prejudices; only kindness, compassion and leading by our Christian example will fulfill this commandment of ours.

Luthers doctrine of two kingdoms seems to imply that there are two ways that a person can fulfil the Lords requirements on them, by the faithful service of Christ that you have described and by the proper exercise of political authority which is more accessible to the general mass of people today than in Luthers time. Both are part of what it means to live the Christian life.

mindlight · Aug 29, 2011

Rechtgläubig;58424458 said:
Kalevalatar,

I believe the original post was asking for thoughts about a secular government's duty to protect its citizens, not actual actions taken by the Church or individual Christians.

At least that is how I understood him.

Yes thanks

mindlight · Aug 29, 2011

QuiltAngel said:
I also wonder if part of the reason why they feel this way goes way back to the time of Hitler and they fear another genocide, this time of the Muslims. I know that the Germans I know are very sensitive to that.

Basil the Great said:
Some say thyat it was the horrors of WWII and the Holocaust that has made Germany much more pacifist that the USA.

Yes there is an element of this. But should Lutherans be bound by their culture and history to this degree. Its about standing by faith in the Lord and in accordance with his will surely.

mindlight · Aug 29, 2011

Kalevalatar said:
Well, maybe it is my insufficient English sorry, but wouldn't "secular government" itself turn into an oxymoron if it were made to mean Christian/Lutheran-interest government only, supposedly set against the non-Christian Muslims/Jews or non-Lutheran Catholics/Orthodox Christians? The de facto duty of the secular government is to protect its citizens, right? Regardless of the sex, ethnicity, culture, religion, amount of melanin, mother tongue, marital status, etc. of the taxpayer-citizens, right?

I mean, the government = meaning the individual MP's in my country are Lutherans by majority, as opposed to non-believers/atheist/cultural Christians only, other Christians (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox), non-Christian Muslims, Jews (in fact, our one and only Jewish MP is married to a Muslim lady, so that's minority upon minority, to be sure! And they make a lovely & stylish couple indeed! )

The government is not to make a war against its own citizens and taxpayers, that's the basic rule, right? So, if the government/country accepts/welcomes refugees/workforce of non-Lutheran faith, it is the government's/country's (Christian) duty to protect the "foreign" people it lets in, right, or otherwise, if unwilling to accept responsibility of, say Orthodox Christians of Russian origin or Muslims of Tatar origins or Jewish of Baltic origin, not let these people in in the first place. But once it does, comes the responsibility, as long as we are talking about a democracy here: government of the people, by the people, for the people-- no matter who "the people" are.

The Lutheran/Christian Church is free to discriminate: it's our Lord's way or it's the highway, baby, you choose. But with our government, it's our citizen-taxpayer-voter way and no other way. And I do say this as a partisan Christian Democrat championing for a Lutheran-Christian theocracy, by using the democratic tools at our disposals.

This is a very modern interpretation of the state but is it what Martin Luther would say. If you feel so free to deviate from his teachings as to directly contradict him on some matters at what point do you cross the line and cease to be a Lutheran? Luther was not a perfect man but he definitely was a prophetic figure who saw a lot of things well before their time. He was so free from his culture and circumstances because of his devotion to scripture and his desire to share the truthes he found their rather than in his observations of the world. Or not?

QuiltAngel · Aug 29, 2011

mindlight said:
Yes there is an element of this. But should Lutherans be bound by their culture and history to this degree. Its about standing by faith in the Lord and in accordance with his will surely.

You were asking why Lutherans in Germany hold to the view that they do in Germany regarding Islam. Their history of WWII IS a reason there is more pacifism in Germany. Whether they should or not is another question, but yes, they should stand by the faith on this.

On the other hand, when you have so many believing that all roads lead to salvation, which is what many of the liberal churches teach, you are also not going to stand firm on this.

Kalevalatar · Sep 1, 2011

mindlight said:
If you feel so free to deviate from his teachings as to directly contradict him on some matters at what point do you cross the line and cease to be a Lutheran?

The question should read: at what point do I cease to be a Christian, a follower of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

You seem to entertain some basic misconceptions about us Lutherans. We are not a cult, Martin Luther is not our profet and Dr. Luther's writings are not our holy books. We are Christians and check our beliefs against the Bible, first, last, and in between. That is Martin Luther's legacy to us, and that alone: that the Word of God alone should be and remain the only standard and rule of doctrine, to which the writings of no man should be regarded as equal, but to which everything should be subjected.

Martin Luther, though one of the primus motor of reformation, did not reform my church: Mikael Agricola did. How important it is that I don't cross any imaginary lines and stop being an Agricolan? That is essentially what you are asking, when you interpret "Lutheran" to mean a follower of Martin Luther, instead of our Lord Jesus Christ.

mindlight · Sep 1, 2011

Kalevalatar said:
The question should read: at what point do I cease to be a Christian, a follower of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

You seem to entertain some basic misconceptions about us Lutherans. We are not a cult, Martin Luther is not our profet and Dr. Luther's writings are not our holy books. We are Christians and check our beliefs against the Bible, first, last, and in between. That is Martin Luther's legacy to us, and that alone: that the Word of God alone should be and remain the only standard and rule of doctrine, to which the writings of no man should be regarded as equal, but to which everything should be subjected.

Martin Luther, though one of the primus motor of reformation, did not reform my church: Mikael Agricola did. How important it is that I don't cross any imaginary lines and stop being an Agricolan? That is essentially what you are asking, when you interpret "Lutheran" to mean a follower of Martin Luther, instead of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Following Jesus Christ and what is revealed in scriptures is definitely the more healthy focus.

Luther on Islam

See in the dark

Lutheran Chick

See in the dark

Veteran

See in the dark

Veteran

Lutheran Chick

Veteran

Lutheran Chick

Supisuomalainen sisupussi

der Anti-Schwärmer

Basil the Great

Guest

Supisuomalainen sisupussi

See in the dark

See in the dark

See in the dark

See in the dark

Veteran

Supisuomalainen sisupussi

See in the dark

Similar threads