Martin Luther Ethics of Creation

PROVOCATIVE AND INTRIGUING!
In this well-timed, important book,

Luther scholar and ethicist Noel F. R.
Guzman romanticizes the creational
values and critiques the human-
centered thoughts of Martin Luther, a
pivotal figure of Christianity and
Western civilization. This book mends
the destructiveness of the human-
centered elements in Luthers thought,
largely shared with the broader
Christian tradition, bringing Luther into
contact with non-Western critiques,
particularly the aboriginal communities,
as well as criticizing the ethnocentric
Christian mission. It further lays an
ethic based on Luthers God-centered
perspective against the
anthropocentric tendencies of Christian
tradition in order to redirect a more
holistic mission and a right relationship
with nature. Modern Christianity, which
undeniably has contributed to the
ecological crisis, is admonished to
reclaim Luthers ethics of creation and
the virtues of frugality, humility, love
and cross bearing. In this modern age
of profit-oriented globalization and
scientific advances, this book caters
usefulness to economists, politicians,
religious people, scientists, ecologists,
ethicists, professors, students, and all
who love the future of the planet.
Noel F. R. Guzman is a Reformation History and Social Ethics professor of Bishop Han Theological Seminary in
Malaybalay City, Philippines. He is a vegetable gardener, ecologist, agricultural engineer, youth worker, and a non-
sectarian evangelist. Dr. Guzman, a Luther scholar and a product of Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts,
U.S.A., is a co-founder of Grupong Sagip Inc., an international ecological movement.
Noel F. R. Guzman
Martin Luthers Ethics of Creation

Noel F. R. Guzman
Martin Luthers Ethics of Creation

A Morality of Nature
VDM Verlag Dr. Mller

Imprint (only for USA, GB)
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche
Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed
bibliographic data are available in the internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de
Any brand names and product names mentioned in this book are subject to trademark, brand or
patent protection and are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders. The use
of brand names, product names, common names, trade names, product descriptions etc. even
without a particular marking in this works is in no way to be construed to mean that such names
may be regarded as unrestricted in respect of trademark and brand protection legislation and
could thus be used by anyone.
Cover image: www.purestockx.com
Publisher:
VDM Verlag Dr. Mller Aktiengeselischaft & Co. KG
Dudweiler Landstr. 99, 66123 Saarbrclen, Germany
Phone +49 681 9100-698, Fax +49 681 9100-988, Email: info@vdm-publishing.com
Boston, Boston University, Diss., 2006
Copyright 2009 by the author and VDM Verlag Dr. Mller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG and
Licensors
All rights reserved. Saarbrcken 2009
Printed in the U.S.A.

Printed in the U.K.
ISBN: 978-3-639-09538-8
BR 333.3 .G89 2009

Dedicated in gratitude to
the aboriginal peoples of the world
and
Grupong Sagip Inc., an ecological movement
Preface
Creation has been a helpful company in writing this book. I am deeply grateful to the
beautiful town of Pembroke, Massachusetts, U.S.A. particularly to the village of Bryantville,
where the peaceful lakes, the evergreen pines of the J. J. Shepherd Memorial Forest, the
cranberry bogs, and the awesomely diverse birds flying around stimulated me to write with
profound passion. (Special thanks to a gorgeous Blue Jay!) A special gratitude extends to Dr.
Carter Lindberg, Dr. Christopher Brown, Dr. John Hart and Dr. James A. Nash, who in their
wisdom and interaction affirmed my interest in developing the argument of this book. A debt of
gratitude also goes to the three loveliest women in my life: my lovely wife Rolin, my beautiful
daughter Blessy, and my thoughtful mother Dolores, whose love and joyful company have
inspired the writing of this book.
These pages are a product of an exceptional passion on aboriginal or indigenous peoples,
who espouse the ethics of kinship of all creatures. Their remarkable affinity with the rest of
creation is an exact opposite of the Western minds profit-oriented and separatist attitude toward
nature. I owe hefty debts of gratitude to the amazing wisdom of aboriginal peoples particularly
my friends in Canada, South America, the United States, and the Philippines whom I have
thoughtful acquaintances.
While browsing the writings on creation of the sixteenth century reformers, I came across
the unexplored ethics of creation of Martin Luther, a prominent public figure of Western
civilization. I was fascinated to discover that, although Western, Luthers moral values on
nature, or in modern terms ecological ethics, is more akin to the Eastern tradition. The fact
remains, however, that some of Luthers thoughts are part of the predicament of the lingering
vii
Preface
ecological crisis. But despite of his human-centered or instrumentalist thoughts toward nature,
Luther also stooped down to the level of the indigenous mind. Many of his doctrines of creation
could usher a guiding wisdom to deal with the crisis. His ethics of creation identifies with the
indigenous beliefs on nature. One may be surprised to learn of a pivotal figure of Christianity
and the Western civilization who turned out to be a critic of his own world, of his own kind,
government and religion, that had been vandalizing the sanctity of politics, economics, church,
marriage, family, and nature.
What is intriguing about Luther is his thought that demonstrates the intimate relationship
of God and nature, a thought that is notably compatible with the belief of aboriginal peoples and
an antithesis to Western thinkers. Luther goes beyond his anthropocentric and utilitarian views
by positing a theocentric view of creation. His ethics of creation is emphatically revolutionary to
the globalization of his time and today, a milieu of profit-oriented and manipulative approach to
the two most exploited beings in the planet: the poor and the environment.
These pages are also a reflection of commitment toward ecology and sustainability.
These two words are inseparable in regard to the redemption of the integrity of creation.
What is the distinction between ecology and environment? I prefer to be called ecologist
rather than environmentalist. The aborigines would give us a profound wisdom about the kinship
of all creatures. For them everyone in creation is interrelated, interconnected and interdependent.
No one could exist without the other. No one should be regarded as the center of attention. The
inclination to be manipulative or exploitive toward others sets off when dominant species, like
humans, believe they are special or above others. Humans are not to be regarded as the highest
form of creatures and neither the crown of creation. Ecology signifies inclusiveness. It is the
whole community of biotic and abiotic beings. All creatures are a family and no particular
species should be thinking only of their own interests. Environment, on the other hand,
represents anything that surrounds humans. It is a world separate from us. In other words, we
humans are at the center and we deal with the rest of creation as outside our turf. In environment,
the essence of community or family is missing. Whereas in ecology, everybody is a community
and humanitys special throne is dislodged.
The future of planet Earth, our only home, is in peril because our approach to nature
denies sustainability. We never care of the future generation. The carrying capacity of the planet
could no longer cope with humankinds promiscuous consumerism of the planets natural
viii
Preface
resources. The future generations, both human and non-human beings, could no longer sustain to
utilize the remaining resources. The truth is we have been behaving like grown-ups in Noahs
time. We never listen to the prophets of our time (ecologists, scientists, and nature itself) who are
obviously giving us the alarm. We disregard their warnings about impending catastrophes, like
hotter temperatures, vanishing glaciers, stronger storms, bigger floods, and more fatal epidemics.
We never care to understand it at all. What we care is only economic development because we
want to improve human life. But we are not getting improvement after all. We rather get self-
destruction.
This book is offered as an ethos of our time. The moral demands of our ecological crisis
are crucial. It is time to deal with this crisis as a global concern and not be confined with the
boundaries of nations. Martin Luthers Ethics of Creation contributes wisdom toward the health
of the whole.
- Noel F. R. Guzman
Easter 2007
Boston, Massachusetts
ix
Contents
Preface vii
Abbreviations xiii
Introduction 1
Purpose and Significance 4
Methodology and Contents 8
Vital Terms 11
Chapter One: The Foundation of Luthers Social Ethics 15

Law and Gospel 18
Authority of Scripture 20
Christological Basis 22
The Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms 24
The Sacredness of all Vocations 26
The Theology of the Cross 29
The Sacramental Basis 32
Soteriological Basis 34
Love of Neighbor 35
The Eschatological Basis 37
Orders of Creation 40
Chapter Two: Distortion of Luthers Natural World 43

Capitalism Reshaped Luthers Agrarian World 45
Crumbling Political Power 52
Conquest and Pillage of Foreign Lands 56
Chapter Three:
Three: The Orders
Orders of Creation 65
Luthers Doctrine of Three Estates 70
The Essential Virtues of Three Estates 74
xi
Contents
The Order of Oeconomia 79

Household: The Heart of Ethics of Creation 80
Well Educated Youth: Assets of Creation 84
Marriage: The Heart of a Healthy Creation 88
The Order of Politia 95
The Order of Ecclesia 106
Prophetic Role in Creation 107
Distortion of the Schpfungsordnungen 110
The Distortion of Responsible Rulership 114
Their Righteousness Remains 122
Chapter Four:
Four: Anthropocentric
Anthropocentric Luther 127
Anthropological Dualism 133
Christian Pilgrimage on Earth 141
The Belief in Election or Chosen People 150
Use and Enjoyment 155
Chapter
Chapter Five: Theocentric Luther 169
169
Active Indwelling Presence: God in and through Creatures 171
Not Co-Creators but Co-Workers 186
The Gospel for omni creaturae (every creature) 195
Chapter Six: Conclusion

Conclusion 203
203
Ethical Virtues of Creation 211
Frugality 211
Humility 213
Love 214
Cross bearing 216
Selected Bibliography 219

219
Index 235
235
Scripture Index 243

243
xii
Abbreviations
LW Luthers Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehman, 55 vols. St.
Louis: Concordia/Philadelphia: Fortress, 1955-86.
RGG Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Handwrterbuch fr

Theologie und Religion, ed. Kurt Galling and Hans Campenhausen, 7 vols.
Tbingen: Mohr, 1957-1965.
St. L. Der Martin Luthers smmtliche Schriften, hrsg. Von Walch, Revidierte
Neuausgabe. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1880-1910.
WA D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, ed. J. K. F. Knaake,

G. Kawerau, et. al., 58 vols. Weimar: Bhlau, 1883-
WA Br D. Martin Luthers Werke: Briefwechsel, 15 vols. Weimar: Bhlau, 1830
WA TR D. Martin Luthers Werke: Tischreden, 6 vols. Weimar: Bhlau, 1912-21
xiii
Introduction
Many people today barely care about what is going on ecologically in our planet. We
simply pay too much attention to human-centered economic development and always make the
environment or other creatures the sacrificial lamb. We always prefer the gold rather than the
health of the planet. In fact, we refuse to deal with the compelling moral demands of
endangered species and the immense ecological crisis. We never care to understand it at all. But
on the other hand, we absolutely want to improve human life. However, as we deal exclusively
with economic or industrial development we endanger the human species and the natural world
as well. We hardly heed to the warnings of todays ecological prophets. We exactly behave like
grown-ups in Noahs time when that prophet of old warned his people of an impending
catastrophe. As Upton Sinclair quotes, It is difficult to get a man to understand something when
his salary depends upon his not understanding it.1 Our means of improving human life is after
all self-destructing.
This book comes to our aid in understanding the roots of the ecological crisis and
humanitys distant relationship with nature. The intent of this book is to reclaim the ethics of
Gods creation. Every creature is not accidentally created but each one has a purpose to preserve
the goodness of creation. Creation has ethics because every creature has an intrinsic value.
Everyone in creation is ordained by God in relationship with one another. In order to preserve
the goodness of creation, all creatures should co-exist in interrelationship and interdependence.
In other words, there is an ethic of kinship in creation.
1
Quoted by Al Gore in his award winning documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary
Emergency of Global Warming, DVD, 96 min., (Hollywood, California: Paramount Pictures, 2006). Gore presents a
real understanding about the future of our planet, a wake up call that cuts through myths and misconceptions.
1
2 Ethics of Creation
This book is an interdisciplinary study in social ethics. Learning about the ethics of
creation incorporates a lot of academic disciplines: anthropology, ethnology, theology, biblical
studies, history, philosophy, missiology, geology, ecology, and social sciences.
The main argument of this book is Martin Luther, a pivotal figure of Western civilization,
stood as a prophet by applying his doctrine of creation and Schpfungsordnungen (orders of
creation) to critique the religious, political and economic forces of the sixteenth century world
that were injuring the created order through the misuse of Gods gifts (natural resources) and the
degradation of nature, a critique that is still relevant today. His theology of creation was his basis
for arguing that both civil rulers and citizens had to exercise moral responsibility toward the
created order (ecological integrity) and equity toward the neighbor (economic justice) in order to
live in a healthy world.
Being critically aware of our own religious traditions and adopting more inclusive
attitudes toward the natural world and the whole of Gods creation enable us to mend ways that
are detrimental to other creatures. The world could be a lot healthier and more harmonious if we
all respected not just the diversity of humankind and their religions but also the diversity of
Gods creation.
Thus far, Christianity has no clear or explicit understanding of the intimate relationship
between humankind and the rest of creation, comparable to the understandings of the tribal
religions. Christians have been stuck with the religious view of stewardship, which is basically
too human-centered and profit-oriented. Instead of invoking the values of interdependence and
interrelationship among creatures, stewardship is directing our species toward the total control of
nature. In fact, there is no effort being made to invoke a religious attitude toward mending the
destructiveness of the anthropocentric beliefs that contributed to our current ecological crisis. To
quote Vine Deloria, Jr., a leading aboriginal American scholar: Perhaps the best summary of the
attitude inherent in the [Christian] liturgy is, Please, God, help us cut the cost, and well try to
find a new life-style that wont be quite as destructive.2
Martin Luther, who was initially a critic of his own religion, did not actually intend to
separate or create another church but rather to reform the church in order to be more true and
faithful to the Biblical faith. It is fascinating to know that in his non-allegorical study of creation
2
Vine Deloria Jr., God is Red: A Native View of Religion, 30th anniversary edition (Golden, Colorado:
Fulcrum Publishing, 2003), 83.
Introduction 3
in the Genesis story, the reformer, who was also a biblical scholar, asserted that it is improper to
desecrate the sacred writings by presenting them as allegories because such readings obscure
what is so very clear and real in the book of Genesis. The problem with ambiguous, figurative
interpretation is that it always tends to allow things to be presented out of context. Christians
have significantly misunderstood the rights and powers of humanity in relation to the rest of
creation. Our sophisticated world today has made the human species the purpose and the center
of attention in the universe. Our stale outlook of the natural world promotes the idea that all other
creatures exist for the good and benefit of humankind, and we never care if other creatures are
wiped out from the face of the earth, simply because they are not as significant as our species.
Through my dealings with aboriginal cultures of Canada, South America, the United
States, and the Philippines, I have developed a strong sense of kinship with such cultures and
have come to share their emphasis on the value of interrelationship among all creatures. The idea
of interrelationship between humanity and nature is a commonly-held religious view of
indigenous peoples throughout the world. It is totally fascinating to learn about their awareness
of an organic bond with the rest of creation. On the other hand, I feel humiliated to realize that
the missionary expansion of my own religion (Christianity) had contributed to the decimation of
many aboriginal peoples of the world, predominantly in Africa, the Americas, and Asia. What is
more humiliating is that the ethnocentric missionary enterprise, in collaboration with the local
and foreign traders and political forces, had also contributed to the extinction of many aboriginal
tribes, as well as the loss of many species of habitats and the birds, animals, insects, fishes,
plants, and forest trees that inhabit them. In Genesis terms, their kind has already lost the ability
to propagate.
Everyone deserves to be reminded that the aboriginal peoples of the world are the
original inhabitants of the lands that foreign settlers (immigrants) now have occupied.
Lamentably, they are always labeled or stereotyped as pagans, infidels, savaged, barbarians, and
cannibals. In fact, there were Christian theologians who used biblical passages to argue that these
people were naturally born as slaves. In fact, in religious history some people regarded them as
subhumans. Moreover, the European settlers were always portrayed as the good guys while the
aboriginal peoples were stereotyped as warlike villains who lurked in the darkness thirsting for
the blood of innocent settlers or the calm, wise, dignified elder sitting on the mesa dispensing his
wisdom in poetic aphorisms.3 The benign image of the settlers is always portrayed in Western
movies, plays, history books and novels in contrast to malevolent image of the indigenous.
As a Church historian and ethicist, I found that encountering the historical and cultural
influence of our beliefs and traditions was a remarkable experience that fortified my passion for
the integrity of Creation. The human-centeredness or exclusivity of our Christian tradition needs
a redirection in order to foster a redeeming relationship with creation and to come up with an
inclusive Gospel for all creatures.
As a Luther scholar from the East (the Philippines), I found a remarkable sense of
harmony with Martin Luthers ethics of creation, because though Luther was a Western
theologian, his theology and ethics of creation are akin to the Eastern tradition, and they are
particularly compatible with the way the aboriginal peoples of the world seek an organic
relationship with nature.
PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE
First, one significant purpose of this book is to analyze and correct detrimental elements
of the Christian tradition which influenced the course of the Eurocentric missionary enterprise in
its collaboration with political and global economic forces.
Second, it critically presents Luthers unexplored ethics of the created order, or in
modern terms, his ecological ethics. In his late Genesis lectures (1535-1545) and his mature
exegesis of the Psalms, Luther articulated his concept of Schpfungsordnungen, or orders of
creation,4 in the context of a theology of creation that considers not only human but also non-
human creatures in relation to each other. Especially in his later years, Luther affirmed the world
and did not reject the world for the sake of the soul or spiritual salvation. World affirmation is
one of his underpinnings of his social ethics.
Third, several studies have been undertaken on Luthers social ethics, his creation
theology, and his doctrine of creatio ex nihilo as found in his Genesis lectures. However, a
3
Ibid., 23.
4
Other related terms used by Luther in place of the word Orden (orders) are Stnde (stations), Gesetz
(ordinances), Ordnungen (estates), and Beruf (vocation).
Introduction 5
thorough examination of his ethics of Gods created order has yet to be presented. Recently,
attention in Luther scholarship has been drawn to his Lectures on Genesis (1535-1545), which
embody the thoughts of the mature Luther. To date, however, only two monographs attempt a
comprehensive description of Luthers theology of creation: David Lfgrens Die Theologie der
Schpfung bei Luther5 and Johannes Schwankes Creatio ex nihilo: Luthers Lehre der Schpfung
aus dem Nichts in der Groen Genesisvorlesung.6 Although these works have examined Luthers
theology of creation, they say nothing about the ethical implications of his creation theology. On
the other hand, scholars of ecological ethics have mentioned Luthers ethical thought only in
passing, and most of these authors misread Luther as purely anthropocentric and utilitarian in his
approach toward the natural world.7 This misunderstanding of Luther arises in part because
scholars have failed to relate his ethics of the natural world to his theology of creation. This book
carefully examines the way Luthers ethics are related to his theology of creation so as to justify
the attribution to Luther of an ethics of creation.
Fourth, this book also has significance for the study of the relationship of Luthers
ecological, economic and political thought. These three ethical themes were all vital to Luther as
he prophetically confronted the globalizing and capitalistic nature of the sixteenth century world.
One relevant work in relation to this matter is Hans-Jrgen Priens Luthers Wirtschaftethik,
which applied Luthers preaching on the Sermon on the Mount as the foundation of his economic
ethics.8 Also helpful is Ricardo Rieths Habsucht bei Martin Luther, which comprehensively
examined and articulated Luthers thought on greed and its effects on faith, morality, economic
5
David Lfgren, Die Theologie der Schpfung bei Luther (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960).
6
Johannes Schwanke, Creatio ex nihilo: Luthers Lehre der Schpfung aus dem Nichts in der Groen
Genesisvorlesung, 1535-1545 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004).
7
Prominent among these ecological writers who discussed Luther, at least in passing, are Lutherans Larry
Rasmussen and H. Paul Santmire. See the chapter on Returning to Our Senses, in Larry L. Rasmussens book,
Earth Community, Earth Ethics (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1996), 270-281; in chapter 7 of H. Paul
Santmire, The Travail of Nature: The Ambiguous Ecological Promise of Christian Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1985), 121-131, and in his discussion on The Promise of God with Us, 81-85 of his Nature Reborn: The
Ecological and Cosmic Promise of Christian Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000); Michael S. Northcott,
The Environment & Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); and George S. Hendry,
Theology of Nature (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1980).
8
Hans-Jrgen Prien, Luthers Wirtschaftsethik (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1992).
life, church and civil authority.9 Mention should also be made of Paul Althaus, who briefly
addressed Luthers ethics on business, economics and political authority in his book, The Ethics
of Martin Luther.10 It is noteworthy that Althaus dealt with other important ethical themes like
marriage, sexuality, work or vocation, and attitude toward the state, but he is silent about
Luthers ethics of the natural world. The theological works of Bernhard Lohse, Gerhard O.
Forde, Karl Holl, George W. Forell, Philip S. Watson, and Donald C. Ziemke have also
discussed Luthers ethics, particularly his economic and political ethics, but they have basically
ignored Luthers thought regarding the ethics of relationship with the non-human world.11
Cynthia D. Moe-Lobedas Healing A Broken World: Globalization and God made use of
Luthers soteriologyor at least her interpretation, based on the Finnish school, of the
Indwelling God or Indwelling Christ as the basis of Luthers ethics.12 In making her case,
she argues that this Indwelling God, which she regarded as a source of moral agency, is an
appropriate counterweight to profit-oriented globalization and its detrimental values. Although
she interrelates Luthers economic and political thoughts, little is mentioned about his ecological
ethics. Moreover, her application of the Indwelling God in response to todays globalization is
predominantly anthropocentric and does not deal significantly with the plight of nonhuman
creatures, which are, in fact, more vulnerable to globalization than human beings.
Fifth, this book goes beyond previous studies on Luthers ethics by examining the way
that Luthers concern for the created order relates to his economic and political ethics, based on
9
Ricardo Rieth, Habsucht bei Martin Luther (Leipzig: Verlag Hermann Nachfolger Weimar GmbH & Co.,
1996).
10
Paul Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther, trans. Robert C. Shultz (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972).
11
Exception to the silence about Luthers thought on the natural world are Bernhard Lohses articulation on
Luthers affirmation of the natural world and Gerhard Fordes discussion on Luthers eschatological thought which
affirms human beings moral responsibility toward the earth. See Bernhard Lohse, Martin Luthers Theology: Its
Historical and Systematic Development, trans. and edited by Roy A. Harrisville (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999);
Gerhard Forde, Where God Meets Man: Luthers Down-to-Earth Approach to the Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg
Publishing House, 1972). Other writers on Luther are Karl Holl, The Reconstruction of Morality, trans. Fred Meuser
& Walter Wietzke, edited James Luther Adams & Walter Bense (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1979);
George W. Forell, Faith Active in Love: An Investigation of the Principles Underlying Luthers Social Ethics (New
York: The American Press, 1954); Philip S. Watson, Let God be God: An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin
Luther (London: Epworth Press, 1947) and Donald C. Ziemke, Love for the Neighbor in Luthers Theology
(Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963).
12
Cynthia D. Moe-Lobeda, Healing a Broken World: Globalization and God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2002).
Introduction 7
an analysis of his lectures on Genesis, Psalms, and Romans, and of his writings On Temporal
Government, Trade and Usury, and related treatises, sermons and letters.
Sixth, the critical study of Luthers anthropocentricism and theocentricism has
significance for the ecological interaction between the Western Christian tradition and the non-
Western religious traditions, particularly the worlds aboriginal peoples who were directly
affected by colonization, environmental exploitation, and cultural denigration. This book will
usher a critical understanding of the Western traditions anthropocentricism that would enable
Christians to correct detrimental beliefs toward nature and create a new way of interpretation that
offers an ethical dealing with nature. On the other hand, Luthers theocentricism will give light
to the proper relationship of humanity with the Creator and creation.
A number of ecological writers have critiqued the beliefs and teachings of the Western
Christian tradition that are detrimental to the ecological context. Though these works were not
addressing directly Luthers teachings, they deserve notice because they draw on some of the
universal beliefs of Christianity that are destructive to nature. Only H. Paul Santmire, in his book
The Travail of Nature, has dealt with the critique of Luthers anthropocentricism and
theocentricism, but he has only presented a few of Luthers writings and has not cited an
interaction with non-Western views on nature. This book goes beyond this effort and presents a
more comprehensive critical understanding of the anthropocentric and theocentric elements of
Luthers thought.
Finally, this book will shed light on the relevance of Luthers ecological ethics for our
current era of exploitative globalization. Much has been written on Luthers ethics but there is no
comprehensive study that attempts to relate his ethics to our contemporary ecological crisis.
The primary sources for this book will be the writings of Luther about the doctrine of
creation and the orders of creation, especially his lectures on Genesis, Psalms, Romans, and
Galatians; the Small and Large Catechisms; his political writings, particularly On Temporal
Authority, To the Christian Nobility, Admonition to Peace, and Dr. Martin Luthers Warning to
His Dear German People; and his economic writings On Trade and Usury, Treatise on Good
Works, Sermon on the Mount, The Estate of Marriage, and Ordinance for a Common Chest.13
The foundational source will be the thought of the mature Luther in his Great Lectures on
13
The Weimar Edition of Luthers Works, considered the critical edition, will be consulted first, with
reference to the American Edition.
Genesis, which were delivered from 1535 to 1545, the years in which he gave the definitive
formulation of his ethical principles on the integrity of the natural world and the three basic
orders of creation: marriage or the family, the government or the state, and the ministry or
ecclesiastical affairs.
METHODOLOGY AND CONTENTS
The methodology of this book is twofold. First, taking into account the literary genre,
social background, occasion, and purpose of each primary writing, I will analyze Luthers
writings to identify his ethical norms regarding the integrity of creation, economic justice and
responsible political life that affect both human and non-human creatures. Because it is vital to
consider the precise meaning of his original literary expression in Latin or German, in which he
consistently used certain terms to describe an ethical principle or a theological position (e.g.
creatio, creatura, Schpfung, Ordnung, oeconomia, Stand, politia, politicus), a preliminary study
or investigation of these key words and phrases will also be undertaken.
Second, this book specifically examines Luthers critique of the development of foreign
trade (a globalizing trend) of the sixteenth century world and the consequential degradation of
nature, which he saw as a disruption of the orders of creation.
Following the introduction, the first chapter addresses the foundation of Luthers social
ethics. This chapter is meant to comprehensively examine the foundations of Luthers ethics,
because a failure to treat his ethics in their entirety, as they relate to his theology, can easily lead
to misinterpretation. For instance, his ethical thought on the integrity of creation should not be
separated from his soteriology, eschatology, Christology, affirmation of the sola scriptura, his
belief in natural law, his concept of the orders of creation, the foundational importance of love
for neighbor, his theology of the cross, his concepts of law and gospel, his two-kingdom
theory, his doctrinal arguments regarding the sacraments of baptism and the Lords Supper, his
view of the sacredness of all vocations, and his belief of the orders of creation. In this way, the
importance of his ethical principles will be treated in the proper context.
Chapter two focuses on the disruption of Luthers sixteenth century world and the
reformers critical view of the religious, political, and economic forces that harm the integrity of
Introduction 9
creation. This chapter portrays Luthers milieu, so that Luther can be understood as a witness,
critic, and prophet to his rapidly-changing world. Luthers lifetime is the epoch of the dawn of
the global capitalistic economy, the deterioration of feudalism, the European territorial and
religious conquest of the Americas and the Philippines, the influx of gold and other natural
resources from colonized foreign lands into Europe, the widespread use of the printing press and
the acceleration it provided to social and religious reforms, and the rise of nationalism with the
consequent displacement of Roman civilization in the domains of politics, economics, religion
and language. As Walter Tillmanns wrote, In those sixty-four years (of Luthers life) the face of
the world has changed.14
Chapter three analyzes the significance of Luthers concept of Schpfungsordnungen in
Luthers ethics of creation,15 with its economic, political, and religious implications. The chapter
begins by examining the three basic orders of creation as summed up by Luther: marriage or
the family (which includes everything related to business and the economy), the state or secular
authority, and the ministry or ecclesiastical affairs.16 It can be argued that, contrary to criticism
which regards Luther as a theologian whose only concern is God-and-the-soul,17 Luther
affirms the world through the responsible use of the orders of creation. Along this line of
reasoning, this study argues that politics and economics are seen by Luther as ordained by God
as part of the divine creation, so they should not be regarded as evil. It is rather the erring
politicians, economists, and citizens who are evil. This vital principle of world affirmation
strongly influences ones view of human beings moral responsibility to the natural world. The
14
Walter G. Tillmanns, The World and Men Around Luther (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House,
1959), 4.
15
Luther mentioned this theme as early as 1519 in his Sermon on the Estate of Marriage, LW 44: 7-14.
One can find this important theme in most of his writings even in his later works on Genesis (1535-1545), which
served as the core of his argument that the preservation of humankind and all other creatures depends on the
responsible management of these orders, because they serve as the means by which God creates, through marriage,
and establishes order, justice, and peace in the world. WA 30.II, 571-572.
16
A detailed description of the orders of creation is found in an article by Franz Lau,
Schpfungsordnung, RGG 5 (1961), 1492-94. Also see chapter 3 Stations and Vocations (The Orders) by Paul
Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther, trans. by Robert C. Schultz (Philadelphia: Fortress Press), 36-42.
17
One critic is the systematic theologian George S. Hendry who argues that Luther lays his theology in the
heart of the Augustinian theme, God-and-the-soul and had nothing to do with God-and-the-world. Furthermore,
Luther, according to him, has no concern for natural theology. Hendry, Theology of Nature, 16-17.
second section of this chapter examines the distortion of these orders of creation brought about
by the irresponsible use of these institutions or offices that stem from the vices of greed,
arrogance and idolatry, which, according to Luther, are in violation not only of Christian love
but also of natural law.18 Theologically, sufficient attention will be given also to demonstrate
that the integrity of creation, including the orders or stations ordained by God, is still in
force after the Fall.
Chapter four critically addresses the anthropocentric Luther in his view of the natural
world. These anthropocentric elements in Luthers thought, particularly his dualistic and
instrumentalist views of nature, largely shared with the broader Christian tradition, brings Luther
into contact with non-Western critiques. Special attention is given to non-Western traditions,
particularly the aboriginal cultures that espouse an organic relationship between nature and
humanity. This chapter also examines the historical and cultural roots of Luthers
anthropocentric thoughts and explores its impact on Christian mission and ecological contexts.
Chapter five presents the theocentric Luther who demonstrates the intimate relationship
between God and nature. Luther goes beyond his anthropocentric and utilitarian view of creation
by positing a theocentric view of creation. Furthermore, consideration of the thoughts of the
mature Luther in his Genesis lectures (1535-1545) and his mature exegesis of the Psalms corrects
the negative view of the natural world that he expresses in some earlier writings. My argument is
that Luther began with an anthropocentric conception of creation, but came to a theocentric
conception, thus coming to subordinate his human-centered tendencies. This chapter examines
evidence for the ecologically sensitive Luther, particularly his belief in Gods immanence in
creation, the significance of Luthers critique of the human self-conception as co-creators,19
and his advocacy on extending the Gospel to the whole creation.
18
Natural law is prominent to Luthers ethical thought. He defines it as a law written in each human heart.
It is also a law which is the concern of human conscience. According to him, common natural laws such as to honor
parents, not to kill, not to commit adultery, to serve God, etc., prevail and remain in all lands. See Against the
Heavenly Prophets, LW 40: 97 and On Trade and Usury, LW 45: 247.
19
Humans are co-workers, not co-creators. Der Mensch ist Mitarbeiter cooperator Gottes, aber nicht
concreator. Predigt am Michaelistag, 1539. Luther cited I Corinthians 3:9 by saying that creatures are cooperatores
Dei or fellow workmen with God. Moreover he said, In all their working together there is one thing the creatures
cannot do, they cannot produce or give life on their own; this the Creator has reserved to himself alone. He will have
his creatures as co-workers, not co-creators. WA 47, 857, 35.
Introduction 11
Chapter six summarizes the book and serves as the concluding chapter. The argument
will be made that Luthers ethics of creation is relevant to our world today and to our current
ecological crisis.
VITAL TERMS
There are several terms used in this book that could be tricky to define. A caution is
needed in dealing with Luthers texts because discovering what Luther really means by a given
term or phrase is often not a simple matter.
The first crucial term to understand is his use of the word creation, which is creatio or
creatura in Latin and Schpfung in German. However, it is important to know that at times
Luther used creatio as act of creation, and creaturae as creatures. For the purpose of this
book, the term creation signifies not just the material creatures and their integrity but also the
orders being established by God in creation, which involves home, marriage, government,
church, vocations, and all aspects of everyday life.
The second term requiring definition is stations or orders. Luther used Stnd, Orden
and Ordnung in German which suggest the same essential concept. These terms refer to the idea
that at creation God established specific structures, stations, or orders for the purpose of
preserving the life of all creatures and the establishment of order, justice, and peace in the
world.20 At times Luther also spoke of ordinances, estates, institutions, offices,
occupations, or calling,21 and they have the same thrust as orders and stations. We
should be cautious not to equate the meaning of Stnd or Ordnung with ranks, social
standing or class when dealing with creation because it distorts Luthers idea. These orders
of creation complement each other and no station is above or below the other. This breaks the
medieval idea, as Bernhard Lohse argues, that the spiritual estate is above the temporal, that the
20
WA 30: II, 571-572; LW 46: 246-248. Luther also wrote, It is Gods work to have distinct stations in the
world, and that these make for right and righteousness and thus preserve the peace. WA 31: I, 410; LW 13: 370.
21
The German term Stnd does not only mean station, order, or estate but also level, rank,
position, class, and social standing. The term Orden suggests a better understanding; it means order,
arrangement, orderliness, and discipline.
latter must serve the former.22 This book will uphold Luthers idea of orders of creation as
proof that all creatures are interdependent and interrelated.
The third term is ecology or ecological. This word was not used in the time of
Luther. It first appeared in the English language in 1873 when the impact of deep concern about
the environment stirred some people around the world.23 Although this was an alien term to
Luther, he articulated the substance of the term by using the phrases preserving Gods
creation24 and taking care of this earth.25 For the purpose of this book, ecology or
ecological refers to the natural world as an interconnected whole, in which all things, both
human and non-human beings, are related in a complex interdependence. This meaning of
ecology implies that the anthropocentric view of the world, or the concept that the natural world
exists only for human benefit, is undermined by the ethical idea of Luther that humans have the
moral responsibility to preserve the well-being of nonhuman creatures. Furthermore, the ideal of
human domination, which leads to overconsumption (gluttony in Luthers context) and
environmental devastation, should be replaced with the idea of ecological interconnectedness.
The fourth term is economy or economics. For Luther it means household, or
management of the domestic affairs of a home or family. In Latin it is oeconomia, from the
Greek oikos which means house and nemein, which means to manage. Luther mentioned this
term as one of the basic orders of creation, that is household or family or the estate of
marriage, including everything related to management of business and economics. For the
purpose of this book, economy or economics is defined as the discipline of human life that
deals with the proper management and responsible use of the earths natural resources in order to
22
Lohse, Martin Luthers Theology, 246.
23
Lynn White, Jr., The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis, Western Man and Environmental Ethics:
Attitudes Toward Nature and Technology (Reading, Massachusetts: Addisson-Wesley Publishing Company, 1973),
20.
24
Preservation of creation points toward the creative work of sustainability among all life forms in the
planet. There is enough sustenance for all creatures. In fact, it is also enough for the future generation. Absolutely
nothing, Luther wrote, in the entire creation would have been either troublesome or harmful for man. . . .
Everything that was created by God was good. God did not stop on the seventh day. He works not only by
preserving His creation but also by changing and renewing His creation. Nor it is true that God has refrained from
creating new classes. . . . Since Adam was still holy and innocent, all the living beings dwelt with him with the
greatest delight, ready for every kind of service. He works not only by preserving Gods creation but also by
changing and renewing the creation. Lectures on Genesis, LW 1: 77.
25
Letter of Luther to Johann Ruehel (June 15, 1525), WA Br 3: 531.
Introduction 13
have a stable and sustainable life. Luthers idea of household or the management of the
domestic affairs of a home or family will be integrated with my discussion on economics
especially stressing its ethical implications, considering Luthers idea that the good management
of a household is one of the cornerstones of society.26
The fifth term to be defined is politics. Luther used the word politia in Latin which
means the state or the administration and the adjective politicus which means belonging to
civil authority. Politia is one of the three general headings in Luthers orders of creation,
which calls responsible citizens for an active involvement in society and temporal government
for the sake of justice for the neighbor. For the purpose of this study, politics refers not only to
political rulers but also to the citizens as both sectors exercise their moral responsibility toward
society, government and the natural world. Politics for Luther is not to be seen as evil, because
it is ordained by God for the preservation of peace, justice and the well-being of creation.
The sixth term is anthropocentric. It signifies the traditional idea of viewing human
beings as the center of attention in the whole created order. Humans are viewed as the central
element or purpose of the universe. Moreover, this human-centered view suggests that all other
creatures are inferior to humans because they are the subjects for human dominion and use.
Special attention is given to the critique of the anthropocentric elements of Luthers thought
which shared this tendency with the broader Western Christian tradition.
The seventh term is theocentric. It means viewing God as Creator who is immanent in
all created beings and who works with humans and the established orders of creation for the
preservation and redemption of the whole creation. For Luther, to have the true knowledge of
God and the restored imago Dei (image of God), implies that human beings should radiate the
perfect knowledge of and love for other creatures. Luthers theocentric idea is profoundly
articulating a Christian message that allows human beings to relate harmoniously with nature.
26
One of Luthers legacies is his deep concern about the education of children and youth for public service.
The Christian household, the civil rulers and the schools, according to Luther, are vital in the education and
preparation of youth to be assets in society and to be effective workers in preserving the Schpfungsordnungen. The
home, the church and the state are all in need of dedicated stewards of Gods gifts. See Luthers writing, To the
Councilmen of all Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools (1524), WA 15, 27-53;
LW 45: 339-378. The subject on Christian Household is well articulated by William H. Lazareth in his book
Luther on the Christian Home: An Application of the Social Ethics of the Reformation (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg
Press, 1960), 152-156.
bx
THE FOUNDATION OF LUTHERS SOCIAL ETHICS
Luther did not write a specific work on social ethics, and it was not his intention to create
a system of ethics. His ethical thought is scattered throughout his apologetic and pedagogical
writings. However, these prophetic writings, in which he critiqued the Church and his rapidly-
changing world, constitute a remarkable contribution to social ethics, primarily as regard politics,
economics, family, marriage, and creation. His paramount values of selflessness and service
shaped his fundamental concern, the role of Christians on earth. The model of this ethical
responsibility for the world is shown in Luthers Genesisvorlesung (Genesis Lectures) and his
mature exegesis of the Psalms, the point of departure of this book.
Luthers social ethics is best seen in its entirety. No ethical theme should be dealt in
isolation with other themes, because a failure to treat his ethics in its wholeness and in proper
context can easily lead to misinterpretation. It is significant, however, that these ethical themes
are deeply interrelated. In this chapter, the foundational elements of his social ethics will be
discussed.
Natural Law
Luther regarded Natural Law as the foundation of ethics for all people,1 Christians and
non-Christians alike. This common, practical morality is deeply rooted in Luthers thought, the
basis of an inclusive ethics for a pluralistic world where everyone coexists. Natural law for
1
Luther also called Natural Law as Law of Nature. The law of nature is the law of God, and the prophets
teach that one person owes love to the other. Lectures on Isaiah, LW 16: 26.
15
Luther is something written by God in the human heart.2 So, Luther had argued that all humans
of any nation, race or religion are naturally born with an inherent, primal knowledge about
God and what is good or bad. For instance, all people know the unwritten law that to love others
is good and to harm others is bad. All people in the world are inherently aware that killing and
stealing are forbidden. So you do not need any book, said Luther, to instruct and admonish
you how you should love your neighbor, for you have the loveliest and best books about all laws
right in your own heart.3 According to Luther, unlike the written, positive laws which are
restricted to a particular place and time, natural law is unchangeable and universal to all people
in the world. This common ethic is in fact described by Luther as a divine law because it is
given by God in creation.4 The natural law stands behind written laws. In fact, Luther regarded
the Law of Moses or Ten Commandments as the most striking form of natural law. Except for
the laws about images and the Sabbath, Luther argued that the Mosaic Law and natural law are
one.5 Common natural laws such as to honor parents, not to kill, not to commit adultery, to
serve God, etc., prevail and remain in all lands.6 Natural law is clearly and exactly
summarized on Mt. Sinai.7 Sometimes Luther called it the law of nature, a knowledge
according to him that had been implanted by God in human beings at creation, particularly in the
moral dictates of conscience.8 In one of his discussions in Table Talk of July 7, 1538, he
described natural law as a practical first principle in the sphere of morality; it forbids evil and
2
Reason has only a left-handed and a partial knowledge of God, based on the law of nature and of Moses
. . . inscribed in our hearts. Sermons on the Gospel of St. John, 1537, WA 46, 677; LW 22: 153; Cf. Lecture on
Galatians, 1535, WA 40.II, 71; LW 27: 56;
3
Lectures on Galatians, 1535, WA 15.II, 72; LW 27: 57.
4
I have been speaking of the common, divine, and natural law which even the heathen, Turks, and Jews
have to keep if there is to be any peace or order in the world. (Emphasis added) Admonition to Peace, 1525, WA 18,
307; LW 46: 27.
5
Against the Heavenly Prophets, WA 18, 81; LW 40: 98.
6
Ibid.
7
Naturalich Gesetz ist klar und fein gefasst in monte Sinai. Predigten, 1540, WA 49, 2.1.
8
For more discussion of Luthers concept of Natural Law, see Paul Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther,
trans. Robert C. Schultz (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965), pp. 25-35. Also Heinrich Bornkamm, Luthers
Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, trans. Karl H. Hertz (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966) and John T. McNeill,
Natural Law in the Thought of Luther, Church History 10 (1941): 211-227.
The Foundation of Luthers Social Ethics 17
commands good.9 God at creation had created the goodness in all creatures and the gift of
reason in human beings. Reason as a gift of God is key to the comprehension of natural law. In
his 1536 theses, The Disputation Concerning Man, Luther acknowledges that reason is very
necessary to maintain the affairs of the world. As he wrote: Reason is the most important and
the highest in rank among all things and, in comparison with other things of this life, the best and
something divine. It is the inventor and mentor of all the arts, medicines, laws, and of whatever
wisdom, power, virtue, and glory men possess in this life.10 Luther believes that although
various peoples of the world differ in culture, God universally bestows upon all people the gift of
reason, and this provides them the light they need to administer the affairs of the world. Reason
is a critical resource in formulating the secular law that must be carried out in order to preserve
the good. In this way, as Luther wrote in his Genesis lectures, man and woman are created
according to the image of God; that is, each one has a mind, a memory, and a will to do good to
others. This capability to do good was frequently discussed by Luther when he speaks of the
natural law and as he relates it to the universally acclaimed Golden Rule or the love toward
neighbor in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31. Love, which is the substance of the natural law, is
written in the hearts, because by nature they judge that one should do to others what one wants
done to oneself.11 In fact, this is exactly the commandment that Christ taught to love our
neighbor as ourselves. This had been mentioned by St. Paul in Romans 2: 14 which states that all
humans would naturally know God and love their neighbor. According to Luther, natural law
thus precedes all written laws, including the Ten Commandments and the teachings of love in the
Gospel. He taught that natural law, which requires no books because we all feel it in our hearts,
helps to determine and formulate written ethical rules.
However, because of humankinds loss of the image of God due to sin, the law written in
their hearts has been obscured and corrupted as well. Their inherent, primal knowledge of God
and the natural law has been darkened by their evil desire so they no longer follow it.12 So, in
9
WA TR 4, no. 3991; LW 54: 293.
10
WA 39.I, 175; LW 34:137.
11
12
The devil so blinds and possesses hearts, that they do not always feel this law. Against the Heavenly
Prophets, 1525, WA 18, 80; LW 40: 97; cited by Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther, 27.
order to regain and renew the inherent, primal law one must preach the law and impress it on
the minds of people till God assists and enlightens them, so that they feel in their hearts what the
Word says.13 To reawaken people back to their inherent knowledge of the law written in their
hearts, God utilizes His Word through regenerated people like Christians, whom Luther called
rare birds on earth, to proclaim the natural law back to their hearts. People who are renewed by
the Word are able in such easy, external things to judge for themselves what is fair and what is
not, on the basis of their own consciences.14
Law and Gospel
While we have learned that natural law inherently flows from within ourselves, there
are norms from the outside, like the Law and Gospel, that God makes use of for the holistic
redemption of human beings and the whole creation. Luthers doctrine of Law and Gospel
coheres with his soteriology or doctrine of justification. After the fall God was compelled to have
written laws for humanity in order to reveal their sins and to redeem them.15 They were also to
remind people of the inherent law written in their hearts. After the Fall, both written Law and
natural law that reproaches conscience are at the same time good gifts of God but also tools of
Gods wrath.
The distinction between law and gospel is best known in the understanding of salvation
or justification and how the law and gospel function in the life of the believer. The law is the will
of God being known by all in the natural law and in written laws or commandments like the
Mosaic Law. But after the fall, the law has become a word of judgment and wrath because
humanity has become incapable of fulfilling Gods will. So the law reveals sin and
condemnation. In order to liberate humanity from the curse of the law, the gospel, which is
Gods Word that has the message of salvation, is proclaimed and grace is given without any
works or merits whatsoever. The gospel is not a new commandment that replaces the law
because although a person is justified the law is not entirely left behind. The justified person is
13
Ibid.
14
On Trade and Usury, 1524, WA 15, 293; LW 45: 245.
15
Against Latomus, 1521, WA 8, 103; LW 32: 224.
still a sinner and one needs the law to remind a person of his or her sinful nature. Both law and
gospel still work in us as believers, as Luther said: The Law is the Word of Moses to us, while
the Gospel is the Word of God into us.16
According to Luther, the law has twofold use: politically, that is, to restrain and punish
the evildoers, and spiritually, that is, to show the sinfulness of people and convict them of sin.17
While the Law helps preserve peace in the world because of the imposition of civil laws upon the
wicked, however, it has no capacity to make people truly and willingly righteous. The Law is not
the means to salvation. It is only through faith that people are saved or justified as righteous
through the proclamation of the Gospel. Faith comes only through Gods word or Gospel. If
men could keep the Law, said Luther, they would be blessed. But where are they? Therefore
they are not doers of the Law unless they are justified before and without the Law, through
faith.18 The Law and Gospel are exactly opposite. While the Law condemns and punishes the
wicked, the Gospel acquits and redeems the sinner.
Conversely, the law and Gospel are strongly involved in each other. The Law prepares
the way for the preaching and teaching of the Gospel. On the other hand, those who are saved
through the proclamation of the Gospel become willing doers of the Law. Although they are
opposite, the Law and Gospel complement each other in the preservation of peace and Gods
redemption. To quote Althaus in his understanding of Luther, The Gospel presupposes the Law
and its proclamation. . . . Apart from the law, we cannot recognize the greatness of what Christ
does for us and to us.19 The law and gospel neither can nor should be separated; just as
repentance and the forgiveness of sins should not be separated because they are so closely bound
together and involved in each other.20
16
First Psalms Lecture, 1515, WA 55.I, 4, 26; cited by Lohse, Martin Luthers Theology, 268.
17
Luther said, For the Law was given for two uses. The first is to restrain those who are uncivilized and
wicked. In this sense the statement, He who does these things shall live by them, is a political statement. Lectures
on Galatians, 1535, WA 15, 429; LW 26; 274-275.
18
Ibid.
19
Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, 257-258.
20
Disputatio prima contra Antinomos, 1537, WA 39.I, 416.
The Authority of Scripture
For Luther the principle of sola scriptura (scripture alone) was in response to the
spurious teachings of the ecclesiastical authority, which had led the Church away from the
Biblical truth.21 For him what cannot be proved by Scripture has no authority in the Church. This
profound tenet of Luther is evident in his final statement when he was ordered to recant his
writings in the summer of 1521 at the Diet of Worms: Unless I am convinced by the testimony
of the Scriptures or by clear reasonfor I believe neither the Pope nor the Councils alone, since
it is established that they have often erred and contradicted themselvesI am bound by the
Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not
retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience.22
However, the understanding of Scripture, Luther clarified, should be seen in the context
of the distinction between law and gospel. He clarified that law and gospel are not to be
simplistically distinguished as if the Old Testament were the law, while the New Testament is
the gospel.23 The law and gospel belong together as two testaments of God, which are ordained
for our salvation so that we may be freed from sin.24 Although the Old Testament is indeed
occupied with law, Luther believed it also contains the gospel; just as the New Testament chiefly
contains the gospel but also contains the law.25
While the Mosaic Law in the Old Testament is clearly given to Israelites and not to
Christians, there are portions of the Law that represent the natural law, especially the love of God
and neighbor. The essence of the law is being interpreted in the Sermon on the Mount. For
21
A comprehensive discussion of Luthers thought on the authority of the Word of God is done by Werner
Fhner, Das Wort Gottes im Luthers theologie (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984) and Thomas Peters,
Cherish the Word: Reflections on Luthers Spirituality (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1984).
22
Luther at the Diet of Worms, 1521, WA 7, 830; LW 32: 112-113. (Emphasis added)
23
This argument was made in Luthers disputation against the Antinomians, particularly Johann Agricola
(1499-1566), who insisted that the law is to be identified with the Old Testament and the gospel with the New
Testament. Luther stressed that law and gospel, though opposite, are not in conflict but both belong together for the
redemption of the sinner. The law shows our sinfulness while the gospel leads us to repentance resulting in
conversion. Against Antinominians, 1535-1538, WA 39.I, 414, 11-12.
24
Against Latomus, 1521, WA 8, 103.36-37; LW 32: 223.
25
Against the Antinomians, WA 39.I, 535. Cited in Lohses Martin Luthers Theology, 191.
Luther, the preaching of Christ does not mean to abolish the law or introduce a new law but
rather brings life to the law, which means to take the same law in such a way as to teach us how
to behave and really fulfill it.26 All by itself, declared Luther, the Law is so rich and perfect
that no one need to add anything to it; for the apostles themselves had to prove the Gospel and
the proclamation about Christ on the basis of the Old Testament.27 Christ also preached the Law
so we can recognize our sins; however, the preaching of the Gospel is the real means to
salvation. It is only through faith and the Holy Spirit that we become doers of the Law, primarily
because faith engenders good works. Apart from faith, we merely force ourselves to follow the
law out of fear and hypocrisy and not an inherent spring of action. What the Gospel brings is not
a new doctrine to undo or change the Law, but, as St. Paul says (Rom. 1:2), the very same thing
that was promised beforehand through the prophets in the Scripture.28
If Luther believed on the other hand, that the natural law is the foundation and norm of
ethics for both Christians and non-Christians, and on the other, that Christians are moved by faith
to produce good works and spontaneously become doers of the law, then one may ask the
question, Does Luther have Christian Ethics? Is there anything distinctive about the ethical
standards of a Christian, and does the Christian still need an external ethical norm in order to be
morally responsible in the world? Luther believed that although faith in the Gospel entirely
justified a believer and was the necessary foundation of truly good works, the believer still needs
the continuous preaching and teaching of the law and gospel which continue to sanctify the
believer throughout his or her life. How can ethics be Christian? Is there a particular distinction
of Christian Ethics among the universal ethics of all children of God or among all people who
are God-fearing or morally responsible? The inclusiveness of natural law simply demands the
universality of Christian Ethics. It follows that Christian Ethics should be inclusive to Christians
and non-Christians. After all Jesus Christ displayed his inclusive character toward other tribes, a
gesture that was a grave offense against the Jews, the tribe of Jesus. Natural law is deeply rooted
in Luthers thought that exemplifies a morality applicable to all people. For him this law of
26
Sermon on the Mount, WA 32, 366; LW 21: 69.
27
Ibid.
28
On The Sermon on the Mount, WA 32, 366; LW 21: 69.
nature is the foundation of ethics and this could serve as a common morality for all tribes and
religions. But as far as law and gospel are concerned, the question remains, Does Luther have
Christian Ethics? The Christological basis of Luther answers these questions.
Christological Basis
For Luther, Christian ethics can only be based on a life in and with Christ.29 On the other
hand, Luther sharply criticized a medieval soteriological tradition that had sought to base itself
on the imitatio Christi. In the 1535 Lecture on Galatians, Luther emphasized that Scripture
presented Christ primarily as a gift and only then as an example. He is the mirror in which to
contemplate how much one is still lacking, lest one become self-righteous.30 But Luthers
insistent denial of the soteriological significance of the imitatio Christi cleared the way for
Luther to emphasize the ethical importance of Jesus example (Ausbund, exemplar, exemplum)
so as to provide moral guidance and direction to Christians in their vital role in society and the
world. Luther found Christological interpretations in Psalms in which several themes typical to
Saint Augustines Christological writings, such as Christ as sacramentum et exemplum, were
articulated.31 In the ethical sphere, Luther spoke of Christ as an example, Christ as a model
or of conforming to Christ in His suffering and resurrection.32 The paradigmatic life, work,
death, and resurrection of Christ was the foundation of Christians in their moral life. Take for
instance, Christians as salt and light of the world has been drawn from Christ who starts
29
For a discussion on the relationship of Luthers Christology and Ethics, see Dietmar Lage, Martin
Luthers Christology and Ethics (Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1990); also prominent on
Christological motifs are the works of Marc Lienhard, Luther: Witness to Jesus Christ: Stages and Themes of the
Reformers Christology trans. Edwin H. Robertson (Minneapolis: Ausburg Publishing House, 1982); Bernhard
Lohse, chapter on Christology, in Martin Luthers Theology, 219-231; and Alfonso O. Espinosa, The Christology
of Martin Luther in Daniel M. Harmelink, ed. Let Christ Be Christ: Theology, Ethics & World Religions in the Two
Kingdoms (Huntington Beach, California: Tentation Press, 1999), 59-70.
30
Lecture on Galatians, On Galatians 5:8, 1535, WA 40.II, 42-43; LW 27: 34.
31
Augustines sacramentum et exemplum is found in his Treatise on the Trinity, as cited by Lienhard,
Luther: Witness to Jesus Christ, 25.
32
Commentary on Psalm 2, 1532, WA 45, 207; LW 12: 76; Sermon on Cross and Suffering, 1530, WA 32,
32; LW 51: 198; Lecture on the Gospel of Saint John, 1537, WA 46, 644; LW 22: 117, 96n.
salting and shining as an example to teach them [Christians] what they should preach.33
Christians serve as little Christs to the neighbor.
This relationship of Christology and ethics was also depicted in his lectures on the
Hebrew Bible, particularly in his mature exegesis of Genesis, where the relationship between the
virtues of Christ and the role of Christians on earth was given emphasis. The reformer laid out in
a radical, lively way Christs divine nature, omnipresence in creation, incarnation, and the
remarkable virtues of Christs humanity by linking these to his interpretation of creative and
redeeming action expressed in Genesis and Psalms. Christs divinity showed his equality with
the Father, not as mere spectator in creation but as a coequal Creator and Worker, who still
governs and preserves all until the end of the world.34 In many instances, Luther integrated the
relevance of selected passages in the New Testament and the Gospel on these later writings. The
reformer made Christ and the Gospel alive in these mature works by applying the message of
salvation in a pedagogical, pastoral, theological, and ethical manner. Just as he articulated in his
early writings, his later works depicted that soteriology was always the primary aim of his
Christology.35
The best distinction of Christians in the world is that they are the bearers of the cross of
Christ. These rare birds on earth are always ready to suffer for the sake of their love for the
neighbor. All that was mentioned about Christ in almost all of his writings concerns the Christian
in relation to his or her neighbor as a suffering servant and the daily battle against sin. The life of
the Christian, which is always based on Christ, actively participates in the world, through ones
calling or vocation, by living out the Gospel so that creation, that is, both human and nonhuman,
could be preserved and redeemed. This vibrant role on earth would only work if there is union
between Christ and the believer. Hence, this ethical responsibility in the world is basically the
fruit of justification by faith as faith must precede good works. This proves that Christology and
justification are predominantly interconnected.
33
Sermon on the Mount, 1521, WA 32, 525; LW 21: 67.
34
Commentary on Psalm 102, WA 43, 515; LW 14: 186; Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 1:3, WA 42, 14-16;
LW 1: 18-19; Lecture on the Gospel of Saint John, 1537, WA 46, 564; LW 22: 28.
35
Lienhard, 22-23; Lohse, 223-224.
Christs neighborly love, humility and his being a suffering servant were the prominent
virtues that a Christian needs to emulate; this was best described in his theologia crucis. Making
Christ as the example in the life of the believer is having the ability to live a productive life in the
world for the sake of the neighbor and creation.
The Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms
While the Word of God in the Gospel works for the redemption of sinners, the fact
remains that society, both human and nonhuman, is still plagued by sin. At this juncture,
Luthers doctrine of the Two Kingdoms is very essential to his social ethics as far as dealing with
sin and sinners is concerned.36 This doctrine proposed that there was a Kingdom of the World
and the Kingdom of God, and relates to his doctrine of Law and Gospel. Luther emphasized the
significance and role of the secular government in the Kingdom of the World, which he regarded
as ordained by God.37 Political authorities are to rule the earthly kingdom by applying the law to
reprove the wicked and protect the good. The rulers are there to maintain peace in the Kingdom
of the World and help preserve the orders of creation by applying the secular law and the sword
to the wicked. Luther said the government is there to hold sin in check.38 In explaining the
powers of enforcement of the Kingdom of the World, Luther refers to the sword in Romans
13:4 and also uses what the Scripture calls Gods wrath or Gods rod in Isaiah 14: 5-6.
36
Luther fundamentally broke with the medieval ethos and ethics of the corpus Christianum. This is
argued by John C. Raines in his article, Luthers Two Kingdoms and the Desacralization of Ethics in Encounter,
vol. 31, no. 1 (Spring 1970): 121-148. Also see Fritz Hhle, Luther und die Lehre von den zwei Reichen heute
(Dresden: Poly-Druck, 1997); Heinrich Bornkamm, Luthers Doctrine of Two Kingdoms in the Context of his
Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), and Anders Nygren, Luthers Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms
(London: International Fellowship of Reconciliation, 1959).
37
Government is one of the Orders of Creation or Schpfungsordnungen. According to Luther after the
Fall the civil government was established by God as a remedy required to hold sin in check. He applies Romans 13
as his support, Let every person be subject to governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and
those that exist have been ordained by God. Sometimes he calls it the rule of sin. This is the one and foremost
function of the government, as Paul says (Romans 13:4): Government bears the sword for the punishment of the
wicked. Genesis Lectures, 1535-1545, WA 42, 79; LW 1: 104.
38
Ibid.
On the other hand, the Kingdom of God is the realm where believers are ruled by God
through the Gospel.39 The law and Gospel function differently though they complement each
other in dealing with sin. The law serves to show persons their sin and to convict them of sin,
though it does not save a person from sin. In other words, the law cannot make the heart
righteous. It is the Gospel that assists people to achieve righteousness and have the refuge to
experience forgiveness and salvation from God. To quote Bernhard Lohse, The law accuses, the
gospel acquits.40 The secular kingdom needs the spiritual kingdom as much as the spiritual
kingdom needs the secular.
Both Christians, who are justified by faith, and secular rulers, though not necessarily
Christians, hold a significant role in preserving the created order and in maintaining peace and
justice in the world. The secular rulers exercise punitive measures to make people behave well
outwardly, while the spiritual kingdom is there to create the proper attitudes of the heart.
Christians, who are citizens both of the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the World, are
active in the world to live out and share the Gospel of salvation. Essentially, Christians who have
the gift of leadership can be public officials to help preserve the fallen creation.41 It is the task of
believers to radiate the Kingdom of God into the Kingdom of the World.
Interestingly enough, in Luthers thought, the office of preaching has a vital role in the
political life of both rulers and citizens. The proclamation of the Word edifies citizens to respect
the government and gives direction to fathers, mothers, children, and servants regarding their
proper duties in society. It also confirms, strengthens, and helps to sustain authority. However,
preachers of the spiritual kingdom have the responsibility to admonish and rebuke civil rulers
who are unjust. It is the responsibility of those in the office of preaching to reproach unjust rulers
through Gods Word, spoken publicly, boldly, and honestly, because it is far more seditious,
according to Luther, if a preacher does not rebuke the sins of the rulers.42 According to Luther,
unjust rulers are subject to the wrath of God. Occasionally however, Luther admonishes
39
Commentary on Psalm 8, 1537, WA 45, 79; LW 12: 104.
40
Lohse, 272.
41
Temporal Authority: To What Extent It Should be Obeyed, 1523, WA 11, 263; LW 45: 103.
42
Commentary on Psalm 82, 1530, WA 31.I, 197; LW 13: 49-50.
Christians to be obedient and supportive to the civil government and play an active role in
preserving an orderly society. Nevertheless, Luther is unswerving in his social teaching that
Christians have no right to wield a sword to resist a tyrannical regime. The church has to speak
up prophetically through the office of preaching whenever the fundamental values of faith are
violated. Christians have the right not to obey when rulers attempt to impose their will in
spiritual matters.
His teaching about political authority in the secular lives of believers is a predominant
element in Luthers social ethics. Civil authorities in the world are portrayed as necessary as
the administration of the home and the church. Governments are needed to reprove us, who, as
Luther writes, swagger about and brag and boast as if we had life, riches, power, honor, and
such things as if ourselves were to be feared and served. This is the way the wretched, perverse
world acts, drowned in its blindness, misusing all the blessings and gifts of God solely for it own
pride and greed, pleasure and enjoyment, and never once turning to God to thank him or
acknowledge him as Lord and Creator.43 Government officials are not the only ones who are
admonished to exercise political responsibility in society, but also parents, teachers, and the
clergy. He holds that the world, which is plagued with wickedness, is in dire need of ethically
responsible authorities, in government, family, and church. It is interesting to note that the
doctrine of Two Kingdoms teaches Christians a positive attitude towards politics and society and
encourages them to play an active role in both.
The Sacredness of All Vocations
The ethical values of humility and interdependence are emphasized in Luthers

Reformation principle of the sacredness of all vocations. Every individual, according to him, has
his or her own calling or station in life, which Luther called simply their vocation. Vocations
are established by God and are used to preserve order, justice and peace in the world.44 All of us
are placed into a definite relationship to one another. We are called to serve one another, respect
43
Genesis Lectures, WA 42, 205; LW 1: 278.
44
It is Gods work to have distinct stations in the world, and that these make for right and righteousness
and thus preserve the peace. WA 31.I, 399, 409; LW 13: 370; cited by Paul Althaus, Ethics of Martin Luther, 37.
one another, and need one another. As Luther said: So you see that God creates one and the
same standing within the great inequalities of many different stations and persons as he himself
ordains how they must live in this life, and yet in such a way that each one perform his office and
do the work of that office as his station requires in the humility which renders all stations and
persons equal in the sight of God, since he has created them all alike and to him one is as good as
the other.45
Vocation itself is good, according to Luther, and its goodness remains no matter how
much people misuse it. All vocations are sacred in the sight of God. In fact, no vocation regards
itself as above the others. To quote theologian Bernhard Lohse, Luther broke with the medieval
idea that spiritual estate is above the temporal.46 It simply means that those in the ministry
should not regard their vocation as higher than the secular occupations. All are equal in the sight
of God, though each one has its own role in the preservation of life in the world.
The virtue of humility is required to every station in order to promote the bond of love
and unity in the world. This humility, he says, belongs to being a Christian as one of the
primary and necessary virtues.47 Every station values interdependence, and no one should look
to oneself alone. All stations have a useful and necessary function in the life of the world. Luther
declared: God has created all stations and before him none is the lowest, except those who are
arrogant and proud, and none is better, except those who cast themselves down to the lowest
place. You may well be of high rank and in high office, but if you were required to give an
accounting of the gifts which have you received, you would be worse off than a poor cowherd.48
The application of the virtue of humility in all vocations is highly prized in the Kingdom of God.
Luther affirms this: When you are living amidst great honor and dignity, and thus humbled
yourself, God would have said to you too: Friend, you are sitting in the lowest place; come up
45
Sermon at the Dedication of Castle Church in Torgau, 1544, WA 49, 611; LW 51: 350-351.
46
The Church of the Middle Ages taught that the ministry is the only sacred and highest vocation, while
secular ones are regarded inferior. In fact, ecclesiastical authorities taught that the latter must serve the former.
Lohse, 246.
47
Sermon at the Dedication of the Castle Church in Torgau, 1544, WA 49, 611; LW 51:351-352.
48
Ibid.
higher.49 This is exactly what the Gospel teaches in Matthew 23:12; that whoever exalt
themselves will be humbled, and whoever humble themselves will be exalted.
One related ethical dimension of humility is the value of obedience in Luthers social
thought. This moral value is necessary in the renunciation of self-centered ambitions that distort
the proper use of ones vocation. This renunciation of selfishness entails obedience to all
authorities ordained by God, particularly in the family and the civil government, because of their
great role in the preservation of life in the world. Luther based this profound demand of
obedience on the ordination of authority by God to restrain the sinfulness of human nature. To
counter the growth of sin, Luther teaches the role of fathers, mothers, teachers, clergy, and
secular rulers in the preservation of life, peace and justice in the world. Filial obedience in the
family is basically the pattern applied by Luther in obeying the secular rulers. The relationship
between parents and children was the fundamental form of authority upon which Luther based
his political ethics. Applying the fourth commandment in his Sermon of the Catechism, Luther
points out: Fear God and trust in this commandment. This is done when, for the sake of the fear
of God, you do not despise, defame or contradict your parents, but rather you show them honor,
and be obedient to them, and regard them so highly in your heart that there is nothing better in
your heart than your parents.50
It is interesting to note at this point the importance of the family to Luthers thought,
which was seen by Luther as one of the cornerstones of society as far as care of parents and
education of children are concerned. This profound interest of Luther in family matters has
relevance to our contemporary society, where the demise of family values such as filial
obedience, support of marriage, and the moral role of parents has harmed our society.
One of the vital responsibilities of parents is to let their children learn and love the value
of vocations. In one of his treasured manuscripts, A Sermon on Keeping Children in School,
Luther stressed the importance of educating the young on the sacredness of vocations:
Every occupation has its honor before God. . . . All the estates and works of God are to
be praised as highly as they can be, and none despised in favor of another. . . . These
ideas ought to be impressed particularly by the preachers on the people from their youth
up, by schoolmasters on their boys, and by parents on their children, so that they may
49
Ibid.
50
Ten Sermons on the Catechism, 1528, WA 30.I, 68; LW 51: 147.
learn well what estates and offices are Gods, ordained by God, so that once they know
this they will not despise or ridicule or speak evil of any one of them but hold them all
in high regard and honor.51
To have children with good morality fortifies a good society, because making them honorable
and well-bred citizens is to create real assets for society. Care and attention to the young people,
specifically in educating them, should be the greatest concern of parents. The role of parents
toward their children is a crucial ethical responsibility that builds a good society, because a
household is the most important unit of society. For Luther, parents have the highest authority on
earth because God has instituted them as his representatives, and furthermore, they exercise the
functions of both the secular and spiritual authority for their children. Applying the principle of
the priesthood of all believers, parents nurture their children with the Word of God, a key tool in
preserving moral life while instilling the ethic of discipline, and the value of obedience to
authorities.
The Theology of the Cross
The heart of Luthers theology and ethics is his theologia crucis or theology of the
52
cross. Christians, who live out the Gospel in the world, are admonished by Luther to express
their faith through love of neighbor, even to the point of suffering, which demonstrates the
sacrificial love exemplified by Christ in his suffering on the cross. Luther wrote this as the
Christian law in the Gospel that transcends natural law or even the universal law of love. It is
because Christians, according to him, are called to suffer and bear the cross in this world for the
sake of the neighbor and the love of God. In his 1524 tract, Admonition to Peace, a Reply to the
Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia, he was consistent in interpreting his Two Kingdom
51
A Sermon on Keeping Children in School, 1530, WA 30.II, 558; LW 46: 246.
52
Luther began to use the term Theology of the Cross (theologia crucis) in the fall of 1517 particularly in
his Disputation Against Scholastic Theology and it took on precise formulation in his theses for the Heidelberg
Disputation in spring of 1518, when he contrasted his Theology of the Cross against the Theology of Glory
(theologia gloria) of the ecclesiastical authorities. From then on, Luther used theologia crucis in various contexts,
predominantly in his theological and ethical discussions. In fact, it became the core of his theological and ethical
thoughts. For a discussion of Luthers theologia crucis, see Lohses Martin Luthers Theology, 36-39; Althauss
Theology of Martin Luther, 25-34 and Ethics of Martin Luther, 33-34; Walther von Loewenich, Luthers theologia
crucis (Mnchen: C. Kaiser, 1954); and Alister E. McGrath, Luthers Theology of the Cross: Martin Luthers
Theological Breakthrough (New York: B. Blackwell, 1985).
doctrine to the peasants, instructing them not to regard themselves as judges and not to grasp the
sword and sow violence. He reminded them about the Gospel: Indeed, our leader, Jesus Christ,
says in Matthew 7 [5:44] that we should bless those who insult us, pray for our persecutors, love
our enemies, and do good to those who do evil to us.53 A Christian, Luther wrote, is a rare
bird.54 Luther insisted that the lowly peasants were deceived by some false prophets who led
them away from the Christian law, which is nothing else but the wisdom of the cross.
Luther steadily maintained that Christians should never avenge themselves, but to leave it
to the wrath of God and to the office of preaching when civil rulers become unjust. He further
declared, We have all we need in our Lord, who will not leave us, as he promised [Heb. 13:5].
Suffering! Suffering! Cross! Cross! This and nothing else is the Christian law!55 Luther had to
redirect Christians toward a more positive perspective on human realities, particularly suffering.
He said, God has let his saints be tortured, and how much he has let them suffer, in order that,
almost slain, they might fulfill the sacrament of baptism, die, and be made new.56 God trains
and tests the believers throughout their life, with all kinds of sufferings, in order that they may be
triumphant over pride, greed, lust and self-seeking love that disregards love of God and
neighbor.
Essentially, the Genesis Lectures depict the incarnation as the basis where we find the
connection between creation and the theology of the cross. This would relate Luthers
understanding of the masks of God (larvae dei) that applies the link of creation with the
cross.57 Creatures are the masks of God and they are used as God encounters humanity through
53
Christians, according to Luther, are not commonplace, because a Christian is a rare bird. The Christian
law for a rare bird is the Cross or suffering. In fact, a Christian must accept the fact that one has to be persecuted
even to death. He wrote, How then will you die and give up your life, or love your enemies and do good to them?
WA 8, 316; LW 46: 29.
54
The metaphor of rare bird signifies the element of sacrifice. Christians are not found anywhere
because they never avenge themselves but leave it to the wrath of God. Luther said, How then will you die and give
up your life, or love your enemies and do good to them? O worthless Christians! Dear friends, Christians are not so
commonplace that so many can assemble in one group. Ibid.
55
Ibid.
56
Ibid.
57
Masks of God appears quite frequently in Luthers sermons and commentaries. For references see
Gustaf Wingren, Luther on Vocation (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1957) and Philip Watson, chapter 10 in Let
God be God, 76-84.
hiddenness, in such a way to enable them to have faith. But when sin came to humankind, it
distorted humanitys ability to recognize God. Luther says:
When we embrace this mask, adoring, praying, and sacrificing to God there, we are said
to be praying to God and sacrificing to Him properly. Thus there is no doubt that our
first parents worshipped God early in the morning, when the sun was rising, by
marveling at the Creator in the creature or, to express myself more clearly, because
there were urged on by the creature. Their descendants continued the custom, but
without understanding. Thus this practice turned into idolatry. . . . Thus when Satan led
Eve away from the Word, she immediately fell headlong into sin.58
The Creator is concealed in the things that were made, and the mask can never be removed for us
to see God because of human wickedness. Luther refuses, Watson writes, to regard the
creatures as a mere starting-point in the quest for God.59 Creatures can only provide knowledge
about God. In fact, it easily turns that knowledge into idolatry. In fact, the mask can be in
creation or on the cross. Luther insists that it is only by Gods help and not by human effort that
we can be reconciled with God. It is the Gospel through the incarnate Christ that a human being
is restored in the image of God. This hiddenness means that faith alone is capable of affirming
Gods presence in the world. The liberating presence of the incarnation continues through the
sacramental presence of Christ in the sacraments of baptism and Eucharist. The Word and the
sacraments communicate the presence of Christ in the experience of forgiveness.60 The
experience of forgiveness enables a person to receive ones wholeness of being. It is a wholistic
healing that is experienced in baptism and in the Holy Communion.
The Sacramental Basis
Although Luther believed that Christians are martyrs on earth, he maintained that no one
becomes a saint in the world. He wrote, As long as flesh and blood remain, so long sin also
58
WA 42, 12-13; LW 1:15.
59
Watson, 79.
60
And indeed, we are reborn not only for life but also for righteousness, because faith acquires Christs
merit and knows that through Christs death we have been set free. In this manner, this image of the new creature
begins to be restored by the Gospel in this life, but it will not be finished in this life. Genesisvorlesung, WA 42, 48;
LW 1:64.
remains. Consequently, constant warfare is necessary.61 While believers are called to suffer in
this world for the sake of the neighbor and their love of God, they also engage in the battle of the
Spirit against sin. Luther enunciates this spiritual battle in his baptismal theology,62 which is
crucially important to his ethics in relation to his soteriology. He defines baptism as an external
sign or token, which so separates us from all men not baptized that we are thereby known as a
people of Christ, our Leader, under whose banner of the holy cross we continually fight against
sin . . . for it signifies that the old man and sinful birth of flesh and blood are to be wholly
drowned by the grace of God.63
Life after justification is crucial for Luther, because baptism for him is a daily slaying of
sin. He dismisses the idea that baptism is a kind of magical rite that washes away all sins and
makes one wholly pure for the rest of ones life. On the other hand, many Christians were still
laboring under the idea that baptism simply seals a person as a Christian, marking them as a
member of the church. Such people never bother to consider what baptism accomplishes and
will accomplish, because for them baptism has already accomplished the drowning of sins
once and for all. The phrase we continually fight for sin in Luthers thinking signifies the
dynamic life of a moral person. This is the dynamic operation of baptism: the daily slaying of sin
and its consummation when death comes. Moral life is being shaped by this struggle. It is likened
to gold being burned in a furnace so it will turn into a shining jewel.
Interestingly enough, for Luther the infusion of the Word is vital at this point, particularly
in the stage after baptism or being justified by faith. The dynamics of moral life, described as the
struggle against sin, basically relies on feeding on the Word. The Word must be proclaimed and
heard so that the vigor of baptism is recovered every day. The constant feeding on the Word
provides enough strength for victory in the battle against sin. Luther wants us to recognize that
sin never ceases entirely while we still live. The sinful nature is still active and haunts a believer
every single day. No one has yet been made pure. This is the reason why the infusion of the
61
WA 12, 326; LW 30: 71.
62
For a comprehensive discussion of Luthers theology of baptism, see Tranviks Luther on Baptism,
Lutheran Quarterly 13:1 (Spring 1999): 75-90, Triggs Baptism in the Theology of Luther (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994),
Althauss chapter on baptism in his Theology of Martin Luther, 353-374, and Lohses Martin Luthers Theology: its
Historical and Systematic Development, 88-100.
63
The Holy Sacrament of Baptism, 1519, WA 2, 730; LW 35, 29. (Emphasis added)
Word is to be ongoing in every believer. But what if a Christian commits a sin after baptism?
Luther answers: He should all the more remember his baptism, how God has made a covenant
with him to forgive all his sins, if only he will fight against them until death.64 What I
understand from Luther is that the vigor of baptism should remain, because for him the dying or
drowning of sin is not fulfilled completely in this life for it lasts as long as we live and is
completed only in death.65 Suffering is useful to the Christian for the fulfillment of ones
baptism.
This dynamism of baptism in Luthers social thought is reinforced by the blessing of the
sacrament of the Lords Supper, which is fellowship and love. Without the fellowship and love of
the body of Christ, which is the Church or the community of believers, the faith of a believer
has no strength at all in the battle against sin. Christ, who is the head of the Church, and with all
the members of His body, comes into the life of a believer the moment he or she has been
justified by faith to share the blessing of fellowship and love. This is the significance of the
Lords Supper. Luther wrote: See to it that here you exercise and strengthen your faith. . . .
Then do not doubt that you have what the sacrament signifies, that is, be certain that Christ and
all his saints are coming to you with all their virtues, sufferings, and mercies, to live, work,
suffer, and die with you, and that they desire to be wholly yours, having all things in common
with you.66
Luthers doctrines of the incarnation and the Eucharist are the best manifestation of
Gods active presence in creation. While God in the incarnation had demonstrated that the
Creator has become a creature,67 the Eucharist has served as the extension of the incarnation by
the living presence of Christ in the bread and wine. Christs active presence in the bread and
wine signifies the intimate relationship of God and His creatures. By taking the sacramental
elements, one becomes part of Christ and His suffering for the sake of the neighbor.
64
Luther called it alliance with God, an act of combating sin until death. Baptism goes into force and
operates the battle against sin using the armor of faith. He wrote, This faith a person must hold so firmly that he
would cling to it even though everything and all sins attacked him. Sacrament of Baptism, WA 2, 735; LW 35: 37.
65
WA 2, 732; LW 35: 30.
66
The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ, and the Brotherhoods, 1519, WA 2, 750;
LW 35: 61.
67
Predigten, 1533, WA 37, 43.35.
Faith is being strengthened by the Eucharist against all wickedness in creation, and by
taking the bread and wine as a community of faith, Christ fights with us against sin, death and
all evil.68 The external signs of bread and wine signify elements of suffering that are applied to
the wisdom of the cross. We see now how necessary, Luther claims, this sacrament is for
those who must face death, or other dangers of body and soul, that they not be left in them alone
but be strengthened in the fellowship of Christ and all saints.69 The moral person must be on
guard against the evil that generates the vices of pride, lust and greed which distort the peace and
harmony of the created order. This is so because even though a person has become righteous, he
is not yet completely rid of evil lusts.70
Soteriological Basis
The cutting-edge of Luthers ethics is his doctrine of salvation, which is justification by

faith. For Luther, faith of a renewed or saved person is the main motivation of every goodness
and love to God and to every creature. The life of an individual who has been saved by faith in
God has a sound morality. Unless God saved us and restored to us the imago Dei, we cannot
truly love other creatures.71 The one who has the love of God has the capability to love others.
After the Fall the human being lost the created goodness in him or her. Because of sin,
humankind corrupted the goodness and love that was implanted in their hearts. However, Luther
believed that the goodness or integrity of other creatures remains after the Fall. Sin belongs only
to humans, although creation is still subjected to peril due to humans abusive character. In
Luthers own words, the natural law that was written in the hearts of people has been largely
obscured and forgotten.72 Although reason as such, with its logical, technical, and cultural
68
We are one with Christ if we partake of His body and blood, the symbol of one bread, one drink, and
have all thins in common. According tot Luther Christ enkindles in us His love that we take on His form and rely
upon His righteousness. Through the interchange of His blessings and our misfortunes, we become one with Him.
Blessed Sacrament of Body of Christ, WA 2, 748; LW 35:58.
69
WA 2, 753; LW 35:65.
70
Sermon on the First Epistle of St. Peter, WA 12, 272; LW 30: 27.
71
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 1:26, WA 42, 47; LW 1: 63.
72
WA 16, 447; WA 39.I, 540.
capabilities is not destroyed by the fall, it is now in bondage to the fallen human creatures.
Because of sin, reason is not able to comprehend faith. Reason opposes faith and the Word of
God. The fallen beings, or sinners, must be regenerated for them to be reconciled with God. Only
God can produce faith in humans for them to be saved. The sinner must be renewed in order to
regain the image and righteousness of God through the teaching and preaching of the Word,
which has the purifying power. The moment the Word is received through repentance and faith
in God, a person is made new. Justification is received and one has entered into a new
relationship with God and others. When a person comes to faith, says Luther, Christ enters into
an individual and Gods Holy Spirit remains in him or her.73 The sinner has to be saved from a
corrupt way of life in order for the abusive character, toward God and the creation, to be
transformed so that the ability to love and preserve the good is recaptured.
Love of Neighbor
The next foundational element of Luthers ethical thought is the love of neighbor. Luther
is obviously indebted to the Augustinian ethos of a directed will by the love of God,74 which
inherently bears the fruit of love of neighbor. Luther places love at the very center of ethics in
both human and nonhuman society. Luther leads us to believe that without God directing our
will, we cannot authentically love other creatures.75 In other words, being justified means having
a good conscience and moral will. Thus, a good conscience and moral will can only be found in
73
It further follows from this that a Christian living in this faith has no need of a teacher of good works,
but one does whatever the occasion calls for, and all is well done. Luther cites Saint Paul: Where the Spirit of of
Christ is, there all is free. For faith does not permit itself to be bound to any work or to refuse any work,but, as the
first Psalm says, it yields its fruits in its season, that is, in the normal course of events. Moreover, one does them
all in a glad, peaceful and confident heart. . . . Thus a Christian who lives in this confidence toward God knows all
things, ventures everything that needs to be done, and does everything gladly and willingly, not that one may gather
merits and good works, but because it is a pleasure for one to please God in doing these things. One simply serves
God with no thought of reward, content that ones service pleases God. In conclusion Luther stressed: God gives
his spirit immediately to him who trusts him. Treatise on Good Works, 1520, WA 6, 206; LW 44: 26.
74
Augustine, City of God, XIV.7, trans. Henry Bettenson (London: Penguin Books, 1972), 557.
75
God directing our will is the core of Luthers idea in The Bondage of the Will, an argument fitted against
the idea of Free Will by Erasmus. Luther explained this using the example of a horseman. If God rides him, the
horse wills and goes where God wills. If Satan rides him, he wills and goes where Satan wills. There is no freedom
for the horse to choose which rider, but only the riders fight among themselves to decide who shall have and hold it.
The Bondage of the Will, 1525, WA 18, 697; LW 33: 103.
the person whose will is changed and has a good conscience toward God. It simply means one
cannot truly love ones neighbor without the love of God. In other words, without faith one
cannot truly love. This is the soteriological base of Luthers ethics. Without the experience of
salvation from God or without justification by faith through the grace of Christ, one has no
capacity to do good works. Luther wrote: Consequently, it is always necessary that the person
himself be good before there can be any good works, and that good works follow and proceed
from the good person, as Christ also says, A good tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree
bear good fruit [Matt. 7:18].76
Good works cannot precede faith. Luther said, Good works do not make a good man,
but a good man does good works.77 Faith and good works are inseparable as well. They both go
together. If one says I have faith, that means good works, like loving the neighbor, are natural to
that person. Faith inevitably implies love of neighbor. Loving ones neighbor is the product of
loving God. As Luther points out in his Treatise on Good Works, in loving God, one serves and
benefits ones neighbor.78
Loving the neighbor in Luthers thought is the best way to battle against the egocentric
desires of the self. If one lives in Christ, it means one lives for ones neighbor and no longer lives
solely for self. This was clearly articulated by Luther in his treatise On the Freedom of a
Christian: The Christian lives not in himself, but in Christ and his neighbor. Otherwise he is not
a Christian. He lives in Christ through faith and in his neighbor through love. By faith he is
caught up beyond himself into God. By love he descends beneath himself into his neighbor. Yet
he always remains in God and in his love.79 This ethic of love of neighbor teaches Christians
not to withdraw from the world for the sake of self, but to affirm the world for the sake of others.
A perfect example is when Luther applied the love of neighbor against the economic injustice of
his time, represented by the collaborative forces of church hierarchy, government, and wealthy
merchants whose egocentric character had injured the economic life of many people, primarily
76
WA 7, 59; LW 31: 363.
77
WA 7, 56; LW 31: 361.
78
Treatise on Good Works, WA 6, 297; LW 44: 97.
79
The Freedom of a Christian, WA 7, 68; LW 31: 371.
the poor, and at the same time distorted the earths natural resources. In a tract of 1524, entitled
Trade and Usury, Luther denigrates the love of money that seeks ones own good over the
love for the neighbor that shares abundant life with everyone. He wrote: What else does it
mean but this: I care nothing about my neighbor; so long as I have my profit and satisfy my
greed, of what concern is it to me if it injures my neighbor in ten ways at once?80 This economic
injustice clearly violates both the natural law and the Christian law of love. Luther at some point
regarded his prophetic writing as quite in vain because his writings had failed to restrain this
mentality among the merchant class. Nevertheless, he stepped in to offer his economic and
political ethics by applying his two kingdom doctrine; that is the love for the neighbor in the
kingdom of God and the sword of political authorities in the kingdom of the world. Both realms
complement each other to preserve good, justice, and peace in the created order.
Finally, neighborly love for Christians is distinct from any other form of love. The
Christians are always willing to suffer wrong for the sake of ones love for their neighbor.81 He
or she always bears the cross of suffering with joy in order to preserve the life of his or her co-
creature. To quote Gustaf Wingren: Love is the inner willingness to do and bear all that is
required by vocation, but it does it gladly and without resistance.82 This is the essence of the
Gospel of love which extends and encompasses to all creatures. All created beings are our
neighbors too because we all live in one biotic community. This love is not restricted to
humanity alone because the Gospel of love is to be proclaimed to the whole creation.83
80
The abuses of Globalization in his time had gone too far where merchants had the common rule of
selling their goods as expensive as they could. Luther described that every merchant at the market place thought one
has a perfect right to set any price one pleases. Merchants thought this is their right. So, Luther leaves this crucial
matter to the lords and princes that they may also do their duty to govern and control this abuse of trade. In reference
to this maxim of merchants, Luther asks: How can there be anything good then in trade? How can it be without sin
when such injustice is the chief maxim and rule of the whole business? On Trade and Usury, 1524, WA 15, 295; LW
45:247-248.
81
Lectures on Galatians, 1535, WA 26, 505; LW 37: 368.
82
Wengren, Luther on Vocation, 55.
83
Luther stressed that the Gospel is for every creature (omni creatura) basing from Mark 16: 15 and
Colossians 1: 23. See Sermon on Ascension Day, 1534, The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther vol. 6, edited
and translated by Eugene F.A. Klug, 126-127.
The Eschatological Basis
Another vital foundational element of Luthers ethics is his eschatology.84 The focal point
here is the ethical attitude toward the end of things. His eschatology is closely related to his
soteriology, the dynamics of baptism, the strengthening of faith by the Lords Supper, and his
theologia crucis. The finality of things occupies much of Luthers thought. The pain of battle
against sin ultimately would be ended by death. Only through death and suffering can a believer
receive the very greatest blessings, as he wrote:
The first, in that through death the whole tragedy of this worlds ills is brought to a
close; as it is written, Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints; and,
Though the righteous be prevented with death, yet shall he be at rest. But to the
ungodly death is the beginning of evils; as it is said, The death of the wicked is very
evil, and, Evil shall catch the unjust man unto destruction. . . . The other blessing of
death is this, that it not only concludes the pains and evils of this life, but (which is
more excellent) makes an end of sins and vices.85
It is evident here that the soteriological nature of Luthers theology of baptism and
theologia crucis are inseparable from his eschatology. Believers need always to remember their
baptism and what the Word has spoken, that they, according to Luther, should even welcome
death so sin can be overcome.86 Luther sheds light on the strange idea of welcoming death. It
simply means that one needs a positive attitude toward suffering and death. Believers need not
fear because of their right faith and hope in keeping their valued tasks in the world. Death is the
84
For a discussion of Luthers eschatology, see Ulrich Asendorf, Eschatologie bei Luther (Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1967); Pierre Bhler, Kreuz und Eschatologie: eine Auseinandersetzung mit der
politischen Theologie, im Anschluss an Luthers theologia crucis (Tbingen: Mohr, 1981); Hans Henning Pflanz,
Geschichte und Eschatologie bei Martin Luther (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1939), and Jane E. Strohl, Luthers
Eschatology: The Last Times and the Last Things (Ph. D. diss., University of Chicago, 1989).
85
The Fourteen of Consolation, Works of Martin Luther, vol. I, 146-149.
86
Sin remains in our flesh even until death and works without ceasing. But so long as we do not give our
consent to it or desire to remain in it, sin is so overruled by our baptism that it does not condemn us and is not
harmful to us. Rather it is daily bring more and more destroyed in us until death. For this reason no one should be
terrified if he feels evil lust or love, nor should he despair even if he falls. Rather he should remember his baptism,
and comfort himself joyfully with the fact that God has there pledged himself to slay his sin for him and not to count
it a cause for condemnation, if only he does not say Yes to sin or remain in it. We should remember our baptism and
what was there spoken . . . that we should even welcome death in order that we may be rid of sin. The Holy and
Blesses Sacrament of Baptism, 1519, WA 2, 732, LW 35: 35.
victory that delivers the believers from the pains of the present world. Luther acknowledges that
sin is completely defeated only in death.
However, so long as believers are still active in the battle against sin and at the same time
hopeful towards the finality of things, Luther undoubtedly teaches an ethical response to the
end of things. He admonishes believers that they should never withdraw from the world and
satisfy their own righteousness like cloistered monks. Gerhard Forde articulated this particular
idea in his book, When God Meets Man: Luthers Down-to-Earth Approach to the Gospel, by
arguing that Luther surprised the world by getting married in the midst of the Peasants War in
June 1525, because it was an act of hope to marry and rear children when you think the end is
near. Forde expounds:
As is well known, Luther together with many other Reformers felt that the end was
near; they thought that the world to come was about to break in. And the amazing thing
is that getting married was precisely part of Luthers response to that belief in the
nearness of the end! Why? Because, he reasoned, if God is coming, then a man ought to
be found living as God intended him to live on this earth! He ought to be found living as
a creature, as a human being, doing human things and taking care of the earth as God
intended.87
As an evidence, Forde highlighted Luthers letter to his friend John Ruehel on June 15, 1525,
when Luther wrote about the right attitude toward the end of things: I shall take care that at my
end I shall be found in the state for which God created me with nothing of my previous life about
me. I shall do my part even if they [the Princes, Parsons and Peasants] act still more foolishly up
to the last farewell.88
87
Fordes main argument in his book is that Luthers theology is fundamentally down to earth in
character and that he affirms Luthers criticism against ladder theology, a fruitless quest for heaven that creates a
different attitude toward the material world while being obsessed by the end of things. This is the basic reason why
Luther left the monastic life and decided to immerse his ministry in the world. Forde stresses the importance of how
one is to live and conduct oneself in the light of this hope for the world to come. He asks the question: What is ones
attitude to this world and its affairs and problems to be if one has his gaze fixed on the future world? He further
argues that we failed to understand Luthers thought on how to face the nearness of the end, imagining that we
should leave off doing earthly things and do instead something terribly pious to impress God when he shows up.
Forde applies Luthers understanding of that particular petition in the Lords Prayer, Thy kingdom come; thy will
be done on earth as it is in heaven. Forde said it is a matter of restoring here on earth the kind of peace, justice, and
love God intended. The here and now heaven is tangible to all people who seek God.See Gerhard O. Fordes
Where God Meets Man, 95-98. (Emphasis added)
88
Wohlan, weil sie denn toll und tricht sind, will ich mich auch schicken, da ich fur meinem Ende im
Stande von Gott erschaffen gefunden und nichts meines vorigen papistischen Lebens an mir behalten werde, so viel
ich kann, und sie noch tller und trichter machen, und das alles zur Letze und Ade. Denn es mir selbs ahnt, Gott
werde mir einmal zu seiner Gnade helfen. WA Br 3, 890, 531; cited by Forde, 96-97.
Forde points out that Luther is persuaded not to despise this world and neglect its affairs,
but to enter into it all the more fully and take up its concerns and tasks all the more seriously.
The best way to win the battle against sin is not to get into a self-seeking religious life like the
piety of the ladder that comes from a theology of glory, but be inspired for the preservation of
life in the world by faith and the wisdom of the cross and by the promise of the future life.
This eschatological attitude was a sheer contrast with other Christians being obsessed
with the running out of time. They turned passive and refrained to do their usual dynamic way of
spreading the gospel and taking care of the earth. In a sense, Gerald Strauss illustrates this
attitude toward the nearness of the end: Why, then, so much planning, organizing, and building?
The laws and institutions of the Reformation were made to last. Why build so well if time was
running out?89 In fact, Strauss recounts that as early as 1530s the Lutheran movement was
shaken by a sectarian division due to Philip Melanchthons obsession about the sure
confirmation of the end of times.90 They rather grumbled: What is the use of taking care of the
earth when the end of the world is on our doorstep? This exact picture was also the dilemma of
many primitive Christians in the early centuries when they were caught with passive waiting of
the end of times and sadly compromised their usual way of building their permanent
institutions.
However, for Luther the ethical attitude toward the nearness of the end is to be found
living as an active creature taking care of creation. People who are justified by faith and hopeful
toward the future life is to retain the dynamism of their baptism by winning the fight against sin
in the world and thus actively participate in the preservation of life in the created order.
Orders of Creation
Finally, while Luther speaks of various stations, offices and vocations, he also speaks
about his doctrine of the orders of creation. In his Genesis Lectures, Luther writes: This life is
profitably divided into three orders: (1) life in the home; (2) life in the state; (3) life in the
89
Gerald Strauss, Luthers House of Learning: Indoctrination of the Young in the German Reformation
(London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1978), 31.
90
Ibid., 32.
church.91 Luther strongly believed that at creation God created and established these specific
structures or orders indispensable to life and are recognized and respected by all people,
Christians and non-Christians alike.92 These institutions are created by God generally as
Schpfungsordnungen or orders of creation along with creatures like human beings, sun, trees,
lakes, rivers, ocean, fish, birds, insects, animals, and plants. Among these created orders are
marriage, family, home, state, politics, economy, and church that carry out collaborative roles for
the preservation of life in the world. Luther believed in the interrelatedness of all orders and
creatures that were ordained and created by God. Each one needs the other in order to exist and
be preserved. Prompting harm or the misuse and abuse of the orders and creatures would place
the whole creation in peril. All of these orders and creatures serve as the masks of God (larvae
Dei), bear the cross of suffering in their service to creation, and reveal Gods active presence or
immanence, though their real meaning is disclosed only on the basis of faith.93 The human
being, who is the only moral creature and the only responsible life form to carry out the creative
functions of the Schpfungsordnungen, has always been the culprit of distortion in the created
order due to his or her sinful nature. Luther voiced this root cause of the distorted creation: This
condition is the fault of the original sin, and from it all the remaining creatures derived their
shortcomings.94 It is important to note that these orders of creation clearly offer an ethics of
creation or ecological ethics to sustain the Schpfungsordnungens work of preservation and
Gods redemption of the whole created order. This particular theme, which represents the core of
this book, will be further articulated in chapter three.
91
92
Lohse, Martin Luthers Theology, 245.
93
Ibid.
94
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 1:26, WA 42: 47; LW 1: 64.
g
DISTORTION OF LUTHERS NATURAL WORLD
The sixteenth-century world where Luther lived represents a defining epoch in history
that conditioned the minds of people about human existence and the natural world. Luther was a
living witness of the decline of church dominance over the secular world. He saw the world
considerably changed and distorted with the rise of science, technology, industry, the
development of trade and commerce, and the exploration and conquest of foreign lands and
continents. The old medieval world ended with the weakening of ecclesiastical authority,
Scholasticism, monasticism, the decline of feudalism, and the breakdown of the Holy Roman
Empire. The religious sanctions of Christianity were no longer the dominant inspiration for
human existence. The Reformers claimed to offer the laity liberation from clerical domination,
more direct contact with God, and a simpler form of Christian life that was more down to earth
and faithful to the Gospel.
On the other hand, Luthers sixteenth-century world was not free from ecological
obliteration. The exploitation of European mines and forests, and the pillage of gold, silver, and
other precious goods from the Americas displayed how natural wealth and the habitats of
aboriginal peoples and other creatures were manipulated and abused by those who were engaged
in political and territorial expansion, religious mission, and domestic and international trade.
The prevailing factors of humanism, individualism, materialism, secularism, nationalism,
and hegemony had spread all across Europe and had significantly permeated European culture.
These were all engendered by the Renaissance which also got a tremendous boost from the
43
recently invented printing press.1 The focus on the individual and its relationship with society
and the world became considerably important in view of the emerging rebirth of classical
learning, technological developments or scientific inventions, new economic revolution, and the
exploration of the world beyond Europe.
With the humanist influence that Luther had, coupled with his spiritual conversion that
streamed from his newly found biblical truth, I regard Luther as a critic of his own religion by
spearheading the Reformation that further eroded the ecclesiastical authority and the self-seeking
ladder religiosity of monasticism.2 On top of that, we see Luther as a prophet of his own world
who did a constructive critique against the religious, moral, and material corruption brought by
the religious, political and economic forces that exploited Europe and the foreign aboriginal
lands. The influential church hierarchy, the emperor, monarchs, princes, landlords, local
merchants, and international traders had collaborated the plundering of natural wealth and the
exploitation of aboriginal peoples in Africa and the Americas. Luther fearlessly stood to critique
the religious, political and economic forces that were injuring the created order through the
misuse of natural resources and the degradation of nature. His theology of creation was his basis
for arguing that religious leaders, civil rulers, and citizens had to exercise moral responsibility
toward the created order (ecological integrity) and equity toward the neighbor (economic justice)
in order to obtain the health of the whole.
1
Historian James Schmiechen asserts that scholars generally agree that the Renaissance was characterized
by a number of distinctive ideas about life and humanity individualism, secularism, humanism, materialism,
hedonism, and even the identification of popular homoerotic activity. . . . Although the Renaissance brought some
benefits to the masses of people, such as the printing press, it was basically en elitist movement. A negative
development of the age was a deterioration in the power and position of women in society. James Schmiechen, A
History of Western Society: Study Guide vol. 2, 6th edition (Boston: Houghton, 1999), 209-210.
2
As a monk, Luther had observed separation from the world so he could obtain righteousness from God,
but this religiosity led him to feel guilty instead. He was not fulfilled as a religious person who was living in
celibacy and rejecting the world; not until he had his conversion experience, which he later called it his tower
experience (Turmerlebnis) because it happened in the tower of the Black Cloister in Wittenberg and later became
Luthers home. This had evidently stirred up his cause for the Reformation and consequently began his attack
against monasticism. In 1545, a year before he died, Luther wrote his spiritual conversion (traditionally dated 1513
when he experienced justification by faith alone) in the Preface to the Complete Edition of Luthers Latin Writings:
Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed
conscience. . . . At last by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words,
namely. In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written He who through faith is righteous shall live.
These I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God. . . .
Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through the open gates. WA 54, 186; LW
34: 336-337.
Distortion of Luthers Natural World 45
This chapter will look at the distortion of the sixteenth century world, Luthers critical
view of his world, and the significant events that were taking place in his time that contributed to
his rapidly-changing and distorted natural world.
Capitalism Reshaped Luthers Agrarian World
Luther was born in a medieval world of peasant agriculture under feudal economy. In
fact, his father was a peasant before he had sought to earn their living in copper mining. One can
imagine the scenery of peasant huts, barns and vast farmlands which would portray Luthers
overwhelming rural environment. Land was the basic commodity utilized for food production
and military security. The barter system was the prevailing means of exchange for land, labor
and agricultural goods. In his survey of the Mediterranean world, Fernand Braudel gives an
account of the period from the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries that points to the land as the
basic source of living, particularly food production, for almost ninety percent of people.3 Big
landowners or feudal lords controlled the economic development and life of most people in the
countryside. To quote Braudel, The plains were the property of the nobleman. This seems to
have been the rule in the Mediterranean world. A considerable distance separates rich from poor;
the rich are very rich and the poor very poor. Large estates have remained the rule in the plains.4
Land for most people had been a preoccupied good particularly those who occupied lands in
exchange of military service in a warring world of feudalism. Feudal lords battled constantly
since the early middle ages while their armies of peasants were facing off to defend and win
lands for them.
The agrarian world of Luther was basically influenced by the medieval belief that classes
of people within the feudal pyramid had the duty of serving one another as an economic
3
Now the world between the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries consisted of one vast peasantry, where
between 80% and 90% of people lived from the land and from nothing else. Fernand Braudel, The Structure of
Everyday Life, trans. Sian Reynolds (New York: Harper & Row, 1981), 49.
4
Fernand Braudel also did a comprehensive survey of the sixteenth-century Mediterranean world in his
two-volume historical book, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, trans. from
French by Sin Reynolds (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1972), 76-77.
community. Their idea of money was held to be solely a medium of exchange for articles of
consumption and not used for profit and production.5 The theory of Aristotle, which was later
picked up by the scholastic tradition, particularly the economic teachings of Thomas Aquinas,6
taught that money does not produce money and anything that seeks more than this was
condemned sinful, like utilizing it for trading so as to gain profit and lending it with interest or
practicing of usury. This medieval influence was maintained by Luther in his position against the
adverse effects of the new economic order which was rapidly developing in Europe.
In Germany, a privileged few in Luthers time had seized and manipulated the commons:
the forests, mountains, meadows, fields and streams in order to harness the mines, woods, and
other natural resources for economic production. In fact, this was collaborated by rulers,
landlords and church authorities who benefited much on this extensive accumulation of wealth in
order to obtain economic prosperity and territorial expansion.
The poor, especially the German peasants, were always left being marginalized and
deprived of the use of the commons. As early as 1493, peasant uprisings cropped up against the
oppression of their lords. Their basic demand was the restoration of the tradition of their
ancestors, the Old Germanic Law.7 This was an assertion to get rid of the Imperial Roman
Law which suppressed their economic life and traditional rights. One of their traditional rights
was the use of the commons. The commons were the rich resources of nature where every
5
In an agrarian society, money is largely borrowed for consumption and need, to enable the farmer to
survive a drought or to buy seedcorn to sow and not to be used in trading to finance enterprises that can be expected
to make a high return on their outlay. Leonard W. Cowie, Sixteenth-Century Europe (Edinburgh: T. & A.
Constable Ltd., 1977), 42.
6
According to Aristotle money is simply a conventional medium for measuring demand, used to facilitate
equality of exchange. This view of Aristotle is espoused by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, 2, II,
question 78, article 1, who declares usury to be a sin. See also the Introduction to Luthers Trade and Usury, LW 45:
233.
7
The Old Germanic Law was originally enjoyed by their German forebears with enough room of peasant
rights. The restoration of this ancient German tradition was to liberate the poor peasants from oppressive taxes,
overcome the feudal crisis, and to obtain the legitimacy for the inclusive use of the commons. The Roman Law
deprived them a lot of their traditional rights. The Old Germanic Law was their indigenous culture that sustained
their forebears. The preservation of it would mean the preservation of their culture as well. To recapture their
heritage signifies their assertion of their indigenous rights as Germans. This move by the common people also
signifies the development of political maturity from the grassroots as a political participation for a better society.
For the peasants their protest was a declaration that their indigenous rights were more fitted to the Christian order of
society. In fact, their ancestors began the struggle to reclaim their indigenous rights in 1291 to protest against
foreign exploitation. See Peter Blickle, Communal Reformation, trans. Thomas Dunlop (New York, Humanities
Press, 1985), 84.
German was to enjoy life as a communal property and as a means of stable subsistence
particularly when they had sustained crop failures. In his socio-historical analysis, Friedrich
Engels indicates that the autocratic princes and other great landowners [including the church],
began to restrict the peasants use of the forests, commons, and rivers, or demanded fees for it.
Polemical phrases like the peasantry was being robbed with great dexterity, the serfs were
being wrung dry, and justice sold for money convey the actual experience of the poor.8
It is remarkable to note that the grievance of the peasants about the commons was
publicized in the fifth and tenth article of the The Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia in
1525.9
Fifth, we also have a grievance about wood cutting, for our lords have appropriated all
the forests solely for themselves, and when the poor man needs any wood, he must buy
it at a double price. In our opinion the forests held by spiritual or temporal lords who
have not bought them should revert to the entire community.10
Tenth, we are aggrieved because some have expropriated meadows from the common
fields which once belonged to a community. We would take these back again into the
hands of our communities, unless they have been honestly purchased.11
Luther advocated that private property is not evil per se. In his commentary on The
Sermon on the Mount, he claimed that riches and possessions are not sinful; the one who
possesses them is the evil. Luther is not against private property. People who served others,
particularly the lords and the princes, were allowed to obtain private property. They are,
however, to possess them in moderation and for the love of neighbor.12 Private property was
8
Friedrich Engels, Reformation and Authority (Lexington: Lexington University Press, 1968), 61.
9
The aggrieved peasants aired their demands and protest in the form of manifestos or articles. This
prominent and widely-read document, The Twelve Articles, was adopted by the peasants of Memmingen in
February, 1525. It was widely circulated in Southern Germany, and it eventually reached Luther in April 1525.
Luther admitted that many of the demands set forth in The Twelve Articles were just. See Introduction to Admonition
to Peace: A Reply to The Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia, 1525, LW 46: 7.
10
The Twelve Articles of the Peasants, February 1525, This document was printed in the Introduction to
Luthers Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia, LW 46: 13.
11
Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia, WA 8: 306, LW 46: 15.
12
Giving light to Matthew 6: 19, Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, Luther elucidates: Is it
wrong to have any treasures at all? Is this a general condemnation of everyone that gathers treasures on earth?
Surely that cannot be the case. . . . The lords and the princes have to get and store provisions for their land and
neither to be used with greed nor to oppress other creatures. Luther warned about the two most
dangerous and corrupting forces in creation: They are false preachers who corrupt the teaching,
and then, Sir Greed, who obstructs right living. Now that the Gospel is being preached again, the
people have become much greedier than there were before. They scrimp and scrape as if they
were practically dying of hunger.13 Regrettably, Luthers admonition that the lords and rulers
were permitted to have private properties as instruments for the love of neighbor was utterly
distorted. What was intended for the sake of the neighbor [poor peasants] was exploited and
plundered for the sake of ones own economic gains. Robert Crossley, in his study on Luther
and the Peasants Revolt, speaks about this economic inequity: Why should these areas [the
commons] be reserved for only one class of people? The woods and streams were actually
needed by all men. The fruit of these areas provided a variety in diet for the peasant, and at times
was of tremendous economic importance to him, especially in times of bad harvest.14
Lamentably, the practice of private property eliminated the commons. Wood cutting or
deforestation in the commons became extensive through the manipulation of traders and rulers.
On the other hand, agricultural economy had already been in peril and gradually displaced by the
emerging profit-economy of capitalism that was growing unrestricted all across Europe. Sad to
say, this new economic revolution which eventually led to the globalization in Luthers time
had generated this gloomy scenario: The poor became poorer and the rich richer. This was best
described by the reformer: These global traders oppressed and ruin all the small businessmen,
like the pike the little fish in the water. . . . It is no wonder why they quickly appropriate the
wealth of the whole world.15 It is tantamount to say that the big fish devoured all the small fish.
Luther, in turn, did his diatribe against the unjust rulers and lords in his Admonition to Peace:
To you temporal rulers and lords, you do nothing but cheat and rob the people so that you may
lead a life of luxury and extravagance. The poor common people cannot bear it any longer. . . .
people. That is why God created gold and silver and gave them mines. So we read in Scripture (Deut. 17: 16, 17)
that Moses taught the king not to have too many horses or too much gold and silver. This concedes that he gather
treasures in moderation. The Sermon on the Mount, 1532, WA 32, 368; LW 21: 169.
13
14
Robert N. Crossley, Luther and the Peasants War: Luthers Actions and Reactions (New York:
Exposition Press, 1974), 42.
15
On Trade and Usury, WA 6, 37; LW 45: 270.
This false security and stubborn perversity will break your necks. . . . Well, then, since you are
the cause of this wrath of God, it will undoubtedly come upon you, unless you mend your ways
in time.16
However, Luther evidently knew that his agrarian world was gradually changing into a
far-reaching economic revolution of capitalism. The rise and expansion of towns and cities
coupled with the rapid development of commerce, particularly the emergence of banking and
influx of foreign industrial goods, had overshadowed the present economic system and
eventually ended the military domination of peasant feudal militias because the lords had sought
to finance their military power outside the feudal system. On top of that, the manufacture of
more improved firearms all over Europe had proliferated and it enticed warring lords and civil
rulers to have an incredible military power being buttressed by trade and commerce. Warfare
goods became Europes indispensable merchandize. Braudel relates that Spain used its American
treasure to possess the worlds mightiest military force, particularly infantry and naval
firepower.17 This military advancement had potentially enhanced capitalism in Europe. New
methods of warfare were also introduced and this brought the compelling need of the constant
supply of metal to Europe. The influx of silver and other metals from foreign lands gave a
tremendous stimulus to international trade that led to the high demand of money and capital.
Thus, the flow of silver to Europe that came basically from the Americas had, to a greater extent,
displaced the German mines as a source of silver in Europe.18 Spain turned to be Europes fertile
depository of silver that streamed from the Spanish invasion of American treasure. Braudel
describes: This flow of silver poured into a country traditionally protectionist, fenced around
16
Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia, 1525, WA 8, 307; LW
46: 19.
17
In his survey, Braudel cites the Netherlands as the number one consumer of Spains American treasure:
Instead of using their silver at home, the Spanish Hapsburgs let themselves be drawn into foreign expense, already
considerable in the time of Charles V and quite extraordinary under Philip II a thoughtless policy it has often said.
The historian Carlos Pereyra called the Netherlands Spains folly, swallowing up if not all then a very large
proportion of her American treasure. In exchange the Netherlands was to provide Spain with artillery and powder.
Braudel, 479-480.
18
Ibid., 476.
with customs barriers. Nothing could enter or leave Spain without the consent of a suspicious
government, jealousy guarding the arrival and departure of precious metals.19
With this modern development, the merchant class emerged predominantly in the fast-
growing towns and cities, which eventually represented the middle class or the urban
bourgeoisie. Of equal importance was the decay of barter economy, by which the demand for
money of the new economic order became indispensable in favor of the buy and sell of goods,
including land and labor. Significant to this scenario was the substitution of money agriculture
for servile agriculture. The feudal organization of agriculture gave way to an agriculture based
on money and small holdings. Luther acknowledged the necessity of buying and selling if it was
practiced in a Christian manner, but foreign trade, according to him, only drained away the
wealth of land and people.20
Luther had little knowledge of economics and it cannot be denied that he had his
ignorance on capitalism, but Luther defended agrarian economy because trade and commerce
had a lot of evils that were just increasing the gap between the rich and poor. He bluntly said, It
would scarcely have been necessary to tell of such practices, but I wanted to include them so that
one might see what great villainy there is in trade and commerce, and to make evident to
everyone what is going on in the world, in order that everyone may know how to protect himself
against such a dangerous class.21 Evidently, capitalism was unfamiliar to Luther, but in his
entire life he saw the rapid growth of capitalist economy in the sixteenth century as a threat to
peasant agriculturists. His economic world was gradually transformed by this far-reaching
moneyed economy. Interestingly enough, this new economic revolution was conspicuously
stimulated by the European exploration of the New World and the establishment of all-water
trade routes, making Europe the center of commerce.
Huge trading companies and banking organizations emerged as they took advantage in
dealing with money lending and the buying and selling of international goods, particularly gold
19
Ibid.
20
One reason why the globalization of his time was harmful to the common people is the inactivity of
the temporal government. It would not have been permitted to exploit people had the princes of Germany prohibited
the abuses. On Trade and Usury, WA 15, 308; LW 45: 246.
21
WA 6, 48; LW 45: 265.
and silver which were generated primarily from European mines and later from the Americas.22
The most renowned commercial organization in Luthers time was the Fuggers, who were
largely engaged in international banking and became one of the wealthiest families in Europe.23
Luther witnessed the influx of trade goods from foreign lands that apparently devoured the
demand of many domestic farm products. The immense monopoly of trading companies caught
the peasant agriculturists and small businessmen powerless and eventually witnessed their local
products being gulped down by international goods. Luther describes: They control all
commodities, deal in them as they please, and practice without concealment all the tricks that
have been mentioned. They raise or lower prices at their pleasure. They oppress and ruin all the
small businessmen, like the pike the little fish in the water, just as they were lords over Gods
creatures and immune from all the laws of faith and love.24
Money lending surfaced as the big collaborator of foreign trade and commerce. Large
scale trade required capital and moneylenders gave great misfortunes to domestic businesses.
Luther obviously defended the status quo because according to him agriculture does a lot better
to common people than the luxurious commerce that only benefits the affluent. Luther argued: I
know full well that it would be a far more godly thing to increase agriculture and decrease
commerce. I also know that those who work on the land and seek their livelihood from it
according to the Scriptures do far better.25
Moderation in handling business was consistently admonished by Luther especially to
Christian merchants, because the vice of extravagance betrayed the economic equity and just
22
See Braudels chapter on Mediterranean Economy, especially on the topic Precious Metals and the
Monetary Economy, The Mediterranean, 449-460.
23
The period beginning with the dawn of the sixteenth century offered the Fuggers the best opportunity to
rise as big merchant-financiers so as to control the Holy Roman Empire as well as the international market. The
sudden rise of the Fuggers from an obscure position to the phenomenal hold on money and material need for the
transcontinental trade is worth examining. From the position of farmers the Fuggers gradually entered into weaving,
business, mining and banking. Their emergence as leading bankers occurred simultaneously with the expansion of
overseas trade with Asia as well as with the western hemisphere. Kuzhippalli Skaria Mathew, Indo-Portuguese
Trade and the Fuggers of Germany: Sixteenth Century (New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 1997), p. 101. See also the
lengthy study on the Fuggers by Mildred Hartsough, Jacob Fugger the Rich, 1459-1525, trans. J. Strieder (New
York: Adelphi Co., 1931).
24
Trade and Usury, WA 6, 50; LW 45: 270.
25
To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate, 1520,
WA 6, 467; LW 44:214.
distribution of wealth to people in the community. In one occasion, Luther, who remained
unrelenting in his criticism against the profit economy, had warned the printing shops who were
exploiting the people to acquire printed materials by benefiting huge profits from the reading
public. Luther mentioned the owners of printing shops in Wittenberg, Melchior Lotther, who had
also a wine store, and Hans Grnenberg who was the oldest printer in town. He praised and
called Grnenberg a godly man for being conscientious in his printing business, but cursed
Lotther who was earning excessive profit. God blesses a moderate and just profit, Luther said,
but a wicked and intolerable profit is cursed. It was so with Melchior Lotther, who got a very
large return from his books; every penny earned a penny.26
Crumbling Political Power
Luther witnessed the end the of the medieval political dream that all Christendom would
be brought together by a single ruler, who could restore to Europe the unity it had enjoyed in the
time of the ancient Roman Empire. Luther saw in his lifetime the crumbling situation of the Holy
Roman Empire, a political institution that claimed to continue the ancient Roman Empire
through the alliance of the emperor and the pope.27 Unfortunately, Luther noticed its impotence
and the mere shadow of its title. The emperors and popes since the empires obscure medieval
beginnings had never settled into a common political stand. As Cowie points out: The emperors
considered themselves the successors of the old Roman rulers who had possessed complete
secular and religious power, while the popes thought of the new Empire as a theocracy in which
the Emperor (and all other princes) received their authority from the Papacy, which derived its
position from God himself.28
The time when Luther was unfolding his Reformation, the newly crowned emperor,
Charles V, who was also the king of Spain, and the pope, Leo X had never supported each other
26
Table Talk Recorded by John Schlaginhaufen, (1532), WA TR 2, no. 1343; LW 54: 141.
27
See Tillmanns, The Holy Roman Empire, chapter 5, 53-66.
28
Cowie, 19.
to demolish the heretic. In fact, as Walter Tillman writes: the pope did not support this faithful
son of the Church, but allied himself with the King of France and other enemies, thus making
Charless battle against the heresy of Lutheranism futile.29
In 1517, Luther unleashed the historic protest against an abuse of his religion and
changed the face of Christianity for good. He attacked as corrupt the prevailing doctrine of
salvation, particularly the buying of indulgences and collection of relics, which for him was
repugnant to the Gospel or the biblical truth. For Luther, salvation is not achieved by human
effort but it is received by faith through the grace of forgiveness from God. He hit the core of the
horrendous scam of the church hierarchy in collaboration with civil rulers and the imperial
bankers. Corruption and dirty politics were challenged by the Wittenberg reformer:
Luther had unknowingly touched the nerve of a far-reaching political and ecclesiastical
scam. Pope Leo X needed funds to build St. Peters to impress his secular rivals, and
Albrecht provided such funds in return for the archbishopric of Mainz. Albrecht, legally
under age to hold an archbishopric and not even ordained, belonged to the ambitious
House of Hohenzollern. . . . The special papal dispensation that allowed Albrecht to
become archbishop cost a very substantial amount of money, borrowed at an exorbitant
interest rate from the famous Fugger banking house of Augsburg. To pay back this huge
loan, Albrecht, now archbishop, received the right from Leo X to sell indulgences, with
half the proceeds going to finance the building of St. Peters in Rome. It is no wonder
that Albrecht hired the best indulgence salesman he could find: John Tetzel.30
George Forell describes this scenario as a monopoly capitalism of the papacy, the princes, and a
few great banking houses.31 Most of the German princes had been considerably influenced by
Luther not to be manipulated by Rome with its repressive taxes and spurious doctrines.
On the other hand, the growing trend of independence of some nations, which earlier
being experienced by England, Switzerland and Austria, had led to a large breakaway from the
tutelage of 54Rome. Furthermore, the Emperors constant wars with France and the Ottoman
Turks had hindered his presence and rule in Germany, a huge though fragmented nation that held
strong influence within the Empire because of the role of the German electors. This was the
29
Tillmanns, 63.
30
See chapter on The Reformations of the Sixteenth Century, by Carter Lindberg in Howard Clark Kee,
et. al., Christianity: A Social and Cultural History, second edition (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey,
1998), 266.
31
Forell, Faith Active in Love, 26-27.
exact political situation of Emperor Charles V when he met Luther at his trial in the Diet of
Worms in 1521. The absence of the Emperor due to these constant battles with his enemies had
increasingly enabled the independence of the German princes from Imperial control. On top of
that, several German rulers had already been attracted by the cause of the Reformation, which
primarily advocated freedom from political and religious dominance of Rome.
Elector Frederick the Wise was the most powerful German prince in support of Luther.
Frederick valued Luther so much as a professor in the electors newly founded Wittenberg
University, his honor and pride as rulers achievement in Saxony, and he could not afford to lose
his academic jewel, especially now that the student population had significantly increased.
Frederick also expressed his sense of nationalism by upholding the German constitution against
the will of the pope that Luther, a German himself, would only be tried in Germany and not in
Rome. In return, Charles V had to make a concession with Frederick to offer Luther a fair trial so
he could finally turn over Luther to the Empire. Luther was persistently protected by his prince
even after he was convicted as an outlaw in the Diet of Worms. Frederick kept him safe by
exiling him at a Castle in Wartburg, while the emperor went to his battles.
This political situation went to the advantage of Luthers cause. In fact, his life was
spared by such eventualities. Had not Charles V been distracted by the wars against France and
the Turks, he might well have silenced Luther earlier and even before he could spread his
Reformation ideas. Had not Pope Leo X allied himself with the King of France and other
enemies of the Emperor, he might have joined hand in hand with the Imperial power to wipe out
the heretic. Had not Frederick the Wise been devoted to the development of the new University
of Wittenberg where Martin Luther was his finest professor, he might not have taken up the
cause of the Reformation as resolutely as he did. And had not Frederick abducted Luther for
safety right after his conviction at the Diet of Worms, the reformer should have been executed by
Pope Leos cohorts.
Luther was so strong with German nationalists. In fact, the growing nationalism all across
Europe affected Rome disastrously, where the religious and imperial authorities once had the
political control. Conversely, however, Luther received a blow in June 1525 when he became
unpopular among the simple folks after the Great Peasants Revolt. He sided with the magistrates
in crushing the rebellion. Rome poured all the blame to Luther, charging that his teachings led
inexorably to sectarian unrest, violence, and insurrection and accusing him of aiding and
encouraging rebellion.32 The people of Germany and adjacent nations anticipated Luthers
reaction because the cause of the Revolution was to some extent related to the Reformation
particularly on the issues of religious freedom and priesthood of all believers. Luthers The
Freedom of the Christian had been basically internalized by the peasants. It is felt, as Oberman
said, that Luther gave birth to the idea of freedom but the peasants then misunderstood this
idea.33 Criticism against Luther proliferated and consequently lost his popularity among the
common people. This had caused the peasants in Southern Germany to regard him as traitor due
to his apparent dependence with the princes, nobles and landlords who felt to be divinely
mandated to crush the peasants.34 On the other hand, I believe that Luther had no other option
but to preserve his kind of reformation, otherwise, radical reformers would take over and simply
distort his reforms.
Luther is primarily bounded by his political conservatism based on his Doctrine of the
Two Kingdoms. In fact, prior to the Peasants War, he had already in mind of a nobility-
supported Reformation. In 1520, he solicited the support of the ruling class of Germany in his
letter of appeal entitled Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation. Luther would
not have sustained to defy the threats of his life had he not won the protection of his prince
Elector Frederick. Luther insisted, as Carter Lindberg wrote, that rebellion is never justified
and especially not when identified as a Christian action. This was a position he had publicly
expressed years earlier, and it was widely understood.35
Although he became unpopular with the common people, Luther still sustained strong
support from the upper and middle classes, who were educated enough to realize the need for
religious and political reforms. This had apparently preserved Luthers Reformation leading to
32
Mark U. Edwards, Luther and the False Brethren (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1975), 60.
33
Heiko Augustinus Oberman, The Dawn of the Reformation (United Kingdom: St. Edmundsbury Press,
1986), 160.
34
Gerhard Brendler, Martin Luther, Theology and Revolution, trans. Claude Foster Jr. (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1975), 287.
35
Carter Lindberg, The Late Middle Ages and the Reformation, Part III in H. C. Kee, et. al.,
Christianity: A Social and Cultural History, 271.
the failure of Charles V to assert imperial power in Germany. Instead, the Lutheran Reformation
contributed stability to the political situation of Germany wherein, though divided in territories,
effective power remained in the hands of the various princes, who were given the right to choose
what Church they would adopt, either Lutheran or Roman Catholic, while their subjects must
accept it. The manipulative control of the political powers of the church hierarchy in Rome and
the emperor were eventually trounced by the assertion of the German princes.
Conquest and Pillage of Foreign Lands
Europeans began to engage discoveries in science and technology coupled with the
interest in exploration beyond Europe for political and economic gains as well as religious
expansion. Secular and religious rulers sought to fortify Europe from the devastation brought by
the Arab invasions and the bubonic plague, also called the Black Death, that wiped out a large
part of the population and buried Europe to economic depression. The revival of classical
learning, economic recovery, and religious mission assisted a great deal in the development of
geography and navigation. Exploration tools like the astrolabe, magnetic compass, maps, and
ships were improved and sailors were able to go farther than before in search of economic
opportunities and the desire to find the lost kingdom of Prester John as an ally against the threat
of the Turks.36 The Renaissance also made curiosity as a virtue, thereby leading the way to
expand more knowledge and discoveries, including the world beyond Europe.37 One evident
reason for the exploration was the growing military power of the Turkish Empire which cut the
36
In a crucial era of violent conflict between Christianity and Islam, Christian navigators were obsessed to
find the kingdom of Prester John in order to have a strong ally against the Turks. Despite the enormous number of
inconsistencies and improbabilities surrounding its existence, many claimed that this zealous Christian ruler and his
mighty army could universally protect Christians from the enemies of Christ. It is also widely believed that this
Christian kingdom had a glamorous possession of gold, silver, precious stones, animals of every kind, and a large
number of people being disclosed by a 12th century letter allegedly from Prester John and addressed to Byzantine
emperor Emanuel. The fruitless search was first done in Asia, particularly India, and finally in Africa. Ferdinand
Magellan, the first who circumnavigated the world, had the odd belief that he might encounter in India the Christian
kingdom. See Laurence Bergreen, Over the Edge of the World: Magellans Terrifying Circumnavigation of the
Globe (New York: Morrow, 2003); also Steven Frimmer, Neverland: Fabled Places and Fabulous Voyages of
History and Legend (New York: Viking Press, 1976).
37
Frank W. Thackeray. and John E. Findling. Events that Changed the World through the Sixteenth
Century. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2001, 88
strategic trade route between Europe and the East, particularly the flow of spices and other trade
goods from India that were shipped to the Italian trade cities.38 The exploration also served to
search for possibilities in solving serious problems that beset Europe like the depleting supply of
basic needs brought by wars, plagues, invasions by the Turks and Moors, and political instability.
One concrete example was the obvious drain of resources of Spain brought by the Muslim
conquest from 711 to 1492. With the successful reconquista of Spain, the Spanish rulers found
themselves more inclined to explore wealth outside the Iberian Peninsula in order to replenish
what was lost. For that reason, the recently-unified Spanish monarchs, Ferdinand of Aragon and
Isabella of Castile, granted Christopher Columbus approval and funding for his expedition in
1492, the same year when Spain was reconquered for the Christian fold. In his account, Leonard
Cowie describes, A successful expedition by Columbus would bring Spain the possibility of
commercial gain and of relieving the poverty of the royal treasury. It might also open up a new
way of waging the crusade against Islam with fresh allies and the prospect of establishing a great
Christian mission in the east.39 This famous voyage led Spain to conquer the New World.
The growing fascination of the globe coincided with the advancement of navigational
ships and enhanced naval military power that enabled the Europeans to go beyond their old
parochial Mediterranean world and came to be connected with the rest of the world. Portugal and
Spain dominated sea navigation in view of the fact that both countries of the Iberian Peninsula
are strategically in the Atlantic location. The need for expansion was so compelling because
Europe was in dire need of sources for economic production especially Spain and Portugal which
were devastated by the Muslim invasion and plagues. The earliest effort of exploration traces
back to the early fifteenth century when seafaring Portuguese made their way down to the west
coast of Africa. It is interesting to note that Portugal had opened the initial voyage to the open
seas through Prince Henry the Navigator (1394-1460), a younger son of King John I, who led the
expedition to Africa in 1415. He did it for two reasons: to find the source of African gold and to
suppress the Muslim presence in Africa. By the end of the fifteenth century Portugal established
a trading station in Guinea, controlled the Indian Ocean and dominated the trade route from
38
Tillmanns, 43.
39
Cowie, 70.
Africa to Europe. In the sixteenth century, however, new political and military power coupled
with modern inventions led the Spanish navigational power to overshadow the Portuguese.
Luther was merely nine years old when Christopher Columbus (1451-1506) made the
European discovery of the New World or the Americas in October of 1492, marking it as a
tremendous achievement because of the consequent possession of land, people and, above all, the
American treasure.40 However, competition persisted between Portugal and Spain and it almost
erupted into war but was averted by negotiations resulting in the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494.
This treaty stipulated the demarcation line running north and south of the New World where
Portugal got hold of Brazil, while the rest of South America and all of North America belonged
to Spain.
During the reign of Charles V, Spain also became the first to circumnavigate the world
through the expedition of Ferdinand Magellan (1480-1521), the Portuguese navigator in service
of Spain, on his round-the-world voyage from 1519-1522, although he died in the hands of
resisting indigenous warriors in the Philippines before the expedition returned home to Spain.41
He reached the Philippine archipelago on March 16, 1521 after sailing around the southern tip of
South America and going northwestward across the vast Pacific Ocean for 98 days. Magellan
40
The discovery of America by Columbus is contested by the argument that many historians underplay the
early explorers prior to 1492. Furthermore, the inhabitants that were already there during the arrival of Columbus,
though labeled as savaged people by Europeans, were essentially the first to discover the islands. In fact, Spanish
friar Bartolom de Las Casas, the defender of the aboriginal Americans, claimed that there were already civilized
empires being established in the New World before the Europeans arrived. See Bartolom de Las Casas, In Defense
of the Indians: The Defense of the Most Reverend Lord, Don Fray Bartolom de Las Casas, of the Order of
Preachers, Late Bishop of Chiapa, Against the Persecutors and Slanderers of the Peoples of the New World
Discovered Across the Seas, trans. Stafford Poole (De Kalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1978). Walter
Tillmanns (p. 43) also cited historian Sophus Ruge in his book Geschichte des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen (Berlin:
G. Grote, 1881), claiming that Columbus had no knowledge of the Viking expeditions from Greenland to Vinland
which may have antedated his discovery of Americas by almost 400 years.
41
While most historians provided a general account of the peaceful conquest and the impression that
Filipinos were friendly and the chieftains of the islands were easily persuaded to accept the European explorers, they
failed to feature the early resistance against foreign invasion when Europeans first landed in the Philippine islands
on March 1521. A month later, Ferdinand Magellan and some of his men were killed in the Battle of Mactan by the
resistance led by Lapu-lapu, the chief of the small island of Mactan, just five miles from Cebu Island. Though Spain
actually began to colonize the islands in 1565, resistance continued until the end of the Spanish rule in 1898.
Renowned Filipino historian Teodoro A. Agoncillo writes, All these pockets of resistance for various causes burst
into a national struggle as the Filipinos fought to liberate themselves from Spanish domination in the Philippine
Revolution of 1896-97. See Teodoro A. Agoncillo, History of the Filipino People, (Manila: Garotech Publishing,
1960). See also R. Po-Chia Hsia, The World of Catholic Renewal, 1540-1770: New Approaches to European History
(Edinburgh: Cambridge University Press, 1998) in the chapter on Catholic Mission in Asia; and also Renato
Constantino, The Philippines: A Past Revisited, vol. 1 (Manila: Tala Publishing Corporation, 1975).
was killed on April 1521 in the Battle of Mactan by the first Filipino resistance led by Lapulapu,
the chief of Mactan Island. Two Spanish expeditions followed Magellans but were ill-fated by
the cruelty of the Pacific. It was the third voyage, the Legazpi expedition in 1564 that succeeded
in the invasion of the Philippine islands. However, it was Magellans expedition that led
Europeans to learn the existence of the Philippines (Pilipinas in Filipino), a country in the Far
East with 7,202 islands. It was named by Miguel Lopz de Legazpi in 1542 in honor of Prince
Philip who was later to become King Philip II of Spain. The expedition also showed that the
earth is round and proved that the East Indies could be reached by crossing the Pacific.
Likewise, the quest for personal glory had to some extent motivated the European
explorers. With the strong motivation of the Renaissance, Europeans had developed the
characteristic of deep enthusiasm to discover new things and of genuine pride over ones
individual achievement.42 The Renaissance concept of individuality implies ones liberty to
explore things in the world rooted in the idea of greatness and uniqueness in human being. Euro-
centricism or superiority of the European race over other races in the world became a trait.
Basically, this has a religious implication. The Crusades against the infidels was the primary
basis.
One significant motivation of the expansion of territories and the conquest of foreign
lands is the missionary enterprise. Missions outside Europe was one of the thrusts of the
Counter-Reformation and made Spain as the Roman Catholic power by sending missionaries
overseas with the conquistadores in the New World. As Cowie describes, the Spaniards were
imbued with their soldiering, crusading tradition, thought of military conquest, division of lands
and conversion of infidels.43 After repossessing their territories from the Moors in a triumphant
reconquista, coupled with the unification of the two Spanish monarchs, Ferdinand and Isabella,
Spain surfaced to be a military superpower. It carried on to relive the reconquista and regarded it
now as a continuing crusade against the infidels by sending military expeditions designed to
seize the lands of the infidels and acquire wealth to recompense the huge devastation and losses
42
The concept of glory was already present in the European mind when it received a strong boost from
the Renaissance, which placed a premium on boldness and individualism. The Renaissance also enshrined curiosity
as a virtue, thereby stimulating the desire to know as much as possible, including the world beyond Europe.
Thackeray, 88.
43
Cowie, 71.
brought about by the wars against the Moors for almost 800 years, from 711 to 1492.44 The
collaboration of the Church with its Counter-Reformation efforts led Spain to strongly justify
that the colonization of the New World was not merely for wealth and personal glory, but for the
expansion of Christendom and for the glory of God. For Spain it was a holy cause. In fact,
providentialism and the messianic notion were applied by Spanish missionaries to indicate that
the great voyager, Christopher Columbus, and the great conquistador, Hernando Corts, were
part of the divine providence and Gods chosen ones to pave the way for the Gospel. One perfect
example is Franciscan missionary Gernimo de Mendieta (1525-1604), who regarded Hernando
Corts (1485-1547) as Gods chosen instrument, being tasked to recover in the nuevo mundo the
loss that maldito Lutero (cursed Luther) had caused in the Old World. In his Historia
Eclesistica Indiana, Mendieta asserts: Without any doubt, God chose . . . as instrument this
courageous captain Don Fernando Corts so that through him he could open the door and open
the way for the preachers of his gospel in this New World, where the Catholic Church could be
restored and recompensed through the conversion of many souls for the loss and great harm that
the accursed Luther had caused at the same time in the old Christendom.45 Luther was labeled
by Mendieta as devils instrument to damage the antigua Cristianidad, whereas he named Corts
as the new Moses who was tasked to deliver the Indians into the promised land, which is
Christendom.46
This hegemonic character of Europeans, however, became exploitative and predatory in
its occupation with foreign lands engrossed with the idea of being masters and conquerors of
44
The reconquista is the story of the struggle that lasted some 780 years to bring Spain back into the
circle of Christian nations. . . . On January 2, 1492, Ferdinand and Isabella, dressed in Moorish costume, formally
accepted control of Granada from Boabdil. Thackeray, 7.
45
Capitan Don Fernando Corts para por medioi suyo abrir la puerta y hacer camino los predicadores de
su Evangelio en este Nuevo mundo . . . la perdida y dao grande que el maldito Lutero habia de causar en la misma
sazon y tiempo en la antigua cristianidad. Translated into English and cited by Luis N. Rivera in his book, A
Violent Evangelism: The Political and Religious Conquest of the Americas (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John
Knox Press, 1992), p. 61 and also in John Leddy Phelans The Millennial Kingdom of the Franciscans in the New
World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970) quoted from the primary source, Fray Gernimo de
Mendietas Historia Eclesiastica Indiana: Obra Escrita A Fines del Siglo XVI (Mexico: Editorial Porrua, 1971),
174.
46
Y as tambin en un mismo tiempo comenz Lutero corromper el Evangelio entre los que lo
conocian y tenian tan de atras recebido, y Corts publicarlo fiel y sinceramente las gentes que nunca de l habian
tenido noticia, ni aun oido predicar Cristo. . . . Al propsito de esta similitude que hemos puesto de Corts con
Moisen. Ibid., 175.
the earth.47 The plunder of the precious metals and other raw materials in the New World and
the decimation of a large portion of the indigenous population due to plagues and wars had
ruined the abundant life of the inhabitants.
Critical of what was happening in his world, Luther denounced the motive of
acquisitiveness and the decimation of people due to the importation of endemic diseases into
Europe. Luther knew of the discoveries of foreign lands, although he criticized its effects: And
just lately many islands and lands have been discovered, to which nothing about such grace [of
the Gospel] had yet appeared for fifteen hundred years.48
One vital ethical concern of the reformer on the ill effects of the occupied foreign lands is
the emergence of endemic diseases which, according to him, were brought to Europe from the
discovered islands of the West. Luther spoke of syphilis as, a new disease, the French disease,
otherwise known as the Spanish disease, which was brought to Europe, so it is said, from the
newly discovered islands of the West. One of the great signs before the Last Day.49 He further
illustrates: When I was a boy, syphilis was unknown in Germany. It first became known when I
was about fifteen years old. Now even children in the cradle are stricken with this evil. In those
days everyone was terrified by this disease, but now so little is thought of it that even friends
who are bantering among themselves wish each other a case of syphilis.50 He also identified a
kind of plague which he described as a sweating sickness that was being transmitted by
Europeans who came from the occupied foreign lands. In his line of thought, Luther believes that
47
The thinking about the natural world was primarily domination and conquest-oriented, as Western
Christendom introduced the ethno-centric view of the world and the interpretation of Genesis 1:28 Be masters of
the earth and conquer it. Western hegemony of the three most exploited continents of the world Americas, Africa,
and Asia was at its peak during the dawn and beginnings of the Reformation in Germany. For a discussion of this
subject, see Lynn White, Jr., The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis, in Science, vol. 155 (10 March, 1967):
1203-1207; also published in Ian G. Barbours, ed., Western Man and Environmental Ethics: Attitudes Toward
Nature and Technology (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1973), 18-30.
48
Mochst aber sagen: ist doch das nit geschehen zu der Apostel zeit, ist doch deutschland bei acht hundert
iaren nach den Aposteln bekeret und itzt neulich viel inseln und land funden, wilchen nichts bisher in funfzehnden
hundert iaren erschienen ist von solcher gnaden? WA 10.I, 21.
49
Morbus novus Gallicus, Alias Hispanicus cepit, Ex Insulis novis repertis in Occidente (ut dicitur)
invectus Europae, Unum de signis Magnis ante diem Extrenum. This was first published in 1541 in his chronology,
Supputatio annorum mundi (Computation of the Years of the World), WA 53, 169.
50
Ibid., 207.
people create their own doom because of human greed. Is it not an amazing and wretched
thing? Luther declares, Our body bears the traces of Gods wrath, which our sin has
deserved.51
Human dominion over creation, including the exploitation of fellow humans, had gone too
far. This distortion or abuse of nature was particularly directed against the collaboration of the
offices of religious hierarchy, government rulers and businessmen, who had no other purpose but
their own selfish interest to expand territory and obtain wealth. The sixteenth-century world of
Luther is a perfect example of conquering, colonizing, looting, and plundering of foreign lands,
indigenous habitats, aboriginal peoples and their rich culture, precious goods, and lots of natural
wealth of the earth. The colonization of the Americas by the European conquistadors is a huge
ethical issue on which to reflect. Many species and aboriginal peoples were extinct from the face
of the earth and its precious metals were looted to make Europe wealthy and lay the capital basis
of its industrial revolution. In fact, it is sad to note that the conquest, which decimated many
innocent people,52 was even religiously justified and regarded as a holy cause and a part of Gods
providence in order to pave the way for the Gospel.
However, it was Dominican missionary Bartolom de Las Casas (1474-1566), the famous
prophet and defender of the Indigenous Americans, who witnessed and condemned the
decimation of innocent creatures. With profound indignation, this prophet-missionary voiced his
protest:
I affirm it as very certain and approved that during these forty years (1502-1542) owing
to the aforesaid tyrannies and infernal works of the Christians more than twelve million
souls, men, women and children, have perished unjustly and tyrannically. . . . The cause
of the Christians having killed and destroyed such an infinite number of souls has been
51
Ibid., 208.
52
In his survey, Open Veins of Latin America, Galeano estimates that the Indigenous population of the
Americas totaled no less than 70 million when the foreign conquerors appeared on the islands; a century and a half
later they had been reduced to 3.5 million. Galeano also described the Spaniards as hungry like swine when they
saw the greatest rich domain in the world, famous with gold, pearls, precious stones, and spices. He said, They
were in seventh heaven when they lifted up the gold as if they were monkeys. See his chapter on Lust for Gold,
Lust for Silver, Eduardo Galeano, Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of Pillage of A Continent trans.
Cedric Belfrage (London: Monthly Review Press, 1973), 21-70. With a discussion on the same theme about the
decimation of the Indigenous Americans, see also Teveran Todorov, The Conquest of America: The Question of the
Other (New York: Harper & Row, 1984), Emilio Romero, Historia econmica del Per (Buenos Aires: 1941), and
Rosemary Radford Ruether, Gaia and God: An Ecofeminist Theology of Earth Healing (San Francisco: Harper
Collins, 1994), particularly chapter 4, New Narratives of World Destruction, 85-111.
simply that their whole end was the acquiring of gold and riches in the shortest time so
that they might rise to lofty positions out of all proportion to their worth: in a word the
cause of such ills has been their insatiable ambition and covetousness.53
Although he remained Eurocentric in his dealing with the Indians,54 Las Casas denounced the
conquest as utterly unjust, and those who were involved in the wars and economic exploitation
had committed the inexpiable mortal sin. Interestingly enough, he demanded restitution by those
who called themselves Christians. He then laid out the eight-point substance of his protest and
proposition:
1. All conquests were very unjust and the work of tyrants. 2. All the kingdoms and
lordships of the Indies have been usurped. 3. The encomiendas are very iniquitous and
bad per se. 4. Both those who grant them and those who hold them sin mortally. 5. The
king does not have any more power to justify wars and encomiendas than to justify the
wars and thefts of the Turks against the Christians. 6. All the treasures from the Indies
have been stolen. 7. If those who are guilty do not make restitution, they cannot be
saved. 8. The Indians have the right, which will be theirs until judgment day, to make
very just war against us and destroy us from the face of the earth.55
For his part, Luthers concepts of justice in the world and economic equity, applied in his
attack against the evils of foreign trade, were a complaint against Europes greedy rulers and
businessmen who controlled the influx of trade goods from foreign lands. For Luther the natural
wealth of the earth should not be monopolized by a few because these are gifts of God, which
He bestows out of the earth and distributes among mankind.56 The globalization of his time
was just too much for the poor and the environment. Foreign trade, Luther continues, which
ministers only to ostentation but serve no useful purpose, and which drains away the money of
land and people, would not be permitted if we had a [proper] government and princes.57 For
53
Bartolom de Las Casas, Brevsima relacin de la destruccin de las Indias, trans. Herma Briffault
(New York: Seabury Press, 1974).
54
Las Casas was the author of the infamous reduction system, which dislocated aboriginal people from
their families and from their culture and inculcated them into European values and social systems. George E.
Tinker, Missionary Conquest: The Gospel and Native American Cultural Genocide (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1993), viii.
55
Bartolom de Las Casas, De regia potestate: Derecho de autodeterminacin (Madrid: Consejo Superior
de Investigaciones Cientficas, 1969), 282-283; cited by Luis N. Rivera, A Violent Evangelism, 245.
56
On Trade Usury, WA 15, 309; LW 45: 246.
57
Ibid.
Luther the order of politia is very important in regulating abusive forces that oppress other
creatures. He made it clear in his discussion on Genesis 4: 2:
This is the universal bane of our nature, that we are not satisfied with Gods gifts but
abuse them and thus mock their Donor and Creator. Now God bestows empires and
kingdoms, peace and other gifts in order that kings and princes might acknowledge
Him, worship Him, and give thanks to Him. But kings and princes abuse these gifts as
though He had given them in order that they might despise their Creator and generous
Giver.58
One miserable consequence of this havoc in nature was the danger to health, not just for
humans but for all creatures. Luther regarded this as great signs of the Last Day, which were
derived from the recently discovered islands in the New World. All creatures, Luther said, are
against us, and they are all equipped for our destruction. . . . Gods wrath also appears on the
earth and in all the creatures.59
58
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 4:2, WA 42, 181-182; LW 1: 244-245.
59
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 3: 17-19, WA 42, 155-156; LW 1: 208-209.
g{xx
THE ORDERS OF CREATION
Luthers understanding of the terms creation and nature depicts his disposition as a
relational thinker. Creation for him is the interrelatedness of what God has created and ordained.
This thought signifies an ethic of kinship in creation. Such understanding is remarkably akin to
the Eastern tradition, particularly the commonly-held religious view of aboriginal peoples about
interrelationship or interconnectedness of Gods creation. Gustaf Wingrens essay on the theme,
Das Problem des Natrlichen bei Luther, points out that the way Luther defines creation is not
in the more restrictive sense that we have in mind today.1 Wingren said his understanding is
more inclusive. The terms creation and nature are understood by Luther as not plainly
represented by creatures like human beings, sun, trees, lakes, rivers, ocean, fish, birds, animals,
plants, and everything else in the natural world, but they also involve vocation, politics,
economics, marriage, home or family, government, church, and all aspects of the everyday life
in the world or orders of life (Lebensordnungen). Management of all these aspects of the
everyday life, especially family, politics, and economics, essentially affects the plight of other
creatures and the world. Luther called these stations, vocations or orders, and also spoke about
them as ordinances, estates, offices, institutions, or hierarchies.2 The meaning of these words he
used was not affected by terminological change. What is important is that these are all
indispensable to life and interrelated in the preservation of creation. In discussing on the ethics of
1
This paper was presented at the 1966 Luther Congress in Jrvenp, Finland. Gustaf Wingren, Das
Problem des Natrlichen bei Luther, in Lutherstudien vol.1 (1971): 273-285; cited in Russell Kleckleys Omnes
Creaturae Sacramenta: Creation, Nature, and World View in Luthers Theology of the Lords Supper (Ph. D. diss.,
Universitt Mnchen, 1990), 4.
2
With respect to terms, Luther used Stand (station) synonymously with Beruf (vocation or calling), Orden
(order), Amt (office or function), Posten (estate or occupation), and Hierarchie (hierarchy). WA 26, 504; LW 37:
364; WA 31.I, 408; LW 13: 368; WA 50, 652; LW 41: 177.
65
creation, we will use a general term that Luther called, Schpfungsordnungen or orders of
creation.3
One important thing to emphasize at this point is that Luthers understanding of creation
is not scientific but primarily theological, pastoral, and ethical. He always involves the work of
God and the interrelationship among humanity, nonhuman creatures, and the orders of creation
that recapitulate the moral role of humankind and the orders (Ordnungen), particularly
Christians, in the protection and preservation of the whole creation. Moreover, we can best
understand creation in Luthers thought when we consider its relationship with the foundational
elements of his social ethics: the natural law, law and gospel, authority of the Scripture,
Christology, soteriology, doctrine of two kingdoms, the sacredness of all vocations, love of
neighbor, theology of the cross, the sacramental basis, eschatology, and the orders of creation.4
Let me elucidate at the outset that, contrary to George Hendrys criticism that regards
Luther as a theologian whose only concern is God-and-the-soul,5 Luthers ethics demonstrate a
strong world affirmation. The Wittenberg reformer shared this position with John Calvin and
Ulrich Zwingli about accepting the world and seeking to actively participate in it. I would argue
that Luthers theology of creation strongly affirms the world and bluntly reputes the belief of
world rejection, which represents that of the monastic orders and the radical reformers.6 The
3
There is only a single work on this theme, a brief article by Franz Lau, Schpfungsordnung, RGG 5
(1961): 1492-94.
4
See the interrelationship of these themes in chapter 1.
5
Hendrys argument was restricted only to Luthers earlier writings that were buttressed by the strong
influence of Augustines thought. The concern that led to his [Luthers] eruption, argues Hendry, lay right in the
heart of Augustinian theme, God-and-the-soul. It had nothing to do with God-and-the-world. Luther showed no
interest in natural theology; for it is not in nature but in the soul that God proves himself in God, and more
specifically as the God of grace. When Luther turned catechist and found himself obliged to teach the doctrine of
creation, he brought it all under the same pro me, which he had found in the gospel of grace, and he reduced the
whole world of nature to a repository of goods for the service of man. See Hendrys chapter on The Problem of
Nature in Theology, in his Theology of Nature, 11-32. See also note 16 on page 14 of this book.
6
There are those who reject participation in the secular orders, that is, politics and economics. These
include the radical Reformers like the groups of Mntzer, Karlstadt, the Anabaptists, and later groups such as the
ones led by Menno Simons, John Hutter, and others, who advocated the notion of Christian communities of
believers being separated from the world, meaning the established political, economic and social order.
Traditional Catholicism also rejected the world in that it posited an ethically superior norm to those who, as
members of the religious orders, retreated from the world to the life of contemplation. See Henry King Schultz,
Martin Luthers Social Ethics: A Study of the Origins and Applications of Principal Elements in the Reformers
Social Thought (Ottawa, Canada: National Library of Canada, 1983), 10-28.
The Orders of Creation 67
foundation of Luthers world affirmation lies in his theology of the orders of creation, according
to which God has created the responsible use and ruler-ship of these created orders of life.
Hendry was absolutely selective, instead of being comprehensive, in examining Luthers
theology of creation. He categorically ignored exploring the thoughts of the mature Luther,
particularly in the Genesis Lectures and his later exegesis of the Psalms, which truly embody his
creation theology and ethics of creation. This is exactly the danger of understanding the theology
of Luther. One needs to be cautious and inclusive in exploring his writings. The entirety of
Luthers works needs to be explored because a failure to treat his theology in its wholeness and
in proper context can easily lead to misinterpretation. Hendry was simply stuck in Luthers early
works, particularly his 1529 pedagogical work, Small Catechism, by contesting that Luthers
creation theology is merely for the good of human being, while eclipsing its theocentric and
Christocentric dimensions. According to Hendry, Luther brought it all under the obsession of
pro me by humans. He cited Luthers exposition of the first article of the Creed:
I believe in God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth.
What does this mean?
Answer: I believe that God has created me and all that exists; that he has given me
and still sustains my body and soul, all my limbs and senses, my reason and all the
faculties of my mind, together with food and clothing, house and home, family and
property; that he provides me daily and abundantly with all the necessities of life,
protects me from all danger, and preserves me from all evil. All this he does out of his
pure, fatherly, and divine goodness and mercy, without any merit or worthiness on my
part. For all of this I am bound to thank, praise, serve and obey him. This is most
certainly true.7
This description of Hendry as a pro me creation theology oversimplifies Luthers thought

because it fails to treat the later works of the Wittenberg reformer, which basically embody most
of his mature concepts of creation.
Choosing the Groen Genesisvorlesungen (Great Genesis Lectures) and the mature
exegesis of the Psalms to be my point of departure essentially fits the purpose of this book by
critically examining Luthers mature thoughts about creation and the vital role of Christians in
the natural world. These lectures are considered the longest among his works and, and at the
same time, the last lectures of Luthers life. On May 31, 1535, just three days before he began his
7
Martin Luther, Small Catechism, The Book of Concord, 354-355, as cited by Hendry in his Theology of
Nature, 17. (Emphasis added)
lectures on Genesis at the University of Wittenberg, he made this pronouncement: I will devote
the remaining years of my life which the Lord might still grant me to an exposition of the books
of Moses.8 He actually concluded the Genesisvorlesung on November 17, 1545, just three
months before he died. Luthers whole theology, describes theologian Johannes Schwanke, is
uniquely comprehended in these lectures. They are indeed the mature testimony of the late
Luther.9
These lectures which embody the thought of the mature Luther are vital to the study of
his ethics of creation, especially its practical application to what Saint Paul had described in
Romans 8 as the groaning creation. In one of his opening lines in the lectures Luther declares,
His [Moses] purpose is to teach us, not about allegorical creatures and an allegorical world but
about real creatures and a visible world apprehended by the senses.10 A discussion of Luthers
understanding of real creatures in contrast to the predominant allegorical interpretation of the
creation story in Genesis will be treated in depth later in the reformers theocentric view on
nature (chapter 5).
In his creation theology from the lectures, Luther articulated redemption and new
creation as Gods work toward correcting the corrupted image of humanity that continually
disrupts the orders of creation due to the fall. Sin and redemption or distortion and preservation
are the prominent themes of his creation theology. Because of sin, Luther points out in his
lectures, God changed many things. And on the Last Day there will be a far greater change and
a renewal of the entire creature, which, as Paul says (Rom. 8:20), is now subjected to futility
because of sin.11 Luther declares that there is a continuing need for redemption in order to
pardon our sins and sanctify creation.
Creation and soteriology are very much intertwined in Luthers thought. This is the heart
of David Lfgrens understanding of Luthers theology of creation in his book, Die Theologie
8
This pronouncement was made after completing his academic exposition on Psalm 90. These lectures on
Genesis were Luthers persistent toils in the classroom throughout the remainder of his life. He claimed the wisdom
of the Holy Spirit through Moses, who conveyed to all the fascinating teachings of Genesis. WA 40.III, 486; LW 13:
75. (Emphasis added)
9
Johannes Schwanke, Luther on Creation, Lutheran Quarterly 16 (Summer 2002): 1-20.
10
Genesis Lectures: Introductory statement on Genesis, WA 42, 4; LW 1: 5.
11
Genesis Lectures: On Genesis 2: 2, WA 42, 58-59; LW 1:77.
der Schpfung bei Luther by arguing that creation and justification have an intimate connection.
According to Lfgren, Luthers theology of creation has been strongly drawn from his
understanding of history as Heilsgeschichte (salvation history), a perspective largely informed by
the study of Scripture.12 The orders of creation that are indispensable to life, like the civil
government, household, politics, vocations, economy, and the church among many others, have
their important roles in the divine work of redemption of the whole creation.
On the other hand, in his recent book, Creatio ex Nihilo: Luthers Lehre von der
Schpfung aus dem Nichts in der Groen Genesisvorlesung, 1535-1545, Johannes Schwanke
argues that Luthers creation theology arises out of his study of Scripture, particularly his
interpretation of the book of Genesis.13 Schwanke claims that Luther begins his reflection on
creation out of nothing by stating the perspective of his own self as nothing without God. As
Luther said, If you look at my person, I am something new, because sixty years ago I was
nothing.14 It is interesting to note that Schwanke affirms Luthers concern with other creatures,
saying that ones existence is also nothing without the existence of fellow creatures. According
to Schwanke creation out of nothing and preservation are inseparable acts of the Creator. The
Creator preserves so that redemption or new creation would be carried out and empowers the
human being as Gods Mitarbeiter or cooperator Dei (co-worker). This work of preservation is
the essence of sustainability in creation wherein every species is sustained and cared for through
creative predation and propagation.
The heart of my discussion of Luthers creation theology, however, is the significance of
the three estates and their collaborative roles in creation that essentially affect the plight and
integrity of all creatures, to which we now turn.
12
Heilsgeschichte bedeutet aber fr Luther nicht nur Epochen der Vergangenheit bzw. Zukunft. Weil Gott
sich als der aktuale Schpfer offenbart, sind Ursprung und Ziel auch im konkreten Menschen gegenwrtig. Wenn
Luther den Menschen von dem her, was er ohne Gottes Gnade ist (peccator), und dem, was er durch Gottes
Heilshandeln wird (iustus) betrachtet, so wird die Rechtfertigung sola fide al seine kurze Zumsammenfassung
dessen gesehen, was der konkrete Mensch coram Deo ist: breviter hominis definitionem colligit, dicens,
Hominem iustificari fide. Lfgren features the significance of human beings justification by faith in Luthers
doctrine of creation so humanity could restore the lost goodness and maintain the responsibility for the orders of
creation. He based it from Luthers theses, The Disputation Concerning Man, 1536, WA 39.I, 176; LW 34:138.
Lfgren, 62.
13
Schwanke, Creatio ex Nihilo, 10-20.
14
Genesis Lectures: On Genesis 2:2, WA 42, 57; LW 1: 76.
Luthers Doctrine of Three Estates
Luther sums up the Schpfungsordnungen, in three categories of ruler-ship in the world:

oeconomia (household), politia (state) and ecclesia (church).15 For the purpose of discussion we
shall call this Luthers Dreistndenlehre (doctrine of the three orders or three estates). On some
occasions, he also used die drei Hierarchien (The Three Hierarchies). These three basic orders of
creation were first mentioned by Luther as early as 1519 in his sermon on The Estate of
Marriage. He usually cited this theme in many of his treatises, letters, table talks, and sermons.
However, he had articulated greater emphasis and added new insights to it in his Great Genesis
Lectures, which would represent the crucial thoughts of the mature Luther. This vital theological
theme is very significant to Luthers ethics of creation, which serves as the core of the argument
that the theology of the Dreistnde has the potential to be the ethic for ecological integrity.
15
The three orders doctrine has been given greater emphasis and well amplified in the Genesis Lectures
and Luthers later writings. Prominent of these are his Exposition on Genesis 18:15: This life is profitably divided
into three orders: (1) life in the home; (2) life in the state; (3) life in the church. To whatever order you belong
whether you are a husband, an officer of the state, or a teacher of the churchlook about you, and see whether you
have done full justice to your calling and there is no need of asking to be pardoned for negligence, dissatisfaction, or
impatience. WA 43, 30; LW 3: 217; Exposition on Genesis 2:16: After the church has been established, the
household government is also set up, when Eve is added to Adam as his companion. . . . Moreover, there was no
government of the state before sin, for there was no need of it. Civil government is a remedy required by our
corrupted nature WA 42, 79; LW 1: 104; Exposition on Genesis 27: 28, 29: This is the form of the blessing . . . the
first part pertains to the management of the household and to household supplies, in order that wife, children, and
domestics may have the necessities of daily life. In the Lords Prayer this is called daily bread, that is, everything
that is needed in the house for the sustenance of the body. . . . The second part of the blessing has to do with the state
and pertains to authority; for Jacob is appointed lord over peoples and nations. His descendants will be princes and
kings, not only heads of households. . . . The third part of the blessing is spiritual and pertains to the priesthood.
The brothers born of the same father and the same mother will bow down to you. Perhaps the can enjoy the same
authority in the state and in the household, but you alone will get the priestly authority. And this is the chief part of
the blessing. . . . These, then, are the Three Hierarchies we often inculcate, namely, the household, the government,
and the priesthood, or the home, the state, and the church. The home has the daily bread and is a daily realm, as it
were. The government has things that are temporal and is more than a daily realm, because it endures throughout all
time, excluding eternity. But the priesthood is above the household and the state; it pertains to the church and is
heavenly and eternal. WA 43, 523-524; LW 5: 138-139. Confession Concerning Christs Supper: But the holy
orders and true religious institutions established by God are these three: the office of priest, the estate of marriage,
the civil government. . . . For these three religious institutions or orders are found in Gods Word and
commandment; and whatever is contained in Gods Word must be holy, for Gods Word is holy and sanctifies
everything connected with it and involved it. Above these three institutions and orders is the common order of
Christian love, in which one serves every needy person in general with all kinds of benevolent deeds. WA 26, 504;
LW 37: 364; On the Councils and the Church, 1539: The first government is that of the home, from which the
people come; the second is that of the city, meaning the country, the people, the princes and lords, which we call the
secular government. . . . Then follows the third, Gods own home and city, that is, the church, which must obtain
people from the home and protection and defense from the city. WA 50, 652; LW 41: 177.
Previous research in Luthers Dreistndelehre had dealt more on the historical

background and the theological, political, and economic implications. However, little was
mentioned about its ethical implication for creation. The significance of the three estates for the
ethics of creation which is obviously the missing link of these previous studies is the core of
discussion in this chapter.
One of the comprehensive studies which clearly sets its historical origin is Wilhelm
Maurers Luthers Lehre von den drei Hierarchien und ihr mittelaltericher Hintergrund.
According to Maurer, Luthers three-order doctrine emerged out of medieval catechetical
instruction, to which popular preaching during that time also adhered.16 The commentary on the
Fourth Commandment became the pedagogical substance of teaching and preaching by
admonishing those who despised their parents and those who dishonored the spiritual and
worldly authorities.17 He then clarifies Luthers use of terminologies: that Luther first spoke of
estates or offices, and then later he used the concept of orders and hierarchies, however,
its essence was not affected by the terminological change.18
Another work is Ulrich Asendorfs discussion on Rechtfertigung in den drei
Hierarchien, (Justification in the Three Hierarchies) in his book Lectura in Biblia: Luthers
Genesisvorlesung, which articulates Luthers concept of the three orders as both Segen
(blessings) and Regimente (governments) of God. By this notion, Asendorf demonstrates the
connection of the two kingdoms doctrine and the three orders in the battle against evil, and
stresses that the human being, als cooperator Dei, is tasked in the three orders to be the
instrument of justification.19
16
Wilhelm Maurer, Luthers Lehre von den drei Hierarchien und ihr mittelalterlicher Hintergrund
(Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wischenshaften, 1970), 9.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid., 39; cited by Lohse in his discussion on The Distinction Between the Three Estates, Martin
Luthers Theology, 322.
19
Die Hierarchien als contra diabolum gestellet sind nach der Antichristdisputation die gttlichen, den
Menschen in Dienst nehmenden Angriffsspitzen gegen die satanische Zerstrung der gttlichen Schpfung. So
stehen oeconomia, politia und ecclesia in gemeinsamer Front gegen den Teufel. . . . Die traditionelle Floske einer
Zweireichelehre ist zu Recht kritisiert worden. Wenn man sie gleichwohl mit Bedenken als Lehre oder etwas in
diese Richtung Weisendes verstehen kann, so ist dies bei den drei Hierarchien oder Orden . . . Ulrich Asendorf,
Lectura in Biblia: Luthers Genesisvorlesung, 1535-1545 (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 431-483.
The work of Hans-Jrgen Prien in his Luthers Wirtschaftsethik presents the moral
responsibility of the Christian in economic sphere.20 The Dreistndelehre is applied as the
foundation for Berufsethik (vocation ethic). Prien employs the active roles in the world of the
orders of Ehestand (matrimony), Priesteramt (priesthood), and weltliche Obrigkeit (secular
authorities) and serve as the antithesis of monasticism and mysticism. The three orders doctrine
also demonstrates the Berufsethik (vocation ethic) of the Christian toward his or her fellow
humans. He argues that this doctrine had been developed by the mature Luther in overcoming the
individualistic ethic of the medieval monastic orders. According to him life in the home or the
Christian household ethic, is the fundamental ethic in the drei Stnden and addresses the
instruction of economic ethics (wirtschaftsethischen) in society. In the same manner, he said that
the household political authority (Hausregiment) is the foundation of all secular governments
(weltlichen Regimente).
Reinhard Schwarzs article, Luthers Lehre von den drei Stnden und die drei
Dimensionen der Ethik, has regarded the moral philosophy of Aristotle, particularly his
economic and political ethics as conveyed in medieval Latin commentaries; then, Schwarz
correlates it with the sociological structures of Luthers time as the significant sources of
Luthers three-estate doctrine.21 He also echoes Wilhelm Maurers discussion that this doctrine
was drawn from the medieval catechetical tradition. According to him the Aristotelian idea of
authority in society buttressed the understanding of hierarchies as orders of human life. In his
investigation, Schwarz eventually unfolds the three dimensions of the moral philosophy of the
Late Middle Ages that correlate with Luthers Dreistndenlehre: der Individualethik von der
Geistlichen, der Hausstandsethik sowie der politischen Ethik (individual ethic of the priesthood,
household ethic and political ethic).22 The religious dimension, argues Schwarz, is not an isolated
ethic of an individual; it is rather a comprehensive ethical dimension of the priesthood or
ministry, which unites and stabilizes the moral and religious life.23
20
Hans-Jrgen Prien, Luthers Wirtschaftsethik (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), see the
chapter on Drei-Stnde-Lehre und Berufsethik, 162-170.
21
Reinhard Schwarz, Luthers Lehre von den drei Stnden und die drei Dimensionen der Ethik,
Lutherjahrbuch 45 (1978): 15-34.
22
Ibid., 32.
23
Ibid., 33.
Luther laid out the basis of these three main divine orders by stressing the importance of
parents, teachers, ministers, and civil rulers in the created order. Luther says, Let the clergymen
teach in the church, let the civil officer govern the state, and let the parents rule the home or the
household.24 While a great deal of writings in social ethics was focused on Luthers doctrine of
two governments or two kingdoms, little attention has been given to his doctrine of the three
orders of creation. It is very suited, however, to demonstrate a distinction between these two
doctrines by presenting the ethical implication of the three orders and its relationship with the
two governments in order to avoid a possible misunderstanding of Luthers thought.
It is interesting to note that among these three orders of creation none is ranked above the
others. In the principle of the sacredness of all vocations, Luther points out that all callings and
occupations complement and correlate with each other in serving the Creator and in fulfilling
their responsibilities in society and the world. Each vocation is sacred, not just the church or the
religious vocations. So, the spiritual is not above the temporal because all vocations are
honorable and equal in the sight of God.25 This remarkable notion of the sacredness of all
vocations is a breakaway from the medieval idea that the religious is always above the secular.
This medieval notion was regarded by Luther as a man-made righteousness. To quote Bernhard
Lohse, All three estates are equally foundational, though in the given instance each has a
different task in the preservation of life. And respecting their honor, they are equal.26 All
vocations are all sacred because God established them as His divine creation. Otherwise, society
and the world would be plagued by the attitude of beasts. Interpreting Psalm 111:3, Full of
honor and adornment are His works and His righteousness endures forever, Luther made it
clear:
Therefore the psalmist here calls it Gods righteousness, which is permanent and
abides forever. Lawyers call it natural law. For if God had not Himself instituted
these stations and did not daily preserve them as His work, no particle of right would
24
25
Commentary on Psalm 111, 1530. As already shown, this is a thanksgiving for all the works of God
which He ordains among men, as, for example, the various stations, offices, and duties among men. Surely, anyone
should laugh in his heart for joy if he finds himself in a station that God instituted or ordained. He ought to shout
and dance as e thanks God for such a divine act, because here he hears and is assured that his position is full of
honor and adornment before God. WA 31.I, 408; LW 13: 368.
26
Lohse, 246.
last even a moment. Every servant would want to be a lord, every maid a mistress,
every peasant a prince, and every son above father and mother. In short, conditions
would be worse among men than they are among the wild animals, where each devours
the other; for God did not give them such institutions. . . . These divine stations continue
and remain throughout all kingdoms, as wide as the world and to the end of the world.27
The Essential Virtues of the Three Estates
The unifying factor of the three estates is the virtue of Christian love, which always
stands above all orders of creation as consisting in love of God and of the neighbor.28 Each order
or vocation is driven by love to serve others, particularly every needy creature in general.
Otherwise, all orders of creation would rather devour each other in competition. Without the
virtue of love, the vices of greed, arrogance and idolatry would prevail among them. Love binds
all vocations to care and serve one another, just as a Christian serves as a Christ to his
neighbors.29 Love, which is the highest virtue of the estates, stimulates everyone to deny oneself
even to the point of suffering for the sake of the neighbor. Luther wrote: Above these three
institutions and orders is the common order of Christian love, in which one serves not only the
three orders, but also serves every needy person in general with all kinds of benevolent needs,
such as feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, forgiving enemies, praying for all men on
earth, etc.30 The Three Estates are holy because they are commended by Gods Word, but none
of these orders, however, is a means of salvation. To be saved is entirely different and no one has
the capacity to exercise such kind of love unless one has embraced faith in God through the
Gospel of Christ. It is faith that produces love, and through this we derive the prominent ethical
principle of Luther as faith active in love.31 The message of the Gospel of love should always
be in every creature. The inclusiveness of the Gospel will be discussed in chapter 5.
27
Exposition on Psalm 111:3, WA 31.I, 409; LW 13: 369.
28
A Sermon on October 8, 1531, WA 34.II, 313; cited by Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther, 40.
29
William H. Lazareth, Luther on the Christian Home: An Application of the Social Ethics of the
Reformation (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 163. See also Karl Holl, Die Kulturbedeutung der
Reformation, Gesammelte Aufstze zur Kirchengeschichte 1 (1932): 468-543.
30
Confession Concerning Christs Supper, 1528, WA 26, 505; LW 37: 365.
31
For Luther, faith is the prime motive of goodness and love toward creation. George Forell did an
analysis of Luthers social ethics by applying the principle of faith active in love. Living his faith in love, Forell
Having faith is restoring the image of God that was lost during the fall. Luther made it
clear in his Genesis lectures that the Gospel has brought about the restoration of that image. . . .
so the Gospel brings it about that we are formed once more according to that familiar and indeed
better image, because we are born again into eternal life by faith that we may live with God and
be one with Him.32 Along with this image, a stream of love flows out of faith toward the whole
creation. In his exposition of Genesis 1:26, Luther stressed that from the imago Dei streams a
most sincere desire to love God and ones neighbor.33 Luthers thought might be extended to
mean that considering the fact that we are living in one biotic community, all other creatures are
to be sincerely loved as neighbors as well.
Humility, on the other hand, a highly prized virtue of creation, is required of every order
or station in order to promote the bond of love and unity in the world. In his Genesis lectures,
Luther affirmed that the value of humility sets humans apart from the beasts, because humans
recognize the good in others and shows them honor or respect.34 Showing humility toward other
creatures is highly prized in the Kingdom of God. In fact, King Solomon regarded this ethical
virtue, along with godliness, as an origin of real treasure and good reputation: Humility and fear
of God bring wealth, honor and life.35 God demands this quality as Luther presented the
examples of great individuals in the biblical history of faith, particularly Christ, who, despite of
writes, Luther tried all during his life to bring his personal Christian witness to bear upon the decisions that
confronted his society. From the ninety-five theses of Wittenberg to the quarrel of the counts of Mansfeld at
Eisleben, he never tired of living his social ethics, showing in his own life that through the Christian individual the
Gospel penetrates the social order. It would have been well for Christendom if those who followed Luthers lead had
been equally zealous to show their faith active in love. George Wolfgang Forell, Faith Active in Love: An
Investigation of the Principles Underlying Luthers Social Ethics (New York: The American Press, 1954), 189.
32
Recapturing the imago Dei is the experience of born again. Luther said, And indeed, we are reborn
not only for life but also for righteousness, because faith acquires Christs merit and knows that through Christs
death we have been set free. Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 1:26, WA 42, 48; LW 1: 64.
33
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 1:26, WA 42: 47; LW 1: 63.
34
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 23: 5-6: For we are not born as swine, mules, blocks of wood, or logs
but with faces turned upward toward the stars; and God has put into the human being a rational soul, which
understands what the difference is between things that are honorable and things that are shameful . . . therefore, that
boorish and brutish life which is manifest in the rude and barbarian manners of our people is not becoming to
Christians. WA 43, 285; LW 4: 208.
35
Proverbs 22: 4.
being divine, made Himself equal to the poor and humbled Himself beneath everyone.36 To
conquer oneself with humility, that is to prevail over greed, arrogance and idolatry, was
described by Luther as the greatest and the most beautiful virtue. This was exemplified, said
Luther, by Joseph in Genesis 41:
The humility of the slave is rather obscure and feeble; but when a king, prince, noble,
teacher, or rich man is humble, this is the most beautiful thing. . . . You may humble
yourself and be aroused to implore Gods help as this most excellent example of
Josephs humility teaches. In such great glory and sublimity this example is far more
illustrious than that of the patience and endurance he showed in adversity. For it was far
more difficult to cling to the Word after his liberation than to do so in the time of
misfortune and trial, in the bearing of which he was unconquered, did not fall away
from God, and did not sin by being impatient and angry with God. But far greater
strength of heart is required when he conquers himself . . . the greatest and most
beautiful virtue.37
The virtue of humility is linked with the ethical value of obedience to all forms of
authority that God had established. The Christian who plays a vital role in the world holds an
objective view to such worldly differences of stations. According to Luther he or she accepts it
with simple joy, not complaining about his or her station if it is lowly, and puffed up if it is
lofty.38
The subversive virtue of frugality was proposed often by Luther in response to the
extravagant consumption of the fruits of nature. In his exposition of Genesis 47, he featured the
frugal people in Egypt and the good rulership of Joseph in dealing with economic crisis: Our
age and that of our ancestors has seen nothing like it. Yet there were frugal people in Egypt
people who lived thriftily and austerely. They were not gluttons, gormandizers, and drunkards, as
we Germans are. On a single day one German consumes as much food and drink as would have
sufficed to feed 100 Egyptians.39
36
Sermon at Torgau Castle Church, 1544, WA 49, 612; LW 51: 352.
37
Genesis Lectures: On Genesis 41: 40, WA 44, 434-436; LW 7: 182-184.
38
Sermon, 1544, WA 49, 606-610.
39
The famine in Egypt during the time of Joseph was applied by Luther to warn the Germans of a great
harm brought by the extravagant consumption of food, clothing, and other goods. In addition, Josephs responsible
administration and discipline to check his people with zeal and obedience were highlighted by Luther as a model in
the orders of politia, oeconomia, and ecclesia. Genesis Lectures (on Genesis 47: 13-14), WA 44, 664-668; LW 8:
117-121.
On the other hand, he knew as well that the conquest of foreign lands contributed to
commercial revolution and the development of capitalism. The influx of goods, particularly gold
and silver flowing in from the New World and other foreign lands, had led to the repression of
small businesses and the poor by the monopoly of the big trading companies. Consequently, his
great concern for economic justice and equity became his main theme in instructing the Christian
conscience to exercise love for the neighbor. It is my purpose here, Luther asserts, to speak
about the abuses and sins of trade, insofar as they concern the conscience.40 The reformers
prime intention was to make evident what was going on in the world so the heads in the three
main orders of creationthe household, the civil government, and the churchcould be well
admonished and help protect and preserve every creature from greed, a dangerous vice in the
world. In his Genesisvorlesung, Luther underscores the vital role of governments in the world,
What need, therefore, would there have been laws and of civil government, which is like a
cauterizing iron and an awful remedy by which harmful limbs are cut off that the rest may be
preserved?41
In the misuse and abuse of Gods gifts, Luther strongly endorsed the ethical virtue of
frugality. This virtue of creation was commended in response to a world of gluttony or
promiscuous consumption. This unrestrained over-consumption was the foremost concern of
Luther that was evidently wreaking havoc in his German environment. Luther asked his people,
How much is consumed by luxury in clothing and other useless things that are brought into our
lands by the merchants? Finally what great devourers of money the market days at Frankfurt are!
They say that on every one of them 3,000,000 guldens are taken out of Germany.42
What distorted humanitys right relationship with other creatures is when these gifts of
God become a sole obsession of enjoyment. The tendency is this enjoyment will turn to greed,
arrogance, idolatry, and eventually toward environmental destruction. These three basic vices:
greed, arrogance, and idolatrywhich immensely distorted the Schpfungsordnungen, violate
40
Luther was responsible to speak the truth on the abuses of his economic world. To protect the welfare of
his people he then called the lords and princes, the civil authorities, to control the erring merchants who were taking
advantage of the situation. On Trade and Usury, WA 15, 309; LW 45: 247.
41
42
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 47: 14, WA 44, 667; LW 8: 120.
both the law of Christian love and natural law.43 In defense of love of neighbor and natural law,
Luther reacted with indignation: What else does it mean but this: I care nothing about my
neighbor; so long as I have my profit and satisfy my greed, of what concern is it to me if it
injures my neighbor in ten ways at once? There you see how shamelessly this maxim flies
squarely in the face not only of Christian love but also of natural law.44
In his Genesisvorlesung, on the other hand, Luther underscored a related vice that bore
the vices of greed, arrogance and idolatry. This was gluttony, described as widespread sins of
overindulgence or to say over-consumption in ecological parlance. The reformer called this a
German vice, which had a bad reputation in foreign lands.45 This was the addiction of many
Germans in collaboration with traders who also instigated the excessive economic production of
goods.
But now people do not content themselves with meats, with vegetables, or with grain;
and rather often, because of unsuitable food, we face dangers of health. I am saying
nothing about those increasingly widespread sins of overindulgence which are worse
than brutish. The curse which followed because of sin is apparent. It is also likely that
only then were the accursed and pernicious insects produced out of the earth, which was
cursed because of mans sin.46
Extravagant consumption was not only detrimental to human health but also to the poor and the
environment. Frugality or moderation in consumption absolutely contributed a great deal toward
health. Luther claimed further: If, however, we consider carefully our present-day manner of
life, we are harmed more by food and drink than we are nourished. In addition to the fact that we
live most immoderately, how much has been lost of the excellence of fruits? Our first parents
lived moderately and chose only those foods that were suited for nourishing and refreshing their
bodies.47 Humans need the wisdom of God in order to act with contentment, humility and
43
On Trade and Usury, WA 6: 33; LW 45: 247.
44
Ibid.
45
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 41:32-36, WA 44, 416-417; LW 7: 159-160.
46
This is a portion of his commentary on Genesis 1:29 And God said: Behold, I have given you every
herb bearing seed that is upon the face of all the earth and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for
food. Lectures on Genesis, On Genesis 1:28-29, WA 42, 55; LW 1: 72. (Italics mine)
47
justice. Man is to have knowledge of God, the reformer asserted, and with the utmost freedom
from fear, with justice and wisdom, he is to make use of the creatures according to His will.48
His Sermon on the Catechism in 1528 had also admonished the proud and extravagant:
The first article teaches that God is the Father, the creator of heaven and earth. What is
this? What do these words mean? The meaning is that I should believe that I am Gods
creature, that he has given to me body, soul, good eyes, reason, a good wife, children,
fields, meadows, pigs, and cows, and besides this, he has given to me the four elements,
water, fire, air, and earth. Thus this article teaches that you do not have your life of
yourself, not even a hair. . . . Therefore, this first article might well humble and terrify
us.49
However, the Christian, who lives both in the spiritual and secular kingdoms, has no
capacity to restrain the sin of overindulgence in the world. In order to counter the predatory
attitude of human beings vis--vis the nonhuman creatures and the established orders of creation,
the importance of authority in the three areas of governance is thus asserted to preserve
stability in the created order. The emphasis of authority is a predominant element in Luthers
social ethics, and in his ethics of creation in particular. The governance in the home, in the state,
and in the church is a divine force that establishes order and justice in the natural world. These
three orders of creation are Gods instruments by which God governs, preserves and redeems His
creation. In fact, Luther called those who are in authority gods because they represent God in
their own realm of governance. In other words, a father or a mother of a family, or a member of
the clergy of the church, or a ruler of the state is a like an incarnate god who extends the divine
act of redemption to ones children, people, or subjects. Always apparent here is the consistent
interrelation of the Dreistnde is apparent: the household, the state, and the church.
At this juncture, we shall look at each of the three orders of creation.
1. The Order of Oeconomia
The exemplary significance of oeconomia in Luthers doctrine of creation is

demonstrated by the vibrant roles of home economics and marriage in the created order. Luthers
ethic of the household is basically important to creation, especially to a world that is plagued by
48
Ibid., 73.
49
Sermon on the Catechism, WA 30.I, 87; LW 51: 163.
the demise of the family (the microcosm of community): the decay of parental authority, and the
rampant disobedience of children. Distorting the creational values of the home brings a chain-
effect of injury toward every creature that enjoys the community of interdependence and
interrelatedness. What has been enthroned today in society is the morality of ungodly homes that
has overshadowed the moral influence of Christian households. In view of this situation,
undoubtedly, many Christian homes have become distorted by the vices of disobedience,
fornication, adultery, and divorce. The Christian household has lost its grip of shining their
ethical values to the ungodly; instead, it yields to what everyone is doing. The ethic of the
household could contribute wisdom toward the health of a home primarily because the household
is the heart of Luthers ethics of creation.
Household: the Heart of Ethics of Creation
A good household plays a vital role in the ethics of creation. Home for Luther is not
merely the cornerstone of society; it is also the fortitude of creation. The importance of family is
prominent to Luthers ethics of creation. Let it be noted here that Luther himself was a prominent
family man and he deserved to promote marriage, family values and household ethics. In fact, as
William Lazareth describes in his Luther on the Christian Home, Luthers marriage with
Katharina von Bora, a former nun, was blessed by God with three boys and three girls, the birth
of the parsonage, and the rebirth of a genuinely Christian ethos of home and community.50 Katy
was 26 while Luther was 41 when they got married on June 13, 1525, at the peak of the Great
Peasants War.
The holier the household members are, the more insight these persons have for goodness
and love of other creatures. In other words, the core of the ethics of creation is whoever knows
God by heart, that is the true knowledge of God, knows also by heart the integrity of other
creatures, because in creation one finds the divine image through the goodness, love, and justice
50
The Luther children were: John (born 1526) became a lawyer and was later employed in the chancellory
of Weimar; Elizabeth (born 1527); Magdalene (born 1529 and died in 1542); Martin (born 1531) studied theology
but never occupied a pulpit; Paul (born 1533) became an able and distinguished physician and Margaret (born 1534)
who married a nobleman. Lazareth, Luther on the Christian Home, vii.
of God.51 The father and mother who hold the highest authority on earth make sure the true
knowledge of God is proclaimed to all members of the household so they could in turn convey
goodness, love, and justice to other creatures. For Luther, the household of parents, children,
servants, pets, livestock, and property is the basic political unit in society and in the created
order. It is noteworthy to elucidate here that Luther used the terms domestic life or household
economy (oeconomia) and, at some instances, marriage for all stations that fall under the
home.52 The home is the heart of the social universe, which represents the microcosm of a
society, a state or a civil government.
Luther used the parental authority as the fundamental form of authority in which all
others were based. The relationship between parents and children was articulated by Luther in
applying the fourth commandment as the ethical value of obedience to all authorities that were
established by God in creation. The virtue of obedience was one of the basic foundational
elements of his political ethics. In fact, he regards disobedience as a sin, a transgression that is
worse than murder, unchastity, theft, and dishonesty and all that goes with them.53 In his own
time Luther witnessed the moral decadence of the youth in his society. He said, Never has youth
been more insolent than today we see how little they obey, how little they respect their parents.
On this account, undoubtedly, the world is full of plagues, war, rebellion, and other evils.54
The values of obedience and humility among children were consistently emphasized by
Luther in the life of the home. Obedience to parents and to other ordained authorities is an honor
51
Genesis Lectures: Thus even if this image has been almost completely lost, there is still a great
difference between the human being and the rest of the animals. Before the coming of sin the difference was far
greater and more evident, when Adam and Eve knew God and all the creatures and, as it were, were completely
engulfed by the goodness and justice of God. WA 42, 50; LW 1: 67. From the image of God, from the knowledge
of God comes the knowledge of all the other creatures. WA 42, 107; LW 1:142.
52
Beyond all this, it refers essentially to what belongs inside a house, to what we Germans call by
managing the household [haushalten] in the realm of what Aristotle called oeconomia. It encompasses the
whole household of parents, children, servants, livestock, and property (Exodus 1: 20ff). . . . For Solomon is trying
to describe a Christian marriage and home here in order to instruct man how to become a Christian husband, father,
and head of a household. Exposition of Psalm 127, WA 15, 364; LW 45: 319; cited by Lazareth, Luther on the
Christian Home, 149.
53
Parental authority is cherished like a jewel in Luthers cultural heritage. Luther said, The first work is
that we should honor our own father and mother. It means that we obey them, have regard for what they do and
what they say, esteem them highly, give way to them, and accept what they say. Treatise on Good Works, WA 6,
251; LW 44: 81.
54
Instruction for the Visitors of Parish Pastors in Electoral Saxony, 1528, WA 26, 209; LW 40: 281.
and obedience to God as well, because authorities are Gods representatives. Obedience to
parents was highly prized by Luther as a strong foundation for a peaceful and stable society. In
his commentary on the fourth commandment, he asserted:
The first work is that we should honor our own father and mother. This honoring does
not consist in merely showing them all deference. It means that we obey them, have
regard for what they do and what they say, esteem them highly, give way to them, and
accept what they say. It means that we endure their treatment of us without complaint,
so long as it is not contrary to the first three commandments . . . honor is higher than
mere love, and includes within it a kind of fear which unites with love and has such an
effect upon a man that he fears offending them more than he fears the ensuing
punishment.55
The value of obedience begins at home. This value, according to Luther, should not be motivated
by fear of punishment but by fear mingled with love and confidence.56 Obedience is to be
nurtured and treasured by parents to their children along with other ethical values, like humility,
love of neighbor, devotion to ones vocation, and care of the earth. In that way, the values that
are taught would radiate to society, particularly to the two other orders of creation: the politia
and the ecclesia, which would in turn contribute to the preservation and redemption of the whole
creation.
Conversely, the Fourth Commandment would no longer be valid when parents wish to
teach their children contrary to God. Now children are not to obey parents who are so foolish
that they bring up their children after the fashion of this world, especially as they seek nothing
but worldly pleasure, honor, possessions, or power which are contrary to Gods
commandments.57 In such cases, in place of their parents, God is to be regarded by the children
as their highest parent in view of the fact that Gods will is over and above the will of the
55
Treatise on Good Works, WA 6, 251; LW 44: 81. His other commentary is in the Ten Sermons on the
Catechism, 1528: The meaning of the commandment is this: Fear God and trust God in this commandment. This is
done when, for the sake of the fear of God, you do not despise, defame, or contradict your parents, but rather when
you show them your honor, are helpful and obedient to them, and regard them so highly in your heart that there is
nothing better in your heart than your parents. If you fear me, says God, you will honor your parents. WA 30.I, 68;
LW 51: 147.
56
True honor is such a fear mingled with love. The other kind of fear that is without love is the fear of
those things which we despise or avoid, e.g., the fear of the hangman or of punishment. There is no honor in that, for
it is fear without love: in fact, it is a fear mixed with hatred and hostility. . . . God does not want to be feared or
honored with that kind of fear, nor does He want our parents honored with this kind of fear, but rather with the first
kind, the kind mingled with love and confidence. Ibid.
57
Ibid., 84.
parents, as affirmed by the Word of God that we should rather obey God than humans.58 In other
words, household members should regard Gods commandments as superior to any human
directives.
One of the cornerstones of a good society is a household that has godly parents who value
the upbringing of their children toward God. For where the parents, Luther wrote, are truly
godly and love their children not just in human fashion, but (as they ought) instruct and direct
them by words and works to serve God in the first three commandments, then in these cases, the
childs own will is constantly broken.59 Applying the principle of the priesthood of all believers,
parents nurture their children with the Word of God, a key tool in preserving the moral life of the
household. For Luther, parents, who stand in place of God, have the highest authority on earth
because God has instituted them as his representatives.60
Luther never failed to recognize the importance of women in oeconomia. There is no
higher calling on earth than that of the Christian homemaker. Without women the household
and everything else that belongs to it would quickly fall apart. The home, cities, economic life,
and government would eventually disappear. In short, the world could not do without women,
even if men are capable of bearing children themselves.61 In daily experience, mothers have
more time with children and they keep children well-disciplined at home.62 To bring up children
with good morality fortifies a good society, because making them honorable and well-bred
citizens is to create real assets of society. Luther emphasized that by teaching young people
about the Word of God and Christian morals, we are also training and preparing fine,
respectable, learned women capable of making the home economically stable and rearing
58
On Genesis 27: 5-10: If the parents prescribe or command something contrary to God, then the Fourth
Commandment, which previously was valid and unalterable, is abrogated. For in the First Commandment it is stated
that one must love and honor God above all things, and Acts 5:29 says: We must obey God rather than men. WA
43, 507; LW 5: 115.
59
Treatise on Good Works, WA 6, 252; LW 44: 82.
60
Althaus, Ethics of Martin Luther, 99.
61
Table Talk, July 1532, WA TR 2, no. 1658; LW 55: 160-161.
62
Die dritt predigt Martini Lutheris der selbigen vor genantten wochen am Freittag auf dem schlos gethan,
1522, WA 10.III, 376.
children in a Christian way.63 Care and attention to the young people are the greatest concern of
Christian mothers.
The role of parents toward their children is a crucial ethical responsibility that builds a
godly home, a good society, and a beautiful world. In view of his Two Kingdom doctrine, parents
have also the unique role in society because they exercise the function of both the secular and the
spiritual authorities.
Well-Educated Youth: Assets of Creation
In the milieu of materialism brought by the globalization of his time, Luther became
anxious about the demise of ethical values among the young. Many households had been
obsessed by the new economic revolution prompted by the exploitation of natural resources and
the influx of international goods. Sad to say, this had significantly eclipsed the importance of
spiritual, moral and academic learning for the youth. Luther emerged to criticize the evils of
global trade that merely exploited the poor and the worlds natural resources, while only a
privileged few were benefited. For Luther, rearing the young with more essential values in the
whole created order should not be compromised.
It is noteworthy to emphasize at this point that for Luther, nothing is more efficient in
producing assets to creation than well-educated children. Although education and care for the
young begins at home, the parents could not accomplish it without the help of, as well as the
interrelationship of the home with, the schools and the church. Education (Kunst) is a dependable
wealth of society. You parents, said Luther, cannot prepare a more dependable treasure for
your children than an education. . . . A house burns down and disappears, but an education is
easy to carry off.64 The reformer further pointed out: Now the welfare of a city consists not
alone in gathering great treasures and providing solid walls, beautiful buildings, and a good
supply of guns and armor. . . . But a citys best and highest welfare, safety, and strength consist
in its having many able, learned, wise, honorable, and well-bred citizens. Such men (and
63
Confession Concerning Christs Supper, 1528, WA 26, 504; LW 37: 364.
64
Table Talk, 1538: Vosque parentes nullum certiorem thesaurum vestries liberis parare potestis quam
artes. Haus und hoff verbrennet, gehet hin; Kunst ist gut zu tragen. WA TR 4, 217, no. 4317.
women) can readily gather treasures and all goods, protecting them, and put them to good use.65
In his criticism against the use of monasteries by monks whose only concern was their own
religious life, Luther advised that these institutions would be better venues for the religious
education of the young. He pointed out: It would be a good thing if monasteries and religious
foundations were kept for the purpose of teaching young people Gods Word, the Scriptures, and
the Christian morals, so that we might train and prepare fine, capable [people] to become
bishops, pastors, and other servants of the church, as well as competent, learned people for civil
government.66
Education about faith in God and other area of knowledge is the greatest concern of
parents. Most certainly, said Luther, father and mother are apostles, bishops, and priests to
their children, for it is they who make them acquainted with the gospel. In short there is no
greater or nobler authority on earth than that of parents over their children, for this authority is
both spiritual and temporal.67 Essentially, education and value formation commence at home.
The more the parents nourish their children with the Word of God and moral values the more
they create ethically responsible citizens in society and faithful caretakers of Gods creation.
While in his early career Luther gave attention to the households, especially the role of
parents to help carry out his famous Reformation principle of Priesthood of All Believers, in
spreading the Word of God and his reforms, he later felt doubtful because some took it to mean
that formal education and training were no longer necessary. In fact, radical reformers Karlstadt,
Zwilling, and Mnzer, who took the limelight while Luther was in exile in Wartburg Castle,
were advocating against formal education, even declaring learning of any kind to be sinful and
devilish.68 Subsequently, he introduced the importance of schools and education by writing an
appeal in 1524, To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany that They Establish and Maintain
Christian Schools, and a sermon in 1530, A Sermon on Keeping Children in School. Education
and value formation in schools and churches became the prominent emphasis of Luther after he
65
Martin Luther, Luthers Works, vol. 4 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1915-1943), 111.
66
Confession Concerning Christs Supper, 1528, WA 26, 504; LW 37, 364.
67
The Estate of Marriage, 1522, WA 10.II, 301; LW 45: 46.
68
Dann auch Carlstadt und andere, welche grundstzlich alle Gelehrsamkeit fr schdlich, ja sndhaft und
teuflisch erklrten. A Sermon to All Councilmen in All Cities of Germany, 1524, WA 15: 10.
witnessed an appallingly low rate of religious and other forms of knowledge among the average
German.
Actually the early impact of the Reformation generated an anti-education attitude among
the masses, particularly parents, that many of the churchs doctrines, teachings, and practices
were not only permeated by error, but were actually dangerous to salvation. If such were actually
the case, parents reasoned, why should they send their children to schools where such errors
were inculcated?69 Furthermore, the impact of materialism invaded Germany in the early
sixteenth century with the advent of global trade and the influx of Spanish gold thwarting and
displacing the spiritual life of people. This was, by no means, favorable to schools and education.
This was exactly one of the evils of trade and commerce that Luther attacked in his treatise On
Trade and Usury. It was commonly argued that If a youth were not destined for the church or
for one of the learned professionstheology, law, or medicinewhy should he waste his time in
acquiring an education which had no direct relationship to the world of trade and industry? Let
him rather learn a trade at an early age and thus insure his livelihood.70 This was the common
argument of those who embraced the spirit of materialism, which led them to the saying,
Gelehrte sind verkehrte, which means, The learned are foolish.71 In view of this negative
impression to schools, enrolment had considerably dropped, including the University of
Wittenberg, where Luther was teaching as a well respected and highly-prized professor.72 Luther,
in turn, with the huge help of the printing press,73 did the groundwork in solving this anti-
69
See Introduction to A Sermon on Keeping Children in School, 1530, LW 46: 210.
70
See Introduction to To The Councilmen of All Cities in Germany that They Establish and Maintain
Christian Schools, 1524, WA 15: 35; LW 45: 342.
71
Ibid.
72
A Sermon on Keeping Children in School, 1530: The universities at Erfurt, Leipzig, and elsewhere, as
well as the boys schools here and there, are so deserted that it is distressing to behold; little Wittenberg now does
better than any of them. LW 46: 234. Enrolment at the University of Wittenberg, which was founded later than the
universities of Erfurt and Leipzig and had been a much smaller school, dropped from 250 to 173 in the period 1526
to 1530. See n. 39, LW 46: 234. Cf. WA 30.II, 550, n. 2.
73
Luther witnessed how his sixteenth century world was well informed with new knowledge and current
events by the wide use of the recently-invented printing press. Its actual origin is traced from the ingenuity of
Johannes Gutenberg, who invented the movable type. Historians credit Johannes Gutenberg of Mainz, Germany who
invented the movable type printing press around 1450. However, historians also argue that there is some evidence
that movable type was known in China, Korea and Turkey in an earlier time and that they inspired Gutenberg to
invent his printing press. Luther took advantage of this modern development by writing voluminous articles,
education attitude through his printed admonishments that reached a wider audience and
succeeded in persuading the rulers in Germany and all preachers of churches to rally behind his
call for the schooling of the young and to overcome the anti-education attitude. By this mass
communication through the print media, Luther promoted the importance of education and
schools so that Christians could be able to read and write, using these skills as tools of good
service in society in both religious and secular realms. When schools flourish, Luther said,
then things go well and the church is secure. Let us have more learned people and teachers.74
Amalgamating reason with theology on the field of arts, Paul Althaus points out that unlike the
scholastics who abhorred the mass production of pamphlets and books, Luther delightfully
greeted the flourishing scientific inventions of his time, particularly the art of printing, as
creations and gifts of God. Althaus claims that
Reason provides the light by which man can see and administer the affairs of the world.
Reason is the source and bearer of all culture. . . . Luther is very happy about the new
art of printing books and praises it as the highest and final gift of God before the end of
the world. All this was placed into creation and included in it by God. God the creator
has given men power to do these all things by originally implanting and creating them
within him. This is a part of mans creation in the image of God, that is, so that he may
rule over the earth.75
Rearing the young assets of creation lies in the strong relationship of the home with the
pamphlets and books. His printed materials permeated the reading public and people were enabled to access
Luthers ideas on their own time and in a variety of locations, even beyond churches, schools, monasteries, and
libraries, which dominated the printed word. Before the invention of printing press, reading was controlled by the
clergy and the elite of society in which Latin was used as the exclusive medium, which conspicuously deprived the
ordinary laity. Interestingly enough, the elitist Latin Bible was dislodged by Luthers Biblia deutsch, written and
circulated for his own people. The vernacular publication had indeed proved to reach a mass audience. Even though
most people were illiterate, the reader would in turn share his or her reading with the illiterate, or simply read the
printed material aloud so the ordinary people could hear the message in their own language. See the chapter on The
Development of Movable Type, c. 1450, in Events that Changed the World through the Sixteenth Century by Frank
W. Thackeray and John E. Findling, eds. (London: Greenwood Press, 2001), 103-122. See also Mark U. Edwards,
Jr., Printing, Propaganda, and Martin Luther (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994) and Elizabeth L.
Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformation in Early
Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979).
74
Table Talk Recorded by Caspar Heydenreich, Winter of 1543, WA TR 5, no. 5557; LW 54: 452.
75
Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, 65-66. He cited Luthers position in his Lectures on Genesis,
Here all law, science, economics, and medicine are implanted and created. . . . These are the strength and riches of
the wisdom implanted in Paradise. Holy Scriptures therefore is not troubled by but rather approves the laws which
have been established and the arts which have been discovered. WA 40. III, 222. (Italics mine)
government and the church. The institutions would prepare them for a bright future. Luther
asserted: Therefore, let everyone be on his guard who can. Let the government see to it that
when it discovers a promising boy (or girl) he is kept in school. If the father is poor, the
resources of the church should be used to assist. Let the rich make their wills with this work in
view, as some have done who have established scholarship funds.76 Luther pointed out that
well-educated youth are the real wealth of society;77 by which society produces well-bred
citizens and honorable men and women who would rule godly homes, spirit-filled churches and
strong governments that would in turn become creative caretakers of creation. The home, the
church and the state are all in need of ethically-responsible leaders to carry out the preservation
and redemption of creation. The greatest care and attention to the young, through formal
education and the nurture of the Word of God, would serve as the prime concern of parents with
the active collaboration of the church and the civil government.
Marriage: the Heart of a Healthy Creation
Marriage is a creation ordinance designed by God for all people and not for Christians
alone. For Luther, life in the home is cemented by the estate of marriage or matrimony, which
was divinely ordained in creation.78 When marriage is well-managed and preserved, the home
becomes more stable, people in the community become more integrated, and creation becomes
more beautiful and orderly. Creation ever since the fall has been distorted by the misuse and
abuse of the Gods gift of sex. Luther observed that society offered a negative moral influence on
children. The misuse of sex and the denigration of marriage are all around in such practices as
prostitution, fornication, pornography, rape, sexual harassment, abuse of minors, incest, domestic
violence against women, adultery, and divorce. Gods gift of responsible sex and the sacredness
of marriage, which are part of our created nature in Genesis, are no longer valued by humans
76
WA 40.III, 257.
77
To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany that They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools, 1524,
WA 15, 30; LW 45: 350.
78
Genesis Lectures: On Genesis 2: 16-17, WA 42, 78-79; LW 1: 103-104.
because of their sinful nature. To enter into marriage is to restrain sin and become a responsible
human being in creation. Luther wrote in The Estate of Marriage: Therefore . . . God does not
command anyone to be a man or a woman but creates them the way they have to be.79 Humans
are created by God with the image of being sexually responsiblethat is exactly the way they
have to be. Marriage was established by God in creation and it should be valued as a divine
vocation and as an order of creation.80 Luther as a prophet of the integrity of creation attacked
the misuse and abuse of sex and marriage.
As a prophet of creations integrity, Luther also criticized the religious, particularly the
celibate priests, monks, and nuns, who look down on the mundane chores of marriage and
family, and regard their vocation as superior to or holier than that of those who are married.81 To
counter this error, Luther made marriage and family divine vocations, orders of creation
established by God to serve as larvae Dei in the service of the neighbor and coworker of God in
the preservation and redemption of creation. Forbidding persons to marry deprives them of the
divine order of marriage and family and denies to them Gods created goodness of sexuality. He
emphasized that whatever a person did in the world that served the neighbor and preserved the
created order glorified God.82 The reformer broke away with the medieval dualism of the sacred
and the secular. In the sight of God both realms are equal in the service of other creatures.
Regrettably, forced celibacy had dragged many celibates into the scandal of sexual immoralities,
and they had utterly failed to be morally influential on their flock.
In a rough world of fornicators, adulterers, and other sexual offenders, Luther promoted
marriage as a divine vocation and an ordained institution of creation in order to promote ethically
responsible husbands and wives who are truly moved by love and united by faith in God to
sanctify a happy home and a healthy creation.
79
The Estate of Marriage, 1522, WA 10.II, 275; LW 45: 11.
80
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 2: 16-17, WA 42: 79; LW 1: 103-104.
81
Luther attacked the medieval norm that the celibate priests, monks, and nuns were sacred and those who
worked in the secular world were regarded as lower vocations. See Kee, et al., Christianity: A Social and Cultural
History, 321.
82
Ibid.
Marriage is not merely the relationship of a husband and wife; it is also their relationship
with their household, especially with their children, their community, their economic
environment, and the whole created order. Matrimony is the fountain of creation and origin of
oeconomia, politia, and ecclesia. It is instituted to advance Gods purposes in the world. To be
irresponsible in sex and marriage is tantamount to being a fornicator or an adulterer of creation,
because one denies the image of God that is in him or her. So, to be truly responsible in sex and
marriage is to embrace faith in God and, in turn, a sincere love and goodness toward other
creatures would stream out of faith. In the same manner, corruption toward creation goes on if
humans remain away from God and are deprived of Gods salvation.
There are two reasons for the institution of marriage: to prepare a church and to fend off
83
sin. Luther was aware that many broken homes are the product of broken marriages; thus, a
happy marriage is basically the backbone of a happy home and a beautiful world. Good marriage
helps cement a stable society and an orderly creation, because it somehow precludes the
generation of immoral, rebellious, and disobedient children who are, more often than not, the
products of broken homes. For Luther, marriage, particularly Christian, is the birth of a
genuinely Christian ethos in the home, in the community and in the whole creation.
Since the fall, marriage has always been in danger among sinners. According to Luther,
people ought to defend themselves against this danger by directing their marriage under Gods
guidance and master themselves over all sorts of temptation. Marriage has been established in
Paradise, and it has served to fend off the sin of fornication and other sexual wickedness.
Marriage is to be regarded as a duty and an antidote to sin.84 With the ethical basis of the
theologia crucis, the battle against sin is to be endured as a vocational cross of the Christian. As
83
84
In his Genesis Lectures, Luther used the argument of Peter Lombard in Sentences, IV, Dist. XXVI, col.
908-909, that marriage was established as a duty and an antidote to sin. Luther wrote: And the Master of the
Sentences declares learnedly that matrimony was established in Paradise as a duty; but after sin also as an antidote.
Therefore we are compelled to make use of this sex in order to avoid sin. It is shameful to say this, but nevertheless
it is true. For there are very few who marry solely as a matter of duty. But the rest of the animals do not have this
need. Consequently, for the most part they copulate only once a year and then are satisfied with this as if by their
very action they wanted to indicate that they were copulating because of duty. But the conduct of human beings is
different. They are compelled to make use of intercourse with their wives in order to avoid sin. As a result, we are
begotten and also born in sin, since our parents did not copulate because of duty but also as an antidote or to avoid
sin. WA 42, 87-88; LW 1: 116.
long as the Christian continues his or her vibrant role in preserving the created order, the struggle
continues until death.
As a matter of fact, the radical principle of his eschatology showed that Luthers marriage
was a response to the end of the world scenario of June 1525, the peak of the Great Peasants
War, and, on top of that, the marriage was a sign of victory over evil. The normal routine of
Christian life continues, even if the end of the world is near. That at my end, wrote Luther in
his letter to a friend, I shall be found in the state for which God created me with nothing of my
previous life about me.85 To the shock of the self-righteous celibate community and heaven-
bound religious climbers, the ex-monk Martin and ex-nun Katie were married quickly and
quietly at the Black Cloister in Wittenberg in the evening of June 13, 1525. The news spread like
wildfire. In his letter to his friend Georg Spalatin, Luther boldly declared: It is to make the
angels laugh and the devils weep. Those who do not understand this just do not know what it
means to believe. . . . It pleases me to have my marriage condemned by those who are ignorant
of God.86 In a sermon delivered at the wedding of Sigmund von Lindenau in 1545, Luther
featured a teaching of St. Augustine about the attitude of married couple when the Lord comes:
St. Augustine writes in one place about married couple, that even if one of them is
fragile, he should not fear the sudden and unforeseen day of the Lord. Even if the day of
the Lord were to come precisely in that house when husband and wife were sleeping
together [having intercourse], they should not be afraid or frightened on that account.
And why not? For this reason: that even if the Lord comes in that hour, He finds them
in the ordinance and estate in which God has placed them and for which He has
ordained them.87
Luther demonstrated that holy matrimony as a created order is to be an inspiration and the
fortitude of a Christian couple in the battle against sin. Regardless of any adversity in life on
85
A letter to John Ruehel dated June 15, 1525, two days after the marriage. WA Br 3, 531-532.
86
Domino Georgio Spalatino, seruo Dei, fratri suo in Christo. Gratiam et pacem. Os obstruxi
infamantibus me cum Catharina Borana, Mi Spalatine. Si processerit, vt epulum paretur pro testimonio coniugii mei
istius, te non modo adesse oportebit, verum etiam cooperari, si quid ferine necessarium fuerit. Tu interim nobis
benedicito et bene precare! Sic me vilem et contemptum his nuptiis feci, vt angelos ridere et omnes demones flere
sperem. Necdum mundus et sapientes agnoscunt opus Dei pium et sacrum, Et in me vno faciunt id impium et
diabolicum. Quo nomine magis placet, meo coniugio illorum iudicium damnari et offendi, quotquot ignorantiam Dei
habere pergunt. Vittemberge feria post trinitatis 1525. Martinus Luther. A letter to Georg Spalatin on June 16,
1525. WA Br 3, 533.
87
Sermon Given at the Wedding of Sigmund von Lindenau in Merseburg, August 4, 1545, WA 49, 797-805.
earth, even in the nearness of the end, Christians are to persist in fulfilling their vibrant role on
earththeir vocation of taking care of creationall the more seriously, unlike the religious
climbers who consider themselves heaven bound and remain passive and withdraw from the
world.
Luther had a conservative position in regard to marriage. For him those who could not
endure their husbands or wives, but rather dismiss them with a certificate of divorce live not in
the spiritual kingdom. Luther stated, based on his doctrine of Two Kingdoms, that the law that
separates husband and wife is a secular law that does not apply to Christians, who are supposed
to live in the spiritual government.88 His primary basis is Jesus declaration in Matthew 19:6,
What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.89 Marriage fails because people do not
recognize that the marriage estate is created and ordered by God, and most people do not care
enough to nurture a happy home. As a result, when their marriage is unhappy they become
impatient and are not ready to forgive each other. Nonetheless, Luther was aware of his sixteenth
century environment. An apparent laxity in German public morals was corrupting the estate of
marriage. This happened because of sin, Luther claims: The marriage of man and woman was
divinely ordained. But how deformed it is now after sin.90 Creation and the order of marriage
had nothing to do with sin; sin applied only to humans. The creation indeed is good, declared
Luther, and the blessing is good; but through sin they are corrupted that married people cannot
make use of them without shame. All these things would not have existed in Adams state of
innocence; but just as married people eat and drink together without shame, so there would have
been a transcendent decency, not shame and embarrassment, in procreation and birth.91
Christian couples were admonished by Luther to exemplify patience and forgiveness in
marriage.92 Patience or long-suffering, which was one of the virtues of theologia crucis, was the
88
Estate of Marriage, 1522, WA 10.II, 290; LW 45: 31.
89
The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, WA 6, 555; LW 36: 98; also in That A Christian Should Bear
His Cross with Patience, WA 32, 378; LW 21: 94.
90
Genesis Lectures: Commentary on Genesis 2: 16-17, WA 42, 79; LW 1: 105.
91
Genesis Lectures: Commentary on Genesis 2: 16-17, WA 42, 79; LW 1: 104-105.
92
On the Sermon on the Mount, 1530, WA 32, 378-381; LW 21: 94-98.
attitude that faces down many troubles and sufferings in the house, in society, and in the world.
No station in life, Luther wrote, is free of suffering and pain, both from your own, like your
wife or children or household help or subjects, and from the outside, from your neighbors and all
sorts of accidental trouble.93 In other words, no Christian can be without his or her cross.
Impatient husbands and wives, observed Luther, would do their marriage so quickly that if it
does not go the way they would like, there is no other resort but to immediately end the
relationship with divorce. Luther declared: The best way to prevent divorce and other discord is
for everyone to learn patience in putting up with the common faults and troubles of his station in
life and to put up with them in his wife as well, knowing that we can never have everything just
right, the way we would like to have it.94 Everyone seems in a rush to end things without even
thinking to ask God for wisdom. Luther advised, If you want an undertaking of yours to be
blessed and successful, even a temporal undertaking like getting married . . . lift up your voice to
God, and call upon the one who owns it and who has to grant it. . . . Then why not ask Him to
make it a happy marriage?95
Christians need to radiate their good deeds to the ungodly. In this manner, Luther said,
we should learn to think and judge more properly about marriage than the flesh and the world
are accustomed to do.96 The other crucial trait in marriage is forgiveness, an attribute we got
from our experience of justification and faith. We had sinned and God forgave us, so we should
forgive others as well. While people do not bear their trouble patiently, Luther said, they have
selected only what seems to be just right to them, and they have tried to abolish and annul the
article called forgiveness of sins.97 In the world of unforgiving and avenging people, Luther
appeals to Christians to radiate patience and forgiveness to fellow Christians and non-Christians,
because according to him these two values are the most effective defense against the thoughts of
divorce.
93
On the Sermon on the Mount, WA 32, 379; LW 21: 95.
94
On the Sermon of the Mount, WA 32, 381; LW 21: 98.
95
On the Sermon of the Mount, WA 32, 379; LW 21: 95.
96
Genesis Lectures: On Genesis 28: 1-2, WA 43, 560; LW 5: 192.
97
Was there a justifiable reason for divorce? Luther was cautious to decide for himself
whether divorce is allowable. He could only speak to what Christ had said in Matthew 5:32 and
19:9. Christ forbids a believer to divorce his or her spouse. However, adultery, he said, is the
strongest justifiable cause to dissolve a marriage. To quote Luther in his 1530 treatise On
Marriage Matters: And because God has commanded in the law of Moses that adulterers
should be stoned, it is certain that adultery also dissolves a marriage, because by it the adulterer
is sentenced and condemned to death, and also because Christ, in Matthew 19 [:9], when he
forbids married people to divorce each other, excepts adultery and says, Whoever divorces his
wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.98
In his earlier discussions on marriage, particularly in The Babylonian Captivity of the
Church in 1520 and in the Estate of Marriage in 1522, Luther was resolute to uphold I
Corinthians 7: 10-11 as the rule: people can divorce under the condition that both partners
remain unmarried unless one of them dies. However, he became less intolerant in his later
writing in 1530: Accordingly I cannot and may not deny that where one spouse commits
adultery and it can be proven, the other partner is free and can obtain a divorce and marry
another man.99 In his Genesis Lectures, Luther cited a parallelism between the experience of
Lot in Genesis 19: 6-9, and the issue of divorce as the lesser evil.100 Luther presented an ethical
question: Did Lot do right when, for the sake of saving his guests, he offered his daughters for
defilement?101 He stated that divorce can be permitted in order to avoid greater sin, just as it is
right to cut off a finger or a hand in order to preserve the entire body. However, Luthers
religious conservatism expressed that this is done only in material situations, not in spiritual one.
In material situations, Luther said, the general rule holds good that in order to avoid greater
98
Luther strongly believed that the last advise must come from the pastor or any authority for that matter.
And above all, he says, this separation is not to take place on ones own authority but it is declared through the
advice and judgment of the pastor or authorities. On Marriage Matters, 1530, WA 30.III, 242; LW 46: 311.
99
On Marriage Matters, 1530, WA 30.III, 242; LW 46: 311.
100
Genesis Lectures: Commentary on Genesis 19: 6-9, At this point, Luther favored the conservative
interpretation of Nicolaus de Lyra in his own Genesis commentary and criticized the more moderate interpretation
provided by Augustine. WA 43, 59-60; LW 3: 258-259.
101
evil you should choose the lesser evil; but in spiritual affairs the situation is different, and evils
should not be done in order that good may result.102
Luther knew so well that ideal marriages are rare even in his own German society. The
harsh realities of marriage were familiar to him as he came in contact with married couples and
families through his parish visitations in Wittenberg.103 His own marriage, however, provided a
vivid example for his followers. In a society where marriage is taken lightly and where the
demise of the family is escalating, being light in the darkness is expected of those who wish to be
Christians. Marriage remains the heart of a healthy home that engenders and preserves the
integrity of creation. Christians, the rare birds on earth, who are sustained by faith, prayer, and
the Word of God, must shine and provide vivid example to the world; for the lost need a beacon
of light to see the right way.104
2. The Order of Politia
Christians do not only play a vital role in the preservation of life in the world and the
redemption of creation, but live also a vibrant participation in the state or secular realm, and not
just in the spiritual realm. Luther gave clearer emphasis to this facet of Christian life in the
doctrine of three orders than in the doctrine of two kingdoms. To avoid misunderstanding, let me
elucidate that within the political order or politia, Luther included everything needed for the life
of the world, not just the temporal authorities. This clearly demonstrates the interrelation of the
order of politia with the orders of oeconomia and ecclesia. It is remarkable to note here that this
sixteenth century political thought has brought a significant development to Christian faith
wherein Luther undermined the principle of withdrawal from the world, or the non-
102
103
Susan C. Karant-Nunn and Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks, eds., chapter on Marriage and the Family, in
Luther and Women: A Sourcebook (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 88-136.
104
Luther consistently challenged Christians to be light of the world and to actively exercise their roles as
royal priesthood. He applied Matthew 5: 16, Let your light so shine before people that they may see your good
deeds and glorify your Father who is in heaven; and the basis of the priesthood of all believers in I Peter 2: 9, But
you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, Gods own people, that you may declare the wonderful
deeds of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. Commentary on Psalm 110, 1535, WA 41,
147; LW 13: 295;
involvement of Christians in politics and other worldly affairs. This detachment from politics and
worldly affairs is an overarching belief which today still preoccupies many Christians, who are
concerned about keeping themselves away from what they regard as the evils of the world in
order to be better sanctified by a disciplined life and motivated by the gift of eternal life in
heaven. For Luther, politics and the world should not be regarded as evil. It is rather the erring
politicians, economists, and citizens who are evil.
Luther felt strongly that Christians should play an active role in the political order of
creation.105 There is always that tendency to misinterpret Luther, that the kingdom of God is
totally divorced from the kingdom of the world. Not at all! Luther developed a teaching on social
involvement and political responsibility of Christians so that they, who live both in the kingdom
of God and in the kingdom of the world, can co-exist with non-Christians, and even with the
ungodly or non-believers.
Basing on the notion that a Christian is simul iustus et peccator (at one and the same
time righteous and a sinner), Luther believed that Christians were very much engaged in the
lifelong battle between good and evil.106 Although the Christian had already been justified and
now lived without the law but with the Gospel, the law still carries out its spiritual function on
the Christian and shows him his sin and reminds him or her that he or she is still a sinner. The
law exhorts and drives the Christian to battle. Armed with the ethic of love and justice,
Christians have the ethical responsibility to be a part of this battle until sin is finally defeated in
death. In one of his relevant study guides for lay people, Called to be Political (But I Dont want
to be Political!): A Workshop Focusing on the Teachings of Martin Luther on the Role of
Christians on Politics, Thomas Strieter sees Luther as the prophet who continues to inform us to
live our faith in all the dimensions of society. Luther believed, says Strieter, that we
Christians have the responsibility to be a part of this struggle, not to withdraw from it. In all that
105
Genesis Lectures: On Genesis 6:4, At this point one should take note of the strange counsel of God,
who directs us to respect the government, to obey it, to serve it, and to give it honor. . . . Accordingly, Scripture does
not bestow honor on the governments but threatens then with destruction and, as it were, makes then an object of
open contempt. Nevertheless, it commands us most painstakingly to respect them, to give them honor, and to accord
them every kind of service. WA 42, 287; LW 2: 35.
106
Disputation against the Antinomians, 1538: Manet enim ista lucta sanctis, dum hic vivunt. Pugnant hic
dies ac noctes, donec tandem vincant per Christum. WA 39/I, 474. Quare impii obtundendi sint legis lumine, ut
tandem perterrefacti discant Christum quaerere, et piis est etiam docenda lex monendi et cohortandi causa, ut in
pugna et concertatione permaneant, nec patiantur se vinci oblatratu et insultationibus carnis suae. WA 39.I, 513.
we do, we are Gods partners in the world, promoting love and justice, and the wholeness of all
Gods creation.107 On the other hand, Christians, though they no longer need the sword and the
law because of the Gospel, do all they can to assist the governing authorities, that they may
continue to function with integrity and be honored by people with respect and fear.108 Thus,
Christians help make the realm of politics valuable to people. The Christian, actually, supports
the state by being ready to accept an office in the government and thus take an active part in
politics. Christians ought to be moved to do this simply by thankfulness for the benefits which
God gives through the government. Participating in politics by accepting an office is the finest
thank-offering, the highest service of God.109
In a world of unrestrained misuse and abuse of Gods gifts (earths natural resources),
Luther, who was a prophet for justice of creation, surfaced as a relentless critic against the
collaborative forces of wicked governance and rapacious globalize trade. Governments that were
supposed to be defending economic justice and ecological integrity were the ones suppressing
the poor and the environment. With the intention of saving the common people for economic
equity and for creative use of natural resources, the reformer was actively involved in
admonishing government rulers to take control and regulate the privileged few in their
economic monopoly, usury, unjust prices, and devouring of domestic products by international
luxurious goods. It is sad to note, however, that one of the privileged few was the church
hierarchy, which, because of its political ambitions and financial difficulties, took advantage of
the common believers by exacting them with all types of dues and with them a machinery for
collection. This far-reaching scam of the church hierarchy with the Fugger banking house as its
cohort, who provided the loans, had largely encouraged the proliferation of moneyed-economy
or capitalism. In fact, the Roman Church did not only promote capitalism but was considerably
107
This resource material was used by women of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)
particularly in local congregations and synodical womens organizations, with the primary purpose of encouraging
lay people to be open in exploring Luthers teachings on the role of Christians in politics. Thomas Strieter, Called to
be Political (But I Dont Want to be Political!): A Workshop Focusing on the Teachings of Martin Luther on the
Role of Christians in Politics (Chicago: Women of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 2002), 6.
108
Temporal Authority, 1523, WA 11, 253-254; LW 45: 94-95.
109
A Sermon on Keeping the Children in School, 1530, WA 30.II, 561; LW 46: 241; qouted in Althaus, The
Ethics of Martin Luther, 121, n. 56.
involved in usury or lending money with interest.110 Luther warned the civil rulers to be true to
their vocation because God had ordained them to restrain the offenders of injustice so peace and
justice in the world would be preserved. This is why the world, declared the reformer, needs a
strict, harsh temporal government which will compel and constrain the wicked. This is necessary
in order that the world may not become a desert, peace vanish, and mens trade and society be
utterly destroyed.111
Creation, which ever since the fall is plagued by wickedness of humans, needs a morally
responsible civil government as a remedy required by humans corrupted nature and as a tangible
protector applying its laws against those who abuse creation. Governments are masks of God
that are either strengthened or overturned by Gods control.112 Individuals who serve in the
government play a vital role as cooperatores Dei so God, as a Creator, can preserve His own
creatures. Luther declared: What need, therefore, would there have been of laws and civil
government, which is like a cauterizing iron and an awful remedy by which harmful limbs are
cut off that the rest may be preserved?113 As was stated early about Luthers thought on Psalm
82:1, I would emphasize again that heads of governments were called gods, because
authorities were one of the divine forces in creation and they were appointed by the Supreme
God, who surely willed that His power was distinct from theirs.114
An interesting political concern that needs to be addressed at this point is to ask Luther
Who are fit to govern? This question is worthy of note because many secular rulers today are
bad apples. Having said that, I keep in mind the German proverb, Fursten sind wildbrett in
110
R. H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (New York: Hardcourt Brace, 1926), 294, note 32;
cited by Forell, Faith Active in Love, 28.
111
On Trade and Usury, 1524, WA 6, 36; LW 45: 258.
112
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 13: 10; WA 42, 507; LW 2: 343.
113
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 2: 16-17; WA 42, 79; LW 1: 104.
114
Commentary on Psalm 82: 1, 1530: God stands in the congregation of God and is judge among the
gods. Luther wrote: He confesses, and does not deny that they are gods. He will not be seditious or lessen their
honor or power, as the disobedient rebels do, and the mad saints, the heretics and fanatics. Nevertheless he makes a
true distinction between Gods power and theirs. He will let them be gods over men, but not over God Himself; as if
he were to say: It is true that you are gods over all of us, but not over the God of all of us. For God appointed you as
gods, surely will that He Himself shall be an exemption and that His Godhead shall not be subjected to your
godhead. He would not allow you to be gods with the idea that He would cease to remain God; but He wills to
remain Supreme God, a Judge over all gods. WA 31.I, 193; LW 13: 44.
Himel (A prince is a rare bird in heaven). Since the order of politia was established, public
officials are always plagued by abuse of power, corruption, fraud, and other immoralities. Luther
was very much aware that many of the kings and princes of his day were unprincipled and
immoral. This was the reason why Luther encouraged all German parents to let their children be
nourished by the Word of God and be educated in schools so that society could produce morally-
wise and well-bred leaders and citizens.
So, what would happen to our world if Christians or other God-fearing individuals were
not involved in politics at all? There are many arrogant individuals in public service who usurp
not only the government but also the church.115 In his Genesisvorlesung, Luther described these
immoralities as abuses of Gods gifts: This is the universal bane of our nature, that we are not
satisfied with Gods gifts but abuse them and thus mock their Donor and Creator. Now God
bestows empires and kingdoms, peace and other gifts in order that kings and princes might
acknowledge Him, worship Him, and give thanks to Him. But kings and princes abuse these gifts
as though He had given them in order that they might despise their Creator and generous
Giver.116
How could society avert these regrettable political scenarios? According to Luther civil
society should be governed by the wise and best individuals or the cream of the crop of our
society.117 The importance of reason and knowledge had been underscored here by Luther in line
with his political thought. He said the law is maintained Not by fist and weapons; but heads and
books must do it. Men must learn and know the law and wisdom of worldly government.118
115
Luther interpreted the phrase, giants of the earth in Genesis 6:4 as arrogant rulers of the world and of
the church. Civil authorities and the clergy usurped their powers out of vested interests. The misuse of power was
condemned by Luther so the integrity of the government and the church would be preserved. According to him this
is the greatest sin in support of idolatry, attacks on sound doctrine, and tyranny. Luther cited Moses as the one who
originally called them as giants of the earth, who usurp powers, both of the state and that of the church. He wrote,
Wickedness has increased to such an extent that there were giants on the earth. Morever, he (Moses) explicitly
states that from the cohabitation of the sons of God with the daughters of men there were born, not sons of God but
giants, that is, arrogant men who usurped the government and the priesthood. Genesis Lectures, WA 42, 285; LW 2:
32. Accordingly, those men whom Moses designates in this passage by the detestable and ugly name without
a doubt held positions in the lawful government of the church and of the state. But because they do not make use of
their office as they were bound, God brands them with hateful word and disgraces them. WA 43, 287; LW 2: 36.
116
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 6:3, WA 43, 244-245; LW 2: 26-27. (Emphasis added)
117
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 42: 7, WA 44, 475-476; LW 7: 238-239.
118
This law is our governments wisdom and reason.119 On the other hand, he spelled out certain
qualities of qualified individuals especially those who are called, gifted in leadership, well-
disciplined, God-fearing, and service-oriented. The great model for Luther was King David, who
exemplified repentance, faith in God, responsible household rule, priestly service to ones own
family and subjects, and strong worldly government. David was indeed a model who lived an
active role in all of the three orders of creation, i.e., the oecononia, politia, and ecclesia. Ulrich
Asendorf articulated this argument in his article, Luthers Genesisvorlesung als Paradigma
christlicher Weltverantwortung,120 which discussed the significance of Luthers lectures on
Genesis as the model of Christian action in the world as Christians confront the crisis of
modernity.
Luther would certainly discount traditional politicians who take advantage of their social
status, fame and wealth just to be enthroned in power. For if men, Luther said, were to rule
solely by might, the end result would surely be a bestial kind of existence: whoever could get the
better of another would simply toss him into the discard pile.121 With this line of thought,
humility, the prized virtue in the kingdom of God, was remarkably advocated in the Genesis
Lectures with the intent of fighting the vices of pride and arrogance in public service. For you
are not a man, stressed Luther, to be adored by the rest, but it is Gods will that this life be
governed and preserved, in order that the works of the devil may be abolished and peace and
discipline may be retained. This must be the goal of all government.122 When humility sparks in
the life of a ruler, it shines to the people like the sun and the moon because his humility shines
brighter than that of the slave.123 A ruler who excels others in dignity, one could say: Ah, who
119
A Sermon on Keeping Children in School, WA 30.II, 560; LW 46: 239.
120
The great example for such a person is David, who is justified in the church by word and faith, and he
also holds the Amt of worldly government. He judges, condemns and sets free, administers and governs, wages wars
and yet remains a faithful person and a good tree. Such shedding of blood is pleasing to God, even though the
world and the monks and other hypocrites take offense as they only look at the outer appearance (larva). We see that
David lives a righteous and holy life in all of these three hierarchies, the ecclesial, political, and economic. Ulrich
Asendorf, Luthers Genesisvorlesung als Paradigma christlicher Weltverantwortung in Christentum und
Weltverantwortung, Veffentlichungen der Luther-Akademie e. V. Ratzeburg 19 (1992): 71-94.
121
122
Genesis Lectures: On Genesis 41:40, WA 44, 435-436; LW 7: 184.
123
am I? Why should I place myself above others, except that a heavier burden of government lies
on me? The splendor and the dignity are greater, but for this reason a stricter account must be
rendered of the office I have administered.124 There is no happier situation for humankind,
Luther described, than that where a government is ruled by men [and women] to whom God has
committed it. . . . It is a fine thing, to be sure, if an emperor, prince, or lord is by nature so wise
and able that he [or she] can instinctively hit upon what is right. . . . Such rulers are pretty rare
birds. In ruling it is better to stick to the written law, which carries with it greater recognition and
respect . . . the need for special gifts or charisma.125
Certainly, Luther preferred a Christian ruler in a civil society. As a matter of fact, while
fortifying his own Reformation in Germany, he was in dire need of political backing.
Fortunately, the turn of political events went to his advantage, and led to the all-out support of
his prince, the Elector Frederick the Wise to the cause of his Reformation. I would describe
Luther here as a political influence. There is no doubt, however, that the success of the
Reformation in Germany (like the success of Calvin in Geneva) was due to his effort to unite the
Church through the uniformity of doctrine and discipline; and, of course, he exploited the civil
authority, to collaborate and protect the church from further break up, against the radical
reformers and other heretics. However, while he advocated natural law as the universal moral
norm in a pluralistic society, religious pluralism or religious freedom were never tolerated by
Luther in his particular context. One should be aware of the context: Luther was fortifying his
own Reformation against the heretics of his time; otherwise, he would have failed to unite his
movement or shattered the Lutheran Reformation into further fragmentation. He believed that
religious uniformity was a basic necessity in his context. Proof of this was his denunciation of
the Anabaptists, Spiritualists, and other radical reformers, who basically advocated withdrawal
from the world.
With his ethics of world affirmation, Luther encouraged Christians, particularly those
who are fit to serve, to get involved in the political world. He encouraged Christians who were
gifted in leadership: Therefore, if you see that there is a lack of hangmen, constables, judges,
lords, or princes, and you find that you are qualified, you should offer your services and seek the
124
125
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 42:7, WA 44, 475-476; LW 7: 238-239. (Emphasis added)
position, that the essential governmental authority may not be despised and become enfeebled or
perish.126
Rulers and people are both Gods creation and order; they belong together and are
attached to one another.127 On this account, Luther asserted that the ethical influence of
Christians plays a vital role in the political life of the whole created order. The Christian is very
much concerned with the integrity of rulers in leading the people, and in the cooperation of
citizens to work together for the preservation of creation. And although political communities are
sometimes self-willed and disobedient, God would not merely chastise them but would also
continue the work of preservation; God brings them together, feeds them, lets them grow,
blesses and preserve them, gives them fields and meadows, cattle, water, air, sun, moon, and
everything they have . . . [God] has to say it in plain words, and open confess and boast that the
communities are His.128 This was intended by God so that the Gospel can be preached to
communities. Though Christians are rare birds in society, their strong faith, good deeds, gifts,
talents, skills, and ethical values, particularly Christian love, should radiate to their neighbors;
they should utilize these qualities in the politia for the glory of God. The Gospel that leads
people to repentance and liberates them from the bondage of sin remains to be the tool of
Christians in radiating their faith to sinners. On the other hand, when Christians could not handle
the callousness and predatory attitude of the wicked on earth, the secular government is there to
fend them off. The life of one, Luther wrote, who does not want to show respect for the image
of God in man . . . this life God turns over to the government, in order that his blood, too, may be
shed.129
In his discussion on the cooperatio der Politie bei der conservation ex nihilo, Johannes
Schwanke features Luthers description of the government authorities as Heilande oder rzte
126
Temporal Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed, 1523, WA 11, 265; LW 45: 95. (Italics mine)
127
Commentary on Psalm 82, 1530: Luther articulates that rulers and people exist side by side as a
community and as Gods creation. In fact, he calls it the congregation of God, and if the people are disobedient
and the rulers are self-willed, both are punished; the people by the rulers and the rulers by God. Yet God still brings
them together, blesses, and preserves them as a community. WA 31.I, 195; LW 13: 46.
128
Commentary on Psalm 82, WA 31.I, 195; LW 13: 46.
129
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 9:6b, For God made man in His own image. WA 42, 361; LW 2: 141.
(saviors or healers).130 According to him, society is being kept healthy by the government that
cures the ailments of the body by defending the people from the wicked. It is utterly
inconceivable if the world where we live is without governments. If there were no governments,
people would simply devour other people and what they possess, like land and natural resources,
as irrational beasts devour one another (our world would easily be seized by the rule of the
jungle). In his Genesisvorlesung, Luther articulated: If God had not conferred this divine
power on men, what sort of life do you suppose we would be living? Because He foresaw that
there would always be a great abundance of evil men, He established this outward remedy,
which the world had not had thus far, in order that wantonness might not increase beyond
measure. With this hedge, these walls, God has given protection for our life and possessions.131
The laws and the sword of the secular government are vital factors in the ethics of creation,
especially in regulating the affairs of the world and in protecting the two most exploited beings
of creation: the poor and the non-human creatures. For instance, Luther railed against the
powerful people engaged in international trade and commerce who were getting immensely rich
on the backs of the poor. He called people to boycott such huge trading companies rather than
patronize structures that were obviously unjust and exploitative to nature. He admonished the
government to intervene and regulate such monopoly which was devouring the poor and the
environment. Luthers prime concern in this exploitative globalization of his time was for plain
justice and equity in the economic life of his people. Responsibility for the attainment of this end
he assigned to the government.
I have already said that Christians are rare people on earth. This is why the world needs
a strict, harsh temporal government which will compel and constrain the wicked to
refrain from theft and robbery, and to return what they borrow. This is necessary in
order that the world may not become a desert, peace vanish, and mens trade and
society be utterly destroyed; all of which would happen if we were to rule the world
according to the gospel, rather than driving and compelling the wicked by laws and the
use of force to do and allow what is right.132
130
Die Obrigkeiten sind fr Luther Heilande oder rzte (salvatores seu Medici) der Gesellschaft, die
diese gesund halten bzw. heilen sollen. Johannes Schwanke cites Luthers commentary on Genesis 14: 4-6, WA 42,
524; LW 2: 366; Schwanke, Creatio ex nihilo, 184-186.
131
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 9:6a: Whosoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be
shed. Luther said This text is outstanding and worthy of note; for here God establishes government and gives it the
sword, to hold wantonness in check, lest violence and other sins proceed without limit. WA 42, 361; LW 2: 141.
132
Trade and Usury, 1528, WA 6, 37; LW 45: 258.
The government is indeed an indispensable instrument for the preservation of creation. It

is there to protect the weak and defenseless against any sort of exploitation by the brutal
selfishness and profit-oriented forces of fellow humans. It is the function of and honor of the
secular government to make people out of wild beasts and to prevent people from becoming wild
beasts.133 The greedy, the arrogant and the idolatrous, powerful people who distort the orders of
creation, are always to be checked by authorities because they behave like wild beasts, indulge in
extravagant consumption, and treat other creatures as though they had no value at all. People and
other creatures need to be protected from bestial forces. The government should always be there
to protect those who do good and punish those who do wrong. The government, wrote Luther,
protects a mans body so that no one may slay it; it protects a mans wife so that no one
may seize and defile her; it protects a mans child, his daughter or son, so that no one
may carry them away and steal them; it protects a mans house so that no one may
break in and wreck things; it protects a mans fields and cattle and all his goods so that
no one may attack, steal, plunder, or damage them. Protection of this sort does not exist
among the beasts, and if it were not for worldly government there would be none of it
among men either; they would surely cease to be men and become mere beasts.134
uerer Friede ist notwendig (External peace is necessary), wrote Luther, for where there is
no peace, the church cannot teach the Word of God, and neither the household nor the
government can administer well.135 The government will make sure society can enjoy peace and
protection. Luther made use of Isaacs leadership in Genesis 26 as an example: A peaceful place
and tranquil time are needed. But in time of trial we should make use of what we have learned in
peacetime, just as Isaac did. When he sees that he has peace because of Gods kindness, he does
not snore, is not spoiled by leisure, and does not strive to accumulate wealth.136
133
A Sermon on Keeping Children in School, 1530, WA 30.I, 560; LW 46: 237.
134
A Sermon of Keeping Children in School, 1530, WA 30.I, 560-561; LW 46: 237-238.
135
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 26: 24-25, And without a doubt he was a teacher completely free from
error, one who trained and instructed the church diligently in the Word of faith and truth. And this he could do
properly and well in a time of peace. . . . For where there is no peace, there is no time or place for constructing
tabernacles or erecting altars, the people cannot be taught. WA 43, 484; LW 5: 80.
136
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 26: 24-25, WA 43, 484; LW 5: 80.
There are some relevant ethical concerns that should be addressed to Luther here: What if
the government authorities become unjust? Do Christians have the right to disobey? Can they
dethrone tyrants? These political questions are indeed vital to the preservation of creation.
Wicked rulership in the world certainly injures humanity and of the whole the created order.
Basically, Luther would express here his religious idealism: On the account that God has created
and established government authorities as one of the orders of creation, God Himself is the one
who will punish wicked rulers. Christians are ambiguously taught by Luther to obey the
governing authorities whether they act justly or unjustly, since they ought to obey them for the
sake of God. In other words, the Supreme God is the judge of the gods. In his treatise on
Temporal Authority, Luther wrote that although the lords did wrong in this, it would not
therefore be just or right to do wrong in return, that is, to be disobedient and destroy Gods
ordinance, which is not ours to do. On the contrary, we ought to suffer wrong, and if a prince or
lord will not tolerate where the gospel is preached, as Christ says in Matthew 10 [:23], When
they persecute you in one town, flee to the next.137
The fact that the government is misusing its gifts from God does not concern the
Christian. Christians only recourse is to suffer injustice and hope in God to judge the wicked.
The unjust ruler will soon receive his punishment from the Supreme Judge.138 What God has
enthroned, God can also dethrone. In his commentary on Genesis 6:4, Luther wrote about wicked
rulers: Because they do not make use of their office as they were bound, God brands them with
the hateful word and disgraces them. Just as we in the corrupt state of our nature cannot make
use of even the slightest gift without haughtiness, so God is most intolerant of haughtiness and
puts down the mighty from their thrones, sends the rich away empty.139
Luther remained consistent in his political thought from his earlier writings such as the
Temporal Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed (1523), through his political ethics in
the Genesis Lectures (1535-1545). In his commentary on Genesis 13:10, Luther persists that it is
137
Whether Soldiers, too, Can be Saved, WA 19, 644-645; LW. 46: 104-105. (Emphasis added)
138
139
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 6: 4, WA 42, 287; LW 2: 36. (Emphasis added)
through Gods control that governments are either strengthened or overturned; we just do not see
it because of the masks of God (larvae Dei).140
However, obedience to authorities has its limitations. It ends when rulers impose
something contrary to the Gospel and the Christian faith. Passive disobedience is being
admonished to Christians. In other words, the Christian has the right to disobey but he or she has
to accept and suffer the consequences of his or her action of defending the Christian faith. In
opposing his or her ruler, the Christian has to bear the cross of humility and suffering. Thus, the
Christian could say to the ruler:
Gracious sir, I owe you obedience in body and property; command me within the
limits of your authority on earth, and I will obey. But if you command me to believe or
to get rid of certain books, I will not obey; for then you are a tyrant and overreach
yourself, commanding where you have neither the right nor the authority, etc. Should
he seize your property on account of this and punish such disobedience, then blessed are
you; thank God that you are worthy to suffer for the sake of the divine word.141
The prominent biblical passage We would rather obey God than men (Acts 5: 29) is always the
bold position of Christians to any ruler who insists on imposing what the Christian believes to be
contrary to Christian faith. They may opt for civil disobedience, but Christians are told by Christ
not to revolt or use violence if they are oppressed by the ruler. Rather, they should choose to
suffer for the sake of faith and the neighbor even if it will cost their lives and properties. Behind
this precarious political stand, however, Christians persist in having hope in God, the One who
establishes and deposes governments, and relying on Christs body, the ecclesia, which has the
active prophetic role in creation.
3. The Order of Ecclesia
Here we have the establishment of an order of creation that would serve to strengthen the
orders of politia and oeconomia. In order to show that the human being is created in the imago
Dei and as a moral creature is distinct from other living beings, ecclesia was established first
140
141
Temporal Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed, 1523, WA 11, 268; LW 45: 112. (Italics
mine)
before there was any government of the home and of the state.142 In the Genesisvorlesung, faith
in God and his active spiritual life are the elements of human beings relationship with ecclesia.
This does not signify, however, that ecclesia is over and above the orders of oeconomia and
politia. Luther already broke with that medieval idea. As mentioned earlier, the Dreistnde
complement and correlate each other in the preservation of creation and neither one is inferior to
nor superior over the other. The order of the church (Kirchesordnung) is an essential part of
creation due to its concern with the spiritual salvation of human beings. In fact, the misuse of
spiritual power is a more serious matter than the misuse of secular power, because it is more
dangerous in the sense that the church or spiritual office is to lead the people in faith to God and
to their eternal salvation.143 Otherwise, the mishandling of its divine task disrupts the mission of
Christians, who are rare birds in the world, in preserving the integrity of oeconomia and politia
and in spreading the Gospel of salvation to people in the kingdom of the world.
The church, according to Luther, is the body of Christ (corpus Christianum) and also the
community of saints (communio sanctorum) or the community of believers, where Christ is
the head. The members of the body are scattered in society and in the world; they are always the
minority, a few Christians who are doing selfless service in the oeconomia, politia, or ecclesia
for the sake of Christ and the neighbor.144
142
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 2: 16-17: And He commanded him, saying: Eat from every tree of
Paradise, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil do not eat. Here we have the establishment of the
church before there was any government of the home and of the state; for Eve was not yet created. Moreover, the
church is established without any walls and without any pomp, in a very spacious and very delightful place. After
the church has been established, the household government is also set up, when Eve is added to Adam as his
companion. Thus the temple is earlier than the home, and it is also better this way. . . . Therefore after the
establishment of the church the government of the home is also assigned to Adam in Paradise. But the church was
established first because God wants to show by this sign, as it were, that man was created for another purpose than
the rest of the living beings. Because the church was established by the Word of God, it is certain that man was
created for an immortal and spiritual life. WA 42, 78-79; LW 1: 103-104.
143
Treatise of Good Works, 1520: This is the reason it is less disastrous when the temporal power goes
wrong than when the spiritual power does. For the temporal power can do no real harm because it has nothing to do
with the preaching of the gospel, or with faith, or with the first three commandments. But the spiritual power does
harm not only when it does wrong but when it neglects its duty and busies itself with something else altogether. . . .
For poor people believe and behave just as they see their spiritual overlords believing and behaving. If they say and
hear nothing, then they believe nothing and do nothing, since this spiritual power is instituted for no other purpose
than to lead the people in faith to God. This is not so with the temporal power. WA 6, 259; LW 44: 92-93.
144
Nonetheless, a few Christians had to remain because Christs name, baptism, Gospel, and sacrament
remained. For their sake the whole land is called the Christians land, and they are called Christendom or Christs
people and Gods saints. WA 30.II, 169.
Prophetic Role in Creation
The crucial station in Kirchenordnung is the office of preaching, primarily because of its
authority from the Word of God. Preachers have to play a vibrant role in creation because they
are the mouthpiece of God the Creator, a part of Gods masks in creation (Larvae). Where, then,
is God? Luther writes, Or how do we become sure that there is a God who thus rebukes?
Answer: You hear in this place that He stands in the congregation. Where His congregation is,
there you will find Him. For there He has His appointed priests and preachers, to whom He has
committed the duty of teaching, exhorting, rebuking, comforting, in a word, of preaching the
Word of God.145 For this reason, when the political order and the economic order of creation are
misused by the wicked and unjust, the office of preaching is there to check, rebuke, give
direction and to arouse people to repentance.146 In his exposition of Psalm 101, Luther
declared:
Therefore, it is no wonder that worldly kings, princes, and lords are enemies of God and
persecute his Word. This is the natural thing for them; they are born that way. It is a
natural and innate characteristic of reason that it has neither grace nor intelligence to
think or to act otherwise.147
The preaching of repentance is seriously needed by a sinful world. Sin has distorted the beautiful
creation and fallen humanity has to be brought into right relationship with the Creator. Unless
people surrender their trust to the Creator, they would never honor the integrity of other
creatures.148 This is the mission of the church through its proclamation of repentance and
forgiveness. Luther strongly emphasized the preaching of repentance in his exposition of Genesis
38:1-5. He used the lives of sinners and saints as examples of Gods act of forgiveness and
redemption.
145
Commentary on Psalm 82, 1530, WA 31.I, 189; LW 13: 49.
146
147
Commentary on Psalm 101, WA 50, 223; LW 13: 168.
148
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 1: 26: To have relationship with the Creator is to have the source of
knowledge about nature. . . . That we should know all the qualities of trees and herbs, and the disposition of all the
beasts. WA 42, 49; LW 1: 66.
Accordingly, the church of God has great need of these examples. For what would
become of us? What hope would be left for us if Peter had not denied Christ and all the
apostles had not taken offense at Him, and if Moses, Aaron, and David had not fallen?
Therefore God wanted to console sinners with these examples and to say: If you have
fallen, return; for the door of mercy is open to you. You, who are conscious of no sin,
do not be presumptuous; but both of you should trust in my grace and mercy.149
This is the preaching of repentance and faith or the forgiveness of sins, which is the substance of
the Gospel, the law of God for Christians. Repentance was, in fact, the first preaching of Christ
in his earthly ministry: The Kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe in the Gospel.
(Mark 1: 15)
In the world of erring rulers, a preacher is there to stand before the gods of people
(Obrigkeit or government authorities) by being firm and confident and to deal uprightly and
honestly with it; and in the congregation, that is, openly and boldly before God and men.150
Then and there, the wicked secular authorities are judged by God through Gods mouthpiece, the
preacher, who applies the Word of God. The power of the Word and preaching convicts the
hearts of erring individuals and arouse them to repentance. It is actually God who convicts and
converts people; preachers are mere instruments of Gods redemption. Preachers are also called
reconcilers because they are used by God through the church so that men and women are being
reconciled to the Creator.151
A strong prophetic preaching of ecclesia is one of the essential forces of preserving the
integrity of creation. The bold prophets of the church, through the power of the Word of God,
could prick the consciences of people and could correct the predatory traits in society that
persistently obliterate Gods creation. The prophetic task of the ministerial office is very crucial
especially in a society where injustice, economic inequity, and obliteration of nature are
149
Genesis Lectures, Commentary on Genesis 38: 1-5, WA 44, 309-310; LW 7: 11.
150
Commentary on Psalm 82, 1530, WA 31.I, 189; LW 13: 49.
151
On Genesis 49: 3: And this, as I have said, belongs to the priestly office. For we know that in the Old
Testament there were various sacrifices and slaughterings of cattle whereby God was placated and sins were
forgiven not by virtue of the sacrifices but by faith in the Victim who was to come. Accordingly, this is what Jacob
means: Men were to be reconciled to God through your lot by the right of primogeniture. You are preeminent in
raising and in strength or ruling. You are the head and beginning of my people. From you the increase of my house
begins. In addition, even the priestly honor belonged to you, in order that you might be a preacher and the
reconciler of men before God. WA 44, 732; LW 8: 210.
widespread. The evils of society and of the world are to be exposed, rebuked and condemned by
the Word of God through the preachers. They always have to proclaim the truth and the
judgment of the Word of God with all boldness and honesty. The divine inspiration of the Holy
Spirit is their wisdom and guide to enable the Word of God to convict and renew the sinner. To
quote Althaus, This is necessary in view of the constantly threatened misuse of the orders
created by God and the demonic temptations of power.152 It should be noted that Luther himself
utilized this prophetic office in order to rebuke erring and unjust political and economic powers
of his time. He strongly believed that prophetic preaching, especially to rulers and powerful
individuals who distort the political and economic orders, is a moral duty to uphold a good
society and an orderly creation. It would be far more seditious, Luther wrote, if a preacher did
not rebuke the sins of the rulers.153 Luther admonished the government rulers to allow
themselves to be criticized, judged, corrected, and instructed by the Word of God. To quote
Althaus: For although the political office certainly does not stand under the church, it does stand
under God and His Word. For this reason the office of the word must speak to the government,
and the government must listen. The same word which instituted and established the authority of
government continues to stand above it and judge it.154 When asked whether a pastor really has
the authority to rebuke the government, Luther replied, Yes indeed! For although it is a divine
institution, God has reserved the right to punish vices and correct wrongs. Accordingly, one
should rebuke secular rulers if they allow the goods of their poor subjects to be drained off and
ruined by usury and bad government.155 Luther vehemently condemned economic exploitation.
For Luther, one of the leading examples of people in the Bible who heeded the prophetic
ministry is King David, who concedes that he has not established and maintained it through his
own great intelligence and astute thinking but rather through the co-operation and direction of
God through His prophet.156 The reformer gave light on Psalm 101:2:
152
Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther, 150.
153
Commentary on Psalm 82, 1530, WA 31.I, 190, 197; LW 13: 43, 50.
154
Althaus, Ethics of Martin Luther, 150.
155
Theodore Tappert, ed., Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel: Library of Christian Classics
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955), 336.
156
But if there are some among the kings, princes, and nobles who seriously yes, I say
seriously concern themselves about God and His Word, you may well regard such as
extraordinary leaders from God and call them a rare dish in the kingdom of heaven.
They do not do this by virtue of their reason or noble wisdom. God touches their hearts
and directs them in a special way so that they do not resist Him the way other kings and
lords do. Instead they follow Davids example and promote the cause of His Word, to
the extent that God gives them the ability and help.157
The office of preaching has always been a vital ministry to those who rule by directing them for
good governance. For Luther criticism of the government is the concern of those whose office
requires them to do so. In the same way, God has forbidden those who are not called to exercise
this office. Therefore, Christians keep themselves away from irresponsible criticism of the
government, which is so popular among the people of this world. They should leave the task to
the ministerial office.
Distortion of the Schpfungsordnungen
Luthers natural world was not free from massive obliteration. Today, sermons and
lectures about ecological crises or the obliteration of nature are no longer solely heard in
churches and schools but, as Luther declares, All the fields, yes, almost the entire creation is full
of such sermons, reminding us of our sin and of Gods wrath, which has been aroused by our
sin.158 These creatures have become our living preachers. This is the declaration of Luther in
his exegesis on Genesis 1: 17-19, elucidating that other creatures have become our contemporary
preachers. Luther declared: Our home, farm, field, garden, and everything, is full of Bible,
where God through his wondrous works not only preaches, but also knocks on our eyes, touches
our senses, and somehow enlightens our hearts.159 The whole creation groans and preaches to
humanity, telling us about our misuse of the gifts of God and the distortion or injury we brought
to the orders of creation. Sad to say that humanity still remains callous and ecologically
insensitive despite the conspicuous groaning of creation. The reformer responded: Therefore,
157
158
159
Sermon of May 25, 1544, WA 49, 434.
we should ask the Lord to take away this amazing insensibility from our eyes, our senses, and
our hearts, so that, after being admonished so many times about our sin [even from the preaching
of other creatures], we may rid ourselves of our smugness and walk in the fear of God. For it is
this purpose that we are cast down and overwhelmed in various ways by the curses.160
Now the entire creation, Luther states, in all its parts reminds us of the curse that was
inflicted because of sin.161 Luther asserts this point by declaring the effects of human
wickedness on nature: I hold that before sin the sun was brighter, the water was purer, the trees
more fruitful, and the fields more fertile. But through sin and that awful fall not only our flesh is
disfigured by the leprosy of sin, but everything we use in this life has become corrupt.162
Consequently, humans become unhealthy due to corruption of nature. Human sin creates an
encompassing destruction to humanity and other creatures. Luther asserts further, I spoke earlier
about the damages suffered by the products of the earth. I am also convinced that the human
body was healthier then than it is now. All creatures are against us, and they are all equipped
for our destruction.163 Luther would agree that the emergence of innumerable sicknesses in the
world today bears the traces of Gods wrath, which appears not just on the human body but also
on the earth and in all the creatures.164 Interestingly however, these adversities of nature
represent the masks of God that in many ways speak to humans about sin and Gods wrath.
As wicked acts toward creation increase, consequences also escalate. This distortion by
humans made the air no longer healthy and brought the water no longer as prolific as before.165
160
161
162
Luther points this consequential corruption to the original sin in which the community of creatures
derived the adverse conditions from the sin of the first human beings, Adam and Eve. Luther said, I also believe
that in those days the beasts were not as fierce as they are now. But this conditions is the fault of original sin, and
from it all the remaining creatures derive their shortcomings. Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 1:26, WA 42, 47; LW 1:
64.
163
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 3:17,18,19, WA 42, 154-155; LW 1: 207-208.
164
On Genesis 3: 17-19: Is it not an amazing and wretched thing? Our body bears the traces of Gods
wrath, which our sin has deserved. Gods wrath also appears on the earth and in all the creatures. And yet we look at
all these things with a smug and unconcerned attitude! And what of thorns, thistles, water, fire, caterpillars, flies,
fleas, and bedbugs? Collectively and individually, are not all of them messengers who preach to us concerning sin
and Gods wrath, since they did not exist before sin or at least were not harmful and troublesome? WA 42, 155-156;
LW 1: 208.
165
One of the prominent consequences is the emergence of an inconceivable epidemic not only in
Germany but around the world. I am also convinced, Luther declares, that the human body
was healthier then than it is now. Now the human body is threatened by pernicious evils that
humans created themselves, like syphilis. Luther voiced his displeasure: When I was a boy,
syphilis was unknown in Germany. It first became known when I was about fifteen years old.
Now even children in the cradle are stricken with this evil. In those days everyone was terrified
by this disease, but now so little is thought of it that even friends who are bantering among
themselves wish each other a case of syphilis.166 It is awful to hear, said Luther, that some
have snakes in their bellies and worms in their brains. In my opinion these sicknesses were
unknown to the ancient physicians, although they counted almost four hundred kinds of
diseases.167 These abuses of Gods gifts have escalated in all orders of creation, including life in
the home. Luther made this clear: The same thing happens in the family. The purpose for which
God gives us good health, wife, children, and property is not that we might offend Him by means
of these gifts, but that we might recognize His mercy and give thanks to Him. For this reason He
has granted us the enjoyment and, as it were, the rule of almost all the creatures. But how few
there are who do this! Do not almost all of us live in the most shocking abuse of these gifts of
God?168 Even among married people themselves, he continued, how manifold are the ways
in which the weakness of the flesh displays itself! All this stems, not from what was created or
from the blessing, which is from God, but from sin and curse, which is the outgrowth of sin.169
In view of this distortion of the created order, Luther claimed that God the Creator was
compelled, after the fall, to institute the worldly government in order to preserve His own
creatures, works, and ordinances. The vital role of the order of politia is being asserted at this
point in order to somehow impede the distortion of the orders of creation. However, without its
interrelationship with oeconomia and ecclesia, politia could be toothless. Although there is no
166
167
Until my adult years, Luther wrote, the sweating sickness was an endemic disease, as the physicians
call it. Just as individual areas have their particular advantages, so, after they misuse then against God, they are also
troubled and stricken with particular hardships. Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 3: 17-19, WA 42, 155; LW 1: 207.
168
169
explicit statement in Genesis, Luther interprets Genesis 2: 16-17 to mean that the secular
government was established by God after the fall. According to him, because of sin the
government was ordained by God to preserve life, order and peace in the world. Luther portrays
government as a part of creation and one of the masks of God (larvae Dei) that represent
Gods punishment for the wicked by applying the sword and the secular laws. The reformer
asserted his understanding on Genesis 2:16-17:
There was no government of the state before sin, for there was no need of it. Civil
government is a remedy required by our corrupted nature. It is necessary that lust be
held in check by the bonds of the laws and by penalties. For this reason you may
correctly call civil government the rule of sin. . . . This is the one and foremost function
of government, to hold sin in check, as Paul says (Rom. 13:4): Government bears the
sword for the punishment of the wicked. Therefore if men had not become evil through
sin, there would have been no need of government.170
Politia was divinely created to establish and maintain peace in the world. For where
there is no government, Luther claimed, there can be no peace. Where there is no peace, no
one can keep his life or anything else, in the face of anothers outrage, thievery, robbery,
violence, and wickedness.171 While the law of the government took care of reproving the
wicked, God also instituted the Gospel through Christs spiritual government to eventually carry
out the redemption of creation. Luther wrote: But now the Gospel has brought about the
restoration of that image. Intellect and will indeed have remained, but both very much impaired.
And so the Gospel brings it about that we are formed once more according to that familiar and
indeed better image, because we are born again into eternal life or rather into the hope of eternal
life by faith, that we may live in God and with God and be one with Him.172 The secular
government itself is not sufficient for redeeming the lost image of humanity in the fall. The law
only serves to show people their sin and to convict them of sin; it is the Gospel that saves people
from sin. In other words, while the law takes care of our outward life, the Gospel focuses our
inner life. So, creation needs both the secular law and the Gospel because they basically
170
171
Commentary on Psalm 82, 1535, WA 31.I, 194; LW 13: 44-45.
172
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 1: 26, WA 42, 47; LW 1: 64. (Emphasis added)
complement each other in carrying out the redemptive act of God. This is exactly the essence of
Luthers two kingdom doctrine: For this reason one must carefully distinguished between these
two governments. Both must be permitted to remain; the one to produce righteousness, the other
to bring about external peace and prevent evil deeds. Neither one is sufficient in the world
without the other.173
The Distortion of Responsible Rulership
One of the major causes of the distortion of Schpfungsordnungen lies in humanitys

misuse or abuse of power. Since the fall, humankind has been wrestling with the rulership
problem, particularly in the orders of politia, oeconomia and ecclesia. Because of sin, humans
have distorted the ethical meaning of Genesis 1:28, as well as their moral responsibility toward
other creatures. Being tempted to be in equality with God or to be like God, as portrayed in
Genesis 3:5, has always been the weak spot of human beings, because of the power to rule and
have dominion over others. They are easily prone to go beyond their state as mere creatures and
act like the Creator, just as Eve did in response to Satans lure that she would be like God. Eve
joins with Satan, Luther declares, in despising God and denying the Word of God, and she
believes the father of lies rather than the Word of God.174 In fact, Luther expounded: Adam
and Eve actually attempted to become like God. And the passage before us must not be
understood otherwise than as referring to equality with God.175 Ecology writer Larry
Rasmussen, a Lutheran himself, articulates Luthers thought on Genesis 3: 5:
Indeed, all efforts to either capture God in our terms or to be like God by denying our
death and finitude, including political and economic efforts. . . . That is we seek power,
cosmic power included, to escape the insecure and mortal character of our
creatureliness. Or, paradoxically, we evade the burden of being a free and responsible
self by shrinking from the considerable powers we do have as wondrous creatures of
earth. We abuse power in hubris; or, in self-depreciation, even self-hatred, we fail to
claim power. Both are failures to be the kind of earth creatures we ought to be by
173
Temporal Authority, 1523, WA 11, 256; LW 45: 92.
174
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 3:4-5, WA 42, 117; LW 1: 156.
175
nature.176
The danger of those who have been given power is that they tend to forget the Giver of power
and then dismiss their moral responsibility by misusing or abusing that power. As the reformer
stated, From this sin follows that well-known dictum (Ps. 14:1): The fool said in his heart:
There is no God.177
For Luther, the implication of this dictum is sheer idolatry. The term idolatry is
mentioned more than 150 times in the Genesisvorlesung, which simply means that the world is
full of idolaters, people who deny the truth of God, and invent a new god.178 When one begins
to worship the creature instead of the Creator, idolatry begins.179 Just as when faith has been lost,
there follow unbelief and idolatry.180 The vice of idolatry is a basic source of sin that distorts the
creative rulership of humanity toward other creatures and the orders of creation.
The other vice that arouses this abuse of rulership is arrogance, an abuse of power that
discriminates weak creatures. At one point, the reformer criticized Platos statement in his
Republic that he was accustomed to thank God for three things: I thank God that I was born a
human being and not an animal, that I was a Greek and not a barbarian, and that I was born a
man and not a woman.181 This obviously signifies that one could just exploit weaker creatures,
like animals, barbarians, and women. This statement of Plato is sheer arrogance, discriminatory,
and abuse of power. For Luther, this was a display of arrogance against God. Interestingly
enough, the reformer had a pronouncement for powerful nations in his time: The more each
nation regarded itself as superior, the more overweening it became. This lies in the nature of all
men because of sin.182
176
Rasmussen, Earth Community, Earth Ethics, 276.
177
The learned and rich would turn atheists due to their arrogant minds. Luther said It is not enough for
those who have fallen away to turn away from God; they also attack God and His Word. Genesis Lectures, On
Genesis 3:5, WA 42, 118; LW 1: 156.
178
179
180
181
Book V in Platos Republic as cited by Luther in his Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 4:4, WA 42, 189;
LW 1: 255.
182
The human being, though created in the image of God, has always a moral problem with
the use of his or her power to rule, or power to manage, or better to say, power to take
care, as implied in Genesis 1:26-28. The meaning of these two related concepts, created in the
image of God and made ruler over other creatures, has been the center of countless
interpretations and discussions of biblical scholars and theologians since Christianity was born.
As a matter of fact, the wrong concept of Genesis 1:28 or the dominion perspective was cited
in an ecological complaint against Christianity. This was instigated by a Christian, the renowned
Lynn White, Jr. The historical roots of our ecologic crisis, he asserted are so largely religious,
the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call that or not.183 He then presented
his no-nonsense diatribe: Especially in its Western form, Christianity is the most
anthropocentric religion the world has ever seen. . . . Christianity, in absolute contrast to ancient
paganism and Asias religions, not only established a dualism of man and nature but also insisted
that it is Gods will that man exploit nature for his proper ends.184
Christianity, according to White, bears a huge burden of guilt, because science and
technology, which are distinctively Occidental, have gone out of control, primarily due to the
concept of dominion over creation. This wrong concept is expressed in this manner: God
planned all of this explicitly for mans benefit and rule: no item in the physical creation had any
purpose save to serve mans purposes. And, although mans body is made of clay, he is not
simply part of nature: he is made in Gods image.185 Lynn White believed that Christianity
needs to rethink a tradition in Christian faith that advocates love for nature. He then focused only
183
Lynn Whites article, The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis, has already become a classic
among scientists, theologians, and ecologists. It appeared originally on March 10, 1967 in the worlds renowned
serial called Science, a copyright 1967 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. This article
became an indispensable document and was reprinted in many international and local periodicals and numerous
books, which utterly stirred criticism and debates among ecologists and theologians. It was even published in the
handbook for the first Earth Day in 1970. Historical Roots has been widely regarded as the gospel of
environmental literature. Mr. White was the one who popularized the great ecological complaint that Christianity,
primarily its Western form, is a major culprit of the ecological crisis. This bold premise became popularized as the
Lynn White Thesis. Though many others had already expressed similar sentiments earlier, it was Mr. Whites
thesis that was able to catch the attention of many scientists, ecologists, and theologians across the globe. The article
is also published in Ian G. Barbour, ed., Western Man and Environmental Ethics: Attitudes Toward Nature and
Technology (Reading, Massachusetts: Addisson-Wesley Publishing Company, 1973), 18-30.
184
Ibid., 25. (Italics mine)
185
Ibid.
on the Franciscan tradition and nothing else. White ended his essay by proposing St. Francis of
Assisi as a patron saint for ecologists. What he failed to present though is a resolution of the
distortion of the domination perspective. St. Franciss ecological sensitivity deserves to be
taught, but he had no words about solving the problem on the idea of dominion.
Luther, however, has a word to say in his lectures about the misuse of Gods command in
Genesis 1:28. The divine promise, Let humans have dominion over other creatures, is not
something indeterminate but has an ethical sense. In the words of the reformer:
Here the rule is assigned to the most beautiful creature, who knows God and is the
image of God, in whom the similitude of the divine nature shines forth through his
enlightened reason, through his justice and his wisdom. . . . Even this small part of the
divine image we have lost, so much so that we do not even have insight into that
fullness of joy and bliss which Adam derived from his contemplation of all the animal
creatures. All our faculties today are leprous, indeed dull and utterly dead. . . . What
kind of a reign would it have been if they had not had this knowledge? Among the
saints there is evident in this life some knowledge of God. Its source is the Word and
the Holy Spirit. But the knowledge of nature that we should know all the qualities of
trees and herbs, and the disposition of all the beasts is utterly beyond repair in this
life.186
For Luther, humans are special creatures who have Gods image, justice, and wisdom. They have
the moral knowledge why other creatures were created. These creatures are not plainly created
for food or consumption. There is more wisdom beyond the human interest of mere consumption
and enjoyment. For this reason, said Luther, God has granted us the enjoyment and, as it
were, the rule of almost all the creatures. But how few there are who do this! Do not almost all of
us live in the most shocking abuse of the gifts of God?187 To have dominion over these creatures
is by no means to apply greed on them.188 For Luther being created in the image of God means
that humans have a spiritual relationship with God whose concern is not just physical
consumption but also nourishment from the Word of God. In turn, humans become godly and
ethically responsible toward other creatures.
186
187
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 4: 2, WA 42, 182; LW 1: 245.(Emphasis added)
188
This image is something far different from the concern of the belly, namely, food and
drink, things for which the beasts also have understanding and appreciation.189
Therefore my understanding of the image of God is this: Adam had it in his being and
that he not only knew God and believed that He was good, but that he also lived in a life
that was wholly godly.190
Our fellow creatures are not just commodities for consumption; instead, to rule over other
creatures also means: Rule, so that everything blooms.191 All species are to be protected and
preserved by humans so the whole creation would enjoy what Luther calls an endless
propagation.192
Humans have the moral responsibility to let all creatures exist and flourish, not to
annihilate them from the face of the earth. Extinction of species and the decimation of the
aboriginal peoples in the planet are largely generated by the anthropocentric treatment of nature,
particularly the invasion of foreign lands and aboriginal populations and the looting of their
natural resources. If one species is extinct or if an aboriginal tribe is decimated, it is totally wiped
out for good from the face of the earth. It is sad to realize that we could no longer restore it. To
quote James A. Nash, in his book, Loving Nature, Human-induced extinctions and near
extinctions have been tragic parts of human history. Extinctions are not reversible. They are
final and forever.193
For Luther, humans have to make use of creatures with utmost care, and with justice and
wisdom.194 In other words, humans are the moral beings of creation who had been given not just
189
190
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 1: 26, WA 42, 47; LW 1: 62-63.
191
Luther is utterly against degeneration or extinction of species. He asserts, This Word assigns to all
creatures their function and also preserves all creatures that they may not degenerate but that the distinct species
may be preserved in endless propagation. This statement of Luther is the essence of sustainability. Everything
should be enough in order to preserve for the next generation. Luther said, Thus it was brought about by the Word
that the rock in the desert provided a most abundant supply of water. Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 1: 26, WA 42,
50, 72-73; LW 1: 95-96.
192
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 1: 26, WA 42, 50, 73; LW 1: 96.
193
James A. Nash, Loving Nature: Ecological Integrity and Christian Responsibility (Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1992), 55.
194
the power to rule but also an ethical responsibility to apply Gods goodness, justice and
wisdom toward other creatures. Conversely however, Luther did not conceal the fact that such
creative rule is endangered and can be lost through sin.195 On the other hand, Luther asserted that
it is not right to exploit fellow human beings so one could enjoy the gifts of God. He elucidated
this point in reference to Genesis 11:27: I know that God does not give out his gifts so that we
can rule and have power over others or so that we should spurn their opinion and judgment:
rather so that we should serve those who are in such a case as to need our counsel and help.196
In his commentary on Psalm 8:6 Thou wilt make Him Lord over the works of Thy
hands; Thou has put all things under His feet, Luther offered, surprisingly, a Christocentric
exposition. It is rather Christ, not humans, who is the Lord over all creatures.197 However, Luther
says, Adam in Paradise is also made lord over Gods creatures and works, but not everything is
put under his feet. Yes, according to the first creation no man is made lord over another man.198
Luther clarified that to rule over other creatures did not signify a wanton idea of
domination. This was not a license for humans to exploit nature. It should always be in
accordance with the will of the Creator. He then enlightened people on the moral implication of
the rulership command: According to Genesis 1 [:28], he created and ordained all things, each
with it own works, and determined how man should use and work with them; he will never
rescind that and ordained a special order for you. You may well ask how can I act rightly and
trust in God and yet not tempt him?199 The phrase How can I act rightly? is an ethical
question that suggests ethics of creation. For God had not simply given this ethical responsibility
to rule over other creatures without any purpose at all.
Ethics of creation or ethics of ecological integrity comes to our mind if we talk about our
relationship with creation. What do we mean by ecological integrity? This is a huge subject to
discuss. Perhaps one good definition of ecological integrity that somehow blends with the idea of
195
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 1: 26, WA 42, 50, 32-34; LW 1: 67.
196
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 11: 27f, WA 42, 432, 13-15; LW 2: 239.
197
Exposition on Psalm 8, 1537, WA 56, 345; LW 12: 133.
198
Exposition on Psalm 8, 1537, WA 56, 346; LW 12: 134.
199
Sermon for the Festival of the Epiphany, WA 10.I, 595; LW 52: 199. (Emphasis added)
Luther is that of James Nashs who defines it as the holistic health of all life forms.200 Luther,
on the other hand, had this idea of creations integrity in his exposition on Genesis 3: I have no
doubt that before sin the air was purer and more healthful, the water more prolific; yes even the
suns light was more beautiful and clearer.201 We never can talk of our health as humans
without regarding the health of the whole creation. God expects humans to act as creative
caretakers, not as cruel predators.
It is worthwhile to note that Luther believed nonhuman beings were created as blessings
so that the human race could be preserved; on the other hand, he also asserted that human utility
was not the sole reason why other creatures exist. We are also reminded that the awesome beauty
of creation would lead humans to obtain the value of humility and piety toward the Creator. This
ethic is considerably dispersed in many of Luthers pedagogical writings. In his early lectures on
the Psalms in 1515, Luther empathically taught the significance of what he called the works of
God: Indeed, the more profoundly a created thing is recognized, the more wonders are seen in
it, namely, how full it is of Gods wisdom. . . . The irrational, however, as the psalm points out,
did not understand the works of the Lord; they only felt them. . . . This is so because in every
creature and its function we do not acknowledge, praise, bless, fear and love Him and receive
instruction from Him, as the Father who gives it to us as the Creator who has created it.202 The
creation was meant to reflect wonders, goodness, and glories of God, at which humans alone are
capable of expressing awe and humility toward the Creator. Loving such beauty and goodness
leads one to worship the one true God. One can even worship God through the beauty of
biodiversity; we could not imagine how this creative Architect had designed all these millions of
wonders.
200
James Nash has a comprehensive idea of ecological integrity in his famous book, Loving Nature:
Ecological Integrity and Christian Responsibility. In essence, he said, ecological integrity refers to the holistic
health of the ecosphere and biosphere, in which biophysical support systems maximally sustain the lives of species
and individuals, and, reciprocally, in which the interactions of interdependent life forms with one another in their
ecosystems preserve the life-sustaining qualities of the support systems. Nash, 18.
201
The healthy whole in the beginning of creation was untarnished by the goodness of all creatures.
When sin encroached the innocence of creation, everything was in misfortune like a harmful curse. Genesis
Lectures, On Genesis 3:17-19, WA 42, 153; LW 1: 204.
202
Luther illuminates Psalm 77: I will meditate on all your work, and muse on your mighty deeds. Your
way, O God, is holy. What god is so great as our God? You are the God who works wonders; you have displayed
your love among the peoples. First Psalm Lectures, LW 11: 16-17.
The impious, on the other hand, who denigrated the creation and failed to recognize the
beauty and harmony of nature could never capture piety in Gods creation, so, they simply utilize
them without love and care. Luther, in one of his sermons, asserted that if only the creatures
could speak to humans, especially those who did not care to protect them, they would say,
through the thoughts of the reformer: O men! Compared with us you are not men but gods!
What security you have, both you and your possessions, while among us no one is safe from
another regarding life, home, or food supply, not even for a moment! Shame upon your
ingratitudeyou do not even see what a splendid life the God of us all has given you compared
with us beasts!203 What a profound sermon of creatures being addressed to us! To empathize
with the condition of nonhumans moves one to feel and embody the virtue of humility as an
ethical attitude toward other creatures in order for them to be preserved and protected rather than
be merely consumed, obliterated and rendered extinct. Humans have the tendency to abuse their
power over other creatures. The use of these creatures should rather be done with love and not
just for our own sake. Luther said, From this knowledge there arises a greater flame of love, so
that the person wishes always to remember in this way and says, I will be mindful of Thy
wonders from the beginning.204
And whenever these wonderful creatures are utilized without love and care, the faithful
could not dare to be apathetic because he or she has the moral responsibility to speak about the
significance of the works of God toward his or her neighbor. The perfect man, Luther instructs,
is like this: Behold, he wants to be of benefit also to others, not have the talent just for himself.
He says, I will be employed in Thy inventions, that is: I will relate, I will speak to others in
word and deed about Thy wonders, so that they, too, may know the works of the Lord.205 We
thus become moral agents of the works of the Lord. While we need them to sustain our lives, the
nonhuman creatures depend on our moral capacity so they could be healthy and maintain the
amazing wonders of creation. In this way, they could also remind us about reverence and
ecological sensitivity. Only humans are the moral beings in creation; so, the nonhuman beings
203
204
Psalm Lectures, On Psalm 77: 1, WA 3, 525; LW 11: 16.
205
Ibid.
depend on humans for them to be protected from cruel predation; otherwise, others would be
totally extinct from creation.
Their Righteousness Remains
Luther strongly believes in retribution. When we harm creation, we harm ourselves. To

distort a created order would mean to inflict self-destruction. This is a great misfortune, Luther
claims, which might well lead Adam and all of us to self-destruction.206 Bringing harm to
nature would result in grave retribution. Due to our misuse and abuse of Gods gifts, Luther
asserts that all creatures are now against us, and they are all equipped for our destruction.207 In
reality, however, it is ironic that more often than not the retribution has always been reaped not
directly by the culprits, but mostly by the innocent beings, particularly the poor and other
creatures. While a few get rich on nature, the poor people and countless species of wildlife
absorb the retribution of offenders. To make matters worst, some innocent beings become extinct
from the face of the earth.
On the other hand, Luther makes a good argument by stating that although the orders of
creation are distorted and the creatures are corrupted, they are utterly innocent and their
righteousness remains.208 Sin applies only to human beings; and naturally their imago Dei and
righteousness are lost. However, the orders of creation and the creatures have to endure the curse
brought by the sin of the human being. The reformer echoed the sentiment of St. Paul: It
appears here what a great misfortune followed sin, because the earth, which is innocent and
committed no sin, is nevertheless compelled to endure a curse and, as St. Paul says in Romans
8:20, has been subjected to vanity. But it will be freed from this on the Last Day, for which it
is waiting. As Paul points out, the earth itself feels its curse.209
206
207
208
209
Although they no longer produce as richly as before the fall and while they are disrupted
under the curse, their righteousness remains intact. In the words of Bernhard Lohse, The orders
of creation are altogether in force.210 It is interesting to note that righteousness for Luther is not
a gift, which comes from without, but that it is truly part of ones nature, like that of the created
orders.211 These creatures, though they are misused and corrupted, are not to be regarded as evils
or roots of evils. It is rather the corrupt user of these creatures who is evil. Take for instance, the
indispensable trade goods like silver and gold; Luther wrote: If silver and gold are things evil in
themselves, then those who keep away from them deserve to be praised. But if they are good
creatures of God, which we can use both for the needs of the neighbor and for the glory of God,
is not a person silly, yes even unthankful to God, if he refrains from them as though they were
evil? For they are not evil, even though they have been subjected to vanity and evil.212
Humanitys evil deeds have indeed led the natural world into all these misfortunes; and they
have been inflicting destruction upon humankind and the whole creation.213
Though it appears difficult and ambiguous, Luther has something to say about the
theological problem of evil, which theologians today call theodicy or Gods omnipotence and
the existence of natural evil and suffering. Instead of calling them natural evils, Luther regarded
earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes, poisonous plants, harmful
insects, and venomous animals as the curse of the earth or punishments of human
wickedness. So, in creation there appears not only Gods majesty but also Gods wrath. For
Luther, these harmful events or creatures are the result of the fall and the increase of wickedness
among humans. This explains why we have natural disasters that always inflict damage to
innocent beings. Before the fall, according to Luther, the entire creation was purer, more
beautiful, and more healthful.214 Luther asserted further: Therefore I am fully of the opinion that
210
Lohse, 246.
211
212
213
The more closely the world approaches its end, the more it is overwhelmed by penalties and
catastrophes. But, to make it worse, the more the world is smitten, the more hardened and unconscious of its own
evils it becomes. . . . Our body bears the traces of Gods wrath, which our sin has deserved. Gods wrath also
appears on the earth and in all the creatures. On Genesis 3: 17-19, WA 42, 156; LW 1: 208.
214
because of the increase of sins the punishments were also increased and that these troubles were
added to the curse of the earth.215 So for Luther, these ecological disasters are generated by the
sins of humanity.
Nevertheless, there have remained some remnants of the former blessing, namely, that
the earth is, as it were, forced to work hard to yield those things that are necessary for
our use, although they are marred by thorns and thistles, that is, by useless, and even
harmful trees, fruits, and herbs, which the wrath of God sows.216
Furthermore, frosts, lightning bolts, injurious dews, storms, overflowing rivers, settling
of the ground, earthquakes all do damage.217
As a result of human wickedness, some creatures became harmful, although Luther claimed that
their righteousness had remained unharmed. For Luther, the earth indeed is innocent and would
gladly produce the best products, but it is prevented by the curse which was placed upon man
because of sin.218 It was the sin of humankind that made them naturally destructive. However,
the reformer made it clear that these harmful creatures would persist to be humankinds living
preachers, knocking on their eyes, touching their senses, and somehow enlightening their
hearts.219 The only terrible picture is: the more humans increase their sins against creation, the
more troubles and curses of the earth emerge.220
For Luther, there is no unimpaired order of creation, though Gods commission for
preserving the world continues unaltered.221 He underscored this argument in Psalm 111: 3,
which declares that Full of honor and adornment is His work, His righteousness endures
forever. The reformer proceeded to shed light:
The Psalmist says that these undertakings and institutions of God are honorable and
glorious, that is, noble and fine, praiseworthy and beautiful, so that whoever knows
215
216
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 3: 17-19, WA 42, 153; LW 1: 204-205.
217
218
219
Sermon of May 25, 1544, WA 49, 434.
220
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 3:17, 18, 19, WA 42, 153-154; LW 1: 206-207.
221
Lohse, 246.
them must praise them as fine stations. But the ungodly do not understand them, and so
despise them. Where such stations operate as they should, there things go well in the
world, and there is the very righteousness of God. . . . Now God declares concerning
these stations that they must remain if the world is to stand, even though many oppose
and rage against them. All sects and man-made righteousness will finally perish, but
these stations remain and preserve righteousness in the world.222
The innocence of the work of God or creatio lingers to be one of the avenues for the sinful
human being to know God and learn to respect God. The righteousness of God is being shown
through the undertakings and institutions of God. And even though the wicked beings despise
them or abuse them, they would persist, as the reformer described, to be in active military
service to fight continually against the devil, as well as against [wicked] men, and to serve us and
be of use to us.223
Finally, despite all this havoc in creation brought by the distortion of the orders of
creation, Christians, the rare birds on earth, continue to play their vibrant roles in the world.
Luther, as a final point, stated hopefully: Therefore let misfortunes come as the Lord passes
them out to each, whether in the household, or in the state and the church. We shall not allow
ourselves to be driven to impatience. We shall not let them [distorters] divert us from our
concern for the state, the household, or the church. . . . Do not yield to evils, but encounter them
more boldly.224
Proper management of the three main orders of creation would essentially alleviate the
plight of other creatures and would ensure that the ministry of the orders of creation is not
confined to humans alone (anthropocentricism) but to the whole creation.
222
Exposition on Psalm 111, 1530, WA 31.I, 400; LW 13: 358. (Emphasis added)
223
224
Y
ANTHROPOCENTRIC LUTHER
This chapter will look into the other side of Luther: the critique that he was
anthropocentric toward creation. Dealing with this critique would pave the way to understand
critically and mend the destructiveness of our religious tradition, unveil the impact of these
anthropocentric writings toward nature, and show corresponding reactions from non-Western
traditions. Due attention is given to the historical and cultural influence of Luthers
anthropocentric thoughts and the critique from the aboriginal or indigenous traditions.
Although his mature thoughts, especially his exegesis on Genesis and the Psalms,
demonstrated ethical norms of creation, it could not be denied that Luther was part of the
Western religious tradition that shaped the Christian mind with profound anthropocentricism
through the intense focus on the inner life. It should also be clarified at the outset that the mature
Luther remained anthropocentric. However, Luthers mature thoughts broke with the
predominant Platonic thought of the younger Luther and further opposed the Hellenistic
anthropology.
It is the purpose of this chapter to analyze and correct the detrimental beliefs of Western
Christian tradition which impacted the Eurocentric missionary enterprise in its collaboration with
political and global economic forces. This in turn had caused indifference and harm toward the
Earth and the worlds indigenous communities. Shaping a sound doctrine of creation, German
theologian Jrgen Moltmann asserts the prerequisite of a critical understanding of the problems
and perplexities our religious tradition has itself contributed to the ecological crisis. In his book,
127
God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God, Moltmann claims: Today
a theological doctrine of creation which can responsibly be maintained must first of all come to
terms critically with its own tradition and the history of its own influence.1 To have a critical
awareness of our beliefs would help us recognize the roots of the crisis and cultivate a better
relationship with nature. Moltmann elucidates further:
The ecological crisis of the modern world has its starting point in the modern industrial
countries. These grew up in the midst of civilizations which had been shaped by
Christianity. We cannot ignore the historical effects of the Christian belief in creation.
Those effects throw a light of their own on the belief itself, and today require us to
criticize the developments which we know have gone wrong and to interpret belief in
creation in a new way, in the light of its true beginnings.2
In his discussion on Transforming Traditions from his book What Are They Saying About
Environmental Theology?, John Hart features Northern and Southern visionary voices and
thinkers who challenge the Western Christian tradition and their own indigenous beliefs and
culture to mend beliefs that are detrimental to nature. These voices, he writes, offer new
insights that might or might not eventually be incorporated in the long term, but deserve
presentation and consideration: to stimulate further developments in theology-ecology
understandings, or to help people to clarify current understandingsor both.3 John Hart cites a
vital example:
Daniel Maguire cites Christianity for its frequent focus on human life on Earth as a
preparation for an otherworldly existence after death, so that the value of Earth is seen
as secondary and biocentricity gives way to theocentricity. Hope for an afterlife, then,
might do more than opiate the social conscience; it can also make our earth-life the
prologue, not the text and context of our being. This does not bode well for the well-
being of the Earth. Earth as main stage becomes Earth as prelude: the biological may be
seen as hostile to the spiritual. At the least, its status is diminished. It is not our home
1
Jrgen Moltmann, God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God (Munich:
Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1985), 21.
2
Ibid., 20. (Emphasis added)
3
John Hart presented ecological thinkers from both the West and East; their dynamic theology being open
to the guidance of the Spirit retains core beliefs but surrenders historically and culturally limited understandings not
central to the core. Among them are for Northern visions: Black Elk, Fools Crow, Matthew Fox, Rosemary
Radford Ruether, Daniel Maguire, Thomas Berry, and John Haught; and for Southern visions: Marcelo de Barros,
O.S.B., Jos Luis Caravias, S.J., Leonardo Boff, and Ivone Gebara. See What Are They Saying About Environmental
Theology? (New York/Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 2004), 59-99.
but the proving ground for our real home beyond. That is troubling news for the rest of
nature.4
In a complementary way, historian and ecological writer H. Paul Santmire made an

impressive survey of the Western Christian tradition and the ambiguous ecological promise of
theology in his book The Travail of Nature: The Ambiguous Ecological Promise of Christian
Theology. A remarkable examination of key Christian theologians, including Luther, Santmire
stressed the ambiguous ecological promise by claiming that Christian thought is both promising
and not promising for those who are seeking to find solid traditional foundations for a new
theology of nature.5 According to Santmire, Luthers anthropocentric-soteriological foreground
is one liability to nature that reflects Western theologys increasing preoccupation with human
salvation. One featured anthropocentric tonality in Luther is the reformers exposition of the First
Article of the Apostles Creed, where Luther made the human the center of attention in creation.
I believe that God has created me together with all that exists, Luther writes, that he has given
me and still sustains my body and soul, all my limbs and senses.6 Santmire claims, [This
statement of Luther] surely stands in sharp contrast to the universal scope of theological
meaning.7 Santmire echoes the same thought in his most recent book, Nature Reborn: The
Ecological and Cosmic Promise of Christian Theology. He then described this as the pro me of
Reformation:
That powerful, if scandalous, particularism has fatefully influenced the Reformation
traditions reading of the biblical theology of creation. Luther stated the matter most
4
Hart featured a critique of Christian tradition exhibited by Daniel C. Maguire in the remarkable book that
he co-authored with Larry Rasmussen, Ethics for a Small Planet: New Horizons on Population, Consumption, and
Ecology (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1998) and a book with Harold Coward, Visions of a
New Earth: Religious Perspectives on Population, Consumption, and Ecology (Albany, N.Y.: State University of
New York, 2000). Ibid., 74. (Italics mine)
5
Santmire, a Lutheran priest, applies the deepest roots of Western religious sensibility to determine
whether nature has had any formative meaning for the Christian mind. Santmire proves that there are significant
anthropocentric beliefs, he calls spiritual motif, in Christian tradition but Christianity has also a strain of ecological
motif particularly in the tradition of Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, Luther, Calvin and Francis of Assisi. However, it
appears that only the tradition of St. Francis provides a clear and sufficient ecological foundation while others are so
limited and ambiguous due to their anthropocentric-soteriological makeup. The Travail of Nature: The Ambiguous
Ecological Promise of Christian Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985).
6
Ibid. 124.
7
Ibid.
revealingly in his Small Catechism, in his lead statement interpreting the First Article of
the Creed, which has to do with the work of God, the Father Almighty: I believe that
God has created me together with all that exists. The pro me of Reformation existential
faith as a matter of course tended to produce an anthropocentric reading of creation
texts as well as redemption texts.8
The climax of the concentration on inner life was reached by Luther upon his famous
unveiling of the individual salvation through the grace of God by faith alone. Luthers central
preoccupation on the greatest emancipation of the individual, that is, the liberation of the
human soul or personal salvation from the anxieties of this world in his renowned Pauline and
Augustinian influence of justification by faith, had considerably contributed to the human-
centered bias of the Western Christian tradition toward human dealings with nature. This
constitutes a big factor in the Western traditions indifference toward and exploitation of nature.
Luthers primary concern in his time was to liberate Christians from the bondage of
meritorious works and the control of church authority. He eliminated the medieval practice of
human striving to reach God and asserted the divine promise of Gods grace to the individual
who was repentant. He is truly one of the great emancipators of human history who elevated the
liberty of human conscience and the importance of the individual in his or her quest for security
and certainty of salvation. His soteriology of personal salvation, however, became a significant
factor to his being anthropocentric. Let us discover the roots of his anthropocentric writings.
No theologian in the entire history of Christian religion has been as acclaimed as the
great African doctor, St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430), the major theological ancestor of Martin
Luther, who until today has continued to be influential to both Catholics and Protestants. With
the profound influence of St. Augustine, Luther became one of the theological giants of Western
Christianity who relived, in his context, Saint Pauls theology of salvation or justification by
faith. No theologian, except Paul and Augustine, has been as encompassing as Luther who
popularized the liberation of human beings relationship with God and introduced the greatest
emancipation of the individual from the anxieties of this world, especially the bondage of sin and
the fear of death.
The sixteenth century marks the revival of St. Pauls and St. Augustines teaching on
personal salvation, which further shaped Western Christianity on its outlook toward the
8
Santmire, Nature Reborn: The Ecological Promise of Christian, 31-32.
importance of the individual and ones Heavenly home that significantly led to the lack of
interest to care for the Earthly home. The famous City of God of the fifth century was relived in
the sixteenth century through Luthers doctrine of Two-Kingdoms and his emphasis on the
pilgrimage of Christians on earth. Medieval spirituality concentrated on the inner life through the
promotion of monastic virtues. In the words of Augustine: I desire to have knowledge of God
and the soul. Of nothing else? No, of nothing else at all.9 The focus on the soul was further
intensified by Luther and laid right at the heart of the Augustinian theme, God and the soul.
The substance of this theme can be described, according to Santmire, as theanthropocentric.
This description focuses on God and humanity as its chief subjects. Santmire explains: Luther
and Calvin present us with a vision of God and humanity in dynamic interpersonal communion,
established by the gracious Word of God. This theanthropocentric focus of their thought reflects
Western theologys increasing preoccupation with human salvationsoteriologyin the post-
Augustinian centuries.10
Luthers time was a milieu of common peoples immense insecurity and uncertainty
about salvation. Luthers world had been besieged by a series of deadly plagues which generated
many sick and frightened people and aggravated their insecurity of life. As a result, the reality of
death and dying prompted religious teachings to focus more toward life after death, while life
in the here and now became more and more insignificant due to this profound anxiety about
the plight of the soul.
Luther became one of the theological giants of Western tradition who popularized the
individualization of salvation. Salvation became a private matter with the profound concern
that one had to be a part of the elect. This emancipated, autonomous individual became an
influential moral paradigm of the West and was further articulated by Christian thinkers and
theologians, particularly during the Enlightenment, in the pursuit of happiness, freedom, and
economic progress something that only the elect could do.11 The Western mind was to a large
extent obsessed with the spiritual and material benefits the human being could get.
9
Augustine, Soliloquies Book I. ii, 7; cited by Santmire, The Travail of Nature, 9.
10
Ibid., 123.
11
The Western value of individualism was intensified by the Enlightenment. Its central creed was faith in
humankind, which tantamount to saying, Justification by human alone. Its progress was assured by the free
Does Christianity really bear a huge burden of guilt? One could say that the complaint on
the ecological crisis against Christianity as the most anthropocentric religion the world has
seen12 is legitimate. Moltmann affirms: The Christian belief in creation as it has been
maintained in the European and American Christianity of the Western churches is therefore not
guiltless of the crisis in the world today.13 However, we cannot blame everything on
Christianity; one does need to be defensive, but should recognize this critique as a challenge to
mend the bottlenecks of our Western tradition where we have been truly confined with a human-
centered outlook, particularly the emphasis on salvation of the soul; not minding the salvation of
other creatures, because they have no souls. After all, Luther said that heaven was not made for
geese, animals, and trees.14 Thus, the human soul becomes the most important concern in the
universe, whereas the concept of heaven becomes discriminatory and prejudicial against the rest
of creation. For the Pauline, Augustinian and Lutheran thoughts, heaven is only the abode of
human beings, in which the image of God has been restored through regeneration.
competition of individuals in pursuit of anthropocentric benefits in the world. The free human being was infinitely
perfectible and should not be allowed to evolve along the lines of his or her own choice. From the early roots of
liberal thought in Enlightenment, there was a tendency in the direction of indiscriminate freedom. See David J.
Boschs intriguing book, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, New York:
Orbis Books, 1991), 266.
12
Lynn White believes that the time Christianity began to Christianize the indigenous peoples of the world,
Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood if indifference to the feelings if natural objects including
the aboriginal peoples. The animism of the aborigines was seen by Christians as barbarous to humans, but White
claims it is not against the rest of creatures. It is often said that for animism, White argues, the Church substituted
the cult of saints. True; but the cult of saints is functionally quite different from animism. The saint is not in natural
objects; he may have special shrines, but his citizenship in is heaven. The spirits in natural objects, which
formerly protected nature from man, evaporated. White, The Historical Roots of Ecologic Crisis, 25.
13
Moltmann, 21.
14
Luthers earlier writings disclosed the insignificance of other creatures as far as spiritual salvation is
concerned. The Pauline and Augustinian thoughts are strong in the earlier writings of Luther where heaven is only a
place for human beings and not for every creature. The welfare of the rest of creation is never found in his early
thoughts. Redemption or salvation of the whole creation was never the concern of the young Luther. His theology
was confined with the relationship of God and human being. Inclusive ideas like universal Gospel for all creatures,
were still unfamiliar to Luther. The human-centered thought of Luther degrades the importance of other creatures.
The belief that salvation is only for humans denies the total redemption of the whole creation from human
corruption. Luther said, man is capable of being taken hold by the Spirit and imbued by the grace of God, as
being created for eternal life or death, no objection could be taken. For this power or aptitude, we also admit; and
who does not know that it is not found in trees or animals? For heaven, as the saying is, was not made for geese.
The Bondage of the Will, 1525, WA 18, 636; LW 33: 67.
Luthers writings on anthropological dualism, Christian pilgrimage on earth, belief of

election, and the utility and enjoyment of Gods blessings had led to the complaint that Western
Christianity bears a huge burden of guilt for the ecological crisis. Let us now turn to these four
basic anthropocentric writings of Luther.
Anthropological Dualism15
Luthers anthropology is derived from the Pauline and Augustinian dualist tradition. He
demonstrated it in The Disputation Concerning Man: Theology to be sure from the fullness of
its wisdom defines man as whole and perfect: Namely, that man is a creature of God consisting
of body and a living soul, made in the beginning after the image of God, without sin, so that he
should procreate and rule over the created things, and never die. But after the fall of Adam,
certainly, he was subject to the power of the devil, sin and death, a twofold evil for his powers,
unconquerable and eternal.16 It explicitly shows here that a human being is made up of two
parts: a material body and a soul. For Luther, his concept was that the human being is not whole
and perfect unless there is a soul in the body. It is the soul that makes the human whole.
Bernhard Lohse explains his understanding of Luthers concept of the human being: In his
anthropology he took up in detail the lower and higher power of the soul as well as human
corporeality.17 Moreover, Oswald Bayer states: As of Luthers anthropology, we can say of
Luthers social ethics that it presents itself in the form of a controversy between the
15
Western Christianity has been significantly influenced by Greek philosophy that the human body is
dichotomized from and not as valuable as the human soul especially as the soul is called to ascend toward the eternal
realm. This dualism reflected the disconnection between the physical world and the eternal home. This was further
articulated by Augustine in his City of God and De doctrina Christiana, stressing the usi and frui of the temporal
blessings and that Christians are only strangers and pilgrims on earth, or the Earthly City, and that the real home is
the Heavenly City. In the sixteenth century, Luther echoed these teachings in some of his writings. See Williston
Walker, A History of Christian Church (New York: Scribner, 1959), 5-6, 161-168; and Augustines City of God,
trans. J. W. C. Wand (London: Oxford University Press, 1963) and De doctrina Christiana, trans. D. W. Robertson,
Jr. (New York: The Liberal Arts Press, 1958).
16
Disputation Concerning Man, 1536, WA 39.I, 177; LW 34: 138. (Emphasis added)
17
Lohse, Martin Luthers Theology, 243; cited from Wilfred Joest, Ontologie der Person bei Luther
(Gttingen: Vandenboeck & Ruprecht, 1967) and G. Ebeling, Der Mensch nach seiner geschpflichen
Bestimmung, Lutherstudien 2 (1982).
philosophical and the theological positions. . . . The conflict, furthermore, is not resolved, as it is
by the strict separation of exterior and interior.18
Luther utterly denied the indivisibleness of the human form. Defending the dualistic
heritage of Christian tradition against a differing opinion, he asserted in his 1518 lecture on
Hebrews:
In conformity with philosophy it is said that substantial form, but especially the human
form, is indivisible. Hence those subtleties of opinions as to whether the powers of the
soul differ actually, substantially, or with regard to form. . . . Walking simply in faith,
however, we shall follow the apostle, who, in I Thessalonians (5: 13), divides man into
three parts when he says: May your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and
blameless at the coming of the Lord. Therefore Origen took more pains with regard to
this matter than anyone else; and after him St. Jerome says with reference to Gal. 5: 17
that, as is known to all, the body or the flesh, is our lowest part, the spirit, by which we
are capable of divine things, is our highest part, but the soul is our middle part between
the two. If these words are understood in the way St. Augustine, too, divides man into a
higher and a lower part, and also the soul, they are clear and have been satisfactorily
stated above.19
Two years later in his Magnificat, Luther expressed another elucidation of his anthropology:
The nature of man consists of the three partsspirit, soul and body. . . . The first part,
the spirit, is the highest, deepest, and noblest part of man. By it he is enabled to lay hold
on things incomprehensible, invisible, and eternal. It is, in brief, the dwelling place of
faith and the Word of God.
The second part the soul, is this same spirit, so far as its nature is concerned, but
viewed as performing a different function, namely, giving life to the body and working
through the body. In the Scriptures it is frequently put for the life; for the spirit may live
without the body, but the body has no life apart from the spirit. Even in sleep the soul
lives and works without ceasing.
The third part is the body with its members. Its work is only to carry out and apply
that which the soul knows and the spirit believes.20
18
Oswald Bayer, Nature and Institution: Luthers Doctrine of the Three Orders, Lutheran Quarterly 17
(1998): 146-147. In The Disputation Concerning Man, Luther wrote: 11. Therefore, if philosophy or reason itself is
compared with theology, it will appear that we know almost nothing about man, 12. Inasmuch as we seem scarcely
to perceive his material cause sufficiently, 13. For Philosophy does not know the efficient cause for certain, nor
likewise the final cause. WA 39.I, 177; LW 34: 138.
19
Luther evidently disclosed his strong dualism he inherited from the thoughts of Saint Paul and Saint
Augustine. The body had been marginalized into insignificance due to the preoccupation of spiritual salvation which
is basically only for the soul. Lectures on Hebrews, On Hebrews 4: 12, 1518, WA 57.III, 157; LW 29: 166. (Italics
mine)
20
The anthropology of Luther here no longer espouses a dualist notion but a trichotomist idea of human
nature as made up of body, soul, and spirit. This has been obviously derived from the Pauline idea in I Thessalonians
Evidently, the body was significantly divorced from, contrasted with and subordinated to a
higher form, such as soul or spirit. Greek thought on dualism has really permeated deeply in our
religious tradition, predominantly the writings of St. Paul, St. Augustine, and the German
reformer, where they dealt a lot with the division of body and soul and draw a sharp distinction
of the eternal and temporal.21 We are taught to focus more on the eternal and less on the
temporal. Pauls passage in 2 Corinthians 5: 6 undoubtedly demonstrated this concept:
Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are
away from the Lords home.22 Affirming Pythagoras (582-507 B.C.E.) and Platos (428-348
B.C.E.) thoughts on the incarcerated soul, Luther further articulated that the body is a gloomy
prison, in which the soul is confined as in a prison and dungeon.23 German Lutheran theologian
Dorothee Selle describes more this ambiguous belief of the imprisoned soul in her book, To
Work and To Love: A Theology of Creation: Most of us know the feeling of being ashamed of
our body, the wish to extricate ourselves from our body, even the hate of our body. Sometimes
the soul is a stranger to the body and longs to be free from it. The body is then experienced as a
prison. Spiritual dualism forges this estrangement into an ideology that denigrates the physical
realm as the lower element in a hierarchical system.24 This concept of the soul as being
5:23 that reads, May the God of peace himself sanctify you entirely, and your spirit and soul and body be kept
sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Magnificat, 1521, WA 7, 548; LW 303-304.
21
Plato (428-348 B.C.E.) is the most influential philosopher who has ever lived. His ideas had significantly
permeated the thoughts of Saint Paul, Augustine, Luther, and many Western thinkers and theologians. His famous
writing The Republic brought a profound influence to Western thought, especially his emphasis on the tripartite
hierarchy of the human soul, where the themes on ethics, politics, anthropology, and metaphysics were based. Plato
was the first to dichotomize the soul from the human body.
22
Augustine featured this passage in his De doctrina Christiana, Book I, 4: 10; while Luther, on the other
hand, presented it in his Groen Genesisvorlesung, But if we are exiles in the body, which is ours in a very special
sense, and our life in the body is nothing else than a sojourn of the body, how much more are the things which we
possess on account of the body, namely, fields, home, and money, nothing else than exiles and sojourns. WA 42,
283-284; LW 4: 206.
23
The earliest concept of the body as a tomb or prison of the soul originated with Pythagoras, who taught
that the soul is a fallen divinity, imprisoned in the body as a retribution for sin. The goal of the soul is to be freed
from the physical world upon death and to reunite with its proper divine companions, the belief of transmigration of
the soul or fresh reincarnation to the companies of bodies of humans and animals. Pythagoras deeply influenced
Plato who further articulated the immortality of the soul in his works, Cratylus and Gorgias, both written in the
fourth century B.C.E. Augustine picked this up in his Against the Academics, Book I, 3.9. See Luthers Groen
Genesisvorlesung, On Genesis 23:3-4, n. 26, WA 42, 283-284; LW 4: 206.
24
Dorothee Selle, To Work and To Love: A Creation Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 30.
essentially alienated, antagonistic and otherworldly toward the physical world has heavily
influenced the exploitative attitude toward nature. Jrgen Moltmann identifies the
destructiveness of this religious belief within our ecological context: The alienation of the
human being from his bodily existence must be viewed as the inner aspect of the external
ecological crisis of modern industrial society. Religion and upbringing made people identify
themselves as the subjects merely of cognition and will; their bodily existence was something
that had to be objectified and subdued. Men and women became the masters of themselves and
their own possessions.25
Luther denied the idea that the soul and the body were inseparable or one and the same.
In fact, in one occasion, Luther was even infuriated by Aristotles (384-322 B.C.E.) thought
about the unity or inseparableness of the soul and the body, a concept totally opposite to
Aristotles teacher, Plato. Luther candidly contested: Why this wretched fellow in his book,
Concerning the Soul, teaches that the soul dies with the body, although many have tried without
success to save his reputation. As though we did not have the Holy Scriptures, in which we are
fully instructed about all things, things about which Aristotle has not the faintest clue!26 The
mature Luther, however, though he remained anthropocentric, broke with his earlier Platonic
anthropology and affirmed the New Testaments resurrection belief in deep sleep of humans.
Luther wrote: For just as a man who falls asleep and sleeps soundly until morning does not
know what has happened to him when he wakes up, so we shall suddenly rise on the Last Day;
and we shall know neither what death has been like or how we have come through it.27 Paul
Althaus argued that the mature Luther opposed the Hellenistic dualism on the total separation of
soul from the body. Although Luther still shares the dualistic anthropology, Althaus asserts: the
decisive New Testament insights reappear in Luther and once again become the dominant
elements in his thinking.28
25
Moltmann, God in Creation, 48.
26
Aristotles thought of the soul dies with the body indicates that the soul is not separated from the body
and this clearly points to the Hebraic belief of the resurrection of the dead. Luther refuted Aristotles argument by
persistently claiming that the soul does not remain in the body when a person dies. To The Christian Nobility, 1520,
WA 6, 441; LW 44: 201.
27
WA 17.II, 235; cited by Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, 414.
28
Althaus, Theology of Martin Luther, 414.
Luther shed light on this in his 1532 sermon about death which depicted his dichotomized
anthropology: After all, it is only a man that dies, and not even the whole man, but only a part,
the body.29 He also affirmed the final unity of the soul and the body in one of his later
disputations: Thus the soul comes from the same seed as the body does and yet it can be
separated from the body, but afterwards the soul shall be reunited again with the body.30
In reality, the anthropological dichotomy, even trichotomy, of Luther had reduced the
body into a lower form. With this argument, it conspicuously signified the need to liberate the
soul from the body. If the body is simply a tomb or prison of the soul as retribution for sin, then
it signifies that the physical world or nature is the same: a despised source of evil and misery in
human life. Greek influence in the thought of Empedocles (495-435 B.C.E.) came to saturate the
Western mind by asserting that the physical world is a joyless place where murder and
vengeance dwell, and swarms of other fateswasting diseases, putrefactions, and fluxesroam
in darkness over the meadow of doom.31 For the Western mind, which was profoundly
influenced by Greek thought, the material became utterly subordinated to eternal things.
It is interesting to note, however, that there is one Greek philosopher who believed the
body was as essential a part of the human nature as the soul. This thought was conceived by
Epicurus (342-270 B.C.E.), who also denied a life after death and discarded the Christian idea of
predestination or the Stoicisms belief of absolute fate controlling the destiny of people.32 True
happiness can be found, argued Epicurus, only by rejecting superstition and the fear of death.
This position was bluntly rejected by Luther who defended Christianitys doctrine of salvation of
the soul and eternal life. Attacking Epicurus denial of the destiny of the soul after death, Luther
asserted: To be sure, I am dying, but not like a pig from the herd of Epicurus, as though there
were nothing else in me than death and a corpse. Indeed, I am making known to you with true
29
Sermon at the Funeral of the Elector, Duke John of Saxony, 1 Thessalonians 4: 13-14, 1532, WA 36,
242; LW 51: 234. Thus the spirit comes from the same seed as the body does and yet it can be separated from the
body, but afterwards they shall be reunited. WA 39.II, 386; Cf. WA 39.II, 354; quoted in Paul Althaus, The
Theology of Martin Luther, 414, n. 44.
30
Disputationen, 1545, WA 39.II, 386; Cf. WA 39.II, 354.
31
Empedocles, Purifications Book 121. 31, in An Introduction to Early Greek Philosophy, trans. John
Mansley Robinson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 152; quoted in J. Baird Callicotts In Defense of the
Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental Philosophy (Albany, New York: State University of New York, 1989), 182.
32
See Epicureans, Dictionary of the Bible and Religion, 317-318.
and steadfast faith that God lives and that He will be with you while you are living and with me
after my death; for I believe in Him.33 The profound dualism of Luther led him to do a sharp
distinction between body and soul, making the latter more essential than the former.
What persisted to be unpopular to the Western mind was the Hebrew or Old Testament
thought that the term soul (nephesh) refers to the entire living being, not the fragmented human
being with body and soul or the sharp division of the exterior and interior. The root of the word
nephesh simply comes from the terms breath and breathing.34 In Genesis 2: 7, it is indicated
that God breathed into His nostrils the breath of life into the man of the dust and became a
living being. In the argument of Biblical scholar Claus Westermann: The Bible does not say that
a human being is made up of body and soul, or of body, soul, and spirit. Gods creation is this
man in the totality of his being. . . . A higher regard for the spiritual ideal than for the corporeal
or material has no basis in the creation faith of Genesis.35 Soul for the Hebrews is simply the
breath of life. It is not regarded as a form or division.
In fact, in the Old Testament, their belief in the Resurrection, which is based on Daniel
12: 2 and Isaiah 26: 19, indicated that there is no such thing as a soul separating from the body
when a person dies.36 A dead person would simply go back to the dust of the earth and sleep until
the Judgment Day when all the dead shall rise. So, the Christian idea of the soul, which is a
higher form of a human being, does not exist in the Hebraic thought. This Oriental tradition
33
34
T. J. Kleinhans is one of the contributors to William Gentzs Dictionary of the Bible and Religion. He
wrote: The English word soul is much broader than its Hebrew equivalent, nephesh. Its root includes the concept
of breath and breathing. Thus Genesis 2: 7: The Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life (nephesh); and man became a living being. So, to say in our terms as Christians that the
soul of the loved one has departed to be with the Lord or to speak of the immortal soul would simply not be
understandable in the culture of the Old Testament. The Hebraic belief is not the resurrection of the soul or spirit
but the resurrection of the dead in Daniel 12. To say in our terms that the soul of the loved one has departed to be
with the Lord or to speak of the immortal soul is nowhere in the Hebraic tradition. The believer in the Old
Testament viewed the self as a single entity, with the soul intertwined as part of the material body, for as long as one
lived. Thus one did not possess or inhabit a body but consisted a living, breathing body and soul, which were
inseparable. For the Hebrews, both the life force or soul and the body emanated from the Creator. T. J. Kleinhans,
Soul, Dictionary of the Bible and Religion, 1986 edition, 996-997.
35
Claus Westermann, Roots of Wisdom (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994), 39; cited by Brennan R. Hill
in his Christian Faith and the Environment: Making Vital Connections (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1998),
39.
36
Dictionary of the Bible and Religion, 997.
should enlighten us to think that the human being is not dualistic. This dualism should be
deconstructed so we can end our obsession on the plight of the soul and instead submerge
ourselves in loving the earth. The importance of the human body in this Oriental tradition would
also avoid the concept that the material, including nature, is evil.37 As Christians we have to
learn many things from earlier traditions, particular the Hebrew faith and the primal religions of
the East, especially their teachings on reverence and love for nature.38
Little do we hear, if at all, of this religion of love, which is rooted in the love of God
and the love of neighbor, that we are to regard other creatures as our neighbors as well. Sad to
say, we persist in restricting our love to our own species. Our neighbor that deserves our love is
no more than our co-human, nothing else. Our biblical scholars and theologians had hardly told
us that the Gospel of love can also be extended to the whole creation. This unpopular biblical
idea of presenting the good news of love and salvation to the whole creation was in fact
asserted in Mark 16: 15. Does Christianity deserve to be called a religion of love while most
Christians display lovelessness to nature?
Ironically, this anthropocentric religion continues to be one of the most influential
religions of the world. In fact, it became the religion of most of the rich and powerful nations.
These Christian nations, predominantly in the West, are famous for massive exploitation of
nature and over-consumption of the earths natural wealth. These nations, which to a large extent
are equipped with the mechanical or technological attitude toward nature, are utterly incoherent
with the distributive justice of the gifts of God for all creatures. The idea of interrelationship
among Gods creatures and the preservation of bio-diversity have not been the prime concern of
Christians because of the separation of humanity from nature.
37
The belief that the Matter or the physical world, even the mortal body, is evil was an influential teaching,
which Western religious tradition derived from the philosophy of Neo-Platonism, headed by Ammonius Saccas and
Plotinus (205-270 B.C.E.). Ibid., 734. Predominant to this Hellenistic influence was Origen (185-254 A.D.) who
advocated that those of greater sinfulness are on the face of the earth and mortal bodies. Williston Walker, A
History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1970), 76.
38
The common trait of Eastern religions and other Non-Western traditions is a reverence for the life-giving
earth. Most non-Christian and non-Western views were in fundamental balance and harmony with nature. The
following passage is a Native American complaint against Western approach to nature: The white people never
cared for the land or deer or bear. When we Indians kill meat, we eat it all up. When we dig roots, we make little
holes. . . . We dont chop down trees. We only use dead wood. But the white people plow up the ground, pull up the
trees, kill everything. See chapter on Non-Western Views of Nature, John B. Cobb, Jr., Is It Too Late? A
Theology of Ecology (Beverly Hills, California: Bruce, 1972), 39-47.
Dorothee Selle describes the human being made from dust, a concept that integrates
the non-dualistic human with all creatures. She recaptures the importance of the body against the
inferiority of the body in Christian dualism. She critically argues:
What does it mean to be made from dust? Being made from dust reminds me of being in
and with the body. The history of Christianity has been marked by a rejection of the
principal dimensions of this dust factor. It is through my body that I know that it is
not so very good here on earth. The wrong way to relieve this tension is to deny and to
suppress the body and its needs in favor of affirming an idealistic spirituality cleansed
of all bodily desires. . . . It is based on the dualism of self and body, or the body-spirit
dichotomy that we inherited from Greek philosophy.39
According to Selle, anthropology must be understood within the human beings

interrelationship with creation. We are created together with other creatures so humanity should
not be understood separately but always be integrated with nature. So, any anthropology that is
based on the individual betrays humanitys dust factor, the common origin of all creatures.
When anthropology is divorced from nature, that anthropology becomes dualistic and
destructive. Selle claims:
Our ecological imperialism has its roots in [an anthropological] split, which in turn has
spawned other dichotomies: the human versus the animal, man versus woman, adult
versus child, the master versus the slave race, intellectual versus manual work. All these
dichotomies are based on a distorted understanding of creation. These dichotomies
reinforce belief in the superiority of mind over the matter and legitimate domination
over the subjected. We must find a way to express our relationship to creation and to the
Creator that differs from the hierarchical ordering of reality into higher and lower
components.40
This belief is destructive because humans are simply on the top of a hierarchy in creation and
they do horrible things to other creatures simply because they are regarded as lower components
of creation and solely created for human benefits. We need to amend this belief on dualism in
order to recapture our interrelationship with nature. Aboriginal wisdom suggests that if
39
Selle, To Work and To Love: A Creation Theology, 29-30.
40
The strong belief in dualism of humanity or dichotomy in Western Christian tradition correlates the
thoughts of Paul, Augustine, and Luther, three influential Christian thinkers of the West. Their preoccupation of
human salvation clearly influenced Christians to separate themselves from nature. Selle argues that this dualistic
anthropology has brought the hegemony of Christianity over animals, trees, birds, women, children, slaves,
indigenous peoples and everyone else that are weaker than the Western white men. These superior creatures are
endowed by God to be over and above others, in matters of political leadership, education, economy, physical
strength, and utilization of natural resources. This is what Selle calls ecological imperialism. Ibid., 33.
Christians surrender their belief on the separation of humans from nature, Christian religion will
surely find a way to survive and a greater understanding of nature will enable Christians to
redeem the right relationship with the rest of creation. It follows that Christianity could be a
strong ally of nature if this detrimental belief will be mended by means of applying a holistic
Christian mission toward the whole creation and not humanity alone. A discussion on this
holistic mission will be dealt in chapter five.
Christian Pilgrimage on Earth41
The Late Medieval Churchs catechism demonstrated this extreme human-centered

anxiety in the writings of Dietrich Kolde (1435-1515) in his Mirror of a Christian Man: There
are three things I know to be true that frequently make my heart heavy. The first troubles my
spirit because I will have to die. The second troubles my heart more, because I do not know
when. The third troubles me above all. I do not know where I will go.42 This extreme anxiety
about the plight of the soul had basically reduced all temporal things, including nature, to
inconsequence in the life of the here and now. Everyone had fixed their eyes, minds, and hearts
toward the eternal home. To quote Carter Lindberg, The Christians life of pilgrimage toward
the heavenly city was increasingly perceived, literally and not just theologically, as an economy
of salvation. The mathematics of salvation concentrated on achieving as many good works as
41
The concept of the Pilgrimage of the saints on Earth was first articulated by Saint Paul and was further
built up by Western theologians, of whom the most prominent is St. Augustine. In his teachings about the Heavenly
dwelling, St. Paul used the metaphor of the tent or the tabernacle of the wandering Israelites in the wilderness
on their way to the Promised Land. Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 5: 1-3, Now we know that if the earthly tent we live
in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile, we
groan longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked.
Moreover, in Hebrews, the author used the example of Abrahams faith experience: By faith Abraham made his
home in the Promised Land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were
heirs with him of the same promised. For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and
builder is God. . . . And now they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. . . . If they had been thinking
of the country they had left, they would have had the opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better
country a heavenly one. Therefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for
them. Hebrews 11: 9, 10, 13-16 NRSV.
42
Denis Janz, Three Reformation Catechisms: Catholic, Anabaptist, Lutheran (New York and Toronto:
The Edwin Mellon Press, 1982), 127; cited by Lindberg in Howard Clark Kee, et. al., Christianity: A Social and
Cultural History, 264.
possible in order to merit Gods reward.43 Obsession of the merits of salvation became rampant
in Luthers time that led to a profound anxiety of people which preoccupied themselves of the
after life and make life on earth insignificant.
The central preoccupation of the Heavenly home had eclipsed the importance of the
Earthly home. H. Paul Santmire emphasizes the metaphysical pilgrimage or migration to a good
land which is known in Augustines Confessions and City of God.44 This thought is also evident
in Luther, as Santmire affirms: At times, indeed, the Reformers theology in this respect is so
focused on God and humanity that it can appear to be radically anthropocentric. Luther remarks
in his exposition of Genesis 1, for example, that Holy Scriptures . . . plainly teaches that God
created all these things in order to prepare a house and an inn, as it were, for the future man.45
The Earthly home was merely an inn or a dwelling for strangers. For a sojourner or a temporary
resident, certainly he or she had to care more for his or her real home. In the mind of the stranger
or the pilgrim, this Earthly home would eventually be destroyed, so to take care of it was
inconsequential. The eternal home is more important. The pilgrim is preoccupied with his or her
journey to the Eternal home where God is.
Luther echoed Augustines idea of pilgrimage that believers are aware that they are
exiles and strangers, like their fathers. They make use of the world as an inn from which they
must emigrate in a short time, and they do not attach their heart to the affairs of this life. They
tend to worldly matters with their left hand, while they raise their right hand upward to the
eternal homeland.46 Moreover, applying the idea of Abraham as an exile in his land, Luther
claimed in his Genesisvorlesung:
43
Kee, et. al., 263.
44
Ibid., 55.
45
Ibid., 124.
46
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 12: 1, WA 42, 441; LW 2: 253. Augustine had these writings on the
pilgrimage of Christians in his City of God: They are concerned to avoid giving offense to them, in case they
should harm themselves in respect of things which may be rightly and innocently enjoyed by good men, but which
they desire more than is right for those who are strangers in this world and who fix their hope on a heavenly
country. Book I, p. 15-16; In the same way, while the City of God is on pilgrimage in this world, she has in her
midst some who are united with her in participation in the sacraments, but who will not join with her in the eternal
destiny of the saints. Book I, p. 45; Among us Christians, on the other hand, the citizens of the Holy City of God,
as they live by Gods standards in the pilgrimage of this present life, fear and desire, pain and gladness in
conformity with the holy Scriptures and sound doctrine; and because their love is right, all these feelings are right in
them. Book XIV, p. 561.
Abraham, who is the lord of this land by divine authority, is an exile in it with Sarah
and his son Isaac, it is signified in the spirit that we are strangers on earth and are living
as if we were in exile.
For St. Paul says 2 Cor. 5: 6: As long as we sojourn in the body. But if we are
exiles in the body, which is ours in a very special sense, and our life in the body is
nothing else than a sojourn. . . . Thus Abraham understood that the promise given him
included the true fatherland and the true life, namely, the future life and a life better that
this one a life which is not a servitude and captivity of the soul.47
This heavenly promise is a prominent hope in the Bible especially for poor people. In Luke 6: 20
Christ uplifts the literal poor: Blessed are you poor for yours is the kingdom of God. In his
exposition on the Sermon on the Mount, Luther candidly wrote: Because we are willing to be
poor here and pay no attention to temporal goods, we are to have a beautiful, glorious, great, and
eternal possession in heaven. And because you have given up a crumb, which you still may use
as long and as much as you can have it, you are to receive a crown, to be a citizen and a lord in
heaven.48 Poor people are always to be uplifted by the divine promise and their hope. They are
to give more attention to eternal possession and less to earthly riches, that is, real wealth is in the
kingdom of heaven.49 This perspective not only disparages earthly existence; it also reinforces
the social status quo: the poor should be content with their poverty and their social position.
Luther underscored his point using St. Pauls passage in 2 Corinthians 5: 6, which Paul said We
know that while we are at home in the body, we are away from the Lord. Luther wrote: But if
we are exiles in the body, which is ours in a very special sense, and our life in the body is
nothing else than a sojourn, how much more are the fields, home, and money, nothing else than
exiles and sojourns!50 Our central preoccupation on eternal things has led to the tendency of
treating Earthly things as secondary. This had significantly impacted Christian missions to the
people in the Third World. As we have learned from the preceding chapters, the Christian
missionary enterprise had, in one way or another, in collaboration with colonizers and global
traders, contributed to the environmental destruction of the Third Worlds natural resources and
indigenous communities because of the introduction of an anthropocentric interpretation of the
47
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 23:3-4, WA 42, 283-284; LW 4: 206.
48
On the Sermon on the Mount, 1532, WA 32, 314; LW 21: 15. (Emphasis added)
49
On the Sermon of the Mount, 1532, WA 32, 315; LW 21: 16.
50
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 23:3-4, WA 42, 283-284; LW 4: 206.
Christian Scriptures. The missionary bias toward the soul and the heavenly home was the
vanguard of the missionaries, political invaders and economic looters of the rich indigenous
habitats.
Let us take this typical example of Filipino minister and theologian Mariano Apilado, a
product of foreign missions who wrote in his biographical theology about his missionary
experience with the Bagos, an aboriginal tribe in La Union, Philippines. One day he was asked
by the Bagos on their becoming Christians: You mean you want us to become Christians like
the lowland Christians who came here, cheat us in their trading and even grab our lands? No way
could we compromise our moral conduct for such behavior!51 Their communal, ancestral lands,
which housed the heavenly beauty of tropical rainforest and awesome wildlife, were through
trickery taken from them for industrial and agricultural use by rich local merchants and foreign
corporations.
In fact, they were taught by missionaries to focus more on their eternal home in heaven
and regard their habitat (rainforests) as secondary in importance. Years later, their lands were
taken and the rainforests were gone. The annihilation of their rich indigenous habitat resulted in
their decimation as well. As a matter of fact, three Filipino aboriginal tribes, the Agta, Ayta, and
Katabaga, were already extinct because they were displaced or pushed onto marginal lands
which were not suited to their traditional way of life. The massive exploitation of the Philippine
rainforests by local elites and large logging companies, many with significant foreign ownership,
had driven away the tribal minorities, together with the monkeys, birds, deer, and other wildlife,
into nowhere. The whole concept of the sacred grove, Lynn White describes, is alien to
Christianity and to the ethos of the West. For nearly 2 millennia Christian missionaries have been
chopping down sacred groves, which are idolatrous because they assume spirit in nature.52
Christians, indeed, display a strange attitude toward the physical world. For them this world is
believed to be destroyed in the end and that the ultimate goal is to win eternal life in the heavenly
home. One has to utilize and enjoy the blessings of Gods creation because, after all, all things
51
Mariano C. Apilado, The Dream Need Not Die: Revolutionary Spirituality 2 (Quezon City, Philippines:
New Day Publishers, 2000), 97.
52
White, The Historical Roots of Ecologic Crisis, 29.
will pass away. It is this attitude that Western peoples have adopted in their economic
exploitation of the earth a direct opposite attitude from that of the worlds aboriginal peoples.
This ecological havoc in this small archipelago of Asia exemplifies what had happened in
the massive exploitation of the Americas, Africa, Europe, and the rest of the world. The
exploitation of the worlds aboriginal peoples and the Earths natural wealth were actually
unleashed by the Industrial Revolution, along with the expansion of lands, wealth, and
population by the famous European conquests of the Americas, Africa, and Asia. Sad to say,
these conquests had been collaborated by the missionary enterprise of Christianity, represented
by the ethnocentric missionaries of the West. Rosemary Radford Ruether specifically cites this
horrible scenario on massive decimation of indigenous populations:
The sixteenth to nineteenth centuries saw a rapid population expansion by Western
Europe due to increased wealth from colonial trade, which also allowed improved
sanitation and expanded food and industrial production. This was the same period that
saw the conquest of much of the Americas, Africa, and Asia by European colonialism.
In Central and South America, it is estimated that of the 80 million indigenous people
present when Spanish and Portuguese colonialists arrived in 1550, only 10 million
remained one hundred years later. Vast numbers of indigenous people died due to
displacement, war, enslavement, and diseases. . . . The same pattern was repeated
among indigenous populations in the Pacific islands. In some areas, such as Tasmania
and the Caribbean islands, the entire indigenous population was wiped out.53
These colonized regions of the world, including their indigenous cultures, were indeed
Christianized. Ironically however, these regions now embody the poorest nations and debt-
burdened countries in the world, whose indigenous population, traditional habitats, rich cultures,
quality woods, precious metals, and wildlife were either wiped out from the face of the earth or
continuously stripped from them through the manipulation of the local elites in alliance with the
Christian missionary enterprise and the predatory economic empires of multinational
corporations of rich countries.
Our human-centered and profit-oriented attitude toward nature never values the integrity
and beauty of natures biodiversity. Little attention had been given by our religious tradition to
the idea that there is an intrinsic value in non-human beings. Essentially, this idea clearly
signifies that other creatures were not merely created for human consumption. The critique of
53
Ruether, Gaia and God, 90.
George Hendry and Paul Santmire against Luther on his pro-me theology, as shown in the first
article of the creed in Small Catechism, has made a good point because it indeed demonstrated
that the me or the human being is the center of attention in creation, while the rest of creation
plainly exists to sustain the human beings existence. This human-centered creed really depicts
the human being as the most important creature to be sustained, protected, preserved, and
provided with daily needs by the Creator.54 The ordinary believer would certainly comprehend
that the whole world of nature was merely created for the benefit of humanity and nothing else.
This profound attention being given to the human being clearly demonstrates the dominant
preoccupation with the soul. The Lutheran creed affirms the sustenance of the human soul, not
just the physical body: That [God] has given me and still sustains my body and soul.55
Linking cosmology and theology together is one way to resolve the ambiguity of the
pilgrimage belief. In his article, Ecology: Restoring Our Sense of Belonging, theologian John
F. Haught argues that Christians should reject the idea of separating theology from cosmology in
respect to our ecological context. To quote Haught: One way to make such a connection is to
note that a major concern of ecologists is to convince us that we humans really do belong to the
universe and to the earth. In fact, an axiom of many ecological ethicists is that unless we think of
the earth or the cosmos as our home in some sense, unless we learn to feel deeply that we belong
to nature, we will probably not be too interested in taking care of it.56 Pilgrimage on Earth
becomes ecologically problematic because our religious tradition had promoted, as Haught
describes, a sense of cosmic homelessness, making the Earth a launching pad so as to be
worthy of entering heaven, our "true" home in a world elsewhere.57 Earth has become a victim of
our religious restlessness and we are always looking forward to end our exile here on earth and
be in that real home where God is.
54
I believe that God has created me and all that exists; that he has given me and still sustains my body and
soul, all my limbs and senses, my reason and all the faculties of my mind, together with food and clothing, house
and home, family and property; that he provides me daily and abundantly with all the necessities of life, protects me
from all danger, and preserves me from all evil. Martin Luther, The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church, trans. and edited by Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 345.
55
Ibid.
56
John F. Haught, Ecology: Restoring Our Sense of Belonging, Woodstock Report 38 (June 1994): 4.
57
Ibid.
Paul Santmires questions are indeed compelling ecological concerns for Christians to
reflect upon:
Is it true that nature has been of no interest [or of little concern] for Christians? Is it true
that they have been such a people, wandering as strangers and pilgrims through this
world, that they have never had the time, nor the occasion, nor the will, nor the
rudimentary spiritual experience to respond to nature with the kind of theological
intensity they have always devoted to God and humanity? Is it true that nature does not
belong to the inner logic of Christian faith as we have known it for the last two
thousand years?58
True indeed, our tradition taught us that we are merely passing by here on earth. We are
just sojourners of this world and our true citizenship is in the Heavenly home. What we are
obsessed with is the destiny of the human soul and we do not care about the plight of other
creatures, which have no place in heaven because only humans are accommodated there. The
anthropocentric salvation has eclipsed the idea of biocentric salvation, which to the Eastern
religious thought is more of a holistic salvation of the here and now. The pilgrimage idea had
heavily occupied our mindset. We are simply concerned about the spiritual and eternal. This was
affirmed in the early lectures of Luther on Genesis: There is a similar beneficence of God
toward us in His spiritual gifts. Before we were brought to faith, Christ, our Redeemer, is above
in the Fathers house; He prepares mansions so that when we arrive, we may find heaven
furnished with every kind of joy.59 The anxiety about the destiny of the soul has distorted the
right relationship of humanity with nature and it persists to undermine the importance of the rich
variety of life forms. How could you imagine the world if the only race or species left is white or
black? The world would be absolutely boring. When one tribe or race, or just one species of
wildlife has been wiped out, that single race or species, which was uniquely created by God, has
been deprived of its existence for good. What is extinct is totally irreversible and irreplaceable. It
is totally lost forever! Its potential to regenerate over time in order to make the world more
beautiful as it interweaves with other living forms has been utterly destroyed.
Take the case of the American aboriginal peoples (First Nations) in North America. It
is utterly unimaginable that countless people were decimated due to the colonizers greedy
58
Ibid., 13.
59
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 1:11, WA 42, 29-30; LW 1: 39. (Italics mine)
exploitation and destruction of their habitats. Visualizing the steady flow of their natural wealth,
political and religious leaders saw in this New World the only hope of making their
Eurocentric race economically progressive. The newcomers annihilated not just the Aboriginal
Nations but their old growth forests as well. Now the forests particularly in the Pacific Northwest
have been severely depleted. To quote James Nash: This process [extinction] is not simply a
hypothesis; it is a current reality. Most analysts believe that the number of extinctions is now in
the thousands annually. . . . Ironically, many unique and irreplaceable species are being
diminished and extinguished even before they are humanly discovered and classified!60
The remnants of such horrible exploitation have nothing left and what they could do is to
air their grievance and complaint. The voice of protest against Western Christianity from the
aboriginal Americans was epitomized by the words of Vine Deloria, Jr. in his book, God is Red:
A Native View of Religion:61
Such a gospel of peace has been notoriously lacking as an element in Western
civilization, and it is very questionable whether the present state of decay, corruption,
and exploitation is better than what had existed before the coming of the Western
Christian to the nations of the world. When ecologists find a predictable life-span of a
generation separating us from total extinction, it would seem that we have a duty to
search for another interpretation of mankinds life story instead of the traditional
Christian view of the world and what it means.62
We Christians need to learn from the aboriginal peoples of the world even if time and again we
regard them as heathen. We admit that we tried really hard to bring them to Christian faith but
our missionary expansion has deprived them of their ancestral lands, natural wealth, and
suppressed their rich culture and indigenous way of life. Our dealing with them became
60
Nash, Loving Nature, 55.
61
Dr. Vine Deloria, Jr., who died November 13, 2005 while I was writing this book, is an indigenous
American, author, historian, theologian, and activist. He is best known for his attack against the United States
government for the treatment of the remaining American Indian population. His famous book God is Red is labeled
as a controversial approach to Christian religion; in it he criticized the anthropocentric view of Western
Christianity on the natural world and its offenses against the Aboriginal American tribes. The American
Anthropological Association sponsored a panel in response to his most celebrated work, Custer Died for Your Sins,
and many sacred artifacts and human remains have been returned to tribes as a result. See Delorias complaint
against Western Christianity in God is Red: A Native View of Religion (New York: Grosset & Dunlap Publishers,
1973).
62
hypocritical. Although several of them were converted, we also converted their natural habitats
into a terrible mess. While we regarded our missionary enterprise as divinely-inspired and as we
stereotyped them as villains, savaged, barbarous, pagans, infidels, cannibals, we also seized and
occupied their lands, exploited their natural wealth, pushed them onto marginal lands, and
decimated a big portion of their population. In turn, the now surviving indigenous peoples of the
world are part of the globes poorest of the poor while many of us take pleasure in making their
lands economically progressive. Now that we have sown a massive ecological mess out of our
profit-oriented stewardship of these aboriginal lands, the time has come for us to learn from the
aboriginal peoples who are more ecologically friendly.
Christians and the aboriginal peoples are in polar opposite in almost every respect and
come to different conclusions about the meaning of life and the eventual disposition of the soul
and personality.63 Christians should appreciate how aboriginal communities cherish and respect
life here on earth and their intimate relationship with creation. This ethic of kinship in creation is
profound within the belief system of aboriginal peoples.
While Christians overemphasize eternal life, aboriginal peoples, on the other hand, do not
care so much about afterlife because for them the present life is more important. If someone dies,
they feel more connection with the Earth because they also see themselves returning to nature,
their bodies becoming the dust of Mother Earth, and they are being reborn in a new generation of
the tribe. The spirits of their ancestors remain in creation. This is the reason they honor both
Mother Nature and their ancestors because their loved ones have become an organic element of
Gods creation. Likewise, nature for them is sacred because it is where God the Great Spirit
dwells.
For the aboriginal peoples, living in creation means living in a community. This attitude
is the opposite of Western Christianitys focus toward the salvation of the individual, which led
to the steady decline of the importance of community. The individualistic thinks only of himself,
but the communitarian thinks of the whole. People, animals, birds, plants, and trees are regarded
as relatives and are treated with respect. American Indian professor, George Tinker, talks
about the creational value of reciprocity: The American Indian notion of reciprocity is
fundamental to all human participation in world-balancing and maintaining harmony.
63
Ibid., 153.
Reciprocity involves first of all an understanding of the cosmos as sacred and alive, and the place
of humans in the processes of the cosmic whole.64 In the ethics of kinship, to regard creation as
a community enables one to work for harmony and welfare of every creature. Although violence
or predation is unavoidable among creatures, aboriginal peoples do acts of violence toward other
creatures in a sacred way through prayer and offering. As Tinker relates:
When the tree is cut down for the Sun Dance, for instance, something must be offered,
returned to the spirit world, for the life of that tree. The people not only ceremonially
and prayerfully ask its permission but also ask for its cooperation and help during the
four days of the dance itself.
American technological and economic development cannot embody the Indian ethic
of reciprocity. It is not enough to replant a few trees or to add nutrients to the soil.
These are superficial acts to treat the negative symptoms of development. The value of
reciprocity which is a hallmark of Indian ceremonies goes to the heart of issues of
sustainability, which is maintaining a balance and tempering the negative effects of
basic human survival techniques. There is no ceremony among any people for clear-
cutting an entire forest.65
The Belief in Election or Chosen People
The belief in Election or predestination is inseparable from the preoccupation of

Christians toward the certainty of personal salvation. Election is a Christian doctrine that
facilitated the root of individualism. It separates a Christian from the sense of a universal
community, particularly with other people and nature. This belief had intensified anxiety about
the salvation of the soul, thereby making care of the earth less important. According to Santmire,
the reformers soteriological themes such as election and regeneration stimulated further the
preoccupation of theanthropocentric concern.66 Luthers justification by faith alone offered no
specific guidelines of living the faith. Those who were saved knew that God would certainly
bless the elect in this life and the life to come.
64
George E. Tinker, Clara Sue Kidwell and Homer Noley, A Native American Theology (New York: Orbis
Books, 2001), 41.
65
Ibid., 43-44. (Italics mine)
66
Santmire, The Travail of Nature, 125.
Luther articulated Pauls teaching in Romans 8:28-29: We know that to those who love
God, who are called according to His purpose; those whom He foreknew He also predestined to
be conformed to the image of the Son. Luther elaborated:
What God has predestined takes place by necessity. . . . We shall collect the proofs of
an immutable predestination from the words of Scripture and from the works of God. . .
. Therefore he says first: who are called according to His purpose. Thus it clearly
follows that others are not called according to His purpose. For the term purpose in
this passage means Gods predestination, or free election and deliberation, or counsel.
Blessed Augustine in Book 1 of his Confessions says: Thou are wonderful, O God;
Thou changest Thy opinion, but Thou dost not change Thy counsel.67
Predestination was among the most interesting doctrines taught by Luther and other reformers,
particularly John Calvin (1509-1564), whose basic theology was heavily derived from Luther.68
What was persuasive in this doctrine was its reinforcement of justification by faith and its sheer
assurance of salvation. However, this Christian belief turned many believers into deep anxiety.
The anxious and insecure Christian found in this doctrine the profound hope of certainty of
salvation, as Christ has promised in John 10: 29: No one is able to snatch my sheep out of the
Fathers hand.69
The problem of this belief is that other Christians stumbled on lifelong anxieties,
wondering whether or not they truly belonged to the elect. Paul Althaus illustrates this problem:
Luther knows, however, that a Christian can, in spite of this, be tempted by the anxiety that he
has not been chosen and thus fall into very great difficulty and despair.70 This had intensified
67
Lecture on Romans, Scholia, WA 56, 384; LW 25: 373-374. Luther derived his predestination doctrine
heavily from Paul and Augustine. All three drew materials from the Old Testament, which, throughout, asserts that
the Lord chose Israel as an elect people out of pure, sovereign grace. Israels election was not based on its merits but
was done in spite of its shortcomings.
68
The doctrine of predestination was further developed by Calvin into a social ethic of activism in
society or what is commonly called a Protestant Ethic. This was later picked up by the seventeenth century English
Puritans who advocated hard work, savings and investment, and a religious vision for material success and national
progress, an emphasis on an extreme anthropocentric and instrumentalist approach to nature. The Protestant Ethic
was practically based on Calvins teaching on Earthly Possessions Held in Trust in his famous Institutes; it
demonstrates a profound Augustinian influence of utilitarianism in dealing with the material world. See Book 3 of
John Calvins Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1559, vol. 2, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1977).
69
John 10:29 was one of the proof texts of Luther on predestination and election. WA 56, 384; LW 25: 374.
70
Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, 285.
the central obsession of Christians toward the destiny of the soul, in which our preceding
discussion relates that this extreme anxiety of the soul had led Christians to divorce themselves
from their relationship with the Earth. They could not escape for being anxious because they
were to manifest distinguishing marks as being part of the elect. The matter about marks had
become shaky in view of the fact that it drew more ambiguous interpretations of what real signs
were of a predestined saint.
Essentially, Desiderius Erasmus (1467-1536) affirmed the danger of this Christian
teaching. In his book, Luther on Predestination: The Antimony and Unity Between Love and
Wrath in Luthers Concept of God, Fredrik Brosch features Erasmus position, in his defense of
the doctrine of human free will, that the belief about election or predestination should not be
incorporated in ordinary Christian teaching.71 Erasmus alleged that the picture of the
predetermining God which Luther espoused should not be taught to ordinary Christians, for this
would have disastrous consequences and lead to godlessness, despair and pessimism.72 The
belief of election would bury many Christians under a lot of anxious questions. This extreme
anxiety brought by the doctrine of predestination is highlighted by Klaus Nrnberger in his book
Martin Luthers Message for Us Today: A Perspective from the South. To quote Nrnberger: It
makes us even more anxious. Do we really belong to the elect? What about the people we love?
What about the countless people in the world we are supposed to lead to Christ? What about the
people who never had a chance to hear the gospel? More fundamentally, what kind of God is this
who can select a few and reject all others is this the God of boundless mercy we have come to
believe in?73
More important to this doctrine is the exceptional distinction from the rest of humanity, a
concept that was derived from Old Testament tradition of the Elect or Gods chosen
people.74 For the very first time since St. Paul and St. Augustine, the radical conversion of a
71
Fredrick Brosch, Luther on Predestination: The Antimony and Unity Between Love and Wrath in
Luthers Concept of God (Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1977), 85.
72
De libero arbitrio, I.a, 9-11; quoted in Brosch, Luther on Predestination, 85, n. 1.
73
Klaus Nrnberger, Martin Luthers Message for Us Today: A Perspective from the South
(Pietermaritzburg, South Africa: Cluster Publications, 2005), 59.
74
Election was based in the sovereignty of God. For Luther, election depends on the initiative of God and
Gods grace alone can save human beings from their sins. So, salvation does not depend on human efforts but
sinner and an encounter with the irresistible grace of God in Christ were relived. Luther dealt
considerably with the idea of the elect in Romans 8:28. Indeed He [God] saves us, said
Luther, in this way and exposes His elect to as many rapacious forces as are mentioned here, all
of which are striving to pull the elect into damnation so they might be lost, in order to show that
God saves not by our own merits, but purely by His own election.75
The good thing for Luther was that he regarded election as a sign of Gods love and grace
and did not feel that God had to condemn other people to hell. Althaus argued that his pastoral
approach led him to little interest in condemning those who were not elected.76 Ironically, other
Christians went too far and advocated condemnation of other people. While it is true that the
tendency to individualize predestination was evident in Luther, Calvin made it worst when he
expanded Luthers idea to double predestination or election. That means, if there are those who
are predestined for salvation there are also those who are predestined for condemnation. The
concept of double predestination, however, was a strong Pauline thought as it was considerably
dealt with in Romans 9-11. Luther further articulated Pauls idea by highlighting the word
reprobate, indicating those who would be in eternal damnation. Luther expounded Pauls idea:
In the same chapter (Romans 9) he uses two passages, the first speaking of the elect: I will
have mercy on whom I will have mercy (Rom. 9; cf. Ex. 33: 19), and the second speaking
regarding the reprobate: I have raised you up for the very purpose, etc. (Rom. 9:17, cf. Ex.
9:16). And he continues: He hardens the heart of whomever He wills, and He has mercy upon
whomever He will (Rom. 9:18).77 It was Calvin, however, who largely amplified and heavily
inserted such belief into the Western mind. According to Calvin, the church is divided into two
exclusive classes: the elect and the reprobate.
The danger of this belief would engage a believer to be judgmental and self-righteous.
Moreover, one is bent to label and marginalize other people, particularly those who are non-
entirely on whether God has elected a person to be the recipient of saving grace. Luther said: All these points argue
that predestination and the certainty of our election, and not the righteousness of mans will, are the cause of our
salvation. Lecture on Romans, Scholia, WA 56, 88-89; LW 25: 80.
75
Lecture on Romans, Scholia, WA 56, 381-382; LW 25: 371.
76
Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, 286.
77
Lecture on Romans, Scholia, WA 56, 386; LW 25: 373.
Christians. The drawback of this belief had impacted the missionary enterprise to people of other
cultures, particularly the worlds aboriginal peoples, who were labeled as savage, infidels or
barbarians. This was exactly the scenario when the aboriginal Americans were subjugated and
exploited by the Westerners primarily because the latter regarded themselves as the chosen
people of God, viewing themselves as exceptionally distinct from the rest of humanity. Sad to
say, the wars against these aboriginal peoples were justified by Western thinkers as a part of the
divine plan for the elect to be Gods agents of salvation even against the infidels. In the words of
Deloria:
At this point in the clash between Western industrialism and the planets aboriginal
peoples we find little or no voice coming from the true Christians to prevent continued
exploitation. Instead we find rhetorical assertions that the Christian God is controlling
history and fulfilling His divine plan for all mankind. . . . that the health of the souls be
cared for and that barbarous nations be overthrown and brought to the faith itself.78
In fairness to Luthers idea of predestination, it should be noted that he taught that

Christians are not predestined to a status of privilege but rather are chosen as instruments of
Gods grace and love, and not to condemn certain people to hell. The only point of the argument
is that though neither Luther nor Calvin intended the bad effect of the belief of election to
happen, the lesson for us is that we must be careful with our anthropocentric teachings that are
potentially harmful to other people and nature. As a voice from the South, Nrnberger argues his
critical reflection on predestination:
The reader may have guessed that I am not particularly impressed by the doctrine of
predestination. In my view it is a classical example of how speculation can lead both
trained theologians and ordinary believers astray. The Reformers have emphasized over
and over again that there are mysteries that we have to leave to Gods majesty. What
has not been revealed cannot be known. The problem is that people think that
predestination is indeed a fact that has been revealed because it can be found in the
Bible.79
The critique against this belief from the surviving aboriginal tribes of North America
discloses the lost of their identity as an indigenous community. Because Euro-American
Christians strongly believe that the doctrine of Manifest Destiny led them to regard themselves as
78
Deloria, 274.
79
Nrnberger, 67.
Chosen People they suppressed many American indigenous ceremonies that were deemed
dangerous impediments to their goals of Christianizing, civilizing, democratizing, and
systematically relieving the aboriginal peoples of their landholdings.80 The very conception of a
Chosen People, argues Deloria, implies a lost religious ethnicity. Most likely religions do not
in fact cross national and ethnic lines without losing their power and identity. . . . The traditional
objection to this concept is that it would create religious wars.81 True indeed! Our planet has
truly been plagued by violence and religious conquests of foreign lands as perpetuated by the
three most warring religions of the world Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Their militaristic
character of being Chosen by God is a divine mission to crush the infidels or to convert them
by force. Today, the faithful of these three warring religions are still killing against each other in
the name of God. It is the common belief of Messianic politics that leads these religions to crush
the infidels. In the context of these three major religions, it is the belief of a messianic figure
coming in the future to bring global peace by crushing the enemies of the believers. Unless we
get rid of this belief, people and nature will be continuously annihilated from the face of the
earth.
Use and Enjoyment
What people do about their ecology, asserts Lynn White, depends on what they think
about themselves in relation to things around them. Human ecology is deeply conditioned by
beliefs about our nature and destiny that is, by religion.82 Western Christian tradition, which
Luther shaped significantly, had established not only a major dualism of human beings and
nature, but also taught that it is Gods will that humans exploit nature for their proper ends.83
Eco-theologians air a complaint that standard accounts judge the consequent suffering of nature
80
George E. Tinker, American Indian Religious Traditions, Colonialism, Resistance, and Liberation, in
the book Native Voices: American Indian Identity and Resistance by Richard A Grounds, George E. Tinker and
David E. Wilkins, eds. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2003), 223.
81
Deloria, 293.
82
White, 24.
83
Ibid. 25.
at human hands to have been enormous. Christianity has left us with a terribly diminished natural
realm and a predatory legacy.84 For Luther, as Santmire writes, Nature has the effect of
drawing the despairing soul to seek the humanity of Christ. Therefore, as nature is created for the
sake of humanity, according to Luther, it seems that nature also functions anthropocentrically in
the order of redemption as well.85
Luther believed that creation is an instrument which God intended to be in service to
humanity. Luther undoubtedly derived his thoughts about the principle of use and enjoyment
from Augustines teaching on uti et frui (using and enjoying) toward created elements in his De
doctrina Christiana.86 Augustine compares the Christian pilgrimage on earth to a pilgrim or
traveler far from home who uses a conveyance to return home, but does not enjoy the
journey for its own sake.87 The famous Augustinian notion that we should use this world and
not enjoy it was applied by Luther in his Lectures on Romans by implying that only God is the
one to be enjoyed and truly loved, while His gifts are to be used, not to be enjoyed. He echoed
Augustines thought: For this is what it means to love God above all things and to esteem Him
with a rich love, that is, to love Him with a precious love. But to love Him for the sake of His
gifts [other creatures] or for some advantage is the lowest kind of love, that is, to love Him with
a selfish desire. This is using God but not enjoying Him.88 The value of the gifts of God or the
84
Robert Booth Fowler, The Greening of Protestant Thought (Chapel Hill & London: The University of
North Carolina Press, 1995), 62.
85
86
Augustine advocated that all temporal things are provided by divine providence to be used by us but not
with any permanent or exclusive affection. Our enjoyment belongs only to God. De Doctrina Christiana trans. D.W.
Robertson (New York: The Liberal Arts Press, 1958), 10. The human use of created elements was justified by
Augustine in a letter to Honoratus: Truly there is in man a rational soul, but it makes a difference which way he
turns the use of reason by his will: whether to the goods of his external and lower nature, or to the goods of his
interior and higher nature; that is, whether his enjoyment is corporeal and temporal or divine and eternal. This soul is
placed in a middle state, having below it the physical creation and above it the Creator of itself and its body.
Augustine, Letter 140 to Honoratus, trans. Sister Wilfred Parsons (Washington: Catholic University of America
Press, 1965), 45.
87
Thus in this mortal life, wandering from God (2 Corinthians 5: 6), if we wish to return to our native
country where we can be blessed we should use this world and not enjoy it, so that the invisible things of God
being understood by the things that are made (Romans 1: 20) may be seen, that is, so that by means of corporal and
temporal things we may comprehend the eternal and spiritual. The true objects of enjoyment are the Father and the
Son and the Holy Spirit, who are at the same time the Trinity, One Being. (Emphasis added) Augustine, De
doctrina Christiana, Book I, section 4.
88
Lectures on Romans, Scholia: On Romans 5:5, WA 56, 307; LW 25: 294-295. (Emphasis added)
material creation is reduced to utility for humans to protect them or comfort them. God has
given, said Luther, all these things to men and clothed them as with a garment.89
Enjoyment of Gods gifts, on the other hand, was also taught by Luther to be acceptable
only if the motivation was to acknowledge Gods mercy and to tender Him thanksgiving for
what God had given to bless human life. God had bestowed these creative blessings for humans
to rule and to enjoy, especially those who received Gods grace and forgiveness. Luther
mentioned this concept in his lectures on Genesis: The purpose for which God gives us good
health, wife, children, and property is not that we might offend Him by means of these gifts, but
that we might recognize His mercy and give thanks to Him. For this reason He has granted us the
enjoyment and, as it were, the rule of almost all the creatures.90
The danger of our Christian tradition, Robert Fowler says, is that Christianity justifies
the domination of nature by humans; some choose to analyze this tendency as a product of a
given period of historical Christianity, usually the Middle Ages, while others see it as an inherent
in the religion in every age.91 Paul Althaus cites Luthers appreciation on human creative
discoveries like the art of printing books, which signified the rule of humans over other
creatures. Althaus wrote: God the creator has given men power to do these all things by
originally implanting and creating them within him. This is a part of mans creation in the image
of God, that is, so that he may rule over the earth.92
Luther strongly believed that nonhuman beings were created as blessings for humanity
so they can be utilized for human existence. In fact, these blessings could defy death by
extending human life through the utilization of nature as medicine. The sense of instrumentalism
was evident in Luther. In one of the Table Talks in the Fall of 1532, he discussed the usefulness
of nature in relation to the health of humans. He asserted that the Creator employs the
instruments of nature. . . . God also employs means [nature] for the preservation of health, such
89
Lectures on Romans, Scholia: On Romans 8:7, WA 56, 362; LW 25: 351.
90
91
Fowler, The Greening of Protestant Thought, 62.
92
as sleep, food, and drink, for he does nothing except through instruments.93 Nature had been
created for human benefits to assist humans in confronting the insecurities and uncertainties of
life, especially the fear of death. With the reality of death and dying in Luthers sixteenth century
world, he advocated the significance of the instruments of nature to serve human beings for
healing. Luther said: Healing comes from the application of nature to the creature, for medicine
is divinely revealed and not derived from books, even as knowledge of law is not from books but
is drawn from nature. . . . It is our Lord God who created all things, and they are good.
Wherefore it is permissible to use medicine, for it is a creature of God.94
The goodness and usefulness of nature was merely centered on the protection, healing,
and comfort of humans. This anthropocentricism worsened during the rise of science and
technology. Lynn White sheds light on this crucial subject:
We would seem to be headed toward conclusions unpalatable to many Christians. Since
both science and technology are blessed words in our contemporary vocabulary, some
may be happy at the notions, first, that, viewed historically, modern science is an
extrapolation of natural theology and, second, that modern technology is at least partly
to be explained as an Occidental, voluntarist realization of the Christian dogma of
mans transcendence of, and rightful mastery over, nature. But, as we recognize,
somewhat over a century ago science and technologyhitherto quite separate
activitiesjoined to give mankind powers which, to judge by many of the ecological
effects, are out of control.95
The proliferation of the scientific and technological attitude toward nature, which is
predominantly in its Western forms, became effectively operative to endlessly allure the human
desire to make life more easy, secure, and comfortable. In the same manner, it proportionately
led to the emergence of inconceivable human illnesses, global warming, floods, forest fires, and
other ecological distress to humans and other creatures brought by the misuse and abuse of
nature.
One interesting subject to emphasize at this point in relation to the use and enjoyment of
creation is that some of Luthers contemporaries articulated the concept about the use of other
humans as natural slaves. Relying heavily upon the hierarchical philosophy of Aristotle, they
93
Table Talk, no. 360, 1532, WA TR 1, 151; LW 54: 53.
94
Table Talk, no. 360, WA TR 1, 151-152; LW 54: 53-54.
95
White, 27.
made the Westerner superior in relation to the indigenous peoples of the world. This Aristotelian
thinking explained that the world was divided into men and slaves. As Deloria asserted, The
only available philosophical system purporting to explain the world of daily event was that of
Aristotle. . . . It supported their thesis that natives could be enslaved. Even pro-native theologians
admitted that the natives should be subjected to force until they were converted to the true
faith.96
Luthers contemporary, Juan Gins de Seplveda (1494-1573), a Spanish priest and a
distinguished Aristotelian scholar, in one of the most important debates in human history held in
Valladolid, Spain in 155097 defended the conquest of the Americas and the wars against the
aboriginal peoples. His adversary was Bishop Bartolom de Las Casas, a Dominican friar whose
writings about atrocities against the indios had caused the debate to be held. Seplveda
advocated Eurocentric superiority and applied Aristotles notion of natural slaves, that some
human beings are meant to be slaves, and it is immoral for them to resist enslavement.98 Arguing
96
Deloria, 276. Deloria does not acknowledge here the conflicting perspective of Bishop de Las Casas who
advocated conversion by example, not by force. Because of his defense of aboriginal peoples, Las Casas was driven
from his diocese of Chiapas, Mexico, and forced to return to Spain where he continued to advocate for aboriginal
peoples rights.
97
The Spanish discovery and subsequent conquest of the New World inspired a serious, if not heated,
intellectual controversy regarding the rationality and Christianization of the Indians. The debate reached its height
in 1550, when the King of Spain, Charles V, ordered a junta, a group of jurists and theologians, to meet at
Valladolid in order to hear the arguments in favor of and against the use of force to incorporate the Indians into
Spanish America. On the one side was one Juan Gins de Seplveda (1494-1573), a prominent humanist and
Aristotelian scholar who justified conquest and evangelization by war. His opponent, fray Bartolom de Las Casas
(1474-1566), in contrast, was a staunch advocate of peaceful and persuasive conversion. So it was that the most
powerful man, Charles V, leader of the most powerful nation in the world, Spain, suspended all wars of conquest
until a group of intellectuals grappled with the morality of Spains presence and enterprises in America. The Las
Casas-Seplveda debate constitutes the first serious theoretical attempt by Europeans to understand the diverse
native cultures of the New World. With the debate emerged the concept of an American cultural duality, a polarized
viewpoint between civilization and barbarism, which thereafter became ingrained in the American psyche. See
Lewis Hanke, All Mankind is One: A Study of the Disputation between Bartolom de Las Casas and Juan Gins de
Seplveda in 1550 on the intellectual and religious capacity of the American Indians (DeKalb, Illinois: Northern
Illinois University Press, 1974).
98
Aristotle raises the question of whether slavery is natural or conventional. He asserts that the former is
the case. So, Aristotle's theory of slavery holds that some people are naturally slaves and others are naturally
masters. Thus he says: But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is
expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature? There is no difficulty in answering this
question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only
necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule. Aristotle,
Nicomachean Ethics: The Ethics of Aristotle, ed. with an introduction and notes by John Burnet (London: Methuen
& Company, 1900), Book VII and The Politics of Aristotle, trans. with an introduction, notes and appendixes by
Ernest Barker (Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), Book I, iii-vii.
the barbarian school of thought that the aboriginal peoples were plainly savage, Seplveda
demeaned these indigenous peoples in a blatant offensive way: In prudence, talent, virtue, and
humanity they (indigenous Americans) are as inferior to the Spaniards as children to adults,
women to men, as the wild and cruel to the most meek, as the prodigiously intemperate to the
continent and temperate, that I have almost said, as monkeys to men.99 With this debasing
statement toward the indigenous Americans, Seplveda was later dubbed as the father of modern
racism.100 This Eurocentric position significantly impacted the missionary enterprise and
justified the invasion.
Anthony Pagden, who wrote an in-depth study of the sixteenth century European
description and classification of the indigenous Americans in his impressive work, The Fall of
Natural Man: The American Indian and the Origins of Comparative Ethnology, reconstructs the
misleading classificatory theories of the sixteenth century:
The men of the sixteenth century, it is claimed, were too heavily laden with the baggage
of Plinian ethnology and Aristotelian psychology to be able to give a proper account of
the data before their eyes. Only when they were finally compelled, sometime at the
beginning of the eighteenth century, to recognize that the theories with which they had
been working could not be made to fit the facts before their eyes, were they able to
come up with an adequate description of the American world.101
One inaccuracy was that, as Pagden writes, the Europeans who encountered them found it very
difficult to take seriously as human beings, creatures whose social presence and personal
appearance was so strikingly unfamiliar.102 This superior mentality of Europeans was a trait
derived from the Hellenistic sense of uniqueness by which the world was a simple division
into them and us.103
99
Hanke, All Mankind Is One, 84.
100
See Lewis Hanke, Aristotle and the American Indians: A Study in Race Prejudice in the Modern World
(Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1959).
101
Pagden made an anthropological analysis in examining four groups of writers who described and
classified the indigenous American culture: the sixteenth century theologian Francisco de Vitoria and his followers,
Juan Gins de Seplveda, the champion of the Indians Bartolom de Las Casas and Jesuit historians Jos de
Acosta and Joseph Franois Lafitau. Anthony Pagden, The Fall of Natural Man: The American Indian and the
Origins of the Comparative Ethnology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 1. (Emphasis added)
102
Ibid., 58.
103
Ibid., 124.
This Eurocentric bias had led to the subjugation of the indigenous peoples of the
Americas and utilized their manpower to propel Europes industrial revolution. Ironically, the
enslavement of these peoples, including Africans, had boosted the economic progress of Europe.
This, in turn, heightened the growth of modern science and technology, which in the Western
mind helped to fulfill Gods intention that humans exploit nature for their own proper ends.104
Thus, the mechanical view of nature had been unleashed to operate in the planet. In his
article, Historical Roots of the American Crisis, Paul Santmire has his own creative description
of the Western view of nature:
Nature is analogous to a machine; or in the most popular version nature is a machine.
Nature is composed of hard, irreducible particles which have neither color nor smell nor
taste. . . . Beauty and value in nature are in the eye of the beholder. Nature is the dead
res extensa, perceived by the mind, which observes nature from a position of objective
detachment. Nature in itself is basically a self-sufficient, self-enclosed complex of
merely physical forces acting on colorless, tasteless, and odorless particles of hard, dead
matter. That is the mechanical view of nature as it was popularly accepted in the circles
of the educated in the nineteenth century.105
If you imagine your co-creatures, especially the rocks, rivers, mountains, trees, and wind, to be
inert or dead, you would never think of their value or integrity. How much more with the value
of interrelationship? We do not care! They have no souls anyway. The Greek influence that the
human soul is not only separate and distinct from the body but also is antagonistic toward the
body has proportionately enhanced the belief of treating the material, particularly nature, as inert,
dead, and insignificant. Needless to say, what was attuned to our mindset was simply the use and
enjoyment of all the riches of creation, just as Luther wrote: God provided such an attractive
dwelling place for the future of human being before the human being was created. Thus,
afterwards, when man is created, he finds a ready and equipped home into which he is brought
by God and commanded to enjoy all the riches of so splendid a home. . . .[and] the beasts are
turned over to him, so that he might enjoy all this wealth free, in proportion to his need.106
104
White, 25.
105
H. Paul Santmire, Historical Roots of the American Crisis, in Western Man and Environmental
Ethics, ed. Ian G. Barbour (Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1973), 70-71.
106
In light of the instrumentalist view, stewardship, a popular Christian teaching which is

pedagogically associated with humans as managers of earths resources, caretakers of the earth,
and responsible users of money, deserves to be evaluated at this point. This writer agrees with
many ecologists that stewardship is ecologically ambiguous and it fails to offer a sound
ecological ethic that could alleviate the miserable plight of other creatures. The idea of stewards
of creation places humans over and above creation. This idea also employs the notion of
anthropocentric and instrumental management of earths resources. Creation is not seen here as a
community. Thomas Berry in The Great Work: Our Way into the Future understood creation as
subjects to be communed with, not as objects to be exploited.107 Thus, stewardship basically
betrays the ecological ideas of interdependence, interrelationship, and kinship within the
inclusive biotic community. In his article, In Gods Ecology, Santmire argues:
Stewardship is too functional, too manipulative, too operational a term, and too tied in
with money. This approach does not allow the faithful to respond to the earth and to the
whole cosmos with respect and with wonder. A theology focused anthropologically on
ethical issues remains anthropocentric, not theocentric or christocentric. The idea has
outlived its usefulness, especially in a North American context, where it carries strong
connotations of "managing our own resources" regardless of the mandates of God or the
divinely ordained rights of natural systems themselves.108
James Nash also asserts his critical view on stewardship, stating that
many have negative reactions to some descriptions, for instance, caretaker, gardener,
and especially manager all of which have been associated with anthropocentric abuse
and the strictly instrumental evaluation of nature. Management is a concept that makes
sense contextually, for instance, in agriculture, tree farming, and wild habitat
restoration. But it is a wildly arrogant notion when applied universally to describe
human relationships with the whole biosphere. Many things are best left alone.
Similarly, some have strong reactions to conservation and especially to steward and
stewardship. Though the ethical concept of stewardship justifiably has positive
connotations to many Christians, implying love and service, it has negative ones for
substantial numbers of environmentalists.109
107
Thomas Berry, The Great Work: Our Way into the Future (New York: Bell Tower, 1999), x; cited by
John Hart, What Are They Saying About, 76.
108
H. Paul Santmire, In Gods Ecology, The Christian Century 117, no. 35 (December 13, 2000): 1301.
109
Nash, Loving Nature, 107. (Emphasis added)
The instrumentalist view of nature is completely in contrast with non-Western views,

particularly those of the aboriginal peoples who were subjugated by European invaders. In his
environmental philosophy, Baird Callicott argues: In its practical consequences the American
Indian view of nature is on the whole more productive of a cooperative symbiosis of people with
their environment than is the view of nature predominant in the Western European tradition.110
While the Western view establishes an antagonistic dualism between body and soul or man and
nature, the non-Western view, though their dualistic belief in spirit and nature cannot be denied,
regards both the spirit and nature not just as their neighbors but also as a part of their family and
community. The non-Western view claims that every organic form, including a stone, river,
mountain, is possessed of spirit that gives life. Not only does every creature have a life or spirit,
everyone is related together as members of one universal family. A reflective Sioux Indian, John
Fire Lame Deer, in his book, Lame Deer: Seekers of Visions, explains this view in the most
revealing metaphysical description:
Nothing is so small and unimportant but it has a spirit given it by Wakan Tanka. Tunkan
is what you might call a stone god, but he is also a part of the Great Spirit. The gods are
separate beings, but they are all united in Wakan Tanka. It is hard to understand
something like the Holy Trinity. You cant explain it except by going back to the
circles within circles idea, the spirit splitting itself up into stones, trees, tiny insects
even making them all Wakan by his ever presence. And in turn all these myriad of
things which makes up the universe flowing back to their source, united in one
Grandfather Spirit.111
They strongly believe that each creature, being possessed of a spirit, could not exist without
every other creature. This non-Western view has a strong sense of interrelationship,
interconnectedness, and interdependence of all creatures. These people acknowledge other
creatures as their kin, like loving them as brothers and sisters. I consider it strange for the
Western view to have no affection with other creatures. For the indigenous peoples, the world
did not consist of inanimate materials. It was rather alive, and everything in it signifies the
dynamic interrelationship of all creatures. To demonstrate their belief of interdependence, Gary
Snyder, a Buddhist with a background in American Indian spirituality, writes his vivid outlook of
110
Callicott, In Defense of the Land Ethic, 190.
111
John Fire, Lame Deer: Seekers of Visions (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1972), 102-103.
intercommunion of the whole creation: We can view all beings as our own flesh, as our own
children or parents. And we can see ourselves as an offering to the continuation of life. Every
bite we take whether it is a plant or animal involves a sacrifice to life. All nature is a gift-
exchange, a potluck banquet, and there is no death that is not somebodys food, no life that is not
somebodys death. . . . The shimmering food chain, food web, is the scary, beautiful, condition of
the biosphere.112
It is important for our spiritual well-being, Gary Snyder says, to get back in touch with
the wider world of beings, to resist and reverse our slide into anthropocentricism and adopt a
more biocentric view of things.113 It should be considered that the interdependence of all
creatures is part of the dynamics of Gods love for all creatures. All creatures, particularly
humans, are faced with the reality that life is limited. Everyone has to die. But the death of one
brings life and existence to the other. In the act of eating, other creatures become us, concretely
and physically.114 Their lives have been given in order to sustain us. In turn, when we die, our
corpses become food for other beings.115 This is the creativity of interdependence, which in the
non-Western mind is intended by the creative Creator.
On the other hand, nature has been prejudiced, declares Callicott, by the metaphysical
apartheid of Western Christian religious tradition, because the world is pictured as an atomism of
most subtle and insidious sort. It breaks a highly integrated functional system into separate,
discrete, and functionally unrelated sets of particulars.116 These particulars are not related as a
family or community, not even related as neighbors. There is no sense of interdependence. No
interrelationship at all! Creation is simply an instrument which God creates in service to
humanity. Luther wrote: On the third day God provides kitchen and provisions. On the fourth,
sun and moon are given to man for attendance and service. On the fifth the rule over the fish and
112
Gary Snyder, Grace, Co-evolution Quarterly 3 (Fall 1984): 1.
113
Ibid., 3.
114
Ibid., 1.
115
Ibid.
116
Callicott, 186.
the birds is turned over to him. On the sixth the rule over all the beasts is turned over to him, so
that he might enjoy all this wealth free, in proportion to his need.117
The modern technological civilization, writes Callicott, which is European in its
origins, has been neither restrained nor especially delicate in manipulating the natural world.118
The Greek influence on Christian beliefs and attitudes is profound. The extreme dualism of man
and nature, the manipulative hierarchy of beings, and the ambiguous notion of natural slaves all
led to the mechanical and utilitarian attitude toward nature. What is only the most essential is the
human soul that needs to be emancipated from his or her lonely exile sojourning in a strange
and hostile world, alien not only to his or her physical environment, but to his or her own
material body, both of which he or she is encouraged to fear and attempt to conquer.119 Deloria
brings to light: Without the initial Christian doctrines giving Europeans free reign over the rest
of the world, much of the exploitation would not have occurred. It was only when people were
able to combine Western greed with religious fanaticism that the type and extent of exploitation
that history has recorded was made possible.120 Its so appalling to realize that Western
Christians made use of such doctrines of faith, which were predominantly inspired by Greek
thoughts, to justify that it was Gods will to make the most of nature and the indigenous peoples
in favor of the Eurocentric race. Even today, Deloria continues, the Christian missionaries
search the jungles of the Amazon looking for Indian tribes to convert. In their wake come the
professional killers to exterminate the tribes, and following them the government bureaucracies
and road builders to subdue the lands of the interior for world commerce.121
Martin Luther, who was significantly part of the Western religious tradition that had
passed on the anthropocentric and instrumentalist writings to many generations, remains to be an
influential figure to our time. But let us be prudent enough to realize that his Christian religion
of love has been loveless to nature. Acknowledging the shortcomings of these writings as far as
117
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 1:11, WA 42, 29; LW 1: 39. (Emphasis added)
118
Callicott, 191.
119
Ibid., 182.
120
Deloria, 281.
121
Ibid.
the integrity of creation is concerned would help Christians to correct and redirect our religion
of love, extending it toward the whole creation. Is it not the words of Christ in Mark 16: 15 that
command us to proclaim the Gospel of love to the whole creation, not just to humanity alone?
We cannot deny that Christians anthropocentric writings have been dubious interpretations and
detrimental to nature. Christianity has to recognize that many of its religious teachings have to be
taken with a serious caution because they can become irrelevant and ecologically problematic.
Take for instance the insistence of theologians of the past, beginning with St. Paul, who
imposed upon us the inferiority of women in the church and society, telling us that the weaker
sex should remain quiet and be submissive to men. Luther pointed out this subject in The
Disputation Concerning Justification: Paul, however, is saying that only man is the image of
God, not the woman, because the church is subject to Christ, like the woman to the man [Eph. 5:
21-24], and God governs the church.122 Such teaching is said to be legitimate because of the
biblical tradition. The imposition of such a tradition would seem to be irreligious and unjust to
our context. Most of our church bodies now are emancipated from practicing sexual
discrimination into the bliss of sexual freedom and equality in serving the church, human society,
and other creatures. The danger here was the oversimplification of this biblical tradition about
the acquiescence of women because this biblical notion on the weaker sex had been extended to
nature. Because women are inferior to men, so is nature to humans.
This is the reason why the concepts of kinship and interdependence in creation are
unpopular to Western religious tradition. Christians no longer can afford to stay at home with
this exclusivist, anthropocentric thought of yesterday. Christianity needs a more universal, more
ecological and more cosmic reading of the bible. Thomas Berry in The Dream of the Earth
evaluates that the ultimate basis of the ecological difficulties in Christianity lies in the spirituality
of Christians.123 For Berry, Christian spirituality is particularistic or human-centered. Humans,
Berry says, have broken the primary law of the universe, the law of the integrity of the universe,
the law that every component member of the universe should be integral with every other
member of the universe and that the primary norm of reality and of value is the universe
122
The Disputation Concerning Justification, 1536, WA 39.I, 111; LW 34: 177.
123
Thomas Berry, The Dream of the Earth (San Francisco, California: Sierra Club Books, 1998), 116;
cited by Fowler, The Greening of Protestant Thought, 21.
community itself in its various forms of expressions.124 Matthew Fox also argues in Creation
Spirituality: Liberating Gifts for the Peoples of the Earth that a creation-centered spirituality is
what humans need in our degenerating ecological context. Creation spirituality, Fox says,
empowers us for an ecological era, a time when we cease looking up for divinity and start
looking around.125
Our theological teachings had been heavily particularistic. The impact of these human-
centered teachings had brought no healthier world to live. Christianity itself, Deloria frankly
argues, may find the strength to survive, if it honestly faces the necessity to surrender its
narrow interpretation of history and embark on a determined search for the true meaning of
mans life on this planet. Even surrendering a belief in a God who exercises supremacy over
world events becomes possible, if in surrendering the belief, one comes to a greater
understanding of the nature of religion and religious experiences.126 Deloria criticizes the
essence of the saying, Let us make God in the image of man, or rationalize the will of God in
our own human terms.
While the fact remains that most Christians are spiritually but not ecologically converted,
our people need to be educated and redirected from a dualistic and human-centered Gospel to a
more universal Gospel for all creatures in order for us to build the kingdom of God on earth as
it is in heaven.127 As we all unite toward this universal and down-to-earth Christian prayer,
we also need to mend and deconstruct Christian beliefs that have been detrimental to nature
beliefs that promote hegemony and domination over other people and nature. Instead of working
out Gods will on earth as in heaven, Christian tradition has espoused Gods will on earth as
in the West.128 In her book, On Earth As In Heaven, Dorothee Selle conveys her prophetic
message for Christians:
124
Ibid., 202.
125
Matthew Fox, Creation Spirituality: Liberating Gifts for the Peoples of the Earth (San Francisco,
California: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), 41; cited by Hart, What Are They Saying About, 68.
126
Deloria, 287.
127
Lords Prayer in Matthew 6: 10 NRSV.
128
Dorothee Selle, On Earth As In Heaven: A Liberation Spirituality of Sharing, trans. by Marc Batko
(Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 52.
Among us the West pretends to be a kind of heaven: new world order, uniform opinion,
new armament thrusts, total rule over all other peoples. The idol that is worshiped there
is sheer power. In contrast to this Christians pray for the realization of Gods will and
refer to the universalist traditions of life for all humanity.129
Mending our repressive religious heritage would help emancipate the poor of the earth
and the environment from further annihilation. The ecological catastrophe, claims Selle, that
now envelops us has its roots, in part, in Christian tradition. If we would develop a new
understanding of creation, we need a critical awareness of the destructiveness of our faith.130
Since our Earthly home today is in danger of being obliterated due to our anthropocentric
approach to nature, the compelling demand of salvation, love, and healing should no longer be
confined to human beings but should now be extended to the whole creation. Humans are the
only moral creatures who have the unique capacity and the responsibility to care for the integrity
of the whole creation. Humans are the only creatures who can truly love the rest of Gods
creatures.
129
Ibid., 53.
130
Selle, To Work and To Love: A Theology of Creation, 20.
Y|x
THEOCENTRIC LUTHER
Luther indeed had an anthropocentric conception of creation. However, there is

something in him that essentially overshadowed his human-centered tendencies. This is his
theocentricism. The knowledge of God, according to Luther, enlightens humanity in their proper
dealing with creation. One of the essential gifts of the knowledge of God is a perfect knowledge
of the nature of the animals, the herbs, the fruits, the trees, and the remaining creatures1 through
the nurturing work of the Three Estates or Orders: the home, the state, and the church, which
represent the Orders of Creation.
Most of his mature thoughts undermined his anthropocentric views on the natural world.
Theocentric themes on Gods immanence within creatures, Gods creative work with co-
workers, and the Gospels extension to the whole creation were the foundational elements to
demonstrate in some way the ecologically sensitive Luther. Without the intervention of God in
the life of the human being, creation could hardly be protected and preserved from obliteration.
In light of Luthers theocentricism which relatively offsets his anthropocentricism, Santmire
affirms: As we survey the theology of the Reformers, attending to its circumference as well as
to its center, we do encounter a number of striking attestations to the glory and the power of God
in nature, to natures own intrinsic wonder and beauty, and, especially for Luther, to humanitys
solidarity with nature, which suggest a theocentric-ecological rather than a merely
1
Vital to Luthers theocentricism is the quality of the imago Dei in human beings. Gods qualities of love,
justice, peace, righteousness and wisdom are reflected in human beings. If all these qualities, Luther said, are
combined the image of God is reflected. Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 1: 26, WA 42, 47; LW 1: 63.
169
anthropocentric-soteriological reading of natures being and value in the greater scheme of

things.2
One of the vital ethical arguments in this chapter is: Luthers strong sense of
theocentricism demonstrates a missiological significance for humanity to be ecologically
responsible. The image of God in the human being that was lost during the fall is essentially to
be restored by the mission of the Gospel. In fact, the divine command is that the Gospel is not
only for humans but for every creature.3 Every creature is our neighbor because we all live in a
biotic community where everyone is symbiotic or interdependent. This is the substance of the
ethics of kinship. The human being needs to be enlightened or transformed so he or she can place
God instead of the human as the center of attention in the universe. We find this argument in
Philip Watsons Let God be God: An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin Luther:
For illusion occurs in religion as easily as in the physical world. Even though I have
learnt that the sun is the centre around which my earth moves, and I with it, I still tend
to live and think as if the sun moved around the earth and me. Similarly in religion,
although I readily admit that God must be the centre of existence, I do not as readily
perceive or accept all that this implies; and it is the most natural thing for me to live and
think as if I myself were the centre around which all else, including God, moved. I find
it exceedingly difficult to rid myself of this illusion and allow God really to be the
centre, that is, really to be God.4
The human being needs to be brought back to the original state of creation, that is, being created
in the image of God. This transformation into a newness of life would lead him or her to deal
better with creation. Regaining back the image of God would make him or her different than
before. His or her attitude toward creation would now go beyond the sole concern of
consumption, like the beasts do.5 Luther declared: Man alone is Gods image, . . . because in
him there is such wisdom, justice, and knowledge of all things that he may rightly be called a
world in miniature. He has an understanding of heaven, earth, and the entire creation.6 Ones
2
3
See Mark 16: 15 and Colossians 1: 23.
4
Watson, Let God Be God, 34.
5
This image is something far different from the concern of the belly, namely food and drink, things for
which the beasts also have understanding and appreciation. Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 1: 26, WA 42: 41, LW 1:
56.
6
Theocentric Luther 171
neighbor is not only confined to the human species but includes other creatures, in which Gods
image in humans radiates the perfect knowledge of the nature of and love for all other creatures.
We shall now turn to Luthers theocentric views on creation.
Active Indwelling Presence: God In and Through Creatures
Examining the opening discussion of the Genesis Lectures, it is intriguing that one of the
most formidable arguments of Luther is about the organic relationship between God and nature.
This vital concept of creation blends with the non-Western view that God and nature are
interconnected. In his book, The Spirit of the Earth, John Hart relates the immanent God with the
experience of aboriginal peoples of North America about God in nature:
What we frequently do not consider except for experts in and practitioners of
spirituality is that God is also immanent, within us and all of creation. . . . In
experiencing the Spirit of the earth, we are one in spirit with others, sharing our sense of
Gods immanence, despite cultural variations in how we describe it. For example, our
experience of Gods immanence is similar, in our American context, with the
experience of the traditional American Indians, who on meditating see and experience
God in creation.7
To dichotomize God and nature is to make the latter insignificant. To regard nature as part of the
divine reality engenders human attitudes of love and justice toward creation. Gods immanence
in creation was actually proven by the paradox of the incarnation. God who became flesh in
Jesus Christ was described by Luther as The Creator has become a creature.8 Subsequently, the
incarnation was extended to the sacrament of the Eucharist. Christs living presence in the bread
and wine became the proof to Luthers argument on the intimate relationship between God and
creation.
Theologian Gerhard Forde sheds light on Luthers concept: By coming to us in bread
and wine, God is bringing us down to earth. . . . God is never absent from His creation. He is
always present in it as the power which sustains it. Creationand in this instance that means
7
John Hart, The Spirit of the Earth: A Theology of the Land (New York: Paulist Press, 1984), 158-159.
8
Wie kan Gott mensch odder der Schpfer eine creatur sein?... Die kachel ist der toepffer, die schuch sind
der schuster? Predigten, 1533, WA 37, 43.35.
things like bread and wineis neither unworthy nor does it have to be changed to be a bearer of
Gods presence. He is already there. It is His good creation.9 This has confirmed Luthers
concept that creation is the sacramental presence of the Creator. For Luther, creation is Gods
sacrament. The reformer made his case from his articulation of Psalm 111:4, which states, God
has made a remembrance of His wonderful works10: Now note the fitting name [the Psalmist]
gives this Sacrament when he says: a remembrance of His wonderful works. Christ also calls it
His remembrance when He says: This do in remembrance of Me. It is to be a remembrance,
which everyone is to do for himself, because of grace previously given and received.11 The
whole creation is a sacramental community. To have a sense of community is not to regard the
human species above other creatures. Community signifies the dynamics of interrelationship,
interdependence, and kinship. Human beings live not for themselves but for the entire
community of creation. In fact, they live within a eucharistic community in relationship with
God and eucharistic beings. To quote Jrgen Moltmann: The human being does not merely live
in the world like other living things. He [or she] does not merely dominate the world and use it.
He [or she] is also able to discern the world in full awareness as Gods creation, to understand it
as a sacrament of Gods hidden presence, and to apprehend it as a communication of Gods
fellowship.12 Again, Moltmann writes:
As Gods gifts, all His creatures are fundamentally eucharistic beings also; but the
human being is able and designated to express the praise of all created things before
God. In his own praise he [or she] acts as representative for the whole creation. . . .
Through human beings the sun and moon also glorify the Creator. Through humans
beings plants and animals adore the Creator too. That is why in the praise of creation
the human being sings the cosmic liturgy, and through him [or her] the cosmos sings
before it Creator the eternal song of creation. This is not meant anthropocentrically; for
in the community of creation everything that has breath praises the Lord, and heavens
9
Forde, Where God Meets Man, 82.
10
Luther specified in Psalm 111: 2 that the Psalmist refers to all Gods works in general: not just the
physical creatures but also Gods ordinances and institutions that were established in creation. See The Commentary
on Psalm 111, 1530, WA 31.I, 407; LW 13: 358. This is cited by Russel Kleckley in his Omnes Creaturae
Sacramenta: The relationship between creation and the eucharist comes into focus. In treating verse 2, Great are
the works of the Lord, studied by those who have pleasure in them, Luther, though considering Psalm primarily in
its relation to the eucharist, includes the wonders of creation generally. Kleckley, 82.
11
The Commentary on Psalm 111, 1530, WA 31.I, 412; LW 13: 371.
12
Moltmann, God in Creation, 70.
declare the glory of God even without human beings indeed as the representatives of
human beings too, in their own way.13
The created elements are the masks of God that envelop Gods presence. However,
while creation serves to testify Gods presence, due to sin the wicked is incapable to make use of
what creation tells about God. But here we need the wisdom, Luther pointed out, that
distinguishes God from His mask.14 This wisdom can only be obtained by faith through the
Gospel. Creation can only lead to recognize God but not toward salvation. Creation needs the
infusion of the Word of God so faith can be embraced. Those who have embraced faith,
however, care about others who never have the wisdom. People deserve to know the wonders of
Gods creation so they could also have the true knowledge of God that streams love, goodness,
and justice toward other creatures. In the sense of ecological mission of Psalm 77: 11-12, the
reformer declared: But the perfect man is like this: Behold he wants to be of benefit also to
others, not have the talent just for himself. He says, I will be employed in Thy inventions, that
is: I will relate, I will speak to others in word and deed about Thy wonders, so that they, too,
may know the works of the Lord.15
The 16th century debate on the Eucharist placed Luther in the consistent theological
position of defending the axiom, finitum capax infiniti (the finite can bear the infinite). He
argued about the active indwelling presence of God, that God is substantially present
everywhere, in and through all creatures. It was Luthers assertion in his Genesis Lectures that
God is within, without, and above all creatures.16 This argument was derived from his earlier
1527 treatise: God is present in every single creature in its innermost and outermost being, on
all sides, through and through, below and above, before and behind.17 The then transcendent
God is now immanent to all His creatures.
13
14
Lectures on Galatians, 1535, WA 40.I, 174; LW 26: 95.
15
The First Lectures on the Psalms, WA 3, 541-542; LW 11: 26-27.
16
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 1: 2: But the earth was empty and void . . . and the Spirit of the Lord
hovered over the waters. WA 42, 9; LW 1: 11.
17
That These Words of Christ This is My Body Still Firm Stand Against Fanatics, 1527, WA 23, 132;
LW 37: 58.
For Luther, one way of knowing and experiencing God is not to look up but to look
around. Gods glory, majesty and even Gods wrath are in creation. To reach God is no longer
confined in a mystical, metaphysical or allegorical way just like the ladder theology, in view of
the fact that God is shown in and through all these magnificent creatures. The remote
transcendent God has become an immanent God because He is substantially present everywhere
in and through His tangible creatures. According to him, we could not dare to make Moses and
the book of Genesis to be metaphysical, because Moses is presenting us real physical creatures
and not mystical or allegorical beings. Luther at this point would assert that the Creator teaches
us about His immanent relationship with real creatures and the visible world, not the
allegorical creatures that are merely used as spiritual signs or used to reveal eternal things in
order to relate them to a transcendent God, who is absolutely unreachable and
incomprehensible.18 For Luther, it is improper to desecrate the sacred writings by presenting
them as allegories because they simply obscure what are so very clear and real in the book of
Genesis.19 Many interpretations did not only concern themselves with the creation story but bury
it and confuse us with their nonsensical allegories.20 As a matter of fact, he disagreed with St.
Augustine who wrote in his Confessions that matter in creation is almost nothing, so close to
nothing that there is no intermediate reality. Luther contested: How can you apply the term
mere nothing to something that is a genuine substance of the kind Moses calls heaven and
earth? You could not do so unless you wanted to apply the term matter in a contrived sense to
something like wood which is not yet a box or a bench.21 Other renowned theologians who did
treat Genesis, particularly the first three chapters, as allegorical interpretations were Origen (185-
254 A.D.), Dionysius of Alexandria (bishop: 248-256 A.D.), Hilary of Poitiers (300-367 A.D.),
18
We assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, that is, that the world,
with all its creatures, was created within six days, as the words read. If we do not comprehend the reason for this, let
us remain pupils and leave the job of teacher to the Holy Spirit. However, these days are distinguished in this way:
on the first day the formless mass of heaven and earth was created, to which later on light was added; on the second,
the firmament; on the third, the earth, with its fruits, was brought forth out of the water; on the fourth the heaven
were adorned by the creation of the sun, moon, and stars; on fifth, the fishes of the sea and birds of the air; on the
sixth the land animals and man was created. Genesis Lectures, WA 42, 4; LW 1: 5.
19
20
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 3: 23, 24, WA 42, 173; LW 1: 231.
21
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 1: 2, WA 42, 7; LW 1: 8. (Italics mine)
and Nicholas of Lyra (1270-1349 A.D.). Although Luther claimed that debates were customary
as to how the book of Genesis was to be understood, he insisted on disregarding symbolic
interpretations that were merely confusing speculations and advised us to turn to Moses as the
original teacher. The chief purpose of Moses was simply to write the history of the primitive
world.22 Luther said, We can follow him with greater safety than the philosophers, who, without
benefit of the Word, debate about unknown matters.23 Luther also acknowledged that he was
obsessed by allegorical interpretation before; however, he then elucidated its absurdities:
But it was very difficult for me to break away from my habitual zeal for allegory; and
yet I was aware that allegories were empty speculations and the froth, as it were, of the
Holy Scriptures. It is the historical sense alone which supplies the true and sound
doctrine. After this has been treated and correctly understood, then one may also
employ allegories as an adornment and flowers to embellish or illuminate the account.
The bare allegories, which stand in no relation to the account and do not illuminate it,
should simply be disapproved as empty dreams.24
The problem with figurative interpretation is that it always has the characteristic to present things
away from facts and contrary to their context. Moreover, Luther wrote that Augustine resorted to
extraordinary trifling in his treatment of the six days, which he made out to be mystical days of
knowledge among the angels, not natural ones.25 According to Luther we should assert that
Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, that is, that the world, with all
its creatures, was created within six days, as the words read. For instance, we shall understand
and see a spade a spade26 or a tree a tree and not resort to provide spiritual meanings that
would obscure the fact of a created tree. We should plainly read and know that the account in
22
Genesis Lectures, Introduction to the Fourth Chapter, WA 42, 177; LW 1: 237.
23
24
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 3:23-24, WA 42, 173; LW 1: 233. (Italics mine)
25
Augustine also held that the world was created instantaneously and all at the same time, not successively
in the course of six days, in which St. Hilary of Poitiers (300-367 A. D.) had earlier advocated such argument. See
Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram Book XII, Section IV, chap. 33; Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum,
Book XXVIII, Section III, Part I, p. 133 and Hilary, On The Trinity Book XII, chap. 40, Patrologia, Series Latina,
Book X, p. 458- 459.
26
Therefore, as the proverb has it, appellat Schapham scapham (German-Latin), that is, [Moses] employs
the terms day and evening without allegory. . . . Let us confess our lack of understanding rather than distort the
words, contrary to their context, into a foreign meaning. Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 1: 1, WA 42, 4; LW 1: 5.
Genesis was written for us so that we have the true and real story of the creation of all creatures.
According to our ability, said Luther, we have treated all these facts in their historical
meaning, which is their real and true one. In the interpretation of Holy Scripture the main task
must be to derive from it some sure and plain meaning, especially because there is such a variety
of interpreters.27 Treating the created things in allegorical manner betrays their relationship with
the Creator. They become insignificant beings because they are not regarded as what they really
are but for mystical ways. Therefore so far as this opinion of Augustine is concerned, he asserted
that Moses is still the better teacher because he presented to us what the creatures really are, not
by confusing allegories.28 Avoiding this improper interpretation of Genesis would lead humans
to relate better with the relationship of God and nature.
Luthers indwelling presence of God in and through creatures totally differed with John
Calvins insistence implying that the finite cannot hold the infinite (finitum non capax
infiniti).29 For Calvin, Gods Majesty is metaphysical, that is, he basically placed God remote to
creation. So there is an awesome distance that separates God from His creation. The danger of
this concept is that creatures are treated without intrinsic value and they are debased just for
human utilization and enjoyment. This is the mechanistic view on nature which we inherited
from our Western tradition. Luther, however, disavowed Calvins idea by stating that Gods
Majesty can be substantially present in all creatures because it is God who creates, effects, and
preserves all creatures.30 Luther asserted: For how can reason tolerate it that the Divine Majesty
is so small as to be present in essence in a grain, on a grain, above a grain, throughout a
grain, inside and outsideand, even though it is one single Majesty, can nevertheless be
completely and entirely present in every individual thing, countless in number though they be?
27
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 3: 23-24, WA 42, 172-173; LW 1: 231.
28
29
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion,1559, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), I. 364.15-365.5, 389.21-31; II.1381, 1403.
30
He is present in all creatures, and I might find Him in stone, in fire, in water, or even in a rope, for he
certainly is there. The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, WA 19, 492, 5; LW 36: 342.
For he certainly makes every single grain in particular, in all its parts, on the inside and
throughout, so His power must be present there throughout, in and on the grain.31
In defending his case against the fanatics, Luther elucidated this theocentric concept in
his 1527 treatise, This is My Body, directed against the Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-
1531), fellow German Johannes Oecolampadius (1482-1531) and their followers.32 Luthers
theology of the Lords Supper essentially interweaves with his theology of creation. The Holy
Communion elements, the bread and the wine, which are basically part of creation, also embody
the masks of God. The living presence of God is in and through these creatures, which can
nourish and strengthen the faith of the believer.33 Luther illuminated further on the creative
presence of God: Therefore, indeed, [God] himself must be present in every single creature in
its innermost and outermost being, on all sides, through and through, below and above, before
and behind, so that nothing can be more truly present and within all creatures than God himself
with His power. . . . Indeed, he must make everything, both the parts and the whole. Surely, then,
His hand which makes all this must be present; that cannot be lacking.34 This is an impressive
argument that demonstrates the organic relationship between God and nature. Nature has always
been alienated from God and treated as mere creation stuff for human consumption. Claiming
Gods presence in and through nature denotes the sacred value of nonhuman creatures, and by
recognizing the relationship of God and nature we humans would bring about interconnectedness
of the whole creation.
31
WA 23, 134-136; LW 37: 58-59. Luther cited St. Hilary of Poitiers, particularly his work, On the Trinity
Book I, p. 6, as one the advocates of this concept. St Hilary also says on this subject, that God in his essence is
present everywhere, in and through the whole creation in all its parts and in all places, and so the world is full of
God and he fills it all, yet He is not limited or circumscribed by it, but is at the same time beyond and above the
whole creation. See LW 37: 59n.
32
Believing that the sacrament of the Lords Supper was ridiculed by his adversaries, Luther defended his
position of the real presence of Christ in and through the elements. He attacked Zwinglis figurative interpretation
(pp. 46-104). For Luther, the bread and wine are creatures so they embody Gods bodily presence. Finally, he dealt
with Oecolampadius argument that the elements were merely signs of Gods presence (pp. 104-124). That These
Words of Christ, This Is My Body, Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics, 1527, WA 23, 64-283; LW 37: 3-150.
33
Therefore, it is appropriately called the food of the soul since it nourishes and strengthen the new man.
The Lords Supper is given as a daily food and sustenance so that our faith may refresh and strengthen itself and not
weaken in the struggle but grow continually stronger. For the new life should be one that continually develops and
progresses. Sermon on Catechism: On the Sacrament of the Altars, 1529, WA 30.I, 225.
34
This Is Body: Still Firm Stand Against Fanatics, 1527, WA 23, 132; LW 37: 58.
In view of this indwelling presence of God as divine immanence, Larry Rasmussen best
describes Luthers thought on the immanent God as earthbound theology in his book, Earth
Community, Earth Ethics. Rasmussen says, The meaning of finitum capax infiniti is simple
enough: God is pegged to earth. So if you would experience God, you must fall in love with
earth. . . . The finite is all there is, because all that is, is there.35 Rasmussen further illustrates
that Luthers thought on the relationship of God and nature is boldly panentheistic, meaning
God exists in all things but is still exists beyond nature.36 Luthers thought on Gods sacramental
presence in creation in his treatise This Is My Body was affirmed in the Genesis lectures: Nunc
autem post creationem esse intra, extra et supra omnes creaturas (But that now, after the
creation, He is within, without, and above all creatures).37 A panentheistic perspective sees
creation as a sacramental community. This position is asserted by Matthew Fox in Original
Blessing: A Primer in Creation Spirituality: There is one flow, one divine energy, one divine
word in the sense of one creative energy flowing through all things, all time, all space. We are
part of that flow and we need to listen to it rather than to assume arrogantly that our puny words
are the only words of God.38 Fox states that the perspective of creation as panentheism sees the
world sacramentally.39 To quote John Harts elucidation of Matthew Foxs concept: In this
panentheistic perspective, people understand that God is in everything and everything is in
God. Through panentheism, creation-centered spirituality experiences God.40
It is no doubt that this dynamic indwelling presence of God is also active in the orders
of creation, particularly the three main orders: oeconomia, politia, and eccelesia, in which the
collaborating functions of each station in preserving the integrity of creation is actively executed
in and through these orders as larvae Dei. The parents and teachers, the civil rulers and judges,
35
Rasmussen, Earth Community, Earth Ethics, 273.
36
Ibid.
37
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 1:2, WA 42, 9b; LW 1: 11.
38
Matthew Fox, Original Blessing: A Primer in Creation Spirituality (Santa Fe, New Mexico: Bear & Co.,
1986), 38-39; cited by John Hart, What Are They Saying About Environmental Theology, 68.
39
Ibid., 90.
40
Hart, What Are They Saying About Environmental Theology, 68.
the clergy and other church workers are representatives (masks) of God who serve in the
protection and preservation of creation.41 In fact, rulers and judges are called gods because
they are Gods arm of disciplining and fending off the wicked, the ones that cause the
obliteration of creation. Luther derived this from Psalm 82: 6: I have said, You are gods.42
The gods who are regarded as rare birds on earth, especially Christian parents,
Christian teachers, Christian rulers, and preachers, have the creative rulership in creation. They
possess the divine responsibility of restoring the imago Dei in humans that was lost because of
sin. Thus, the whole creation would be preserved and redeemed by renewed creatures like Adam
and Eve before the fall in their imago Dei who knew God and all the creatures and, as it were,
were completely engulfed by the goodness and justice of God.43 These rare birds on earth
who also serve as larvae Dei are doing the mission to restore the corrupt nature not only among
non-Christians but also among Christians. In fact, Luther believed that one of the strong hopes in
restoring the corrupt Christendom is the necessity to make a new beginning with children.44
It is important to emphasize at this point that the Three Estates, particularly the
oeconomia and ecclesia, epitomize a theocentric ethics of creation by preserving the true
knowledge of God and the sincere desire to love God among the young. While Luther believed
that all people in the world have the general knowledge of God as based from natural law, the
true knowledge of God comes only from those who have restored the image of God.
Additionally, out of this image comes also the love for God and a perfect knowledge of other
creatures. In the words of the reformer:
Therefore, when we speak about that image. . . . In Adam there was an enlightened
reason, a true knowledge of God, and a most sincere desire to love God and his
neighbor, . . . added to these . . . a perfect knowledge of the nature of animals, the herbs,
the fruits, the trees, and the remaining creatures.45
41
Representatives of God in creation, Genesis Lectures, WA 42, 209; LW 1: 283; These are masks. They
are the only things we see. But Gods control, by which governments are either strengthened or overturned, we do
not see. WA 42, 507; LW 2: 343.
42
43
44
Necesse est, ut a puerorum institutione exordium fiat. Decem praecepta Wittenbergensi praedicata
populo, 1518, WA 1, 494; cited by Gerald Strauss, Luthers House of Learning, 35.
45
There is a twofold knowledge of God: the general and the particular. All men have the
general knowledge, namely, that God is, that He has created heaven and earth, that He
is just, that He punishes the wicked, etc. But what God thinks of us, what He wants to
give and to do to deliver us from sin and death and to save us which is the particular
and the true knowledge of God others do not know.46
This true knowledge of God which would gradually instill to the young by the persistent
nourishing of the gods in the oeconomia and ecclesia generates well-bred, God-fearing youth
who would become real and vital assets in creation. None are greater or better, declared
Luther, than to properly rear young people. For this reason the father and mother, servants and
maidservants, teachers and preachers, all who have anything to do with the young, should be
sincerely happy, willing, and ready to perform such services, letting nothing deter them.47 The
home, which is the heart of creation and where the preservation of creation begins, affirms that
the knowledge of God streams the knowledge of and love for other creatures.48 This work of
preservation by the orders of creation goes hand in hand with Gods work of redemption so that
the young and unregenerate persons would be transformed and in turn would seek to love ones
neighbors and the well-being of other creatures. Luthers understanding of people being made
righteous or justified is not simply changed individually but also made one with all others
through love.49 Love, then, is the highest virtue in creation because it is ready to be of service
with its body and its very life.50
46
Lectures on Galatians, 1535, WA 15, 608; LW 26: 399; cited by Ernest L. Simmons, Jr. in his article,
Creation in Luthers Theology of the Cross, Dialog: A Journal of Theology 30 (Winter 1991): 51. (Emphasis
added)
47
Martin Luther, Luthers House Postils, A Sermon on the Day of St. Michael and All Angels, 1532, The
Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, vol. 7 ed. Eugene F.A. Klug, trans. by Eugene Klug, Erwin Koehlinger, James
Lanning, Everette Meier, Dorothy Schoknecht and Allen Schuldheiss (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books,
2000), 382.
48
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 3:1, WA 42, 107; LW 1: 142; cf. WA 42, 47; LW 1: 63.
49
Again through this same love, we are to be changed and to make the infirmities of all other Christians
our own; we are to take upon ourselves their form and their necessity, and all the good that I within our power we
are to make theirs, that they may profit from it. That is the real fellowship, and that is the true significance of this
sacrament. In this way we are changed into one another and are made into a community by love. Without love there
can be no such change. The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ, and the Brotherhoods, 1519,
WA 2, 750; LW 35: 58.
50
Luther claimed, however, that this nurturing function of the oeconomia and ecclesia was
being considerably neglected among Christians. In turn, this crucial failure has significantly
engendered more abusers or adulterers of creation. In view of this fact, Luther made it sure
that the rearing of the young was part of the catechism for Christian homes and churches. In the
shorter preface of the Large Catechism which was based on a sermon on May 18, 1528, Luther
shed light: This sermon has been undertaken for the instruction of children and uneducated
people. Hence from the ancient times it has been called, in Greek, a catechismthat is,
instruction for children. Its contents represent the minimum of knowledge required of a
Christian. . . . For this reason young people should be thoroughly instructed in the various parts
of the Catechism or childrens sermons and diligently drilled in their practice.51 Rearing the
young in the fear and knowledge of God signifies the formation of tomorrows quality parents,
government rulers, teachers, preachers and workers who are to become ethically responsible
caretakers of creation. Neglecting this crucial vocation of rearing the young with the fear and
knowledge of God would lead creation to peril. Failure by the parents of doing this most
fundamental function in the household would lead the world to generate more immoral parents,
more plunderers of nature, more corrupt and unjust rulers, more greedy and repressive
merchants, and other liabilities in creation. So, Luther strongly vouched for this crucial vocation
of parents: That is why Christ preaches here so compellingly and admonishes so tenderly to
take care of young people, saying, When you train one of these little ones, when they are
brought up in the fear and knowledge of God, in godliness and modesty, you then have done me
the greatest service.52 The service of the orders of creation particularly the Three Estates in the
preservation of creation exemplifies the active indwelling presence of God in and through all His
masks. The parents in the home, the rulers and judges of the government, and the preachers and
prophets of the church are masks and mouthpieces of God so He can be experienced by humans
and the rest of creation.
Resembling the act of God in and through all creatures, God is also in and through the
parents who nurture the young so the home could generate assets in creation who would apply
51
Luther, Shorter Preface of the Large Catechism, Book of Concord, 362.
52
Sermon on the Day of St. Michael and All Angels, 1532, The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther,
383. (Emphasis added)
love and justice toward all creatures. God is also in and through the rulers who punish the wicked
so peace in creation can be experienced. In the same manner, God is in and through the preachers
and prophets who correct and rebuke the plunderers of nature, unjust rulers, and greedy
merchants so justice in creation and economic equity can be protected and restored. God works
in and through His masks by Gods own creative and redemptive work. This means that God has
shown His presence not as a transcendent God but an immanent God through His masks of
creation.
This theocentric view on nature would lead Luther to exhibit a shift from the other-
worldly concept of God into the here and now concept of the immanent God. This down to
earth concept embodies Luthers creation theology and ethics. One essential way to know and
experience God is to see and experience Gods Majesty in and through all these creatures that
basically represent the masks of God, in which fellow humans included. When God revealed
Himself to us, it is necessary for Him to do so through some such veil or wrapper and to say:
Look! Under this wrapper you will be sure to take hold of Me.53 This statement elucidates the
axiom finitum capax infiniti (The finite holds the infinite). These masks of God hold or bear
the active indwelling presence of God. Out of the masks awesome creativity, the human is
aroused to adore and worship God. When we embrace this wrapper [or mask] adoring, praying,
and sacrificing to God there, we are said to be praying to God and sacrificing to Him properly.54
We are stirred to be in awe of Gods wonders. We worship God by marveling at the Creator in
the creature.55 In Luthers Psalm Lectures, it was claimed that humans could indeed experience
God in and through nature. The wonderful creatures could touch the human heart and in turn
arouse awe and humility. He declares:
First, the heart remembers, acknowledges, and confesses His work to the Lord. And
thus it appears that is the work of the Lord, for the heart does not remember what the
mind does not show. But when it does, the heart is touched and it remembers. Then the
works (creatures) will be regarded as amazing and wonderful, because their
knowledge and clearer grasp increases. Indeed, the more profoundly the created thing
53
54
Ibid.
55
Thus there is no doubt that our first parents worshipped God early in the morning, when the sun was
rising, by marveling at the Creator in the creature or, to express myself more clearly, because they were urged on by
the creature. Ibid.
is recognized, the more wonders are seen in it, namely, how full it is of Gods
wisdom.56
In the various phenomenon of nature, Luther felt the indwelling presence of God very
vividly. In fact, in the last year of his life Luther wrote: All creation is the most beautiful book
or Bible; in it God has described and portrayed Himself.57 Nature is indeed full of Bible, where
God through His masks conveys His will, convicts human conscience, touches the senses, and
somehow enlightens the human heart.58 Creatures could arouse humans to recognize God either
by showing to them His wonders or His wrath. These masks would not only show humans the
creativity of God but also their sins. Luther then declared, Therefore, we should ask the Lord to
take away this amazing insensibility from our eyes, our senses, and our hearts, so that, after
being admonished so many times [by these masks of God] about our sins we may rid ourselves
of our smugness and walk in the fear of God.59
Renewing ourselves back to the imago Dei would lead us to experience God in and
through nature and this would in turn enable us to have wisdom or the true knowledge of God
and the perfect knowledge of other creatures.60 Consequently, out of this true knowledge, love
toward God and His creatures arises in the human heart.61 This is the fundamental nature of
being renewed back to the imago Dei as expounded in Genesis 1: 26 by the reformer. Our love
for God signifies our love for His creatures as well. And what God loves we should also love.
Luther articulated Gods love for creatures by relating the passage in Matthew 6: 26: Look at
the birds of the air, they do not sow or reap . . . and yet your heavenly Father feeds them.
56
Luther shed light on Psalm 77: 1: I will meditate on all your work, and muse on your mighty deeds.
Your way, O God, is holy. What god is so great as our God? You are the God who works wonders; you have
displayed your love among the peoples. First Psalm Lectures, WA 3, 534-535; LW 11: 16-17.
57
Creatura tota est pulcherrimus liber seu biblia, in quibus Deus sese descripsit et depinxit. Bibel- und
Bucheinzeichnungen: Nachtrge zu Schriften, Predigten und Tischreden, 1546, WA 48, 201.5-6.
58
Sermon of May 25, 1544, WA 49, 434.
59
60
From the image of God, from the knowledge of God, from the knowledge of all the other creatures, and
from a very honorable nakedness man has fallen. Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 3:1, WA 42, 107; LW 1: 142.
61
But from this knowledge there arises a greater flame of love, so that the person wishes always to
remember in this way and says, I will be mindful of Thy works from the beginning. First Psalm Lectures, On
Psalm 77, WA 3, 534; LW 11: 16.
[God] thinks enough of them to feed them every day, as if they were the only thing He
is concerned about. And He enjoys it when they fly around and sing without a care in
the world, as if they were saying, I sing and frolic, and yet I do not know of a single
grain that I am to eat. My bread is not baked yet, and my grain is not planted yet. But I
have a rich Master who takes care of me while I am singing or sleeping. He can give
me more than all my worries and the worries of all people could ever accomplish.62
In addition to Gods indwelling presence in and through all creatures, I believe the wonderful
creation is also a manifestation of Gods love. God created the whole universe as an act of love.
It is important to note that Luther advises us to keep in heart the first line of the Apostles
Creed: I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth because most
Christians do not regard this prayerfully. This is so, said Luther, because in every creature
and its function we do not acknowledge, praise, bless, and love Him, and receive instruction
from Him, as the Father who gives it to us and as the Creator who has created it.63 This
indwelling presence of God in and through creatures would direct humans in their love for and
right relationship with nature.
We humans, however, are missing the mark of this theocentric relationship with creation.
The danger here is our egocentric tendency. We are always geared toward idolatry. Instead of
worshipping the Creator, we end up worshipping the creature.64 The creature becomes our idol
and center of adoration. We tend to alienate God from creation. We replace the theocentric
relationship with our egocentric attitude. We become infatuated with gods, like gold, money,
property, and other possessions. Instead of the Creator, the creature becomes our god.
Not all persons, however, could recognize God in His mask. Luther mentioned this in his
Lectures on Galatians, Therefore it must be our skill to distinguish between God and His mask.
The world cannot do this.65 The unregenerate persons see plainly the creature in the larvae Dei,
not the Creator. They rather worship only the mask instead of the Creator. They exalt themselves
and their intelligence under the domination of their pride, instead of the wisdom of God.
62
The Sermon on the Mount, WA 32, 498; LW 21: 199.
63
First Psalm Lectures, WA 3: 535; LW 11: 16-17.
64
A famous Augustinian thought which Luther picked up. They worshipped and served created things
instead of the Creator. Augustine, De Civitate Dei Book XIV, chap. 28. Marveling at the Creator in the creature
or, to express myself more clearly, because they were urged on by the creature. . . . This practice turned into
idolatry. Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 1: 2, WA 42, 13; LW 1: 15.
65
Lectures on Galatians, 1535, WA 40.I, 492, 19; LW 26: 368.
Nonetheless, the wisdom of God that would enable a human being to distinguish God in His
divine mask is only given to the regenerated person. It is not given, said Luther, to the secular
and unregenerate man to see this, but only to the spiritual man. He alone can distinguish the
position from the Word, the divine mask from God Himself and the work of God.66 In his
Lectures on Galatians, Luther expounded this human failure to distinguish God in the mask:
The world does not have the wisdom to distinguish God from His mask. When a greedy
man, who worships his belly, hears that man does not live by bread alone, but by every
Word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matt. 4:4), he eats the bread but fails to
see God in the bread; for he sees, admires, and adores only the mask. He does the same
with gold and with other creatures. He puts his trust in them as long as he has them; but
when they forsake him, he despairs. . . . The point is that we are not to worship and
adore them.67
The unrighteous is stuck in the mask, and thus worships only the mask because he or she has no
wisdom to distinguish God in the mask. They badly need to be enlightened by a wisdom that
distinguishes God from His mask.68
Although God is in all creatures, still God does not want them to look for Him apart from
His Word. Luther said Search for Him where the Word is. There you will surely find Him.
Otherwise you only tempt God and establish idolatry.69 The theocentricism in creation should
be witnessed by these unwise, presumptuous humans to get rid of their destructive attitude
toward creation. Luther made it clear that worshiping the creature instead of the Creator is not to
emphasize the masks themselves but the human use of these masks.70
These material things, nonetheless, which are good creatures of God, are not the cause of
human idolatry; it rather lies when humans become egocentric, especially when they allow
themselves to be led away from the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.71 Luther
66
Lectures on Galatians, 1535, WA 40.I, 173-174; LW 26: 94- 95.
67
Lectures on Galatians, 1535, WA 40.I, 173; 180; LW 26: 95. (Italics mine)
68
Ibid.
69
The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, WA 19, 492, 19; LW 36: 342.
70
Now the whole creation is a face or mask of God. But here we need the wisdom that distinguishes God
from the mask. . . . The point is that we are not to worship and adore them. The emphasis is not the things
themselves but on our use of them, as I said before. Ibid.
71
expounded, The approval of the Holy Spirit, and the works of God are set before us so that we
can grasp them. Such works are: that He created the heaven and earth, that He sent His Son, that
He speaks through His Son, that He baptizes, that He absolves from sin through the Word.72
These veils of God serve humans in two ways: either God is shown in His awesome
creativity or in the terrible reality of Gods wrath. Paul Althaus describes: It is never neutral but
it is always either saving or damning. We are here confronted with the twofold character of
Gods dealing with [humans] in the law and the gospel. The [human] who has peace with God
through believing the gospel can be confident in the midst of the most terrible reality; for God is
present even in such a situation and holds it in his omnipotent handwhether it be death, hell, or
hostile earthly powers.73 All creatures, said Luther, are Gods masks and disguises; He
permits them to work with Him and help Him create all sorts of things.74
Not Co-Creators but Co-workers
The assertion that Der Mensch ist Gottes Mitarbeiter, aber nicht concreator (Man is
Gods co-worker, not co-creator)75 is one of the prime arguments of Luther in his theocentric
view on nature. This is also one of Luthers formidable theological positions which serves to
challenge and in some way undermine the anthropocentric approach to nature. Luther believed
that life continues to evolve in the ongoing creation (creatio continua) of God. One of the
dangers in this creatio continua is when humans regard themselves as concreatores (co-
72
Ibid.
73
74
The Gospel in the First Sunday of Lent, 1525, WA 17.II, 192. Indeed, one could very well say that the
course of the world, and especially the doing of his saints, are Gods mask, under which he conceals Himself and so
marvelously exercises dominion and introduces disorder in the world. Exposition of Psalm 27, 1524, WA 15, 373;
LW 45: 331.
75
This argument was well developed by the mature Luther in 1539 as he articulated it in his Predigt am
Miichaelistag, WA 47, 857.35.
creators).76 The humanists in the Italian Renaissance, which based their cause in Protagoras
(490-421 B.C.E.) statement that man is the measure of all things, were the ones that
considerably dealt with the idea that the human being is a co-creator with God.77 We humans
tend to think that we are also creating life and other creation stuffs just like the Creator is doing.
To think of ourselves as co-creators would mean that we become like the Creator or to regard
ourselves in equality with God. The original temptation of You shall be like God in Genesis 3:
5 is kept coming back to allure humans to go beyond their finitude. It is interesting to note that
St. Augustine featured in his book The City of God that the first inventors of the different arts
and other creative discoveries were worshipped as gods by the early peoples.78 This represents
the common mistake of humanity since the fall, especially when the imago Dei was lost. To
remind the creatures on their limitation, Luther made matters clear by elucidating the argument:
In all their working together there is one thing the creatures cannot do, they cannot produce or
give life on their own; this the Creator has reserved to himself alone. He will have his creatures
as co-workers, not co-creators.79
This assertion of Luther instructs us that we humans are limited as creatures and we
depend with the Creator in terms of creating and re-creating life. Humans since the fall and the
76
The idea that humans are co-creators with God was a major theme in the Renaissance and within the
thoughts of Christian humanists in the fourteenth century, the time when church dominance was in decline. This idea
was based on their appraisal of the human being, whose rational and creative powers they were concerned to extol.
77
Christian humanist Florentine Giannozzi Manetti (1396-1459) held the idea that man is a creator after
the image of God and had the vision of mans heavenly destiny represented an important new conception of man as
actor, creator, shaper of nature and history, all of which qualities he possesses for the very reason that he is made in
the image and likeness of the Trinity. For him, mans ingenuity or inventiveness was so great that man himself
should be regarded as a second creator of the human historical world that was superimposed on the original divine
creation of the natural world. Another known humanist, Florentine Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499), had a profound
admiration for the works of human industry with which he was surrounded in Renaissance Florence. He presented
evidence of mans similarity to God if not his divinity itself. He argued, The force of man is almost similar to the
divine nature since man by himself, that is through his intelligence and skill. Charles Trinkhaus, In Our Image and
Likeness: Humanity and Divinity in Italian Humanist Thought 2 vols. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
1970), 248, 482-483; cited also by Peacocke, Creation and the World of Science: The Bampton Lectures (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1970), 305.
78
The most plausible explanation of all this is the suggestion that the gods were once human beings who
received adulation from men who wished to have them as gods. These men instituted rites and ceremonies in honor
of each of their heroes, based on their personalities, their characters, their achievements (inventions or discoveries),
and their adventures. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, Book VII, chap. 18.
79
Predigt am Michaelistag, WA 47, 857.35.
corruption of imago Dei have become conceited to go beyond their humble creatureliness and
turned arrogant to be like or in equality with God. Larry Rasmussen affirms: For Luther religion
is the very best thing idolatry and injustice have going for them. . . . Indeed, all efforts to either
capture God in our terms or to be like God by denying our death and finitude, including
political and economic efforts, eventually turn religious or quasi-religious.80
Creatures are to be reminded that they are powerless to create. Luther made this clear in
The Disputation Concerning Man that there are indeed people who have indeed known God,
but not as creator.81 Yes, to know God, he explained, is indeed something else than to know
that He is the creator of all things. For the most excellent knowledge of God is to know that He
has created all things.82 In light of this co-creator concept, Christians have the tendency to
misconstrue Genesis 1: 26; that humans are made in the image of God, after Gods likeness. The
anthropomorphism of this Hebrew passage is inevitable. We tend to deduce this text into our
own human terms, without due respect of the ancient historical and cultural context of the
Hebraic tradition. Instead of affirming the monotheistic basis of Genesis 1: 26, our
anthropomorphism leads us to be like gods in creation in the likeness of or in equality with
God the Creator.
Luthers anthropology maintained that human being is plainly a creature of God, . . .
made in the beginning after the image of God, without sin, so that he should procreate.83
Humans indeed have the capacity to propagate life but not the power to create life. We should be
taught that God created us out of a lump of earth, which was made out of nothing. The Hebraic
doctrine of creation, created out of nothing, suggests the theocentric idea of radical
monotheism. The only one true God the Creator made everything from nothing. Interestingly
enough, this Hebraic tradition would teach us that nothing was created in metaphysical dualism,
80
Rasmussen, Earth Community, 276.
81
Disputation Concerning Man, 1536, WA 39.I, 178; LW 34: 140.
82
Those who know God also know their own efficient cause. But the Gentiles have known God.
Therefore, the Gentiles have also known their own efficient cause. By logical consequence, therefore, it is
mistakenly asserted in the thirteenth and fourteenth argument (i.e. 13. For philosophy does not know the efficient
cause for certain, nor likewise the final cause; 14. Because it posits no other final cause than the peace of this life,
and does not know that the efficient cause is God the creator) that human reason and philosophy do not know the
efficient cause of man. Ibid.
83
Disputation Concerning Man, WA 39.I, 177; LW 34: 138.
a profound Hellenistic trait of Western Christian tradition. Because of this dualistic trait we tend
to dominate nature with sheer promiscuity.
It is important to note, however, that to maintain the theocentric view of Genesis 1:26
would undermine the human-centered attitude toward other creatures. We are always inclined to
place the human species as the center of attention in the whole universe. This hierarchical view
undermines the relational attitude of humans toward nature. The danger of this hierarchical and
mechanistic view is: we think of ourselves as co-creators. The anthropomorphism of the
passage significantly betrays our creatural limitation by which we share with all
other creatures. To regard ourselves as co-creators is sheer arrogance, primarily because it turns
out that we disown our humble creatureliness. This is a pure vice of arrogance against our
creatural limitation because we place ourselves on top of the hierarchy of creation in the same
level with God. For Luther, this misunderstanding of the imago Dei was drawn from our free will
being captivated by the Evil, not from God. Luther gave light on the wicked understanding of the
imago Dei:
There is also added a discussion concerning free will, which has its origin in that
image. This is what they maintain: God is free; therefore since man is created
according to the image of God, he also has a free memory, mind, and will. In this way,
many statements are carelessly made, statements that are either not properly expressed
or later on are understood in a wicked way. Thus this was the origin of the dangerous
opinion that in governing men God permits them to act under their own impulse. . . . If
this is true, it follows that by the powers of his nature man can bring about his own
salvation. . . . Therefore my advice is to read them with discretion.84
Most people desire limitless freedom in their dealing with nature. But God made it otherwise: a
limited freedom for humanity. Every human needs to realize that human freedom is limited.
When humanity was created in the Genesis account, Adam and Eve were not actually given
absolute freedom. They were forbidden not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil. They, however, had been given the responsible freedom to eat the fruits of all other
trees. The irony was: they still abused their limited freedom.
Whereas today, we came into this world that was already full of laws and customs not of
our own choosing, but it emerged out of Gods ordained orders of creation. The moment we
84
Luther is pointing to the consequence of the loss of the mago Dei in which one uses ones freedom with
no responsibility at all. I am afraid, he wrote, that since the loss of this image through sin we cannot understand it
to any extent. Memory, will and mind we have are utterly leprous and unclean. Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 1:
26, WA 42, 45-46; LW 1: 61.
transgress against these laws we are doomed to retribution or punishment either directly by God
or by His ordained or established authorities of creation. So, humans are not totally free after all.
Only God the Creator is free. It is sad to note that humans always tend to deny their finitude and
reject their limited freedom by seeking to be God. Conversely, humans ended up being reduced
as creatures of their own appetites and lust.
How could humans create as co-creators when everything was created out of nothing?
How could one create when he or she has nothing to create, because everything has already been
created? Needless to say, the raw materials around which humans utilize for their discoveries and
inventions are creatures like themselves. So if one has invented or created something, so they
say, one has no right to claim that he or she is a co-creator with God. We could never dare to
compare our egocentric creativity with the awesome creativity of God, our only creator who
made all things from nothing by the power of His Word. The only reality is humans could create
nothing, because it does not make any sense to say that humans have capacity to create what has
already been created. It is utterly nonsensical for humans to regard themselves as co-creators
because they work with things that already exist. Luther would candidly remind us that Creatura
ex nihilo est: ergo nihil sunt omnia, quae creatura potest. (The creature comes into being out of
nothing: Hence all things of which the creature is capable are nothing.)85
We are absolutely nothing before the One who created us. Our nothingness in creation
represents the ecological virtue of humility toward God and His entire creation. The doctrine
of creatio ex nihilo affirms the application of humility in creation, especially by the human being
who represents the moral being of creation. Christians bear such virtue of humility through the
theologia crucis, just as creation or the earth bears and endures the marks of the cross.86
Christians are ready to bear suffering for the sake of God and neighbor. Submission to God and
participating with His work in creation as a coworker are the embodiment of humility in creation.
We humans could not be in equality with our Creator. To maintain the idea of co-creatorship is a
sheer betrayal of our creatureliness. Luther argued that without God we cannot even produce or
85
86
Also zeucht der liebe Paulus das heilige creutz durch alle creatur, das die Sonne, erden und alles, was
drimmen ist, mit uns leide und das liebe creutz trage. Sermon on Second Sunday after Trinity, 1535, WA 41,
310.33-36.
give life to our own. It is indeed fair to God that we humans would rather think of ourselves as
co-workers because we truly work, not create, with God in the preservation of life in creation.
This concept of being a co-creator exactly represents the view of those who display the
human-induced works righteousness. Most presumptuous people place greater value on their
works and achievements, rather than their faith in God the creator. In view of this concentration
on works and achievements, Luther attacked the arrogance of works-righteousness: If they
believed that they are Gods creatures and that God is their Creator, they would never confront
Him with their merits or works; nor would they be presumptuous about anything. For how can
one compare the Creator to the creature? But if you are a creature, you are nothing over against
your Creator, and you confront Him in vain with your merits and works.87 In fact, many humans
would no longer rely on God when they invent or devise something new or unique, in which we
call it our own creation. But how could you dare to say I have created something new when
the materials you used were not your own creation? Products of human creativity which are
basically not in our own making like clay, canvas, carving knives, brushes, leather belts that
human manufactures were derived from precious metals, animal skins, trees, and other Gods
own creation out of nothing. They already exist in our universe long before humans came into
being. As Luther argued, In this manner no creature can work; no creature can produce anything
out of nothing.88 These people regard themselves as creators because they plainly rely on their
own creative power. We indeed become gods or creators because we believe we could do it in
our own capacity without Gods intervention. This is sheer idolatry. We worship and rely
ourselves. We should realize that without Gods blessing every creature, including humans,
would cease to live. When the trees are said to be trees of God, said Luther, for they are
controlled and fostered by God so that they grow. Even if they are helped by human industry and
labor as well, these would be vain without Gods blessing.89
So, only God has the power to create, while humans have to accept their limited state as
mere creatures. Luther warned the presumptuous creature by articulating Psalm 100: 3: The
87
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 21:17, WA 43, 179; LW 4: 61-62.
88
The Magnificat, 1521, WA 7, 542; LW 21: 299.
89
Lord made us, and not we ourselves. Truly the entire world has need of this teaching. For all who
are presumptuous about their works do not know that they are made by the Lord, and they need
to be reminded. Otherwise they would humble themselves before the Creator and not be
presumptuous about their own powers, because whatever they have, they have from God.90 The
virtue of humility in creation was consistently emphasized by the reformer as far as our ethical
relationship with God and nature is concerned.
Nonetheless, Luther argued that humans deserve to be called co-workers or fellow
workers of God (Mitarbeitern Gottes or cooperatores Dei) in creation.91 This is true because we
have the capability to cooperate and work with God in the preservation of life in creation. Luther
derived this argument from I Corinthians 3: 9 which states, For we are Gods fellow workers;
you are Gods field, Gods building. He expounded this passage in his Genesisvorlesung: God
certainly wants us to use the supports established for the preservation and governing of this life;
and even if we accomplish nothing with them, we should not despair but should rely firmly on
the help of God.92 With human cooperation as a coworker, God does His function as the
Creator. So, Gods statement is not Now we will create together but rather Now with your
cooperation, I will create.
Another assertion of the idea of co-creatorship in humans, which Luther adamantly
opposed, was the argument on the procreative work in Genesis 1:28 that states, Be fruitful and
multiply. A caution needs to be taken not to regard ourselves as a co-creator with God. To the
presumptuous creatures, they claim that by bearing children they have created life with the
inspiration of God the Creator, through His command to multiply and subdue the earth.
Furthermore, God also entrusted to humans the naming of animals in Genesis 2: 19, So out of
the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought
them to the man to see what he would call them. This power to name other creatures
90
91
In the Bondage of the Will, Luther applied also cooperators with God in his use of I Corinthians 3: 9:
It has thus pleased God to impart the Spirit, not without the Word, but through the Word, so as to have us as
cooperators with God [I Cor. 3:9] when we sound forth outwardly what he himself alone breathes inwardly he wills,
thus doing things that he could of course do without the Word, though he does not will so to do. The Bondage of
the Will, 1526, WA 18, 680; LW 33: 155.
92
Genesis Lectures, WA 44, 647-648; LW 8: 94.
demonstrates a participation of humans in the ongoing creation of God in the world. Adding this
power of naming other creatures to their procreative work, the idea of co-creatorship with God
permeated many Christian minds. Unfortunately, it turns out that people trusted more of
themselves and their works rather than the grace of God. Luther frankly admonishes us that God
did say Now with your cooperation (as cooperator Dei) I will create children.93 Evidently, it
was not You and I will create children.
Doing the procreative work is by no means an act of human creation; it is rather an act of
cooperation with Gods creative work. The Creator makes the offspring and causes him or her to
be born and to grow, while the humans work with God to feed, cherish, care for, nurture, and
bring up the children with the blessings of God.94 Gods continuing creative action is exhibited in
all aspects of common life in the created order. To best exercise his or her being a cooperator
Dei, God has given the human being reason, perception, and strength as means and gifts of
God.95
Humans are easily prone to go beyond their limitation as mere creatures and act in
equality with the Creator, just as what Eve did in response to Satans lure that she would be
exactly like God the time she ate the forbidden fruit. We seldom fail to remember our finitude.
We are mere creatures, and that we can never be like the Creator. Luther shed light on the
meaning of We shall be like Him, in I John 3:2, and made a caution not to misconstrue the
passage: For God is infinite, but we are finite creatures. Moreover, the creature will never be the
Creator. Yet we shall be like Him but not identical with Him.96
93
Luther wrote, Gid could have made children without Adam, just as at the beginning Adam did nothing
at all, since he was formed from the mud of the earth. Nor did Eve do anything since she was created from Adams
rib. Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 46: 28, WA 44, 648; LW 8: 95.
94
Luther illumined the idea of cooperator Dei in procreation: For God rules us in such a way that He
does not want us to be idle. At the same time, however, they had the Word before their eyes, and in this they trusted
when their toil and knowledge did not suffice. He gives us food and clothing, but in such a way that we should plow,
sow, reap, and cook. In addition, He gives offspring, which is born and grows because of the blessing of God and
must nevertheless be cherished, cared for, brought up, and instructed by the parents. But when we have done what is
in us, then we should entrust the rest to God and cast our care on the Lord; for He will act. Genesis Lectures, On
Genesis 46: 28, WA 44, 648; LW 8: 94.
95
96
Lectures on the First Epistle of St. John, 1527, WA 22, 698; LW 30: 268.
Nonetheless, the incarnation is being used in contemporary theological discourse to

justify the idea of co-creatorship. Describing it as a continuing incarnation of God in humans,
A. R. Peacocke, in his Creation and the World of Science, argued that the transcendent Creator
can be immanent in the human being who is potentially bodying forth or incarnating the
creative God at the fully personal level.97 For him, the incarnation in Jesus is a real possibility for
all men. He evidently devised an interpretation of the incarnation that if God had unveiled
Himself in Jesus, the vehicle of the divine creative process, God could also incarnate His
creativity in and through us. Here is the core of Peacockes argument:
Since God is Creator, and still creating, then we must conclude that the continuing
incarnation of God in us is identical with Gods creative work in and through us. In
other words, when we as persons are most creativewhether in the arts, science, and
literature, or in intellectual reflection . . . in general, our distinctively human activities
then we are fulfilling those human potentialities that were unveiled in Jesus uniquely
and seminally as the continuous creative work of God in man. Man has a derived
creativity from God and all genuine activities of man which attain excellence, and are
accord with Gods intentions to build his reign of love (his kingdom), may be
regarded as man exerting his role as co-creator with God. Since incarnation is the
bodying forth, giving a human personal form to, the transcendent Creator in the
immanent, then in all aspects of human creativity man is co-creating with God.98
The doctrine of incarnation is being interpreted here as based in the image of man, not in the
image of God. Luther would certainly reject this argument by arguing that the human being here
is co-working, not co-creating with God. In his theologia crucis, Luther would teach us not to
elevate ourselves above everyone else but to exercise the virtue of humility with the emphasis of
doing sacrifice for the sake of others. In addition, James Nash would also argue that it would be
better not to regard ourselves as special creation, species segregated from nature. That is bad
biology which leads to bad theology and ethics.99 To regard humans as dominant creatures over
and above others is to distort the idea of kinship and interrelationship within the biotic
community.
97
Peacocke, Creation and the World of Science, 306-307.
98
99
Nash, 146.
The danger of the co-creator idea was also affirmed by James M. Gustafson, in which he
utterly rejected the concept in his two-volume book, Ethics from A Theocentric Perspective.
Gustafson contested the idea that God is over against nature and argued that God and nature are
closely related.100 This knitted connection between God and nature supports Luthers idea of the
living presence of God in and through nature. The danger emerges when humans separate God
from nature, so as nature from God. This happens when humans would regard themselves like
God or in equality with God. This argument had both led Luther and Gustafson to reject the idea
of calling human beings as co-creators. This argument also brought him in a position to reject
the mechanical view of nature, a huge cause of our ecological crisis. While Luther spoke of
human as coworker, Gustafson stated the human role as that of a participant in creation.
Gustafson writes:
Participants in interaction are not mere spectators, nor do they simply react to external
stimuli as our eyes react to a blazing midday sun. They have capacities for innovation,
intervention, and intentional action that do affect courses of events and states of affairs.
Thus, to be a participant is to claim far more for human capacities of self-determination
and the determination of courses of events and states of affairs than to be a "reactor" or
even a "responder." Yet such a claim avoids the language of "creativity" and of man
being a co-creator with God.101
Gustafson clarifies here that we humans are instead interacting or participating within the
ongoing creation of God. A proper understanding of humans as participants would lead to a
better dealing with creation. He concludes his book by underscoring the famous tenet: God will
be God. The task of ethics, Gustafson says, is to use knowledge and intelligence to discern,
under the inexorable conditions of finitude, how we are to relate ourselves and all things in a
manner appropriate to our and their relations to God. . . . God does not exist simply for the
service of human beings. Human beings exist for the service of God. God will not be
manipulated. God will be God.102 Humans are finite and only God is the infinite. This is the fact
that displaces human arrogance, a harmful vice in creation. However, humans could be creative
to work with God by acknowledging their finitude and by using their God-given talents.
100
James M. Gustafson, Ethics of A Theocentric Perspective, vol. 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1981), 15.
101
Ibid., 13.
102
Ibid., 321-322.
So, are humans co-creators? No! At very best, they are ethically responsible coworkers!
The Gospel for omni creaturae (every creature)
The theme of Gods redemption offers some evidence of the ecologically sensitive
Luther. Gods message of redemption is not particularistic or exclusive. Like Gods
encompassing love, redemption is extended to the whole creation. As we already know that
God and nature are closely related, what God loves we must also love and what God redeems we
must redeem. With this argument, Luther advocates the idea that the Gospel of Love is universal
or indiscriminate and it is not confined to human beings alone. In many instances, Luther applied
the unpopular passage on Commission in Mark 16: 15 that states, Go into all the world and
proclaim the Gospel to the whole creation. He argued that the Gospel shall not be confined to
humanity but to every creature. In his sermon on the last chapter of Mark, he shed light on the
phrase the Gospel to the whole creation: There is no need, therefore, of commenting on the
text as some have done, and saying that omnis creatura [all creatures] means a man. For there
is no indication that the Gospel shall be preached to men alone, but it shall be cried out before
the whole creation, so that earth shall not have a nook or corner into which it shall not penetrate
before the last day.103 As a matter of fact, Luther criticized the particularistic interpretation of
St. Gregory who once preached this exact text by saying that all creation means man. Luther
disputed: We must, therefore, not misuse the text . . . for we shall misconstrue it. . . . The
Gospel should be publicly and universally preached.104 To say it should be universal means the
Gospel is inclusive to everybody, not to humans alone. He also featured a Pauline assertion in
Colossians 1: 23 that the Gospel is preached among all creatures.105
103
Martin Luther, Sermon on Ascension Day, Mark 16: 14-20, The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther,
ed. and trans. by John Nicholas Lenker (Grand Rapids Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), 184; also in St. L., II.931.
104
Ibid., 205.
105
Luther emphasized the inclusiveness of the Gospel based from the preaching of the Word to the whole
creation in Mark 16:15. This point was affirmed in Colosians 1: 23. The Gospel should be preached in all corners
that all creatures could hear it. Luther said, I cannot accept the interpretation that the Gospel should be preached to
the dead, unless St. Peter means that the Gospel went out freely and resounded everywhere (based on Colossians
1:23) . . . and that it was not preached secretly in a corner but was proclaimed so publicly that all creatures, if they
had ears to hear, could have heard it, as Christ commanded. Sermons on the First Epistle of St. Peter, 1523, WA
12, 380; LW 30: 121.
This argument of Luther demonstrates a missiological significance for humanity to be

ecologically responsible. Luther continued, But what is meant when the Lord says: Preach the
Gospel to the whole creation? Shall I preach also to the trees and stones, mountains and waters?
The meaning is that the Gospel should be publicly and universally preached, given to all; it
should hide in no corner, but be preached freely in all places.106 Psalm 19: 3-4 was another
scriptural basis of Luther in his argument on proclaiming redemption to the whole creation:
There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through
all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.107 Gods redemption is for the whole
creation and not for humans alone for the reason that this Gospel may be published to omni
creaturae, so that even trees and stones might hear if they had ears, and might bear witness that
we have heard the Gospel; and that pillar there might say, I have heard the Gospel preached to
you.108 In another occasion Luther asserted similar stance in his 1534 Ascension Day sermon:
That means speaking out boldly, not merely in a private little group, but public proclamation, so
that its sound reaches all creatures, sun, moon, and so on, so that all such creatures will hear
the proclamation of the Good News.109
What is more significant with this extension of the Gospel to every creature is not the
explicit words to be preached but the extension of the Gospel of love or neighborly love to all
creatures. What God has loved we also love. With this concept, the whole creation becomes an
interrelated kinship of love and set aside the idea that humans are over and above creation.
It is interesting to note that this argument of Luther in some way blended with the
profound teaching of St. Francis (1182-1226 A.D.) about love for and communion with the rest
of creation. Describing St. Franciss preaching to birds and flowers, to stones and forests, to
fountains of water and green gardens, Roger Sorrel writes:
When he found an abundance of birds and flowers, he preached to them and invited
them to praise the Lord as though they were endowed with reason. In the same way he
106
Ibid.
107
Ibid.
108
Ibid.
109
Luther, Sermon on Ascension Day, 1534, The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther vol. 6, ed. Eugene
F.A. Klug, 126-127.
exhorted with the sincerest purity cornfields and vineyards, stone and forests and all
the beautiful things of the fields, fountains of water and the green things of the
gardens, earth and fire, air and wind, to love God and serve Him willingly. . . . He
discerned the secrets of creatures with his sensitive heart.110
Luther at times, Paul Santmire writes, can present an almost Franciscan approach to human
identity in nature. The motif of human solidarity with nature is on occasion strikingly portrayed
by Luther.111
Likewise, St Francis and later his Franciscan order became the most outspoken advocates
who linked the Gospel of love with the love of nature.112 In fact, it was St. Francis, Santmire
says, who taught that these creatures have intrinsic worth and because of that humanity should
love them like brothers and sisters.113 Applying Luther and St. Franciss thoughts of Gods
love and redemption toward nonhuman creatures is to acknowledge our kinship with everyone
that God has created. The reason why most human beings have no such sort of affection toward
other creatures is because they plainly regard them through utilitarian eyes that merely satisfy the
needs of humankind.
The rest of creation deserves the Gospel of love because creation has been part of the
message of redemption. As Luther described in his writings, Creation is full of Bible; All
creation is the most beautiful book or Bible; All the fields, yes almost the entire creation is full
of sermons; and Our home, farm, field, garden, and everything is full of Bible. If these
magnificent creatures have been preaching to us about love of God, why could we not extend to
them our love and care? Is it not a great shame, Luther proclaimed, that the Lord makes and
presents to us birds and lilies in the field as our preachers and teachers, that we should first learn
from them?. . . . Thank you that you become our masters and teachers.114
If we have experienced Gods redemption through the Word or the Gospel, loving them
and taking care of them signify the extension of the Gospel of love. In the world where humans
110
Roger Sorrel, St. Francis and Nature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 68.
111
112
Edward Armstrong, Saint Francis: Nature Mystic (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973), 17.
113
114
Luther Sermon on Fifteenth Sunday after Trinity, The Complete Sermons vol. 3, ed. Lenker, 115.
have become the cruelest predators, Christians, whom Luther called rare birds on earth, could
exemplify love and care for other creatures by displaying a creative, responsible, altruistic
predation in place of promiscuous consumption. Ours is a biotic community of interdependence;
so, every creature needs each other for healthier existence and propagation. This is the essence of
the ethics of kinship in creation that all creatures have an organic relationship. Neither one
should ever think that the human species is the most special and privilege creature nor the
human species is separated from nature because humans are the rulers of creation. Otherwise,
this creative interdependence is betrayed. Every creature is a part of this theocentric kinship or
interrelationship of creation where the Gospel of love is shared. This interrelationship of people
and creation and God, argues John Hart, is similar to the Native Americans consciousness of
the earths creatures as all my relatives.115
Extending the Gospel to every creature signifies that the mission of redemption is not
restricted to humanity but to the whole creation. Christian mission is universal and holistic, so as
the Gospel which is indiscriminate (Mark 16: 15). We could no longer afford to be particularistic
or exclusive with our traditional anthropocentric mission. The time is now to extend the Gospel
to the entire creation. The neighborly love is no longer restricted to human beings but to all
creatures. We all belong in a biotic community so every creature is our neighbor and they
deserve our love. We humans are neither detached nor separated from nature but we are
integrated into creation and become part of it, so humans are to be saved together with the whole
creation.
Sebastian H. C. Kim asserts in his article, Eco-theology and Mission: Creation
becomes the motive and goal of mission. . . . Mission is not stewardship but participating in an
organic relationship between God and nature. The mission emerging from the school of
creation theology can be summarized as living with the earth to restore the interconnectedness
of the whole creation.116 As Christians, we seriously need to get rid of the abuses of
anthropocentric mission, which to a large extent was inculcated by our ethnocentric Western
115
Hart, The Spirit of the Earth, 160.
116
Sebastian H. C. Kim, Eco-theology and Mission, in Walter Fernandes, Krickwin C. Marak and Atul
Y. Aghamkar, eds. Ecological Challenge and Christian Mission: Economic and Political Factors in Environmental
Regeneration (New Delhi, India: Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge & Center for Mission, 1998),
218.
Chrisitian tradition that taught us to see ourselves as the centre of things with the right, even the
duty, to exploit, conquer, subdue and have dominion over nature.
Likewise, dealing with Gods redemption of creation, Santmire points out: Luther holds
that the redemption made available to the believer by God through Christ opens up the eyes of
the believer to new and glorious perceptions of Gods creative activity in nature and of the
wonders of nature itself.117 The Christian who is able to extend the Gospel to creation could
exemplify to others a renewed relationship with nature with a good knowledge of creation.
Luther remarked: We are now living in the dawn of the future life; for we are beginning to
regain a knowledge of creation, a knowledge forfeited by the fall of Adam. Now we have a
correct view of the creatures . . . but by Gods mercy we can begin to recognize His wonderful
works and wonders also in flowers when we ponder his might and goodness. Therefore we laud,
magnify and thank Him.118
The human being needs to be enlightened or transformed so he or she can place the
redeeming God instead of the human species as the center of things in the universe. When faith
has been lost, people invent a new god; they turned from worshipping God into idolatry.119 In the
Psalms and Genesis lectures, Luther pointed out that restoring the image of God in humans
activates a greater flame of love toward God and His creatures.120 Applying love to creation is
the heart of ecological ethics, because in Christian love one denies oneself for the sake of ones
love for the other. In neighborly love, a Christian is always ready to suffer and bear the cross.
The image of God in the human being that was lost during the fall is essentially to be
restored by the mission of the Gospel. When Gods image is being restored, the human being
proclaims the Gospel of love not only to fellow humans but to omni creaturae. As humans, we
are to love other creatures because God first loved us. The nonhuman creatures need badly the
concern of humans. They are defenseless and vulnerable to manipulation by human craftiness.
117
118
Table Talk, WA TR 1: 1169. (Emphasis added)
119
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 3: 1, WA 42, 112; LW 1: 149; On Genesis 3: 4-5, WA 42, 119; LW 1:
159.
120
First Psalm Lectures, On Psalm 77, WA 3, 534; LW 11: 16; Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 3:1, WA 42,
107; LW 1: 142; cf. WA 42, 47; LW 1: 63.
They can neither stage a protest nor stop the harm that we bring on them. They have been
indiscriminately exploited that many of their species are already extinct or lost forever. Their
destruction is burgeoning globally every single day. Their only hope and support will come from
those who recognize their value and from those who treat them as neighbors in the ecological
community. So, human love can still alleviate their situation as long as Gods ongoing creation
goes on. Humans are the only creatures who have the capacity to be frugal, to be humble, to be
moderate, to be altruistic, to be self-giving for the sake of a healthier creation.
Through Luthers theologia crucis, we have learned the value of sacrifice and
servanthood for the sake of others. When we say others, we should now avoid restricting it to
humans alone; it is rather all other creatures. In fact, Luther taught that all other creatures are
also bearing the cross; meaning, they also sacrifice for the sake of others, even to fight for the
sake of humans against evil. God created all these creatures, wrote Luther, to be in active
military service, to fight for us continually against the devil, as well as against [wicked] men.121
Luther declared: [God] brings out this thought prominently, telling us it is not strange we
Christians should suffer, for in our preaching, our reproving and rebuking, we easily merit the
worlds persecution; but creation must suffer being innocent, must even endure forced subjection
to the wicked and the devil himself.122
In his sermon on Redemption of the Creatures, Luther declared: We may imagine the
earth saying: I permit myself to be plowed and cultivated for mans benefit, notwithstanding the
Christians whom I bless are in the minority, the great mass of those profiting by me being
wicked men. What am I to do? I will endure the conditions and permit myself to be tilled
because my Creator so orders; meanwhile I hope for a different order eventually, when I shall no
longer be subject to wickedness and obliged to serve Gods enemies.123 The nonhuman
creatures are indeed martyrs in creation and they suffer also for the sake of the Creator. The
creatures, preached Luther, do not approve the conduct of the devil and of the wicked in their
shameful abuse of creation, but the submit to it for the sake of Him . . . at the same time hoping
121
122
Sermon on the Fourth Sunday after Trinity: Redemption of the Creatures, Romans 8: 18-22, The
Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, 109. (Emphasis added)
123
Ibid., 113.
for a better dispensation in the fulfillment of time, when they shall again be rightly received and
abuse be past.124
These theocentric views on creation epitomize Gods first commandment: You shall
have no other gods. In other words, we shall neither set up ourselves as God nor make a
creature, like gold and other possessions, as our idol and god. Let us dismiss the idea that we are
co-creators with God because it betrays our finitude and creatureliness. Let us neither make the
human species the center of things in the universe nor confine the Gospel of love just for
humans. The whole creation is the goal of mission of the Gospel. Restricting the Gospel to
anthropocentric mission has been utterly disastrous to other creatures. Let us not manipulate God
in our own human terms; as Gustafson warns: The desire to manipulate God is the temptation of
religious persons.125 It is better to say, Let God be God! Let us recognize the reign of God on
earth, not the reign of humans. In the words of King Solomon:
Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
and do not rely on your own understanding;
In all your ways acknowledge God,
and He will make straight your paths.126
Along with this Solomonic wisdom, Luther had a counsel to make in reference to the first
commandment: Learn from these words, then, how angry God is with those who rely on
anything but himself, and again, how kind and gracious He is to those who trust and believe Him
alone with their whole heart.127
As a final point in reflecting Luthers theocentric position, the true knowledge of God
which is generated from the restoration of the imago Dei eclipses the human-centered attitude
and enlightens humanity toward a renewed attitude and ethical dealing with creation.
124
Ibid., 110.
125
Gustafson, 320.
126
Proverbs 3: 5-6 NRSV. (Emphasis added)
127
Book of Concord, 369.
f|
CONCLUSION
An often-told story about Luther, a hardworking vegetable gardener, when he was asked
what he would do if the world is coming to an end, he is reputed to have said that he would go
out to his garden and plant a tree.1 The point is we are told not to separate our present world
from the world to come. In the nearness of the end, we are not to despise this world but to love it
all the more seriously.
This book has depicted Martin Luther as a prophetic witness against the degradation of
creation by the religious, political, and economic forces in his own sixteenth century world.
Summing up his ethical teachings of creation in one sentence, an insightful hope was asserted by
this modern prophet for the integrity of creation in his mature thoughts on the book of Genesis,
which still speak to us today: To this end [God] has created the ministry [of the
Schpfungsordnungen] of the whole creation . . . that the kingdom of God may come on earth as
it is in heaven.2
Our frame of mind is no longer confined with the human-centered attempt to climb up to
heaven. The point rather is that the immanence of Gods presence in and through creation
would teach us that we ought to be more down to earth, more concerned that Gods intention of
creation will be done here on earth as it is in heaven. Christians, the rare birds on earth, are
1
Forde, Where God Meets Man, 97.
2
This statement, as Luther describes, is a spiritual blessing for the ministry of the whole creation,
particularly to parents, teachers, ministers, civil authorities, economists, and all those who are called to serve
through their own vocations. Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 35: 9, 10, WA 44, 191; LW 6: 258.
203
always admonished to be salting and lighting the world so other creatures, not just humans,
would experience the work of preservation by the Schpfungsordnungen and Gods redemption
until the end of time.
To derive an ethics of creation, it is only proper to see and understand a spade a spade
or a tree a tree because treating these created beings in an allegorical manner betrays their
organic relationship with the true Creator. It is noteworthy in Luthers study of creation in
Genesis that the immanent God has an intimate relationship with real and visible creatures and
not with allegorical or figurative creatures that are merely equated with spiritual signs or
mystical meanings in relation to the unreachable transcendent God. For Luther, it is improper to
desecrate the sacred writings by presenting them as allegories because they simply obscure and
distort the words, contrary to their context, that are so very clear and real in the book of Genesis.3
To dichotomize nature from God is to regard nature as merely for human benefits, without any
sacred value. Luther rather asserted that Moses, the writer of Genesis, is still the better teacher
because he presented to us what the creatures really are with God, and not confusing allegories.4
God and His works are inseparable as are God and His Word. God does not manifest Himself,
said Luther, except through His works and the Word, because the meaning of these is
understood in some measure,5 that is, through faith in God.
As a moral creature, the human being is to be continually reminded by the inclusive
Gospel of love that he or she is a lover and caretaker of Gods creation, as Luther taught that
even in the nearness of the end we humans shall be found by God taking care of Gods creation.6
So long as believers are still active in the battle against sin and at the same time hopeful towards
the finality of things, Luther undoubtedly teaches us a dynamic ethical response and not of an
acquiescent or passive attitude toward the nearness of the end. Christians should neither
withdraw from nor despise the world, but enter into it all the more fully and take up its concerns
and tasks through the Schpfungsordnungen all the more seriously. So, when the end of the
3
4
5
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 1: 2, WA 42, 9-10; LW 1: 11.
6
Luthers Letter to Johannes Ruehel, WA Br 3, 890, 531; cited by Forde, Where God Meets Man, 96-97.
Conclusion 205
world comes, God would find us living as creatures, that is, loving and taking care of His
creation, as God has intended.
We learned that Luther is a critic of his own religion which collaborated with civil rulers
and traders in exploiting the poor and the earths natural resources through capitalistic monopoly,
usury, global trade, and an ethnocentric missionary enterprise that sorely devoured the public
commons, rich indigenous cultures, peoples domestic products, small-scale livelihoods,
wildlife, and the healthy environment. On top of that, we saw Luther as a relentless prophet of
the divine created order who made a constructive critique by applying his doctrine of the orders
of creation against the moral and material corruption brought by the religious, political and
economic forces that distorted the integrity of creation. Among these distortions were the
denigration of marriage, family or home, the adulteration of economic life, politics and
government, and the passivity and withdrawal of the church from the secular world.
In regard to our Western Christian tradition, we can no longer afford to stay at home with
exclusivist, anthropocentric understandings of faith. The pervasive Greek notionsdualism of
human and nature, dualism of body and soul, pilgrimage on Earth, separation of God and nature,
hierarchy of beings, belief of hegemony and natural slaveswhich are destructive to our
relationship with other creatures, should be treated as irrelevant to our ecological context. We
need a critical understanding of the destructiveness of our religious tradition. Christianity needs a
more universal, more ecological and more cosmic reading of the Bible. The impact of these
human-centered teachings has brought no healthier world to live in.
We Christians should heed our sisters and brothers of Eastern traditions particularly the
aboriginal communities of the world, who criticize our anthropocentric beliefs. They certainly
feel at home with Luthers ethics of creation because they consider nature as part of their
kinship. We should appreciate how aboriginal communities cherish and respect all life forms
here on earth and their intimate relationship with creation. Such ethic of kinship in creation
rectifies our urban trait of individualism, profit-oriented stewardship, and human-centered
economic or industrial development. As Christians, we could no longer dare to further push them
onto marginal lands that are not suited to their indigenous way of life. Restoring and preserving
the worlds rainforests and the planets wildlife would mean restoring and preserving the culture,
ancestral lands, and indigenous habitats of aboriginal communities. Our respect and preservation
of these aboriginal communities in the world, together with their cultures and indigenous
habitats, would also mean the conservation and restoration of the forests, wildlife, and other
species which are in danger of extinction. To cite aboriginal scholar Vine Deloria, Christianity
itself may find the strength to survive, if it honestly faces the necessity to surrender its narrow
interpretation of history and embark on a determined search for the true meaning of mans life on
this planet. Even surrendering a belief in a God who exercises supremacy over world events
become possible, if in surrendering the belief, one comes to a greater understanding of the nature
of religion and religious experiences.7
Christianity has to recognize that some of its religious teachings have to be taken with
serious caution, primarily because some of them have become irrelevant to our present situation.
Just as we have emancipated women from the discriminatory patriarchal traditionfor example,
that women are to remain silent in the church and be inferior to men as St. Paul wrotewe
should liberate nature from the human-centered and profit-oriented stewardship and promote the
ethic of kinship in creation.
Moreover, nature should not be dichotomized from the Creator or from the biotic
community. Humans should submit to what the Creator had intended for all His creatures.
Humans need to be careful, and not rationalize the will of God in human terms or create God
in the image of man. Regarding ourselves as co-creators with God would not do any good but
would do harm to our co-creatures, which are consistently annihilated by our mechanistic
approach.
We cannot also deny that Martin Luther, who was significantly part of the Western
religious tradition that had passed on the anthropocentric and instrumentalist writings to many
generations, remains an influential figure in our time. But we must be sensible enough to realize
that his religion of love has been too particularistic or human-centered in his approach to
nature. Acknowledging the shortcomings of our religion would help us remedy detrimental
beliefs toward nature and extend the Gospel of love toward the whole creation.
It is also important to emphasize at this point that Luther was a relentless critic of the
evils of globalization. The extreme materialism of globalized trade had denigrated the integrity
of marriage, home, church, government, politics, and economics. Its predatory character had also
7
Deloria, God is Red: A Native View of Religion, 287. (Emphasis added)
Conclusion 207
devastated indigenous communities, diverse wildlife, and the earths natural resources. The
appalling denigration of moral institutions and immense looting of natural resources persist even
today with Neo-liberal globalization. This benefits the rich countries in the world, while the poor
countries are oppressed by international economic policies that compel them to have foreign
loans and then in return, to compromise their remaining natural resources for debt servicing.
In response to this appalling distortion of Gods created order, Luther presented the
ethical formulation of his Dreistnde by invoking his doctrine of creation in Genesis. Luther
elevated the vocations of married life and the management of the household as ordained by God
in creation. This was to challenge the world of extreme materialism which encouraged
prostitution, fornication and the rampant concubinage by clerics and government officials while
women were also raped and ravaged by robbers and soldiers.8 Humans are created by God with
the image of being sexually responsiblethe way they ought to be as the only moral beings in
creation. To be truly responsible in sex and marriage is to embrace faith in God and, in turn,
sincere love and goodness toward other creatures would stream out of faith.
On the other hand, persistence in rearing the young was necessary to fortify the
household in the face of the moral decline of families due to the forces of modernization.
According to Luther one of the remaining hopes to redeem the integrity of creation was the
necessity to make a new beginning with children.9 Rearing the young in the faith and
knowledge of God signifies the formation of tomorrows quality parents, government rulers,
teachers, preachers and workers who are to become ethically responsible caretakers of creation.
The ecclesia has also a vital responsibility in dealing with the extreme materialism of
society and the misuse of power by civil rulers, merchants, and even the clergy. Ministry as a
vocation carries a prophetic voice for the whole creation. It has the ability to warn and condemn
the injustices that harm the created order. Whenever the political order and the economic order of
8
John Witte, From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion, and the Law in the Western Tradition,
(Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 47; cited by Don S. Browning, Marriage and
Modernization: How Globalization Threatens Marriage and What to Do About It (Grand Rapids, Michigan/
Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 96.
9
Decem praecepta Wittenbergensi praedicata populo, 1518, WA 1, 494; quoted in Gerald Strauss,
Luthers House of Learning, 35, n. 36.
creation are misused by the wicked and unjust, the office of preaching or the ministerial office is
there to check, rebuke, give direction and to arouse people to repentance.10 Preachers as
prophets of creation also bear the cross because they are sometimes persecuted for proclaiming
the truth. The bold prophets of the church, through the power of the Word of God, could prick
the consciences of people and could correct the predatory traits in society that persistently
desecrate Gods creation. The prophetic task of the ministerial office is very crucial especially in
a society where immoralities, materialism, social injustice, economic inequity, and degradation
of nature are widespread. The evils of society and of the world are to be exposed, rebuked and
condemned by the Word of God through the preachers. They always have to proclaim the truth
and the judgment of the Word of God with all boldness and honesty. The inspiration of the Holy
Spirit is their wisdom and guide to enable the Word of God to convict and renew the sinner.
Politia is the third estate of the Dreistnde. Luther gave it the most significant role in
confronting the evils of global trade and the misuse of power by civil rulers themselves. For
Luther, the God-given purpose for government in creation must be reclaimed to counter the evils
of modernization and globalization which are destroying the poor and the environment. The
governments purpose is to restrain the wicked in order to protect and promote the common
good of all. For Luther, the government was supposed to be on the side of the common people
and not with a few privileged merchants, and the church hierarchy, who distorted creation with
their self-interest and misuse of power. It is their duty, said Luther, to use their duly
constituted authority in punishing the injustices of the merchants and preventing them from so
shamefully skinning their subjects.11 Economic injustices like monopoly, unjust market, unjust
price, unlawful interest to loans, repression of small businessmen, and destruction of the
commons were condemned by Luther and he admonished the kings and princes to look into
these matters and forbid them by strict laws.12
The reformers critique of the globalization of his time reverberates to the
globalization of our time in which governments of the world, especially those that are rich and
10
11
Trade and Usury, 1524, WA 6, 49; LW 45: 270.
12
Ibid., 271.
Conclusion 209
powerful, are admonished to relinquish their self interest and parochial attitude so they could
sincerely protect and further the quality life of the whole population and the whole environment
of the world. When we say the whole we mean the whole globe, which is our common home
and our commonwealth. In his article, Luthers War on Poverty: Wittenberg Principles Apply
Today, Paul Wee relates: Luthers call for a political structure to ensure fairness in the
distribution of wealth in 16th century Wittenberg is just as relevant for the global community of
nations today. . . . Luther also maintained that if one wanted justice for the poor, the only course
of action is to urge the civil government to do what God called it to do pass legislation to
ensure a fair distribution of the wealth of the community.13
If these rich countries that control the global economy are really concerned about the
whole globe, why are they not concerned about the exploitation of the Amazon rainforest or
the African jungle and its indigenous peoples while they have enacted restrictive laws which ban
the cutting of their trees at home? Unfortunately, they do not seem to mind the importation of
forest logs from other countries or to care how ecologically devastated these regions are,
particularly in Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. They only care about their state of the
art wooden houses and furniture while seeing that their own forests are well protected.14 We
should be aware that the tropical forests of the Third World absorb part of the First Worlds
carbon dioxide emissions that are spewed by the countless cars and industries of the rich
nations.15 How could people dare to confine their ecological interest to their own backyards
while the rest of the world suffers from the wreaking of havoc wrought on nature by
multinational corporations, Neo-liberal globalization, and debt servicing imposed on poor
nations at the expense of their environment? Globalization is supposed to be ecologically
healthier if governments are sincere in protecting the common good of all, particularly the
13
Paul A. Wee, Luthers War on Poverty: Wittenberg Principles Apply Today, The Lutheran 28
(November 1997): 27.
14
People in the First World, McDonagh writes, are often unaware of the end result of their growing
demand for tropical timber. The Japanese and Koreans are renowned for it in Asia. Strict laws protecting their own
forests are enforced, yet they are wreaking havoc on the forests of many Southeast Asian countries. Sean
McDonagh, The Greening of the Church (Scoresby, Australia: The Canterbury Press, 1990), 76.
15
Jeffrey Kluger, A Climate of Despair, Time Magazine 157 (April 2001): 52.
protection of the whole global commons. We need to regard our global ecological crisis as a
concern of all governments and not be confined by the boundaries of nations.
The entire globe is basically our commonwealth. For example, all governments in the
world need to unite to curb the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases,
particularly in highly industrialized countries in order to save the planet from further devastation
caused by Global Warming. Each government needs to sacrifice or bear the cross, so to say, in
reducing their ecologically harmful industries in order to preempt a bigger global catastrophe.
Regrettably, the United States, which is the worlds largest emitter of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases, refuses to cooperate with the Kyoto Protocol,16 primarily because the U. S.
pays too much attention to economic development and makes the environment its sacrificial
lamb. Governments are established by God as an order of creation, so their purpose is to
protect the whole creation, not just the economic welfare of humans. Economic development and
environmental protection are inseparable for the sake of the health of the whole.
Luther would certainly agree that in this planet, the strength is in governments working
together. Helping the poor nations to recover would also mean making the planet ecologically
healthier. The First World nations know that international economic policies being imposed on
debt-burdened countries have been killing the poor and the earths natural environment. This
oppressive usury being imposed by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund virtually
devours the poor nations and their natural resources. Governments of debtor nations which could
hardly pay the interest of what they owe are compromising the basic social services to their
people and their remaining natural resources in favor of paying their debts. It is morally wise for
the affluent countries, particularly those who have benefited from the Third Worlds natural
wealth, to give fair considerations to debt-burdened countries. The rich nations have to be
reminded, especially those former colonizers and neo-colonizers of the Third World, that they
have reaped much of the debtor nations natural wealth. Emancipating them from their debts
16
Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty of nations that commit to reduce their emissions of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases in order to save our planet from Global Warming. This was founded in July
1997 in Kyoto, Japan by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Power plants,
factories and personal vehicles emit a mixture of gases that trap heat in Earths atmosphere, hence the term Global
Warming. Climate change experts are thinking 20 to 40 years into the future. So with the Kyoto Protocol expiring in
2012, theres a sense of urgency when it comes to reducing the emissions. See Susan R. Fletcher, CRS Report for
Congress: Global Climate Change (Washington: The Library of Congress, 2004).
Conclusion 211
would be healthier for the global environment. Luther had this prophetic advice: In a well
arranged commonwealth the debts of the poor who are in need ought to be cancelled, and they
ought to be helped; hence the action of collecting has its place only against the lazy and the
never-do-well.17 Liberating the poor from their economic burdens potentially brings about the
preservation of creation.
Finally, Luthers ethics of creation are also exhibited by the ethical virtues of frugality,
love, humility, and cross bearing that are indispensable to the integrity of Gods creation. These
virtues embody the vibrant role of Christians on earth as they persist in salting and lighting the
whole creation. These ethical virtues potentially challenge the vices of greed, arrogance and
idolatry which distort the preservation and redemption of creation.
Ethical Virtues of Creation
Frugality
The subversive virtue of frugality is a quality norm that challenges humanitys over-
consumption of earths natural resources and the exploitation of indigenous habitats. Luther
condemned the gluttonous people in Germany who were burying the nation with shame because
of greed and immorality. Gluttony, which Luther described as widespread sins of
overindulgence, was an addiction of many Germans in collaboration with traders and civil
rulers who also instigated the excessive economic production of goods. Admonishing the
gluttons, Luther described frugality: Whoever wants to have enough here and hereafter, let him
see to it that he is not greedy and grasping. Let him accept and use what God gives him and live
by his labor in faith. Then he will have Paradise and even the kingdom of heaven here.18
17
WA 14, 715, 35-37; LW 9: 243; cited by Carter Lindberg in his article, Luther on Poverty, Lutheran
Quarterly 15 (2001): 91.
18
Frugality is to live a simple life or to exercise moderation with a lifestyle that applies
what is enough. It was commonly instilled by Luther in response to the extravagant consumption
of the fruits of nature. The reformer reminded us about frugal people in the Bible: Our age and
that of our ancestors has seen nothing like it. Yet there were frugal people in Egypt people who
lived thriftily and austerely. They were not gluttons, gormandizers, and drunkards, as we
Germans are. On a single day one German consumes as much food and drink as would have
sufficed to feed 100 Egyptians.19
With the rampant misuse and abuse of Gods gifts, frugality is needed to avoid cruel
predation of other life forms and earths natural resources. This unrestrained over-consumption
was the foremost concern of Luther for his people, How much is consumed by luxury in
clothing and other useless things that are brought into our lands by the merchants? Finally what
great devourers of money the market days at Frankfurt are! They say that on every one of them
3,000,000 guldens are taken out of Germany.20
What distorted humanitys creative or responsible consumption is when these gifts of
God become a sole obsession of use and enjoyment. Food and luxury become our gods. People
tend to become addicted to them and eventually misuse and abuse the fruits of creation without
any concern toward neighbors who are in need. Luther illustrates: What else does it mean but
this: I care nothing about my neighbor; so long as I have my profit and satisfy my greed, of what
concern is it to me if it injures my neighbor in ten ways at once? There you see how shamelessly
this maxim flies squarely in the face not only of Christian love but also of natural law.21 Over-
consumption had also been discouraged due to its perilous effect on human health. But now,
declared Luther, people do not content themselves with meats, with vegetables, or with grain;
and rather often, because of unsuitable food, we face dangers of health. I am saying nothing
about those increasingly widespread sins of overindulgence which are worse than brutish.22
19
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 47: 13-14, WA 44, 664-668; LW 8: 117-121.
20
21
Ibid.
22
Lectures on Genesis, On Genesis 1:28-29, WA 42, 55; LW 1: 72. (Emphasis added)
Conclusion 213
Extravagant consumption was not only detrimental to human health in general, but also to the
poor and the environment. Frugality or moderation in consumption contributed a
great deal toward health. Luther further claimed: If, however, we consider carefully our present-
day manner of life, we are harmed more by food and drink than we are nourished. In addition to
the fact that we live most immoderately, how much has been lost of the excellence of fruits? Our
first parents live moderately and chose only those foods that were suited for nourishing and
refreshing their bodies.23 Humans need the wisdom of God in order to act with contentment and
justice. Man is to have knowledge of God, the reformer asserted, and with the utmost freedom
from fear, with justice and wisdom, he is to make use of the creatures according to His will.24
This creational virtue of frugality is to be commended in response to a world of extreme
consumerism, particularly our addiction with oil, a contaminant source of energy which
relentlessly ruining the Earths atmosphere with pollutant gases from cars and industries. By
applying the virtue of frugality, planet Earth would be healthier and better off with ecologically-
friendly alternatives like wind, solar, and bio-mass energy sources.
Humility
Humility is a highly prized virtue of creation and is required of every believer and the
orders of creation to promote the bond of love and unity in the world. The value of humility
helps preserve creation because the act of humility in humans and in the orders of creation have
the ability to give up something for the sake of other creatures. Christ did this, as described in
Philippians 2, in a self-emptying act on behalf of others. In his Genesis lectures, Luther
affirmed that the value of humility sets the moral being apart from the beasts, because humans
recognize the good in others and show them honor or respect.25
The virtue of humility must replace the vice of arrogance toward nature. Exercising
humility toward other creatures is highly prized in the Kingdom of God. In the Hebrew wisdom
23
24
Ibid., 73.
25
Genesis Lectures, On Genesis 23: 5-6: WA 43, 285; LW 4: 208.
literature humility is regarded, along with godliness, as an origin of real treasure and good
reputation: Humility and fear of God bring wealth, honor and life.26 God demands this quality.
Luther presented examples of great individuals in the biblical history of faith, particularly Christ,
who, despite being divine, made Himself equal to the poor and humbled Himself beneath
everyone.27 To conquer oneself with humility, that is to prevail over the vices of greed, arrogance
and idolatry, was described by Luther as the greatest and the most beautiful virtue.28 To live
out this virtue in ones vocation enables a person to see others and recognize their goodness and
value in the entire community of creation.
Emphasizing the importance of youth in the doctrine of Dreistnde, Luther advocated
that instilling the virtue of humility to the young by the parents, teachers, and preachers enables
them to treasure honor, courtesy, and respect of people and other creatures.29 The reformer
employs what the Scripture teaches: We may learn what mutual respect is necessary and
pleasing to God, so that we may yield to one another and, as Paul teaches in Romans 12:10:
Outdo one another in showing honor, and in Philippians 2:3: In humility count others better
than yourselves.30
As a final point, the virtue of humility is always linked with the moral value of obedience
to all forms of authority that God had established. Obedience toward authorities ordained by God
is an exercise of humility and love in the orders of creation. The Christian who plays a vital role
in the world holds an objective view of the value of obedience. However, when forms of worldly
authorities misuse or abuse their powers, obedience turns to God as the believers highest ruler
and parent. Luther would advise that Christians have to humbly submit to the First
Commandment, which serves as the basis of Christian life that we must obey God rather than
men. (Acts 5: 29)
26
Proverbs 22: 4.
27
Sermon at Torgau Castle Church, 1544, WA 49, 612; LW 51: 352.
28
Genesis Lectures: On Genesis 41: 40, WA 44, 434-436; LW 7: 182-184.
29
30
Conclusion 215
Love
Love is a strong foundation of the ethic of kinship in creation. The interrelationship of all
creatures is buttressed by love from the human being, the only moral being in creation. When the
imago Dei is being restored, the human being holds the true knowledge of God and the most
sincere love for God and other creatures.31 On top of that, when the Christian proclaims the
Gospel of love, he or she would not only extend the message of love to fellow humans but to
every creature. As humans, we are to love other creatures because God first loved us. The
nonhuman creatures need badly the concern of humans because they are defenseless to
exploitation. Their only hope will come from those who have the capacity to love, from those
who recognize their value, and from those who treat them as real neighbors in the ecological
community. So, love, which is the highest virtue in creation,32 can alleviate their perilous
situation as long as Gods ongoing creation goes on. Humans are the only creatures who have the
capacity to be frugal, to be humble, to be moderate, to be altruistic, and to be self-giving for the
sake of a healthier creation.
The unifying ethic of the Order of Creation is the virtue of Christian love, which
always stands above all orders of creation as consisting in love of God and of the neighbor.33
Each one is driven by love to serve others, particularly every needy creature in general. Love
shuns the selfish attitude and the sense of competition among the orders of creation; without
love, they would just devour each other into oblivion. Without the virtue of love, the vices of
greed, arrogance and idolatry would prevail among them. Love binds all vocations to care and
serve one another, just as a Christian serves as a Christ to his neighbors.34
However, to exercise the most sincere love toward others, one has to embrace faith in
31
32
Lectures on Galatians, WA 15.II, 72; LW 27: 58.
33
A Sermon on October 8, 1531, WA 34.II, 313; cited by Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther, 40.
34
The Freedom of a Christian, WA 7, 66; LW 31: 368; cited by William Lazareth, Luther on the Christian
Home, 163.
God through the Gospel of Christ. It is faith that produces love, and from this Luther derives the
prominent ethical principle of faith active in love.35 Having faith is restoring the image of God
that was lost during the fall. Luther elucidated that the Gospel has brought about the restoration
of the imago Dei so we are formed once more according to the image which God has intended us
to be, and we are born to a new life by faith through the Word and the Holy Spirit.36 Along with
this image, a stream of sincere love flows out of faith toward the whole creation. Luther declares:
From this knowledge there arises a greater flame of love, so that the person wishes always to
remember in this way and say, I will be mindful of Thy wonders from the beginning.37
Considering the fact that we are living in one biotic community, all creatures are to be sincerely
loved as ecological neighbors. It is inherent to a regenerated person that love toward nature flows
out of faith and enables one to regard all creatures as a family or community in relation with the
ethics of kinship in creation. Love as a virtue in creation also signifies the application of
sustainability where every death means creative predation and every birth means creative
propagation. A profound love for the future generation is the essence of creative predation and
creative propagation.
Cross bearing
One basic distinction of the rare birds on earth is their ethical virtue of cross bearing. It
means that they are always ready to suffer for the sake of their love for the neighbor. Christians
are to demonstrate the sacrificial love, even to the point of welcoming death, as demonstrated by
Christ in his suffering on the cross. This virtue transcends natural law or the universal law of
love. It is because Christians, according to Luther, are called to suffer and bear the cross in this
world for the sake of the love for neighbor and the love of God. Christ is the heart of Christian
ethics. If Christ lives in us and we in Christ, we must share His pain. Luther illuminated the
35
Forell, 189.
36
37
First Psalm Lectures, On Psalm 77:1, WA 3, 534; LW 11: 16.
Conclusion 217
substance of the Gospel: Indeed, our leader, Jesus Christ, says that we should bless those who
insult us, pray for our persecutors, love our enemies, and do good to those who do evil to us.38
This is exactly the reason why Luther called a Christian a rare bird.
Essentially, the Genesis Lectures depict Christ and the incarnation as the basis of the
connection between creation and the theology of the cross. This would relate Luthers
understanding of the masks of God (larvae Dei) that applies the link of creation and cross.39 In
fact, other creatures bear also the cross and suffer against evil and against wicked humans in
order to serve God as His masks.40 Creatures are the masks of the divine and they are used as
God encounters humanity in such a way as to enable people to see the intimate relationship
between God and nature. With the ethical basis of the theologia crucis, the battle against sin is to
be endured as a vocations cross of the Christian. As long as the Christian continues his or her
vibrant role in preserving the created order, the virtue of cross bearing continues until death.
Christians are admonished to reclaim Luthers ethics of creation. The virtues of love,
frugality, humility, and cross bearing, which exemplify the human beings unique moral capacity
and task of caring for the integrity of creatures and the three basic orders of creation (the
household, the government, and the church), should help Christians to serve as Gods co-workers
in the preservation and redemption of the whole creation.
38
WA 8, 316; LW 46: 29.
39
Watson, Let God be God, 76-84.
40
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics: The Ethics of Aristotle. Edited John Burnet. London: Methuen &
Company, 1900.
_________. The Politics of Aristotle. Trans. Ernest Barker. Oxford: Clarendon Press, New York:
Oxford University Press, 1946.
Augustine, Saint. City of God. Trans. J. W. C. Wand. London: Oxford University Press, 1963.
_________. De doctrina Christiana. Translated by D. W. Robertson, Jr. New York: The Liberal
Press, 1958.
_________. De Genesi ad Litteram. Vols. 41-42. Translated and annotated by John Hammond
Taylor. New York: Newman Press, 1982.
_________. Letter 140 to Honoratus. Translated by Sister Wilfred Parsons. Washington:
Catholic University of America Press, 1965.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill and translated by
Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.
Erasmus, Desiderius. De libero arbitrio Diatribe sive Collatio. Erasmus von Rotterdom:
Ausgewhlte Schriften. Edited by Winfried Leswosky. Vol. 4. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1969.
Las Casas, Bartolom de. In Defense of the Indians: The Defense of the Most Reverend Lord,
Don Fray Bartolom de Las Casas of the Order of Preachers, Late Bishop of Chiapa,
Against the Persecutors and Slanderers of the Peoples of the New World Discovered
Across the Seas. Translated by Stafford Poole. De Kalb: Northern Illinois University
Press, 1978.
___________. Brevsima relacin de la destruccin de las Indias. Translated by Herma
Briffault. New York: Seabury Press, 1974.
_________. De regia potestate: Derecho de autodeterminacin. Madrid: Consejo Superior de
Investigaciones Cientficas, 1969.
________. Devastation of the Indies. Translated by Herma Briffault. New York: The Seabury
Press, 1974.
Luther, Martin. D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. 100 vols. Weimar:
Hermann Bhlaus, 1883-.
219
220 Bibliography
________. D. Martin Luthers Werke. Briefwechsel. 11 vols. Weimar: Hermann Bhlaus, 1930-
1948.
________. D. Martin Luthers Werke. Deutsche Bibel. Weimer: Hermann Bhlaus, 1906-1948.
________. D. Martin Luthers Werke. Tischreden. Weimar: Hermann Bhlaus, 1912-1921.
_________. Luthers Works. 55 vols. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann. St.
Louis: Concordia Publishing House; Philadelphia: Fortress & Muhlenberg Press, 1957-
1986.
_________. Martin Luther: Selections from His Writings. Edited and introduction by John
Dillenberger, New York: Anchor Books, 1962.
_________. Selected Political Writings. Edited by J. M. Porter. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1971.
_________. Selected Writings of Martin Luther. 3 vols. Edited and translated by Theodore G.
Tappert. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967.
_________. The Book of Concord: The Confession of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Edited
and translated by Theodore G. Tappert. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959.
_________. The Creation: A Commentary on the First Five Chapters of the Book of Genesis.
Translated by Henry Cole. Edinburgh: Murray and Gibb Printers, 1858.
_________. The Sermons of Martin Luther. Edited by John Nicholas Lenker. 8 vols. Reprint.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1983.
_________. What Luther Says: An Anthology. 3 vols. Compiled by Edwald M. Plass. St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1959.
Secondary Sources
Agoncillo, Teodoro A. History of the Filipino People. Manila: Garotech Publishing, 1960.
Allen, J. W. A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Barnes &
Noble, 1928; paperback ed. 1960.
Althaus, Paul. Der Schpfungsgedanke bei Luther. Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 1959.
_________. Die Ethik Martin Luthers. Gutersloh: Gtersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1965.
_________. Die Theologie Martin Luthers. Gutersloh: Gtersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn,
1962.
_________. The Ethics of Martin Luther. Translated by Robert C. Schultz. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1972.
_________. The Theology of Martin Luther. Translated by Robert C. Schultz. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1966.
Altmann, Walter. Luther and Liberation: A Latin American Perspective. Translated by Mary M.
Solberg. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
Apilado, Mariano C. The Dream Need Not Die: Revolutionary Spirituality 2. Quezon City,
Philippines: New Day Publishers, 2000.
Armstrong, Edward. Saint Francis: Nature Mystic. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1973.
Asendorf, Ulrich. Eschatologie bei Luther. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1967.
_________. Lectura in Biblia: Luthers Genesisvorlesung, 1535-1545. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck
Bibliography 221
& Ruprecht, 1998.

_________. Luthers Genesisvorlesung als Paradigma christlicher Weltverantwortung.
Christentum und Weltverantwortung, Veffentlichungen der Luthe r- Akademie e. V.
Ratzeburg 19 (1992): 71-94.
Bayer, Oswald. Luthers Ethics as Pastoral Care, Lutheran Quarterly 15 (2002): 125-142.
_________. Nature and Institution: Luthers Doctrine of the Three Orders. Lutheran Quarterly
12 (1998): 146-147.
_________. Schpfung als Anrede: Zu einer Hermeneutik der Schpfung. 2nd ed. Tbingen:
J. C. B. Mohr, 1990.
Barbour, Ian G., ed. Western Man and Environmental Ethics. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-
Wesley Publications Co., 1973.
Beach Waldo, and Niehbuhr, H. Richard. Christian Ethics: Sources of Living Tradition. Second
edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1973.
Bentley, Jerry H. Revisiting the Expansion of Europe, Sixteenth Century Journal 28 (1997):
503-510.
Bergree, Laurence. Over the Edge of the World: Magellans Terrifying Circumnavigation of the
Globe. New York: Morrow, 2003.
Berry, Thomas. The Dream of the Earth. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1998.
_________. The Great Work: Our Way into the Future. New York: Bell Tower, 1999.
Betcke, Werner. Luthers Sozialethik. Gtersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1934.
Bettenhausen, Elizabeth. Creation, in Concern for Creation: Voices on the Theology of
Creation. Svenska: Tro & Tanke, 1995.
Blickle, Peter. Communal Reformation: The Quest for Salvation in Sixteenth Century Germany.
trans. Thomas Dunlap. Boston: Humanities Press, 1985.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Ethics. New York: SCM Press Ltd., 1955.
_________. Life Together: The Classic Exploration of Faith and Community. New York: Harper
& Row, 1954.
_________. The Cost of Discipleship. New York: SCM Press Ltd., 1959.
Bornkamm, Heinrich. Luthers Doctrine of Two Kingdoms in the Context of His Theology.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.
_________. Luthers World of Thought. Trans. by Martin H. Bertram. St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1958.
Bosch, David J. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Marknoll, N.Y.:
Orbis Books, 1991.
Bossy, John. Christianity in the West, 1400-1700. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.
Brady, Thomas, Heiko Oberman and James Tracy. Handbook of European History, 1400-1600.
2 vols. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1944.
Braudel, Fernand, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II. New
York: Harper & Row, 1972.
_________. The Structure of Everyday Life. trans. Sian Reynolds. New York: Harper & Row,
1981.
Brendler, Gerhard. Martin Luther, Theology and Revolution. Translated by Calude Foster, Jr.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1975.
Browning, Don S. Marriage and Modernization: How Globalization Threatens Marriage and
What To Do About It. Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans
222 Bibliography
Publishing Company, 2003.

Brown, Lester Russell. Eco-economy: Building an Economy for the Earth. New York: W. W.
Norton, 2001.
Brueggemann, Walter. The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith.
Brummel, Lee. Luther and the Biblical Language of Poverty. The Ecumenical Review 32
(January 1980): 40-58.
Buck, Lawrence P. and Jonathan W. Zophy, eds. The Social History of the Reformation.
Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1972.
Bhler, Pierre. Kreuz und Eschatologie: eine Auseinandersetzung mit der politischen Theologie,
im Anschluss an Luthers theologia crucis. Tbingen: Mohr, 1981.
Cameron, Euan. The European Reformation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.
Callicott, J. Baird. In Defense of the Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental Philosophy. Albany,
N.Y.: State University of New York, 1989.
Chapman, Audrey R. Integrating Science with Eco-Theology and Eco-Ethics. Dialog: A
Journal of Theology 36 (Fall 1997): 295-304.
Christensen, Marilyn. The Misunderstood Virtue. The Lutheran 13 (October 2001): 28-29.
Christiansen, Drew, S. J. Ecology and the Common Good: Catholic Social Teaching and
Environmental Responsibility. in Drew Christiansen, S. J. and Walter Grazer, eds. And
God Saw It Was Good: Catholic Theology and the Environment. Washington, D. C.:
United States Catholic Conference, 183-196.
Cobb, John B. Jr. Can A Globalized Society be Sustainable? Dialog: A Journal of Theology 36
(Winter 1997): 7-16.
_________. Is It Too Late? A Theology of Ecology. Beverly Hills, California: Bruce, 1972.
Constantino, Renato. The Philippines: A Past Revisited. 2 vols. Manila: Tala Publishing
Corporation, 1975.
Cootsona, Greg. Trinitarian Creation of A Complex World. Dialog: A Journal of Theology 36
(Summer, 1997): 175-179.
Crossley, Robert N. Luther and the Peasants War: Luthers Actions and Reactions. New York:
Exposition Press, 1974.
Daly, Herman E. Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications. Washington, D.C.: Island
Press, 2004.
_________. Energy, Economics, and the Environment: Conflicting Views of an Essential
Interrelationship. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press for the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, 1981.
_________ and John Cobb, Jr. For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward
Community, the Environment and a Sustainable Future. Boston: Beacon, 1989.
Deane, Herbert A. The Political and Social Ideas of St. Augustine. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1963.
Deloria, Vine, Jr. American Indians, American Justice. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press,
1983.
__________. Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press, 1988.
__________. For this Land: Writings on Religion in America. Edited by James Treat. New
York: Routledge, 1999.
Bibliography 223
__________. God is Red: A Native View of Religion. New York: Grosset & Dunlap Publishers,
1973.
__________. Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans and the Myth of Scientific Fact. Golden,
Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing, 1997.
__________. The Nations Within: The Past and Future of American Indian Sovereignty. New
York: Pantheon Books, 1984.
__________. We Talk, You Listen; New Tribes, New Turf. New York: MacMillan, 1970.
Dreher, Martin N. and Ricardo W. Rieth. Luther and Liberation Theology, Lutherjahrbuch 62
(1995): 224-226.
Durant, William. The Story of Civilization. Part VI: The Reformation. Bern: Francke, 1957.
Ebeling, Gerhard. Der Mensch nach seiner geschpflichen Bestimmung, Lutherstudien 2
(1982): 92-108.
_________. Luther: An Introduction to His Thought. Translated by R.A. Wilson. Philadelphia:
Edwards, Mark U. Luther on Faith and Diversity, in The Lutheran 18 (July 2003): 14-17.
_________. Luther and the False Brethren. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1975.
_________. Printing Press, Propaganda, and Martin Luther. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1994.
Ehrenberg, Richard. Capital and Finance in the Age of the Renaissance: A Study of the Fuggers
and their Connections. Trans. by H. M. Lucas. New York: E.M. Kelley, 1963.
Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and
Cultural Transformation in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1979.
Engels, Friedrich. Reformation and Authority. Lexington: Lexington University Press, 1968.
Espinosa, Alfonso O. The Christology of Martin Luther. in Daniel M. Harmelink, ed. Let
Christ Be Christ: Theology, Ethics & World Religions in the Two Kingdoms. Huntington
Beach, California: Tentation Press, 1999.
Faulkner, John Alfred. Luther and Economic Questions. The Lutheran Quarterly 41 (July
1911): 387-402.
Fernandes, Walter, Krickwin C. Marak and Atul Y. Aghamkar, eds. Ecological Challenge and
Christian Mission: Economic and Political Factors in Environmental Regeneration. New
Delhi, India: Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge & Center for Mission,
1998.
Fire, John. Lame Deer: Seekers of Visions. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1972.
Fiske, John. The Discovery of America: With Some Account on Ancient America and the Spanish
Conquest. Boston: Riverside Press, 1892.
Fletcher, Susan. CRS Report for Congress: Global Climate Change. Washington: The Library of
Congress, 2004.
Forde, Gerhard. Where God Meets Man: Luthers Down to Earth Approach to the Gospel.
Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1972.
Forell, George W. Christian Social Teachings. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, Anchor
Books, 1966.
_________. Faith Active in Love: An Investigation of the Principles Underlying Luthers Social
Ethics. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1959.
_________. Work and the Christian Calling. The Lutheran Quarterly 8 (May 1956): 105-118.
224 Bibliography
Fowler, Robert Booth. The Greening of the Protestant Thought. Chapel Hill & London: The
University of North Carolina Press, 1995.
Fox, Matthew. Creation Spirituality: Liberating Gifts for the Peoples of the Earth. San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991.
_________. Original Blessing: A Primer in Christian Spirituality. Santa Fe, New Mexico: Bear
& Co., 1986.
Frimmer, Steven. Neverland: Fabled Places and Fabulous Voyages of History and Legend. New
York: Viking Press, 1976.
Fhner, Werner. Das Wort Gottes im Luthers theologie. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1984.
Galeano, Eduardo. Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of Pillage of A Continent. trans.
Cedric Belfage. London: Monthly Review Press, 1973.
Gentz, William H., ed. Dictionary of the Bible and Religion. Nashville: Parthenon Press, 1986.
Gill, Robin. A Textbook of Christian Ethics. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995.
Gilmore, Myron. The World of Humanism. New York: Harper & Row, 1952.
Gonzales, Justo. Faith and Wealth: A History of Early Christian Ideas on the Origin,
Significance, and Use of Money. San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1990.
Gottfried, Robert R. Economics, Ecology, and the Roots of Western Faith: Perspectives from the
Garden. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1995.
Gregersen, Niels Henrik. Grace in Nature and History: Luthers Doctrine of Creation
Revisited. Dialog: A Journal of Theology 44 (Spring 2005): 19-29.
_________. Natural Events as Crystals of God: Luthers Eucharistic Theology and the Question
of Natures Sacramentality, in Concern for Creation Voices on the Theology of Creation.
Svenska: Tro & Tanke, 1995.
Grimm, Harold J. Social Forces in the German Reformation. Church History 31 (March 1962):
3-13.
Gritsch, Eric W. The Use and Abuse of Luthers Political Advice, Lutherjahrbuch. Vol. 57
(1990): 207-219.
Groh, Dieter and Mitarbeit Birgit Praxl. Schpfung im Widerspruch: Deutungen der Natur und
des Menschen von der Genesis bis zur Reformation. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 2003.
Gunnemann, Jon P. Capitalism and Commutative Justice, The Annual of the Society of
Christian Ethics 23 (1985): 101-122.
Gunton, Colin E., ed. The Doctrine of Creation: Essays in Dogmatics, History and Philosophy.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd., 1997.
_________. The End of Causality? The Reformers and their Predecessors, The Doctrine of
Creation: Essays in Dogmatics, History and Philosophy.Edinburgh: T & T Clark Ltd., 1997.
Gustafson, James M. Ethics from a Theocentric Perspective. 2 vols. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1981.
Haendler, Gert. Luther on Ministerial Office and Congregational Function. trans.Ruth C. Gritsch
and Eric W. Gritsch. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.
Hall, Douglas John. Imaging God: Dominion as Stewardship. Grand Rapids: W. W. Eerdmans,
1986.
Hanke, Lewis. All Mankind is One: A Study of the Disputation between Bartolom de Las Casas
and Juan Gins de Seplveda in 1550 on the Intellectual and Religious Capacity of the
American Indians. DeKalb, Illinois: Northen Illinois University Press. 1974.
Bibliography 225
_________. Aristotle and the American Indians: A Study in Race Prejudice in the Modern
World. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1959.
Harran, Marilyn. Luther on Conversion. London: Cornell University Press, 1983.
Harnack, Theodosius. Luthers Theologie. 2 vols. Munich: C. Kaiser, 1927.
Hart, John. The Spirit of the Earth: A Theology of the Land. New York: Paulist Press, 1984.
_________. What Are They Saying About Environmental Theology? New York: Paulist Press,
2004.
Hartsough, Mildred. Jacob Fugger the Rich: Merchant and Banker of Ausburg, 1459-1525.
Translated by J. Strieder. New York: Adelphi Company, 1971.
Haught, John F. Ecology: Resoring Our Sense of Belonging. Woodstock Report No. 38 (June
1994): 1-6.
Hhle, Fritz. Luther und die Lehre von den zwei Reichen heute. Dresden: Polydruck, 1997.
Hawken, Paul. The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability. New York:
HarperCollins Publishers, 1993.
Hendrix, Scott. Luther on Marriage. Lutheran Quarterly 14 (Autumn 2000): 335-350.
_________. Recultivating the Vineyard: the Reformation Agendas of Christianization.
Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.
Hendry, George S. Theology of Nature. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1980.
Henninger, Frederick W. Luther and the Empire: A Study of the Imperial Ideal in Reformation
Politics, 1522-1540. Nebraska: University of Nebraska, 1972.
Herre, Franz. The Age of the Fuggers. Augsburg: Presse-Druck und Verlag GmbH, 1985.
Hertz, Frederick. The Development of the German Public Mind: A Social History of German
Political Sentiments, Aspirations, and Ideas. London: Allen and Unwin, 1957.
Hessel, Dieter T., ed. After Natures Revolt: Eco-Justice and Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1992.
_________. ed. For Creations Sake. Philadelphia: The Geneva Press, 1985.
Hill, Brennan R. Christian Faith and the Environment: Making Vital Connections. Maryknoll,
N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1998.
Holborn, Hajo. The Social Basis of the German Reformation. Church History 5 (September
1936): 330-339.
Holl, Karl. Die Kulturbedeutung der Reformation. Gesammelte Aufstze zur
Kirchengeschichte 1 (1932): 468 - 543.
_________. The Cultural Significance of the Reformation. Translated by Karl and Barbara
Hertz. New York: Meridian Books, 1959.
_________. The Reconstruction of Morality. Edited by James Luther Adams and Walter F.
Bense. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1979.
Holze, Heinrich. Luthers Concept of Creation: Five Remarks on his interpretation of First
article in the large catechism (1529), in Concern for Creation: Voices on the Theology
of Creation. Svenska: Tro & Tanke, 1995.
Horowitz, Elliott. The New World and the Changing Face of Europe, The Sixteenth Century
Journal 28 (Winter 1997): 1181-1201.
Hsia, R. Po-Chia. The World of Catholic Renewal, 1540-1770: New Approaches to European
History. Edinburgh: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Janssen, J. History of the German People at the Close of the Middle Ages. 17 vols. New York:
AMS Press,1896.
226 Bibliography
Janz, Denis, ed. A Reformation Reader: Primary Text with Introductions (with CD ROM).
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999.
_________. Three Reformation Catechisms: Catholic, Anabaptist, Lutheran. New York and
Toronto: The Edwin Mellon Press, 1982.
Joest, Wilfred. Ontologie der Person bei Luther. Gttingen: Vandenboeck & Ruprecht, 1967.
Jung, L. Shannon. Ethics, Agriculture, and the Material Universe, The Annual of the Society of
Christian Ethics 24 (1986): 219-250.
Karant-Nunn, Susan C. and Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks, eds. Luther and Women: A Sourcebook.
Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Kee, Howard Clark, et. al. Christianity: A Social and Cultural History. Second edition. Upper
Saddle River, N.J.: Printice Hall, Inc., 1998.
King, Martin Luther, Jr. A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin
Luther King, Jr. Edited by James M. Washington. San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers,
1986.
Kirkpatrick, Dow, ed. Faith Born in the Struggle for Life: A Rereading of Protestant Faith in
Latin America Today. trans. Lewiston McCoy. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988.
Kleckley, Russel. Omnes Creaturae Sacramenta: Creation, Nature, and World View in Luthers
Theology of the Lords Supper. Ph.D. Dissertation.Universitt Mnchen, 1990.
Kluger, Jeffrey. A Climate of Despair. Time Magazine 157 (April 9, 2001): 30-36.
Kstlin, Julius. Luthers Theologie. 2 vols. Stuttgart: J. F. Steinkopf, 1901.
Kramm, H. H. The Theology of Martin Luther. London: James Clarke & Co., 1947.
Kng, Hans. A Global Ethics for Global Politics and Economics. New York/ Oxford: Oxford
__________. Global Responsibility: In Search of a New World Ethic. New York: The Crossroad
Publishing Company, 1990.
Lage, Dietmar. Martin Luthers Christology and Ethics. Lewiston, N. Y.: The Edwin Mellen
Press, 1990.
Lau, Franz and Ernst Bizer. A History of the Reformation in Germany to 1555. London: Adam &
Charles Black, 1969.
_________. Schpfungsordnung. RGG 5 (1961): 1492-94.
Lazareth, William H. Luther on the Christian Home: An Application of the Social Ethics of the
Reformation. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960.
Lienhard, Marc. Luther and Human Rights. LWF Report 1 (September 1978): 66- 80.
_________. Luther: Witness to Jesus Christ: Stages and Themes of the Reformers Christology.
Translated by Edwin H. Robertson. Minneapolis: Ausburg Publishing House, 1982.
Lindberg, Carter. Beyond Charity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1993.
_________. Luther on Poverty, Lutheran Quarterly 16 (Sept. 2001): 85-101.
_________. Luther on Property and Poverty, Lutherjahrbuch. 57 (1990): 251-253.
_________ and Harry Loewen. Luther and the Radicals: Another Look at Some Aspects of the
Struggle Between Luther and the Radical Reformers. Ontario, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier
University, 1974.
_________. Martin Luther: Justified by Grace. Nashville: Graded Press, 1988.
_________ ed. Piety, Politics and Ethics: Reformation Studies in Honor of George Wolfgang
Forell. Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1984.
Bibliography 227
_________. The European Reformations. Malden: Blackwell, 1996.

_________. The Reformation Theologians: An Introduction to Theology in the Early Modern
Period. Oxford/Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell, 2002.
_________ and E. A. Hanawalt, ed. Through the Eye of the Needle. Missouri: Thomas Jefferson
Loewen, James W. Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got
Wrong. New York: Simon & Shuster, 1995.
Loewenich, Walther. Luthers theologia crucis. Mnchen: C. Kaiser, 1954.
Lfgren, David. Die Theologie der Schpfung bei Luther. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1960.
Lohse, Bernhard. A Short History of Christian Doctrine. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978.
_________. Lutherdeutung heute. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1968.
_________. Martin Luther: An Introduction to his Life and Work. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1986.
_________. Martin Luthers Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development. Translated
and edited by Roy A. Harrisville. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999.
Lull, Timothy. My Conversation with Martin Luther: in which I learn about God, Faith,
Marriage, Sexuality, Family, Education, War, Spirituality, Church Life, the Future,
Ecumenism, Politics, Heaven and Other Things, Too. Minneapolis:Augsburg Press, 1999.
Lutz, Charles, P. ed. A Reforming Church: Gift and Task: Essays from a Free Conference.
Minneapolis: Kirk House Publishers, 1995.
Maimela, Simon S. Responsibility for the World: Luthers Intentions and the Effects From the
South African Perspective, Lutherjahrbuch 57 (1990): 147-162.
Mkinen, Virpi, ed. Lutheran Reformation and the Law. Leiden/Boston: Brill,
Mathew, Kuzhippalli Skaria. Indo-Portuguese Trade and the Fuggers of Germany: Sixteenth
Century. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 1997.
_________. German Merchant-Financiers in Goa during the 16th and 17th Centuries in P. P.
Shirodkar, ed. Goas External Relations 12 (1992): 32-56.
Maimela, Simon S. Responsibility for the World: Luthers Intentions and the Effects From the
South African Perspective, Lutherjahrbuch 57 (1990): 147-162.
McDonagh, Sean. The Greening of the Church. Scoresby, Australia: The Canterbury Press, 1990.
_________. Passion for the Earth: The Christian Vocation to Promote Justice, Peace and the
Integrity of Creation. Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis Books, 1994.
McGrath, Alister E. Luthers Theology of the Cross: Martin Luthers Theological Breakthrough.
New York: B. Blackwell, 1985.
McNeill, John. Natural Law in the Thought of Luther. Church History 10 (September 1941):
211-227.
Meinhold, Peter. Society in Transition in the Age of the Reformation. The Sixteenth Century
Journal. Vol. 3 (April 1972): 25-36.
Menzel, Wolfgang. Germany from the Earliest Period. vol. II. New York: P.F. Collier, 1899.
Maurer, Wilhelm. Luthers Lehre von den drei Hierarchien und ihr mittelalterlicher Hintergrund.
Munich: Bayerishen Akademie der Wischenshften, 1970.
Miller, Vincent, J. Consuming Religion: Christian Faith and Practice in a Consumer Culture.
New York/London: Continuum, 2003.
Moe-Lobeda, Cynthia D. Healing a Broken World: Globalization and God. Minneapolis:
228 Bibliography

Moltmann, Jrgen. God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God. Munich:
Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1985.
_________. The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of
Christian Theology. New York: Harper & Row, 1974.
_________. Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian Eschatology.
New York: Harper & Row, 1967.
_________. The Power of the Powerless. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983.
Mueller, William. Church and State in Luther and Calvin: A Comparative Study. Nashville:
Broadman Press, 1954.
Murphy, Nancy. Theology, Cosmology, and Ethics. Dialog: A Journal of Theology. Vol. 36
(Summer 1997): 206-215.
Nash, James A. Loving Nature: Ecological Integrity and Christian Responsibility. Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1991.
_________. Toward the Ecological Reformation of Christianity. Interpreter 50 (January
1996): 13.
_________. Toward the Revival and Reform of the Subversive Virtue: Frugality. In Audrey R.
Chapman, Rodney L. Peterson, and Barbara Smith-Moran (eds.), Consumption, Population
and Sustainability: Perspectives from Science and Religion. Washington, D.C.: Island Press,
2000, 176-190.
Nash, Roderick F. The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics. Madison,
Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989.
Niebuhr, Reinhold. Ethics of Classical Reformation. Excerpts read by the author. Richmond,
Virginia: Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, 1979. Cassette.
_________. Faith and Politics: A Commentary on Religious, Social, and Political Thought in a
Technological Age. New York: G. Braziller, 1968.
_________. Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics. New York: Charles
Scribners Sons, 1960.
_________. The Nature and Destiny of Man. New York: C. Scribners Sons, 1949.
Nilsson, Gert. Theology of CreationA Challenge to Church and Society. In Concern for
Creation: Voices on the Theology of Creation. Svenska: Tro & Tanke, 1995.
Northcott, Michael S. The Environment and Christian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996.
Nrnberger, Klaus. Martin Luthers Message for Us Today: A Perspective from the South.
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa: Cluster Publications, 2005.
Nye, Joseph S. and John D. Donahue, eds. Governance in Globalizing World. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Brookings Institution Press, 2000.
Nygren, Anders. Agape and Eros. Translated by Philip S. Watson. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1982.
_________. Luthers Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms. London: International Fellowship of
Reconciliation, 1959.
Oberman, Heiko A., ed. Luther and the Dawn of the Modern Era. Papers for the Fourth
International Congress for Luther Research. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974.
_________. Luther: Man Between God and Evil. Trans. Eileen Walliser-Schwarzbart. New
York: Image Books, 1989.
Bibliography 229
_________. The Dawn of Reformation. United Kingdom: St. Edmundsbury, 1986.

_________. The Impact of the Reformation. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
House, 1994.
ODonovan, Oliver and Joan Lockwood ODonovan, eds. From Iranaeus to Grotuis: A
Sourcebook in Christian Political Thought. Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K.:
William Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999.
Olson, Dennis. God the Creator: Bible, Creation, Vocation, Dialog: A Journal of Theology 36
(Fall 1997): 169-174.
Ozment, Steven E. Ancestors: The Loving Family in Old Europe. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 2001.
_________ and Adam G. Beaver. A Mighty Fortress: A New History of the German People. New
York: HarperCollins, 2004.
_________. Flesh and Spirit: Private Life in Early Modern Germany. New York: Viking, 1999.
_________. Protestants: The Birth of A Revolution. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
_________. The Age of Reform, 1250-1550. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980.
_________. When Fathers Ruled: Family Life in Reformation Europe. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1983.
Pagden, Anthony. The Fall of Natural Man: The American Indian and the Origins of the
Comparative Ethnology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Pascal, Roy. The Social Basis of the German Reformation: Martin Luther. New York: Augustus
M. Kelley, 1963. Reprint, New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1971.
Peacocke, A. R. Creation and the World of Science: The Bampton Lectures. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1970.
Pearson, M. N. Before Colonialism: Theories on Asian-European Relations, 1500-1750. New
Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Pelikan, Jaroslav J. Obedient Rebels. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1964.
Persaud, Winston. Globalization and Fragmentation: Las Casas and Luther in Context. Dialog:
A Journal of Theology. Vol. 36 (Winter 1997): 25-31.
Peters, Albrecht. Kommentar zu Luthers Katechismen. Band 2. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1992.
Peters, Thomas. Cherish the Word: Reflections on Luthers Spirituality. St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1984.
Pflanz, Hans Henning. Geschichte und Eschatologie bei Martin Luther. Stuttgart: W.
Kohlhammer, 1939.
Popper, Karl. The Open Society and Its Enemies. 2 vols. London: Routledge, 1945.
Prien, Hans-Jrgen. Luthers Wirtschaftsethik. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992.
Raines, John C. Luthers Two Kingdoms and the Desacralization of Ethics. Encounter 31
(Spring 1970): 121-148.
Rajashekar, J. Paul William. Faith Active in Love and Truth Realized in Love: A Comparative
Study of the Ethics of Martin Luther and Mahatma Gandhi. Ph.D. Thesis. Iowa City:
University of Iowa, 1981.
Rasmussen, Larry L. Earth Community, Earth Ethics. New York: Orbis Books, 1996.
_________. Returning to Our Senses: The Theology of the Cross as a Theology for Eco-
Justice, in Dieter Hessels After Natures Revolt. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
_________. The Integrity of Creation: What Can it Mean for Christian Ethics, The Annual of
230 Bibliography
the Society of Christian Ethics. Vol. 85 (1995): 161-175.

_________. The Return to Cosmology. Dialog: A Journal of Theology. Vol. 36 (Winter
1997): 17-24.
Rieth, Ricardo Willy. Habsucht bei Martin Luther. Leipzig: Verlag Hermann Nachfolger
Weimar GmbH & Co., 1996.
_________. Luther on Greed, Lutheran Quarterly 15 (2001): 336-351.
Ritter, Gerhard. Luther und die Politische Erziehung der Deutschen. Mnchen: Druck von R.
Oldenbourg, 1945.
Rivera-Pagan, Luis. A Violent Evangelism: The Political and Religious Conquest of the
Americas. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992.
Rolston, Holmes, III. Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World.
Philadelphia: Temple Univeristy Press, 1998.
_________. Environmental Ethics: Some Challenges for Christians, The Annual of the Society
of Christian Ethics 86 (July-Aug. 1996): 37-50.
Rosenberg, Nathan and L. E. Bridzell, Jr. How the West Grew Rich: The Economic
Transformation of the Industrial World. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1985.
Ruether, Rosemary R. Gaia and God: An Ecofeminist Theology of Earth Healing. San Francisco:
Harper Collins, 1994
Ruge, Sophus. Geschichte des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen. Berlin: G. Grote, 1881.
Rupp, Gordon. The Righteousness of God. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1953.
Santmire, H. Paul. Celtic Saints and the Ecology of Death. Dialog: A Journal of Theology 41
(Winter 2002): 302-309.
_________. In Gods Ecology. The Christian Century 117 (December 13, 2000): 1301-1305.
_________. Nature Reborn: The Ecological and Cosmic Promise of Christian Theology.
_________. The Travail of Nature: The Ambiguous Ecological Promise of Christian Theology.
Sardar Ziauddin and Merryl Wyn Davies. Why Do People Hate America? New York: The
Disinformation Company Ltd., 2002.
Schapiro, Jacob Salwyn. Social Reform and the Reformation. Studies in History, Economics and
Public Law. Vol. 34, no. 2. New York: Columbia University Press, 1909.
Schmiechen, James. A History of Western Society: A Study Guide. 2 volumes, 6th edition,
Boston: Houghton, 1999.
Schpfungsglaube von der Bioethik Herausgefordert. Ratzeburg: Martin Luther Verlag
Erlangen, 2001.
Schultz, Henry King. Martin Luthers Social Ethics: A Study of the Origins and Applications of
Principal Elements in the Reformers Social Thought. Ottawa: National Library of Canada,
1983.
Schwanke, Johannes. Creatio ex nihilo: Luthers Lehre von der Schpfung aud dem Nichts in der
Groen Genesisvorlesung, 1535-1545. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004.
_________. Luther on Creation. Lutheran Quarterly 16 (2002): 1-20.
Schwarz, Reinhard. Luthers Lehre von den drei Stnden und die drei Dimensionen der Ethik.
Lutherjahrbuch. vol. 45 (1978): 15-34.
_________. Luther on Creation, Lutheran Quarterly 16 (2002): 1-20.
Schwartz, Hans. Martin Luthers Understanding of Vocation in Light of Todays Problems.
Bibliography 231
Lutheran Theological Journal 30 (May 1996): 4-12.

Schwiebert, Ernest. Luther and His Times. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950.
_________. The Medieval Pattern in Luthers Views of the State. Church History 12 (1943):
98-117.
Sessions, Kyle C., ed. Reformation and Authority: The Meaning of the Peasants Revolt.
Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath & Company, 1968.
Simmons, Ernest L., Jr. Creation in Luthers Theology of the Cross. Dialog: A Journal of
Theology 30 (Winter 1991): 50-58.
Sinnema, Donald. Luther and Calvin on Christianity and Politics. Toronto: Association for the
Advancement of Christian Scholarship, 1977.
Smith, Preserved. The Social Background of the Reformation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston Incorporated, Collier Books, 1967.
Snyder, Gary. Grace. Co-evolution Quarterly 3. (Fall 1984): 1-3.
Selle, Dorothee. On Earth As In Heaven: A Liberation Spirituality of Sharing. Trans. Marc
Batko. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.
_________. The Silent Cry: Mysticism and Resistance. Trans. Barbara and Martin Rumscheidt.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001
_________. To Work and To Love: A Creation Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
Sorrel, Roger. St. Francis and Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Spitz, Lewis W. The Protestant Reformation 1517-1559. New York: Harper & Row, 1985.
Strauss, Gerald. Luthers House of Learning: Indoctrination of the Young in the German
Reformation. London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1978.
Strieter, Thomas. Called to be Political (But I dont want to be political!): A Workshop Focusing
on the teachings of Martin Luther on the Role of Christians in politics. Chicago: Women
of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 2002.
Strohl, Jane E. Luthers Eschatology: The Last Times and the Last Things. Ph. D. Diss.
University of Chicago, 1989.
Tappert, Theodore, ed. Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel: Library of Christian Classics.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955.
Taylor, Henry O. Thought and Expression in the Sixteenth Century. 2nd ed. New York: Ungar,
1959.
Tawney, R. H. Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. New York: Hardcourt Brace, 1926.
Thackeray, Frank W. and John E. Findling. Events that Changed the World through the Sixteenth
Century. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2001.
Theibault, John. The Early Modern Rural Economy Today, The Sixteenth Century Journal 28
(Spring 1997): 143-148.
Thompson, W.D. Cargill. The Political Thought of Martin Luther. Brighton: Harvester Press,
1984.
Tillmanns, Walter G. The World and Men Around Luther. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing
House, 1959.
Tinker, George E. Missionary Conquest: The Gospel and Native American Cultural Genocide.
__________, Clara Sue Kidwell and Homer Noley. A Native American Theology. New York:
Orbis Books, 2001.
__________, Richard A. Grounds and David E. Wilkins, eds. Native Voices: American Indian
232 Bibliography
Identity and Resistance. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2003.

Todorov, Teveran. The Conquest of America: The Question of the Other. New York: Harper &
Row, 1984.
Tonkin, J. M. Luthers Interpretation of Secular Reality. The Journal of Religious History 6
(December 1970): 133-150.
Tranvik, Mark. Luther on Baptism. Lutheran Quarterly. 13 (Spring 1999): 75-90.
Trigg, Jonathan. Baptism in the Theology of Luther. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994.
Trinkhaus, Charles. In Our Image and Likeness: Humanity and Divinity in Italian Humanist
Thought. 2 vols. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1970.
_________. The Religious Foundations of Luthers Social Views. Essays in Medieval Life and
Thought. Edited by John H. Mundy and others. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955.
Troeltsch, Ernst. Luther, der Protestantismus und die moderne Welt. In Gesammelte Schriften.
Vol. 4. Edited by H. Baron. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1925.
_________. Protestantism and Progress: A Historical Study of the Relation of Protestantism to
the Modern World. 2nd ed. trans. by W. Montgomery. Berlin and Leipzig: B. G. Teubner,
1909.
_________. The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches. 2 vols. Translated by Olive Wyon.
London: Allen and Unwin, 1931.
Vogel, Heinrich J. Vogels Cross Reference and Index to the Contents of Luthers Works: A
Cross Reference Between the American Edition and the St. Louis, Weimar, and Erlangen
Editions of Luthers Works. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Northwestern Publishing House, 1983.
Walker, Willinston. A History of the Christian Church. 3rd edition, revised Robert T. Handy.
New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1970.
Wallerstein, Immanuel Maurice. The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the
Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic
Press, 1974.
Watson, Philip S. Let God Be God: An Interpretation of The Theology of Martin Luther.
Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1948
Weber, Max. Luthers Conception of Calling. In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism. Trans. Taleott Persons. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1930.
Weber, Wolfgang. What A Good Ruler Should Not Do?: Theoretical Limits of Royal Power in
European Theories of Absolutism, 1500-1700, in Sixteenth Century Journal 26 (1995): 897-
915.
Wee, Paul A. Luthers War on Poverty: Wittenberg Principles Apply Today, The Lutheran 28
(November 1997): 26-27.
Weems, Lovett Hayes. Resources in Martin Luthers Thought for the Church Efforts to Influence
Public Policy. D. Min. Thesis. Washington, D.C.: Wesley Theological Seminary, 1972.
Wengert, Timothy J., ed. Harvesting Martin Luthers Reflections on Theology, Ethics, and the
Church. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004.
Westermann, Claus. The Roots of Wisdom. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1994.
Westhelle, Vitor. Cross, Creation, and Ecology. The Meeting Point Between the Theology of
the Cross and Creation Theology in Luther, in Concern for Creation: Voices on the
Theology of Creation. Svenska: Tro & Tanke, 1995.
_________. Thinking About Luther in a Submersed Reality, Lutherjahrbuch 57 (1990): 163-
173.
Bibliography 233
White, Lynn. The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis. Science 155 (March 1967): 1203-
1207.
Wicks, Jared, ed. Catholic Scholars Dialogue with Luther. Chicago: Loyola University Press,
1970.
Williams, George H. The Radical Reformation. 3rd edition. Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal
Publishers, 1992.
_________. Wilderness and Paradise in Christian Thought. New York: Harper & Row, 1962.
Wingren, Gustaf. Creation and Gospel: The New Situation in European Theology. New York:
The Edwin Mellen Press, 1979.
_________. Das Problem des Natrlichen bei Luther. Lutherstudien 1 (1971): 237-285.
_________. Luther on Vocation. trans. Carl C. Rasmussen. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press,
1957.
_________. The Concept of Vocation: Its Basis and Problems. Lutheran World 15 (1968): 87-
95.
Witte, John. From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion, and the Law in the Western
Tradition. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997.
Wogaman, Philip. Christian Ethics: A Historical Introduction. Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox
Press, 1993.
Wright, A. D. The Counter-Reformation: Catholic Europe and the Non-Christian World. New
York: Saint Martins Press, 1982.
Yule, George, ed. Luther: Theologian for Catholics and Protestants. Edinburgh: T&T Clark
Ltd., 1985.
Ziemke, Donald. Love for the Neighbor in Luthers Theology. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing
House,1963.
Index
anthropocentric: defined, 13
aboriginal peoples: belief on kinship with
anthropocentric Luther: ix, 127-167
nature, ix, 3, 142, 38n, 152-153, 167, 198;
anthropocentricism, 2, 4, 7, 11, 12, 14, 131,
belief on God in creation, 175;
146, 157, 173, 207
Christianization of, 132, 12n, 145, 154,
anthropological dualism, 133-140, 15n
163, 97n; culture: 10; exploitation of: 44,
anthropology, 133, 136, 140, 164, 101n, 195
61-62, 118, 127, 143, 149, 153, 211;
Antinomians, 20, 23n
extinction of, 3, 62, 52n, 118, 127, 149,
apartheid, 169
152, 211; regarded as heathen, 148, 157
Apilado, Mariano, 143-144, 51n
Abraham, 141, 41n, 142
Aquinas, Thomas, 45, 6n
Acosta, Jos, 164, 101n
Arab invasions, 56
Address to the Christian Nobility of the
Aristotle, 45, 6n, 136-138, 26n, 158-159,
German Nation, 55
98n
Adam, 106, 142n, 133, 189, 192, 93n
Armstrong, Edward, 197, 112n
Admonition to Peace, 47, 11n, 48, 16n
arrogance, 10, 75, 103, 115, 211, 213, 215
adultery, 93-94, 180
Asendorf, Ulrich, 37, 84n, 99, 120n
Africa, 3, 57, 144-145, 160, 209
Asia, 2, 145, 209
African jungle, 209
Augustine, Saint: theology, 10, 17n, 22, 31n,
Agoncillo, Teodoro, 58, 41n
35, 74n, 66, 5n, 91, 129, 5n, 130-132, 133,
agrarian society, 44-52, 45, 5n
15n, 134, 19n, 135, 21n, 22n, 141, 41n,
Agricola, Johann, 20, 23n
142, 150, 152, 155, 86n, 172, 175, 25n,
allegories, 3, 174, 175, 26n, 176, 204
176, 184, 64n, 186, 78n
allegorical interpretation, 3, 174-176, 204
Austria, 53
Althaus, Paul, 6, 10n, 16, 8n, 19, 19n, 26
44n, 29, 52n, 83, 60n, 87, 75n, 87, 75n,
Barbarians, 3, 148, 153
109, 152n, 154n, 136, 28n, 140, 28n, 151,
Barbour, Ian, 116, 183n
70n, 78n, 152, 76n, 157, 92n, 186, 73n
Barros, Marcelo de, 128, 3n
Amazon rainforest, 164, 209
barter economy, 45, 49
American Indians, 151, 61n
Battle of Mactan, 58, 41n
American precious metals, 49-50, 56, 36n,
Bayer, Oswald, 133, 18n
61, 62, 52n
Bergreen, Laurence, 56, 36n
Americas, 3, 9, 43, 49, 50, 57-58, 40n, 62,
Berry, Thomas, 128, 3n, 161, 107n, 165,
52n, 144, 158, 97n, 160, 215; South, 3,
123n
145
biocentricity, 128, 163
Anabaptists, 66, 6n, 101
biocentric salvation, 147
ancestral land, 44, 144, 148, 152, 158, 205
235
236 Index
biodiversity, 121, 145 143-145, 198; theological complaint

biology, 194 against, 116, 183n, 139, 38n, 147-148;
biomass energy, 213 Western tradition against nature, ix, 133-
biosphere, 163 140, 149-150, 157, 95n
Black Death, 56 Christocentric, 119
Blickle, Peter, 46, 7n City of God, 35, 74n, 130, 133, 15n, 141,
Boff, Leonardo, 128, 3n 146, 46n, 184, 64n, 187, 78n
Bondage of the Will, 197, 91n Cobb, John B., Jr., 139, 38n
born again, 75, 32n, 44, 2n, 173, 14n co-creator, 10, 19n, 186-195
Bornkamm, Heinrich, 16, 8n, 22, 36n Columbus, Christopher, 57-58, 40n, 59
Bosch, David, 131, 11n commons: defined, 46; 205, 208; global, 209
bourgeoisie, 49 communitarian, 149
boycott, 102 commonwealth, 208, 209, 210
Braudel Fernand, 45, 3n, 4n, 49, 17n, 18n, Confessions, 150, 174
19n Constantino, Renato, 58, 41n
Brazil, 58 consumerism, 212
Brendler, Gerhard, 55, 34n corpus Christianum, 24, 61n, 106
Brosch, Fredrik, 151, 71n, 72n Corts, Hernando, 59, 45n
Browning, John, 207, 8n cosmic homelessness, 146
Buddhist, 163 cosmology, 146
Bhler, Pierre, 37, 84n Counter-Reformation, 59, 60
Cowie, Leonard, 46, 5n, 57, 39n, 59, 43n
Calvin, John, 66, 129, 5n, 135, 150, 158, Coward, Harold, 128, 4n
176, 29n co-worker, 10, 19n, 70, 99, 186-195, 217
Callicott, Baird, 137, 31n, 162, 110n, 163, creatio: defined, 11
116n, 164,118n creation: defined, 65; dominion over, 62;
calling, 11 ethics of, 1; Eucharistic community, 176;
Canada, ix, 3 integrity of, 3; living preachers, 124;
cannibals, 3, 148 sacrament, 176; theology of, 4-5; work of
capitalism, 44-52, 77, 205 God:, 128
Caravias, Jos Luis, 128, 3n creatio ex nihilo, 5, 188, 189, 191
carbon dioxide emission, 209, 210, 16n creatura or creaturae: defined, 11
Caribbean islands, 145 Crossley, Robert, 48, 14n
Casas, Bartolom de las, 58, 40n, 62-63, cross-bearing, 210, 216-217
54n, 55n, 158, 96n, 97n, 159, 101n Crow, Fools, 128, 3n
cathecism: defined, 180 Cruel predators, 120, 122, 211. See also
Charles V, 52-55, 58, 158, 97n Predation
children, 28, 179, 44n, 180, 198, 207 Crusades, 59
China, 87, 73n curse of the earth, 124
Christian ethics, 21-22, 216
Christianity: belief in creation, 132, 133, 5n, David, king, 99, 110
143; dualistic heritage, 137; Eurocentric debt-burdened countries, 149, 210
mission, 3, 4, 127, relationship with debt servicing, 209
nature, 2-3, 7, 132, 12n, 143, 150, 157, deforestation, 47, 48, 144, 150, 209
95n, 198; missionary expansion, 3, 59-60, De doctrina Christiana, 155, 86n
Index 237
Deloria, Vine, Jr., 2, 2n, 148, 61n, 62n, 153,

78n, 158, 96n, 164, 120n, 121n, 166, family, viii, 28, 80-85, 205
126n, 205-206, 7n Ferdinand of Aragon, 57, 59
Diet of Worms, 20, 22n, 53-54 feudalism, 8, 9, 43-45, 48
Dionysius of Alexandria, 174 Ficino, Florentine Marsilio, 186, 77n
diversity, 2. See also biodiversity filial obedience, 28, 214
divorce, 89, 92-93 Filipinos, 58, 41n
dominion perspective, 13, 114, 116, 117 finality of things, 38, 203-204. See also
166. 199 Nearness of the End
double predestination, 152 Fire, John, 162, 111n
dualism, 133-140, 162, 164, 188, 205. See First Nations, 147
also Anthropological Dualism First World nations, 209
Fletcher, Susan, 210, 16n
Earth Day, 116, 183n Forell, George, 6, 11n, 75, 31n
Eastern tradition, 4, 205 Forde, Gerhard, 6, 11n, 38-39, 87n, 88n,
Ebeling, G., 133, 17n 171-172, 9n, 203, 1n
ecclesia, 70, 106-110 Fox, Matthew, 128, 3n, 166, 125n, 125, 39n
ecology, viii; defined, 12 Fowler, Robert Booth, 155, 84n, 156, 91n
ecologist, viii France, 53, 54
economics: defined, 12; 50 Francis, Saint, 117, 129, 5n, 197
economists, 9, 95 Frederick the Wise, 54, 55, 100
economy: defined, 12; 214 Freedom of the Christian, 54
Edwards, Mark, 54, 32n, 86, 73n Frimmer, Steven, 56, 36n
Egypt, 76, 39n, 211 frugality, 76-77, 210, 211-213
Eisenstein, Elizabeth, 86, 73n Frunkfurt, 77, 212
Eisleben, 75, 31n Fuggers, 51, 23n, 53, 97
election belief, 150-154, 74n Fhner, Wener, 20, 21n
Elk, Black, 128, 3n
Empedocles, 137 Galeano, Eduardo, 62, 52n
encomienda, 63, 55n Gebara, Ivone, 128, 3n
endemic diseases. See Epidemics. Gentz, William, 138, 34n
Engels, Freidrich, 47, 8n Germany, 46, 53, 54, 61, 47n, 77, 87, 88,
England, 53 73n, 100, 211, 212
environment, defined, viii,12 Germans, 46, 7n, 76, 39n, 211
environmentalist, viii globalization, viii, 6, 7, 36, 80n, 48, 49, 51,
Epicurus, 137, 32n 63, 84, 98, 103, 205, 206, 208
Erasmus, Desiderius, 36, 74n, 151 global warming, 158, 209, 210, 16n
Espinosa, Alfonso, 22, 29n gluttony, 13, 78, 211
ethics of kinship, viii, 1, 149, 161, 163, 165, golden rule, 17
170, 197, 198, 205, 206, 214, 215 Gore, Al, 1, 1n
ethnology, 164 gospel for omni creaturae, 195-202
eucharistic beings, 172 government, 13, 24, 37n, 97, 101, 126n,
Eurocentricism, 59, 63, 158-167 112, 208, 210
European culture, 43, 1n, 59, 42n Great Peasants War, 54, 80, 90
extinction, 121, 151-152
238 Index
greed, 5, 9, 47-48, 63, 75, 77-78, 103 117, Imperial Roman Law, 46, 7n
164, 191, 211, 213, 215 imitatio Christi, 22
Greek philosophy, 133, 15n incarnation, 33, 171, 193-194
greenhouse gases, 209, 210, 16n India, 56, 57
Gregory, Saint, 196 indigenous American culture, 159, 101n,
Grounds, Richard, 154, 80n 162
Grnenberg, Hans, 51 individualism, 43, 59, 42n, 130-131, 136,
Gustafson, James, 194, 100n, 101n, 195, 11n, 149, 150, 205
102n, 201, 125n Industrial Revolution, 144, 160
Gutenberg, Johannes, 86, 73n inferiority of women, 170-171, 206
infidels, 3, 59, 153-154
Hanke, Lewis, 158, 97n, 159, 99n, 100n integrity of creation, 81, 111, 120, 167
Harmelink, Daniel, 22, 28n intercommunion, 163
Hart, John, 128, 3n, 4n, 171, 7n, 182, 40n interconnectedness, viii, 162, 175, 177, 199
198, 115n interdependence, viii, 1, 2, 11, 26, 79, 161,
Hartsough, Mildred, 51, 23n 162, 170, 176, 198
Haught, John, 128, 3n, 146, 56n, 204, 115n International Monetary Fund, 210
Hhle, Fritz, 24, 36n interrelationship, viii, 1, 2, 139, 161, 162,
health of the whole, ix, 120, 210 176, 198, 214
heaven, 132, 14n intrumentalism, 157, 161-162, 169
Hebraic thought, 138, 188, 213 Iranaeus, 129, 5n
Hellenistic, 127, 165, 195 Isabella of Castile, 57, 59
Hendry, George, 5, 7n, 9, 17n, 66, 5n, 145 Islam, 56, 36n, 154
Henry the navigator, 57
Hertz, Karl, 16, 7n Janz, Denis, 141, 42n
Hierarchical view on nature, 188 Japan, 210, 16n
Hilary of Poitiers, 174, 175, 25n, 176, 31n Japanese, 209, 14n
holistic mission, 147 Joest, Wilfred, 133, 17n
Holl, Karl, 6, 11n John I, King, 57
Holy Roman Empire, 51, 23n; defined, 52 Judaism, 154
household: defined, 12; 80-83 justice: distributive, 139; economic, 2, 8
Hsia, R. Po-Chia, 58, 41n justification by faith, 130, 150
humanism, 43-44, 186, 77n
humility, 26-27, 76, 102, 120, 121, 190, 210, Karant-Nunn, Susan, 96, 103n
213-214 Karlstadt, 66, 6n, 85
Hutter, John, 66, 6n Katharina von Bora, 80
Kee, Howard Clark, 53, 30n, 203, 213
Iberian Peninsula, 56-57 Kim, Sebastian H. C., 199
idolatry, 10, 75, 103, 115, 191-192, 198, kingdom of God, 24, 27, 76, 166, 203, 213
207, 211, 213, 215 kinship, See Ethics of Kinship
imago Dei: defined, 13; 34, 75, 116, 121, Kleckley, Russell, 65, 1n
170, 179, 183, 60n, 187, 188, 189, 84n, Kleinhana, T.J., 138, 34n
194, 202, 214, 215 Kluger, Jeffrey, 209, 15n
immanence of God, 169, 177, 188, 203 Kolde, Dietrich, 141
immigrants (foreign settlers), 3, 4 Korea, 86, 73n
Index 239
Koreans, 209, 14n supper, 33-34, 181, 32n, 33n; on love of

Kyoto Protocol, 210, 16n neighbor: 35-37; on marriage, 8, 9, 13, 88-
94; on masks of God: 30-31, 56n; on
Lafitau, Joseph, 159-160, 101n natural law, 8, 10, 18n,15-18; on orders of
Lage, Dietmar, 22, 28n creation, 9, 10, 12, 24, 36n, 40-41, 65-130,
Landlords, 44 15n, 223; on political ethics, 5-6, 8, 10, 24,
Lapulapu, 58, 41n 36n, 25, 96-108; on priesthood of all
Lau Franz, 9, 16n, 66, 3n believers: 29, 83, 86; on rare birds on
larva Dei: defined, 30-31, 41, 97, 105, 109, earth: 18, 23, 30, 94, 185, 211, 224; on
173, 177, 178, 184, 191, 216 reason: defined, 15, 17; 88; on relationship
Latin America, 209 between God and nature, 10, 171-186; on
law of nature: see natural law sacredness of all vocations, 9, 26-29, 73,
Lazareth, William, 13, 26n, 74, 29n, 81, 25n; social ethics, 8, 15-41, 66; on sola
50n, 215, 34n scriptura, 8, 20-22; on soteriology, 6, 8,
Legazpi, Miguel Lopez de, 58 18, 32, 34-35, 38, 69; on theology of the
Leo X, 52-54 creation, 5, 29-31, 66-67; on theology of
Lienhard, Marc, 22, 29n, 23, 35n the cross, 8, 38, 90, 92, 190, 200, 216; on
Lindberg, Carter, 53, 30n, 55, 35n, 141, 43n two-kingdom doctrine, 8, 24-26, 37, 73;
Lindenau, Sigmund von, 91 on world affirmation, 10, 39-41, 85n, 66-
Loewenich, Walther von, 29, 51n 67, 95-105; spiritual conversion, 44, 2n;
Lfgren, David, 5, 5n, 66, 6n, 69, 12n on youth: 13, 26n, 85-89, 186-187
Lohse, Bernhard, 6, 11n, 12, 22n, 22, 29n, Luther, Martin II, 80, 50n
25, 40n, 27, 46n, 29, 51n, 31, 62n, 40, 92n Luther, Paul, 80, 50n
123, 210n, 133, 17n Lyra, Nicolaus de, 95, 100n
Lombard, Peter, 90, 84n
Lotther, Melchior, 51-52 Magellan, Ferdinand, 58
love as a creational virtue, 35-38, 74-75, Maguire, Daniel, 132, 4n
121, 187, 195, 198, 200, 210, 214-216 Manetti,Florentine Giannozzi, 186, 77n
Luther, Elizabeth, 80, 50n Manifest Destiny, 154
Luther, John, 80, 50n marriage, viii, 11, 81, 89-96, 205, 207
Luther, Magdalene, 80, 50n Matthew, Kuzhippalli Skaria, 50, 23n
Luther, Margaret, 80, 50n Maurer, Wilhelm, 71, 16n
Luther, Martin: as a monk, 44, 2n; McDonagh, Sean, 209, 14n
conversion experience, 44, 2n; on McGrath, Alister, 29, 52n
authority of scripture, 20-22, 22n; on McNeill, John, 16, 7n
baptismal theology, 8, 32-33, 61n; on Melanchton, Philip, 40
Christian home, 13, 26n, 72; on Mendieta, Gernimo de, 60
Christology, 8, 22-24, 28n; on economic metaphysical, 176
ethics, 5-6, 8, 10; on eschatology, 8, 37- mining, 44, 50
40, 82n, 92; on ethic of the household, 80, missiological sense, 170, 204
80-83; on ethics of natural world, 6-7, 1n, Moe-Lobeda, Cynthia, 6, 12n
38, 56n, 64, 98; on family, 8, 9, 13; on Moltmann, Jurgen, 127-128, 1n, 2n, 136,
globalization, 5, 8; on integrity of creation, 13n, 135-136, 25n, 172, 12n, 173, 13n
9, 40-41; on justification by faith, 18, 23, monasticism, 43, 44, 2n
154; on law and gospel: 18-19; on Lords Moors, 56, 59
240 Index
Mosaic Law, 18, 20 Peters, Thomas, 20, 21n

Moses, 16, 19, 68, 108, 174-176, 26n, 204 Pflanz, Han Henning, 37, 84n
Mntzer, 66, 6n, 86 Philip II, 49, 17n, 59
Muslim, 56-57 Philippines, vii, 3, 4, 9, 58, 41n, 59, 143
pilgrims, 142, 146, 155
Nash, James, 120, 200n, 147, 60n, 166, Pilgrimage on Earth, 131, 141-149
109n, 194, 99n Plato, 115, 135, 21n
nationalism, 54 Plotinus, 138, 37n
natural law, 10, 18n, 15-18, 33n, 78, 179 politia: defined, 13
nature: defined, 65; full of Bible, 182 political ethics, 25-26
nemein: defined, 12 politics: defined, 13
neo-colonizers, 210 politicus: defined, 13
Neo-Platonism, 138, 37n poor, vii, 46, 47, 48, 97, 103, 148, 167, 210,
nephesh: defined, 137-138 212
Netherlands, 49, 17n Portugal, 57-58
New World, 50, 59, 60, 61 poverty, 208
Nicholas of Lyra, 174 predation, 153, 159, 168, 206, 215, 216
Noah, viii, 1 predestination, 150-154. See also Election
Northcott, Michael, 5, 7n Prester John, 56, 36n
Nrnberger, Klaus, 152, 73n, 154, 79n Prien, Han-Jrgen, 5, 8n, 72, 20n
Nygren, Anders, 24, 36n Prince Philip of Spain, 59
printing press, 9, 44, 51, 86-87, 73n
Oberman, Heiko Augustinus, 55, 33n private property, 47-48
Oecolampadius, Johannes, 177 propagation, 118, 126
oiconomia: defined, 13; prophet, 1, 2, 9, 44, 203, 205, 207
oikos: defined, 13 prophetic ministry, 109-113
oil, 212 Protagoras, 186
Old Germanic Law, 46, 7n Protestant ethic, 150-151, 68n
Orden: defined, 11 Puritans, 150-151, 68n
orders of creation, see Luther, Martin Pythagoras, 135, 23n
Ordnung: defined, 11
Oriental tradition, 138. See Eastern tradition racism, 158-160
Origen, 129, 5n, 134, 19n, 138, 37n, 174 Raines, John, 24, 35n
original sin, 41 rare birds on earth. See Luther, Martin
overconsumption, viii, 12, 77-79, 105, 143, Rasmussen, Larry, 5, 7n, 128, 4n, 177-178,
198, 211, 212 35n, 187, 80n
reciprocity: defined, 149, 154
pagans, 148 reconquista, 56, 59, 44n
Pagden, Anthony, 164, 101n redemption of creation, 132, 14n, 217
panentheistic: defined, 178 Reformation, 44, 2n, 52, 55, 100
Paul, Saint, 17, 122, 130, 134, 19n, 138, religion of love, 139, 165, 206
21n, 144, 41n, 146, 156, 172, 203, 214 Renaissance, 43, 1n, 56, 57, 59, 42n, 186,
parental authority, 81-82, 53n 76n, 77n
parsonage, 80 repentance, 19, 99, 108, 207
Peacocke, A. R., 186, 77n, 193, 97n, 98n resurrection, 138
Index 241
retribution, 122, 135, 13n stewardship, 2, 148, 161-162, 199, 205, 206
Rieth, Ricardo, 7, 9n Stoicism, 137
Righteousness, 122-125 Strauss, Gerald, 40, 89n, 90n, 179, 44n, 207,
Robertson, Edwin, 22, 28n 9n
Roman Catholic, 55 Strieter, Thomas, 96, 107n, 107, 98n
Rome, 53, 54 Strohl, Jane, 37, 84n
Romero, Emilio, 62, 52n subhumans, 3
Ruehel, John, 12, 25n, 39, 90, 85n sustainability, viii-ix, 12, 24n, 13, 121,
Ruether, Rosemary Radford, 62, 52n, 128, 191n, 163, 171, 217
3n, 145, 53n Switzerland, 53
symbiotic, 170
Saccas, Ammonius, 138, 37n syphilis, 61, 112
salvation, spiritual, 132, 37n Tappert, Theodore, 109, 155n, 145, 54n
Santmire, H. Paul, 5, 7n, 7, 5n, 7n, 8n, 129 Tasmania, 145
5n, 141-142, 45n, 146, 58n, 150, 66n, 155, Tawney, R. H., 97, 110n
85n, 160, 105n, 166, 108n, 169-170, 2n, Tetzel, John, 53
197, 111n, 113n, 199, 117n, 118n Thackeray, Frank, 57, 37n, 86-87, 73n
savage, 3, 148, 153 theocentric: defined, 13
Schpfung: defined, 11 theocentric Luther, viii, 169-202
Schmiechen, James, 43, 1n theocentricism, 6-7, 10
scholasticism, 4, 45 theodicy, 123
Schultz, Henry King, 66, 6n theologia cruces. See Theology of the Cross
Schwanke, Johanne, 5, 6n, 68, 9n, 69, 13n in Luther, Martin
Schwarz, Reinhard, 72, 21n Third World, 143, 209, 210
Seplveda, Juan Gins de, 158, 97n Tillmann, Walter, 9, 14n, 52, 27n, 57, 38n,
Sermon on the Mount, 47, 13n 58, 40n
sex, 88-94, 207 Tinker, George, 149-150, 64n, 65n, 154, 80n
Simmons, Ernest, 179, 46n Todorov, Teveran, 62, 52n
Simons, Menno, 66, 6n tower experience (Turmerlebnis), 44, 2n
Sinclair, Upton, 1 Tranvik, Marc, 32, 62n
sins of overindulgence, 211-212 Treaty of Tordesillas, 58
slavery, 158-159, 98n, 161, 165 Tribal religions, 2, 149
Snyder, Gary, 163, 112n trichotomy, 137
Soelle, Dorothee, 135, 24n, 139-140, 39n, Trigg, Jonathan, 31, 61n
140, 40n, 166-167, 128n, 129n, 130n Trinkhaus, Charles, 186, 77n
sojourner, 142. See also Pilgrim Turkey, 87, 73n
solar energy, 213 Turks, 56, 36n, 63
Sorrel, Roger, 197, 110n Twelve Articles of the Peasants, 46-47, 9n,
soul, 131-140, 23n, 138, 34n, 151, 155, 86n 10n
Spain, 49, 17n, 56-57, 59, 158
Spalatin, Georg, 90 United Nations, 210, 16n
Spanish Hapsburgs, 49, 17n United States, vii, 3, 148, 61n, 209, 210
Spiritualists, 101 use and enjoyment, 155-166
Stnd: defined, 11 usury, 99, 205, 210
stations: defined, 11 utilitarian, viii, 182. See also
242 Index
Instrumentalism
Vikings, 58, 40n

Vitoria, Francisco de, 159, 101n
Walker, Williston, 136, 15n, 138, 37n

Wartburg, Germany, 54
Watson, Philip, 6, 11n, 30, 57n, 31, 59n,
170, 4n, 216, 39n
Wee, Paul, 208-209, 13n
Western hegemony, 59-60, 61, 47n, 162-165
Western Christian tradition. See Christianity
Westermann, Claus, 138, 35n
White, Lynn Jr., 12, 23n, 116, 183n, 136,
12n, 144, 52n, 155, 82n, 157, 95n, 172
wholistic, ix, 31
Wiesner-Hanks, Merry, 96, 103n
Wingren, Gustaf, 30, 57n, 37, 82n, 65, 1n
withdrawal from the world, 44, 2n, 205
Witte, John, 207, 9n
Wittenberg, 51, 53, 54, 75, 31n, 90
women, 83, 115, 172, 207. See also
Inferiority of Women
works righteousness, 197
world affirmation, 4, 9, 101, 204
World Bank, 210
youth, 12, 26n, 28, 82, 83, 85-89, 180, 181,

207, 213
Ziemke, Donald, 6, 11n

Zwingli, Ulrich, 66, 177
Scripture Index
Genesis
1:1 175, 23n 3:14 174, 19n, 204, 3n
1:2 173, 16n, 174, 21n, 178, 37n, 42n 3:17-19 111,161n, 163n, 164n, 112
179, 43n, 182, 53n, 185, 71n, 204 165n, 166n, 167n, 115, 201n
1:3 23, 34n 122, 206n, 207n, 208n, 209n
1:17-19 110, 158n 123, 213n, 214n, 124, 215n
1:26 34, 71n, 75, 32n, 33n, 108 216n, 217n, 218n, 220n
148n, 111, 162n, 113, 172n, 116 3:19 125, 224n
186n, 120, 189n, 190n, 191n,192n 3:22 114, 175n
119, 195n, 121, 169, 1n, 170, 6n 3:23-24 174, 20n, 175, 24n, 176, 27n
185, 43n, 186, 188, 215, 36n 4:1 112, 169n
1:26-28 116 4:2 63, 58n, 112, 168n, 120, 187n
1:27 119, 196n 156, 90n
1:28 60, 47n, 117, 188n 4:4 115, 181n, 116, 182n
1:28-29 78, 46n, 212 22n 4:26 115, 179n
1:29 78, 46n 5:5 78, 47n, 212, 23n
1:31 119, 194n 6:3 99, 116n
2:1 125, 223n, 200, 121n 6:4 95, 105n, 98, 115n, 105, 139n
2:2 68, 11n, 69, 14n 7:1 73, 24n
2:16 70, 15n 9:6a 102, 131n
2:16-17 88, 78n, 80n, 97, 113n, 92 9:6b 102, 129n
90n, 106, 142n, 113, 170n 11:27 119
2:18 89, 83n 12:1 142, 46n
2:19 192 13:2 123, 212n
3 123 13:10 97, 112n, 105, 140n, 191, 89n
3:1 115, 178n, 180n, 180, 48n, 183 13:11-13 104, 138n
60n, 199, 119n, 200, 120n 14:4-6 102, 130n
3:4-5 114, 174n, 199, 119n 18:15 70, 15n
3:5 114, 187 19:6-9 93, 94, 100n, 101n, 102n
3:7 123, 211n 21:17 190, 85n, 87n, 191, 90n
243
244 Scripture Index
23:3-4 142, 47n, 143, 50n 102 23, 34n

23:5-6 75, 34n, 213, 25n 110 94-95, 104n
214, 29n, 30n 111 73, 25n, 172, 11n
26:24-25 104, 135n, 136n 111:2 172, 10n
27:5-10 82, 58n 111:4 172
27:28-29 70, 15n
28:1-2 93, 96n Proverbs
35:9 203, 2n 3:5-6 201, 126n
38:1-5 108, 149n 22:4 75, 35n, 213, 26n
41 76, 37n
41:40 76, 34n, 100, 122n Isaiah
123n, 124n, 213, 28n 14:5-6 24
42:7 99, 117n, 100, 125n 26:4 138
46:28 192, 93n, 94n, 193, 95n
47:13-14 76, 39n, 100, 122n, 207, 10n Daniel
211, 19n 12 138, 34n
47:14 77, 42n, 212, 20n 12:2 138
49:3 108, 151n
Matthew
4:4 184
Exodus 5:15 95, 104n
1:20ff 82, 52n 5:16 94, 104n
9:16 152 5:32 93
33:19 152 5:44 29
6:19 12n, 47
6:26 183
Psalm 7 29
2 22, 32n 7:12 17
8 24, 39n, 119, 197n 7:18 36
8:6 119 10:23 104
14:1 115 19:6 91
19:3-4 196 19:9 93
27 193, 74n 23:12 27
77 120, 202n, 121, 204n, 200, 120n
77:1 189, 56n, 215, 37n Mark
77:11-12 173 1:15 108
82 25, 42n, 101, 128n, 101, 127n 16:14-20 203, 103n
108, 150n, 109, 153n, 116, 171n 16:15 37, 81n, 143, 176, 3n, 196
82:1 98, 114n 105n, 206
82:6 178
90 68 Luke
100:3 191 6:20 143
101 107, 147n, 110, 156n, 157n 6:31 17
111, 160n, 183, 59n
101:2 110
Scripture Index 245
John Hebrews
10:29 151 11:9, 10, 13-16 145, 41n
13:5 30
Acts
5:29 82, 58n, 105, 214 I Peter
2:9 94, 104n
Romans
1:2 21 I John
1:20 156, 87n 3:2 193
2:14 17
5:5 156, 88n
8:7 156, 89n
8:18-22 200, 122n
8:20 68
8:28 152
8:28-29 150
9-11 152
9:18 152
13:4 24, 113
I Corinthians
3:9 11, 19n, 191
7:10-11 95
II Corinthians
5:6 135, 142, 143, 156, 87n
Galatians
5:8 22, 30n
5:17 133
Ephesians
5:21-24 165
Philippians
2 213
2-3 214
Colossians
1:23 176, 3n, 203
I Thessalonians
4:13-14 136, 29n
5:23 134, 20n

Martin Luther Ethics of Creation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Martin Luther Ethics of Creation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROVOCATIVE AND INTRIGUING!

In this well-timed, important book,

Martin Luthers Ethics of Creation

Martin Luthers Ethics of Creation

VDM Verlag Dr. Mller

Cover image: www.purestockx.com

Printed in the U.S.A.

BR 333.3 .G89 2009

Chapter One: The Foundation of Luthers Social Ethics 15

Chapter Two: Distortion of Luthers Natural World 43

The Order of Oeconomia 79

Chapter Six: Conclusion

Selected Bibliography 219

Scripture Index 243

RGG Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Handwrterbuch fr

WA D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, ed. J. K. F. Knaake,

WA Br D. Martin Luthers Werke: Briefwechsel, 15 vols. Weimar: Bhlau, 1830

WA TR D. Martin Luthers Werke: Tischreden, 6 vols. Weimar: Bhlau, 1912-21

PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE

METHODOLOGY AND CONTENTS

Law and Gospel

The Authority of Scripture

The Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms

The Sacredness of All Vocations

The ethical values of humility and interdependence are emphasized in Luthers

The Theology of the Cross

The Sacramental Basis

The cutting-edge of Luthers ethics is his doctrine of salvation, which is justification by

The Eschatological Basis

Capitalism Reshaped Luthers Agrarian World

Crumbling Political Power

Conquest and Pillage of Foreign Lands

This description of Hendry as a pro me creation theology oversimplifies Luthers thought

Luthers Doctrine of Three Estates

Luther sums up the Schpfungsordnungen, in three categories of ruler-ship in the world:

Previous research in Luthers Dreistndelehre had dealt more on the historical

The Essential Virtues of the Three Estates

1. The Order of Oeconomia

The exemplary significance of oeconomia in Luthers doctrine of creation is

Household: the Heart of Ethics of Creation

Well-Educated Youth: Assets of Creation

Marriage: the Heart of a Healthy Creation

2. The Order of Politia

The government is indeed an indispensable instrument for the preservation of creation. It

3. The Order of Ecclesia

Prophetic Role in Creation

Distortion of the Schpfungsordnungen

The Distortion of Responsible Rulership

One of the major causes of the distortion of Schpfungsordnungen lies in humanitys

Their Righteousness Remains

Luther strongly believes in retribution. When we harm creation, we harm ourselves. To

In a complementary way, historian and ecological writer H. Paul Santmire made an

Luthers writings on anthropological dualism, Christian pilgrimage on earth, belief of

According to Selle, anthropology must be understood within the human beings

Christian Pilgrimage on Earth41

The Late Medieval Churchs catechism demonstrated this extreme human-centered

The Belief in Election or Chosen People

The belief in Election or predestination is inseparable from the preoccupation of

In fairness to Luthers idea of predestination, it should be noted that he taught that

Use and Enjoyment

In light of the instrumentalist view, stewardship, a popular Christian teaching which is

The instrumentalist view of nature is completely in contrast with non-Western views,

Luther indeed had an anthropocentric conception of creation. However, there is

anthropocentric-soteriological reading of natures being and value in the greater scheme of