Hi, I'm David Bercot, and tonight is my second message in the series of messages entitled " The Myth of Christian America. " Now, we're still focusing on the background stage before anyone had even come to America. Because if you don't understand the background, and I'm talking particularly about the spiritual background of the first colonists to come to America, you're not going to be able to fully grasp why the popular concept of a Christian America is such a myth.
Now, the title of tonight's message is " The Reformation Versus the Kingdom of God. " And by that title, I mean that the Reformation was not a return to kingdom Christianity. That was the thing that was so badly needed. That was the Reformation that was needed. But that's not what Europe got. Instead, they got a Reformation that was largely doctrinal in nature. They got a breakaway from the Roman Catholic Church, but none of the major reformers embraced Kingdom Christianity.
Now tonight, we're going to be focusing only on Martin Luther, whose actions began the Reformation. And Luther's impact on the founding of America was enormous. That's because the vast majority of American colonists, up through the time of the American Revolution, were Protestants. Now, I'm using the term " Protestant " in a very loose sense to mean a professing Christian who is not Roman Catholic. And in that sense, nearly all of the colonists up until the time of the Revolution were Protestants.
So in one way or another, the American colonists had been influenced by Luther's teachings and his actions. In 1517, Martin Luther, a Roman Catholic monk and a university professor, nailed 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Church, attacking the sale of indulgences. In doing so, he ignited the Reformation. But would this Reformation bring Christians back to being kingdom people again? Would it restore the lost doctrine of the kingdom of God?
Well, at first, it looked as though this was exactly what was going to happen. During the early years of the Reformation, Luther set forth what he called the doctrine of the two kingdoms. He wrote, " We must divide all of the children of Adam into two classes. The first belong to the kingdom of God, the second to the kingdom of the world. " Those belonging to the kingdom of God are all true believers in Christ and are subject to Christ.
Luther further explained, " Christians are always in the minority and are in the midst of non-Christians. " Now, the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages had set forth Jesus ' kingdom teachings as the ideal by which Christians who wanted to be " perfect " should live. This doctrine of the " perfect " was based on Jesus ' answer to the rich young man who approached him and asked him, " What must I do to obtain eternal life? " And Jesus said, " If you would be perfect, " and then explain from there.
So the Roman Catholic Church had taught, " If you want to be perfect, if you want to be complete, then you live by these teachings of Jesus Christ, teachings like those in the Sermon on the Mount and other places in the gospels. " However, Luther rejected this doctrine of the " perfect " and wrote that all true Christians must live by Christ's teachings.
He wrote, " Be quite certain also that this teaching of Christ is not a counsel of perfection, as our theologians blasphemously and falsely say, but rather it is a universal, strict command for all Christians. Then you will learn that all those who avenge themselves or go to law and wrangle in the courts over their property and honor are nothing but heathens masquerading under the name of Christians. It cannot be otherwise, I tell you.
Do not look to the multitude and to the practices that are common, for have no doubt there are few Christians on earth, and God's Word is something very different from what is commonly practiced. So Luther recognized that it would never work to try to rule the world by Jesus ' teachings.
He said, " If anyone attempts to rule the world by the gospel and put aside all secular law and the secular sword on the grounds that all are baptized and therefore all are Christians, and that according to the gospel, there is to be among them neither law nor sword, nor necessity for either. " He says, " Pray, what would happen? " He says he would loosen the bands and chains of the wild and savage beasts.
For that reason, Luther explained, " God has provided for non-Christians a different government outside the Christian estate and God's kingdom, and has subjected them to the sword so that even though they would prefer to do so, they could not practice their wickedness. " So he realized you can't run this world by Jesus ' teachings. Not that they can't have any impact among secular institutions, but they are teachings for citizens of his kingdom, not for citizens of this world.
But Christians are under a different set of laws. They obey the laws of the land so far as they don't conflict with Jesus ' laws, but they have a whole set of laws of their own given to them by the king of their kingdom. So after a thousand years of the doctrine of the kingdom having been lost, how exciting it must have been for Christians to read those words. It certainly looked like the Reformation was going to bring about a return to the historic Christian faith.
The sons of the kingdom would once again blossom throughout Reformation Europe. Well, what about religious persecution? For over a thousand years, Christians who sought to follow their conscience and to obey what they saw Christ saying in the Scriptures were horribly persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church and the state governments who were allied with it. But Luther taught that it wasn't up to the state to try to coerce Christian beliefs on anyone.
He wrote, " Worldly government has laws which extend no farther than to life and property and what is external upon the earth. " But over the soul, God can and will let no one rule but Himself. When a man-made law is imposed upon the soul, in order to make it believe this or that, as a certain man would prescribe, there is certainly no place in the Word of God for it. " Luther further explained that one's faith is a matter between that person and God, and is no concern of the secular government.
He said, " Every man is responsible for his own faith, and he must see to it for himself that he believes correctly. " Since then, belief or unbelief is a matter of one's own conscience, and since this in no way lessens the power of the secular state, the state should be content, and attend to its own affairs, and permit men to believe one thing or another as they are able and willing, and constrain no one by force. In fact, Luther said, " Even if someone is teaching heresy, the sword is still not the answer.
" He wrote, " Heresy can never be prevented by force. That must be taken hold of in a different way, and must be opposed and dealt with otherwise than with the sword. Our weapons are not carnal. " How exciting those words must have been to persecuted kingdom Christians like the Waldensians. It appeared that in Reformation Europe, there would be no more religious persecution. What a day of rejoicing! There would be a return to the doctrine of the two kingdoms that the early Christians had held to.
It did seem indeed that a bright new day was dawning. Another bold step that Luther took was declaring that there is no authority but the Bible for matters of faith. When he was brought to trial by the Catholic authorities, he boldly asserted, " Here I stand, I can do no other. Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason, I 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 one's conscience. I cannot do otherwise. " Sola Scriptura, the Scriptures alone. Well, this became one of the banners of the Reformation. No longer would it be popes or church councils or university theologians who would be the final authority for what was Christ's teachings? It would be the Bible alone.
In fact, Luther immediately went to work translating the Bible into German so that every person could read the Scriptures for himself. However, to many people, it must have seemed like the only way to bring about such reforms in the Church would have to be through the power of the state. But Luther wanted his reforms to come through God's power alone.
He said, " In this whole matter, the first and most important thing is that we take earnest heed not to enter on it trusting in great might or in human reason, even if all power in the world were ours. For God cannot and will not allow a good work to be begun with trust in our own power or our own reason. Such works He crushes ruthlessly to earth, as it is written in Psalm 33:16, " There is no king saved by the multitude of a host. A mighty man is not delivered by great strength. " All of this was really exciting.
But Luther's initial resolve to do things Christ's way soon ran into the hard brick wall of reality. He quickly found out that being a disciple of Christ, being a true citizen of God's kingdom, means having no power in this world. Luther either forgot or he never learned the lessons from Christian history. The original sons of the kingdom were a hounded, powerless, persecuted group of people. And so had been most of the kingdom people since the time of Constantine.
But just a few years into the Reformation, Luther began to realize that if he depended upon God's power alone, as he had proclaimed he would, well, he couldn't bring about the Reformation he envisioned. He could bring it about in the hearts of various individuals, but not throughout society in general. Nor could he hope to change any of the existing institutions if he relied solely upon God's power. So before long, Luther began to waffle on his positions that he had taken earlier.
Even worse, many of the other dramatic positions he had taken proved in the end to be nothing more than paper slogans. For example, his doctrine of the two kingdoms. It was nothing but a paper slogan. After writing all of those things that I just quoted to you that he said about the two kingdoms and how true Christians must live, well, he quickly negated all of it by telling Christians, " You are under obligation to serve and further the sword by whatever means you can with body, soul, honor, or goods.
For it is nothing that you need, but it is something quite useful and profitable for the whole world and for your neighbor. " So in the end, Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms was really only an illusion. That's because you can't have the doctrine of the two kingdoms without the doctrine of the two masters. Jesus had said, " No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other.
" So when it comes to the two kingdoms, the kingdom of the world, and the kingdom of God, one of these two kingdoms is going to be a person's ultimate master. If the earthly kingdom is a Christian's final master, then it won't be long before he will be forced to despise his heavenly master. That's because the earthly kingdom will conflict with the heavenly One before long. It's not a maybe. It's not a hypothetical. It will always happen that way.
So just how far did Luther go in saying that a Christian should aid the cause of his country? Well, this is what he wrote. He said, " In this matter, citizens are duty-bound to follow and risk life and property for the cause. For in such a case, one must risk his property and himself for the sake of the other.
And in such a war, it is a Christian act and an act of love to confidently kill, rob, and pillage the enemy, and to do everything that can injure him until one has conquered him according to the methods of war. Only one must be aware of sin, not violate wives and virgins, and when victory comes, offer mercy and peace to those who surrender and humble themselves. Therefore, in such a case, let the saying hold true, God helps those who help themselves. " I see. So according to Luther, it's a Christian act.
It's an act of love to kill, to rob, to pillage the enemy, and to do everything that can injure him. Now, what kind of absurdity is that? Is that what Jesus and His disciples did? And since children of the kingdom will be citizens of different countries, will be subject to differing princes and kings? Well, Luther's doctrine would mean that some of the people that these children will be killing, robbing, and pillaging will be their fellow citizens of God's kingdom.
So it will be just as Jesus said, in giving our ultimate allegiance to our earthly ruler, we will end up hating Jesus and what he stands for, whether we admit it or not. And think in particular the effect that Luther's teaching had on Christian men. They were the ones who were called to go out and to kill and to rob and to pillage. What effect do you think that had on their souls? Many ministers today complain that there aren't enough men in their churches, that the women outnumber the men.
Well, have they ever stopped to think of what effect Reformation teaching and Roman Catholic teaching had been the exact same? What effect this has had on men over the many centuries? They're the ones who've been asked to go out to kill, to slaughter, to commit horrible atrocities, as long as their government commands it. And then they're supposed to come right back home and to be good and kind and gentle and loving like Jesus Christ, when their very soul has been defiled.
Now, Luther did acknowledge that a Christian shouldn't follow his ruler in war if the ruler is clearly in the wrong. Now that sounds nice on paper, but it's really meaningless, because the subjects of a country are never really going to know which side is truly in the right. And often, nobody knows. There isn't a right or wrong. Everybody's in the wrong, and everybody has some sense of a claim of justice. As one man said, the first casualty of every war is truth. And that's the way it is.
The ones fighting always think they're fighting God's battles, that they're fighting on the side of truth and justice and mercy. Both sides thought that during the Civil War. All sides thought that during World War I, and even World War II, German soldiers were convinced that God was on their side, that they had been wronged by the other European countries, and God was now finally bringing justice into place. And Luther acknowledged this.
He said, " Well, how is it when the subjects don't know whether the prince is in the right or not? " He said, " I answer, as long as they cannot know, nor find out by any possible means, they may obey their prince without peril to their souls. For whichever side is defeated, whether it is in the right or in the wrong, must accept it as a punishment from God.
But whichever side wars and wins in such ignorance must regard their battle as though one fell from the roof and accidentally killed another, and leave the matter up to God. In other words, you're not going to know. So just go out and kill, and if it ends up that your side was actually in the wrong, and you were killing people wrongfully, well, it was just an accident, and God's going to overlook that.
So despite his profession of embracing historic kingdom Christianity, Luther's system was the same system that had been in practice ever since the time of Constantine. Many of the Christians who were reading Luther's Bible protested that what he was teaching contradicted Jesus Christ, who said that we're supposed to turn the other cheek and not resist the evil one. However, Luther came up with a really clever answer to their objections.
He said, " From all this we see what is the true meaning of Christ's words in Matthew 5, resist not evil, " etc. It's this: that a Christian should be so disposed that he will suffer every evil and injustice, not avenge himself, nor bring suit in court, and in nothing make use of secular power and law for himself. But for others, he may and he should seek vengeance, justice, protection, and help, and do what he can towards this.
" I see, so if someone strikes you on one cheek, you should turn the other one to him also, as Jesus said. But if someone strikes your neighbor on his cheek, then you should avenge his injury. Likewise, your neighbor should avenge anyone who assaults you. But that isn't what Jesus said, is it? And it has never worked in practice. The reality is that Reformation Europe looked nothing like New Testament Christianity, or the historic Christianity of the first three centuries.
Lutherans have behaved through the centuries no differently than Catholics in turning the other cheek, not going to law, and not warring with one another. In fact, most of the Nazi soldiers were, in fact, Lutherans. Trying to serve two masters simply cannot work, not if one of the masters is Jesus. Paul told the Thessalonians, " Our gospel did not come to you in Word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit. " That's what the kingdom of God is all about.
It's not a kingdom in Word only, a pretend kingdom, a paper kingdom. Kingdom Christians don't say that they're trusting in God's power alone, and then use human means to establish and defend God's kingdom. No, Jesus preached a real kingdom, and His kingdom spread through God's power alone. Despite going up against the most powerful empire, the world had ever known to that time. In contrast, Luther's Kingdom of God was a paper one.
It was a kingdom constructed of impressive words, but not of the faith of which Christ's kingdom is constructed. Despite his disavowals of using human strength for his Reformation, the truth is that Luther depended heavily on the support and protection of the German princes. He wedded his Christian Reformation with German nationalism, turning it into a contest of German freedom against domination by Rome.
By emasculating the doctrine of the two kingdoms, Luther assured the German princes that his reforms wouldn't jeopardize their power in any way. And Luther's Reformation was popular with most of the German princes, for by breaking ties with Rome, they were able to seize the vast wealth of church assets in Germany. And instead of Rome controlling the German church, now the German states did. The princes were the ones who now paid the salaries of Lutheran pastors, and therefore they had strong control over them.
Luther's Reformation brought wealth to the German princes and merchants in other ways. Ever since New Testament times, Christians had opposed charging interest when loaning money, although some exceptions were made to this general rule. This Christian principle was incorporated into law when church and state were united in the fourth century. And as a result of these laws that prohibited Christians from charging interest, the Jews acquired a near monopoly on banking, since they were allowed to charge interest.
However, Luther threw out the ban on Christians charging interest, which proved to be a great economic boon to the German princes and the German merchants, and it did pave the way for the emergence of modern-day capitalism. And it's the reason that within a century or so, the Protestant states, nearly all of them, surpassed the Catholic states economically. There were other reasons behind it as well that we'll be talking about later in this series.
But the point is, don't imagine that the rulers embraced the Reformation solely out of spiritual concerns. There was a great economic benefit to them as well. And this made the Reformation popular not only in Germany, but the same thing happened in England and many other places. The ruler seized the assets of the Church, which were usually enormous, and so they gained great wealth as a result of it. Now I want to talk to you a minute about the Peasant's Rebellion.
Luther's trust in God was really put to the test when the German peasants revolted in the year 1525. With all of the talk about returning to true Christianity, their hopes grew that some of the grave social injustices they faced would be addressed. In the late Middle Ages, the gap between rich and poor had become tremendous. However, although Luther sympathized with the grievances of the peasants, he was unwilling to alienate his power base, which lay with the German princes.
Finally, the German peasants ran out of patience and applied Luther's own teachings about it being right to avenge the wrongs of your neighbor. So they took up pitchforks and whatever kind of weapon they could possibly gather up, and began attacking the estates of various nobles. Now, since the rebelling peasants were Lutherans, Martin Luther realized immediately that this could alienate the nobility and bring the entire Reformation into disrepute with the ruling class and property owners throughout Europe.
So Luther angrily wrote the peasants, saying, " God has caused my gospel always to increase and spread. Now you interfere with me. You want to help the gospel, and do not see that by what you are doing, you are hindering it. " Luther now threw his weight on the side of the German princes and urged them to slaughter the peasants without any mercy. He wrote, " If a man is an open rebel, every man is his judge and executioner. Therefore, let everyone who can smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly.
Remember that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. He continued, " A prince and Lord must remember in this case that he is God's minister, that he sins greatly against God if He does not punish and protect. If He can punish and does not, even though the punishment consists in the taking of life and the shedding of blood, then He is guilty of all the murder and all the evil which these fellows commit, talking about the peasants.
Here then, there is no time for sleeping, no place for patience or mercy. It is the time of the sword, not the day of grace. Well, you can imagine how his words egged on the nobility who were anxious to crush the peasants anyway. But Luther went even further. He wrote, " The rulers have a good conscience and a just cause. Therefore, they can say to God with all assurance of heart: " These peasants have deserved death many times over. Therefore, I will punish and smite as long as my heart beats.
" Thus it may be that one who is killed in fighting on the ruler's side may be a true martyr in the eyes of God. Strange times these, when a prince can win heaven with bloodshed, better than other men with prayer. " Therefore, dear Lords, " Luther wrote, " Stab, smite, slay, whomever you can. If you die in doing it, well for you, a more blessed death can never be yours.
" Well, the Lutheran princes did exactly what Luther urged them to do, indiscriminately slaughtering the peasants and horribly torturing those who they captured alive. Yet if Luther had really believed that God had been the enabling power behind his Reformation, he would have had no fears that the peasants ' rebellion would derail it. You see, it's when matters become impractical from a human standpoint that we find out who really are the true sons of the kingdom.
The next test Luther faced was standing behind his initial teachings against religious persecution. At first, Luther advocated religious freedom, as I've already shared with you. Initially, he was fairly open to letting other teachers speak freely, for he felt confident that his understanding of the Bible was the one true correct understanding, and that truth would ultimately win out.
However, when other rival understandings of the gospel proved quite popular and were rapidly gaining adherence, he leaned more and more on human methods to make certain that his version of the gospel would prevail. And the most effective human method available to him was the armed power of the state, working jointly with the state church. However, a rapidly growing group of earnest Christians rejected Luther's gospel of easy believerism.
Instead, they realized from the Scriptures that Christ requires an obedient love faith relationship from His disciples. These Christians also rejected Luther's teaching of predestination, as they saw a clear teaching of man's free will in the Bible. They also saw the impossibility of combining church and state. Rather, they taught that true followers of Christ must be sons of the kingdom, living by Jesus ' teachings, not just in Word, but in actuality.
These Christians typically rejected state-mandated baptism of all infants and practiced adult baptism or believer's baptism instead. As a result, Luther and others called them Anabaptists, which means " rebaptizers. " Now, Luther was absolutely infuriated by the Anabaptist, who contradicted his teachings and pointed out the inconsistencies between what Luther said and what he practiced. Some historians have concluded that Luther feared that the Anabaptist movement was attracting more followers than his own.
So, despite his earlier protestations against religious persecution, he finally told the German rulers, " The fact that seditious articles of doctrine should be punished by the sword needs no further proof. For the rest, the Anabaptists hold tenets relating to infant baptism, original sin, and inspiration, which have no connection with the Word of God, and are indeed opposed to it. Think what disaster would ensue if children were not baptized.
" Luther went on to complain, " The Anabaptists set up a ministry and congregation of their own, " which is also contrary to the command of God. From all this, it becomes clear that the secular authorities are bound to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders. And when it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenet, such as infant baptism, original sin, and unnecessary separation from the Church, then we conclude that the stubborn sectarians must be put to death, in quotation. Does that surprise you?
Well, it did me, because I know most of my life I'd always heard how Luther was the champion for religious freedom and till the end stood defiantly against religious persecution. But that's just not at all true, and I was shocked what I found from reading Luther's own writings.
In his exposition on Psalm 32, Luther wrote this: " If some were to teach doctrines contradicting an article of faith, clearly grounded in Scripture and believed throughout the world by the whole Church, such as the articles that we teach children in the creed. As for example, if anyone would teach that Christ is not God, but a mere man, and like other prophets, as the Turks and the Anabaptists hold.
Well, such teachers should not be tolerated, but be punished as blasphemers, for they are not merely heretics, but rather open blasphemers, and rulers are in duty bound to punish blasphemers. Moses and his law commands that such blasphemers, and indeed all false teachers, are to be stoned. So in this case, there ought not to be much disputing, but such open blasphemers should be condemned without a hearing and without defense.
What I say about public preaching, I say even more emphatically about private preaching and secret ceremonies. These are not to be tolerated at all. On peril of body and soul, no one is to listen to such a man, but report him to his pastor or his ruler. " Well, even though it was manifestly untrue that the Anabaptist taught that Christ was mere man and not divine, under Luther's policy, they weren't allowed to defend themselves. They weren't even allowed to have a hearing.
The rulers were told to simply capture them and put them to death. That's every bit as shocking as what the Roman Catholics did during the Middle Ages. In fact, they usually gave a person a hearing. Well, what about the Jews? We've heard all he had to say about the Anabaptists. At first, Luther opposed any persecution of the Jews beyond the political and social limitations that had already been placed upon them during the Middle Ages, which were severe enough.
Even when Luther began advocating putting the Anabaptist to death, he still opposed persecution of the Jews. However, as time progressed, he saw that the Jews weren't going to convert to his gospel as he initially had believed. And so he turned against the Jews. In 1543, Luther penned a work entitled " The Jews and Their Lies. " He addressed the work to the German princes, urging them to take violent measures against the Jews. I'm going to read you some excerpts from this pamphlet.
He said, " What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? We dare not tolerate their conduct now that we are aware of their lying and blasphemy. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. I shall give you my sincere advice. First, set fire to their synagogues or schools and bury and cover with dirt, whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them.
This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are really Christians. Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. This will bring home to them the fact that they are not masters in our country as they boast. Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings be taken from them. Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb.
Fifth, I advise that safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside. Since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like, let them stay at home. For you must not and cannot protect them unless you wish to become participants in their abominations in the sight of God. Sixth, I advise that interests be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping.
Through charging interest, they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an axe, a hoe, a spade, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses, and let them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow.
For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Gentiles toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and passing gas, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, we should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants. Finally, let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, and Bohemia, and eject them forever from our country. Does that shock you?
Well, it did me. You know, for years, I had heard reports that Luther was strongly anti-Semitic, but the volume of his writings that I had cleverly omitted this pamphlet from the collection of his works. It was not an unabridged collection. And so I thought, " Oh, this is just secularist people opposed to Christianity who are saying this just to be able to slam Christians. " But when I came across this writing, I realized it's totally true. What a monster! It's hard to believe that any Christian could write that.
And it's not hard for us to see where Hitler got his ideas and why he had such support of his people in persecuting the Jews. Luther had already laid all of that out at the Reformation. So what went wrong? How did the very man who claimed to champion religious freedom end up promoting intolerance, hatred, and murder? How did the man who loudly proclaimed that he would depend upon God's power alone end up using the power of the state's sword to get his way?
Well, the problem was one that has recurred throughout Christian history over and over again ever since the time of Constantine. The problem is that Luther thought he wanted to do things the kingdom way. However, like so many others before him and so many after him, he soon learned just how difficult it is to do things the kingdom way. For a brief moment, he tasted what it's like to be powerless and defenseless against a powerful enemy.
Just a year or so into the Reformation, Luther saw that just because someone is teaching and practicing the right things, or at least he imagines that he is, God isn't necessarily going to divide the Red Sea for him. Like the Christians in the first three centuries, Luther quickly found out that the Kingdom Way is a fairly rough road to follow. And so Luther soon found ways to say one thing while practicing something else. And to a large degree, he got away with it.
For nearly 500 years, Luther has been remembered in history for being the champion of religious freedom. That's what I had always heard about him. He's remembered in theological circles as being the exponent of the doctrine of the two kingdoms. And yet he's the one who murdered the very people who actually did believe in religious liberty and who truly embraced Christ's teachings on the two kingdoms. So why is Luther remembered the way he is? Because he championed religious liberty.
He taught the doctrine of the two kingdoms on paper because he championed Christian liberty and the doctrine of the two kingdoms on paper. He loudly proclaimed freedom of conscience and trumpeted the doctrine of the two kingdoms. However, he didn't practice freedom of conscience, nor did he live by the doctrine of the two kingdoms. Now these days there's a special name for Luther's conduct. It's called cognitive dissonance.
It's been defined as, quote, " the ability to make a compelling, heartfelt case for one thing while doing another. " It's been practiced by religious leaders and political rulers for thousands of years. Virtually every successful dictator who has ever existed has mastered the art of cognitive dissonance. Such dictators will loudly proclaim their belief in equality and democracy while practicing absolute totalitarianism.
They will proclaim the need for thrift and simplicity and demonstrate their commitment to this by always appearing in public, for example, in a simple army uniform. Meanwhile, they often live in unbelievable luxury and ease. Mao Seton would have been a perfect example of this. I always imagined that he lived a very thrifty, Spartan life because every picture of him was always in a plain army uniform. The truth was, he lived in luxury and had all kinds of people waiting on him.
Well, Luther wasn't a military dictator or a communist dictator, but he was a religious one, and he was a master at cognitive dissonance, just like all other dictators. Of course, Jesus had a different name for this. He simply called it hypocrisy. Now this evening, I've been focusing on Luther's failings, and his failings were colossal. The reason for this is that just as evangelical Christians have created a myth about Christian America, they've also created a myth about Martin Luther and the Reformation.
Textbooks and Christian history books still paint a mythical portrait of Luther. They portray Luther as the champion of religious liberty and the champion of Sola Scriptura, that is, the Bible alone. They also depict Luther as the man who brought back the historic Christian faith. But as we've seen tonight, all of that is mythical. Now please understand, I make no judgment as to where Luther will stand on Judgment Day. All judging has been left to Christ, and I'm very happy that He's doing the judging and not I.
God's grace and His forgiveness cover a multitude of sins, so I'm quite willing to leave Luther's destiny in God's hands. However, I can say this, that if Luther had lived at the time of the early church, and yet had advocated and practiced the things we've talked about tonight, beyond any doubt, he would have been put out of the church. But back to the myth of Martin Luther. Unfortunately, the myth of Martin Luther tends to flow right into the myth of Christian America.
But there never was a Christian America because there never was a Christian Germany. Luther and Germany professed to be a Christian nation, just as the Roman Empire after Constantine professed to be a Christian empire. Germany still claimed to be a Christian nation when it embraced Nazism. Now, until Christ returns, the only Christian kingdom or nation that can exist is the kingdom of God.
Yet, I want to make it clear that although Luther's version of Christianity was seriously flawed, it doesn't change the fact that he had an enormous influence on the founding of America. As I said at the beginning of tonight's message, the vast majority of American colonists, up through the time of the American Revolution and indeed far after that, were Protestants. In one way or another, they had been influenced by Luther's teachings and his actions.
And I certainly don't mean to imply that this influence was primarily negative. No, from a human standpoint, and from a spiritual viewpoint as well. Protestantism was an improvement over Roman Catholicism. One reason the English colonies here in America didn't look anything like the Spanish colonies here was because the English settlers were Protestant, and the Spanish settlers were Roman Catholics.
Now to be sure, religion wasn't the only difference between the two, but it was certainly one of the biggest differences. Furthermore, although Luther didn't really grant freedom of religion to others, he at least introduced the concept of it. It's something he preached, despite the fact he didn't practice it. And he did thereby help to lay the groundwork for eventual freedom of religion in the 13 English colonies. What's more, probably no book influenced the English settlers in America, as did the Bible.
It was certainly the most widely read book in the 13 colonies. And yet without Luther's Reformation, that probably would not have been the case. At the same time, I need to explain that, although Luther's impact on the founding of America was immense, his influence was primarily indirect. Although some Swedish and German Lutherans did settle in America before the American Revolution, they were a very small minority. It wasn't primarily Lutherans who settled in colonial America and fought for American independence.
Rather, it was primarily Anglicans and the English Calvinists. And Luther's influence on both the Anglicans and the Anglicans, we mean by that, the Church of England, and his influence on the Calvinists was colossal. So tomorrow night, we're going to be taking a look at the Reformer who had a much more direct influence on the spiritual atmosphere of the English colonies. And that man was John Calvin.