by Aaron Mesh As a reformer,
Martin Luther certainly changed the world of the Church. Would you say that his opposition to the existing religious authority of his day could be justified from a scriptural standpoint? How might it not? Which biblical
principles affect your own responsibility to promote justice and righteousness when such actions come into conflict with an established order?
The actions of Martin Luther in the 1500s have reached almost
mythical stature among Christians. Luther's deeds had much more radical consequences than he could have foreseen as he first challenged the existing church. He sparked a revolution of thought, a break from the Roman
Catholic Church system and a return to a faith based upon Scripture alone. Though Martin Luther's choices were for an essential cause and brought fantastic results, a question must be answered before Christians can
truly call him a hero of the faith. The question is this: Was Luther's challenge of his earthly authorities scripturally justifiable?
The answer is not instantly obvious, nor do the Scriptures seem immediately
supportive of Luther. Hebrews 13:17 says to "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority." Romans 13 is even more damning to rebels: "Everyone must submit to the governing authorities, for there is no
authority except which God has established... Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment upon themselves."
But this
raises another, deeper question: if authority is to be obeyed, what is to be done when leaders create evil standards? In other words, if earthly administrators go against the law of God, whom should we obey? All of a
sudden, the question is not one of obedience after all. Instead, it is one of jurisdiction -- which authority takes precedence when one cannot obey both? A clear answer can be found in the book of Acts, when the
apostles first begin preaching the Gospel and healing the sick. Very quickly, the Sanhedrin -- a body of religious leaders that behaved much like today's legislatures -- told them in no uncertain terms to stop. But the
apostles continued preaching. Soon, they were brought to trial before the Sanhedrin, and asked why they would not halt teaching in Christ's name.
Acts 5:29 gives us their answer. "Peter and the other apostles
replied: 'We must obey God rather than men!'" The apostles realized that governments are not granted autonomous power. Having been established by God, civil authorities are responsible to uphold his precepts. When
they do not, it is the duty of the Christian to stand against them.
That essential truth is evidenced elsewhere in the scriptures. Daniel and his compatriot captives continuously defied the ungodly laws of Babylon,
while Elijah spoke out against evil leaders of his nation, as did Elisha, Jeremiah, Isaiah and many other prophets. John the Baptist spoke out against the rulers of his day, and Christ himself spoke against the
hypocritical and cynical religious practices of the Pharisees.
So was Luther right to speak out against church authority? Much more than that; he had no other choice. The fact is that once Luther realized the heresy
inherent in church doctrines, he had no Biblical option but to stand against it. "Here I stand," he said at the Diet of Worms in 1521. "I can do no other."
Today, that truth remains the same. As I
see deviation from biblical truth in the society around me, it is my duty as a Christian to speak out against such depravity, whether I be standing against a few friends or the federal government. For I know that my
true commander is Christ. "All authority on heaven and on earth has been given to me," He said. Have I always upheld this duty? By no means. But it is still my duty, and Christ is still my captain, and he
holds authority over all others. Like Luther, there I should stand. I can do no other.
