Essay On Passive Obedience

Calvin and Luther have their differences on a great many subjects, yet seem to find similar solutions; the concept of passive obedience is one such occurrence. Passive obedience to the masses may seem similar to willful ignorance of a shoddy king’s ways, but it is also a sensible course of action in preserving one’s life, as well as one’s afterlife. During the time of monarchies, the only way to change the regime was through death, which is never a sure course; ergo the reasonable path is to protect oneself and others through passive obedience. Luther’s perspective on passive obedience shows a mannerism that is less passive, but more wary of the potential harm from a secular ruler. On Secular Authority serves as a treatise to restrict and …show more content…
This discussion concluded with the secular kingdom as being concerned with the problems of state and the spiritual kingdom dealing with the state of souls and morality; in Luther’s words, “the soul is not subject to the emperor’s power” (Luther, 28). This argument is entirely important when considering passive obedience, for Luther depicts the two authorities as separate entities, with secular authority deferring to God. This argument is strong simply because it is logical. After death, the human soul is no longer constrained to the physical realm, regardless of one’s belief all agree that we will leave this plane; ergo the rulers of the physical bear no hold on the spiritual plane. In that vein of thinking, by obeying the spiritual, one is also implicitly consenting to obeying the secular king. To obey one is to obey the other, and both are necessary, hence the two kingdoms. In theory, there should be no instance when the two kingdoms clash in terms of laws, except in the case of tyranny. When considering the possibility of a tyrant, one must weigh whether it is worthwhile to remove said tyrant in the typical bloody fashion or to cope and survive. Luther’s belief is in the case of the tyrant