Mark Otdelnov

On Truth and Politics in Luther and Locke.

Preface.
In chapter i, I put the language I have been using in examination of the texts in discourse with no central
narrative whatsoever, except that of indicating rationale standing behind the chosen organization of blocks of
text. They, in turn, represent authors idea of the underlying strings of political language. I make them
presentable to our understanding by establishing certain relations among words that make possible political
thought.

I.
It is evident that whosoever resides in a company of people partakes in politics. Politics is a process by which
an individual invents and directs his power in performance of a sequence of actions to achieve chosen goals
in the presence of counteractive power. Politics is made real by the existence of other individuals. Such a
condition of social organization where power resides exclusively among the individuals is called the state of
nature. Such a condition of social organization where power is transferred to form a government is called a
state. In the polity of state, besides the individual counteractive power, a man as well faces the counteractive
power of the government. As a mind entity possessing the power, the state has a will which it can direct
towards an achievement of chosen goals, not attainable for individual will. How the government directs its
will, then, in condition of contingency of its power, is a proper question of state politics. The government
exercises acquired power until the transfer of power from the individuals to the new government is stopped.
At this moment, the entity disappears from our reality, and individuals return to the state of nature.

The narrative above intentionally ignores any other possible social developments within and outside a given
group of people. Now, having described the most integral elements of a state polity, we can proceed to a
discussion of the way this archetypical model is framed within a particular and coherent discourse in political
theory. Before that, however, I would like to take a digression and further proceed with an exposition of

discrete features of language we use in our comprehension of the power presence. We look at power and will
as artificially present in our world. Their coexistence is conditional upon the existence of humans. So far, we
have isolated and observed the expressions of human components of being (power and will) and prescribed
them no independent relation whatsoever except that of the will-to-power. The power belongs to one, the will
belongs to one, but the will-to-power is a phenomenon outside of ones control and is often quite disturbing.
As with any phenomenon, man can only become aware of it and seek a way to comfortably coexist with it.
History demonstrates that the latter is especially difficult for us.

Having used Nietzsches concept of the will-to-power I consider pertinent to place the political theory
approach to the resolution of the problem in relation to that of Nietzsche. The philosopher argued that is an
innate property of the will is to seek to accumulate more power. Being disposed to such an inalienable quality
of mind by the reality, a man, capable to embrace it, enters conscious relations with his will and is called by
Nietzsche Ubermensch. Counter to this, political theory offers ways of weakening this mind ambition of
every individual by keeping it in check with another power. Does man break lex parsimoniae principle by
this?

Final to my introduction is a question of how the rooting of a political system is brought about. Whether by
coronation, ratification, or consensual agreement, government asserts that it is real: displeased defeated,
indifferent compromised, strong emerged. However, rituals are not necessary for a new power entity to come
into being. When two men chose a third one as a ruler, they establish a political system. Precisely, when two
men ascertain a thirds statement I am your ruler. A true statement is one which presents a condition of
reality as it is in the world (naturally limited by our imposition of categories of understanding). Therefore, in
the case of the claim of a power entity (a human or already a socially organized group of humans) does not
initially reflect the reality as perceived by a group of people it will only be set true when people authorize it
to be so, passively or actively. Inversely, men can claim the reality of power distribution to be false and act to
make reality transform accordingly. People do it when they are practically unknowing if the will of
government had not been subjected to mind ambition. The word right emerged as signifying individual

powers we can no longer exercise as a pretext for a claim of power redistribution. Many contextual references
of Luther and Locke point at this word. Now that we have outlined the skeleton of language of political
discourse, let us see what form it takes in political theories of Reformation and Enlightenment eras.

II.
Political theory is always a critical theory. It originates in discontent with a current manifestation of state
power. It proposes a model, which is meant to more effectively confine will of state and make it serve public
good. Public good consists in exercising of state power to curb the mind ambition of individuals so as to
provide greater benefit to all. Above are famous questions, who rules and how? Nature of these questions
requires answers to lie in a discourse with a strong gravitational center that acts as a division line between
good and bad. We can definitely say that the central good for Luther and Locke is the salvation of individuals
souls, but their views of public good effectively differ. Let us now proceed to a discussion of Luthers
political views.

He makes clear that his aim is not obfuscation of direct commandments of God. Instead, he puts them in
context where these commandments relate only to a selected group of people inside a larger non-Christian
community. This is made possible by the revelation of Christ, this is the way the Old Covenant has been
abolished: doing or omitting [Christian works] is left free, and no longer bind on pain of losing their our
souls, as they did formerly (p.16). Analysis of the power structure of a given society, however, is conducted
from a perspective of a minority, and, therefore, aims to comfort this minority. This is why we, interested in
critical analysis, have found many possible objections a man outside of the chosen circle can advance against
the eloquent message of Luther.

According to Luther, the purpose of a Christians stay on earth is the exercise of his individual power in
accordance with the will of God. An unchristians will is not subjected to God, and it therefore seeks more
power in this world. God, then, puts fences to protect his sheep from the wolves. Rule is order. Luther calls

government the secular Sword, implying that power transfer is sustained by a threat of violence. A sword
cuts the flesh. However, since everything man puts his hands upon becomes unclean, so power too in hands
of men becomes perverted. Luther criticises kings and dukes for using their power inaccurately, wildly
brandishing their swords and shedding blood all over the soil. The power of a secular government lies only in
restricting body movements, God hinders them all from doing as they please and expressing their
wickedness outwardly in action (p.10). Contrary to the power of sword is the power of Holy Spirit put in our
hands that lets us cure the soul of man. Luther strongly relies on separation of duties between church and
state, drawing borders of proper conduct for both power entities. These powers, he argues, have been created
to temper men and help them find God.

But instead, rulers kill to satisfy their insatiable appetite for power. Will-to-power has overwhelmed men, and
the secular rulers have claimed usurpation of the power of the Holy Spirit. Such exercising of power is not
prescribed by God, and therefore brings only suffering. Such power is the power of a group of marauders,
since If Church only rules over matters that are public and open, by what right does secular authority, in
its folly presume to judge faith (p. 25)? Suffering infringements on their beliefs by vulgar lords,
unchristians can become conditioned to suspend the empowerment of the state and retain certain powers by
changing the reality of power distribution. In theory, these nominal metamorphoses of reality are put into a
cohesive discourse, which requires introduction of auxiliary explanans entity. In case of Luther, as we now
observe, this entity is God.

Luther does not explicitly state if he considers the uprisings for the sake of better reality powerless to bring
more presence of good in the world. He mentions, however, that while Christians are exempted from
participation in the interaction of earthly powers, they nevertheless have to do what would otherwise be left
free to do or omit when their neighbour is in need (p.17), opening by this a problematic dimension of
personal choices. In the end of the sermon, Luther accentuates that a blessed heart is capable of making right
decisions plain to see. In the final anecdote he implies that the actions of Duke Charles were not only
Christian but as well reasonable, right, true. But we have agreed that the degree of truthfulness of a statement

is decided by mans perception of reality and the level to which the statement manages to capture it. Luthers
reality is that of a Christian. He emphasises independence of Christian truth upon this worlds condition of
reality, since Christian reality is made accessible to us only by revelation. It is in this sense that truth for
Luther is not relative. A Christian judges not on his own, but with Gods blessing, and therefore a statement
accumulates truthfulness when it accords with the reality of the Kingdom of God. At the same time, Luther
acknowledges that this reality is impalpable in relation to our common space reality, since it does not
nominally express its presence in our being. A Christian therefore can only simulate his following of the will
of God, and hope that the chosen path will save him from damnation. It is in this sense that truth for Luther is
relative. The exploration of the relations between truth of Gospel and the truth of reason would be later
undertaken and clarified again by Locke.

In Locke, man is the measure of all things. Reason is called upon to differentiate between heretical and
Christian claims, based on how much a statement is in accordance with the reality of power distribution
(commonwealth). While Luther was more interested in drawing the borders of state power authority, Locke
concentrates on evaluating the degree to which our beliefs can be allowed to dictate our behaviour. He wishes
to settle down any fanaticism and promote toleration, which is formulated precisely in terms of not allowing
existence of such beliefs that can induce people to participate in practices which are prohibited by the law.
Locke says, Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth cannot be prohibited by the magistrate in the
Church (P. 26). A claim that ones beliefs are reflections of Christian reality one cannot judge with ones
earthly reason is refuted by Locke as potentially dangerous to peoples public good, if anything pass in a
religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, it is to be punished (p. 39). In his talk about
rituals, Locke lets us grasp his argument. A ritual is a set of body movements that in a given group of people
carries a significance exceeding that which can be prescribed by efficient causes. A religious man adds to the
reality and by that enters personal relations with God. A life of man, then, consists in partaking of social life
and spiritual lifel. But just as one in his conduct cannot on any pretext transgress the borders of established
behavioral propriety, so beliefs as well cannot step outside the borders of reason.

Truth of belief for Locke, as for Luther, is that which leads to salvation of the soul. But, here, on earth, there
are many truths, since salvation of the soul has to be modeled by man. It is required from one to exercise his
own freedom of choice to be eligible for consideration of conscious return to the Heavenly Father. Therefore,
one cannot seek salvation in religions ones reason views as consisting of improper views and rituals, I
cannot be saved by a religion that I distrust and by a worship that I abhor (p. 21). Reason is now not to be
blessed to make Christian judgments. Its innate nature of impartiality is praised. There are other truths for
Locke we are not going to examine in this work.

Politics in Locke is grounded in the theory of social contract. For him the rejection of any heavenly role
government can play in our life is central. However, he does not give a concrete definition of government.
Locke, succumbs to ambiguous positioning of state power. It first and foremost serves to protect private
property of individuals and, at the same time, directs its will to the augmentation of common wealth.
Accumulate and secure. He gives reasons why the will of government should be directed at the first and the
second, but the second does not come from the first. The second, furthermore, does not indicate why there
should be no third thing confinement of a governments will is meant to spare. Thereby, we can see that in
his theory, Locke leaves aside the entity of God in his discourse, but introduces a possibility of confinement
of will of non-individual power entity, The whole jurisdiction of the magistrate reaches only to these civil
concernments, and that all civil power, right and dominion, is bounded and confined to the only care of
promoting these things (p. 7). It is essentially that what Luther viewed to be secular authority, in its folly.
There is no jurisdiction for lords, kings, and dukes. It is only service to God, which can empower man to take
control of state power and not succumb to his passions. State power before was always personal, and
therefore dependent upon individuals will. Now, that power is dissipated, individuals rely on bureaucratic
apparatus, which is supposed to artificially confine the will of government and of people.

III.
A power entity cannot be controlled. It always tends to transform into manifestation of the will-to-power. For

Christians the only escape from this fate is humility. A Christian walks humble before God, since he knows Gods
power is great. He who fears not the power of God will be made to walk humble before an earthly lord. They who
fear not earthly lords and wish to be masters themselves bring the wrath of God upon themselves. Whereas Locke
views as necessary to fight unnecessary evils, the problem for Luther as a Christian is that he views human good as
poisoned and damned to eternally fail in trying to establish its static presence in reality. Heraclitus calls that eternal
coming-into-being. Aeschylus is puzzled by it in Agamemnon. Hume says of that, Good and ill are universally
intermingled and confounded; happiness and misery, wisdom and folly, virtue and vice. Nothing is pure and entirely
of a piece. All advantages are attended with disadvantages. An universal compensation prevails in all conditions of
being and existence. Kant addresses that in the final section of Kritik der reinen Vernunft. We, on our part, can be
touched by the Christian drama of man who seeks the earthly power but looks in Heaven, and be stricken how
recognisably it symbolises our reality we are in our days affirmed of in opposition. Politics of cynicism, which is now
such a widely adopted form of power exercising, conditions such a reality of power distribution, in which state power
has fallen victim of the will-to-power syndrome, but nevertheless pretends to serve the will of state. Existence of
such a form of state politique could not be possible without the discussed developments in political theory.