The evolution and rise of the state was a process that has gone through several levels. The understanding and analysis of the contemporary state must start with some enlightenment of theorists or humanists such as Martin Luther and Niccolo Machiavelli. Notably, the major objectives of these humanists create a distinction between the state and the church. Even though humanism affected both of them to different levels, each came up with special perspectives of the state as well as the church in terms of political strategies that they adopted ( (Failinger & Duty, 2018; Gatti, 2015) . Martin Luther promoted a non-violent approach towards the issues of the society and church, as Machiavelli preferred a more aggressive political action, even if such political violence was not necessary.
Both Machiavelli and Luther discussed about the role of the church in the society. They both presented themselves as humanists to envisage the system of a diversity of the state and the people, which ultimately enhanced greater temporal authority. The diverse perspectives did not imply that the church was being rejected, but were optional notions that they had on temporal authority that had been preserved, in fact in the society. Both of the humanists did not intend to create a complete separation of the church or the society, but rather, they endeavored to model the form of unity, even though this can be hardly attained in the spectrum of man (Gatti, 2015). The Renaissance and the Reformation were reliable revolutions that gave the humanists a platform to resist the state of the church or the society that did not feel satisfied about. They both provided that platform for resistance that both the humanists demonstrated either aggressively politically or through non-violent means.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Martin Luther had some similarities with Machiavelli, however, his blend of the idealistic with the practice was very distinct. The effect of scholasticism and humanism was present in what Luther advocated for, which did not control his perspective of the state. Luther advocated for some elements and principles of human nature that superseded the control of the state. In contrast with the approach of Machiavelli, Luther’s perspective comprised responsibilities that followed the civil liberties of power (Laffin, 2015). Luther utilized power, not to fulfill his own desires, but for the advantage of the people that had delegated him the power.
The non-violent activism of Martin Luther King all began when Rosa Parks declined to be at the back of the bus, went against the segregation law and this consequently led to her arrest at the beginning of 1955 (Laffin, 2015). The African-American headship in Montgomery legendarily selected Dr. Martin Luther King to spearhead their campaign against this vice. Surprisingly, Martin emerged aggressively to lead the non-violent campaign as the foundation of their resistance, a method he had learnt from Mahatma Gandhi. Collaborating with Bayard Rustin and Glenn Smiley, Martin Luther formulated a practice of nonviolence to save the people. It was an idea of nonviolent activism that could be considered as the best approach of hope that can be very instrumental in contemporary society in thousands of Montgomery.
The progress of the state happened gradually. The two theorists (Machiavelli and Luther) are a representation of some of the stages that are significant in the development from feudalism to the modern model of the state or region. Machiavelli's view of the state offered various applications but omitted the reciprocal aspect of the association of the state and the people (Failinger & Duty, 2018) . In fact, he never directly pushed for the separation of the church and the state as he saw the papacy entirely as a local political system that prevented or spearheaded the harmony of Italy.
As for Luther, he gave responsibilities and tasks to the secular ruler and the state in place of the liberties that had been surrendered. Luther stressed on education as a channel for massive political implications. Education provided a platform for the citizens to develop in a good and positive manners and attitudes, besides being trained as valuable Christians. A person, who learned and interpreted scriptures, was also capable of understanding and judging the moral as well as political undertakings of his state (Failinger & Duty, 2018) . Luther also advocated for open occupational opportunities to the faithful, who now became better positioned to have an influence within the government. Luther’s de facto distinction of the church and the state gave the citizens an opportunity to participate, while at the same time did not give room for a check on the state power. Up until the Reformation, the church was a sure institutional barrier to the king. Theoretically, the direct aggressive involvement of the population within the state substituted the church as a way of restraint, even though practically this restraint or barrier did not always work (Marvielli & Thomson, 2018) . There was a sure equilibrium between responsibilities and power, as well as there was a connection that the king and the citizens had, which determined the development of the modern idea of the State in Western Europe.
One of the things that Luther advocated for that was different from Machiavelli’s perspective was that nonviolence was the way of the strong. Nonviolence activism was not a resistance group or a technique of motionless passivity. Even though the nonviolent activist is passive through the way is not aggressively involved against his revival, the mind and emotions are very engaged, continuously convincing the opponent that they on the wrong side (Machiavelli, 2017). This is the method that Luther pushed for, where they were passive on a physical basis but strong and aggressive spiritually. He advocated for an active nonviolent activism to evil.
Another difference that expounds on this non-violent activism of Martin Luther King and political action envisioned by Machiavelli is on how they both examined differently the idea of the separation of the church from the state. Even though for the case of Luther, his attempt to distinguish the church from the state was within the confines of the recognized theological standards at that time. Luther desired that the church be enlightened and have a say in the political framework through the thoughtful influence of the mind, of course grounding his theory on theologically agreed principles (Gatti, 2015). On the other hand, Machiavelli saw the church as a completely political instead of a religious unit. He thought that all men had distinct qualities and destructive inclinations in equal measure.
Machiavelli emphasized the need for a strong monarchy but also declared the significance of popular support, or at best compliance and commitment to the regime that was ruling. He had no doubts or issues over corruptive ways to control a region or the utilization of artifice as long as maintaining of order and protection of the region was guaranteed. Machiavelli was never conventionally ethical is his push for political action. His thoughts were that politics were to be independent of some type of ethics (Machiavelli, 2015). On the other hand, Luther credited a large portion of authority to the temporal government and speculated a heightened reciprocation of the same. He appreciated that the authorities had the responsibility to fight for and serve the best interests of those they were governing. Different from Machiavelli, Luther emphasized the advantages that people would get in place of fighting to maintain the ruler (Laffin, 2015). Luther pushed the ruler to work independently from the papacy so that he is left accountable to only God.
Machiavelli advocated for humanism that most frequently was intended for literary benefits as well as depictions of an ideal situation at that moment. He became more politically active when many problems rose up in the regime. As other humanists, Machiavelli became more analytical focusing on the prince in the last years of the fifteenth century as an ideal person, and on the ethical challenges of being a leader (Failinger & Duty, 2018) . He determined that for a government to be successful, it all depended on the personality of the prince that was in charge of the regime. The prince adhered to this framework by insisting on the capacities of the ruler. A prince that did not possess the suitable qualities to be in charge of his dynasty would shorten his tenure. Machiavelli evaluated the diverse qualities that were significant for a ruler to be successful instead of evaluating the constructive qualities of an ideal prince (Marvielli & Thomson, 2018) . He emphasized that some of the significant qualities of a strong leader do not correspond to the qualities of an ideal person. Simply, he argued whether the virtues and qualities that the prince displayed were to vary from those of an ideal citizen.
On the other hand, Luther supported that the civil government was to fight for the public good for all. They were to act in the capacity of moral promoters, even if acting in corrupt ways or unlawful manner did not affect that society significantly. The non-violent activism of Luther comes in when he pushed for the ruler acting on behalf of the citizens, by insisting that actions that did not support the commandments were to be condemned and dealt with. This advocated for deliberate pressure on the individual’s (in this situation the ruler’s) position as a Christian within this assigned jurisdiction (Laffin, 2015). Thus, Luther pushed for the correct faith, where he mobilized people to protest non-violently against rulers who did not carry out their responsibilities with consideration of the citizens. The rulers were serving with the best of their efforts to fulfill the needs of the society. Even though Luther emphasized the distinction between the church and the state, he underscored that the proposed model may not be complete, and the ruler was to determine to be guided by the Christian principles.
Machiavelli was negative about life and did not find any man faithful. He advocated for force, either mentally or physically as the only way to regulate and enforce authority over the population. His theory was that human nature naturally produced people that were unthankful, indecisive, feigners, motivated to gain, as well as, loved things that protected them from a looming danger. In that regard, he thought that the relationship between the government and the people is often weak and even risky at times. Rulers that depended wholly on popular vote underwent heightened risks. When the citizens saw that they would benefit, then they were easily supportive and committed to the ruler (Marvielli & Thomson, 2018) . In that scenario, in the history of political assumption, the organization of a state was being raised in which there were no morals or they could manufacture them on their own. Religion was an instrument of the ruler instead of them being a tool for the church.
As for Luther, he separated between Christian authority or State and Christians in authority within the state. To play the non-violent role of activism, Christian authority changed into a theocracy that he did not support. Christians in authority were the better choice for Luther because the state advantaged its citizens as it made efforts to fulfill the needs without forcing them into anything. Christians that found an opportunity to serve in the government protested against evil within society from a moral perspective (Laffin, 2015). The ruler could not just push for ideologies that would put the nation at risk or challenge the moral frameworks. Therefore, Luther supported obedience to the state and people could only be violent to the government when nonviolence activism did not work. The state or ruler could not control the matters of conscience of the citizens to serve their own interests.
Are there times when political violence is necessary, even desirable?
There are, however, situations when political violence is needed or even desirable. Civil disobedience or non-violent activism can be helpful to society but to some point. As indicated in the time of Martin Luther, civil disobedience was practiced when the ruler commanded something on the citizens that did not line up with the religious position. As such, citizens cannot tolerate being dominated by the rulers over their rights and liberties. The attempts of the government to force the citizens into a practice or a compliance of something that is against their expectations should be fought aggressively (Gatti, 2015). In fact, it is both the citizen’s duty and right in such situations, to counter force with force, particularly if the struggle has been initiated by the state. In such cases, political violence should be the option.
The actual rebel is the person who is oppressing others. If the head of the state is directly or indirectly involved in oppressing the faith or challenging the moral of citizens, he should be vehemently stopped. In addition, if the ruler pursued an evidently unfair war, then the citizens are not permitted to join but to disobey. Martin Luther elaborates this aspect in his works on non-violence activism (Laffin, 2015). Therefore, passive resistance should be referred to the active one, especially when it has been determined that the latter will disrupt the peace of the society. The citizens have the duty to warn and resist rules of any wrong leadership. The first line of attack to the state should be embraced before political violence is considered as a better alternative.
In conclusion, both Machiavelli and Luther had different views concerning the social duties of the state and the citizens. The perspectives of Luther are critical in reinforcing the social duties that the state has over its people, especially the poor and less privileged in the nation. The government should be well organized so as it to serve the best interests of the citizens, other than the self-interests of the leader. A state must lay down clear frameworks for protesting the issues that are happening in the region. The government should not serve with deceit and pretense, as this has often proved destructive to many nations. Christians that have positions within the state should check the immoral practices being promoted inside the government and seize them.
References
Failinger, M., & Duty, R. W. (2018). Luther and Machiavelli—the human subject, religion and the state MICHAEL REIDTRICE. In Lutheran Theology and Secular Law (pp. 71-80). Routledge.
Gatti, H. (2015). Ideas of Liberty in Early Modern Europe: From Machiavelli to Milton . Princeton University Press.
Laffin, M. R. (2016). The Promise of Martin Luther's Political Theology: Freeing Luther from the Modern Political Narrative (Vol. 1). Bloomsbury Publishing.
Machiavelli, N. (2017). The Works of Niccolò Machiavelli . Starkey.
Machiavelli, N., & Thomson, N. H. (2018). Machiavelli: The Prince (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought) . CDED.
