John Locke (1632-1704) brings this series of blogs to a new place: there is now a direct link between a philosopher and the American Revolution. In fact, there is no single philosopher more important to the founding of the United States of America than Locke. Many of the founders read Locke, and his ideas were influential in shaping their thinking. His works were paraphrased  by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. [1]

John Locke was born into what we would call an upper middle-class family. His father was a lawyer and small landowner who served in Cromwell’s army. His son was educated first in London at Westminster School and then at Oxford. After graduation, Locke worked for a time as an administrator and teacher in Oxford. While at Oxford, Locke became interested in the natural sciences and became interested in medicine, a profession he followed during his lifetime. In 1667, Locke left Oxford for London, where he became associated with the family of Anthony Ashley Cooper (Lord Ashley, later made the Earl of Shaftesbury).

The Earl of Shaftsbury was an important figure from the time of Cromwell through the reign of Charles II. He was a philosophically astute politician and played a role in the founding of South Carolina, among his many other accomplishments. Locke’s duties with the Cooper family were varied: he was a tutor, a physician (whom is patron felt saved his life in an operation), counselor, and friend. Locke also held governmental positions during this period. It was at this time that Locke began his most famous philosophical work, “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,” a founding work of what we today call “Empiricism.”

Around 1674, Shaftesbury left government for a time.  Locke then went back to Oxford, where he acquired the degree Bachelor of Medicine and was licensed to practice medicine.  After traveling for a time, Locke went back to London around 1675. Unfortunately, the political fortunes of his sponsor had changed dramatically. The Earl of Shaftsbury was a part of a group which attempted to prevent James II from succeeding to the throne of England. When that attempt failed and the Glorious Revolution occurred, Shaftsbury’s was forced to flee to the Continent to escape persecution and Locke soon followed. [2]  During this period of time, Locke wrote the original drafts of the that have made him famous, including the two works to be reviewed in these blogs: Letter Concerning Toleration and his Two Treatises on Government.” While in exile, Lock also finished An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.

In 1688, after the Glorious Revolution was complete and William and Mary replaced James II on the throne of England, Locke returned on the same vessel that carried Mary to her new home. Soon after his return, Locke published An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689) and The Two Treatises of Government (1690) as well as A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689).  It is notable that the latter two books were not published under this name during his lifetime.

In addition to his philosophical and practical efforts in government, Locke was a doctor and had deep scientific interests. Locke knew Sir Isaac Newton and a member of the Royal Society, which is the most prestigious scientific society in England.

The State of Nature

There is no aspect of Locke’s work more complex and filled with difficulties than his treatment of “Natural Law” and his reliance on an original “State of Nature” preceding the formation of societies and a “Natural Law” giving order to that state. He begins his analysis of the formation of governments as follows:

“To understand Political Power rightly, and derive it from its Original, we must consider what State all men are naturally in, and that is a State of Perfect Freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their Possessions, and Persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the Will of any other man. [3]

For Locke, political power involves the right to make laws and institute penalties for their violation, regulate the use of property, and employing necessary force to both protect the commonwealth and enforce its laws. [4] Such a right emerges out of an original state of perfect freedom. In this state, subject to natural law human beings can live and dispose of their possessions without restriction of others.

Locke is aware that there is a powerful objection to this posited State of Nature, which is the denial that any such state ever existed. His answer, echoing Hobbes, is that the rulers of the world, who can act without restriction, are and always have been in a state of nature. [5] To the author, this answer is not satisfactory. As will be seen, Locke, unlike Hobbes, understands human sociability and the way in which that sociability draws men into society. However, he fails to reflect upon and give theoretical primacy to the fact that all people in all times of human history have been in some kind of society, and no one has ever been able to do  exactly as they pleased with their persons or property.

This is an instance of Locke “clamping down” a theory on the facts despite a lack of sufficient evidence to justify the theory—or at least in the face of substantial contrary facts. [6] Human societies have existed as long as we humans can understand the past.  The primitive societies of the past emerged from families and extended families, together with others who came to rely upon the community for shelter and support. Human choice has always been limited by genetic, personal, familial, social, geographic, economic and other factors inherited by every individual who ever lived. Even emperors, kings and rulers have had restrictions under which they lived, restrictions placed on them by the factors mentioned as well as by their armies, nobles, wealthy families and others. [7]

Locke goes on to posit that, in this illusory State of Nature, human beings were equal. That is to say, in the State of Nature human persons were, in the beginning equal in property, equal in “the advantages of nature,” and equal in social status and social advantage. [8] It is even harder to believe that this state ever existed. First, human beings are and always have been born with differing levels of intelligence, strength, and position within their families and social network. It is certain that there was never a time when the strongest did not possess more, have more power, and enjoy a higher social status. Once again, Locke is allowing his commendable political and moral intentions to ignore the facts of human history and human society.

Natural Law

Locke then goes on to derive the beginnings of his theory of Natural Law from his notion of original equality, and in do doing shows both his reliance upon the social history of Christianity and its basic moral code. Quoting Richard Hooker, an earlier thinker and bishop in the Anglican Church, Locke supports the notion that because of our common human equality, we all not only wish to be treated with charity and justice, we are under a moral obligation to treat others in according to the Golden Rule, which constitutes the first principle of Natural Law: that one ought to treat others with the same fairness and concern as one wishes to be treated one’s self.

To anticipate a future position and argument, one does not have to posit an original state of nature in order to defend some version of natural law or the Golden Rule. All one needs to posit is that this rule or maxim of life, which appears in more than one religion in more than one place and time, represents the results of the experience of countless persons in countless societies of countless types, democracies, monarchies, and oligarchies. Instead of being an axiom derived from reason from an “original state,” it is principle that emerged from concrete human experience, just as all wisdom maxims do. [9]

The development of the notion of Natural Law in Locke is important. For Americans, it is important because the founders universally subscribed to some version of natural law and a version of Natural Law is fundamental to American Constitutionalism as it was originally concieved. This is true for other democracies which either patterned themselves after the American form of Government or the ideas of Locke as they influenced British and European democratic regimes. As such, it is worth some time and effort to understand Locke’s view of “Natural Law.”

Natural law is different from, and acts as a guide for, humanly created laws. Natural law is essentially moral in nature, it posits that our common human nature and experience provide certain fundamental principles that can and ought to guide every human being and human society. These principles are not simply human drives or human will made into principles. Instead these principles derive from human reason—from our human capacity to reflect upon experience and mold the future. For example, we all know that the Golden Rule does not come naturally. If it did, my mother would not have had to repeat it to me so often as a child with respect to my treatment of my brother and others. However, human experience, when rationally considered, leads one to conclude that the Golden Rule is a reliable guide to action. This reliable guide emerges from the way the world is constructed and operates. [10]

It is time to draw this blog to a close, but the discussion will need to be continued later. There is a tendency to think of Natural Law as non-existent unless its conclusions are logically or empirically necessary. In my view, this is a mistake. Natural law is not like a mathematical law nor is it like an empirical law of science. It is a theoretical moral guide to human action based upon past human experience. As such, we may be mistaken as to the nature of the natural law, and future experience and changes in human society may force changes in human intuitions of the best forms of behavior for humans and their societies. This does not mean that “Natural Law” is whatever we wish it to be, for there are continuities in human life and experience that are at least as important, perhaps more important, than contemporary changes. I doubt that there are legitimate future facts that will make, “Thou Shalt Not Kill” any less fundamental to a good society than it was for the earliest human societies.

Copyright 2021, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] Locke’s influence appears in many speeches and writings of the founders. His  political writings heavily influenced Thomas Jefferson in writing the Declaration of Independence. Some of the language of the Declaration of Independence is directly derived from Locke’s works. See, Brennee Goforth, “How John Locke  influenced the Declariation of Independence” (July 4 2019), at https://lockerroom.johnlocke.org/2019/07/04/john-locke-and-the-declaration-of-independence/ (Downloaded January 27, 2021).

[2] The Glorious Revolution, “The Revolution of 1688” or “The Bloodless Revolution,” took place from 1688 to 1689. During this time, of the Catholic king James II was overthrown and replaced by his Protestant daughter Mary and her Dutch husband, William of Orange. In the process, the power of Parliament was greatly increased and the foundations for the modern English parliamentary democracy laid.

[3] John Locke, Two Treatises of Government Revised Critical Ed. (New York, NY: Mentor Press/Cambridge Press, 1960, 1963), 309. All quotations are from this edition.

[4] Id, 308. This definition assumes that the ruler has the right and at this juncture Locke has not made known his views concerning how that right arises. To anticipate a future blog, it arises via the Social Compact that creates a political society.

[5] Id, at 317.

[6] Any theoretical enterprise involves creating a theoretical framework to explain the facts as nature and history disclose them to be. A sound theory emerges from those facts as an explanation of their coherence and meaning. When a theory is clamped down on facts, the theory takes precedence over the facts of nature and history, causing the theoretical to ignore important facts not explainable by the theory. For a very important exposition of this phenomena, see Thomas F. Torrance, “Chapter 2: The Integration of Form in Natural and Theological Science” in Transformation and Convergence in the Frame of Knowledge: Explorations in the Interrelations of Scientific and Theological Enterprise (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1984). A specific discussion of the results of “camping down” is found at page 80.

[7] One of the interesting factors concerning the Roman Empire is the extent to which Emperors were chosen by the Praetorian Guard and removed if ever the Roman Armies turned upon them. Their freedom was a bounded freedom at best. In my view, it is best to begin a defense of representative government with the facts of human history and its gradual movement towards forms of representative democracy as “emergent phenomena” that represent real progress.

[8] Id, at 309.

[9] See, G. Christopher Scruggs, Path of Life: The Way of Wisdom for Christ-Followers (Eugene OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016). One does not have to be a Christian or even the follower of any religion to eventually conclude that life is better for all concerned if one treats others as one wishes to be treated.

[10] Once again, to anticipate a future argument, it is not necessary to be religious to grasp certain features of human experience.

This week, my intention was to write a blog on the way in which modern physics can illuminate decision-making, with an emphasis on political decision-making. Then, in trying to answer a friend’s question about disciple-making, I realized it might be a good idea to talk about disciple-making in a time of Covid19.

Some readers will recall that with my wife I have written a curriculum on disciple-making and a series of blogs that are now a book in process on the subject. [1] Inherent in both these attempts is the principle that disciple-making takes place within and is an activity of the entire church, whether that church is a formal body or a small group of people. Jesus said, “Wherever two or more are gathered in my name, there I will be with them” (Matthew 18:20). In Hebrews the author admonishes the church, “Let us not give up the habit of meeting together, as some are doing. Instead, let us encourage one another all the more, since you see that the Day of the Lord is coming nearer”(Hebrews 9:25). The example of Jesus, Paul, and the early church encourage us in the belief that meeting together as Christians, and discipling people in groups, is not an optional thing for Christians.

Enter Covid19

The emergence of Covid19, and the responses of our government and governments throughout the world, have made difficult, and in some cases impossible, the work of sharing the Good News of God’s love within local congregations and beyond. The experience of our family is common. Initially, we could not attend church nor could our church hold services at all. We could not engage in our normal business and social life. This lasted for some weeks. Our small group did not meet during the first period of quarantine. In particular, Church committees and ministry teams stopped meeting. Mission trips were cancelled and local mission projects were put on hold. Everything was at a standstill.

At first, many of us thought to ourselves, “This is temporary and will soon pass.” But, that is not what happened. The absolute ban on church services ended in most states and communities by sometime in May or early June 2020, but there were still serious restrictions on groups and their meetings. A sanctuary built for 500 or so people might only hold 100 or so given the restrictions on the size of groups that might meet and social distancing requirements.  Many people, especially older people, no longer attended because of a continuing fear of exposure to the disease. This was true for both churches and small groups. In one older congregation with which I am familiar, the small groups ceased to operate all-together, and are still not meeting in any organized way.

Then, it became obvious that the disease was going to emerge in waves, and the lock downs might appear or reappear at any time. New strains of the disease were reported in newspapers and other media. In some places, churches that had begun worshiping in person stopped doing so for a period of time. Christmas programs were shortened and held online. By the first of this year, most pastors with whom I visited were of the opinion that between 10 and 30 percent of their congregations would never return. In some cases, budgets, were being cut. In a few cases, pastors would admit that they were not sure that their congregation would survive.

Going On-Line

The first response of most congregations to the problem was to go online. Facebook, U-Tube, Vimeo, and other technologies and platforms made this possible. In the beginning, larger congregations had a distinct advantage, many of whom were already recording or streaming their services. Then, smaller congregations began streaming their services. What was most amazing and comforting to me was the speed at which the availability, content, and professionalism of the new online participants increased. In some cases, some smaller congregation worship services seemed more real and more moving than those of larger, more technologically-savvy congregations.

One way in which the church of Jesus Christ may have been permanently changed by Covid19 is that smaller congregations that never broadcast their services in the past will probably continue to do so for shut-ins and others into the future. In at least one case of which I am aware total attendance is up for last year when “on-line” and “in person” attendees are put together. While this congregation has seen some financial pressures and program realignment, it has managed to enter 2021 in sound condition.

Touch by Phone and Mail.

Most pastors early-on recognized the potential of Covid19 to harm their Christian community. In every case of which I am aware, pastors, deacons, elders, small group leaders, and staff members began to call, email, and write shut-ins and others who were physically distant and unable to attend. In some congregations within the first two months every member was called, including inactive members. The purpose of these calls was to re-establish personal connection with the membership of the church. This was an initial positive of Covid19.

Many churches began or continued programs of sending cards to elderly members and others with pastoral needs that could not be met because of Covid19 restrictions. This was especially important in bereavement situations, where funerals were cancelled or delayed due to Covid19. Of course, those congregations which sent cards to visitors were constricted in this form of evangelism by the absence of visitors, a problem that continues to this day.

Media Meetings

Almost immediately, church groups, many of whom met weekly or monthly were faced with the need to find ways of meeting online. When the pandemic began, many church leaders had never heard of “Zoom.” Today, I attend some kind of Bible study or meeting every week on Zoom alone. Zoom is not the only alternative out there for online meetings, there is Google Hangout, Skype, Microsoft Teams, Free Conference, Group Facetime, and other platforms can be used to have such meetings.

Having visited with a number of pastors and executives about “Media Meetings,” I think that there are nearly always three responses:

1. First, holding  Media Meetings has been a success, even where it was not the perfect way to hold the meeting.
2. Second, Media Meetings are especially successful where the meeting has a concrete purpose and a decision to be made based upon information that can be sent to attendees in advance.
3. Third, Media Meetings are not the perfect vehicle for brainstorming, evaluating potential courses of action, personnel matters,, or evaluating the emotional commitment and responses of people to a problem or opportunity.

Just a few weeks into the pandemic, our small group decided that we had had enough isolation and decided to meet by Zoom, which one of our members knew how to use and who sponsored the meeting. It was surprising how well the group adapted to the situation. As far as the content of the Bible Study and the sharing of information and prayer requests was concerned, on the surface we noticed no particular problems. We were excited to experience something new.

Under the surface, there were problems. For one thing, we could no longer eat a meal together. That element dropped out of our meetings all together. In addition, the men and women who were accustomed to a few moments together alone during the meeting to share concerns, ideas, and the like could no longer do so easily. Inviting new people to the study, while possible, did not seem likely. Informal disciple-making within the group was not easy. Part of our small group is sharing with the group opportunities we have shared our faith during the past week. This became very difficult except for those with an online platform through which to do so. As excited as we were to be meeting together in some form, the form was not perfect.

Virtues and Limitations of Virtual Church

As can be easily seen from the foregoing, there are both strengths and limitations in the notion of a “virtual church.” Most congregations have been able to “muddle through” Covid19 restrictions by adapting to the crisis and taking advantage of some of the opportunities that technology affords. This is a good thing.

The success many have had in adapting can, however, mask the limitations on “Virtual Community.”  My dictionary defines “Virtual” as “being such in power, force, or effect, though not expressly such”. As to computer generated virtual worlds, the same dictionary defines virtual as “a reality temporarily simulated or extended by a computer device.” From these definitions, we can see two characteristics of “Virtual Community” that should be concerning to all of us:

1. Virtual Community is not “real”. It is virtual. Virtual community is a simulation or imitation, a temporarily created reality dependent upon the ability and willingness of those who control the technology to continue.
2. Virtual Community should be temporary. Once again, virtual community does not exist without the creation of the virtual reality by those who control the technology. It is not a good substitute for people meeting together in the flesh and sharing their lives in deep and personal ways.

While technology has created the ability to continue the power and efficacy of Christian communities for a time, and in some cases for a long time, Christian leaders should not rely solely on virtual community for the extended future. There is no substitute for actual, in-person, human community. There is no substitute in disciple-making to one-on-one or small group disciple-making connections.

In the long run, no church can be and become all that God wants it to be unless it reaches out physically and personally to those who are without a local Christian community within which people grow in Christ-likeness. In the long run, those congregations that take Acts 2:42-47 seriously, and create the kind of growing, vibrant, spirit-filled community that Acts portrays, are those that will prosper during and beyond the current epidemic. [2]

Going Forward

Not long ago, I visited with a pastor about the challenges Covid19 poses for congregations. We were both aware of the many problems Covid19 has posed for pastors and leaders. As I write, there is no obvious end in sight for the dislocations of Covid19. The need for some kind of virtual church will continue for some time—in some form probably forever.

At the same time, my experience has been that those congregation with a strong small group program already in existence have fared better under COvid19 than those without a vibrant small group community. This would argue for congregations to continue and expand their disciple-making programs to the maximum extent possible, despite the current crisis and to respond to any opportunity to create and nurture small disciple-making groups within the local congregation.

Here are a few suggestions based upon my experience and the experience of those I have consulted:

1. Make Forming Disciple-making Groups a Priority! Every pastor should make disciple-making a priority. This was true before Covid19. In multi-staff congregations there should be at least one staff member whose primary or sole duty is the formation and support of small groups. The focus of the pastor or single individual on disciple-making groups should not inhibit church leaders from making disciple-making and group formation “the business of everyone.” The Great Commission was for all disciples of Jesus, and all disciples of Jesus need to participate in this endeavor. Covid19 does not change the business of the church; it only changes our methods.
2. Commit to Supporting and Growing your Program. In this environment, small, disciple-making groups usually need some kind of technology and help in making it work for their group. New groups will need access to technology as well as curriculum. Do not be satisfied with the status quo, be committed to growth by whatever means are possible for your congregation.
3. Understand and Support Existing Groups. In one of my former congregations we realized we did not have a clear idea of how many small disciple-making groups we had! This church had a variety of Bible study, prayer, ministry, mission, reunion, monthly fellowship, and other smaller discipling groups. We were amazed at the number of people we had the ability to touch weekly. You may be surprised as well. Having identified these groups, find ways to encourage and expand their activities despite Covid19. For larger churches this is an opportunity to have all staff members and leaders grow in their capacity to take advantage of disciple-making opportunities.
4. Identify and Train Leaders. A growing church has to grow new leaders. In the current environment, many new leaders may be younger members who were not previously in leadership but whose age and careers make them comfortable in virtual groups and “tech savvy” concerning their operation. In fact, Covid19 presents an opportunity to recruit a new generation and type of church leader. These group leaders should be asked to make a list of potential members, including people inside and outside of an existing congregation. Having recruited leaders, it is the business of pastors, staff, elders, and existing leaders to train and equip them for success.
5. Give People Technology Options. Leadership should not try to make disciple-making groups a “one-size fits all” process. This is certainly true of the technology used by the group. For example, for one-on-one disciple-making, Phone calls, Facetime, Skype and the like may be just fine. Larger groups will need different and more complex technology. Having said this, churches and groups of churches that are able to should consider investing in their own platform designed or adapted for their needs.
6. Curriculum and Management. As to curriculum, consider making your congregation’s basic small disciple-making group program an extension of the pastor’s text and sermon for the week. This requires that each pastor evaluate carefully where he or she wishes to take the congregation spiritually in the next period of time. It has the advantage of creating unity and cohesion among many people in a time when achieving such is hard. As to existing groups, offer them options, but allow them to decide for themselves what they will study and how they will meet.
7. Make Your Program a “Hybrid” Program. As mentioned earlier, our group went from meeting in person weekly, to meeting online, to meeting both online and personally. When the initial Covid19 restrictions were lifted in our area, we began meeting in person, but some folks were either unwilling or unable to attend in person. My wife and I were among the latter for a good length of time, and occasionally even now. We have continued to allow members to meet virtually, not just because of Covid19 but also to accommodate people as the travel and conduct their professional lives in the face of Covid19.

Conclusion

I hope that this little blog is helpful to pastors and church leaders who are faced with the continuing restrictions Covid19 imposes on church activities. The basic message is simple: We cannot use Covid19 as an excuse to put the Great Commission on hold. Second, modern technology gives us some tools past generations lacked with which to meet the crisis. Finally, however competent we become at the art of virtual community, it will not be a substitute for in-person Christian community.

Copyright 2021, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] G. Christopher and Kathy T. Scruggs, Salt & Light: Everyday Discipleship (Collierville, TN: Innovo, 2017).

[2] They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved (Acts 2:42-47). Every church should make this the center and goal of their church life—and this means creating and maintaining smaller, disciple-making groups.

 

As earlier mentioned, Hobbes holds a mechanistic view of the world in which matter and force are ultimate realities. Everything is determined by the mechanical operation of force on matter. In such a universe, there is little room for freedom in nature or in human life. In fact, one sees in Hobbes the shadow of an understanding doctrine of predestination prevalent among Reformed theologians, a doctrine in which it was (and is) difficult to find a place for a coherent doctrine of human freedom. [1] The result, for Hobbes, and for all those who follow his way of thinking, is a universe without meaning, in which the idea human freedom is ultimately meaningless. Such a vision of reality is inclined to some form of totalitarianism when applied to government. In its Marxist form, it becomes a doctrine of an inevitable materialistic course of human history. In its capitalist form, it becomes submission to a “free market” and its operation.

The position outlined in these blogs is quite different. The human experience of freedom is not a mere illusion based upon a lack of understanding of the world. Historical material forces do not fully or finally determine the future. The world in both its quantum and everyday aspects displays an astonishing amount of freedom. At the most basic level of reality, events contain an element of indeterminism and at the macro-level self-organizing systems reveal a kind of freedom from determinism, seen for example in chaos theory. As physicist and theologian John Polkinghorne puts it:

“Modern science has come to recognize that the processes that give rise to genuine novelty have to be at the “edge of chaos” where order and disorder, chance and necessity, creatively interlace. Otherwise, things are either too rigid for anything really new to happen or too haphazard for novelty to persist. The intrinsic unpredictabilities of quantum physics and chaos theory can be seen theologically as gifts of a Creator whose creation is orderly and open in this way. [2]

The universe humans inhabit does not appear to be fully deterministic. There is a place for both natural and human freedom. In particular, the emergence of the human race brought into existence beings with the ability for conscious choice and the creative ability to both adapt to the determinative elements of the material environment and creatively exploit its potential future organization. Human beings are true participants in the unfolding of a meaningful history, a history in which our choices are real and have real potential to bring about a better and freer future for ourselves and our families (or the reverse).

Hobbes on Freedom

Hobbes begins his analysis of the meaning of human freedom by defining freedom as follows, “Liberty, or Freedom, signifies the absence of opposition; by opposition I mean external impediments of motion; and may be applied to less to irrational and inanimate creatures than to rational.” [3]  There are two aspects of this definition that readers should bear in mind:

1. Freedom is freedom from “opposition” or “impediments” of motion. In the end, freedom for Hobbes is the freedom to do whatever we wish or will to do without any restraint. [4] Those wishes and wills, however, are determined by material forces. Human freedom is no different from the freedom of a rock to fall under the force of gravity.
2. Lack of freedom is a matter of external restraint. A rock falling is free to fall under the impact of gravity so long as no other force acts upon it. Translated to human freedom, freedom is the freedom to act without external restraint. A free person is one who is free to do whatever he or she wills to do without external hinderance. [5] Physical infirmity and external laws are natural and human imposed restraints on freedom.

Thus, Hobbes freedom is a freedom “from” restraints on the human will, not a freedom “for” human achievement and flourishing. In the classical view, freedom was not simply a freedom from restraint but a freedom of each individual to achieve the end for which human beings were made. In a classical view of freedom, while freedom from restraint is an aspect of freedom, that freedom from restraint is a freedom to achieve the good for which human beings were created. There is a “telos” (or goal) to human freedom. In Hobbes constricted view there is only a freedom from, for there is no goal to human existence.

For Hobbes every action is caused (determined) by physical causes that mean all human behavior is necessary. The final cause in Hobbes mind is God. [6] Everything that occurs in the universe is determined by necessity, including human actions. Real existential freedom is not part of the universe. According to Hobbes, the fact that an action is caused, and the cause is determinative, does not make it less free.

Political Consequences

At this point, it is important to recall that Hobbes’ view of society as instituted because of fear, the fear of chaos and violence. In order to achieve peace (an absence of the fear of violence and chaos), human beings give up their freedom, human society is formed, and human laws are enacted. These laws are “artificial chains”. [7] The use of the term “artificial chains” is instructive. Laws are external rules imposed upon citizens that constrict their freedom in the search for social peace. Political freedom simply refers to those areas of life that are currently not the subject of some legal impediment to action.

Notice that, unlike a classical or Christian view, laws are not constructed by free agents to seek a common good or the good of families or communities. Political society is not formed for the purpose of providing a social structure within which human freedom can be exercised and human potential realized. There is no common good to which all human beings and their leaders should strive within human society. Political society is formed solely to eliminate chaos, violence and fear, which Hobbes believes to be the “natural state” of the human agent. In Hobbes, the more organic and historically accurate view of the origin and evolution of human society is lacking.

One result is to discourage looking at laws as essential to human thriving. For example, the laws against murder and assault are surely partially enacted to prevent social chaos. Nevertheless, they are also a guide to healthy human life. If we believe that human beings were meant to be rational, cherishing human life and human potential, then the laws against murder and violence, as well as a great many other laws, are not merely restrictions on liberty, but also guides to the achievement of human potential. Even with respect to such mundane matters as traffic laws, a Hobbesian view sees these laws as restrictions of human activity (such as speeding). This overlooks the common objective of such restrictions: allowing people to travel safely and reach their destinations without accident, so that they can conduct their lives and businesses profitably. This is an aspect of law that Hobbes misses entirely.

Consequences of the Unlimited Power of the Sovereign

Because Hobbes believes the sovereign has unlimited power (that is an unlimited capacity to restrict human freedom), he is required to defend his notion of freedom in a way consistent with the notion of absolute sovereign power. Hobbes begins by taking the position that there is nothing a sovereign can do that constitutes an unjust deprivation of human freed, even putting a subject to death. [8] This is a totalitarian position granting to sovereigns unchecked power.

In fact, only a sovereign is truly free under Hobbes doctrine. The state, and therefore its rulers, are free because the sovereign and it alone can do whatever it pleases without restraint. [9] This notion of absolute sovereignty flows from his fundamentally material and antisocial view of the human race and its condition without laws: the war of “everyman against his neighbor.” [10] Once again, we see in Hobbes’ limited, dark and entirely constricted view of human beings and of human society—and one that flies in the face of a good portion of human experience.

Liberty without Freedom

According to Hobbes, once a sovereign is either acknowledged or established, having submitted to a government in order to achieve some kind of social peace, the subject has the duty and obligation to support the state. The freedom established by Hobbes notion of sovereignty is not the freedom to achieve “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” unimpeded by the power and interference of the state. In the first instance, human freedom is the freedom to obey the sovereign. Hobbes’ freedom is the freedom to obey and support the state, having authorized its actions in advance by submission to its power. [11] However, another remaining liberty is the right to refuse to obey and suffer the due consequences of refusal or the establishment of a new sovereignty. [12] Thus, a sovereign can order the suicide of a subject with no injustice, and the subject can refuse according to the law of nature—but must expect to suffer the consequences.

As for any other form of liberty, it depends upon the “silence of the law.” [13] The only area of human freedom is whatever area is left without legislation or regulation restricting that freedom: “In cases where the sovereign has prescribed no rule, there the subject hath the liberty to do, or forbear, according to his own discretion.” [14] This is again a concrete example of Hobbes negative, “freedom from” view of the nature of liberty. Within his system, there is simply no coherent way to object to a decision of a sovereign. The only real appeal to a decision of the sovereign cannot be to reason, but to force of some kind to remove the sovereign and create another sovereignty by force. There is no notion of freedom as an open area within which the good of human society and the achievement of human potential can be achieved.

An Agapistic Response to Hobbes

There are continuities between some versions of the post-modernist outlook and response to political realities and the dark ideas of Hobbes. Both are radically materialistic in their vision. Both are inclined to see sovereign power as a guarantor of “safety” from violence, physical, social and emotional. Both are inclined to disregard the existence of limitations on what government might do to enforce their vision of social reality.

Interestingly, both can be suspicious of communal norms. This concern of the post-modernists was kindly communicated to me by a philosophy professor with whom I was discussing a communitarian ethic. His concern was the absorption of the individual into the community and the lack of any limitations on what kinds of morality and law a community might enforce. In his mind the state was the guarantor of the individual’s rights to be “different.” At the time, I had no response to his concern. However, I do think a response is possible—but only for those who embrace an ontology and political philosophy of love, what I have called an agapistic political theory.

A politics of love rejects the notion that there are no limits on what governments can and ought to do, on the grounds that the freedom is necessary for human beings to flourish and for human culture to progress. The natural tendencies for political units to increase their power and control has to be balanced by a desire to allow persons, families, neighborhoods, churches, communities, and other social groups form themselves and those who belong to the group. Love, by its nature, sets limitations on power.

Of course, those who believe in God and in some transcendental purpose to life will defend the maximization of social free space as allowing individuals the freedom to achieve their true end, their true nature, as reflected in the nature of God. [15] Christians will believe that this free space is necessary for believers to truly become like Christ in their capacity for self-giving love. Those who do not believe in God can also participate in this vision because they too believe that human beings ought to be free to become their true, chosen selves.

From a theological point of view, God created the universe with a kind of freedom through which human beings eventually evolved. Throughout eons and eons, God has allowed and continues to allow the evolution of human society as a place of freedom from the absolute control of the creator so that this creature might freely embrace fellowship with God and others, creating a social life that achieves a not the abstract dictates of a Divine Dictator, but the free choices of human persons. One of the purposes of human society is to protect the maximum amount of that freedom consistent with human safety and society.

On the other hand, a politics of love recognizes that love can only be experienced and practiced within social realities, marriage, family, neighborhoods, communities, social organizations, and even in political institutions. The social fabric of a sound society is necessary as a place where love can flourish, and so it is necessary to build up the social bonds of that kind of love that we can call “social pragma,” the love of members of a society for the society as a whole and all of its members, not just for members of its own social group. [16]

Finally, freedom cannot exist without sacrifice—a kind of sacrificial love in which the individual is cherished by his or her society and given the social space to be achieve their own individual destiny and purpose. In this view, society is almost like a dance, with the partners being freedom and community, with each individual both respecting communal norms and being granted the space to grow and flourish, even in some instances in responsible dissent from those norms.

This defense of freedom will be the subject of future blogs.

Copyright 2021, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] This is not the place for a discussion of the Doctrine of Predestination or the various forms it takes in Catholic and Protestant circles.

[2] John Polkinghorne & Nicholas Beale, Questions of Truth: Fifty-one Responses to Questions about God, Science, and Belief (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox 2009), 43.

[3] Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan: Or the Matter, form, and Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil ed. Michael Oakeshott (New York, NY: Collier-McMillan, 1971), 159. All references herein are to this edition of Leviathan. I have taken the liberty of rendering Hobbes language into more contemporary English, since we do not use terms like “signifieth” in normal conversation.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id, at 160. This is not a theological essay, but it is fascinating how Hobbes and other early mechanists appear to be influence by an extreme predestinarian outlook on the world. One might say that a dark result of extreme Calvinism is the loss of freedom for both the individual and for creation as a whole.

[7] Id.

[8] Id, at 161.

[9] Id, at 162. Notice again that sovereigns are free because they lack restraint. Thus, the kind of checks and balances that prevent democracy from degenerating into mob-rule, aristocracy from degenerating into oligarchy, and kingship into tyranny is entirely lacking any foundation.

[10] Id.

[11] Id, at 164.

[12] Id, at 165.

[13] Id, at 165-166.

[14] Id, at 166. To anticipate a future argument, the so-called “legal realism” of is an adaptation to American law of this principle, which once again, I think can be mistaken.

[15] The idea for this section came to me in reading John D. Zizioulas, Communion and Otherness (London, ENG: T & T Clark, 2006. For those not familiar with Zizioulas, he is a Greek Orthodox theologian, most well-known for his insistence that the trinity is constituted by the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and therefore, communion precedes being. John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood NY: St. Vladimir’s Press, 1985). His communal ontology has been influential in Christian circles far beyond Eastern Orthodoxy. Communion and Otherness was written to defend his approach against the complaint that it tends to diminish “otherness” or the personal. Among others, John Polkinghorne has noted the similarities between certain aspects of quantum physics with this kind of ontology. See, John Polkinghorne, ed., The Trinity and an Entangled World: Relationality in Physical Science and Theology (Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans, 2010).

[16] Pragma matures and develops over time in persons and society. It is not merely physical nor does it focus on attraction (as in eros). It is not primarily based on genetic or personal commonality (as in filios). Pragma involves a degree of self-denying commitment (like agape), and results in a personal and social harmony formed over time as a result of human effort. Whether personal or social, pragma requires reason, compromise, dialogue, patience and tolerance. Persons and institutions are formed in love when formed in pragma.

Last week, we took an initial glance at Thomas Hobbes, looking at his place in history and basic worldview, one he developed based on the emerging scientific outlook of his day. It is important to note that, while his outlook reflects the beginning of the modern world, Hobbes is not a modern person. (One of the benefits of the kind of walk through the history of ideas that we are taking in these blogs is that one sees not the sharp breaks in historical outlook that often reflected in textbooks and other historical summaries, but the gradual development of new ways of thinking.) [1] Hobbes is an early example of the kind of mechanistic materialism that further developed in the 18^th and 19^th centuries. As mentioned in the last blog, Hobbes worldview is no longer fully adequate given the emergence of relativity and quantum theory in the 20^th Century.

This week, we will look at Hobbes version of the Social Compact theory, a theme that we will touch on again in Locke, who was more instrumental in the thought of the drafters of the American Constitution. Before launching off into this examination, a bit more biographical information is helpful. Hobbes lived during the reign of the Stewart kings, and was impacted by the Cromwellian revolution. Politically, Hobbes was a Royalist and defended the Stewart Monarchy in his writings. As Charles I and Parliament moved in the direction of Civil War, Hobbes left England for Paris and the Continent. While in exile, he tutored the young Charles II. While in exile, Hobbes presented the Leviathan to Charles II.

Remembering that Cromwell was a Protestant and the Stewart Kings were aligned with the more traditional Catholic Christian faith, the conflict impacted his views on both religion and politics. Hobbes was deeply concerned about the religious wars of his day, and this impacted his view of religion. One of his main motives in writing was to defend monarchy. [2] Therefore, his version of Social Compact theory is what might be called, “Monarchist.” Nevertheless, since he did consent to live under Cromwell and his son, he is also concerned to defend his own actions.

The Social Compact

Hobbes is an originator of the modern Social Compact theory of government, but his version of the theory is not in any way democratic. Hobbes begins his analysis of Social Compact theory in Leviathan as follows:

A commonwealth is said to be instituted when a multitude of men to agree and covenant, every one, that to whatever man, or assembly of men, shall be given by the major part, the right to present the person of them all, that is to be their representative; every one, as well as he who voted for it, as he that voted against it, shall authorize all the actions and judgements of that man, or assembly of men, in the same manner as if they were his own, to the end, to live peaceably among themselves, and be protected against other men. [3]

There are several aspects of this definition that are important to unpack, because Hobbes theory, as fully developed is somewhat different from the theory as it finally impacted the American Constitution.

First, note that Hobbes defines a commonwealth without any reference to history or to existing institutions, such as the family and clan. The individualism of the modern world view is fully present. A commonwealth is formed by individuals, not by existing social units. Once formed, a commonwealth binds individuals, both those who approved of its formation and those who opposed it. The full implications of Hobbes thought only becomes apparent later when he reveals that a “compact” can be made whenever the conquered submit to the rule of a conqueror. The mere act of submission violence is enough to establish the state. Hobbes goes on to say that once formed, the “subjects” have no legal right to change their form of government. [4]

Second, this submission authorizes all the actions of the person or persons who are authorized by the formation of the commonwealth to act on behalf of the state. In other words, once sovereignty has been granted, whether by assent or submission, the state may act without restraint, and no action of the sovereign breaches the compact by which the commonwealth was formed. [5] In fact, the sovereign, once established can to anything without the subjects having any right to object to injustice. [6] If the reader has not already figured this out, Hobbes is a totalitarian. There are no moral constraints on what a sovereign can do. [7]

Finally, Hobbes theory of sovereignty leads him to the position that the sovereign is the sole judge of what policies are required to create social peace, what should be taught, what laws and rules should be instituted, what decisions should be made by courts, issues of war and peace, the choice of ministers, counselors and civil servants, who and how persons should be rewarded and punished, and all other aspects of government. [8] The historic notion of balancing governmental powers to restrain the sovereign is absent in his absolutist vision.

Formation of the Commonwealth

Hobbes indicates two methods by which a commonwealth can be established: Force and Institution. [9] One would think that a “social compact theory” would require the second means be used since “compacts” require some kind of consent, but that would be a mistake. According to Hobbes, the legitimacy and rights of the sovereign are identical by whatever means sovereignty is acquired. Hobbes also distinguishes between acquiring sovereignty by right of birth and/or conquest. [10] (In Hobbes day, these were the two most common means of acquiring sovereignty.) Once again, in either situation, the sovereign possesses all the rights of sovereignty. Whether by choice, birth, or conquest, the rights are the same.

It might be time to ask a question, “How in the world could there be a compact which is made by force?” Here we have recourse to Hobbes’ view of the world and of human nature: It does not matter how sovereignty is acquired because in each case the cause is fear. People fear social chaos, so they democratically agree to a government. People fear a king, so they accept an heir to power. People fear a conqueror, so they consent to the rule of a despot. People fear the absence of social order, so the rule of an elite is legitimate. In the end for Hobbes, all government is based on the power of those who rule to impose that rule on others.

Dangers and Fallacies of Hobbes Theory

It does not take much thought to understand just how dangerous Hobbes theory is and why dictators and others have found it so appealing: It is a thoroughly nihilistic theory that can be used to justify any action, however violent, deceitful, or decadent so long as the attempt is successful. Once successful, the sovereign is legitimate irrespective of how sovereignty is acquired. His thinking is a far distance away from what might be called the classical political thinking of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Aquinas, and the like.

Is Hobbes correct? Is it correct to see power as the only reality and fear as the only motivator in human government? I believe that the answer is “No.” While fear is a powerful motivator in human affairs, and one cannot underestimate its force, people are also motivated by love of their family and friends, by social bonds within communities of all types, by the desire to exercise their mental and moral powers, by a desire to improve their situation, by the creative desire to improve the world, and by a host of other motives that are not reducible to fear of social chaos. Human beings sense invisible realities like justice, freedom, and social good that they seek and which motivate their actions. The reduction of politics to power and the acquisition of power to an end not to be critiqued by resort to moral and other values is simply less than fully human.

In prior blogs, I have reviewed the classical division between monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy and their decadent forms: despotism, oligarchy, and mob rule. For Hobbes, the latter are simply names human beings apply to things they subjectively and without other grounds do not like. In other words, the words despotism, oligarchy and mob rule do not refer to a moral reality beyond themselves. Thus, Hobbes says:

“There be other names of government, in the histories, and books of policy; such as tyranny, and oligarchy: but these are not names of other forms of government but of the same form misliked. For they that are discontented under monarchy call it tyranny; they that are displeased under an aristocracy call it oligarchy; so also, they that find themselves aggrieved under democracy call it anarchy.” [11]

Here we see the impact of Hobbes radical nominalism at work and in the process creating a nihilistic vision of human political life. One who abuses power as tyrant, oligarch, or leader of a mob is not at odds with an invisible moral order which can be discovered by a community of citizens and rulers seeking a just and fair polity. There is no such thing. There is only desire and the search for power. Moral objections are nothing more than statements of personal preference.

This view of Hobbes, however, flies in the face of both human history and human experience. Human beings do in fact judge their leaders, and their judgements are not merely subjective. Would Nazi Germany have been a just polity and not a tyranny if it had only won the Second World War and there was no one left to complain? Was Stalinist Russia not a tyranny despite its claims to the contrary? Were not critics of both systems such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Alexander Solzhenitsyn in fact in contact with a moral reality when they condemned the actions of these governments and not just expressing personal dislike? Human beings do in fact judge governments, and when we do so, we make recourse to a reality that is real, though invisible and not available to those who refuse to seek it.

Conclusion

I am going to spend one more week on Hobbes, for Hobbes political philosophy, flawed as it is, is still a powerful guide of modern political life, as we see it played out around us every day. On the left and right of modern society there has been a loss of faith in democracy and in the values of Western societies, given philosophical legitimacy by a development of the world-view and politics of Hobbes. Next week, we will begin by looking at Hobbes definition of liberty and the ways in which this definition is used to undergird his vision.

One final and personal word this week. I am not writing these blogs out of an abstract interest in political philosophy, but out of a concern for the way in which Western society is developing. As opposed to Hobbes politics of “the war of all against all” I suggest a politics of community and of human concern for others as well as self. As opposed to the tactics of “the war of all against all” I suggest dialogue about serious social problems. As opposed to the proud idea that my group has the correct answers to the state of our society and when in power should enact them, in humility I propose the idea that none of us have a complete understanding of the issues we face, and we need each other’s idea and approaches. As opposed to the notion that we need the power to enforce a solution to the problems we face, I propose that we need the wisdom to compromise to make the problems better as we seek a more just society.

 

 

[1] For example, I have in my library a book in which Machiavelli and Hobbes are put together in one volume. As this blog has mentioned in the past, there are similarities between Machiavelli and Hobbes, and both represent a movement away from Renaissance and Reformation ways of thinking, yet Machiavelli is almost a quasi-Renaissance thinker, while in Hobbes one sees the modern world emerging with a new way of looking at the world.

[2] An orderly account of Hobbes life is beyond this blog. Hobbes did return to England and lived through the rule of Cromwell and his son. His submission to Cromwell did not sit well with Charles II and the Royalist faction when Charles returned to power in 1660. Charles defended his old tutor but did not permit the publication of his history of the English Revolution or to reprint Leviathan. See, Great Thinkers: Thomas Hobbes https://thegreatthinkers.org/hobbes/biography/ (downloaded January 6, 2021).

[3] Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan: Or the Matter, form, and Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil ed. Michael Oakeshott (New York, NY: Collier-McMillan, 1971), 134. All references herein are to this edition of Leviathan.

[4] Id, at 134.

[5] Id, at 135.

[6] Id, at 136.

[7] In fact, Hobbes holds that a sovereign cannot be punished for any act, a position that flows from his doctrine that no action of a sovereign can be claimed to be unjust. Id, at 137.

[8] Id, 137-139.

[9] Id, at 151.

[10] Id, at 153.

[11] Id, at 142.

Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) was the son of an English Vicar who unfortunately deserted his family after an altercation at his church. He was raised by a relative, who saw to his education at Magdalen Hall, Oxford. After graduating in February 1608, Hobbes went to work for the Cavendish family, initially as a tutor to William Cavendish (1590–1628), who later became the second earl of Devonshire. Hobbes was employed by the Cavendish family for most of the rest of his life. [1] He died at the age of ninety-one.

Hobbes traveled widely, and was friends with Rene Descartes and other figures of the early Enlightenment. He was acquainted with Galileo and other founders of modern science. Hobbes was initially trained in the classics, but became proficient in law, in philosophy, mathematics, and the science of optics. His work reflects the emerging scientific worldview of his day.

Politically, Hobbes was aligned with the Stewart Monarchy, which eventually resulted in his exile to Paris for a time. In 1651, he published Leviathan, which forms the basis of this blog. [2] In addition to Leviathan, he published other works, notably another work on political philosophy. His influence on philosophy has been enormous, and he is justly considered the founder of modern political thought. Leviathan is considered one of the great works, perhaps the greatest work of modern political philosophy.

Materialism

Hobbes is an early example of the materialist tendency of modern thought. Hobbes was a student of optics and considered himself to be a scientist as well as a philosopher. [3] He intended, in Leviathan and his other works, to produce what he would have termed “scientific” philosophical account of reality, human perception, and human life and society. In his view, the world is made up of “one stuff” (matter), and the relationships between material particles can be explained on the basis of causal relationships between such material bodies (force). Even more complex phenomena, such as human society, can in principle be explained on this basis. Human beings are simply extremely complex material phenomena.

Here we see at work the reductionist and materialist bias of the modern world in its original form. Reading Leviathan can be a daunting task. For example, while Hobbes does express some form of traditional religious belief, he is skeptical of any kind of non-physical reality, miracles, angels, etc. In the end, while Hobbes expresses some degree of religious belief, his system is thoroughly non-religious and many, if not most, of his ideas are contrary to traditional  religious faith. In addition, he is uninterested in or rejects many themes that animated classic political thought.

For example, Hobbes is hostile to any final causation or any form of goal directed behavior cut off from the human propensity to seek pleasure and avoid pain. His view of human society is similarly cut off from a notion of the commonwealth seeking a common good unconnected to the private goods sought by individuals. For Hobbes, people are not communal by nature, we are communal by necessity to avoid the conflict that inevitably characterized human society. In his view, the fundamental state of people is “the war of all against all.” [4]

It is important to note that post-modern science, that is the worldview emerging from the 20^th Century revolution in modern physics, is neither materialistic nor is it deterministic. [5] The fundamental sources of physical reality are not themselves material. There is built into in reality a principle of indeterminacy that prevents any form of absolute determinism—a feature of Hobbes thought. In addition, the world is deeply relational not just on a quantum but also at a Newtonian level of reality. The human sciences also reveal a deep relationality built into human beings. As we go through Hobbes, I will be alerting readers to the limitations on Hobbes thought and some of its fundamental flaws, which he could not have understood due to his place in human history. Therefore, where limitations are noted, it should not be read to indicate a lack of respect for his thought and conclusions.

Nominalism

Hobbes was a “nominalist,” that is one who believes that only particulars exist, and universals are “mere names.” The result of this view is that historically important virtues, such as Truth, Goodness, Justice, and the like are in no sense “real.” [6] Whatever value there may be in such ideas come from their utility in serving as names of human experiences that are explainable on other grounds.

Hobbes’ nominalism is deeply related to what I will call his “Naive Empiricism”. For Hobbes thoughts are simply images for the thing we are thinking about. The “thing” is a part of the exterior, material world. Contrast this view with the semiotic views of Pierce, where signs do not necessarily involve images of things but are part of the cognitive process of understanding. For Hobbes universals are “just names,” that is to say for example, that while there are Peter’s, Mary’s James’ and John’s, the designation “human being” is a mere name signifying some similar characteristic among the individuals. [7]

It might be best to say that Hobbes is correct but for the word “mere.” A “mere” name has a reality, albeit a noetic (mental) reality, in that it describes a real characteristic of a group of particulars discerned by human reason. For Hobbes, universals, like “justice,” for which there is no image can have no meaning and to be understood must be reduced to some material entity or process. The word “justice” is merely a matter of linguistic convention. There is no reality that we call “justice” or “injustice.”

For critical realists, universals have a reality in their cognitive role in understanding reality. Universals provide a noetic insight into reality. The realities they describe are not material, but exist as theoretical and moral ideas. This may seem like quibbling over words, but there is a deep difference in the two world-views. For Hobbes, and for many moderns, there is an unbridgeable gap between the world of things (the material world) and the noetic world (ideas). The world of ideas is not real (i.e. has not external verifiable reality) but a characteristic of the mental state of a thinker.  For a critical realist, the noetic world is not material, but is “real” in that it describes an unseen attribute of reality.

The theoretical insights of this mental world have a verifiable reality in the consensus of a community of inquiry devoted to the study of a phenomena. This consensus is provisional at any point and subject to revision based upon new evidence or a new and different interpretation of existing facts. The notion of a community of inquiry is not necessarily limited to science or empirical observation. It can include the realities of justice as disclosed in a legal system, of beauty as disclosed by an artistic community, and of meaning as disclosed by a religious community.

Political Consequences

The “super-nominalism” of Hobbes when applied to political reality results the view that all decisions about things like “justice” and “the general welfare” are simply matters of convention and differences can only be resolved by force, physical, legal or otherwise. This leads Hobbes to his theory of politics, which entails a preference for absolute monarchy, a dictatorship, whereby force is used to control “the war of all against all.” Thus, the totalitarian tendencies of modernity can be directly traced to the way of thinking that emerged at its inception. It is no surprise that Hobbes has been a favorite of modern totalitarian thinkers and regimes.

For the classic tradition, the notion of a “general good” was not simply a matter of power. The general good was an ideal towards which society moved over time and which was to guide political leaders in use of their power. The critical realistic formulation of this idea is the notion that at any point in time, we may be wrong concerning what constitutes the general good, but the general good as a goal, constitutes a transcendental ideal towards which a community can move by committing itself and its institutions to the task of seeking that good.

Conclusion

One cannot read Leviathan without seeing the continuity between Machiavelli and Hobbes. In a way, Hobbes gives a theoretical basis for the political views of Machiavelli. On the other hand, one cannot but be aware that Machiavelli is a classicist in his method, while Hobbes method is founded not on the classics but on applying the principles of the Scientific Revolution to philosophy and the political philosophy in particular. While the Renaissance thinkers were conscious of their continuity with the ancients, Hobbes is consciously opposed to the work of Aristotle and the classics. This is a feature of modern thought that we will see again and again in coming months.

Right at the beginning of the English Enlightenment, Hobbes rejects all thoughts of final causes; he wants to focus only on material cause. Thus, he cuts himself loose from the work of Aristotle. Hobbes also rejects the idealism of Plato; he wants to focus only on what can be empirically known. He rejects any form of superstition or mysticism in politics—anything that cannot be reduced to fit into his materialistic agenda. He cuts himself off from the communitarian insights of both Plato and Aristotle, as well as Cicero and the medieval thinkers.

Finally, Hobbes is captivated by a kind of monistic, individualistic anthropology characteristic of the modern world. At the basis of his society is not the individual in relationship with human family or community, but the individual as a solitary actor bound to others not by love, communion, partnership, family or the like, but by the force of will and desire. This is contrary to the classic notions defended by Plato and Aristotle—the notion that human beings are by nature social and that human society begins with a bond deeper than force, the bonds of love, be it marital love, familial love, community loyalty, or national love.

Hobbes materialism leads him to a notion of human society as made up of material beings bound together by force. Modern science, both physical and social does not lead in this direction. Reality is deeply relational and so are human actors. While force is a factor in human relations, it is not the only factor. These are aspects of Hobbes thought that we will examine next week. In the next blog, I will continue with Hobbes thought focusing on his version of the social compact theory that is basic to modern political thought in our society.

I know that this blog, and the next couple, will be challenging for readers and for the writer, but it is important to see, right at the beginning, some of the features of the Modern World and its dominant political ideas that are outdated. This does not mean that the ideas of Hobbes and some of his successors are unimportant or completely wrong or that we have nothing to learn from him. The modern critique of ancient and medieval thought brought progress, and no one would want to return to the Greco-Roman or medieval world. However, the intellectual energy of the Enlightenment has burned out, and we are now in its decadent phase. Sometimes, to go forward one must retrace a few steps and recover lost wisdom. Fortunately, the world view that is emerging from the advance of science in the early 20^th Century gives philosophy adequate tools to respond and move forward. That is the task of these blogs in 2021.

Finally, I do hope everyone had a Merry Christmas and will have a wonderful New Year.

Copyright 2021, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] See, “Thomas Hobbes” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes/#1 (Downloaded December 17, 2020)

[2] Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan: Or the Matter, form, and Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil ed. Michael Oakeshott (New York, NY: Collier-McMillan, 1971).

[3] Hobbes life intersects the life of Isaac Newton (1642-1727) whose work laid the intellectual and mathematical foundations for modern science and which laid out a theory that undergirded the materialistic world view of people like Hobbes. It is important to note that Newton was deeply religious and spent much of his life studying religious phenomenon. Newton was also a student of optics, as was Hobbes.

[4] Leviathan, 100-101.

[5] I have dealt with this insight in prior blogs and will not repeat here what I have said elsewhere. By “postmodern science” I mean science after the early 20^th century with the development of quantum physics and relativity theory.

[6] This contrasts with the view these blogs defend, which is called “Critical Realism”. Critical Realism argues that scientific laws, and universal ideas (like justice) are real, though revisable in the face of new information. While I have failed to give full credit to them in this blog, it should be obvious to readers that I am deeply in debt to C. S. Peirce and Michael Polanyi for much of the response to Hobbes contained in the blog.

[7] This is not the place or time to completely unpack the error Hobbes makes here. The “image” theory he advances ignores the multiple kinds of meaningful signs that human beings in fact us in thinking and communicating. This is a specific area in which I am in debt to C. S. Peirce and his followers.

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and of peace
there will be no end,
on the throne of David and over his kingdom,
to establish it and to uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
from this time forth and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this (Isaiah 9:6-7).

The Project of these Blogs

This year I began a project that was planned some years ago when I decided that, when I retired from full-time ministry, I would begin a project to write my reflections on what is called, “Political Theology.” The book, if it is ever written, will be a pastor’s look at how Christians can best serve the secular state in which we live and a defense of religious liberty. The idea began long before Donald Trump was elected President (and especially before this difficult election year), but the Trump Presidency and this difficult past year seems to me to validate the underlying notion of the project: We must develop a politics founded on government by wisdom and the nurturing of a deep, communal relational reality. We must step away from the “Politics as War for Power” that dominates our political life in America. In order for our freedoms to survive, we must rebuild our national culture, of which politics is only a part.

If you have been following the blog, you know that, in 2020, there were a series of posts about the issues of our day, and then a look at political philosophy from its Greco-Roman beginnings, through the Renaissance, to the dawn of the Modern Age. In 2021, I hope to move from Hobbes and the dawn of the Modern Era, through the Modern Era, to the emerging Post-Modern Era now emerging. If this pace can be met, by the dawn of 2022, this series of blogs will be nearly complete.

The Hidden Wisdom of Christmas

Christ and the earliest Christians explained the meaning of the incarnation from the texts of the Old Testament, and especially from Isaiah. It was from Isaiah that Jesus and the Apostles taught:

Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself (Luke 24:26-27, see also Luke 18:31-34; 22:37; 24:44-47; Acts 28: 23-28; I Peter 1:10-11).

The expectation of the Jews was for a Messiah that would give them a victory over their oppressors within their national history— Messiah who would be a great conqueror, hero and king. Instead, they received a crucified Messiah who ruled in weakness and powerlessness upon a cross, defeating the enemies of evil, division, and death in a way that no one could have imagined. This was the “foolishness of the Cross” of which Paul spoke to the Corinthians:

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men (I Corinthians 1:18-25).

Just as the earliest Christians and Jews had difficulty understanding how the Creator God of Wisdom and Might could rule from a Cross, so contemporary Christians have the same problem. We find the tactics of self-giving love hard to understand.

The Moral Energy of Christmas

One great need in contemporary American politics is for those on the left and right to recognize that there can be no perfect society inside of human history. We are finite, imperfect creatures incapable of accomplishing such a task even if it were possible, which it is not because of the nature of human growth and understanding. Furthermore, we are filled with endless hopes and dreams and are never satisfied with any accomplishment, however grand. All we can do is respond to the needs and issues of our own day and try to make things better within the limits of our place in history, avoiding the madness and violence that comes with every attempt to impose a perfect order of things upon others within history.

We can and should long for a “Wonderful Counselor” and “Prince of Peace,” whose shoulders are strong enough to bear the brokenness of the world and the hopes and dreams of a finite and flawed human race, but we should not delude ourselves that such a person can appear within the history of any secular, human society. He came once, and it was not to produce a secular paradise. It was to bear the brokenness of his and every human society.

His next appearance will, instead, mark the end of history as we know it. His coming will not mean a perfect socialist or capitalist world, for whatever world exists at that final moment in time will pass away in the face of the “New Heaven and New Earth” of which Isaiah and Revelation speak. The world we inhabit with all its beauty, glory, uncertainty and violence must pass away when the one who can meet our deepest desires, the Desire of Nations, finally arrives.

Conclusion: The Need for a Politics of Humility

Although a great deal of 2020 was spent in looking at great thinkers of history, it began with a look at a few of my favorite thinkers and their meaning for political thought. The most important of these insights is that the Christian passion for the coming of a New Heaven and New Earth, for the coming of a Righteous King and an end to the wars, poverty, oppression, and the like represented the deepest moral passions of the human race, when cut off from faith that endures and transforms the pain and brokenness of human history with hope and love, results in a moral passion cut off from the roots of morality itself, a passion capable of great evil, as we have seen repeatedly in the 20^th Century.

What can be achieved within history is what I would call a humble politics of wisdom and love, of nurturing slow organic change; of eliminating evils gently, even when working with diligence and speed; of patiently working to end poverty and war and all the other scourges of the human race with a wise understanding that we will ultimately fail, because the creation of a perfect world is a task too great for our limited human moral and spiritual abilities. “The poor will always be with us” and “Only the dead will never now war again.” This is the tragedy of history.

I hope by the end of next year we will all recognize that the Romantic hope of a perfect world within history that gave us the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Communist Chinese Revolution and numerous bad policy decisions in the Western Democracies was based upon a harmful delusion concerning the possibilities and potentials of secular politics. What is needed is not a continuation of the Nietzschean, Marxist, or Laisse Faire Capitalist ideal, but something new and different. When we finally end the period of decadent, Hyper-Modernity we are in, there is hope for a more human future.

Jesus and the Apostles urged us to not look at the worldly wise or the worldly powerful for our salvation. Instead, as we celebrate this week, they suggested that we look at a baby born in a manger and at a broken body nailed to a cross. We do not want to think that our true hope lies in a poor helpless baby in a manger or a dying man, but paradoxically, this is our best and only hope.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Chris

Copyright 2020, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

Niccolo Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy in May 1469 and died in June 1527, also in Florence. Machiavelli is the most important Renaissance political philosopher with great influence on contemporary politics. Machiavelli was a lawyer, a diplomat, statesman, and secretary of the Republic of Florence. His most famous work, The Prince, is still a textbook of political pragmatism. [1]

Machiavelli is a good thinker to follow Sir Thomas More. Like More, Machiavelli was not a professional scholar, but a person of practical affairs with an inclination to reflect upon the meaning and purpose, the strategies and tactics, the ultimate principles of his life’s work. Like Cicero, when out of favor, he wrote books, some of which can be seen as a partial defense of his ideas. If More represents the continuity of the Renaissance with the thought and values of the Ancient and Medieval worlds, Machiavelli represents a pragmatic break with previous thought, though how serious a break is a matter of debate. [2] After Machiavelli, political thought begins its journey into the modern world.

The Context of the Prince

Italy at the end of the 15^th and beginning of the 16^th centuries (the boundaries of Machiavelli’s life) was unstable. In fact, what we know as “Italy” did not exist as a unified political entity. Its territory was divided into a series of principalities that were constantly at war with one another and constantly in danger of domination by the great powers of the day. The fact that Rome was the center of the Roman Catholic Church, and the geographic area we know as Italy was in the center of Europe, made control of the area attractive to foreign powers, especially France, Germany and Spain. Machiavelli’s home, Florence, was inevitably caught up in the intrigues and conflict both of the princes of Italy and the kings of Spain and France. In 1494, Pietro Medici made a series of diplomatic and political mistakes, which ended the rule of the Medici and brought into existence the Florentine Republic. In the end, the Florentine Republic backed France, and the result was a disaster in which Florence was aligned alone against all the other principalities of Italy.

The end of the Medici dynasty left Florence without an established constitution and form of government, open to any kind of intrigue. There were those who wished the return of the Medici.  there were those who desired an oligarchy of the best families. Into this cauldron of intrigue, the priest Savonarola took power for a time and pitted the poor against the rich in a time of religious rule. He was eventually deposed and executed as a heretic.

Into the political vacuum thus created came Piero Soderini and his chief secretary, Niccolo Machiavelli. In his new position, Machiavelli was the chief diplomat of Florence and had influence over its military policy. He was a practitioner of what we today would call “real politic,” or the concentration of political life on the acquisition and use of power.

The Roman Catholic Church, which might have made the situation better, unfortunately made the situation worse under a series of popes. [3] In particular, Pope Alexander VI conspired with the French for aid for his son, the ruthless and immoral Cesare Borgia.  Alexander hoped his son could carve out a central Italian principality.  Unfortunately, Cesare made enemies easily and died young, leaving this dream empty.  Alexander’s successor Julius II was just as worldly and conniving as Alexander had been, often taking the field himself against his enemies as he attempted to create his own papal empire.

It was Julius who finally ended the Florentine Republic.  With Florence allied with the French, Julius conspired for his Spanish allies take the city and hand it back to a Medici, a cardinal who soon after became Pope Leo X, and thus ruled both Rome and Florence. This event ended Machiavelli’s political career. He retired in disgrace and fear of imprisonment.

I have taken the time to set out this history so that readers can understand that Machiavelli’s approach to politics was profoundly impacted by the unstable times in which he lived, the mendicity of the Catholic Popes of the day, and the machinations of European politics generally and that of Italy in particular. [4]

The Prince

In 1512, the Medici family regained their power and position in Florence. Machiavelli was dismissed and faced exile from public life. Whether to ingratiate himself with the Medici’s and thereby regain his political standing or from a desire to make amends for the past, Machiavelli The Prince, dedicating it to “the Magnificent Lorenzo de Piero of Medici.” The book a handbook for politicians on the use of ruthless, self-serving cunning, inspiring the term “Machiavellian” and establishing Machiavelli as the “father of modern political theory.”

Unlike other such handbooks for princes of the period, such as Erasmus’ The Education of a Christian Prince,” Machiavelli does not use his treatise to urge Medici to become a model Christian prince, but instead urges dramatic and effective action to eliminate the chaos of the Italian peninsula. In other words, Machiavelli’s expressed motivation is to remedy the difficult situation in the Italy of his day through the efforts of a strong ruler.

This is important in understanding exactly what Machiavelli is about in the book. As mentioned earlier, Machiavelli’s views were formed by his experience as diplomat with both influence over, and some responsibility for, military policy. Most of the writers we have considered thus far focused to at least some degree on the communal aspects of government and the responsibly of political leaders to seek the common good and provide a just society. In Machiavelli, establishment of a sound polity able to achieve the good of a unified and stable Italy is the goal, and Machiavelli assumes this goal to be in the best interests of the people. A good bit of the bitterness of the advice given in the book can be attributed to the political situation of Florence and the other provinces of Italy as Machiavelli perceives it to be in The Prince. [5]

Fortune and Ability in The Prince

There are two concepts that are central to understanding The Prince: Fortune (Luck or Chance) and Virtue (Ability). Leaders come to power in a variety of ways: through their own merit or as a result of the merit of others, through inheritance from their forbearers or through their own abilities and success, yet all of this inevitably involves Fortune.  Political leaders, whatever their ability, arrive in power and remain in power in the face of a chaotic reality, good fortune and bad fortune, which Machiavelli terms “Fortuna.” I want to call this aspect of reality, “Chance.” The opportunity to lead is given to some and denied to others. Once in power, most leaders will experience both undeserved success (or at least success greater than their expectation) and opposition, difficulties, failure, and challenge. These circumstances provide the test of the abilities and character of every leader, political and otherwise.

In the end, however, no leader remains in power without the ability to secure his or her hold on power. This capacity and ability to rule is what Machiavelli terms “Virtue.” Machiavelli’s “Virtue” is what the Greeks termed “Dunamis” or the power to achieve a political end. I will refer to this capacity as “Ability.” The virtues of a Machiavellian leader are those that enable him or her to acquire and retain the power to rule the state.

In this regard, the categories of Machiavelli, Fortune and Virtue bear some resemblance to the categories of chance and order that have been referred to in prior blogs. The world is filled with both principles of order and of chaos, and leaders must use the tools they are given to bring order out of chaos. What is missing in Machiavelli is the third category, what I have called Political Love, and what one in the Augustinian tradition might call the love of Justice and the Common Good. If I am correct in my own reading of Machiavelli, this is related not so much to his underlying beliefs about reality but to the situation in Italy to which he is responding. Justice, order, and love all led Machiavelli to the belief that drastic action was needed, action that would require unusual action.

A Hobbesian View of Human Nature

In order to begin to see Machiavelli from a Christian perspective, one must begin with his view of human nature. Christians view human beings as made in the image of God, of inherent nobility, but flawed by what Christians call, “The Fall’” that is our inherent tendency towards sin, violence, greed, selfishness and other character flaws. In Machiavelli, the nobility of the human race is submerged (as we shall see when we discuss Hobbes) and is replaced by an almost entirely negative view of human character. Thus he says,

For of men it may generally be affirmed that they are ungrateful, fickle, false avoiders of danger, greedy for gain; devoted to while you work for their good, and ready while danger is distant to shed their blood, and sacrifice their property, their lives and their children for you, but in the hour of need they turn against you. [6]

The prince must govern with an eye both to the glory and the infamy of human nature.

The Nihilistic Maxims

I have already said enough to alert a reader that the traditional interpretation of Machiavelli may need reinterpretation in light both of his other writings and the historical context in which he lived. Nevertheless, it is his advice to a Prince that has ensured his place in history. Many politicians and political thinkers have read The Prince. It is said that Adolf Hitler kept a copy at his bedside. Religious leaders have sometimes condemned his thinking. Therefore, it is important to give this aspect of his thinking some consideration.

The first aspect is what I will call the moral limitations upon leaders. Every leader knows that solving institutional problems can and does often require compromise, some of which compromises are moral in character. For Machiavelli, the situation facing Italy was of such a nature, that success in the endeavor of unifying its polity was a supreme value justifying deceit and dissembling in a leader. Those who are familiar with the art of diplomacy know that deceit concerning the objectives of a state, such as the Japanese deceit before attacking Pearl Harbor, is a part of the “Great Game” that nations play. As the example just given illustrates, deceit can backfire, as it did upon the Japanese during World War II. Nevertheless, it is not possible to rule wisely if one’s opponents know of every move in advance and can easily predict what response will be made to a strategy. Political leaders must often use stratagems.

Perhaps more disturbing from a moral perspective is the advice of Machiavelli to a new prince to completely destroy the family of the one he is replacing. [7] This tactic, used to kill millions by various totalitarian regimes, is justified by the danger of the family (or group of leaders) being deposed to create difficulties or even overthrow the new prince. This maxim is only one among many in which Machiavelli seems to justify lying, deceit, subterfuge, violence, and even criminal behavior. There is no getting around this aspect of his thought, though it helps to see his thought in a broader context of the good he seeks for Italy and the character of the powers he faced.

A few of his more famous nihilistic maxims are as follows:

1. A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise
2. A wise ruler ought never to keep faith when by doing so it would be against his interests.
3. If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.
4. Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil.
5. It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.
6. A prince also wins prestige for being a true friend or a true enemy.[8]

One can see from these maxims why the name “Machiavelli” is associated with amoral power-seeking.

The Pragmatic Maxims

Often forgotten in both scholarship and in popular writing are the many maxims and advice in The Prince that are simply common sense and also moral in their content. I do not have time to set out all of them in this blog, but here are just a few:

1. A wise leader is careful not to prematurely change laws or impact the freedom, property or rights of the people. [9]
2. The importance of presence: A wise leader is seen and loved by his or her people. [10]
3. Time and fortune govern the actions and fortunes of leaders and territories. [11]
4. The wise leader should study history and emulate successful leaders of the past. [12]
5. Fortune may bring a leader to power, but it is time, ability and merit that brings success in maintaining and using power. [13]
6. A wise leader should cultivate “Fortunate Astuteness” that is an understanding of the accidents of history and wisdom in guiding the state. [14]
7. It is dangerous for a leader to rely upon other powers, mercenaries or paid soldiers from another state. [15]
8. The mainstay of all states are good laws and sufficient defensive power to secure its safety. [16]
9. A wise leader is never idle, being always vigilant in the care of the state. [17]

In these and other of his maxims, there is nothing amoral, only the common sense of the ages.

Christian Faith and Church in Machiavelli

As previously mentioned, the Roman Catholic Church, which might have been an influence for good in Italy of Machiavelli’s day was not. Instead, it was a part of the problem. During the Middle Ages. the church became both rich and deeply involved in the rule of Europe. In addition, various popes attempted to carve out for themselves or their family a secular kingdom in Italy. Thus, instead of being an influence for wisdom and love among the warring powers, the church became one of the warring powers. In so doing, it gave up any semblance of moral authority.

This historic circumstance has a message for religious institutions of our own day: Whenever we curry favor with those in power or seek to have secular power or maintain our positions by means of alliances with secular powers, we open the door to a kind of corruption that can injure our witness and message for a long time. The distaste of the Renaissance and Enlightenment leaders for the corruption of the medieval church is with us today, 500 years after the offenses complained of began to be eliminated.

Conclusion

Machiavelli is a writer well worth reading for both practical and historical reasons. He is of continuing importance to contemporary politics, which is drunk with a concentration on power to the exclusion of morals. A close reading, including a reading of his other works besides The Prince, is a corrective to the amoral purely pragmatic reading which is most commonly given the work. The good and bad uses to which The Prince has been put is both an encouragement and a warning: we cannot go back to a time before the Modern Era and its preoccupations with power and control. We can only transcend it.

Copyright 2020, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] See, Niccolo Machiavelli in the Britannica Online at https://www.britannica.com/topic/republic-government (Downloaded December 9, 2020. Quotations are from The Prince are from Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince tr, N.H. Thomas (New York, NY: Dover Thrift Edition, 1992).

[2] Though The Prince is his most famous book, he also wrote Discourses on Livy (1551) in which the classical elements of his thought are more prominent. As will become clear, my own reading of Machiavelli is more balanced than many. In particular, I do not think that Machiavelli eliminated the moral element in political leadership.

[3] In this part of the blog, I am reliant upon Steve Muhlburger “Italy in the Time of Machiavelli” (Nipsing University, History 2155—Early Modern Europe) https://uts.nipissingu.ca/muhlberger/2155/MACH.HTM (Downloaded December 9, 2020). I have also relied upon Niccolo Machiavelli Biography (1469–1527) at www.biography.com (Downloaded December 13, 2020).

[4] In some ways, the rise of the American empire and the tendency of American political leaders to employ military force to achieve objectives is a similar result of the unstable and dangerous years of the 20^th century, with two world wars, three very dangerous dictatorships (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Chinese Communism), and the emergence of nuclear weapons. America has increasingly become narrowly and simplistically “Machiavellian” in its foreign, domestic and military policies.

[5] Thus, I do not believe that Machiavelli supports the amoral search for and acquisition of power as many if not most of his interpreters and practitioners believe. Instead, the moral elements of power are submerged in the book because of the need that Machiavelli perceives for a strong ruler to unify Italy and end its endless conflicts and wars.

[6] The Prince, 43. See also, Andrew Curry, “Political Morality: Machiavelli Encouraged a Flexible Approach Five Centuries Ag, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/1999/01/13/political-morality-machiavelli-encouraged-a-flexible-approach-five-centuries-ago/9c023e26-a838-4095-a7d4-a6dbfcecf76f/ (Washington Post, January 13, 1999) (Downloaded December 15, 2020). This is an excellent article on Machiavelli’s thought.

[7] The Prince, 3.

[8] I took much of this from a school list because it illustrates what young people are taught about Machiavelli in a simplistic way in our schools. Machiavellian Maxims. I edited the maxims because some of them were not so much Machiavellian as revolutionary maxims, showing the way in which complex matters are presented to young people. http://washington.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_871002/File/hoxiebe/2011-2012/Machiavellian%20Maxims.pdf (downloaded December 16, 2020).

[9] The Prince, 3, 11

[10] The Prince, 4, 11

[11] The Prince, 6

[12] The Prince, 12

[13] The Prince, 13, 15, 39

[14] The Prince, 24. This particular phrase is used in describing the leader who comes to power neither by heredity nor fortune alone, but by service to the state and the favor of the people. In a constitutional system such as ours, this is the kind of leader we should seek.

[15] The Prince, 17

[16] The Prince, 31

[17] The Prince, 39.

When I was in High School a Robert Bolt play, “A Man for All Seasons” was made into a movie. [1] At the time, I was a High School debater and sometimes helped with the drama team competition. The play was one of my favorites, and the character of Sir Thomas More was important in my intellectual development. In my first semester of college, I took an English course entitled, “Utopias and Anti-Utopias,” and More’s book, “Utopia” was on the reading list. [2] This experience only accelerated my admiration for the man and his legacy.

I am including More in this series of blogs for a number of reasons. First, he is both a Renaissance and Reformation writer. Second, he was close friends with Erasmus, who has already been the subject of a blog. Third, because of his character and the fact that he, like Marcus Aurelius, was a practical man of action as well as philosophically minded, he represents a way of reflecting on some of the more abstract thinkers. Fourth, he is a counterpoint to Machiavelli, who will be reviewed next week. Finally, because of his martyrdom by Henry VIII due his refusal to recognize the validity of Henry’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon, he is widely recognized as a martyr for religious freedom and in opposition to the nascent immorality of the secular state.

Brief Biography

Thomas More was born on February 7, 1478, the son of a successful lawyer. [3] He studied at Oxford and qualified as a lawyer. In 1517, More entered the king’s service and became an influential confidant and advisor to Henry VIII. From 1510 until 1518, he was an Under Sherriff of London. He was knighted in 1521. In 1523, he was elected Speaker of the House of Commons, and in 1529 was made Lord Chancellor of England.

Despite a busy professional and legal career, More was a lay-scholar. He became friends with Erasmus and was a figure of importance in the English Renaissance. He wrote a history of Richard III, and in 1516 published his most famous work, “Utopia”. More also published a series of polemics against Martin Luther and the German reformation, while backing the more moderate reformation stance of his king and his friend, Erasmus.

More was opposed to the plan of Henry VII to divorce Catherine of Aragon and marry his mistress, Anne Boleyn. In 1534, Henry declared himself Head of the Church in England, which allowed him to end his marriage to Catherine and marry Anne Boleyn. Unable to compromise further, More resigned his office. More was subsequently arrested after refusing to swear Act of Succession and Oath of Supremacy, which acknowledged Henry’s position as head of the English Church and recognized the annulment of Henry’s marriage and the legitimacy of Mary, his daughter by Anne Boleyn. Because of his refusal, More was tried for treason at Westminster, and on July 6, 1535 was executed at the age of 57. He was made a saint by the Roman Catholic Church in 1935.

At his trial, More made a speech that is widely regarded as one of the greatest of human history related to the relationship of church and state. It reads in part:

Forasmuch, my lord, as this indictment is grounded upon an act of Parliament directly repugnant to the laws of God and his holy church, the supreme government of which, or of any part thereof, may no temporal prince presume by any law to take upon him, as rightfully belonging to the See of Rome, a spiritual preeminence by the mouth of our Savior himself, personally present upon the earth, to Saint Peter and his successors, bishops of the same see, by special prerogative granted; it is therefore in law amongst Christian men, insufficient to charge any Christian man…. More have I not to say, my lords, but that like as the blessed apostle Saint Paul, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, was present and consented to the death of Saint Stephen, and kept their clothes that stoned him to death, and yet be they now twain holy saints in heaven, and shall continue there friends forever: so I verily trust and shall therefore right heartily pray, that though your lordships have now in earth been judges to my condemnation, we may yet hereafter in heaven merrily all meet together to our everlasting salvation. [4]

This defense illustrates More’s character, and especially his refusal to place temporal law above the laws of God and his refusal to acknowledge the power of the king to ignore the spiritual authority of the church. While his position may seem anachronistic to the modern mind, it represents an early expression of the importance of religious freedom and limitations on the secular power of the prince. His willingness to die as a martyr was based upon his firm belief in eternal life and the reward in heaven of the saints.

More and Utopia

More’s most famous writings is Utopia, which literally means “Nowhere.” The book was written in 1516 and remains of interest to readers even today. As with many such works, it is not easy to discern More’s precise relationship to the work. The work clearly suggests Plato’s Republic. Remembering that one characteristic of Renaissance figures is to rediscover and reembrace Greco Roman civilization, it is not surprising that More chose Plato and his Republic as a way of making social commentary upon his own day and time. In the Renaissance, one sees the emergence of a willingness to critique and suggest changes, even radical changes, in society and social institutions, and one sees this as a part of More’s project. More alludes to Plato in thinking about possible changes in his own society.

On the other hand, More as a protagonist in the Utopia, often expresses doubt upon the wisdom and practicability of some of the utopian suggestions made in the dialogue. In other words, it is not clear exactly what More’s position is concerning many of the comments made by his protagonist on the benefits of the way of life recommended. In fact, it is fairly clear that More is dubious about many of the suggestions taken from the Republic.

One example is More’s response in Utopia Book 1 to Plato’s idea of abolishing private property:

“I believe just the opposite,” I said “For men cannot live in harmony where everything is held in common. How can there be an abundance of everything when there is no incentive to work? [5]

In my view, what we see in Utopia is two sides of More’s character: One the one hand, he is a scholar, romantic, and Renaissance figure, willing to consider alternatives to the current social order. On the other hand, he is a lawyer and a man of practical experience, unwilling to embrace the elimination of private property and other suggestions that have not proved workable in human experience. In the end, however, it is the pragmatic orientation of a person of affairs with vast institutional experience that prevails in his thinking.

More and the Reformation

More, like Erasmus, was a devout Catholic, sympathetic with the reformist desire of the Protestant Reformation, but not willing to either leave the Catholic Church nor to abandon its beliefs and practices. He was willing to dispute with Luther and to address weaknesses in his position on Scripture, on the Sacraments, and other areas in which the Reformation was taking positions at odds with the church. On the other hand, his intent was to purify the existing church, not to split the church of his day.

It is this aspect of More’s thought that is most interesting because it is here that he eventually took a stand that cost him his life. It is to be remembered that Henry VIII himself wrote a defense of the Catholic faith and was during More’s lifetime made “Defender of the Faith” by the Pope. More, in fact, read and commented upon Henry’s project as a lawyer, even recommending he tone down passages where he might (and in fact did) eventually end up in opposition to the Pope and to the implications of his own argument. More’s disputations against Luther were not at all at odds with the desires or proclivities of Henry. More, like Erasmus, and Henry were loyal Catholics and held to the historic doctrines and morals of the church. [6]

More’s Arrest, Martyrdom and Death

To modern Americans, where “no fault divorce” is the norm and previously divorced leaders are often elected, the events that resulted in More’s death are hard to understand. It is easy for us to minimize More’s predicament and to make Henry VIII into a complete villain. To understand the reasons for the eventual martyrdom of Thomas More, one needs to give a sympathetic ear to Henry’s predicament. Henry Tudor was not the first son of Henry VII of England. His elder brother was to be king. Catherine of Aragon had first been engaged to Henry’s brother and only became Henry’s wife after his brother’s untimely death. She was older than Henry, and for whatever reason had multiple miscarriages and a son who died shortly after his birth. Thus. she was unable to provide a male heir. [7]

In Henry’s day and time, there were no elections, and if a king died without a male heir there was likely to be conflict until a new clamant to the throne emerged victorious. The Tudor dynasty emerged after just such a period of English history. There was every reason to believe that if Henry failed to provide a male heir, there would be conflict upon his death, a conflict he desired to avoid at all costs.

As a result, Henry was determined to have an heir to his throne. When it became obvious that Catherine was unable to provide such and heir, Henry sought an alternative, which he found in his mistress Anne Boleyn. In order to have an heir by Anne, however, Henry needed to divorce Catherine and marry Anne, having her children declared to be legitimate, which would allow their child to succeed Henry. [8]

Unfortunately, there were obstacles to his plan, not the least of which is that Catherine’s relative, Charles V, was the king of Spain, and the Pope was unwilling to grant Henry’s petition to annul their marriage. [9] In response, Henry declared himself to be the head of the English Church (hence Anglicanism was born) and passed a law through parliament declaring that the child of his marriage to Anne Boleyn, the future Elizabeth I of England, was his legitimate heir. [10]More, as a devout Catholic refused to publicly support Henry.

It is also hard for a contemporary American to fully understand and appreciate the subtlety with which More attempted to avoid martyrdom as a result of his unwillingness to recognize the validity of Henry’s marriage to Anne Boleyn and the resulting legislation. Fundamentally, his tactic was to remain silent, refusing to give his reasons for resigning is position and refusing to swear a required oath regarding the matters at hand. While refusing to swear and support Henry’s marriage and status has head of the British church, he continually expressed his loyalty to Henry as king. It is difficult in a short blog to express the complexity and subtlety with which he attempted to walk a fine line that would allow Henry to avoid putting him to death for treason. His correspondence and statements reflect a subtle lawyer’s mind attempting to both save his own life, avoid making an oath against his conscience, and continue his loyalty and friendship with the king. In the end, his prominence made it impossible for Henry not to act against him, and he was made a martyr in the cause of religious freedom.

Conclusion

I end this blog with a quote from “A Man for All Seasons” that summarizes the reason why More was made a saint and is a martyr for religious freedom in the political arena:

Since the court has determined to condemn me – God knoweth how – I will now discharge my mind concerning the indictment and the King’s title. The indictment is grounded in an act of Parliament, which is directly repugnant to the law of God and His Holy Church, the supreme government of which no temporal person may, by any law, presume to take upon him. This was granted by the mouth of our Savior, Christ Himself, to St. Peter and the bishops of Rome whilst He lived and was personally present here on earth. It is, therefore, insufficient in law to charge any Christian to obey it. And more than this, the immunity of the Church is promised both in Magna Carta and in the King’s own coronation oath. [11]

More attempted to remain loyal to his faith, to uphold the laws of England from Magna Carta to his own day, and to remain loyal to his king. He succeeded, but it cost him his life. There are some men who cannot be fully understood, only admired. Sir Thomas More is one.

Copyright 2020, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] Zinnemann, Fred. A Man for All Seasons (Columbia Pictures, 1966).

[2] Thomas More, “Utopia” in The Essential Thomas More ed. James J. Greene and John Dolan (New York, NY: Mentor Books, 1967). All quotations in this blog are from this volume of More’s work.

[3] The biographical information herein can be found on the internet in a number of sources, including “Sir Thomas More” in The Ancient History Encyclopedia at https://www.ancient.eu/Sir_Thomas_More/ (downloaded December 3, 2020).

[4] Safire, William, ed. Lend Me Your Ears: Great Speeches in History Rev. Ed. (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1997), 328-330, found at http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/moredefense.htm (downloaded December 3, 2020).

[5] The Essential Thomas More, 51.

[6] Henry himself remained a devout, if not very moral, Roman believer for his entire life. His quarrel with the Pope, unlike Luther, was not about the content of doctrine, but about the relative powers of the church and monarchy.

[7] Henry and Catherine of Aragon had one child, Mary, who became Queen for a short time. Her Catholicism made her a poor choice and she was eventually deposed.

[8] Eventually, their child Elizabeth, would be become Queen of England.

[9] Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon were Roman Catholic, and the Church forbade divorce. The Pope at the time, Pope Clement, denied Henry’s request for an annulment for several reasons, one being that Catherine’s nephew, Catherine was the daughter of devout Catholics, Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. Catherine’s nephew was the current Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (also the current King of Spain). At one point, Charles had laid siege to Rome and essentially held Clement prisoner. Henry’s claim that his marriage to Catherine was contrary to God’s will and law because he had been married briefly to his dead brother was seen as fatuous. In any case, perhaps primarily for political reasons, Clement could not or would not grant Henry’s request.

[10] I have neither the time nor the desire to fully set out Henry’s marriages and potential heirs. Eventually, Anne Boleyn was beheaded for infidelity, but she also could not provide Henry with a male heir. Henry eventually married another mistress, Jane Seymour who give him an heir in Edward VI, (born October 12, 1537, London, England died July 6, 1553, London), king 1547 to 1553. He was succeeded first by Edward, then by Mary and finally by Elizabeth. Thus, Catherine’s child became second in line to the throne and Elizabeth third.

[11] A Man for All Seasons, Sentencing Scene. I recommend that all my readers rent this film and watch it.

In writing these blogs, I have tried to alternate those blogs which I regard as abstract and difficult to understand with blogs that are easier for folks to grasp. The difficult blogs are normally blogs on scholars or issues that are complicated and abstract, but which are important for people to try to grasp in order to understand the way forward out of the incipient nihilism of our political culture. This week, I am going to visit and, in some sense, revisit the issue of the reality of universals, specifically Justice.

To some degree, we all believe in the reality of justice. As parents, Kathy and I have raised four children. In each case, there has come a day when each child has said to us, “That is not fair.” It could be about one child getting an extra helping of food at dinner or about a gift given to one child that was larger or more expensive than what was given to another.  It could be about a family decision made by the parents. In each case, the child did not think “I don’t like what my parents have done.” They were saying, “What my parents said or did is not just.” That is to say it was not equitable and fair to the child or children impacted. We are all just like this.

When we say something like a governmental decision is not fair or just, we are not just stating our opinion, we are making a claim about the nature of reality (or at least we think we are). How are we to understand what it means to claim that something is unjust? That is the subject of this blog.

Realism and Nominalism

Let us begin with the notion of universals. There are some words that we apply not to individual material things but to categories of things or to things which are not material. For example, there is no material reality called, “Goodness” or “Truth” or “Beauty.”  There are a lot of such universal ideas, one of which is the notion of Justice. In the history of philosophy there are two basic ways of treating universals: as mere names we give to experiences (nominalism) or as realities that exist independently of our perception of them (realism). There are various schools of thought as to each of these notions, but in the end either universals are real or they are just names.

If we take universals to be mere names, then their reference has to be dealt with reductively in some way. For example, “beautiful” does not mean “You are beautiful and no one can argue with that fact.” It means something like, “I consider you beautiful.”  In the case of morals, “Chastity is a moral good” becomes something like, “I prefer chastity” but it does not refer to a real moral good applicable to all people. In the case of justice, it becomes something like “I approve of this decision because it benefits me or my group.” There is not, however, any ground “in the being of the universe” for opinions about Goodness, Truth, Beauty, and Justice.

Justice and Political Life

These blogs are about political life. If you recall, the ancients believed that the purpose of government was the creation of a just social order. You might remember Augustine’s statement that without justice a government was simply a band of robbers. Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, and most of the tradition of which Christianity is a part thought that justice was something real, that is something that exists independently of what I or anyone else thinks is just. They also felt that government was not simply a matter of getting and using power according to the personal preferences of the ruler or a particular political party. They felt that justice was real and that rulers could be fairly examined from the universal perspective of justice.

Plato, whose thought forms the basis for this blog, thought of Justice as a real thing. He was not, however, unaware that it was not “real” in the sense of being something material or a material force acting upon material things. Instead, for Plato Justice was a form of an invisible reality that existed independently of whatever you or I or anyone else thought was just. Justice was a “form” or a noetic (ideational) reality. This is exactly what Augustine or Aquinas would have thought, with the difference that they would have seen justice as one of those invisible realities that God has created.

What does it mean to be Real?

Plato, in one of his most famous and important passages says the following:

I suggest that everything which possesses any power of any kind, either to produce a change in anything of any nature or to be affected even in the least degree by the slightest cause, though it be only on one occasion, has real existence. For I set up as a definition which defines being, that it is nothing else but power. [1]

In order to understand exactly what Plato is saying, one needs to understand the Greek word translated “power” in English. The word Dunamis” in Greek does mean “power,” but it also means “force,” “strength,” “ability,” or capacity. “Power” can refer to material power, moral power, intellectual, or spiritual power, as it does when referring to the Holy Spirit in the New Testament.

We think of power as a material force. This is not at all what Plato or those who followed him would have thought. When Plato says that anything that has power has real being, he is including moral, spiritual, intellectual as well as material, physical power. He is also including ability and capacity as powers which confer reality. Thus, a concept, such as “justice,” that has the ability to shape human activity has a real noetic, intellectual reality. Its content includes but is not limited to the idea of material force as power.

The second thing to notice about this definition is that it does not restrict itself to active power to produce change in another. Things which have the capacity to be changed are also real. Thus, justice is real both because it can change behavior but also because it has the ability to be changed by the thoughts and behavior of human beings. This is another way of saying that justice is a matter of relations. [2] It is a relational concept. Its meaning can and does emerge in the context of human life and human decision-making.

This is where I would like to go back to a point made in prior blogs when discussing the work of the philosophers C. S. Peirce and Josiah Royce. Beginning with Peirce, philosophers began to understand how signs and therefore human thought works in a deeper and more important way. Every claim about reality involves a sign, a signified thing, and an interpreter. If I say, “There is my daughter’s dog” I am using the word “dog” to signify a reality different than the word itself, which is my daughter’s dog. In addition, I am interpreting my complex perception that the object before me is a golden doodle owned by my daughter. Therefore, every communication has a sign, a thing signified and an interpreter.

When I say, “Murder is unjust” I am interpreting with the word “unjust” a complex set of circumstances before me an am claiming that the situation I am describing is not compatible with justice. In the same way, any claim that something is just involves a set of circumstances outside the interpreter, the words that embody the interpretation, and the interpretation of the interpreter. In addition, there is always and must always be a chance that others will look at the same situation and say, “No, this was not murder; it was justifiable homicide.”

More importantly, claims like “This was murder” occur in a particular society with a particular legal system which evolves over time. Over may years of decisions, interpreters have sensed that there are different kinds and degrees of murder. There are some murders that are justified and others that are not. There are defenses to claims of murder. In other words, our justice system is a long, multi-generational conversation about what constitutes justice. Every time a new circumstance arises, every new pattern of facts enriches and grows our notion of justice. This is not true only for our example of murder but for all the myriad kinds of situations in which the phrases “This is just” or “This is unjust” might apply.

The Eternal Conversation

Where a society has ceased to believe in the reality of Justice and in the eternal search to uncover its content and meaning, there are bound to be attempts to impose by power and deceit the conclusions of a particular group or elite. It is only when we recognize that the search for “a just society” involves a conversation concerning emerging situations to which no final answer can be found, but only gradually unfolded during the course of human history, that the wisdom and patience that sustains freedom can be maintained. We see every evidence in our society that the loss of faith in the reality of universals is impacting the honesty and stability of our political and social institutions.

Conclusion for the Week

The status of universals is important. C. S. Peirce thought that the lack of belief in the reality of universals was one of the defining weaknesses of modern thought that undermined, among other things, the search for scientific truth. Science depends upon the critical analysis of a reality that it seeks to understand that exists outside of the mind and emotions of the scientist. In the same way, the search for God, for Truth, for Beauty, for Goodness, and for justice requires that we believe that in some way we are looking for a reality that exists beyond ourselves and the manipulative potential of the human mind. [3]

I am going to be returning to the issue of the reality of universal values before this series is over because I, with Peirce and others, believe that it is of fundamental importance for the modern world and modern societies to recover a belief in their reality. To quote Michael Polanyi:

Those who declare that these ideals have no real substance and that only the interests and power of particular groups are real, inevitably attach their aspirations for equity and brotherhood to the struggle of a particular party for power. Their ultimate reliance and all their love and devotion are attached to this residue of reality, the power of the chosen party. … But if the citizens are dedicated to certain transcendent obligations and particularly to such general ideals as truth, justice, charity, and those are embodied in the tradition of the community to which allegiance is maintained, a great many issues between citizens, and all to some extent, can be left—and are necessarily left—for the individual conscience to decide. The moment, however, a community seeks to be dedicated through its members to transcendent ideals, it can continue to exist undisrupted only be submission to a single centre of unlimited secular power. [4]

As mentioned above, I will return to this theme in the course of these blogs, for it is an important theme for the development and restoration of our democracy. For the time being it is enough to understand that there are real world consequences to our societal loss of faith in the reality of unseen values. As I said in another context: “If there is no such thing as truth and justice, if we are not constrained in our political behavior by a transcendent obligation to seek truth and justice in our political lives with tolerance for other views, then the state can and must dictate these matters. A society which has lost its belief in transcendent ideals has turned onto a road leading to tyranny. If, however, a society believes in the reality of transcendent moral and ethical ideals such as truth, justice, tolerance, and charity, and serves these ideals, the foundation of a free society can be maintained even in the face of conflict and uncertainty.” [5]

Copyright 2020, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] Plato, The Sophist 247e.

[2] This particular notion was suggested to me by, among other persons, Daniel A. Dombrowske, A Platonic Philosophy of Religion: A Process Perspective (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2005).

[3] Charles S. Peirce, The Essential Writings Edward C. Moore, ed. (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1972). For Peirce, the real is that which exists independently of our ideas of it, that is independently of our perceptions, theories, or capacities. Id, at 57. These are noetic realities that exist not in material form but in the human mind. Such general ideas are not infinitely manipulatable but subject to the rules of logic and thought appropriate to the subject matter. Id, at 60.

[4] Michael Polanyi, Science Faith and Society (Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 1946), 78-79.

[5] G. Christopher Scruggs, Path of Life: The Way of Wisdom for Christ Followers (Eugene OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014), 160.The term “reality” is used here as referring to intellectual and moral ideals which act as a goal and as an active component of decision-making. These intellectual and moral ideals, such as “Truth” and Justice,” exist independently of our subjective choice and are progressively revealed as we participate in the disciplined attempt to uncover them as part of a community of inquiry and practice.

This week, I decided to do a short Thanksgiving blog on what is known as, “The Mayflower Compact.” Most Americans know something about the journey to America by the Pilgrims and their ship, Mayflower. [1] The Pilgrims initially set sail from England in July 1620 together with its sister ship, Speedwell. Eventually, because of issues with the Speedwell’s seaworthiness, it was left behind, and the Mayflower traveled alone on its long journey across the North Atlantic. The journey was long and difficult. Many people suffered from sea sickness and the close quarters below the Mayflower deck.

After over two months at sea, the Pilgrims arrived at Cape Cod on November 11, 1620. The trip had exposed differences and divisions among the various seafarers. There were differences between the Pilgrims who had left England in search of religious liberty and those who had left only seeking a better life. There were those in the group who desired to enter into the New World without any firm governmental authority.

Originally, the Mayflower was to land in Virginia, an area governed under a Crown Charter given to the Virginia Company. That area was clearly a colony of Great Britain and had a defined form of government. Unfortunately, the Mayflower landed north of the land controlled by the Virginia Company near what is today, Plymouth Massachusetts.  Within this legally uncertain situation, friction arose between the Pilgrims and the rest of the travelers, with some of the latter threatening to leave the group and settle on their own.

There were those who felt that they were free of any agreement or laws that had been imposed upon them in order to travel to Virginia. In order to create some kind of order and avoid chaos, the leaders of the group drafted the Mayflower Compact, which was signed by the travelers before going ashore.

The Mayflower Compact is only 200 words long, and reads as follows:

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

 Having undertaken for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together in a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.

There are aspects of the Mayflower Compact that are interesting to any person with an understanding of what is known as “Puritan Covenant Theology” and anyone familiar with John Locke and the Contract theory of Government.

1. Although the Separatists were not technically Puritans, they had much in common. While the group the Pilgrims represented (“Separatists”) separated entirely from the Church of England, the Puritans felt that they could remain within and reform the English church. Nevertheless, they had certain beliefs in common, one of which was a theological understanding of the term “Covenant” in the Old Testament. The idea of the Bible as characterized by Covenants, agreements and promises between God and human beings, was the central idea of Puritan theology. This Puritan “Covenant” theology was held by many New England colonial leaders.
2. Covenant theology naturally found application in the notion of a “social contract,” which it did. The Pilgrims, Puritans, and others found a connection between the kinds of covenants that God creates with the human race in the Bible and the social covenants that human beings enter into with a lawful governing authority. It was natural, therefore, for the Pilgrims to enter into a social contract to guide their initial entrance into the New World.
3. When the Pilgrims landed, they were not within the boundaries of any established colonies, therefore, they were not within the boundary of an existing or what might be called “naturally evolved” state. Therefore, they had to determine whether to go ashore without any form of political organization or to create one, “for our better ordering and preservation.” They understood, as more romantic contemporary people sometimes do not that a “state of nature” where no authority exists is likely to be a form of social chaos. They chose order over chaos.
4. In creating their social contract, the Pilgrims acknowledged their existing religious and political alignments. They had undertaken the journey for the glory of God and as subjects of the British monarch, whom they acknowledged in the compact. The Mayflower Compact was an evolutionary document, not a revolutionary document. They signers recognized their dependence on the stream of history of which they were a part. They were about do something new, but there was continuity as well as change in the establishment of their new colonial settlement.
5. There is no “iron wall of separation” between church and state in the Mayflower Compact. Religious and political ideas and necessities combine to form one harmonious whole. There is no indication that the Pilgrims intended to form a theocracy. They speak of “such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony” These just and equal laws, ordinances, constitutions, and officers are not described in theocratic terms, but in those terms that acknowledge a sphere of activity in which human reason is left to operate under the guidance of practical wisdom.

As I wish all my readers a Happy Thanksgiving with hopes that my articles might encourage wise and honorable government and some degree of change in the volatile political environment we enjoy today, it is enough to encourage a sense of common destiny among all Americans. We may not be voyaging over the North Atlantic Ocean in a wooden boat, but we are clearly on a voyage into a new era in American political life. We can hope that the end of our journey will be what Lincoln called, “a birth of freedom” in a postmodern age.

Oh, beautiful for pilgrim feet, whose stern, impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat across the wilderness
America! America! God mend thine every flaw
Confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law

Copyright 2020, G. Christopher Scruggs

[1] The Pilgrims were what are called “Separatists.” The Separatists were a group of English protestants Christians who separated themselves from the worship of the church of England and instead held services in their homes and in other places outside of the official churches of the Church of England. This was not legal under the laws of England at the time. (In this way, England under James I was not unlike Iran and China and other nations today that do not allow house churches not recognized by the state. This seems unusual to Americans, but it is not so unusual in those areas where the state has always regulated religious observances.

Each week, I try to let readers know just a bit about the person I’m reviewing. Last week, I introduced St. Thomas Aquinas to readers. Thomas was born in 1225 at Roccasecca, midway between Rome and Naples. [1] At the age of five, he was entered at the monastery at Montecassino where his studies began. When the monastery became a battle site (as it was in the Second World War), Thomas was sent by his family to the University of Naples. There that he came into contact with Christian interpretations of Aristotle and the Order of Preachers or Dominicans. Aquinas became a Dominican over the protests of his family and eventually went into Northern Europe to study, in t Paris and at Cologne with Albert the Great. Returned to Paris, he completed his studies, became a Master and for three years occupied one of the Dominican chairs in the Faculty of Theology. He spent the next decade in Italy.

Physically, Aquinas was a large man quiet and soft-spoken man, earning him the nickname “the Dumb Ox” by his classmates. The “dumb” part was clearly foolish, as he is one of the most brilliant philosophers and theologians of human history.  In 1274, on his way to the Council of Lyon, he fell ill and died on March 7 in the Cistercian abbey at Fossanova, near Roccasecca where he was born. Before Thomas died, he had a vision, which caused him to remark, “I can write no more. I have seen things which make all my writings like straw.”

Natural Law

Last week, we focused our attention on Aquinas’ notion of “natural law.” The idea of “natural law” is difficult for modern people to grasp. The reason for this is the difference in the way people see reality in the contemporary West and the way in which Thomas would have seen the world. Modern people think of two kinds of laws, mathematical laws, which are deductively certain and scientific laws, which are verified by scientific inquiry. Mathematical laws are certain because they are a matter of mathematical logic. Scientific laws are certain in a different way, they are certain as verified by experiment until disconfirming evidence is discovered, as it sometimes is. To the modern mind, the word “natural” implies “physical and susceptible to scientific analysis. Neither modern idea of certainty involves the kind of reason applicable in natural law theory. Natural law theory is a matter of practical reason.

Practical Wisdom and Government

In order to understand the notion of natural law, it helps to understand a distinction Aquinas makes between theoretical and practical reason. Theoretical reason proceeds from given hypotheses and reaches necessary conclusions. An example of this would be mathematical systems. Practical reason, on the other hand reasons from general principles, but deals with contingent things, like the probable result of some human action (ST I-II, Q 94).

As human reason considers precepts of natural law, it develops the habit of possessing them, so that natural law becomes a matter of character (ST I-II, Q 94, First Article). Thus, natural law is primarily a matter of rule of reason resulting in a habit of action developed by the exercise of practical reason (ST I-II, Q 94, Second Article).

This means that the truth that obtains from practical reason is of a different type altogether from the truth deduced in the process of theoretical or scientific reason. According to Aquinas, in the case of practical reason, its general principles are true for all people, but the conclusions are not. Thus, the certainty of natural law is never the same kind of certainty one has for mathematical or scientific law. The question for practical reason is, “Does this rule of action lead to the attainment of the objective that reason dictates in this situation?”

To make this a bit clearer, let us take a principle like, “It can be dangerous to borrow money.” It is a well-known fact of human existence that people who borrow too much can get into a lot of trouble. In every case, human experience shows that one who borrows money must abide by certain limitations on his or her actions set by the lender. These may be reasonable and achievable or otherwise depending upon he circumstances. It is also true that economic circumstances may change and an inability pay and even bankruptcy may result. On the other hand, in many circumstances, including to build a business or buy a home, it may be necessary to borrow money. The principle is true for all people, but the conclusions differ from person to person.

Government as a Matter of Practical Reason

Government is a practical, not a theoretical enterprise, which is why it should be conducted by persons of significant practical wisdom and experience.  The evolution, design, and conduct of government and law is not, for Aquinas, a theoretical matter. It is practical and requires skill gained by the practical exercise of wisdom. Those that govern must have sufficient practical wisdom that they can apply principles of practical reason to differing circumstances and achieve a just result for the society that they are governing.

The necessity for practical wisdom and experience flows from Aquinas’ observation that truth as to matters of practical reason is only true for human beings as to general principles (like “borrowing money is dangerous”) not as regards particular conclusions (“Our government needs to borrow money to offset the impact of Covid19”). This means that the conclusions of practical reason (unlike mathematics) will always be provisional and subject to change (ST I-II, Q 94, Fourth Article). This is very important for all governments, but perhaps especially important to understand for democratic republics like the United States of America. Without leadership with proven practical wisdom, important and damaging mistakes are bound to be made.

As to practical reason Aquinas concludes “… the truth or rectitude regarding particular conclusions of practical reason is neither the same for all persons or known in equal measure even by those for which it is the same” (ST I-II, Q 94, Fourth Article). The more complex the issue, and the more factors which practical reason must include in its pondering, the more exceptions and differences of opinion that will emerge to any inquirer (ST I-II, Q 94, Fourth Article).

In the case of a wise and well led polity, rules seek the good for the people and avoid laws and policies that are unwise or unjust. They seek the good of the entire society of which they have been made leaders. The laws of the society are not directed towards the good of a single individual (as in tyranny), or a few (as in an oligarchy), or the majority (as in a decadent democracy), but towards ideals of the public good and social peace and good order. That is to say, in a well led polity, the leaders direct their government according to wise precepts of natural law.

The Problem of Unjust Rule

As mentioned above, kings may become tyrants, democratic societies mobs, an elite and oligarchy. If a those in charge of a society make unjust laws, that is laws consistently contrary to nature, they have led their society outside of the boundaries of law and of order towards a common good. For Aquinas, whatever the form of government, the making of unnatural or unjust laws creates a form of tyranny. Tyranny is an unjust form of government, and its laws are not really laws at all (ST I-II, Q 95).

At this point, Aquinas takes a position that would have been nearly unknown and even revolutionary in the Middle Ages, and which anticipates modern developments: In the case of an unjust, tyrannical government, the subjects of such tyranny can, under some circumstances revolt and change their government. Aquinas was not inclined to justify rebellion just because a people felt one or a few proclamations of a lawful authority to be wrong.

As a general matter, however, the subjects of a lawful power owe to their government a duty of loyalty and obedience (ST I-II, Q 104). Thus, “…the order of justice requires that subjects obey their superiors, since stability in human affairs could not be otherwise maintained….”) (ST I-II, Q 104, 183). However, while human beings are morally obligated to obey God in all things, the same is not true of human rulers (ST I-II, Q 104). “Human beings are obligated to obey secular rulers insofar as the order of justice requires. And so, if secular rulers have usurped power, and therefore have no just authority, or if secular rules command unjust things, subjects are not obligated to obey them, except perhaps incidentally in order to avoid scandal or danger.” (ST I-II, Q 104, 183). Thus, an unjust, tyrannical government may be replaced.

The Role of Morality and Virtue in Government

For Aquinas, it is possible to divide the virtues into three main categories: intellectual, moral, and theological. One can easily see that the focus of character development for leaders is upon the second category, which virtues can only be developed by the exercise of practical wisdom. A wise government is oriented towards the achievement of justice and social harmony and has the wisdom and ability to achieve it.

The very use of works like “just” imply that for a government to avoid evil and destructive actions, those that govern must have a set of habits (virtues) that enable them to decide and act wisely. It is not likely that a leader can act justly in the common good without the virtue of Justice. As a result, Aquinas deals with this virtue in his Summa Theologica.

Because of the importance of virtue in leaders, a wise society encourages the development of moral virtue in those who will lead. In this regard, Thomas recovers against the modern world the notion that rulers must be morally prepared by education and the experience of life for the positions that they will have in adulthood. In point of fact, the wisdom to rule wisely is the most complete form of practical wisdom and its wise exercise the pinnacle of the life of practical reason (ST I-II, Q 50 First Article, 201).

Just War

One obvious principle of natural law with which most people agree is that violence and killing are wrong. Thus, war as a human activity is morally and practically suspect as an activity. As, Plato observed, “Every legislator will aim at the greatest good, and the greatest good is not victory in war, whether civil or external, but mutual peace and good-will, as in the body health is preferable to “the purgation of disease. He who makes war his object instead of peace, or who pursues war except for the sake of peace, is not a true statesman” [2]

Despite the universal hatred of war by right thinking humans, it is also a fact of human history and human life. Therefore, one obvious requirement for a wise ruler of practical wisdom is understanding the circumstances that might permit a war to be fought with justice.  War, if it is to be conducted at all, must be conducted with great practical wisdom and a degree of moral restraint. Otherwise, it is injustice on a vast scale.

Aquinas developed the theory of “just war” and gave it its classic form (ST I-II, Q 4, 165). For a war to be just, three conditions must be met:

1. The ruler must have the authority to declare war. There can be no private just war.
2. There must be a just cause for hostilities, that is to say that there must be some wrong that committed or threatened great enough to justify war. The wrong must be real and not just a pretext for going to war on other grounds.
3. Finally, there must be a rightful intention on the part of the one commencing hostilities to promote good or avoid evil. A war designed for gain, such as to control oil fields, would not be just.

This classic statement of the basic conditions for a just war has been much developed but still influences thinkers and actors in the area of war.

Conclusion

As mentioned last week, Aquinas is a most difficult writer for a modern reader who is not trained in philosophy to read. His work is vast and complex. It would take a good deal more time than I have devoted to his work to more than “scratch the surface” of his thought. This week, we have expanded on his thinking about natural law, bringing into the conversation both the nature of the kind of practical reason that a wise governor needs and the characteristic virtues that a leader requires. Finally, we looked briefly at the way in which Aquinas articulates just war theory.

Copyright 2020, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved.

[1] This is taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/#LifeWork (Downloaded November 9, 2020).

[2] Plato, Laws Tr. Jowett https://books.apple.com/us/book/laws/id501268153 (Downloaded November 12, 2012).

 

Thomas Aquinas (1235-1274) was born into a minor Italian noble family. He entered the Dominican Order early in life. Aquinas attended the University of Naples, where he first encountered the writings of Aristotle, which had been preserved by the Muslims and recently rediscovered in the West. In 1245, Aquinas traveled to the University of Paris where he studied under Albert the Great, who attempted to reconcile Aristotle’s view of the world with that of Christianity. Following Albert, Aquinas spent a good bit of his life working on his master work, The Summa Theologica, in which he created a powerful unification of Aristotle and Christian thought. Eventually, Aquinas became a Dominican teacher at the University of Paris and in Italy. He continued to study the works of Aristotle and the Muslim commentaries on them. Aquinas wrote his own commentaries on Aristotle, including one on Aristotle’s Politics.

Root of Human Government

Like Aristotle and ancient writers generally, Aquinas believed that human beings are by nature social animals and created to live in society with one another as a matter of their innate nature. Human beings also by nature seek both their own good and a common good, both of which require social interaction and some kind of public order. Thus, Aquinas believes that “there can be no good of one’s own apart from the common good, whether the common good of a household or a city or a kingdom.” [1]

Aquinas, like Aristotle, believes human society has an organic or natural origin in human nature in the family and in small villages and communities, not a contractual origin. Human families, communities, kingdoms and empires represent the gradual development of human society and polity over the course of time. Thus, contractual agreements between persons and governments are not a primary but a secondary, emergent phenomenon as regards government.

Given the diversity of human societies, it is not surprising that there are varieties of ways in which human sociality organizes itself. Aquinas, as a student of Aristotle, adopts the same typology has Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero in developing his theory of human government. Aquinas holds that are three basic types of human government, rule by the many, rule by the few, and rule by a single individual. Each of these three typologies have manifestations that reflect human goodness and potential and human sin and failure. Democracy can become mob rule, rule by the wise can become rule by the wealthy or the powerful. Rule by one wise ruler can become a government of tyranny. Although there is some dispute over which form Aquinas prefers, it seems that he, like many ancients, felt that the rule of one with a degree of mixture of the forms is the best and most stable form of government. Thus, Aquinas supports kingship, but with an element of checks and balances.

Nature of Law

The basic institution of society is the rule of law. Without law, it is impossible to organize a peaceful society. Without law, violence would be the only arbiter of disputes. Aquinas outlines four basic categories of law:

1. Eternal lawis God’s divine order, not fully knowable to humans (ST I-II, Q 92, Third Article). This eternal law determines creation, the way things such as animals and planets behave, and how people should The Word of God expresses the Eternal Word (ST I-II, Q 93, First Article). “And so, eternal law is simply the plan of divine wisdom that directs the actions and movement of created things” (ST I-II, Q 93, First Article).
2. Divine law is that divine law promulgated by the Bible, which orders the way in which individuals seek and find a relationship with God and orders their search for ultimate ends (ST I-II, Q 91, Fourth Article). The Divine Law also gives guidance to human beings as to moral matters which human limitations find difficult to observe (ST I-II, Q 91, Fourth Article).
3. Natural law is that law that is implanted in human nature and guides human beings in their day to day activities as they exercise their reason and conscience (ST I-II, Q 94, First Article). This law is related to practical reason, which I will deal with later in this essay.
4. Human lawis very much like what we would call “positive law.”  It is a law promulgated by a lawful authority and varies with time, place, and circumstance. Aquinas defined this last type of law as “an ordinance of reason for the common good” made and enforced by a ruler or government (ST I-II, Q 95, First Article).

The modern world tends to ignore the first three categories and focus only on the final category of law—positive law. What Aquinas calls “eternal law” survives in secular culture only in the form of what we would term “physical law,” and even that category of law has come under attack by post-modern absolute relativists. [2] Divine law no longer has relevance in most secular discourse. For example, the fact that the Bible condemns certain sexual or other actions is not deemed to be relevant for most political discourse. The relevance of natural law is often questioned in the modern world and will be dealt with in an entire section below.

This leaves human or positive law as the only category of law remaining to impact government in its activities, except insofar as physical law might make some laws simply impossible. In addition, “human law” has come increasingly to mean “the preferences of the majority or those powerful enough to impose their will on society.” Once again, in this turn we see the power focus of modernity at work.

Aristotle would not have thought that human or positive law as simply what the majority desired to enact at any particular point in history. Again, a law promulgated by a majority that did not seek the common good, but only the good of a bare majority for the benefit only of the majority would not be a desirable law, for the law was enacted by the action of a mob not of a majority of people seeking the common good. This idea that what legislators do or should do is seek the common good is a good bridge to the idea of natural law.

Natural Law

Natural law as a moral and natural foundation for law is not widely supported by legal theorists or political philosophers. However, there is no element of Aquinas’s system more important than his theory of natural law, which is an important foundation of natural law thinking even today. Understanding Aquinas is foundational to understanding any other proposal for natural law thinking. Therefore, this week’s blog focuses on this aspect of Aquinas’ thought.

As previously indicated, the mere sociability of human beings causes human beings to create governments (ST I-II, Question 95). Human nature inclines human beings to certain kinds of actions and disinclines them from other actions, and the things to which human beings are inclined constitute the natural law (ST I-II, Q 94). Just as human beings seek their own personal good, the sociability of human beings leads human societies to seek some kind of common good, and that common good allows human society to be naturally ordered towards what is best for society as a whole (ST I-II, Q 94). This natural law is a matter of human reason, for human reason properly used seeks a common good that will properly order society towards a common good.

Natural law is not a matter of specific legislation found either in nature or divine revelation. It is a set of general principles that order a society, i.e. general ideas that most human beings would agree upon as natural to organize their society (ST I-II, Q 94, 50). Aquinas realized that not all human beings could or would agree upon these principles, for among other matters, people can simply close their hearts and minds to the natural law, which I would argue our own society has done. By habit, twisted persons do not seek the common good but only their own good or the good only of their particular group. These people have lost the ability to discern the natural law, which requires one be able to seek a common good for everyone. Finally, human beings are finite and can make mistakes and misunderstand what is best for the common good. Thus, what any given human thinks at any given time is not determinative of whether natural law exists or what its precise content might include.

Basic Principle of Natural Law

Aquinas fundamentally sees the natural law as habits of human reason that reflect the rational nature of human beings to seek virtue and goodness (ST I-II, Q 94, First Article). C. S. Lewis describes the ultimate moral and spiritual content of the natural law as follows:

It is Nature, the Way, and the Road. It is the Way in which the universe goes on, the way in which things everlasting emerge, stilly and tranquilly, into space and time. It is also the Way which every human being should tread in imitation of that cosmic and super-cosmic progression, conforming all activities to that great exemplar.” [3]

What Lewis describes in mystical terms as the “Tao” is very much like what in Christian terms we might call “the ultimate content of Natural Law”.

According to Aquinas, the basic principle of natural law is “…that we should do and seek good and shun evil. All the other precepts of that natural law are based on that precept….” (ST I-II, Q 94, Second Article). Thus, Aquinas believes that the basic idea of the natural law is that human beings should seek the common good as well as their own good and avoid those things that impair individual and common good. The kinds of things that can be incorporated into the idea of natural law are (i) actions resulting from the human natural inclination to do good, (ii) natural inclinations leading to actions that humans share with animals, and (iii) inclinations to the good that are part of our reasonable nature (ST I-II, Q 94, Second Article).

Before looking at objections to natural law theory, it is important to ponder its strengths. Most human beings do not think that cold blooded murder, stealing, violence, deceit, failure to pay debts, and a variety of other actions are conducive to their own or the common good. Looking at the categories of governmental types listed earlier, most people do not think that tyranny, rule of the few for their private benefit, or mob rule are conducive to their private or the public good. In some sense it is “natural” for human beings to reject such things as a part of their social order.

In Western societies, we tend to look at the areas of disagreement about natural law and forget that there are a great many matters about which almost everyone does agree. This indicates that there are some things that most people think are right and wrong—a strong indication that there are certain notions of the public good that are universal (or nearly so) among human beings.

Modern thinkers have not been inclined to see the idea of natural law mentioned above to be self-evident. For example, many thinkers, including some Christian thinkers, do not think that there is a “natural good” that humans seek by nature. Our natural inclinations, for example sexual relations between men and women are no longer viewed as “natural” by many people. Finally, while our reason does incline human beings to ordered society, as indicated above, there are vast differences in what people think that rational order might be.

There are no easy answers to these objections. One place to begin is the notion that the fact that a particular aspect of law fails to command universal consent does not mean that it is not something that might well violate natural law. For example, I have many friends that do not think that the activities of some investment banking firms in the mortgage backed bond crisis acted in an improper manner, even when they sold their clients securities that they knew were highly dangerous and unlikely to be paid in full. Under the impact of a kind of radical free market ideal, they see nothing wrong with this kind of behavior. On the other hand, no society can really hold together when investors cannot trust their own financial intermediaries. It is my view that there is something wrong with the views of my friends, something they cannot see because of an ideological prejudice.

For Christians, the notion that all persons are blinded by sin to see the perfect content of truth and some people are blinded by persistent sin explains both the difficulty all people find in perceiving what might be the natural common good for their society and their own personal good as human beings. Finally, the fact that we human beings are finite and often err in what we believe and do, sometimes for long periods of time warns that error can and often does persist for long periods of time until human experience reveals the best content of law.

Conclusion

This is not the end of my time examining Thomas Aquinas. Next week, we are going to look at the role practical reason in this thought and some specific issues, such as his just war theory. This week, we have just covered the surface of his work on politics, the nature of political communities, the nature of law, and the potential of natural law theory to provide a way for human societies to seek the common good.

I want to leave readers with one aspect of Aquinas that we have lost in our society—the idea that human beings are naturally rational and sociable, and therefore are able to discern a good for themselves and a common good for their society. The notion of the common good as something we must seek to the exclusion of power is important to recover in our society.

Copyright 2020, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] Thomas Aquinas, On Law, Morality and Politics Translated by Richard J. Regan, Edited by William P. Baumgarth and Richard J. Regan, Second Edition (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 2002), 198. The quote is from the Summa Theologica (hereafter “ST”), ST: Q 47 Tenth Article.

[2] I may return to the potential relevance of this notion of eternal law in a future blog. One interesting proposal in modern physics is the idea of David Bohm that the order we see in the universe (the explicate order) is the “unfolded form” of an “implicate order” that is beyond human perception until and unless it is unfolded” into physical reality. Similarly, one might consider that the eternal order of God, physical, moral, and spiritual, including natural law, is enfolded and implicate in the undivided wholeness of the universe and the transcendent being of God until unfolded by the progress of human society and disciplined philosophical, moral and legal inquiry in response to human contact with an emerging social and intellectual reality. See, David Bohm, Wholeness and Implicate Order (London and New York, NY: Routledge, 1980).

[3] C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York, Collier Books, a division of Macmillan, 1955): 28.

Since we are getting close to Halloween, I decided to go a bit out of sequence and follow the blogs on City of God with one about Luther and his “Two Kingdoms” doctrine, which is a development of Augustine’s position.

Martin Luther (1483-1546) was born in what is today the eastern part of Germany, then a province of the Holy Roman Empire. His father desired him to become a lawyer. As a result of an experience during a thunderstorm, Luther vowed to become a monk, which he did. In 1505, Luther entered an Augustinian Monastery and became a monk. Eventually, he became a professor of theology. As an Augustinian, the work of St. Augustine was important to his formation as a thinker. During his formative years, be became increasingly critical of the theology and practice of the Roman Catholic Church of 16^thCentury Europe.

The Reformation

His intellectual and moral critique of Rome culminated on October 31, 1517 when he posted his famous Ninety-Five Theses on the Wittenberg church door. These theses set out a critique of the Roman Catholic Church. The church immediately opposed Luther’s ideas, and by October 1518, the Protestant Reformation began in earnest. [1]

It is impossible to fully understand either the Reformation or Luther’s political theology without reference to the conditions in Germany at the time. While Luther was critical of the theology and practice of the Roman Catholic Church, the princes and secular leaders of Germany were unhappy with the power of the Roman Catholic Church and the policies of the Holy Roman Empire under which they labored. They tired of the cost of supporting the Roman Church and especially the cost of building St. Peter’s at the Vatican. Many of the German princes backed Luther partly from political motives.

The Two Kingdoms in Luther’s Day

During the Middle Ages, the church and the state formed a kind of unified sovereignty in Europe. Many activities, such as marriage, divorce, family law issues, etc. that we would call secular issues, were not treated as such. The church had earthly governing powers. At the same time, particularly in Germany, tensions had arisen between the princes of Germany, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Roman Catholic Church. One source of tension had to do with the alliance between the leaders of the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church, which the princes of Germany felt was not to their benefit.

Luther’s formulation of the Two Kingdoms Doctrine attempted to carve out two spheres of responsibility, what we would call the “secular” and the “sacred,” and give each its own area of sovereignty and the kind of integrity it needed to accomplish its responsibilities. [2] In so doing, Luther was anxious to allow the church to find the intellectual and moral space to overcome the corruptions he saw in the Medieval Roman Catholic Church. Fundamentally, Luther wanted to separate the activities of the church and princes so that the church might be and become the Bride of Christ it was intended to be without the corruptions of its role in the medieval state. Luther never foresaw nor would he have supported in his own day the modern notion of a “secular state.” The princes of Germany, as he saw it, were simply another set of stewards of God in earthly matters as he was a steward of God in matters of the faith.

If Luther wanted freedom for the church, the German princes had in mind a greater degree of freedom from both Rome and the seat of the empire. They wanted freedom from taxes, indulgences, and other burdens they felt were unjust. In modern terms, their interests were secular. Luther’s formulation of the Two Kingdoms doctrine was not intended to create the modern secular nation state, but in large measure he created a vocabulary and way of thinking that allowed the modern distinction between the secular and the sacred to later on develop. [3]

The Powers of Secular Rulers

It should not surprise anyone that an Augustinian monk would be influenced in his political thinking by  St. Augustine and his distinction between the City of God and the City of Man. Luther adapted the distinction Augustine drew and used it to analyze how God exercises sovereignty through both the church and its leaders and through the state and its leaders. Christians are citizens of two kingdoms, one sacred and the other secular. Luther believed that, under the overall sovereignty of God, each of the church and the state has its own sphere of sovereignty and its own duties within its sphere of responsibility and competence.

In 1523, Luther set out his political views in a tract known as “On Secular Authority.” [4] God rules the City of God through the gospel, the activity of his Spirit in history, and the church. God rules the world through his chosen earthly leaders. God has given earthly rulers the power of the sword to maintain social order and justice. According to Luther’s own thought, the citizens of the kingdom of God would need no secular authority because if the world were composed of all devout Christians, no secular authority would be needed. [5] However, because of human sin and the fact that the world cannot be ruled by grace, the power of secular government is necessary and those who rule must rule with force. [6]

The best way to think about the Two Kingdoms doctrine is to begin with the notion that God is the Lord of All. Christ was sent to save the world through the Gospel, and the church is God’s chosen vehicle for the task of redeeming humankind. This is the first kingdom, what Jesus called, “The Kingdom of God.” In addition to the task of inviting people into the Kingdom of God, their remains the task of ordering concrete human life in an imperfect world. The family, communities, and earthly kingdoms exist to order human life on this earth. God has ordained earthly government in order to maintain peace and basic justice in the world, just as God ordained spiritual government by the word and Spirit to gather men and women into Christ’s kingdom.

I think a pause for analysis at this point might be required. In my view, as indicated in the previous blogs on City of God, the hard distinction between the two cities in both Augustine and Luther, with the resulting separation of law and grace, is the fount of many problems. Had the Fall never occurred, there would still have been the need for secular laws and regulations. Society would still have to determine safe speeds for travel, how safely to design and manage cities, and a host of other problems requiring secular power. This is a part of what is entailed in “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:28). The idea that human beings might have lived in a society without political organization is flawed.

Furthermore, in today’s world, the fundamental principle that underlies the doctrine: that the Christian God is Lord of All and rules the world in two orders is impossible to maintain. The fact is that large numbers of people in Europe and the United States do not recognize any god, and if they do it is not the God and Father of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the assumption that “God is LORD of all” in the sense that Luther would have understood it  is no longer operative in Western culture. The  secularization of our society and culture requires a reconsideration of what the distinction between the City/ Kingdom of God and City/Kingdom of Man makes for contemporary politics.

Finally, as indicated above, there are many aspects of earthly life that impact human life that cannot be determined solely on the basis of Christian faith. To complicate matters, in our culture there are many people who consider it wrong for the church to even consider that it is responsible for the spiritual or public life of people, even in majority Christian nations.

These factors are why I prefer to think of their being One Earthly City to which all people belong and a group of persons within that Earthly City who follow the Way of Christ and serve their neighbors in self-giving love. These people are not the only members of the Earthly City, but have been set apart by God in a special way to serve the their families, communities, and state  with wisdom and Christ-like love.

The Two Kingdoms and Public Disorder

As the Reformation gained force, rebellion and violence began to spread throughout Germany. The leaders of the revolts were revolutionary and utopian, as well as, in some cases, pretty clearly mentally unhinged. [7] The result was social chaos. Luther was disturbed by this, both because it cast into doubt his own work (some of the worst offenders had been disciples of his) and because of the chaos that ensued. He wrote to the princes of the area encouraging them to act. In his Letter to the Princes of Saxony Concerning the Rebellious Spirit, he said:

Although I expect that Your Princely Graces will know better than I can advise you how to deal with this, it is nevertheless my duty to apply my submissive energies to make a contribution, and I ask Your Princely Graces most humbly to take a serious view of this, and from your responsibility and duty to exercise reasonable force to defend yourselves against such mischief and prevent rebellion. For Your Princely Graces know well that your power and worldly sovereignty are given to you by God with the command that they should be used to keep the peace and punish the unruly, as St Paul taught in Romans 13. So Your Princely Graces should neither slumber nor miss this opportunity. God will demand an answer of you if you neglect to use the sword which has solemnly been entrusted to you. And the people and the world would not forgive it if Your Princely Graces were to tolerate and suffer such rebellious and outrageous violence. [8]

Here we see at work Luther’s vision. The Princes of Germany had been appointed by God to create peace and justice within their domains. It was their duty to act to restore order, and it was Luther’s duty to point out the necessity for action. The two kingdoms were both working in tandem to secure the blessings of peace on the people of Germany. It was not long before the princes did act and violently squelched the rebellion. Before it was over 80,000 people died. Luther himself did not urge the violence, but his name has been associated with it ever since.

The Reformation is, in some ways, responsible for the revolutionary rhetoric and activity that we find present in our society today. Cut off from tradition and faith in historic institutions, a certain number of people respond with revolutionary violence, which eventually must be put down in order to restore public order and peace. Luther (and many like him today) wanted a change in his society, but he also recognized, again drawing on his Augustinian tradition, that governments exist to maintain public peace and justice—and when they fail to do so the entire society suffers.

Bonhoeffer and the Two Kingdom’s Doctrine

During the period before and during the Second World War, the German state church was complicit in the activities of the Nazi regime, eventually being effectively controlled by the Nazi regime. Some thinkers concluded that the radical separation of the roles of earthly and spiritual rulers recommended by Luther was at the root of the problem. [9] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, pastor and martyr, was one of the first to see that the Nazi regime was evil and must be opposed by the church. One writer puts his views like this:

Bonhoeffer’s primary concern with the two kingdoms doctrine as it was being used in his own time was that it allowed for a kind of radical independence of the world from the church, the former understood as secular and the latter as sacred. As Bonhoeffer writes, “This division of the whole of reality into sacred and profane, or Christian and worldly, sectors create the possibility of existence in only one of these sectors: for instance, a spiritual existence that takes no part in worldly existence, and a worldly existence that can make good its claim to autonomy over against the sacred sector.” Bonhoeffer finds this division to be deeply antithetical to the biblical faith and the central insights of the Reformation: “There are not two realities, but only one reality, and that is God’s reality revealed in Christ in the reality of the world.” [10]

The quote from Bonhoeffer included above summarizes my concerns with both the approaches of Augustine and Luther: they create an artificial separation of the one reality of the world created by God, and such a dramatic separation between the sacred and the secular that it is difficult to create a theology or practice that recognizes the either the ultimate goodness of creation and human created powers or the capacity of the Word of God to work a gradual sanctification of the structures of human life. In its secular form it deprives the church and its leaders of the capacity to speak to political matters in ways that encourage secular justice and social peace.

Bonhoeffer believed that the Two Kingdom’s doctrine as it was understood by the German church resulted in its inability to stand and speak against Hitler in a unified and effective way. This failure of the German church can be present in the contemporary church, but in a different way: too close an alliance between religious and secular leaders can result in the cooption of the church and its failure to see and confront sin and evil. This capacity is seen on the right and the left of contemporary religious life and among Christians, Jews, Muslims and other religious groups. On the other hand, a complete division denies the secular order the views of its religious citizens, including Christians.

Conclusion

As these series of blogs continue, we will return again and again to the complex relationship between churches and religious believers and secular authorities. At this point, it is enough to point out that my evolving belief is something like the following:

1. It is a mistake to think of religious faith and political action as separate spheres without recognizing that they interpenetrate one another. Just as we live in one relational world physically, we live in one relational world politically. It is not possible to separate one’s religious beliefs and roles (or lack thereof) and secular beliefs and roles. We all should live one integrated and whole life.
2. Religious people, including Christians, should be free to speak into the secular arena and to participate in the secular arena without artificial or secular imposed limitations.
3. The Vision of the Heavenly City is both a vision and a transcendental ideal that Christian believers serve and seek. (This does not mean that there is no heaven or after-life, nor does it mean that there is no “Heavenly City.” It just means that, so far as our life on earth is concerned, the vision of a perfect city of peace and justice is an ideal towards which we strive, not a reality in which we can now live.) This vision of a society of peace and justice, where the wisdom and love of God rules, is a deposit of faith given to the church to guide its public activities.
4. The Heavenly City becomes part of the Earthly City as believers conduct their public life with practical wisdom and self-giving love for the Earthly City to which we belong, including those with little or no faith or a very different faith than ours.

Copyright 2020, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] This is not the place to outline the long history of unrest with the medieval Roman Catholic Church that preceded the Reformation. For a long time, many people had criticized the lack of Biblical fidelity and corruption of the church. Luther’s 95 Theses were a match lit on already dry straw.

[2] The very terms “Secular” and “Sacred” would never have occurred to Martin Luther. He was a fully medieval person in which the distinction we find to obvious was both unknown and impossible. His concern was to empower the church to reform itself, not to reform the Holy Roman Empire.

[3] This is not the place to engage in this line of thought, which I will develop further in future posts. The secular state is a creation of the Enlightenment and Modern World. Its gradual development was given impetus by the religious wars in Europe after the Reformation, which caused many people to lose faith and to desire some kind of separation between secular and religious leaders. Their goal was to allow for social peace in the face of religious diversity—a problem we face today.

[4] See, Martin Luther, Secular Authority: To What Extent Should It Be Followed, trans. C. M. Jacobs, in Works of Martin Luther, vol. 3 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1930).

[5] Id at 225-273.

[6] Id.

[7] I am basing some of this analysis on Eric Metaxas, Martin Luther: The Man who Rediscovered God and Changed the World (New York, NY: Viking Press, 2017), see Chapter 16: Fanaticism and Violence, pp 311-336.

[8] Martin Luther, Letter to the Princes of Saxony Concerning the Rebellious Spirit (June 1524), https://andydrummond.net/muentzer/PDFs/luther_letter_princes.pdf (downloaded October 14, 2020)

[9] I will return to this point before these blogs are over. Not all scholars, and especially Lutheran scholars agree with this analysis. They would hold that those who were corrupted by the Nazi regime misread Luther.

[10] Jordan J. Ballor, “Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “The Two Kingdoms, And Protestant Social Thought  Today” La Revue Farel Vol. 6/7 (2011-12), 67. The citations are from Deitrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics trans. Reinhard Krauss, Charles C. West, and Douglas W. Scott, ed. Clifford J. Green (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005), 57-58 (https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=367099102068003121066067095127027107038049048023079045090090084025028117024113026112053049038042059099045107068071098103118028020036071089003016114009124107088092052093054079118024104019087121000000123123118016094066078024077107074108087067123067117&EXT=pdfdownloaded October 21, 2020).

 

 

 

St. Augustine (Aurelius Augustine or Augustine of Hippo) lived from 354-430 A.D. He was born in North Africa, educated in Rome, studied philosophy, and became a Christian in the year 388 at the age of thirty-one. Three years later, he was made Bishop of Hippo in what is today Algeria in North Africa, where he spent the rest of his life. He is recognized as a thinker foundational to Roman Catholic thought and Doctor of the Church.

In the year 410, when Augustine was 54 years old, Aleric the Visigoth entered Rome, and for three days his barbarian troops sacked the Eternal City. This was an event of profound importance for the Roman Empire and Western Civilization. Many histories date the decline of Rome from this event. Almost immediately, pagan writers complained that the Christian faith was responsible for the terrible event. To writers such as Volsianus, the event signaled that Christianity, with its crucified God and preference for peace, was responsible for the event. Augustine spent almost the remainder of his life writing City of God (circa 426). [1] The book is addressed to his friend, Marcellinus, who first brought the need for a response to the attacks of the pagans to Augustine’s attention.

The Two Cities

Augustine begins his analysis with his most basic and most famous distinction—a distinction between the “City of God” and the “City of Man.” The first is the city of Christ founded by love and entered by faith. The second is the earthly city founded by violence and conquest. The City of God is the Heavenly City made up of those who believe in Christ and worship him alone as its King and Founder. The Earthly City is founded on the lust for domination that has motivated the actions of human empires since the beginning of time. [2] This radical dichotomy between the City of God and the City of Man sits at the basis of the analysis Augustine offers of the Roman Empire and its decline.

Let’s begin with a short look at the notion of the church as the Heavenly City and some of the distinctions that Augustine makes in his analysis of the two cities. In Revelation, John sees a vision of the church coming down from heaven:

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people,and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away” (Revelation 21:1-4).

The heavenly city which John saw descending from heaven is the New Jerusalem made up of those who worship God in “Spirit and in Truth.” [3] It is the Bride of Christ, dressed as a bride make ready for her new husband, which is Christ (v. 2). It is the church. This is where another distinction Augustine makes is important: He distinguishes between the church in heaven that rests from its labors (the church triumphant), and the church on earth that continues to witness to Christ in history (the church militant). At the end of history, these two churches will become one Church Triumphant.

Here is a point that is not clearly dealt with in City of God: The Heavenly City is present in and a part of the Earthly City. The decent of the Heavenly City is the church present and active in human history. Believers in Christ are not some separate tribe or nation, one of many religions and people in the world. It is present and active among all the nations and peoples of the world. Augustine often draws too great a distinction between the two cities. The human race is one people within which those who follow Christ are to be found. If one sees Israel as the church present in the Old Testament this is also clear. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the other patriarchs until the founding of the Kingdom of Israel were believers in the LORD God while sojourning and residing as aliens in other nations. The same is true during the captivity and when Israel was part of the Babylonian, Greek, and Roman empires: the people of God were part of two cities, one their city of faith and the other their city of residence.

Augustine, in my view unfortunately, draws and almost irreconcilable distinction and opposition to the character and destiny of his two cities. There were those in Augustine’s day, and there are those in our own day, who did and do not believe that secular life and the life of faith can be reconciled. This is not the case. While the Heavenly City seeks a peace that can only be found by faith, it accepts and even uses the peace of the Earthy City. [4]

The Peace of the Two Cities

The Earthy City seeks an earthly peace that is important for all people on earth, including Christians:

So, too the earthly city which does not live by faith seeks only an earthly peace, and limits to goal of its peace, of its harmony of authority and obedience among its citizens, to the voluntary and collective attainment of objectives necessary to human existence. The heavenly city, meanwhile—or rather that part that is on pilgrimage in mortal life and lives by faith must use this earthly peace until such times as our mortality, which needs such peace has passed away. [5]

The Earthly City seeks a human good when it seeks social harmony and peace through the means at its disposal. Christians, while they are on earth, seek the same kinds of peace in their human life, and so make use of these human goods for heavenly purposes. Human existence is made better and more livable by the attainment of its earthly ends. The Church seeks the good of every earthly city of which it is a part and, in many respects, the same earthly peace non-Christians seek. In other words, within any concrete society, Christians and non-Christians are often seeking the same thing: that social peace that can only be found when there is justice and a fair social order.

Because the City of Man is founded on the discipline of human striving, it is dependent upon the ceaseless vigilance of its members to retain those virtues, martial and otherwise, upon which it depends for its existence. For Augustine, the rise of Rome was an earthly blessing caused by its form of government, warlike society, and discipline. [6]The Fall of Rome, likewise is the inevitable result of the decline of those virtues that made Rome great.

This is no less true today in America than it was in ancient Rome. Christians are not only responsible to maintain Christian virtues, but responsible to be Christians while supporting those virtues that make for social peace within the society in which they are found.

The Tolerance of the Heavenly City

In Augustine’s day, as in our own, there were those who complained about the exclusiveness and the difference Augustine draws between the earthly and heavenly cities. The Heavenly City is not a closed and exclusive society. The Heavenly City is a universal city, and is held together by a common faith, not by common customs, laws, traditions and the like:

So long, then, as the heavenly City is wayfaring on earth, she invites citizens from all nations and all tongues, and unites them into a single pilgrim band. She takes no issue with diversity of customs, laws and traditions whereby human peace is sought and maintained. Instead of nullifying or tearing down, she preserves and appropriates whatever in the diversity of diverse races is aimed at one and the same objective of human peace, provided only that they do not stand in the way of faith and worship of the one supreme and true God. Thus, the heavenly City, so long as it is wayfaring on earth, not only makes use of earthly peace but fosters and actively pursues along with other human beings a common platform in regard to all that concerns our purely human life and does not interfere with faith and worship. [7]

There could not be a more eloquent defense of religious tolerance and the willingness of Christians to cooperate with all people of good intentions than this quotation sets out. Christians are drawn together not by racial or cultural ties, but by their common faith. The invitation to become citizens of the Heavenly City is not limited to those of one race, nation, or set of customs. The diversity of human customs, laws and traditions are human goods, part of the Earthly City.  Christian faith makes no judgement about these things so long as they are religiously neutral and not against notions of justice. Furthermore, the Heavenly City not only tolerates but works for the same human goods as does the earthly city, so long as its worship and internal customs are not at stake.

As Western society continues its process of secularization and a sometimes aggressively pagan culture emerges, Christians have much to learn from Augustine’s attitude. As members of a nation and community, we have the same desire for social peace as to non-Christians. We desire the same level of justice as do other groups. We should not only tolerate but actually celebrate the differences of custom and tradition that compose post-modern society. The only “red line” for Christians is the protection of our own freedoms to live according to Christian morality and worship God according to the customs of the Christian faith.

Conclusion

Next week, I will continue with Augustine’s City of God. The focus next week will be on the notion of Justice and how the idea of Peace, which lies at the foundation of Augustine’s political theology supports his notion of the kind of justice that the two cities seek for their citizens. I want to continue to analyze the way in which Augustine’s radical separation of the earthly and heavenly cities can have unhealthy implications for the way in which Christians relate to others in a secular society such as ours.

[1] St. Augustine, City of God tr. Gerald G. Walsh, S.J. et all, abridged ed. (Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1958), hereinafter “Image Edition.” Unless otherwise specified, all quotes come from this edition. When noted, quotes may come from St. Augustine, City of God tr. Henry Bettenson (London, ENG: Penguin Books, 1984), hereinafter “Penguin Edition.”

[2] Image Edition, at 40-41.

[3] In John 4, when Jesus meets the woman at the well, she tells him that the Samaritans worship God on Mount Gerazim and the Jews on the Mount in Jerusalem. In response, Jesus says, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:21-23). This indicates that the “New Jerusalem” will be the human heart and not a physical place.

[4] In his last communication with his disciples, Jesus tells them that he gives them peace, but not a peace that is identical to that peace that the world gives: “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid” John 14:27).

[5] Id, at 464.

[6]

[7] Id, at 465.