Reading: The Christian View of the State

We've seen some objectionable things about Aristotle's theory of the state. We've noted that it's collectivist, and as a consequence, it leans towards totalitarianism. There's no intrinsic limit here. There's nothing inherent in the nature of the state that curtails its ability to make laws about anything and everything. This could cover the entirety of life. Indeed, Aristotle believed it should. He thought the state should dictate to people how to dress, which religion to follow, which holidays to celebrate, and so on, even extending to religious beliefs.

I've voiced specific objections to this totalitarian aspect and highlighted the specific consequences arising from it. However, I've ended with an assertion that Christians universally recognize the grave evil of slavery. They understand that one should never treat another human being in such a manner. It's utterly incompatible with the law of love. But so far, I've not delved into what might constitute a Christian perspective on the state or offered an alternative theory to that of Aristotle. That's the aim now.

Let's revisit the way Aristotle represented his theory. In a diagram, envision a crown symbolizing the ruling segment of the state. Whether it's a king, a committee, a legislature with a president—it doesn't truly matter. This represents the ruling body. According to Aristotle, individuals are merely parts of the state, incapable of existing or functioning without it. Within this state, we find various communities: family, marriage, business, school, labor unions, political parties, artistic institutions, and more. There are numerous kinds of societal institutions beyond these examples, like charitable entities or health-oriented places like clinics and hospitals. Aristotle posits that all these are included in the state, with the state reigning supreme and thus having the authority to legislate on all matters.

Now, how does one conceptualize this structure? It's a hierarchy of authority, with the supreme authority—the government—at its zenith. The state encompasses everything, aiming for the highest good, which, according to Aristotle, is happiness. The state's purpose is to guide its citizens towards a virtuous life, helping them achieve a higher degree of happiness than they might have without the state.

How then might a Christian view the nature of the state? How can it be situated in a manner that doesn't swallow all of life and lean towards totalitarianism? Here's a potential perspective:

Picture the individual person at the core. Every individual possesses multifaceted interests and aspects in their life. Naturally, by just being human, we have concerns like health, livelihood, faith, art, education, love, and justice. Whenever humans discern an important interest, they often create institutions or communities to encapsulate and safeguard that interest. For instance, our belief in the divine gives rise to religious institutions like churches, synagogues, or mosques. Concern for health leads to clinics and hospitals. The desire for justice results in the institution of the state. Erotic and ethical love find expression in marriage and charities, respectively. Education births schools, and our artistic inclinations give rise to entities like orchestras or art colonies.

It's vital to recognize that these aren't merely groups of people. They represent innate interests that emerge in life. Outside this conceptual circle, we place the names of institutions or communities we create, join, or promote to enhance these interests. The state, then, is just one among many, and doesn't encompass all others. Its specific function is to establish and maintain public justice. It crafts laws and ensures their enforcement.

Thinking about this in terms of authority and responsibilities, we recognize various forms of authority in life. There's the authority of state officials, business owners, doctors, clergy, artists, teachers, and parents. Each of these roles also carries responsibility. The very essence of authority is to serve both oneself and others, working to intensify and safeguard all these interests. By "interest" here, I'm not referring solely to financial investments. Instead, I'm spotlighting the facets of life that universally arise for everyone, in which everyone partakes to varying degrees. These interests correspond to the communities or institutions created to nurture and champion each innate inclination. This perspective, which I touched upon earlier, is known as sphere sovereignty.

In terms of authority, there are many different kinds. One person might have authority in art, another could be an expert in the law, and yet another could be a teacher in a specific field where they've acquired expertise. There's the authority of the clergy within places of worship, the authority of doctors in health matters, and the authority of parents within the family and of owners within businesses. The list goes on; there are numerous variations.

None of these forms of authority should suppress the others. Each should be allowed its distinct sphere, wherein its sovereignty and responsibility are respected by all others. This presents a distinct view of the state. The state doesn't encompass everything; it doesn't subsume all these other authorities. Instead of viewing individual citizens as mere components of the state, they can be seen as sub-wholes within a larger whole. The state, by its inherent nature, is limited to issues of public justice. While many societal issues may have a public justice component, this doesn't grant the state unlimited authority.

Let me provide a historical example. Think back to the late 1800s and early 1900s when there were no child labor laws. Businesses could freely employ children, often without pay. Consider a young widow with three children looking for employment in a sweatshop. With no one to care for her children and no insurance after the death of her husband, she's compelled to bring her children with her to work. The sweatshop owner might offer her a job on the condition that she brings her children every day to work without compensation. Such situations, unfortunately, were not uncommon in the US. These practices not only deprived children of education and religious observance but also eroded the foundations of family life.

Some might argue from an individualist standpoint, claiming that a business owner has the right to set their terms of employment. However, from the perspective of sphere sovereignty, such actions are not justified. The state, in its role to enforce justice, should intervene in such situations. It should ensure that children's education isn't compromised, that family worship isn't hindered, and that families have quality time together.

I recently read a novel where a young man, originally from Greece, recounts his family's early days in the US. His parents, desperate for work, were elated when his father secured employment with a car manufacturing company. However, company representatives soon visited their home, demanding that their household resemble an "American" one. This included changing their furniture, food, and even the music they played. From the standpoint of sphere sovereignty, such demands are egregiously overstepping boundaries. While a company has the right to expect quality work from its employees, it doesn't have the authority to dictate personal and familial choices.

In sphere sovereignty, ownership is never seen as absolute. No one truly owns anything in such a way that others have no claim on it. This is reinforced by scripture, where God declares, "the land is mine." Essentially, God owns all creation, and humans merely use what has been entrusted to them, and always within set boundaries.

Do we have an obligation towards the poor? Scripture affirms that we do. There's a moral responsibility to support the less fortunate and ensure no one is left destitute. If it's wrong for individuals to neglect this duty, the same applies to families, businesses, schools, states, and churches. The law of God isn't limited to individuals but spans the entirety of existence. It's crucial to remember this overarching principle.

So here is an alternative view of the state altogether. Notice that this diagram is irrespective of exactly how you set the government up. This doesn't say that you can't have a king or you can't have a limited monarchy or you must have a parliamentarian system. Or maybe it's ruled by a committee and oligarchy. It doesn't go into the specific form the government may take because it is saying this is the way to see the role of the state in the totality of human life. The role of the state in the totality of human society, irrespective of how you organize the authority of the state itself.

It may be that some form of democracy leads to the state being the most just it can be. Or it might be some form of limited monarchy, where the monarch has certain powers limited by the parliament or the lawmaking body and other authoritative powers are distributed to magistrates, judges, or regional managers. There are various ways to organize it. But its authority should be limited to matters of public justice only. Though I will hasten to add that even thinking of things in the way this schema lays them out doesn't solve every problem that could possibly arise. It's not a panacea for every ill or every controversy.

People who believe this theory might disagree about its application, especially in borderline cases. For instance, does a particular action fall under the authority of the state or the school? Perhaps it's a matter of curriculum. Educators, as experts, should determine what should be in the curriculum for everyone to have a common education. Every individual needs foundational knowledge in subjects like literature, history, mathematics, and basic scientific concepts. I would also argue for the inclusion of logic. But should the state dictate everyone must attend a specific type of school? While the state can establish schools, it shouldn't force everyone to attend only those schools.

Churches, families, or businesses might build schools. Any entity can form or support one. However, neither the government nor any other authority should dictate the curriculum or graduation criteria. This should be the domain of education experts hired by the schools. Consider the child labor issue as an example. The state should ensure children aren't exploited, made to work without pay or forced to work excessive hours. The objective is to protect their education, family life, and religious observances.

There are, however, varying reasons for implementing child labor laws. Some believe childhood should be a time of leisure and fun, arguing that child labor laws preserve an idealized notion of childhood. While I support children having recreational time, I don't share the sentiment that children shouldn't work at all. Children who grow up on farms work from a young age, contributing to chores. It's a different lifestyle compared to families where a parent might work outside and return home, or a royal family with state responsibilities.

Families are diverse, and laws should respect that. The state's role is to ensure justice across these different institutions, treating all even-handedly. I believe this view promotes justice and safeguards against the state overstepping its bounds more effectively than other ideologies. Yet, even under this system, disagreements can arise. It's about where the boundaries lie and which institution holds authority in specific cases.

Contrast this with the hierarchical view, which does not inherently limit the state's authority. All other institutions are assumed to be subordinate to the state. This outlook, however, recognizes the integrity of various societal institutions, each with its distinct authority and responsibilities. It's ironic that under this concept of sphere sovereignty, the state must ensure that it, along with other institutions, doesn't encroach into areas outside its purview.

The idea of limited government has sometimes been misinterpreted. It doesn't mean the smallest possible government but rather one confined in the scope of its authority. The First Amendment to the US Constitution exemplifies this restraint, prohibiting Congress from establishing a religion. Such clear boundaries are essential. While some might doubt a government's ability to restrain itself, it ultimately hinges on societal beliefs. No ideology guarantees perfect adherence. Individuals, regardless of their ideological leanings, can succumb to temptations.

Consider General George Washington as an exemplary figure. He championed the idea of limited government. During America's struggle for independence, Washington was granted emergency dictatorial powers twice, which he later relinquished upon deeming the emergencies over. His commitment to limited government was recognized even by adversaries like King George III. This diverges starkly from Aristotle's totalitarian view of government. What we've explored is a theory that seeks to delineate authority and responsibilities across various societal institutions.

And this concludes our contrast of the Christian view of the state.