When Christianity came to favor in the Roman Empire, the
political result was unprecedented in the history of the church. A religion that had always been marginalized
and often been persecuted became the most powerful religious institution in the
empire. The leaders of the church now
had to give both support and guidance to government officials and emperors
without compromising the values and truths that they had received in humbler
times. There was also a need to convince
pagans that Christianity not only was the true religion but also could provide
the basis for a successful state. The
enormous difficulty of these tasks is shown by the fact that there is even
today much disagreement over the issues of whether Christianity belongs in government
and what it should do there if it does belong.
Augustine provided the most significant treatment of the subject of
Christianity in society and government for centuries to come. His work is worthy of study by Christians
anywhere in the world today who have a role in government or who have an
influence on people who do. This paper
will consider Augustine’s teachings on Christian government and the
influence his teaching has had.
Augustine's Teaching
Augustine
never took in hand to write a comprehensive treatise on government, yet his
writings on subjects that relate to politics form a cohesive system of thought
that has had a profound impact on Christian and Western political theory ever
since[1]. In particular his work, “The City of God”,
was considered for centuries to be the standard text on politics. Its basic premise, that humanity is divided
into two “cities” united by two respective loves[2]
(love of God and love of self), had been expressed before that work was written[3],
but The City of God expounded and applied Augustine's teaching in a way that
had profound implications for the political ordering of society. The “City of Man,” while it was fundamentally
opposed to God, was at the same time under His control. In spite of later arguments to the contrary,
it has been established that Augustine viewed the state as belonging to the
post-Fall order of things and arising from the self-love of the earthly city[4]. However, since the purpose of the earthly
city is temporal peace, the state must be supported by the Christian as a
positive work of God's providence, and not merely tolerated as a necessary evil[5]. With Christians in power, the government
could and should—in a manner appropriate to its distinctive role—intentionally
promote the welfare of the church and the preaching of the gospel.
According
to Augustine, the basis of all government, including a government that is
conducted generally in keeping with explicitly Christian values, is the
sovereignty of God[6]. It exists in the plan of God for the purpose
of aiding the spread of the gospel and the salvation of souls. This teaching was not merely to be an
encouragement and instruction to Christian rulers, but also to show Christian
subjects the work of God through the government of the world. Augustine taught that God is sovereign over
the acts of men, whether they are good or bad.
God could use persecution of His people to spread the gospel just as He
could use a government's favor toward them.
He likened God's rule in the world to the work of a painter who uses
different colors in different ways.
People could choose to be righteous or wicked, but God has a use for
both, just as a painter has a use for lighter hues as well as for the color
black[7].
Augustine
believed that the purpose of government is to provide temporal peace, to the
end that men will have opportunity to hear the gospel and consider their
relationships with God[8]. This peace could often allow Christians to
live godly lives and give testimony to the truth without the hindrances and
distractions of persecution. Thus, the
value of a government that favored the church or even professed allegiance to
the gospel was clear. Augustine saw a Christian
government's protection of the church as proactive, and not merely defensive. One of his defenses of the government's
vigorous measures against the Donatists was that where Donatism flourished, the
physical safety of “Catholics” (non-schismatic Christians) was in jeopardy. The case of the Donatists was not helped by
the fact that the faction of Donatists who committed crimes against Catholics
was permitted to continue in the fellowship of the Donatist church, however
much some Donatist leaders disapproved of their methods[9].
Augustine recognized that the
means by which governments are established and maintained is human action. He maintained that government “without
justice” (that is, without God)[10]
arises because of men's greed, in order that they may pursue their greed with
relative freedom from the interference of others[11]. The state, in his view, would be unnecessary
in a world where love of God and others was the ruling principle[12].
He envisions a hypothetical world in which kingdoms did not make war on each
other but lived in peace, with the result that “there would have been very many
kingdoms of nations in the world, as there are very many houses of citizens in
a city.”[13] This was not an alternative history of
humanity, strictly speaking, but an argument against pagans who saw an
extensive empire as a glorious thing.
Augustine
viewed inequality under God's Providential rule, or in nature, in two
ways. First, there is inequality by
virtue of some inherent superiority. He
said in his commentary on Genesis that mankind's common dominion over lesser
creation “does not exclude 'a natural order...in mankind, too, such that in
virtue of it women should be subject to men and sons to their fathers; for in
these cases, too, it is right that the weaker in reason should be subject to
the stronger'.”[14] Secondly, however, he also believed in an
inequality that arose because of the conditions of a post-Fall world[15]. He put slavery in this category, as well as
human government. This kind of
inequality arises out of one's situation in the world, and love of fellowman is
not its cause, nor is love essential to its continuation. Genuine love does, of course, improve these
relationships, and those who follow God's command to love in these
relationships approximate the model of pre-Fall nature[16].
Augustine
has been characterized as being suspicious of government. He certainly saw it as having limited
ultimate value, though being useful to God's kingdom in some ways. There are probably at least two reasons for
his de-emphasis of the state as a distinct institution.
1. He recognized the transience of human
governments[17]. One of the things that terrified the pagans
and others to whom he wrote The City of God was what seemed to be the impending
demise of the Roman Empire. Augustine
replied that the Empire would be destroyed sooner or later, and it might be
sooner. While he conceded that there
were reasons to hope that its destruction would be postponed, he insisted that
it would not be the end of the world or the gospel if the empire were destroyed. In fact, he pointed to the influence of
Christianity on the barbarians themselves, shown by their respect for Christian
holy places and by the restraint that some of them showed in their assault on
Rome[18]. It was impossible to see what political
arrangements would come from the turmoil that was taking place, but God would
take care of His gospel and His church.
Moreover, the Roman people could survive the death of the Roman state,
if it came to that, whether through exit to heaven or through continuing on
earth under another government[19].
2. Augustine was concerned to further the necessary influence of the church in
government. Christian rulers were
subject to the government of the church in spiritual matters just like anyone
else. For this reason, Augustine
applauded the emperor Theodosius for submitting to church discipline[20]. In some ways, Augustine viewed the state's
function as an extension of the church's interests in society. He endorsed and practiced the appeal of
church leadership to government in matters that concerned the interests of the
church or the welfare of souls[21]. He followed the custom of appealing to
magistrates for clemency towards those convicted of crimes, and granted an
official's request for guidance in understanding and responding to such appeals[22]. When he petitioned for either moderation or
punishment of offenses, he did not demand conformity to his wishes, but he
expected his wishes and arguments as a preacher of the gospel and an officer of
the church to be considered seriously.
Augustine's influence
Augustine's
influence on political thought has endured from his day until now. In his own day, Augustine faced two major
political challenges—articulating a Christian world-view in the face of pagan
skepticism, and countering the schismatic Donatist movement in North
Africa.
In response to the pagans,
Augustine refuted the pagan claims to moral and temporal advantages of
following pagan gods, asserted the
priority of eternal over temporal good, and argued that the commands of Christ,
properly understood, were a support and not a hindrance to the effective
maintenance of a state. The first
argument is mainly of historical interest as a political issue to Western
readers, since the establishment of a
particular religious group by the government is generally looked on now with
suspicion, if not hostility. Almost no
one would take the Roman pagans' side in that argument. The
other two issues between Augustine and the pagans are more clearly relevant
today. It is easy for Christians today
to see both the truth and the application of the priority of the eternal in
private life or when one is under persecution for the faith (though putting the
application into practice is often not easy).
It is not so easy for many to reconcile this truth, however, with
officially favoring one religion and one church.
As
far as Augustine was concerned, however, there was only one true church, and it
was right for government to recognize the true religion. He viewed Christian officials and even
emperors as sons of the church who ought to serve its interests in their
official capacities as well as their lives as private citizens. Where the emperor himself was a Christian,
that could mean things like making donations to the church and sponsoring
church councils on the one hand or sending troops into a city to demolish idols
on the other. He argued that government
participation in religious and ecclesiastical concerns was not prohibited by
Christ and the apostles categorically, but that their holding the government at
a distance was necessary for the period before the fulfillment of the promise,
“All kings shall fall down before him” (Ps. 72:11)[23]. Since Christian rulers were kings, and so
servants of the earthly city, he believed it was appropriate for them to use
the weapons of the temporal order even in the service of the heavenly
city. The more closely the magistrate's
work related to the interests of the gospel, the more important it was for the
magistrate to heed the counsel of church leadership. Augustine sometimes even counseled moderation
in the punishment of criminal offenses against officers of the church that
would have otherwise called for severity, because he believed that moderation
was in the interest of the church[24].
In
regard to the harmony of such commands of Christ as to “turn the other cheek”
with the needs of a state, Augustine says that this command “pertains rather to
the inward disposition of the heart than to the actions which are done in the
sight of men.”[25] He shows that the purpose of the command—to
win over the evil person—sometimes trumps the specific application of that
principle commended in the verse. He
pointed to instances where Christ and the apostle Paul appeared to disobey the
precept of turning the other cheek. He
also pointed to the unlikeliness of someone striking another person on the
right cheek as proof that the passage was not speaking of a life-threatening
injury. Augustine is known for his “just
war” teachings, which were developed largely in response to the Manicheans, who
were pacifist and even dared to condemn Moses for his wars[26].
Augustine's
opposition to the Donatists is his most controversial political legacy. In advocating the government's suppression
of a religious group, and a Christian one at that, he no doubt helped to make
much later and more severe religious persecution possible. Advocates of a religiously pluralistic
society usually point to the excesses of religious suppression as arguments
against making someone's religion a reason for political favor or
disfavor. While this can be a legitimate
argument to discourage the practice of religious persecution in specific times
and situations, it is not a sufficient reason from a Christian point of view to
delegitimize all religious compulsion by government. The example of Old Testament Israel is enough
to show this, and Augustine pointed to the clear moral difference between
Elijah's persecution of the prophets of Baal and Jezebel's persecution of God's
prophets.
Even
in Augustine's time, however, there were some who believed that religious
persecution was abolished by Christ. (A
major modern development of this argument sees in Christ's command to “render
to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's” the establishment of two
“kingdoms” with the earthly one dealing exclusively with non-religious
matters.)[27] Augustine's reply concerning the difference
between his time and the time of Christ and the apostles has been noted. He viewed Nebuchadnezzar's two decrees—one
against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and the other punishing any blasphemy
against their God—as prefiguring the early period of persecuting Christians and
the later period when kings served the true God of Christianity[28]. (He was not, however, so naive as to suppose
that there would be no more persecution or that Christianity would always enjoy
the same political exaltation.)[29]
Closely
related to the question of a government mandate to be involved in religious
disputes is the genuineness of the compliance that is obtained by government coercion. This actually was something that Augustine
wrestled with as he considered the wisdom of government measures against the
Donatist church. At first, he favored
limiting the government's response to Donatist crimes against lives and
property to repressing Donatism (fines, closing churches, exiling clergy) in
those cities where crimes took place rather than repressing Donatism wherever
it existed[30].
He
changed his mind, however, when he saw the change that took place in many
people when they returned to the catholic church. Those who had remained in Donatism because of
fear for physical safety, prejudice, or contentment with the status quo were
motivated to research the issues and re-evaluate their loyalty to Donatism[31]. Many who returned to the catholic church
realized the error of their previous ways and joined their brethren in
thanksgiving to God for their reclamation and in strong criticism of
Donatism. This was the context of
Augustine's allusion to the Scriptural story where the king told his servant to
“compel them to come in.”[32] No informed Christian will see government
incentives as a cure-all for sin and unbelief, but such incentives to correct
religious profession and practice can have an effect similar to the effect that
is sought by the punishment of any crime or by the use of discipline in the
rearing of children.
No discussion of religious coercion is complete without mentioning the
issue of having an established church.
Augustine realized the temptations that came along with this, though he
never rejected the principle of establishment or the practices that it
implies. As most people realize, the
close connection of government and religion and the legal suppression of
disapproved religious groups have been practically universal until the past
couple of centuries. The tide of popular
opinion and the institutional fragmentation of the church into different
denominations in our day, however, have worked together to make justifying
religious persecution of professing Christians by professing Christians nearly
impossible. There is no denomination
that can claim to be the one true Protestant church as the church of Augustine
claimed to be the one true church, and the self-imposed geographical and ecclesiastical
isolation of the Donatists has no exact parallel today. It is not surprising, then, that the practice
of tolerance among Christians has led to the civil accommodation not only of
all forms of professing Christianity, but also to the accommodation of other
religions, including secular humanism.
Conclusion: Christianity
in the public square faces a crisis in our day just as it did in Augustine's
day. Secular humanism has been working
systematically to remove Christian beliefs and values in government, the public
schools, and various other spheres of human interaction. We in the West have not approached the level
of persecution that Christians experienced in the early Roman Empire. We have also not yet reached a
post-secularist age in our society, as the fourth century church reached a
post-pagan age in the Roman Empire and beyond.
We do not know yet whether that may happen before the return of Christ,
yet as Christian citizens, we pray and work toward that end. In spite of the areas where our experience
differs from Augustine's, and whether we agree or disagree with his political
views, we can learn much from him that will help us know how we should live in
our current situation as well as how we should respond whenever the political
climate changes.
Bibliography
Augustine The
City of God
Grudem, Wayne Politics
According to the Bible
Markus, R.A. Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of St.
Augustine
Paulucci, Henry, ed. The
Political Writings of St. Augustine
Van Drunen, David Natural
Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the
Development of Reformed Social
Thought
[1]
Van Drunen p 22
[2]
Augustine, City of God Book XIV Ch 28
[3]
Markus p 45
[4]
Ibid 204
[5]
Paolucci 282, 283
[6]
Augustine, City of God Book IV Ch 2
[7]
Paolucci ix, x
[8]
Augustine, City of God Book XIX Ch 17
[9]
Paolucci 191
[10]
Augustine, City of God Book XIX Ch 21 Paragraph 2
[11]
Ibid Book IV Ch 4
[12]
Ibid Book XIX Ch 15
[13]
Ibid Book IV Ch 15
[14]
Markus p 202
[15]
Ibid
[16]
Augustine, City of God Book XIX Ch 16
[17]
Paolucci p 49
[18]
Augustine, City of God Book I Ch 1
[19]
Paolucci pp 46, 47
[20] Augustine, City of God Book V Ch 26
[21]
Paolucci pp 247-248
[22]
Ibid p 252 ff
[23]
Ibid p 192
[24]
Ibid 241 ff
[25]
Ibid 177
[26]
Ibid 164
[27]
Grudem p 25
[28]
Ibid 198-199
[29]
Augustine, City of God Book XX Ch 13
[30]
Paolucci p 203
[31]
Ibid pp 204 - 206
[32]
Ibid pp 218 - 221
No comments:
Post a Comment