A Call to Mourning in South Carolina for White Supremacism

"And in that day did the Lord God of hosts call to weeping, and to mourning, and to baldness, and to girding with sackcloth: And behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen, and killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine: let us eat and drink; for to morrow we shall die. And it was revealed in mine ears by the Lord of hosts, Surely this iniquity shall not be purged from you till ye die, saith the Lord GOD of hosts." Isaiah 22:12-14

Whereas, South Carolina's 1860 declaration in defense of its secession from the United States turns the Declaration of Independence on its head by asserting a liberty on the part of states to deny liberty to individuals, and

Whereas, the said declaration of 1860 expressly stated its opposition to federal policies that would have eventually ended slavery, and

Whereas, South Carolina broke the national covenant by secession, ignoring the fact that the Constitution did not specify whether the return of slave fugitives was to be enforced by state or federal government, and

Whereas, the people of South Carolina were complicit with Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens in his assertion that the subjugation of blacks by whites was approved by God, and

Whereas, South Carolina's Declaration takes the name of God in vain by appealing to him for the rectitude of the intentions of the Secession Convention, and

Whereas, many South Carolina Confederate monuments implicitly or explicitly perpetuate this libel, and

Whereas, subsequent to the failure of the Southern rebellion, South Carolina joined other states in denying African American citizens their rights through segregation, and

Whereas, the history of Confederate monuments runs alongside the history of segregation, and

Whereas, in the midst of national and state tragedies arising from the vile doctrine of white supremacy, some are advocating for new monuments to the Confederacy, and

Whereas, the South Carolina Heritage Act forbids the removal of Confederate monuments without approval of the legislature, and

Whereas, the Speaker of the House refuses to entertain discussion of removal of Confederate monuments,

I call on the governor and legislature of South Carolina to publicly repent of South Carolina's sins against the nation, against African Americans, and against God. I call for the church of Jesus Christ to condemn white supremacy and specifically the sin of honoring the war waged by the Confederate states on their own national government to preserve a system of white supremacy. I call for the people of South Carolina to set aside a day of fasting and humiliation for this shameful history that has not been repented of to this day.

Paper: Argument between Roger Williams and John Cotton on Religion in the State

Introduction

Roger Williams has become for many Americans almost a legendary figure--a symbol of the struggle for religious liberty[1].  On the other hand, the Puritan establishment in Massachusetts that expelled him is generally considered to exemplify the faults that conventional wisdom says necessarily accompany too close of a partnership between church and state.  The titles of the most prominent works that arose out of that controversy are well known in Christian circles today[2], and many of Williams' arguments are still used to support both religious toleration and separation of church and state.  Although the political and religious climate is not likely to allow an established religion or church in America any time soon, the controversy over the place of religion in politics continues.  As a key contributor to the debate, Williams deserves careful study.  In order to understand and evaluate his work, it is necessary to also consider his chief opponent, John Cotton.  A careful examination of their argument reveals that the central issue between them was whether the state should favor any one religion or system of belief[3]. 

Historical Background

Williams' controversy with the Massachusetts Bay Colony at first centered on the issue of Separatism.  He refused to accept the call of the Boston Church to be its teacher on the grounds that the church recognized the Church of England as a true church[4].  During the course of this controversy, he also argued that the authority of the civil government did not extend to matters of religion, i.e. the first four of the Ten Commandments[5].  The Salem Church intended to call Williams as an assistant to its ailing minister, but was dissuaded by a remonstrance from the government of the colony[6].  After a stay in Plymouth, Williams returned to serve the Salem church in an unofficial capacity[7].  During that time, conflict with the government of the colony came to a head.  Williams vehemently denied the validity of the colonial charter, because he did not believe the king had the right to grant lands in North America[8].  He also argued that it was unlawful to call on unregenerate people to take an oath, which frustrated the government's attempt to require an oath of loyalty of citizens in a time of public danger from the mother country[9]. 

The civil government was ready to take action against Williams, but some of the ministers asked the magistrates to wait until the ministers had tried to persuade Williams[10].  While the ministers were talking with Williams, the pastor of the Salem Church died, and Williams was elected to take his place.  The magistrates viewed his election as a contempt of their authority, and they admonished the Salem Church for it[11].  When the town of Salem later requested a grant of land from the government, the government refused to consider it because of the election of Williams[12].  The Salem Church wrote the other churches in the colony, protesting the government's action and asking for the excommunication of the magistrates.  The Boston Church and the Assembly responded sternly to this move, and the Salem Church expressed contrition and a desire to resolve the government's grievances[13].  At this point, Williams demanded that the Salem Church withdraw its fellowship from the other churches of the colony[14].  When they refused, Williams resigned his position as teacher and withdrew from the Salem Church[15]. 

With Williams' renunciation of the churches, there was nothing further that the churches could do to delay his prosecution[16].  There was a public trial and debate, and Williams refused to change his position.  He was then banished from the colony.  The court argued that this was a punishment for purely civil offenses, not for religious offenses[17].  Williams disagreed, and portrayed the events as persecution for conscience' sake.  Rightly or wrongly, his narrative has come to be the generally accepted one. 

Ironically, Williams also put the colony and its ministers, preeminently John Cotton, in a position of having to defend the principle that the government has authority to legislate and impose penalties in religious matters.  Cotton and most other Congregationalists stressed religious unity in the faith and held that it was right for the state to protect and promote the church's purity[18].  This put them at odds both with anti-establishment people such as Williams and with the Presbyterians in England, who wanted not merely unity but state-enforced uniformity[19].

The Argument

The central disagreement over the state's neutrality in religion and belief drove Williams on the one hand to condemn all involvement of the state in religious matters (especially when it involved coercion)[20] and drove Cotton on the other hand to insist on the involvement of the state in religious matters (which sometimes required coercion).  Williams' first major work in the debate with John Cotton started with a question that Cotton had answered in a private letter to a prisoner at Newgate.  This letter was later published without Cotton's permission[21], and Williams used it as the starting point for his argument against religious coercion by the state.  The question the prisoner had asked was "whether persecution for cause of conscience be not against the doctrine of Jesus Christ, the King of kings.[22]"  Cotton's answer was that persecution for conscience' sake was wrong, but that if someone persisted in an error "in fundamental and principal points of doctrine or worship" after being admonished twice, the erring person was not acting out of conscience but sinning against conscience[23].  In such a case, Cotton believed the guilty person deserved to be punished.  He also said that someone might be punished for maintaining even a lesser error "with a boisterous and arrogant spirit, to the disturbance of civil peace.[24]"  Williams' point-by-point refutation of Cotton's letter led to a full-blown debate on the proper position of the state relating to matters of religion.

The State's competence to Judge in matters of faith

In response to Williams' argument that the authority of civil government only extended to the second table of the Ten Commandments, Cotton argued that God would not leave civil government without guidance as to its duties[25].  Since the role of government is to reward good and punish evil[26], and since the New Testament does not specify what good and evil it is to concern itself with, Cotton held that the precedent of Old Testament Israel is still binding.  Williams tried to make a complete dichotomy between civil affairs and religious affairs, but Cotton represented the legislation and discipline of the state and the church as distinct yet overlapping[27].  The same person might be subject to the punishment of  both church and state for different offenses, or he might be subject to the punishment of one but not the other.  Certain offenses--namely blasphemy, heresy, and idolatry[28]--were of themselves offenses that could be punished both by the church and by the state if they were committed by church members[29].  These were capital offenses. Blasphemy was also a civil offense for non-Christians outside the church, and so was seducing professing Christians into heresy or idolatry[30].

As to the character or faith of the magistrates, even here Cotton and Williams disagreed.  Cotton held that even a pagan ruler might legitimately intervene in some religious matters.  For example, based on the words of Paul and his accusers in Acts 25, he rejected Williams' claim that Paul was on trial before the Roman authorities in Judea only for civil offenses, and not for religious offenses[31].  Since Paul's life was in jeopardy and he could not gain a fair trial in a religious court, he appealed to the secular court, even to Caesar himself.  However, in a state that was designed to promote Christianity, the voters and the magistrates would be Christians and church members.  In Cotton's view, this was civil government that was fulfilling its calling.  Williams believed that the government derived its power from the governed[32], and that therefore both voting and civil office should be open to non-Christians.  This would make any attempt at Christian government, which he thought was futile anyway, impossible.

The final objection Williams had to the secular authorities' competence to judge religious matters was the great likelihood of making a mistake in religious cases[33].  History had shown governments taking widely different views on religious belief and practice, accompanied by efforts to impose first one and then another form of religion on the people.  Rather than risk persecuting someone for disobeying a bad law, why not just keep the government out of religion altogether?  Cotton, however, though he believed in the fallibility of man's judgment, also believed in the perspicuity of Scripture[34].  He held that the government had both a clear standard and a Scriptural mandate for religious legislation.  Governments would commit sins and make mistakes in many areas, including matters of faith and worship, but that did not automatically absolve them of the responsibility they had to reward the good and punish the evil.

The importance of religious questions

In theory, Williams and Cotton agreed on the ultimate importance of fundamental religious beliefs.  The eternal destiny of man depends on being right about these doctrines.  However, the conclusions that Williams and Cotton drew from that premise were radically different.  Williams held that only spiritual instruments--preaching, admonition and, if appropriate, church discipline--should be used to prevent spiritual danger[35].  This was because encouragement or discouragement from the state could have no positive effect on a person's spiritual state.  The only kind of people that state-sponsored religious uniformity could produce were hypocrites[36].  Cotton replied that first, the punishment of religious offenses in the state was not so much to reclaim the offender as to deter others, and secondly, that there was indeed a lesser kind of spiritual life that the unregenerate had and could lose[37].  He held that for a state to willingly expose its subjects to pernicious influences was to sin against the gospel[38].

Further, Williams denied that the state need fear temporal punishment for tolerating false religion.  He saw no connection between the temporal fortunes of nations and their religious and moral character[39].  He pointed to examples of flourishing anti-Christian states and to misfortunes suffered by the best states[40].  True, God might punish nations for religious sins, but it would be a spiritual punishment of the people's souls, not a temporal punishment in their bodies and estates.  Cotton replied that once the church was set up in a nation, the peace of the state depended on the state's care for the churches[41].  He also believed that the risk of violence from dissenters was worth a right religious policy in the state.  Though sometimes a state might legitimately be forced to grant religious toleration in essentials, this was no different from its being forced by circumstances to permit certain people guilty of civil crimes such as murder[42] to remain unpunished.

As to the health and survival of the church, Williams held that the survival of the church was of no more concern to the state than that of any non-religious association (a business corporation, for example)[43].  Cotton denied the prudence of both a laissez faire approach to corporations in general and to the church in particular, since it is that society for which the world itself exists[44].

One popular argument that Williams made for religious toleration was that the persecutors of today frequently become the persecuted of tomorrow[45].  Cotton acknowledged that true Christianity has its ups and downs, yet his answer was to trust in God and obey Him[46], which Cotton believed included establishing Christianity by law when in a position to do so.

Conclusion

The controversy between Williams and Cotton displays Williams' main concerns.  This overview of the controversy allows a more detailed assessment of Williams' influence and significance.  Williams would no doubt have approved of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, as well as of the prohibition of a religious test for office.  Outlawing a religious establishment, however, has not removed religion from the sphere of politics.  While religious affiliation may not prove a legal advantage or disadvantage to holding public office, it can make a huge difference in how many votes someone gets.  Also, the influence of religious belief on moral and policy choices is prominent in the discussion of various issues, especially in social issues.  Although most agree in theory that the government should not establish a religion or interfere with the exercise of religion, in practice, there is bitter debate over what influence religious groups should have on government and on what power government should have over religious groups.  There is also in serious Christian circles a general rejection of the idea that God does not visit temporal punishment on nations for their sins, though people are often cautious about attributing specific disasters to Divine wrath for particular sins.

Perhaps the area of application in this debate that is most immediately applicable is actually the area of human rights.  The principles of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press have been enshrined in civil law in the West, while they are frequently denied in practice if not in principle elsewhere.  The question that faces us today is whether Williams' program should be our program.  Put another way, when defending civil rights at home or fighting for them elsewhere, is promoting Western values equivalent to promoting Christian values?  Williams would say yes, perhaps with some exceptions (abortion and government promotion of homosexuality were probably not issues in Williams' context).  John Cotton and a long succession of Christians from Augustine to the Reformers to the Puritans would say no.  They would have us desire a Christian government.  Williams would want a secular state.

---

[1]              For example, Perry Miller calls him a "prophet of religious liberty" who showed that "no other conclusion but absolute religious freedom was feasible in [America]", (quoted in John M. Barry, Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul: Church, State, and the Birth of Liberty  (London: Penguin Books, 2012), 390). Michel Freund calls him "the ripest fruit of the Renaissance and the Reformation" (Ibid, 391).

[2]              The controversy began with a letter of John Cotton's to Williams (regarding his banishment) that an unknown person obtained and published.  Williams wrote a rebuttal, and Cotton wrote a defense.  Williams continued the controversy with the famous "The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience Discussed," which considered a letter Cotton had written on persecution in response to an inquiry from a prisoner, and Cotton replied with "The Bloudy Tenent Washed and Made White in the Bloud of the Lambe."  Williams fired the last shot with "The Bloody Tenent Yet More Bloody: by Mr. Cottons endeavor to wash it white in the blood of the lambe."  Cotton never had an opportunity to respond, as he died the same year.  (Roger Williams, Introductions; Key into the Language of America; Letters Regarding John Cotton, vol. 1 of The Complete Writings of Roger Williams, ed. Perry Miller With a New Introduction by Edwin Gaustad (1963; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2007), vii-xi.)

[3]              Barry lists the issues raised as "the proper relation between...the church...and the state" and "the proper relation between a free individual and the state" (1-2).

[4]                Irwin H. Polishook, Roger Williams, John Cotton, and Religious Freedom: A Controversy in New and Old England (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:  Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967), 5.

[5]                Ibid, 6.

[6]                Williams, iv.

[7]                Polishook, 9.

[8]                John Cotton, Master John Cotton's Answer to Master Roger Williams, in Roger Williams, John Cotton's Answer to Roger Williams; Queries of Highest Consideration, vol. 2 of The Complete Writings of Roger Williams, ed. Perry Miller With a New Introduction by Edwin Gaustad (1963; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2007), 44.  Williams cited four reasons for his banishment, two of which are his opposition to the charter and his denial of the lawfulness of taking an oath from an unregenerate person (40-41).  Cotton says that it was Williams' contentiousness about the charter and his resistance to the Oath of Loyalty that were the grounds for his banishment, and that none of Williams' four reasons  as he stated them were actual causes.  He did, however, disagree with Williams on all four of his principles.

[9]              Ibid, 47-48.

[10]            Polishook, 15.

[11]            Ibid, 16.

[12]            Ibid, 17.

[13]            Ibid.

[14]            Ibid, 17-18.

[15]            Ibid, 18.

[16]              Cotton narrates how he had privately expressed his helplessness in view of Williams' ignoring the churches' counsel and of Williams' claim that they were not churches of Christ (64.)

[17]              The Court's verdict cited two reasons for the banishment:  Williams had professed "new and dangerous opinions, against the authority of magistrates, as also writ letters of defamation, both of the magistrates and churches here" Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States, vol. 1 (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), 195.

[18]            Letter to Sir Richard Saltonstall quoted in Polishook, 117.  See also John Cotton, The Bloudy Tenent, Washed quoted in Polishook, 75.

[19]            Polishook, 24-25.

[20]            The Fourth Paper, Presented by Major Butler, To the Honourable Committee of Parliament (1652) quoted in Polishook, 62.

[21]            John Cotton, The Bloudy Tenent Washed and made White in the Bloud of the Lamb, 5.  Williams denies that it was he who first published the letter,

[22]              Roger Williams, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, for Cause of Conscience, Discussed, in a Conference betweene Truth and Peace: and Mr. Cotton's Letter Examined and Answered, ed. Edward Bean Underhill at archive.org (1644, reprint London: The Hanserd Knollys Society, 1848), 10.

[23]              Citing Tit. 3:10, Ibid, 20.

[24]              Ibid, 21.  He later clarified that it was not the error itself that was the issue in this case: one might just as easily be liable to civil punishment for maintaining truth "in some boisterous and arrogant way [disturbing] the Civil Peace" The Bloudy Tenent Washed and made White in the Bloud of the Lamb, being Discussed and Discharged of Bloodguiltiness by Just Defence at http://www.davidglensmith.com/lonestar/2327/PDFs/The_Bloudy_Tenent_Washed%20_v1.pdf, 40-41.

[25]              "No, nor did [Christ] come to destroy the judicial laws, such of them as are of moral equity.  Or else, the conscience of the civil magistrate could never do any act of civil justice out of faith, because he should have no word of God to be the grounds of his action if the laws of judgment in the Old Testament were abrogated and none extant in the New."  The Bloudy Tenent, Washed, quoted in Polishook, 86.  Regarding the "moral equity" of the laws regarding apostasy, heresy, and idolatry, Cotton says, "The reason of the law (which is the life of the law) is of eternal force and equity in all ages" Ibid, 85.

[26]            Rom. 13:4.

[27]            Cotton says that the magistrate needs to know enough of religion to be able to judge some but not all questions (particularly "capital offenses against religion [or] the civil state"),  The Bloudy Tenent Washed and made White in the Bloud of the Lamb, 65.

[28]            Ibid, 108. 

[29]            Heresy was only punishable by the civil power if the heretic tried to seduce others, Ibid, 32. 

[30]            Ibid, 18.

[31]            Ibid, 64.

[32]            Queries of Highest Consideration , 19 in John Cotton's Answer to Roger Williams; Queries of Highest Consideration, vol. 2 of The Complete Writings of Roger Williams, 259.

[33]            Ibid, 23 in John Cotton's Answer to Roger Williams; Queries of Highest Consideration, vol. 2 of The Complete Writings of Roger Williams, 263.

[34]            He held that foundational doctrines were so clear that one who persisted in contradicting them did it "not through want of light or weakness of knowledge, but through strength of will" The Bloudy Tenent Washed and made White in the Bloud of the Lamb, 34.

[35]            The Bloudy Tenent, 107.

[36]            Ibid.

[37]            The Bloudy Tenent, Washed quoted in Polishook, 90.

[38]            "It is an high presumptuous tempting of God, and wanton treading under foot the presious souls of men...to kill the souls of men upon pretence the Lord can save them and raise them up again" Ibid, 91.

[39]            The Bloudy Tenent, 308.

[40]            Ibid, 159.

[41]            "It is true where the church is not cities and towns may enjoy some measure of civil peace...through the patience and bounty and long sufferance of God....but when the church comes to be planted among them, if then civil states do neglect them and suffer the churches to corrupt and annoy themselves  by pollutions in religion, the staff of the peace of the commonwealth will soon be broken" John Cotton, The Bloudy Tenent, Washed, quoted in Polishook, 99.

[42]              Ibid,  74-75.

[43]            The Bloudy Tenent, 46-47.

[44]            The Bloudy Tenent, Washed, quoted in Polishook, 98-99.

[45]            Queries of Highest Consideration, 23 in John Cotton's Answer to Roger Williams; Queries of Highest Consideration, vol. 2 of The Complete Writings of Roger Williams, 263.

[46]              He points out the existence of "faithful witnesses" in times of persecution, and says, "Better some vicissitudes in religion than a constant continuance in idolatry and Popery by Princes referring all causes of religion to church men."  The Bloudy Tenent, Washed in Polishook, 94.

The Status of the Charles Mackey Shooting Story After the McBride Interview

On Friday, May 12, I sat down for an interview with Sheriff McBride of Anderson County, South Carolina. We discussed the sheriff's office and related topics, first among them being the shooting of Charles Mackey in Anderson County last summer. Mackey was killed by his neighbor, and it was ruled self-defense. McBride's predecessor communicated very little with Mackey's family, and the family has a number of serious complaints about the conduct of the previous sheriff's office surrounding this investigation. My previous interview with Charles Mackey's family and Traci Fant of Freedom Fighters can be seen here.

Anderson County Solicitor David Wagner joined me and Sheriff McBride for the portion of the interview dealing with Charles Mackey's case. Solicitor Wagner took office in January just as Sheriff McBride did, so they were both new to the case. Both were in agreement that the shooting was self-defense. Sheriff McBride spoke of his disagreement with the previous administration's lack of communication with the Mackey family and told what his own approach has been.

There remain unanswered questions after my interview with Sheriff McBride. There is a discrepancy between the family's account of the approach to the collection and preservation of evidence and that of the sheriff and solicitor. (I chose not to get bogged down in details during our interview, but I want to follow up on this.) Also, Sheriff McBride did not have an answer for the allegation that officers prevented aid to Charles Mackey when he was dying. He did not have an answer on how the sheriff's office responded to any emergency calls during the feud between Mackey and his neighbor (the family alleges prejudice).

Sheriff McBride has promised to continue discussions with the family to see that their questions are answered. I will be following up on the progress of those discussions and doing some further investigation of my own. Stay tuned!

The first video deals with the Sheriff's platform that he ran on and the overall situation in which he is making changes to the Sheriff's office. The video was interrupted, so we continued in the next video to talk about Second Amendment legislation and the Mackey case.

Augustine on Christian Government

The following is adapted from a paper that I wrote in the winter of 2011:

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