Politics
and the City
By Stephen Palmquist (stevepq@hkbu.edu.hk)
How is
"Christian politics" biblically possible?
On the surface
it may appear that the Bible has little if anything to say about politics.
At least, words like "communism", "socialism", and "democracy"
never appear in the Bible, nor do most of the other words we normally associate
with politics, such as "party", "campaign", and "vote".
This raises the question whether it is even possible for Christians
to base their political commitments on the Bible. The fact that virtually
every type of political system can boast the support of some Christians would
seem to provide empirical evidence for a negative answer. I believe, on the
contrary, that the Bible actually has quite a lot to say about politics. Accordingly,
this book will present a picture I see running consistently throughout the
Bible, a picture of the nature of politics and of our proper attitude towards
it as human beings.
Before we
can see the political thread which runs throughout the Bible, and which will
enable us to answer the above question, we must have some general understanding
of what is meant by the term "politics". This word comes from the
Greek word "politika", which in ancient Greece referred in
general to all the affairs of a "citizen" (politęs) in
relation to his or her "city" (polis). This suggests, quite
rightly, that "politics", in its original and most basic sense,
refers to the "affairs of the city". Unfortunately, the close connection
between politics and the city is obscured in English. For the words "city"
and "citizen" are derived not from Greek, but from the Latin word
civitas; nevertheless, these two terms are equivalent in meaning (though
not, of course, in their historical connotations) to the Greek words polis
and politęs.
Once we recognize
the close connection between politics and cities, we can regard any occurrence
of the word "city" as an implicit reference to some sort of political unit. This is a point of
utmost significance for any study of politics in the Bible, for the word
"city" does occur
throughout the Bible, and cities often play important roles in the development
of the story. In fact, together with words like "king",
"kingdom" and "rule", it will serve as one of the key words
in our study of the Bible's political philosophy.
Today the
meaning of the word "politics" appears to extend far beyond the
limits of a person's city, to the extent that people are no longer regarded
as citizens of a city, but of a country (or, more recently,
as "world citizens" [see e.g., N1:65]). And of course, politics
at the end of the second millennium A.D. has little in common with the politics
of the ancient Greek city-states, or of the Roman Empire. Nevertheless, this
does not negate the value of recognizing the etymological connection between
"politics" and "city", because nowadays a person's country
(and perhaps in the not too distant future, the world) fulfills the functions
of ancient cities [see Chapter One] more closely than most modern cities do!
Accordingly, whatever political unit a citizen thinks of as the focus of his
or her citizenship (even if it is called a "state", a "country",
or even the entire world), it can be associated with the original sense
of the word "city".
In the modern
world a "citizen" can be defined as "a person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or nationalization to the protection of a given
state" [D2:546,132]. This
definition reveals another important characteristic of all politics: politics
is always based on an agreement of some sort between a human person (the
"citizen") and some governing body (such as a "city" or
"state"), in which the individual agrees to be loyal in return for receiving various rights. Such an agreement usually takes the form of a set of laws. Although we often use the word in a loose sense to refer to
anything having to do with the process of governing
a group of people (even in groups smaller than a city), the presence of an agreement is, I believe, an essential
characteristic of all politics.
Two main
purposes for such an agreement are (1) to provide a means of resolving conflicts
between citizens, so that people with different interests can live in a peaceful
and orderly community, and (2) to establish a means of defending all the citizens
from outside invasion. There are, however, many different ways in which the
power and authority can be distributed in such an agreement. So the task of
defining "Christian politics" will require us to begin by examining
(in Chapter One) some typical examples of political systems. We can then proceed
in hopes of determining which kind of agreement is most appropriate for Christians.
This definition
of politics enables us to see more clearly how words for "city" in different
languages can share a common connection with politics, despite their different
historical origins and connotations. A good example is the word normally used
for "city" in the Old Testament, which is neither civitas
nor polis, but the Hebrew word 'ayar. This word, which is derived
from 'uwr ("awake"), originally referred to "a place
fortified and watched" [D1:592]. And although this could hardly
be more remote from "politics" in our modern sense of the word,
it does represent the earliest form of "agreement" between people
who live together in a group: i.e., "if you watch me while I sleep, I'll
watch you while you sleep." Moreover, once more sophisticated forms of
political agreement were developed in Hebrew culture, the word 'ayar
came to be used in much the same way as we use the word "city".
The point to be kept in mind throughout our study, therefore, is that the
historical differences between different cities in different ages (and between
different conceptions of what politics is or ought to be) do not impinge on
the basic conception of politics as an agreement between a citizen and the
group of citizens with which he or she associates.
A question
of the sort asked at the beginning of this Introduction, which concerns the
possibility of something rather than its actuality or necessity, is
always a question about foundations. I have, in fact, intentionally
worded it in the same form as the famous question Immanuel Kant asked as the basis for his attempt to provide a revolutionary new
foundation for metaphysics: viz., "How are synthetic propositions a
priori possible?" The problem I will be dealing with is similar to Kant's in the sense
that I will distinguish between what is ordinarily regarded as good "Christian
politics" (the "empirical" perspective) and what the Bible
actually says about involvement in such affairs (the "transcendental"
perspective) [cf. note 5]. So, although my question is a philosophical
one, it is addressed to religious believers in a particular tradition
(viz., Christians who regard the Bible as a basically reliable guideline for
living). Moreover, just as Kant's question always functions as a two-edged
sword, by cutting away illusions while guarding metaphysics and religion from
the sceptic [see K1:xxi], so also my question will serve a similar
function: with one edge to cut away from the idea of Christian politics that
which does not belong to it (viz., what I will call "worldly politics"
in contrast to the Bible's "natural politics" [see Chapter Six]),
and with the other edge to protect truly Christian politics from the
attacks of those who would deny all possibility of such a system.
A Glimpse of the
Theocratic Vision
The book
is divided into two parts. Part One examines the theoretical possibility of
"Christian Politics". Chapter One describes Aristotle's account
of the six most basic types of political systems: kingship, aristocracy, and
polity as the three "good" systems; and democracy, oligarchy, and
tyranny as the three "bad" systems. This philosophical framework
provides an adequate sketch of the options Christians might be asked to choose
from. Chapter Two argues against the view that democracy ought to be regarded
as the most Christian political system, suggesting instead that it deceptively
eats away at the very root of religion, while appearing on the surface to
support "religious freedom". Chapter Three traces a political theme
throughout the Bible, demonstrating how worldly politics is portrayed as part
of what separates us from God, and proposes "theocracy" (the rule
of God) as the Bible's "non-political political system". And
Chapter Four warns against various misconceptions, especially the danger of
perverting theocracy by equating it with rule by the church (i.e.,
"ecclesiocracy"), thus treating it as just another man-made political
system.
Part Two
examines the practical possibility of theocracy. Chapter Five discusses various
biblical guidelines for putting theocracy into practice: a recognition of
the nature of theocracy as a coming kingdom, and of its relevance to
the proper attitude towards current human governments, leads directly to an
examination of poverty and social justice. The result is a clear, though perhaps
somewhat daunting, picture of what a "theocratic politician" would
be like. Chapter Six then examines the significance of worldly fear, suffering
and evil, as potential obstacles to implementing theocracy. Freedom to receive,
both from God and from others, is presented as a clue to overcoming such obstacles.
This leads to a consideration in the final chapter of the power of theocracy
to reconcile God and the world. Using the current abortion issue as a test
case, Chapter Seven cuts through the traditional distinction between violence
and nonviolence by stressing the nature and role of self-emptying love
as the defining characteristic of Christian politics.
