The Christian state : the state, democracy and Christianity

Contents

Page

Introduction 9

Chaptek BOOK I. THE STATE

Book II. Democracy

VI. The Beginnings of Democracy 115

VII. The Drift Toward Democracy 142

VIII. The Advantages of Democracy 166

IX. The Perils of Democracy 185

X. The Unfinished Tasks of Democracy 216

Book III. Christianity

XI. The Relation of Church and State

XII. The State and Its Religion

XIII. The Problems of the Modern State....

XIV. The Programme of a Christian Society. XV. The Realization of the Christian State

294 327 360 402

. The supreme interest of mankind is the progress and perfection of the human race. In this higher interest all lower interests are involved, and toward this great end all lesser ends must contribute. In this all-inclusive process all other processes appear as incidents and means, and by this final result all systems and sciences must be valued. It follows that whatever factor in life concerns man's welfare and has relation to his progress is a proper subject of human inquiry. This is all the justification that is needed for the study before us.

There are three great outstanding facts and phenomena of our modern world which overtop all others, and are most potent in life. The first great fact is the State, that familiar, dominant, all-inclusive institution of man's social life. The State in some form is a universal phenomenon, and its influence is as masterful as fate. It has always held a large place in the life of man, y but in these modern times it claims the whole foreground of his interest. It has everywhere played a leading role . in the drama of human progress, and signs multiply that its power is destined to wax rather than to wane.

The second great fact is Democracy, the steady, irresistible, world-wide coming up of the people out of obscurity into authority. Democracy as a name is old indeed, but democracy as a fact is a modern phenomenon. But be it modern or not it is one of the most significant and certain tendencies of our time. In some lands it is only a suggestion ; in others it is at best an approximation ; but in all its complete realization it is only a question of time and application. The democratic drift is a world gravitation, and one of the potent movements of the age.

The third great fact is Christianity, the system of life and truth and motive of Jesus of Nazareth. Men's conceptions of Christianity differ widely and their interpretations run the whole gamut of possible variety. But Christianity itself is one thing, and men's definitions of it are quite another. Christianity is the most potent force ' in our modern civilization. The world dates its chronology from the birth of its Founder; its terms have become a part of our common speech, and it is not without meaning in world history. The State is a universal i phenomenon, democracy is a universal drift, and Christianity, its followers believe, is the universal religion.

This suggests a natural and important question : " Is 4 there any vital and necessary relation between these three great phenomena ? " Philosophy, we are told, is the art of thinking things together. Is it possible for one to , think together these three great facts, the State, democracy, and Christianity? These questions are among the most fateful questions of the time, and upon their right solution depend a hundred issues in man's life and progress. Through their neglect great loss has already come, and through their wrong solution great calamity may result. But these questions have hardly come, as yet, into the foreground of human inquiry. Aspects of these phenomena have been considered, and each of these great facts has been studied ; but so far as I am aware no one has considered each fact in its relation to the others. The inquiry before us, it is believed, has a timeliness and a value for reasons which may be briefly stated.

The signs of the times indicate that the great strug-v gles of the future are to be fought within the boundaries of the State. Current movements in human society show impending changes in our social and political institutions.

II

The foundations of all human institutions are being examined with pick and shovel, and everything is challenged to show its warrant for continuance. Human society has begun to investigate itself, with the result that a chain of problems constitutes man's horizon. The interrogation mark is the sign manual of the age. The word, problem/ is the most recurrent word in every language to-day.

As might be expected, men are taking different atti-^ tudes toward the problems presented, and this greatly complicates the issue. Some are trying to hush men's fears by declaring that the evils of society are greatly exaggerated ; and they close their homily by saying that all things will come right in time. At any rate, some of these things are inevitable — and perhaps necessary — in an imperfect society. And, anyway, they say, nature's processes cannot be hurried. Others, going to the opposite extreme, are demanding the overthrow of all existing institutions and the creation of a new social order. The old must go before the new can appear. Still others, and probably the largest class, stand confused, realizing that something is wrong, and that something must be done, and yet without any sense of direction or programme of action. With all these, of whatever class ory party, there is the foreboding that vast changes are impending in our Western civilization of which no one is clairvoyant enough to see the end. And beyond all these differences, there is the conviction that a part of this something to be done must be done in and through the State, and that it is to the State that we must look for help. In a word, there is the conviction that there must / be a wide extension of State activity into man's social and industrial life. And this means that the State is becoming one of the media of the new social consciousness that is growing, and that it must assume many new functions and exercise many new powers.

But while these demands are being made upon the State some embarrassing questions are being asked concerning the State itself. What is its place in the economy of life ? What is its mission and what are its functions ? But even more disturbing questions are asked : By what right does the State exist at all and make its demands? Has not the time come to abolish all present political institutions and make a new beginning in human progress? Of one thing I am persuaded — and this persuasion is based upon years of earnest thought upon the questions of citizenship and of practical effort in behalf of reform — that one of the great needs of this present time is some large conception of the State, its meaning, its functions, its relation to man's progress, and its place in the purpose of God. However it may have been, and however it may be, now when men are coming to social self-consciousness and are asking why the State is here, and what is its destiny, the great need is some sense of direction in social action and a clear vision of the goal.

" Where there is no vision the people perish." In these days the number of brave and thoughtful men is rapidly growing. In every community, large or small, there are groups and associations of reformers studying the questions of the day and bent on change. In many cities there is a growing demand for better government and more worthy conditions. But the one who will take the pains to investigate will find, alas, that too often these men are considering some little task with small conception of the total task which confronts society. They are working for a better city, and yet few have vision of what a city should be. They want better government and worthier conditions without always knowing when government is good and what conditions should exist. In short, they want a better world, but they do not know where to begin nor how to proceed. Under these circumstances the great need is some human synthesis, some social ideal, which shall both show men the direction of progress and shall marshal them as one host to build the City of God. To r understand the special task of one man we must know its relation to the total task of mankind. To know how to use that mighty agency of human progress, the State, we must know-something of the meaning and mission of the State. In fine, the great need of to-day is some adequate, conception of the State, its nature and functions, some definite sense of the direction of human progress, and some clear understanding of the relation of Christianity to the whole life of man.

And this suggests the thesis with which we are concerned in this study. It is easy for one who is interested in some special line to suppose that his interest should be the concern of all. Be this as it may, it is impossible to overestimate the importance of this subject or exaggerate its relation to man's social progress. In his day John Bunyan rendered the individual an incalculable service in that he interpreted the soul to itself and made it know its calling, its duties, its dangers, and its destiny. But the interpretation of the " Pilgrim's Progress," clear and scriptural as it is in its personal aspects, does not satisfy either the mind or the heart of the modern man. In the j providences of God and the processes of history the age of the social man is dawning, and the social problem is becoming urgent. The man who can now interpret the , State to itself, who can make society know its meaning, its functions, its tasks, and its goal, who can interpret this modern phenomenon known as democracy and can show its relation to human progress, who can show the , real relation of the State to the kingdom of God and can indicate the lines of effort for the divine potencies of the gospel, will render mankind an even greater service. Thof #»? writer has fulfilled more than a fraction of this great task he is not vain enough to suppose. But that he has indicated some of the factors entering into the problem he may confidently believe. The fact is, this is a task that will require the combined efforts of generations of men fully to approximate. That the author has tried to see things clearly and has blinked no difficulty he may modestly claim. This is probably all that may be expected of any man in any one generation.

That great changes are imminent in our modern world, that a new age is struggling to the birth, that a new order of society is impending, that political institutions are still evolving, and that the State must assume some new functions, the signs of the times indicate and the most discerning men believe. What will be the attitude of Christian men in this time of crisis? Will they misread the signs and take an attitude of opposition and suspicion ? What will be the relation between the democratic movement and the Christian spirit? What will be the outcome of the formative forces that are now at work in society? These are some of the fateful sphinx questions of to-morrow, and upon their right solution depend a hundred issues. Will Christian men see to it that the age is Christian in spirit and method? Will the citizens of the democratic State see to it that the social and political institutions of the future are motived by the mind of Christ? Will the Church and the State work with each supplementing the other, or at cross purposes? Finally, will the State become the medium through which the people shall co-operate in their search after the kingdom of God and its righteousness? The answer to these questions lies still in the future ; and though we may not forecast the result, we may yet hope for the best. This is certain, that if Christianity fails here it will spell a most tragic failure. If Christianity succeeds here, it will win a most momentous victory and will gain the allegiance of mankind.

Book I. The State

A State contains in itself, if I may so speak, the perfection of independence; and it is first founded that men may live, but continued that they may live happily.

— Aristotle, Politics, Bk. I, Chap. z.

The State — the greatest institution on earth — elevates everything that appertains to it, every duty, interest or measure, into great importance, for the simple reason that it affects all, and, what with its direct and indirect operation, it very materially influences the moral well-being of every individual. . . The State with its laws and government affects materially the manhood of all living in it. Good laws elevate men; bad laws, if persisted in for a series of years, will degrade any society.

—Francis Lieber, Political Ethics, Vol. I, Sec. XXXVIII.

Honesty, morality, religion, and education are the main pillars of the State, for the protection and promotion of which government was instituted among men.

— Commonwealth vs. Douglas, 100, Ky., 116. Affirmed by 168 U. S. Rep., 488.

The social order, the national sentiments, the governmental regulations influence immeasurably every soul that comes within their reach. More and more men are coming to see that the State has a moral end, and that the real work of citizens consists in so shaping institutions and framing legislation that conditions may be secured favorable for the development of noble characters. . . Politics is the science of social welfare, and has at heart the achievement of a social order in which the ideals of humanity shall be realized.

— Batten, The New Citizenship, pp. 245, 246.

The State is, in one view, a piece of machinery produced by the social process, but the justification for its existence is its continued furtherance of the process. . . The State never is, but is always becoming. This is true because the persons composing the State never are, but are always becoming. A process is going on, is our most general way of telling the essential truth about a person or a society.

— Small, General Sociology, p. 240.

HAT we call the State is a recognized force

V V and factor in the life of all peoples. In the study of history we find men at all stages of mental and social development, but we never find them without political institutions. If savage means a people without a settled form of government, without laws, and without a religion, says Max Miiller, then, go where you like, you will not find such a race (" Nineteenth Cen.," Jan., 1885). In the study of sociology also we find peoples at all levels of progress, but if there has ever been a people without some form of social and political life, we have no record of its existence. Everywhere we find men associated in some way, submitting to some public authority, and exercising certain powers through an agency termed government. The forms of their social life may vary, the scope of authority may differ among different peoples, and the functions of these governments may run the gamut of variety, but beneath all appearances and differences there are constant elements and essential resemblance. The State is a universal phenomenon.

The State makes many demands upon its citizens and exercises wide control. In its worst forms, the State may override the individual and may become an intolerable tyranny ; it may treat men as means to its own ends ; it may compel them to hold their lives, their fortunes, and their happiness at the will of another; in fine, it may affirm that men have no rights as against the State. In its best forms the State asks the service of all in its behalf ;

B i8 in the form of taxes it requires a portion of every man's income ; by the right of eminent domain, which it asserts is older and deeper than any individual right, it may claim a part of his estate ; and in times of danger and need it may ask him to lay his all upon its altar. In the Grecian States, in their palmiest days, the State was everything, and the person counted for little (De Coulanges, "The Ancient City," pp. 297, 298). In the most democratic States, in these modern times, the State is the unit and the final worth of man is his value to society. In view of all this, as rational beings we should consider the right of the State to be, and should be able to conceive clearly its nature. What then is this institution, so universally known as the State? What is its essential nature, and what are its constant characteristics? And by what right does it exist and assert its authority?

The moment we ask these questions our perplexity begins. For " The conception which prevails generally among the men of our time of the State, its nature, and the part it has to play, is singularly confusing and confused. . . When it approaches this theme, which has so weighty a bearing on human destinies, their thought loses itself in mist and fog" (Beaulieu, "The Modern State," p. 1). In this chapter we are concerned with the nature of the State; in other chapters we shall consider its functions and its goal. Clear thought here will help us all the way, while confusion here means increasing confusion at the end. It is evident that any conception of the State, to be adequate, must be one that will disclose its nature and characteristics ; it must be one too, that will contain justification of the right of the State to be and exercise authority ; and it must contain a satisfactory statement of the attributes with which a State is endowed and by which it is distinguished from other corporations (Willoughby, " The Nature of the State," p. 6).

Such an inquiry has its difficulties, for the reason that the forms and functions of the State have varied so greatly. But with it all we. shall find certain constant and irreducible elements, and these are worthy of careful consideration. We are not concerned primarily with the exterior features of the State; our chief concern is with its ultimate nature and essential quality. These former characteristics are interesting, and Bluntschli has analyzed them with great discrimination. Thus we are told that in every State we find a number of men combined, holding a permanent relation to the soil, and bound together in a more or less firm cohesion ; in all States we find a distinction between the governors and the governed ; and in every State we find the people associated in some organic whole (Bluntschli, "The Theory of the State, Bk. I, chap. i). These last characteristics are vital, and these we must consider in detail.

I. The State is the Political Organization of the People. There are three great institutions which in some form, are universal — the Family, the Church, and the State. These three institutions cover the entire range of human life, and their perfection implies its perfection. Each has its functions, though they all occupy much the same sphere. Each has its distinctive mission in the economy of life, yet they all work toward the one common end. In any complete and synthetic view of man and society, these institutions must be considered, and their relation to one another determined. It is not necessary to our purpose, however, that we enter upon a discussion of the family and the church, for that would carry us too far afield. And yet, to form an adequate conception of the State, we must note some of the distinctions that exist in the fundamental life and organization of these institutions. By marking the contrasts each may be more clearly defined.

Thus the family, the Institute of the Affections, is the medium through which the person begins to be. It is the channel through which the stream of human life flows on. The church, the Household of Faith, is the agency through which divine and quickening influences are brought to bear upon the unfolding life. Through it man is brought to God, and the human spirit is lifted up into fellowship with the divine Spirit. The church is concerned primarily with the work of informing the mind, training the conscience, stirring the affections, and directing the will. The State, the Institute of Right Relations,, is the means through which the environment of life is determined. It is the chief function of the State to provide and conserve the conditions of human existence, and thus make it possible for each life to attain its fullest development.

These three institutions, though essential to man and representing vital factors of his being, yet have a different basis of organization and assume a different form. The family is in a real sense necessary to man, for it is in the family that he begins and completes his life. He who made them in the beginning made them male and female, and ordained that a man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave unto his wife, and they twain become one flesh (Matt. 19 : 4). But implied in this very distinction and involved in the very relation of husband and wife is one element all important, and that is love. In the most real sense, it is love that draws the man and the woman together ; it is love that creates the family ; it is in love that the family has its potency and its life. In the most real sense, therefore, the family may be called the commonwealth of the affections ; in the poetic and significant words of Mazzini it may be called the heart's fatherland.

The church no less than the family is necessary to man, and grows out of his great needs. It is true that what we call the church is more or less limited to Christian peoples ; but the church, which represents the religious life of man, is found in some form in every land. For wherever we find man we find him observing certain religious forms and creating definite religious institutions, and these in a general way represent what we may call the church. We are here concerned with the developed and differentiated idea as it exists in Christian lands in the Christian church. This church, we find as we consider it, is a voluntary organization. It is true that among the earlier peoples of the world the institutions of religion were regarded as fixed, not to be created by man nor to be changed by him. It is true also that in many divisions of Christendom the church is regarded as a necessary institution, in that membership in it is determined for man, and not by him. Thus in some communions the child is baptized in infancy into the church, and without any choice of his own is " made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." But it must be observed that in all of these churches something depends upon the will of the person himself; for as he comes to maturity he is expected to ratify this action of his sponsors, and thus his church life is the expression of his own personal choice. In many divisions of Christendom special emphasis is laid upon this element of personal choice, and membership in the church is wholly a voluntary matter. A man is not born into the church as he is born into the family or the State, but he is reborn into it through his own personal faith. But — and this is the one thing that concerns us here — the church in its life and organization depends wholly upon its appeal to man's reason and its harmony with his will ; or, it may be said that the church is the visible form of man's faith in Christ and the organized expression of the divine life. The church has not always been true to its essential idea, and has sometimes approximated the State in its methods ; it has more than once employed other agencies than the persuasives of the gospel, and has sought the arm of the State in making its wishes effective. But more and more the best men in all communions are coming to see that this is contrary to the mind of Christ and is in contravention of the very idea of the church. The church is a voluntary organization; it has its foundations in the faith of men, and it may be called the household of faith and the building of the Spirit.

The State, while quite as necessary to man as either of these institutions, has yet a different basis, and depends upon other factors. Wherever we go we find the State in some form, and the man who does not wish to be a citizen must consort with savages or leave the world. He is born into the State, and he must accept its political institutions. He may not find himself in harmony with the institutions and policies of the State, and may refuse to vote or accept office, but none the less he is subject to its authority, must pay his quota of taxes, and must conduct himself in an orderly manner.

This means that the State represents other factors than those of affection and faith. It may be said that the State will flourish best where it has both the affection and confidence of all its citizens; but the State is concerned with other interests than the family and the church, and may employ very different machinery. The State has to do with rights, and in a way depends upon these. But rights imply duties; a duty is always the obverse of a right. The State that would maintain rights must also enforce duties ; and this means a government that can make its decrees effective. To secure these human rights and to enforce these corollary duties governments are instituted, and are just in so far as they hold the balance even. This does not tell the whole story, and is not a full definition, but it is true so far as it goes. This means that the State is concerned with what may be called the civic and political interests of man ; that it exists to secure for men their rights, and that its authority must be employed in defending those rights ; it means, in a word, that the State is the political organization of the people, with powers sufficient for its task. The State may > be considered as society in its corporate capacity and as exercising a definite control over the lives of its members ; that is, " The State is the politically organized national person of a definite country " (Bluntschli, " The Theory of the State," Bk. I, chap. i).

II. The State is the Organ of the Political Consciousness. In his great treatise on politics, Aristotle, " The father of them who know," lays down the dictum that man is by nature a political being; and the man who is naturally and not accidentally unfit for human society is either below or above the human stage (" Politics," Bk. I, chap. ii). Thus the Cyclops reviled by Homer are proved to be less than human in that they have neither courts nor markets, and live as solitary as a bird of prey :

No laws have they ; they hold No councils. On the mountain heights they dwell In vaulted caves, where each man rules his wives And children as he pleases; none give heed To what the others do.

With keen analysis Aristotle shows that there is in all normal persons an instinct which impels them to some form of political organization ; and he who first established civil society was the cause of the greatest benefit to mankind. This primary affirmation of the Stagirite subsequent thinking has not invalidated, but rather confirmed. For which reason every State is a work of nature. The fact is, some form of human society is to be found among every people that is truly human, and in a large way it may be said that a people is to be ranked as high or low in the scale of life according to the degree in which the art of living together has been learned and political institutions have been developed. Men, as we know them, are made for fellowship, and they can attain perfection of being only through association with their kind. One man, says the German proverb, is no man. Could a man grow up with lifeless nature, without human association of any kind, says a modern psychologist, " there is nothing to indicate that he would become as self-conscious as is now a fairly educated cat " (Royce, "Studies of Good and Evil," p. 208). It is easier for the rose to grow without soil and to bloom without sunshine than for man to unfold his possibilities and to become man without human fellowship.

In the development of political thought, various views have been advanced to account for the State, and to define its essential nature. Some of these views, with reference to the origin of the State, we shall notice in the next chapter. Not one of these views, as we shall see, is satisfactory; the only views which are at all adequate are those which assume that man is a social and political being, possessing a consciousness and instinct which seek and find expression in association and institutions of political life.