Christians differ over the role of law in society. Many
believe that Biblical law is to be enforced, others believe Natural Law is
sufficient. These are of course somewhat nebulous terms and there are many
factions and internal debates over just what these terms mean, to what extent
they can be known and as to what degree of certainty is attainable. The latter
issue touches on the role of philosophy and questions of epistemology,
coherence and inference.
In Republican systems, the law is established by a
constitution or some form of principled legal document which of course must
rest upon agreed principles. Such documents must be formulated in the context
of a consensus in which the drafters and framers, despite their many
differences nevertheless have a common understanding of ideas, epistemology and
ethics.
At that point the leaders whether executive, parliamentary,
congressional or otherwise are representing the needs of their constituents and
yet are (hypothetically) hindered and restrained by the dictates and principles
of the authoritative standard. This of course is messy and a far cry from
simple or straightforward. Their task is to legislate according to the needs
and desires of society under the aegis of certain limiting principles.
And yet under this scenario, it is the laws themselves and
the principles which undergird them which are paramount. Politicians appeal to
needs and principles in order to make their case. Their personal lives,
histories and even past conduct are secondary concerns at best. Individuals
might appeal to their own experience, personal narratives and convictions and
yet the focus is ultimately on the ideas and even ideals, not on the
individuals holding office. They are there to actuate principles, execute and
enforce laws. This is a hallmark of government within the Liberal tradition.
Additionally under this framework the law is viewed as a restraint.
Liberty is paramount and thus the individual is free to pursue ideas within
societal limits. If one's freedom causes another harm, then the state must
intervene but the state's role is largely negative
in that it does not seek to shape society but to act (in modern parlance) as a
referee ensuring that no one individual, faction or party begins to tyrannise
the others.
But there is another view of the law which is very common
among advocates of Republic and yet it is in many ways an opposing view to the
Liberal tradition. This view argues that law in addition to its negative
purposes of restraint and its principled basis, also serves as a pedagogue, a
schoolmaster or instructor in ideas, ethics and the ordering of society.
This position is in many ways a reactionary modification of
Classical Liberalism. Avoiding the abuses and entanglements of monarchy,
theocracy and certainly the radical mob-rule of pure democracy, this largely
religious view casts republicanism within a moral and redemptive framework and
attaches a narrative of progress in the form of social sanctification.
Usually motivated by and in some cases dominated by religious
concerns, the state is viewed as a component of the Divine Kingdom and has a
task to help in the shaping of a godly society.
Under this way of thinking, under this model of pedagogy, the
leaders are not only representatives of a constituency and framers of
legislation but they have a specific task to lead, guide and shepherd the
society. They are not only there to represent but to school and instruct. The
law is a protection from individuals and factions that would wax tyrannical but
under this scenario the law is not merely a negative boundary but a tool to be
employed to shape and hone society and to remove the rough edges which form as
a result of inefficiency and disorder.
With this view of law, the leaders as shepherds become models
of integrity, examples of character and purveyors of moral rectitude.
This view has many practical risks, one of which is that of
the personality cult. The leader ends up becoming the focus of attention and
affection. He becomes the standard and his party, political movement or even
ideology become identified with him even as principles fade.
It can be very appealing as constituents will believe their
leader(s) to represent not just the interests of the nation, but the good. It's
a very useful thing in a time of crisis as the public is able to establish a
deep sense of trust with the leader. One thinks of popular presidents during
wartime. To the public they are the great leader fighting the evil and slaying
the monsters.
It's easy to understand how this can develop and while it
isn't an absolutely necessary consequence of pedagogical statecraft, all too
often it is the case. The shift in the US Constitutional order which took place
after the Civil War, established a pedagogical role for the state and while not
immediate, the power of the state and certainly the prestige of the executive
and the extent of its power would grow, reaching hitherto unforeseen heights in
the 20th century.
Under the Old Testament this was less of a problem as the
Judges and Kings were literally typological representations of the coming
Messiah. Conceptually their ascendancy was proper and fitting, in keeping with
the typology. But it was also restrained in that everyone knew that neither
Samson, Samuel nor David were the Messiah.
But this is not the case for any nation today, despite what
those of the Constantinian tradition continue to argue. No nation can claim the
mantle of typological pedagogy. No nation is 'Christian' unless the term
Christian is subject to a radical redefinition, the very thing, the very
alternate gospel (and kingdom) Constantine set in motion.
What is fascinating to consider is that this pedagogical view
and its consequences are actually quite Anti-Liberal in their orientation and
in many ways a rejection of the views and vision of the founders of the
American Republic. There are other nations that would also fall under this
category. But despite the fact that the Founders would view such a potentially
authoritarian anti-liberal turn as counter-revolutionary, many Christian
Rightist view the pedagogical arrangement as essential and though they are in
many ways refuting the Liberal heritage of 1776, they are undoubtedly motivated
by deep patriotism and see no contradiction or conflict.*
This helps one to understand why for so many years they have
championed ideas like the Unitary Executive and strong executive leadership
even at the expense of basic constitutional rights and civil liberties. There
was no need to fear because as long as the leaders were godly men of integrity,
tyranny and abuse would remain distant fears.
But what's disturbing is that the pedagogical view continues
along with all that it implies, the favouring of certain religious groups,
hard-line positions regarding law enforcement, restrictions on personal
liberty, the curtailing of free speech and expression and a specific moral even
crusading mentality when it comes to foreign policy. All of these positions
were deemed sound and concerns could be dismissed because the leaders knew
their task and what was required of them. They had a specific agenda and
narrative in mind as they sought to govern society.
And yet why would these same Evangelicals hold to such a view
today? They have thrown in with Donald Trump and have effectively abandoned the
notion that for pedagogy to take place there must be integrity and character.
Clearly this is no longer a primary concern and yet they would hand the reins
of a pedagogical state over to someone like Donald Trump?
This is highly disturbing and reveals just how dire the
situation is in American Christianity.
What were foundational flaws to begin with have now devolved
into a very dangerous and deeply hypocritical caricature. Power is the only
thing that matters, the only ethic, the only good and all their previous
concerns for principle, integrity and character have been abandoned for the
petty, vindictive, obscene and lawless. If these traits bring victory then it
is one they would seek, one they would possess.
--------
*This explains (in part) why the French view American
democracy with contempt and continue to assert that they are the true heirs and
purveyors of the Liberal tradition.
While French morals and modern secularism certainly play a
part in the public's winking at the personal behaviour of politicians, there is
another principle at work that many American commentators fail to understand.
For the French, Mitterrand having a mistress had nothing to do with the
principles of the law, of the republic and/or the democratic liberal tradition.
If Mitterrand had engaged in corruption to hide his personal sins that would be
something different. His personal life was his own. That, they would say is
liberty, something American Pedagogical Liberalism wholly rejects.
For Americans, and especially for Evangelicals (embracing a
pedagogical view), the whole situation was deplorable even unthinkable. Many
like Albert Mohler have used the episode to bash Europe and attack its culture
which they perceive as immoral and decadent. They are embittered by Europe's
failure to fully submit to American supremacy and its superior moral
frameworks.
The Europeans surely laugh in response, and rightly so.