Purpose of Government
By now, you should, at the very minimum, have read:
1. History and Development of Western Political Thought at
http://www.lawandliberty.org/pol_phil.htm
2. Christianity as an Influence on the Founders at
http://www.lawandliberty.org/founders.htm
3. The Declaration of Independence at
http://www.lawandliberty.org/declarat.htm
4. Importance of Shay’s Rebellion
hyperlinked in COURSE DOCUMENTS folder, Week Three, Lecture Notes.
In addition: you should have digested the definitions of the political definitions at http://www.lawandliberty.org/terminol.htm
To sum up the objectives of this lesson, you should understand:
1. the Founder’s concept of COVENANT and its origin.
2. the Founder’s concept of “rights” and its origin
3. the Founder’s understanding of the nature of man (mankind)
4. the Founder’s belief in the PURPOSE of government.
For at least 2500 years, political philosophy has included, in varying amounts, a “theological” aspect. (“theos” means God; “logicos” means knowledge.) It is impossible to understand the political philosophy of America’s founding without an understanding of Christian Theology. It does not follow that the student must subscribe to, or embrace any aspect of that theology- only understand it with enough clarity to recognize its influence in the American political tradition.
When exploring and analyzing a particular philosophy of politics, it is important to keep in mind the sociological “reference” point. What may have seemed to them “a good idea” at the time, would necessarily “shape-shift” when considered in light of changing circumstances. The challenge for the student of political philosophy is to extract Principles (remember, these are considered fundamental truths) that will cross culture and time (assuming that that is even possible). Thus, an understanding of history is important in this pursuit.
Theologically, there are essentially two world-views: one that starts with the assumption that there is a God and one that starts with the assumption that there is not. From that starting point, the different views on human nature, and by extension, human relationships, will be fairly predictable. The discussions regarding “The Faith of the Fathers” or “Separation of Church and State” or whether America is a “Christian” nation all stem from a person’s world-view.
These are the essential THEOLOGICAL assumptions made that will lead us towards understanding the Founding Father’s view on government:
1. There is a God
2. God’s Divine nature and character are knowable.
3. Man is created in the image of God and possesses a spark of the Divine nature.
4. God endowed man with the capacity to reason so that man would be able to discover the attributes of God.
5. God made a covenant (Contract) with man that is the foundation of all relationships.
6. When man honors the covenant of God, man’s relationships will be characterized by order, peace, liberty, creativity, and ultimate happiness.
7. When man does not honor that covenant, his relationships will be characterized by, self-seeking power, conflict, anxiety, violence, and ultimately- unhappiness.
8. The principle purpose of government is to “regularize” relationships according to the covenant of God.
9. The authority of God is delegated to the people of the covenant, who, in turn delegate, in appropriate measure, the necessary authority to the government (whether to king, parliament, Congress, or ???).
These assumptions formed the ideological basis for the political traditions of the early 18th century in America. In the absence of contrary evidence (remember, the burden of proof is on the challenger) we may assume that the theological beliefs of the founders formed the basis for their political relationships. If this is true, it follows quite naturally that the political assumptions, incorporating the theological assumptions made by the founders.
POLITICAL ASSUMPTIONS of the Founders include, at a minimum, that:
1. Man is a creation of God (absolute sovereign) and is possessed of the attributes of God. As such, man is sovereign with relation to the rest of creation.
2. The state is a creation of man and as such, is limited in its authority. (the creator always possesses authority over the creation)
3. Rights are a “gift” (see the meaning of the word “endow”) of God.
4. Gifts of God are NOT a creation of the state. As such, they are beyond the reach of the state.
5. Rights, being FROM god, are necessarily consistent with HIS character and nature. (It would be logically inconsistent for the creator to endow his creation with attributes other than His own. Theologically speaking, a Good God could not impart BAD gifts.)
6. Eternal Law, Natural Law, and Civil Law are all aspects, or elements of the Divine Revelation. (see: St. Thomas Acquinas, John Locke, Montesquieu, Blackstone.)
7. Man (mankind) is separated from God because of sin. Sin is understood to mean a rebellious (self-serving) nature which is in conflict with the Divine Nature of God.
8. Civil Law must necessarily manifest the nature of God. (Concept of Justice; Concept of equality of the person and equality of access to the law. NOT equality of ability or outcome)
9. The Civil Law, administered by a limited government (see number 2. above), consisting of fallen man (manifesting the sin nature) must be further checked by also being divided between competing interests. (Three branches of government and bi-cameral legislative branch.)
10. Political leadership must be chosen, or affirmed, by the people over whom they will exercise limited authority. Sovereignty of the people is superior to any claim of authority of the government. At the very least, it creates a presumption in favor of individual rights over government efficiency.
Tradition and Law
Tradition is the way that we conduct our affairs over a period of time. The presumption (legally and logically) is in favor of the tradition. In other words, we do something a certain way because (probably) it is (or was at some time) the most efficient way given the particular circumstances. A presumption may be rebutted but it is the duty of the challenger to offer compelling evidence for change. One may not simply assert that “we must throw out tradition” unless one is prepared to offer relevant evidence that overcomes the weight of tradition.
In the final analysis, it is important that these historical assumptions be understood for it puts into perspective the meanings of other important terms we will discuss later. Even if an individual does not agree with these assumptions, there is little evidence to suggest that either quality of life, or fundamental human rights, are jeopardized by a form of government, or a process of government, that is based upon this foundation. In other words, the fundamental, guaranteed, human rights of the people who hold a world-view that assumes no God, (or assumes that, if there IS a God, He is disinterested or disabled) are not violated by a government that operates according to Christian principles!
Often, the meaning of words changes over time. A word (etymologically speaking) is a symbol that represents a concept. For successful communication, we need to be "seeing" the same concept when a particular word is used. I happen to know that the biblical concept of slavery may, but does not necessarily, include the notion of absolute control over the live of another. In other words there are different classes of "slaves" in that some were more "indentured" servants for a specified time. However, the point should be well made that we must not assume we are all talking about the same thing when we use words like "rights" or "democracy" etc.
Notice, as you read my notes on the philosophical origins, how each philosopher added another “layer” of thought to the purpose of government. That philosophical “layer” was a result of that philosopher’s circumstances and the unique economic, military, and social conditions of the time and place. Those societal influences form the “framework” within which the philosophy neatly fits.
Finally, Re-read the Declaration of Independence. Can you see in the clear, unambiguous language of the text, the theological basis for the purpose of government? Can you see in their carefully-crafted document how a government that departs from its limited role of protecting God-given rights loses its moral legitimacy?