As our great national holiday approaches, I’m about to (fair warning) write about theoretical politics. I do so with a great deal of shame, because I should have understood this before. My thoughts were sparked by an article (to which I was directed by Ori Pomerantz) at First Thoughts, “Crushing Civil Society,” by Peter Leithart, an article which isn’t even about America but about eastern Europe under communism. Still it sparked a gap in the gap-rich environment of my brain, and helped me crystallize some pre-existing thoughts. In a way I should have done long ago.
The realization I came to while reading, although it involved no fresh ideas, provided me a new, systematic way to think about government. We – or at least I – tend to use the terms “civil society” and “government” almost interchangeably. But in fact they are very distinct things.
Civil society means the associations people naturally form, of their own volition. A church (at least in America) is a civil institution, because it wasn’t ordained by the government, but by a private group. Marriage is a civil matter – indeed, the union of man and woman as the kernel of the family forms the essential center of the civil order, which is why so many of us consider government redefinition of the institution a grave danger. Through most of history, people have gotten their “social welfare” from civil society – from their families and their churches (I’m speaking of the West. Other institutions dominated elsewhere in the world, though the family is pretty much universal).
But in order to get along with others in a civil society, that society must establish what we call “laws.” Our English word “law” (as I’ve mentioned here before) comes from an Old Norse word – “lagu” – which originally meant “layers.” It conveyed the idea of something that lies evenly on everyone – the rules by which we agree to work when we’re cooperating, whether on a Viking raid or in running our petty kingdom.
But once you have laws, you need somebody to enforce them and to carry out cooperative projects. Thus we came to have government, which is a secondary thing, a byproduct of civil society and its laws.
But the problem with government (and I believe in having a government – I’m no anarchist) is that it involves power, and we all know what power tends to do. By a natural evolution, grounded in human corruption, government tends to metastasize to the point where it swallows civil society and attempts to replace it.
The Founding Fathers wanted to keep government as weak as practically possible. They understood that every law that’s passed – even good ones like laws against murder or drunk driving or child abuse – necessarily reduce the freedom of the people. Each law passed means there is one more tiny part of life in civil society where we no longer trust our neighbors.
After more than 200 years, a lot of trust has been surrendered.
By “running our petty kingdom,” do you mean Farmville?
No.
I have developed strong perspectives of my American Heritage which has matured over the years. On my mother’s side of the family I am only the fourth generation native born here from Norway. On my father’s side I harken back to colonial times(indentured servants from Wales and England)which helped America into the nation it is today. Many Americans are not well acquainted with a History of Religion in America even though they know about the existence of the Pilgrims and the Puritans, and know something more about the religious heritage of their own family. Colonial America inherited Religious Intoleration from England and Europe. It was an ugly part of colonial society that does not make for easy reading. For a brief, shining period Religious Toleration was enacted into law in Maryland, where a significant number of Roman Catholics had founded and provided leadership there during its early years. However, it was later overrun with English Protestants who repealed Religious Toleration and pursued religious persecution. Roger Williams, who is often referred to as the Father of American Religious Toleration, was driven into exile from the Massachusetts Bay colony into the wilderness where he formed a very small colony (Providence, R.I.)and wrote his religious tracts that were considered contraband in the other colonies. My ancestor and other families also fled the Mass. Bay colony into the wilderness and founded Hartford, Conn. The Puritans were religious exiles from England who were trying to transplant their vision of a theocracy that failed in their own homeland, under Cromwell, to such an extent that the British restored the monarchy in order to escape from it. The Puritans believed in Religious Freedom, but only in the way they defined it as a community which demanded inward and outward conformity. My ancestors came from the Pilgrims, who believed that religious conviction was a matter of individual personal conscience and practice. The Puritans were often brutal in the way they enforced and executed their religious laws, which at times resulted in death. The Quakers suffered much persecution from the Puritans and were forced into exile into the deep wilderness and founded the Pennsylvania colony and enacted Religious Toleration into law. The Founding Fathers, despite their differences, were united in the view that they did not want the Religious Wars of Europe and their problems to interfere with the development of their new nation. Having studied the writings of Roger Williams and William Penn and like minded individual writers, the Founding Fathers established the tradition of the Separation of Church and State in order to Preserve the Peace of the Nation, which would be tested by many other non-religious problems. The Amish, the Moravians, the Mormons, Protestants, Roman Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox and others all taught the Christian virtues in community life that shaped and defined the relationship of Church and society, and of Marriage and Family, and of civic responsibility. The relationship of the Church and State is always a direct reflection of the relationship of Church and society. Religious Freedom and Toleration will always be challenged and tested and continually clarified as it has been an American tradition. The Pursuit of Happiness is the American Dream that refuses to be clarified as an endowed right to hope for something better, whether it be religious or not.
I’m seeing more and more the need for not only separation of church and state, but the proper understanding of the roles and tools given to each. Luther observed that secular governments have been given the sword of the Law in order to maintain order in society. God’s Kingdom uses Grace to win souls. Confusing the two brings catastrophe. Churches that equate external conformity with internal salvation only bring oppression. Governments that think they can rule by grace only foster anarchy.
I saw this in action as a political activist in the 90’s. I saw many well meaning people giving life and death importance to passing issues because they thought our country’s salvation depended on having the right laws. I observed activists working for another party who thought salvation would come by ridding our laws of any semblance of a moral foundation. I concluded after a few years that while law’s may influence people’s behavior, only God can change their hearts. That’s why I’m now a preacher and not a politician.
Solzenhitzn was sooo right when he observed that the line between good and evil doesn’t lie along geographic boundaries, nor between political factions, but it runs through the middle of every human heart.
Vaclav Havel, I believe, said that there could be no democracy without a civil society.
And he didn’t mean the Internet