Politics and Theology in the Thought of Baxter

Notes from an essay by Walter T. B. Douglas entitled "Politics and Theology in the Thought of Richard Baxter," published in two parts in Andrew University Seminary Studies in 1977 and 1978.

Richard Baxter (1615-1691) was "perhaps the most articulate champion of conservative Puritanism at the time when the movement flourished and then began to disintegrate as a cohesive force."

Baxter lived in an age prior to the modern compartmentalization of religion and politics...Hobbes could not avoid discussing both at great length. Essentially, Baxter believed in the concept of the Christian state, but he opposed the scholastic view of the hierarchical, organic, and teleological structure. He defended the position that political government was necessarily rooted in the divine constitution of the world.

Baxter's respect for law and authority was rooted in his theological understanding and exposition of the absolute sovereignty of God, of the nature of man, and of the hierarchical structure of society.

In Baxter's thought the question of sovereignty is a key doctrine, one that is carefully worked out in his effort to combine theology and political theory.

Baxter takes as his point of departure the concept of the Corpus Christianum rather than the concept of the duality of Church and State. His Protestantism and in a narrower sense his Puritanism, had taught him that God can be experienced first as "will," and not as "reason" or perfection of being.

Whenever Baxter discussed politics systematically, he provided clear evidence that his a priori point of departure is the absolute sovereignty of God.His system consisted of at least three basic points: (1) God is Creator, and therefore has absolute dominion or ownership; (2) God alone has a moral right to govern man because he alone is qualified by his fullness of wisdom, goodness, and power to fulfill such a task; and (3) God has the highest right to govern man because he is man's greatest benefactor. In particular, God holds this right over man through the redemption of Christ.

Baxter concludes that God has not only the jus irnperii but also the jus dominii; that is, the world under God is not only a monarchy, but an absolute monarchy.

God could rule the world directly...but...in fact...elected to rule mediately-that is, to use some parts of the creation to rule other parts. To say this, Baxter argues, is to agree that God had created a natural inequality in the cosmos, a hierarchy of administration, in which some parts mediate his government over other parts.

In summary, since man is rational, moral, and ultimately responsible to God, government by law is the only government consistent with man's nature.

[Part 2]

What are the practical implications of Baxter's political philosophy? ... Baxter rejected a purely utilitarian social contract theory of the origin of the State.

Baxter maintains that in its basic structure, society is hierarchical and theocratic. In ultimate terms there could be no authority independent of God. Within society, it resides in three main spheres: the Church, the State, and the family. In each of these, the one who exercises authority receives his right to do so from God. Once this is acknowledged, this individual's command to rule must then be respected and obeyed.

He insisted that a theory which locates the origin of political government in the surrender to a human sovereign of an absolute right that each man naturally has over himself is not only artificial but challenges the Christian premise of the sovereignty of God.

Baxter pointed to an ascending scale of ends to which political government must tend. The most immediate, he asserts, is the good order of the body procured by the administration, or "the orderly state and behaviour of the society which is the exercise of Government and subjection, and the obedience to God, and just behaviour unto men that is manifested therein." Thus, the immediate end of political government is order and justice. But this is only a means to the intermediate and final end. The intermediate end is the common good. The final end is the everlasting happiness of men and the eternal glory of God.

EU - Responding to Joe Boot, Part One

Joe Boot has offered his thoughts on how Christians should understand "the practice of voting, the role of the state and the true nature of freedom" and what implications this has on how we think about the EU. I do not know Joe Boot but I know people who have been taken in by his argument. I felt compelled to discuss his presentation at length not so much to defend the EU but to question the idea that an aversion to rules, pride in one's Protestant heritage, deep suspicion of Roman Catholicism, and fear of Islam add up to a coherent Christian political vision.

(It's possible to get the gist of this first part by scrolling to the section that begins with the question "What are the implications...?")

The first section, on "Navigating Britain's EU Referendum Decision," sadly employs the sort of language we have come to expect in this referendum debate and sets the tone for what follows. Speaking of the IMF (described as "closely aligned with EU institutions") as "suitably obliging" the UK government excuses Boot from engaging with the economic argument presented by the IMF. A slur will do. And maybe to warn us against taking the arguments of the Remain campaign too seriously, he considers it important to notice how "highly emotive" it is; he does not note that this is true for the Leave campaign as well. Clearly, we are not to expect a balanced presentation in this post. This is a fight between big, bad Goliath and heroic David and Joe Boot intends to give David all the help he can. He is right about this:

"Remarkably, then, the popular case being put forward for remaining in the EU is conspicuously missing any substantive appeal to a sense of shared European values, the public good of European institutions for Britain, of a shared European identity, or the importance of an ‘ever closer union’ that has actuated the expanding European dream for decades. Instead we are essentially hearing appeals to people’s immediate fears of potential economic problems rather than a more robust defense of and advocacy for the European vision and its institutions, in which Britain is currently embedded and continuously funds with tax-payer money."

Except that this is not really remarkable, given who does the arguing. Did anyone really expect that David Cameron would admit that his much touted "British values" are actually shared across Europe? Does the Conservative party have more than a small handful of politicians who dare to speak of the shared Christian heritage of Europe? The failure to see the public good of European institutions or to admit a shared European identity or to speak up for shared European values is widespread within the Tory party and certainly by the time Joe Boot wrote his post the whole referendum debate was still a matter of Tories debating each other. But this itself does not yet us whether there are in fact shared European values etc.

The economic argument is predictable. We are asked to look at Norway and Switzerland, noticing that they are doing well outside the EU. As always, this ignores that main motivations for Brexit are the desire to limit immigration from EU countries and to do away with requirements to submit to EU standards. In what sense can Norway and Switzerland who have to abide by EU rules and standards and have a higher proportion of EU immigrants than the UK be held up as examples now? But our interest is not really in the economics and we agree on how impossible it is to make reliable predictions. Martin Lewis is eloquent on this.

So what about the distinctly Christian argument? Joe Boot notes that Christians want to have their view of all human institutions controlled by Scripture and that there are four such institutions which God clearly established, namely marriage, family, the church, and the state. The separation of marriage and family into two institutions is debatable but we need not concern ourselves with this here. The use of the word "state" is potentially problematic for the discussion at hand. It is not used in any of the Biblical references given and not defined by Boot. The most important reference he cites is surely Romans 13:1-7, a passage that speaks of God instituting "governing authorities" and appointing "rulers" rather than establishing "states", let alone "nation states". Within the Roman empire in which Paul's letter travelled there would have been a good few layers of "governing authorities" and "rulers" from city magistrates via local kings to the Emperor, just as residents in Monken Hadley find themselves subject to layers of authorities from the Barnet Borough Council and Mayor of Barnet to the European parliament and EU presidents via Greater London authorities and Westminster. What might be the distinctly Christian argument for withdrawing from the authority of one of those rulers? Boot will not go as far as to claim that only democratically elected rulers are instituted by God or that only governing authorities covering a mono-cultural group are legitimate but neither is he going to tell us more about a Biblical concept of statehood.

He highlights the distinction between structure and direction. 

"The structure of something concerns God’s laws and ordained pattern – for example, for the family, church, and state. The direction of these spheres concerns the orientation that they have. There are various structures in God’s creation but only two directions. We are either oriented toward God or toward idolatry in marriage, family, church, and state."

This is an important distinction because it allows him to affirm that when marriages or states "fail", it is not the structure of marriage or state that has failed but the various actors involved. The true meaning here is that when marriages or states "fail" this does not question the principle or the rightness of having marriages or states (governing authorities). But the way he puts the distinction allows him to overlook the possibility of structural problems and failures. Some marriages and states are set up badly. Hence the following is an oversimplification.  

"In short, political challenges are at root fundamentally religious and moral challenges."

Yes, often they are. But sometimes there are practical and structural problems that need addressing and can be addressed without having to accuse anyone of idolatry or immorality.

What are the implications for our understanding of the EU? 

"First, the inescapable reality of sin means that the close accountability of civil government and its public officials to the people being governed is central to a Christian understanding of statecraft. The more distant and removed from direct accountability governments and their bureaucracies are, the greater the threat to people’s freedom and self-determination under God."

This is of course a standard argument. The EU is bad because it's far away. There are some practical issues that would need to be addressed here about how accountability should and can work in a global economy but, being entrusted with teaching the word of God rather than with state affairs, what worries me most  is the phrase "central to a Christian understanding of statecraft". It is of course not backed up by any reference either to the Scriptures or Christian tradition. From where did the ideal of "people's freedom and self-determination under God" spring and how is it defined? Why and in what sense is democracy central to an understanding of statecraft that seeks to be Christian? (I myself would want to explore what Orthodox Christians, Western medieval theologians, and the Church Fathers thought about this. I suspect that Boot's version of Protestantism makes such questions irrelevant.) And if "Christian" means "controlled by Scripture", where is the Scriptural argument for the supremacy of (national) parliaments?

"Second, what especially arises from the Christian understanding of the state, that is peculiarly relevant here, is the importance of maintaining realistic expectations of political institutions and so limiting institutional political power in the light of sin."

Apparently the founders of the EU had Utopian dreams and usurping the role of God. Sorry, I just don't think that having too high expectations of what the EU institutions could do if we only let them is the problem of our time. And Boot assumes rather than argues that reducing the geographical reach of political institutions equates with limiting institutional political power. The opposite may be true in all sorts of ways. People might have fewer unrealistic expectations of a government that is further away. Also, those who set their hopes in "a planned society, created by political engineering" will seek to reduce federalist arrangements (governments at different levels) in favour of centralisation. The suggestion that Eurocrats are planning for a Gleichschaltung of Europe is fear mongering. The EU will not overcome the problem of sin but neither will the UK leaving the EU lead to a significant reduction of sin, let alone overcome the problem of sin. Joe Boot acknowledges this. Yet he skews the discussion by suggesting that the case for remaining in the EU rests on the hope of "providing socio-political salvation through technocratic means."

For Joe Boot this is as a black and white issue. On the one hand is an idolatrous vision of salvation through the state. On the other hand, a state that humbly sticks to its basic tasks, "the restraint of evil and the commending of righteousness" and leave other things to human institutions that are not mentioned in the Bible such as charities and corporations and therefore should be allowed to operate without too much communal oversight by way of law and order. Anglicans might be tempted to dismiss this as the result of a faulty "regulative principle" found in some versions of Presbyterianism (if it's not mentioned in the Bible, it's not allowed; so no organs and no national health service either). But the problem goes deeper. Boot does not have a sufficiently broad view of evil. If companies can gain an economic advantage in the marketplace by exploiting workers and ignoring safety standards, by selling fake products or by using misleading labels etc., is that not evil? And is it therefore not the responsibility of rulers to enforce certain rules and regulations? If certain ways of going about your trade or engaging in fishing and agriculture come at a huge environmental cost which is borne by communities that are not party to the transaction rather than by the seller and buyer, is that not evil that needs to be restrained? Is evil no longer evil if addressing it might interfere with free trade?

Compassion for the Poor through the State?

A friend recently asked, “Why do so many of my Christian friends assume that compassion for the poor must mean the state should play saviour?” I empathise with the questioner. I don’t like the idea of our lives becoming more and more state-controlled. But I am also uneasy about the assumptions that often underlie questions like this.

In all likelihood there is here, e.g., an implied dichotomy between compassion and justice which is not evident in the Bible where justice is about a right ordering of relationships which includes compassion.

But maybe the controlling assumption is the belief that there is such a thing as an ideal political system and that this ideal political system gives maximum role to individuals and maybe families. “I’m trying to love my neighbour. If everyone did it, the state wouldn't have to intervene.”

But when God said, "If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you” (Leviticus 25:35), he did not add “make sure that this is not done in an orderly way which draws on the resources of the community.”

Let’s take a specific example. In a democracy, citizens may vote for a government that increases taxes in order to distribute a disability allowance – or they may vote for politicians who dismiss such a policy as “state interference.” If the citizens favoured politicians who support a disability allowance, they can then refer to this system of taxation and stipends either along the lines of “this is how we look after the more vulnerable members of our community” or in words which refer to “the state” and “handouts” and maybe even with a hint of “dependency culture,” as if there was less of a dependency culture in the good, old biblical days when the blind and lame sat alongside major roads and worship centres, begging for handouts from individuals.

Language about “the state” is not always innocent, especially where it reflects a dislike for the first person plural or for the idea of a polity doing more together than the bare essentials. If the complaint that “the state” does so much more than it used to do is made with little or no regard for the complexities of modern life, it makes about as much sense as the complaint about the greater number of rules and regulations in our world.

I suspect the Romans did not have aviation laws. If so, I believe the reason would be that there was not much aviation in those days. I also suspect that their laws about food additives were fewer than ours, likely because there were fewer ways of manipulating food in those days.

Those who vote for policies such as a disability living allowance do not thereby necessarily look to “the state” as the “saviour” of the disabled any more than those who prefer the proliferation of food banks to the provision of “government handouts” thereby worship food banks as the “saviour” of the poor. People on both sides are usually just saying, “we think this is the best way of organising our common life and concern for each other.”

Maybe it is true to say that “the state” (as an abstract entity) does not have compassion but compassion need not be something exercised by individuals only. It is possible for a community to be compassionate and even for a polity to institutionalise such compassion to some extent. Indeed, biblical law seems to be an example of this and it is assumed in the Scriptures that love is something that can be commanded. 

It is of course possible for individuals to feel resentful about taxes. They speak of “my money” which “the state” is taking away from me to give to "others". It could be argued that therefore such compassion has become a mere outward act (forced upon me by the wider community) rather than an inward reality. But laws reflect and express values and true leaders do not merely collect taxes and hand out allowances, they also nourish our identity and envisage a common future.

God certainly did not seem to have any qualms about embodying justice and compassion in law, enforced by the governing authorities. Nor will it do to dismiss this as law uniquely given for God’s people - other nations were meant to be awed by the wisdom of biblical statutes (Deuteronomy 4:6) and learn from God’s instruction (Isaiah 2:3).

Some may prefer the state to do less so that the church can do more. But if, as seems to be the case, the Christian response to pestilence was a factor in the growth of the church in the past, this should hardly lead us to wish away the NHS.

Some fear that organising our care for the poor and disadvantaged through the mechanism of government and taxation makes state oppression more likely but governments have proved perfectly able to be oppressive and tyrannical, while also being “small” when it comes to things like disability allowance and medical care.

Some seem to believe that administering retribution on wrongdoers is the only role given to governing authorities, as if Romans 13:4 provided an exhaustive list and we could firmly state that God wants governing authorities to spend tax money on the police and the military but not on roadwork and rubbish collection or care for the poor. 

PS: I might not agree with everything on http://www.governmentisgood.com/ but some fair points are made there.