The politics of personal transformation

By Robert Maynard

A while back, Vermont's Times Argus published an article entitled "Scholar to bring 'Christian Left' message to Vt.," by Mel Huff. The article refers to Biblical scholar Marcus Borg, who teaches religion at Oregon State University. Professor Borg seems to be on a crusade.

"We were trying to counter fundamentalist and very conservative Christianity by letting the public know there's another way of looking at this,"

In short, he is trying to promote the "Christian Left" as an anecdote to "counter the negative impressions of Christianity created by the Christian Right." What are those negative impressions? Borg says the five adjectives most commonly used by his students to describe Christianity are "literalistic, anti-intellectual, self-righteous, judgmental and bigoted." His own view, one that he sees the Christian Left as reclaiming, is: "It's about relationship and transformation — relationship with the sacred that changes us. It affirms religious pluralism. It speaks of faith as a deep centering in God, rather than faith primarily as believing certain doctrines to be true. It moves beyond literalism to metaphor: There's no conflict between religion and science — and a fair amount of mutuality. It takes the Bible seriously, but not literally."

I would like to focus on the central issue of relationship and transformation, for these are the concepts that have always been at the heart of Christianity. The dying of the old self and the subsequent new birth in relationship to God are the heart and soul of Christianity. On this point, I have no argument with Professor Borg. Where I dissent is his contention that "Progressive Christianity" is somehow more genuine. Borg described progressive Christianity as a "way" or a "path" that is politically as well as theologically progressive: "It affirms God's passion as justice and peace. So its political issues are very different than the political issues of the Christian Right, ..."

Here we arrive at the crux of the matter, Borg is trying to enlist the growing social influence of Christians in the service of "Progressive Politics." While it is true that Christianity affirms God's passion for justice, I do not buy into the fact that God's notion of justice coincides with the Progressive notion of justice. Progressives tend to buy into Philosopher John Rawls conception of Justice, in particular, the notion of "Distributive Justice." Is this the notion of justice promoted in the Judeo-Christian Bible? The Progressive notion of justice is more of a collectivist social notion being imposed from the top down. How does that match up with the ideal of personal transformation through a direct relationship with God and the individual human soul? The latter view is one of social justice that comes from the bottom up as a result of individual transformations. The goal is personal transformation, social change comes about as a result of such transformations. Let us take a closer look at the origins of the Biblical view of justice.

In order to have a meaningful discussion on the ideal of Justice, we must start with an understanding of human nature. Ancient Pagan thought saw humans as mere phenomenon of nature. Nature followed certain deterministic cycles and all that exists is subject to those cycles. This view was extremely fatalistic and collectivist. The fundamental principle at the root of all existence is determinism. The Judeo-Christian view sees all of nature as coming into existence "Ex-Nihilo" as a creative act of free will on the part of God. The fundamental principle behind existence is that of free will and creativity. Human beings are seen as created in the image of the creator, with dominion over the created world. In short, we are not mere phenomenon of nature, but beings whose fundamental nature is predicated on the notions of creativity and free will. This view leads to an understanding of human nature that is more individualistic. The Christian view of the incarnation of God in an "individual" and the focus on the salvation of individual souls is what leads to the notion of the individual being ultimate. (collective entities do not have souls or free will) As such, the notion predates the American founding. Americans just revived an ancient Christian notion.

The modern notion that individualism=selfishness has come about because we have lost sight of the biblical notion of the individual, upon which the original American ideal of individualism was based. The individual soul, created in the image of God, above all seeks to realize the ideal of love. Love drives us to reach beyond ourselves to embrace another in an act of self-giving. The selfless act of self-giving is simultaneously an act of self enlargement. This is the way Christian philosophers such as Augustine understood Jesus' seemingly paradoxical statement that "he who seeks to lose his life shall gain it." In the Christian understanding, the notion of justice is fulfilled by the ideal of love. The catch is that this ideal must be manifested from each individual heart outward as an act of free will. Love and morality are intertwined and both presuppose the ideal of free will. Such an ideal can never be imposed by force from without by a bureaucratic institution such as the state.

Suspicion of the state has a long history in Christianity, as some radical apologists developed a "conquest theory" of the state in an effort to delegitimize the Roman Empire. The second Century Christian thinker, Tertullian argued, "all secular power and dignities are not merely alien from, but hostile to, God." Secular governments "owe their existences to the sword." All institutions of the Roman government, even its charities, are based on brute force. This is contrary to the way of Christians, among whom "everything is voluntary."

The Christian ideal of justice being fulfilled through the realization of love is incompatible with the notion of distributive justice via the state. Such a notion presupposes a coercive "top down" approach. Somebody has to do the distributing and in order to distribute, they must first confiscate. Jesus himself specifically rejected this notion in Luke 12.13–12.15 when someone came up to him and said: "Teacher, bid my brother divide his inheritance with me." To this Jesus replied: "Man, who made me a judge or divider OVER you?" Jesus insisted on direct voluntary giving to the less fortunate, but that is a far cry from insisting on having a third party become a "judge or divider" over the parties involved by confiscation and distribution. He also warned the individual to "Take heed, and beware of all COVETOUSNESS; for a man's life does not consist in the abundance of possessions." While Jesus certainly did condemn greed from those who would not share with the less fortunate, he also condemned covetousness from those who felt "entitled" to someone else's possessions. The distributive notion of "justice" is not justice at all, merely covetousness dressed up in fancy terms.

Another problem with the notion of distributive justice is that it ignores the ideal of individual property ownership. This is an ideal that is crucial to the Judeo-Christian notion of justice (It has its origins in the notion that humans were given dominion over creation). St. Thomas Aquinas altered Aristotle's thought to make room for the Judeo Christian notion of free will and the vital notion of property rights. Of course, for Aquinas, the notion of rights was inseparably tied up with notion of responsibility. Responsibility had to be taken by individuals, or the notion became diluted. According to Aquinas, "Human affairs are conducted in more orderly fashion if each man is charged with taking care of some particular thing himself."

To sum things up, the Judeo-Christian view of justice is rooted in the individual quest to realize one's potential as an image of God by manifesting the ideal of love. The impulse to love will lead one to reach out to others in relationship based in voluntary association and self-giving, rather than coercion. The type of society resulting in the pursuit of such an ideal would be one of "spontaneous" order, rather than a bureaucratically imposed top down order. More concretely, such a society would have three distinct but interlinked sectors, based on how individuals relate to one another.

The first sector of society is the moral-cultural sector of society. It is in this sector that the virtues necessary to the prosperity of individuals and society as a whole are propagated. The institutions, which make up this sector of society, are the family, religious institutions, voluntary associations, educational institutions, media and entertainment, etc. This is the most fundamental sector of any society and it is important that it flourish if the virtues necessary for human fulfillment, such as justice, are to guide that society.

The second sector is the economic sector. Since it is not possible for an individual or even a family to produce all that they want by themselves, we often come together to buy or trade for items that some one else has produced. This activity forms what we call the marketplace. When free individuals come together to engage in economic activity without the interference of an outside force, we have what is known as Free Market Economics. This arrangement has been proven time and time again to be the most efficient economic relationship man has conceived of. This is so because it is the only economic relationship that puts human free will first. The Free Market economic system has been criticized by some as immoral. This shows just a little bit of ignorance. No economic system is immoral or moral; only individuals are moral agents. The question is which economic system coincides best with the nature of free individuals. Economics is concerned with the production and distribution of Capital, which is the material that runs an economic system. In the distributive justice view, capital is physical raw material such as goods or money. In this view, because there is only a limited amount of resources to go around, then one person's gain is another's loss. The focus of socialist economic systems is usually distribution. The idea being that if someone does not redistribute a society's resources, many will go without. The ones who usually do the distributing are central government bureaucrats. Needless to say, their knowledge of economics is less than perfect. This view may sound compelling to some until the alternative is presented. In the Capitalist view, physical raw material is not the main source of capital, but rather, human creativity. Physical raw materials may be limited but human creativity is not. Creative entrepreneurs can use raw material in an ever-increasing quantity and quality. Here the power of human liberty is clearly demonstrated. What's more, if an exchange is voluntary, one person's gain is not necessarily another's lost. In fact, if we are left free to make our own choices, an exchange is not likely to take place unless it benefits both parties. The focus of economic activity in the free market is not distribution, but production and the agent of economic activity is the entrepreneur, rather than the government bureaucrat.

Finally we come to the role of the state, which represents the third, or political sector of society. Since the state is the only institution in society, which is granted a monopoly on the use of force, and force is incompatible with human free will, the role of the state should be kept VERY limited. The role of the state is simply to keep the peace and to prevent one party from initiating force or fraud on another. Even in this limited role, the state is often ineffective. When the state is allowed to expand its role beyond keeping to peace, not only does it become less efficient, but it crowds out the other institutions of society that are better able to realize the public good.

© Robert Maynard