-cutout_edited.png)
In engaging with the political process, especially around election season, people are often drawn into and held captive by partisan politics and issue-based voting. Beneath the loud noises of specific policies and candidates’ personalities are worldviews and philosophies that animate not just the candidates, but also political movements and historical trends. This article aims to provide the reader with a conceptual framework by which to engage more thoughtfully with, and look more deeply into, the whys that underpin the political process and their implications, to the end of understanding in a nuanced manner the interplay between the Church, politics, and civic duty.
Two Visions: Constrained and Unconstrained
One of the curious things about political opinions is how often the same people line up on opposite sides of different issues.[1] One explanation may be tribalism and that the same people fall in line once a view is declared from the upper echelons of political party leadership. But even tribalism does not explain why political platforms and their leadership also stay consistent on the same issues. It is more plausible that the same people line up on opposite sides of different issues because they have different visions of the world.
A vision is the map by which we navigate the world and perceive reality. Facts do not speak for themselves; rather it is facts interpreted through a vision that allows us to understand the world. “Visions set the agenda for both thought and action. Visions fill in the necessarily large gaps in individual knowledge.”[2] Two competing visions of the human condition will necessarily dictate different moral judgments and, consequently, public policies.
Thomas Sowell categorizes visions in two broad categories: constrained and unconstrained.[3] The constrained vision is articulated in the writings of Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, and American founding fathers such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, while the unconstrained vision is expressed in the writings of William Godwin, Jean-Jacque Rousseau, and the Marquis de Condorcet.
A. Views on the Human Condition
In the constrained vision, the moral limitations of humanity are treated as inherent facts of life, and the fundamental moral and social challenge is to make the best of the possibilities that exist within these limitations.[4] People are naturally motivated by self-interest and the interest(s) of their immediate social circles. Instead of regarding man’s nature as something that could or should be changed, proponents of the constrained vision attempt to determine how the desired moral and social benefits might be realized most efficiently within that constraint.[5] For instance, those who subscribe to the constrained vision would harness man’s self-interest and desire for prosperity by establishing a marketplace characterized by competition to induce economic growth in society at large. They would not encourage people to be more charitable or impose taxes for the general benefit of the poor in an attempt to reduce inequality because they view such efforts as improper and futile.[6] The constrained vision is in the business of pragmatic trade-offs as opposed to moral sentiments or spiritual motivations. Instead of teaching people to be virtuous, proponents of the constrained vision, such as Adam Smith, get the job done by persuading individuals to do the right thing because self-image is improved by good deeds.
In contrast, proponents of the unconstrained vision believe that man, at his core, is intrinsically good and capable of acting selflessly, but the fundamental problem is that social institutions corrupt human nature. Near the end of his life, Rousseau authored Emile and stated that “[t]his book…is simply a treatise on the natural goodness of man, intended to show how vice and error are foreign to his constitution, invade it from outside, and imperceptibly alter it.”[7] By way of example, Rousseau writes in his Confessions that his master treated him badly, so he started lying and became lazy; his father punished him rather too harshly, and this made him both manipulative and covetous.[8] Rousseau saw that his intrinsic goodness was corrupted by his circumstances and thus blamed society for his delinquency.[9] The unconstrained vision further holds that despite corrupting institutions, man has the potential of feeling other people’s needs as more important than his own, and therefore of consistently acting impartially, even when his own interests or those of his family are implicated.[10] Thus, institution-made corruption can simply be undone by reformed institutions as envisioned by a narrow segment of the population with cultivated minds who use rationality and reason as the proper and sufficient instrument for regulating the actions of mankind.[11] As such, man can be wildly transformed:
Man is, in short, ‘perfectible’ – meaning continually improvable rather than capable of actually reaching absolute perfection. ‘We can come nearer and nearer,’ according to Godwin, though one ‘cannot prescribe limits’ to this process … Efforts must be made to ‘wake the sleeping virtues of mankind.’[12]
B. Knowledge and Reason
The two visions also diverge on knowledge and reason: “In the constrained vision, any individual’s own knowledge alone is grossly inadequate for social decision-making, and often even for his own personal decisions.”[13] Knowledge in the constrained vision is predominantly experiential – transmitted socially in largely inarticulate forms. As Adam Smith stated, “man has certainly more often learnt to do the right thing without comprehending why it was the right thing, and he still is better served by custom than understanding.”[14] Burke expressed a similar sentiment, stating:
I give you opinions which have been accepted amongst us, from very early times to this moment, with a continued and general approbation, and which indeed are so worked into my mind, that I am unable to distinguish what I have learned from others from the results of my own meditations.[15]
The constrained vision thereby places a high premium on experience learned over time across wide populations encompassed in previous generations – in sum, tradition. However, these views do not preclude interference when severe corruption enters the system: “We should attend to the defects of the social order, according to Burke, with the same trepidation with which we would tend the wounds of our father. They are not to be ignored, but neither are they a mandate for experiment or hasty inspiration.”[16]
The unconstrained vision, on the other hand, values reason over experience and individual rationality over collective pragmatism: “According to Godwin, experience was greatly overrated – ‘unreasonably magnified,’ in his words – compared to reason or to ‘the general power of a cultivated mind.’”[17] Condorcet similarly stated that “everything that bears the imprint of time must inspire distrust more than respect” and “only by meditation that we can arrive at any general truths in the science of man.”[18] As such, the unconstrained vision implies a profound inequality between the conclusions of “persons of narrow views” and those of “cultivated minds.”[19] The influence of those with “cultivated minds” ought to be magnified: “What is needed is to infuse ‘just views of society’ into ‘the liberally educated and reflecting members’ of society, who in turn will be ‘to the people guides and instructors,’ according to Godwin.”[20] There is a special leadership role to be played by those of “superior intellects” who can lead society and serve as agents of transformation within institutions in order to discover or invent a solution for the human condition and bring about the process of “perfectibility” described by Condorcet and Godwin.[21]
To be clear, no political movement or philosophical view is 100% constrained or unconstrained. But the general disposition of the two categories depends on premises and presuppositions about the human condition and knowledge from which perceptions of reality and decision-making proceed. For instance, a “constrained” politician may propose legislation to incentivize entrepreneurship even though incentivizing action through law is a feature of the unconstrained vision. Similarly, a politician with an unconstrained vision marries and has children without contemplating the essence of marriage or rationalizing his decisions, a clear deviation from the unconstrained school of thought.
Is Christianity Constrained or Unconstrained?
Christianity does not fall squarely into one of these categories. For instance, the Christian view of knowledge aligns well with the constrained vision. A hallmark of Christianity is respect and reverence for tradition and wisdom learned and transmitted by past generations. As expressed in Proverbs, “Do not remove the ancient landmark which your fathers have set.”[22] A core premise underlying large segments of the Bible is precisely the need to transmit lessons across the ages.[23] “My son, hear the instruction of your father, And do not forsake the law of your mother; For they will be a graceful ornament on your head, And chains about your neck.”[24] The Gospel according to St. Luke begins with a similar message:
Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.[25]
Burke’s statement “I give you opinions which have been accepted amongst us, from very early times to this moment, with a continued and general approbation…” rings very familiar to finely tuned Christian ears. Ignoring the wisdom of past generations in favor of personal meditations and rationalizing well-established practices is, according to Proverbs, the definition of foolishness: “A fool despises his father’s instruction, but he who receives correction is prudent.”[26]
While Christianity aligns with the constrained vision on knowledge, it takes aspects of both visions when dealing with the human condition. On one hand, like the constrained vision, Christianity views the human condition as fundamentally flawed as a result of the sin of Adam. As St. Athanasius states in On the Incarnation, the fall of man was separation from God that resulted in physical, spiritual, and moral death.[27] The moral death is what proponents of the constrained vision view as the flaw in human nature. On the other hand, similar to the unconstrained vision, Christianity views the human condition as “perfectible,” but with a significant caveat. While the unconstrained vision aims to improve the nature of the masses through reformed institutions, public policy, and social pressures, Christianity changes individuals through divine means. Christ’s incarnation and crucifixion – indeed, His entire “salvific work” – reconciled heaven and earth and provided Christians, through Baptism, the forgiveness of sin and renewal of nature by the Holy Spirit, enabling them to walk in accordance with “the calling by which [they] were called.”[28] Thus the commandment to “be perfect just as your Father in heaven is perfect”[29] cannot come about through mere human efforts, reform, or public policy, but through the grace of God, a sound sacramental life, discipleship, prayer, fasting, and the life of virtue and other good works. In short, the quest for perfection without Christ is futile.
Therefore, while Christianity has more in common with the constrained model, it does not align perfectly with either vision. Christianity, specifically Orthodoxy, values tradition and is generally apprehensive of unwarranted change. However, the Christian view of the human condition does not entirely align with the constrained vision because there is potential to change human nature through Christ’s salvific work. Neither does Christianity fully align with the unconstrained vision because human nature is fundamentally flawed post-fall and because the quest for perfection cannot be achieved solely through worldly institutions, policies, or compulsion.
Caesar v. God
According to Sowell, progressive politics are aligned with the unconstrained vision, while conservative/libertarian frameworks are more aligned with the constrained vision.[30] This essay does not specifically identify political parties with either vision. Political parties are vehicles for ideologies that aim to implement public policy and law in line with their members’ and leadership’s worldviews. So, political parties are prone to seismic shifts, which have arguably seen a significant uptick in recent times. Also, similar to individuals, political parties may be constrained on one political issue but unconstrained on another.[31]
Christians are generally viewed as conservatives because of their respect for tradition – a feature Christianity shares with the constrained vision. However, as explained above, neither political philosophy – and no political party – possesses a complete understanding of the human condition and life’s most perplexing questions. They are simply incapable of addressing existential issues such as suffering, purpose, justice, human flourishing, or any of life’s other central questions. These types of issues are unanswerable by mere political philosophies because they belong in the realm of theology, not politics or secular philosophy.
The solution to this quandary is to “[r]ender therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”[32] Christians ought to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s by being good, law-abiding citizens and productive members of society. And here it is essential to note that the call to “render unto Caesar” does not mean that Christians are to adopt a morally libertarian stance when making personal (or even electoral) decisions; nor does it mean that secularism and immorality should be acceptable to Christians as long as they are handed down from governing bodies in the form of legal mandates. To the contrary, Christians are supposed, on an individual level, to vote, live, and believe in accordance with their moral compass, in good conscience – the same right to which everyone else in a religiously diverse society is entitled.
Additionally, because neither vision (and by extension no political party) fits squarely within a proper Christian framework, the Church cannot, and must not, endorse wholesale political parties or candidates. The Church, however, finds itself in an understandably difficult position in the current political climate because morality has come to be seriously intertwined with politics and Caesar has reached into the domain of God. In recent years, debate stages and newsrooms have become forums for moral issues masquerading as administrative matters and public policy considerations. Mundane tax policies and subsidies inevitably have become discussions on the importance of equality, charity, and fairness. Border policy and immigration reform have turned into debates about the intrinsic worth of human beings and alleviating suffering for the persecuted. Godwin’s vision of man’s perfectibility through continuous improvement so “we can come nearer and nearer…” has become conflated with Gregory of Nyssa’s view that “no limit would interrupt growth in the ascent to God, since no limit to the Good can be found nor is the increasing of desire for the Good brought to an end because it is satisfied.”[33] And so Caesar added a cassock to his royal regalia, and mass confusion reigned.
Perhaps the foray of politics into morality came about due to the decreased religiosity of the American public: “Americans’ membership in houses of worship continued to decline [in 2020], dropping below 50% for the first time in Gallup’s eight-decade trend.”[34] Additionally, over the past two decades, “the percentage of Americans who do not identify with any religion has grown from 8% in 1998-2000 to 13% in 2008-2010 and 21% [from 2018 to 2021].”[35] Furthermore, Americans’ confidence in the Church and organized religious institutions declined to 46% among republicans, 25% among independents, and 26% among democrats.[36] This is a significant decline in confidence across the board from previous years.[37]
Traditionally, religion provided people with community, a sense of purpose, and an arena to practice and grow in virtue. When religion disappears, people attempt to fill the spiritual void with the crumbs they can find. In 1840, Alexis de Tocqueville foresaw that material wealth, safety, and prosperity – all of which are abundant today – are not enough to satisfy humanity:
The soul has needs that must be satisfied. Whatever pains are taken to distract it from itself, it soon grows bored, restless, and anxious amid the pleasures of the senses. If ever the thoughts of the great majority of mankind came to be concentrated solely on the search for material blessings, one can anticipate that there would be a colossal reaction in the souls of men…[38]
Of course, before Tocqueville, Christ Himself declared that “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”[39] The Coptic Church expresses this beautifully in the Liturgy of St. Gregory saying: “You had no need of my servitude, but rather I had need of Your Lordship.” The void left by the lack of religiosity is currently being filled through politics animated by the unconstrained vision (sometimes on both sides of the aisle) that aims to alleviate suffering and inequality through legislation and political rhetoric, as opposed to inner transformation through spiritual means.[40]
Christians should distinguish the proper role of government from the proper domain of the Church and be faithful in their duty to both. The Church is responsible for transforming the believers from within and harnessing moral virtue and charity within its members. It does so through God’s grace and the sacramental life, thereby allowing the believers to have true love, joy, peace, and all the other fruits of the Spirit.[41] The Church must therefore reclaim its role as moral teacher by providing proper theological education to its leaders and members. Most crucially, Christian families must reclaim their role in raising their children, because the Church’s mission to educate each generation is bound to fail without sound education and discipline, beginning in the family. St. Habib Girgis, the founder of the Sunday School movement in Egypt, had especially harsh words for parents who ignore raising their children or attempt to outsource their education to others: “How stupid are the parents who overwork to build wealth but ignore raising their own children. St. John Chrysostom likened them to a stupid gardener who pays attention to accumulating money and hiring laborers and does not care for his trees and gardens.”[42] To be clear, the Church should not involve itself in endorsing political parties or political candidates. Rather, it should pay close attention to fulfilling its duties by praying for the country’s political leaders,[43] providing discipleship, and educating believers on the true meaning of being human, the meaning of life, and connecting them to the awe-inspiring sacramental life. Once a Christian experiences proper discipleship and lives and understands his faith, proper decisions will follow in every aspect of his life. An educational and spiritual renaissance such as the one brought on by St. Habib Girgis, St. Pope Kyrillos VI, and Pope Shenouda III is desperately needed.[44]
On the other hand, the government is responsible for maintaining societal order and stewarding the economic system. As such, a government subscribing to the constrained vision may prove ideal because minimal interference with human nature is advisable in a heterogenous and multireligious society due to the complexity of its social landscape. A solution to one emerging issue may well cause two other unintended and more significant problems, which in turn engenders skepticism towards hasty social intervention. Indeed, Adam Smith warned of a man who is “wise in his own conceit” who “seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board.”[45] That being said, social reform is not prohibited under the constrained vision, but it is to be undertaken with the utmost caution as one would tend to a father’s wounds, as articulated by Burke. At the same time, the constrained vision offers valuable insight on practical issues due to its reliance on experience and wisdom derived from past generations. Because of that reliance and other self-imposed limitations, the constrained vision has traditionally outsourced social and spiritual concerns to the family and mediating institutions such as the Church.
Irrespective of what political philosophy is employed, however, politicians across the aisle must recognize that their duty is to the Constitution and their constituents within the limitations set forth by the Constitution. Anything outside these boundaries belongs to and falls squarely within the mission of mediating institutions, such as local communities or the Church. In a word, government, and politicians of all affiliations, cannot provide people with the hope, love, joy, and flourishing they so frequently promise, no matter how much they might strive or desire to do so.
—
[1] Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles, (Basic Books, N.Y. 2007), 1.
[2] Sowell, 7.
[3] The two visions encompass views on many aspects of life including justice, power, social processes, and equality; however, for the purposes of this article, I only choose the most abstract and consequential aspects: human nature and knowledge/reason.
[4] Sowell, 12.
[5] Sowell, 12-13.
[6] For instance, Alexander Hamilton considered “all men” to be “entitled to a parity of privileges,” though he expected that economic inequality “would exist as long as liberty existed.” See Sowell, 133.
[7] Alan Jacobs, Original Sin: A Cultural History, (Harper Collins Publishers N.Y. 2008), 149.
[8] Carl Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, (Crossway 2020), 109.
[9] Trueman, 109-110.
[10] Sowell, 16.
[11] Sowell, 43-44.
[12] Sowell, 18.
[13] Sowell, 36.
[14] Sowell, 38.
[15] Sowell, 42.
[16] Sowell, 38. Further to that point, Adam Smith urged the freeing of the American colonies prior to the revolutionary war in addition to suggesting a number of domestic reforms and being opposed to slavery. Similarly, authors of the Federalist Papers such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay – certainly proponents of the constrained vision – came first to public notice as leaders in the revolt against the British rule. See Sowell, 39.
[17] Sowell, 40.
[18] Sowell, 40.
[19] Sowell, 40-41.
[20] Sowell, 43.
[21] Sowell, 44.
[22] Proverbs 22:28 NKJV (Unless otherwise noted, all Scriptural quotations are taken from the New King James translation).
[23] This, of course, falls under the overarching fact that Scripture is inspired by God for the sake of human salvation. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 NIV).
[24] Proverbs 1:8-9.
[25] Luke 1:1-4.
[26] Proverbs 15:5.
[27] St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, paragraph 4 (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press N.Y. 2011).
[28] Ephesians 4:1-6.
[29] Matthew 5:48.
[30] Thomas Sowell and a Conflict of Visions, Hoover Institution, November 4, 2008 (accessed October 25, 2024). In interviews discussing his book, Sowell makes clear that he is a proponent of the constrained vision. Yet, he does not adhere to a political party: “When people ask me why am I going to vote for McCain rather than Obama it’s because I prefer disaster to catastrophe.”
[31] Federalism can also potentially play an interesting role in this discussion. What should be the role of local, state, and federal government in making regulations and enforcing the law? This can be explored in a later essay.
[32] Matthew 22:21.
[33] Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Moses, paragraph 239 (Paulist Press N.J. 1978). To be clear, Godwin did not view virtues such as generosity as political duties to be imposed by the state, but as moral duties to be harvested in the context of social duty, thereby making it unnecessary for the government to get involved. However, Godwin’s ideological progenies appear to think that government has a role to play in inspiring, and sometimes forcing, such virtues by law. Sowell, 213-214.
[34] Jeffrey M. Jones, U.S. Church Membership Falls Below Majority for First Time, March 29, 2021.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Jeffrey M. Jones, Confidence in U.S. Institutions Down; Average at New Low, July 5, 2022.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Alexis de Tocqueville, pt. 2, chap. 12 in Democracy in America, vol. 2, ed. J.P. Mayer (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), 535.
[39] Matthew 4:4.
[40] This point may be discussed in a future essay. Interestingly, Tom Holland, author of Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade The World, states that prior to today’s increasingly secular post-World War II era, “people, even if they were not Christian, they would accept Christ as the kind of the moral exemplar and say ‘what would Jesus do?’ I think, by and large, people now say ‘what would Hitler do?’ and do the opposite.” There is no Christ-like figure of ultimate good in real world secular morality; only the incarnate devil that is Hitler. I say “real world secular morality” because fictitious redemptive figures such as Superman are plenty in modern secular mythology. See Does God Exist? A Conversation with Tom Holland, Stephen Meyer, and Douglas Murray, Hoover Institution, November 4, 2008 (accessed October 25, 2024).
[41] Galatians 5:22-23.
[42] Habib Girgis, الوسائل العمليه للاصلاحات القبطيه امال و احلام يمكن تحقيقها في عشرة اعوام, Sunday School Press (1942) at 68.
[43] In the Liturgy of St. Cyril, the Coptic Orthodox Church prays for “[t]he leader (king) of our land, Your servant” and asks God to “[k]eep him in peace, truth, and strength. Subject under him all the barbarians, the nations that desire war against all our fertile lands. Speak to his heart concerning the peace of Your one, only, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Grant to him that he may think peaceably towards us and towards Your holy name.” See also the Paschal Litanies: “Pray and ask that God may grant us mercy and compassion before the sovereign rulers, and incline their hearts with goodness towards us at all times, and forgive us our sins.”
[44] I restrict my analysis to the Coptic Orthodox Church because this is the Church to which I belong. Pluralism, the First Amendment, and similar issues are outside the scope of this essay but may be addressed in a later essay.
[45] Sowell, 45.
—
Amir Botros is a practicing attorney in New Jersey and holds an undergraduate degree in jurisprudence and political science. He is also currently a student at Pope Shenouda III Coptic Orthodox Theological Seminary, and is an ordained Reader in the Coptic Orthodox Church.
DossPress.com is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.