Triablogue: At the Oklahoma City abortuary, 08May2013

Triablogue: At the Oklahoma City abortuary, 08May2013

Locke's Foundation for the State

In John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government the foundations of political economy are grounded in a generic theistic view of the universe.  Locke grounds the moral values of liberty and equality in his “workmanship” thesis of Divine creation.  Many political philosophers have found Locke’s account to preserve human liberty, and provide a secular space for the market place of ideas.  Ian Shapiro even thinks that Locke’s theory of rights can be shorn from its theistic foundations, providing an atheistic account of societal interactions.

            In this post I will argue that while Locke does provide necessary conditions for the moral foundations of politics, he does not provide any sufficient basis.  While the concept of God is certainly necessary for objective moral values, which provide a solid foundation for politics, it is insufficient by itself.  Rather, Christian Theism provides a more solid basis for the state than Locke’s account, because it provides the necessary and sufficient conditions for a just society.  I will finish by discussing some practical implications.

II. Necessary Conditions

            Some definitions are in order.  I understand objective moral values and duties to be good or bad, right or wrong regardless of what any creatures may think.[1] Thus, moral duties are not based on anything socio-biological.  Objective Morals are of the same type as propositions in mathematics, or any other field that deals with truth. 

            I understand a necessary condition to be one which must be met for something else to follow. For instance, trilateral lines are a necessary condition of triangularity, but not a sufficient condition, because there may be trilateral lines, but they may not form 90-degree angles. 

            Now it seems that we would need a theistic conception of God in order to have such a world in which objective morals values exist.  This can be seen for two reasons.  First, objective morals would need an ontological foundation.  If God did not exist, then there would be no foundation for objective moral values.  If the world is a monistic one, then all things are the same and there is no distinction, thus the scurrying of a cockroach would be no different than the murder of an infant. As Richard Taylor comments, “Such actions I (evil actions), though injurious to their victims, are no more unjust or immoral than they would be if done by one animal to another.”[2]  We may subjectively dislike one more than the other, but there is no ultimate reason for finding more value in one rather than the other.  So, it seems that some standard is needed to have moral value.  What is the nature of this standard?

 The standard of ethical principles would need to be personal. The origins of the universe are either personal or impersonal.  If the universe is impersonal then there are no moral obligations, because objective moral obligations would need to be to an ultimate person.  We are not obligated to non-persons.  Thus, this rules out an appeal to Plato’s forms, or even teleology sans God.  The universe is either personal or impersonal, and only one allows Objective Moral values;[3] therefore, if objective standards, then God.

Locke gets this much correct.  Locke says that human beings are the workmanship of the creator, and we have rights, because other creatures must respect the craftsmanship of their workman in other human beings.  Locke in the Second Treatise says,

“…no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servant of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorize us to destroy another…”[4]

            For Locke the freedom of individuals and our right to own property are grounded in the relationship of the creature to the creator.  We are granted these rights, because human beings were created for the pleasure of the creator, and he has given us duties to carry out in this life, which no one else has the right to impugn.  However, it must be noted that these rights are not grounded in a concept of the Imago Dei.  Locke never mentions man being created in God’s image only that other human beings have no right to do violence to me, because I do not belong to anyone but the creator.  So, for Locke it is not that human beings qua human beings actually have rights, but they only have rights in a derivative sense.

            We see that Christians and Locke can, on the face of it, agree that God is the ontological foundation of morals and ethics.  There is resemblance in so far as Locke is a theist, but Locke’s theism is more austere due to his philosophy concerning faith and reason.

III. Sufficient Conditions

            Locke’s account succeeds in providing a necessary ontological foundation for the state.  However, he fails in providing sufficient, or epistemological foundations for the state.  Locke makes many claims about his workmanship thesis, which he claims to know, but are less than self-evident.

            First, Locke says that an “Infinitely Wise Maker” created us, but why should we assume that? Based on Locke’s own critique of faith and reason we should have reason as our highest standard, and on the basis of reason alone it is not self-evident that God is wise or infinite.  As David Hume pointed out there may be one God, or many, but we cannot be certain that we know the nature of the God that created the world on the basis of reason alone.[5]

            Second, even if the maker is wise, and infinite why should we assume that he has anything to do with the world he has created except hold it in existence.  It seems that there may be an all-powerful evil deity who governs the world for reasons of sheer malice. This cannot be ruled out on the basis of sheer reason, so it seems that God may be such a being that creates the world, but has no concern for the way it works out.  Maybe human beings are such that they have no intrinsic moral value.

            Third, if we cannot be sure of what the nature of this maker is, then it would seem that we cannot be sure that we cannot subject others, and take from them.  Locke’s attempt to provide an ontological foundation is in danger of failing, because if God is not personal, then there are no objective standards, and thus there is not any reason we ought to treat others in any particular fashion, besides expediency and social constructs.

            Fourth, Locke fails in providing a sufficient basis for the state, because he cannot provide a standard by which we can judge the actions of others.  Locke’s own ideas on why human beings come into community to avoid harm and preserve property is malleable, and can be used to justify different forms of control.  Locke’s “harm principle” may even allow for behaviors that would undermine social cohesion, and thus the commonwealth itself.

            Fifth, Locke falsely assumes that human beings are self-interested, and that they will always choose what is best for them.  This is false.  Human beings without various forms of coercion, and social pressure will not act in ways that are always good for them.  Even behaviors that seem to be innocuous may be harmful.  For instance, in our society the common habit of males viewing pornography is harmful to the person looking at the material, and also harmful to society, because it leads to destructive anti-social behaviors. This behavior, and others like it, are much more widespread than Locke believed to be the case, and his “no harm principle” is powerless to stop sinful human beings from doing sinful things. 

            Sixth, the reason Locke held to the idea that the state should only enforce laws that directly pertain to the harm of individuals or their property was because he rejected the idea of a natural law.  Before the Enlightenment most thinkers were united on the idea that things had four causes (material, efficient, formal, and final).  Aristotle was the first to point this out, but Aquinas and others built upon his foundation.  In the case of human beings we have a formal cause, which is simply that of being a “rational animal”.  We have a final cause, which is to know God, and material cause, “matter” and and efficient cause which is our maker, God himself.  Now on this account man is made for something, and given a form to obtain it.  God gave mankind reason in order to pursue the knowledge of God.  In the same way that the acorn has formal cause that of being a tree bearing seed, it also has and end for which it was made, to become an oak.  Acorn’s, if not impeded, always become oaks.  Human beings if we were not ravaged by sin would always seek God.  Now this idea is pretty evident to common sense, but not for Locke and other thinkers of the Enlightenment.  The Enlightenment thinkers eschewed final and formal causes, and kept only truncated accounts of material and efficient causes, because on the classical theistic view efficient causes were made with an end in mind.  The aim was to only deal with quantifiable realities, because they wanted to change the entire paradigm about how knowledge was viewed.

            Much of the moral confusion of our day is the rejection of forms or essences.  This rejection went hand in hand with the rejection of Christian theology and its coherent worldview.  Locke leaves us with a world were things have no essences, because concepts are only “in the mind”, and not real entities in the world.  Edward Feser sums the case up against Locke very well,  “For as with every other form, essence, or nature of human beings too would have to be man-made, on Locke’s account.  And if you say that every human being has various natural rights which cannot be overridden by any other human being or government, but then go on to say that what counts as a human being in the first place is ultimately a matter of human convention, then you have made natural rights claims utterly vacuous.”[6]

            Locke’s attempt to preserve liberty by pushing religion out of society paved the way for more insidious forms of oppression.  By secularizing the public sphere to the point of silencing religious perspectives on moral and ethics has led to the pragmatism and Utilitarianism we see in ethical decision making of our era. 

IV. A Christian Alternative

Unlike Locke’s system Christians do not start with reason as the standard.  Reason is to be a humble servant in the service of God’s revelation in Holy Scripture.  Locke could not accept that certain truths could be revealed in scripture that confounded reason.  For Locke human approximations of logic and evidence were supreme in judging Christian revelation, which is why he did not believe in the Trinity, and a number of other biblical doctrines.[7]

The Christian realizes that there are certain doctrines that are real paradoxes for the Christian, but it is those very paradoxes that make human life livable.  Philosophers since the pre-Socratics have been stuck with the issue of the “one and the many”.  Is the universe made of one thing, or many disparate types of things?  Different thinkers have given various answers to this question.[8]  The Christian answer allows for real mystery in the world, because the Trinitarian God’s essence is not open to human beings. 

Trinitarian theology refuses to put human standards above divine revelation.  It isn’t that God is irrational, but that we cannot assume that our understanding of logic is complete, hence due to divine incomprehensibility the Christian can rest assured that all the mysteries we are stuck with are not mysteries for God.  The Christian begins with faith, so that he can understand, because that is the path towards obedience. 

By setting our view of the state on the solid ground of divine revelation we have foundations, because God has not been silent.  We are given guidelines for living the good life that is open to all, we are also given a solid foundation for the value that we place on human life.  Human life cannot be sacrificed to the state, because the state is to be subject to the law of God, thus Christians believe that divine law is supreme over the state, where as most secular versions of the state end up making the state the arbiter of law.

It is important that Christians in the secular state not be quiet, because the Christian church is a “state” with God as its end.  As the surrounding society sees the supernatural nature of the church it may possibly change, and at least adopt the cultural ethos of Christianity. 

V. Practical Application

            Locke’s account of ethics and politics is anemic.  Locke severed faith and reason and because of that led to the absurdities we have found ourselves in today.  The blame for many of our social ills should be laid at the feet of the Enlightenment project and its denial of essentialism.[9]  So, how do we find a way back to sanity?  I see three ways back: Community, Reason, and Citizenship.

            First, Christians must realize, as Augustine pointed out in his magisterial City of God, that wherever the church is the City of God is there[10] This has a couple of implications. First, we should seek nourishment from the body of Christ where the pure Gospel is preached.  The Gospel is the great message that transforms societies, even though the change may be slow and painful. Second, through the church we should be developing strategies that reach out to those who are under self-imposed slavery to the City of Man.

            Second, Christians need to engage the outside world.  We need to do this by laying out the Christian Worldview and all of its implications.  The Christian Worldview has the Triune God as its foundation and he makes sense of all of life.  Non-Christian thought swings between monism and pluralism, but never is able to find a happy middle ground.  Either, the world is consumed in the monistic “one” in which all distinctions are irradicated, which led to the horrors of mid-twentieth century Fascism, or you are stuck with an anarchistic pluralism, which we are confronted with in our time.  The Christian can speak to both of these false metaphysical views.  The Triune God has both multiplicity and unity in his very being, it is in the Triune God speaking through scripture that we find social and political sanity. 

            Third, Christians in democratic societies should see themselves as citizens of the Kingdom of God first, and whatever state they find themselves in second.  Our political opinions should flow out from our theology.  We should seek to do justice, and be good citizens, because scripture commands us to love our neighbors.  Thus, in societies like ours, if we know that God’s reign would be good for people we should try to bring that about in peaceful ways.  The main end of this is so that people would see the sweetness of the Kingdom of God.

            I conclusion we have seen that Locke has some necessary conditions for the foundations of the state, but they prove to be anemic for establishing a just government.  As Christians we should adopt a biblical view of God, the nature of man, and how we should treat our fellow men, because Scripture provides the preconditions for knowledge, politics, metaphysics, and etc.  Solid Deo Gloria.

---

[1] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. (Wheaton: Crossway Publishing: 2008), pg., 172-181. We must distinguish between moral values and moral duties.  Moral values are good or bad, and moral duties are right or wrong.  We may be tempted to conflate what is good with what is right, and what is bad with what is wrong, but this is incorrect.  Moral duties have to do with obligatoriness, but I may find something to be good and it not be obligatory.  It may be good for me to become a doctor, but I am not obligated to become a doctor.  In the same way we may be confronted with a  situation in which there are no “good” choices, but we must choose one, which would not be “good” or “right” under normal circumstances. 

[2] Ibid., 175.

[3] http://www.frame-poythress.org/do-we-need-god-to-be-moral/

[4] John Locke, “Second Treatise of Government,” in Two Troeatises of Government and A letter Concerning Toleration ed. By Ian Shapiro (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), pg. 102-103

[5]David Hume Dialogue Concerning Natural Religions, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4583/4583-h/4583-h.htm (accessed May 6, 2013).

[6] Edward Feser, The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism (Southbend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2008), pg. 211.

[7] John Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding (Everyman), pg.

[8] R.J. Rushdoony, By What Standard? (Vallecito: Ross House Books, 1995) pg., 29-38 Rushdoony gives a typically Reformed Theological critique of philosophy.  From the perspective of Reformed Presuppositionalism the history of thought is marked by an irreconcilable dualism.  For Plato it was the world of forms vs. time, for Aristotle it was matter and form, for Descartes it was the beginning of the subject-object split, for Kant it was the Noumena and the Phenomena.  The problem with these views is that human thinkers cannot seem to force universals and particulars together, hence you get rationalists vs. empiricist, and those who give up and become subjectivists.

[9] Richard M. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), 35-51 Weaver discusses a wide range of issue surrounding the French Revolution and the resultant fragmentation of modern life.

[10] Bruce Louis Wilken, The Spirit of Early Christian Thought: Seeking The Face of God (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), pg. 191.

More Subterfuge from Peter Enns

Peter Enns is at it again.  He acts as if he can simply assume what history tells us about theology.  He does this by ignoring what scripture says about itself, and he also shows his functional atheistic view of scripture when he says that the bible has the same exact views as the ancients.  It never crosses his mind that God may use those literary genres to reveal his acts.  No, for Enns the bible is just like any other ancient texts with all the same backwards theology and idiocy of the surrounding nations.  If I was Enns I think I would walk away from the whole theology thing, because well, on his assumptions, it is all nonsense.

Peter Enns' Excellent Recommendation

If you would like to see someone who never quite "got it", check this out.  Of course this is all because I haven't reached his level of "consciousness".  Leave it to Peter Enns to recommend this kind of fluff.  He is after all one of the most fluffiest bloggers on the internet, though you would think he actually proved his positions somewhere along the line. However, he hasn't.  He simply appeals to majority opinion, and assumes methodological naturalism.

A Thought on Psalm 3

My church (Vintage Church) has a reading plan through the Psalms.  We are currently on Psalm 3, and since I am trying to write a little everyday, so that I can be diligent in research and writing, and since I have nothing much to say on anything this afternoon I have decided to give you some quick thoughts on this excellent Psalm.

As I was studying this Psalm (I usually read it a few times, then write it out), I was struck by v. 5.  The Psalmist says, "I lie down and sleep;/ I wake again, because the Lord sustains me."  Now I may be reading to much into this, but this made me think of the fact that all of our lives are completely in the Lord's hands.  Our coming and goings, the span of our lives, how we will die, when we will die, and our very existence is dependent on the His wise and loving providence.

The context of this passage is one of lament.  This psalm falls into the category of Individual Lament.  The Psalmist is pleading with God for deliverance from his enemies because they seem to circle about him.  The Psalmist knows though that nothing can happen to Him contrary to the will of God.  This should bring great comfort in times of difficulty.

What is the End of Political Society?

I am currently reading Locke's Second Treatise of Government and it has raised a few questions. Locke argues that the "Law of Nature" (is this in contrast to Natural Law?) is the ability of man to protect himself, and his property.  This state of nature is prior to political society, not necessarily chronologically, but logically.  Locke is asking what man was like in his natural state (essentially).  So, we should view the state of nature as something of a thought experiment.  One of common criticisms of Locke is that this is not how societies have been historically brought about.  Rather, governments have historically been established by conquering bands of criminals who subject existing peoples and force them into being their subjects.  This objection really misses the point, because if Locke is correct about humanity's ultimate commitments, namely protecting their property(the mixing of resources with labor), and protecting their lives and that of their families, then at some point society somewhere would indeed develop along the lines of Locke's thought.  Locke attempts to give some historical backing for his opinion by citing Greece and Rome, but I am not sure history has shown he is right, but nevertheless I think his response to the historical critique of his view stands. From Locke's "Law of Nature" he argues that men would see that being lone individuals would be precarious and make them, their property, and their families subject to men who would not live by the "Law of Nature"*.  Because of the precarious nature of their existence men would realize that it would be better to give up the freedom of the Law of Nature, and concede some of their power to a commonwealth of other men in order to protect their property and their lives.  The purpose of the commonwealth would be to develop laws that apply to everyone in the commonwealth, protect the property of the governed, and repel external attacks.  The protection of life and property would be much easier in a large group that worked together.

Now the natural question for me is whether or not Locke is correct about human nature.  As a Christian it seems to me that Locke is describing man in his fallen state, so in a sense I think that Locke has human nature pegged.  Men in their current fallen state is worried about purely egoistic ends.  Now egoism in and of itself is not wrong, because all men desire what is best for them by nature.  The problem with man* is that he no longer knows what is best for him.  Mankind was created to find its end in God as Saint Augustine, and the writer of Ecclesiastes noted, and when they lose their ultimate end or goal men end up desiring what will cause harm.  So, instead of loving God, and by extension their fellow men, mankind became selfish and only worried about themselves.  This gives rise to Locke's state of nature were men are only worried about selfish ends.

The Christian view is that Locke's State of Nature is man's post-fall state.  Man's ultimate end is to be in right relationship to God, and by extension he will love his fellow man because he is made in the image of God.  As C.S. Lewis noted, we live with immortals.  Man created in the image of God has the divine image in him even though he is fallen.  So, from the state of the natural man (in the New Testament sense of the term) man is selfish, but the biblical ideal is that man ought to love God more than he loves himself, and love his neighbor as himself. Only redeemed people can live such a divine life, through Christian conversion.  This leads to a completely different (redeemed) view of society.  If just a large minority of society would live the way the Old and New Testaments command us to live, much of our social problems would be remedied. Even people who may not be Christians would adopt at least some of the ethical content of the faith, which would be a good thing. I know that this will not happen until the eschaton, but I don't see why we cannot spur people on through discipleship in our churches to obtain such an end, and not just for our own good, but for the good of the world.


*Remember Locke argues that the Law of Nature is that men have a right to their property (the mixing of resources with labor), and their own well being.
*Man is used here in a generic sense.  If you don't like it, get over it.

Okholm, Dennis. Monk Habits for Everyday People. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2007.

Okholm, Dennis. Monk Habits for Everyday People. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2007.

               Dennis Okholm received his Ph.D. in Theology from Princeton Theological Seminary and has taught for many years at various institutions.  He now teaches as Azusa Pacific University.  He is a recently ordained minister in the Anglican Church after many years as a Presbyterian (PCUSA).  He has written on various topics within the philosophy of religion, and the spiritual life.

               Okholm seeks to convince Protestants that Benedictine monasticism is not opposed to orthodox Reformed Protestantism.  He attempts to do this with theological, biblical, and experiential reasoning.  He tries to circumvent the Reformed objections to monasticism as legalistic, graceless, and useless with historical and theological reasoning.  He devotes a lengthy appendix to attempting this sort of theological integration. 

               Okholm’s thesis is that Protestants can legitimately appeal to the Rule of Benedict without feeling as if they are betraying their theological tradition. (158-159 Kindle Edition).  Okholm makes excellent points throughout the book about how grace and works do not necessarily have to be separated, and that the spiritual disciplines can be utilized to train us out of bad habits.  This is really no different from many Puritan writers who noted that while we are saved by God’s power he has given us means to salvation.  Okholm makes a very good defense of a kind of modified monasticism in the appendix.  He notes that the Reformers actually did not have a problem with a monastic form of life as long as the vows were not binding, and the vows did not conflict with the command to love others.  In other words there is nothing wrong with a group of like minded people of the same sex coming together voluntarily to live a life of holiness, as long as they do not begin to focus on their works as justifying, and ignoring the outside world.  Protestants should find this view appealing.  Okholm also makes the excellent point that “everyday” Protestants can work the rule of Benedict into their life with great benefit.

               Okholm’s book is a very interesting and thought provoking work on a pertinent topic of how Christians should involve in spiritual disciplines.  Modern Evangelicals have often ignored the training that being a disciple of Jesus Christ requires, and this is a very sad state of affairs as many other writers have noted.  Okholm does a very good job of showing that the Rule does not have to be viewed as antagonistic to Protestant thought, and that Protestants can use it to good effect.  This can be granted but there are some problems with the book.  First, Okholm never distinguishes between what is to day considered the Evangelical wing of Protestantism and the Reformed wing of Evangelicalism.  He simply conflates the two, which is tantamount to putting Rick Warren and John Piper into the same category, which I am not so sure is fair.  Second, Okholm totally ignores the Puritan divines and their concern for right living.  It would not have hurt Okholm to read John Owens’s works on overcoming temptation and sin to see that Protestants did not reject means of sanctification as being inconsistent with salvation by grace.  This is a deficiency in the book that Okholm should have remedied, because it is off putting to many Protestants who may feel that he is being unfair in his characterizations.  Third, Okholm tries to paper over the theological differences that alienated Protestants and Catholics.  He makes fun of the theological critiques of Protestants in his appendix, but it appears that he isn’t that familiar with Catholic doctrine, and its less than biblical extra-biblical heretical add-ons.  Protestants are aware the Catholics deny “worshipping Mary”, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t do it in practice, or that their theology is wrong in giving Mary a “different” kind of devotion, or that she “intercedes” for us.  Protestants have very good reason for rejecting Marian dogmas, the priest as an altar Christus, and other deviations.  It may be suggested that Okholm should read the book of Hebrews and some actual Protestant critiques of Protestantism before he makes unsubstantiated jabs at Protestants in parentheses throughout his books.

               There were good things about the book.  Okholm does an very good job of explaining the usefulness of various disciplines that are in the Rule such as stability, silence, balance in life, obedience, humility, and how we can change the world by being obedient to the call of Jesus.  He gives excellent practical examples of each discipline and how they can help us live a life of intimacy with Christ, and no Protestant should have a problem with any of what he says.

               Okholm has done a good job of showing that the Rule can be useful to Protestants, even if they may be hesitant about the underlying theology, but the underlying theology can be corrected.  Dallas Willard has shown in his numerous books that spiritual disciplines are not contrary to a life of grace, but actually aid us in living out that divine kind of life, and I think something like that can be done with the Rule and Okholm move us in that direction.   The church needs good teaching on discipleship, and tools to show people how to put Gospel truths into practice.  I think writers like Okholm, Foster, and Willard are doing just that.

               This book should be recommended to people who have been in the faith for a while, and have a good theological understanding of the Protestant Reformation.  Once our theology is correct we have much to gain from Saint Benedict, and others in other Christian traditions especially in the practical life.