If I were asked to recommend a book on political theology, and I could only recommend one, it would be this one. It’s a great introduction yet it avoids being shallow or conclusory. One of the main features that sets this book apart is its breakdown of the many political philosophies from a biblical perspective, without resorting to caricatures or straw men. Koyzis persuasively shows that each of the current political ideologies are defective (some more than others) and that a Christian must look elsewhere in searching for a system to ground his political thought. For all of these systems locate their ultimate authority in something other than God. “Christians understand that God is God and that individuals, nations, states, economic classes, and so forth are radically dependent on him for their very existence. They are creatures and he is Creator.” This must have an impact on politics.
For Koyzis, Abraham Kuyper’s sphere sovereignty/neo-Calvinism is the best articulation or a Christian political philosophy (he also points to the Roman Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity as another option that recognizes the sovereignty of God ). This book does not provide a comprehensive discussion of Kuyper’s political philosophy and it leaves several questions left unanswered, but it does a great job of laying the groundwork.
After analyzing the various ideologies, Koyzis develops the case for a uniquely Christian view of the state, one that “transcends the ideologies”. He does this first by stating the need for Christians to address themselves to the public square. “God created humankind is his one image (Gen. 1:26-27)...Humans are cultural beings who, in the normal course of living, cultivate or develop the world around them.” We have been given a cultural mandate, to fill the earth and subdue it (Gen. 1:28). Although we are fallen and sinful, Jesus came to redeem us from sin and death, and in so doing He redeems “the whole range of human cultural activities”, including political life. Though some call for Christians to separate from the world and politics, or for treating the two as separate kingdoms, in doing so “they effectively narrow the scope of redemption and fundamentally alter its relationship to both sin and creation.” And besides, it is an impossible task—“[w]e are inescapably part of creation” and we “continue to shape culture, even when [we] have supposedly withdrawn from it.”
Next, he addresses common objections and the problem of pluralism. He shows the necessity of understanding God and his will for the world prior to effecting political change. Scripture is a vital part of this task of understanding our world and man’s place in it. “[W]hen God tells us that we are to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with [our] God’ (Mic. 6:8), he is asking us to live as we are created to live.” How then should we love politically? To begin with, [a nonidolatrous approach to society and politics] properly and unquestionably acknowledges the sovereignty of God over the whole of life and his plan for redeeming his fallen creation through Jesus Christ.” But, some say, not everyone believes in God as Christians do. That is true. “This suggests that the one nonidolatrous alternative left is a kind of pluralism that spurns the reductive monism of the idoleogies. Indeed, if God is sovereign, then any attempt to locate an earthly sovereignty...is rooted in nothing less than a false religion.” Here we see the religious nature of liberalism and secularism, which Koyzis has unmasked earlier in the book.
The difficulty for Christians is to develop a consistent system that balances the need for freedom of conscience and religious liberty, while also maintaining that God is sovereign over all of life, even politics. On this topic, Koyzis does not say all there is to be said, but he does make a start. He provides the Christian with the necessary framework by giving several helpful distinctions. First, he notes that “[t]his is a question of justice—not of final justice, to be sure, but of penultimate justice well short of what God will accomplish on the last day. Such penultimate justice means that even if we disagree with others on basic issues concerning the nature of the world, our place within it, and our responsibility to God and to others, we are obligated to protect their freedom to believe and, to a large extent, to live out their beliefs in their daily lives.” This is not motivated by “indifference or skepticism toward our own ultimate beliefs but out of a recognition that in the present age, in [Lesslie] Newbegin’s words, God wills to provide a space and time for people freely to give their allegiance to his kingdom. The state this refrains from prematurely foreclosing on this divinely permitted freedom. This implies tolerance of religious diversity between the times.”
Second, he clarifies that such religious tolerance is “limited.” Meaning, no human sacrifices. But more particularly, this limitation recognizes that though “directional diversity” (spiritual pluralism) is important “it does not mean that all battles come to an end; it does mean that such battles are waged peacefully through proper, constitutionally based procedures.” So, for instance, the issue of abortion is not dissolved because of pluralism. The Christian has warrant to fight for truth and for justice as he knows it, even though the spirit of the age says that his biblical beliefs should not be forced on to others who do not hold to Christian teachings.
Third, tolerance is not only limited but “it must also be understood to be a normed tolerance governed by principles appropriate to specific communal context.” So the state rightly allows for religious diversity but the institutional church does not. Tolerance must be understood in context, and not subjected to a general rule applicable across the board.”
After discussing what may be called principled pluralism, Koyzis moves on the heart of the “nonideological alternative”. He first discusses the Roman Catholic approach and then contrasts it with the Reformed view developed by John Calvin and Johannes Althusius, which saw the state not as underneath the church but as separate from the church while still being directly under God. Kuyper’s political ideas spring from the Reformed view of the state, but he made several important contributions to Reformed political thought, three of which are primary: (1) his view of antithesis, (2) his view of common grace, and (3) the doctrine of sphere sovereignty or differentiated responsibility. On this third point, Koyzis summarizes its most important implications: “that (1) ultimate sovereignty belongs to God alone, (2) all earthly sovereignties are subsidiary to God’s sovereignty, and (3) there is no penultimate locus of sovereignty in this world from which others are derivative.” This means that society is, by God’s design, “pluriform and consists of a variety of responsible agents, both communal and individual, whose legitimate range of activity is rooted immediately in God’s sovereignty and which exist within normative limits he has placed on them.”
This also means that the state is delegated authority directly by God and that its task is limited by God. Koyzis spends time arguing for the proper role of the state, which is “to protect the differentiated responsibilities of the various spheres of society, including individuals and communities.” He also qualifies true justice, biblical justice, from the justice that is sought by the other various ideologies. “People seek justice as they understand it.” Once again, we are faced with the impossibility of neutrality. Secularism and unbounded (or misunderstood) religious freedom does not avoid this issue, they merely resolve the dilemma in a way that fails to account for the world in which we live.
Spread throughout the book are several gems that make the book even more interesting, including:
1. Why are Democrats called “liberals” when their policies generally restrict individual freedom?
2. What’s the common tie between classical liberals and modern day liberals?
3. What constitutes a political community? What are its distinctive features and what are it’s boundaries?
4. What role should patriotism play in society?
5. How should we think about the market and the division of labor in society? What are the sources of economic collectivism?
6. What role should the doctrine of popular sovereignty play in government?
7. Does the representative of the people act as a designated head-counter/poller of the popular opinion among his constituents? Does he act as a trustee of the public interest? Or a bearer of principle?
I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in a distinctly Christian approach to politics, and to anyone desiring to bring their Christian beliefs to bear on politics.