Dr Greg Bahnsen - Political Ethics: Function of the State - Law, Justice & Welfare Theory (Part 3)

Again, we have been considering the transformational need for a Christian political stance. I want to turn my attention now to some of the major issues in present day Christian political theory. And there are going to be three particular questions that we ask ourselves, and it's going to take quite a while to explore these. So let me just tell you in advance what the outline is going to look like. We're going to be asking what is the proper function of the state?

Secondly, what is the place of the.

State in the ordering of creation? And thirdly, what is God's will for the state? Or where is Christ politically working today? And I'd like to give you a survey of the various options that are available in answer to these three different questions that summarize but do not exhaust the major issues in present day Christian political theory. There was a time once, long ago, up until about the 1930s, when one knew what the Catholic, the Reformed, the Lutheran, the Anabaptist, the Anglo Saxon Evangelical and the liberal traditions would each say to questions like what is the nature of the state? How does it fit into the order of creation? And what is God's will for the state? Each of the main Christian traditions had worked out its views on the state and built up its rejoinders to those of the others. Each had marshaled its claims to biblical support and its rebuttals of the claims of others. But that stalemate has obviously now been upset. The comfortable equilibrium that was once seen between the various views, Christian views of the state has really been taken away. There are. There's a crossing of lines, a mingling of points of view, a breakdown of traditional ideologies. And I think there are a lot of reasons for this shifting of positions and this mingling of outlook, two of which perhaps are worthy of being called to your attention. When the Christian community came into the 20th century, it did so with a rather firm belief that each and every state is ordained by God for man's good, and that in that sense we are under obligation to obey them for the sake of conscientious support of their repression of evil and their good. Now, there are always going to be, and there always were disagreements concerning the limits of one's duty to obey. But those disagreements were, up until the 20th century, somewhat speculative because nobody actually proposed civil disobedience. Nobody proposed an act of disobedience to the government. The Anabaptists continued to say that Christians should not actively participate in the functioning of the state. But at the turn of the century, the Anabaptists were fairly quiet and you found the Anabaptist tradition pretty much tucked away in backwaters, cultural backwaters like the Lancaster county of Pennsylvania and that sort of thing. The only issue that was still being discussed with vigor was what is that good which the state should perform? Or on the other hand, what is the evil that the state should be thwarting? Well, that was at the turn of the century, but things have changed greatly since then. We've seen Auschwitz and Vietnam and Korea and collapse of our economic dreams and the breakdown of the Great Society and civil disobedience and the counterculture. Well, it just seems that political events in our own century have forced us to become all the more realistic about some of these traditional questions. The kind of we can take it as it is attitude toward matters of the state has been destroyed. That's the first reason why I think there's been a breakdown of the traditional lines of Christian thought, Catholic, Anabaptist, Reform, Lutheran and so forth, is in a breakdown and a mingling of these. And the second reason why we see a more fluid situation around us in terms of Christian reflection on politics is because of new biblical studies that have been introduced.

And.

I suppose one important area of new biblical study that has been introduced has to do with the New Testament teaching concerning the powers. The powers, those elements of reality which according to many New Testament scholars, though created by God, continue in demonic fashion to enslave men even though they are on the way to being overcome by Jesus Christ. There's a teaching in the New Testament concerning angels and principalities and rulers of this present age, powers and thrones and dominions and so forth, which once seemed on the periphery of New Testament teaching and doctrine and somewhat harmless out there, but now been brought right into the heart of reflection on the political situation. And people aren't beginning to wonder if these supreme powers don't really hold the key to the ontological side of our cultural situation. If these powers that are spoken of by the New Testament writers don't teach us something about the proper Christian attitude toward the state, if we understand what Paul says about the proper powers, that we get some direction on our view of the state. I think other studies, however, have more within the Reformed and Evangelical camps tended to force a realignment and a restudy of opinions. And although it may seem a bit self serving to make this reference, I don't believe that it can really be avoided. And that's the studies that have come out of more Puritan oriented, Calvinistic, Reformed analyses of society, the state and ethics. Chalcedon sorts of distinctives, if you will, have really made a big difference around us. Not everybody likes what those calciton distinctives are, but it seems like everybody wants to talk about them. And so there's been a lot of rethinking there. And interestingly, we see people that you wouldn't expect to be interested in the Calvinist view of society, interested in the Calvinist view of society, even though they may be Pentecostalist or what have you. So there is an intermingling, a mixing of thinking and ideologies. It's come about because of new studies in our century, studies of the powers or studies with respect to the law of God. The shifting of old familiar positions induced by our Sad experience in 20th century politics and brought about by new biblical studies in the areas of the powers and the law and so forth has given a lot of people a feeling of insecurity because the traditional guideposts have been taken down. And there's a reticence, as we know, not cut and dry and easy to discuss these matters, to get into the field of study at all. But we obviously are not being true to our calling as servants of Jesus Christ in this world. If we were to allow that reticence to overcome us. The shifting of positions in our world is really a great opportunity for us. It's a great opportunity to get a hearing where we wouldn't have been heard before, where a Lutheran would say, no, no, you Calvinists have your outlook, but we Lutherans have always said this, and Pentecostalists who have said this is our attitude toward culture in the state. Therefore, I wouldn't buy a Calvinist book on the subject. Well, that's all changing. And that means that there's room for growth, also means that there's room for the Reformed churches to lose ground. I mean, there's opportunity for that to happen. So there's a great responsibility that's upon us and a great opportunity presented to us to work out a Christian doctrine of the state. And I don't think, especially as a post millennialist and somebody who believes in the sovereignty of God, I don't think that it's unrealistic to hope that perhaps all the shifting of opinions and this upheaval and controversy might not provoke a more common position toward the state on the part of Christians. Whether it will happen in our lifetime or in our grandchildren's lifetime, it seems to me that the problems in the world around us and the biblical studies that are being advanced are going to bring about a consensus, a greater consensus anyway, as to what Christians should say about the state and about its proper ethic and God's will for it. And people are going to have to choose not so much between these various brands of Christian options toward the state, but between what the Christian view of the state is and what all the other humanist views of the state are. So I hope that this turmoil that we're in today might I trust it will work out for a better situation in the end. Now, the basic issue which political events in our century have posed to Christians is not really the question which candidate should we support or which legislative programs should we promote. The basic issue today is that of the nature of the state itself, itself and its place in God's ordering of creation, and then what God's will for the state is. It's because of our disagreements on those types of questions that there's confusion about who to vote for and what programs to support. Our experience has made the nature of the state, its place in creation and God's will for it a really practical question for all of us. And that's why, if we're going to be looking at a Christian view of the state, political ethics this week, we need to put at the very center of all of our discussion, as practical as we want to get. We need to first of all, look at the theories that are involved from which we can develop a consistent and coherent position. Okay, we're going to be asking ourselves, what is it? What features are necessary? What complex of features are necessary if something is going to be called a properly formed state? A properly formed state. That's a normative question. We're asking what is required from the standpoint of norms, ethical norms, for something to be recognized as a state. Now we're going to be reflecting on the nature of the state.

Even though.

We are facing in our culture, round about us, pressing issues. And I'm concerned because so many people say we don't have time for this sort of discussion. The battle is raging out there and we need to get involved in the battle. We can't take time to discuss these theoretical and normative issues. And indeed, many political theorists, even those who have to teach these issues in university settings, would scorn our talk of properly formed state. They'd say, well, look, being gent, asking normative questions is for the birds. Might makes right. And the fact is you've got a state out there that's doing things and you've got to get involved in it. But in this course, our primary concern is going to be with a reformed perspective on the state, a distinctive outlook.

A distinctive ideology that we should have.

And then from that principle, from that platform, we'll be able to work towards specific issues. We won't score normative questions or theoretical questions, even though we always will. Keep in mind that the battle is raging and that we have to have as our ultimate goal the development of concrete answers, specific programs to deal with the problems around us. I don't believe, nevertheless, there's anything absurd or ethereal about asking questions of theory. And for that reason, without embarrassment, we'll launch into discussion of normative and theoretical questions. What would all Christians agree upon when it comes to the matter of the state? Well, I think they would all say states are institutions and that while they are God ordained institutions, they are institutions brought into actuality by men. They don't grow naturally like trees and flowers and that sort of thing. And they aren't part of the natural world in a physical way, like rocks and all the rest. Rather, states come into existence through the activity of human beings. And not only are states institutions actualized by men, they are governmental institutions. They comprise a structure of governing and governed. There isn't a state unless you have, if you will, the chief and the Indian. There's got to be a relationship between those who govern and those who are governed. There must be a relationship between authorities and subjects. Okay, so what we've stated so far is that states are actualized by men as governmental institutions. And we can add now that they are historical governmental institutions. They are not like families foundational to the whole pattern of human historical development, but rather arise within the course of human history. They are elements of human culture appearing at certain points in the development of human societies. So they are governmental or governing institutions, historical governing institutions. And they are territorial historical governing institutions. To each state belongs an area, a plot of ground over which inhabitants the state in question has the power of the sword. Now, the power of the sword is a metaphor that points to the fact that states are not only governmental institutions which make demands over certain people, but. But they back up those demands with coercive power. So what is the state? It's an institution, a governing institution, a historical governing institution over certain people, over a certain territory that backs up its governing with coercive power. The state does not permit its members the choice of resigning from membership if they don't wish to obey. The subjects of a given state are those people over whom the state makes its demands and over whom it is effective in backing up those demands with power, coercive power, and the territory which belongs to the state is then that area over whose inhabitants the state has this power of the sword, and thus having a certain territory which belongs to it, A state is strikingly different from the Church. We might add here that the subjects of the state should be distinguished from the citizens of the state. The subjects of a given state are those who inhabit a territory belonging to the state. And different from these are the state citizens who comprise the body politics. So that if, if you are living in France, for instance, you may be a subject of the state of France, but you may not be a citizen who votes and has other political privileges. So we have said that a state is a governing institution that comes into historical existence at some time over a certain territory and wields coercive power over its subjects. Notice especially that in this definition or characterization of the state that one's subjection to the state is not a voluntary matter. We're not looking upon subjection to the state as something you choose. One can become a subject of a different state by moving to a different state, from the United States to France, for instance. But we are all born subjects of the state. We are born into subjection to a state somewhere. And that makes the state almost unique among other institutions, historical institutions of man. It's no longer possible today to escape being the subject of some state, state or territory or other, because there are no longer any unclaimed lands. The combination of the fact that one is subject to a certain state just by virtue of dwelling within its territory, with the fact that all states have the power of the sword over their subjects may trouble the Christian. But what is the place of this non voluntary, coercive institution in God's order? How should we who belong to Christ's kingdom participate in this coercive, involuntary state? What place does it have? Well, that leads us then to the beginning of our questions and away from what Christians hold in common. We now have to start examining the questions themselves. What we've said up to this point is that certain things are held in common by Christians. That states are institutions, that they are governing institutions, that they are historical, that they are territorial and that they are coercive. So you have to get all five of those characterizations in there if you want to properly describe what Christians might all say about the state. Now, Christian thinkers have also believed that certain proper functions belong to the nature of the state. And it's just there that disagreements begin to arise. While we may all hold that the proper function of the state is set by God, we all disagree. It seems as to what the nature of that function is. But after you get through all the surface disagreements and the vocabulary differences, if you will, I think there are three basic views on the matter as to the nature of the state. There are three basic views that have been set forth and defended by various Christian thinkers, especially in the 20th century. These are the options that seem most relevant to the Christian community as a whole today. And often enough, people don't have a very clear view of the proper function of the state and consequently hold inconsistent views on the subject. You may hear elements in all three of the views that I'm going to point out here that you like. It may strike you that, well, that sounds good, a little bit of that and a little bit of this. But of course, they are inconsistent views. And people in our society and Christian church often sort out these three strands and keep them separate and understand their relationship as background. It might be convenient to have before us perhaps the medieval traditional Catholic view of Thomas Aquinas. For the three contemporary views that I've been talking about are going to be developed in opposition to the Thomistic view. They're going to be developed in opposition to some feature or a set of features of the traditional view held by Aquinas. In the Middle Age, there was the concept of the Corpus Christianum. The Corpus Christianum where Christians were willing to force the faith on society and require even of unwilling members, conformity to the matters of the faith. And so the Corpus Christianum of the Middle Ages did not allow for any form of religious pluralism. Society was forced into the mold of the Church, the Roman Catholic Church. According to Aquinas, man is to be defined as a social and political animal. A social and political animal. I hope this reminds you of our lectures on Natural law and our lectures on teleology from our previous course. Aquinas says man is a social and political animal. And what he had in mind by that was that existence in society is necessary if man's created nature is to find fulfillment. Existence in society is the necessary context for man finding fulfillment. Man is a social creature, as Aquinas said, destined more than other animals to live in community. Man is a social creature destined to live in community. Moreover, Aquinas argued that no society can't exist unless there is some government within that society, that is, unless someone has care for the common good of the society, and others render to that person obedience. So man is not only a social creature, but because society can't exist without a leader, man must also thereby be a political creature. Man is a Social, social and a political creature. Now, within every body politic, there is going to be a fabric of institutions. And Aquinas thinks of the state as part of such a fabric, as one of the institutions of the body politics. To explain which part it has, however, we must distinguish between religious matters and secular matters. In the view of Thomas Aquinas, the concern of the state is wholly with secular matters. Religious matters belong within the competence obviously, of the Church. The state is that institution within the body politic that deals with secular matters, and it is the topmost institution. There are other institutions in the state, Aquinas said, that may deal with matters of the world, matters outside of religion and the church. But highest of all, topmost of all, among all these secular institutions is the institution of the state. This institution is the one having supreme authority, and all other institutions are subordinate to the state. The proper function of this supreme institution, this supreme secular governing institution, the proper function of this part of the institutional fabric is the care for the common good, that is, for the secular good of the body politic as a whole. And the state cares for the common common good by ordering those other social institutions which are subordinate to it. If the state governs these other institutions in the proper way, then this will bring about the common good. Now, from the vantage point of 20th century political realities and experience, perhaps the most striking feature of the medieval view of the state, Corpus Christianum view of the state, the state is topmost of the secular institutions tending toward the common good, is that Aquinas set so few limits to the tendency toward totalitarianism in the state. There doesn't seem that Aquinas has set up very many safeguards against the state moving in a totalitarian direction. Well, we've seen that Aquinas does say the proper function of the state is limited to secular matters. He does want to put some limit on it. And he does say that within the domain of the secular, the proper function of the state is limited to the common good of the general body politics. So, I mean, he does say the state must be secular in its outlook and must take concern for the common good. But within the domain of the secular common good, as that's been defined, as the proper domain of the state, within that domain of the secular common good, the state may properly act wherever it deems such action to be conducive to the common good. Now, Aquinas would probably say that the state is not competent to make medical decisions, decisions, or educational decisions, or economic decisions. But he would have to say in terms of his theory of the state, that if the state does engage in medical decisions, educational decisions, economic decisions, that it would not be doing anything contrary to its proper nature, that it would not become, in virtue of entering into these domains, a malformed state state. So I'm not saying that Aquinas believed in a totalitarian state. What I'm saying is a totalitarian state.

As we would understand it, one that.

Is making decisions in all these areas of life, the kind of state that we see developing around us, that has medical restrictions on Laetril and that decrees that children must go to public schools and determines certain economic policy instead of allowing the market to be free, this kind of a state is not doing anything contrary to its proper nature. On Aquinas view, a totalitarian state, let's remember, is not necessarily a state that.

Always brings about evil results.

A totalitarian state isn't always one, if you will, is oppressive and is persecuting people and doing things which brings pain to people. A totalitarian state may pass laws which are good laws, and it may, for the most part, administer justice in a fair and even way. However, biblical reflection, along with the experience that we've all had in the 20th century, should suffice to convince us as contemporary Christian thinkers in the realm of politics, that a state that is so near totalitarian as the theory of Aquinas would allow, is inherently misguided, that it's wrong, that that is not what the state should be. Contemporary Christian political theories, therefore, can all be viewed as an attempt to forge, in opposition to the comprehensive scope of the Thomistic theory, another view of the proper function of the state. All of these views, the three that I'm going to lay out for you, have tried to formulate limits to the state to structure right into the state. The theory of the state restraints on what it can, restraints that might be structurally comparable to those limits set by Aquinas himself with respect to religious matters and the common good, and so forth. I'm not saying the three views we're going to be looking at completely differ with Aquinas. Some of them may simply build piggyback on Aquinas and try to add more ad hoc qualifications in that all of them are in one way or another dealing with this medieval view, the Thomistic view of the state. They want to form a theory in which the proper function of the state is confined to a definite domain within the common good. They have not been content modern theorizers about the function of the state from.

The vantage point of 20th century political realities and experience. Perhaps the most striking feature of the medieval view of the state, the Corpus Christianum view of the state, the state is topmost of the secular institutions standing toward the common good, is that Aquinas set so few limits to the tendency toward totalitarianism in the state. There doesn't seem that Aquinas has set up very many safeguards against the state moving in a totalitarian direction. Well, we've seen that Aquinas does say the proper function of the state is limited to secular matters. He does want to put some limit on it. And he does say that within the domain of the secular, the proper function of the state is limited to the common good of the general politicians. The state must be secular in its outlook and must take concern for the common good. But within the domain of the secular common good, okay, as that's been defined as the proper domain of the state, within that domain of the secular common good, the state may properly act wherever it deems such action to be conducive to the common good. Now, Aquinas would probably say that the state is not competent to make medical decisions or educational decisions or economic decisions. But he would have to say, in terms of his theory of the state, that if the state does engage in medical decisions, educational decisions, economic decisions, that it would not be doing anything contrary to its proper nature, that it would not become, in virtue of entering into these domains, a malformed state. Okay? So I'm not saying that Aquinas believed in a totalitarian state. What I'm saying is a totalitarian state, as we would understand it, one that is making decisions on all these areas of life, the kind of state that we see developing around us, that has medical restrictions on Laetril and that decrees that children must go to public schools and determines certain economic policy instead of.

Allowing the market to be free.

This kind of a state is not doing anything contrary to its proper nature, on Aquinas view, a totalitarian state, remember, it's not necessarily a state that always brings about evil results. A totalitarian state isn't always one that, if you will, is oppressive and is persecuting people and doing things which brings pain to people. A totalitarian state may pass laws which are good laws, and it may, for the most part, administer justice in a.

Fair and even way.

However, biblical reflection, along with the experience that we've all had in the 20th century, should suffice to convince us as contemporary Christian thinkers in the realm of politics, that a state that is so near totalitarian, as the theory of Aquinas would allow, is inherently misguided that it's wrong that that is not what the state should be. Contemporary Christian political theories, therefore, can all be viewed as an attempt to forge, in opposition to the comprehensive scope of the Thomistic theory, another view of the proper function of the state. All of these views, the three that.

I'm going to lay out for you.

Have tried to formulate limits to the state, to structure right into the state the theory of the state, restraints on what it can do, restraints that might be structurally comparable to those limits set by Aquinas himself with respect to religious matters and the common good, and so forth. I'm not saying the three views we're going to be looking at completely differ with Aquinas. Some of them may simply build piggyback on Aquinas and try to add more ad hoc qualifications in.

But all of them are in one.

Way or another dealing with this medieval view, the Thomistic view of the state.

They want to form a theory in.

Which the proper function of the state is confined to a definite domain within the common good. They have not been content, modern theorizers about the function of the state, not been content to say that the state differs from all other institutions concerned with the common good in that, except for the Church, it is the topmost institution. They wanted to say, no, this institution concerned with the common good has a definite domain, and it must pay attention to that domain and no other. So let's then look at the three views that have been developed over against the medieval view that I've been describing. The most comprehensive of the contemporary theories is the view that might be called the law, justice and welfare view of the proper function of the state. We're asking ourselves the question, what is the proper function of the state? And the first view I'm going to look at is the view of Jacques Maritaine, the Roman Catholic philosopher. Maritaine holds the view that the state is interested in law, justice and welfare. Then a second view that we'll be looking at is the view represented by Carl Henry, that the state is interested.

In law and order.

And then thirdly, the view of Amil Bruner and Herman Dolliverd, that the state is interested in law and social justice. But the first view is the most comprehensive of the three, the view that says the state is interested in law, justice and welfare. This view is most characteristically found among Catholics and liberal Protestants. The view of Catholics and liberal Protestants is the state's proper job is that of law, justice and welfare. And this is the view of Jacques Maritaine, the Catholic philosopher, and we'll be using Mauritain as our specific illustration of the view. Mauritan vigorously argues the point that a well ordered body politic will not be a collection of individuals having just one important institution, the state. Rather, it will, to a high degree be what he calls a pluralistic society. His own words describe well what he has in mind when he says the body politic contains in its superior unity a multiplicity of particular societies which proceed from the free initiative of citizens and should be as autonomous as possible. Such is the element of pluralism inherent in every truly political society. Family, economic, cultural, educational, religious life matter as much as does political life to the very existence and prosperity of the body politic. Every kind of law, from the spontaneous, unformulated group regulations to customary law and to law in the full sense of the term, contributes to the vital order of political society. Finally, the public welfare and the general order of law are essential parts of the common good of the body politic. But this common good has far larger and richer, more concretely human implications. Maritime says that on page 11 of his book man and the State, published in 1951, man and the State, page 11. In short, a well ordered body politic will have within it a large number of institutions, each of which has its own distinct domain of proper functioning. Okay, so the body politic then is made up of a bunch of individual units, and each one has its proper.

Domain, its proper function.

Now, where is the state in this array of institutions? What is the proper function of the state? Marathain's answer seems to be that the state has a three fold proper function. For one thing, it is the state's proper function to regulate the activities of the members of the body politic, both individuals and societies, to regulate these individuals and societies by a system of law based on justice and good order. So the first thing the state does is to regulate by means of a system of law. Secondly, it's the state's proper function actively to promote social justice among its citizens and societies to promote social justice among its citizens and societies. Sometimes, when the basic structures of society are not up to the mark with regard to justice, the state may itself have to step in and provide benefits of one sort and another. But that is malformation. In general, it is the proper function of the state to actively promote the satisfaction of the right to education without itself providing the education. So Maritain says, sometimes the state has actually got to do the job of educating. But for the most part, the state should simply encourage and stimulate educational societies so that it can be done voluntarily. Now, the third task of the state, according to Mauritan, is in the area of economics. It's the state's proper function to engage in whatever activities are necessary to secure economic welfare for its members. The economic welfare of its members, therefore, is a proper function of the state and the goal of the state. Maritaine now, in his book man and The State, published 1951, shows us a threefold view of the state's proper function. The state is to regulate by means of a system of law. It is to promote social justice among its citizens. Notice, promote social justice among its citizens, and thirdly, to secure economic welfare. However, even in the realm of economics, we want to note Maritaine wishes to protect his principle of pluralism. He argues that normally it is good policy for the state to promote and support the efforts of business and labor institutions rather than itself to perform the economic functions necessary to the public welfare. Still, he does not hold that the state is necessarily out of place and malformed if, for example, it nationalizes certain industries or provides a guaranteed annual income. So let's understand this. The state would do better to stimulate labor unions and the private sector. But if the state feels that it has to go so far to promote economic welfare as to provide a guaranteed annual income, the state would not be overstepping its bounds in the domain of economic welfare, but only in this domain. It is within the state's proper function to act as a service organization. To act as a service organization. Now, Maritain does believe that false and perverse notions of sovereignty constantly lead modern states to appropriate to themselves functions which do not belong to them and to overstep their proper domains. But he also realizes that the modern state is repeatedly faced with the dilemma of either failing in its duty to promote social justice or in overstepping its proper function and itself becoming a service institution in other than the economic domain. And sometimes the only right choice in such situations, he says, is to do what the state oughtn't to do. Now, does that strike you as sounding.

A bit odd, as making.

Incoherent claims that it's sometimes right to do what's wrong? Maritain says, and I quote here from page 20 of his book, as a matter of fact, this primary duty is inevitably performed with abnormal emphasis on the power of the state, to the very extent that the latter has to make up for the deficiencies of a society whose basic structures are not sufficiently up to the mark with regard to justice, Those deficiencies are the first cause of the trouble, and thus any Theoretical objections or particular claims, even justified in their own particular spheres, will inevitably be considered as but minor things in the face of the vital necessity, necessity, not only.

Factual but moral, of meeting the long.

Neglected wants and rights of the human person in the deepest and largest strata of the human society. But the dilemma is a hard one. For the risk that the state incurs in overstepping its proper function so as to answer this call for social justice is that it will become totalitarian. Maricane says page 21 continues, not only supervising from the political point of view of the common good, which is normal, but directly organizing, controlling or managing, to.

The extent which it judges the interest.

Of public welfare, to demand all forms, economic, commercial, industrial, cultural, or dealing with scientific research, as well as with relief and security, all forms of the body, politics, life. The main question that must be put to the law, justice and welfare view of the state is the main question that we have to ask of Mauritan is why should the service function of the state be limited to economic welfare? Isn't that limitation purely arbitrary? What is it that is fundamentally different between the sphere of economics and, say, the sphere of art? What is it that makes it right for the state to provide economic welfare, but not right for the state to directly enter into the affairs and commerce of the artist? Why is the one all right for the state to overtake, but not the other? And I don't believe that Maritaine has an answer to that question. The attempt to give a theoretical safeguard against the totalitarian state proves, at least in Merrittane's version of the law, justice and welfare view, to have no structural basis. And I think that is characteristic of others who write in the same tradition as Mauritania. There is no structural basis for saying the state can overtake welfare, but it can't overtake the realm of artistic development? It's just characteristic of those who hold this view of the state of law, justice and welfare. It's characteristic of them that they have no principle to offer in objection to the state's service institution and other domains of law life besides the economic domain. There is no principle, no rationale that can be given for why the state can involve itself in one area as a service institution, but not another. And so there is no principle to offer an objection to the state becoming totalitarian. The chief task for anyone attracted to this view would be to try to come up with just that kind of principle. So that when we say the state can go this far but no further.

That doesn't appear totally arbitrary.

We need a principle that says the state can go only this far. And that principle is not evident in Mauritan's book or others who have written in this vein. You see, as it's been said by somebody once, a logical locomotive doesn't stop just because somebody screams. A logical locomotive doesn't stop just because somebody screams. Now, if Mauritiyne's view is heading down the track toward the state becoming totalitarian, and logically, that is, in terms of the principles and concepts of this system of thought, there is nothing to keep that view from becoming totalitarian. The fact that people scream we don't want a totalitarian government is not going to stop them, that logical locomotive from reaching its destination.

You need something more than we don't want that outcome.

We don't want that consequence and result to be brought about by this theory. You need something much more than that.

If you're going to keep the theory.

From actually producing totalitarian states. Why is it that the state can become a service institution and in the realm of economics, but the state may not enter into other domains and provide services or direct in the same way?

Without an answer to that question, there.

Is no logical barrier to the state becoming totalitarian.

And if there's no logical barrier to.

The state becoming totalitarian, then in fact.

We are no better off than we.

Were in the medieval concept of Thomas Aquatic in the Corpus Christianum idea of the state. What questions would you like to ask about this first option? The law, justice and welfare view of the state? Any questions? Yes.

Is Martinez a responsible for a lot of churchmen, whether Catholic or Protestant, maintaining Marxist stated views? I'm sure Mauritan would be an adamant.

Anti Marxist, but again, I think his theory plays right into the hands of Marxism. And I think that's an accurate observation since Mauritania doesn't have a principal limit on what the state can do, and since the state is specifically charged with.

Economic welfare, then the Marxists who have.

A totalitarian view of the state centered.

On economic welfare as their main concern.

Could easily make use of this as a stepping stone to their ultimate ends. And I believe that has in fact.

Happened where the modern liberal opinion of.

The state represented by maritime right. Isn't this basically liberalism that we've been talking about where that view has been maintained? In Europe especially, you'll find that the state, those parties that have maintained this theory, have gravitated toward or have become Marxist parties? Well, of course he thinks Marxism, because of its atheistic tendencies and because it doesn't restrain the state, would be an evil thing. We must learn to distinguish in the development of a system of thought between what the system says and what the system permits. And Maritain himself would not want Marxism, but his system permits it, is what.

I would, you know, point out.

And what we're looking for is on what principle would he himself use his own system to criticize Marxism? What principle could he have to say, we go this far, but not as far as Marxism with respect to the state. He would also, I think, in a rather obvious way, oppose Marxism, because the ultimate goal is to have the state wither away. The Marxists want to destroy the state finally through the historical dialectic and revolution. But Mauritan believes that the state is a God ordained institution and therefore should not wither. So he has a view of the state that says it is proper, but it should do so much.

It goes much further than I'd want it to go.

He says it's all right to go this far, but no further. And the Communists would say no, the.

State can go even further than that.

And become totalitarian and ultimately wither away.

Maritaine, I believe he has died, but now you give me a good question. Gilsone and Mauritan were the two big.

Names in Roman Catholic philosophy and philosophical theology through the 50s and 60s. And I've lost track as to who is still alive or not. I believe he has passed away. Mauritan would think it's. The question is, would Mauritan approve of.

The welfare state we have today?

I think Mauritan would approve of it because the welfare state is in fact the child of the liberal view of the state that he has enunciated. He may add this qualification, this proviso that it would be better if we could achieve the same ends through the state, stimulating the private sector to do the same things. However, since the private sector is not, there's nothing at all wrong with the state itself becoming a welfare state. And so he would have to approve of the welfare state maybe not as the best way to do it, but there's certainly nothing wrong with doing things as we're now doing them. That is inherent in the nature of the state, the duty to provide economic welfare. Well, the next view of the state that I'm going to present after we take our break is a view that stands in very strong contrast to the law, justice and welfare view of Mauritan.

And that might be called the law.

And order view of the state. And we're going to find that this is presented fairly ably by Carl Henry, the former editor of Christianity Today. There's going to be the strong contrast then between the law and order view of Henry and the law, justice and.

Welfare view of Jacques Maritaine. And we'll come back to that after we take a break.