Got your attention? Good. While Jonathan Edwards is known primarily for the document noted above, the primary object of his writing was in reality love – specifically agape. This is not just any love, but a love for a fellow human being, and our Creator, simply due to the nature they possess. It is the basis for charity, and the means by which we fulfill our purpose. I will write another article later about charity, but in order to have that discussion we must first understand where we are today – both as individuals and a people – for we have a purpose at each of these levels.
There are two basic philosophies which have opposed each other for several thousand years. They are collectivism and individualism. Collectivism has been around in various forms since man first created kings, and is the basis of the state religion societies that we know from the ancient world – and some modern ones that we know today. Some of its basic tenets are: (1) the State is the lowest level of society which matters, (2) individuals matter only in accordance with their ability to support the State, i.e., they exist to support the State, (3) some individual’s abilities are more important, these are the ones who should rule, and therefore we do not all have an equal nature, (4) our rights come from the State thru the decisions it makes, and (5) citizenship is not for everyone, only those who are deemed important to the State. Some of the basic tenets of individualism, on the other hand, include: (1) the individual is the lowest level of society which matters, (2) we all have the same nature as human beings, and therefore have an innate equality, (3) our rights come from our Creator, (4) citizenship is for all members of a society, and (5) the primary role of the state is to protect those rights by administering the virtue of justice, in other words the state exists to protect and serve its people.
As to our purpose, we have as individuals been given the gift of free choice – the ability to make decisions using our free will. This is freedom, and without it we cannot fulfill our purpose. Individualism is the only societal form which supports fulfilling our purpose as it allows us to make our own decisions, subject to the constraint of not harming another – which is where human governance comes into play. It is that ability to make our own decisions which allows us to grow and mature – to become better than we are today. Collectivism attempts to stifle that ability as many, if not most, decisions are made by the State. Per the Roman general Scipio, in order to be a people there must be both a mutually recognized set of rights, and a mutual commitment to support the common good. As collectivism is based upon the recognition of group rights (i.e., some are more equal than others), it is not possible to be a people using Scipio’s definition as the conditions simply do not exist. Further discussions of these two philosophies and their relationship to our purpose can be found on the Living Rightly web-site.
For a quick example of a collectivist approach, we can look at our War on Poverty. No one can doubt that attempting to eliminate poverty is a bad thing, indeed it is a laudable goal. But since this program's inception in the 1960s, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and today there are more people in poverty than before the program began – both in terms of the number of people and percentage of the total population receiving assistance. Additionally, before the War on Poverty, the percentage of people in poverty within America was already decreasing on its own. However, after this program started, that progress slowed, and eventually halted. In some cases we now have third generation families whose primary means of existence is the reliance on government programs. The War on Poverty is not inculcating independence, but is instead breeding dependence. It is relinquishing some of one’s rights in return for a form of economic security – and a form of economic slavery as these programs often turn from the safety nets they were intended to be into safety webs, where often there is an adverse incentive for leaving, and in fact a person may be economically punished for becoming more independent.
The preceding approach to solving problems is an outcome of what Augustine wrote about inThe City of God. He described two societies, one oriented toward our Creator and the other toward man. The second society is indicative of one which has turned away from its Creator, and instead has focused itself on man. It is man in an autonomous state, which leads him to using the world for his own enjoyment - to vice. In the end, it is that simple – a matter of virtue and vice. Virtue benefits society, while vice disrupts – and may even destroy it. At the individual level, paraphrasing Augustine, the dominion of good men is profitable, not so much for themselves as for all of society. But the dominion of bad men primarily hurts themselves, for they destroy their own souls; while those they rule are only hurt by their own vices. For those who practice good all the evils imposed on them by unjust rulers are not punishment, but the test of virtue. Therefore the man of virtue, even if he is a slave, is free; while the man of vice, even if he reigns, is a slave, and not simply the slave of one man, but, what is far more hurtful, he is a slave to as many masters as he has vices.
And what about the level of being a people? This is where Edward’s writing enters the picture. The following passages are from his work The State of Public Affairs. Although written over two hundred and seventy five years ago, it could just as well have been written today. In describing the state of the Massachusetts colony of his day, Edwards echoed Augustine in his description of two possibilities,
Edwards states that the cause of Massachusetts unsettled state of affairs is ‘by a land’s “having many princes” . . . often changing its princes, often changing the persons governing and the forms of government that it is under.’ That the calamity is the result of ‘the state of public affairs of a land being in a changeable posture, whereby a people are exposed to lose their rights, privileges, and public blessing which they enjoy by virtue of the present establishment.’
This change occurs because:
This state of affairs is not the sole result of the rulers themselves, because the rulers are a reflection of the condition of the people they govern. If we do not like what we see, or the path that we are on, then we must change ourselves. Do we watch that next episode of Survivor, or do we turn on Rudolph, The Miracle on 34th Street, or a movie on the Hallmark channel? Do we become absorbed in video games, tweeting, and texting; or do we spend time with family and friends? Do we help another, or help ourselves? As we experience this Christmas season, my hope is that we will each pause to reflect how we are living, the decisions that we make, and what it is that we advocate and support. It is a season of miracles and renewal. I wish you Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, or even Happy Winter Solstice. May you find peace, growth, and strength in the coming year.
