caddy
Puritan Board Senior
The State as Idol
Hegel’s idea that the state is God walking on earth is a frank statement of a belief with ancient roots that has never, perhaps, been more widespread than today. It is the conviction, as Ellul says, that the state “is the ultimate value which gives everything its meaning.”
It is a providence of which everything is expected, a supreme power which
Pronounces truth and justice and has the power of life and death over its
Members. It is arbiter which…declares the law, the supreme objective code
On which the whole game of society depends. ( Jacques Ellul, The New Demons 1975, p.80,81 )
Deifying rulers has always been a means of legitimizing their rule. The imperial cult
At Rome began as early as the first century and was intended to solidify the hold of the
Emperors and establish their legitimacy. At first the republican traditions died hard, and when Gaius ( A.D. 37-41 ) spoke openly about being god, there was considerable opposition. By the time Domitian ( 81-96 ), it had become common to address him as dominus et dues, “my Lord and God.” The religious language of patriotism is a similar attempt to lend sacred aura to the mundane. Even officially atheist regimes speak about the sacredness of the motherland and of the cause of communism. So intent was Hobbes to elevate the prerogatives of even the infidel king, that he insisted that for the Christian to disobey him is to disobey the voice of God. (Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan pt. 3, ch 43,p 329.)
The idol state uses the language of compassion because its intention is a messianic one. If finds the masses harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd, needing a savior. Proponents of such a conception are as impatient with government inefficiency as any libertarian; more so, because the libertarian has no divine expectations from the state. Daniel Moynihan, social scientist and U.S. Senator, is furious about the “inexcusably sloppy work” done by federal officials working In the poverty program but is content with their efforts to play God. (Daniel P. Moynihan, Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding, Community Action in the War on Poverty, 1969),p. 168 (“If administrators and politicians are going to play God with others persons’ lives ( and still other persons’ money ), they ought to at least to get clear what the divine intention is to be.”
Conde Pallen’s utopian novel only makes explicit the catechism that the defined state implies:
A. The individual is only a part of the whole, and made for the whole, and
Finds his complete and perfect expression in the Sovereign State.
Individuals are made for cooperation only, like feet, like hands, like eyelids,
Like the rows of the upper and lower teeth.
When Galbraith says that in the power of the state lies our only chance for salvation, he gives us a premier example of what Ellul calls “the new soteriology.” ( Conde Pallen, Crucible Island1919, quoted in Thomas Molnar, Utopia: The Perennial Heresy ( NY: Sheed and Ward, 1967), p. 186.
The Chinese once worshiped the same god, who was expected to save them from all problems. A common proverb was, “We must study the works of Chairman Mao each day. If we miss only one day the problems pile up. If we miss two days we fall back. If we miss three days we can no longer live.” Whether salvation is to be found in the chairman or in the phalanx of experts who direct the machinery, it is only through the application of state wisdom and power that we can be delivered.
Modern messianism resembles the millennial movements that were common in the Middle Ages and into the early modern period. But most of those movements were connected with traditional Christianity and thus never lost the bounded view of humanity that alone can prevent the deification of human institutions. They tended to form sects that were voluntary and communal. In the 18th century, however, messianism became revolutionary, seeking salvation in the complete overturn of society. Since the afterlife was considered a superstitious remnant of more primitive times, secular messianism required that all accounts be settled in the here and now. As Lenin said, the struggle of the proletariat is “to set up heaven on earth.” (J.L. Talmon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy (NY: Putnam, 1938), pp. 14, 54. This return to a pagan conception is prefigured by the apocalyptic vision of the New Testament, which describes as satanic the totalitarian state climbing to bring salvation ( Rev 13 ).
The oft-quoted injunction to render unto Caesar the things of Caesar and unto God the things of God ( Matthew 22:21 ) has lost its edge through repetition. The Pharisees to whom it was addressed were staggered by it because it contradicted one of the assumptions that was basic to the ancient world: the all-encompassing nature of state power. Even Athens at its height conceived of its people as appendages of the state. ( George W Botsford and Charles A. Robinson, Jr., Hellenic History, 4th ed. ( NY: Macmillan, 1956), P. 237: The culture of Athens “rested on belief in the all-comprehensive perfection of the state, to whose good the citizens were to subordinate their individual interests and devote their lives alike in war and peace. See also Herman Dooyeweerd, The Christian Idea of the State ( Nutley, N.J.: Craig Press, 1968), ch. 5.
When the crowd urged the fearful Pilate to execute Jesus, they said: “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend.” That was perfectly true, for Caesar demanded all that a person had; but the belief that there were some things that belonged to God brought the sword to such pretensions. That is why the persecution of Christians was inevitable as long as the state was thought to be all-inclusive.
In the United States, federal tax policy illustrates the government’s unconscious rush to be the god of its citizens. When a provision in the tax laws permits the taxpayer to keep a portion of his money, the Internal Revenue Service calls this a “tax expenditure,” or an “implicit government grant.” This is not tax money that the state has collected and expended but money it has allowed the citizen to keep by not taking it. ( Kenneth E. Boulding and Martin Pfaf, eds., Redistribution to the Rich and the Poor: The Grants Economics of Income Distribution ( Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1972), pp. 169, 1974. Implicit Public Grants Under the Tax System: Some Implications of Federal Tax Aids Accounting,” in Ibid., p. 175. The Treasury currently prefers to identify these implicit grants as tax aids in order to have this designation consistent with public aids.” Martin and Anita Pfaff, “How Equitable are Implicit Public Grants? The Case of the Individual Income Tax,” in Ibid., p. 201: “Under present law implicit public grants provide a vehicle of redistribution to the wealthy.” What the Pfaffs mean is that since the wealthy have more to be taxed and since they are taxed at higher rates under the progressive tax system, loopholes must benefit them more. It is not that the money of other people is given to them, but that less of theirs is taken away. This objection makes sense only under the assumption that everything belongs to the state and an injustice is committed in permitting the prosperous to keep some of what they think is their property.
In other words any money the citizen is permitted to keep is regarded as if the state had graciously given it to him. Everything we have is from the state, to which we owe gratitude. In fact, we are the property of the state, which therefore has the right to the fruit of our labor.
Fletcher comes close to making this point explicitly. In saying that “taxation is stewardship,” he uses, but departs from, the biblical idea that God is the owner of ALL property, and the putative owners under statutory law are really stewards who have the responsibility to exercise control as the owner whishes. His position makes sense only if the state is the lord who is the real owner of everything. The offering formula prayer, “We give thee but thine own,” is a declaration that the steward is only rendering to God what he already possesses legally. The steward is declaring recognition of his stewardship and affirming that his relationship with God is as steward to Lord. But to say that taxation is stewardship is to affirm that the state is the lord to which everything has the status of property. The citizen is transformed thus into servant, supplicant, worshiper.
Hegel’s idea that the state is God walking on earth is a frank statement of a belief with ancient roots that has never, perhaps, been more widespread than today. It is the conviction, as Ellul says, that the state “is the ultimate value which gives everything its meaning.”
It is a providence of which everything is expected, a supreme power which
Pronounces truth and justice and has the power of life and death over its
Members. It is arbiter which…declares the law, the supreme objective code
On which the whole game of society depends. ( Jacques Ellul, The New Demons 1975, p.80,81 )
Deifying rulers has always been a means of legitimizing their rule. The imperial cult
At Rome began as early as the first century and was intended to solidify the hold of the
Emperors and establish their legitimacy. At first the republican traditions died hard, and when Gaius ( A.D. 37-41 ) spoke openly about being god, there was considerable opposition. By the time Domitian ( 81-96 ), it had become common to address him as dominus et dues, “my Lord and God.” The religious language of patriotism is a similar attempt to lend sacred aura to the mundane. Even officially atheist regimes speak about the sacredness of the motherland and of the cause of communism. So intent was Hobbes to elevate the prerogatives of even the infidel king, that he insisted that for the Christian to disobey him is to disobey the voice of God. (Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan pt. 3, ch 43,p 329.)
The idol state uses the language of compassion because its intention is a messianic one. If finds the masses harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd, needing a savior. Proponents of such a conception are as impatient with government inefficiency as any libertarian; more so, because the libertarian has no divine expectations from the state. Daniel Moynihan, social scientist and U.S. Senator, is furious about the “inexcusably sloppy work” done by federal officials working In the poverty program but is content with their efforts to play God. (Daniel P. Moynihan, Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding, Community Action in the War on Poverty, 1969),p. 168 (“If administrators and politicians are going to play God with others persons’ lives ( and still other persons’ money ), they ought to at least to get clear what the divine intention is to be.”
Conde Pallen’s utopian novel only makes explicit the catechism that the defined state implies:
- By whom where you begotten?
- By the Sovereign State.
- Why were you begotten?
- That I might know, love, and serve the Sovereign State always.
- What is the Sovereign State?
- The Sovereign State is humanity in composite and perfect being.
- Why is the Sovereign State supreme?
- The State is supreme because it is my Creator and Conserver in which I am and move and have my being and without which I am nothing.
A. The individual is only a part of the whole, and made for the whole, and
Finds his complete and perfect expression in the Sovereign State.
Individuals are made for cooperation only, like feet, like hands, like eyelids,
Like the rows of the upper and lower teeth.
When Galbraith says that in the power of the state lies our only chance for salvation, he gives us a premier example of what Ellul calls “the new soteriology.” ( Conde Pallen, Crucible Island1919, quoted in Thomas Molnar, Utopia: The Perennial Heresy ( NY: Sheed and Ward, 1967), p. 186.
The Chinese once worshiped the same god, who was expected to save them from all problems. A common proverb was, “We must study the works of Chairman Mao each day. If we miss only one day the problems pile up. If we miss two days we fall back. If we miss three days we can no longer live.” Whether salvation is to be found in the chairman or in the phalanx of experts who direct the machinery, it is only through the application of state wisdom and power that we can be delivered.
Modern messianism resembles the millennial movements that were common in the Middle Ages and into the early modern period. But most of those movements were connected with traditional Christianity and thus never lost the bounded view of humanity that alone can prevent the deification of human institutions. They tended to form sects that were voluntary and communal. In the 18th century, however, messianism became revolutionary, seeking salvation in the complete overturn of society. Since the afterlife was considered a superstitious remnant of more primitive times, secular messianism required that all accounts be settled in the here and now. As Lenin said, the struggle of the proletariat is “to set up heaven on earth.” (J.L. Talmon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy (NY: Putnam, 1938), pp. 14, 54. This return to a pagan conception is prefigured by the apocalyptic vision of the New Testament, which describes as satanic the totalitarian state climbing to bring salvation ( Rev 13 ).
The oft-quoted injunction to render unto Caesar the things of Caesar and unto God the things of God ( Matthew 22:21 ) has lost its edge through repetition. The Pharisees to whom it was addressed were staggered by it because it contradicted one of the assumptions that was basic to the ancient world: the all-encompassing nature of state power. Even Athens at its height conceived of its people as appendages of the state. ( George W Botsford and Charles A. Robinson, Jr., Hellenic History, 4th ed. ( NY: Macmillan, 1956), P. 237: The culture of Athens “rested on belief in the all-comprehensive perfection of the state, to whose good the citizens were to subordinate their individual interests and devote their lives alike in war and peace. See also Herman Dooyeweerd, The Christian Idea of the State ( Nutley, N.J.: Craig Press, 1968), ch. 5.
When the crowd urged the fearful Pilate to execute Jesus, they said: “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend.” That was perfectly true, for Caesar demanded all that a person had; but the belief that there were some things that belonged to God brought the sword to such pretensions. That is why the persecution of Christians was inevitable as long as the state was thought to be all-inclusive.
In the United States, federal tax policy illustrates the government’s unconscious rush to be the god of its citizens. When a provision in the tax laws permits the taxpayer to keep a portion of his money, the Internal Revenue Service calls this a “tax expenditure,” or an “implicit government grant.” This is not tax money that the state has collected and expended but money it has allowed the citizen to keep by not taking it. ( Kenneth E. Boulding and Martin Pfaf, eds., Redistribution to the Rich and the Poor: The Grants Economics of Income Distribution ( Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1972), pp. 169, 1974. Implicit Public Grants Under the Tax System: Some Implications of Federal Tax Aids Accounting,” in Ibid., p. 175. The Treasury currently prefers to identify these implicit grants as tax aids in order to have this designation consistent with public aids.” Martin and Anita Pfaff, “How Equitable are Implicit Public Grants? The Case of the Individual Income Tax,” in Ibid., p. 201: “Under present law implicit public grants provide a vehicle of redistribution to the wealthy.” What the Pfaffs mean is that since the wealthy have more to be taxed and since they are taxed at higher rates under the progressive tax system, loopholes must benefit them more. It is not that the money of other people is given to them, but that less of theirs is taken away. This objection makes sense only under the assumption that everything belongs to the state and an injustice is committed in permitting the prosperous to keep some of what they think is their property.
In other words any money the citizen is permitted to keep is regarded as if the state had graciously given it to him. Everything we have is from the state, to which we owe gratitude. In fact, we are the property of the state, which therefore has the right to the fruit of our labor.
Fletcher comes close to making this point explicitly. In saying that “taxation is stewardship,” he uses, but departs from, the biblical idea that God is the owner of ALL property, and the putative owners under statutory law are really stewards who have the responsibility to exercise control as the owner whishes. His position makes sense only if the state is the lord who is the real owner of everything. The offering formula prayer, “We give thee but thine own,” is a declaration that the steward is only rendering to God what he already possesses legally. The steward is declaring recognition of his stewardship and affirming that his relationship with God is as steward to Lord. But to say that taxation is stewardship is to affirm that the state is the lord to which everything has the status of property. The citizen is transformed thus into servant, supplicant, worshiper.
