United in Christ or United in the State?
How does the theory of the secular political State mimic Christ and the Church?
United in Christ or United in the State?
It is certainly not original to claim that the political State seeks a god-like position in human society. The State seeks to be the ultimate locus of both authority and identity. This is nothing new. That said, just how closely the parallels run is striking. In 1651, Thomas Hobbes famously penned his infamous Leviathan which laid out the modern theory of the political State.
In Hobbes’s “state of nature,” humans would have no common power to overawe them, therefore, there would be opportunity for interpersonal conflict, lack of contract enforcement, and general lack of security besides what individuals could provide for themselves. Hobbes reasoned that this situation would become so untenable to humans that they would have agreed by social contract, sometime in the imagined past, to give ultimate power and authority to a monopoly government, therefore establishing peace, order, law and contract enforcement, punishment of crime, and security services. This entity would be the only one of its kind, could impose its laws through its monopoly of legal coercion, and could compel its citizens to pay for its services through taxation.
Hobbes’s logic for the State is as follows: the potential for crime inherent in human nature, lack of security and contract enforcement, and opportunity for interpersonal conflict exist, therefore, the monopolistic political State is necessary. The “therefore” has been emphasized to demonstrate the unjustified inference, or the Statist non sequitur. It has also previously been pointed out by many that Hobbes’s argumentation seems to ignore the fact that the human beings that would act as political elites in operation the State apparatus would also share the same human nature, except now they would be endowed with the legalized use of power against others. Thus, one of the most compelling arguments in favor of the nation-state also acts as one of the most compelling counterarguments against it.
All that is true, however, that is not the point of this article. Instead, the central point is that Hobbes’s view of the political State as defining authority, citizen identity, and providing interpersonal peace through common union between the citizens and the State seems to mimic Christian language used in the New Testament to describe the relationship between Jesus Christ and His Church (esp. Ephesians 2:13-16). In other words, seemingly using Biblical language usually employed to describe the union between Christ and His Church, Hobbes, maybe inadvertently, conceptualized a similar relational framework between the State and its citizens. Perhaps this can be seen most prominently in the frontispiece for Hobbes’s Leviathan (1651) (see below):
Figure 1—Hobbes’s Leviathan
(Hobbes, Leviathan, frontispiece)
First understanding Hobbes’s written theory concerning government, we should then note a few key items in the above artwork for Hobbes’s book. Hobbes’s issue was to solve the problems of lack of security and contract enforcement in his “state of nature.” His proposed solution was to speculate that people, rather than being totally free and unrestrained absent government, would accept the constraints of the government for the trade-off benefits of order, security, contract enforcement, and the opportunity to better their situations thereby.
With the nation-state in place, there would be a common power to overawe everyone within the territorial borders, violence and coercion would be the exclusive right of the State, the State would have a monopoly of the provision of security and certain other services, the government would determine the price of these services, and it would be able to coerce citizens to pay for those services through taxes. And all this, allegedly, is voluntary because the people consented in the past and consent still consent in the present by social contract, therefore, the people are the government. The result, according to Hobbes, would be that the State would provide this locus of authority and identity and that people would be part of this government through the alleged past decision to exit the state of nature. Their agreement would also be demonstrated, it is said, in non-exit from the commonwealth, following the laws, using government services, and paying taxes.
Understanding that, we can observe in the Leviathan frontispiece where the commonwealth is depicted as a man or king, made up of many humans, with the State/government as the head. The citizens are united to the head and to one another thereby. In fact, it is the relation of the members of the body with the head that defines their relationship to one another, thus supposedly allowing the opportunity for interpersonal peace. Perhaps, at this point, the mimicry of Biblical-Christian concepts can be observed (cf. 2 Samuel 5:1-3; Daniel 7; Romans 12; 1 Corinthians 12; Ephesians 2:13-16, etc.). If not, the reader might consider Ephesians 2:13-16, esp. v. 15 (NASB),
“But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.” (emphasis added)
In the Christian theology, there is taught the union with Christ with His people. Jesus Christ is described as the Head of a new humanity, the Church—forgiven, reconciled, and recreated in Him—and peace is established through the work of Christ, both with God (cf. Romans 5:1) and between others who had been divided outside of Christ (cf. Ephesians 2:11ff; Colossians 3:11, etc.). Christian authority, identity, and interpersonal peace is based on the work of and the Christian’s union with Christ. Christ is the Head of this new man, and His people are members of His body (cf. Romans 12; 1 Corinthians 12; Ephesians 4, etc.). Further, considering Hobbes’s frontispiece for Leviathan and with this illustration of the modern nation-state in mind, consider the following Biblical passages concerning the depiction of Christ’s relationship with His people, the Church, and note the striking parallels,
“so we, who are man, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another.” (Romans 12:5)
“For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ.” (1 Corinthians 12:12)
“But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired.” (1 Corinthians 12:18)
“But now there are many members, but one body.” (1 Corinthians 12:20)
“Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it.” (1 Corinthians 12:27)
“And [God] put all things in subjection under [Christ’s] feet, and gave Him as Head over all things to the church, 23which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” (Ephesians 1:22-23)
“but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the Head, even Christ 16from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.” (Ephesians 4:15-16)
“He is also the Head of the body, the church; and He is the Beginning [i.e., Origin], the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.” (Colossians 1:18)
From the above sample of the Biblical data, not only can we observe that this is a pervasive theme in New Testament theology, but also that Hobbes’s Leviathan-State, headed by certain political elites and the governmental apparatus, seems to mimic this imagery and offers the State as a federal head of humanity and a Christ-substitute. Again, neither the State attempting to be God nor the observation that humans with power often play God, but the blatancy with which Thomas Hobbes’s theory of the political State, illustrated above, mimics New Testament terminology is telling.
Hobbes’s secularist-materialist Statism is messianic. Hobbes apparently could not avoid the influence of his Christian society and thus sought to replace Christ with the State. The State will serve as head of humanity, ultimate authority, lawgiver, and judge. Whether Christian or not, we ought to be aware of how this model of the State, as well as the elites within it, view the State’s true role. Moreover, people unknowingly adopt Hobbesian vocabulary in order to justify the State without realizing the origin and implications of the concept. Christians ought to be appalled that such an institution seeks to fraudulently usurp the role that only Christ can fill while mimicking His role. Non-Christians ought to recognize and be suspicious of the religious role sought by the secular State.
In the final analysis, while Biblical-Christian theology acknowledges the ultimate ruling sovereignty of Christ (cf. Psalm 2; Isaiah 9:6-7; Matthew 28:18, etc.), the visible Church (expressed through local churches) is a voluntary, non-coercive body that may exercise internal discipline on members (cf. Matthew 18, etc.), but membership in the universal Body of Christ is by faith and membership in external local churches is by cooperative agreement. The State, by definition, is a non-voluntary and coercive monopoly in which membership is compulsory within certain geographical boundaries. Unbelief, opting out, refusing to tithe (pay taxes), and refusal to fund the local State churches that teach doctrines with which one may disagree (public schools) are all out of the question. The State is often fine with “freedom of religion” (i.e., defined as believing whatever “weird things”/myths/superstitions you want), as long as ultimate allegiance to the State is acknowledged.