Christianity and Politics - Essay Example

Task: Christianity and politics The relationship between Christianity and politics is an intricate matter of discussion thatentails considerable philosophy. In such discussions, there is considerable use of logic in explaining the nature of situations. This historically complex relationship has been responsible for notable fissures in the development of Christianity. In turn, thinkers conceive this relationship in various ways. This props on the premise that Christianity shares a given political philosophy that corresponds to its nature and teachings. While some thinkers have argued for theological positions such as Christian communism, others propose that Christians should have limited participation in politics. Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas’ works attempt to provide a harmonious relationship between politics and Christianity. Augustine and Aquinas thoughts on politics are similar in terms of their theological positions, and differ in terms of Augustine’s theological outlook and Aquinas’s rational position on matters. Augustine, as a classical theologian, had notable works that he produced on politics. This occurred in spite of his firm grounding on religion. Augustine’s work had remained as classical in defining religion’s relationship with the society. Augustine discusses dual citizenship in terms of heaven and earth. He recognizes that human beings are bound to the functioning of the earthly state and the heavenly kingdom. Augustine allegorically refers to cities, the earthly city and the city of God. The earthly city belongs to the class of individuals who are damned. According to Augustine, such individuals do not possess God’s blessings (Saint Augustine 5). On the other hand, the people in the City of God have God’s blessings. The City of God surpasses earthly institutions such as the state. On the other hand, Thomas Aquinas is a theologian who embarked on a study of the church within an intellectual frame. This explains why the papacy recommended Aquinas’s texts as preliminary in attaining ordainments. This suggests that these two scholars shared a similarity in articulating an objective view of the church. In turn, they had designed a philosophical outlook on spiritual matters. It is essential to highlight that Augustine and Aquinas shared similar convictions about wars. The scholars agree that war can be a just affair as long as it builds on certain premises. According to Aquinas, war is necessary as a means of defense. In addition, war is vital in the event of ensuring long-term peace. Aquinas laid out Augustine’s principles in justifying given wars. To begin with, there has to be considerable possibilities of winning a given war. In addition, a strong central authority should be responsible for waging such a war. The third premise stated that peace was to be the central motive in pursuing a war. Similarly, Augustine had proposed pacifism as a Christian way of living. This means that Christians should oppose war and violence as a means of initiating conflict resolution. Augustine, however, asserted that peacefulness in the case of a serious wrong, which only violence could stop, is a sin Saint (Augustine 29). Augustine states that defense of the self and others could be necessary in the case of an attack. A legitimate authority, however, has to approve such a defense. In as much as Augustine did not explicitly state the components of a just war, he, in an indirect sense, coined the term in The City of God work. In this sense, it was sometimes necessary to have a war that helped preserve peace in the long-term. All the same, Augustine insisted that war should not be preemptive. This is a functional outlook on war that Aquinas uses to lay out the components of a just war. Both Aquinas and Augustine believe that the state is instrumental in safeguarding a common interest. Augustine discusses this concept in the scope of a political community. Aquinas discusses the state’s purpose in terms of justice. According to Augustine, both the state and the citizens are functional in the political functioning of a community. In this perspective, both of the thinkers do not believe in anarchism. Augustine argues that the state is vital in safeguarding peace in a community. Peace is a common good as it benefits everyone through a harmonious existence. Aquinas also argues that the state should protect peace and ensure harmonious existence. Harmonious existence is a social thought system that argues that the interest of an individual should not conflict with the interest of another person. In this sense, a person can only pursue one’s interest if it does hamper not the efforts of another person towards pursuing one’s interest. The state is a tool that mediates an individual’s interest against the common good. In close relation to this concept, both thinkers argue that the individual’s interest should be the priority of the state. Augustine argues that a happy state could only occur if the individual is happy. This suggests that the success of the state could only be evaluated from the welfare of the individual. Similarly, Aquinas argues that role of the state regards protecting and providing a common good. This is Aquinas view of justice. Justice should aim at serving the individual’s interest rather than the state’s interest. Aquinas argues that justice is the consistent and lasting tendency to accord individuals their entitlement (Aquinas 106). The common good, however, has to satisfy the welfare of the individual for its meaningfulness. It is essential to highlight that Augustine had a limited view of the government in terms of its ability for perfection. On the other hand, Aquinas proposed system whereby the state would achieve its perfect self. Augustine notes that individuals cannot look up to the state as a tool for solving their problems because such an institution was bound by the sinful nature of human beings. Augustine dismisses a Utopian view of a society whereby political institutions could achieve perfection by following given principles. It is essential to highlight that Aquinas does not assert that the state could be perfect. He instead proposes an ideal form of state that could protect individuals’ interest. While Augustine proposes that the state should exist because of an inherent sinful nature of human beings, Aquinas asserts that the state is a natural part of individuals. Augustine discusses the state as a response measure to the sinful nature of human beings. Aquinas, however, argues that human beings are social and political beings who strive after certain goals. The creation of the state is an inevitable consequence of the inherent social nature. This suggests that the state does necessarily occur to correct the ills of human nature. Aquinas, therefore, proposes that the state, which is natural, should be manipulated to serve the interests of human beings. This explains why he supports sedition that occurs for the common good. Sedition, in Aquinas’ terms, is a way of rising against injustices (Aquinas 93). The difference in these two arguments lie in the idea that for Augustine, the state can either exist or not, while for Aquinas, the state is always a natural occurrence. Augustine proposes an external view of government while Aquinas proposes an internal perception of the government. Augustine argues that the state, as a preserver of peace, should guard a community from external enemies (Gill 28). Augustine believes that a community is always peaceful until an external force interferes with this ideal state. In this sense, the government possesses a limited role in directing the lives of a given community. In contrary to this position, Aquinas argues that the state should react to solve the internal inconsistencies and disharmony in the lives of people. Aquinas, while discussing the political community, seems to perceive a certain tendency towards internal conflicts in terms of individuals’ interests and the common good. Common good, in this sense, is a broad term that speaks of a unified goal among human beings. A common good is supposed to benefit every individual. For instance, peace is a common good because it allows everyone to live without anxiety. Aquinas highlights of instances whereby an individual’s interest, might conflict with the societal interest. The societal interest, in this case, should not be perceived in totality, but as a term for expressing the possible interest of another individual. On the other hand, Augustine endorses an offhand approach to leadership whereby the state does not attempt to ensure an ideal life for its citizens. This is because, in this case, the state would be attaching itself to a Utopian view of life. In turn, the state protects the already present peace among individuals. It is agreeable that the two thinkers’ thoughts are similar in terms of their theological positions, while they differ in terms of Augustine’s theological position and Aquinas’s rational hold on matters. Both of the thinkers agree that war can be necessary as a form of defense, towards ensuring long-term peace. This argument seems to arise from the Biblical principles on war that connotes violence as sinful. In addition, Aquinas and Augustine believe that the state is necessary to safeguard the common interest. Besides, they both agree that the state is only valuable as long as it serves the individual’s welfare. In terms of differences, Augustine has a limited view of the state while Aquinas highlights various roles of the state. Augustine also asserts that the state should occur as natural response to the sinful tendencies of human beings while Aquinas believes that the state is an element of the social and political nature of human beings. Augustine believes that the sinful nature of human beings eventually cripples the functioning of the state. On the other hand, Aquinas proposes the principles that makes the state perfect in achieving the common good. Besides, Augustine emphasizes on the external role of the government while Aquinas stresses an internal role of the government. Works cited Aquinas, Thomas. The political ideas of St. Thomas Aquinas. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1997. Print. Saint Augustine . Augustine: political writings. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Print. Read More