The Age of Christianity

Medieval Christianity in relation to political thought was a particularly interesting period. The Roman
Empire collapsed in the 5th Century, leaving a vacuum in political and intellectual life that Christian
theologians and philosophers filled (quite the journey from being persecuted to being “thought
leaders”). This dominance in intellectual pursuits lasted until the Renaissance (which is not to say they
just disappeared. What it simply means is that competing philosophies and intellectual groups emerged
much later and defined another era, e.g. Enlightenment).

Medieval Christian Political Thought in many ways were heavily influenced by Greek thinkers (as in
majority of Roman intellectual and cultural products) particularly in the way they would look at virtues
as an important “factor” in making government work. One of the more unique features of Medieval
Christian political thinking however is incorporating theological components in their assumptions and
arguments.

Among the many scholars during this period, St. Augustine is essential in relation to political philosophy.
While he did not have a single work that he created with politics in mind (like the philosophers we have
so far covered), his body of works (and he wrote a lot) became influential to many writers for many
generations to come. Scholars have found many helpful discussions from St. Augustine on the nature
and purpose of states and governments.

One pillar of Medieval Christian beliefs is that human nature is imperfect, and therefore there is also no
perfect state or government—an institution created by man. Governments however are necessary to
temper our nature through administration of peace and justice. Justice is central to St. Augustine’s
“political philosophy” because it is directly linked to God and love, that is, one cannot really meet
authentic justice without love of God, of which is an infinite kind of love where truth and goodness
stems from. The extension of this love is love for others.

Throwing back a bit to Aristotle when he talked about virtues and vices, Augustine on the other hand
looks at the idea of “loves” (Both can very much remind you of the Divina Comedia) and how humans
are motivated by these “loves”. For him therefore we assess what society “loves” in order to understand
what we desire as humans (and society), how we achieve them, and what are the outcomes of these
behaviors. Similar to Plato’s appetites, there is an order to this love that needs to be fulfilled, of which
the apex would be love of God. To disregard or ignore this order is to create disarray in society, and
consequently, justice. Thus going back to Aristotle, one’s “love” can be perverted.

He demonstrates this perspective in his work The City of God where human society can be divided into
two “cities” depending on how men choose to live. These cities are not two separate political entities
but rather a state of being of one society. These two cities—the City of God and the City of Man are
differentiated by how men choose to live: in accordance to God’s design/laws or according to
themselves respectively.

What does it mean to live in accordance to God’s design? It is when individuals (and consequently
society) love God above else even to the contempt of self (rejecting selfish desires), and the basis of
ruling is precisely love (for its own sake) as opposed to love for the sake of ruling as found in the City of
Man. The City of Man glorifies human strength and wisdom to the point of contempt for God.
While it is tempting to imagine the City of God and the City of Man as heaven and hell, St. Augustine did
not intend for such imagery to be juxtaposed. Rather, these cities overlap and can be found in the same
society. According to him, both cities desire peace and both will use resources to attain peace. Here, the
questions of what kind of peace and how to attain it are where these two cities diverge. For the City
Man, peace means to establish an order wherein we can enjoy earthly goods. A kind of compromise that
needs political authority: “the earthly city…desires an earthly peace, and it limits the harmonious
agreement of citizens concerning the giving and obeying of orders to the establishment of a kind of
compromise between human wills about the things relevant in mortal life”. City of Man therefore
concerns itself to only “earthly and finite things”.

Now, connecting this to the earlier point about human nature: because humans are imperfect, this
humanly agreement and order are very vulnerable to the same imperfections of man (of course). The
City of Man alone would therefore fall commit the same errors we humans commit, i.e. sins. Justice
would therefore be imperfect at best (such as waging war to attain peace—this might sound oxymoronic
but think of the Peloponnesian war and how the Spartans and their allies waged war against Athens who
in many ways got “drunk with power”. ) or perverted at worst. No lasting peace would ever be achieved
by the City of Man in this regard. This might be familiar to us in the sense that Augustine attempts to
explain why governments in societies (historically) have fallen and failed—an affinity with the work of
Polybius and understanding the cycles of revolution.

The City of Man on the other hand, because of it being guided by Love of God, eschews the idea of
accumulation resources for the sake of owning or accumulating more power for the sake of power. The
City of God regards temporal things as necessary but should be tempered by justice, or else man’s
selfishness will prevail. Thus, for a society, let alone a Republic to prevail, laws should revolve around
justice and love (God’s love and justice).

The City of God is therefore a critique of why the Roman Republic failed. It is in many ways an
explanation to why Cicero’s “commonwealth” failed to exist: “ That commonwealth [of Cicero] never
existed, because there never was real justice in the community…But true justice is found only in that
commonwealth whose founded and ruler is Christ”.

The addition of theology in political thought would probably leave some people questioning or
uncomfortable, or that some might even invoke the “separation of church and state”. This however has
less to do with inserting specific Catholic or Christian Doctrine in governance but provides us a clear
sense of what justice should achieve, impossible as it may seem on earth. It is in many ways an antidote
to a dominant view influenced by utilitarianism, i.e. “maximum benefit, minimum pain” which tend to
mirror arguments that as long as majority benefit, those who are left behind can be considered as
“collateral damage” or “minimum cost”. Of course realistically, no government policy is without cost,
but laws should never be designed to simply benefit majority and ignoring the cost of human lives for
others.

Quite a timely perspective considering what we see and observe these days as regards the Covid-19
problems. But while this is the most obvious issue today, it is by no means unique. Historically, we can
utilize St. Augustine’s “political framework” to understand why governments, societies, states, failed,
and why we will continue to falter. Finally, it may seem that this is a very pessimistic view (and in many
ways, yes it is), but such pessimism is anchored on hope that while we continue to falter, our human
nature—that includes love and justice (imperfect as it may seem) also drive us to never abandon the
quest for it.