Iron Ink

If the Obama administration gives a 300 billion dollar tax cut and succeeds in passing a 700 billion dollar stimulus works spending project will the resulting raging inflation negate the effect of the tax cut?

“I do believe the point shall be reached - in short order - wherein the only alternative is - tall tree/short rope.”

“A government cannot control the economy without controlling the people.”

California Governor Ronald Wilson Reagan
27 October, 1964 Speech supporting Goldwater’s Presidential Campaign

The Three Views of Society

There are three, and only three, fundamental views of the underlying nature of the social bond. Each of them reflects a particular view of the cosmos, which in turn undergirds the particular view of society. These views are organicism, contractualism, and covenantalism. The first two have been dominant in Western philosophy and social thought. The third, being uniquely biblical, has been ignored.

Organicism. This is by far the most widespread view in man’s history, though not in the modern West. Society is viewed as an organism, just as the cosmos is: a growing thing that has the characteristic features of life. The model institution of the organic society is the family, which is closely associated with physical nurturing and death. This organic view of society is often associated with the concept of a hierarchical chain of being that links God, man, and the Cosmos. It is also associated with magic and with magic’s fundamental principle: ‘As above, so below.’ Man supposedly can manipulate any aspect of the cosmos (macrocosm) by manipulating representative features (microcosm). The crudest manifestation of this philosophy is the voodoo doll. Philosophically, this view of society is associated with realism: an underlying metaphysical unity transcendent to mere individuals. Organicsim is divided into two major streams: familism (medieval) ans statism (Greco-Roman).

Contractualism. This is the dominant view of the modern world, although its philosophical roots go back to the Middle ages (e.g. – William of Occam). Society is based either on a hypothetical original contract among men in pre-historic times or on a constitution of some kind. The primary model is the State, not the family, although in some modern social philosophies, the free market is the model. The familiar phrase with this outlook is ‘the social contract.’ Men in the distant past voluntarily transferred their individually held political sovereignty to the State, which now maintains social order. Each social institution is governed by the terms of an original contract, whether mythical or historical. The social bond is based exclusively on voluntary legal contracts, hypothetical or historical, among individuals. Philosophically, this view of society is associated with nominalism: the denial of any underlying metaphysical reality or transcendent social unity apart from the thoughts and decisions of individual men. Contractualism is divided into two major historical streams: individualism (right- wing Enlightenment) and collectivism (left-wing Enlightenment). The former is evolutionary in its view of society; the later is more revolutionary.

Covenantalism. This is not a fusion of organicism and contractualism; it is a separate system. It views society as a complex system of legal bonds, with God as the ultimate Enforcer of these covenants and contracts. There are only four covenants: personal (God and the individual); ecclesiastical (sacramental), familial, and civil. These final three are monopoly institutions founded directly under God’s explicit sovereignty. Covenants alone are lawfully established by a self-malidedictory oath under God. The oath-taker calls down God’s wrath upon himself if he ever violates the stipulations (laws) of the covenant document. All other relationships are either personal (e.g., friendship) or contractual (e.g., a legal business arrangement). God is the final Judge because He is the Creator, and He brings His judgments, in time and eternity, in terms of His permanent ethical standards (i.e., biblical law). Covenantalism has developed no separate philosophical tradition in Western history, for Christian philosophers, including those interested in society, prior to Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987) virtually always adopted in the name of Christ some version of either realism or nominalism. The biblical covenant model is based on creationism, not realism or nominalism. This philosophy asserts an absolute separation of being between God and any aspect of the creation: the Creator-creature distinction. This concept, so fundamental to Van Til’s philosophy, categorically denies the existence of a chain of being linking God to the cosmos (realism). Creationism leads to providentialism, which affirms the absolute authority of God and His sovereign control over all things in history (i.e., His decree), thereby denying the autonomous power of man to name any aspect of the cosmos authoritatively (nominalism). Covenantalism is a separate philosophical system.

Dr. Gary North
Millennialism and Social Theory – pg. 34-35

American views of Society find their roots in social contract theory. A good source that gives a different view of societal theory is Dabney’s “A Defense Of Virgina and The South.”

Given that America’s roots go back to Locke’s social contract theory the reader should carefully consider the paragraph on Contractualism. Be careful to note the distinction made between right wing Enlightenment contractualism and left wing Englightenment contractualism. Note that regardless of whether or not one goes with Enlightenment social contract theory one inevitably moves to the left in their thinking. If there is no God in the social contract (and in this theory there isn’t) then there is nothing to hold the social contract in place, and the consequence is a ongoing liberalizing of culture.

Dr. North reveals that the model becomes either the State or the Free Market for social contract. What we are seeing increasingly in our times is a melding of the two into kind of a Fascistic system so that the State and the Free Market becomes the God of the contractual system.

As far as Organicism is concerned you can find this in a great number of Roman Catholic cultures. Organicism is consistent with Roman Catholic chain of being theology. The Mass is magic theology. As above, so below.

Per the previous post if Christians refuse to think about these subjects these subjects will redefine our Christianity.

“Social theory is more difficult than is eschatology. Social theory is the view that men adopt to explain how society operates, or better yet, how it holds together. It is the question of the nature of the social bond. Every social theory must offer answers to at least five fundamental questions:

(1) What provides legitimacy to any given institution or complex system of institutions?

(2) What system of authority binds people and institutions together in their co-operative ventures? (’What do we mean by institution’?)

(3) What are the rules and regulations of the social bond and how are they discovered and applied to specific cases in history?

(4) What are the sanctions that individuals and institutions legitimately bring against deviants and outsiders?

(5) What is the view of time (continuity) that binds men and institutions to both the past and future?

Point 5 is the issue of eschatology. Man’s past, present, and future are covenantally intertwined. Christianity has always affirmed the linearity of history: creation, fall, redemption, and the final judgment. Western Christianity, especially Puritanism, has at times also affirmed the possibility of progress within this linear temporal process: history can be ‘linear upward.’ The widespread public acceptance in the West of the twin concepts of scientific progress and economic growth was closely related to spread of Puritan postmillennial eschatology.

It was a secularized version of this Puritan vision of progress that was adopted by Enlightenment humanism: progress without God’s sovereignty, authority, law, historical sanctions, or final judgment. The past was seen as being pregnant with the future. This humanist vision is now fading. Nisbet is probably correct regarding the cause of the late twentieth century’s loss of faith in progress: ‘There is no no single influence greater in negative impact upon the idea of progress than our far-flung and relentless jettisoning of the past.’ The humanists also failed to understand why disrespect for the past would lead to loss of faith in the present: we are all becoming part of the past. We, too, will be jettisoned by future generations. Our works and dreams will be cast out of future men’s thinking. We will be consigned, as Communist Leo Trotsky put it, to the ash can of history. So, what kind of commitment to such future ingrates can modern man be expected to reveal? Very little. Millions of people today are increasingly ready to abort the future. Western society has become increasingly present oriented, with fateful consequences for Western Culture. Present-orientation is a denial of the very foundations of Western Culture: respect for the past and faith for the future.”

Dr. Gary North
Millennialism And Social Theory – pg. 33-34

Christians typically don’t bother to think about things like social theory or social order. In ignoring such realities what results is a Christianity that is conditioned and shaped by social order views that are distinctly non-Christian. When the Church proclaims a Christianity that refuses to be self-conscious of the social order constructions of the culture in which the Gospel is being proclaimed the consequence is a Christianity that ends up being re-defined by these a-priori considerations. For example, if Christianity refuses to take into considerations the social order realities that lie beneath a communist, socialist, Islamic or Hindu culture the Christianity that is accepted will be a Christianity that is tainted by the sinful presuppositions contained in the social order that is informing the particular culture. This is why a Christianity that refuses to reshape the social theory of a culture so that it is consistent with Christian presuppositions will be a Christianity that is largely nominal.

All of this returns to the problem of a Christianity that wants to get individuals saved but refuses to take interest in thinking on or speaking to cultural infrastructure issues that if attended to would have the result of institutionalizing Christianity so that it would seep from the pores of a culture.

One aspect that North, quoting Nisbet, here (everyone should read Nisbet’s ‘Quest for Community’) emphasizes is history. As Christians we should think about what a Biblical view of History is so that we can pass that on to our children so that they might have a sense of the value and importance of history. If our children will not value their Christian past, they will have little interest in perpetuating a Christian future.

Valued sources for Biblical History are Gordon H. Clark, R. J. Rushdoony, Greg Singer, and Herbert Schlosberg. Also consider Jaques Ellul’s work on Propaganda for the ability to sniff out attempts to spin history.