“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 philosophical and social thought. The third, being uniquely Biblical, has been ignored.
Organicism. This is by far the most widespread view on 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 birth, culture, and 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 princple: ‘As above, so below.’ Man supposedly can manipulate any aspect of the cosmos (macrocosm) by manipulating representative features (microcosm)…. Philosophically, this view of society is associated with realism: an underlying metaphysical unity transcendent to mere individuals ….
Contractualism. This is the dominant view in 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 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 associated with this outlook is ‘social contract.’ Men in the distant past voluntarily transferred their individually held politically sovereignty to the State, which now maintains the social order. Each social institution is governed by the terms of an original contract, whether mythical or historical….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. Contracutalism is divined into two major historical streams: individualism (right wing Enlightenment) and collectivism (left wing Enlightenment). The former is evolutionary in its view of society; the latter is more revolutionary.
Covenantalsm. 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-maledictory 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 (1885- 1988) 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 & Social Theory
Note that Roman Catholicism is more beholden to Organicism types of Social theory. Roman Catholicism promotes the chain of being between God and man. For RC the fall resulted in a loss of being and regeneration includes the recouping of being. Also in RC you find the classical idea magic in the handling a representative aspect of creation in order to manipulate the underlying reality that the representative is representing. (This is what the Mass is all about.)
Protestantism is much more closely aligned with social contract types of social theory, although I would suggest that the Puritan Commonwealth was a precursor to what North labels covenantalism.
It is interesting to note that if Organicism is pushed to far what you will get is pantheistic views of social theory. In Organicism the distinctions between man and God tend to get lost in the chain of being so that heaven and earth become fused and God and man become indistinguishable (at least man at the top of the hierarchical food chain). In Organicism God and man become identified as one so that man becomes God and earth becomes heaven. On the other hand we should note that in Contractualism the tendency is toward Deism. God is really an after thought and the emphasis falls on man. In Contractualism the emphasis falls not on the continuity between God and man as in Organicism but in the discontinuity between God and man. In Contractualism man and God become divorced so that man becomes God and earth becomes heaven.
What is interesting here is that despite the opposite movements of these two grand social theories they end up in the same place with God and Man being identified as essentially the same and as heaven and earth being identified together — either in the earth losing its earthiness in the chain of being or in earth needing to become heaven because heaven as been lost in Contractualism’s nominalism. This is another example of Van Til’s rational and irrational wash-women taking in each others laundry. It is also an example of how opposite worldviews come around and kiss. The argument between Contractualism and Organicism is not really over where they end up but rather whether one should go West in order to get to the East or whether one should go East in order to get to the West.
Finally, I am becoming convinced that the philosphical issue of continuity vs. discontinuity is THE philosophical issue. Just think of all the places where that issue raises its head over and over again.
Continuity vs. Discontinuity of Old and New Testaments
Continuity vs. Discontinuity between the Old and New Covenant
Continuity vs. Discontinuity of God with His creation
Continuity vs. Discontinuity of Justification & Sanctificatioun
Continuity vs. Discontinuity in Social Theory
Continuity vs. Discontinuity in the Incarnation
Continuity vs. Discontinuity in the Eucharist
Continuity vs. Discontinuity between our present bodies and our glorified bodies
Continuity vs. Discontinuity in the Nature of the Eschatological age & the Millennium
Continuity vs. Discontinuity in the the abilities of fallen man (think Natural Law)
