Christianity, Democracy, and the European Constitution

Paul Vanderbroeck

A review and discussion

Le Christ philosophe, by Frédéric Lenoir. Paris: Plon, 2007, 306pp., € 19.

The publication of a book on the link between our modern values and Christianity is most welcome during a time and age, when in Europe we seem to have lost the ideological basis of our society. The French philosopher, scholar of the History of Religions, and Director of the prestigious Le Monde des Religions Frédéric Lenoir joins nineteenth-century Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard in putting forward that the churches have obscured the real message of the Gospels in their communication with their congregations. Lenoir believes that the modern appearance of separation of church and state, human rights, freedom of conscience, everything that has been done during the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries against the will of the clerics, did not happen without implicitly or explicitly resorting to the original message of the Gospels.1

In addition to philosophy, Lenoir’s book also covers an overview of the historical sources of the life of Jesus, the birth of the church, the evolution of the Christian church from its inception to the late Middle Ages, and Christianity from the modern era until today. The book is completed with an interesting overview of what is left of Christianity in contemporary society: worship for some, innumerable biblical references in art, and biblical expressions used in day-to-day language by all.

Christ was a reformer of Jewish religion. He taught a new understanding of salvation and a new philosophy. This philosophy laid the foundations of what later became the ideal of human rights. Hence, three out of seven chapters in Lenoir’s book are dedicated to the “philosophy of Christ” and its impact on humanism and modern thought. Chapter II, specifies that Christ’s ethic, according to Lenoir, consists in equality among humans, freedom of the individual, emancipation of women, social justice, separation of church and state, non-violence, forgiving and loving your fellow human being. In this essay, I would like to enter into a discussion with Lenoir’s book and particularly concentrate on the consequences for the political system of the “philosophy of Christ”, an aspect (together with the consequences for the economic system) that in my view seems to be missing in Lenoir’s work.

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity as the Ethical Framework of Christianity.

Christianity indeed is the basis of our current philosophy. I would even go further in saying that it also forms the foundation of our democratic political system. Jesus Christ undoubtedly wanted a separation of religion and politics, as Frédéric Lenoir asserts, basing his argument on the famous “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 21.22). Yet Jesus has also and especially given us a value system, an ethical framework for human interaction, i.e. political, economic, and social relationships.

As a matter of fact, the famous “Render unto Caesar” may well have a second meaning. Until the arrival of Jesus, God sometimes intervened on behalf of the Jewish people to save it from a foreign oppressor. Would it not be plausible that Jesus also wanted to clarify that such divine intervention had come to an end, which would fit with the logic of his message? While allowing all of humanity to belong to God, Jesus put an end to the separation between Jews and non-Jews. Consequently, the liberation of the Jews from Roman oppression did no longer make sense, because—as Jesus says—before the Final Judgement, God would not privilege one man against another. Until the last moment, all men have the possibility to choose to follow Christ and be welcomed into the Kingdom of Heaven (Luke 15.7 and 11–32).

More autonomous, humanity henceforward needed an ethical framework, which would allow for this self-rule of its relationships on Earth. This also explains the importance Jesus puts on non-violence and the peaceful resolution of conflict. In future, God would no longer solve the conflicts between his people and their enemies at the last instance. Jesus Christ’s reform of Judaism therefore also was an “update” of its value system. The moment He chose was not a coincidence. At the birth of Christ, Greco-Roman civilisation had arrived at its apogee. Its philosophy had developed some key ideas not dissimilar to Judaism. The political and economic stability of the Pax Romana should allow for a bolstering of its ideology. Christianity indisputably has been able to expand rapidly in this constellation.

To understand this new ethical framework, it is fundamental to go back to the Gospel. The essence of Christian philosophy is captured in a phrase at the end of the Sermon on the Mount: “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” For Lenoir, the phrase links to only one aspect of Christian ethics: love for one’s fellow human being. In my opinion, this point of view is too limited. When we ask ourselves how man would like others to have done to him or her, we arrive at the fundamental democratic principles of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.2 A simpler, clearer, wider and therefore much stronger ethical framework than the seven ethical values cited above by Lenoir.

How then do people would like others to have done to them? First, individuals want the liberty and the autonomy to take their own decisions, take life into their own hands and prosper. A human being wishes to be free instead of enslaved and to own property. Second, individuals do not want to be discriminated against and have the same rights and the same protection from the law as their fellow human beings. Third, when in need, man wishes to be able to count on help from other people.

That man has a fundamental desire for these three rights is confirmed every day. Take for example Switzerland, a country with a direct democracy. This means that people vote on bigger and smaller issues on a regular basis through referenda. These referenda never lead to extreme results. The outcome is always a balance between liberty, equal treatment and solidarity with those in need.3 In my work as an organisational consultant, I observe a similar phenomenon in that other political system: the private enterprise. Be it leader or follower all are motivated by a balance between these three principles. The results of the great scholars on motivation in organisations actually reveal the same. In the nineteen fifties, Abraham Maslow demonstrated that employees seek to satisfy five needs: basic survival needs, safety and security, belonging and love, self-esteem, and self-actualisation.4 In short, the first two needs require fraternity, the next two require equality and the last one requires liberty. Some years later, Frederick Herzberg added that motivation at the end of the day is something intrinsic and that the carrot and stick approach only has a short-term effect.5 McKinsey research has recently shown that successful companies have management practices, which give employees the means and the autonomy to develop and to perform their tasks.6 The chance to influence the decision process, transparent explanations, and the right of appeal inspires many people to go “beyond the call of duty.” They are more willing to engage in innovative actions, spontaneous cooperation, and creative behaviour on behalf of the company when implementing decisions.7

Christianity as the Foundation of Democracy

Contrary to what Frédéric Lenoir believes, the Greeks and Romans had already arrived at establishing the principles of Liberty and Equality to a large extent. Their political systems offered a fairly extensive influence to citizens in political decision making through elections and voting. Because these systems were destabilised by the absence of Fraternity in their ethical framework, they systematically deteriorated into autocratic systems directed by demagogues. According to Lenoir, the Greeks distinguished the individual behind the persona or the public role, but stopped short of developing the principle of Liberty. I believe on the contrary that at least politically the Greeks have gone further and did invent the principle of Liberty. They have put it in place through their systems of collective decision making by means of voting by free men. Subsequently, they have called this democracy. In addition, the Greeks used it in their theatre, a harbour of free speech and a delectable vehicle of criticism of the goings-on in society and politics. Liberty is also already present in the Old Testament. Man is free to choose to follow God. Despite the enormous power distance between man and God, negotiations between equal parties are possible within the Covenant between the Lord and the Jewish people. Already in the beginning of the Bible, in Genesis, it is most revealing to see Abraham negotiate, not without a certain success, that the condemned city of Sodom be spared. He manages to obtain the evacuation of Lot and his family before the town is destroyed. Jesus in His reform of the Jewish faith has opened the possibility for each human being—Jew or not—to choose to love God and to follow His way. Love for another—be it God or another human being—cannot be but a free choice.8 In Christian anthropology, therefore, man is free.

It is true that we can find the phrase “Do to others as you would have them do to you” in other philosophical and religious texts across the world. In the Judaeo-Christian tradition, however, this principle is very visible in the relationship between God and man, which consists in a free choice between two parties. In this we can observe a fundamental difference with Islam, for example. While one chooses freely to love God, one is supposed to submit to Allah. This different relationship between human and divine power cannot but have an impact on the political systems ensuing from their respective ethical frameworks.

Likewise, the Romans went a fair way in the direction of developing the idea of equality by creating the status of Roman citizen, which guaranteed protection of the person and his means before the law and the authorities. Such protection was limited to citizens. Hence a different judicial treatment between citizens and non-citizens or free men and slaves was perfectly legitimate. We can find an equivalent differentiation in the Old Testament. Equality before God was limited to those belonging to the Jewish people. Jesus declared that each human being is equal before God (e.g. Galatians 3.28.). Thus he turned the exclusive equality of Romans and Jews into a universal equality for all. This implies that in a society based on Christian ethics a different treatment before the law is to be condemned. So the Inquisition as well as Guantanamo Bay go against Christian values.9

In his reform, Christ put a lot of emphasis on Fraternity, possibly because at that time this idea was the least developed and because it meant an enormous step forward in the civilisation process. Jesus said that among the Ten Commandments, two are the most important: to love God and one’s neighbour (e.g. Mark 12,28-34, Matthew 22,40). People have the obligation to support their fellows. Thus Fraternity became the third pillar of the Christian value system.

The reciprocity of the Christian value system—everyone is entitled to the three principles and must accord them to others—builds the ethical framework around the political, economic, and social relationships of human beings. The ethical equilibrium among liberty, equality, and fraternity therefore is indispensable for a durable democratic society. During the last century, we have been able to observe how ideologies, which did not respect this equilibrium have rapidly created destructive totalitarian systems. Thus the acceptance and the recognition that our ideological foundations are essentially Christian are vital to protect the fundamental and inalienable rights in our society in extremis. This is also the reason why the constitution of the European Union should be linked to this heritage.10

The Long Road to Democracy

With Kierkegaard, Lenoir thinks that the institution of the Church and its collaboration with secular powers has kept the philosophy of Christ from establishing itself in society. When we ask ourselves, why—despite “Do to others”—has it taken so long for political systems based on liberty, equality, fraternity to emerge, Lenoir’s explanation does not seem to suffice. On the one hand the utilisation of religious institutions as vehicles of influence, persuasion, and mobilisation has served rulers well to maintain their power over the people.11 On the other hand many members of the clergy have not been able to resist the seduction of power offered by the collaboration with powerful secular rulers.12

Nevertheless, recent history has shown that the risk of an imbalance among these three democratic principles is due to an integration of state and ideology rather than religion. The communist and fascist totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century have actively used a state ideology to control their citizens. There was no separation between the state and the ideological institution (the political party).13 As Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar,” a separation between ideological institution (the church in this case) and state is necessary for humanity to function politically according to the principle of “Do to others.”

To fully understand why the emergence of democracy was held back, we need to take another factor into consideration. The devastating effect of the fall of the Roman Empire on western civilisation is comparable to the effect of a thermonuclear war in our age. Thanks only to the autocratic regime of the Francs did Europe recover from the Dark Ages. Feudalism, created by Charlemagne, was rather the contrary of an equilibrium between Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. The king gave the use of the key economic means—land—to the nobles in exchange for their military support in securing the country. Protestantism, the translation and printing of the Bible, the rediscovery of ancient philosophy during the Renaissance, and the development of a mercantile economy broke the feudal system and permitted the development of democratic political systems in Western Europe. Autocratic systems proved to be more resistant in those countries where the nobility was able to retain one of the two pillars of feudal power. Such was the case in France. Its rich and fertile land allowed its nobility to keep the economic power and it took a revolution to bring down the regime.14 Conversely, democracy developed more rapidly in Britain, thanks to a weak feudal system and to a Christian faith that stayed closer to its origins.15

An ethical framework allows a society to survive long term and to surmount economic difficulties and economic threats. Without a value system, our society lacks a common identity and is not durable. Whether we believe or not, we should admit that our ideology in Europe is profoundly Christian and hence should be referred to in its constitution. If we want our children to develop into democratic citizens, an education in the philosophy stemming from the Gospels—which is something else than a religious education—imposes itself in each school in Europe. This is the more important for those future citizens, who do not have access to this philosophy in their parental home. If only for that reason, Lenoir’s book deserves to be widely translated and read.  

Originally trained as an historian, Dr Paul Vanderbroeck, Chartered FCIPD, is an executive coach and organisational consultant and lives in Geneva, Switzerland.

0 Responses • Features, Reviews, Faiths and Worldviews, Global Culture, Wed 15 Oct 2008