1) He accuses the European Union of pursuing “the idolatry of globalism”, contrary to “the principle of subsidiarity.” That principle holds that “matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority.” (Wikipedia) I had never heard of the principle apart from Dr. Mohler’s occasionally mentioning it. When I looked it up just now, I was surprised to find:
“Subsidiarity is perhaps presently best known as a general principle of European Union law. According to this principle, the EU may only act (i.e. make laws) where action of individual countries is insufficient. The principle was established in the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht.” (Wikipedia).So, far from opposing the principle, the EU practices it, and has even written it into law!
2) Dr. Mohler said “the doctrine of subsidiarity ... points out that the closer we are to where life is lived the more allegiance there is not only due but also the more allegiance that is felt by those who are a part of that community.” This is not the principle of subsidiarity. It may be natural to feel this way, but is this worthy of a normative principle? Do we truly owe more allegiance to our city than to our state, and to our state than to the United States? Is the higher level any less important than the lower? By this logic, you should feel least allegiance to the King of Kings.
Dr. Mohler applied his principle to a different object: “there are peoples who are held together by a common culture, most often by a common language, by a common conception of nations, and there is a proper patriotism, a proper national identity.” He claimed that the biblical worldview, through the principle of subsidiarity, dictates that we should be more loyal to the group with whom we share our language and culture than to society or humanity at large – or rather, he said it of Europeans. Is that really a Christian message? Nationalism is a fact. And many Christians are nationalists. But is nationalism really Christian – a consequence of the Christian worldview?
3) That is my third point. Dr. Mohler attributes his faulty version of the principle of subsidiarity to “the biblical worldview.” But neither the actual principle of subsidiarity nor Dr. Mohler’s version of it is found in the Bible. The principle of subsidiarity is a nineteenth century idea, as is the concept of nationalism Dr. Mohler expressed, by the way.
Subsidiarity was invented by Catholic theologians as part of Catholic social doctrine in response to the clash between the modern ideologies of laissez faire capitalism and socialism. It was part of an attempt to steer a middle way. Later it was used to meet the challenges of totalitarian communism and Nazism. It was promulgated in papal encyclicals in 1891 and 1931. Even Dr. Mohler, in a Washington Times column, described the principle as emerging “out of natural law theory”. Natural law theory is a product of Catholic philosophy, but according to the theory itself, natural law is accessible to natural reason without the need for revelation, so it is not supposed to be uniquely Christian, let alone biblical. Its source is not Scripture but reason and human nature, by way of Aristotle and Aquinas. As such, our knowledge of natural law is as fallible as any human philosophy, although certain formulations of it may have authority for Catholics. My guess is that the very idea of stating general normative principles of social organization like subsidiarity would probably not have been possible before the development of political theory during the Enlightenment.
My broader point is that Dr. Mohler, although he often takes an historical perspective as he did here, ignores the historical origins of his own ideas, and worse, he claims they are biblical when many are the products of the very Enlightenment he execrates, or of later historical ideological developments, like nationalism or economic and political conservativism.
Universal human rights were the invention of the Enlightenment. The very idea of rights does not occur in the Bible (as far as I know). Dr. Mohler says, “Without a theological foundation, human rights and human dignity in secular terms become merely political abstractions.” I would amend: they become political and moral abstractions. And what’s so “mere” about that? Such abstractions are what our country was founded on. Their theological foundations were added as an afterthought, by reading them back into the Bible. Our form of government, representative democracy, is a product of the Enlightenment. So are our ideals of human equality and equal dignity, freedom of speech and freedom of worship. (Just think of the long history of the Christian West before the Enlightenment. Where were these ideals then?)
Dr. Mohler seems to think that, because he is a Christian, everything he believes stems from Christianity, but he is a creature of his time and place, as we all are, and what we believe emerged in history from many different sources, some Christian, many decidedly not. By describing all his political, economic and moral positions as belonging to a Christian or biblical worldview, he clothes them with misappropriated authority.
No comments:
Post a Comment