There is a great art to politics and governance that tends to be shadowed behind a veil of human flaws. This art does what all art is meant to do, and that is to capture something of the truth. The truth that governance in particular attempts to capture centers on the single question, “How are we to live?” As seen throughout human history, governments have tried their hand in providing an answer.
Despite differences, an important similarity exists at the core of governments, and that is the influence of humanism, which is the notion that human beings have an intellect large enough to define life for themselves. It was emphasized during the Renaissance by philosophers such as Petrarch, who highlighted the power and potential of human intellect. Petrarch came to be known as the “father of humanism” due to his writings on the subject, though the idea of it in human life has existed since the beginning of time.
Starting from the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve felt compelled to pursue a path based on their own intellect. Following this example, the Israelites, though guided by a divine law, often chose to live how they thought was best. Later, ancient Babylon was ruled by a king who demanded to be worshiped. As well, Ancient Rome was no different with Julius Caesar and later Caesar Augustus being both emperor and pontifex maximus.
Ancient Greece, though different from Babylon and Rome in its form of government, was still similar at its root. Ancient Greeks made gods for themselves to define life for them. They were created to define the past in terms of why things were the way that they were, as well as the future in terms of what people’s purpose ought to be in society. Although these morals were demanded by these Greek gods, they still represented the philosophy of humanism because humans were the ones who created them.
Despite its grim success rate — given that every ancient civilization that governed with humanism no longer exists — humanism was not necessarily looked down upon. It was, in fact, celebrated during the Renaissance through the works of Petrarch and other philosophers. Aristotle, for example, immensely impacted the Renaissance with his advocacy of human intellect and contemplation. He said, “It is the activity of the intellect that constitutes complete human happiness,” and he attributed this happiness to be entirely attainable, as he articulated in Nicomachean Ethics. Artists as well, such as Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Donatello, used their works to emphasize the same message, one that captured the ability and intellect of the human being.
Not everyone, however, agreed with humanism. Some saw the problem with it, that it dangerously assumed an intellect of human minds capable of determining how they ought to have lived, and advocated a different message during what came to be known as the Reformation.
The Reformation was, in essence, an anti-Renaissance thought in the way it challenged the truth of humanism and how it centered on the intellect of God rather than the intellect of man. It was rooted in absolutes, provided that divine law never changed, which was what humanism lacked, for human beings constantly changed. Reformers, such as John Huss, John Wycliffe, and Martin Luther, wanted to emphasize man’s fallen nature, rather than his intellect, and argued for the necessity of a divine law — rather than a human law — to direct daily life.
Based on the Reformation, God (rather than man) is the ultimate authority, and the Bible (rather than human thought) reveals absolutes that are fit to determine how human beings ought to live.
The absolutes that the Bible proclaims are about man and God. The truths about man are that the same God who created the universe also created each individual person in his likeness, so each person has dignity to enjoy his universe; yet, man is sinful with a flawed intellect. The truths about God are that he is perfect with a just intellect.
In governance, influence from the Reformation is not new, and America is a strong example of this precedent. The ideas of freedom of expression, individual value and dignity, and a separation of powers in order to prevent a single human being from determining, unchecked, how all others should live are ideas that were contributed by the Reformation.
Other recent governments, such as the French First Republic under Napoleon Bonaparte, Fascist Italy under Benito Mussolini, and Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler, though once world powers, fell due to a humanistic concept of how their citizens were to be governed.
How should we live? In what way should we be governed? I am inclined to believe that the answer lies in a firm commitment to absolutes, rather than human intellect. One does not need to look further than the atrocities of the holocaust, slavery, or sanctioned genocides to understand what the human intellect is capable of. One does not need to look further than recent societal trends to understand that human desires constantly change. How we live must depend on the principles which cannot change based on who the leader is, what the trend is, or what people want to do, for to do otherwise depends too much on the passions of a flawed mind.
A commitment to absolutes eliminates the possibility of human error in determining how we ought to live, and how we ought to live is something that is too critical to err.
