AT Throne and Altar, Bonald eloquently argues that monarchy is the solution to the ills of modern society and the highest form of government. His comments are in response to a few points I made here regarding democracy and Christianity, but he has developed this idea in other essays at his site. (My reference to a Catholic blogger in that post was not a reference to Bonald.)

He writes:

Democracy has always been the work of unbelievers, and it has always brought ruin to public faith. For many happy centuries, the Church worked with monarchical governments to build Christian societies; more than this, it was primarily the Church that lifted the barbarians from tribal democracy to territorial monarchy. Then two centuries ago, a gang of usurpers–atheists and freemasons all–imposed democracy first on English America and France, then on the rest of Europe.

My main point in the previous post regarded separation of church and state. When I spoke of reverting to a restricted franchise and the sort of informal establishment of Protestantism that America had prior to the 1960s, my point was that these are conceivable, organic goals in light of our recent history, not that this is an absolute ideal. Would monarchy be preferable to the radical democracy we have now? Yes, in the sense that, as Bonald argues, it would reinforce a sense of man’s place in a larger order. Was the democracy of nineteenth century America hostile to faith? At that moment in history, Western society’s conception of democracy was in relative harmony with hierarchical notions of order and Christianity flourished despite the dehumanizing aspects of industrialism and a transient society, and it continued to flourish through the early part of the 20th century, so that our presidents could still comfortably assert Christian values and mores. Can democracy ever preserve these hierarchical notions over the long term? Bonald argues that it cannot. He writes:

Democracy, on the other hand, makes the temporal order wholly profane. It is a machine engineered to satisfy whatever temporal desires we happen to possess. No man ever felt nearer to God from an encounter with Congress.

One of the positive achievements of Western democracy at its best was that no man felt in a church that he was in a political establishment.

                                                 — Comments —

Laura writes:

C.S. Lewis said at one point – and I’m sorry I will have to find his exact words – that democracy left the individual with a level of freedom that was such that he was driven to aspire toward higher truths in a way he was not in a society that left him with no choice but to be Christian. That freedom is part of what I was referring to when I spoke of democracy fulfilling Christianity.

Jesse Powell writes:

Bonald says, “Democracy, on the other hand, makes the temporal order wholly profane. It is a machine engineered to satisfy whatever temporal desires we happen to possess.” In addition he says, “On the other hand, democracy denies God’s sovereignty, blasphemously claiming to derive authority from the will of ‘the people’. Elected representatives are–and, more importantly, are seen to be by the symbolism of their election and installation–creatures of popular will. They are not bound by God or national tradition. They represent the people’s unfettered will.” 

A defender of democracy however might claim that a King claiming to act in the name of God, with the approval of God, based on “the divine right of Kings” is itself profane and blasphemous. After all, isn’t the King just a man? What gives a mere mortal the right to claim that his will is in any way holy or an expression of the divine? Isn’t a mere man claiming God like attrutibutes a blashpemy against what is truly holy? What better expression of God’s will can there be other than the collective “will of the people”? Didn’t God give to “the people” whatever desires and beliefs “the people” possess? 

I think what is closer to the truth is that human created institutions by necessity cannot live up to the divine because of the fallen and sinful nature of man. A government no matter what its form cannot claim divine providence since the origin of any human instition is, indeed, only human. 

As to the question of whether democracy is compatible with Christianity; it is if the people are Christian. A democratic government will express Christian morals and values if “the people” believe in Christian morals and values, it is as simple as that. 

I think what Bonald is saying is that the very idea that “popular will” trumps Christian teachings is blasphemous. I am sure this is correct. The problem is that any government arrangement that humans come up with and put together will be blasphemous since humans themselves are not divine. 

Democracy has many advantages, the most important I would say is its peaceful means of conflict resolution. More to the point I do believe the most important problems facing American society today can be solved through the democratic process. A call for Monarchy I think is a distraction it is not necessary to pursue.

[THIS DISCUSION CONTINUES HERE.]

Please follow and like us: