By P. Andrew Sandlin
Published May 1, 2008
In her fascinating work The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1966 ed.), Hannah Arendt observes:
The Declaration of the Rights of Man at the end of the eighteenth century was a turning point in history. It meant nothing more nor less than that from then on Man, and not God’s command or the customs of history, should be the source of Law. Independent of the privileges which history had bestowed upon certain strata of society or certain nations, the declaration indicated man’s emancipation from all tutelage and announced that he had now come of age… . [I]n the new secularized and emancipated society men were no longer sure of these social and human rights which until then had been outside the political order and guaranteed not by government and constitution, but by social, spiritual, and religious forces (p. 290, 291).
Arendt elaborates on the shifting of the securance of “rights” by religion to their securance by civil government and proceeds to catalog the disasters and ambiguities engendered by this severing of “rights of man” from religion, specifically orthodox Christianity.
It is crucial to recognize that the rights-terminology so prominent in modern Western society, especially in its political discourse, represents a deviation and, indeed, apostasy from historic Christianity and Holy Scripture, the latter of which is devoid of any such terminology or sentiment. The protection of citizens from magistrates, magistrates from citizens, minorities from majorities, the weak from the strong, and races from races is secured in the Biblical scheme not by the imposition of an abstract conception of human rights but by the imposition of concrete Biblical law. In sharp contrast to the sentiment of modern human-rights theory, the Scriptures preserve the safety and fair treatment of citizens by imposition of a universal inscripturated divine decree to which all men are subject. Foreigners, widows, orphans, and the physically handicapped, for example, are protected from mistreatment not on the rationale of inherent human rights but on the rationale of the universal authority and applicability of God’s law as expressed in his inscripturated revelation. Human-rights theory grounded in Enlightenment ideology constitutes an attempt to preserve the benevolence inherent in the proper application of Biblical law while repudiating that law.
Arendt recognizes the “confusion created by the many recent attempts to frame a new bill of human rights, which have demonstrated that no one seems able to define with any assurance what these general human rights, as distinguished from the rights of citizens, really are. Although everyone seems to agree that the plight of these people consists precisely in their loss of the Rights of Man, no one seems to know which rights they lost when they lost these human rights” (p. 293).
The ambiguity, moreover, in which the abstract theory of human rights is sheathed renders it susceptible of arbitrary expansion, by which it spawns such selective rights as homosexual rights, women’s rights, children’s rights, and so forth. This proliferation of “rights” naturally creates a dilemma when the exercise of two or more of these “rights” collides, when, for instance, the “sensitivity rights” of homosexuals collide with the “free speech rights” of vocal heterosexuals; when the “economic rights” of the destitute collide with the “property rights” of business owners and the wealthy; when the “right to privacy” of women collides with the “right to life” by the unborn child; and when the “right of religious exercise” of the church collides with the “separation of church and state” hailed by modern secularists. These collisions of “rights” are not merely intrasocial, but also intersocial. When the United States criticized the old Soviet Union for its “human-rights violations”-by which the United States meant the Soviets’ denial of free speech, free press, free religion, and so forth-the Soviets regularly shot back that America was utterly hypocritical inasmuch as its own citizens lacked the “right” of “economic freedom,” i.e., a guaranteed job and wages.
In these cases newly discovered “rights” are instruments by which to oppress freedoms secured by the proper exercise of Biblical law. The redistribution of wealth by means of taxation to provide state-guaranteed welfare, medical, and retirement benefits (“economic freedom”) to all citizens violates the eighth commandment by oppressing the more wealthy. The extension of religious freedom to Satanists and other idolaters violates the first commandment. The extension of the “right to privacy” to women who wish to abort their unborn children violates the sixth commandment by oppressing the unborn. The imposition of “affirmative action” programs to conform to an abstractly created racial or sexual quoto violates the Biblical law requiring the even treatment of all and thus oppresses those not among the “minority” groups. The employment of human rights easily becomes, therefore, a blatant and intentional assault on the law of God.
The inevitability in modern times of the suppression of the “rights” originally justified by appeal to “natural law” (speech, property, religion) in favor of “rights” recently discovered (children’s, homosexual, privacy) evidences the flimsiness of rights-theory and underscores the cogency of Biblical law. The proper understanding and enforcement of Biblical law in the civil sphere secures all of the “rights” essential to the exalted place of humanity under God’s rule without sacrificing the transcendent foundation without which “human rights” become nothing more than an arbitrary fiction.
Human rights of any kind require a transcendent justification (“the laws of nature and of nature’s God” were the justification posed by Jefferson), and it is not surprising that as belief in the infinite and personal God of Scripture-and now, even in the deistic God of Jefferson and the philosophes-has evaporated, it is becoming increasingly difficult for proponents of human rights to justify their cause.
In a fascinating passage, Arendt evinces that totalitarianism is not the absence of law but, quite the contrary, the direct application of an abstract conception of law to the human situation, irrespective of the consent of humanity.
Totalitarian lawfulness, defying legality and pretending to establish the direct reign of justice on earth, executes the law of History or Nature without transplanting it into standards of right and wrong for individual behavior. It apples the law directly to mankind without bothering with the behavior of men (p. 462).
Totalitarian law is not interested in the nature of man but in theoretical abstractions. Human law requires consent:
Both judgment and legal punishment presuppose this basic consent; the criminal can be judged justly only because he takes part in the consensus iuris, and even the revealed law of God can function among men only when they listen and consent to it (ibid.).
God’s absolute eternal decrees do not obviate true subordinate freedom: Israel was free to apostatize from divine law, as is modern man. In the consummation of all things all knees will bow to Christ, willingly or unwillingly; but in the preconsummation era God has permitted rebellion. This sort of rebellion modern totalitarians cannot tolerate, for the juridical goal of totalitarianism is not merely justice, but salvation. For this reason, totalitarian governments relativize transcendent law and absolutize temporal law:
At this point the fundamental difference between the totalitarian and all other concepts of law comes to light. Totalitarian policy does not replace one set of laws with another, does not establish its own consensus iuris, does not create, by one revolution, a new form of legality. Its defiance of all, even its own positive laws implies it believes it can do without any consensus iuris whatever, and still not resign itself to the tyrannical state of lawlessness, arbitrariness and fear. It can do without the consensus iuris because it promises to release the fulfillment of law from all action and will of man; and it promises justice on earth because it claims to make mankind itself the embodiment of law.
This identification of man and law, which seems to cancel the discrepancy between legality and justice that has plagued legal thought since ancient times, has nothing in common with the lumen natutale or the voice of conscience by which Nature or Divinity as the sources of authority for the ius naturale or the historically revealed commands of God, are supposed to announce their authority in man himself. This never made man a walking embodiment of law, but on the contrary remained distinct from him as the authority which demanded consent and obedience. Nature or Divinity as the source of authority for positive laws were thought of as permanent and eternal; positive laws were changing and changeable according to circumstances, but they possessed a relative permanence as compared with the much more rapidly changing actions of men; and they derived this permanence from the eternal presence of their source of authority… .
In the interpretation of totalitarianism, all laws have become laws of movement. When the Nazis talked about the law of nature or when the Bolsheviks talk about the law of history, neither nature nor history is any longer the stabilizing force of authority for the actions of mortal men; they are movements in themselves… (pp. 462, 463).
This is a striking passage, but what Arendt fails to realize is that virtually all modern legal philosophies and codes differ from those of totalitarianism only in degree, not kind. Inasmuch as each replaces Biblical or even a sort of amorphous “natural law” with the naked will of humanity, it “promises justice on earth because it claims to make mankind itself the embodiment of law.” Hence, if Arendt’s description of totalitarianism is correct, all forms of modern government lead to totalitarianism.
The absolutization of nature or history becomes, ironically, the relativization of nature or history because nature or history isolated from the transcendent God simply becomes a tool in the hands of ideologues to apply their rationalistic abstractions to humanity. Again, what the otherwise perceptive author fails to notice is that not merely in modern totalitarianism but in virtually all societies “all laws have become laws of movement.”
The rejection of Biblical law is of necessity accompanied by the absolutization of some form of the temporal. In ancient times, the king was divinized; in the Enlightenment, nature and its supposed laws were divinized; in modern society, in which both Biblical law and even “the laws of nature’s God” are rejected, the human sentiment as expressed in the asserted “will of the people” is divinized. In this way, history is absolutized and subjected to the whims of man. It is crucial to recognize that both “free” and totalitarian political orders share this premise of the absolutization of history, and that the existence of freedom in the West is only relative, since it rests on the tenuous ground of human sentiment.
When, in Arendt’s terms, “mankind itself [becomes] the embodiment of law,” no barriers whatsoever survive to inhibit the headlong rush into totalitarianism.
Forerunner - Home » The Puritan Storm
Your comments are welcome!
Who is the dreaded beast of Revelation?
Now at last, a plausible candidate for this personification of evil incarnate has been identified (or re-identified). Ken Gentry’s insightful analysis of scripture and history is likely to revolutionize your understanding of the book of Revelation — and even more importantly — amplify and energize your entire Christian worldview!
Historical footage and other graphics are used to illustrate the lecture Dr. Gentry presented at the 1999 Ligonier Conference in Orlando, Florida. It is followed by a one-hour question and answer session addressing the key concerns and objections typically raised in response to his position. This presentation also features an introduction that touches on not only the confusion and controversy surrounding this issue — but just why it may well be one of the most significant issues facing the Church today.
Ideal for group meetings, personal Bible study — for anyone who wants to understand the historical context of John’s famous letter “… to the seven churches which are in Asia.” (Revelation 1:4)
Running Time: 145 minutes
$17.95 — ORDER NOW!(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)
Download the Free Study Guide!
Just what is Calvinism?
Does this teaching make man a deterministic robot and God the author of sin? What about free will? If the church accepts Calvinism, won’t evangelism be stifled, perhaps even extinguished? How can we balance God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility? What are the differences between historic Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism? Why did men like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Whitefield, Edwards and a host of renowned Protestant evangelists embrace the teaching of predestination and election and deny free will theology?
This is the first video documentary that answers these and other related questions. Hosted by Eric Holmberg, this fascinating three-part, four-hour presentation is detailed enough so as to not gloss over the controversy. At the same time, it is broken up into ten “Sunday-school-sized” sections to make the rich content manageable and accessible for the average viewer.
Running Time: 257 minutes
$19.95 — ORDER NOW!(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)
That Swiss Hermit Strikes Again!
Dr. Schaeffer, who was one of the most influential Christian thinkers in the twentieth century, shows that secular humanism has displaced the Judeo-Christian consensus that once defined our nation’s moral boundaries. Law, education, and medicine have all been reshaped for the worse as a consequence. America’s dominant worldview changed, Schaeffer charges, when Christians weren’t looking.
Schaeffer lists two reasons for evangelical indifference: a false concept of spirituality and fear. He calls on believers to stand against the tyranny and moral chaos that come when humanism reigns-and warns that believers may, at some point, be forced to make the hard choice between obeying God or Caesar. A Christian Manifesto is a thought-provoking and bracing Christian analysis of American culture and the obligation Christians have to engage the culture with the claims of Christ.
$19.95 — ORDER NOW!(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)
Who is the Real Jesus?
Ever since the dawn of modern rationalism, skeptics have sought to use textual criticism, archeology and historical reconstructions to uncover the “historical Jesus” — a wise teacher who said many wonderful things, but fulfilled no prophecies, performed no miracles and certainly did not rise from the dead in triumph over sin.
Over the past 100 years, however, startling discoveries in biblical archeology and scholarship have all but vanquished the faulty assumptions of these doubting modernists. Regrettably, these discoveries have often been ignored by the skeptics as well as by the popular media. As a result, the liberal view still holds sway in universities and impacts the culture and even much of the church.
The Real Jesus explodes the myths of these critics and the movies, books and television programs that have popularized their views. Presented in ten parts — perfect for individual, family and classroom study — viewers will be challenged to go deeper in their knowledge of Christ in order to be able to defend their faith and present the truth to a skeptical modern world – that the Jesus of the Gospels is the Jesus of history — “the same yesterday, today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). He is the real Jesus.
Speakers include: George Grant, Ted Baehr, Stephen Mansfield, Raymond Ortlund, Phil Kayser, David Lutzweiler, Jay Grimstead, J.P. Holding, and Eric Holmberg.
Ten parts, over two hours of instruction!
Running Time: 130 minutes
$19.95 — ORDER NOW!(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)
“Give me liberty or give me death!”
Patrick Henry’s famous declaration not only helped launch the War for Independence, it also perfectly summarized the mindset that gave birth to, and sustained, the unprecedented experiment in Christian liberty that was America.
The freedom our Founders envisioned was not freedom from suffering, want, or hard work. Nor was it freedom to indulge every appetite or whim without restraint—that would merely be servitude to a different master. No, the Founders’ passion was to live free before God, unfettered by the chains of autocracy, shackles that slowly but inexorably bind men when the governments they fashion fail to recognize and uphold freedom’s singular, foundational truth: that all men are created in the image of God, and are thereby co-equally endowed with the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
This presentation is a similar call, not to one but many. By reintroducing the principles of freedom that gave birth to America, it is our prayer that Jesus, the true and only ruler over the nations, will once again be our acknowledged Sovereign, that we may again know and exult in the great truth that “where the Spirit of the LORD is, there is liberty” (2 Cor. 3:17).
Welcome to the Second American Revolution!
This DVD features “Liberty: The Model of Christian Liberty” along with “Dawn’s Early Light: A Brief History of America’s Christian Foundations.” Bonus features include a humorous but instructive collection of campaign ads and Eric Holmberg’s controversial YouTube challenge concerning Mitt Romney’s campaign for president.
$14.95 — ORDER NOW!(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)