The Problem Of Christianity by Josiah Royce
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Overthrowing Power

Josiah Royce was a philosopher who wrote at a time when it was acceptable, among both philosophers and theologians, for a philosopher to mention the name God. This was a remnant of a thousand year tradition of ‘synthesis’ of all the strands of human inquiry. But this was also a tradition whose influence was to be severely curtailed by the intellectual as well as material trauma of the First World War. The war forms a sort of wall on the far side of which is the wreckage of the cultural importance of theology to the educated mind.

This situation is regrettable, among other reasons because the influence of theology has not declined with its demise from discussion among polite company. Rather theological ideas become hidden and therefore taken for granted and live their life as un-criticised presumption. Royce’s The Problem of Christianity is a subtle, sympathetic but merciless critique of a central complex of Christian thought involving the concepts of salvation, divine grace, and, most importantly, power. It seems to me that an attempt to recover that critique and its implications is worthwhile.

One of the oldest Christian heresies is the Pelagian, named after a fourth century British monk who had the temerity to suggest that the idea of original sin was bunk, that humans had free will and that through free will mankind could contribute to its own salvation. This displeased the likes of Augustine of Hippo who had him condemned at a church council. The heresy was confirmed as such throughout the history of the Church, through the Protestant Reformation, and by the most influential theologian of the 20th century, the Swiss Karl Barth.

The insistence on the inherent corruption of human free will, and on the absolute inability of mankind to contribute in even the smallest part to its own salvation might seem strange. True, the biblical pronouncements of St. Paul stated clearly that Jesus died so that we could be saved. But on the face of it, there appears no reason why the rest of us might not help just a bit through the emulation of Jesus’s sacrifice. A consistent message of the Old Testament - Abraham and Isaac being prime examples - is that one must choose to be chosen, that is, cooperate with a divine invitation.

The parallel Judaic concept of the Zachuth Avot, The Merit of the Fathers (Mothers were also included), for example, held that the Hebrew Patriarchs, through their faith and trust in God, had created a store of divine power which was available for the spiritual help of any Jew in need. But this store could be augmented at any time by the good deeds of anyone. In principle there seems no reason to deny the ‘new Israel’ a similar capability.

Moreover, Augustine’s intransigence led to a rather unfortunate implication, which has had a continuing, decidedly un-Christian effect: Predestination. If only God could decide the salvific fate of human beings; and if not all human beings are to be saved; then it is strictly a matter of the most obvious logic that God saves or condemns based solely on an inscrutable divine instinct. And since God is omniscient, he knows who he has saved or not from the beginning of time. To claim otherwise would be to impugn the unlimited power of God, who is the source of all power. QED.

So the absoluteness of divine power is apparently protected by the Augustinian doctrine. But, not coincidentally, so is another power, that of the Church. The power of God is conceived as an infinite reservoir of grace that has been filled by the sacrifice of Jesus. The sluice gates are controlled by the formal authority of the Church which dispenses this power through its sacraments to the remainder of the world. Only authorised members of the clergy are permitted to exercise this power of distribution, so the Church has a monopoly which it has ever since sought to strengthen and protect.

And this conception of divine power is not relevant only to the Church. In the year 800, Charlemagne is crowned the new Roman emperor by the pope in a ceremony by which he pointedly grants divine power conditionally to the civil authority. In 1066, the Conqueror, having established military control over England, claims every square inch of the country as his personal property to distribute among his followers as a matter of divinely ordained right. In 2016, Britain votes to ‘take back its sovereignty’ from the European Union. Sovereignty is an idea which means responsibility only to God. In every high court in the land there is an ornate plaque which declares ‘Dieu et Mon Droit’. Theological ideas have a very long reach indeed.

This, therefore, is The Problem of Christianity to which Royce’s title refers. A devotion to a man and his teaching of humility and sacrifice for others has been doctrinally transformed into an institutional justification of absolute power and control. While Royce could understand and appreciate the Christian message as something of vital importance to the world, he had a difficulty, as do many others, reconciling that message with the patently self-aggrandizing and self-serving doctrines of the Church. The centre-point of his concern was the doctrine of grace and its source.

But if Royce were critical of the Church, he was also loyal. His entire philosophy was founded on the idea of commitment to one’s ‘cause’ within a community, in fact a Beloved Community, which exists solely because of the mutual regard of its members and their consequent dedication to finding a satisfactory solution to all disagreements. His criticism of Christianity, however necessary, was not therefore meant to undermine or destroy the institution but to bring it to an awareness of its own fallibility.

This Beloved Community was for Royce something universal, open to all not on the basis of credal affirmation or tribal membership but on the basis of being human. All people had a right to participate in this community. “The atoning deed of the Founder [i.e. Jesus] establishes the Beloved Community, thus making real in the world a form of loyalty capable of overcoming the tragic fact of the moral burden the individual himself can not overcome.” The Church exists to help not to command mankind, to condemn sinners , or to protect God. It exists in order to share the burdens that are the inevitable consequence of being a self-reflective animal thrown into a world he doesn’t understand and among others who understand as little as he does.

The Beloved Community is intensely political. In a sense, it’s purpose is to keep society away from the non-political, that is to say, violence. “Christianity,” he says, “makes possible the redeeming community which avoids individualism and collectivism.” Both these forms of social organisation - socialism and capitalism - are forms of violence, that is coercion, duress, threats, and hostile persuasion. These are manifestations of power and are the antithesis of the Christianity of the Beloved Community.

“The power to give loyalty,” Royce says, “is grace.” This is authentic power. It is also a human capability. We decide to give such power when we commit ourselves to the Beloved Community. True power flows not downward from some spiritual fountain controlled by a hierarchy, it flows upward and outward from those who are loyal to the community. “Loyalty in an individual is his love for a united community.”

Royce recognises the kernel of truth in the Augustinian position, namely that none of us is capable of achieving his or her own salvation, however that is conceived: “We cannot choose to fall in love. Only when once in love can we choose to remain lovers.” But he avoids the predestinational trap of Augustine because he is concerned not about the violent power of the Church but the developmental power of the Beloved Community: “You are first made loyal by the power of someone else who already is loyal.” As with any love, the birth of loyalty is something miraculous. It can’t be predicted and it certainly can’t be coerced. It nevertheless happens as a typical human reaction to those who act in a loyal manner.

“We don’t want our Beloved Community to consist of puppets, or of merely fascinated victims of a melancholy insistent love. We want the free loyalty of those who, whatever fascination first won them to the cause, remain faithful because they choose to remain faithful.” This community is not one that exists for itself. Its unity is meant to foster interpretation of the world, including interpretation of the community itself. A diversity of interpretations is essential for the health of the community. Unity does not mean sameness of interpretation but permanent commitment to expressing, accepting, and continuously interpreting these interpretations.

To say that Royce was ahead of his time would be factually correct but morally inaccurate. Most components of the Christian Church have moved toward Royce’s position over the last century despite their inability to shuck an historical burden of some very bad doctrine. But would that Royce’s criticism had been stated two millennia sooner. Perhaps a great deal of violent misery might have been avoided.

Postscript: The presumption of infinite divine power is a Greek philosophical, not a Hebrew theological one. It is a presumption which causes enormously painful theological headaches and needlessly complicates the ethical lives of ordinary people. See https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

View all my reviews