Introduction
A state that does not embody true justice is normally viewed as incomplete and appears not to be a moral state. Philosophers argue that it is Christianity that molds people to become good citizens. Therefore, for a state of being morally upright, then it must uphold Christian values and for it to be regarded as a Christian state.
The State is viewed as an instrument of force; its roots are founded on the original sins, and the original sins and its outcomes can be regarded as an institution. However, a State which is just is out of the blame if only it’s a Christian state. A state could be considered preserved and perfectly established by assessing its foundations, the bond of its faith and strong concord.
More importantly when the correct and the highest true good, God, is appreciated and loved by everyone and people love each other because of His sake. Thus State could also become informed through higher principles that should be drawn from Christianity (Copleston 89). The paper explores two philosophers and their ideas regarding a good state being intertwined with Christianity.
Luther’s View
Luther believed that state displayed God’s work and was involved in preserving, creating and reuniting Gods work. However, Luther also illustrated state as extremely sinful. Also, Luther alleged that State originates from human sociality; therefore, its part of humanity design of God’s creation. Concerning humanity, the state performs its proper role by reflecting the love and divine justice through its role in reconciliation and preservation.
The role of the state is to defend the citizens, particularly as they fight for impartiality and to preserve and create good physical conditions for the whole of humanity as God intended (Tannenbaum and Schultz 67). Luther claimed that a good State is one which its policies assist in establishing economic justice, integration, and an order that is partial and historical manifestations of justice and divine love.
On the other hand, State is regarded as evil if it executes and formulates policies founded on classism, racism, and militarism. State portrayed a kind of force for both good and evil. According to his theological approach, the state was not supposed to be an object whereby people fully rely on or base their loyalty.
However, supreme authority dwells only in God. Moreover, Luther supported democratic states because they respect and maintain human equality and human rights which are freely given by God. Luther also supported social democracies because they well mirrored and offered mutuality network, which God created among people.
As a result of his theology exposure, Luther never represented the state as the redeemer of humanity. Nevertheless, Luther suggested that the state was only a tool, which was limited in the plan of God for mankind salvation (Long 212).
Machiavelli’s View
According to Machiavelli, it was not the moral rule of God which provided the state its final sanction. However, it was provided by power. The ultimate test of a successful ruler was based on the willingness to execute power judiciously and liberty from the restraint accompanied by moral suasion. A prince was not supposed to maintain the faith to please the citizens, while that was against his interest.
Machiavelli justifies those concepts by arguing that in case everyone was good then that principle would be incorrect. However, since people were bad and did not observe the faith as one, this one was not bound to maintain his/her faith together with them. Machiavelli regards the role of Christianity in the field of politics as a disaster, which ruins the authority of the state to rule (Tannenbaum and Schultz 121).
Therefore, his work emphasizes that the state should restrict the authority of the church, permitting it to execute its power in the spiritual realm only. The prince as the leader of the state should realize that the way to achieve in governing is through exercising the power. Hence power was to be employed with wisdom and heartlessness. According to him, the prince should be sly just like the fox and brutal like the lion.
Most importantly, the prince should not be prevented from performing his role by any deliberation related to morality above that of the authority. That means hypocrisy was permissible, judicious brutality consolidated power and decreased revolution.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the views of these two philosophers were contrasting. Luther argues that a good state is where citizens recognize God as the supreme source of power who should be obeyed and respected. A good State protects its citizens and encourages reconciliation. Moreover, the policies of that state focus on maintaining partiality encourage economic justice and divine love.
Luther claims that bad state executes policies which encourage racism, injustice and militarism. On the other hand, Machiavelli argues that the state is governed through the prince power but not the moral law. Therefore, the prince should exercise power to ensure the state is successful.
The prince must be ruthless and rule with wisdom so that the laws are implemented. Also, the church should only be involved in spiritual matters but never or restricted to state affairs. From the two philosophers discussed, Luther seems to be the closest because his work recognizes thesupremacy of God, unlike Machiavelli who disregards God’s majesty.
Works Cited
Copleston, Frederick, C. History of Philosophy Volume2: Medieval Philosophy. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003.
Long, Michael, G. Against us, but for us: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the state. Macon: Mercer University Press, 2002
Tannenbaum, Donald and Schultz, David. Investors of ideas: an introduction of western political philosophy. Tandem Library: New York, 2003