Book Review: Listen, America!

Listen, America! The Conservative Blueprint for America’s Moral Rebirth by Jerry Falwell (Toronto: Bantam Books, 1980. 237 pp)

Jerry Falwell was an evangelical, fundamentalist preacher. He founded Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg Virgina, Liberty University, and the Moral Majority. Falwell attended Baptist Bible College and became an outspoken voice for conservatism in the United States. Falwell died in 2007.

Thank You, Sir 

Well-behaved children do not find trouble. If they speak kindly in a crowd, no offense is taken. If they covet nothing, no jealousy or harm of property could ever occur. To a certain extent and from the condescending tone of the title, Jerry Falwell’s Listen, America! flows from this reasoning. If a person, community, or country acts well, what could go wrong?

The Supposed Dangers of Moral Decay 

The former leading voice of the disbanded Moral Majority, Jerry Falwell urges Christians to establish morality through political action. Although Listen, America! does not flow deductively (or inductively, for that matter), Jerry Falwell’s core thesis surrounds the concept of moral decay in the United States.

For Falwell, the prosperity of a nation is directly related to the morality of a nation. He writes,

“History books are replete with illustrations of how, down through six thousand years of human history, empires, governments, kingdoms, and nations have ceased to exist when they have fallen into sin” (22).

Setting aside the debate around what qualifies as sin (many could argue that the supposed pristine lifestyle of the founding fathers carried much sin), Falwell believes that the rise of liberalism and its acceptance of unhinged sin is a recipe for the downfall of the United States.

In order for America to avoid a precarious downfall, Falwell believes that all of society must realign with Christian morals.

“God is the Author of our liberty, and we will remain free only as long as we remember this and seek to live by God’s laws” (41).

Directly related to his belief in the core reasons for societal decay, Falwell contends that societal success exists only in correlation with enacting proper morals. Interestingly, these two premises do not elaborate on what to do. Jim Wallis, a Christian living on the opposite side of the spectrum could agree with these premises.

Christian Morals Defined 

What differentiates Falwell from Wallis is the definition of Christian morals. Whereas Wallis sides with the poor, disenfranchised, and exploited, Falwell affirms the status quo. He states,

“The free-enterprise system is clearly outlined in the Book of Proverbs in the Bible. Jesus Christ made it clear that the work ethic was a part of His plan for man. Ownership of property is biblical. Competition in business is biblical. Ambitious and successful business management is clearly outlined as a part of God’s plan for His people” (12).

Charitably granting that Falwell has sources to back up these claims, capitalism becomes Biblically mandated.

The Morality of the Founding Fathers 

Falwell traces these principles back to the moral superiority of the founding fathers of the United States. Hinting at America’s role as a present-day chosen society of God, Falwell asserts that the actions of the founding fathers create some sort of covenant with God. These principles, for Falwell, are diametrically different than the way government currently runs. He argues:

“When America was founded, the legitimate purpose of government was to protect the lives, the liberties, and the property of the citizens. It was not the purpose of government to redistribute resources or to enforce any particular results in the relationships and dealings of the citizenry among themselves. Simply stated, government was to protect the God-given rights of the people” (59).

Much like John Locke’s position on property and government, Falwell believes that God gifts humans with labor, property, and free enterprise. Government’s role, then, is to divorce itself from wealth creation and maintain the rights of the people in case of dispute.

Christians in Politics: A Social Engagement 

Photo by Mark Trammell

Given Falwell’s premises, he urges Christians to right the proverbial ship, exerting the strength of the moral majority. He believes that God mandates Christians to remain active in politics and to legislate ethics in order to avoid the decay of immorality. Falwell suggests,

“The political process is really nothing more than a realization of the social process. For us to divorce ourselves from society would be to run into the kind of isolationism and monasticism that characterized the medieval hermits” (226).

Despite his clear opposition to the Christian communism of Walter Rauschenbusch, Falwell agrees with Rauschenbusch’s tenet of engaging with society. Where Rauschenbusch urges us to engage with society in order to alleviate social evils, Falwell, to a certain extent, wants Christians to engage with society in order to maintain the social ideals that Rauschenbusch would label evil.

In all honesty, much of Listen, America! bothers me. Logic is applied sparingly to the book and much of his assertions about communism seem to come from a position of fear. Born in 1985, I am not cognizant of communism and the fear it instilled in the West. Perhaps, the best modern analog is Islam? Nevertheless, Falwell’s claims seem wide-sweeping and unsupported.

God’s Covenant with America 

Yet even if I grant him the overwhelming fear of communism and his questionable truth claims, Falwell’s assumptions regarding the superiority of the United States and capitalism feel absurd. Throughout Listen, America!, Falwell writes as if the United States holds exclusive rights to prosperity, economics, and salvation. I get the feeling that Falwell believes that God has selected the United States as his chosen nation, which, in some way, is similar to the relationship Israel held with God in the Old Testament, America’s citizens must follow God or face undesirable outcomes. I reject this position vehemently. God’s covenant through Jesus extends globally. To proclaim that one nation holds a privileged status with God is discriminatory at best and a grave sin at worst.

Conclusion 

Intuitively, a well behaved group of people will achieve better societal results than a lawless group. Falwell believes that an America without a moral backbone is an America that doesn’t exist. In order for America to survive and thrive, the nation must return to its Christian morals. Falwell defines morals as a return to the conservative ways of the founding fathers and the free market economy. Yet, I critique Falwell for his misplaced assumptions in the covenantal relationship God carries with the United States. The U.S., while successful and certainly blessed, has no moral superiority to the rest of the world.

In short, don’t read Listen, America!

Verdict: 1 out of 5

---

Posted by: Donovan Richards

Affiliate Links:

 

Book Review: Abraham Kuyper

Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader by Abraham Kuyper; edited by James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1998. 512 pp)

Abraham Kuyper was a Dutch politician, journalist, statesman, and theologian. Kuyper studied at Leiden University and received a doctorate in 1862. He founded the Anti-Revolutionary Party and held the office of Prime Minister from 1901 to 1905. A staunch Calvinist and a proponent of conservatism, Kuyper seceded from the Dutch Reformed Church and founded the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands. He published many books during his lifetime and died in the Netherlands in 1920.

James D. Bratt is a professor of history at Calvin College. He earned his B.A. from Calvin and his Ph.D. from Yale University. He is also the author of Dutch Calvinism in Modern America.

Comparative Advantage

The economic principle of comparative advantage offers an intuitive level of truth. It argues that individuals/institutions/states ought to produce items that best suit their talents. Comparative advantage is intuitive because it allows the entity to govern the action(s) at which it performs best. This very principle surrounds Abraham Kuyper’s notion of “sphere sovereignty,” the bedrock doctrine behind Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader which is a compilation of Kuyper’s influential writings.

Sphere Sovereignty

Abraham Kuyper’s writing offers much to consider. As a man involved in the church, media, government, and academics, Kuyper dabbles in many spheres. Yet, one underlying principle in all of his work is the notion of sphere sovereignty, the belief that God, the sovereign being over all of life, grants authority to specific spheres to govern each sector to the best of its ability.

A staunch Calvinist, Kuyper conservatively follows in the footsteps of previous Reformed Dutch theologians. As such, Kuyper’s worldview flows from his understanding of God as an absolute sovereign being. Kuyper writes,

“Only God is Sovereign; He regards all creatures, born in royal palace or beggar’s hut, as nothing in comparison with Himself. One creature cannot have authority over another except as God gives it” (307).

Since Kuyper places absolute authority in the hands of God, he views the exertion of authority from one group of people onto another as an affront to the sovereignty of God. For example, when government legislates what the church can and cannot do, Kuyper believes that government has overstepped its sovereign boundaries. While not explicitly stated in a concise rubric, the notion of sphere sovereignty permeates all of Kuyper’s writing.

To understand sphere sovereignty more specifically, Government holds authority over the political realm; church convenes over spiritual matters; universities over matters of education; and businesses/unions on matters of work. Kuyper confirms this idea when he notes,

“State and society are not identical. The government is not the only sovereign in the country. Sovereignty exists in distinct spheres, and in each of these smaller circles this sovereignty is bound to primordial arrangements or ordinances that have been created not by the government but by the Creator of heaven and earth” (241).

Given this position, Kuyper believes that society functions best when each sphere governs itself. Any crossover between spheres in society falls into inefficiency at best and grave injustice at worst.

Real-Life Examples of Sphere Sovereignty

Abraham Kuyper

Reacting against the injustices he readily viewed in Europe and in the colonies of the British Commonwealth, Kuyper proposed the separation of church and state found in the then still-fledgling United States and the separation of government and business in ancient Athenian democracy as examples of sphere sovereignty.

First, Kuyper found the physical and spiritual growth of the United States to be a direct result of the separation of church and state. He argues:

“No longer was there a church in the state nor a state bound to the church. The church of Christ was the point of departure. She was to make sure that the principles of justice and truth held sway in the hearts of the citizens, but the citizens in their everyday life found free organization in the state to be indispensable. Once the ideal of freedom had established itself in the bosom of the church, it inevitably sought civil rights in the domain of the state” (296).

Instead of the church-dominated legislation previously found in Europe, the church in the United States influenced the hearts of the population toward justice and, thus, influenced the legislation of government through the hearts of the citizens, not by the power of the priesthood.

Second, Kuyper found the example of Athenian democracy an excellent illustration of sphere sovereignty. Kuyper writes:

“A better way would have been to follow Solon’s approach in Athens instead of trying to imitate ancient Rome. Solon gave free rein to private initiative. He did not allow the government to get involved in business but merely stipulated that manual laborers constitute their own class of citizens, that nobody be allowed to have two trades at the same time, that foreigners from the outside be allowed to offer competition only if the local craftsmen agreed. Furthermore he gave industry the right to be sovereign in its own sphere and to make its own rules, the only restriction being that it was not to decide anything contrary to the law of the land” (244).

Again, Kuyper proposes that the sector most attuned to the operation ought to legislate its sphere. As Solon’s approach in Athens illustrates, those people that best know their trade will optimally legislate their sphere.

The Decision of One Sphere Influences Other Spheres

On the surface, the logic behind sphere sovereignty is compelling as comparative advantage illustrated earlier. It makes little sense for a career politician to decide the laws that are in the best interest of the church, business, or any other sphere. A carpenter will know the optimal way to fashion lumber; a priest will know the best way to shepherd the flock. But I am not ultimately convinced that sphere sovereignty offers the best solution for the way we organize society.

The decisions of one sphere will always influence other spheres. When business, for example, decides to pursue profit as its highest goal, it will make decisions that could negatively affect other stakeholders. Other spheres, then, have the right to condemn such actions.

At its core, I believe the danger of sphere sovereignty lies in the blinding nature of each sphere. The very reason that sphere sovereignty is compelling is the same reason why it is dangerous. Specific spheres best know their field; they also know little about how their decisions alter other fields.

Thus, I believe it is important for checks and balances between spheres. If one sphere negatively affects another, the other sphere ought to have the ability to authoritatively respond.

For Kuyper, sphere sovereignty begins with an absolutely sovereign God. For one sector to dictate the rules of another sector in society, then, is to reject God’s authority over all spheres. Each sphere, Kuyper argues, ought to sufficiently govern itself.

Despite the pull of comparative advantage that points toward agreement with Kuyper’s view on sphere sovereignty, I argue that sphere sovereignty presents danger for external stakeholders. Too often, people focused on one sphere will make decisions that are in the best interest of that specific sector but negatively harm other stakeholders.

Abraham Kuyper is an influential character in politics and theology. His theories carry much weight in modern thought and it is valuable to understand his positions. For this reason, I recommend Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader to anyone interested in theology, business, and politics.

Verdict: 3.5 out of 5

---

Posted by: Donovan Richards

Affiliate Links:

Book Review: Second Treatise of Government

Second Treatise of Government by John Locke, edited by C.B. Macpherson (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1980; originally published in 1690. 124 pp)

Widely known as the Father of Liberalism, John Locke’s work in epistemology and political philosophy has influenced countless nations. Born in 1632 in England, Locke attended Westminster School in London earning a bachelor’s and master’s degree. Having fled to the Netherlands to escape suspicion of an assassination plot, Locke began publishing his writing upon his return to England. With his writing gaining widespread influence, Locke died in 1704. He never married nor fathered children.

C.B. Macpherson was born in Toronto, Canada in 1911. From 1935 to his death in 1987, he taught primarily at the University of Toronto on political economy and political science. The author of numerous books, Macpherson received the Benjamin E. Lippincott Award of the American Political Science Association in 1979.

“Mine!”

It begins early with a child yelling, “Mine!” We have all heard him/her bursting into tears and the quick crawl/run/waddle to a parent claiming the injustice of lost property. From an early age, we feel the seemingly self-evident truth of private property. We were given an object; we collected items; we connected those items in ways that made a new and much better object.

In all of these scenarios, we learned the idea of “mine.” In John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, the author presents a theological case for government authority through the principle of property.

The Premise of Property

Photo by Eduardo Amorim

Any discussion regarding John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government must center on property. A highly influential writing on political philosophy, Locke’s tome details the ways in which a society organizes and manages itself. But before one can state maxims regarding political government, one must discuss the reasons for organizing societal connections. For Locke, this reason begins with private property.

Locke’s justification for private property begins with the assumption that God the Creator fashioned a world for humanity to subdue and manage. Locke writes,

“God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience. The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being” (18).

The earth, then, exists in a supporting role to humankind; it carries no first order intrinsic value. Instead, it functions instrumentally for the good of humanity.

From this position, Locke believes that private property arises from mixing personal labor with land from the God-given commons of the earth. Locke argues,

“Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others” (19).

Thus, while God provides commons for the good of all humanity, the ability for any human to conduct work allows him or her to transfer land held in common into private property.

To illustrate, under Locke’s philosophy of property, I cannot travel to a pristine wilderness and, upon discovering it, proclaim the land my property. Instead, I must cultivate this discovered land. By building on it and utilizing its soil for food, I then possess the right to proclaim the land my private property.

In short then, Locke suggests that God, who created humanity through labor, considers humans God’s property. God provides the earth as a common for which humans can use their God-given gifts of manual labor to cultivate and transfer the earth into private hands.

Governance

The need for political government arises from this principle of private property. When a society expands beyond the simplicity of cultivating open commons into private property, the need to protect and govern property becomes an important issue. Locke reasons,

“Political power is that power, which every man having in the state of nature, has given up into the hands of the society, and therein to the governors, whom the society hath set over itself, with this express or tacit trust, that it shall be employed for their good, and the preservation of their property” (89).

Even though the Second Treatise of Government explores many specific matters in the execution of governmental affairs in a united society, the core principles behind these discussions surround Locke’s theological notion of property and the need for governing those God-given rights.

Locke: An American Ideal

Interestingly, I find that Locke’s arguments sound natural as if they are ingrained in the psyche of American society and capitalism as a whole. John Dunn, in an essay titled “Measuring Locke’s Shadow” confirms this idea when he writes,

“Locke is still intractably America’s philosopher, and still very much America’s philosopher for what still seems ever more peremptorily America’s globe. He is the sign on the banner of America’s imperious external reach, her cultural, imaginative, ideological, economic, and even political Griff nach der Weltmacht [bid for world power].”

Put differently, Locke’s ideas on property and the need for government to authorize and protect it are the modus operandi for American business and politics.

Property as Dominance

John Locke

In fact, Locke’s ideas seem to be the foundation for the domination of nature for which society now encounters drastic repercussions. In other words, to align theologically with Locke’s views on property, one must translate “dominion” in Genesis 1:28 as “domination.” What else could private property mean other than the absolute control of a specific portion of God’s creation?

By assuming “domination” of God’s creation in Genesis 1:28, I find tension in Locke’s arguments. Given Locke’s premises, God owns humanity because God created us through work. Under the same assumption, God possesses all of creation. Therefore, humans cannot possess an absolute right over a portion of creation because they were not the first to labor on it.

It then follows that the God-given commons for which humans carry the right to fill and subdue is not a space which humans carry the right to section off into private property but an area owned by God given to humans in common to share and steward for the good of the whole.

Locke centers his political philosophy on a theological case for private property. By mixing labor with the God-given commons, private property arises. As an extension, political governance exists to protect that property. Nevertheless, the notion that God created and thus possesses the created world forces us to consider the earth in stewardship instead of domination. Even though we feel the pull of private property from an early age, our connection to an item through work does not require it to become our private possession.

With dense philosophical writing, Locke’s Second Treatise of Government is a difficult but rewarding read. Despite my reservations regarding Locke’s premises, this book is a must read for anyone interested in politics.

Verdict: 4 out of 5

---

Posted by: Donovan Richards

Affiliate Links: