A brief description of classical liberal theology

Liberalism emerged from the struggle against Christian theology and ecclesiastical authority. Important political attitudes, political ideas, political sentiments in liberalism, especially classical liberalism, and the formation of the modern system of political philosophy are inextricably linked to the political tradition of medieval Christianity, i.e., to the Christian view of dualistic politics. The birth of liberalism is the inheritance and development of the medieval Christian tradition: individualism is the beginning of the Christian understanding of and concern for the human person; the boundary between individual rights and state power is similar to the dualistic political view of Christianity; and the classical liberalism about the negative view of the state owes much to the distrust of secular power in Christianity.

In fact, the relationship between the inheritance and development of Christian political tradition and classical liberalism has been profoundly discussed and studied by both Chinese and foreign scholars, and this article is just a brief compendium of this issue. Domestic scholars, Cong Riyun, have a special book, Between God and Caesar---Christian Dualistic Political View and Modern Liberalism, which explores the issue. And this article is actually a reading experience of the study of this book. Indeed, in the eyes of the general public, the "darkness" of the Middle Ages cannot be questioned, and even in the eyes of some scholars, the Middle Ages appear to be so disordered that the Middle Ages actually retrogressed by many years, both politically and in other aspects. Humanism argues that the decline of classical culture with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire was a tragedy in human history, and that mankind has fallen into darkness ever since. But the Middle Ages were not all bad. There were developments, at least in politics. First of all, the Christian political theory realized a political division from the barbaric kind of political disorder to a binary political division, so that at least there could be a political structure that could be fixed and operated in a general way there. Secondly, the medieval millennium of political grinding smoothly realized from the ancient Greek holistic political outlook to the modern liberal individualist political outlook, ask, if there is no Christian binary division, how to transition from holism directly to individualism, the loss of individualism as the core of the foundation of the political philosophy, liberalism is just an illusory castle in the air.

Of course, we can clearly corroborate this idea from Mr. Cong Riyun's thought. He said in his writings that, first, the liberal conception of the state as a tool and the distrust of government originated in Christianity; second, the strong individualistic spirit of Christianity formed the basis of modern liberalism; and, third, Christianity led to the formation of a dualistic system of power in medieval Western Europe, which evolved into the concepts and systems of modern liberalism that distinguish the boundaries between individual rights and the power of the state, and that safeguard the rights of the individual. In fact, if we explore the connection between Christian political tradition and modern political thought purely in terms of illustrating the relationship between the two, we can clearly see the close connection between Christianity and its political thought from the writings of Hobbes and Spinoza alone. It can be said quite frankly that both Hobbes and Spinoza can be called the originators of liberalism. Although they were critics of religious theology, they drew heavily on the shocking power that theology still had in his time. Hobbes, for example, started with religion and then moved further and further away from it, while Spinoza similarly embodied the guiding and foundational role of Christian political views in his political thought. We all know that liberalism first arose in the struggle with Christian theology, giving an image of being antagonistic to Christianity, but tracing its roots, as Mr. Cong Riyun said, liberalism first arose from the mother of Christianity. The opposition between liberalism and Christian thought is only superficial. The liberal dualistic political outlook is the product of the Christian dualistic political and cultural tradition.

Then how does the Christian political tradition, especially the dualistic political view therein, interface with classical liberalism in the latter's transmission of the former? In the author's opinion, firstly, the transcendentalist attitude towards human beings and the sublimation of the spiritual life of human beings in the Christian political tradition gave rise to the ideological source of classical liberalism; secondly, the sublimation of the individual in the Christian political tradition, and the antagonism between human beings and the secular state formed indirectly or directly effectively guided the theory of the boundaries between the rights of the individual and the power of the state in the later period; thirdly, the disregard for the power of the secular state in the Christian political tradition has been the main reason for the development of the classical liberalism. Third, the indifference to secular state power in the Christian political tradition expressed in advance the later classical liberals' theories about the negative view of the state.

I. On the Christian Dualistic Political View

Christianity was born around the beginning of the first century A.D., and in the course of its subsequent development gradually formed a complete value system, as some scholars have said, in actuality, the theory that Christianity proclaims is not a political philosophy, but in fact is a set of value system. What we call Christianity's dualistic political outlook is actually a political concept, theory, and political thought formed by the influence of Christian doctrine on the political character of Western European society. Christianity emphasizes first of all man's absolute loyalty and obedience to God, not his loyalty to secular power. If one has to kneel down on one leg to secular power, then one has to kneel down on both legs to God. Regardless of how it actually operates on a practical political level, this transcendentalist division has clearly drawn the line between God and secular power. The human spirit belongs to God and the physical body to the secular, but Christianity emphasizes the soul over the body. There is no need here to distinguish exactly how secular power is treated in Christian theory, but one thing is certain, that is, from the establishment of the church, the determination of church rituals, and the rationalization of numerous relationships, Christian theory has begun to divide man into two in terms of action, and man is no longer alone, which is the same as early Stoicism in the degree of importance attached to the individual in the absolute sense of an increase. By this point, the so-called Christian binary view of politics is well understood, what is God's is God's, and what is Caesar's is Caesar's. It can be said, then, that the Christian God snatched away the spirit of man and left it to the secular state to manage the objective world of man. We know that since the formation of the state, its highest authority has enjoyed supreme power over all human life. This authority originated either from the collective mandate of the people, as in the days of the city-states, or was based on the unity of earthly authority with divine authority, as in the ancient East and in the late Roman Empire. Christianity began to separate the authority of God from the authority of government and to place God's authority above earthly authority. The Church has the responsibility in secular society to take charge of people's spiritual world and to prevent the secular state from interfering in people's spiritual and religious life. The secular state, on the other hand, can only intervene in matters that belong to the secular sphere. This political idea of dual power is actually the core of the Christian view of dualistic politics.

Second, the core political view of classical liberalism

With the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Renaissance, classical liberalism began to ascend to the stage of history. In fact classical liberalism has its origins in the parent body of Christianity, which is a direct expression of the theme of this paper. The main political conception of classical liberalism emphasized individualism, considering the independence, freedom and equality of the individual as the starting point of political philosophy, and treating the individual as the state and its foundation and origin, while the state is only a collection of individuals. As Kant later put it, man is an end and not a means. And when mankind established the state, various ways were utilized to draw a line between the rights of the individual and the power of the state. Yet the essential purpose is still to safeguard individual rights, which makes a clear difference from the holism of the city-state era of the ancient Greek period, which I attribute here to the transitional bridging role played by the medieval Christian dualistic view of politics during this period. None of the three theoretical foundations of libertarianism have any connection to Christianity. The theory of natural law is an a priori assumption of liberalism, the theory of the social contract is a man-made law from the individual to the state; and rationalism, which puts everything existing in the hands of the human heart rather than any power, again shows the importance attached to the individual, and shows that human beings are no longer mere means to an end in the conception of the liberals, tools for the realization of the politics of secular power and ecclesiastical monasticism, but ends in themselves. Of course, there is definitely more to classical liberalism than just the three or two sentences above.

From Christian dualism to classical liberalism

We cannot say that the holistic political orientation that originated in Ancient Greece and came from Plato has disappeared in the development of later political philosophies, but in fact, it still remains, to a greater or lesser extent. For my personal understanding, in fact, to a certain extent, both centralism and totalitarianism have holism in their ideological origins and are more or less related to it. The later Hegel's view of statism, he says: "God himself marches on earth, and this is the state." Here we can understand that the state is actually God on earth, God on earth, and clearly expresses his absolutist view of the state. The state is the "self-existent and self-acting" universal being, the ethical whole, while the individual is only an accidental and special being, "some links" of the whole, and "the individual himself has objectivity only when he becomes a member of the state, The individual is only "some link" of the whole, and "the individual himself has objectivity, truth and ethics only when he becomes a member of the state". It can be seen that this kind of holism was very strong in ancient Greece, and it is still inherited in modern times. And all of Marx's ****productivism also had a distinctly holistic mindset. There is little concern for the individual, and their views are in line with the holistic political thinking of the city-state era. And the gradual development of modern liberalism has many times been marked by a strong distrust of the power of the state, and numerous times defended the space for individual rights. Most libertarian ideas, or they could well argue that libertarianism also has a different view of the monolithic political outlook of the ancient Greek city-state era. In fact, contemporary libertarian scholars have also developed a pluralistic political philosophical orientation, and libertarians have never been tolerant, and libertarianism is also very inclusive. Then the next thing I want to say is that, as from the ancient Greek era and modern times between the medieval dualistic political view of the libertarian tone, that is to build a bridge from the ancient monistic view of politics to the modern pluralistic view of politics, especially so that people gradually began to pay attention to the individual itself, the talent is the end, rather than the realization of the other ends of the tools and means.

1. Christianity's Dualistic Divide of Man to Dualistic Attitude of Political View

Since individualism is the most basic and central idea of liberalism, the exploration of the relationship between liberalism and Christian political tradition should first explore the form of individualism, or the original shadow of individualism, in the Christian political tradition. It can be emphasized that individualism, of course, is not only found in the Christian political tradition, such as the Stoic theory that the human spirit is independent of the body and has the qualities of freedom and equality; the Roman jurists' interpretation of the rights of the individual; and a certain kind of "pre-individualism" or "precocious individualism" expressed by the Germanic people in their tribal life. "precocious individualism" of the Germanic peoples in their tribal life, etc. This view is expressed in Mr. Cong Riyun's book. Such views have been discussed in the writings of Mr. Cong Riyun. But all of them can be traced back to the origins of Christian political thought.

In the ancient city-state era, the emphasis was mainly on the city-state as a whole, and the individual (citizen) was basically subordinate to the city-state, or even a slave of the city-state. A kind of holistic atmosphere always covered the ancient Greek society, the individual can only show the value and significance in the city-state, leaving the city-state, the individual does not become a person, the person in that era, in fact, is only a tool to realize the highest good of the city-state. It was not until the emergence of the Stoics that there was a preliminary germ of individualism, and then only through the later Roman law's emphasis on the rights of the individual, as well as the inculcation of the barbarian character that the value of the individual was gradually raised. And the emergence of Christianity, from its doctrine only gradually and formally embodied the value of the individual, Christianity created a God, so that in the name of God divided man into two, spiritual man and physical man, between these two identities, Christianity and deliberately emphasized the nobility of the spiritual man, and devalued the physical man, and even regarded it as a kind of original sin. This transcendentalist conception of Christianity, on the one hand, strengthens man's own emphasis on the individual and his gradual concern for the individual, especially for the spiritual world, thus subconsciously forming an escape from the torment of the physical world; on the other hand, it actually artificially divides the boundaries between ecclesiastical and secular rights in the same social order. I.e., what is God's is God's, and what is Caesar's is Caesar's.

The point to focus on here is how the Christian dichotomy of the human person influenced the later liberalism about the dichotomy between the individual and the state. One obvious point is that Christianity does not deny the value of secular life, and Christianity only draws the line between the two to a certain extent, but the important thing is that this way of sublimating the spiritual value of human beings in Christianity actually indirectly leads to a growing resentment of the disorder of secular life, and thus gradually creates a state of mind in which one has to face the depression of the world on the one hand, and suffer the temptation of the good life of the heavenly realm on the other hand. On the one hand, he has to face the depression of the world, and on the other hand, he is tempted by the beautiful life in heaven, and thus the duality of human beings is finally formed. The state of affairs in which this duality is ultimately formed is in fact what H. Müller meant when he said that the principle of Christianity is the dignity of the human person, and even the sanctity of individuality. Every human being must be respected as a soul made in the image of God and endowed with individuality. More importantly in contrast to the Stoics, who gave man inner freedom, Christianity gives man outer freedom and endows the free man with great spiritual power, thus transcending the full sense of self-respect, self-love, etc., propagated by Christianity, thus creating a specific Christian freedom. Salvation on the one hand, and independence on the other, independence from the control of worldly power, form a kind of self in the inner spiritual kingdom. It is precisely this self in spiritual excess that forms the source of modern individual freedom. Berdyaev's view that there can be no human freedom without Christianity makes one seem narrow-minded and carries an absolutist position, but we can understand him to mean the importance of Christianity for human freedom. Acton, on the other hand, in his Freedom and Rights, points out that conscience is a cornerstone of freedom, and thus argues that religion is also a cornerstone of freedom, and that it is through the action of conscience that religion is made to serve the cause of freedom. This is one thing.

Secondly, Christianity's division between ecclesiastical and secular power has in fact been a guide to the world, and a great encouragement to human autonomy. When human nature is in a state of extreme repression, if there is a power that can carry the banner of salvation, a kind of herd mentality will emerge in people's hearts. Therefore, Christianity's interpretation of the dualistic view in its teachings undoubtedly releases a strong signal of temptation to people. That is to gradually realize the independence of the self, to strongly demand spiritual liberation, to maximize the pursuit of freedom, and to pursue the equality of human nature. This ultimately led to the laying of the foundation of modern liberalism and its long development in the years to come.

2. Negative conception of the state under the influence of Christian political tradition

A common conception of modern liberalism is that the formation of the state begins with the formation of a secular state from a single individual and then through a contract. In the later development of liberalism, we can clearly recognize something called the negative conception of the state among many other conceptions of the state. Here we avoid Hobbes, who in the eyes of many scholars could not be a thoroughgoing liberal, but a half-baked liberal, who went from freedom to despotism. And most libertarians see the state as a necessary evil. This negative conception of the state goes hand in hand with an emphasis on individual rights and a disregard for public power. It is here that the antagonism between liberalism and the Christian tradition is clearly felt, and although it is only a superficial phenomenon, it does show up. That is, libertarianism's negative conception of the state shares much of the same theoretical underpinnings as anarchism, except that libertarianism is more middle-of-the-road and less extreme relative to anarchism.

Why is that? Because both secular power and the power of the church were a serious threat to individual freedom in the course of subsequent historical development. The development of the Church has not been immaculate, and the parallelism of the two powers does not mean that strictly speaking God is God and secular is secular, but that in fact God often comes down to earth to "save" unnecessarily and public power does not feel comfortable withdrawing from the political order. Thus, in the thousand years of medieval history, the struggle between the two powers led to the chaos of the whole social and political order, and the result of the chaos was nothing but the most direct result of the people's disaster. This is why freedom is so precious. This precious freedom of course does not allow the threat and contamination of public power, and the intention to maximize the protection of individual rights is manifested mainly by drawing a line between public power and individual rights, which is to a large extent the political context of concern of the later utilitarians, especially Mill and so on].

By drawing a line of authority between the secular and the divine, Christian political philosophy clearly treats the individual as an end in itself while at the same time treating the state as an instrument. First of all, there is a premise that Christianity sets up, that God is above all. Then under that premise, it actually brings both the Christian church and secular public power into the lap of God. Secondly, it is easy to understand the instrumentality of the state in the context of the above premise. Since God's mission is to save mankind, and since the secular world is under God's governance, this instrumentality is mainly reflected in the need to embody God's will and to serve as an additional tool other than the church to carry out supplementary salvation. In a word, the state becomes an instrument of God. Thirdly, secular society cannot be without order, and the significance of the state is to make secular society more orderly, so that people can live a better life, and the state becomes a means rather than an end. Mr. Cong Riyun made a remark in his writings when he said that, in the light of the later history of the development of Western political thought, the Christian position on the instrumentality of the state seems to have been a permanent verdict on the state. This basically establishes the instrumentality of the state in nature, but in the process of liberal development, the functions and ways of state service are gradually changing, but no matter how they change, the functions assigned to the state as in the case of Christianity are generally negative; Hobbes's Leviathan only controls the outer demons of society but not the inner man after all; Locke's state is only a night watchman. The state arose only for the security of individual rights, and existed because of all the insecurity of the state of nature, which led to the conclusion of a contract to form a state. The state arose to compensate for the insecurity of the individual in the state of nature. For other rights the individual does not confer on the state, so that any slightest infringement of the individual's rights manifesting itself in the state is a direct indication of the state's depravity, and may be said to be an instrumental malfunction. This is something that later liberalism absolutely cannot tolerate. The logic of such an idea is similar to the way Christianity treats secular power and church congregations. The indifference to secular power and the exercise of moral power to supervise it is in fact a distrust and disregard of secular power. This indifference and distrust also directly influenced the formation of the liberal view on the negative state.

Conclusion

Liberalism has a number of core ideas that are essentially linked to Christianity in one way or another, influenced by the Christian political tradition or philosophical tradition. It would be inhuman to enumerate them all. Although the cornerstone of liberalism, individualism, and the concept of the state cannot be fully investigated as a link between the Christian political tradition and modern political civilization, it is sufficient to see the inextricable link between the Christian political tradition, especially the dualistic view of politics, and modern liberalism, especially classical liberalism. This paper only briefly lists the connection between liberalism's view of individualism and the negative state and the Christian political tradition, in addition, the Christian political tradition is only reduced to the dualistic political view of Christianity, and there has been a thought that whether the medieval political culture is as scholars say dualistic politics, whether there is only the dualism of the religious power and the secular power, and whether there is a third kind of power? In addition, is the Christian political tradition only closely related to liberalism? But there is a sentence is more impressive, let's take it as a conclusion: only after the Western culture was reshaped by Christianity, produced a modern political culture based on individualism, liberalism as the essence of the Western political culture in the outward expansion of the high-potential culture.