Christ is King!
What Does That Mean?
Twitter is abuzz with fights about whether the claim that “Christ is King” is anti-semitic or not. A related issue is what it means for Christ to be King. I want to venture a quick answer to the second question. Let’s begin with some clarifications. (And a link to All the Kingdoms of the World for discussion!)
The Integralist Meaning
At the extreme pro “Christ is King” end, we have the integralists. The integralists think Christ’s Kingship implies that political regimes must direct their citizens to union with Christ. That means a firmly established Catholic religion, partially subordinated to the papacy. Since the Pope is Christ’s Vicar on Earth, partial papal rule helps institutionalize Christ’s Kingship, though so do policies that enforce ordinary natural law, like abortion bans.
Of course, Christ is King in other senses, too. He is the ruler, creator, and operator of the world and, by extension, our social world. Integralists believe this. What makes them unique is the institutional recommendations they draw from Christ’s Kingdom.
The Postliberal Meaning
There aren’t many integralists. But there are a lot of more moderate postliberals who see Christ’s Kingdom similarly.
Christ’s Kingship implies some coercive establishment of Christianity. Subordination to the papacy is not necessary. However, the state must recognize and establish Christianity as the true faith. They might enforce Biblical morality. That would be enough to recognize Christ’s kingship. One wonders, though, why we shouldn’t fully install Christianity into institutions if we should install it halfway. So, I wonder if the moderates have good responses.
Jacques Maritain
Then, we get to groups that are either broadly liberal or who agree liberal institutions are best. The most interesting figure here is Jacques Maritain, the great Catholic philosopher. Maritain was an integralist early on but moved away from it over a few decades. The Primacy of the Spiritual (1927) is integralist, but Man and the State (1951) is not.
What changes for Maritain?
He begins to separate political principles from the institutions that (might) realize them. He always held to the “primacy of the spiritual.” That means, in justifying political claims, we must always consider our spiritual good, which is our highest good. But that won’t look the same in all social orders. Maybe integralism worked in Latin Christendom for a time, but today, it would not express the primacy of the spiritual but wound it. That’s because of the central features of large, pluralistic social orders. (See Chapter 5 of Man and the State for the details). Why? Christ’s Kingdom precludes significant religious coercion.
A Neo-Maritainian Meaning
Here’s how I would defend a Maritain-like position.
The reason is that a loving union with God requires the freedom to reject God. Even God does not force us into a relationship with Him, so what right do we have to do so in His stead?
Some religious traditions may be silly, but I think many are reasonable, as are some secular doctrines. Maritain did too.
If so, Christ’s Kingdom rules out coercive establishment. That would damage our ability to unite with God in loving union with those who disagree because our coercion would displace their free and rational will.
The result is a paradox. Christ’s Kingship means society should be ordered to a free and loving union with Christ. However, such a loving union prohibits the firm establishment of Christianity. The love of Christ must be free.
Christ is King of the whole world, including our social, civil, and political worlds. But how societies realize Christ’s Kingship will vary across cultures.
Quick Response to an Integralist/Post-Liberal Objection
Integralist and postliberal Catholics should pause before they criticize me because of the integralist claim that states must never coerce the unbaptized for religious ends. (Unless those religious practices violate natural law.) Religious coercion in such cases violates our dignity as free and rational beings, as well as our capacity to unite with others in love.
So, even integralists have to agree with the general thrust of my position for the unbaptized. In my view, and as I argued in the book, the same arguments that ground protections for the unbaptized apply to the baptized. So Christ’s Kingdom requires respecting our freedom and reason, and in the name of love, for everyone.
Yes, Christ the King rejects coercive relationship. In order to deal with those who choose to reject His offering of reconciliation, He delegated rule in the kingdoms of this world to the devil. All the kingdoms of this world are expressions of Babylon. It is necessary that Babylonians should rule over Babylonians. Christians are by their nature unsuited to ruling over them.
Another thoughtful post; I like the breakdown of three main positions toward religious coercion one can take, going from 1) Coercion of Catholicism to 2) Coercion of Christianity to 3) Lack of coercion on matters of faith, but with a recognition of the higher spiritual dimension of man.
However, I would rename the second category for clarity. What you call "postliberal" might better be described as pre-integralist or even "Protestant Integralism." I think the postliberal position is an extremely wide net; it describes any successor regime to liberalism that rejects some or all of liberalism's major premises. This could manifest as anything from an atheistic far-right regime to integralism to a coercive neo-Marxist woke communist order.
My personal hope is for a postliberalism that acknowledges liberalism's successes and learns from its failures, and reigns in some of the flawed premises of liberalism while retaining aspects of the values of freedom, equality, and human brotherhood while orienting these around principles of the natural law, complete with state coercion of morality where appropriate. Discussions of a moderate or hard integralism seem to me pie in the sky, as today a coercive integralism is unlikely to create stability in our populace, which is increasingly secular. But I would not call this position liberal.
I like your point about freedom to accept or reject Christ, which is a notion that I've also had. I'm not sure if the faith were presented to me in a completely heavy-handed or draconian way, I would be inclined toward it. But I do want to bring up a few counterpoints --
1) Freedom does not mean freedom to do good or evil as one wills, but freedom to choose from among that which is good. Under such a view, man could be completely free even if he had no ability to reject God. This is more of a philosophical consideration, but an important point as it differentiates the liberal conception of freedom from a more traditional/classical understanding.
2) To some extent, we all learn the truth through coercion. We are not radically atomized individuals who stand outside human nature and make totally free and rational choices. We learn from our parents, our society, and yes, our state. We are molded by the corrective efforts of our parents when we err. We are molded by the public morality and taboos of our society. And we are molded by the laws enforced by the state. There is nothing wrong with a parent raising up their child in a Christian way. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with a society or state doing so to a degree and within reason.
As a final note, the top position describes an integralism in practice, which author's like Feser say is not the required position of integralists as such. To him, an integralist is simply one who thinks some form of integralism is the proper order and ideal state, but that it may not be wise or achievable in practice in all contexts.