Science in Christian Perspective

THE TEACHING OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
JAMES R. CAMERON*

From: JASA 18 (June 1966): 45-50, 55.

Recognized only recently as a social science, political science has seldom been examined from either a Christian perspective or from the perspective, of the behavioral sciences. After listing the general subject areas of this academic discipline, this paper examines the basic approaches which dominate the study and teaching of political science. Since World War 11 behavioralism has challenged all of the traditional approaches to political science. This paper suggests a Christian perspective in each of the traditional approaches to this discipline. Christians and behavioralists can and must work together in political science as well as in the other social sciences.

Politics and religion are usually regarded as the two most controversial subjects for social conversation and are often avoided in the interests of congeniality. Unfortunately there have been too few efforts to consider the relationship of Christianity to the discipline of political science. Most of the attempts at rapprochemeat have been from the direction of theology. This article will examine the teaching of political science from the perspective of a Christian faith.

There. are three things to notice as we approach this topic. In the first place, a Christian world view was not seriously challenged until the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century. Historians regard the scientific revolution as of far greater importance for our modem world and its basic outlook than the Renaissance, Reformation or the Industrial Revolution. Contemporary movements in theology and philosophy as well as in political science are a result of the intellectual impact of the scientific revolution. It will certainly not be a naive Christian faith which emerges from the crucible in which traditional views of the world, man and GGd are being challenged.

Secondly, social sciences as distinct areas of study emerged from the enlightenment of the eighteenth century. One of the last, or perhaps most recent, to make its appearance has been political science. In fact, it has been only in the twentieth century that political science has been accepted as an academic study in the United States. The American Political Science Association wag founded in 1903 and since that date has published the American Political Science Review. This should not be taken to mean that prior to this time men were not interested in politics. It suggests rather that the professional study of political science had not developed to the degree which warranted a distinct organization. Much of the history written before the last century was essentially political and military history. Philosophers, theologians, and political leaders of all ages have made pronouncements on political philosophy and the accomplishments or failures of governments. Within the last twenty-five years the study of political science has finally developed to the point where its methods, content, philosophies and objectives can at least be discussed intelligently even though consensus has by no means been reached.

A third preliminary observation is that Christians in general and evangelicals in particular have tended to shy away from both the study and the teaching of political science. To some extent all of the social sciences are treated gingerly. This attitude undoubtedly is a reflection of a lingering hostility to the "social gospel" emphasis of liberal theology. In our emphasis on other worldliness and the transforming power of the Holy Spirit in man's life, we have been in danger of ignoring the fact that the Gospel does have a social influence and a stake in social betterment. On

* James R. Cameron is Professor of History, Eastern Nazarene College, Wollaston Park, Quincy, Massachusetts. Paper presented at the Conference on The Christian Perspective in the Social Sciences, Winona Lake, Indiana, Fall, 1965.

Since the words politics and political are interpreted to mean several different things, they, together with political science must be defined to clarify this discussion. In addition to defining these basic terms, we must at least enumerate the foundations and fields of political science before proceeding to a summary analysis of the main currents in political science. With this review or introduction to political science before us, we can then move to consider a Christian perspective in the teaching of political science. 

When Dr. Clyde Taylor says that the activities of the National Association of Evangelicals in Washington are non-political, a political scientist would say that they are non-partisan. Political in this sense means support for a particular party. Politics is also used to mean any form of influence-whether exercised on the church board or in the local PTA. A political scientist would probably define such activity as propaganda, but he would certainly contend that the definition of political implicit here is too broad. Politics literally means everything that concerns the polis or city. This definition was fine for the ancient Greek city-states, but we may interpret it to mean any activity of a community exercised through and under the state. The content of this activity has varied greatly. For centuries religion was a political matter since it was regulated by the state.

This definition best describes the type of teaching in political science that goes on in extension or adult education courses and in small liberal arts colleges which do not have a bonafide department of political science. In many, if not most, church-related liberal arts colleges there is a department of history and government, or history and political science. A basic course in American government or introduction to political science together with two or three other courses in government are given in alternate years by a historian with little or no real training in political science. This is merely one manifestation of what seems to be an inherent bias among evangelical Christians against careers in government, the profession of law, and political activity in general. The work of Professor Richey Kamm of Wheaton College and Dr. Clyde Taylor of the National Association of Evangelicals in conducting an annual Washington Seminar on Federal Service for students in church-related or independent Christian colleges is to be commended. Most of the  faculty who accompany the students to Washington are historians by training. They hope to acquire new  illustrations to enliven their course in political science. Unfortunately, this situation seems to be self-perpetuating.

Political science is taught principally in large univer sities in the United States and in well-endowed colleges. As intimated above, this situation is brought about partly by the default of small liberal arts col leges, but it is also a result of specialization within this discipline. Alfred De Grazia has illustrated "The Foundations and Fields of Political Science" as practiced in American universities with a diagram.²

The foundations of political science emphasize the factor analysis approach: political history, political geography, political sociology, and political psychology. The fields, or major subject-areas of political science are: Government, Public Law, Political Parties, International Relations, Political Philosophy, Public Administration and Comparative Government. The cap-stone of the structure is Political Policy and the whole is called permeated by political theory. Most political scientists are subject-area specialists. It is generally held in political science, as in other academic disciplines, that continuous, intensive study of one area of human in volvement will produce more significant results than the one-sided application of a law or principle. This is the reason that there are few books or even articles³ for that matter, on political science written from a Christian perspective by political scientists. Such at tempts written by laymen, philosophers, or theologians do not receive respectful treatment by political scien tists because of the lack of technical knowledge of the subject on the part of the author.

At the outbreak of World War Two, four principal currents or traditions could be clearly recognized in the study of Political Science in the United States. For purposes of analysis, these scholarly traditions may be called: (1) legalism, (2) activism, (3) philosophy, and (4) science.⁴ There is an inter-relationship and an overlapping among these approaches for none of them exists in isolation. There are, however, distinct emphases and interests.

Legalism evolved from the study of constitutional history. This approach is particularly concerned with specific laws, constitutions, and government documents. Frederic William Maitland, the famous historian of English law, arrived at some very distorted views on the origin of English towns because of his pre-occupation with legal questions.⁵ He was oblivious to the fact that most towns arose about a market or a trading place. For political scientists of this school, comparative government consists in the comparison of the constitutions of major governments with little or no concern for the actual function of the government which operates under the constitution. For example, the constitution of the Soviet Union adopted in 1936 as well as the constitutions of several Latin American countries seem to provide for all of the safeguards of democratic government. In spite of the democratic nature of the instrument of government, the regimes that in fact operated under these constitutions were dictatorships. The legal tradition finds relevance in courses in public law, constitutional law, and those which involve regulation of certain sectors of our society such as labor, agriculture, and international trade.

During the first weekend in February, 1960, while attending a debate tournament at Harvard University, I became aware of the fact that several outstanding scholars were not only supporting John F. Kennedy, but were ready to leave their positions to serve with him if he was elected President of the United States. The willingness of academicians in general and of political scientists in particular to leave their ivory towers for public service began with Progressivism and represents the second tradition in American political science-that of activism and reform. Most of the movements for political reform in this country-initiative, referendum, recall, direct primary, civil service reform, city manager and commission government on the local level-all had political scientists in the forefront. Most candidates for high public offices today have at least one political scientist on their staff of advisers. There are numerous instances in which political scientists who have served as advisers in a campaign have become caught up in politics to the point of running for public office themselves.

Political theorists and philosophers of all ages have tried to find the good life and prescribe the system of government which would be best able to achieve this goal. The systematic study of the Western political tradition is still conducted in courses in political theory. In this approach to the subject, political theory approaches the humanities with a concern for values, ideals, goals and doctrines about political science rather than a systematic study of propositions of a casual nature such as one would expect to find in the social sciences.

Since the beginning of the study of political science as a distinct discipline, there have been practitioners who have regarded politics as a science to be mastered by the same methods and discussed in the same terms as any natural science. Often this empirical study resulted in mere description of processes and behavior with a few restricted, specific assertions. Long before the development of behavioralism, such political scientists as Arthur Bentley and Charles Merriam were calling for the development of concepts and methods which would promote a rigorous, systematic science of politics.⁶

Though the four approaches to the study of political science, which we have just considered, are distinct, they do have at least three elements in common.⁷ In the first place, all four of these traditions have been concerned primarily with political and governmental institutions-legislatures, political parties, constitutions, and law-rather than with behavioral decisions and processes within the institutions. Secondly, they all rely heavily on history and methods of historical analysis. Most textbooks in American government begin with the founding fathers and the writing of the constitution and proceed chronologically. Third, dominated by older historical traditions, political scientists of these schools of interpretation believe in letting the facts speak for themselves. They have distrusted generalizations and have not attempted systematic explanations.

Since World War II a new mood or movement, behavioralism, has appeared in political science which has challenged the traditional approaches. This new approach has stimulated a reassessment of the goals and data of political science. The behavioralists are concerned with individual and group behavior within the political institutions. They are studying power struggles, the role of leadership, role-perception, and in general, political actors and processes rather than formal structure. New methods-the use of mathematical models, statistical studies, sampling techniques, and other tools of analysis-have been borrowed from other disciplines in an effort to achieve a more rigorous and systematic empiricism. Political scientists are borrowing not only new techniques but new concepts and categories. The goal of this activity is the explanation of relationships within the political system from specific findings and propositions to an over-all theoretical integration.

Now that we have defined our terms and clarified our concepts in political science, we can move on to a consideration of a Christian perspective in teaching political science. The teaching of political science must be viewed in the perspective of current liberal arts education. Two valid criticisms of modem liberal arts education in general are that it fails to provide the student with a unified view of its varied subject matter and that it fails to, develop in him a sense of values. The Hebrew-Christian tradition or point of view can provide the student with a broader and deeper understanding of his work by helping him to develop a unified grasp of his intellectual discoveries and a sensitivity to their moral implications. The integrative results of the religious premise are not confined to the student who accepts this frame of reference, for it gives the student who rejects it a point of reference in reverse by offering him something to react against in establishing his own point of view.⁹  

Political scientists, whether they admit it or not, have a world view or a frame of reference. It is fair to say, however, that political science is primarily concerned with the processes of government as they actually exist and not with how they ought to exist. It is the function of social ethics and not of political science to attempt the moral or philosophical evaluations of governmental institutions.¹⁰ It is true, nevertheless, that the political scientist must organize and present his factual data within a conceptual framework which is based upon his world view. Students have a right to have an explicit statement of the point of view of their instructors and conversely teachers have an obligation to think through their frame of reference and relate it to their subject matter if their teaching is to be either relevant or coherent. 

The problem of teaching political science from a Christian perspective resolves itself into two major questions: first, how does the subject matter relate to Christianity in a relevant manner; and, secondly, is the atmosphere created in the classroom characterized by Christian conviction and concern? The purpose of the Bible is to reveal God to Man and not to serve as a treatise on political science, natural law or any other academic subject. One must therefore conclude that the Bible can not be used as a direct source of information for principles of political science. The Bible can provide man with concepts of himself, God, and values, within which one can relate his factual information of political science. Among these Bible based concepts are the dignity and worth of each individual with the attendant responsibility to develop his full capacities, intellectually, socially and spiritually. The primacy of Christian faith demands that man accept and live by values that can never be wholly validated empirically. The right and duty of private judgment are emphasized, with each individual held accountable to God for the quality of his decisions. This freedom of inquiry in the quest for truth and Christian idealism must be permitted to extend to the very bases of the Christian faith. He can, however, learn from the Bible the lesson  Cain learned too late: man is his brother's keeper.

If there is universal truth revealed by God in Christ, it is the law of love. It makes far more sense to me to accept this interpretation of Jesus' life and ministry than to try to piece items together to form a comprehensive code or ethic. Jesus himself summarized the law and the prophets as  "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength; this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."¹¹ When Jesus was asked, "And who is my neighbor?" he answered with the parable of do the Good Samaritan. Jesus' method was one of indirection, for the hearer is left to draw his own conclusion. The ultimate test of the law of love was indicated by Jesus when he foretold his second coming in the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew's Gospel: "And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels; For I was an hungered and ye gave me no meat...¹²

It is at this point that the Christian can begin to make his faith relevant in political science. This message of Christian love has a meaning for Christian atheists and humanists as well as for Evangelicals. Since it is through our political institutions that our most binding as well as our most significant decisions are made, it must be through our political institutions that the law of love becomes embodied in practical programs and policies. In this day in particular when everyone is searching for meaning or values, a Christian professor, whether teaching in a private or public institution has every right to couch his teaching consciously in terms of his Christian frame of reference. While others are teaching from bases such as cultural or economic determinism, logical positivism, or existentialism, the Christian must not hide nor disguise his position. This does not mean that one should be dogmatic or engage in apologeties. One can be Christian in his teaching without apology, condescension, or a doctrinaire attitude. The classroom is not the place to evangelize, but it is a place for one to bear witness through his mind. Teaching involves a search for truth. It is more important for the instructor to teach methods of inquiry and processes of decision-making than to try to teach correct answers. Teachers should have their own answers to the questions under scrutiny and the students have a right to know the answers of their professors. These must be communicated without dictation or dogmatism. Real learning will not take place without conflict and hard thought. Students, therefore, should be encouraged to challenge the positions held by their instructors, even Christian professors teaching from a Christian perspective.

Before returning to the main currents in political science to suggest some Christian perspectives, let us examine the problem of moral judgment in politics. A Christian because he is a Christian and not because he is a political scientist mast make moral judgments even at the risk of indulging his petty prejudices, or appearing to try to impose his personal convictions or even code of ethics on others. A distinction must be recognized between a personal and a group ethic.

Reinhold Niebuhr has referred to this necessary distinction as one between "moral man and immoral society."¹³ An individual can consider the interests of others in addition to his self-interest. Indeed this is the essence of the law of love for the Christian. Individuals give themselves to causes or even to the community of the group or fellowship of the concerned. Groups on the other hand consider themselves in practice, ends in themselves and not means to an end. The causes to which groups give themselves tend to become absolutes instead of remaining relative to other groups and other values. The problem of moral judgment in politics becomes particularly acute in international relations. International law becomes interpreted in relation to national interest and not any absolute standard. International morality as a force in international politics is of minor importance. When a statesman must choose between the personal dictates of his conscience and the best interests of his nation, the group must take precedence over the individual.

Even within a nation, the complexities of modern, industrialized, urbanized society no longer permit the individualism which characterized agrarian life in the United States before the Civil War. Extreme individualism becomes a moral issue in a society such as ours. Does a man have a right to plant what he wants to on his own land? Does a man have a right to burn his draft card? There is also a moral issue on the other extreme. Corruption in government is a moral issue. Incompetence in government is a moral issue. The failure of elected officials to act speedily to meet the needs of their constituents is a moral issue. And the general failure of churchmen to become directly involved in politics is a moral issue!

There is no inherent reason why a Christian political scientist can not bring his faith and witness to bear upon his discipline in any of the principal approaches noted earlier. Let us now re-examine each of these approaches in terms of a Christian perspective. Within the legal tradition, the Christian political scientist must recognize that laws and constitutions were not created as ends in themselves but to serve the ends of justice and order. When these instruments no longer achieve the purpose for which they were established, they must be altered or abolished. The law of love will not permit injustice to hide behind archaisms of tradition or constitutionalism. There must be enough respect for law and order for its own sake, however, to try to secure needed change by peaceful means, if at all possible.

Governor Mark Hatfield of Oregon and Presidential assistant Bill Moyers are two Christian men who illustrate what can be done through political activism. Hatfield was led to the Lord by his students at Willamette College where he taught political science. He was also challenged by his students to practice what he advocated in the classroom and to run for political office. With the assistance of his students, he began his political career. Just three weeks after Bill Moyers arrived in Washington to assist Sargent Shriver in the Peace Corps, he addressed the Washington Seminar on Federal Service. On that occasion, he told us of the divine imperative that prompted him to resign from the Southern Baptist parish ministry in Texas to serve in this wider and more secular ministry. As a result of Moyers' willingness to follow this leading of the Lord, many of the messages of the President of the United States are couched in a Biblical idiom. One might go further and suggest that many of the President's programs are conceived in terms of the law of love that recognizes that man is his brother's keeper.

It bothers my conscience to see Unitarians, agnostics, and Jews today carrying the torch against human injustice and suffering while we evangelicals keep Sunday school as usual. Why are we in the world if not to leaven the lump? A Christian message without a heart of compassion for social concern is too mystical for the secular man in the street. Christian men and women must not be too religious to serve their neighbors wherever there is need whether on the PTA, at the polls, or working in the precinct for the political party of their choice. Christian involvement includes political activism. Secular society will evaluate Christian truth and experience in terms of Christian love in action and not pious proclamations. It is time to overturn the tables of the money changers and denounce those who have turned the temple of justice into a social Darwinian jungle ruled by WASPS-white, Anglo-Saxon protestants.

In political philosophy, the Christian is certainly interested in the elements of the good life. Man can not live by bread alone, nor can man live without bread. "Five acres and independence" may be one man's bread and another man's poison. Technological change has drastically transformed the American way of life. Driving through the towns and countryside of northern New England, one can sense peace, security and conservatism. One can always grow a crop of potatoes for food and cut wood on the hillside for fuel and even do a little hunting or fishing for meat. Those who live in that great megalop which stretches from Portland, Maine, down to Virginia are totally dependent on an artificial society for both sustenance and security. Rugged individualism has given way to interdependence. Where men do not know or practice the law of love in Christ, they have had to invent its secular counterpart. Christians must find values that transcend technology. Unfortunately, we seem to have assumed a stance of opposition to anything that is new and then have been forced to yield slowly. This obscurantism seems as unnecessary as it is udesirable. While philosophers and theologians are devoting most of their attention these days to linguistic analysis, there is a pressing need for clear thought in the areas of values and ethics. Political ethics could use some clear and compelling pronouncements. Christians in political science must not only raise relevant questions, but must suggest directions in which solutions may be found and then begin to act.

The scientific approach to politics is as concerned with theories as is the philosophical. The philosopher begins with ideal constructs and proceeds by deductive logic. The scientist using observation and experiment, where feasible, would use induction to build a process model in political science. Philosophers, of course, have always been concerned with observable facts but have made no systematic attempt at observation and the actual application of their theories to practice. Early empiricists, in political science were interested in gathering self-evident facts of political life that needed no explanation. Their books on political science were encyclopedias of statistics and factual details with no attempt at analysis to explain what the facts meant. Alexis De Toequeville in his Democracy in America made one of the first attempts to construct theory on the basis of direct observation. The gathering of uncontroverted, factual data is always a valuable if limited activity. Hopefully, someday someone will come along to interpret the facts. It would be unfortunate if Christians in political science concentrate all of their energies on this type of activity since it is safe and will not embroil them in controversies either professional or theological.

Since the Second World War, the behavioralists, have come along to offer a meaning to the volumes of uninterpreted facts in political science and to ask new kinds of questions about function rather than structure in political life. To be associated with this term has become, to some persons, a badge of accomplishment to be worn conspicuously. To others, the term is an epithet to be used against those who are viewed as misguided, confused, naive, or even intellectually dishonest. Behavioralism, whatever its presuppositions, must be neither shunned nor avoided. Political science has been redefined by the behavioralists as "the study of the legitimate allocation of benefits and rewards for a society." This definition recognizes value judgments, for if there are legitimate allocations, there must also be instances in which power is wrongly used. Governments not only reward but also possess the supreme power to punish. Is the drafting of men to fight in South Vietnam a legitimate or an illegitimate use of the power of the state? Is capital punishment morally justified? What value judgment must be
made on civil disobedience? Did Martin Luther prepare the way for Hitler by declaring at the time of the Peasants Revolt, "Whoever fights for authority, fights for God?" Even those who proclaim that God is dead or an unnecessary hypothesis and that man is mortal can not escape the practical questions of values in human existence. In our world, these values will be both decided and implemented in the political arena.
Wherever values are involved, Christianity is particularly relevant.

There are Christians who view behavioralism with alarm. Some, I fear, would label this new development simply a fad and would withdraw from professional activity in political science to await a more convenient day. Defeatism or escapism must be rejected in favor of a dynamic confrontation with the world as it is. The Christian political scientist must view the present situation from the perspective of both his profession and his faith. The Christian finds in behavioralism a challenge to some of his basic ideas about man. For the behavioralist, man is not a living soul created in the image of God but merely an animal unusually adept at adapting to his environment. The Christian must recognize that the behavioralist is right, as far as he goes. Man is an animal with reflex actions and conditioned responses; but, unlike other animals, he has the capacity to make symbols and exercise moral judgment. In many instances, truth for the behavioralist is truth for the Christian. In other cases the behavioralist's view is distorted for the Christian, for the Christian must evaluate or at least consider factors which the behavioralist will not accept as being valid. Therefore, the Christian must study his behavioralism and know the subject as well as the behavioralist. The point of conflict will usually not be with the results of investigations but with the assumptions on which the experiment of investigation was based. If the assumptions are successfully challenged, then the conclusions must be reinterpreted. Confrontation on this level, which is the only significant level, can only take place when people are willing to risk their lives and careers on Jesus' proclamation, "I am the way, the truth and the life . . ." (John 14:6).

The quest for "The Christian Perspective in Political Science" must always remain as elusive as "The Christian Interpretation of History." There will be almost as many Christian perspectives or interpretations as there are Christians. One can not use methods and techniques which are empirical in nature to demonstrate a proposition which is based on faith. This does not mean that the Christian academician should not Continued from page 50 attempt to make his Christian faith relevant to his discipline any more than a business man should be excused from making his faith relevant to his business ethics. A problem arises, however, when one is called upon to demonstrate that his conclusions are indeed Christian and not simply a matter of his own opinion or judgment. One must not hide behind his Christian faith as a cover-up for narrowmindedness or shoddy thinking. Further, the Christian must hold his judgments in love and not condemnation, for as John Locke pointed out, a man may think that he is right but he can never know it. In the same manner as the Christian is admonished to be ready to give to every man a reason for the hope that is within him, so the Christian teacher of political science should be ready and willing to share with his students his own conclusions or judgments based upon both his Christian faith and his professional training, with an explanation of the processes by which he arrived at his answers. The instructor must then encourage the student to do his own thinking and come to his own conclusions, even though the conclusions of the student differ from those of the professor.

REFERENCES

1. (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1951), p. 4.

2. The Elements of Political Science (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1952), p. 9.

3. Kenneth W. Thompson, "Political Science," Christian Faith and the Liberal Arts, ed. by Harold H. Ditmanson, Howard V. Hong, Warren A. Quanbeck (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1960). John H. Hallowell, "Political Science," Religious Perspectives in College Teaching, ed. by Hoxle N. Fairchild, et. at. (New York: The Ronald Press, 1952).

4. Francis J. Sorauf, Political Science: An Informal Overview (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1965), pp. 10-21.

5. James R. Cameron, Frederick William Maitland and the History of English Law (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1961), pp. 82-99.

6. Arthur Bentley, The Process of Government (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1908). Charles Merriam, New Aspects of Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1925).

7. Sorauf, Political Science: An Informal Overview, p. 13.

8. The Future of Political Science (New York: Atherton Press, 1963).

9. E. Earle Stibitz, "A Religious Point of View in Teaching the Liberal Arts," Liberal Education, May, 1959, pp. 249-262.

10. D. Luther Evans, Essentials of Liberal Education (Boston: Ginn and Company, 1942), p. 126.

11. Mark 12:30-31.

12. Matthew 25:40-42.

13. Reinhold Niebuhr on Politics, ed, by Harry R. Davis and Robert C. Good (New York: Charles Scribner's sons, 1960), pp. 84-91.

The article on The Age of Man in the March 1966 issue was by Paul H. Seely, 8001 Cheltenham Avenue, Philadelphia, Penna.

Continued on page 55