Social Contract or Covenant Community?


Introductory Comment: I am not a political theorist. I want to be up front about that as this post will have some political theory discussion in it and I am no expert in that area at all. So although I think there is some truth to the following statements (maybe a good deal of it!) I am also aware that I am alomst entirely out of my area on this, although the covenant word gives me some credibility. Okay, on with the post!

Liberal democracies (like the US and England) seem to be founded on the principle of "social contract." This was first set down in systematic fashion by John Locke and is the founding principle behind a good deal of our governments. But in dealing with issues of community and Trinitarian participation I am a little concerned that the notion of contract is not something we Christians should be buying into at all. Explaination:

Social contract seems to me to be set almost on entirely selfish principles. To give it a rough definition, social contract is the "deal" made between a group of individuals which allows for the maximum benefit of all parties as they co-operate together. This sounds reasonable at first and is unduly effective in the States, but the foundation must be examined. It is based on two principles: individualism and self-interest.

The social contract assumes that we all come as autonomous entities and run into each other, much the detriment of society. So in order to help progress and production, we all join in some contract together with certain stipulations and regulations because it will be in our best interest. It might be in the community as a whole's best interest, but this is only insomuch as it is in the best interest of the individual members of that community. First and foremost is the individual's needs, wants, and desires, his or her quality of life; secondly is the benefit to the whole. The reason individual's enter into contract with one another is not primarily to make society a better place, but to make it a better place for them, else why would they even bother? The root motion of the contract to me than is an inward pointing movement, the social contract brings benefits first and foremost to me. It happens that this also brings benefits to others like me, but that is secondary in the decision to enter. We enter the social contract so that we can live in a better society as individuals. Unless we had this we would always be running into each other and hurting one another. So in essense it seems that the social contract is a self-centered notion of community: it is based on individuals seeking their highest good which hopefully is also the highest good of the community as agregate.

If we are really not autonomous beings, if we are really all related in community and away from ourselves in our basic humanity as a continual particiaption with the Triune God, does this social contract make any Christian sense? I am inclined to say it is actually the antithesis of Christian community. So what is the alternative? Something that might seem quite similar at face value: the covenant.

"Let me conclude by characterizing an alternative Christian account of the social ontology of communities, drawing on early Calvinist theorizing rooted in a distinctive notion of covenant. On this account, covenant is seen as established among responsible human associates, directed toward a distinctive moral purpose rooted in created human nature, and entered into under God. A Calvinian covenantalism is profoundly different from the individualistic liberal contractarianism that was its secualarized offshoot." - Jonathan Chaplin (ICS)

The notion of covenant is not only supremely Biblical and Reformed (are the two identical?) but is other-centered instead of self-centered. I submit that this version of social community relatedness is a more Christian approach to society, namely because it opposes the two principles of contract: selfishness and individualism. The covenant is a basic relation in the economy of God, it starts out with the principle of relations. We are not a bunch of individuals who happen to run into each other and therefore need to set up some contract to exist. We are naturally and primarily in communion with one another: the covenant presupposes and establishes that community. It is therefore more basic and proper than the contract. But more importantly the covenant is other-focused. It is not an inward movement towards the individual's desires and goals, it is a responsibility to the other as outside and of significance to me own existence. The covenant is a promise to do to the other because it is the right way to relate, not because it will be beneficial to myself. The finish to the sentence "I will do this because..." is not "it does this for me" but "I am required to be." The covenant is about outward promises to all others, but primarily God as keeper and regulator of the covenant.

"The covenant is not merely a voluntary congress of autonomous individual persons, but is grounded upon supra-personal authority." - Graham Maddux

The covenant is then not something which is a decision to make after our existence, it is a requirement of our full humanity. If we want to be human in the fullest sense, we must enter into relationship with God and one another by means of covenant. We are beings in relation, in community as primary, not secondary. Social contract starts from the notion of individual existence and moves to community relations, though still focused on the individual. Covenant starts from relationships and seeks to bring them in proer order, not in the sense of bringing properity and benefits to individuals, but in the sense of restoring the image of God and the relationship with all parties.

"The common character of all associations in Calvinist political literature ... is neither individualist nor absolutist. It begins neither with the self-evident rights of individuals nor with the a priori authority of rulers. Rather it asks what is the vocation (or purpose) of any association, and how can this association be so organized as to accomplish this essential business. Authority (or rule) becomes a function of vocation." - Frederick Carney

Covenant is not based on individuals deciding what works best for them, nor on the idea of some absolute monarch - for even God is in covenant. It is based on the essential character of existence: relatedness with others. Covenant is therefore a much more Christian social understanding of relationships, one not based on the inherent individualism of humans but on the total relatedness of Creator and creatures. It is outward focused with a overarching purpose or teleology - the vocation of bringing the reign and rule of God to this earth. This Calvinian notion of covenant then finds its home in the Trinitarian understanding of existence as relationship - participation with God as three persons united by love and giving between them and with us involved.

Note: I am not advocating a form of socialism or the rejection of capitalism. I am not an expert in this field but do not see an absolute rejection of the latter in seeking the former. I am only questioning the secular conception of contract which we have so heartly accepted in liberal democracies. Capitialism and democracy are not (as far as I can see) at odds with covenant. They may need some reshaping and re-storing with the rest of social order, but they need not necessarily be thrown out. My only desire is to ask whether contract is allowable with a created for and in relationship understanding of existence - my contention is that it is not.