{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0199398043641836, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0015048908954100827, 'mean_word_length': 4.730603448275862, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Power and Egoism of the Modern State: A Christian Perspective

Nominalist Understanding of the State We begin with a methodological question: how to approach the state. One can approach the state theoretically by looking for its essence. Is there a permanent essence without which a state is no longer a state? We call both the ancient Han dynasty and the county of Zambia 'states'. They obviously share a common essence. Different suggestions have been made as to the essence of the state: the sovereignty, general will, social contract, and protection of class interests. Perhaps all states do share some common essence, but what really matters to average citizens is their structures, policies, exercise of power, and how these factors impact people's daily lives. And these concrete aspects change all the time. The Bible is seldom interested in theoretical questions concerning the 'what' of things. One searches in vain for the definitions of man, or even of God, in the Scriptures. Neither does the Bible lay down one fixed Christian view of the state or one fixed attitude toward it. The wellknown teachings of Romans 13 are counterbalanced by the Book of Revelation, where the Roman emperors are symbolically described as beasts. Christians are, therefore, authorized and even obliged to rethink their view of the state in every new situation. We are justified in viewing the state from a nominalistic or functional perspective, that is, to observe and analyse the most pervasive characteristics of the contemporary state with which we are re1ated.l The Aristotelian view (that the state is the supreme consummation of the rational character of men, and that to serve it is the supreme purpose of human life) or the Roman Catholic position (that the state is a product of human nature and fulfils the assigned purpose of the human character within the sphere of the natural and creaturely2) are both essentialist views of the state. But the nominalistic perspective leaves the metaphysical question of essence undecided and focuses only on the question of how something is. The Bible's main interest is in concrete persons in their relation to states. If one is required to respect the authority of the state, it is not because the state itself deserves respect but because it is instituted to honour God and serve people. Not the essence of the state matters, but the persons who are to be served by it. The state exists for the people, and Christian loyalty to the state is to be justified only because it is an expression of love of one's neighbours. This implies that a state which does not serve the people deserves no loyalty or obedience.