Many American and West European cities have major problems. Crime and violence are only two of the problems. There is a general breakdown of social values that result in the breakdown of law and order. Some cities are addressing the issues better than others, but the public dialogue about the problems seems unserious. Not only cities but society at large faces many, many problems, and the future looks very grim. Some ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking is needed. This essay offers just that. It is a 'thought experiment', with lessons taken from Romulus’s concerns and solutions when he established Roman society.
Living at the
end of the 1st century BC, Roman historian Dionysius of
Hallicarnassus provided a summary of the accomplishments of Rome’s
founder. Once the people accepted
Romulus as their monarch in the 8th c. BC, he organised the population, established laws, and
expanded the kingdom through conquest and colonization. Romulus at the very least offers a comparison
to the failed governance in our times, even if many things are not
realistic options for the present context.
First, Romulus
organised society in two key ways. Following
Athenian and Thessalian models, he distinguished two classes of men. The well-born were distinguished by their
birth, virtue, and wealth, and those initially chosen also had to have
established families (Roman Antiquities 8). While Rome and Greek city states embraced a
two class system to the extent that one group ruled while the other served,
Romulus turned the relationship between the two classes from one of
disparagement and resentment to one of patrician and client.
All this seems
so far from anything we might consider in Western cities, but several points
should be considered. First, the issue
should not be whether society should be considered in terms of class but
whether society is arranged in such a way that people from the lower class
might have access to the upper class rather than shut out from it. Romulus even notes that, over time, the hard
distinctions between the two classes eventually broke down to a degree. A problem we face in Western cities is that
we assume equality when there is not, or, now, we assume that the right
approach to ‘equity’—the equalizing of society—should undermine the ruling
class and treat the lower class as victims who deserve reparations for their
being victimized in past and present generations. Instead of promoting social improvement, the
result is restructuring society through social entitlement. If entitlement was wrong for the upper class,
it should also be clear that it is wrong for the lower class. Social mobility according to merit not only
promotes a certain degree of equality but also excellence.
Second, Romulus
organised society as follows. The
largest grouping was that of tribes, overseen by tribunes, the next groups
within these were called curiae, overseen by ‘curiones’. Each curia was divided into ten parts,
overseen by a ‘decurio’.
This is largely
a plan related to the land and its occupants rather than any city
organisation. Yet some more sensible
division of society would make a remarkable difference in today’s cities. Why would a town have a mayor and a city have
a mayor when the differences can be measured in numbers from a few hundred to
millions? Imagine a city with smaller
districts, even organised by neighbourhoods. Romulus’s plan worked when the smaller social
unit could operate in a more familial-business model of patricians (fathers)
and clients (business). Knowing the
individuals that one oversees is essential for good governance. This matter applies to policing, school
sizes, housing, development, local government, the rejection of a large union for education, and so forth.
Cities would be greatly improved if smaller units were created with a
familial-business relationship to introduce order, productivity, and
beneficence.
The Roman social
organization of patrician and clients provided an amicable and advantageous
relationship between those with oversight and class advantage and the rest. The problem with the Greek social arrangement
was that the lower class resented the oppressive upper, ruling class. The lawlessness of certain American cities
operates in part out of a failure of policing (due to politics) and a sense of
entitlement for those imagining themselves to be victims. Romulus’ solution was to create more of a
parental model, with the understanding of ‘parent’ (father) as one holding more
authority than a master did over a slave.
Western cultures have largely broken down because they have undermined
not only the family but also the role of a father in both the family and
society. Black society in America has
the shocking statistic that 68% of children are raised in single parent
households, most of which lack a father figure. Options need to be introduced to improve family
cohesiveness and responsibility. Where families have broken apart, a parental model is still needed
in the system. The opposite of this is
angry youth raging through the streets, pillaging shops and burning buildings
because they feel victimized and entitled.
Dionysius offered some observations about good governance in the cities under the founder of Rome, Romulus. He outlines these as (Roman Antiquities 18):
1. Establishing favour among the citizenry for the gods (religious observance)2. Promoting temperance or moderation and justice. This came through the laws that Romulus established. He established laws that encouraged every citizen to be just and temperate in their own lives. Dionysius describes these in some detail under the following topics: sexuality and marriage (24-25), fathers and children (26-27), and slaves (28). He adds that Romulus administered swift justice (29).
3. Making honour rather than shameful pleasures the measure of happiness.
Could Romulus's suggestions solve some of the issues infecting American cities? I would suggest that they could. Christian religion is under attack in several
Western societies, but Romulus advocates the promotion of religion. This will not happen in America, of course, given the First
Amendment. However, what if society set
aside the hours of Sunday morning for worship, not holding children’s sports
programmes at that time? What if
children were given school vouchers that allowed them to study at Christian
schools (or other private schools promoting good values)? What the United States has right now is an
increasing antagonism toward Christianity (not toward all religions). The purpose of Christianity is not to promote
good values in society—there is far more to Christian faith than this. However, Christian values are good for
society.
Romulus’s just
laws in society focus on the family, which in antiquity was discussed in terms of
marriage, parenting, and the master-slave relationship. The new society advocated by a large sector
of American society is anti-family.
Every form of sexual perversion hides behind the mask of freedom. Adults promote sexual deviancy enacted before
children, perform medical experiments on their bodies in the name of gender
diversity, and wrestle them away from parental oversight. A sexually lax society promotes sex as
pleasure, turns marriage into partnerships, imagines that marriage can be
between people of the same sex, offers no-fault divorce, and thinks nothing of
adultery. Society’s breakdown is always
manifested most sadly in what it does to its children, who pay so dearly for the disparagement of marriage.
Romulus would
also have us promote honour in society, and that over against shameful
pleasures. Hollywood knows how to
produce movies about military honour, but Romulus probably reserved his
thoughts about the military for the virtue of bravery or courage. By honour is meant so much more. Movies tend to be about romance and, if not
on the Hallmark channel, romance understood as sexual passion. Detective shows and murder mysteries abound,
since people like to follow a story about who the criminal was and how he or
she is discovered. But where are the
movies (not to mention videos and social media) that promote a society of honour, dignity, resolve, honesty, and so
forth? Entertainment is time and again a
menu of violence and sex, a stoking of the baser passions that produce a
society of violence and sex.
We might beg to
differ from Romulus about the chief social value being military bravery, but we
see in his suggestions that social virtues must be promoted. Here we need to note that this discussion
requires a commitment to a certain vision of the good society. The good society was something America’s
founding fathers might have been in a position to discuss and, to a large
degree, agree upon. Today is quite
different. The most the Christian might
hope for and pray for is what Paul offers in 1 Timothy 2.1-7: pray for the
leaders of society so that they will allow Christians to live a quiet, godly, and
dignified life in every way and so live that they can witness their good life to
the larger society. The Christian faith is
one open to all as God ‘desires all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the
truth' (v. 4). The Church’s values are
not universal values but values held because of the faith we profess. We ask the larger society to allow us to live
as God has called us to live. We ask
mainline denominations to stop living the way the larger society lives but to
convert back to the Christian faith. We
ask those of other faiths to discern who is a true believer and who is a false
believer that they might know the Biblical and historic values of Christianity. We ask all to investigate the true, Christian
life.
Romulus, of
course, was anything but a Christian. He
is hardly the one to solve all the problems of the modern city. He is, however—and in my estimation if no one
else’s—far wiser than so many of our own politicians and government officials
and city governments. His advice can be
promoted to some degree by Christians as providing good solutions for some of
the problems plaguing our cities.
Finally, Romulus
introduced a different concept of citizenship from Greece. Instead of conquering enemy cities and then
putting the military age men to death and enslaving the rest of populations, he
colonized the cities. Sending Romans to
inhabit the reestablished cities was a far better plan than simply destroying
them. Moreover, some in these cities
were granted Roman citizenship, whereas the Greeks guarded citizenship far more
strictly.
A current
problem in Western cities has to do with citizenship. People from other nations pouring across the
borders of America and Europe would have been met with battle by Romulus. Rome became an empire because it did not
allow itself to be overrun but took control of expansion. Probably, if Romulus were to address the ‘root
causes’ of a southern border crisis in the USA, he would not simply build a
wall and enforce visa and immigration laws.
He would probably also conquer the nations whose populations stream across
the border and then send American citizens to colonise those countries. Thereby, he would establish just societies
that are beneficial rather than a threat to America.
Countries need
more than borders and a respect for citizenship, both of which are lacking sufficient
respect in countries of Western Europe (contrast Hungary and Poland) and
America. They also need to engage in mutually beneficial ways with those ‘tribes’
outside their borders. The solution to
the border crisis is subsidiary to foreign policy, and the West has a very poor
historical record with its foreign policy.
Romulus—the Romans—understood
this. Their imperialism is hardly a
model to follow, but it was presented as a promotion of ‘peace’ wherever they
extended their rule. Self-interest was
certainly a primary concern, as it is for today’s Chinese imperialism and American
imperialism. For various reasons, many
countries are convinced that China’s self-interests will benefit them rather
than enslave them. One probable reason
might be that China cares so little for the societies that it increasingly
dominates through economic exploitation that the nations think they have
retained their autonomy and self-respect.
Over against this, American foreign policy aims at social reconstruction
through promoting ‘values’—often the new, Western, post-Christian vices more than anything else, such as
homosexuality, transgenderism, and abortion.
Rome understood
its greatest benefit in the world to be its establishment of the rule of
law. The pax Romana was due not only to military conquest but especially to lex Romana.
Certainly economic exploitation followed as well (as Revelation 18
notes). People were enslaved in large
numbers. It is impossible to promote
Roman imperialism as a model for today, but the ideal of engagement not through
warfare, economic exploitation, and social imperialism but through the
establishment of law and order would be worth considering. The populations of Haiti and Venezuela would
surely welcome this, even if the next generation would have to declare its
independence from America. Tyranny is
always a problem, and the option of socialism thought to be so kind by many in
the West is not only bad economic policy but also the seed of tyranny. Rome’s imperialism brought Roman culture and
rule to other parts of the world, not always in commendable ways. Yet Dionysius also stated that Romulus
respected regional differences and judgements.
Rome’s extension of peace to other regions was also through its provision of Roman law. Paul
recognised this in principle in Romans 13.1-7, despite all the horrors of Rome
we could also cite in another part of the leger (Revelation).
Romulus did not
solve all the problems of society in his day and will not do so today. Dionysius even begins his description of
Romulus’ rule by noting that Romulus understood that all forms of government
had their weaknesses and problems. Yet a
comparison of Romulus’s solutions in his time to the current dialogue seems to
provide some surprising options that are ‘outside the box’. Many of his solutions are not options as
such, but some creative adjustments are possible. Perhaps some Central European countries that
still embrace both conservative European and Christian values to some degree will provide helpful
alternatives for the West, if the West would only give up its obviously failing
agendas, ridiculous new values, and anti-Christian bias.