The Rights and Governance of the City as Polis

14 February 2025

By Dr Adi Schlebusch

In historical Protestant political theory, cities were viewed as mini-nations or at least constitutive parts of nations in and of themselves. The city was not seen as a division or subsection of the country, but as a smaller unit from which a larger unit comes into existence. The city or county can exist without the province or state, but not vice versa.

Historically, the relationship between cities, the community, and the government played a fundamental role in preserving justice and moral order. City governance was perceived within a theonomic and covenantal framework, particularly in the context of the Kingdom of Israel. When aligning the authority of governments with God's law, the city and its leaders are seen not only as governmental institutions but also as guardians of community, accountable for upholding true religion, justice, and the proper social order.

In the historical context of Israel, urban authorities were regarded as institutions playing a dual role: governing society and protecting religion. The community, and not just the king or ruler, was responsible for maintaining moral standards and upholding the divine laws that justified society. Within this framework, the king was not seen as the ultimate authority but as one who had to serve both the will of the people and the will of God. If a king or government did not rule in accordance with God's law, it was the people's duty to intervene, even to challenge the rule of such a king.

This idea of shared responsibility for justice is based on both a political and a theocratic foundation. The people not only have the right but also the solemn duty to rise up against a ruler if the government enacts an injustice contrary to God's will. The city, as a community of people, properly speaking, has a moral obligation to uphold justice and protect religion within its bounds—even if it means resisting injustice on the part of higher magistrates.

A classic text on political theory from the time of the Reformation, such as the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, extensively discusses the relationship between the king, the people—both in its constitutive parts (families and cities) as well as a whole—and the civil magistrate. It highlights that the king does not possess absolute power, but that his authority is always dependent on the consent of the people. It often refers to the principle that the king is not above the law; the law is the highest authority, and the king is the protector of the law. The king, therefore, must not abuse his power but must be in service to the people. Law is not something imposed by the king but something that the people, in cooperation with the king, collectively uphold.

Vindicae points to several examples from the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles to show that the idea of power not being absolute is especially evident in the historical practices of ancient Israel, where not only the king, but assemblies or officials were actively involved in decision-making.  Elders or tribal leaders, played an active role, and the king was not seen as the final authority but more as a facilitator of the will of the people. This meant that the city itself, as a social unit, was not solely or even directly governed by the king, but was seen as a cooperative society in its own right working alongside the ruler and other constitutive societies which together form the nation. In its third chapter, Vindiciae points to 1 Kings 12:20 as an example of where the assembly of elders as tribal representatives had to come together to reject king Rehabeam and to crown Jerobeam as king over Israel. Vindiciae then notes that “during such assemblies one of the elders from the tribe of Judah acted as chairman, just like a the national assembly of the southern kingdom in Jerusalem would later specifically choose as chairman and vice-chaiman elders from the tribe of Benjamin (Nehemiah 11:7—9)." This shows that even the ancient monarchy in Israel was findamentally based on the principle of subsidiarity whereby larger national assemblies are seen as constituted by representatives from smaller, more organic social units such as towns, cities, and tribes.

The autonomy of city governance entails its duty not only to maintain order in the city but also to protect and advance true religion and to safeguard its citizens from tyranny. The very word 'citizen,' just like its Germanic equivalent 'burgher,' means a member of the body of the city. This points to the constitutive nature of cities or towns in a nation. In the Vindiciae, this is affirmed with a reference to the pre-revolutionary custom in France, especially in the cities of Toulouse and La Rochelle, as well as in the provinces of Dauphiné, Provence, and Bretagne, where the king of France, upon entering, was required to verbally swear to respect the specific rights and distinct laws of these provinces and cities, as well as acknowledge their unique covenants with him as their ruler. It was also understood that his civil authority over these cities and provinces was dependent upon upholding his side of the governmental agreements with these constitutive political units.

Cities ought to fulfill an important function when it comes to the idea of armed resistance or the right to rise up against an unjust government. While historic Protestant political theory has always held that individuals do not normally have the right to take up arms against tyranny unless they receive a specific divine command, urban authorities, as representatives of the people, do have the authority to take up arms against injustice and oppression. In terms of the rights of cities, its rulers as representatives of the citizens not only have the responsibility to follow but also the right to intervene when governments do not act in service of the people and contrary to the will of God.

These principles of governmental authority, which emphasize the shared responsibility of the people and urban authorities, historically played a central role in the governance of nations and is fundamentally based on the idea of political authority being transparent, accountable to God, and in service of the natural community.