"The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy" by Robert D. Woodberry

 Robert D. Woodberry has written a fascinating research essay entitled "The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy."

Here is the abstract of the paper:

This article demonstrates historically and statistically that conversionary Protestants (CPs) heavily influenced the rise and spread of stable democracy around the world. It argues that CPs were a crucial catalyst initiating the development and spread of religious liberty, mass education, mass printing, newspapers, voluntary organizations, and colonial reforms, thereby creating the conditions that made stable democracy more likely. Statistically, the historic prevalence of Protestant missionaries explains about half the variation in democracy in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Oceania and removes the impact of most variables that dominate current statistical research about democracy. The association between Protestant missions and democracy is consistent in different continents and subsamples, and it is robust to more than 50 controls and to instrumental variable analyses.

I put the following notes together for a talk based on Woodberry's paper.  It has a number of quotations from the essay.

________________ 

·     Article: “The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy” by Robert D. Woodberry in American Political Science Reviewvol. 106, no. 2 (May 2012), 244-274.[1]

 

·     Purpose of the article: explain the influence of religion—particularly a specific kind of Protestant Christianity—on the development of democracy around the world

 

o   “Most theories about democracies emphasize the material interests of different social classes and either ignore or minimize the role of cultural and religious interests.” (p. 244)

 

o   “More broadly, this article challenges many aspects of traditional modernization theory (i.e., that liberal democracy and other social transformations traditionally associated with “modernity” developed primarily as the result of secular rationality, economic development, urbanization, industrialization, the expansion of the state, and the development of new class structures). Although all these elements may matter, they are not the only causes. Moreover, those “causes” must be explained. I argue that Western modernity, in its current form, is profoundly shaped by religious factors, and although many aspects of this “modernity” have been replicated in countries around the world, religion shaped what spread, where it spread, how it spread, and how it adapted to new contexts.” (p. 244)

 

·     The kind of religious groups that were most influential

 

o   “In particular, conversionary Protestants (CPs) were a crucial catalyst initiating the development and spread of religious liberty, mass education, mass printing, newspapers, voluntary organizations, most colonial reforms, and the codification of legal protections for nonwhites in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  These innovations fostered conditions that made stable representative democracy more likely—regardless of whether many people converted to Protestantism.  Moreover, religious beliefs motivated most of these transformations.” (pp. 244-245)

 

o   Woodberry adds a note about the definition of “CPs”:

 

§ “Conversionary Protestants(1) actively attempt to persuade others of their beliefs, (2) emphasize lay vernacular Bible reading, and (3) believe that grace/faith/choice saves people, not group membership or sacraments.  CPs are not necessarily orthodox or conservative.” (p. 244)

 

·     “The Origin of Democratic Theory and Institutions” (p. 248)

 

o   “Those who doubt the religious roots of democracy typically overemphasize its Athenian, Enlightenment, and Deist roots.” (p. 248)

 

o   Athenian roots—cautions

 

§ “Modern democracy differs greatly from Athenian democracy” (p. 248)

 

·     “Athenian democracy was direct, limited to the elite hereditary Athenian families, excluded more than 80% of Athenians, never expanded to Athenian-controlled territories, and was unstable.  Modern democracy has elected representatives, separation of powers, constitutions, ‘natural’ rights, legal equality, and broad citizenship and has often been very stable.” (p. 248)

 

·     “Greek classics were most consistently available in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Muslim world, but democracy did not thrive there; the Roman Empire circled the Mediterranean, and the Renaissance flourished in Southern Europe, but democracy did not thrive in those places either.  The ‘Athenian seed’ germinated only after 2,100 years in alien soil: Northwest Europe and North America.” (p. 248)

 

o   Enlightenment roots—based in religious precedents

 

§ “Enlightenment theorists incorporated many legal and institutional innovations from earlier religious movements (Berman 1983; Nelson 2010; Waldron 2002; Witte 2007). In fact, arguments for political pluralism, electoral reform, and limitations of state power were originally framed in religious terms (Bradley and Van Kley 2001; Clarke 1994; Ihalainen 1999; Lutz 1988; 1992; Nelson 2010; Witte and Alexander 2008).  For example, Calvinists tried to reconstruct states along “godly” lines and limit sinful human institutions. Perhaps as a result, most Enlightenment democratic theorists came from Calvinist families or had a Calvinist education, even if they were either not theologically orthodox or personally religious (e.g., John Locke, Rousseau, Hugo Grotius, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Patrick Henry, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton),⁹ and they secularized ideas previously articulated by Calvinist theologians and jurists (Hutson 1998; Lutz 1980; 1988; Nelson 2010; Witte 2007).¹⁰ For example, Hobbes’ and Locke’s social contracts are secular versions of Puritan and Nonconformist covenants, and Locke’s ideas about the equality of all people are explicitly religious (Waldron 2002;Woodberry and Shah 2004).

 

“Although stated in secular form, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights derive most directly from earlier colonial covenants, compacts, and bills of rights that were generally justified explicitly in biblical and

theological terms; many were written before Hobbes and Locke expounded their ideas. Only 7 of the 27 rights enumerated in the U.S. Bill of Rights can be traced to major English common law documents (Lutz 1980; 1988; 1992; Witte 2007). Even between 1760 and 1805, political writings quoted the Bible more often than either Enlightenment or classical thinkers (34% versus 22% and 9%, respectively; Lutz 1984).” (p. 248)

⁹ Montesquieu had a Calvinist wife and based many of his arguments on Puritan rule in England.

¹⁰For example, natural rights, the social contract, separation of powers and freedom of expression and association: “Every one of the guarantees in the 1791 [U.S.] Bill of Rights had already been formulated in the prior two centuries by Calvinist theologians and jurists” (Witte 2007, 31).

 

o   “Thus modern democratic theory and institutions area confluence of streams, not a uniquely Athenian or Enlightenment creation. Although Enlightenment and Greek thought were important, they are not a sufficient explanation for liberal democracy. Religious ideas, institutions, conflicts, and social bridging were also important. In summary, the ideas that shaped the first successful democratic movements were heavily influenced by Protestantism, not just by “secular” classical and Enlightenment thought. Moreover, ideas are not enough. Without conditions that dispersed power beyond a small elite and prevented life-and-death struggles between secular and religious forces, democracy did not last. In the next subsections I discuss how CPs fostered greater separation between church and state, dispersed power, and helped create conditions under which stable democratic transitions were more likely to occur.” (p. 249)

 

·      Key areas Woodberry documents the conditions CPs promoted that help foster democracy

 

o   Printing, Newspapers, and Public Sphere 

o   Education

o   Civil Society

o   Colonial Transformation

 

·      Printing, Newspapers, and Public Sphere

 

o   “One mechanism through which CPs dispersed power was massively expanding access to printed material and news. Scholars often claim that printing and capitalism birthed the public sphere and that the public sphere in turn enabled democracy (Habermas 1989; Zaret 2000). CPs greatly accelerated the development of mass printing, newspapers, and the public sphere or several reasons. First, CPs changed people’s ideas about who books were for. According to CPs, everyone needed access to “God’s word”— not just elites. Therefore, everyone  needed to read, including women and the poor. Moreover, books had to be inexpensive and in language that was accessible to ordinary people, not in foreign languages or classical versions of local languages. Second, CPs expected lay people to make their own religious choices. They believed people are saved not through sacraments or group membership but by “true faith in God”; thus, each individual had to decide which faith to follow. CPs used printed material to try to convert people, which forced other groups to use such materials to compete for ordinary people’s allegiance. This competition helped give rise to mass printing.” (p. 249)

 

o   “In the West, the development of CP movements also predicted many of the major advancements in the quantity and techniques of printing. For example, CP Bible and tract societies helped spark a nineteenth century printing explosion. Their drive to print mass quantities of inexpensive texts preceded  major technological innovations and helped spur technological and organizational transformations in printing, binding, and distribution that created markets and facilitated later adoption by commercial printers (Bayly

2004, 357; Bradley 2006, 38–39; Brown 2004; Howsam1991; Nord 2004).” (p. 249)

 

·      Education

 

o   “Another mechanism through which CPs dispersed power was through spreading mass education. Much statistical research suggests that formal education increases both the level of democracy and the stability of democratic transitions (Barro 1999; Bollen 1979; Gasiorowski and Power 1998).19  

 

“CPs catalyzed the rise of mass education all around the world. CPs advocated mass literacy so that everyone could read the Bible and interpret it competently. Their attempt to convert people through education threatened other elites and spurred these elites to also invest in mass education.” (p. 251)

 

·      Civil Society

 

o   “CPs also dispersed power by developing and spreading            new organizational forms and protest tactics that allowed non-elites, early nationalists, and anticolonial activists to organize nonviolent political protests and, in British colonies, form political parties prior to independence.  Many scholars argue that this type of organizational civil society helps foster democracy (Fung 2003; Putnam 1993).” (p. 252)

 

·      Colonial Transformation

 

o   “CPs also dispersed power by publicizing colonial abuses, advocating for changes in colonial policy, and transferring ideas, skills, and networks that helped colonized people organize anticolonial and nationalist movements. Some scholars suggest that British colonialism fostered democracy, but this may be because CPs had greater influence in British colonies. CPs forced the British to allow religious liberty, but were not able to do this in historically Catholic regions. Religious liberty increased the flow of Protestant missionaries to British colonies, heightened competition between religious groups, and freed missionaries from direct state control. Missionaries were then better able to limit colonial abuses and spur mass printing, mass education, and organizational civil society. Religious liberty also made it easier for local people to organize early nonviolent anticolonial and nationalist organizations.” (p. 253-254)

 

o   “In British and American colonies, religious liberty and private mission financing weakened officials’ ability to punish missionaries and freed missionaries to critique abuses, while popular support allowed missionaries to punish colonial officials and settlers. For example, colonial magistrates and governors were reprimanded or removed, military officials were put on trial for murder, confiscated land was returned to indigenous people, and so on. Thus, Protestant missionaries spurred immediate abolitionism, as well as movements to protect indigenous land rights, prevent forced labor, and force the British to apply similar legal standards to whites and nonwhites.  Although others participated in these movements, it was the missionaries who provided detailed information and photographs that documented atrocities. Missionaries also provided emotional connections to distant people and mobilized large groups through church talks and mission presses.  Without missionaries, mobilizing mass protests would have been difficult. The missionary-enabled mobilization made it more difficult for the British to sustain colonial violence or to apply different legal standards to whites and nonwhites. It helped create a cocoon in which nonviolent, indigenous political movements could develop and increased the incentives for colonial officials to allow gradual democratization and decolonization.” (p. 254)

 

·      Conclusion

 

o   “The historic prevalence of CPs is not the only cause of democracy, but CPs seem both important and neglected in current research. This does not mean that CPs consistently directly supported democracy nor is mass conversion to Protestantism necessary. Yet in trying to spread their faith, CPs expanded religious liberty, overcame resistance to mass education and printing, fostered civil society, moderated colonial abuses, and dissipated elite power. These conditions laid a foundation for democracy and long-term economic growth. Once CPs catalyzed these transformations and others copied them, CPs’ unique role diminished.” (p. 268)

 

o   “Distinct theologies and organizational forms lead to distinct outcomes.” (p. 269)

---

     [1]Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235503063_The_Missionary_Roots_of_Liberal_Democracy.  Note: Woodberry’s article is filled with substantiating documentation embedded throughout the text.  In my quotations below I have chosen to remove most of the internal citations so as to make for smoother reading.

The Book of Revelation: Background on the Political and Cultural Context (part one)

I was recently spending time reading and re-reading the book of Revelation.  In our mid-week Bible study we are going through chapters 2-3 and looking at the seven churches mentioned.  As is usual, anytime I spend significant time in Revelation I tried to read in both commentaries and published articles.  Two recent articles I read are Imperial Pretensions and the Throne-Vision of the Lamb: Observations on the Function of Revelation 5 by J. Daryl Charles (Criswell Theological Review 7.1 [1993], 85-97) and The Social Setting of the Revelation to John: Conflicts Within, Fears Without by David A. DeSilva (Westminster Theological Journal 54 [1992], 273-302).  This blog post will look at J. Daryl Charles' essay.

Both articles bring out the first-century background of the Roman Imperial cult.  This background is crucial since it sets up the point of tension with the Roman society--its culture, religion, economics, and politics.  These Christians in the seven churches of Revelation 2-3 had to navigate an increasingly hostile culture.  Opening up this background dynamic helps bridge the hermeneutical gap and provide practical resources and examples for our time.

Charles begins his essay with these words:

"At the core of the Christians' dilemma in the first century was their refusal to adore the national gods and affirm Roman Imperial pretensions.  Christian non-compliance in this regard constituted rebellion against the established order, at the center of which stood the emperor, hailed as Kyrios, 'Lord,' incarnate.  Although conditions reflected up to the time of the writing of the Apocalypse suggest that Christians were not regularly martyred, the writer foresees an ominous development.  At issue is a clash of two irreconcilable worldviews.  At its core, the apocaplyse represents a challenge to the Roman principate.  The all-encompassing machinery of the imperium Romanum is utterly bewitching to the world (Revelation 13 and 17), leaving none unaffecte; it thus calls for a prophetic consciousness."  (pp. 85-86)

Charles focuses on Revelation chapter 5 with its depiction of the heavenly throne room with worship being offered to the Lamb.  Charles argues that the imagery of chapter 5 is not merely general in nature but would have evoked Imperial overtones with a subversive twist: true worship was being offered to Christ the Lamb and not to the Roman emperor.  Here are the words of Charles:

"In 5:1-14 the reader catches a glimpse of both the political ramifications of Imperial pretensions as well as the religious implications of absolutist Imperial claims.  Both kingly and priestly imagery are employed to reassure John's audience.

"Attention has been drawn earlier in this century as well as more recently to the 'polemical parallelism' between the Imperial cult and early Christianity.  The language of adoration and worship associated with the former is transferred by the writer of the Apocalypse from a defied emperor to Christ.  Most conspicuous in Revelation is the emphasis on ritural and ceremony.  Ritual demonstrates precisely where human loyalties are to be found.  To affirm the sovereignty of one is in fact to deny it to another.  Worship, hence, is the confession of one's all.  In the Apocalypse, the reader is confronted with an absolute antithesis; no compromise is possible.  Since confession of one is clearly a negation of another, the Christian community is challenged with a dilemma stemming from claims of ultimacy by the Imperium." (p. 87)

The Christian allegiance to Christ Jesus was "perceived a menace to imperial unity and supremacy."  (p. 88)

"Inasmuch as the Christians called Jesus Kyrios/Dominus, the same title could not legitimately be ascribed to the emperor--a dilemma interpreted plainly enough by Pliny.  Ultimately, for the first-century Christian the matter comes down to a fundamental antithesis: Divus Imperator ('Emperor Divine') or Christus Dominus ('Christ the Lord').  Christians refused to acknowledge Caesar as god-man, while at the same time proclaiming Christ to the God-Man who ruled even Caesar.  Such de-sanctifying of the state was certainly not lost on the emperor himself.  The Christian disciple is thus at root an imperial antagonist; one's devotion cannot be split." (p. 88)

Charles notes that even the specific imagery of Revelation 5 and the throne room vision of the Lamb has resonances with the Imperial cult.

"The vision, as it turns out, is heavily imbued with 'imperial' overtones.  The 'Lamb--ie., the 'Lion-Lamb' who is simultaneously 'savior' and 'conqueror'--is revealed in terms that are uniquely and painfully familar to a first-century audience living in Asia Minor.  Borrowing images and epithets suggesting conscious 'polemical parallels,' John portrays Jesus in a manner that causes even the glories of the Imperial throne to pale by contrast."  (p. 89)

The historical background regarding Emperor worship is also something to be noted.  "Worship" is a key theme in the book of Revelation and the ancient Roman world was filled with actual religious devotion to the Emperor.

"From 3 B.C., at the formation of the Octavian-Antony-Lepidus triumvirate, until the time of Diocletian, eighty-three places of consecration/deification were erected in Rome, indicatiing the relative influence of the Imperial cult.  Augustus, as the inscriptions show, was being worshipped in the East as 'a Savior... through whom have come glad tidings.'  While it is true that Augustus never allowed himself to be openly designated a god and worship of Augustus in Rome and Italy was nominally forbidden, the poets of his age--Proportius, Virgil, Horace and Ovid--were lavish in their praise of him as Deus." (p. 91)

Caligula and Nero had pretensions of divinity.  Coming to Domitian, the third of the Flavian rulers, he becomes much more inclined to accepting Divine praise so that "he became the object of widespread worship, marking a departure from the moderacy of earlier Julio-Claudian emperors." (p. 91)

Even the physical dynamics of Nero's throne are helpful in understanding the throne room scene of Revelation five.  Charles describes Nero's throne:

"Nero had built for himself a rotunda that represented the cosmos.  The structure rotated day and night.  The middle region of the rotunda was the region of the sun.  Roman poets appealed for Nero to take his seat exactly in the middle of the universe, otherwise the cosmos would lose its equilibrium.  From this position the emperor judged, determing the fate of humans.  He thus fulfilled the role of fatorum arbiter, ho pantokrator, ie., the cosmic god of fate." (p. 93)

John's description, based on the heavenly revelation, provides a counter-image of a glorious throne with the Lamb--Jesus Christ--in the middle of it.   This is just one more example of a "polemical parallel" which manifests the transcendent nature and role of the Lamb of God.

This all is part of John's implicit political philosophy given his historical situation in the Roman empire.  The words of Charles are instructive:

"To be sure, Christianity was per se not opposed to the state; the Apostle Paul viewed it as divinely appointed with a civil function in the temporal order.  Rather, it was Rome's pretense of absolute authority and ultimate allegiance that for the Christian disciple was intolerable; hence, the dilemma for the Christian community." (p. 90)

With this understanding, the contemporary Church can glean insights and resources in the development of her stance against political regimes that seek to overwhelm the Church with oppressive, Jesus-denying policies.

Applying God's Law Today

Jonathan Burnside has written a fascinating and major work on understanding biblical law and applying it to contemporary issues.

Dr. Burnside's book God, Justice, and Society: Aspects of Law and Legality in the Bible was honored with critical interaction in the journal Political Theology 14 (5) 2013.  I have not had the opportunity to review these essays but I did read Dr. Burnside's response "Words of Wisdom, Words of Prophecy: Why and How Biblical Law Speaks in the Public Square" and it has a number of important insights.

Here is one particularly good section on applying biblical law:

"One aspect of the problem of applying biblical law is the persistent tendency to view it in an‘all or nothing’ manner. It is assumed that if we are not advocating, say, the stoning of children – to use Nevader’s emotive example – I am being ‘inconsistent’ and so the game is up. But matters are hardly that simple. 

"Take, for example, how lawyers interpret the law. Modern law consists of a wide range of material that is explicitly legal (including all manner of primary and secondary legislation) as well as (so the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin would argue) material that is implicitly legal (e.g. values, principles and implicit assumptions). They are all part of ‘the law.’ For a Dworkinian lawyer it is all equally authoritative in the sense that it is all, equally, a resource which the judge (or any other legal interpreter) can draw on in reaching a legal decision. Butthat does not mean it all ‘applies’ to the instant case in exactly the same way. Far from it. In reaching a decision the judge is guided by considerations of consistency to the past and considerations of justice to create the most plausible and appealing account of the law that s/he can. A process of selection is going on with the result that not every element within the resources available to the judge will favour the final decision. But we do not thereby conclude that the judge has not ‘applied the law’ or that the process of application is arbitrary. This is because law consists of a whole body of discourse and thinking which guides the judge one way or the other in reaching a decision. 

"Without advocating a Dworkinian reading of biblical law – for one thing, Dworkin can be criticised as subordinating legal texts to the morality of the individual judge – my general point is we should not assume that because we are not ‘applying’ one bit of biblical law (e.g.‘stoning children’) in one particular way (impliedly, in a literal manner) that we cannot speak of ‘applying’ any of it. This is not how modern law works and I do not think it is a sensible reading of biblical law either. We should see the whole of biblical law as a body of discourse and thinking that provides resources and direction for us in responding to current issues. At the same time we cannot, as it were, start with our preferred account of public policy (the free market over socialism, say) and then construct a biblical social vision to match. In this respect my approach differs from Dworkin inasmuch as I regard legal texts (in this case, biblical legal texts) as possessing more authority than Dworkin is prepared to admit. Our present ideas, of social justice or whatever they might be, are open to challenge by the biblical texts at every point. It goes without saying that certain texts are bound to speak in certain times and places far more sharply than others. There is hard thinking to be done and we have to be prepared for a potentially dangerous political stance. 

"This means that the question of applying biblical law is not straightforward. It can’t simply be reduced to a matter of ‘what rules does the Bible have on this subject?’ or ‘what does the Bible expressly say?’ about this or that. Instead, it means drawing on and being aware of a host of contextual beliefs, values, narrative and worldview in which we are active participants, as McConville recognizes. It means recognising, as William P. Brown puts it, the “formative as well as normative, impact that Scripture qua Scripture makes upon reading communities” (emphasis original). If biblical law has a role to play in shaping basic worldview, values and identity then clearly this is not something that can suddenly be switched on when a moral dilemma presents itself. What is required, as Bruce C. Birch and Larry L. Rasmussen recognize, referring to the use of the Bible generally in ethics, is “long-term nurturing of the community of faith.” If the distinctive social vision of biblical law has not already been internalized it can hardly be drawn on appropriately or effectively in the face of a given social challenge. This underlines the need, once again, for biblical law to be widely known and understood (not least in our churches) so that it informs the worldview out of which reading communities seek to be salt and light in public life."

A few comments:

1.  Why do people always bring up the stoning of children as if that is a sure-fire way to show the absurdity of biblical law?  This law needs to be understood in its biblical contexts.  When this is done the law is not found to be crazy or absurd.  It may even have something to show us in terms of application for today.  See my study on this issue: The Penalty for Rebellious Children: What Does the Bible Say and What Does it Mean?

2.  The last paragraph cited above is most interesting to me.  Understanding how biblical law functions "means drawing on and being aware of a host of contextual beliefs, values, narrative and worldview in which we are active participants."  It is not simply a matter of looking up a few references or citing a specific piece of legislation divorced from the larger narrative context.  We must become attentive readers and active participants in seeking the wisdom of God to be manifested in all of our lives.  Burnside helpfully reminds us, "If biblical law has a role to play in shaping basic worldview, values and identity then clearly this is not something that can suddenly be switched on when moral dilemma presents itself."  Quoting Birch and Rasmussen, he notes the need for "long-term nurturing of the community of faith."  We need communities where the law of God is known, studied, and engagingly applied within a communal context.  This points up the need for teaching about and from the law of God.  "If the distinctive social vision of biblical law has not already been internalized it can hardly be drawn on appropriately or effectively in the face of a given social challenge."  If the community of faith has not internalized the law as set forth in the larger narrative structure of the Bible then how can the church effectively speak this law in a responsible and helpful manner into the cultural conflicts of our time?  Our ignorance of the law and our lack of internalized virtue stemming from deep communal meditation on it is one cause of our ineffectiveness in being "salt and light" to the world.
__________

For a few other posts in which I quote from Jonathan Burnside's God, Justice, and Society:

The Value & Insight of the "Old" Law Code in the Bible

Reading the Law within Narrative: Notes to a Muslim Student

The Right to Bear Arms: Bibliography & Resources by Ben Crenshaw

I came across this bibliography by Ben Crenshaw on the issue of bearing arms, the Second Amendment, etc. and thought it worthwhile to note and save here.

See The Right to Bear Arms: Bibliography and Resources.

God and Politics: A Few Reflections

* A piece I wrote for our weekly church bulletin to go along with the sermon on 1 Peter 2.13-17.

The arena of politics can be difficult to navigate.  Now throw theology in the mix and the difficulties seem to multiply.  Yet, God has given us his Word and he speaks to the political realm in a number of different passages.  Today passage—1 Peter 2.13-17—is one such passage that gives us direction on how to reason as Christians.  As will be mentioned in the sermon today, we need to apply God’s unchanging principles to changing circumstances.  Within the history of the church Christians have had to live under varying political realities: monarchies, oligarchies, parliaments, tyrants, and democratic systems.  These differing political realities still require the people of God to heed God’s timeless instructions.

A helpful essay is Attitudes Towards the State in Western Theological Thinking by Torleiv Austad in the October 1990 issue of Themelios.  Here are a few select quotations from Austad’s piece:

From the NT texts which speak of the life of the Christian in the world, we may draw the following conclusions for understanding the mandate and limits of the state: First, the mandate of the state is to deal with and regulate the common social, political, and economic life of society.  Secondly, the state has the right to require taxes from the citizens to be able to take care of some of the common needs, such as food and clothing, work and social welfare, law and justice.  Thirdly, the state has to take care of and reward those who are doing right and to punish those who are doing wrong.  Thus the state is on the way to fulfilling its mandate of administering justice.  If the state pretends to give itself divine attributes and becomes involved in people’s relationship with God, it goes beyond its limits. It is also a transgression of those limits when a state offends elementary civil rights, especially when it restrains freedom of conscience.  In addition, a just state, i.e. a state which functions in accordance with its mandate, may not be totalitarian in terms of claiming sovereignty in all areas of life without crossing the line and entering into injustice and demonic power.

The task of the church over against the state is threefold: First, the church has to remind the state of its mandate and limits.  Secondly, the church should encourage the citizens, Christians included, to co-operate with the actual state as far as it is true to its calling.  Thirdly, because the state is constantly tempted to become totalitarian and degenerate, the church and Christians are called to be critical of every state and evaluate its functions on the basis of ethical premises. (p. 20)

Austad goes on to note that in the New Testament the state is given neither principled renunciation nor uncritical acceptance.  He writes:

The apparently contradictory attitude can be illustrated by comparing Romans 13 and Revelation 13.  In both cases Christians are confronted with the Roman state.  While the governing authorities according to Romans 13 respect elementary civil rights, the same state in Revelation 13—about forty years later—is seen as the beast from the abyss.  Therefore the attitude of Christians has changed from obedience to disobedience.  Within the eschatological horizon of the NT the relationship between Christians and the governing authorities is never fixed; it is complex, sensitive and changing. (p. 22)

The interface between the church and the state can be tricky.  Faithfully navigating through all the twists and turns of both cultural and political analysis as well as critically engaging in rigorous biblical and theological thinking is difficult.  Even when Christians agree on fundament principles from God’s word there may still be disagreements on how to best apply those principles to concrete problems and situations.  May God give us the grace and wisdom to faithfully pursue righteous and justice in all that we do—including in the realm of politics.

Donald Trump in the Bible

The rich man is wise in his own eyes,

but the poor man who has understanding

see through him.

Proverbs 28.11 

Mark Durie on Islam as a Religion of Peace

* This piece is available at Mark Durie's blog.

Anyone Using The Phrase ‘Islam Is A Religion Of Peace’ Needs To Read This

Posted: 16 Dec 2015 02:57 PM PST

This article first appeared with Independent Journal. 

Days after the ISIS-inspired terrorist attack in San Bernardino, President Obama’s address to the nation concerning the threat of ISIS missed the mark. In fact, President Obama seemed at times to be more concerned with Americans ostracizing Muslim communities through “suspicion and hate,” than he was with protecting innocent American civilians from murder in the name of radical Islam.

It is high time for western political leaders to stop responding to terrorism by naming Islam as ‘the religion of peace’. It is time to have a hard conversation about Islam.

The West is in the throes of acute cognitive dissonance over Islam, whose brands are at war with each other. On the one hand we are told that Islam is the Religion of Peace. On the other hand we are confronted with an unending sequence of acts of terror committed in the name of the faith.

There is a depressing connection between the two brands: the louder one brand becomes, the more the volume is turned up on the other.

The slogan ‘Religion of Peace’ has been steadily promoted by western leaders in response to terrorism: George Bush Jr and Jacques Chirac after 9/11, Tony Blair after 7/7, David Cameron after drummer Lee Riby was beheaded and after British tourists were slaughtered in Tunisia, and François Hollande after the Charlie Hebdo killings. After the beheading of 21 Copts on a Libyan beach Barak Obama called upon the world to “continue to lift up the voices of Muslim clerics and scholars who teach the true peaceful nature of Islam.”

One may well ask how ‘the religion of peace’ became a brand of Islam, for the phrase cannot be found in the Qur’an, nor in the teachings of Muhammad.

Islam was first called ‘the religion of peace’ as late as 1930, in the title of a book published in India by Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi. The phrase was slow to take off, but by the 1970s it was appearing more and more frequently in the writings of Muslims for western audiences.

What does “religion of peace” actually mean?

Words for ‘peace’ in European languages imply the absence of war, and freedom from disturbance. It is no coincidence that the German words Friede ‘peace’ and frei ‘free’ sound similar, because they come from the same root.

While there is a link in Arabic between salam, a word often translated ‘peace’, and Islam, the real connection is found in the idea of safety.

The word Islam is based upon a military metaphor. Derived from aslama ‘surrender’ its primary meaning is to make oneself safe (salama) through surrender. In its original meaning, a muslim was someone who surrendered in warfare.

Thus Islam did not stand for the absence of war, but for one of its intended outcomes: surrender leading to the ‘safety’ of captivity. It was Muhammad himself who said to his non-Muslim neighbors aslim taslam ‘surrender (i.e. convert to Islam) and you will be safe’.

The Religion of Peace slogan has not gone uncontested. It has been rejected by many, including Ayaan Hirsi Ali, andMelanie Phillips writing for The Times, who called it ‘pure myth’.

Even among Muslims the phrase has not only been challenged by radical clerics such as Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State, but also by mainstream Muslim leaders.

Sheikh Ramadan Al-Buti of Syria was one of the most widely respected traditionalist Sunni scholars before he was killed in 2013 by a suicide bomber. The year before he had been listed as number 27 in the ‘The Muslim 500’, an annual inventory of the most influential Muslims in the world. According to Al-Buti, the claim that Islam is a peaceful religion was a ‘falsehood’ imposed upon Muslims by westerners to render Islam weak. He argued in The Jurisprudence of the Prophetic Biography that when non-Muslims fear Islamic jihad, their initial inclination is to accuse the religion of being violent. However they then change tack, and craftily feed to Muslims the idea that Islam is peaceful, in order to make it so. He laments the gullibility of ‘simple-minded Muslims’, who:

“… readily accept this ‘defense’ as valid and begin bringing forth one piece of evidence after another to demonstrate that Islam is, indeed, a peaceable, conciliatory religion which has no reason to interfere in others’ affairs. … The aim … is to erase the notion of jihad from the minds of all Muslims.”

There does seem to be something to Al-Buti’s theory, for it has invariably been after acts of violence done in the name of Islam that western leaders have seen fit to make theological pronouncements about Islam’s peacefulness. Who are they trying to convince?

In the long run this cannot be a fruitful strategy. It invites mockery, such as Palestinian cleric Abu Qatada’s riposte to George Bush’s declaration that ‘Islam is peace’. Abu Qatada asked: ‘Is he some kind of Islamic scholar?’

We do need to have a difficult conversation about Islam. This is only just beginning, and it will take a long time. The process will not be helped by the knee-jerk tendency of western leaders to pop up after every tragedy trying to have the last word on Islam. This strategy has failed, and it is time to go deeper.

Mark Durie is a theologian, a Shillman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and author of The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom.

Mark Durie is an Anglican pastor and Associate Fellow at the Middle Eastern Forum.
Subscribe to markdurie.com blog by email.

This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.