Soul Freedom: Religious Liberty, the Church and Islam
The proposed Park51 project in lower Manhattan has created a firestorm of discussion concerning the perceived legitimacy of Islam, the tortured history of relations between Western civilization and the Muslim world, and the need for tolerance between people of different faiths.
In any complex discussion such as this, it is often difficult for people to recognize the cultural lens which colors their own perspective by default. For the average American, Islamophobia is a decisive part of that inherited cultural lens, as rightly explained by Dr. Firestone in his RD essay on August 23, 2010 (Religion Dispatches- The Ground Zero-Sum Game). Tinted by this colored worldview, we are accustomed to viewing Islam and Muslims (and all Arabs, by association) as dangerous to our way of life and backwards in regard to the forward progress of society. This is extremely unfortunate, though it is understandable, given our nation’s interactions over the last three decades with high-profile terrorists who have claimed Islam as justification for their murderous actions. But guilt by association is never an appropriate way to judge individuals, let alone an entire multi-faceted civilization. Not all Muslims are the same. Cold-hearted criminals must be separated from the great majority of Muslims who strive only to live in peace, to worship God faithfully, and to provide a good future for their children.
But another aspect of our inherited American cultural lens which is so often assumed is the obvious necessity of religious freedom within a prosperous and healthy society. It is important and necessary if we are to have a truly informed public debate that we acknowledge this aspect of our worldview. It is a point of view that is uniquely American in history and peculiarly Christian in origin. If we miss this point, then our debate on religious tolerance and diversity will be incomplete at best, and perhaps even misguided.
Within the three great Abrahamic faith traditions, the Christian faith is the only one that assumes the clear distinction between political power and religious leadership. In its earliest history after the Day of Pentecost, the nascent churches stood in noticeable opposition to the Roman and Jewish authorities. None of the apostles, nor any among the first few generations of their successors, actively sought after positions of political power or control. The earliest Christian theological writings are unanimous in calling for respectful and prayerful support for those in power, but this call is always given obliquely and always from the perspective of those on the periphery of society. If one undertakes a survey of all early Christian writings (including the New Testament), it is clear that these early disciples of Christ thought very little (if at all) about acquiring power and control within society. On the contrary, their focus lay squarely on the demanding task of creating a compelling alternative society to exist alongside of, and in tension with, the dominant milieu of their time. In reality, the only social power of these early Christian communities was the power of persuasion, and it seems in general that these Christians were content with that. After all, it was their Teacher himself, Jesus of Nazareth, who was unambiguous in his disregard for political power. “If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over…But as it is, my kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36b).
In contrast, the Jewish tradition presents a radically different relationship between religious authorities and political power. For the sake of brevity, we need only consider the great Davidic dynasty which represents the commonly accepted “golden-era” of Jewish history. King David and his son Solomon served as multi-tasking leaders of Hebrew society. They were the commanders-in-chief of the armies, absolute monarchs over the territory they controlled, the supreme judge over all disputes among citizens, as well as the final arbiters in all matters concerning the religious practices of the nation. The kings of the Davidic dynasty also had clear imperialistic impulses and they sought to conquer neighboring kingdoms whenever the opportunity presented itself. They did all of this in the name of the LORD their God, the One who brought them out of Egypt and who allowed for no compromise in matters of national religious practice. When King Solomon began to allow other religious cults within his realm, the prophets of God were quick to announce the impending demise of his family dynasty. “Then the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who…had commanded him concerning his matter, that he should not follow other gods” (1 Kings 11:9-10). In short, the dominant ideal scenario envisioned by the Judaic tradition is one where political power, military might and religious leadership are combined and held together by strict allegiance to the covenant instituted by Moses.
The Islamic tradition owes much to the history of Judaism in this regard. In general, the Prophet Muhammed continued the heritage of combined political and religious power that was ubiquitous within Near Eastern societies. Within his nascent community, he served in much the same role as the Davidic kings: military general, absolute monarchical leader, and supreme judge. One major difference is that, for his followers, Muhammed was also the only source of revealed truth from God. However, the scope of his influence was limited during his lifetime, so it is the period of the patriarchal Caliphs immediately after the Prophet’s death that most often serves as the glorious idyllic period of Islamic history. These four great Caliphs continued the tradition of centralized civil and religious authority throughout the rapidly expanding Islamic empire.
All three of these Abrahamic faiths has been shaped and molded by varying historic circumstances in the ensuing centuries, often in surprising ways. However, they can never escape the foundational influence of their own respective “golden eras”. There can be no denying that the Christian churches, the Jewish people, and Muslim peoples are all inherently conservative in this regard: in their traditions, they all preserve an idyllic period in their past which serves as the definitive point of reference for contemporary decision-making. The exact periods of the past which serve in this capacity may vary somewhat between different sects (i.e., the Roman Catholic Church vis-à-vis Anabaptist churches, Reformed synagogues vis-à-vis Hasidic rabbis, Sufi communities vis-à-vis Shi’ite communities), but this process is remarkably uniform among the Abrahamic faiths as a general rule.
For instance, it would be a great over-simplification to evaluate the struggles between the new nation of Israel and the Palestinian peoples through the prism of the brief historical overview presented above. However, one can discern, in the stated goals and aspirations of those directly involved in this conflict, clear links to the amalgamation of political, military and religious power that constitutes the ideal vision of society for both the Judaic and Islamic traditions. Both Jewish and Palestinian militants in this struggle have been clear in expressing their desire for the creation of nation states which continue this combination of military and political power with their own religious identity. In contrast, Christian communities that exist in both Israel and in Palestine have largely remained apart from this conflict. In this way, one can recognize a reluctance to pursue political power among these churches that stems directly from their foundational self-identity as seen in the apostolic period.
Of course, objections will be raised to this historical overview, particularly concerning the abuse of political and military power over the centuries by the Christian churches. It is true that, after the Edict of Milan in 313 issued by Constantine and Licinius, Christian communities wielded direct civil power throughout Europe and the Mediterranean region for nearly 1500 years, often with disastrous results. But it is also true that, throughout this period, varying Christian voices were continually raised in protest to this obvious unfaithfulness to the foundational period of the church’s life. In fact, it can be argued that just as much of the energy behind the Reformation in the 16th and 17th centuries was a result of this unease with the abuse of civil power by the leaders of the church in Rome as it was a result of divergent theological understandings.
This now brings our extremely brief overview of religious history around full circle back to where we started. The very notion of the separation of church and state (and thus, religious tolerance and diversity) which we Americans assume as a foundational aspect of society is in fact a direct and immediate fruit of the Reformation. One of the primary catch-phrases of the Reformation was “ad fontes”, that is “back to the sources”. Many new Protestant communities did exactly this by attempting to re-create the experience of the early apostolic churches. In the process, they adopted the same attitude and approach toward civil authority as can be seen among these earliest Christians. In the Baptist churches, they began to speak boldly of the liberty of conscience as a necessary condition for any healthy society. Today, many will refer to this as the principle of soul freedom, and it is this principle which underlies our First Amendment rights to the “free exercise” of religion.
So let us all remember, as we continue to discuss the place of Islam within American society, and the need for religious tolerance, that what we are discussing is a peculiarly Christian ideal. We would be foolish to assume that those who have inherited a different cultural worldview will share this appreciation for religious diversity. Perhaps they will. But in order to have a fully informed debate in this regard, it is only fair that we ask our Muslim neighbors to explain their understanding of soul freedom and how this principle is informed by their faith traditions. A full understanding of history demands that we do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment