Progress?

Sid sent me a link to the following quote a while back:

“In the absence of a secular authority, would Christians revert to burning astronomers, executing heretics and persecuting their own members?”

To which I’d say that if memory and research serves, we likely did a few of these with the blessing of a secular authority, especially that last one. Humanity, religious or not, is good at persecuting people that we disagree with often to the point of death.

What really lurks under this nasty little question (I say nasty not because it’s not true that we have done those very things, it is, but nasty in the “Have you stopped beating your wife?” way. There is no real good answer.) is another one or two. Are Christians just slavering to get back to our old way of doing things? And are we only held back by those non-religious types or governments founded on non-religious principals?

I’d like to think that humanity in general and Christians in particular are better off than we were a hundred, two hundred, a thousand years ago. Frankly, we’re not. I have but to point you to Germany sixty years ago or China today. While the leaders of those nations were (arguably in the former case) not religious they certainly killed anyone perceived to be in the way or in disagreement with the party line. So I don’t think much of secular authority and their ability to hold back the masses from the slaughter of those they deem unhealthy for society.

If there was a modern Christian theocracy in the vein of those that were responsible for past atrocities then I suppose we would see similar, though perhaps whitewashed, acts committed. We might not kill our enemies outright. We might “re-educate” them, imprison them for years without just cause, or something equally politically expedient. Again, no different than any current secular government is capable of, even if they aren’t doing it in public view.

See here’s my thing. Many of you folks reading this would argue that humanity has made great strides in the last couple of centuries. We’re so much better off now than we were back then. In some way you’d be right. We have made incredible scientific strides. Civil rights (in some countries at least) are on the increase. We live longer. There are fewer hungry folks. Satellite TV, the internet, cell phones, we’re more “connected” as a species than we’ve ever been before. Does that mean we’re better?

I’d say yes and no. Humanity has incredible potential for good and for evil. Whether you’re religious or not doesn’t matter. Neither world view is intrinsically superior/inferior in terms of its morality. Both sides in this matter have done wonderful things for the human race and both sides will continue to do terrible things in the name of their philosophy. Centuries from now I’m willing to bet that if we’re still here, there will be two people sitting in a cafe somewhere having this very conversation, “Are we better off now than we were then?” The answer to that question in that bright day will be the same as it is now, “That depends in the measuring stick.”

If we as people don’t learn from our past, if we aren’t aware that yes there was a day that Christians drowned each other and lit one another on fire in the name of God then yes we are doomed to repeat it. Even being aware isn’t enough, though. It’s not any kind of insurance. We will hurt those that are entrusted to us. We will destroy those who stand in our way. To those that believe in evolution I would say it’s the wild animal that’s still and will ever be in us. To those that believe God put us here six thousand years ago (or more) I would say, well… you know what I would say. We sin.

There is hope. We as individuals can strive to live up to the measuring stick that God laid out for us. “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The Bible isn’t the only book that puts forth that command and no matter what you believe I’d say that’s a good thing to aim for every day. We may miss the mark, in fact I guarantee we will. Perhaps if we all did that the world would be a better place. It will never be a perfect place though, even if most of us managed, most of the time (an unlikely event).

There’s hope beyond that too though. I serve a very real God and He has grace on me, a very real sinner. He has a plan for this world and while I can’t tell you that I can even begin to understand that plan in its fullness, I have faith that it’s there. One day when this world passes away and there is a new world created in its place, my hope is that we will all fulfill that command all the time. Until then, all we can do is the best we can.

  • sidfaiwu
    I thought you'd get some blog use from that quote.

    A couple of things I'd note:

    If you want a less controversial example than Germany use Stalin's Russia. His regime was explicitly secular and violently oppressed religious people because of their religion (and just about everybody else for a host of other reasons too). He didn't like religion competing for loyalty with The State. China is a good example for some of the same reasons though I think their human rights abuses are exaggerated.

    "I’d like to think that humanity in general and Christians in particular are better off than we were a hundred, two hundred, a thousand years ago. Frankly, we’re not." I disagree.

    Reading your response, I notice something in common with the theocracies of the past (and present for that matter - see Islamic nations) and the authoritarian secular regimes. The commonality is unchecked power. The reason we are better off today (in terms of the likelihood of having violence inflicted upon oneself) is because of the rise of democracy in the world. Democracy is designed to keep power in check.

    This changes the question to, "In the absence of a democracies, would governments revert to committing violence against their own members?” I think almost all of us would answer that with a definite 'yes'.

    Another question then comes to mind, "Is a religious democracy stable, or even possible for that matter?" I think it's possible - Turkey is the country that comes to mind as something close to this. But is it stable? In a democracy, the ultimate authority belongs to the people. In theistic religions, the ultimate authority belongs to a god or gods. What happens when the people want something that is in opposition to religious doctrine? Does the people's will become law or does the religious doctrine trump the will of the people? In the former case, it's not really a religious democracy, in the latter case it's not really a democracy at all.
  • spiritualtramp
    Yeah, it's definitely a provocative one.

    If violence is your only metric then I could see how you'd think we are better off over all. That's certainly valid. I am far less likely to have my life come to a short and brutal end thanks to war (or perhaps due to any other reason). And for me personally life is pretty peachy. So I may be better off but are we as a species better? Not so sure.

    Unchecked power is bad, yeah I think that's a big key. Democracy is one way of keeping power in check. It's not perfect but as you say if we reverted to a monarchy things would get ugly.

    And I agree with you re: Religious Democracies.
  • I agree with this. We are doing the exact same stuff just with different methods.

    Very thought invoking post!
  • spiritualtramp
    Thanks Alisa!
  • I think that "burning astronomers, executing heretics and persecuting their own members" are all evidences of people that are wrapped up in fear and insecurity - folks that know little of loving God or loving people.
  • spiritualtramp
    Problem is that a lot of people who were doing this are those that much of our modern theology is founded on. That doesn't make what you said wrong, but if you are right then a lot of our churches are built on sinking sand (which in and of it self might be right).
  • The only folks that I know of that are "burning astronomers, executing heretics and persecuting their own members" these days are the rigid fundamentalists. And while they are certainly vocal I do not think that "modern theology is founded" on rigid fundamentalism.
  • spiritualtramp
    These days, no. Back in the day, Luther, Wesley, Calvin, et al all engaged in some level of persecution and were themselves persecuted..
  • Not sure that I am following Scott. Are you saying Luther, Wesley and Calvin were "burning astronomers, executing heretics and persecuting their own members"? Some details might help. Guess I get that the RC church had inquisitional activities like that but not sure what you are saying about the reformers actions and how it shaped their theologies.
  • spiritualtramp
    I'll retract what I said about Luther and Wesley. With Calvin I was thinking of his role in the execution of Severetus (a heretic). I think there were some other things he did while at Geneva that could be considered persecution, but I was unable to find anything.
  • You reminded me that I shared something about Calvin last June that is a bit in line with what you are saying. http://www.kansasbob.com/2009/06/reign-of-calvi...
  • This quote from Einstein gets to the core of this - and it works whether or not you believe in God. "The release of nuclear energy has not created new problems. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving existing ones."

    Possibly I got the exact words of the quote wrong, but the point stands. People will kill each other for all sorts of reasons. Any organized and powerful group is likely to at some point wind up justifying their own direct or indirect killing because groups are made up of people and people have that tendency.

    That does not mean we aren't better off now. Not everyone and not everywhere, but certainly on the whole. As Einstein noted, though, we now have more capability to destroy each other. Whether it's the Bible or some other book or just some generic sense of right and wrong, anything that helps us as individuals contribute to avoiding that is a good thing.
  • spiritualtramp
    I certainly agree with Einstein in regards to the bomb. But as our capacity for good increases I'd argue so our capacity for evil increases. As I said, yes we are better off, but will we ever reach that place where we are as good as we can ever be?
  • I think the answer is no, we won't ever reach that place. But I personally don't have a problem if we never achieve perfection.
  • spiritualtramp
    So what measuring stick do you use to determine whether we are better or not?
  • Fewer people die of preventable things. In a number of countries around the world where people used to be killed or enslaved just for having dark skin, they no longer do. A smaller percentage of the world's population is starving than in the past. Fewer women are denied rights around the world than they used to be. Fewer children are abused. And on and on.

    However, not only could you take issue with some of the facts I cited because we don't have accurate measurements from 100 or more years ago, you could cite facts that would sound like things have gotten worse. This is not an argument I'm interested in the outcome of because I can't see the point. If things are worse, we need to make them better. If things are better, we still need to make them better. And the discussion about HOW we do that is going to focus on details of what to do and what not to do, not whether or not things have gotten better in general. We can learn from what we've done wrong, but again, that is a detail.
blog comments powered by Disqus