In the 4/19/10 edition of USA Today, religious
antiquarian Phillip Jenkins, by comparing extremist Islam with assorted
atrocities committed in the name of Christianity over the centuries, details
from an historical perspective how any religion can be co-opted in the name of
violence. Though his warning is in part a timeless one that needs to be
considered in all ages, Professor Jenkins' case overlooks a number of important
points.
First, it must
be remembered that, though horrible, the lynching and dismemberment of Hypatia
and the abuses perpetrated by Cyril highlighted by Professor Jenkins occurred
centuries ago. The violence committed by Islamic extremists is going on today.
That does not
diminish the evils inflicted so long ago or repudiate the lessons that can be
learned from such ancient accounts. However, the danger arises when this sense
of scholastic detachment is then applied to the issue of contemporary
terrorism.
Secondly, it
must be remembered that such violence perpetrated solely for expansive
religious purposes in the name of the Lord by human hands is not endorsed by
Christ during the dispensation of grace. In Acts 17, Paul debated and dialogued
with the Athenian philosophers on Mars Hill; he didn’t crack open their heads.
For Christians,
Jesus during the time of His first advent and Paul are to serve as examples in
regards to faith, practice, and missiological strategy. It could be argued that
Muhammad serves a similar function in the life of the Muslim.
It would be
factually incorrect to say that all Muslims are prone to fanatic violence.
However, those using violence for socioreligious ends are more faithful in
emulating the example set by Muhammad and the text he promoted than supposed
Christians committing violence are in living up to New Testament standards.
Professor
Jenkins would no doubt argue that those emphasizing violent manifestations of
Islam while neglecting violent expressions of Christianity are doing a
disservice to history. He has committed this very offense by insinuating that
violent atrocities are a phenomena exclusive to unhinged religions and not
something plaguing other social institutions.
Jenkins writes,
"Out-of-control clergy, religious demagogues with their consecrated
militias, religious parties usurping the functions of the state --- these were
the common currency of the Christian world just a few decades after the Roman
Empire made Christianity its official religion. He continues a paragraph or two
later, "...given a sufficiently weak state mechanism, any religion can be
used to justify savagery and extremism."
Are you going
to tell me that an historian of Phillip Jenkins' repute is not aware of the
countless deaths that result not so much from a "sufficiently weak state
mechanism" but from a state made too strong at the expense of other
cultural spheres? For example, Jenkins writes, "Between 450 and 650 AD,
during what I call the 'Jesus Wars', inter-Christian conflicts and purges
killed hundreds of thousands, and all but wrecked the Roman Empire."
Such conflict is tragic. However, it could be argued
that the Roman Empire was, to use a highly technical historical metaphor,
heading down the toilet well before then and for a number of additional
reasons.
Frankly, the Roman Empire wrecked itself. Christians
didn't instigate the debaucheries for which the waning years of the Empire have
become infamous such as gladiatorial combat, rampant orgies, and even incest
among the ruling elite.
History is as
much a reflection of the values of those writing it as it is about the past era
being written about. As such, Professor Jenkins needs to be asked why he thinks
the violence perpetrated by warring bishops is somehow worse or the victims any
more dead than the Christians slaughtered by Roman authorities for little more
than quietly adhering to their own convictions.
It would seem
that the most important lesson to take away from the great tragedies of history
is that innocent human lives are lost when institutions of authority assume
power to extents and over matters they were never intended. The regimes more
blatantly hostile of Christianity such as Nazism and Communism were actually
the regimes that turned the slaughter of the innocent and dissidents into an
exact science.
It has been
said that those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Concentrating power in the hands of government at the expense of other social
institutions in the name of preventing tyranny is one of the surest ways of
bringing about that particularly undesirable state of political affairs.
by Frederick
Meekins
