In his book “What Went Wrong: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response” the world renowned scholar Bernard Lewis opens the chapter Secularism and the Civil Society by stating the following:

Secularism in the modern political meaning – the idea that religion and political authority, church and state are different, and can or should be separated – is, in a profound sense, Christian. It’s origins may be traced in the teachings of Christ , confirmed by the experience of the first Christians; its later development was shaped and, in a sense, imposed by the subsequent history of Christendom. The persecutions endured by the early church made it clear that separation between the two was possible; the persecutions inflicted by later churches persuaded many Christians that such a separation was necessary.

The older religions of mankind were all related to –were in a sense a part of-authority, whether of the tribe, the city, or the king. The cult provided a visible symbol of group identity and loyalty; the faith provided sanction for the ruler and his laws. Something of this pre-Christian function of religion survives, or reappears , in Christiandom, where from time to time priests exercised temporal power, and kings claimed divine right even over the church. But these were aberrations from Christian norms, seen and reciprocally denounced as such by royal and clerical spokesmen. The authoritative Christian text on these matters is the famous passage in Matthew 22:21, in which Christ is quoted as saying, “Render unto Ceasar the things which are Ceasar’s and unto God the things that are God’s”
Commentators have differed as to the precise meaning and intention of this phrase, but for most of Christian history it has been understood as authorizing the separate coexistence of two authorities, the one charged with matter of religion, the other with what we would nowadays call politics.

I do believe this is the balance that the US tries to achieve and what Islam perhaps cannot, to date. Although relatively serious reforms by the Ottomans were attempted prior to WWI.
The aberrations from Christian norms that support separation of Church and State were overcome by Christianity itself. That is one of many reasons why Christianity continues to experience success in our modern (soon to be unmodern) era.

ant wrote:The aberrations from Christian norms that support separation of Church and State were overcome by Christianity itself.

Could you expand on this?

Interbane wrote:

ant wrote:The aberrations from Christian norms that support separation of Church and State were overcome by Christianity itself.

Could you expand on this?

it's pretty easy to expand on even without thinking much about it.

play your evil twin for just 5 minutes for me and give me one answer off the top of your head.

(I'm being serious and not sarcastic)

Hmm. Christianity motivated our founding fathers to structure gov't with separation of church and state?

The only opposition to the separation of church and state in contemporary America comes from christianity and a small but growing group who want to install sharia law.

The culture which seperates church from state is concerned that church does not have the best track record with governing all who live within it's umbrella of influence.

There's a lawyer in California who literally proposed a "shoot the gays" law.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/law ... ys-n327196

Also known as the "Soddomite Suppression act"

http://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiati ... y%29_0.pdf

His reason for proposing this is exclusively based on religious argument.

"The abominable crime against nature known as buggery, called also sodomy, is a monstrous evil that Almighty God, giver of freedome and libergy, commands us to suppress on pain of our utter destruction even as he overthrew Sodom and Gomorrha.

Seeing that it is better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God's just wrath against us for the folly of tolerating wickedness in our midst, the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for the purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method."

as long as belief is perpetuated without adequate reason to hold belief decisions based on faulty data will continue to lead to poor choices and bad results. That includes suppressing soddomites for angering a god that nobody can say with any validity is real in the slightest.

Religions are only as enlightened as the people who practice them. And religion is not the path to enlightenment. It's the path to knowing exactly what's in one particular culture's mythology which frequently only corresponds to reality by accident, and rarely holds any truth of its own.

ant wrote:In his book “What Went Wrong: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response” the world renowned scholar Bernard Lewis opens the chapter Secularism and the Civil Society by stating the following:

Secularism in the modern political meaning – the idea that religion and political authority, church and state are different, and can or should be separated – is, in a profound sense, Christian. It’s origins may be traced in the teachings of Christ , confirmed by the experience of the first Christians; its later development was shaped and, in a sense, imposed by the subsequent history of Christendom. The persecutions endured by the early church made it clear that separation between the two was possible; the persecutions inflicted by later churches persuaded many Christians that such a separation was necessary.

The older religions of mankind were all related to –were in a sense a part of-authority, whether of the tribe, the city, or the king. The cult provided a visible symbol of group identity and loyalty; the faith provided sanction for the ruler and his laws. Something of this pre-Christian function of religion survives, or reappears , in Christiandom, where from time to time priests exercised temporal power, and kings claimed divine right even over the church. But these were aberrations from Christian norms, seen and reciprocally denounced as such by royal and clerical spokesmen. The authoritative Christian text on these matters is the famous passage in Matthew 22:21, in which Christ is quoted as saying, “Render unto Ceasar the things which are Ceasar’s and unto God the things that are God’s”
Commentators have differed as to the precise meaning and intention of this phrase, but for most of Christian history it has been understood as authorizing the separate coexistence of two authorities, the one charged with matter of religion, the other with what we would nowadays call politics.

I do believe this is the balance that the US tries to achieve and what Islam perhaps cannot, to date. Although relatively serious reforms by the Ottomans were attempted prior to WWI.
The aberrations from Christian norms that support separation of Church and State were overcome by Christianity itself. That is one of many reasons why Christianity continues to experience success in our modern (soon to be unmodern) era.

Today, one of our chief complaints against Christianity is that it doesn't stay in its own sphere in things such as teaching intelligent design and prayer in schools. But this is a result of fairly recent activism on the part of evangelicals, and in general it seems to be true that separation of church and state hasn't been a huge problem with Christianity in the U.S., even though we'll still complain about it.

I wonder whether the early environment of Christianity might have taught Christians to value this separation. They needed to be somewhat discreet with their practices and beliefs, because these were truly different from Roman religion. There were occasional persecutions, not often but enough to highlight the dangers. The Romans, as Lewis says, thought of religion as inescapably public. There was no point to it unless it displayed the allegiances of the public to the rulers through their preferred gods. The Christians emphasized the privacy of their faith and the value of the religion to the individual, rather than to the state.

Islam developed without these restraints and so was able, perhaps, to be more "totalitarian." That didn't mean, though, that it could not create a progressive society, lasting for quite a while as Europe became more stagnant.

Is secularism then an outgrowth of Christianity? Sounds paradoxical, but could be.

Great post, DWill.

I think the teachings of Christ instruct most Christians to separate state governance from their religion. At least thats what Bernard Lewis states is the consensus interpretation of Jesus' "Render unto Ceaser" advisement. Im wondering what Flann or Stahrwe might think about this.

The freedom to worship the Roman's supposedly gave Christians came with restrictions of course.
The idea that Christianity's ongoing attempt to achieve a synchronization between the two may very well have favored its eventual flourishing.

If the past and present has taught us anything, its shown that secularism can grow side by side with Christianity. Secular politics does not forbid the participation of all voices. Christianity has rightful access to the public square. They use it lawfully and without violence. Im sorry to say radical Islam has not done the same thing.



"Is secularism then an outgrowth of Christianity? Sounds paradoxical, but could be"

Id say it became a necessary and welcomed byproduct. Of course their are periods of resistance as i said before.
Ironically, some structures of Islamic government, specifically Iran, have structured their body not unlike the Catholic pontificate and accompanying cardinal/bishop cabinet.
A "Ayatollah" is a relatively new Islamic concept unheard of in early Islam. Its body of rule is similar.
In that way, theyve become Christianized without even knowing it.

Is secularism then an outgrowth of Christianity? Sounds paradoxical, but could be

I had to look again at the chapter i referenced in this topic.

Bernard Lewis says this:

Western rulers and to a far extent their enthusiastic Muslim disciples and imitators brought in a whole series of reforms almost all of them western origin or inspiration which increasingly affected the way Muslims lived in their countries their cities and villages and finally their own homes.

These changes were rightly seen as being of western origin or inspiration: the non muslim minorities mostly christian but also jewish were often seen sometimes rightly as agents or instruments of these changes.., the christian minorities inspired by western ideas of self determination were no longer prepared to accept the tolerated but inferior status accorded to them by the old order and made new demands. Equal rights within the nation.

Christians were not opposed to secular ideas of civil order. Their faith was adjusted to it after years and years of their own struggles to overcome turmoil and conflict. As carriers and caregivers of the ideas of modernity and secularism, they were adequate hosts.

I think men like Voltaire, Kierkagard, and Locke expressed ideas of tolerance, individual rights, and the need of religion and society to function without hardship.


Its a great question you ask. I may be doing a disservice to Christianity by saying secularism is perhaps a byproduct of the faith.

ant wrote:Christians were not opposed to secular ideas of civil order. Their faith was adjusted to it after years and years of their own struggles to overcome turmoil and conflict. As carriers and caregivers of the ideas of modernity and secularism, they were adequate hosts.

I think men like Voltaire, Kierkagard, and Locke expressed ideas of tolerance, individual rights, and the need of religion and society to function without hardship.


Its a great question you ask. I may be doing a disservice to Christianity by saying secularism is perhaps a byproduct of the faith.

It is a great question ant.
I think that Christianity in it's scriptures sees a distinction between the political rule and kingdoms of this world and the spiritual kingdom of Christ.This most clearly stated in Christ's dialogue with Pilate in answer to the accusation of sedition and the question;Are you a king then?
So God rules providentially over the rise and fall of empires but the kingdom of God in this world is not political in any real sense.
The ascent of Constantine and removal of this clear distinction is a radical departure from the essential concept of a spiritual kingdom not propagated or buttressed by the sword.
But that's what happened,and the idea of pagan conversion by imperial decree is antithetical to the core ideas of a spiritual kingdom based on preaching the gospel and free response to that.
Tom Holland in his book Millennium sees the conflict between Henry iv,the German "Caesar" and Pope Gregory as a defining historical moment where Gregory seeks to reclaim autonomy for the Catholic church and assert the separation of church and state.
Holland sees this as the birth of modernity and ultimately the secular state with some unintended consequences.
Maybe he's right here though, there are other views of history too
Here's a brief interview with Holland where he talks about some of the central themes of his work.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuos23LlMBM
Of course history is complex and there always has been a tension between the rulers and the ruled which can lead to revolutions if oppressive rulers push their luck.
It's rarely simple. Even Constantine who rubber stamped the Nicene view on the Arian controversy was himself Arian and backtracked in terms of his treatment of Arius and Athanasius,and some later emperors did likewise though the orthodox view prevailed long term.
Likewise as Simon Schama commented in his History of Britain on the overthrow of Charles1 by Cromwell and the establishment of parliamentary democracy as primary; "No one was reading from a script that read;go forth and spread democracy"
Islam is intrinsically theocratic in nature in it's foundational scriptures so incapable at least naturally of producing such a division. It can if it ignores it's foundational ideas.