A Daniel come to judgement . . .

Daniel

A Mountain without Hands?

Google Images

. . .  or judgment? You be the judge!

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

Robert D. Woodberry
Google Images

In yesterday's blog entry, I noted Robert D. Woodberry's article, "The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy," American Political Science Review Vol. 106, No. 2 May 2012). He seems to have proven his thesis, that stable modern democracies are significantly dependent upon the presence of independent Protestants who missionized various places around the world. I won't deal with his statistical data since I have no competence in that area; I will instead quote extensively from his paper in passages where he offers substantive reasons for why Protestant missions led to democracy. Here's his summary of the argument, which describes the role of nonstate, conversionary Protestants (CPs):

I discuss the following arguments in more detail in the history section, but in brief, CPs such as Protestant missionaries wanted people to be able to read the Bible in their own language and wanted to facilitate lay religious involvement. Thus, as CPs tried to spread their faith, they catalyzed mass education, mass printing, and civil society -- hampering elite attempts to monopolize these resources. Protestants themselves did not always provide the most educational, printing, and civil society resources, but Protestant initiatives spurred others to invest heavily in these areas and to pressure governments to create schools that restricted Protestant content. These resource transfers to non-elites helped alter the class structure, fostered the rise of political parties and nonviolent political movements, and facilitated broader political participation.

In addition, Nonconformists (i.e., non-state-supported Protestant denominations) historically suffered from discrimination and persecution by governments and state churches. Thus they fought for religious liberty and against state interference in civil society. In addition, both Evangelicals in state churches and Nonconformists wanted a "converted clergy." Thus in the eighteenth through early twentieth centuries, CPs generally sided with Enlightenment elites against state churches and their conservative allies. When they lacked this religious support, Enlightenment elites had a small power base and typically set up either autocratic or unstable and illiberal democratic regimes.

Finally, nonstate missionaries moderated colonial abuses, particularly when abuses undermined conversions and in British colonies (where CPs had greater influence). To reach their religious goals, nonstate missionaries punished abusive colonial officials and counterbalanced white settlers, which fostered the rule of law, encouraged less violent repression of anticolonial political organization, and facilitated peaceful decolonization. Of course, Protestant economic and political elites were as selfish as anyone else. Protestant slaveowners fought slave literacy, and Protestant settlers exploited indigenous people; however, when missionaries were financially independent of the state, of slaveowners, and of white settlers, missionaries undermined these elite co-religionists in ways that fostered democracy. (246a)

Woodberry's thesis is not entirely straightforward. The particular circumstances, as much as religious beliefs, shaped nonstate, conversionary Protestantism's activities. But the CPs did play a significant role:

Those who doubt the religious roots of democracy typically overemphasize its Athenian, Enlightenment, and Deist roots. However, religious factors are also important. Modern democracy differs greatly from Athenian democracy, and Enlightenment theorists incorporated many legal and institutional innovations from earlier religious movements. In fact, arguments for political pluralism, electoral reform, and limitations of state power were originally framed in religious terms.

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), and they secularized ideas previously articulated by Calvinist theologians and jurists. 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.

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. Even between 1760 and 1805, political writings quoted the Bible more often than either Enlightenment or classical thinkers (34% versus 22% and 9%, respectively).

Furthermore, the strength of Calvinism and Non-conformism better predicts where democracy emerged than does the strength of Greek and Enlightenment influence. (248a)

I wonder if these numbers cover the substantive story that needs to be fleshed out. Perhaps the Bible was cited more because it held more authority for most people, not because it contained democratic ideas. In other words, secular and Enlightenment views may have 'borrowed' the cloak of religious authority to make their position more persuasive. This assumes, of course, that the Bible is vague enough -- on the political system it supports -- for democratic ideas to be read into the text. Nevertheless, the impact of CPs was real:

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. CPs greatly accelerated the development of mass printing, newspapers, and the public sphere for 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. (249a)

The principle of free individual choice clearly played a huge role, sometimes by example:

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. (251a)

These are all plausible explanations, but Christianity in general -- if we include Catholics and Orthodox -- would not seem, in itself, to be obviously conducive to the development of stable democracies. In fact, state-supported Protestantism seems to have been as nonconducive to the development of stable democracies as were Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Two things, I think, remain to be done: 1) detailing the ideological links between stable democracies and the religious beliefs of independent Protestants to show how these religious views supported the secular ones, and 2) explaining in detail how the democratic character of these religious beliefs arose within the context of a Western Christendom that had never been especially democratic. These are important for a bigger question that interests me, namely, whether or not Christianity, in general, was in some way more conducive to the emergence of modernity.

In other words, is there something about Christianity -- in contradistinction to, say, Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism -- that makes its democratic reinterpretation more easily accomplished?

Huntington's Clash of Civilizations in Microcosm?

Ethiopian Evangelicals

(Image from Christianity Today)

I see from Wikipedia that Ethiopia is about 33.9 percent Muslim and about 62.8 percent Christian, the latter divided into 43.5 percent Orthodox and 19.3 percent other denominations, mostly Protestant, I suppose. The place is thus one in which to take a glance through a Huntingtonian lens, though of no statistical validity admittedly. Huntington argues that Western Christianity, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Islam form the basis of different civilizations and that the clashes among civilizations reflect the clashes among religions. He might have therefore expected three-way clashes in Ethiopia, perhaps similar to those in Bosnia.

Let's look at what Matthew D. LaPlante says of the three religious groups in his article "Growing in the Word" for Christianity Today (September 16, 2011):

In 2002, a mob of Orthodox priests and adherents carrying axes and machetes attacked Protestants in the town of Merawi, injuring many and killing Pastor Damtew Demelash of the Full Gospel Believers Church. Just a few years earlier . . . a stone-throwing mob of Orthodox Christians attacked Protestants attending a conference, wounding 51.

But at St. Gabriel's Orthodox Church, priest Aba Mezmur Hawaz tells his parishioners not to quarrel with fellow Christians. If someone is better able to see God through a Protestant lens, he said, so be it. "The whole world of Christians -- we are all going to go up one way together."

He gave a different assessment of the Muslims in his community. "They will go a different way," he said. "And if they want to fight with us, we will fight with them."

This is not a matter of simple religious prejudice. In recent years, both Orthodox and Protestant Christians have been the victims of attacks by Islamic extremists, which killed several people and destroyed scores of Christian homes and churches. Although they are still relatively rare, such attacks have brought Christian leaders together for support, protection, and prayer.

This Ethiopian microcosm of the clash among these three religious groups might appear to illustrate Huntington's views, but not quite to the letter, for attacks by Islamic extremists would seem to be motivating the Orthodox and the Protestants toward religious unity. On a civilizational scale -- if I might be allowed to speculate in a statistically meaningless way -- this could imply that the rise of Islamism in the Muslim world and corresponding attacks upon Christians of all denominations would also give rise to increasing unity between Western Civilization and Orthodox Civilization.

But this, of course, is mere speculation that depends upon Huntington being both right and wrong . . .

Response to Paper by Metropolitan Ambrose Zographos

Ambrose-Aristotle Zographos

Metropolitan of Seoul

Orthodox Metropolis of Korea

(Image from OrthodoxWiki)

My responses to the papers by Professor Nobuo Kazashi and Metropolitan Ambrose-Aristotle Zographos were delayed from 5:00 p.m. until nearly 7:00 due to the length of some afternoon presentations, so I got home late in the evening and am not yet rested well. Consequently, I'll post what I said in response to the Metropolitan's paper because I'm still too tired to be even minimally creative this morning (and because my response is relatively short).

By the way, I finally learned what the conference is called: "Mystical Tradition and Autobiography as the Source of the Multi-Cultural Spirituality in a Global World." It continues all week, until the 24th.

Anyway, here's my response to the Metropolitan's paper, which was titled "Orthodox Christian Spirituality and the Prayer of the Heart or the Jesus Prayer":

I now respond to Metropolitan Ambrose-Aristotle Zographos's paper, which I have understood better because I have more knowledge of religion than of philosophy. Consequently, my remarks will be brief, followed by some questions. The Metropolitan has explained the fundamental goals of Orthodox spirituality:

First, the acquisition of the Holy Spirit through a life in Christ and, second, to experience a living unity with God (Theosis). The sole reason why God created human beings was to make us partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:3-4) . . . . For Orthodox Christians, . . . the grace of the Holy Spirit . . . . effects deification (Theosis), which implies nothing other than direct union with God.

Clearly, a type of mystical union with the divine is at the center of Orthodox spirituality, which therefore places the Metropolitan's paper squarely at the center of this conference on mysticism. Quite startling, however, is the statement concerning the change effected through the "grace of the Holy Spirit," for we learn that "it is this divine grace that effects deification (Theosis)."

The Metropolitan has cited 2 Peter 1:3-4, which reads (minus the accents, though I've tried to add the rough breathing marks):

1:3 ‘ως παντα ‘ημιν της θειας δυναμεως αυτου τα προς ζωην και ευσεβειαν δεδωρημενης δια της επιγνωσεως του καλεσαντος ‘ημας ιδια δοξη και αρετη
1:4 δι ‘ων τα τιμια και μεγιστα ‘ημιν επαγγελματα δεδωρηται ‘ινα δια τουτων γενησθε θειας κοινωνοι φυσεως αποφυγοντες της εν τω κοσμω εν επιθυμια φθορας (Greek NT (Nestle-Aland) UTF8)

3 His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.
4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. (New International Version)

The operative phrase here is ‘ινα . . . γενησθε θειας κοινωνοι φυσεως, which literally means "so that . . . you might become sharers in the divine nature." This promise already sounds remarkable enough as expressed in 2 Peter 1:3-4. All the more astonishing is the startling Orthodox statement already noted: "It is this divine grace that effects deification (Theosis)" -- though our astonishment is perhaps reduced by the clause declaring that this deification "implies nothing other than direct union with God."

I confess, however, that I am somewhat unsure of the meaning. The word "deification" is very powerful. It is the substantive form of "deify," which literally means "to make a god of." Does the Greek "Theosis" imply something this strong? Or does the phrase "nothing other than direct union with God" weaken the meaning? Either way, is this union temporary, or eternal? If eternal, what happens to one's human nature? Does one have a union of divine and human natures similar to that of the incarnate Son? I'd like to know more about this apparently "mystical" union. I wonder to what degree it is biblically grounded and to what degree it draws upon Greek thought, such as the Neoplatonic concept of henosis.

Similarly, what are the respective roles of God and the individual in this process? The Metropolitan states that "the means through which one may reach . . . deification . . . can be summarized in the following five steps":

1) The technical means, . . .such as the bending of the head and controlled breathing.
2) Reciting the holy name of Jesus
3) The blocking of any image or thought during prayer
4) Heartfelt prayer
5) Ceaseless prayer

If I have understood correctly, the prayer consists of these words: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner." I understand that this is no automatic, magical formula, but also requires obedience to God's commandments (cf. Matt 7:21-23). I suppose that my question is a very Protestant one, but to what extent is "deification" a gift of divine grace, and to what extent is it earned by human works?

I have one final question. The Metropolitan has stated that "the Jesus Prayer is not to be practiced intensely without a guide," for there exist "spiritual, psychological and physical dangers . . . without the guidance of an experienced spiritual father." Yet, the Metropolitan has also stated that the prayer can be practiced "by anyone . . . . alone . . . as a private . . . prayer." If so, then what sort of guidance is meant?

Such were my words. Unfortunately, I did not get to hear a reply by the Metropolitan, for my own response was so long delayed that he had already left.

Perhaps I should email him.

Metropolitan Ambrose-Aristotle Zographos on Theosis

The Ladder of Divine Ascent

12th-Century Icon and Image of Theosis

St. Catherine's Monastery, Sinai Peninsula, Egypt

Monks Ascending (and Falling from) the Ladder to Jesus

(Image from Wikipedia)

In preparing my response to a couple of papers to be presented at this week's international conference on mysticism, I learned something quite new . . . for me. Actually, it's quite old.

My past couple of posts have treated issues in William James, for the first paper that I'll be responding to is titled "The Young William James and Ontological Wonder Sickness" (by Nobuo Kazashi). The second paper is by the Metropolitan of the Orthodox Church of Korea, Ambrose-Aristotle Zographos, who will be presenting on “Orthodox Christian Spirituality and the Prayer of the Heart or the Jesus Prayer.” From this paper, I have learned something new, the concept of theosis.

I don't want to quote from the Metropolitan's paper without his permission, so I'll quote instead from an Orthodox website. According to the OrthodoxWiki:

Theosis ("deification," "divinization") is the process of a worshiper becoming free of hamártía ("missing the mark"), being united with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in bodily resurrection. For Orthodox Christians, Théōsis (see 2 Pet. 1:4) is salvation. Théōsis assumes that humans from the beginning are made to share in the Life or Nature of the all-holy Trinity. Therefore, an infant or an adult worshiper is saved from the state of unholiness (hamartía -- which is not to be confused with hamártēma “sin”) for participation in the Life (zōé, not simply bíos) of the Trinity -- which is everlasting.

This is not to be confused with the heretical (apothéōsis) -- "Deification in God’s Essence", which is imparticipable.

This OrthodoxWiki entry is rather more technical than the Metropolitan's presentation on theosis, but it says the same thing. In my response to the Metropolitan's paper, I inquire about this "deification" expressed in theosis. The New Testament passage cited above is 2 Peter 1:4, which has the crucial words ‘ινα . . . γενησθε θειας κοινωνοι φυσεως, namely, "that . . . you might become sharers in the divine nature," which seems less striking somehow. Here is what I plan to ask about theosis:

I confess . . . that I am somewhat unsure of the meaning. The word "deification" is very powerful. It is the substantive form of "deify," which literally means "to make a god of." Does the Greek "Theosis" imply something this strong? . . . Perhaps the Metropolitan could explain more about this. For instance, is this union temporary, or eternal? If eternal, what happens to one's human nature? Does one have a union of divine and human natures similar to that of the incarnate Son? I'd like to know more about this apparently "mystical" union. Also, . . . are there other biblical passages that support the Orthodox view of "deification"? (Or is Orthodoxy drawing upon the concept of henosis in the Neoplatonic tradition?)

I'd also like to know how theosis differs from apotheosis, and I'll perhaps find out this week . . . albeit not firsthand.