My last post reminded me of something I had meant to post upon before.
It's kind of a post-post-post.
Probably the best thing that could have happened for the Church was to get smacked down after becoming too entrenched as a state authority.
Compare, for instance, the difference between the theocracies of the Middle East and the secular nations of the West.
Theocracies like Iran seem so medieval to us because they operate under some of the shadier aspects of medieval Europe. Things like the Inquisition became state methods of consolidating power through religious means. The Inquisition has allowed historians to argue for centuries that medieval Europe was Christian largely through fear of punishment than through individuals' convictions.
It's now very tempting to think the same thing of the Middle East. Looking at Iran, one might ask "Who would the fardels of Islam bear, except for the dread of torture and execution (and the offer of 72 virgins)?"
True, most Muslims are raised Muslim and therefore consider themselves willing participants as adults (and people who convert to Islam outside of Islamic nations might be a different topic).
But if Islam is about free submission, then why are there so many contemporary stories about punishments and derision for Muslims who convert to Christianity?
When a religion is tied to the state, then it appears that people only follow that religion because it is a political obligation. When religion is not tied to the state, then its adherents appear to follow personal beliefs.
Muslims in England must really want to be Muslims. Muslims in Iran -- maybe not so much. But to be a practicing Christian in either England or Iran really takes more chutzpah than to be a Muslim in either.
Comments