Is Christianity expansionist?

[Christian2]

There's force of different natures involved in any conquest situation.

In Islam, for instance, it's stated that they allow for freedom of religion for Jews and Christians, which is generally true.

What they don't say is that there was a special tax imposed upon non-Muslims, that there were and are today, significant restrictions upon non-Muslims in terms of commerce and rights. For instance, in Islamic court, if a Muslim brings an accusation, criminal or civil, against a non-Muslim, the non-Muslim's testimony or defense is non-admissable in the court. You don't think that could be misused do you? Further, non-Muslim slaves (and again this is an area not mentioned by Muslim apologists to any great measure) could not be freed.

Given all these elements, many nominal Christians and Jews would convert, reasoning it was necessary to do so in order to interact or live in the new order of things.

Similar things have happened in Christian History as well. The picture of a crusader holding a sword to a Muslim's throat or vice versa, is actually a very small part of the whole process and doesn't catch the actual not so subtle nuances that allow for the illusion of free choice, but make the price very steep to remain faithful outside of the occupier's established code.

Many Jews and Christians did pay the price in these contexts to the loss of family, possessions, and even their lives.

During the early jihadi conquests outside of Arabia, the Arab chieftains quite often discouraged the conversions to Islam because it meant a reduction in the tax base: the non-Muslims were bled white and many of them took the "easy" way out by seeking to convert to Islam.

We all know how the dhimmis were treated by the Muslims. They had to wear different colored clothing, couldn't build Churches higher than a mosque and stuff.

What I didn't know until I read it in Spencer's book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" is this treatment:

"Payment of the jizya often took place in a peculiar and demeaning ceremony in which the Muslim tax official hit the dhimmi on the head or back of the neck. Tritton explain, "The dhimmi has to be made to feel that he is an inferior person when he pays, he is not to be treated with honour." This ensured that the dhimmi felt "subdued," as commanded by Qur'an 9:29. The twelfth-century Qur'anic commentaor Zamakhshari even directed that the jizya should be collected "with belittlement and humiliation." The thirteen-centruy Shafi'i jurist an-Nawawi directed that "the infidel who wishes to pay his poll tax must be treated with disdain by the collector: the collector remains seated and the infidel remains standing in front of him, his head bowed and his back bent. The infidel personally must place the money on the scales, while the collector holds him by the beard, and strikes him on both cheeks."

[Gman]

Oh, I'm not at all sure. Not that I plan to go out with a gun. My problem is with the scenarios in history where a Christian empire forced other nations to be subjected to Christian rule. Not forcing them to accept the Gospel, but accept Christian order. Such was the situation of Charlemagne against the Saxons (who were undoubtedly not very peaceful either).

Forcing Christian rule would be a different issue than what I'm talking about..

"Payment of the jizya often took place in a peculiar and demeaning ceremony in which the Muslim tax official hit the dhimmi on the head or back of the neck. Tritton explain, "The dhimmi has to be made to feel that he is an inferior person when he pays, he is not to be treated with honour." This ensured that the dhimmi felt "subdued," as commanded by Qur'an 9:29. The twelfth-century Qur'anic commentaor Zamakhshari even directed that the jizya should be collected "with belittlement and humiliation."

Yes, ultimately this additional taxation was a critical factor that drove many dhimmis to accept Islam..

Since Muslims see the Christians as polytheists (belief in the Trinity as belief in three gods), they believe they must protect themselves from this corruption. When Christians practice their religion publicly, "it becomes an enticement and exhortation to apostasy to the Muslims."

Quote Wiki: Dhimmi's also called Zimmis was a status originally only made available to non-Muslims who were People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians), but was later extended to include Zoroastrians, Mandeans, and, in some areas, Hindus and Buddhists.

"Sura 9:29 stipulates that jizya be exacted from non-Muslims as a condition required for jihad to cease. Failure to pay the jizya could result in the pledge of protection of a dhimmi's life and property becoming void, with the dhimmi facing the alternatives of conversion, enslavement or death (or imprisonment)."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmi

In addition to paying these taxes, they were also confined in practicing their religion.

Quote answering-islam: "According to Muslim jurists, the following legal ordinances must be enforced on Zimmis (Christians and Jews alike) who reside among Muslims:

1) Zimmis are not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues. They are allowed to renovate old churches or houses of worship provided they do not allow to add any new construction. "Old churches" are those which existed prior to Islamic conquests and are included in a peace accord by Muslims. Construction of any church, temple, or synagogue in the Arab Peninsula (Saudi Arabia) is prohibited. It is the land of the Prophet and only Islam should prevail there. Yet, Muslims, if they wish, are permitted to demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer.

2) Zimmis are not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud at home or in churches, lest Muslims hear their prayers.

3) Zimmis are not allowed to print their religious books or sell them in public places and markets. They are allowed to publish and sell them among their own people, in their churches and temples.

4) Zimmis are not allowed to install the cross on their houses or churches since it is a symbol of infidelity.

5) Zimmis are not permitted to broadcast or display their ceremonial religious rituals on radio or television or to use the media or to publish any picture of their religious ceremonies in newspaper and magazines.

6) Zimmis are not allowed to congregate in the streets during their religious festivals; rather, each must quietly make his way to his church or temple.

7) Zimmis are not allowed to join the army unless there is indispensable need for them in which case they are not allowed to assume leadership positions but are considered mercenaries. "

Source: http://answering-islam.org.uk/NonMuslims/rights.htm

[Judah]

But whoa! Don't you remember? Surah 2:256 (no compulsion in religion) was never abrogated... er, according to genuine Muslim sources.

So although some say it was, and some say it wasn't, it really makes not a scrap of difference. The jizya and all the other aspects of dhimmitude, all those other humiliations and oppressions, are active denial of Surah 2:256. Reality is surely the truth.

[Turgonian]

Forcing Christian rule would be a different issue than what I'm talking about..

It was what I was talking about until you changed the topic...

The question was: Is Christianity expansionist? We would all agree that you can't and shouldn't 'convert' a person by the use of force. However, Christianizing a nation is a different thing and fits the word 'expansionism' better, I think. But I am not yet sure if it is good or bad.
To Christianize the pagan Saxons, Charlemagne let them choose between being baptized or being decapitated. This was not done to convert them inwardly, but to give them the choice between dying or accepting Christian rule. My question is: Is this legitimate? When you have a Christian empire, something like a theocratic monarchy, is it lawful to expand your empire like that? Was Charlemagne committing evil acts, or was he doing a good thing, thinking to establish Christian order?

[Canuckster1127]

Quite simply, in the manner you've described, no.

Baptism is a symbol of submission to Christ and conversion and not an outward sign of obedience to a government, so I would not classify Charlemagne's actions in this regard as proper.

Further, Christ in his teaching, was always careful to distinguish between the rule of law and personal belief toward God. Remember that render unto Caesar's comment. Paul's inspired admonition in Romans 13 was given while the Roman's were in power and abusive.

I believe there are principles that a nation can adopt based upon Christian values. However, a mixing of Christianity with secular power which leads to law that requires religious adherence to any degree has not, by my observation or assessment in history, led to an increase in personal commitment. Far too often it has led to atrocities in the name of Christ which are completely counter to what Christ teaches. It also has led to a nominal form of Christianity which focuses upon outward appearance without inner Change.

[Gman]

The question was: Is Christianity expansionist? We would all agree that you can't and shouldn't 'convert' a person by the use of force. However, Christianizing a nation is a different thing and fits the word 'expansionism' better, I think.

In your mind..

Thank you Bart.... Finally someone gets it...

[Turgonian]

Canuckster -- OK, I agree with you about baptism. But wouldn't you agree that any nation's law should be based on Christianity? After all, if Life and Doctrine are a unity ('practice what you preach'), then, to avoid artificiality, the two great instutions behind Life and Doctrine, i.e. the State and the Church, should work together. Which means the State should adhere to Christian principles, and that a Christian state is by definition (mainly) theocratic.

Recently I read that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was in three corpora: the Corpus Christi, the 'Body of Christ' or the Church; the Corpus Christianum, the 'Christian Body' or the State; and the Corpus Christiani, the 'Body of the Christian' or the individual.
These are the three covenants a Christian has to reckon with. Of course the Corpus Christiani is most important on the personal level, but the other two are largely ignored nowadays.

[Gman]

But whoa! Don't you remember? Surah 2:256 (no compulsion in religion) was never abrogated... er, according to genuine Muslim sources.

So although some say it was, and some say it wasn't, it really makes not a scrap of difference. The jizya and all the other aspects of dhimmitude, all those other humiliations and oppressions, are active denial of Surah 2:256. Reality is surely the truth.

Judah,

You've got that right.. In fact if they say there is no compulsion in religion, I'm starting to find more and more verses that would contradict that statement... I say it doesn't matter where it was said (in Medina or Mecca)... Just look at what happens to the apostate, or women, or those under Muslim rule.. It's almost a no brainer.

In fact if you look at the next verse after 2:256, we really get a view of how they see the disbelievers..

2:257 Allah is the Protecting Guardian of those who believe. He bringeth them out of darkness into light. As for those who disbelieve, their patrons are false deities. They bring them out of light into darkness. Such are rightful owners of the Fire. They will abide therein.

[Canuckster1127]

Canuckster -- OK, I agree with you about baptism. But wouldn't you agree that any nation's law should be based on Christianity? After all, if Life and Doctrine are a unity ('practice what you preach'), then, to avoid artificiality, the two great instutions behind Life and Doctrine, i.e. the State and the Church, should work together. Which means the State should adhere to Christian principles, and that a Christian state is by definition (mainly) theocratic.

Recently I read that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was in three corpora: the Corpus Christi, the 'Body of Christ' or the Church; the Corpus Christianum, the 'Christian Body' or the State; and the Corpus Christiani, the 'Body of the Christian' or the individual.
These are the three covenants a Christian has to reckon with. Of course the Corpus Christiani is most important on the personal level, but the other two are largely ignored nowadays.

It depends upon what you define as law with regard to a nation.

Certainly Christianity with its roots in Jedaism provides a tradition sufficient for the building of laws and a public moral code of conduct.

The problem comes when you seek to expand that beyond the basic societal needs for order and use coercive power to force others to adhere to things beyond those basic needs.

Christ's appeal is to men's consciences and whether you see it as free will or a drawing or even a presalvation work of regeration by the holy spirit, the use of government power to attempt to do on a national scale what God designed to take place on an individual level can only lead to abuses.

A theocracy in this regard is in the context of the church, not a political entity such as a state or nation.

[Turgonian]

I disagree. A theocratic state is a good ideal. You have a good point with regard to the 'basic needs', but it is certainly possible to put the Judeo-Christian ideas about moral conduct into laws. If that is a form of 'abuse' and should be on the individual level only, we might as well throw legislation against abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality etc. out of the window. After all, the change has to be individual...
No, I think it can also be national. Remember, Israel was constantly being judged as a nation.

Or, wait -- were you saying salvation should be individual rather than national? In that case I agree.

[Canuckster1127]

I disagree. A theocratic state is a good ideal. You have a good point with regard to the 'basic needs', but it is certainly possible to put the Judeo-Christian ideas about moral conduct into laws. If that is a form of 'abuse' and should be on the individual level only, we might as well throw legislation against abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality etc. out of the window. After all, the change has to be individual...
No, I think it can also be national. Remember, Israel was constantly being judged as a nation.

Or, wait -- were you saying salvation should be individual rather than national? In that case I agree.

I'm not arguing that abortion, euthenasia etc aren't legitimate issues to legislate or to draw from Judeo-Christian sources. I think they clearly are, and as a Christian within a Republic/Representative Democracy, I see it as my responsibility to use my voice and exercise my vote accordingly.

Ancient Israel is not a good example to cite unless you believe today that God is still working through chosen nations in terms of his direct guidance and interventions. I believe that function or relationship today is the Church, not a national political entity. Remember what Christ had to say about His Kingdom when pushed in his earthly ministry to free Israel from the very real oppression of the Romans? His Kingdom is not of this earth, right? The Church can get severely out of synch when it focuses too strongly on changing society from the outside in through the use of secular governmental power. Christ taught change comes from the inside out through the work of the Holy Spirit and the spreading of the Word, right?

Secular laws based upon moral values as relate to the value of life etc are completely appropriate where power exists to declare them and enforce them.

What do you do about issues such as other faiths and religions? Do you utilize power to restrict or penalize people where God has clearly either predestined or allowed free agency to follow another course where such practice does not post a disruption or threat to society?

What do you do with Romans 13 when you examine who the government was when Paul wrote it and what they were doing to Christians?

Do you mandate Church attendence? Do you take the mandates for personal evagelism and turn them into colonization or wars to convert others?

In terms of eschatology most views don't allow for a theocracy between now and whatever form said millenial rule will take whether literal or symbolic.

The problem with a theocracy is after you've established one, you have concentrated power in the hands of imperfect men and women and it usually doesn't take very long for some of them to change their names to "Theo."

The US isn't perfect by any means. I think (we) they got it right however in terms of the separation of Church and State insitutionally. If you study history, Christianity suffered when it became popular and accepted and the Church a path for political power. Motives clearly become mixed and original good intentions break down, but the the power structure remains.

[Gman]

Ancient Israel is not a good example to cite unless you believe today that God is still working through chosen nations in terms of his direct guidance and interventions.

Good point Bart. I also don't think Israel was expansionist (forcibly) to the rest of the world either at that time. They were largely confined from the river of Egypt (the Wadi in northeastern Sinai) to the great river of the Euphrates. Genesis 15:18-21.

[Turgonian]

I want to revive this topic, because I've read some more about it.

My idea of 'theocracy' (adopted, not invented) is neither clericalism (the Church ruling the State) nor cesaropapism (the State ruling the Church). Both cooperate. An oft-used analogy is that of Moses and Aaron leading the people through the desert together.
The State has one 'official' church; which church it is, is determined by culture and tradition. (In Holland, it would be the Protestant Church in Holland.) Other religions have 'freedom of conscience', which means they will never face persecution for doing what their religion commands. As long as they don't build a Great Temple and start tearing out men's hearts there, like the Aztecs did.
This 'favourite church' is not religious oppression, but honour of tradition. It is far better than the laí¯cité in France, where all religious expression has been banned from the public square (hence, no headscarves etc.).

Translated from chapter 9, I of Theocratie of ideologie: het dilemma van de huidige Christenheid (Theocracy or ideology: the dilemma of current Christianity):

According to Kohnstamm, the conflict between Groen and Van der Brugghen is the clash of two worldviews. This conflict is about the opposition of Law and Gospel. Van der Brugghen thought very evangelically and therefore emphasized freedom, the person. Groen with his platonic background tended towards legalism and intellectualism, and therefore emphasized doctrine, the confession. His confessionalism does not lead the child into the living reality of the faith, but the pale shadowlands of abstracts (p. 55 ff.).

What stands out in the reasoning of Van der Brugghen and his followers is their effort to do justice in Christian education to the human person, human freedom. Their main objection to the confessional, historically thinking Groen is that, in the education and the school system, as he imagines it, the human is being assaulted and misunderstood in his freedom, in his personality. For them, the principle of freedom and personality is the foundation of humanity. The human is free, he is a person, -- or he is not!

But the big question is, whether that approach of humanity is correct! After all, it is a fact to be pondered that among anthropologists and sociologists, more and more doubt arises about that liberal view of man. On the grounds of many facts, they become more and more convinced that the human subject is much more complicated and deeper rooted in his surroundings than is expressed in the liberal and personalistical concept of freedom and personality. More and more, the eye is turned to the meaning of the other's experience for the human (Scheler, Merleau-Ponty, Binswanger); of the interpersonal relations (Marcel, Buber, Levinas); of the economic-societal structures (Marx); and especially of the fact that the human is transcendentally open, i.e. he transcends the temporary and finite world, but he is therefore transcendentally bound and not-free (Heidegger).

[...]

From: 'It is written! It came to pass!', Groen arrived at the understanding that the human is not at all a free, independent being, as his own centre of consciousness a creative meeting-point of heaven and earth. He is not God's ally. Rather he is a creature, and as such dependent, receptive, questioning, obedient. What the human is, is expressed in the starting words of the Law: 'I am the Lord thy God...Thou shalt!' The Bible therefore speaks by preference and with emphasis about the childlike, feminine, mystical character of the relationship with God and faith. The human is a creature, not a creator!

[...]

The God-human relationship, according to Scripture and Confession, does not at all rest on the existential freedom of man. It does not at all presuppose the human as person. The biblical idea of covenant is infinitely much deeper, more intimate, and more mystical than can be expressed with words such as 'freedom, person, partner, responsibility'. That is why Scripture and Confession posit the word 'election' over against it (Rom. 8:29-30). Human subjectivity is unfathomable and indescribable. It is a divine mystery! That is why the unborn fruit is essentially human, just like the senile, speechless greybeard. And that is why abortus provocatus and euthanasia are murder.

This biblical view on humanity is confirmed in the general consciousness of the nations. Untenable is the position of evolution, that the stages of culture preceding the historical European civilization should be inferior to ours. Neither is it true, which is claimed in many popular-science books as indisputable truth, that the cultured nations should be preceded by savage, club-swinging, half-brutish, primitive men. What we know from the primitive stages of human history points rather to a curiously gifted, visionary type of humans. (See: Historia Mundi, Volume I: Frühe Menschheit, Bern, 1952, p. 392 ff.) They were beings living without strict, external laws and rules, without a tight organization and compelling power institutions. They carried order and Law in their being. Their thought, desire and feeling was embedded in the divine Law. Their subjectivity was reflection, imitation of that Law. They knew themselves secure and included in a sacred cosmic order, in the womb of creation. They knew reverence, piety, hormat for superpersonal norms and values. That is why they feared of too strong a self-consciousness. Modern consciousness of freedom would have appeared to them as insolence, as wicked recklessness (hybris). Modern freedom is here opposed to creation mysticism. Modern personality understanding opposed to the divine Law.

Whew! That's a long text. Anyway, it's what Lewis called the Tao, the universal moral law. Agree on that -- which you can't do without a church, in any case not the right way -- and the rest will follow slowly. Exclude religion, do not declare your cultural values universal -- and the rest will deteriorate. It's as simple as that.

[Mr. Hyde]

"And He said them, 'Go into all the world, proclaim the Gospel to all the creation.'"