Historian Distorts Past In Praise Of Secularism

by
Dr. Frederick Meekins
Fellow Of Worldview Studies
The Issachar Institute For The Study Of Apologetics & Policy

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