sign in sign up
<<
Home , Theocracy

Theocracy in Today's World: Some Considerations Regarding Marxism, , and

JOH N W. BEAR DSLEE III

The origin of the word "theocracy" is to be sought, it is sa id , in the effort to explain Hebrew life to the Roma ns. If the wo rd is ta ken in a strict se nse, mea ning a structure in which a ll li fe a nd re lati onships within the community are governed by the will of as d irectl y revealed , this o ri gin of the term is most a pp ro priate, for the regulation a nd inte­ grati on of the communi ty in such fas hi on, so that not only is there no d istincti on between sacred a nd secula r but the source of law a nd custom is a god known as full y sovereign a nd distinct from nature, is a distincti ve product of the Hebrew experience. Ma ny cultures, indeed most cultures until quite recently, are characteri zed by, from our point of view, the a bse nce of distinct se paration of the sacred a nd the secula r. " Reli­ gion" a nd "technology" are not disting ui shed- the ceremony is as much a part of practical life as the hunting skill- a nd the socia l ord er is supported by sa ncti ons, includ­ ing "ta boos" based on relationships to the "spiritual" or "spirit" world (as we ca ll it). But "theocracy" implies a concept or experi ence of the spirit world in which the divine is reall y capa ble of ruling, or of dema nding a utho ri ty. The Hebrew experience included such a god; that of other Mediterranean nati ons did not. "Theocracy," moreover, becomes relevant eve n to the fo ll ower of a sovereign God, in proportion to the num ber of choices actua ll y open to a person. If, fo r example, onl y one fi ber is availa ble for weaving, the weaver has no pro blem in choosing hi s raw materi a l. If several are ava ila ble, he faces choices of a "practical" a nd "technological" nature which may be "religious" as well. " You sha ll not wear a mingled stuff; wool and linen together" (De uteronomy 22: 11) indicates the possibility of a conflict between "tec hnology" and "" where, of several technological possibilities, each having its own adva ntages, "reli gion" permits onl y one. For the community to adhere to the re ligious choice- to let the divine voice decid e directly a mong feasible technologica l alternati ves, a nd re quire this choice fro m its members- is to fo ll ow the way of theocracy. In history, tensions have emerged in the socia l a nd political spheres as we ll as in the technological. perfo rce submitted to fore ign rule, a nd thus to a se parati on of "civi l" a nd "religio us" a uthority. But J esus gave the reli gious critique of theocracy perma nent sta nding with his much-discussed saying " Rend er to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" (Matthew 22:2 1). However the words are interpreted , however Caesar's right to determine hi s privileges may be seen as limited , the Lord's words, a nd the subsequent behavior of hi s foll owers, imply a break from the unq ua lified theocracy of the Hebrew scriptures, in the form of a relative independence of a secondary a uthority. From two or more relati ve ly independ ent interpre ters of a uthority to two or re kinds of a uthority is a step perhaps not necessary in logic, but common en·ough in history. The way was prepa red , long before 89 the advent of , by the separation of sacred function among the successors of - prophets, , judges, and kings. Tensions between prophets and the Lord's anointed prefigure the coming of , which, as conservatives noted in post­ Reformation , develops along with re ligious plu ralism. The contrast between a real pluralistic society, and an ancient tribe in which life is unified and pervaded by religion, let alone a genuinely theocratic society, is obvious enough, and the tensions that result from fragmentation have often been discussed. Since, in modern times, "science" and "philosophy" have often been used to question and to deny all theistic claims, and since many of the most violent struggles have had a religious basis, it has seemed, both in terms of truth and of expediency, that the elimination of religion might be the great step to the overcoming of the divisions themselves. Such a mood, although weakened by the results of the French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions, with their demonstration that the rejection of religion does not result in unity and justice, remains a powerful factor in Western society, and the contribution of religion to conflict and injustice is a theme well known among writers from to some contemporary composers of letters to the editor. It is a mood which helps understand the attraction of Marxism, which may be understood as a "secularized theocracy." It has often enough been compared to a religion; it is significant that among the known forms of religion it most closely resembles the true theocracy. Political and social analysts will continue to point out that no "socialist" or "commu­ nist" state has yet established a true Marxist society. This is no more relevant to the present discussion than the fact that no social embodiment of true Christianity has ever appeared in history. We have Marxist theory, elaborated and modified by a succession of thinkers as Christian has been elaborated and modified in its history, and we have socia l-politica l structures that have been motivated and shaped in varying degrees by that theory. Taken together they comprise Marxism as an historical and social pheno­ menon, an unmistakable product of Western European "Christian" society, not the only possible lin e of development for that society, but an impressive one. The appeal of Marx­ ism to Christians, both as a theory that has been adopted by liberation theologians, free­ dom fighters, and respected contemporary teachers in American theological seminaries, and as a practice that has been admired by Christian visitors to Cuba, China, and other "socialist" lands, is one striking part of the wider appeal that Marxism enjoys in the contemporary world.

Weaknesses in the Marxist structure and in Marxist claims are easily found by those who seek them, but there is every reason to suppose that its attractiveness, including its attractiveness to Christians, will continue to be a major factor in o ur lives. Three factors, in particular, seem worthy of examination as partial explanations of the fact- the alleged scientific nature of Marxism, its offer of justice on earth, and its hopeful vision of the future. The prominence and prestige of science are matters that need not be argued. Modern science and its offshoots in technology had their birth at the hands of Christians, and remade the Christian world in ways that were the fulfillment of many dreams and that made the Western-Christian world the envy of Asia and Africa. Scientific education, and 90 modern medicine and modernized agriculture were enthusiasti ca lly exported as part of the Christia n mission, and were enthusia stica ll y received by those to whom the mission was addressed. The "scientific" became the "." The scientific accompaniments of Christ ian mi ssion proved more acceptable than its reli gious motivation, and the great nations of Asia soon learned that they could absorb the much-wanted Western science apart from Western religion. At the same time, efforts in the West to develop a scientific defense of Christianity demonstrate where the real of the West has come to lie . The culture that called for a scientifically verified faith could be expected to look for a scientifically verified social order. The "scientific" quality of Marxism is of course in part a play on words, and the kind of thinking on which the scientific study of society rested in Marx's day has become obsolete, but the popular attraction of the claim "scientific" and the absence of a ny appeal to the claims of which our age has become tired, combined with the logical coherence of much of the system, its obvious root in "reality," and the understanding of today's problems that yields a practical basis for action- all of these combine to assure Marxism of a continued hearing. It is easier to rail against it than to provide an alterna­ tive coherent analysis of social conflict. With regard to justice, no one doubts that the modern world has begun to cry aloud for it, and that the Marxist social passion corresponds to the deep aspirations of suffering people who intend to suffer no longer. What Edwin Markham once called "the long, long patience of the plundered poor" has run out. The plundered poor are no longer patient. This sign of the times accompanies, and indeed has stimulated, what seems to be a more sensitized conscience on the part of privileged Christians. Certainly Christianity, even when embedded in the oppressive structures, has done much to awaken a demand for justice. Post-Christian secularism, from Voltaire on, has been a powerful carrier of Chris­ tian va lues, and a world that has been turning away from Christ's church clings, some­ times ever more tightly, to social-ethical demands that often originated within the church. The weaker the church's involvement in social struggles, the more men and women of good will will be led by the effects of the Christian heritage into the Marxist fold. One of the most serious aspects of the present upswing of , through its mastery of electronic communication, is this encouragement of Marxist radicalism. l::lut the demand for justice, powerful as it is , gets its major motivation from the present hope for justice. Marxism, with its "deterministic" dialectic of history, does for our age what , with its "deterministic" theology of the individua l's eternal des­ tiny, did for an age still worried about heaven and hell. It gives the assurance that the hopes of the present will not fail , and that the awakened aspiration for justice is indeed realistic and to be attained. It may not reckon sufficiently with the seriousness of sin, but it has no sense of worldly futility to blunt the edge of its advance. Both the demand for justice and the hope for its fulfillment li e within the area of expectation which Christianity has aroused. Moreover, the longing for a society of peace a nd goodwill, free from conflict and hatred, is deeper and more comprehensive than the simple cry for justice. That longing resembles the unity found (or alleged to be found) in unfragmented tribal societies, or that found in the ideal of submission to the all-inclusive

91 society of the covenant in , the model of theocracy. For a society that has been torn by sectarian conflicts, many of whose intellectua l leaders declare that religion has been tried and found wanting, Marxism will continue to be a sort of secularized theo­ cracy, an idol perhaps, but an idol of tremendous appeal, of emotional and spiritual power. Far more meaningful than the paradox of "Christian " which recently attracted some brilliant minds, because of the actual, pragmatic viability of its social analysis, whatever problems are left over, Marxism provides a wholeness and an to which modern humanity can turn, and which will not be destroyed by "failure" in a few generations a ny more than the great of the past have been destroyed by the fai lure of their first expectations. I To turn from Marxism to what is in many ways a direct opposite, Islam, we find another contemporary example of the appeal of the ancient deep-seated aspiration for wholeness in social existence. Islam is the theocratic religion par excellence, inheriting the Jewish tradition of revelation that covers all of life, and having no place whatever for our gospel's distinction between the things of Caesar and the things of God. In spite of the contrary efforts of some great Western orientalists and some Islamic modernists, it is clear that Mohammed and the faith which he delivered recognize no distinction in the pro­ phetic function and utterance in the areas of , fasting, divorce, alms-giving, civil affairs, or war. There is room for discussion of the content of revelation in all these areas, but not of the fact that the claims of revelation extend equally and univocally to all. Even Moses, who also exercised all these functions, provided (if we may here dismiss basic questions of higher criticism) for a functional division a mong his successors. No higher criticism can shake the claim that Mohammed did not. The rigid monotheism of Islam, like its Hebrew predecessor, provides in practice ample opportunity for a wa rm and satisfying devotional life (contrary to what some unsympathetic Christians have said), and the demands of orthodox did not, for many centuries, inhibit the inquiring mind, but rather fostered one of history's most strik­ ing periods of intellectual and scientific ferment and growth. Scientific discovery was honored in Islam when the Greeks had abandoned it and the Latins regarded it as the devil's handiwork. And out of the bosom of Islam have sprung also those two powerful thrusts that we observed in Marxism- demand for justice and hope for its fulfillment. These matters are not a lways understood in the West and can here only be stated, not argued. For details, reference must be made to the excellent books now available, espe­ cially those by Muslim scholars conversant with our forms of communication.2 But Islam as a "religion" works in modern times for men whose life is hard. "What is convincing is that. .. the ordinary Muslim ... lived his daily life in accordance with the precepts of Islam because he knew in his heart that his faith was a living force."J Islam, unlike Marxism, is not new, and it is misleading to speak of it as "revived" today, in spite of its seeming sudden surfacing in our affairs, because, since the days of its origin, it has been satisfying the spiritual needs of a growing part of humanity. Moreover, because it satisfies "spiritual" needs, its total theocratic claims are welcomed. At this writing, Islam does present an unattractive face to our world. It is recovering from a period of political eclipse. Most of the Islamic world has regained self- 92 in our generati on, after long experience with coloniali sm. Resentments and painful memories abound , as in where the was no less real from having been so indirect. The Islamic world is a lso coming out of a cycle of intellectual backwardness like the one from which, seven or eighi hundred years ago, it did so much to deliver us. The cultura l, technological, a nd political backwardness of Islam in recent centuries is an hi storic phenomenon which has been much studied, often by unsympathetic Western sc holars. One thing is certain, Islam was not always so. Nor is there a ny reason to sup­ pose that the glories of its past will not be regained. Many sc hola rs see a depa rture from Isla mic principles as among the factors that led to the decline of Muslim culture, a nd many well informed contemporary Muslims see great signs of hope in the contemporary situation. With the spread of materialism in Western lands, it is being suggested with growing conviction that the mission of Islam may include that of rescuing a secularized Christian world from the spiritual nihilism that has engulfed it. 4 At the moment of this writing, Islam does not, however, prese nt a favorable image to the West, and old stereotypes, based on ignora nce a nd misrepresentation, have bee n given new currency by the Isla mic revolution in Iran and by the actions of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (to which Palestinia n Christia ns have given support a nd leader­ ship with the same enthusiasm as Muslims). To understand this present situation, one must remember that the Muslim world, in its new political independence, still fee ls the effects of its struggles against Christian , both that of the Crusaders and that of "modern" Europe. It feels that Christendom has been the aggressive enemy a nd has added insult to injury by misrepresenting and scorning its fa ith. Above a ll , it smarts under the impact of the state of Israel, which it sees as a final thrust of imperialism, imposed without the consent of a ny Arab/ Muslim leaders, as a solution for a European problem for wh ich Palestinians a nd Muslims were not responsible. Situations of conflict always bring extremists to the fore. Until the memories of imperia li stic suppression have been replaced by the experience of equa lity and accepta nce, and above a ll , until the Palestinian question is resolved, the constructive side of Islam will be obscured in conflict. This is the more ironic, in that, until recently, relations between Muslims a nd lacked the bitter­ ness so often present in relations between Christians and Jews. The Islamic fundamentalists, whether Shi 'a or Sunni, who gain prominence because of the wide-spread se nse of the peril to Islamic life, have much the same place in Islamic life that certain right-wing Christian fundamentalists have in ours. They do not rea lly represe nt Isla mic thought, but they aspire to do so, and they win a hearing as the repre­ se ntatives of dear a nd enda ngered values. Moreover, the evil s against which they strike are much the same as those denounced by Christia n fundamenta li sts- materia li sm, de­ structive criticism of the sacred writings through secularized ed ucati o n, bribery a nd cor­ ruption, drunkenness and drug abuse, pornography a nd free sex. But Christian fundamen­ ta li sts usually accept certain basic non-biblical social institutions which are a lso foreign to the Qu'ran and which Muslim funda menta li sts therefore reject. These include the national state, a particular modern form of nuclear family, and the capita li stic economic ord er. An interpretati on of its sacred scripture which will not bind society to the socia l forms of centuries long past is being sought by a less visible group who have suffered some set-

93 backs, but who are confident that in the long run, right will triumph. Meantime, the bitter, violent struggles of Muslim against Muslim- within Turkey, Iran, and , for example; the war between Iraq and Iran; the ethnic conflicts between Kurds, Persians, and Arabs; the imperiali sm of Muslim Indonesia against former Portuguese Timor; and the problems of the gap between rich and poor within Islamic societies- are reminders that Islam struggles with the same problems, through the same human nature, as does Christianity. Intelligent Muslims are aware of the difficulties connected with the interest-free bank­ ing that is practiced on a small scale, and that their purists, like great Christian thinkers well into the seventeenth century, still advocate.5 Some would like very much to show that a stronger spiritual motivation than that of Europe would lead to different business prac­ tices than those of Europe, and the radica li sm of several Muslim states reminds us that Muslim anti- is not necessarily the a lly of our capitalism. Other problems that the realistic Muslim must face deal with the question of the rights of religious minorities who are protected but assigned a second class citizenship, with the rights of women, and with the severity of criminal law. That Islam can be flexible a nd adjust to new conditions without losing its identity is no more improbable than that Christianity can do the same. The similarity of the spiritual resources of the faiths and the existence of a common language of prayer has been shown in a book compiled by perhaps the world's leading Christian lslamist,<• and many similarities await the attention of men and women of good will . Whatever the outcome of these investigations, two facts do stand out: (1) Islam is a vital and growing faith, sti ll showing a remarkable ability to absorb new cultural groups and win them to its orthodoxy (as in the case of the "Black Muslims" in our country who, incidentall y, have come closer and closer to the Islamic center); a nd (2) this living fa ith will not accept a division into "public" and "private" areas but insists on making all subject to God. It knows of no area that is Caesar's in contrast to God's. In the adminis­ tration of a recent award for Islamic architecture, one of the buildings seriously considered was a water tower.7 How long is it since evangelicals thought seriously of a Christian design for a water tower? It is the inclusive nature of Islam that poses its opportunities and problems today. A world that is spirituall y adrift may find guidance from a world that knows whereon it stands. But Islam has hard homework to do on the question of the difference between the will of God and the society in which the will of God became known. It is confronted with the problem of change, a lways a painful a rea. Christendom dealt with change and growth in terms of a New Testament dynamic, and the result was a fragmentation of life and the development of defacto autonomous spheres. Islam insists that there is a better way; this insistence opens the door for obscuranti sts who reject "progress" or do not realize the depth of the problem. Christianity and Islam, almost without knowing it, still face a common challenge but with different traditions. This article bega n with the reflection that the original and true theocratic idea came from the Hebrews. Among them, and among Christians, it has undergone radical modifi­ cation. In fact, sacred history suggests that the tensions and conflicts which have arisen in 94 modern hi story were all prefigured in Israel's pre-exilic li fe . Since the exile, and into our generati on, Hebrew li fe has of necessity made terms with a world whose overall political structure was not theocratic. The Hebrews emphasized, with remarkable success and fa ithfulness, those aspects of their covena nt which could be practiced within their own group. Their vision of universal justice has never been lost, however, and, in spite of the contempt in which the world has held them, their contribution to the world's religious thinking, and to its ge neral culture, has been beyond measure. They have enriched every dimension of every culture in which they have found a home or a refuge. This is not the place to disc uss the richness a nd variety of their thought,8 developed under conditions where the distinction between "religious" and "secula r," made by others, was ever before them. They adapted to modern scientific thought, and made large contributions to it, and naturally fe lt the full impact of secularism in the past century. The shock of continued oppression, more in Christia n than in Islamic 'lands, culminating in the horrors of the holocaust, is a terrible contrast to the brillia nce and vi tality of their society. Zioni sm, o n which much has been written,9 is to be seen as the outcome both of a ncient Jewish hopes, favored by the re lative freedom given them by the liberal Europe that once dominated the world, and the awful tragedy which that Europe (to which Amer­ ica is attached) permitted or produced. It is neither a closed system of Jewish life nor a plan for the domination of a ll society, but a very specific concept of the life of one people in one la nd, leaving room for much discussion a nd variety within a Jewish framework, of the detail s of society in Israel, and not tryi ng to dictate to those outsid e. This particular­ ism is a significant contrast to the more universalistic claims characteristic of Christianity, Isla m, a nd Marxism. In keeping with the best traditions of a chosen people, it may be called limited theocracy, or, if it is assumed that God gives other forms of law to other nations, plu ralistic, in contrast to the unifo rmity of other theocratic sc hemes. These terms, however, are rash- Judaism has accepted much of the social experience of the gentiles, a nd , unlike Isla m, does not challenge their pluralism. But Zionism without the old theocratic ideal would have bee n impossible. Rightly, a leading Christia n supporter of lsrae!I Oc haracterized the distinction between religious and non-reli gious elements in Zionism as based on a "non-sensical" concept. Even among people who are otherwise "secularized" the appeal of Israel to Jews is more than the longing for the old country or for a desperately needed place of refuge. Others today share these longings and needs with them; the Jew fee ls one area of the world is his by divine right and promise and he has many who share his feeling. Jews have followed rules of law wherever possible in acquiring the land of Israel, and secular processes of diplomacy helped institute the new state. However, a specific "reli­ gious" motif, a motivation strange to contemporary , underlies it a ll , a nd this sacred right and obligation removes ce rtain matters from th e area of negoti ation. Unfortunately, the la nd of Israel (Palestine) was not uninhabited when Jewish colo­ nists a nd refugees flocked in, and, under European imperiali stic rule, no Arab leader arranged for their coming. The inevitable resulting tensions have been complicated by two competing religious - one (Islamic) declaring that Palestine is a legiti­ mate part of the Muslim world a nd must, therefore, have Muslim laws a nd society; the 95 other decla ring that it is the legitimate Jewish home and must, therefore, have Jewish laws and society. Rights of Arab Palestinians and rights of other residents are submerged in the conflict which Muslims (not merely Arabs) feel to be the result of an imperialistic attempt to solve a European and Christian problem. It is ironic that after centuries in which the Muslim world was more hospitable to Jews than was the Christian, conflicting theocratic id eas in politics should suddenly reverse the situation and make reconciliation so difficult. T heocracy permits no questioning of its claims, "Will a man argue with God?" Not for nothing did another Christian theologian, also a warm supporter of Israel, declare that politics are more moral than religion. Christianity, which has often been theocratic, seems today to be dissolving in secular­ ism. Such secularism is a by-product of the pluralism that many see as a Christian dynamic. The longing for wholeness and security may underlie many movements of "reli­ gious revival" today. It is a reminder of the dangers in our current philosophies. But an examination of Marxism, Islam, and Zionism leads to one sobering conclusion- whatever they have to say about wholeness, science, or faith , they have yet to offer a better overall path toward justice and hope than does the pluralism of the modern world. The Christian world's experience with pluralism, a nd even secularism, may be its great contribution to contemporary society, but it must reckon seriously with the tragic conflict between the particularistic theocratic vision of Zionism and the universal theo­ cratic vision of Islam tha.t seeks to engulf the same area, and learn from the pervading sense of the divine that inspires both. And the modern world must reckon with, and learn from the Marxist and Islamic vision of universal, transnational brotherhood that, by its nature, must control all political processes.

FOOTNOTES

1 Besid es the enormous literature on the theology of hope and the liberation , one may consult, inter alia, John C. Raines and Thomas Dean, Marxism and Radical Religion (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1970), Milan Machovii:, A Marxist Looks at (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1976), Ernst Bloch, On Karl Marx (New York: Herd er a nd Herd er, 1971), Paul Ramsay, Nine Modern Moralists (Englewood Cli ffs, N.J., 1962), pp. 57-70, Alexander Miller: 71ie Christian Sign{/icance of Karl Marx (London, SCM Press, 1946). ' For example, Fazlur Rahman, Islam (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1966). which two Christian ex­ perts have warmly recommended to me, or a briefer work, Caesar Farah: Islam, &liefs and Observances (Wood­ bury, N. Y.: Barron's Educational Series, 1968). ' Godfrey Janse n: Milita/I/ Mam (New York: Harper and Row, 1979), p. 47. The vital quality of Islam is well illus­ trated in a book that deserves more serious attention than it has received, Allan Villiers' se nsitive adventure story Sons of Sinbad (London, 1940, New York, Scribner's, 1960). Kenneth Cra gg quotes one of many illuminating passages in Alive To God (London: Oxford Uni ve rsit y Press, 1970), p. 15. 4 Rahma n expresses this hope, op. cit., p. 254. See also Sayyed Nasr's contribution to Leonard Swid ler (ed .), Co 11- se11.1'l1.1· in Theology' (Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1980). ' Jansen, op. cit., p. 183. The author refers to an a rticle in the Financial Times of London, 22 March, 1977, but the library of Harvard Business School says that this is an incorrect citatio n. 6 Cragg, op. cit. 7 The New York Times, July 27, 1980. The wa ter tower in question is in Ku wa it, where the water supply is a matter of much more rhan conce rn. Yea rs ago a miss ionary co mmented on certa in provisions for the supply of water to the poor in this traditionally waterless town as one of the great examples of Muslim charity that he had witnessed. 'Sec, e.g., Joseph Blau, Modern Varieties of Judaism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), Arthur Cohen, '/71e Natural and Supernatural Jeiv (New York: , 1963). 96 ''Sec Wa lt er Laqueur. A History of Zionism (New York: Schocken Books. 1976), Abraham l-l eschel, Israel, An frlw of Etn11i11 · (New York : Farrar, Straus. a nd Gi ro ux, 1969), Arthur Hert zberg: '/he Zio11i.w Idea (Garden Ci ty, N.Y .: Dou.bleday, 1959; Westport, Conn .: Gree nwood Press, 1970). 111 Isaac Rott enberg , who has kindly co rresponded with me rega rding literature on Zioni sm and id eas about theoc­ racy.

97