I love how a couple of my classes I'm currently taking, while not specifically about religion, have kept on mentioning them, and in turn, challenging me. One of them I came in thinking would be completely different. From the name, I thought it would be about the relations between the major states, like China and the US. While we're getting there, and the professor has mentioned these, it has been so much more a history of political philosophy, which involves a lot of other kinds of philosophy.
This week, we talked about two different religions, Christianity and Islam, and how they influenced Europeans and Middle Easterners' outlook on foreign politics. It was very interesting to me, to say the least. In this post, I'm going to focus on Christianity.
I learned in class that once Christianity gained a majority in Europe, there was a new conundrum for the faith. No longer did they have to submit to leaders who were non Christians. Philosophers had to come up with how they would view themselves and conduct relations with other political bodies, from a perspective that would honor God. There's a lot I could say here, but the idea that struck me the most was the one of cosmopolitanism. The word comes from the Greek 'cosmos' -world or universe- and polis- political unit.
Many people think that cosmopolitanism a new concept unique to the 20th century, but it's really quite an old one, albeit in different forms. Think of how any person could be a Roman citizen, if they conformed to certain rules and ways of life. That's radical from an identity based on birth. But Christ (and Christians) go even further than that. In Christ, you can keep your ethnicity and background as long as it doesn't contradict your new beliefs. You don't have to dress a certain way, eat certain foods, etc. Christ is first and foremost. In this way, many types of people can be united spiritually.
This idea is epitomized in this famous verse written by the Apostle Paul:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28
This week, we talked about two different religions, Christianity and Islam, and how they influenced Europeans and Middle Easterners' outlook on foreign politics. It was very interesting to me, to say the least. In this post, I'm going to focus on Christianity.
I learned in class that once Christianity gained a majority in Europe, there was a new conundrum for the faith. No longer did they have to submit to leaders who were non Christians. Philosophers had to come up with how they would view themselves and conduct relations with other political bodies, from a perspective that would honor God. There's a lot I could say here, but the idea that struck me the most was the one of cosmopolitanism. The word comes from the Greek 'cosmos' -world or universe- and polis- political unit.
Many people think that cosmopolitanism a new concept unique to the 20th century, but it's really quite an old one, albeit in different forms. Think of how any person could be a Roman citizen, if they conformed to certain rules and ways of life. That's radical from an identity based on birth. But Christ (and Christians) go even further than that. In Christ, you can keep your ethnicity and background as long as it doesn't contradict your new beliefs. You don't have to dress a certain way, eat certain foods, etc. Christ is first and foremost. In this way, many types of people can be united spiritually.
This idea is epitomized in this famous verse written by the Apostle Paul:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28
This is encouraging and exciting to me as a Christian, that deep within our faith is the idea of a world citizen and a worldwide city/body/family of other believers in Christ. This idea leads to less prejudice- anyone could be a Christian. And politically, it meant in the Middle Ages that many actual countries had a similarity based on faith. Of course, that does then mean that there are many that are different in faith. That lead to some wars undertaken in Christ's name, but I think that we've learned since then to separate certain parts of faith and state. I could write another couple of posts on many of these problems, so I think I'll leave them for later.
Anyway, just a few thoughts provoked by a class I should be studying for(agh test tomorrow).
I like the post, especially Galatians 3:28, but that was one thing that just kept pulling on my mind after reading...
ReplyDelete"That lead to some wars undertaken in Christ's name, but I think that we've learned since then to separate certain parts of faith and state."
I may be being picky, but it really rubs me the wrong way when you said "faith and state." It may be a good thing to separate religion (any specific religious government) from state, but we should never separate our faith from our country and its governing.
It was never faith in Christ that led a country down the wrong path, but rather placing devotion to some specific Church over devotion to the universal church.
I always like to point out that the founding fathers did not want a separation of God from government, they didn't want to throw Christianity out of the window, but they did want to insure that no denomination (Church) would be able to co-reign with the government. Many wanted to escape the Anglican Church, few wanted to escape the church as a whole.
Anyway... that's just my opinion :-)
Yeah, I guess it was a pretty general statement. Obviously I don't think that what we believe shouldn't affect our government. I mean, a just society is one that cares for its citizens- and what better way than the way that is in the Bible? And we shouldn't have to be separated from our beliefs when we enter public life. If that's the case, then do we really believe what we believe?
ReplyDeleteBut I was more getting to the Crusades- and the idea of a specific church controlling the government. I guess I think that there's only so much that we should do as a Christian society. This gets into arguments for just war. Is it just to fight an enemy just because they're another religion? I would say no- otherwise, we'll always be fighting. And we as Christians are not called to that kind of battle when it comes to God- but the battle of the spirit.
On the other side of your last paragraph, I've heard that some people didn't want the government to control their religious belief.
What about this? ;-)