I'm having trouble seeing why the "equipoise of excesses view" is particularly Christian. Is it only by (highly spurious) contrast to the "Pagan Empire"?

If anything, the Church was the only significant institution in Europe after the collapse of the empire in the west that brought unity to the scattered tribes and fiefdoms of medieval Europe. The instinct of the pagan empire Chesterton mentioned was inherited by the Church, which fought tooth and nail against the tempests of migration, conquest, and feudal bickering - not too mention a large and diverse body of local superstitions inherited to the people from pagan traditions. The example of the Crusades is a wonderful example: the struggle of the Church to unify the armies which fought one another on their way to the Levant as much as any Turk or Byzantine prince is a classic case of exerting a unifying influence. It's true that there were a hundred kinds of Christian for the hundred nations of Europe, but Rome wanted, as ever, to bring Europe together.

Europe's "death"? I find the continent of interior decorators as irritating at times as anyone, but it seems premature to start the wake. The implicit argument that EU voters would have approved the EU constitutional treaty had it mentioned Christianity is specious, anyway, since it was the tres secular French (and the ur-bourgeois, but not terribly religious, Dutch) who did it in. (And, anyway, if anything is going to unify Europe, shouldn't it be secular humanism? Debates over which Christianity was the "real" Christianity did little for democracy, but much for the undertakers.)

Not to mention that religion has unified vast areas of the Middle East for centuries, but it has been (give or take, etc, etc, etc) 500 years since European thinkers eclipsed their Islamic brethren.

It would be foolish to deny the roles of the church and the Church in doing this - but I think it's just as foolish to believe that there were no other driving forces.

And on a side note, how is Christianity a foundation for democracy at all, much less the truest foundation possible? I don't do a lot of reading on religion and politics (other than here at ITA), but that seems quite a stretch to me.

Christianity is a foundation for equality under the law and rule of law, without which democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Cases in point: modern Lebanon, Weimar Germany. Jesus taught that God regards all people equally; logically one must conclude that humans and human institutions (such as government) should do the same.

The Bible was big on submission to authority, but it also has some cases of civil disobedience, particularly in the books of Daniel and Acts. The underlying principle here is rule of law - that, as Samuel Rutherford argued from Scripture, the monarch is a subject of the law, not vice versa.

Rutherford also argued in his opus Lex Rex for a Christian basis for popular election, but his argument is more philosophical than scriptural:

"[F]or of six willing and gifted to reign, what maketh one a king and not the other five? Certainly by God's disposing the people to choose this man, and not another man. It cannot be said but God giveth the kingly power immediately; and by him kings reign, that is true. This office is immediately from God, but the question now is, What is that which formally applieth the office and royal power to this person rather than to the other five as meet? Nothing can here be dreamed of but God's inclining the hearts of the [citizens] to choose this man and not that man."

Election is ultimately an exercise in risk management - minimizing the threats associated with concentrated power. Jay Manifold once made that point on his blog, but I can't find it at the moment.

Europe is dying for the simple reason that they aren't even making babies at a replacement level anymore. Rejection of Christian taboos against birth control might have something to do with it, or it may be that secular materialism doesn't think too far ahead. But the bottom line is, demographics is future.

Alan Henderson needs to spend more time with the history books; at the very least, he could skim through Robert Filmer's defense of Christian absolute monarchy:

http://www.constitution.org/eng/patriarcha.htm

The supposition that Christianity inevitably leads to democracy is far from obvious, either in its theology or in its historical practice. The overwhelming majority of Christian states have been undemocratic; indeed, the most Christian country in the world, the Holy See, is an absolute monarchy. The examples of the Russian and the Austro-Hungarian empires, to name just two long-enduring undemocratic Christian regimes, are even better. But probably best is the example of the first two modern democratic countries, the United States and France, both of which, to varying degrees, separated church and state.

And, anyway, if you have to be Christian to be democratic, whither India, Israel, and Japan? And how does one thereby explain the histories of Portugal and Spain under Salazar and Franco?

In sum, Christianity and democracy may be compatible, but they do not require each other, else Constantine would have given up his thrown and the Athenians would have kept theirs.

David's point is wrong-headed, because he overlooks the minor point that it is precisely in those countries where Christian politicians have been most influential in shaping family policy that birthrates are lowest. In the most secularist country in Western Europe, France, birth rates are the highest; in Italy and Spain, they are among the lowest.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=625012006

So is it secular materialism that's short-sighted? And if your explanation is that taking birth control leads to low fertility, how to explain the USA?

I was working on a response, but Paul has (unsurprisingly) managed to say it all & say it better. And to say it more, too -- I was going to say the bit about Japan, Israel, and India, but the part about Franco didn't occur to me. So regarding Alan's foolish little post, I'll just say: ditto to PM.

Also, I think that one can plausibly make a historical argument that the experience of the religious wars of the early modern period, on the Continent and in England, produced cirucmstances that enabled the idea of religious tolerance to come to be held somewhat popularly. I suppose that this was often first expressed in the form of cuius regio, eius religio, as opposed to an individual-level expression of such a freedom, but the latter did come later. So _perhaps_ the extreme & violent intolerance of early post-Reformation Protestants and Catholics did -- albeit entirely indirectly! -- help lay the groundwork for the kind of tolerance that is more typical today, and for the public sphere/private sphere distinction that lies at the heart of much of our form of governance. So, Nick, would that count as Christianity providing a foundation for democracy? ;-)

Phil, thanks for the kudos, but you needn't concede the point re: Christianity qua Christianity preparing the ground for religious tolerance; the wars of the Reformation were political conflicts triggered by technological changes, and so the materialist components of those campaigns were far more determinative than their theological aspects.

Egad, the dangers of typing whilst skimming through blogs: Obviously, "thrown" should read "throne" in the post above ...

Actually Paul, my comments regarding the birth rate were intended to be independent of the Christianity/democracy angle, though I should have made that more clear. Your original comment questioned Seth's assertion that Europe was in fact "dying." My response to that point is "below replacement birth rates." Something is rotten in Denmark (and elsewhere) if the people can't even replace themselves biologically. The source of that rottenness is not as easy to locate as Seth assumes, I will admit.

Paul, phil: that's kind of what I thought. :D

Well... how much weight should we put on that word "determinative", Paul? You don't want to go so far as to say that the religious strife was epiphenomenal in those conflicts, surely. For example, I don't think that one can tell the story of the history of England from, roughly speaking, 1500 to 1700 without talking a _lot_ about the different lived religious experience of the English people (and their monarchs).

I suspect we'd agree that -- as in just about all large-scale socio-politico-economic events -- there are a number of causes that are all twisted and twined around each other here. I think it's enough for my point that the Christian intolerance of the day be _one_ of those causes, and that the lesson of tolerance is one that later generations learned as a result of it. Would those claims seem plausible to you?

David: the last set of numbers I saw had parts of Europe (and only some parts) with a negative birth rate of a mere 0.02%. At that rate, it will take them about 50 years to lose one whole percentage point in population... if one ignores immigration altogether, which of course one shouldn't. Really, only on a grossly quasi-Darwinian view could this teensily sub-zero birth rate be a sign of the culture's "dying".

Well... how much weight should we put on that word "determinative", Paul? You don't want to go so far as to say that the religious strife was epiphenomenal in those conflicts, surely. For example, I don't think that one can tell the story of the history of England from, roughly speaking, 1500 to 1700 without talking a _lot_ about the different lived religious experience of the English people (and their monarchs).

I suspect we'd agree that -- as in just about all large-scale socio-politico-economic events -- there are a number of causes that are all twisted and twined around each other here. I think it's enough for my point that the Christian intolerance of the day be _one_ of those causes, and that the lesson of tolerance is one that later generations learned as a result of it. Would those claims seem plausible to you?

David: the last set of numbers I saw had parts of Europe (and only some parts) with a negative birth rate of a mere 0.02%. At that rate, it will take them about 50 years to lose one whole percentage point in population... if one ignores immigration altogether, which of course one shouldn't. Really, only on a grossly quasi-Darwinian view could this teensily sub-zero birth rate be a sign of the culture's "dying".

(Um, the new comment-protecting software seems to have led me to double-post... sorry about that.)

France?? *I'm* the one neglecting history????

That people used the Bible to support monarchy doesn't mean that they weren't rank idiotarians. While Christians were instructed on the election of church leaders, they were given no dictates on how to structure government. The Jews were, but even theocratic Israel had nonabsolute monarchy - the king was subject to a constitution (read again Nathan's rebuke of King David), and could not usurp the powers delegated to the Levites and the prophets.

That the US did not establish an official church and state is not an argument against the notion that the Bible influenced the development of democracy. Actually, such an action restored the church to its original state, as a private-sector voluntary institution, a state which neither Jesus, Peter, nor Paul expressed any desire to change.

"Democracy" (defined here as representative government + rule of law + equality under the law) evolved in England, and was passed to this side of the Atlantic where it made further advances. It is laughable to assume that the deeply religious environment of England had absolutely no influence on this development. Indeed, John Locke's work, particularly his Second Treatise, was influenced by Lex Rex (mentioned earlier), and by another document titled Vindiciae contra Tyrannos, attributed to Philippe Duplessis-Mornay and Hubert Languet and published in 1660.

Rutherford in particular relies heavily on ancient Israel to condemn absolute monarchy. The OT cannot be interpreted in the fashion of "if their govt exercised such powers, ours must as well." HOWEVER, one can argue from a truly Christian standpoint that what powers God did not ordain even of Israel He did not ordain of anybody - and Rutherford does this repeatedly. Vindiciae, while drawing heavily from European history, does some of the same:

But there are many rulers in these days who call themselves "Christian", who arrogantly assume that their power is limited by no one...I am reminded of the words of the prophet Hosea: "The princes of Judah were like those that remove a boundary. On them I will pour out my wrath like water. Ephraim is oppressed, crushed in judgment, because he was determined to follow the commandments of men." (Hosea 5:10-11)

Their arguments cannot stand without rule of law and equality under the law; I have already stated the Christian basis for both.

Recall that I did not state that popular election is a logical conclusion of Christianity. It is a logical necessity one reaches when recognizing human psychology.

The French Revolution didn't advance democracy much more than the first 1917 Russian revolution did. They may have had voting, but the other two elements of the equation were in short supply. The French government was eventually taken over by bloodthirsty tyrants whose pogrom would rival (and perhaps even surpassed) the Spanish Inquisition. An ironic comparison, considering that the Terror scapegoated (among others) the entire Catholic clergy, not limiting itself to ecclesiastic who held actual political offices. The established church didn't fare well for French Catholics in the long run, did it?

Phil, I'm not going to say that religion was entirely epiphenomenal, but I will emphasize that it was the political and material factors that decided that there was going to be a number of principalities and kingdoms fighting over the issues, and that therefore "cuius regio" could be a solution to the conflict. Not for nothing do we say that Westphalia was the beginning of the states system (or, more accurately, its formal recognition).

Alan Henderson can't keep his argument straight from one post to the next. Here's his initial, major point: "Christianity is a foundation for equality under the law and rule of law, without which democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Cases in point: modern Lebanon, Weimar Germany." But this doesn't make any sense; we can explain the failure of "democracy" in both cases without recourse to religious factors (great-power rivalries and the Treaty of Versailles' economic impact will do nicely for starters). And, of course, he still can't account for the persistence of democratic rule in non-Christian states or of nondemocratic rule in Christian countries. Apparently Christianity is plastic, and is neither necessary nor sufficient for democratization. (See e.g. Miracle in Mali in the Wilson Quarterly; Mali is 90% Muslim ... )

Indeed, if Henderson actually thinks that Christianity leads inevitably to equality before the law, he'd do well to study the history of, say, Northern Ireland or Alabama.

Henderson also subscribes to an intellectual theory that apparently holds that only Christianity post-Locke should count when discussing what form of government Christianity supports. Given the previous millenium and a half of Christian emperors, kings, princes, lords, and outright tyrants--and the fact that my favorite republic, Venice, was on occasion excommunicated--I'm going to mark this as no more than a case of special pleading with a dose of presentism. Clearly, neither the Hohenzollerns nor the Habsburgs nor the Romanovs had any truck with such mobocratic ramblings.

Henderson also takes my reference to France as meaning nothing more than the Revolution (understandable, considering my glib "first two modern democracies" comment). But what of France's turn-of-the-20th-century anti-establishment legislation? No Western country has been so thoroughgoing in its hostility to religion in the public square, and yet France has remained democratic in a way that Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, and many other countries have not.

"That people used the Bible to support monarchy doesn't mean that they weren't rank idiotarians." But, to just take three obvious examples that come immediately to mind: one can find arguments for the legitimacy of monarchy in Augustine's writings. And Aquinas thought that a regal system of government was consistent with Christianity; and his arguments for why we might prefer -- but not require -- more "mixed" forms of government are basically derived from Aristotle, not from scripture. And Hobbes spends a large chunk of the Leviathan discussing how his views are consistent with Christianity, and the concern is more about the relationship between religious conscience and political authority, than about the form of government he has argued for. (Hobbes' version of the social contract is a really good example of how one can start from a premise of basic metaphysical equality of persons, and end up with something really far from participatory democracy.)

If you find yourself needing to call the likes of these stellar intellects "idiotarians", then you can be pretty sure that you've fallen off the deep end somewhere.

Really, it's only from a modern perspective that it can seem that participatory democracy must "logically" follow from some basic tenets of Christianity. But all the writings of people like Lockes and others show is that if you pour Enlightenment ideas into Christianity, you can pour the Enlightenment ideas back out again.

"It is laughable to assume that the deeply religious environment of England had absolutely no influence on this development." Good thing that no one here is denying anything like that, then.

"Europe is dying for the simple reason that they aren't even making babies at a replacement level anymore. Rejection of Christian taboos against birth control might have something to do with it, or it may be that secular materialism doesn't think too far ahead. But the bottom line is, demographics is future." [David]

"…it is precisely in those countries where Christian politicians have been most influential in shaping family policy that birthrates are lowest." [PM]

You must have missed the recent news broadcast featuring interviews with couples in some portions of the world, notably Eastern Europe and Russia, who explained that - at least in their own decisions - the low birth rate had more to do with economics than any religious taboos or allegedly religious family policy.

They simply couldn't afford to have children because they had insufficient resources to care for them. But I have no doubt you find some way to blame that on religion, too.

"The supposition that Christianity inevitably leads to democracy is far from obvious, either in its theology or in its historical practice." [PM]

"Really, it's only from a modern perspective that it can seem that participatory democracy must ‘logically’ follow from some basic tenets of Christianity." [philosopher]

The point being made, and which (in your modern superiority) you missed, was that the teachings of the Bible – both the Old and the New Testament Scriptures (distinguished from the various forms of "Christianity" that have been discussed herein) were the foundation for such concepts as equality between races and between men and women, social reforms, proper treatment of women in general, care for widows and orphans, etc.

Those Biblical concepts are elemental to any form of democracy, and without the Bible's influence, mankind would remain unenlightened politically, socially, economically, and in other ways.

Where do you think the concept of "good" or "beneficial" comes from anyway? Without our God-given conscience and the Bible, "every man [does] what is right in his own eyes."

Who's blaming low fertility on religion (as opposed to Christian Democrat social policies that make marriage and childrearing an unattractive proposition)? That was the whole point of my comment about how the USA is an outlier in the fertility world--high fertility, easy access to birth control, and high religiosity; three factors that go together almost nowhere else. (Click through to the article I linked in that discussion; I tried to follow your link, but there have been a number of "recent news broadcasts.")

And, anyway, if economic decline is associated with low birth rates (per anonymous' argument) and high GDP is associated with low birth rates (per the facts), then there's probably a causal mechanism that we haven't identified--but it certainly isn't churchgoingness.

The comment about scripture being the only source of moral inspiration, however, is staggeringly biased; pity the poor Confucians and Buddhists, who made the mistake of choosing the wrong civilization to be born in.

And the statement that Christianity was "the foundation for such concepts as equality between races and between men and women, social reforms, proper treatment of women in general, care for widows and orphans, etc." rather confuses me; it wasn't the New Dealers, the social democrats, and the progressives, and the like who brought us women's suffrage and Social Security, but Father Coughlin and Billy Sunday? I am so confused now. Stupid facts, always getting in the way of beliefs.

"...it wasn't the New Dealers, the social democrats, and the progressives, and the like who brought us women's suffrage and Social Security, but Father Coughlin and Billy Sunday? I am so confused now."

Typical misunderstanding of the framework underlying the actions. Your confusion is understandable, though, considering your complete lack of knowledge about ancient history......

Are we recruiting our trolls from the Bob Jones University extension school now?

the teachings of the Bible – both the Old and the New Testament Scriptures...were the foundation for such concepts as equality...between men and women...proper treatment of women in general

Have you actually read the Bible? I think Paul is pretty clear on where women fall on the totem pole.

PM,

Let me try to be more clear. I did not say that all democracies are directly influenced by Christianity, or that they must be. I said that Christianity influenced the first emergence of modern democracy in this world. Most if not all modern democracies were influenced in some degree by the Anglosphere.

Just because Northern Ireland and Alabama (or Augustine and Aquinas - nod to philosopher) are nominaly Christian doesn't mean that they always grasp the logical conclusions of Christian philosophy.

"Henderson also subscribes to an intellectual theory that apparently holds that only Christianity post-Locke should count when discussing what form of government Christianity supports." "Christianity" means the ideology professed by the Bible. Sometimes its meaning is clear, sometimes clarification takes a lot of effort. And many allow their biases to cloud even that which is clear - refer to the previous paragraph.

"Have you actually read the Bible? I think Paul is pretty clear on where women fall on the totem pole."

The real question is, have YOU read the Bible? If you're talking about Paul's comment that women should keep silent in the church, your ignorance is showing. The point there - which you would realize if you did any real research on the subject - is that in the early church, men and women sat on opposite sides of the room. Women would shout across the aisle to their husbands about what was being said.

Cross reference that with the ministries of Dorcas and Timothy's mother and grandmother for a true picture of "where women fall on the totem pole" in Paul's doctrine.

I won't waste any more time respnding to Alan Henderson, who has now invoked the Humpty Dumpty principle because "Christianity" plainly means what he chooses it to mean--neither more nor less.

I'll simply point readers back to his original post, which clearly did not say what he now says he meant.

" won't waste any more time respnding to Alan Henderson, who has now invoked the Humpty Dumpty principle because "Christianity" plainly means what he chooses it to mean--neither more nor less."

Different groups use the same words in different ways, PM, so your characterization of Alan's point is not only childish but ignorant.

That's not what I said; the Humpty Dumpty principle doesn't mean that different people use the same word in different ways, but that the same person uses the word differently when it suits him.

That's your characterization of what he did.

When he discussed how Christianity is "a foundation for democracy at all, much less the truest foundation possible", it was necessary to discuss it in different ways because that was how the question was posed.

There are essentially two arguments against my claims:

1) That I have misinterpreted the Bible.

2) That the meaning of Christianity changes from time, and that I am therefore wrong to claim that what one era claimed to be Biblical was actually heresy. There is no sane argument that a text can be interpreted as something other than the author's original intent, so this argument is moot.

I tried to explain a very tiny bit of what Christinaity means, specifically, with regard to rule of law and equality under law. Nobody has demonstrated that I was making up stuff.

Neither of those construals are even remotely close to what we've been pushing you on here, either earlier or with Paul's recent charge of Dumptyism.

Christians have abandoned the Church because the Church has abandoned them. Instead of fighting for social justice and the rights of the weakest in our society, the churches have almost uniformly kowtowed to the economic policies of the rich, powerful and, quite often, organized criminal elements. Poor and middle class people started shunning the church when it became quite clear that we were only seen as a means of revenue/source of cheap labor to be preyed upon. We've been flooded with immigration, drugs, gangs, widescale corruption and, for quite a while, it became almost impossible to make an adequate living honestly (teachers, nurses and policemen have been on the frontlines of the devastation). Now they wonder why the children of these workers have given up and aren't willing to fight their enemy de jour. Only now, in the face of Islam, are the churches beginning to wake up to why people aren't listening to them anymore. It's not because we reject the ethical teachings of Jesus, it's because the churches have not upheld and defended them when they were most needed.