The Role of Religion in World Affairs

By Earl Hunsinger

Back in 1844, the German philosopher Karl Marx expressed the opinion that "religion is the opium of the people." George Bernard Shaw made a similar statement when he wrote: "Religion is a great force—the only real motive force in the world." Whatever their opinion as to the merits of religion, both of these men recognized a fundamental truth about it, namely that religion has a powerful effect upon people.

At the same time, the New Encyclopedia Britannica says that as far as scholars have discovered, there has never existed any people, anywhere, at any time, who were not in some sense religious." The prevalence and power of religion puts a heavy responsibility on it. What role should religion play in world affairs? What influence should it have on its adherents?

Mankind’s oldest book, the Bible, prophesied thousands of years ago about the influence that knowledge of the God of the Bible would have on people in what it calls the last days. The Bible book of Isaiah says that people would beat their swords into plowshares, learning war no more. (Isa. 2:2-4) These words are in harmony with the words of Jesus Christ, who later said that his followers would be no part of the world. (John 15:19) The Bible writer James put it in stronger language when he said that if a person even wanted to be a friend of the world he was making himself an enemy of God, or a spiritual adulteress. (Jam. 4:4) Here the word world is used in the same sense as when Jesus referred to the devil as the ruler or prince of the world. (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11) This is the same world the apostle Paul said is lying in the power of the wicked one. (1 John 5:19) How do we avoid being a part or a friend of this world?

Over the centuries since these words were spoken, many have interpreted them to mean that we should isolate ourselves, perhaps in a remote and inaccessible monastery. How did Jesus’ listeners, his disciples, understand these words? Far from isolating themselves, they were known for their zealous proselytizing. Were they antisocial, or antigovernment? Just the opposite, they were known as law abiding taxpayers. They followed the laws of the land except where these conflicted with the higher law they had received from God. (Acts 5:29)

Yet just as they were firm when it came to obeying Jesus command to preach, apparently they were also resolute when it came to being no part of the world, beating their figurative swords into plowshares.

Says Justin Martyr, of the second century C.E., in his "Dialogue With Trypho, a Jew" (CX): "We who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons, - our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage." (The Ante-Nicene Father, Vol. I. p. 254)

In his treatise "The Chaplet, or De Corona" (XI), when discussing "whether warfare is proper at all for Christians," Tertullian (c. 200 C.E.) used the scriptures to show the unlawfulness of a military life itself, concluding, "I banish from us the military life." (The Ante-Nicene Father, 1957, Vol. III. pp. 99,100)

The Rise of Christianity, by E. W. Barnes (p. 333) says: "A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180 C. E], no Christian became a soldier, and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service."

The Early Church and the World by C. J. Cadoux (pp. 275, 276) says: "It will be seen presently that the evidence for the existence of a single Christian soldier between 60 and about 165 A.D. is exceedingly slight; . . . up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least, no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism."

A Short History of Rome, by G. Ferrero and C. Barbagallo (p. 382) says: "In the second century, Christianity . . . had affirmed the incompatibility of military service with Christianity."

Our World Through the Ages, by N. Platt and M. J. Drummond (p. 125) says: "The behavior of the Christians was very different from that of the Romans. . . . Since Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers."

The New World’s Foundations in the Old, by R. and W. M. West ( p. 131) says: "The first Christians thought it was wrong to fight, and would not serve in the army even when the Empire needed soldiers."

"Persecution of the Christians in Gaul, A.D. 177," by F. P. G. Guizot, in the book The Great Events by Famous Historians (edited by R. Johnson, 1905, Vol. III, p. 246) says: "The Christians . . . shrank from public office and military service."

Finally, the famous historian Edward Gibbon wrote in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Vol. I, p. 416): "While they [the Christians] inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes."

The neutrality of the early Christians in relation to the political and military affairs of the world is an established fact of history. It was in harmony with Jesus’ refusal to be made a king by the crowds (John 6:15) and with his statement to Pilate that his kingdom was no part of the world. (John 18:36)

Their stand was also in harmony with one of the things that Jesus said would identify his true followers, the love that they would display toward one another. (John 13:34, 35) This love was to be shown without regard to race or nationality, since God is not partial. (Acts 10:34, 35) It was even to be shown toward those that hated them. (Mat. 5:44, 45) This was to be a serious matter, for the apostle John later wrote that if someone claimed to love God, yet hated his spiritual brother, he was a liar. (1 John 4:20) Most religions today preach love, yet Jesus showed that actions were more important than words, saying that no matter what a person claimed you would recognize him by the "fruits" that he bore. (Mat. 7:13 - 23) So, how do religions today measure up?

According to Catholic theologian Hans Küng: "There is no disputing that in negative, destructive terms [religions] have made and still make an enormous contribution. So much struggle, bloody conflicts, indeed ‘religious wars’ are to be held to their account; . . . and this also goes for the two world wars."

Other observers have made similar comments: "The innermost reason for inhuman savagery is religious." (National Review) "The chief motivation for war is no longer greed but religion." (Toronto Star) "The Holocaust ‘was all done by baptized Christians.’"—The Tampa Tribune.

Many may be unaware of the backing given to Fascist dictators such as Franco and Mussolini by the Catholic Church during World War Two, or the fact that it even concluded a concordat with the Nazis in 1933. At that time Cardinal Faulhaber wrote to Hitler: "This handshake with the Papacy . . . is a feat of immeasurable blessing . . . May God preserve the Reich Chancellor [Hitler]."

This religious involvement has continued. In 1980, Delmar Smyth, professor of administration at Toronto’s York University, told the Ethics Commission of the Baptist World Congress held in Toronto, Canada: "We in the Baptist tradition are addicted to war." He then pointed out that Jesus’ early disciples "believed he taught and practised non-violence . . . Early Christian writers condemned war. They branded killing in war as murder."

As the late Harry Emerson Fosdick, who is considered to be one of the most influential Protestant clergymen in American history, once admitted: "Our Western history has been one war after another. We have bred men for war, trained men for war; we have glorified war; we have made warriors our heroes and even in our churches we have put the battle flags . . . With one corner of our mouth we have praised the Prince of Peace and with the other we have glorified war."

This involvement is not decreasing. In 1983, when the WCC (World Council of Churches) assembled in Vancouver, Canada, Philip Potter, its general secretary, told them to "stay political." Most religions have done this, making themselves a part of the world.