What the new office of religious engagement may mean for religions

On August 18th, 2013, Shaun Casey, professor of Christian Ethics working for the State Department, announced a new office that will “…focus on engagement with faith-based organizations and religious institutions around the world to strengthen US development and diplomacy and advance America’s interests and values.” 

The originally proposition was to open “The Office of non-governmental engagement and partnerships” – a department intended to focus on a variety of cultural groups, worldviews, and beliefs. Originally it was suggested that a focus on just religious groups was too narrow. However, under the direction of religious moralists such as Shawn Casey, the project became focused specifically on interactions with religious groups. 

In his recent article from Religious Dispatches, “State Department to open an office of Religious Engagement,” writer Austin Dacey, cites the rationale for opening the department: 

“Understanding religion is imperative to understanding local civil society. Gallop polls show us that four out of five people on the planet believe in something greater than themselves, often viewing all sectors of life through the prism of faith. Religious faith and adherence is often a source of conflict and contributes to global instability and undermines long term US interests. However those same forces of faith contribute much good to civil society, and when properly engaged can promote human progress and peaceful co-existence on a global scale.” 

More and more when religious beliefs are brought into the public limelight, the people chosen to represent such beliefs tend to be the charismatic leaders of mega-churches, popular-level authors, and hosts of media organizations such as Oprah. 

Such people rarely deal with the deeper, core doctrines of the system they represent, but often focus on obtainment of the superficial “good feelings” that such religions pay lip-service to. And no wonder. While the public may be willing to tolerate a “love everybody indiscriminately” message, they are increasingly dubious of the underlying doctrines that drive religious behavior. To put a diplomatic face on religion that sells the lie that religions are basically about nothing but tolerance and good will is fair neither to the public nor the religions being misrepresented. 

The cold, hard truth is that large portions of the religious community do take hardline moral stances on unpopular positions such as banning gay marriage and abortion. Moreover, there is a very good reason that members of the same religion may have deep disagreements over core values, that being that individuals within that religion have the freedom to think and make value choices for themselves. Were this not true, religions truly would be the brain-washing institutions that many see them to be. 

A truly democratic institution would give such belief systems the right to state their case and vote their conscience like every other citizen. A truly diplomatic approach to these religious groups would represent their rationale for such beliefs rather than glossing over them for a less substantial and more publically appealing message. However, as Austin Dacey rightly points out: 

“Constitutional or not, official interfacing with faith-based organizations will constitute a troubling form of government endorsement. The defining of some communities among various porous-bordered, normative, and discursive communities as ‘religions,’ and the anointing of some individuals as recognized spokesmen for these communities …Often it’s precisely the dissidents, the doubters, the non-traditional believers who are the most in-need of recognition, and who often offer the most-needed perspectives on peace, the rule of law, and minority rights within their societies. 

“When the US government bestows high-level diplomatic attention, instead, on select –typically male, adult, and non-democratically appointed spokespersons – it aids them in consolidating their own power and authority within their communities.” 

While it is a controversial phrase, the so-called “separation of church and state” is intended for the protection of both institutions from one another. When the state and the church have mixed historically, it has resulted in an officiating of religious belief that is then mandated for every participant within that community. The religion and the government become one and the same, and those who differ from the official stance in their beliefs are something worse than overlooked: they are outlawed. 

Bestowing a diplomatic status on religious institutions places them in a category separate from the citizenry. No longer can religious people claim to be thoughtful individuals who act and vote from their consciences; they are now a separate culture that must be studied and negotiated with. 

This is a troubling acknowledgement of what religious institutions have been claiming for decades; that secularism is the new state religion. Secular values, thoughts, and beliefs drive government actions and law-making and such beliefs are implicitly or explicitly forced upon people who reject these values. Now that non-superficial religion no longer drives social values, it has become a troublesome minority group. Through diplomatic means, the government seems to wish to negotiate their way free of moral entanglements that religions entail. 

Rev. Eric Foley Promotes Amateur Church Planting in American and in North Korea

Rev. Eric Foley of Seoul USA is a man concerned with church planting and growth. In his recent book, Church is for Amateurs, he has promoted the principle that churches have been planted for thousands of years by and for lay people who use their knowledge of God’s word to worship and to preach. His book outlines methods and encourages people to plant their own amateur churches. 

Many organized denominations would likely disagree with Foley’s stance on church planting, however, Foley’s attitude is likely fostered by his extensive work planting churches and encouraging Christian evangelism in the country of North Korea – a country whose hostility towards Christianity is extreme. 

Foley’s techniques for church planting in North Korea involve short-wave radio broadcasts of sermons, and air-dropping Bibles into the country via home-made hydrogen balloons. 

Foley’s team uses GPS to identify rural regions in Korea where the air-dropped Bibles can be picked up with less chance of being intercepted by government officials. 

The penalty for being caught with possession of a Bible in North Korea is imprisonment along with 3 generations of the person’s family. 

Regarding Foley’s promotion of amateur church-planting, it is true that countries hostile to Christianity – as well as generations of church communities – have had to rely on un-educated lay people and what knowledge they have through studying and memorizing scripture. Additionally, “the sufficiency of scripture” – meaning that the Bible is the only thing necessary for understanding salvation and for Christian growth – is a principle that has long been promoted by theologians. 

With this understanding, it may be that such rhetoric would discourage American Christians, who have unique access to generations of scholarly research on the transmission of scripture as well as the legacy of how certain doctrines have been understood from scripture, from utilizing these resources to better educate themselves. 

Whatever the case, Foley’s ongoing actions in meeting the high demand of the over 100,000 Christians in North Korea are certainly bold, and not unappreciated by those he is assisting. 

The Relevance or Irrelevance of Christian Martyrdom

On November 3rd, 2013, 80 people from across North Korea were reportedly executed for the following crimes: 

"Watching or illegally trafficking South Korean videos, involvement in prostitution, or possessing a Bible." 

On October 21st, 2013, the BBC released a news report about the latest attack on Christians in Egypt. Says the report: 

"Egypt's Coptic Christian community has been targeted by some Islamists who accuse the Church of backing the army's overthrow of President Mohammed Morsi in July." 

On September 22nd, 2013, The Huffington Post reports: 

"A pair of suicide bombers blew themselves up amid hundreds of worshippers at a historic church in northwestern Pakistan on Sunday, killing 78 people in the deadliest-ever attack against the country's Christian minority." 

In his March 24th talk at the 2012 Reason Rally, popular atheist speaker Richard Dawkins called upon fellow atheists to adopt this tactic toward the religious: “…mock them. Ridicule them. In public... Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated, and need to be challenged, and, if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt.” 

Recently, scholar of early Christianity Candida Moss published her book The Myth of Persecution which, according to the books description, "...reveals how the early church exaggerated, invented, and forged stories of Christian martyrs and how the dangerous legacy of a martyrdom complex is employed today to silence dissent and galvanize a new generation of culture warriors." 

So what, if any, is the significance of Christian persecution, and why are some interested in emphasizing it while others are set on denying or downplaying it? 

A classic argument for the truth of Christianity is that those who claimed to be eyewitnesses of Christ's resurrection went on to be tortured and killed for their claims. Therefore, their claims must be true because (the apologist reasons) men do not willingly die for what they know is untrue. 

On the face of it this argument may seem fairly persuasive, but is not without its critics. The atheist team at Reasonable Doubts, for instance, argues that in order for this argument to hold water, they would have had to know they were going to be tortured and killed ahead of time, and they would have had to have the opportunity to escape said execution by denying their beliefs. Even if they did have such opportunity, the ancient world considered it quite noble and honorable to die a martyr's death, so the execution might have been its own reward. 

Or, as Candida Moss argues, there really wasn't much death or persecution at all. 

Furthermore this argument loses all of its persuasive force for those who were not eyewitnesses to Christ's resurrection, as they might hold their beliefs with sincerity because of a faith in the testimony of others - a fact which does not prove that it is actually true. 

For centuries, Christianity has been the majority influence in the west, even going so far as to persecute others in the name of Christ (which is wildly counter to what Christ actually taught). Additionally, almost every religious group has undergone hate, mistrust, and persecution in one venue or another. Why deny Christian persecution or, indeed, up-sell it? 

It cannot be denied that Christians have been hated, maligned, persecuted, and even killed for their beliefs to one degree or another at certain times and places in history, and continue to be today. This is significant primarily because it was predicted by scripture: 

John 15:18-20 

English Standard Version (ESV) 

18 “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.” 

Not only did Jesus prophecy that Christians would be hated, but specifically that this hatred would manifest itself in the type of verbal abuse that Dawkins suggests: 

Matthew 5:11-12 

English Standard Version (ESV) 

11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” 

Jesus commanded Christians to rejoice when shamed or slandered, and the Christians took up that call. In the book of Acts, mere months after Jesus had been crucified, the disciples were arrested for preaching Christianity. They were commanded to stop spreading their teachings, beaten, and released. This was their response: 

Acts 5:41 

English Standard Version (ESV) 

”Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name.” 

In fact, the New Testament is filled with encouragement to rejoice under persecution and slander, and for good reason. 

Western Civilization has risen to prominence on the back of various Christian traditions. It is easy to forget that, at one time, they were very much in the minority. While Candida Moss will argue that Christians never were persecuted, at least not to the degree the Church would have people believe, it would be difficult to argue that it was always popular. 

Christianity began in Judea where it was wildly counter to Jewish faith and traditions; holding them accountable for rejecting their Messiah, and spread across the Roman Empire where it was counter to the pagan Romans, also making them culpable in the death of the Messiah. 

In describing the events surrounding the fire of Rome, ancient Roman historian Tacitus had this to say: 

“Consequently, to get rid of the report [that he had started the fire], Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.” (Annals, 15:44) 

Tacitus, clearly no fan of the Christians, wrote this around the end of the first century. It would be over 200 years before Christianity would begin its rise to the majority religion. It would be difficult to claim that in those two centuries Christianity bore no weight of persecution or derision at all. 

While Christianity is at the very least tolerated by the Western culture, in communist countries such as North Korea and China, and in predominantly Muslim countries, Christians continue to be maligned, abused, and killed for their beliefs. And despite its supposed dominance in the Western World, it is likely that if anyone announces "I want to talk to you about Jesus," in a public place in America, eyes will roll and heads will turn in discomfort.  

The Bible predicts that Christianity will encounter resistance, and so it has. Jesus also predicts that "...when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." 

Christianity is paradoxically successful and disliked, all of which was predicted by the Bible. 

Persecution may not be a strong argument for the truth of Christianity. It is still an uncomfortable fact for those opposed to Christianity because, as Candida Moss puts it: "the dangerous legacy of a martyrdom complex is employed today to silence dissent and galvanize a new generation of culture warriors." 

To allow Christians to believe they are or have been persecuted actually reinforces their beliefs. However, books such as Moss's are not exactly designed to make Christians feel comfortable or accepted. The very dissent she claims such tales are intended to silence could be seen by Christians as persecution, just as any other group, minority or otherwise, claims to be "persecuted" when someone in the modern world speaks out against them. When it comes to Christianity, no publicity is bad publicity. The mere act of talking about it, negatively or positively, continues to encourage its growth. As Paul said: "Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice."