Christianity and Fascism
Jul 1st, 2009 by Micah Tillman | 3 Comments |
Jeff bravely admitted in a comment below that his desire to fulfill his duty to be his brother’s keeper made him think it may be important for some people to occasionally do things that might seem a little bit fascist.
For example, perhaps it’s okay sometimes for doctors to force people who refuse the medical treatment they need to take it anyway.
I pointed out that even John Locke, one of the great champions of political liberty, thought that there were at least two limits to what you could do to yourself (i.e., you couldn’t commit suicide or sell yourself into slavery).
So, thinking that people shouldn’t be allowed to destroy themselves is not necessarily just a fascist thing.
____
However, I do think that Christians (like me and Jeff) need to be constantly on guard against any temptation to convert Christianity into fascism.
And we have to guard against that temptation because it would be so easy to convert Christianity into fascism, as I shall now explain.
____
Fascism is simply the idea that the nation is an organism, an organic whole, a living body, and thus every group within the whole (the businesses, the artists, the politicians, the athletes, the educators, the workers, etc.) must work together with all the others for the good of the whole. (See also the etymology of “fascism.”)
Christianity, similarly, teaches — following Paul’s metaphor — that all Christians form the Body of Christ, as if they were all organs in the same body, and must work together for the good of the whole.
____
However, there are several important differences between fascism and Pauline Christianity:
First, is the fact that the State is the organism/body in fascism, and different sectors of society (different groups, fasci) are the organs, while Christ or the Church is the organism/body, and individual Christians are the organs.
Second, you are born into the State, while you choose to be a Christian. Therefore, everyone in a State falls under the power of a fascist government, while only people who have purposefully joined a Church fall under “its” authority.
Third, the State controls people via law (i.e., the threat or use of physical force), while the Church is supposed to control “its” members via exhortation.
Fourth, the greatest penalty the State can impose is death, while the greatest penalty the Church can impose is exclusion from the community (i.e., the declaration that you don’t get to hang out with the Church anymore, and have to go play by yourself or with some other group).
Fifth, a sinful person is always at the head of the State, while the all-good, perfect God is at the head of the Church.
____
Remember, I describe the Church as Paul saw them, not as they have always and everywhere been.
At some points in history, certain people in the Church actually could control people via force. Paul, however, propounded the Body of Christ metaphor to the Church when they were a persecuted minority.
At some points in history, certain people in the Church thought that excommunication meant eternal damnation, not just exclusion from temporal fellowship. Paul, however, thought that excommunication was a way to save people from eternal damnation.
____
At some points in history, certain people in the Church have allowed themselves to be ruled by sinful persons as if they were God. (I’m thinking here of cults, and of local churches who have become “cults of personality” around their pastors.)
At some points in history, certain people in the Church have thought they had the right to treat everyone as if they were members of the church (i.e., as if the Church had authority over everyone), as if living in a certain area or country automatically made you a Christian, or obligated you to live as a Christian.
____
Those Christians who must be especially on guard against converting their religion into fascism are those who
(1) find themselves wanting to use the State to achieve the good things they are called to work for as members of the Church (i.e., find themselves wanting to achieve their ends via law, not by exhortation, inspirational example, or their own work)
(2) find themselves confusing the call to Church unity with a call to national/community unity (for example, by thinking that the call to Church unity means national/community unity is either possible or desirable, or by thinking that the “one body” metaphor which is appropriate for the Church is also appropriate for communities or nations).
And you will find such Christians on both sides of the political aisle.

Ha Ha. I read initially read “exhortation” as “extortion.” Completely changes the connotations of your post. :D
Good points overall.
Brilliant post.
I’ve been writing this really awful blog series over the past week (awful because writing at 6:15-6:45am is not a good idea) that covers a similar idea. I should just link here… would have been MUCH better.
It’s almost impossible not to read some sort of “morality” into the laws that are put into place by the government, but I think more we’re aware of our own morality (our own lens) we can distinguish between what’s mutually beneficial and what’s based on my own sense of religious beliefs.
The last thing I want to do it legislate Christianity. Cause if it’s not voluntary, it’s not really redemptive?
Tim–
I find that very amusing. *grin* Imagine if extortion were really the way that Church discipline was supposed to be handled. I can see conferences for pastors to learn about biblical extortion and whatnot. :-D
Nathan–
Your post series is very good, so don’t hurt its feelings! It’s getting at the same kind of thing as I am here, but from an importantly different angle.
Reminds me, actually, of a post I wrote once.
*runs off to dig through the archives*
*returns, smiling proudly*
Actually, it would seem I wrote two posts. Go me! One is here, and the other is here.
Ooo! And then there was this article I wrote on the issue a while back. In it I lay out my “creed” when it comes to the distinction between moral and political issues.
You make a great point above about the tension between legislation and redemption. A law is a decision that politicians make for everyone else, a decision to which they coerce consent via the threat or use of force. Therefore, following a law is consenting to someone else’s decision, rather than making the decision for yourself (taking responsibility for the decision yourself).
Therefore, the citizen’s action that is produced by that decision isn’t authentic — it’s an action that appears to the citizen as being at least partially the responsibility of the legislator. But an action for which a person does not take responsibility cannot be credited to him or her — cannot redeem him or her.
Or something like that. I’ll have to think more about this. :-)