Part of what makes studying the Ottoman Empire and Turkey fascinating is that you see aspects of civil society and political development that we in the West mostly take for granted. It is like studying a foreign language. I never understood English grammar as well as when taking Greek and Hebrew in seminary. To use English I never really needed to know the grammar. Not true for reading Greek (and faking my way through) Hebrew. The same goes for understanding the way western societies operate. We may take a civics class, but that doesn’t mean we understand the history behind or the choices made that resulted in a democratic and federated republic.
This is a way of introducing a poignant comment by Walter McDougall about the Turkish republic’s origins:
[Ataturk] set out to separate the state from Islamic religion, liberate women, define Turkish citizenship by residence rather than ethnicity, Westernize the legal system, promote economic development, and pursue peaceful relations with all of its neighbors.
In other words, Turkey accomplished in the 1920s what the United States did in the late 18th century. And Turkey also carried out some of the political outcomes that prevailed in Italy in 1870 when the papacy lost temporal authority over the Papal Legations. What was crucial in all three cases was for the laws of Turkey, Italy and the United States to be separated from the laws of Islam, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism respectively.
But apparently, some Protestants have not learned this lesson politics. They still insist that the state enforce God’s law. They also insist that they have no resemblance to Islam or Pius IX. In fact, one of the great ironies of U.S. history is that Protestants used a high-wall conception of the separation of church and state against any Roman Catholic attempts to receive state funding for parochial schools. When the courts then applied that same argument to public schools and removed prayer and Bible reading, Protestants (mainline, evangelical, and fundamentalist) cried foul. Apparently, separation of church and state is needed for Muslims and Roman Catholics, but not for our team.
Of course, the contemporary opponents of the secular may be right. The Bible may require a union of religion and politics and a return to Old Testament Israel. But are those contemporary critics of 2k and the secular willing to identify themselves as anti-American (not simply opposed to the U.S. of Obama but also to the republic of George Washington)? And are they willing to admit that they are anti-Western (in a way similar to political Islam)? Or do they want all the benefits of a constitutional republic in the West with whining rights about godless secular societies?
Old Life 
We can see how this 2K doctrine played out in the life of Jesus, can’t we?
Read through the gospels and highlight all the areas where Jesus leans on the government to get their act together and in line with God’s will.
You won’t have to take the cap off of your highlighter.
LikeLike
Steve, I keep hearing this line, but I keep wondering how much of 1st century day-to-day civic life in Palestine was regulated by the Jewish authorities. It seems that Jesus had a lot to say about them. Obviously, Rome had the last word, but if you don’t limit civil authorities to Rome, then it seems your argument fails.
LikeLike
But, Terry, those words are largely critical of the way the Jewish authorities mediated religious faith and practice, not civil life. He speaks to the religious authorities the way neos and theos want to speak to civil authorities. And he speaks about civil authorities the way neos and theos characterize as faithless and cowardly.
LikeLike
Steve – You won’t have to take the cap off of your highlighter.
Erik – (Chuckles audibly)
LikeLike
Terry,
What? Which Jewish civil authorities? Herod? The Pharisees? Please expound and cite examples.
LikeLike
Terry,
One thing that comes to my mind is John the Baptist rebuking Herod over marrying his brother’s wife. Meanwhile Christian conservatives overlook Newt’s 2 divorces and Rush’s 3 divorces. Ugh.
LikeLike
What ‘we do’ are law issues. For the here and now. And we need to do (or not do) those things, as we (rulers or voters) see fit. But…
..Jesus had much bigger fish to fry than that.
LikeLike
@Steve Martin: Have you read “Last Days According To Jesus?” by RC Sproul? It’s a must read for you!
You’re right that Jesus wasn’t relying on Government reform, because the end of the age was quickly approaching one generation after Jesus death. The old order came to an official end in 70AD. Or the end of the world as it was back then. We now live in a new era, the kingdom of God, and if you listen to Jesus teaching about the kingdom, you will read that it is to conquer the world.
In short, if you’re not a partial preterist, you need to get up to speed! And no, I’m not talking utopia, I am talking kingdom of God. It’s all through the gospels (highlighter needed).
LikeLike
Steve, as Jesus was carrying his cross to Galgatha, he looked at a women and said, “women don’t weep for me, weep for your children”.
What was Jesus talking about? (Hint) The end of the age, was coming before his generation passed! The destruction of Jerusalem! The last days in the new testament are referring to the last days before the destruction. The age of shadows, type, and promise came to a crashing end in 70AD as the Temple was burned to the ground and Jerusalem was destroyed. It was the official end of the old covenant. It was also proof that Jesus was Lord of all! The Apostles were right, and the Jews were wrong.
So of course for Jesus to be concerned about Jerusalem’s politics during his ministry would be a fools errand. Context, context, context! Every Jew knew that Daniel had prophesied that Rome would be crushed by God himself, (see Daniel 2) But it didn’t happen for another three hundred years!
If you understand the kingdom of God, and what will be accomplished, it’s the salvation of the whole world! (Not each and every, but the large majority!) Jesus said our faith will conquer the world! That even includes politics! There is no such thing as a God free zone. Christ is to be the king of kings, for he shall have dominion! Do we strive for utopia? Of course not, but we do pray for more of his kingdom rule every day!
Jesus said, “I have all authority in heaven and earth”, (Therefore!) “Baptize every nation in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey ALL my commandments, and I will be with you to the end”. Let’s pray that Christ has dominion expressed in all areas of life, for his glory.
Keep pressing on!
LikeLike
And are they willing to admit that they are anti-Western
“Western” as in the French Revolution, Nazism, Communism? I don’t think you’ve thought this through, the assumption that “secularism” is synonymous with “Western.” As even William O. Douglas wrote in Zorach v. Clausen, “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” And as philosopher Jürgen Habermas noted
(Jürgen Habermas – “Time of Transitions”, Polity Press, 2006, pp. 150-151, translation of an interview from 1999).
The question now is whether we can tear out the foundations of Western civilization and still expect it to function, that our institutions will still purr merrily along, deprived of the presupposition of a Supreme Being.
related:
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/06/19/obama-offends-catholics-in-the-uk-says-religious-schools-are-divisive-78053
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke reflects on DGH’s screed: ““Western” as in the French Revolution, Nazism, Communism? I don’t think you’ve thought this through,”
LOL! Truer words were never spoken! But then, who ever confused DG with being a careful thinker? He’s a radical two kingdom zealot, not a real historian. If you hadn’t showed up with some facts, Hart’s followers here at Old Life would never have heard of the Presbyterian revolt. Just keep shining the light of truth at Darryl. It’s a good education for each and every one of us.
This doesn’t mean you’re right on all your assertions Tom, but it shows me you’re a zillion times more honest. Darryl has an ax to grind, a dog in the fight, which is becoming more patently obvious with each passing day. DGH approaches history with R2K spectacles firmly placed over his eyes. Old life? What old life? Oh! That Old life! It’s all in the glasses he wears!
God bless you Tom!
LikeLike
Tom’s back. And Doug!
LikeLike
You Tube comments on that Peaches and Herb video give Old Life a run for its money…
Razormiller 2 months ago
They have incredibly white teeth…. Good Dental Hygiene right there !!!!
lkdchjqioaWUEGQCOgyf 3 months ago
I cant help but want to cry when I hear this song because of my past youth roller skating.
LikeLike
I think I’m boycotting interacting with people on Old Life who aren’t funny.
Tom – Not funny
Doug – Not intentionally funny
Chortles – funny
D.G. – funny
Kent – Kind of funny, and my buddy.
MM – See Kent, but funnier.
Richard – Definitely not funny
DTM – Not intentionally funny
Sean – Funny
Zrim – Funny
If I don’t comment on your post, work on being more funny. Or be grateful. Or both.
I do reserve the right to make fun of any and all posts, however, if I think my comment assists me in being funny.
LikeLike
Erik, are you aware that I have never seen one of your U-tube videos? I mean, I like you and all, but I can’t lower myself to attach theology with American TV shows or movies. It just seems to infantile. And no, I wouldn”t dream of watching tripe like “The Wire”. That should be a church discipline issue.
Just kidding! 😉
I did view Zrim’s “Stop it” from Bob Newhart, which was surprisingly funny.
Finally Erik, are you aware that not until Tom Van Dyke showed up here at Old life you hadn’t heard the term “The Presbyterian Revolt?” Now that IS funny!!!
LikeLike
Tom, your gushing over Douglas like David Barton does. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between formal documents like laws and confessions, versus the opinions of officers (like Douglas or Calvin). I am bound by the U.S. Constitution. It has no religious tests. That wasn’t true for a whole set of nations prior to the rise of 19th c. political liberalism. Could liberalism go bad? Sure. Can Christianity? Think your fan, Doug.
LikeLike
Doug, you are the man.
LikeLike
I am bound by the U.S. Constitution.
That’s a ridiculous theology–and especially when it’s within your power to work toward revising it. As for your ecclesiastical “Confessions” and other formalistic religion, if you can break the Fourth Commandment to pull your ox out of the pit on Sunday, you’re certainly not bound by the documents of men when it comes to the suffering of your brother.
But I’m glad you keep bringing your theology out of the shadows of your church and into the sunlight, so everyone can see it for what it is.
LikeLike
Tom, pulling your ox out of pit, didn’t break the fourth commandment. You were doing well until you flubbed up, on that factoid. Jesus made that point very clear. Jesus didn’t break one law, no not one!
Carry on!
LikeLike
Of course, Ataturk violated the Treaty of Sevres and continued the slaughter of Armenians, so I don’t know if it’s so great to use him as a positive example of secularization or anything else. It kind of falls into the same category of trying to find positives about Hitler.
LikeLike
Alex, so we discredit Thomas Jefferson (and the U.S.) because he held slaves?
LikeLike
There aren’t many things worse than slavery, but I think genocide is one example. Ataturk didn’t start the Armenian genocide, but he was heavily involved in it as an underling and continued it once in power. There are still people alive today who survived the horror of it, so I just think it’s way too soon to say good things about the man.
LikeLike
Turkish lives matter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsQrKZcYtqg
LikeLike
mcMark, does that mean Erdogan has 9 lives?
LikeLike