Positive Christianity of Hitler... Unleash the patriotic Church

There is nothing—absolutely nothing—insofar as political power when it is under girded by morality, especially when that morality embraces the strength of the Christian religion. This is what Adolph Hitler seized upon, amplified, and nourished: One Reich, one Reich's Church. With religion's unwavering legitimacy enshrouding Nazism's agenda—nothing could stop him. Today, an eerie semblance overshadows the West (this "revision"—August, 2005—is an update of this semblance)—it harkens back to the dark side of Christendom's triumphalism wherein the State and Church team up to defeat evil doers and simultaneously spread Globalism and Gospel through military strength and the Crusaders' zeal. What awful foolishness we witness when history repeats her worst episodes—nothing compares to the insanity of those who are doomed to duplicate earth's darkest days!

NEVER IN AMERICA?

This article was written by one of German ancestry whose forebears on his mother's side can be traced to Martin Luther himself; thence, the incessant interest in the rise of Adolf Hitler and, in particular (through years of research) the under girding support he derived in his ascendancy from the Christian religion in the heart of Europe. How could this possibly happen? Alas! Could we in America be as deceitfully predisposed to such a malevolent curse—driven by the same demons? Do we today witness camouflaged strategies designed to accomplish a greater horror of unimaginable consequence and upon Christendom of like vulnerability?

The remotest thought of such an evil plot akin to what seduced the German people could somehow be foisted upon our beloved America boggles the senses . . . yet, each day, each month, the same cultural polarization eerily divides; the similitude of its military-industrial complex mirrors that of Rome's expansions; its cries for greater and more restrictive security for its citizenry clamors; its tenuous economic factors now threatening the globalism it created as a result of the insatiable consumption of all things luxurious persist—all this while within the walls of our crystal city, the party is oblivious to the multitude of the wretched outside who admire and distain its opulence. Are there comparisons? Be not quick in your rejection that alleged "systems" now in place—with histories of wide disparity—insure Americans absolute relief from the extremities of Nazi Germany . . . look again, look carefully, very carefully . . . history's mercurial habit at repetition seeks to warn us all . . . "broad is the way that leadeth to destruction and many there be that go in thereat."

THE INTOXICATING APPEAL

To understand the appeal, the absolute, mesmerizing, and intoxicating drive behind Hitler's success, one must go beyond the inequities of the Versailles Treaty and delve into the mysterious association that Herr Hitler placed upon the Christian religion. Don't think that Adolf was way off into some cultic, overtly demonic world of fantasy and influence. True, the occult most assuredly was deeply engaged in his thinking and outlook—but the use of legitimate Christian imagery was his forte. He both understood the need to mobilize the masses and the religion that alone could sway their fidelity to his cause.

Furthermore, throughout his declarations and apparent pontifications, is a unique ability to uplift and galvanize the German people—to so highly esteem them, and to generate within them the self-esteem that would produce a people whose image reflected the one who had so unalterably changed and transformed them into the awesome enunciation of der Fuhrer himself. They became transfixed and transported into another state of mind and being—from despair and rejection, to an exhilarating euphoria and total acceptance. They could BE ALL THAT THEY COULD BE and then some. Here is no buffoon strutting upon the stage of German dejection cavalierly riveting the German mind and will upon himself—no, no, no!

Here is the uniqueness of Adolf Hitler—one who could so verbalize with utter clarity what the German soul could be in its fullness and creative genius. Neither did his spoken word proclaim his own commitment and genius—it climaxed within the Germany he envisioned in such a rapturous expression and discovery of who they were, and what they could become, with God Almighty vindicating every breath they would take! Hitler injected into nearly every German heart a DIVINE SPARK, which regrettably morphed into an inferno of destruction and death unforeseen in human history—but its initial dissension upon its benefactors was replete with a baptism of power and light utterly transcendent that it captured an entire nation in the heart of Christian Europe. Its pristine message created the IMAGE of DAS VOLK, a people who were destined by the very triumph of their corporate will to be the consummation and commencement of the Kingdom of God—DAS THOUSANDE JAHRE REICH! (The promised millennial reign—one thousand year kingdom)!

But, firstly, the Weimar Republic's failure was predictable. Its liberalism was far too watered down, far too immersed in its diversity and acceptance to galvanize the enthusiasm and concerted consecration of common folk, who longed for a winner, a leader, a "national champion." Democracy, gone awry, alone can produce dictatorship—de facto, or elected! Ultimately, the Left (Weimar or Hollywood)—again by its very nature—simply cannot SUSTAIN the caliber of commitment and vision that can be produced by absolutism and rigid conservatism to which we allude here.

AMERICA'S PATRIOTIC CHURCH

Today a growing number of truly evangelical faithful observe the Christian Right in America, assisted by its current allies among the so-called neocons (i.e., neoconservatives—pragmatic politicos), forging a formidable alliance of convenience that wholly supports the rise of the American New World Order System. Its striking resemblance to Hitler's appeals is frightful! Liberalism may rant and rave about societal freedoms and renounce governmental restrictions—but their voices and challenges are hollow sounding and even adjudged fallacious, when the triumph of his armies have so prevailed upon the Plains of Shinar! Libertarians and Constitutionalists—you do well to listen to this diatribe.

Likewise, the bickering factions within the Democratic Party (hard left-Moveon.orgs. vs. the Clintonians), whose extremities mirror the fratricide of their Weimar counterparts, sadly lack a cohesive strategy aside from a total pullout from the Middle East or its antithesis: All-out War against the infidels! Indeed, you especially do well to listen to this diatribe.

Meanwhile, the flagrant embrace of the war machine by evangelicals continues unabated—witness the bizarre web site @ http://www.forceministries.com and the on-going ascendancy of the American clergy to brandish their description as "Patriotic Pastors" juxtaposed to, I guess, those who are not—to wit:

"Thus, the Ohio Restoration Project (ORP) . . . plan(s) to identify and train 2,000 so-called 'Patriot Pastors' to get out the evangelical vote for the Ohio primary in May 2006.

"The Rev. Russell Johnson, ORP head and senior pastor of Fairfield Christian Church, an evangelical congregation in suburban Columbus, casts the 2006 election as an apocalyptic clash between a virtuous Christianity and the evildoers who oppose Christianity's values.

"This is a battle between the forces of righteousness and the hordes of hell," says Johnson on his church's website. He exhorts evangelical clergy to get off the sidelines and lead America away from secularism and godlessness through the ballot box." (August 23, 2005, Ohio Jewish News.com).

"God and country" rallies are planned throughout the burgeoning rise of the Patriotic Church over the next several years:

"Encourage their church families to participate in Pastor Policy Briefings and regional 'God and Country Rallies' where the issues of the day are underscored and highlighted and the Judeo-Christian ethic is affirmed. Nationally known speakers Franklin Graham, Zell Miller, Secretary of State Ken Blackwell (of Ohio), Bob McEwen, Pastor Lawrence White, Pastor Rod Parsley (Center for Moral Clarity), Ambassador Alan Keyes, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Chuck Colson, Pat Robertson and Tony Perkins will be asked to participate." (Abovetopsecret.com ­ Feb. 6, 2005).

This, coupled with Pat Robertson's "assassination remarks" of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (August, 2005), in keeping with his chilling remarks regarding the nuking of our own State Department for its alleged "Anti-Americanism" made in October, 2003, highlights the identification of the Republican Party with the rise of the Patriotic Church and its "Patriotic Pastor" brigades—now galvanizing throughout these United States.

The "moral polarization" of America has created a huge gapping sociopolitical chasm akin to what took place in Germany's Weimar. Black, Hispanic, and other newly-arrived minorities, in the main, are familial stalwarts who, though the Democrat economic agenda meshes well on their behalf, are far more predisposed to the social agenda of the Patriotic Pastors—the "sodomites" who appear ubiquitous amongst the Democrats are shunned by the rank and file Republicans and most assuredly by the Patriotic Church. The vast majority of Germans were repulsed by the excesses of the Cabaret Society—who would lead them out of their debauchery, decadence, and depression?

The masses of Americana are traumatized by the "isms" identified with the Left in America (evolutionism, socialism, communism, anarchism, feminism, even ecumenism—especially, the UN's Millennium World Peace Summit in New York [http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200508%5CFOR20050826c.html], August 28-31, 2005 (now threatened by John Bolton's suggestions)—along with abortion, homosexuality/same sex marriage), even in the worst of economic situations these masses will not embrace "it's the economy stupid" but unwaveringly hold to their traditional values; furthermore, are not more Americans owning their own homes, working, living the dream as never before? The heartlanders and newly-arrived view these "isms" as anti-Christ, anti-God, and anti-American—much to the chagrin of the Democratic mainstream. Yet, the Left in America lumps "all" of faith as "suspect" at best, and at the core of America's demise at worst. Similarities, yes, similarities . . .

ADOLF HITLER—THE GERMAN SOLUTION IS A CHRISTIAN ONE

The tone and substance coming from the mouth of Herr Hitler, although the context is, of course, unique to European Christianity, is eerily compatible to what we are increasingly hearing today from certain political leaders within the American New World Order System. What you are about to read will shock many of you—will utterly cause you to have a spiritual seizure; a revulsion akin to a full-blown, stomach-bending, vomit—but you must come to terms with why this is happening and how religion—the Christian religion—is the most powerful tool that can be utilized in order to capture the "believing" masses and to promote, through "moral covering" and political dedication, an agenda that resounds within the heart of the common man in the context of Western Civilization.

Hitler, like today's champions of Americana, knew that the "believing masses" had been beaten down; had suffered their World War (Viet Nam), had their beloved Germany (America) battered about with moral decline and "radical secularism" that caused the "moral fiber" of the nation to collapse—something had (has) to be done—someone with guts and glory had (has) to arise to capture the imagination of the nation to arise from its depravity and crimes, from its vulnerability (be it from "them socialists" or "terrorists"), from its self-inflicted and debilitating social ills . . . someone is needed to alter our self-perceptions!

The problem was created by the Devil himself—The Cabaret Society of the Weimar Republic (They never represented true Germany!). "We'd been maligned by every creeping thing imaginable upon our streets: Socialists, Communists, radical Unionists, Jews, Secularists, Liberal Theologians, Homosexuals, Raunchy Entertainment, ad nausea—and this upon our wretched economic woes and that 'Paper from Hell' (i.e., the Versailles Treaty)."

Now—the Devil would provide the solution to the aforementioned problem. He would provide the solution through a man, a party, that would reach down to the common man and pull upon his heart strings—upon that which is made to respond to the highest ideals of man: His religious conscience would be the springboard to launch a fully consecrated and absolutely committed people, sold out to the one who could uplift and empower them. Thence, this resolution to Germany's defeat must be ensconced within the language of power and persuasion—it must carry the fervor of the EVANGELIST, the power of the PROPHET, the message of the APOSTLE! Yes, convoluted—but done with such passionate skill, that the unwitting and desperate would believe the LIE. Indeed, a true LIE is so close to reality that its frightening resemblance obscures all semblances to the truth!

Ultimately, a lie told long enough, and amplified to the uttermost, resounds with familiarity—YE SHALL BE AS GODS, KNOWING GOOD AND EVIL! This original deceit confounded our original forebears. This is no ordinary lie—it is THE LIE. Godhood, the ultimate UBERMENSCH, is the final destiny of the German race—of Hitler's "Religion." But first, the people must be prepared, until they realize their supreme destination and status as DAS VOLK!

HITLER—I CAN'T BELIEVE HE SAID IT! (Hitler/Nazi Comments in quotes/bold)

"We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession." (Item 24 of the German Worker's Party "Program" cir. 1920s)

At the earliest formation of the Nazi Party, Hitler expressed his Christian support to the German people and soldiers. In the 1920s, Hitler's German Workers' Party (pre Nazi terminology) adopted a twenty-five-point program with the clear intent to persuade the German people that "positive Christianity" was in full conformity to the "moral" convictions of the Party—i.e., the Party fully embraced the morality of Christianity and that Christianity was viewed as "singular" in the minds of that Party—Catholic and Protestants were considered as the foundation of German Christianity in its fullness and jurisdiction (the Party embraced both as one).

"MY LORD AND SAVIOR . . . IN THE BOUNDLESS LOVE AS A CHRISTIAN . . . HE HAD TO SHED HIS BLOOD UPON THE CROSS. My feelings as a Christian point me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them. This is God's truth! He was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice....

"And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

"When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people is plundered and exploited."

[Note, "Brood of vipers" appears in Matt. 3:7 & 12:34. John 2:15 depicts Jesus driving out the moneychangers (adders) from the temple.] Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 12 April 1922.

"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." ­Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 October 1933.

Indeed, Hitler's speeches and proclamations, even more clearly, reveal his faith and feelings toward a Christianized Germany. Nazism presents an embarrassment to Christianity and demonstrates the danger of blending "faith with politics." Do you find it "spiritually disconcerting" to discover the depth of Hitler's hermeneutic? How about his exegesis of Matthew 3:7, 12:34 and John 2:15? Hitler's depiction of Jesus as the FIGHTER, not as the sufferer, is a distortion of the Scriptural intent of this reading; however, without knowing the full contextual nature of the Word, one could (as Hitler did) surmise a MILITANT JESUS is in view, and not a suffering Jesus.

It has been said, "The Bible can be read to say anything!" Examples abound: "Judas hung himself . . . go thou and do likewise!" This classic piece of cut and paste, though stupid, is precisely what many so-called expositors do with the Word of God—Hitler was no exception. But, the shedding of the blood of Jesus as the ultimate payment for "truth and justice and the German way" is frightening and turns true Christianity on its head! Note that Hitler claims to be a Christian and, as such, he has a duty to his own people—he too, like Jesus, must be a fighter for truth and justice—he must rid the Temple of the moneychangers, of the abominable Jews who harass his people, like Jesus did. The German people, according to Hitler, were being "plundered and exploited" and he would be NO CHRISTIAN if he didn't do something about it. Hitler's identification as a Christian was one of activism—not in name only! In this artful persuasion he under girded the German people in their predisposition to anti-Semitism, the full spiritual justification for their participation in the "Final Solution."

In sum: Hitler showed his disdain for atheism, and pagan cults, and revealed the strength of his Christian feelings—make no doubt about that. Likewise, his was no meaningless and superficial theology—it was clearly demarcated and set forth in all its hideous implications with righteous gusto.

CHURCH UNITY—HITLER WAS A FIRM BELIEVER IN IT

"It will at any rate be my supreme task to see to it that in the newly awakened NSDAP, the adherents of both Confessions can live peacefully together side by side in order that they may take their stand in the common fight against the power, which is the mortal foe of any true Christianity."—Adolf Hitler, in an article headed "A New Beginning," 26 Feb. 1925

"This is for us a ground for satisfaction, since we desire that the fight in the religious camps should come to an end... all political action in the parties will be forbidden to priests for all time, happy because we know what is wanted by millions who long to see in the priest only the comforter of their souls and not the representative of their political convictions."—Adolf Hitler, in a speech to the men of the SA at Dortmund, 9 July 1933, on the day after the signing of the Concordat (Agreement with the Roman Catholic Church, the Papacy).

The unity of the Church is a recurrent message delivered by Hitler. His object, of course, was "against the power"—i.e., the international Jewish conspiracy against the Church, and, of course, the German people and the world in general. The technique of solidifying the churches into the "Hammer of God" was a strategy that appealed to the vast majority of German Christians. That he would see in them such an instrument of righteous indignation was commending—both to them as the object of his insight, and to himself for his discernment of such.

It is my firm conviction that this is precisely what is happening in America today. The appeal to the Christian religion in the battle "against evil" within the West is NOT an historic first! Don't be so quick to terminate this reading—let me explain. Who are those who most clearly understand the language of THE AXIS OF EVIL? Who are those who clearly grasp the "spiritual reality" behind Islamic terrorism? The current President is no fool in appealing to the most religious in leading his charge against the forces of evil that assail the current drama. The appeal to religious unity in the face of extremity is manifested in Islamic Jihad—Holy War. But, this appeal is far more sinister and powerful when placed in the hands of a "Christian President" about to inspire the faithful—far more potent is its impress. There is a righteous finality connected with it—a more sure word—an unseen and unmistaken cause behind this necessary action whose appeal is Ultimate and Conclusive. God, and God alone, is my judge—and you are "either for us or against us"—there is no compromise, there is no wavering between two opinions—LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT—OUR CAUSE IS JUST!

Doug is a member of the "Last Days Network" . . . a group of evangelical pundits providing news and analysis on Religion in Politics. "Applied Biblical prophecy," apostasy and deception, the impact of the New American World System, and the influences of the Religious Right and Left upon American culture, are topics discuss by the group. He is an educator/administrator based in Northern California. The remainder of this article and many others can be fully viewed/graphics/links, etec. @ The Tribulation Network

Turning points in the history of the Church - Jerusalem Council to Edinburgh

THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM

This meeting of apostles and presbysters described in Acts 15:4-9 was convoked to address the relationship of Jews and Gentiles in the church. Jewish Christians believed that Gentile believers had to submit to the law as well as their faith in Jesus. Paul, Barnabas, and others were sent to present the case. Paul, aware of the gravity of the crisis, took Titus, a native Greek, as a living specimen of what the Spirit of God could accomplish without circumcision. The decision of the great council was significant (Acts 15:28-29). It decided that the law, which had been impossible for Jews, should not be required of Gentiles. They need not be circumcised before eventually becoming a Christian. The principal at stake was incarnation, translating the Gospel in the mindset of the people. An example in Church history in which this principle was ignored was the spread of Christianity by the British in my country, Sierra Leone. The people resented the activities of the missionaries who were identified as part of the colonial government. The results were catastrophic. In the 1898 rebellion, white missionaries, African males (who wore trousers) and women (who wore skirts) were brutally murdered. Places of worship were desecrated. Like the Crusades, this rebellion furnishes the perfect reminder that the church can win by the message of peace and not by force. This principle was however adopted by Patrick, the Englishman captured and sold into slavery in Ireland who escaped and eventually became priest. It had tremendous impact. In the 5th century, he converted the Irish to the faith they had so freely defended throughout the centuries. In sympathy with the realities of Irish life, he was able to bring Ireland into closer relations with the rest of the western church. He planted over two hundred congregations and baptized over one hundred thousand converts.

THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451)

If the fathers of the 4th century quarreled over the relations between God the Father and God the Son, those of the 5th century faced the problem of defining the relationship of the two natures, the human and the divine within God the Son, Jesus Christ. The Christological controversy stemmed from the rival doctrines of Apollinaris (Word-Flesh) and Theodore of Mopsuestia (Word-Man), representatives of the rival schools of Alexandria and Antioch respectively. Word-Flesh Christology generally held that the divine and human natures were united indistinguishably. This single divine nature (extreme Monophysitism) after the Incarnation, was strongly supported by Eutcyches. Word-Flesh Christology was not in consonance with Word-Man Christology since the latter taught the two natures co-existed separately in Christ. Cyril of Antioch condemned the extreme Antiochene Christology taught by Nestorius viewing the man Jesus an independent person beside the Divine Word. Pope Leo''s Tome (response to Flavian, the archbishop of Constantinople in 449) addressed these opposing perspectives by avoiding their extremities as reflected in the teachings of Eutyches and Nestorius. He noted that Christ was fully human and fully divine, two natures united in one person. Mary conceived and gave birth to Him without the loss of her virginity. The Tome played a very significant role at the Council of Chalcedon (451) which was convoked to resolve this doctrinal controversy. Leo''s view was accepted as the orthodox doctrine of the church. His statement of the place of the bishop of Rome in the church established doctrinal basis for the papacy. Although he was not pleased with Canon 28 which dignified Constantinople, his view that Jesus was a single person with two natures has remained the standard formulation of the doctrine of Christ in most branches of Christianity.

CHRISTENDOM

Christendom, the centuries-long period of western history, which could be regarded as a medieval synthesis, fused what could be presently regarded as separate sacred and secular spheres of life. It was the era in European history when the interests of both church and society were considered to be the same. It was almost generally assumed that Christian spiritual realities were more fundamental than realities of the temporal world. The foundation of Christendom was terribly shaken by the French Revolution (a programme of deChristianization). Christendom shaped medieval Europe''s outlook on everyday life. With the exception of the most extreme Anabaptists, almost all Europeans embraced Christendom and believed it was natural for the Church'' sphere of influence to embrace every aspect of life. This was attributed to the central role of the church in the sacramental system as the agent through which the sacraments brought God''s grace to every stage of life. It shaped political life since the political sphere co-operated with the church in fulfilling its spiritual tasks. Learning was directed to be compatible with the teaching of the church. The economy was structured accordingly as it supports the church in its mission. Social conduct also imitated the patterns God has set for the church. In other words, the church offered a foundation for everything. In spite of its failure, Christendom was a powerful ideal. Islam in the 7th and 8th centuries greatly contributed to this understanding of Christianity. Its astonishing spread marginalized Christianity. Muslims moved into Spain and were stopped, as they were about to enter France. Christians were alarmed. Cities were incorporated into what became known as the Holy Roman Empire. It is fair to state that Christendom arose to control the expansion of Islam.

THE GREAT SCHISM

The symbolic date for the separation between the Eastern Church (Constantinople) and the Western Church (Rome) is 1054. Different temperament and intellectual disposition between contemporary theologians like Tertullian of Carthage and Clement of Alexandria were traits that eventually represented the views of two distinct but complementary religious cultures. The Eastern Church sharply disagreed when the Western Church introduced into the Nicene Creed the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds not from the Father alone ? the traditional view of the early Church Fathers ? but from the Father and the Son (Latin: filoque). When the Roman Empire divided into two zones, Latin speaking Rome began to claim superiority over Greek-speaking Constantinople; disputes arose over church boundaries and control, for example in Illyricum and Bulgaria. Rivalry developed in Slavic regions between Latin missionaries from the west and Byzantine from the east who considered the territory to be orthodox. Islam also strained relations. Other issues which ignited the friction related to worship and church discipline, for instance married clergy (Orthodox) versus celibacy (Roman Catholic) and rules of fasting. Tensions became a schism in 1054 when the uncompromising patriarch of Constantinople, Cerularius, and envoys of the uncompromising Pope Leo IX communicated each other. No acct of separation was considered at this time. Crusades, religious wars by Christians to rescue the Holy Land sealed the schism. The Fourth Crusade (1204) was diverted to attack and plunder Constantinople during which Orthodox Christians were murdered, and churches and icons desecrated. The Holy Land was not won. Islam was not permanently checked. The insolent action of popes in establishing Latin patriarchates in the east intensified the conflict.

EDINBURGH MISSIONARY CONFERENCE IN 1910

The ten-day Edinburgh Missionary Conference in 1910 ended the notion that worldwide Christianity meant reaching out from Europe and its North American extensions to the rest of the globe. It was indeed the last moment when it was equated with the Christianity of Europe and North America. Edinburgh was the beginning of a new era because it symbolized a dawning consciousness for the world wide extension of Christianity in contrast to earlier expansions involving single originating and receiving cultures. It was indeed a meeting to discuss the evangelization of the world (although only Protestants attended). It is important because of its ecumenical significance. Eight commissions or theological topics were addressed. These included carrying the gospel to all the Christian world, the church in the mission field, education in relation to the Christianization of national life, the missionary message in relation to non-Christian religions, the preparation of missionaries, home base of missions, missions and government, and the promotion of Christian unity. Missions were engaged globally and positively. The end of the conference marked the dawn of the request. Edinburgh directly or indirectly led to the establishment of the International Missionary Conference, the Universal Christian Conference on Life and Work, and the World Conference on Faith and Order. The last two merged in 1948 to create the World Council of Churches and the number of Christians has sky-rocketed from less than ten million in 1900 to almost two hundred million in 1997. Local indigenization is produced results. The rise and spread of Pentecostalism, the integral role of women missionaries, proliferation of Bible translations, the implications of information technology, to name a few, point to world evangelism.

70

From the perspective of the course, the above date is significant because it saw the fulfilment of the Great Commission as a result of the fall of Jerusalem. The church was ''weaned'' from Judaism as a result of the destruction of the Jewish temple and the cessation of sacrifices, an integral part in Jerusalem worship. This was a turning point because Christianity moved outward and metamorphosed from a religion shaped by the Jewish environment into a faith moving toward universal significance in the Mediterranean and beyond. It took an independent path in the Gentile world.

325

The Council of Nicaea was the first ecumenical council of the Christian Church which was called by Constantine I to solve the problem created by Arianism, a heresy first proposed by Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not a divine but created being. The absolute equality of the Son with the Father was established. It is considered a turning point because it set Christianity on a course (the addition of concerns for worldly power to its natal concern for the worship of God) it has only begun to reluctantly relinquish. This was directed by Constantine''s conversion that gradually gave way to the pilgrim reality of the church. In other words, the doctrinal declaration and the alteration of the church''s relationship with the world were unique.

451

It was at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 convoked to resolve the doctrinal controversy between Antioch and Alexandria over the person of Christ that the fathers accepted the formula proposed by Pope Leo I that Jesus was one person consisting of two natures. The significance was the more stable institutional character given to the church. It was significant because of its clarification of orthodox Christian teaching and the way in which that clarification was accomplished. The three fold triumph ? sound doctrine over the error over the error of the church, Christian catholicity over cultural fragmentation and of discriminating theological reasoning over the anti-intellectual dismissal of philosophy and a theological capitulation of philosophy ? conspire to make Chalcedon a turning point.

1054

The long-standing controversy between the Western and Eastern Church came to a head in 1054 when Pope Leo IX and the Greek Patriarch, Michael Cearularius, broke off relations with an exchange of anathemas. Although friction was ignited by events way back to the early church history and sealed by later events like the Crusades, the Great Schism of 1054 marked by the symbolic date of the separation. It was regarded as a turning point because it brought to a head centuries of deteriorating cultural disengagement, ecclesiastical suspicion and theological differences between the east and the west, symbolising the eventual isolation of the eastern churches through the centuries.

1521

Would the ''wild boar'' recant at the Diet of Worms in 1521? Bound by the Scriptures and with the conscience captive to the Word of God, Luther did not. What a significant moment in the history of Protestantism when Europe and the church would never be the same. Luther''s life and main doctrines, including the theology of the cross, were very crucial. This was not because of his spiritual credentials but rather the vision of God which gripped him to communicate through sermons, tracts and treatises. In other words, 1521 or related events represented a turning point as a result of Luther''s work in the broader social and cultural changes in the work in the 16th century. Although some aspects of his life were not illumined by the Divine Logos, Luther''s vision of God was timely and correct.

1534

Caesaropapism (doctrine of state control over the church) was evident when the English Parliament passed an Act of Supremacy, the significance of which could be seen in the lasting alteration of the situation of the Church of England. As the only supreme head on earth of the Church of England, Henry VIII''s marriage with Catherine of Aragon was annulled, enabling him to marry Anne Boleyn. The break from Rome effected by the support of the archbishop of Canterbury and the English Parliament was a turning point because of the general effect of England in particular and Christianity in general. There was an evident rise of self-consciously local, particular and national forms of Christianity. Although it was not the intention of the first Protestants to break up western Catholicism, there were small-scale alternatives to the universal Catholic Church. In other words, protests against the Catholic Church led to the Protestant churches, which subsequently opened various roads to reform eventually bringing a multiplicity rather than a unified voice against Catholic error.

1540

The founding of the Jesuits in 1540 could be regarded as significant because it was the most remarkable factor in the Catholic reform and worldwide outreach. The role of the Jesuits in winning Protestant regions back to Rome and solidifying those who swung like a pendulum in their loyalty to the Catholic Church cannot be overemphasized. The enduring effects of mid 16th century reform of the Catholic Church, the founding of the new orders, redirection of the papacy and Council of Trent could be regarded as branches of a major turning point because of the lasting effects on world Christianity. Catholic reform inspired a wide range of practicalized steps that ushered in a translation of the world wide potential of Christianity by restating the Christian message in the custom of the people.

1738

The conversion of the Wesleys in 1738 is significant because it was the most dynamic force in transforming the religion of the Reformation into modern Protestant evangelicalism. It is evident that Pietism (a movement originating in the Lutheran Church that stressed personal piety or reverence for God over religious formality and orthodoxy) and early Methodism were part of a larger movement of renewal. This new piety was a turning point because doctrines of God''s grace that had grown stale in the English church were renewed or revamped. This renewal or revitalization gave rise to modern evangelicalism out of the legacy of Reformation Protestantism.

1789

The secular event, the French Revolution of 1789, is significant because it ushered in actions which struck at the very privileges of status of the Roman Catholic Church. In attempting to remodel the world, the National Assembly passed ambitious laws which faded the supernatural God in French life. It was a turning point because it embarked on a programme of violent deChristianization signalling the gradual decline of Christendom (the period when interests of church and society were regarded as the same in Europe).

1910

Even though Catholics were not invited, the significant ten-day Edinburgh Missionary Conference (a faith for the entire world) could be regarded as the beginning of the twentieth century ecumenical movement, a high tide of western missionary expansion. It was a turning point because it symbolized an awakened consciousness concerning the worldwide extension of the faith. Never again would ''world wide Christianity'' be equated with the Christianity of Europe and America. Earlier expansions of Christianity generally involved single originating and single receiving cultures. The trend became indigenization of Christianity in countless regional cultures.

AUTHOR SIGNATURE
Oliver L.T. Harding, who obtained his GCE O & A Levels from the Sierra Leone Grammar School and the Albert Academy respectively, is currently Senior & Acting Librarian of Fourah Bay College, University of Sierra Leone. He is a part time lecturer at the Institute of Library, Information & Communication Studies (INSLICS), Fourah Bay College and the Extension Programme at the Evangelical College of Theology (T.E.C.T) at Hall Street, Brookfields; Vice President of the Sierra Leone Association of Archivists, Librarians & Information Scientists (SLAALIS); a member of the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and an associate of the Chartered Institute of Library & Information Professionals (CILIP). His certificates, secular and sacred, include: a certificate and diploma from the Freetown Bible Training Centre; an upper second class B.A. Hons. Degree in Modern History (F.B.C.); a post-graduate diploma from the Institute of Library Studies (INSLIBS, F.B.C) a masters degree from the Institute of Library, Information & Communication Studies (INSLICS, F.B.C.) and a masters degree in Biblical Studies from West Africa Theological Seminary, affiliate of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, where he won the prize for academic excellence as the Best Graduating Student in 2005. Oliver, a writer, musician and theologian, is married (to Francess) with two children (Olivia & Francis).

Email: oltharding@yahoo.com
Mobile: 232-2233-460-330

Logo design - a symbol of peace, harmony and purity without sin in the Church

Describing the meaning of the Church it is not as easy as it seems, is how can someone understand the depth and the circumference of which is implicit in this word?While most of the people identified the term with a building, the meaning of the Greek word for this word in the New Testament is "a group of people". At the time when Jesus said to his supporters that he would build his Church, he does not mean a building or establishment but simply a group of individuals were rescued from sin by his sacrificial death.

The Church logo design must represent the same message of purity and made sinless by people who follow a particular sect can feel the true meaning of the same and get easily connect to the divine through which you can perform through the use of different elements related to this religion, like; Crosses, books, statues, birds, candles or a door that represents himself as the door of a place of worship.

Symbols have invariably played an important role in the religion is Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism. They are effectively used to portray the cardinal meaning of religion and this is the reason that gives them great importance in religious identities.

Colors have enormous significance in this religious identity and the best for use therein color tones are yellow, white, blue and red. These colors represent well the image of this religion in particular. While designing logos free churches must make sure that seems pleasant and decent that can help their place of worship stand out from the rest and also help you work under different charitable causes with different social organizations without any problem.

The previous essentials said to this identity religious aren't all Cup of tea. As mentioned earlier, it is a term that cannot be easily defined in a few phrases. For this, one has to immerse himself in the divine sense of religion which may be reflected through its identity. This can only be done with the help of a service professional graphic design that can be found easily, all you have to do is carry out a thorough investigation job and choose one time only once you are sure that it will be able to deliver the material.

You can judge a graphic design firm with the help of the following criteria:

1 See have a good reputation in the graphic design industry.
2 - Check if prices and packaging meets your budget.
3 - Find out if they offer with your requirements.
4 - Check if they have exhibited their logo design on your Web page.

Therefore, if it meets the above criteria then said should not waste any more time and hire the service of graphic design, because a religion is a sensitive and serious concept that should never be forgotten in any case.

We hope that the above information would be useful for you.

Bobby Sherman works as Senior design consultant at a professional logo design company. For more information about the Church logo design find their competitive rates in logo design consultant.

Church and State in Islam

My starting point has been some verses of Baha'u'llah:

(1) In The Lawh-e Ashraf, in Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, section CII p. 206-7:

The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath ever regarded, and will continue to regard, the hearts of men as His own, His exclusive possession. All else, whether pertaining to land or sea, whether riches or glory, He hath bequeathed unto the Kings and rulers of the earth. From the beginning that hath no beginning the ensign proclaiming the words "He doeth whatsoever He willeth" hath been unfurled in all its splendor before His Manifestation.

(2) In the Surah-ye Bayan, in Gleanings CXXVIII 279:

Out of the whole world He hath chosen for Himself the hearts of men - hearts which the hosts of revelation and of utterance can subdue. Thus hath it been ordained by the Fingers of Baha, upon the Tablet of God's irrevocable decree, by the behest of Him Who is the Supreme Ordainer, the All-Knowing.

(3) And in the Kitab-e Aqdas:

Ye are but vassals, O kings of the earth! ... Arise, and serve Him Who is the Desire of all nations, Who hath created you through a word from Him, and ordained you to be, for all time, the emblems of His sovereignty.

By the righteousness of God! It is not Our wish to lay hands on your kingdoms. Our mission is to seize and possess the hearts of men. Upon them the eyes of Baha are fastened. To this testifieth the Kingdom of Names, could ye but comprehend it.

And (4) in the Kitab-e Iqan paragraph 133 / page 125:

Were sovereignty to mean earthly sovereignty and worldly dominion, were it to imply the subjection and external allegiance of all the peoples and kindreds of the earth - whereby His loved ones should be exalted and be made to live in peace, and His enemies be abased and tormented - such form of sovereignty would not be true of God Himself, the Source of all dominion,

There are many more such examples, but this is sufficient to make the first point: Baha'u'llah thought that

- the essential principle of the division of sovereignty into worldly and heavenly types, and the allocation of worldly sovereignty to worldly rulers and not to religious leaders, has been God's ruling from the beginning of time (quote 1);

- that God reserves the hearts for Godself alone (ie freedom of conscience; religion is to be taught, not imposed by the sword)(2);

- that the civil rulers have a religious mandate "for all time" to embody God's sovereignty (3), so this is not something to be changed in the future; and

- that this division of powers, which means that religion can never exercise coercive authority, is "true of God Himself" (4) - it reflects something in the "kingdom of names."

Baha'u'llah could not have said these things if he thought that the true message of Muhammad was the opposite, and since he knew the Quran rather well we would expect to find this teaching supported in the Quran, and in the prophetology of the Quran in relation to previous prophets. So let's try to find the Quranic texts that support the separation of the worldly and religious sovereignties.

Five groups of Quranic verses are most striking,

- the verses of prophetology which we may call the warner verses,

- those relating to Muhammad's arbitration, which I will call judgment verses,

- those referring to worldly leadership,

- the 'authorities' verses, and

- 'freedom' verses.

Warner verses

The warner verses can be divided into those referring to previous prophets, and those referring to Muhammad himself, such as this one:

Call to remembrance, for you are only one who calls to remembrance (mudhakkirun). You are not (set) over them as a ruler (musaytirin). If anyone turns away to unbelief, God will punish him with a mighty punishment. (88:21-24)

All authorities agree in placing this in the Meccan period: Watt's Companion to the Quran glosses it "that is, Muhammad only conveys a message and has no authority." The sentiment of Surah 88:21 is repeated in Surah 9, which is quite possibly the last Surah to be revealed, and which concludes (vv 128- 9):

There had come to you an apostle from among yourselves ... but if they turn away, say 'God is sufficient unto me, no god is there but him...'

Surah 5, which according to the traditional dating is the second-to-last Surah to be revealed, says (v. 102) "Nothing is incumbent on the apostle except preaching (al-balaagh) ... "

The verse 'You are not (set) over them as a ruler'(88:21) has parallels in Surah 6, also from the late Meccan period:

Say, I am not over you as a guardian (wakiilin) (66).

I [Muhammad] am not over you as a warder (hafiizan) ....(104)

We have not set you [Muhammad] over them as a warder, and you are not over them as a guardian. (107)

Similarly in Surah 4, from the early Medinan period:

We have sent you to the people as a messenger (rasulan) ... whoever obeys the messenger has obeyed God, and as for those who turn away, we have not sent you as a warder over them. (79-80)

And similarly:

We know what they say: you do not have the power of enforcement (be-jabbaarin) over them. Cause them to remember, through the Quran ... (50:45)

In Surah 25, from the Meccan period, God tells Muhammad:

We have only sent you as one who gives glad tidings (mubashiirun), and as a warner. Say, I do not ask your for any recompense for it, except that every person shall make a path to his Lord. (56-57)

Finally, in a Surah that must date from relatively late in the Medinan period, Muhammad is told:

O Prophet, truly we have sent you as a witness (shaahidan) and one who gives glad tidings and as a warner, and as one who calls the people (daa`iyan) to God, by His leave, and a lamp giving light. (33:45-6, see also 48:8)

Muhammad's lack of temporal authority is underlined by God's instruction that he should consult his companions "in the affair" (3:159). This is a Medinan verse, and refers to the battle of Uhud in which Muhammad was also the military commander. It seems most likely that it refers to consulting the leaders of the various elements of the Medinan federation, in relation to military command.

Once we know what to look for in the Quran, 'warner' verses strike us on almost every page:

7:184 "He is only a clear warner (mundhiirun)."

7:188 "I am nothing but a warning, and one who brings glad tidings."

10:108 "I am not over you as a guardian."

11:12 "... You are only a warner, and God has all things in his charge."

13:7 "You are only a warner."

15:89 "And say: I am the clear warner."

16:82 "Nothing is incumbent on you except clear preaching."

17:54 "We have not sent you to them as a guardian."

22:49 "Say: O men! I am only a clear warner to you."

27:92 "And if any stray, say "Truly I am only one of the warners."

34:28 "We have not sent you except as that which is sufficient for the people, by way of glad tidings and a warning."

39:41 "You are not over them as a guardian."

42:48 "If they turn away, we have not sent you as a warder over them."

50:2 "They are astonished that a warner has come to them, from among themselves."

79:45 "You are only a warner for those who fear it [i.e., the Hour]."

Anyone with an Arabic concordance can multiply these examples, by following the Arabic terms indicated above for the words messenger, warner, preacher, witness, summoner, one who calls to remembrance and one who brings good news, and also the terms for the roles Muhammad does not have: warder, guardian, ruler and similar. Without pretending to be exhaustive, see the verses 2:119, 11:2, 13:40, 14:52, 28:46, 29:50, 32:3, 34:46, 35:23, 37 and 42, 38:65 and 70, 41:4, 42:6, 44:12, 46:9, 51:50-1; 67:8-9 and 26.

When we put these verses together, it becomes clear that the very meaning of Muhammad's most common title, rasuul or messenger, is "the one who warns, preaches summons and bears witness, but who does not have the function of warder, guardian or ruler, nor any power to compel." And when we see how numerous such verses are, it begins to appear as if the distinction between prophetic and temporal authority is in fact one of the central themes of the Quran.

Similar declarations about demarcated religious authority are made concerning the Quran or Furqan, which is a warning (25:1), about all the prophets collectively (6:48, 34:34,44, 35:24, 18:56, 29:18, 36:17) who are all sent only to preach (16:35), and also about individual prophets such as Noah (71:1-2), Moses (17:105, 5:21, 5:28), Hud (46:21), Lot (54:33-36), and Jesus (5:49). The Prophet Shu'aib says 'I am not set over you as a warder' (11:86).

Muhammad is called "one of the warners of old" (53:56), placing him in the same line as all of these figures, whose warnings have been rejected, along with the prophets who brought them. Like Baha'u'llah after him, it appears that Muhammad too understood the demarcation of religious and temporal authority as the basic pattern of God's dealing with humanity, and not as something particular to his own person or the exigencies of the time.

If we look at the contexts of all of these 'warner' passages, we can generalise about the point that is being made. The limitation of the authority of the prophets has two aspects: on the one hand, the prophets do not have any right to worldly authority over people, the power to compel them (for the people must be free to hear the warning or not), or the right to judge and punish. Nor are the prophets responsible if the people reject the message (2:272). On the other hand, God, and not the prophets, has the power to judge and punish people for their free choices, and God and not the prophet has the knowledge of the Hour of judgement. The power of the prophet is limited on two sides, in relation to the worldly powers, and in relation to God.

Judgement verses

It might be objected that Muhammad is excluded only from the executive function of government, but still has the legislative and judicial functions. The distinction would be anachronistic and it would be wrong as an account of Muhammad's actions. Although Muhammad did in fact serve as an arbiter in some disputes, this was a function that existed under the customs of the time, and which could be filled by any honourable man acceptable to both parties. Where Muhammad did act as arbiter, it was not by virtue of his station as a Prophet, but by the free consent of the parties, given either at the time of the dispute, or pledged in advance under the treaty of Medina. Even in the presence of Muhammad, the parties to a dispute could and did choose some other honourable man to be the arbiter (as in the case of the Banu Qurayza), and Muhammad was obliged to obey the adjudicator in the matter like everyone else. Moreover, Muhammad could decline to serve as arbiter when he was asked:

Either you judge between them or you turn away from them down, and if you turn away from them, they cannot harm you in any way. (5:45)

It appears in fact that Muhammad is counselled not to intervene in matters between the Jews in Medina, for God then asks: "Why do they come to you for judgement, when the Torah is among them, containing the judgement of God?" (5:46)

Another verse that appears to show that Muhammad had a judicial function, at least between the believers, is 4:65:

They will not believe until they turn to you for adjudication in whatever arises among them. Then they will not find any resistance within themselves to what you have done, and they will submit entirely.

The verse is from the early Medinan period, and refers to those who say that they believe, as the context shows:

Have you not seen those who pretend to believe ... they wish to go for judgement to at-Taghut, although they have been ordered to reject him, and the Satan wishes to lead them astray. (4:60)

Some have said that at-Taghut is a derogatory name for a particular arbiter, and that Satan has inspired the nominal believers to turn to this man for arbitration. But as Watt has said, the various stories about the supposed incident and arbiter differ and some are frankly fantastic. It appears to me rather that at-Taghut is used as the personal name of the devil (it can also mean 'evil', 'oppression' or an idol), and 'the Satan' is used as a characterisation of the same devil. That is, the nominal believers turn to the devil, not Muhammad, for judgment, and since the devil does not literally provide legal rulings or arbitration, the meaning must be that these nominal adherents still govern their own daily conduct according to precepts taught by the devil, while they should govern them according precepts taught by Muhammad, accepting his teachings wholeheartedly. In that case, the verse does not imply that Muhammad should literally adjudicate each case specifically, or that the believers were required to turn to him and no-one else when seeking arbitration. Muhammad provides the rules, the customs and methods for daily life that replace those of at-Taghut. He may also adjudicate particular cases, but is not required to do so. This should be borne in mind when reading the previous verse (4:59), which does direct the believers to refer disputes among themselves to Muhammad (but as a good deed rather than a command).

Another early Medinan verse refers to those who say they believe in God and the Messenger:

When they are summoned to God and the His messenger, that he may judge between them (li-yahkuma baynahum), one sect among them protests. But if the right was on their side they would come to him obediently (24:48-9)

Like 4:59, this points to a duty of the believers to refer matters for arbitration to Muhammad, but only "when summoned." This is a world removed from the judiciary as an arm of the state, ruling compulsorily over people of all religions. That verse leads on to a famous 'authority verse' (24:54):

Say: Obey God, and obey the messenger, but if they turn away, the only thing incumbent on him is the duty he has been charged with, and the duty you have been charged with is incumbent on you. If you obey him, you will be rightly guided. Nothing is incumbent on the messenger except clear preaching.

We can see that this duty is a moral obligation only, and that it applies to the believers in the time of Muhammad. It does indeed reveal an authority that Muhammad had in the religious community, and a duty of obedience, but it would be a considerable stretch to make this the foundation for a theory of the state.

Verses of worldly authority

Not only does the Quran say clearly that the prophets are only warners, and that Muhammad is not appointed as a ruler over men, it also speaks clearly if infrequently about temporal rulers, sometimes in the same breath as the prophets:

They [the chiefs of Israel] said to a Prophet among them, "Appoint for us a King ..." Their Prophet said to them, "God has appointed Talut (Taalut) as a king for you... God grants His authority to whomever he pleases." (2:246-247)

The reference here is to the story of the Prophet Samuel and the appointment of King Saul (Talut), which begins the institution of monarchy in Israel's history.

Joseph (who is a prophet according to Islamic criteria) is another example of a prophet and king who are mentioned together. He served the Pharaoh, and if he sought and held authority as a 'warder' (hafiizun, 12:55) over the grain stocks, it was by virtue of his ability and virtue, and royal appointment: not because of his station as a Prophet. Despite Joseph's religious status, his temporal authority is limited by the king's laws (12:76). Joseph and the Pharaoh, and Samuel and Saul, represent the ideal relationship between religion and power.

While Moses is said to have had clear authority (sultaanin mubiinin), this is at the same time as the Pharaoh had command (amr), and the people were ruled by Pharaoh (11:96-7). The use of two different terms here shows that the authority of the prophet is not the same as that of the king, and is an authority that does not compel. Sultaan is often translated as 'warrant,' for in the Quran it means an endorsement from God, not an actual authority over men (12:40; 7:71; 10:68).

The position of Moses as leader of the exile tribes is anomalous (and a magnified version of the position of Muhammad as leader of an exile group), because Moses like Adam functions as a leader in the absence of a state. The further history of Israel as presented in the Quran, including the verse just cited, tells us that God's plan was fulfilled by the establishment of a state and a king. The period of wandering in which the Prophet was also the temporal leader is a suspension of that plan, prolonged by the disobedience of the Israelites which rendered them unfit to do the work of developing a civilization. Although the Quran contains these instances in which the figure of religious authority is at the same time the temporal authority, this is the product of circumstances and not a picture of the ideal society that Islam intends. David is another example combining religious and temporal authority.

David is not directly called a messenger (rasul) in the Quran, but is called 'our servant' (38:17), and he is included in a list of those who are rightly guided (6:84), and who have been given the Book, authority (hukm) and prophethood (nubuwat) (6:89). His 'book,' the psalms, is part of the Hebrew and Christian canon. So there are good reasons why he is considered a prophet in the Islamic theological tradition. In the Quran, David is granted both 'divine gifts' (min afzulan, 34:10) and 'a station of successor on earth' (khaliifatan fii al-ard, 38:26). When he did not have the latter, because Saul was king, his relationship to power resembles the ideal relationship of Joseph and the Pharaoh.

Solomon, is among the rightly guided who are granted the station of prophethood (6:84-89), and he is also granted a kingdom (mulkan, 38:35). But he appears in the Quran primarily as a figure of fable, rather than as a prophet and king. He does not seem to have been called a prophet by Baha'u'llah.

There are at least twenty other prophets mentioned by name in the Quran, and others unnamed. Their common characteristic is that they were rejected and even killed by the people, and by the rulers of the people. David (and Moses as an example of exceptional circumstances) provide us with two possible objections to the thesis that the Quran recognises the differentiation of religious and temporal authority. But if we consider the many other prophets who never had any temporal authority, there are ten times as many objections to the thesis that the Quran presents the union of religious authority and temporal power as an ideal. Considered as a whole, it is clear that the Quranic norm is the separation of religious authority and temporal power, and that the Quranic ideal is harmony between them.

The Quran also shows less ideal examples of the relationship of religion to authority, most notably in the relationships between Muhammad and the rulers of Mecca, and Moses before Pharaoh (7:103- 137). In the latter story (revealed in the late Meccan period), Moses does not seek to displace the temporal power, yet the assumption that this must be his 'real' aim leads to distrust in the Egyptian court, and ultimately to conflict (7:110). Similarly, at the time of the incident that caused Moses to flee to Madyan, the accusation made against him was that he sought to become a man of power (jabbaaran) in the world (28:19). It can hardly be an accident that Muhammad tells the story of Moses and Pharaoh in these terms: despite Muhammad's own repeated statements that he is only a warner and seeks nothing from them, the leaders of Mecca treat him as a rival to power, and Muhammad suffered because of these suspicions. For Bahais, the story also reads as a type of the tragedy of the Bab and the exile and imprisonment of Baha'u'llah, and the imprisonment of Abdu'l-Baha for the same reason: those in power feared that they would use religious authority to claim worldly power. When Pharaoh decided to continue a policy of killing the male children of the Israelites, Moses said to his people, "Pray to God for help, and be patient. Truly, the earth is God's, that he may will it to whomever He wills among His servants" (7:128). The implication of telling this story, for the oppressed believers in Mecca, was that the powers that be in the city, however unjust they might be, were not to be opposed or deposed.

An even stronger expression of this is found in Surah 3:26, from the early Medinan period: "Say, O God, Lord of Power, you grant power to whomever you will, and you take power from whomever you will." This is traditionally said to have been revealed in reference to the pending fate of the Persian and Byzantine empires. This is not the same as the theory of the Divine right of kings. That theory gives an indefinite divine endorsement that promises the continuity of the throne: it has been applied to both the Persian throne and European royal houses (particularly the French). But in Islamic thinking the belief that God has appointed those who presently rule is coupled with an awareness that this appointment is for a time, and that God will depose one dynasty and appoint another, will remove one people from centre stage in history and raise another to succeed them. (16:133; 11:57.) As such, the concept is closer to the 'wheel of fortune' than 'the divine right of kings.'

The power that passes from one to another may be used by them for good or evil, but the Quran is distinctly pessimistic about the usual pattern of history:

Thus we have created great men in every town, the wicked men of the place, that they may connive there ... and when a sign comes to the them, they say, we shall not believe until we receive the like of what the messengers received ... (6:122-4)

Authorities verses

We have seen that the Quran says that God appoints prophets, and that they have a book and an authority (6:89), and in the case of Muhammad this includes the authority to call believers to submit to his arbitration of their disputes, and also that the Quran says that it is God who awards temporal power, but not (with a few exceptions) to the prophets, and not necessarily to the good. The inescapable conclusion is that the Quran contains the concept of at least two distinct sorts of authority.

Within this framework, we can turn to the verses that deal with authority per se, the various individuals to whom it is granted, and its corollary of obedience. The most famous of these is known simply as 'the authority verse,' Surah 4 verse 59:

God commands you [believers] to return your trusts to the people to whom they are due, and when you arbitrate (hakam) between people, do so with justice .... O you who believe, obey God, and obey the messenger, and those entrusted with command (amr) among you. If you differ in anything, refer it to God and to the messenger, ... (4:58-60)

We have not sent any messenger except to be obeyed, according to the will of God ... (4:64)

They will not believe until they turn to you for adjudication in whatever arises among them....(4.65).

We have sent you to the people as a messenger (rasulan) ... whoever obeys the messenger has obeyed God, and as for those who turn away, we have not sent you as a warder over them. (79-80)

When a matter of security or danger came to them, they concealed it. If only they had referred it to the messenger and those entrusted with command (amr) among them, so that the discerning among them might know it.

(In the last translation, 4:83; "concealed" is the opposite to the translations of Watt, Sale and Yusuf Ali, but see 84:23. )

Surah 4 is from Medina, about the years 625-7. As we have seen above in relation to 3:159, amr may relate specifically to the military command exercised by the leaders of the various elements of the Medinan federation, including Muhammad. This seems the most likely reading of 4:83 as well, but in 4:59 it might refer to the tribal leadership in general, bearing in mind that most of the Muslims in Medina and elsewhere who had not accompanied Muhammad from Mecca were living in their tribal structures which would impose certain obligations on them. In the authority verse itself (4:59), the dual structure of authority quite naturally creates dual duties of obedience for the believers, whereas in the specifically military situation envisioned in 4:83, no distinction need be made because Muhammad was the chief of security for the whole city, and the duty to pass on information to someone discerning applies to all the Medinans, not just to the believers. The commandment to refer differences to Muhammad in 4:59 cannot be a reference to his role as adjudicator in inter-tribal disputes under the Treaty of Medina, since the verse is addressed to believers. Thus it refers to Muhammad's other role, as the head of a religious community.

Baha'u'llah offers a Shiah interpretation of 4:59 in Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, 89-90:

"By 'those invested with authority' is meant primarily and more especially the Imams ... Secondarily these words refer to the kings and rulers -- those through the brightness of whose justice the horizons of the world are resplendent and luminous."

The two authorities cannot be conceived sequentially, since there were kings and rulers in the days of the Imams, and there is no indication that Baha'u'llah considered them to be illegitimate.

The corollary of rightful authority is the duty of obedience:

64:12 Obey God, and obey the messenger, and if you turn back, nothing is incumbent on our messenger except clear preaching.

Similar words are repeated in several places, in the sense of a moral duty of obedience, enforced by an awareness of God's ultimate judgement:

5:95 Obey God, and obey the messenger, and beware. If you turn back, know that what is incumbent on our messenger is clear preaching.

58.14 ... stand up in the obligatory prayer, give tithes, and obey God and His messenger. God knows what you do.

64:16 Fear God, as much as you are able, and hear and obey, and give in charity for the sake of your souls ...

Similar verses in relation to Muhammad are found at 3:32, 3:132, 4:64, 8:20, 8:46, 24:51, 25:56 and 27:33, and in relation to Aaron at 20:90.

The same duty of obedience is due to Jesus, who says: "... I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, so fear God and obey me" (3:50), (See also 43:63). Ibn Mascud's codex expanded on 3:50, reading: Obey God in what has come to you of it [the Law], through the verses, and obey me in what the sign calls you to."

There is a similar verse in relation to Noah (26:108, 110; 71:3), who adds, "I do not ask anything from you by way of recompense for this..." and "I am only one who warns clearly." (26:109, 115). The prophet Hud says, "Fear God and obey me" and adds "I do not ask anything from you by way of recompense for this..." (26:126-7, and 131). Thamud says, "Fear God and obey me" and adds "I do not ask anything from you by way of recompense for this..." (26:144-5, and 150). Lot says, "Fear God and obey me" and adds "I do not ask anything from you by way of recompense for this..." (26:163). None of these prophets exerted any worldly leadership over their people. One would have to singularly obtuse not to get the point here: Muhammad is saying over and over and over again, that his authority, and that of all the prophets, is a moral authority not a worldly one. However we should also consider one exception:

8:1 They ask you about the spoils of war. Say: the spoils belong to God and the messenger. ... Obey God and his messenger if you are believers.

The verse is from the early Medina period, following the battle of Badr and a battlefield dispute among the Muslims concerning the division of the spoils. Although the verse would seem to imply that all the spoils revert to the messenger, Muhammad actually ordered all those who had taken spoils away to return them to one pile, and then shared them out again. The authority of the prophet here is that already noted above (for instance in relation to 24:48): the authority to adjudicate between the believers in matters of dispute among them. It is not the judicial authority of a state.

Freedom verses

Finally, we should note that the authority in religion that is granted to the prophets is one that requires a voluntary submission:

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion: truth has been clearly distinguished from error ...

10:99 If you Lord had willed it, everyone on earth would believe. Would you then compel the people to believe despite themselves?

11:30 I have an explanation from my Lord ... do we compel you to it when you are averse to it?

Just as transcendent religion implies a project that is in this world but not of it, ethical religion is necessarily free, or it is not ethical. The state, in contrast, exists to provide society with the service of coercion, thus containing the free-loader problem and making extended societies possible. The project of the state, and the project of ethical religion, function according to fundamentally different logics, and complement each other:

He has set free the twin seas, that they meet one another. Between them is a barrier, and they pass it not. Which of the bounties of your Lord would you deny? Quran 55:19