Academic Suicide: Expression of the Wrong Viewpoints

 

Political pressure and intimidation wins victories, but history pronounces the final verdict. While history had smiled upon the West, history castes its frown on the failed states of Islam, Communism, Hinduism and Buddhism.

In How the West Won: The Neglected Story of the Triumph of Modernity, Rodney Stark summarizes history’s judgments:

• To the extent that other cultures have failed to adopt at least major aspects of Western ways, they remain backward and impoverished.

In light of what had been the very obvious success of the West, by virtue of various indicators – justice, social justice, medical care, and general well-being – it is amazing that so many Western intellectuals and their universities have turned virulently against the very principles that have made the West great. Stark notes this antagonism - this self-destructive, auto-immune response:

•  It is widely claimed that to offer a course in “Western Civilization” is to become an apologist “for Western hegemony and oppression” (as the classicist Bruce Thornton aptly put it).  Thus, Stanford dropped its widely admired “Western Civilization” course just months after the Reverend Jesse Jackson came on campus and led members of the Black Student Union in chants of “Hey-hey, ho-ho, Western Civ has got to go.”  More recently, faculty at the University of Texas condemned “Western Civilization” courses as inherently right wing, and Yale even returned a $20 million contribution rather than reinstate the course.

In the West, antagonism against Western principles is “in,” and almost all of our Western elites have embraced this “politically correct” stance. Oddly, it’s now the non-Westerners who demonstrate a greater freedom to write about Western contributions. Former editor of the Sunday Telegraph, Dominic Lawson, in a review in the Sunday Times of Niall Ferguson's new book, Civilization: The West and the Rest, carries a quote from a member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in which he tries to account for the indisputable success of the West, to date:

• “One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world.

•   “We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had.

• “Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system.

• “But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West is so powerful.”

However, for a Western academician to utter these words is to commit academic suicide.

Missions Maligned

Western culture often associates missionaries with the imperialists who wanted to stamp out native cultures and the colonialists who economically exploited them. However, new research has exposed the fallacies of these stereotypes. 

Robert Woodberry, professor of sociology, University of Texas, has devoted the last 14 years to investigate why certain countries develop thriving democracies, while neighboring countries are failed states. Andrea Palpant Dilley writes that:

• Woodberry already had historical proof that missionaries had educated women and the poor, promoted widespread printing, let nationalistic movements that empowered ordinary citizens, and fueled other key elements of democracy. Now the statistics were backing it up: Missionaries weren’t just part of the picture. They were central to it. (Christianity Today, Jan/Feb 2014, 38)

To his amazement, Woodberry was discovering that a long denigrated ingredient was actually central to the creation of successful states – the missionary. He writes:

• “Areas where Protestant missionaries had a significant presence in the past are on average more economically developed today, with comparatively better health, lower infant mortality, lower corruption, greater literacy, higher educational attainment (especially for women), and more robust membership in non-governmental associations.” (39)

• Pull out a map, says Woodberry, point to any lace where “conversionary Protestants” were active in the past, and you’ll typically find more printed books and more schools per capita. You’ll find too, that in Africa, the Middle East, and in parts of Asia, most of the early nationalists who led their countries to independence graduated from Protestant mission schools. (41)

Woodberry’s thesis has been gaining support. Philip Jenkins, professor of history, Baylor University, claims

• “Try as I might to pick holes in it, the theory holds up.”

Daniel Philpot, professor of political science and peace studies, Notre Dame, goes further:

• “Why did some countries go democratic, while others went the route of theocracy or dictatorship… Conversionary Protestants are crucial to what makes the country democratic today… Not only is it another factor – it turns out to be the most important factor. It can’t be anything but startling for scholars of democracy.” (40)

Robin Grier, professor of economics, University of Oklahoma, confesses that although he is “not religious,” “Bob’s work…changed my views and caused me to rethink”:

• “I think it’s the best work out there on religion and economic development… It’s incredibly sophisticated and well-grounded. I haven’t seen anything quite like it.” (40)

Well, how about those missionaries that had collaborated with the imperialists? Woodberry claims that these were the exceptions:

• “We don’t have to deny that there were and are racist missionaries… But if that were the average effect, we would expect the places where missionaries had influence to be worse than places where missionaries weren’t allowed or were restricted in action. We find exactly the opposite on all kinds of outcomes. Even in places where few people converted, [missionaries] had a profound economic and political impact… One of the main stereotypes about missions is that they were closely connected to colonialism, but Protestant missionaries not funded by the state were regularly very critical of colonialism.” (40) 

It is noteworthy that it was only the Protestant missionaries who sought conversions that are associated with the growth of thriving democracies. Dilley writes: 

• The positive effect of missionaries on democracy applies only to “conversionary Protestants.” Protestant clergy financed by the state, as well as Catholic missionaries prior to the 1960s, had no comparable effect in the areas where they worked. (40)

Woodberry’s conclusions have received support from other studies. Dilley writes:

• Over a dozen studies have confirmed Woodberry’s findings. The growing body of research is beginning to change the way scholars, aid works, and economists think about democracy and development. (41)

In view of the above, the long disparaged missionary deserves the recognition due him, even within the church.