What do you think?
Rate this book
The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics, and the Modern West
Religious passions are again driving world politics. The quest to bring political life under God’s authority has been revived, confounding expectations of a secular future. In this major book, Mark Lilla reveals the sources of this age-old quest—and its surprising role in shaping Western thought.
The story could not be more timely. Most civilizations in history have been organized on the basis of a political theology – a myth or revelation about the correct ordering of society. Yet due to a crisis in Western Christendom nearly five hundred years ago, a novel intellectual challenge to political theology arose in Europe. By portraying religion as an expression of human nature, not a divine gift, modern Western thinkers found a way to free politics from God’s authority and build barriers against destructive religious passions.
But the temptations of political theology are always present, even in the West. As Lilla vividly shows, the urge to reconnect politics to religion remained strong and took novel forms in modern European thought. By the Second World War a forceful political messianism had arisen, justifying the most deadly ideologies of the age.
Making us question what we thought we knew about religion, politics, and the fate of civilizations, Lilla reminds us of the modern West’s unique trajectory and what is required to remain on it.
The story could not be more timely. Most civilizations in history have been organized on the basis of a political theology – a myth or revelation about the correct ordering of society. Yet due to a crisis in Western Christendom nearly five hundred years ago, a novel intellectual challenge to political theology arose in Europe. By portraying religion as an expression of human nature, not a divine gift, modern Western thinkers found a way to free politics from God’s authority and build barriers against destructive religious passions.
But the temptations of political theology are always present, even in the West. As Lilla vividly shows, the urge to reconnect politics to religion remained strong and took novel forms in modern European thought. By the Second World War a forceful political messianism had arisen, justifying the most deadly ideologies of the age.
Making us question what we thought we knew about religion, politics, and the fate of civilizations, Lilla reminds us of the modern West’s unique trajectory and what is required to remain on it.
352 pages, Hardcover
First published September 11, 2007
58 people are currently reading
766 people want to read
About the author
Mark Lilla
23 books176 followersMark Lilla is an American political scientist, historian of ideas, journalist, and professor of humanities at Columbia University in New York City. A self-described liberal, he typically, though not always, presents views from that perspective.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews
January 18, 2021
The Kingdom of Darkness Revived
Lilla’s thesis in this well-conceived and well-written book is that the separation of theology and politics which took place in the 17th century has left enormously important issues unaddressed and therefore unresolved. These issues have subsequently grown in theoretical significance and practical impact. Without intellectual effort to resolve them, he believes, they will continue to undermine the most important institutions of modern liberal, democratic government. I think he's got the wrong end of the stick. The solution isn't better thinking, it's more inclusive politics.
The turning point for European political thought occurs, according to Lilla, with the publication of Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan in 1651. Leviathan destroyed utterly the theological theory of the state based on divine will and replaced it with an anthropological theory rooted in human fear and the need for security. One might argue with the specific facts of history or human character contained in the book, but not with the magnitude of its impact on the world of political thought.
The fact that Hobbes as well as so many other political theorists left more than a few loose ends is obvious. If realisation of the divine will is not the ultimate point of politics then what is? The will of some equally vague concept called The People? The, one hopes benign, will of an absolute dictator? Or is such authoritative will some implicit, hidden, even racial desire of a populace which only becomes articulate through the political process? Two thirds of the book traces the responses of political philosophers, mostly German, to these questions into the 20th century.
Lilla perceptively points out that Hobbes does not rubbish religion in his argument. In fact Hobbes takes as read a certain religious impulse in human beings which is universal. This impulse, Hobbes points out, is a natural and even rational response to the extreme vulnerability which all people experience to the obvious perils of a cosmos which is at best indifferent to their well-being. Religion, Hobbes knows, brings comfort and a feeling of security to many. As such it is neither irrational nor detrimental to human life.
However I don’t think Lilla fully grasps Hobbes’s point about the specific religion he is talking about, namely Christianity. An obvious central part of Hobbes’s argument is that the doctrinal conflicts within Christianity have been the principle cause of political violence in recent European history. The Christian religion, in other words, has failed in its basic human function by increasing the levels of danger people must endure. This is the most potent point he could make, and it rings true even today as a really good reason for the separation of church and state among other principles of government.
But Hobbes of course was a political theorist writing about an alternative source to the divine will with which to justify political activity. He was not a theologian, much less a scholar of comparative religion, nor was he writing a sociological critique of Christianity. He did not, therefore, probe the source of the Christian religion, only its political effects. His primary concern was European political life, its recent history, and a way to avoid the obvious traps laid by the ecclesiastical establishment that could undermine effective, that is to say, secure, reliable, peaceful government.
Until recently there was general optimism that the political issues of anthropologically-based politics could be incrementally addressed as we muddled through the not very attractive activities of politics without divine authority. This was the principal legacy of Enlightenment. What the world has experienced, however, throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, is that the political demand for a return to theologically grounded politics is growing steadily - in America, in India, in Europe, in Africa, and even in China - as a component of the new politics of culture. Christianity and its political theology have become a new political force. And not only among Christians: the more general impact of the Christian religion is to encourage other religions to see themselves in Christian terms, as religions of faith.
Such a claim, I know, needs an explanation in far greater detail than can be provided here. Nevertheless Lilla hints at it constantly even though he doesn’t seem willing or able to articulate it clearly. He knows there occurred a political change in the world with the advent of the Christian religion. In simple terms: “Christianity was not law-based,... it preserved the Decalogue but abolished the highly developed system of Jewish law in favor of a law of the heart.” Christians have always claimed that something fundamental happened, something ontological, with the arrival of Jesus in the world. And they are right; but not quite in the way they mean. [See for further discussion: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...].
Christianity is a religion of belief, of faith, of commitment to specific ideas as true and necessary and worth more than life itself. The ‘law’, that is divine commands about how to act, is dumped from Christianity at its inception as a distraction to the authentic life of the spirit (with the unaccountable exception of the Ten Commandments). Christianity, devoted as it is to ideas, consequently invented the distinction between true and false religion. Law needs to be merely obeyed; ideas must be believed. Law is socially visible in its adherence or transgression; belief is utterly private. Prior to Christianity, religion could be more or less socially dictated, spiritually effective, tribal or imperial, primitive or elegantly ceremonial. But it was never true or false. The fact that we take for granted that religion in general is constituted by beliefs about what is the case about the world is probably the greatest triumph of Christianity. It could even plausibly constitute an ontological change.
Christianity has a self-image as an ethical religion. It is not. It is a doctrinal religion which considers ethics, that is appropriate behaviour, to be derived from such doctrine. Faith is not an ethical principle, it is a theological doctrine. In Christianity the divine will is not expressed in terms of correct actions but in terms of true ideas which are formulated as dogmas and which the ‘faithful’ are required to formally endorse - even if they have no understanding of the idea itself. From time to time this central doctrine of faith might be down-played for political reasons. It nevertheless remains the radically distinguishing and fundamental proposition of the Christian religion and is logically prior to any particular doctrines like the Incarnation, Resurrection, and the Parousia or Second Coming..
It is the resurgence of this radical (more traditional, dare one say) Christianity of faith that is the nub of the problem, not some intellectual disconnect between theology and political theory. Modern political theologians do not want, as Lilla suggests, to merely “revive the messianic impulse in Western life;” (although even that seems sufficient cause for concern) They want political power, very specifically the power necessary to restrict the political power of others who do not share their faith, thus reversing the political trajectory of the last four centuries. And they will use Hobbes's anthropological desire for security as a vehicle to garner that power through fear and division. This problem is intellectual only in the sense that political theologians will formulate the most absurd arguments for the re-Christianisation of government. [See for one such argument: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...].
Lilla knows that Christianity is a peculiar kind of religion, that its “inner ambiguities produced endless doctrinal differences over spiritual and political matters that rendered medieval European life increasingly intolerant, dogmatic, fearful, and violent.”* But what he doesn’t understand (and I can arrogantly say neither did Kant and Hegel) is that this is the essential nature of faith-based religion, which hasn't changed since the 16th century, or for that matter since the 1st (see: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). Religion is not an equivalent word for faith, despite the fact that Christians have attempted to make it so for 2000 years. And faith-based religion does not tolerate politics, regardless of the fact that dictatorial politics are an essential component of how it decides what constitutes faith. [See for example: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...].
Faith has a peculiar fate when it escapes from the power of a central authority and runs loose in modern, liberal political systems. People believe different things, often ideas which are incomprehensible to them, and often different from what they profess to believe because of membership in religious groups. When life is constructed around such beliefs rather than customs, and rituals, and norms of behaviour, it is very fragile indeed. One can never presume on another man’s faith; one does not know the hidden status of another’s heart; the credal assertions of belief can’t be counted on as more than formulaic attestation of tribal membership. In other words, in a world dominated by faith no one can be trusted. Nor is negotiation possible. Customs might be altered but never doctrines. This is Hobbes’s enduring point.
Lilla also recognises that “Christian fanaticism and intolerance incited violence; violence set secular and religious leaders against one another; and the more violent and fearful political life became, the more fanatical and intolerant Christians became. Christendom had found itself in a vicious theological-political cycle unknown to any previous civilization.” He therefore correctly concludes that “the political and the religious problem are the same.” But what Lilla unaccountably seems reluctant to acknowledge is that these conditions are not incidental to Christianity; they are its inevitable consequences as soon as it touches politics. He frequently refers to Christianity as one among ‘other faiths’. Christianity is no such thing. It is THE religion which makes faith its central mark. Faith is indeed a matter of the hidden heart and not the expressive head, nor even of the behaviour of the rest of the body connected with either of these organs. No other religion works this way.
What Lilla misses, therefore, is that Hobbes’s observations are about the anthropological nature of faith not the theological doctrine of God, Christian or otherwise. What was left as an unconsidered residue from Hobbes’s sweeping analysis was the politically debilitating concept of faith itself, which remained, festered, and has re-surfaced in 21st century life with the same divisive, irrational and often violent force that it did in the 16th century. Lilla considers the Great Separation between politics and theology to be a consequence of conflicting doctrines. Of course he is right in a sense. But conflict of beliefs can only arise when beliefs rather than norms of behaviour are the issue, that is when faith is counted as something of ultimate importance. Hobbes’s ‘Kingdom of Darkness’ is not the Christian religion per se but any religion of faith, that is any religion which promotes itself as superior to politics.
Lilla further knows that “although Christianity is inescapably political, it proved incapable of integrating this fact into Christian theology.” But what he can’t get himself to say is that this is because Christianity cannot do this and remain Christianity as a religion of faith. To the degree it takes itself seriously as a religion of faith, it will find any form of government other than its own absolute dictatorship inimical. It must do so in order to protect its prerogative for defining faith in doctrinal terms. Christianity as a religion of faith rather than of behaviour, in other words, is indeed a very definite political form, one which is incompatible in its roots to modern, constitutional, politics.
The proof of this incompatibility is historically evident. The Catholic Church ran an open political war against democracy on just this basis throughout the 19th century, rejecting the Enlightenment view of politics as a heresy. Protestants in America had a go in the early 20th century under the banner of The Fundamentals, reaching their triumphal apogee with the insertion of the term ‘one nation under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance. Today, Evangelicals of various doctrinal stripes are conducting guerilla actions toward the same end: the inhibition of inclusive politics through the capture of key political institutions. They distort the political process without shame through racist voter restrictions, gerrymandering, and single-issue campaigns that destroy civilised debate. Lilla believes we can benefit by thinking harder about the situation. I don’t. I think it was the evangelical theologian, Mark Noll, who suggested that “The problem with the Evangelical mind is that there isn’t one.” The horse’s mouth is good enough for me.
* I can’t resist one of Lilla’s chapter epigraphs in this regard:
“The kingdom of God is among you.
LUKE 17:21
My kingdom is not of this world.
JOHN 18:36”
Lilla’s thesis in this well-conceived and well-written book is that the separation of theology and politics which took place in the 17th century has left enormously important issues unaddressed and therefore unresolved. These issues have subsequently grown in theoretical significance and practical impact. Without intellectual effort to resolve them, he believes, they will continue to undermine the most important institutions of modern liberal, democratic government. I think he's got the wrong end of the stick. The solution isn't better thinking, it's more inclusive politics.
The turning point for European political thought occurs, according to Lilla, with the publication of Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan in 1651. Leviathan destroyed utterly the theological theory of the state based on divine will and replaced it with an anthropological theory rooted in human fear and the need for security. One might argue with the specific facts of history or human character contained in the book, but not with the magnitude of its impact on the world of political thought.
The fact that Hobbes as well as so many other political theorists left more than a few loose ends is obvious. If realisation of the divine will is not the ultimate point of politics then what is? The will of some equally vague concept called The People? The, one hopes benign, will of an absolute dictator? Or is such authoritative will some implicit, hidden, even racial desire of a populace which only becomes articulate through the political process? Two thirds of the book traces the responses of political philosophers, mostly German, to these questions into the 20th century.
Lilla perceptively points out that Hobbes does not rubbish religion in his argument. In fact Hobbes takes as read a certain religious impulse in human beings which is universal. This impulse, Hobbes points out, is a natural and even rational response to the extreme vulnerability which all people experience to the obvious perils of a cosmos which is at best indifferent to their well-being. Religion, Hobbes knows, brings comfort and a feeling of security to many. As such it is neither irrational nor detrimental to human life.
However I don’t think Lilla fully grasps Hobbes’s point about the specific religion he is talking about, namely Christianity. An obvious central part of Hobbes’s argument is that the doctrinal conflicts within Christianity have been the principle cause of political violence in recent European history. The Christian religion, in other words, has failed in its basic human function by increasing the levels of danger people must endure. This is the most potent point he could make, and it rings true even today as a really good reason for the separation of church and state among other principles of government.
But Hobbes of course was a political theorist writing about an alternative source to the divine will with which to justify political activity. He was not a theologian, much less a scholar of comparative religion, nor was he writing a sociological critique of Christianity. He did not, therefore, probe the source of the Christian religion, only its political effects. His primary concern was European political life, its recent history, and a way to avoid the obvious traps laid by the ecclesiastical establishment that could undermine effective, that is to say, secure, reliable, peaceful government.
Until recently there was general optimism that the political issues of anthropologically-based politics could be incrementally addressed as we muddled through the not very attractive activities of politics without divine authority. This was the principal legacy of Enlightenment. What the world has experienced, however, throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, is that the political demand for a return to theologically grounded politics is growing steadily - in America, in India, in Europe, in Africa, and even in China - as a component of the new politics of culture. Christianity and its political theology have become a new political force. And not only among Christians: the more general impact of the Christian religion is to encourage other religions to see themselves in Christian terms, as religions of faith.
Such a claim, I know, needs an explanation in far greater detail than can be provided here. Nevertheless Lilla hints at it constantly even though he doesn’t seem willing or able to articulate it clearly. He knows there occurred a political change in the world with the advent of the Christian religion. In simple terms: “Christianity was not law-based,... it preserved the Decalogue but abolished the highly developed system of Jewish law in favor of a law of the heart.” Christians have always claimed that something fundamental happened, something ontological, with the arrival of Jesus in the world. And they are right; but not quite in the way they mean. [See for further discussion: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...].
Christianity is a religion of belief, of faith, of commitment to specific ideas as true and necessary and worth more than life itself. The ‘law’, that is divine commands about how to act, is dumped from Christianity at its inception as a distraction to the authentic life of the spirit (with the unaccountable exception of the Ten Commandments). Christianity, devoted as it is to ideas, consequently invented the distinction between true and false religion. Law needs to be merely obeyed; ideas must be believed. Law is socially visible in its adherence or transgression; belief is utterly private. Prior to Christianity, religion could be more or less socially dictated, spiritually effective, tribal or imperial, primitive or elegantly ceremonial. But it was never true or false. The fact that we take for granted that religion in general is constituted by beliefs about what is the case about the world is probably the greatest triumph of Christianity. It could even plausibly constitute an ontological change.
Christianity has a self-image as an ethical religion. It is not. It is a doctrinal religion which considers ethics, that is appropriate behaviour, to be derived from such doctrine. Faith is not an ethical principle, it is a theological doctrine. In Christianity the divine will is not expressed in terms of correct actions but in terms of true ideas which are formulated as dogmas and which the ‘faithful’ are required to formally endorse - even if they have no understanding of the idea itself. From time to time this central doctrine of faith might be down-played for political reasons. It nevertheless remains the radically distinguishing and fundamental proposition of the Christian religion and is logically prior to any particular doctrines like the Incarnation, Resurrection, and the Parousia or Second Coming..
It is the resurgence of this radical (more traditional, dare one say) Christianity of faith that is the nub of the problem, not some intellectual disconnect between theology and political theory. Modern political theologians do not want, as Lilla suggests, to merely “revive the messianic impulse in Western life;” (although even that seems sufficient cause for concern) They want political power, very specifically the power necessary to restrict the political power of others who do not share their faith, thus reversing the political trajectory of the last four centuries. And they will use Hobbes's anthropological desire for security as a vehicle to garner that power through fear and division. This problem is intellectual only in the sense that political theologians will formulate the most absurd arguments for the re-Christianisation of government. [See for one such argument: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...].
Lilla knows that Christianity is a peculiar kind of religion, that its “inner ambiguities produced endless doctrinal differences over spiritual and political matters that rendered medieval European life increasingly intolerant, dogmatic, fearful, and violent.”* But what he doesn’t understand (and I can arrogantly say neither did Kant and Hegel) is that this is the essential nature of faith-based religion, which hasn't changed since the 16th century, or for that matter since the 1st (see: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). Religion is not an equivalent word for faith, despite the fact that Christians have attempted to make it so for 2000 years. And faith-based religion does not tolerate politics, regardless of the fact that dictatorial politics are an essential component of how it decides what constitutes faith. [See for example: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...].
Faith has a peculiar fate when it escapes from the power of a central authority and runs loose in modern, liberal political systems. People believe different things, often ideas which are incomprehensible to them, and often different from what they profess to believe because of membership in religious groups. When life is constructed around such beliefs rather than customs, and rituals, and norms of behaviour, it is very fragile indeed. One can never presume on another man’s faith; one does not know the hidden status of another’s heart; the credal assertions of belief can’t be counted on as more than formulaic attestation of tribal membership. In other words, in a world dominated by faith no one can be trusted. Nor is negotiation possible. Customs might be altered but never doctrines. This is Hobbes’s enduring point.
Lilla also recognises that “Christian fanaticism and intolerance incited violence; violence set secular and religious leaders against one another; and the more violent and fearful political life became, the more fanatical and intolerant Christians became. Christendom had found itself in a vicious theological-political cycle unknown to any previous civilization.” He therefore correctly concludes that “the political and the religious problem are the same.” But what Lilla unaccountably seems reluctant to acknowledge is that these conditions are not incidental to Christianity; they are its inevitable consequences as soon as it touches politics. He frequently refers to Christianity as one among ‘other faiths’. Christianity is no such thing. It is THE religion which makes faith its central mark. Faith is indeed a matter of the hidden heart and not the expressive head, nor even of the behaviour of the rest of the body connected with either of these organs. No other religion works this way.
What Lilla misses, therefore, is that Hobbes’s observations are about the anthropological nature of faith not the theological doctrine of God, Christian or otherwise. What was left as an unconsidered residue from Hobbes’s sweeping analysis was the politically debilitating concept of faith itself, which remained, festered, and has re-surfaced in 21st century life with the same divisive, irrational and often violent force that it did in the 16th century. Lilla considers the Great Separation between politics and theology to be a consequence of conflicting doctrines. Of course he is right in a sense. But conflict of beliefs can only arise when beliefs rather than norms of behaviour are the issue, that is when faith is counted as something of ultimate importance. Hobbes’s ‘Kingdom of Darkness’ is not the Christian religion per se but any religion of faith, that is any religion which promotes itself as superior to politics.
Lilla further knows that “although Christianity is inescapably political, it proved incapable of integrating this fact into Christian theology.” But what he can’t get himself to say is that this is because Christianity cannot do this and remain Christianity as a religion of faith. To the degree it takes itself seriously as a religion of faith, it will find any form of government other than its own absolute dictatorship inimical. It must do so in order to protect its prerogative for defining faith in doctrinal terms. Christianity as a religion of faith rather than of behaviour, in other words, is indeed a very definite political form, one which is incompatible in its roots to modern, constitutional, politics.
The proof of this incompatibility is historically evident. The Catholic Church ran an open political war against democracy on just this basis throughout the 19th century, rejecting the Enlightenment view of politics as a heresy. Protestants in America had a go in the early 20th century under the banner of The Fundamentals, reaching their triumphal apogee with the insertion of the term ‘one nation under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance. Today, Evangelicals of various doctrinal stripes are conducting guerilla actions toward the same end: the inhibition of inclusive politics through the capture of key political institutions. They distort the political process without shame through racist voter restrictions, gerrymandering, and single-issue campaigns that destroy civilised debate. Lilla believes we can benefit by thinking harder about the situation. I don’t. I think it was the evangelical theologian, Mark Noll, who suggested that “The problem with the Evangelical mind is that there isn’t one.” The horse’s mouth is good enough for me.
* I can’t resist one of Lilla’s chapter epigraphs in this regard:
“The kingdom of God is among you.
LUKE 17:21
My kingdom is not of this world.
JOHN 18:36”
August 25, 2025
For much of our history, humankind has pursued good government through religion. Government was thought to be good when it was in harmony with the religious teachings of the community. Lilla believes that this began to change after the arrival of the early modern English and French philosophers. He emphasizes Thomas Hobbes, in particular. Led by them, there arose acceptance of the idea that religious belief is a private matter and that public life should be conducted without resort to religion or the transcendent. Lilla calls this "The Great Separation" and it enabled a new toleration of religious diversity ending more than a hundred years of warfare between Catholic and Protestant fanatics in western Europe.
The principles of the Great Separation have been institutionalized in the United States, France and adopted piecemeal and incompletely in the UK. But philosophers on the continent of Europe (and the governments they influenced, particularly in Germany) were not persuaded by the Great Separation. That is the subject of this very fine book, which is based on the Carlyle Lectures that Lilla delivered at Oxford University early in the 2000s.
In the first part of THE STILLBORN GOD, Lilla offers an explanation for the emergence of the Great Separation. He ties the Great Separation to Protestantism and the failure of Christianity, in contrast to Judaism and Islam, to develop a stable political theology. This failure he attributes to the instability inherent in the Christian notion of the Trinity. Lilla has to carve out Roman Catholicism, which after Aquinas had a very robust political theology, in order to make the argument work. Lilla states, in a footnote without elaboration, that it would require a second book to tell the Roman Catholic story.
In the second part of THE STILLBORN GOD, Lilla describes Rousseau, Kant and Hegel's response to the early moderns. Doubting that humans can keep religion out of political thinking, Rousseau argued for a natural religion, that required no God, based on the "inner light" of our moral conscience. Lilla describes it thus: "[the empiricists] taught a new art of thinking about politics without reference to [divine matters] so that we could conceive, discuss and then build a political order free from religious violence. But if Rousseau is right, that kind of mental separation may not be sustainable . . . . [Rousseau] had grave doubts about the possibility of suppressing religion or even banishing it to a compartment of one's inner life. Religion is simply too entwined with our moral experience ever to be disentangled from the things touching on morality".
Kant took Rousseau a step further. For Kant, we need the notion of God for our psychological and moral health. For Kant, humans despair that goodness and happiness are in conflict. To resolve that conflict, we must posit a God who dispenses happiness in accordance with virtue. Though Kant agrees with the empiricists that we can never know whether such a God exists, he concludes that we must choose Christianity as the most rational choice for coping with our inner turmoil.
Hegel rejects Kant's view that religion is merely a way of coping. For Hegel the historical development of the consciousness of society mirrors the development of higher consciousness in an individual. This shift links the reconciling power of philosophy in the individual to the reconciling power of religion in society. Thus, no ethics or political life is possible without religion. Religion is not an expedient for Hegel. It carries a deep truth about man and society. Hegel works a complete reversal of the Great Separation. He does not envision a pluralistic society of many religions co-existing peacefully. His vision is of a society where everyone is a Protestant Christian, which for him is the ultimate religion. For Hegel, Protestantism is as far as religion can reach in reconciling the contradictions of the human mind. Of course, he does not believe that Protestantism is the terminus of our development. But for his time, practicing government without referencing Protestant Christian values is unimaginable.
In the final sections of THE STILLBORN GOD, Lilla describes the writings of the 19th century liberal theologians in Germany and the reaction to those writings in Germany after the Great War. Lilla argues that because Germany did not embrace and institutionalize The Great Separation, there was no check built into its political institutions against the "messianic impulse" that can lead to the sort of political fanaticism that so worried the early moderns. Lilla seems to believe that the failure to adhere to the principles of the Great Separation contributed to the rise of National Socialism in 1930s Germany. He does not contend that the separation of church and state is a guarantee against fanaticism in politics. But he does remind us that the Great Separation is an important experiment in conducting government that has served us well and deserves our renewed commitment.
The principles of the Great Separation have been institutionalized in the United States, France and adopted piecemeal and incompletely in the UK. But philosophers on the continent of Europe (and the governments they influenced, particularly in Germany) were not persuaded by the Great Separation. That is the subject of this very fine book, which is based on the Carlyle Lectures that Lilla delivered at Oxford University early in the 2000s.
In the first part of THE STILLBORN GOD, Lilla offers an explanation for the emergence of the Great Separation. He ties the Great Separation to Protestantism and the failure of Christianity, in contrast to Judaism and Islam, to develop a stable political theology. This failure he attributes to the instability inherent in the Christian notion of the Trinity. Lilla has to carve out Roman Catholicism, which after Aquinas had a very robust political theology, in order to make the argument work. Lilla states, in a footnote without elaboration, that it would require a second book to tell the Roman Catholic story.
In the second part of THE STILLBORN GOD, Lilla describes Rousseau, Kant and Hegel's response to the early moderns. Doubting that humans can keep religion out of political thinking, Rousseau argued for a natural religion, that required no God, based on the "inner light" of our moral conscience. Lilla describes it thus: "[the empiricists] taught a new art of thinking about politics without reference to [divine matters] so that we could conceive, discuss and then build a political order free from religious violence. But if Rousseau is right, that kind of mental separation may not be sustainable . . . . [Rousseau] had grave doubts about the possibility of suppressing religion or even banishing it to a compartment of one's inner life. Religion is simply too entwined with our moral experience ever to be disentangled from the things touching on morality".
Kant took Rousseau a step further. For Kant, we need the notion of God for our psychological and moral health. For Kant, humans despair that goodness and happiness are in conflict. To resolve that conflict, we must posit a God who dispenses happiness in accordance with virtue. Though Kant agrees with the empiricists that we can never know whether such a God exists, he concludes that we must choose Christianity as the most rational choice for coping with our inner turmoil.
Hegel rejects Kant's view that religion is merely a way of coping. For Hegel the historical development of the consciousness of society mirrors the development of higher consciousness in an individual. This shift links the reconciling power of philosophy in the individual to the reconciling power of religion in society. Thus, no ethics or political life is possible without religion. Religion is not an expedient for Hegel. It carries a deep truth about man and society. Hegel works a complete reversal of the Great Separation. He does not envision a pluralistic society of many religions co-existing peacefully. His vision is of a society where everyone is a Protestant Christian, which for him is the ultimate religion. For Hegel, Protestantism is as far as religion can reach in reconciling the contradictions of the human mind. Of course, he does not believe that Protestantism is the terminus of our development. But for his time, practicing government without referencing Protestant Christian values is unimaginable.
In the final sections of THE STILLBORN GOD, Lilla describes the writings of the 19th century liberal theologians in Germany and the reaction to those writings in Germany after the Great War. Lilla argues that because Germany did not embrace and institutionalize The Great Separation, there was no check built into its political institutions against the "messianic impulse" that can lead to the sort of political fanaticism that so worried the early moderns. Lilla seems to believe that the failure to adhere to the principles of the Great Separation contributed to the rise of National Socialism in 1930s Germany. He does not contend that the separation of church and state is a guarantee against fanaticism in politics. But he does remind us that the Great Separation is an important experiment in conducting government that has served us well and deserves our renewed commitment.
February 25, 2012
God springs ever forth from Humanity in throng,
The Jews made Lord JHVH so scarily strong.
Then Jesus proclaimed God his very own Daddy,
And hired Holy Spirit as Number One Caddy.
Out from this Divine Nexus of God, Man, and World,
Strife, chaos and misery was daily unfurled,
Messiah, Revelation, did bound Man fair tight,
Of and not of this world, half-forms spurred Men to fight.
But Hobbes raised his hand high and cried out loudly, No!
God makes Man too crazy and so now he must go!
Make Man about Man in the strong arms of the State,
In Reason, not Religion, I deem all would be great!
Jean Jacques sighed, shook his head, and then uttered Mon Dieu,
Your Reason is strong but your Morals are askew!
But spirit, one with God, will be morally sure,
We must have religion if our soul be kept pure.
What is good in ourselves, our noble seeking ways,
Was first ensouled within at the dawn of our days.
Kant did agree, binding all reason with spirit,
God keeps us moral, without him I should fear it!
Hegel frowned deeply and dreamed a system so bold,
Christianity within would help history unfold.
These Krauts soared in genius but, alas, could not see,
Their deep structured systems hid eschatology,
The millennial burn that just won't fade away,
And dreams of cleansing the world to start a new day.
This all blazed refulgent from the embers of war,
As spiritual scholars sought to even the score,
Blasting bourgeois pulpits and scouring godly phlegm,
Which seized Liberal values and brutally rent them,
In twain, firing apocalyptic furor and glee,
Driving faith in crisis to prop-up the Nazi,
Or with the masses in lockstep take up the red flag,
Horizons were fused and demons sprung from the bag.
So sad, so regretful, so much death and despair,
Hot Faith wed to politics never leads anywhere,
But astray, in thrall to darts of mad divine will,
Lest it in reason be bound, a thing pallid and ill.
Lilla penned a deep book, with much to contemplate,
Of the Great Separation tween Faith and the State.
Of Modernity's drive to keep the Godhead at bay,
The super from natural if we will void the way,
To a darkling future of fanatics and fall,
Hmmm, perhaps, in the end, Hobbes was right after all.
The Jews made Lord JHVH so scarily strong.
Then Jesus proclaimed God his very own Daddy,
And hired Holy Spirit as Number One Caddy.
Out from this Divine Nexus of God, Man, and World,
Strife, chaos and misery was daily unfurled,
Messiah, Revelation, did bound Man fair tight,
Of and not of this world, half-forms spurred Men to fight.
But Hobbes raised his hand high and cried out loudly, No!
God makes Man too crazy and so now he must go!
Make Man about Man in the strong arms of the State,
In Reason, not Religion, I deem all would be great!
Jean Jacques sighed, shook his head, and then uttered Mon Dieu,
Your Reason is strong but your Morals are askew!
But spirit, one with God, will be morally sure,
We must have religion if our soul be kept pure.
What is good in ourselves, our noble seeking ways,
Was first ensouled within at the dawn of our days.
Kant did agree, binding all reason with spirit,
God keeps us moral, without him I should fear it!
Hegel frowned deeply and dreamed a system so bold,
Christianity within would help history unfold.
These Krauts soared in genius but, alas, could not see,
Their deep structured systems hid eschatology,
The millennial burn that just won't fade away,
And dreams of cleansing the world to start a new day.
This all blazed refulgent from the embers of war,
As spiritual scholars sought to even the score,
Blasting bourgeois pulpits and scouring godly phlegm,
Which seized Liberal values and brutally rent them,
In twain, firing apocalyptic furor and glee,
Driving faith in crisis to prop-up the Nazi,
Or with the masses in lockstep take up the red flag,
Horizons were fused and demons sprung from the bag.
So sad, so regretful, so much death and despair,
Hot Faith wed to politics never leads anywhere,
But astray, in thrall to darts of mad divine will,
Lest it in reason be bound, a thing pallid and ill.
Lilla penned a deep book, with much to contemplate,
Of the Great Separation tween Faith and the State.
Of Modernity's drive to keep the Godhead at bay,
The super from natural if we will void the way,
To a darkling future of fanatics and fall,
Hmmm, perhaps, in the end, Hobbes was right after all.
August 9, 2008
This is a great book. The prose is tight and lucid, the story told is compelling and persuasive - to a point. Reviewers more skilled and patient than I have already pointed out the importance of this text and it's short-comings (check out: this link for the the more learned reviews, including a postscript from Lilla himself).
I join with those readers who find Lilla's 'separation' between political philosophy and political theology to continue the shallow assumptions of modernity. I also follow the readers who find it troubling to see 'religion' and political violence and strife to be in a synchronous relationship, while the Hobbesian trail is paved with gold. Read Charles Taylor and James K.A. Smith's critique at the above link to see these arguments fleshed out.
One last thought: Lilla's book has many merits, but Charles Taylor's: A Secular Age is a more daring, comprehensive and persuasive work. Where Lilla's focus is primarily on Protestant and particularly, German Protestant workings, Taylor brings the Rowan Catholic faith and sensibilities squarely in focus; the result is a seismic shift in approaching the question: how is it, in the 21st century, that belief in God is optional?
Lilla's text will remain one of the best readings of the modern west and its politics. I highly recommend it.
I join with those readers who find Lilla's 'separation' between political philosophy and political theology to continue the shallow assumptions of modernity. I also follow the readers who find it troubling to see 'religion' and political violence and strife to be in a synchronous relationship, while the Hobbesian trail is paved with gold. Read Charles Taylor and James K.A. Smith's critique at the above link to see these arguments fleshed out.
One last thought: Lilla's book has many merits, but Charles Taylor's: A Secular Age is a more daring, comprehensive and persuasive work. Where Lilla's focus is primarily on Protestant and particularly, German Protestant workings, Taylor brings the Rowan Catholic faith and sensibilities squarely in focus; the result is a seismic shift in approaching the question: how is it, in the 21st century, that belief in God is optional?
Lilla's text will remain one of the best readings of the modern west and its politics. I highly recommend it.
September 20, 2009
The impact of religion on politics—particularly the invocation of divine authority to justify a specific social order—is an issue both interesting and complex. In The Stillborn God, Mark Lilla promises an episodic presentation of the rise and fall of political theology from sixteenth century England to twentieth century Germany. While often interesting and thoughtful, the book ultimately fails to fulfil this promise, instead becoming mired in its exploration of the interaction among various philosophical positions.
Lilla's goal is laudable, and for the most part I think I agree with his main thesis—that political theology's influence has declined since the Enlightenment, but as examples in early twentieth century Germany show, it's never far from people's minds. His writing isn't up to snuff, however, and the book never really takes on the "episodic" aspect for which he strives. I'm also now sick of the word "eschatological." Yes, it may be pertinent to the subject, but does Lilla have to use it every second page?
We're treated to a survey of the thoughts of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and Hegel, as well as some more minor modern German thinkers, and the most cursory glimpse at Leibniz and theodicy. Having not read Leviathan or any of Rousseau's works, I did find these summaries interesting, but not really episodic. Lilla's language gets, at times, extremely technical and academic. This is not the crisp prose of A Short History of Nearly Everything . Hence, despite my interest, I had trouble enjoying and savouring The Stillborn God; by the time I neared the end of the book, my urge to set it aside was growing ever stronger.
Certainly, I applaud Lilla for presenting a dry and academic overview rather than producing a highly rhetorical polemic. There's a limit to how dry a book can be and still be decipherable; Lilla approaches that limit several times. Only with considerable patience did I absorb each argument, piecemeal as he presented it, and followed his synthesis of these philosophers' ideas. So if you have the time or inclination to read extremely patiently, to parse and consider every page of this book, you may get more from it than I did. While I'm not looking for light reading by any means, The Stillborn God was a little too dense for me. And it never really achieves the unity of its thesis that can alleviate the tedium of a tense work.
Lilla takes a look at some of the major philosophers, as I mentioned, and shows us how each one built upon the thoughts of those who came before—either by accepting or refuting their predecessors' positions. He credits Hobbes with the initial novity, the idea that religion might not necessarily be inseparable from politics. Later thinkers, such as Rousseau and Hegel, take that kernel but apply a more humanist spin on it, adding a thread of religious toleration. This discussion of religion from purely a philosophical perspective, rather than the biological evolution of religion explored by Richard Dawkins, Nicholas Wade, et al., is pretty fascinating. Aside from mild intellectual interest, however, Lilla's synthesis of these positions never evokes a sense of wonder or illumination beyond what we already knew.
Those looking for advice or a prescription for the present will be disappointed; Lilla makes that quite clear at the beginning of the book. And I don't judge it the worse for that reason. The Stillborn God is a survey of modern Western philosophy parsed through the lens of political theology. It brings little enough new to the table, in my opinion, that it's probably more worthwhile to simply read the source philosophers (Hobbes et al.) yourself—and if what you desire are summaries and syntheses of those philosophers, I suspect that field is diverse and has plenty more to offer than this one book. It offers up some interesting thoughts, but The Stillborn God lacks any quality that would distinguish it from other discussions of political theology.
Lilla's goal is laudable, and for the most part I think I agree with his main thesis—that political theology's influence has declined since the Enlightenment, but as examples in early twentieth century Germany show, it's never far from people's minds. His writing isn't up to snuff, however, and the book never really takes on the "episodic" aspect for which he strives. I'm also now sick of the word "eschatological." Yes, it may be pertinent to the subject, but does Lilla have to use it every second page?
We're treated to a survey of the thoughts of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and Hegel, as well as some more minor modern German thinkers, and the most cursory glimpse at Leibniz and theodicy. Having not read Leviathan or any of Rousseau's works, I did find these summaries interesting, but not really episodic. Lilla's language gets, at times, extremely technical and academic. This is not the crisp prose of A Short History of Nearly Everything . Hence, despite my interest, I had trouble enjoying and savouring The Stillborn God; by the time I neared the end of the book, my urge to set it aside was growing ever stronger.
Certainly, I applaud Lilla for presenting a dry and academic overview rather than producing a highly rhetorical polemic. There's a limit to how dry a book can be and still be decipherable; Lilla approaches that limit several times. Only with considerable patience did I absorb each argument, piecemeal as he presented it, and followed his synthesis of these philosophers' ideas. So if you have the time or inclination to read extremely patiently, to parse and consider every page of this book, you may get more from it than I did. While I'm not looking for light reading by any means, The Stillborn God was a little too dense for me. And it never really achieves the unity of its thesis that can alleviate the tedium of a tense work.
Lilla takes a look at some of the major philosophers, as I mentioned, and shows us how each one built upon the thoughts of those who came before—either by accepting or refuting their predecessors' positions. He credits Hobbes with the initial novity, the idea that religion might not necessarily be inseparable from politics. Later thinkers, such as Rousseau and Hegel, take that kernel but apply a more humanist spin on it, adding a thread of religious toleration. This discussion of religion from purely a philosophical perspective, rather than the biological evolution of religion explored by Richard Dawkins, Nicholas Wade, et al., is pretty fascinating. Aside from mild intellectual interest, however, Lilla's synthesis of these positions never evokes a sense of wonder or illumination beyond what we already knew.
Those looking for advice or a prescription for the present will be disappointed; Lilla makes that quite clear at the beginning of the book. And I don't judge it the worse for that reason. The Stillborn God is a survey of modern Western philosophy parsed through the lens of political theology. It brings little enough new to the table, in my opinion, that it's probably more worthwhile to simply read the source philosophers (Hobbes et al.) yourself—and if what you desire are summaries and syntheses of those philosophers, I suspect that field is diverse and has plenty more to offer than this one book. It offers up some interesting thoughts, but The Stillborn God lacks any quality that would distinguish it from other discussions of political theology.
September 19, 2007
The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics, and the Modern West by Mark Lilla.
Lilla seems to be saying that though Christianity is just too philosophically interesting and satisfying to be abandoned by the masses, it is actually a psychological necessity for the intellectually weak. He agrees with (and quotes) a few "so-called deep social thinkers" in that ALL belief in God and every religion was created by man, not only as a result of his cringing self-protective fear... but also as a response to our curiosity and questions regarding the universe, mortality, freedom and morality.
He considers God a "dud." Lilla is only positive, as far as I could see, toward religion in that (he claims agreement from Kant,) it encourages the strain of "post-Enlightenment thinking."
Lilla addresses Thomas Hobbes' position that man is a "frightened ignoramus", and that "religion comes from a dark place in the psyche." Being terrified of his own mortality but knowing little about scientific nature, man creates an omnipotent being who can be supplicated and obeyed, an idea that then torments him with more fear. Lilla seems to basically agree, but sees this analysis as psychologically simplistic.
In agreement with other "political theologists" Lilla blames religion for totalitarian pseudo-religions of state, such as the Nazis and Communists.
I don't agree. Radical, sick, self serving "religion," no doubt, has been contributory to many horrible historical events and political movements. However, in my opinion, it is a clear matter of a few evil apples in power, tainting the authenticity and wholeness of the entire barrel. The Crusades, Hitler (an occultist, actually) and other "political" power-mongering movements do NOT reflect the original love-based tolerant teaching of Jesus on which and on whom true Christianity was founded. The plurality of Biblical interpretations, resulting sectarianism, and theological confusion, is again, a product of individual(or group)ignorance, power-playing and egotism... obvious to even the most modest student of history & human nature.
An arbitrary dismissal of ALL Christ-based belief as intellectually acceptable or the assertion that Jesus' teaching is responsible for abhorrent intolerance or treatment of humanity and ANY group professing faith in God as good only as a vehicle for new scientific & social thinking or advancement is a surprisingly ignorant and "socio-psychologically simplistic" comment for a professor of the humanities at Columbia to propose.
If one is already convinced "against" Christendom, Lilla's argument might seem to make sense - because he's saying what they want to hear. (Preaching to "itching ears.") To me, his belief system is a case of making atheistic "cringing self-protective fear" and ego based logic fit a desired belief system of "selfdom", rather than on historic documentation, scientifically proved fact (not theory) and personal experience. I am in agreement that mixing church and state presents problems. But I also believe in individual freedom -if you want to pray in K-Mart, a judicial court or in the classroom... go for it, as long as it doesn't "hurt" anyone else. If you don't like it,... ignore it - like the fat lady in the mini-skirt at Macy's.
In my opinion, the book is not worth the time to read - arguments are airy conjecture, old news and very tiring. In my opinion, the book is the "dud," ... not God. Better name for the book might be "Stillborn Dud."
Lilla seems to be saying that though Christianity is just too philosophically interesting and satisfying to be abandoned by the masses, it is actually a psychological necessity for the intellectually weak. He agrees with (and quotes) a few "so-called deep social thinkers" in that ALL belief in God and every religion was created by man, not only as a result of his cringing self-protective fear... but also as a response to our curiosity and questions regarding the universe, mortality, freedom and morality.
He considers God a "dud." Lilla is only positive, as far as I could see, toward religion in that (he claims agreement from Kant,) it encourages the strain of "post-Enlightenment thinking."
Lilla addresses Thomas Hobbes' position that man is a "frightened ignoramus", and that "religion comes from a dark place in the psyche." Being terrified of his own mortality but knowing little about scientific nature, man creates an omnipotent being who can be supplicated and obeyed, an idea that then torments him with more fear. Lilla seems to basically agree, but sees this analysis as psychologically simplistic.
In agreement with other "political theologists" Lilla blames religion for totalitarian pseudo-religions of state, such as the Nazis and Communists.
I don't agree. Radical, sick, self serving "religion," no doubt, has been contributory to many horrible historical events and political movements. However, in my opinion, it is a clear matter of a few evil apples in power, tainting the authenticity and wholeness of the entire barrel. The Crusades, Hitler (an occultist, actually) and other "political" power-mongering movements do NOT reflect the original love-based tolerant teaching of Jesus on which and on whom true Christianity was founded. The plurality of Biblical interpretations, resulting sectarianism, and theological confusion, is again, a product of individual(or group)ignorance, power-playing and egotism... obvious to even the most modest student of history & human nature.
An arbitrary dismissal of ALL Christ-based belief as intellectually acceptable or the assertion that Jesus' teaching is responsible for abhorrent intolerance or treatment of humanity and ANY group professing faith in God as good only as a vehicle for new scientific & social thinking or advancement is a surprisingly ignorant and "socio-psychologically simplistic" comment for a professor of the humanities at Columbia to propose.
If one is already convinced "against" Christendom, Lilla's argument might seem to make sense - because he's saying what they want to hear. (Preaching to "itching ears.") To me, his belief system is a case of making atheistic "cringing self-protective fear" and ego based logic fit a desired belief system of "selfdom", rather than on historic documentation, scientifically proved fact (not theory) and personal experience. I am in agreement that mixing church and state presents problems. But I also believe in individual freedom -if you want to pray in K-Mart, a judicial court or in the classroom... go for it, as long as it doesn't "hurt" anyone else. If you don't like it,... ignore it - like the fat lady in the mini-skirt at Macy's.
In my opinion, the book is not worth the time to read - arguments are airy conjecture, old news and very tiring. In my opinion, the book is the "dud," ... not God. Better name for the book might be "Stillborn Dud."
November 23, 2020
This is a good book to read if you’ve read at least some Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, etc, are interested in a narrative of religion and politics in the history of political philosophy, and if you like Isaiah Berlin. The book also focuses on a few interesting late 19th and early 20th century thinkers who, largely forgotten today, are brought to light as interesting avatars of the inherent tension of: what role can religion, and religious-like political fervor with messianic overtones, play in liberal society?
Unfortunately Lilla does not quite rise to the level of Isaiah Berlin, either in the brilliance of the character studies, or the fleshing out of key intellectual themes. I liked thinking about the “Great Separation” ushered in by Hobbes, divorcing religion and reducing political life to proto bourgeois aspirations... but sometimes got lost in what felt like a series of treatments of different thinkers on religion and politics over a 300 year period.
The final two chapters undertake a more cogent theme-spinning with broad vistas spanning Hobbes to the present day. But it fell flat for a couple reasons.
First, the book feels a bit dated. Written in 2007, when everyone in the West was obsessed with Islamic fundamentalism and to a certain extent George W Bush-style US evangelical politics, the book wouldn’t have as clear a message for the decidedly more secular, reactionary rather than messianic flavors of Trump and Xi.
Second, I had troubling with the real takeaway of the conclusion of the book, which kind of implausibly laid part of the blame for National Socialism and Communism in German liberal theologians of the 19th century who “allowed in” religion. It was generally elliptical and appeared to pull punches, ending the story in around 1935 but still concluding with something about how we need to be super lucid in the West today.
All that said, if you like European political philosophy, this is a good book assessing some of the tensions of the Judeo-Christian tradition within that body of work.
Unfortunately Lilla does not quite rise to the level of Isaiah Berlin, either in the brilliance of the character studies, or the fleshing out of key intellectual themes. I liked thinking about the “Great Separation” ushered in by Hobbes, divorcing religion and reducing political life to proto bourgeois aspirations... but sometimes got lost in what felt like a series of treatments of different thinkers on religion and politics over a 300 year period.
The final two chapters undertake a more cogent theme-spinning with broad vistas spanning Hobbes to the present day. But it fell flat for a couple reasons.
First, the book feels a bit dated. Written in 2007, when everyone in the West was obsessed with Islamic fundamentalism and to a certain extent George W Bush-style US evangelical politics, the book wouldn’t have as clear a message for the decidedly more secular, reactionary rather than messianic flavors of Trump and Xi.
Second, I had troubling with the real takeaway of the conclusion of the book, which kind of implausibly laid part of the blame for National Socialism and Communism in German liberal theologians of the 19th century who “allowed in” religion. It was generally elliptical and appeared to pull punches, ending the story in around 1935 but still concluding with something about how we need to be super lucid in the West today.
All that said, if you like European political philosophy, this is a good book assessing some of the tensions of the Judeo-Christian tradition within that body of work.
February 4, 2013
The Stillborn God was a fascinating read. Lilla traces Western thought from the early modern period to the 1930s, identifying two broad schools of thought. The first begins with Thomas Hobbes and his argument that religion is completely subjective and therefore cannot be used as a basis for politics. Lilla sees in this the modern Anglo-American separation of church and state and the secular basis for political thought and policy. While Hobbes himself was an absolutist, others like Locke made a case for a more liberal and secular order.
On the other hand, Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that religion stemmed from what was good in man, even if it was still subjective. From here, Lilla narrates the intellectual history of this idea, incorporating Kant, Schleiermacher, Hegel, and the liberal German theologians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The "stillborn God" of liberal theology, he argues, could not help but disappoint and produce new arguments for messianic movements like communism and Nazism.
Lilla is a clear partisan of secular politics, but also recognizes the fragility of modern liberalism: it cannot speak to ultimate things. Still, he believes, it must be guarded because of the terrible possibilities that lie outside it, whether they be the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries or the bloodbaths of the 20th century. A condensed form of his argument can be found in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/mag....
Lilla tells his story well, but there are some weaknesses. First, he accepts the usual simplistic religion leads to violence narrative, which William Cavanaugh dealt with very well in The Myth of Religious Violence. Cavanaugh's work shows another weakness of Lilla's argument. The wars of the 1500s and 1600s did not happen just because of disagreements about theology. The centralized European state, and the resistance that it provoked among local interests, was more of a driver of these wars than theological disagreements. Lilla refers to the development of the modern state only a couple of times in the book, and more context would have better grounded his analysis of the intellectual history of the time.
James K.A. Smith points out these weaknesses better than I do, and since I read his review before I read the book I imagine that he primed me to look for them: http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2007/12/27/....
On the other hand, Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that religion stemmed from what was good in man, even if it was still subjective. From here, Lilla narrates the intellectual history of this idea, incorporating Kant, Schleiermacher, Hegel, and the liberal German theologians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The "stillborn God" of liberal theology, he argues, could not help but disappoint and produce new arguments for messianic movements like communism and Nazism.
Lilla is a clear partisan of secular politics, but also recognizes the fragility of modern liberalism: it cannot speak to ultimate things. Still, he believes, it must be guarded because of the terrible possibilities that lie outside it, whether they be the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries or the bloodbaths of the 20th century. A condensed form of his argument can be found in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/mag....
Lilla tells his story well, but there are some weaknesses. First, he accepts the usual simplistic religion leads to violence narrative, which William Cavanaugh dealt with very well in The Myth of Religious Violence. Cavanaugh's work shows another weakness of Lilla's argument. The wars of the 1500s and 1600s did not happen just because of disagreements about theology. The centralized European state, and the resistance that it provoked among local interests, was more of a driver of these wars than theological disagreements. Lilla refers to the development of the modern state only a couple of times in the book, and more context would have better grounded his analysis of the intellectual history of the time.
James K.A. Smith points out these weaknesses better than I do, and since I read his review before I read the book I imagine that he primed me to look for them: http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2007/12/27/....
April 9, 2025
عقبنشینی به رهبانیت و حکومت بر شهر زمینی با دو شمشیر کلیسا و دولت، ساختن اورشلیم جدید موعودباورانه، کدام یک از این مدلها راستین سیاست مسیحی است؟
خود مسیحیان بیش از هزار سال نتوانستند در این باره تصمیم بگیرند و این تنش، سرچشمهی نزاع و مبارزهای کم و بیش بیامان بوده است؛ مبارزهای عمدتاً آموزهای که مؤمنان را بر سر معنای اصیل وحی مسیحی به جان هم انداخته است. شمار تضادهایی که میتوان در زندگی و اندیشه سیاسی قرون وسطی پیدا کرد، بینهایت گیجکنندهاند.
شهر انسان در برابر شهر خدا صفآرایی میکند؛ شهروندی سیاسی در برابر عزلتگزینی؛ رهبانی حق الهی پادشاهان در برابر حق؛ مقاومت اقتدار کلیسا در برابر شریعتستیزی رادیکال؛ قانون شریعت در برابر بصیرت عرفانی؛ مفتش در برابر شهید؛ شمشیر سکولار در برابر کلاه اسقفی؛ شهریار در برابر امپراتور؛ امپراتور در برابر پاپ؛ و پاپ در برابر شوراهای کلیسا. سیاست بهطور کلی مستلزم منازعه است، اما آنچه سیاست مسیحی را از هم میگسست، خودآگاهی الهیاتی و شدت نزاعهایی بود که پدید میآورد، نزاعهایی که در عمیقترین ابهامات وحی مسیحی ریشه داشتند.
رذیلتی قدیمی در مسیحیت وجود دارد که بگوییم این دین کاملی است که بر فراز تاریخ جهان ایستاده و دیگر ادیان را که پشت سر گذاشته، به دیده تحقیر بنگریم. با این حال، ادعای استثنایی بودن مسیحیت را از یک جنبه میتوان توجیه کرد: در مسیحیت، شقوق مختلفی از الهیات سیاسی وجود دارد که همگی با یکدیگر در تضاد هستند. آموزههای تجسد و تثلیث، این تنوع درونی را ممکن ساختهاند؛ آموزههایی که مسیحیان را دعوت کردهاند تا خدای خود را همزمان در جهان، غایب از جهان و در نوعی رابطه متعالی پایدار با جهان تصور کنند. در اندیشه مسیحی، همه امکانات الهیات سیاسی و دشواریهای فکری همراه با آنها به معرض دید گذاشته شدهاند.
فیلسوفان سیاسی اولیه مدرن از رقیبان الهیاتی خود بسیار آموختند و اندیشههای بسیاری را که قرنها در بطن کلیسای مسیحی هضم شده بود، وام گرفتند. کلیسایی که میکوشید خود را با جهانی سیاسی سازگار کند که در آن بنا نهاده شده بود. اما بزرگترین درس این بود که ورود به منطق الهیات سیاسی در هر شکل آن ناچار به بنبست میرسید و هیچ یک از راههای پرپیچ و خم آن به نوعی زندگی سیاسی شایسته برای انسانها ختم نمیشد. به زعم این فیلسوفان، این بزرگترین درس تاریخ مسیحی بود؛ درسی که باید برای فهم بحران کنونی مسیحیت فراگرفته شود.
آنان به جای درگیر شدن در مباحثاتی درباره چگونگی اصلاح الهیات سیاسی مسیحی، همانطور که بسیاری از حامیان فکور آن در دورههای پایانی قرون وسطی و اوایل قرون مدرن انجام داده بودند، به تدریج به بدیلهای این الهیات اندیشیدند. فیلسوفان سیاسی اولیه مدرن به تدریج به جستوجو برآمدند، اما نه برای نهادن پای در راه پرپیچ و خم جدیدی در هزارتوی الهیات سیاسی، بلکه برای یافتن راهی که یک بار برای همیشه از آن بگریزند.
خود مسیحیان بیش از هزار سال نتوانستند در این باره تصمیم بگیرند و این تنش، سرچشمهی نزاع و مبارزهای کم و بیش بیامان بوده است؛ مبارزهای عمدتاً آموزهای که مؤمنان را بر سر معنای اصیل وحی مسیحی به جان هم انداخته است. شمار تضادهایی که میتوان در زندگی و اندیشه سیاسی قرون وسطی پیدا کرد، بینهایت گیجکنندهاند.
شهر انسان در برابر شهر خدا صفآرایی میکند؛ شهروندی سیاسی در برابر عزلتگزینی؛ رهبانی حق الهی پادشاهان در برابر حق؛ مقاومت اقتدار کلیسا در برابر شریعتستیزی رادیکال؛ قانون شریعت در برابر بصیرت عرفانی؛ مفتش در برابر شهید؛ شمشیر سکولار در برابر کلاه اسقفی؛ شهریار در برابر امپراتور؛ امپراتور در برابر پاپ؛ و پاپ در برابر شوراهای کلیسا. سیاست بهطور کلی مستلزم منازعه است، اما آنچه سیاست مسیحی را از هم میگسست، خودآگاهی الهیاتی و شدت نزاعهایی بود که پدید میآورد، نزاعهایی که در عمیقترین ابهامات وحی مسیحی ریشه داشتند.
رذیلتی قدیمی در مسیحیت وجود دارد که بگوییم این دین کاملی است که بر فراز تاریخ جهان ایستاده و دیگر ادیان را که پشت سر گذاشته، به دیده تحقیر بنگریم. با این حال، ادعای استثنایی بودن مسیحیت را از یک جنبه میتوان توجیه کرد: در مسیحیت، شقوق مختلفی از الهیات سیاسی وجود دارد که همگی با یکدیگر در تضاد هستند. آموزههای تجسد و تثلیث، این تنوع درونی را ممکن ساختهاند؛ آموزههایی که مسیحیان را دعوت کردهاند تا خدای خود را همزمان در جهان، غایب از جهان و در نوعی رابطه متعالی پایدار با جهان تصور کنند. در اندیشه مسیحی، همه امکانات الهیات سیاسی و دشواریهای فکری همراه با آنها به معرض دید گذاشته شدهاند.
فیلسوفان سیاسی اولیه مدرن از رقیبان الهیاتی خود بسیار آموختند و اندیشههای بسیاری را که قرنها در بطن کلیسای مسیحی هضم شده بود، وام گرفتند. کلیسایی که میکوشید خود را با جهانی سیاسی سازگار کند که در آن بنا نهاده شده بود. اما بزرگترین درس این بود که ورود به منطق الهیات سیاسی در هر شکل آن ناچار به بنبست میرسید و هیچ یک از راههای پرپیچ و خم آن به نوعی زندگی سیاسی شایسته برای انسانها ختم نمیشد. به زعم این فیلسوفان، این بزرگترین درس تاریخ مسیحی بود؛ درسی که باید برای فهم بحران کنونی مسیحیت فراگرفته شود.
آنان به جای درگیر شدن در مباحثاتی درباره چگونگی اصلاح الهیات سیاسی مسیحی، همانطور که بسیاری از حامیان فکور آن در دورههای پایانی قرون وسطی و اوایل قرون مدرن انجام داده بودند، به تدریج به بدیلهای این الهیات اندیشیدند. فیلسوفان سیاسی اولیه مدرن به تدریج به جستوجو برآمدند، اما نه برای نهادن پای در راه پرپیچ و خم جدیدی در هزارتوی الهیات سیاسی، بلکه برای یافتن راهی که یک بار برای همیشه از آن بگریزند.
July 2, 2008
This book is a tour through the history of religious ideas about politics, or what the author calls 'political theology', and focused on the western / Christian tradition. I took interest in the book when Christopher Hitchens reviewed the first section of the book as it was published in the New York Times Magazine.
Lilla begins by saying that the forces of secular politics and enlightenment philosophy should have won over the whole world by now, but they haven't won the war yet. As he puts it in the opening line: "the twilight of the idols has been postponed". The rest of the book examines the ideas of political theology and how these ideas fared in the hindsight of history.
The best part is the detailed and exhilarating summary of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, which is worth the cover price alone. Anyone who has tried to slog through Leviathan will know why.
This is on of those books that brings philosophy to the forefront of your consciousness. Often when you read philosophy, it seems like a distant academic exercise, but Lilla makes you understand that the debates over theological and philosophical ideas had very real consequences for humanity. These are big ideas, that in the long run have meant freedom for some, and enslavement and death for others.
All in all, and excellent book, and a good companion to the books of the "new atheism", if thats your thing.
I have only two complaints:
1. Lilla seems to think it may be impossible for the world to escape the shackles of religion. Or rather, he is deeply pessimistic about it. Then again, the book is about the forces and debates that are within religion, not outside of it. Maybe thats what Hitchens was getting at in his review.
2. I still don't understand what Hegel meant by "negativity". Thats not really a criticism of Lilla, since it seems to me that no one is sure about it. The main problem is the whole discussion of Hegel's ideas. I still am unclear on that whole period, and what it all meant.
Lilla begins by saying that the forces of secular politics and enlightenment philosophy should have won over the whole world by now, but they haven't won the war yet. As he puts it in the opening line: "the twilight of the idols has been postponed". The rest of the book examines the ideas of political theology and how these ideas fared in the hindsight of history.
The best part is the detailed and exhilarating summary of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, which is worth the cover price alone. Anyone who has tried to slog through Leviathan will know why.
This is on of those books that brings philosophy to the forefront of your consciousness. Often when you read philosophy, it seems like a distant academic exercise, but Lilla makes you understand that the debates over theological and philosophical ideas had very real consequences for humanity. These are big ideas, that in the long run have meant freedom for some, and enslavement and death for others.
All in all, and excellent book, and a good companion to the books of the "new atheism", if thats your thing.
I have only two complaints:
1. Lilla seems to think it may be impossible for the world to escape the shackles of religion. Or rather, he is deeply pessimistic about it. Then again, the book is about the forces and debates that are within religion, not outside of it. Maybe thats what Hitchens was getting at in his review.
2. I still don't understand what Hegel meant by "negativity". Thats not really a criticism of Lilla, since it seems to me that no one is sure about it. The main problem is the whole discussion of Hegel's ideas. I still am unclear on that whole period, and what it all meant.
September 10, 2016
The title suggested a commentary on modern politics, perhaps with some historical background. The book is actually a survey of a 350-year line of development in political philosophy. No psychology, no real historical context, no effort to demonstrate exactly how the thought of particular writers may have translated into general consciousness.
In fact, Lilla says that the messianic politics of the mid-20th century (i.e., Nazism and Communism) would have developed from other roots, with or without contemporaneous theory in philosophy and religion. But in the same paragraph he tries to have it both ways, saying that the writings of Karl Barth and Franz Rosenzweig "did unwittingly help to shape a new and noxious form of political argument."
Even the "help to shape" claim could use much more evidence than Lilla provides,despite its surface plausibility.
Accepting all that, portions of the book remain interesting. The first 75 or so pages are abstruse background. The next 100 or so pages provide a very nice summary of the main arguments of Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Rousseau and Kant (particularly helpful on Kant). But then we get into Hegel, who is generally regarded as an important philosopher and one who still has admirers, but whose ideas are reminiscent of the fanciful curlicues of the Rococo period in the arts. The closing section covering roughly 1830 to 1950 explains an interesting evolution, but one highly focused on Germany and featuring writers who are not familiar names. It's all a good overview, yet one that left me wondering what may have been left out. There's also no discussion of the current phenomenon of overtly religious intrusions into political life, especially in the U.S. and the Middle East.
In fact, Lilla says that the messianic politics of the mid-20th century (i.e., Nazism and Communism) would have developed from other roots, with or without contemporaneous theory in philosophy and religion. But in the same paragraph he tries to have it both ways, saying that the writings of Karl Barth and Franz Rosenzweig "did unwittingly help to shape a new and noxious form of political argument."
Even the "help to shape" claim could use much more evidence than Lilla provides,despite its surface plausibility.
Accepting all that, portions of the book remain interesting. The first 75 or so pages are abstruse background. The next 100 or so pages provide a very nice summary of the main arguments of Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Rousseau and Kant (particularly helpful on Kant). But then we get into Hegel, who is generally regarded as an important philosopher and one who still has admirers, but whose ideas are reminiscent of the fanciful curlicues of the Rococo period in the arts. The closing section covering roughly 1830 to 1950 explains an interesting evolution, but one highly focused on Germany and featuring writers who are not familiar names. It's all a good overview, yet one that left me wondering what may have been left out. There's also no discussion of the current phenomenon of overtly religious intrusions into political life, especially in the U.S. and the Middle East.
March 15, 2008
Not sure what I expected with this book, but it was a huge disappointment. It was dull, wordy, and ultimately weakly concluded. It failed as an explication of the social power of political theology because its focus was way too narrow. Written more as a critique of philosophical approaches, it never included enough information to create the social and historical analysis it purported to be. And, its apology for Hegel in the face of an explicit acknowledgement of his strong anti-semitism was simply irritating and incredulous. Religion and philosophy have never held an attraction for me and putting them together makes for a simply intolerable read. Over 300 pages for a reminder that political theology isn't really dead in the west either and that we have to be ever vigilant about its rearing its ugly head in our own society . . . wow, not very profound and not at all any solution. But certainly another example of faddish academic publishing.
May 8, 2008
This is a very informative read for anyone interested in western renaissance philosophy of religion and politics. The author summarizes the theories of many pivotal philosophers of western Europe, and explains how our culture came to believe so strongly in the separation of church and state. Mr. Lilla details the growing pains of this political and religious evolution, and eventually gets around to relating it to our conflicts with Middle Eastern cultures today.
Although this book is a bit dense and academic at times, it is worth the stretch for the reader who is intrigued by our failures to bridge the gaps between Middle Eastern and Western cultures.
Although this book is a bit dense and academic at times, it is worth the stretch for the reader who is intrigued by our failures to bridge the gaps between Middle Eastern and Western cultures.
July 6, 2009
Sorry to say, I read half the book and put it down. Much too erudite for my poor brain.
April 20, 2012
Great observation of the historical connections between politics and religion and the way societies continue to figure out how these things interact.
November 6, 2012
Not what I thought it was going to be ( I thought the Stillborn God was going to be Communism )
Read
December 18, 2012Apparently it's all Karl Barth's fault.
June 18, 2017
Yes, we have trouble letting God be.
November 1, 2020
History of ideas in combination with political science and religious studies. It works fine, but I had expected more theory in a book of this sort.
July 4, 2018
I have very mixed feelings about this book. I expected, given the title and the publication date (2007), that it would address the issues of religion and politics in the 21st century when the two are tightly intertwined and in ways that are uncomfortable both for people who are religious and for people who are not.
But no. This book ends during the rise of the Nazis. And it starts, roughly speaking, with Hobbes (1588-1679).
From this book, I garnered no real insights into the mix of religion, politics, and the modern west (assuming "modern west" is anything after the Second World War). There's nothing really modern about the subject matter. The ties to politics, too, are tenuous as Lilla devotes his attention exclusively to the apparently isolated thinking of famous philosophers and their influences on each other. Major political movements and the influence of religion on them are not mentioned, let alone discussed.
That said, Lilla's book is not a waste of time. I recommend the chapters on Hobbes, Locke, Hume, and Rousseau for students of American history who want additional insights into the religious philosophers who influenced the "Founding Fathers" of the United States. But do not expect any exploration of those influences.
But no. This book ends during the rise of the Nazis. And it starts, roughly speaking, with Hobbes (1588-1679).
From this book, I garnered no real insights into the mix of religion, politics, and the modern west (assuming "modern west" is anything after the Second World War). There's nothing really modern about the subject matter. The ties to politics, too, are tenuous as Lilla devotes his attention exclusively to the apparently isolated thinking of famous philosophers and their influences on each other. Major political movements and the influence of religion on them are not mentioned, let alone discussed.
That said, Lilla's book is not a waste of time. I recommend the chapters on Hobbes, Locke, Hume, and Rousseau for students of American history who want additional insights into the religious philosophers who influenced the "Founding Fathers" of the United States. But do not expect any exploration of those influences.
decided-not-to-read
February 14, 2011Excerpt:
So, to say that religious matters were only an issue in the 16th century and not afterwards seems historically inaccurate. And that's not even touching "We find it incomprehensible that theological ideas still inflame the minds of men." Um, you do? Seriously? Why? I'm not religious myself, but so many people are that I think that it's important to try to understand that as something people are serious about and not to simply dismiss it as irrational. (I see people do this a lot and it drives me crazy.) That said, it seems like the author has some interesting things to say about the modern tension between what he calls political theology and political philosophy. This is on my "read sometime" list; unfortunately, I haven't really got the time for it now.
For over two centuries, from the American and French revolutions to the collapse of Soviet Communism, political life in the West revolved around eminently political questions. We argued about war and revolution, class and social justice, race and national identity. Today we have progressed to the point where we are again fighting the battles of the sixteenth century -- over relation and reason, dogmatic purity and toleration, inspiration and consent, divine duty and common decency. ... We find it incomprehensible that theological ideas still inflame the minds of men, stirring up messianic passions that leave societies in ruin. We assumed that this was no longer possible, that human beings had learned to separate religious questions from political ones, that fanaticism was dead. We were wrong.Unfortunately for the author, Mark Lilla, I just read a book which was partially about the French Revolution (For Liberty and Glory). The position of the Church was an important issue, and it became politicized. You can read a little about it here. (It's not the best discussion, but it came from page 11 of the Google search results, and I'm disinclined to continue to peruse for something better.) Also, if you read Burke and (IIRC) de Maistre, religious grounds are part of their basis of objection to the French Revolution. (I was in charge of moderating a discussion about conservative thinkers in my poli sci class. Yay, fun.)
So, to say that religious matters were only an issue in the 16th century and not afterwards seems historically inaccurate. And that's not even touching "We find it incomprehensible that theological ideas still inflame the minds of men." Um, you do? Seriously? Why? I'm not religious myself, but so many people are that I think that it's important to try to understand that as something people are serious about and not to simply dismiss it as irrational. (I see people do this a lot and it drives me crazy.) That said, it seems like the author has some interesting things to say about the modern tension between what he calls political theology and political philosophy. This is on my "read sometime" list; unfortunately, I haven't really got the time for it now.
December 19, 2015
It's a dense book, it seems and it indeed is related to current affairs but it's not for everyone, certainly it wasn't the right book for me. When I got it I imagined it focused on the present time (come on, the title says "Modern West") talking about politics in a conventional way with events we all know. Instead this book brings history and more specifically, history of philosophy to tell us why we are here in the West under a separation between state and religion. So the author will bring about the work of Hobbes, Locke and Hume over the debate in the 17th century in Europe about the role of religion in politics at a time where religious intolerance was commonplace and still "god's revelation" was the source of power after that and he'll go forward explaining until reaching the early 20th century in Germany because religion in the end and despite the separation never leaves us altogether.
I don't recommend this book to people who lack of a philosophical background, people who haven't read Hegel, Locke or Rosseau. Also remember that this book is all about the Western society, it's not about the Muslim countries although the author does talk a little bit about them in the end. Perhaps it could indeed explain why it's not that easy to expect that they solve their problems.
The writing of Lilla is not entertaining nor pleasant IMO, he takes his time to address every topic that arises and talks a lot about every philosopher involved with plenty of detail so even though it could be great for people who've read them already it can be painful to read.
Still, as I said it's a great book because Lilla made a thorough research on the topic and the book does shed some light on the issue of what he calls "political theology" or the involvement of religion in political issues.
If you're interested on religion issues, laicism and you have read at least a bit to some of the philosophers mentioned above go for it.
I don't recommend this book to people who lack of a philosophical background, people who haven't read Hegel, Locke or Rosseau. Also remember that this book is all about the Western society, it's not about the Muslim countries although the author does talk a little bit about them in the end. Perhaps it could indeed explain why it's not that easy to expect that they solve their problems.
The writing of Lilla is not entertaining nor pleasant IMO, he takes his time to address every topic that arises and talks a lot about every philosopher involved with plenty of detail so even though it could be great for people who've read them already it can be painful to read.
Still, as I said it's a great book because Lilla made a thorough research on the topic and the book does shed some light on the issue of what he calls "political theology" or the involvement of religion in political issues.
If you're interested on religion issues, laicism and you have read at least a bit to some of the philosophers mentioned above go for it.
July 15, 2009
one of the difficulties with this book is the way lilla associates passion with religious fanaticism. this makes passion look a) religious, and b) negative.
but regarding a) we know that passion is not inherently religious nor secular-- we have seen people passionate for causes that are religious (the reformation), non-religious (suffrage), and a mixture of the two (abolition).
regarding b) we also know that passion is not necessarily a negative thing-- as connected to a), it's hard to think about historical, moral, or social progress *without* passion. passion moves or rather, helps constitute great movements, or else the movements don't get off the ground in the first place. it doesn't preclude the notion that passion can manifest itself in negative ways, but this is not specific to passion, but involves a whole host of other factors.
and as a result, lilla's liberalism ends up looking un-passionate, which reflects a broader contemporary liberal notion that we can somehow disassociate passion from reason in political deliberation. the question is not "is passion good or bad?" but "what is passion doing in this particular instance? how can it make us more responsive to political reasons in a way that importantly, also upholds the value of impartiality?"
but regarding a) we know that passion is not inherently religious nor secular-- we have seen people passionate for causes that are religious (the reformation), non-religious (suffrage), and a mixture of the two (abolition).
regarding b) we also know that passion is not necessarily a negative thing-- as connected to a), it's hard to think about historical, moral, or social progress *without* passion. passion moves or rather, helps constitute great movements, or else the movements don't get off the ground in the first place. it doesn't preclude the notion that passion can manifest itself in negative ways, but this is not specific to passion, but involves a whole host of other factors.
and as a result, lilla's liberalism ends up looking un-passionate, which reflects a broader contemporary liberal notion that we can somehow disassociate passion from reason in political deliberation. the question is not "is passion good or bad?" but "what is passion doing in this particular instance? how can it make us more responsive to political reasons in a way that importantly, also upholds the value of impartiality?"
June 24, 2018
I thoroughly enjoyed Lilla's The Stillborn God, which is a eloquently written analysis of the history of political theology in the West. His chapter on the "Great Seperation", which is the heart of the book, helpfully juxtapositions Thomas Hobbes' thought with the classical christian tradition and persuasively shows how much post-enlightenment thought is still indebted to Hobbes. While Lilla did a lucid job tracing how Hobbes paved the way for liberal theology (Schleiermacher- Troeltsch) and the post-liberal Christian and Jewish theologians (Barth and Rosenzweig), what was lacking was an intergration of Neo-Kantian and Modern Catholic political theology espically during WWII. Of course part of his overall thesis is not only to show that to be protestant is to be modern, but that to be modern is to be protestant. It still of would be more helpful to include how Catholicism has become entangled in the modern/protestant dialectic.
January 23, 2014
This was fascinating, even if it took me two years to read. His conclusion was excerpted in the New York Times magazine about five years ago, an article that made the case that the horrors of the 20th century were the result of a dangerous religious fervor that came to life in an age when the traditional western religions had lost their day-to-day hold on mankind. Yet the human belief in salvation and utopia was very much alive, and there was a dangerous vaccuum that needed to be filled. The result was totalitarianism, leading to total war and the killing of millions of civilians. I didn't anticipate having to review all the political philosophers of the Enlightenment and beyond to reach this stunning argument, and it was dense stuff. Eleventh grade history all over again! But it was well worth it in the end.
May 8, 2008
The book is a elegantly written, absolutely lucid account of the evolution of the relationship between religion & politics from the end of the reformation to the modern era. It is an essential read for anyone who hopes to understand the essence of what Mark Lilla calls "the Great Separation", and critical to those who aspire to influence either religion, politics or policies related to either.
It is also a refreshingly rational and dispassionate (while not unsympathetic) discussion of the subject that avoids the poisonous polemic that so many distinguished scholars, scientists and intellectuals from both sides of the separation - have published of late.
It is also one of the most readable and compelling history of abstract thought/philosophy that I have ever picked up!
It is also a refreshingly rational and dispassionate (while not unsympathetic) discussion of the subject that avoids the poisonous polemic that so many distinguished scholars, scientists and intellectuals from both sides of the separation - have published of late.
It is also one of the most readable and compelling history of abstract thought/philosophy that I have ever picked up!
November 27, 2015
A history of the debate (putting it very mildly) in the West on the proper role of religion in politics. Lilla uses the Great Separation to name the period, beginning with Hobbes, in which the idea that religion and politics should be separate began to take shape and recounts the different thinkers who advanced this idea that eventually came to be the default assumption in the West. But, as Lilla shows, this idea was never inevitable and is not now irreversible. The "Stillborn" in the title refers to an early 20th century attempt by liberal thinkers and theologians in Germany to bring politics and religion back together. Though it never took hold and was swept away by the events of the second world war, it demonstrates how a religiously-infused politics will always be a "live" idea.
April 9, 2018
A history of political theology written by a humanities professor. I take it with some reserve. I would like to see a book like this from a political science or religious studies professor instead. It is good as a history of political theology, which I didn't know was a thing to be studied.
You can see some development over hundreds of years of a split between religion and politics. This is something you won't see in Muslim countries. In Israel, religious fundamentalism is taking over as well. While knowing this history of political theology is illuminating, I disagree that the books and thinkers had as much sway as the book lets on.
You can see some development over hundreds of years of a split between religion and politics. This is something you won't see in Muslim countries. In Israel, religious fundamentalism is taking over as well. While knowing this history of political theology is illuminating, I disagree that the books and thinkers had as much sway as the book lets on.
April 10, 2015
This book was challenging for me to read as it was sort of philosophy mixed with religion and politics. It was recommended by a friend after I expressed a question I have about morality vs. individual freedom in society. This book didn't give me any answers to that question but gives sort of a history of intellectual thinking, what the author describes as the "Great Separation" where western cultures begin to accept that self-governance can be separated from the fear of God. It is an interesting and thought provoking book, but it's very heady and complex - not an easy read by any means.
February 21, 2015
Eh, I feel like this book didn't quite deliver on its promise. 1) It wasn't so much episodic as it was a list of various philosophers and such, and 2) I didn't really learn much about the political side of things from this book. Yes, it was interesting and informative, but I just feel like the book didn't accomplish what it set out to do. So, 3 stars.
And goodness gracious, cut back on the word "eschatological". I forgot what it meant halfway through this book and was pissed every subsequent time that it popped up.
And goodness gracious, cut back on the word "eschatological". I forgot what it meant halfway through this book and was pissed every subsequent time that it popped up.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews