Kraynak Analysis

Kraynak was very doubtful that the idea of human rights and Christian faith were congruent. His second problem of discussion was whether or not the Christian faith is compatible with democracy. There is nowhere in the Bible that God condones one form of government over another. “Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right” (1 Peter 2:13-14). This passage means to be respectful of whatever government is in place as long as that government does not claim a higher power over God. This could be government characterized as a monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, oligarchy, etc. It doesn’t matter which form of government it

is, Christians should obey those rulers as long as the government does not force them to violate God’s commands. The principle behind democracy is equality.

Democracy is about eradicating hierarchies of power and citizens. Kraynak argues that “… hierarchies of a certain kind are absolutely necessary for spiritual life because hierarchies elevate the soul above mundane concerns and provide institutional support for transcendent goods and higher culture (Kraynak),” The Christian faith believes in universal love, but not in accepting all lifestyles as valid and moral. While democracy typically rescues society from a dictatorship or tyranny that imposes its own standard of moral code, democracy can also be responsible for imposing a sense of “social tyranny”. Democracy tends to favor the majority, but unfortunately the Christian beliefs system and their standard of morals is rarely the majority. Instead the common man seems to have a derogative sense of cultural that invades his decision making in a democracy. This derogative sense of culture will lead to the eradication of practices and morals that are sacred to the Christian belief. Despite what current society might think, abiding by Christian beliefs does not mean sitting idly by while immoral lifestyles are considered the societal

norm. The Christian faith is not about lovingly accepting all cultures, but instead to speak the truth to those that are doomed to an eternal life of fiery death. Democracy requires going along with the general consensus of the masses. The Christian faith believes in shaping the culture not being shaped by the culture.

Criticism

Not all scholars agreed with Kraynak’s view on Christianity and democracy. Jacques Maritain acknowledges that the original ideas of democracy, those proposed by philosophers such as Locke, were not meant to be in congruence with the Christian faith. However, Maritain wrote that the modern development of democracy is based on a stronger sense of morals and compatibility with Christianity than philosophers originally intended it to be. “The democratic sense or feeling is, by its very nature, an evangelical sense or feeling, its motive power is love, the essential thing in it is fraternity, it has its real sources in Gospel Inspiration (Maritain).” Maritain believed that democracy best reflected Christian beliefs as it strongly promoted the unity of mankind and sense of equality. Reinhold Niebuhr, a religious philosopher, also disagreed with Kraynak and instead thought democracy was necessary due to the Christian belief of original sin. “Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary (Niebuhr).” Niebuhr believed that democracy was an essential tool through which Christians would be able to exercise their freedom that was given to them by God.