The Fall of the Shah

The collapse of the Shah’s government in Iran has revealed, among other things, extensive failures in the awareness by outsiders of the amount of unrest within that country. It is sobering to recall that at the end of 1977, President Carter on a visit to Tehran toasted the Shah, praising his “great leadership” that had made Iran “an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world.” Moreover Carter noted “the respect and admiration and love” that the people had for their Shah. In so speaking the President was reaffirming the traditional American relationship with Iran, or rather with Iran’s government, that his predecessors had established.

The fall of the Shah illustrates the widespread failure to distinguish adequately between peoples and their governments. Within a society there are many functioning institutions of which government is only one. It is usually an important one, but the government is rarely as significant as its functionaries, high or low, think.

Christians, as a result of our Lord’s great commission, are to be concerned about every country, specifically about the people of every country. As a general principle, Christians should support policies of their own governments that enhance communication with peoples of other countries. To want to have contact with other peoples is not to endorse the governments which they choose or which are imposed upon them. Moreover, we advise Christians (and this is our advice to governments as well) to avoid too close an identification with whatever faction or regime happens to hold political power in another country at a given time.

In the case of Iran, the role of religion in the overthrow of the Shah and the perhaps temporary rise of Ruhollah Khomeini is of particular interest to Christians. Our feelings are mixed. On the one hand it is good to see that belief in the transcendent is still very influential in human affairs. On the other hand, ideologically-based governments (whether rooted in a traditional religion or in communist faith) have been notoriously hostile to evangelistic ministries and even to the proper range of shepherding ministries for believers. The fact is that the record of predominantly secular governments, such as most of those in the Western world, is notably better than that of governments that have a close link with some Christian or non-Christian faith.

It is curious that while many Christians are protesting secularism in their own countries, missionaries are finding it easier to minister in just such secular environments. We think that, all things considered, governments that are relatively neutral in matters religious are best for the world as a whole and for the Christian mission in the world.

However, as Iran demonstrates, if a modernizing government is only minimally informed by high ethical standards, then reactionary and anti-Christian religious forces have an easier task in overthrowing it.

Whether the successor to the Shah’s government in the long run proves less corrupt, less given to torture, less restrictive of certain personal and political liberties remains to be seen. As Christians concerned about freedom to evangelize and to shepherd the relatively few disciples of Christ in that overwhelming Muslim land, we certainly hope so.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.