Abstract
This paper extends the fourth cluster’s comparative examination of how the Teflon pattern operates within religious institutions, broadening the scope beyond the two foundational cases of first-century Judaism and medieval Christianity to examine three additional traditions in which the pattern has operated with substantial visibility. The argument proceeds through four interlocking analyses: the operation of the Hindu priestly hierarchy and the broader caste system within which it has been embedded, in which the credentialed class has historically operated under conditions of substantial privilege relative to those subject to its religious authority; the development of the Islamic jurisprudential elites and the systems of religious legal interpretation through which they have administered the religious life of the broader Islamic community, with attention to the patterns of asymmetric application that have emerged; the operation of Buddhist monastic privilege across the various traditions within which the Buddhist monastic life has been organized, with attention to the patterns by which the credentialed monastic class has operated under conditions substantially different from those that apply to lay practitioners; and the broader pattern of religious caste and moral stratification that the three cases together illuminate, with attention to the implications of the broader pattern for the analytical framework this volume has been developing. The paper applies the biblical critique developed in the first cluster to the patterns it documents, demonstrating that the dynamic identified by the Lord operates not merely within the Christian and Jewish traditions that the preceding papers have examined but across the broader range of religious traditions in which credentialed classes have come to occupy positions of authority over populations subject to their religious determinations.
I. The Domain and Its Particular Significance for the Cluster
The contemporary domain examined in this paper differs from those examined in the preceding papers of this cluster in an important respect. The preceding two papers examined religious traditions that share with the biblical perspective the volume maintains throughout substantial portions of their foundational documents, with the first-century Jewish case sharing the entirety of the Hebrew Scriptures and the medieval Christian case sharing the entirety of the canonical Christian Scriptures. The present paper turns to three religious traditions whose foundational documents differ substantially from those that the biblical perspective recognizes as authoritative, and the differences require particular care in the analytical work the paper undertakes.
The biblical perspective the volume maintains throughout does not affirm the substantive religious claims of the three traditions examined in this paper. The biblical perspective recognizes the canonical Scripture as the foundational authority for the religious life of God’s people, and the canonical Scripture does not affirm the substantive religious frameworks within which the Hindu, Islamic, and Buddhist traditions have operated. The analytical work the present paper undertakes therefore does not endorse the substantive religious claims of the three traditions, and the paper does not undertake to evaluate the comparative merits of the three traditions on their own terms or in comparison with the biblical perspective the volume maintains.
The analytical work the paper undertakes is, rather, the application of the analytical framework developed throughout this volume to the institutional patterns that the three traditions have exhibited across their historical development. The institutional patterns are documented across extensive scholarly literature on the three traditions, and the documentation provides substantial empirical material for the analytical work the paper undertakes. The patterns themselves are sufficiently similar across the three traditions, and sufficiently similar to the patterns documented in the preceding papers of this cluster, that the analytical framework developed throughout this volume applies to them with substantial precision. The application of the framework to the three traditions confirms the broader argument the volume has been developing regarding the universality of the Teflon dynamic across religious institutions, and the confirmation does not depend upon the substantive evaluation of the religious claims the three traditions articulate.
The biblical perspective the volume maintains throughout produces several specific commitments that shape the analytical work of the paper. The first commitment is to the proper name of the Lord, who is identified throughout this volume by the name Jesus Christ, and the analytical work of the paper does not adopt the various alternative names by which the Lord has been characterized in some contemporary discussions. The second commitment is to the recognition that the Hindu, Islamic, and Buddhist traditions, despite the comparative analytical interest that the patterns within those traditions provide, are not traditions whose substantive religious claims the biblical perspective affirms. The third commitment is to the analytical use of comparative material without the endorsement of the broader religious frameworks within which the material has been produced. The fourth commitment is to the substantive engagement with the patterns within the three traditions, with attention to what the patterns reveal about the operation of the Teflon dynamic across religious institutions, and without the suggestion that the substantive engagement with the patterns constitutes any endorsement of the religious frameworks within which the patterns have operated.
The recognition of these commitments is essential for understanding what the analytical work of this paper undertakes and what it does not undertake. The paper undertakes the comparative analytical examination of the patterns the three traditions have exhibited, with attention to what the patterns reveal about the operation of the Teflon dynamic across religious institutions. The paper does not undertake the substantive evaluation of the religious claims the three traditions articulate, nor does it suggest that the comparative engagement with the patterns within the three traditions constitutes any endorsement of those traditions on their own terms. The biblical perspective the volume maintains throughout remains the controlling framework within which the analytical work proceeds, and the framework provides the standard against which the patterns examined in the paper are ultimately evaluated.
II. The Hindu Priestly Hierarchy
The first analytical task of the paper is to examine the operation of the Hindu priestly hierarchy and the broader caste system within which it has been embedded. The hierarchy and the broader system have operated across substantial portions of South Asian history, and the patterns they have produced have been documented across extensive scholarly literature on the region and its religious traditions. The analytical work of the present section consists in the application of the analytical framework developed throughout this volume to the patterns that the scholarly literature documents.
The Hindu priestly hierarchy operates within the broader framework of the varna system, which organizes the social and religious life of the broader Hindu community into categorical divisions that have historically determined the religious and social standing of those born within particular categories. The Brahmin caste, occupying the top of the hierarchy, has historically held authority over the religious life of the broader Hindu community, including authority over the conduct of religious ceremonies, the interpretation of religious texts, the determination of religious obligations applicable to other castes, and the various other dimensions of religious life that the broader Hindu framework addresses. The other castes within the hierarchy have operated under conditions of religious standing that are substantially less elevated than those of the Brahmin caste, and the broader Hindu community has historically included substantial populations who have been excluded from the four main varnas entirely, occupying positions that have historically been characterized as outside or below the formal caste structure.
The operation of the Hindu priestly hierarchy exhibits several characteristic features that connect it to the broader analytical framework this volume has been developing. The first characteristic feature is the substantial mediation that the priestly caste has historically exercised over access to the religious life of the broader community. The priestly caste has administered the religious ceremonies, determined the conditions under which the ceremonies could be conducted, and exercised substantial discretion over the application of religious requirements to particular cases. The mediation has produced conditions in which access to the religious life has, in substantial respects, been conditional upon the priestly caste’s exercise of its mediating function, and the conditional access has produced systematic advantages for the priestly caste in the broader operation of the religious system.
The second characteristic feature is the substantial differentiation in the conditions of religious obligation that has applied to different castes within the broader hierarchy. The religious obligations applicable to the priestly caste have, in many respects, been substantially different from those applicable to the other castes, and the differentiation has produced conditions in which the religious life of the broader community has operated on substantially different terms depending upon the caste position of the participants. The differentiation has been articulated and defended through theological considerations within the broader Hindu framework, but the substantive operation of the differentiation has produced patterns of asymmetric application that the analytical framework of this volume identifies as characteristic of the Teflon pattern.
The third characteristic feature is the systematic control that the priestly caste has historically exercised over the interpretation of the religious texts that have governed the broader religious life of the community. The interpretive control has been administered through institutional structures that the priestly caste has dominated, including the educational institutions through which religious interpretation has been transmitted across generations and the broader religious institutions through which authoritative interpretations have been produced and disseminated. The interpretive control has produced conditions in which the substantive content of the religious tradition has been substantially mediated by the priestly caste, with the consequence that the broader community’s access to the substantive content of the tradition has been substantially dependent upon the priestly caste’s interpretive function.
The fourth characteristic feature is the institutional protection that the priestly caste has historically enjoyed within the broader social and political structures of the regions in which the Hindu tradition has operated. The protection has been administered through formal legal arrangements in various periods, through informal social arrangements that have operated alongside the formal arrangements, and through the various other institutional mechanisms by which the priestly caste’s position within the broader social structure has been maintained. The institutional protection has produced conditions in which the priestly caste has operated under reduced exposure to the consequences that ordinary participants would face for analogous conduct, and the reduced exposure has contributed to the broader pattern that the analytical framework of this volume identifies as characteristic of the Teflon pattern.
The cumulative effect of these characteristic features has been the production of a religious system in which the priestly caste has operated under conditions of substantial privilege relative to the broader community whose religious life the caste has administered. The conditions have affected the daily operation of the priestly caste’s relationships with the broader community, the institutional consequences the caste has faced for its conduct, the material resources available to the caste, and the various other dimensions of the caste’s institutional standing within the broader religious system. The conditions have also affected the broader community’s relationship to the religious tradition, since the community has been positioned to experience the tradition substantially through the mediation of the credentialed class that has operated under conditions substantially different from those that have applied to the community itself.
The institutional mechanisms identified in White Paper 6, the sociological dynamics identified in White Paper 9, and the performative sacrifice dynamics identified in White Paper 10 all operate within the Hindu priestly hierarchy with substantial visibility. The application of the analytical framework developed throughout this volume to the Hindu case therefore confirms the broader argument that the framework captures the underlying dynamics that operate across religious institutions, regardless of the specific theological and historical contexts within which the institutions have operated. The biblical perspective the volume maintains throughout does not affirm the substantive religious claims of the Hindu tradition, but the analytical recognition of the patterns within the tradition contributes substantially to the broader argument the volume has been developing regarding the universality of the Teflon dynamic across religious institutions.
III. The Islamic Jurisprudential Elites
The second analytical task of the paper is to examine the development of the Islamic jurisprudential elites and the systems of religious legal interpretation through which they have administered the religious life of the broader Islamic community. The elites and the broader systems have operated across substantial portions of the historical development of the Islamic tradition, and the patterns they have produced have been documented across extensive scholarly literature on the tradition and its institutional history. The analytical work of the present section consists in the application of the analytical framework developed throughout this volume to the patterns that the scholarly literature documents.
The Islamic jurisprudential tradition developed across the early centuries of the Islamic period through the convergence of several institutional and intellectual developments. The development produced, across the period, the recognized schools of jurisprudence within which the broader Islamic legal tradition has been articulated, and the schools have operated through credentialed classes whose authority within the tradition has been administered through institutional structures that the classes have dominated. The credentialed classes have included the categories of religious scholars whose authority within the tradition has been recognized through the various institutional channels that have developed across the historical development of the tradition, and the categories have operated through institutional structures that have produced the broader patterns the present section examines.
The operation of the Islamic jurisprudential elites exhibits several characteristic features that connect them to the broader analytical framework this volume has been developing. The first characteristic feature is the substantial mediation that the jurisprudential class has exercised over access to the substantive content of the religious tradition. The tradition has been articulated through legal frameworks that the credentialed class has administered, and the access of the broader community to the substantive content of the tradition has, in substantial respects, been mediated by the credentialed class’s interpretive and administrative functions. The mediation has produced conditions in which the broader community’s relationship to the tradition has been substantially dependent upon the credentialed class’s mediating function, and the dependence has produced systematic advantages for the credentialed class in the broader operation of the religious system.
The second characteristic feature is the systematic differentiation in the conditions of religious obligation that has, in various periods of the tradition’s development, applied to the credentialed class as distinct from the broader community. The differentiation has operated through the various forms of religious standing that the credentialed class has enjoyed within the broader institutional structure of the tradition, and the differentiation has produced conditions in which the religious life of the broader community has operated on substantially different terms depending upon the institutional standing of the participants. The differentiation has been articulated and defended through theological considerations within the broader framework of the tradition, but the substantive operation of the differentiation has produced patterns of asymmetric application that the analytical framework of this volume identifies as characteristic of the Teflon pattern.
The third characteristic feature is the substantial control that the jurisprudential class has historically exercised over the interpretation of the religious texts and traditions that have governed the broader religious life of the community. The interpretive control has been administered through the educational institutions through which jurisprudential expertise has been transmitted across generations, through the institutional structures through which authoritative interpretations have been produced and disseminated, and through the various other institutional mechanisms by which the credentialed class has maintained its interpretive authority within the broader tradition. The interpretive control has produced conditions in which the substantive content of the tradition has been substantially mediated by the credentialed class, with the consequence that the broader community’s access to the substantive content of the tradition has been substantially dependent upon the credentialed class’s interpretive function.
The fourth characteristic feature is the institutional integration of the jurisprudential class with the broader political and social structures within which the Islamic tradition has operated. The integration has varied substantially across the historical development of the tradition and across the various regions in which the tradition has operated, but the broader pattern of integration has produced conditions in which the jurisprudential class has frequently operated under institutional protections that have reduced its exposure to the consequences that ordinary participants would face for analogous conduct. The institutional integration has been administered through formal legal arrangements in various periods and regions, through informal social arrangements that have operated alongside the formal arrangements, and through the various other institutional mechanisms by which the credentialed class’s position within the broader social and political structure has been maintained.
The cumulative effect of these characteristic features has been the production of a religious system in which the jurisprudential class has operated under conditions of substantial institutional advantage relative to the broader community whose religious life the class has administered. The conditions have varied substantially across the historical development of the tradition and across the various regions in which the tradition has operated, but the broader pattern has exhibited the operation of the Teflon dynamic across the various manifestations of the tradition. The application of the analytical framework developed throughout this volume to the Islamic case therefore confirms the broader argument that the framework captures the underlying dynamics that operate across religious institutions, regardless of the specific theological and historical contexts within which the institutions have operated.
The institutional mechanisms identified in White Paper 6 operate within the Islamic jurisprudential system through the various formal and informal arrangements that the system has developed across its historical operation. The sociological dynamics identified in White Paper 9 operate within the system through the broader social environment within which the credentialed class has operated. The performative sacrifice dynamics identified in White Paper 10 operate within the system through the elaborate institutional life through which the credentialed class has conducted its public functions while the substantive material conditions of the class have, in various periods and regions, diverged substantially from the visible symbols of religious devotion. The application of the analytical framework to the Islamic case therefore provides substantial analytical traction in understanding why the patterns within the tradition have operated as they have across the historical development of the tradition.
The biblical perspective the volume maintains throughout does not affirm the substantive religious claims of the Islamic tradition, but the analytical recognition of the patterns within the tradition contributes substantially to the broader argument the volume has been developing. The Islamic case demonstrates that the Teflon dynamic operates across religious traditions whose foundational documents differ substantially from those that the biblical perspective recognizes as authoritative, and the demonstration confirms that the underlying dynamics are universal to religious institutions rather than specific to particular theological traditions. The recognition of this universality is essential for the broader argument the volume has been developing, and the recognition does not depend upon the substantive evaluation of the religious claims the Islamic tradition articulates.
IV. Buddhist Monastic Privilege
The third analytical task of the paper is to examine the operation of Buddhist monastic privilege across the various traditions within which the Buddhist monastic life has been organized. The monastic life has operated as a central institutional feature of the Buddhist tradition across its historical development, and the patterns produced by the operation of the monastic life have been documented across extensive scholarly literature on the various Buddhist traditions and their institutional histories. The analytical work of the present section consists in the application of the analytical framework developed throughout this volume to the patterns that the scholarly literature documents.
The Buddhist monastic tradition developed across the early period of the Buddhist tradition through the establishment of institutional structures within which monks and nuns could pursue the religious life on conditions that differed substantially from those that applied to lay practitioners. The structures have continued to operate across the subsequent historical development of the various Buddhist traditions, and the structures have produced the broader patterns of monastic life that the present section examines. The patterns have varied substantially across the various Buddhist traditions, but the broader features of monastic life that the present section addresses have been sufficiently consistent across the traditions that the analytical examination can address them at the broader level of institutional pattern rather than at the level of specific traditional differences.
The operation of Buddhist monastic privilege exhibits several characteristic features that connect it to the broader analytical framework this volume has been developing. The first characteristic feature is the substantial material support that the broader lay community has historically provided for the monastic community. The support has been administered through the various forms of giving that have characterized the relationship between the monastic and lay communities, and the giving has provided the material foundation upon which the monastic life has operated across the historical development of the various Buddhist traditions. The relationship of support has produced conditions in which the monastic community has been substantially dependent upon the lay community for its material maintenance, and the lay community has been positioned to provide that maintenance under religious frameworks that have characterized the giving as religiously meritorious. The relationship has produced patterns in which the lay community has borne the substantial material costs of supporting the monastic community while the monastic community has received the religious recognition and institutional standing that the broader tradition has associated with monastic life.
The second characteristic feature is the substantial differentiation in the conditions of religious obligation that has applied to the monastic community as distinct from the broader lay community. The differentiation has operated through the various forms of religious standing that the monastic community has enjoyed within the broader institutional structure of the various Buddhist traditions, and the differentiation has produced conditions in which the religious life of the broader community has operated on substantially different terms depending upon whether the participants have occupied monastic or lay positions. The differentiation has been articulated and defended through theological considerations within the broader framework of the various Buddhist traditions, but the substantive operation of the differentiation has produced patterns of asymmetric distribution of religious standing that the analytical framework of this volume can examine on its own terms.
The third characteristic feature is the substantial control that the monastic community has historically exercised over the interpretation and transmission of the religious texts and teachings that have governed the broader religious life of the various Buddhist traditions. The interpretive control has been administered through the educational institutions through which monastic training has been conducted across generations, through the institutional structures through which authoritative interpretations have been produced and disseminated, and through the various other institutional mechanisms by which the monastic community has maintained its interpretive authority within the broader tradition. The interpretive control has produced conditions in which the substantive content of the various Buddhist traditions has been substantially mediated by the monastic community, with the consequence that the lay community’s access to the substantive content of the traditions has been substantially dependent upon the monastic community’s interpretive function.
The fourth characteristic feature is the institutional protection that the monastic community has historically enjoyed within the broader social and political structures of the regions in which the various Buddhist traditions have operated. The protection has varied substantially across the historical development of the traditions and across the various regions in which the traditions have operated, but the broader pattern of protection has produced conditions in which the monastic community has frequently operated under reduced exposure to the consequences that ordinary participants would face for analogous conduct. The institutional protection has been administered through formal legal arrangements in various periods and regions, through informal social arrangements that have operated alongside the formal arrangements, and through the various other institutional mechanisms by which the monastic community’s position within the broader social and political structure has been maintained.
The cumulative effect of these characteristic features has been the production of a religious system in which the monastic community has operated under conditions of substantial institutional advantage relative to the broader lay community whose religious life the monastic community has, in many respects, administered. The conditions have varied substantially across the historical development of the various Buddhist traditions and across the various regions in which the traditions have operated, but the broader pattern has exhibited the operation of the Teflon dynamic across the various manifestations of the broader tradition. The application of the analytical framework developed throughout this volume to the Buddhist case therefore confirms the broader argument that the framework captures the underlying dynamics that operate across religious institutions, regardless of the specific theological and historical contexts within which the institutions have operated.
The analytical examination of Buddhist monastic privilege requires particular care in the recognition that the monastic life, in its substantive religious articulation within the Buddhist tradition, has been associated with substantial personal austerity and the renunciation of various material attachments that have been characterized as obstacles to the religious progress that the tradition has identified as the goal of the religious life. The substantive religious articulation has frequently emphasized the demanding character of the monastic life and the substantial personal sacrifices that the monastic life requires. The analytical examination conducted in the present section does not deny the substantive religious articulation of the monastic life, nor does it suggest that the monastic life within the Buddhist tradition has, in all cases, operated under conditions that have contradicted the substantive religious articulation.
The analytical examination addresses, rather, the broader institutional patterns that have operated alongside the substantive religious articulation, and the institutional patterns have exhibited the dynamics that the analytical framework of this volume identifies. The performative sacrifice dynamics identified in White Paper 10 are particularly relevant to the analytical examination of the Buddhist monastic case, since the dynamics specifically address the relationship between the visible practices of austerity that credentialed classes have adopted and the substantive material conditions under which the classes have actually operated. The analytical recognition of the operation of these dynamics within the Buddhist monastic context is not a denial that some monastic practitioners have, at various points in the tradition’s history, maintained substantive personal austerities that have corresponded to the visible practices that the tradition has associated with monastic life. The analytical recognition is, rather, the observation that the broader institutional patterns of the monastic life have exhibited the dynamics that the analytical framework identifies, and the observation contributes to the broader argument the volume has been developing regarding the universality of those dynamics across religious institutions.
The biblical perspective the volume maintains throughout does not affirm the substantive religious claims of the Buddhist traditions, but the analytical recognition of the patterns within those traditions contributes substantially to the broader argument the volume has been developing regarding the universality of the Teflon dynamic across religious institutions.
V. The Broader Pattern of Religious Caste and Moral Stratification
The fourth analytical task of the paper is to examine the broader pattern of religious caste and moral stratification that the three cases together illuminate. The three cases — the Hindu priestly hierarchy, the Islamic jurisprudential elites, and Buddhist monastic privilege — exhibit substantial differences in their specific theological and institutional articulations, but the broader pattern that operates across the three cases exhibits sufficient consistency that the pattern can be analyzed as a distinct phenomenon rather than as three unrelated occurrences that happen to share surface features.
The broader pattern operates through several common features that recur across the three cases and across the cases examined in the preceding two papers of this cluster. The first common feature is the development of a credentialed class whose religious authority within the broader tradition has been administered through institutional structures that the class itself has dominated. The credentialed class operates as the mediator between the broader community and the substantive content of the religious tradition, and the mediating function produces conditions under which the credentialed class enjoys substantial institutional standing relative to the broader community whose religious life the class administers. The pattern recurs across the three cases examined in the present paper and across the cases examined in the preceding papers of this cluster, indicating that the development of such a credentialed class is a recurring feature of religious institutional life across the broader range of religious traditions.
The second common feature is the systematic differentiation in the conditions of religious obligation and religious standing that applies to the credentialed class as distinct from the broader community. The differentiation operates through the various forms of institutional standing that the credentialed class enjoys within the broader institutional structure of the tradition, and the differentiation produces conditions in which the religious life of the broader community operates on substantially different terms depending upon the institutional standing of the participants. The differentiation is articulated and defended through theological considerations within the broader framework of each tradition, but the substantive operation of the differentiation produces patterns of asymmetric application that the analytical framework of this volume identifies as characteristic of the Teflon pattern.
The third common feature is the substantial control that the credentialed class exercises over the interpretation and transmission of the religious texts and teachings that govern the broader religious life of the community. The interpretive control is administered through the educational and institutional structures that the credentialed class dominates, and the control produces conditions in which the substantive content of the religious tradition is substantially mediated by the credentialed class. The mediation produces systematic advantages for the credentialed class in the broader operation of the religious system, and the advantages contribute to the broader pattern that the analytical framework of this volume has been examining throughout.
The fourth common feature is the institutional protection that the credentialed class enjoys within the broader social and political structures of the regions in which the traditions operate. The protection varies substantially across the various historical and regional contexts within which the traditions have operated, but the broader pattern of protection produces conditions in which the credentialed class operates under reduced exposure to the consequences that ordinary participants would face for analogous conduct. The institutional protection contributes to the broader pattern of elite exemption that the analytical framework of this volume identifies as characteristic of the Teflon pattern.
The recurrence of these four common features across the three cases examined in the present paper, and across the cases examined in the preceding papers of this cluster, establishes that the broader pattern of religious caste and moral stratification is a recurring feature of religious institutional life across the broader range of religious traditions. The pattern operates within traditions whose foundational documents differ substantially from one another, within traditions whose theological frameworks have developed independently across substantial historical periods, and within traditions whose institutional structures have been organized through substantially different mechanisms. The recurrence of the pattern across such diverse contexts indicates that the pattern is not a feature of any particular theological or institutional framework but a feature of the broader operation of religious institutions wherever credentialed classes have come to occupy positions of authority over populations subject to their religious determinations.
The implications of this recurrence for the broader argument of the volume are considerable. The volume has been developing, across its various clusters of papers, the analytical framework that captures the underlying dynamics that operate across institutions in which credentialed classes have constructed systems of elite exemption from the standards they articulate for the broader populations subject to their authority. The recurrence of the pattern across the diverse religious traditions examined in the present cluster establishes that the framework captures the underlying dynamics with substantial generality, and the generality of the framework supports the application of the framework to any institutional context in which the relevant dynamics can be identified.
The biblical perspective the volume maintains throughout produces the controlling framework within which the comparative analytical work of this paper proceeds. The biblical perspective does not affirm the substantive religious claims of the three traditions examined in this paper, but the biblical perspective does identify the dynamic that operates across the three traditions as the dynamic that the Lord identified within the first-century religious establishment, and the application of the critique to the three traditions therefore proceeds on the same basis as the application to the cases examined in the preceding papers of this cluster. The critique applies wherever the relevant dynamics can be identified, and the dynamics can be identified within the three traditions examined in this paper as readily as within the cases examined in the preceding papers. The application of the critique is not an inappropriate extension of the critique to traditions that fall outside the biblical perspective; it is the natural and necessary application of the same critique to the cases in which the same dynamics have operated, regardless of the broader theological context within which the cases have occurred.
VI. The Biblical Critique Applied and the Bridge to the Subsequent Papers
The closing analytical task of the paper is to apply the biblical critique developed in the first cluster of this volume to the patterns the preceding sections have documented, and in doing so to provide the bridge to the subsequent papers of the cluster.
The first observation is that the three cases examined in the present paper exhibit, with substantial clarity, the operation of the Teflon dynamic across religious traditions whose theological frameworks differ substantially from those of the cases examined in the preceding papers of the cluster. The recurrence of the dynamic across such diverse theological contexts confirms that the dynamic is not a feature of any particular theological tradition but a feature of religious institutional life more broadly. The recurrence supports the broader argument the volume has been developing regarding the universality of the Teflon dynamic across institutions in which credentialed classes have come to occupy positions of authority over populations subject to their determinations.
The second observation is that the application of the analytical framework developed throughout this volume to the three cases produces conclusions that are consistent with the conclusions produced by the application of the framework to the cases examined in the preceding papers. The framework captures the underlying dynamics that operate across the three cases as it captures the underlying dynamics that operate across the cases examined in the preceding papers, and the convergence of the conclusions across the diverse cases supports the broader validity of the analytical framework. The framework operates as a general analytical resource that can be applied to any institutional context in which the relevant dynamics can be identified, and the application produces conclusions that are consistent with one another across the various contexts to which the framework has been applied.
The third observation is that the recognition of the universality of the Teflon dynamic across religious institutions has substantial implications for the broader argument the volume has been developing. The dynamic is not a peripheral feature of any particular religious tradition but a central feature of religious institutional life across the broader range of religious traditions. The recognition of this fact has implications for any subsequent religious institution that seeks to operate without producing the patterns that the analytical framework identifies, and the implications include the necessity of the kind of substantive institutional reform that the analytical framework, developed throughout this volume, has been articulating.
The fourth observation is that the biblical critique demands a particular response to the patterns documented in the present paper. The critique does not call for the affirmation of the religious traditions examined in the paper on their own terms; the biblical perspective the volume maintains throughout does not affirm the substantive religious claims of those traditions. The critique calls, rather, for the recognition that the dynamics within those traditions operate as the dynamics that the Lord identified within the first-century religious establishment, and the recognition supports the broader argument that the dynamics are universal to religious institutions wherever credentialed classes have come to occupy positions of authority over populations subject to their determinations.
The fifth observation is that the analytical work of the present cluster has, with the present paper, extended the comparative examination of the Teflon dynamic beyond the foundational cases of first-century Judaism and medieval Christianity to include the three additional traditions examined in this paper. The subsequent paper of the cluster will extend the comparative examination further by examining the operation of the dynamic within secularized priesthoods in modern ideologies, which represent a distinct category of institutional manifestation in which the dynamics that have operated within religious institutions have been reproduced within institutional contexts that do not formally identify themselves as religious. The final paper of the cluster will examine the broader universal human temptation toward exemption that operates across all religious and quasi-religious frameworks, and the final paper will draw together the cumulative conclusions of the cluster as a whole in preparation for the diagnostic instruments that conclude the volume.
The paper closes with the observation that the comparative analytical work conducted in the present paper has confirmed, with substantial generality, the broader argument the volume has been developing regarding the universality of the Teflon dynamic across religious institutions. The dynamic operates within the Christian and Jewish traditions that the preceding papers have examined, and the dynamic operates within the Hindu, Islamic, and Buddhist traditions that the present paper has examined. The dynamic operates wherever credentialed classes have come to occupy positions of authority over populations subject to their religious determinations, and the recognition of this universality is essential for any adequate understanding of the broader patterns of religious institutional life across the diverse traditions in which religious institutions have operated. The biblical critique developed throughout this volume applies to the dynamic wherever it can be identified, and the application proceeds on the same basis across the various traditions to which the analytical framework has been applied. The remaining work of the cluster will extend the analytical examination to the additional categories that the subsequent papers of the cluster will address, and the cumulative work of the cluster will provide the foundation for the diagnostic instruments that conclude the volume and that will provide the practical tools for the identification of the Teflon pattern in any institutional context in which the dynamics that the analytical framework identifies can be observed.
Notes
Note 1. The analytical work of this paper has drawn on extensive scholarly literature on the three religious traditions examined, with attention to the institutional patterns that the literature documents. The work has not undertaken to settle disputed questions about particular aspects of the historical development of the traditions, the relative weight of various historical factors in the development of particular institutional patterns, or the substantive evaluation of particular theological positions within the traditions on their own terms. The biblical critique that the paper develops applies to the substantive patterns the scholarship documents, and the application does not depend upon the resolution of the disputed questions that subsequent scholarship has addressed.
Note 2. The biblical perspective the volume maintains throughout does not affirm the substantive religious claims of the three traditions examined in the present paper. The analytical work of the paper undertakes the comparative examination of the institutional patterns within the three traditions, with attention to what the patterns reveal about the operation of the Teflon dynamic across religious institutions, and the analytical work does not constitute any endorsement of the substantive religious claims that the three traditions articulate. The recognition of this commitment is essential for understanding what the analytical work of this paper undertakes and what it does not undertake.
Note 3. The operation of the Hindu priestly hierarchy examined in the second section has been documented across extensive scholarly literature on South Asian religious history and the broader development of the Hindu tradition. The literature includes works that examine the hierarchy from various perspectives, including perspectives that have been articulated within the tradition itself, perspectives that have been articulated by external observers, and perspectives that examine the hierarchy primarily as a historical and institutional phenomenon. The present paper has drawn on the literature primarily for its analytical purposes, with attention to the institutional patterns the literature documents rather than to the particular interpretive frameworks that the literature has developed.
Note 4. The operation of the Islamic jurisprudential elites examined in the third section has been documented across extensive scholarly literature on the historical development of the Islamic tradition. The literature includes works that examine the jurisprudential tradition from various perspectives, including perspectives that have been articulated within the tradition itself, perspectives that have been articulated by external observers, and perspectives that examine the tradition primarily as a historical and institutional phenomenon. The present paper has drawn on the literature primarily for its analytical purposes, with attention to the institutional patterns the literature documents rather than to the particular interpretive frameworks that the literature has developed.
Note 5. The operation of Buddhist monastic privilege examined in the fourth section has been documented across extensive scholarly literature on the various Buddhist traditions and their institutional histories. The literature includes works that examine the monastic life from various perspectives, including perspectives that have been articulated within the traditions themselves, perspectives that have been articulated by external observers, and perspectives that examine the monastic life primarily as a historical and institutional phenomenon. The present paper has drawn on the literature primarily for its analytical purposes, with attention to the institutional patterns the literature documents. The analytical examination has acknowledged the substantive religious articulation within the Buddhist tradition of the demanding character of monastic life and the substantial personal sacrifices that monastic life requires, and the examination has not denied the substantive religious articulation; the examination has addressed, rather, the broader institutional patterns that have operated alongside the substantive religious articulation and that have exhibited the dynamics the analytical framework of this volume identifies.
Note 6. The broader pattern of religious caste and moral stratification examined in the fifth section is the cumulative result of the application of the analytical framework developed throughout this volume to the three cases examined in the present paper. The cumulative recognition of the pattern across the three cases, combined with the cumulative recognition of the pattern across the cases examined in the preceding papers of the cluster, establishes the broader universality of the Teflon dynamic across religious institutions. The recognition of this universality is essential for the broader argument the volume has been developing, and the recognition does not depend upon the substantive evaluation of the religious claims that the various traditions articulate.
References
The Holy Bible, King James Version. (1611/Public Domain). Cambridge edition. References in this paper to the broader biblical witness follow the Authorized Version.
Berger, P. L. (1967). The sacred canopy: Elements of a sociological theory of religion. Doubleday. [Cited for analytical observations about religious institutions; theological framework is not endorsed in its entirety.]
Boice, J. M. (1986). Foundations of the Christian faith. InterVarsity Press.
Bowker, J. (Ed.). (1997). The Oxford dictionary of world religions. Oxford University Press. [Cited for reference material on world religious traditions; the substantive religious claims of non-Christian traditions are not endorsed.]
Calvin, J. (1559/1960). Institutes of the Christian religion (J. T. McNeill, Ed.; F. L. Battles, Trans.). Westminster Press.
Carson, D. A. (1996). The gagging of God: Christianity confronts pluralism. Zondervan.
Coward, H. (Ed.). (2005). Sin and salvation in the world religions: A short introduction. Oneworld Publications. [Cited for reference material; substantive religious claims of non-Christian traditions are not endorsed.]
Dever, M. (2012). The church: The Gospel made visible. B&H Academic.
Doniger, W. (2009). The Hindus: An alternative history. Penguin Press. [Cited for historical reference; theological framework is not endorsed.]
Dumont, L. (1980). Homo hierarchicus: The caste system and its implications (M. Sainsbury, L. Dumont, & B. Gulati, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. [Cited for analytical observations about social hierarchy; broader theoretical framework is not endorsed.]
Esposito, J. L. (Ed.). (1999). The Oxford history of Islam. Oxford University Press. [Cited for historical reference; the substantive religious claims of Islam are not endorsed.]
Ferguson, S. B. (2007). In Christ alone: Living the Gospel centered life. Reformation Trust.
Flood, G. (1996). An introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge University Press. [Cited for historical and institutional reference; theological framework is not endorsed.]
Frame, J. M. (2008). The doctrine of the Christian life. P&R Publishing.
Frykenberg, R. E. (2008). Christianity in India: From beginnings to the present. Oxford University Press.
Geisler, N. L., & Saleeb, A. (2002). Answering Islam: The crescent in light of the cross (2nd ed.). Baker Books.
Goldsworthy, G. (2000). Preaching the whole Bible as Christian Scripture. Eerdmans.
Gombrich, R. F. (1988). Theravada Buddhism: A social history from ancient Benares to modern Colombo. Routledge. [Cited for historical reference; theological framework is not endorsed.]
Hallaq, W. B. (2005). The origins and evolution of Islamic law. Cambridge University Press. [Cited for historical reference; the substantive religious claims of Islam are not endorsed.]
Harvey, P. (2013). An introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, history and practices (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. [Cited for reference material; theological framework is not endorsed.]
Henry, M. (1706/1991). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible. Hendrickson.
Hodgson, M. G. S. (1974). The venture of Islam: Conscience and history in a world civilization (3 vols.). University of Chicago Press. [Cited for historical reference; the substantive religious claims of Islam are not endorsed.]
Keller, T. (2011). The reason for God: Belief in an age of skepticism. Riverhead Books.
Klostermaier, K. K. (2007). A survey of Hinduism (3rd ed.). State University of New York Press. [Cited for reference material; theological framework is not endorsed.]
Lewis, B. (2002). What went wrong? Western impact and Middle Eastern response. Oxford University Press. [Cited for historical analysis; broader theoretical framework is presented as subject to ongoing debate.]
Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1959). Studies in the Sermon on the Mount. Eerdmans.
MacArthur, J. (2007). The Jesus you can’t ignore: What you must learn from the bold confrontations of Christ. Thomas Nelson.
Manton, T. (1693/1962). A practical commentary, or an exposition with notes on the epistle of James. Banner of Truth.
Mohler, R. A. (2008). Culture shift: Engaging current issues with timeless truth. Multnomah.
Murray, J. (1957). Principles of conduct: Aspects of biblical ethics. Eerdmans.
Newbigin, L. (1989). The Gospel in a pluralist society. Eerdmans. [Cited selectively; broader theological framework is not fully endorsed.]
Owen, J. (1668/1991). The mortification of sin in believers (W. H. Goold, Ed.). Banner of Truth.
Packer, J. I. (1973). Knowing God. InterVarsity Press.
Pickering, W. S. F. (Ed.). (1975). Durkheim on religion. Routledge & Kegan Paul. [Cited for analytical observations; broader theoretical framework is not endorsed.]
Piper, J. (1995). Future grace: The purifying power of the promises of God. Multnomah.
Powlison, D. (2003). Seeing with new eyes: Counseling and the human condition through the lens of Scripture. P&R Publishing.
Rahman, F. (1982). Islam and modernity: Transformation of an intellectual tradition. University of Chicago Press. [Cited for historical reference; the substantive religious claims of Islam are not endorsed.]
Ryle, J. C. (1879/2014). Holiness. Banner of Truth.
Schimmel, A. (1975). Mystical dimensions of Islam. University of North Carolina Press. [Cited for historical reference; the substantive religious claims of Islam are not endorsed.]
Schopen, G. (1997). Bones, stones, and Buddhist monks: Collected papers on the archaeology, epigraphy, and texts of monastic Buddhism in India. University of Hawaii Press. [Cited for historical reference; theological framework is not endorsed.]
Sproul, R. C. (1985). The holiness of God. Tyndale House.
Stott, J. R. W. (1992). The contemporary Christian: Applying God’s word to today’s world. InterVarsity Press.
Trueman, C. R. (2020). The rise and triumph of the modern self: Cultural amnesia, expressive individualism, and the road to sexual revolution. Crossway.
Veith, G. E. (1994). Postmodern times: A Christian guide to contemporary thought and culture. Crossway.
Watson, T. (1668/1965). A body of divinity. Banner of Truth.
Watt, W. M. (1968). Islamic political thought: The basic concepts. Edinburgh University Press. [Cited for historical reference; the substantive religious claims of Islam are not endorsed.]
Weber, M. (1922/1978). Economy and society (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). University of California Press. [Cited for analytical observations about religious institutions; broader theoretical framework is not endorsed.]
Wells, D. F. (2008). The Courage to be Protestant: Truth-lovers, marketers, and emergents in the postmodern world. Eerdmans.
Wright, C. J. H. (2004). Old Testament ethics for the people of God. InterVarsity Press.
