John M. Owen IV
International Authoritarian Challenges to Democracy
Contact: gfcfevents@gmail.com if you would like to be added to our mailing list.
Response Paul Freston is emeritus professor in Religion and Politics in Global Context at the Balsillie School of International Affairs and Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada. He is also professor colaborador on the post-graduate programme in sociology at the Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Brazil. A naturalized Brazilian of British origin, he has worked mainly on religion and politics, the growth of popular forms of Protestantism in Latin America, and questions of religion and globalization. His books include Evangelicals and Politics in Asia, Africa and Latin America (Cambridge University Press, 2001); and (co-edited) The Cambridge History of Religions in Latin America (Cambridge University Press, 2016).
Abstract for John Owen
Democracy is wobbling in a number of countries at once. This is no accident, because no democracy is an island: countries share a complex social environment that, depending on its content, can “select for” either democracy or authoritarianism. One reason why the environment has lately come to favour authoritarianism is the rise and reassertion of the authoritarian giants, China and Russia. Dr. Owen will discuss the effects of these countries and their policies on world politics, recent developments in the United States, and finally why Christians today ought to cherish constitutional democracy and work for a world that enables its flourishing.
Biography
John M. Owen IV (A.B., Duke; M.P.A., Princeton; A.M., Ph.D., Harvard) is Taylor Professor of Politics, and a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture, at the University of Virginia. Owen is author of The Ecology of Nations (2023), winner of the 2025 Grawemeyer Award in World Order. His other books include The Clash of Ideas in World Politics (2010), and Liberal Peace, Liberal War (1997). He is co-editor of Religion, the Enlightenment, and the New Global Order (2011). Owen has published essays in First Things, Providence, Christian Scholars’ Review, Foreign Affairs, The Hedgehog Review, The Washington Post, and The New York Times. He has held fellowships at Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Oxford, the Free University and WZB (Berlin), and the University of British Columbia. In 2015, he received a Humboldt Research Prize (Germany). He has served on the boards of the Consortium of Christian Study Centers and the Center for Christian Study in Charlottesville, Virginia.
“Christian Political Reserve” by Dr. Paul Freston, Professor Emeritus Wilfrid Laurier University.
The Christian treatment of political differences is extremely important. The Christian community will never be completely united on these questions. Political diversity is normal and positive within the Christian community. It is positive because any uniformity would only exist if it was imposed by an authoritarian political leadership; without that, there will always be a diversity of Christian political opinions. And it is normal because Christian political unity is impossible, for three reasons.
Firstly, because of the absence of a biblical political recipe. The Bible does not exist to substitute for reflection on social, political and economic life, nor to substitute for creatively improving institutions in these areas. While Judaism has the Mosaic law and Islam has sharia law, Christianity has no comparable law. This absence of law is significant for the Christian task in social life. We have no ready-made political recipe applicable anywhere and anytime. Instead of this intellectual short-circuit, we have to constantly go through the hard work, with faithfulness and humility, of relating biblical revelation to the socio-political realities of our own context.
Secondly, Christian political uniformity is impossible because of the distance between the biblical worlds and our world. The New Testament was written for a small transnational community which controlled no territory and had no political power. As for the Old Testament, no country today is in the position of Old Testament Israel; and, in any case, the main principle of Christian interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures is that they should be read in the light of the coming of Christ. The enormous length of the hermeneutical bridge makes it impossible to arrive at a definitive political recipe.
Thirdly, Christian political uniformity is impossible because of the nature of politics. As the famous (pseudo) definition says, politics is the art of the possible. This means that two equally devout Christians, who reach similar conclusions from their reading of the scriptures, can still diverge radically in what each one regards as possible and advisable to attempt today, in this country.
The result of all this is a certain lack of political “self-confidence” in Christianity; a certain hesitation in producing political “recipes” in the name of the faith; a certain “reserve”, a non-dogmatism, an ample space for legitimate disagreement between faithful believers.
Due to this Christian political reserve, the politicization of the faith is disastrous, because it tries to charge a political “toll-fee” of those who wish to travel on the way of faith. This politicization is also idolatrous, because it confuses the absolute and the relative. Even while we affirm the importance of politics and the duty of Christians to participate in it, even passionately, we should always remember that our political opinions belong to the sphere of the relative and not of the absolute, and should never be placed on the same footing as those convictions which form the heart of the Christian faith.
Because of all this, we need democracy. While liberal democracy is insufficient and always disappoints, it is still irreplaceable. Democracy doesn’t exist to guarantee the victory of our side and of our vision of society. It exists to allow the ongoing defence of diverse projects for society, including our own.
Role of Churches & Christian Leadership in Politics
Firstly, it is important that those who hold official leadership positions (pastors, priests, bishops), while of course exercising their prerogatives as citizens, should preserve a certain public aloofness with regard to partisan politics in democratic contexts. Certainly, they should not be candidates for public elective office, as long as they are exercising pastoral roles.
Nevertheless, it is part of their responsibility as teachers to give instruction regarding all dimensions of discipleship, including the political dimensions. Besides specific implications, this also includes encouraging the political vocations of some members, and the responsible citizenship of all members.
During election campaigns, churches should consider encouraging debates among members, with serious defenders of each proposal, whether church members or not. The focus should be both on the importance of the questions involved, but also on the ability to debate civilly and to disagree without breaking off relations.
It is important that Christians refrain from giving way to political hatreds, but instead give an example to society of a community which is not politically united (which would be undesirable, since it could only be the fruit of manipulation), but of a community united in the Christian treatment of political differences. We remember the biblical exhortations to love everyone, but especially brothers and sisters in the faith (e.g. John 13:34-35, in which the ability of Christians to love each other is the most important factor in their reputation before the world; and Galatians 6:10, in which “to do good” is recommended above all to those who share the same faith). It is especially tempting to nurture an antipathy for those who are closest to us, but who nevertheless disagree with us! If Christians are not capable of living this ethic of love, inside the Christian community and in the midst of the political torment, we have nothing to contribute to society.
~Paul Freston, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Wilfrid Laurier University
“Open liberalism … is shaped by what Charles Taylor calls an ‘ethic of authenticity’: the understanding of life … that each one of has his/her own way of realizing our humanity, and that it is important to find and live out one’s own, as against surrendering to conformity with a model imposed on us from outside, by society, or by the previous generation, or religious or political authority (aka expressive individualism).” John Owen, The Ecology of Nations, 90.
“Open liberalism prizes markets and private enterprise for the power they bring to the individual, regardless of where she lives. It tells people that they are primarily consumers of the goods of capitalism rather than the producers of them. It seeks complete openness, a world without legacy boundaries to human interaction and fulfillment.” John Owen, The Ecology of Nations, 91.
See also David P. Gushee, Defending Democracy from its Christian Enemies.
Summary of The Ecology of Nations: American Democracy in a Fragile World Order by John M. Owen IV. John M. Owen IV’s 2023 book applies an ecological metaphor to international relations, framing regimes (democracies vs. autocracies) as “species” that actively “engineer” their global environment to favor their survival and spread. Drawing on Woodrow Wilson’s idea of making the world “safe for democracy,” Owen argues that liberal democracies are currently losing this competition due to internal flaws and aggressive autocratic strategies. The book critiques the overextension of liberal ideals while advocating for a more resilient, community-focused liberalism. Below are the main points, structured thematically:
1. The Concept of “Ecosystem Engineering” in Global Politics
- Nations, like keystone species in biology (e.g., beavers building dams or ants creating nests), intentionally reshape the international “ecosystem” (norms, institutions, alliances, and trade rules) to suit their regime type.
- Democracies engineer for openness, multilateralism, and human rights to reinforce liberal values at home; autocracies engineer for stability, hierarchy, and control to sustain authoritarian rule.
- Historical example: Post-WWII U.S.-led order (e.g., Bretton Woods, NATO) created a democratic-friendly environment that boosted liberal stability worldwide.
2. Why Democracies Are Losing the Competition
- Liberalism has evolved into a disruptive force emphasizing perpetual openness, individualism, and global intervention, which undermines domestic cohesion and exposes democracies to backlash (e.g., polarization, inequality).
- Autocracies like China and Russia are more effective “engineers”: China exports surveillance tech and economic dependencies; Russia spreads disinformation and supports illiberal allies, tilting the global environment toward autocracy.
- Democracies’ “great delusion”: The unrealistic belief that they can universally convert autocracies into liberals, leading to failed interventions (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan) and fatigue.
3. Interdependence of Democracies and the Fragility of U.S. Democracy
- American democracy’s health depends on a global network of fellow democracies; isolation or a autocracy-dominant world erodes U.S. institutions through contagion (e.g., via migration, media, or economic ties).
- Owen emphasizes that internal U.S. challenges (e.g., polarization) are exacerbated by external pressures, making ecosystem engineering a matter of national survival.
4. Recommendations: Reimagining Liberalism for Resilience
- Shift liberalism from disruption to commitment, community, and country: Prioritize domestic renewal (e.g., reducing inequality, fostering civic bonds) over endless global promotion.
- Reject universal conversion but actively counter autocratic engineering: Strengthen democratic alliances (e.g., EU, Quad), regulate autocratic influences (e.g., tech exports), and promote “liberal realism” abroad.
- Long-term goal: Bias the international order toward democracy without overreach, ensuring a “safe” global habitat for liberal species.
Owen’s analysis blends IR theory, history, and biology for a lucid, provocative take on why democracy feels besieged—and how to fight back strategically. The book won the 2025 Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order.
See also Anne Applebaum, Autocracy, Inc.: The Dictators Who Want to Run the World, Signal, 2024.
Timothy Snyder books: On Freedom; On Tyranny; The Road to Unfreedom.
Glenn Tinder, The Political Meaning of Christianity.
Larry Siedentop, The Invention of the Individual.
.
UBC Graduate & Faculty Christian Forum 