From a Christian evangelical perspective, Khomeini’s framework presents profound theological and ethical concerns, particularly regarding the fusion of religious and political authority, the suppression of individual freedom, and the consequences of human fallibility in governance.
By Dr. Tim Orr
Ayatollah Khomeini’s Wilayat al-Faqih (The Governance of the Jurist) remains a cornerstone of modern Islamic political thought, serving as the ideological foundation for the Islamic Republic of Iran. This work redefined the relationship between religion and state in Shia Islam and presented a political model that has sparked widespread debate among scholars, theologians, and political theorists. From a Christian evangelical perspective, Khomeini’s framework presents profound theological and ethical concerns, particularly regarding the fusion of religious and political authority, the suppression of individual freedom, and the consequences of human fallibility in governance. To deepen this critique, I will engage with insights from notable critics of Khomeini’s thought while bringing in the evangelical critique of theocratic governance and the inherent dangers of authoritarianism.
At the heart of Khomeini’s political theology is the belief that qualified jurists must lead Islamic governance with the knowledge and moral insight necessary to enforce divine law. Without the Twelfth Imam, Khomeini argued that the jurists (fuqaha) must assume political authority to preserve the Islamic order (Khomeini, 1979). The argument relies on the premise that religious leaders, by their spiritual and legal expertise, are better suited than secular leaders to rule by divine principles.
However, from a Christian evangelical perspective, this theological foundation is problematic. Christianity teaches that Christ is the sole mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5). The doctrine of sola Christus asserts that no human institution or leader, religious or otherwise, can adequately represent divine sovereignty. In Khomeini’s model, the Supreme Leader assumes near-prophetic authority, acting as both a political and spiritual guide, a concept that evokes concerns about the potential for idolatry. The Bible warns against placing too much trust in human leaders, emphasizing the sinful nature of humanity and the need for a direct relationship with God (Jeremiah 17:5-9).
Abdulaziz Sachedina (1998), a prominent critic of Khomeini, argues that Wilayat al-Faqih imposes a rigid, authoritarian structure that diminishes the role of the individual in both religious and political life. Sachedina highlights that Khomeini’s model removes agency from the people, instead placing it in the hands of clerics, which contradicts the Islamic concept of shura (consultation) and collective responsibility in governance. From an evangelical viewpoint, this critique resonates deeply, as the Bible affirms the importance of individual agency in faith (Philippians 2:12). Evangelical thought emphasizes the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9), rejecting hierarchical systems that diminish personal responsibility before God. By concentrating authority in the hands of a single jurist, Khomeini’s model risks alienating individuals from their relationship with the divine, undermining the New Testament’s emphasis on free will and the voluntary nature of faith (Romans 10:9-10).
A key evangelical critique of Khomeini’s Wilayat al-Faqih is grounded in the doctrine of human sinfulness. The Bible teaches that all humans are inherently sinful and that power, when unchecked, is particularly susceptible to corruption (Romans 3:23). Khomeini’s model assumes that Islamic jurists, by their religious knowledge, are immune to the temptations of power and corruption. This assumption is dangerous because it neglects the biblical understanding of human nature. The concentration of political, legal, and spiritual authority in the hands of the Supreme Leader, as seen in Iran’s governance, creates the potential for authoritarianism and abuse.
The history of the Islamic Republic provides ample evidence of the dangers of concentrated power. Khomeini’s successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has used his position to suppress dissent, silence opposition, and enforce strict adherence to sharia, often at the expense of human rights and individual freedoms (Dabashi, 1993). Evangelicals view this conflation of spiritual and political authority as antithetical to the teachings of Christ, who warned against the dangers of seeking earthly power (Matthew 20:25-28). The Christian governance model emphasizes servant leadership, where authority is used not to dominate but to serve others (Mark 10:42-45).
Hamid Dabashi (1993) highlights that Khomeini’s vision of governance, while initially appealing to those seeking justice, has led to authoritarian rule. Dabashi criticizes the way Khomeini’s Wilayat al-Faqih has been used to justify political repression, arguing that the fusion of religious authority with state power has undermined the Islamic Republic’s legitimacy. Evangelicals would echo this critique, noting that the Bible repeatedly warns against the dangers of placing too much power in the hands of fallible human leaders (Psalm 146:3).
One of the most significant areas of concern for evangelicals is Khomeini’s approach to religious law and individual freedom. In The Governance of the Jurist, Khomeini argues that Islamic law (sharia) must govern all aspects of life, including public and private behavior. This extends to enforcing moral conduct through state mechanisms, such as mandatory religious observances and suppressing non-Islamic religious practices. For Christians, this coercion contradicts the biblical principle that faith must be freely chosen, not imposed by force (Joshua 24:15). Evangelicals believe that religious liberty is a fundamental right because it reflects the God-given dignity of individuals who must be free to seek and worship God according to their conscience (Genesis 1:27).
The Islamic Republic’s enforcement of sharia has led to the persecution of religious minorities, including Christians, Jews, and Bahá’ís, who face legal restrictions and social discrimination (Boroumand, 2000). These policies stand in direct opposition to the Christian call to love one’s neighbor and respect the inherent worth of every person, regardless of their religious beliefs (Matthew 22:39). Khomeini’s model, by privileging Islamic law and marginalizing non-Muslims, erodes the very foundation of religious freedom that evangelicals uphold.
Ladan Boroumand (2000) critiques the Islamic Republic’s treatment of religious minorities, arguing that Khomeini’s model has institutionalized religious discrimination. Boroumand points out that the regime’s legal system, based on sharia, denies religious minorities basic rights, such as the ability to freely worship, own property, or participate fully in public life. From an evangelical perspective, such systemic discrimination is incompatible with the gospel’s message of love and justice for all people (Galatians 3:28). Boroumand’s critique aligns with evangelical concerns about the role of the state in enforcing religious conformity, which diminishes the voluntary nature of faith that is central to Christianity.
Khomeini’s Wilayat al-Faqih is deeply eschatological, rooted in the Shia belief in the eventual return of the Twelfth Imam, the Mahdi, who will establish justice on earth. In the meantime, Khomeini argued, Islamic jurists must act as stewards of divine authority to prepare for the Mahdi’s return. This messianic vision, while theologically compelling within Shia Islam, presents significant challenges from an evangelical viewpoint. Christianity also holds to an eschatological hope—the return of Christ to establish His kingdom—. Still, evangelicals reject the idea that any human government can or should attempt to bring about a theocratic kingdom on earth (John 18:36).
Throughout Christian history, attempts to establish theocratic governments have led to oppression, violence, and the distortion of the gospel. The New Testament teaches that Christ’s kingdom is not of this world and that ultimate justice and peace will only be realized when Christ returns (Revelation 21:1-4). Khomeini’s model, by contrast, places the burden of implementing divine justice on human rulers, a task that exceeds the capacity of sinful human institutions. The evangelical critique here emphasizes the danger of conflating human political power with divine sovereignty, a temptation that has historically led to authoritarianism and religious persecution.
Ervand Abrahamian (1993) critiques Khomeini’s eschatological vision, arguing that it creates unrealistic expectations of divine intervention in political affairs. Abrahamian contends that by framing the Islamic Republic as a precursor to the Mahdi’s return, Khomeini’s model fosters a sense of infallibility in the regime’s leaders, who are seen as executing a divine plan. This, according to Abrahamians, undermines political accountability and fosters a dangerous form of political absolutism. Evangelicals share this concern, viewing any attempt to establish a utopian society on earth as contrary to the biblical understanding of the already-not-yet nature of God’s kingdom. Human efforts to bring about divine justice are always incomplete and flawed, and the concentration of power in religious authorities only exacerbates the potential for abuse.
A final critique of Khomeini’s model relates to the role of religious leaders in governance. In Wilayat al-Faqih, Khomeini envisions a system where Islamic jurists hold supreme political authority. This starkly contrasts the evangelical understanding of the relationship between the Church and the state. Evangelicals believe that while the Church should be engaged in social and political matters, its primary mission is spiritual, not political (Matthew 28:18-20). The New Testament presents the Church as the body of Christ, whose role is to proclaim the gospel and serve the world's needs, not to wield political power.
Khomeini’s model, by contrast, fuses religious and political authority in a way that inevitably leads to the suppression of dissent and the marginalization of alternative viewpoints. From an evangelical perspective, this is a dangerous conflation of roles. The Bible teaches that human governments are ordained by God to maintain justice and order (Romans 13:1-4), but they are not meant to enforce religious orthodoxy. The Church’s influence in society should come through persuasion and service, not political domination.
Mehrzad Boroujerdi (2001) argues that Khomeini’s Wilayat al-Faqih represents a dangerous fusion of religious and political authority that undermines both. Boroujerdi contends that by placing clerics in charge of the state, Khomeini’s model has politicized religion and eroded the moral authority of the clergy. This criticism resonates with evangelical concerns about the dangers of religious leaders becoming entangled in political power. Evangelicals believe that the Church’s mission is compromised when it becomes too closely aligned with the state, as it risks losing its prophetic voice and moral authority.
Ayatollah Khomeini’s The Governance of the Jurist presents a deeply theological, authoritarian, and eschatological vision of governance. While some have embraced it as a way to bring about justice and preserve Islamic values, from a Christian evangelical perspective, it represents a deeply flawed model of governance. The concentration of power in religious authorities, the suppression of individual freedoms, and the imposition of religious law through state mechanisms are all antithetical to the gospel’s message of freedom, love, and justice.
Critics like Abdulaziz Sachedina, Hamid Dabashi, and Ervand Abrahamian have highlighted the dangers of Khomeini’s model, and their insights align with evangelical concerns about the role of human sinfulness in governance and the dangers of conflating spiritual and political authority. As evangelicals, we must advocate for a model of governance that respects human dignity, promotes religious freedom, and maintains a clear distinction between the roles of the Church and the state. Ultimately, the kingdom of God is not advanced through political domination but through the gospel's transformative power, which calls individuals to come to Christ in faith and love freely.
Abrahamian, E. (1993). Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic. University of California Press.
Boroujerdi, M. (2001). Iranian Intellectuals and the West: The Tormented Triumph of Nativism. Syracuse University Press.
Boroumand, L. (2000). The Islamic Republic and the Principle of Velayat-e Faqih: A Social History. Cambridge University Press.
Dabashi, H. (1993). The Theology of Discontent: The Ideological Foundations of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Transaction Publishers.
Khomeini, R. (1979). The Governance of the Jurist: Islamic Government. Alhoda UK.
Sachedina, A. (1998). The Just Ruler in Shi'ite Islam: The Comprehensive Authority of the Jurist in Imamite Jurisprudence. Oxford University Press
Tim Orr is a scholar, Evangelical minister, conference speaker, and interfaith consultant with over 30 years of experience in cross-cultural ministry. He holds six degrees, including a master’s in Islamic studies from the Islamic College in London. Tim taught Religious Studies for 15 years at Indiana University Columbus and is now a Congregations and Polarization Project research associate at the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University Indianapolis. He has spoken at universities, including Oxford University, the University of Tehran, and mosques throughout the U.K. His research focuses on American Evangelicalism, Islamic antisemitism, and Islamic feminism, and he has published widely, including articles in Islamic peer-reviewed journals and three books.
