The Evangelical Dictionary of World Religions

WAHHABIYYA ISLAM. Wahhabiyya Islam is an Islamic renewal and reform movement founded in the Nejd province of the central Arabian peninsula in the eighteenth century. Adherents of this Islamic group are often referred to as Wahhabis, though they refer to themselves as Muwahhidun, an Arabic term meaning “those who champion the unity and oneness of God.”

Its founder, Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, received training as a Hanbali scholar of Sunni Islamic religious law in Basra and Medina. Like other Islamic revivalists of the eighteenth century, al-Wahhab identified an apparent corrosion of Islam through the continued acceptance of rituals and beliefs from other religions. The adoption of other religious praxis was thought to contradict the unconditional monotheism of Islam (tawheed), while leading to the perceived moral decline of Arabic Muslim communities. Thus al-Wahhab advocated the elimination of what he considered foreign, non-Islamic practices and beliefs from the Muslim religion in favor of a disciplinary adherence to tawheed. Essentially, these teachings culminated in three significant conceptions: (1) consideration of motivation and intent is encouraged over mere ritual perfection, (2) any reverence for the dead is impermissible, and (3) all intercessory prayer is forbidden and contradictory to the constitutive beliefs of Islam. These points were to be conjoined with the implementation of Islamic Shari‘ah law and with a singular focus on religious scripture. Al-Wahhab emphasized a primary role for the Qur’an and the hadith, promoting a relatively literalistic reading of these texts and the dismissal of medieval commentaries of Islam and its laws. This movement claimed that adherence to such literal interpretations would assist in ushering in a fundamental sociopolitical and moral transformation of society.

As a result of these propositions, a severe antipathy developed toward the popular cult of saints, the associated shrine and temple pilgrimages, and all the use of rosaries or wearing of religious charms. This is demonstrated in Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s rejection of Sufism as idolatrous and his attacks on Shi‘ite shrines, emphasized in the 1802 offensive against the Najaf and Karbala holy sites. In this vein, the movement limited Muslim festivals and denounced the popular celebration of Muhammad’s birthday, formulating what is often considered a type of puritanical Islam. Luxurious attire and habits were censured, and strict prohibitions against alcohol, tobacco, and gambling came into effect. From this perspective al-Wahhab even associated the general population of Muslims with polytheists (musrik) and condemned as unbelievers those who did not practice the established times of prayer. This antagonism extended to other religions, which contrasted with Islam’s conception of tawheed. As a result, both Muslims and non-Muslims may deserve judgment.

The Wahhabiyya movement formed a strategic alliance with Muhammad Ibn Saud in 1747, which led to the consolidation of contemporary Saudi Arabia. In affiliation with the Saud family, Wahhabi forces initiated significant military campaigns into the Hejaz, Iraq, and Syria, including the successful 1806 capture of Mecca. Despite serious opposition and defeat at the hands of Ottoman forces, Wahhabis maintained their presence across the peninsula.

Since World War II the movement has developed in conjunction with the contemporary growth of Islamic fundamentalism, playing a significant role in the Afghan civil war and being associated with modern terrorist fronts. Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda and the Taliban proclaim they are upholding the virtues of Wahhabi Islam, and many in the West are concerned about the spread of Wahhabi clerics and schools into Europe and America (including those supported by the Saudi royal family).

Bibliography. N. J. DeLong-Bas, Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad; S. Schwartz, The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa‘ud from Tradition to Terror.

T. Aechtner

WAR AND PEACE IN WORLD RELIGIONS. No religion eschews war in all circumstances, and no faith tradition (especially Christianity) is monolithic in its dogma and practice regarding war and peace.

Zoroastrianism. Dating to around 1300 BC in Persia, Zoroastrianism has a long history of nationalism and militarism. The idea of conflict and battle, spiritual and physical, is central in its thought, which views life as a battleground between good and evil, light and darkness, that will culminate in an eschatological conflict between the powers of light and darkness.

Hinduism. Hinduism has a strong teaching of nonviolence, or ahimsa, a concept shared in Jainism and Buddhism. But the social structure of the caste system also has a place for a warrior class (Kshatriyas). One’s religious and social obligations are tied to one’s role in the caste system; therefore performing one’s duty appropriately does not attach the penalty of evil karma for such actions. Thus nonviolence as a virtue may not be appropriate for everyone. In the Hindu epic the Bhagavad Gita, there is strong fatalism, indifference toward the physical world, and ambivalence toward war. There are, however, strict rules of war, similar to just war doctrine.

Jainism. Tracing its roots to the eighth century BC, Jainism has a strong sense of nonviolence, asceticism, and renunciation of the desire to kill or do harm to any living creature, human or otherwise (although in the twelfth century there were famous Jain military commanders).

Buddhism. Since its founding in northern India by Siddhartha Gautama (ca. 563–ca. 483 BC), Buddhism has fostered both pacifistic and militaristic strands in both of its main traditions—Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism—but today it is understood primarily as a religion of peace. Both schools emphasize self-improvement through meditation and gaining a compassionate attitude to oneself and others through recognition of the Four Noble Truths and practice of the Five Precepts (among them, abstaining from killing) and the Eightfold Path. Buddhist belief in reincarnation fosters the sense of compassion for all living creatures and the renunciation of violence. Concurrently, militaristic strands of Buddhism arose historically, due in part to the coexistence of Buddhism with Taoism, Shinto, and Confucianism in a geographic region where one of the accepted traits of personal greatness was skill in the martial arts. As with many other religions, the monks and religious leaders were often educated, and literate members of a society were sought out by warlords, rulers, and political figures in matters of war and peace.

Sikhism. Though known as a religion of peace, Sikhism is not a pacifistic religion, and there is a militant tradition within it. It stresses on human dignity, freedom, and justice that permits self-defense and resistance when necessary, especially to protect the rights of Sikhs. This concept is idealized in the kirpan, a dagger carried by all Sikhs as a matter of religious devotion.

Bahá’í. Bahá’ís are not pacifists but rather stress the unity of all people and believe that world peace is possible and inevitable. They argue that humankind is experiencing an “adolescence” and must move to adulthood to arrive at peace. World peace, according to Bahá’ís, will be achieved through the cessation of racism, the disappearance of extreme wealth and poverty, the achievement of equality between men and women, the end of nationalism, and the elimination of religious strife.

Judaism. Drawing on the Old Testament and centuries of rabbinic literature, Judaism understands peace as part of God’s original purpose for humanity and therefore individuals. Jews are to pursue peace wherever possible and also to work in partnership with God in repairing a broken world, practicing a principle known as tikkun olam. The idea of holy war as found in the Old Testament conquest of Canaan, the Maccabbean wars, and the revolt against Rome is not the same as later Jewish understanding of war, represented by thinkers such as Maimonides (1135–1204). There are times when war may be an unfortunate necessity. Rabbinic literature distinguishes between two kinds of war: optional war (milchemet reshut) and obligatory war (milchemet chovah). The latter is also called religious war (milchemet mitzvah). An example of an obligatory war is when the survival of the nation of Israel is at stake. Verses in the Torah, such as Deuteronomy 20, provide guidelines for waging war that seek to minimize destruction and protect noncombatants. Centuries of persecution and pogroms, culminating in the Holocaust during World War II (and continued conflict in the Middle East), have also significantly affected Jewish perspectives.

Islam. In both of its main traditions—Sunni and Shi’a—Islam has a long history of war and peace most often associated with the concept of jihad, which literally means “struggle” but is often translated “holy war” and understood to include war against unbelievers and enemies of the faith. Jihad has always been a strong force in Islam, and it has connotations of internal struggles against one’s evil inclinations (known as the “greater jihad”) as well as external struggles that may include armed violence (the “lesser jihad”). Jihad is both a personal and a corporate commitment within Islam to spread the faith. The greater jihad is the personal struggle that a Muslim wages against sin and all that is against Allah. It is a personal battle for righteousness. The lesser jihad is the struggle against the enemies of Islam. It is a holy war waged in the name of Allah and according to the will of Allah. The divinely mandated defense and expansion of Islamic power through physical confrontation is understood through the division of two realms, which are ideological, political, and theological. The first is dar al-Islam (the house of Islam), in which Muslim law and rule prevail, and the second is dar al-harb (the house of war), in which resides the rest of the world, including unbelievers, infidels, and apostates. According to Islamic belief, a perpetual state of conflict will exist between the two houses, until the house of Islam prevails.

Islamic jurists through the centuries have established certain rules of war, some of which parallel ideas in the just war doctrine. Only a caliph or imam has the legitimate authority to declare jihad. Additionally, the war must be waged with good intentions, and there should always be an invitation to accede to Islam before attack. Further, noncombatant immunity must be observed, as well as concerns for property and the environment. In the twentieth century, many Muslims believed that there had been a suspension of jihad—a view that coincided with the rise of nationalism (a view popular in Sufi Islam, wherein self-mastery and purification are stressed over violence). Toward the end of the century, however, Islamic militant thought revived and reinvoked the idea of jihad against secular governments that had been “corrupted” by Western influences and values.

Christianity. Throughout its two millennia, Christianity has justified, rationalized, restrained, and informed war and the conduct of warfare. It has, in various times and by diverse means, both upheld and departed from biblical standards, and both ecclesiastical and secular leaders have appealed to its teachings for personal and national guidance and support. At the foundation of the Christian understanding of war is a belief in the fallen and broken nature of humanity—a belief that all humanity and every aspect of personal and corporate life are marred by sin and original sin. War is ultimately a reflection and consequence of sin.

Christians throughout history have recognized that the formulation of a doctrine of war or approach to war is a theological and biblical deduction based on the interpretation of numerous passages in the Bible (see Eccles. 3:1, 8; Matt. 5:44; 24:6–7; Acts 10:1–23; Rom. 13:1–7; 1 Tim. 2:1–2; 1 Pet. 2:13–17). How those passages are interpreted determines the position that one holds. There is no “red letter” biblical doctrine of war. Thus the issue is not “What is the Bible’s view of war?” but “What view best interprets and reflects fully the biblical passages regarding war?”

The Christian response to war has been a spectrum ranging from absolute rejection of war and of participation in war to full participation with the proclamation of divine blessing and authority. The spectrum has ranged from the pacifist words of the American folk hymn “Gonna lay down my sword and shield, down by the riverside . . . ain’t gonna study war no more” to the cry of the crusaders of the Middle Ages, “Deus lo volt! [God wills it!]”

Several Christian perspectives on war have emerged over the centuries. The spectrum of Christian participation in war runs as follows: pacifism, nonresistance, just war, preventive war, and crusade. Each of these views has secular as well as religious counterparts—namely, pacifism and Christian pacifism, just war and Christian just war. Each view also has strengths and weaknesses as well as variations.

At the two ends of the spectrum are pacifism and the crusade. The “just war” position ideologically is the moderating position in the spectrum, and historically, it is the view that has been most prevalent throughout church history. It is also a view that was developed largely by Christians (especially Ambrose, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Hugo Grotius).

The strongest and most well-defined position (whether religious or secular) regarding war and peace is that of the just war tradition. Some aspects of the just war tradition predate Christianity, extending back to classical Rome and Athens. Others are firmly grounded in Christian history and theology stemming from Christian theologians such as Ambrose and Augustine. Yet other parts of the tradition can be found in events of twentieth- and twenty-first-century human rights and legal theories. The tradition has always been multidisciplinary and far reaching in the social, political, theological, legal, and philosophical net cast by its proponents. The just war tradition has developed over hundreds of years. It has been and continues to be heavily influenced by Christianity but also continues to draw on Roman law and Greek philosophy.

Four presuppositions undergird the just war tradition: (1) Some evil in the world cannot be avoided. (2) The principles of a just war are normative for all people, both Christian and non-Christian. The tradition describes not how people act but how they should act, and it applies to all people, whether they accept the tradition or not, whether they are Christian or not. (3) People should not seek to justify war. Rather, war must be brought within the limits of justice, so that if everyone were guided by these principles, many wars would be eliminated. (4) Individuals or private citizens do not have the right to use military force. Only governments have such a right. Thus, the key issue is not whether an individual can fight in war but whether a government has the right to engage in armed conflict and whether a citizen, Christian or not, should participate as an agent of that government. All aggression is condemned in the just war tradition. Participation in the war in question must be prompted by a just cause or defensive cause. No war of unprovoked aggression can ever be justified. Only defensive war is legitimate.

There are seven principles or criteria for the just war. The first five principles apply as a nation is “on the way to war” (jus ad bellum), and the final two apply to military forces “in the midst of war” (jus in bello). They are, consequently, just cause, just intention (right intention), last reasonable resort, formal declaration, limited objectives, proportionate means, and noncombatant immunity. The just war tradition has three important functions: it seeks to limit the devastation and outbreak of war; it offers a common moral framework and language with which to discuss issues of war in the public arena; it gives moral guidance to individuals in developing their conscience, responsibilities, and response to issues of war and peace.

Bibliography. R. G. Clouse, ed., War: Four Christian Views; J. Ferguson, War and Peace in the World’s Religions; J. Kelsay, Arguing the Just War in Islam; V. Popovski, ed., World Religions and Norms of War; H. O. Thompson, World Religions in War and Peace.

T. J. Demy

WARD. Ward is the term used to designate the “basic ecclesiastical unit” of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). Its membership range is from three hundred to six hundred members, and its structure and purpose are comparable to those of a Protestant congregation. The structure includes three principal church-appointed leaders: a bishop and two counselors. Along with weekly sacrament meetings, the ward provides for education and member discipline.

Bibliography. D. J. Davies, An Introduction to Mormonism.

R. P. Roberts

WATCHTOWER, THE. The principal semimonthly publication of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (WT, or Jehovah’s Witnesses [JW]) is The Watchtower announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom (known simply as the Watchtower). The magazine was begun in 1879 by Charles Taze Russell as Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence. In 1920 Zion’s was dropped from the title. In January 1939 Presence was changed to Kingdom, and in March of that year the present title was adopted. Until 1990 the Watchtower was available for a fee, but in that year the Supreme Court ruled that religious literature which is only available for sale was subject to taxation. Since that time the Watchtower has been free, although the society asks for a donation to support the printing and distribution of the magazine.

The WT communicates to its members four times each month through two publications, the Watchtower magazine and Awake! These publications are also distributed to the general public as a means of introducing people to the WT and recruiting them into the organization. Witnesses often leave them in waiting rooms and other public places and distribute them door-to-door and on street corners.

The Watchtower claims average printing of nearly forty-six million copies, and it is currently published in 214 languages. Awake! and the Watchtower have different emphases. While the former focuses on the WT’s view of current events, scientific discoveries, and interesting topics, the latter is devoted more to the study of WT doctrine. The Watchtower’s masthead announces that it “comforts people with the good news that God’s heavenly Kingdom will soon end all wickedness and transform the earth into a paradise.” This earthly paradise is where, according to the WT, most of God’s faithful will live since, in their view, heaven’s human population will be limited to 144,000 (however, see Rev. 7:9; 19:1–6).

The Watchtower contains articles on doctrinal issues, studies on religious themes, background information on other religious groups, and a number of other themes. But whatever the topic, the point is to convey the official WT perspective, and many of the articles stress the importance of following WT leaders and avoiding independent thinking and independent Bible study. Major doctinal changes are announced through this publication.

One major controversy erupted over a change announced in the November 1, 1995, issue. For many years, the WT had told followers that the generation that saw the events of 1914 would not die but rather live to see the beginning of God’s kingdom on earth, based on Matthew 24:34. In 1995 the WT said that its understanding of the word generation no longer meant a physical generation of people but could mean a longer period of uncertain duration. This change was necessary because so few of the 1914 generation were still alive.

On May 1, 2007, the society reversed a long-standing teaching that the 144,000 “anointed class” had been full since 1931. The new teaching is that the 144,000 total is not known to be filled, and Witnesses who feel they have a “heavenly hope” should not be presumed to be in error. WT observers note that for years the members of the society’s Governing Body have been part of the Great Crowd. The new ruling allows board members to now identify themselves with the “anointed class,” which they formerly could not do.

On July 15, 2013, another major reversal occurred. Formerly, it was taught that the “faithful and discreet slave” who was put in charge over Jesus’s “domestics” (household servants) began with the apostles in AD 33 and included all “anointed” Christians. Now, the society teaches that the “faithful and discreet slave” is the Governing Body alone, not all anointed Christians, and that it was not put in charge of Jesus’s servants until 1919. Formerly, it was taught that Jesus’s prediction of the “faithful slave” being put in charge of all the Master’s “belongings” (see Matt. 24:47) was fulfilled by the Watch Tower Society in 1918; now, it is taught that this will be fulfilled by the Governing Body in the future. The effect of this new teaching is to restict the “faithful slave” to the Governing Body alone and to remove Charles Russell from any activity as part of that “slave.”

See also JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES (JW)

Bibliography. D. Reed, ed., Index of Watchtower Errors.

E. Shropshire and E. Pement

WISDOM, BIBLICAL VIEW OF. In Hebrew thought and the Bible generally, wisdom is seen as a great virtue consisting of knowledge based on the experience of life and God’s creation order. It is practical insight rather than theory and involves good judgment and prudent action. The Wisdom literature of the Bible instructs believers in how to act in a wise way and includes the books of Job, Ecclesiastes, and Proverbs.

I. Hexham

WORD OF WISDOM. The “Word of Wisdom” is the common designation for section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants, a scripture of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church, or Mormonism); it is also the title of a related, compulsory health regulation advocated by the LDS Church. Mormon founder Joseph Smith Jr. (1805–44) alleged that the Word of Wisdom was revealed to him by God on February 27, 1833. The text of section 89 lists all of those substances whose use by Mormons is subject to various restrictions or discouraged altogether. Specifically, it promotes abstinence from using tobacco and from consuming wine and strong or hot drinks, suggests limitations on eating meat, and encourages the consumption of herbs, grains, and fruit. It also promises health and wisdom to those who obey its pronouncements.

At the time it was given, the Word of Wisdom was viewed as a revelation whose observance was not obligatory. However, in September 1851 LDS president Brigham Young (1801–77) transformed the Word of Wisdom into a moral mandate for all Mormons. Today, Mormons cannot be baptized or allowed to enter LDS temples if they violate the Word of Wisdom (as it is presently understood by the LDS leadership).

The interpretation and application of the Word of Wisdom has changed in significant ways during the history of Mormonism. One was a shift away from prohibiting the particular items enumerated in the text of section 89 of Doctrine and Covenants and toward the banning of all potentially addictive substances. This eventually resulted in the prohibition of all alcoholic beverages, even though using Mormon-made wine during Communion services and drinking beer are permitted in the text. More recently the LDS Church has banned the use of narcotics except as prescribed by a physician. Another change is the official LDS interpretation of the “hot drinks” statement in section 89, so that it now requires only the prohibition of coffee and nonherbal tea, regardless of their temperature; the drinking of hot chocolate, for example, is allowed. Although the LDS Church does not officially forbid the consumption of caffeinated beverages, it advises Mormons to eschew caffeinated soft drinks and iced tea. Some Mormons go so far as to refrain from drinking even decaffeinated coffee, tea, or soda and from eating chocolate. Yet most Mormons ignore the recommendations concerning meat found in section 89.

Much of the reason for confusion among LDS Church members regarding the specifics of the Word of Wisdom can be traced to conflicting statements of LDS authorities over time. Mormon apostle George Q. Cannon (1827–1901) stated that Mormons should not consume hot soups or chocolate drinks. LDS president Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) declared that persons who drink tea may be barred from the celestial kingdom. Mormon theologian Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) asserted that the Word of Wisdom revelation forbids the use of tobacco, coffee, tea, and liquor. Yet each of these famous statements conflicts in some way with the current, official stance of the LDS Church.

Bibliography. T. G. Alexander, Mormonism in Transition: A History of the Latter-day Saints, 1890–1930, repr. ed.; L. J. Arrington and D. Bitton, The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-day Saints, 2nd ed.; W. F. W. Johanson, What Is Mormonism All About? Answers to the 150 Most Commonly Asked Questions about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; B. R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed.; J. Shipps, Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition; Joseph Smith Jr. et al., Doctrine and Covenants, section 89; J. Tanner and S. Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?

H. W. House

WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES. The World Council of Churches is an ecumenical organization bringing together a wide variety of Christian denominations, including Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants of various types. It was founded in Amsterdam in 1948 and has become increasingly liberal and politically radical over time, with the result that it is distrusted by many fundamentalist and evangelical Christians.

I. Hexham

WORLD’S PARLIAMENT OF RELIGIONS (1893 AND 1993). In 1893 the city of Chicago hosted the World’s Columbian Exposition, and under the umbrella of that six-month fair the World’s Parliament of Religions was convened. The principal organizers were Charles Bonney, a lawyer and follower of Swedenborg, and John Henry Barrows, a Presbyterian minister in Chicago. A steering committee was formed that included Chicago’s Roman Catholic archbishop Feehan, Rabbi Emil Hirsch, the Unitarian Jenkin Jones, and fourteen Protestant ministers. The purpose of this parliament was to demonstrate a humanitarian unity of religions in their good deeds—a brotherhood among the world’s diverse religious traditions. It was infused with optimism about the moral evolution of humanity in the coming century.

Delegates included representatives from the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches, as well as Unitarians, Theosophists, Universalists, Jews, and a small number of Muslims, Buddhists, Jains, and Hindus. Some of the Christian delegates who spoke were the apologist Alexander Bruce, South Pacific missionary John G. Paton, church historian Philip Schaff, and biblical scholar Charles Briggs. Mary Baker Eddy gave a presentation about Christian Science, Swami Vivekananda of the Ramakrishna Math spoke on Hinduism, and Anagarika Dharmapala of the Maha Bodhi Society gave three presentations concerning the Buddha. A few scholars of comparative religion, such as Max Müller and Estlin Carpenter, sent papers that were delivered on their behalf.

The delegates expressed at least three broad viewpoints: exclusion, inclusion, and plurality. The exclusionist view was that Christianity is the only true religion and is destined to supplant all other faiths. Some, such as the Baptist Reverend William Wilkinson, maintained that Christianity alone had the truth, while others, such as Milton Valentine, admitted there was some good in other faiths but Christianity was superior. The inclusionist view was that there is one true religion, but it had yet to evolve in human history and would partake of the best elements of several faiths or comprise those things that the world’s religions held in common. This view was expressed by Rabbi Hirsch, Reverend Merwin Snell, and Reverend E. L. Rexford. The pluralist view was that no one religion could claim exclusive truth and that in their essentials all religions hold to a belief in a supreme being and common ethical beliefs. External differences between the religions were not considered fundamental. Charles Bonney, John Barrows, and Hirai Kinzo took this position.

In 1993 the centenary of the parliament was observed in Chicago with the Second World’s Parliament of Religions. It included representatives from the major religions, as well as indigenous tribes, neo-pagans, New Agers, and various new religious movements. Delegates included the Dalai Lama, Louis Farrakhan (Nation of Islam), Hans Küng, Barbara Marx Hubbard, and Robert Muller. The global nature of interfaith dialogue and religious tolerance was meant to be reflected, but some Jewish delegates objected to Farrakhan, and Eastern Orthodox delegates left because of neo-pagan ceremonies. A document proclaiming a global ethic was issued by the parliament. Another outcome was a further parliamentary assembly convened in South Africa in 1999.

Bibliography. R. H. Seager, ed., The Dawn of Religious Pluralism: Voices from the World’s Parliament of Religions; Seager, The World’s Parliament of Religions: The East/West Encounter, Chicago, 1893; W. Teasdale and G. F. Cairns, eds., The Community of Religions: Voices and Images of the Parliament of the World’s Religions.

P. Johnson

WU-WEI. In Taoism wu-wei (Chinese, “no deliberative action” or “effortless performance”) refers to the engagement of a person in non-self-conscious feats of skill as a result of his inner harmony with the Tao; it presupposes that the person in question is not striving against the Tao in any way. These highly adept actions are performed in a state of deep tranquility and flow from their doer in such a way that the doer is not mindful of exertion. The concept of wu-wei was first set forth in the writings of the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu (or Laozi; ca. fourth century BC). It is a paradoxical concept in that it involves “trying not to try” (in a certain sense). Many practitioners of Taoism and some Confucians hold to wu-wei as a defining ethical standard.