|
The other day I saw a documentary about the civil rights movement. It seems that when the school desegregation rulings began
to come down and be enforced, many whites in the South withdrew their children from the public schools. Instead, they placed
them in the new private schools that were sprouting up. Many of these were called "Christian Academies."
That institutions that were deliberately and enthusiastically espousing racism, bigotry, fear, hatred, and a corrupt system
of apartheid could even dream of naming themselves "Christian" struck me as a good example of the major division
within Christianity in America today.
There is a form of Christianity which takes upon itself the name of Christ, and identifies this name with the maintenance
of a particular social, economic, and political order. In other words, "Christianity" to them means "traditional
values" as they define them, and is synonymous with a kind of conservatism that focuses on personal morality and family
ethics.
For me, to take on the name of Christ would mean faithfulness to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ himself, as they
are presented for us in the Scriptures. And there is an element of what might be termed "conservatism" in the New
Testament. Jesus advocated, in the face of a corrupt and destabilizing imperial system, adherence to the Jewish covenant
and law. In many cases this meant offering resistance to a regime bent on exploitation and dehumanization. He was conservative
in the sense that he urged people to keep to the ancient traditions of God's people, rather than get destroyed or seduced
by the wealth and power of the Romans.
The apostle Paul builds on Jesus' moral teaching considerably, and through him Christianity receives the legacy of a fundamental
concern for a disciplined life. Jesus and Paul would both be critical of the lax and permissive approach pervading modern
societies. They upheld God's justice and righteousness, even holiness, as the principles that ought to be guiding and determining
the personal, relational, social, sexual, economic, and political lives of believers.
But there is a strong current in the New Testament that could be considered revolutionary, as well. For, while they upheld
the traditions of their people, the early church often found itself in a position of having to oppose and resist the imperial
order that controlled the world at that time. Along with the "conservative" values of personal and family morality,
the Bible spends even more energy talking about what might be called "radical" values having to do with economic
and political concerns. It was this part of his message that got Jesus crucified, and brought down persecution on the church.
The problem with those who reduce Christianity to "traditional values" is that, while some of those values indeed
reflect the teachings of the New Testament, many do not. Racism and segregation may be "traditional values" to
some, but they do not resemble anything that Jesus taught. Indeed, Jesus' life and the identity of the early church was about
a social inclusion that is the polar opposite of the spirit of racial apartheid.
Where does a private school based on racial hatred and separation get the bizarre idea that it has anything to do with
Jesus? This kind of heresy emerges from a reduction of the gospel to just one of its aspects, and using this as a thorough
filter to remove from consideration all the other aspects of it. A minor, or even imported, theme becomes the principle governing
how we interpret the whole gospel message. Thus many people have this idea that the New Testament somehow supports ideas
like nationalism and militarism, and has a favorable view of capitalism, when in fact one would have to be astoundingly deaf
to its actual words to come to this conclusion.
In the case of these "Christian Academies," the term "Christian" does not mean "follower of Christ."
It refers instead to a preferred tradition, set of values, social order, and economic system. It may have nothing to do with
the living, actual Christ at all; it may be utterly contradictory to everything Christ stood for, as is the case here. They
use the term "Christian" like Communist regimes used the term "Democratic." It is to be nominally "Christian,"
"Christian" in quotes, but not in truth.
The great temptation in the religious life is always to mistake our own agendas, goals, preferences, and desires for those
of God. It is to assume that what God wants more than anything is that we be happy. Therefore, by this thinking, God is
always on our side, fighting against the things we fear, rejecting the people we reject, killing the people we hate, and making
us prosperous and blessed. And if we were happy and content living at the top of an unjust and cruel system, where we got
all the best stuff and those other people lived only to serve us, it would be easy to assume that this must be the will of
a loving God.
Such has been the view of every empire in history. It was confidently believed in Jesus' day by his complacent opponents,
the Sadducees and the scribes, priests, and Pharisees who were collaborating with Rome. It is the essence of imperialist
theology. It says that God exists to serve us. If we're rewarded, it's because we're the best. If we conquer, it's because
God is with us. God helps those that help themselves. Or, in the words of American "Christian" General Boykin
to a captured Islamic militant, "Our God is bigger than your God." These same words were no doubt said to the Jews
by the Babylonian soldiers who destroyed Jerusalem, and by the Nazis who burned synagogues, and by Communists who tortured
and murdered Christians, and so on.
Imperialist theology places above all else the perceived good of the individual self and the things belonging to it.
Thus, imperialist theology lifts up me, and my family, my neighborhood, my party, my country, my religion, my race, and makes
these concerns the most important. The self then becomes center of the universe, the arbiter of right and wrong, good and
evil, blessing and curse, godly and godless, freedom and slavery.
Imperialist theology is inherently pagan in this sense. The pagan gods were about serving the needs, desires, dreams,
hopes, and anger of the people. Those were the kinds of deities that were evaluated and chosen on the basis of their performance
in benefitting human societies. When the weak gods lost, they became irrelevant. The winning gods had proven their greater
power.
The god with the best weapons and strongest economy must be the one to follow. In imperialist theology and paganism,
the gods serve us. It is, by whatever name it goes, the arrogant, self-righteousness, and smug religion of the world's winners.
It is the belief of orthodox Christianity, however, that knowledge of God does not come from our own experience, bias,
prejudice, thinking, and imagination. Knowledge of God comes only in and through the Word of God, Jesus Christ, and the Scriptures
and tradition that witness to him, by the power of the Holy Spirit. He is the sole criterion for identifying truth, goodness,
beauty, love, justice, wealth, and power. He shows that these are often the exact opposite of what imperialist theology tells
us they are.
So while the comfortable whites where gathering in their segregated institutions, proclaiming their "Christianity,"
the real faith of Jesus Christ was being kept by the African-American sharecroppers and washerwomen, porters and housekeepers
who endured humiliation, repression, injustice, and even murder. The only meaningful criteria of Christianity is not someone's
idea of what is traditional; it is Jesus Christ himself, his life and his teachings.
When our nation belatedly upset this corrupt plantation system of segregation and bigotry that ruled the South (and many
other places) it was perceived, by those who had so thoroughly identified the present order with Christianity, as a religious
assault, an attack on Christianity itself. In the same way, Jesus was viewed by the religious establishment of his own day
as a threat to the Jewish faith and nation. He was executed for blasphemy and sedition, a danger to "traditional values,"
which were really tools of those in power to keep their place of privilege.
Martin Luther King, Jr., was also killed for threatening "traditional values" and "Christianity."
But his spirit lives on because he shares the Spirit of Jesus Christ. He witnessed to real Christianity, and so exposed
the counterfeit versions of the faith which put other values in the place of the living Christ. In truth, Christ is the only
value.
+++++++
|
