One of the many complex elements in addressing the issue of racism from a biblical/theological perspective is that of whether justice can be better served for African American people by having them return to their country of origin or remaining in the land in which they were enslaved and subjected to discrimination and all types of oppression by the white power structure in the U.S.A. It is very complex in that it raises the question of whether God's justice is limited to a particular geographical location or is it universal. This writer (yours truly) is of the persuasion that God's justice is not limited by geographical boundaries, but is operative wherever there is inhumanity, injustice, or any other type of oppression.
The year 1919 was marked by brutal and bloody racial violence, which came to be known as the Red Summer of 1919. From May to September of that year, major race riots broke out in Charleston, Knoxville, Omaha, Washington, Chicago, Longview, Texas, and Phillips County. All told, twenty-five riots took place (William Tuttle, Jr., Race Riot: Chicago in the Red Summer of 1919. New York: Atheneum, 1970, p.14).
It was in these conditions that Marcus Garvey built the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) into a mass organization-the largest Black nationalist organization to date at that time. Assessments of Garvey vary considerably. For Black nationalists, Garvey's success is evidence of the viability of nationalism. They see Garvey as the link between as the link between the nineteenth-century nationalists such as Martin Delany, and the nationalists revival of the 1960's. This assessment is shared by left-wing nationalists who are critical of many of Garvey's ideas, but stress his importance in establishing Black organization (Ahmed Shawki, Black Liberation and Socialism, p . 101).
The West Indian historian and critic C. L. R. James expressed this view in the 1980's, reversing his earlier hostility go Garvey: "Garvey was a remarkable man. Before Garvey there was no black movement anywhere. Since Garvey, there has been a continuous Black movement. All of us stand on the shoulders of Marcus Garvey. There is plenty to say against Garvey, but nothing you say against Garvey can ever weaken the things , the positive things that Garvey did (C. L. R. James's 80th Birthday Lectures , eds. Margaret Busby and Darcus Howe. London: Black Rose Press 1984, p. 58)."
Garvey's increased race consciousness was not accompanied by a rejection of the other ideas that he shared with Booker T. Washington, though. Black capitalism and self-help were now combined with the slogan "Back to Africa." Toward that end, the UNIA promoted racial consciousness and established a number of business ventures. The most important of these was the Black Star Line endeavor which Garvey set up in 1919. The Black Star Line drew the savings of thousands of Blacks into a plan to form a fleet of Black-owned cruise ships for transoceanic travel, especially transit to Africa (Stein, the World of Marcus Garvey, p. 63).
The "Back to Africa" mentality is complex. For one, there is the question of what particular country in Africa would African Americans return to? And then there is the question of whether the struggle for justice can be carried out concomitantly in both the African continent and in the African Diaspora in the U.S.A?
As I stated earlier, from a biblical/theological standpoint, God's justice is not limited or confined by geographical considerations. Yes, the struggle must continue to liberate the African continent from the effects of colonization, and continuous exploitation by Euro-America. On the other hand, justice must be served to Africa's children who are scattered abroad in the U.S.A., the Caribbean, and elsewhere. It is not my place to evaluate the merits of returning to Africa, but rather to proclaim that justice is to be meted out wherever Africa's children are found. The Struggle Continues.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Friday, October 30, 2015
Friday, October 23, 2015
Racism in a Biblical and Theological Perspective: Accommodation, Racism, and Resistance
As I've intimated in the last several essays, it is very easy for one to assume that because the institution of slavery has been dismantled, that institutional, structural, and systemic racism are also no longer in existence. It is the purpose of these essays to demonstrate that the notion of the non-existence of slavery is a self-delusional myth. To equate racism exclusively with slavery is to miss the point by disregarding the different manifestations of continued racism, both individual and systemic.
The defeat of Reconstruction and the Populist movement saw the reemergence of two currents within Black politics: accommodation and emigrationism. The growth of both currents was rooted in the disillusionment that set in after the failure of Radical Reconstruction and represented a retreat from the struggle for Black rights in the United States. They both expressed the frustation and and aspirations of the small and embattled Black middle class (Ahmed Shawki, Black Liberation and Socialism, p. 83).
The most prominent spokesmen for separation in this period were Alexander Crummell and Bishop Henry McNeal Turner. Crummell was born free in 1819. He typified the influence of Victorian civilization on the Black nationalist ideology and gave voice to a common belief that Africans were universally lacking in 'civilization,' which they would have to acquire in order to avoid the fate of the American Indian (Wilson Jeremiah Moses, The Golden Age of Black Nationalism, 1850-1925. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978, p. 59). To this end, Crummell spent twenty years, from 1853 to 1873, in Liberia, where he found that "Darkness covers the land.....human sacrifices, and devil-worship is devouring men, women, and little children (Moses, p. 67).
Bishop Henry McNeal Turner did not share Crummell's complete rejection of political struggle. Turner had thrown himself into the struggle for emancipation during the Civil War, and was appointed an army chaplain by President Lincoln in an effort to recruit Black soldiers. In 1868, he was elected to the Georgia state legislature, but when it convened, the first order of business was to disqualify Blacks from office. Denied his seat, Turner made an impassioned speech summing up the disillusionment he shared with thousands of Blacks in the possibility of achieving equality (Shawki, p. 84).
Alfonso Pinkney writes: " Never in the history of the world, has a man been arraigned before a body clothed with legislative, judicial, or executive function, charged with the offence of being a darker hue than his fellow men...Cases may be found where men have been deprived of their rights for crimes or misdemeanors; but it has remained for the State of Georgia, in the very heart of the nineteenth century,to call a man before the bar, and there charge him with an act for which he is no more responsible than for the head which he carries upon his shoulders. We Blacks have pioneered civilization here; we have built up your country, we have worked in your fields, and garnered your harvests, for two hundred and fifty years! We are willing to let the dead past bury its dead; but we asking you now for our Rights. The Black man cannot protect a country if the country doesn't protect him; and if tomorrow, a war should arise, I would not raise a musket to defend a country where my manhood was denied (Alfonso Pinkney, Red, Black, and Green: Black Nationalism in the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978, p.23)."
Following the "Great Migration" of Blacks to Northern cities in the early decades of the twentieth century (when approximately one million or 10 percent of the total Black population of the country, moved from the rural South to the Northern cities), the presence of African Americans as a substantial section of workers in the main U.S. industries was established (Pinkney, p.37). This social transformation of the Black population laid the basis for Marcus Garvey's Universal Negro Improvement Association, the first mass urban-based movement of Blacks, and later, for the rise of industrial unions and socialist and communist parties to which the African American struggle for equal rights was crucial (Shawki, p.98).
As we can see from what has been so far, and will be presented in subsequent essays, the phenomenon of racism continues. It has not disappeared by any stretch of the imagination, and is not likely to disappear any time soon.
The thrust of the Gospel message and of Liberation Theology serve as resources for hope in the midst of the struggle for genuine emancipation. While some may continue to see religion (especially Christianity) as the "opiate of the masses," this writer sees in the Gospel as the most effective mechanism of confronting racism as attitude, ideology, and socio-economic-political reality. The Gospel, rather than putting us to sleep, gives us the impetus to agitate, educate, organize, and mobilize against this demonic force. It is the Gospel which gives us the gumption to continue proclaiming "down and the hell with racism." Archbishop Desmund Tutu has served as a modern day example of what means for the Body of Christ to be immersed in the war against racism. Bishop Henry McNeal Turner is also an example of what it means for Christians to fight against this political and social evil. The Struggle Continues.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, October 19, 2015
Racism in A Biblical and Theological Perspective: Reconstruction and Populism
The Civil War destroyed slavery in the South, but it did not immediately establish a new political and economic order in its place. The next three decades witnessed an intense, often violent, political struggle to determine the character of the South. In the end, white supremacy was reestablished, but this was not a foregone conclusion (Ahmed Shawki, Black Liberation and Socialism, p. 63).
Today it is widely accepted that all whites had in interest in disfranchising the newly freed Black population and that poor whites provided the main impetus for reaction. C. Vann Woodward argues "the escalation of lynching, disfranchisement and proscription reflected concessions to the white lower class" on the part of the upper class (C. Vann Woodward, American Counterpoint: Slavery and Racism in the North-South Dialogue. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1964, p. 239).
Restricting Black rights was a precondition for lower-class winning rights for themselves. The barriers of racial discrimination mounted in direct ratio with the tide of political democracy among whites (Woodward, p. 211). Various left-wing academics share the thrust of this analysis, and therefore draw the inevitable conclusion that racist ideology among the mass of whites was the cause of continued Black oppression (Theodore Allen, The Invention of the White Race: The Origin of Racial Oppression in Anglo-America. New York: Verso, 1997. Reluctant Reformers.)
The political conclusion of such an approach is simple: the majority of whites, if not all whites, have a stake in maintaining racism. The prospects for Black and white unity are therefore slim, if not altogether excluded (Shawki, p. 64).
In the absence of the institution of slavery, on the one hand, and the presence and continuation of different forms and manifestations of white supremacy on the other, we ask then, how do we evaluate this condition from a biblical and theological point of view? While the Scriptures nowhere directly address the issue of racial or ethnic supremacy (depending, of course, on one's hermeneutical approach to Scripture), the thrust of the Gospel is to not only denounce this notion, but also to dismantle any structures or policies resulting from this notion. While in the past, the certain portions of the Bible have been cited to justify and support white supremacy, it does not take a rocket scientist to detect that this hermeneutical approach is a skewed one reflecting the warped minds of those who wish to read white supremacy into the Scriptures.
Are we then, expected to rejoice in the fact that slavery has been abolished while white supremacy continues to be perpetuated? Hell no! Anything that continues to divide people from each other along the lines of class, ethnicity/race, or gender, runs contrary to the grain of Scripture and theology. While historical Western theology has maintained in very insidious ways the notions of white supremacy, Liberation Theology, emerging from the so-called "Third World" countries, deconstructs this lunacy and ethno-centric self-delusion. As long as this notion of white supremacy continues to exist, even if sub-consciously, and unintentionally, we have the theological task to dismantle any biblical hermeneutic which seeks to perpetuate racist attitudes and systems.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Today it is widely accepted that all whites had in interest in disfranchising the newly freed Black population and that poor whites provided the main impetus for reaction. C. Vann Woodward argues "the escalation of lynching, disfranchisement and proscription reflected concessions to the white lower class" on the part of the upper class (C. Vann Woodward, American Counterpoint: Slavery and Racism in the North-South Dialogue. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1964, p. 239).
Restricting Black rights was a precondition for lower-class winning rights for themselves. The barriers of racial discrimination mounted in direct ratio with the tide of political democracy among whites (Woodward, p. 211). Various left-wing academics share the thrust of this analysis, and therefore draw the inevitable conclusion that racist ideology among the mass of whites was the cause of continued Black oppression (Theodore Allen, The Invention of the White Race: The Origin of Racial Oppression in Anglo-America. New York: Verso, 1997. Reluctant Reformers.)
The political conclusion of such an approach is simple: the majority of whites, if not all whites, have a stake in maintaining racism. The prospects for Black and white unity are therefore slim, if not altogether excluded (Shawki, p. 64).
In the absence of the institution of slavery, on the one hand, and the presence and continuation of different forms and manifestations of white supremacy on the other, we ask then, how do we evaluate this condition from a biblical and theological point of view? While the Scriptures nowhere directly address the issue of racial or ethnic supremacy (depending, of course, on one's hermeneutical approach to Scripture), the thrust of the Gospel is to not only denounce this notion, but also to dismantle any structures or policies resulting from this notion. While in the past, the certain portions of the Bible have been cited to justify and support white supremacy, it does not take a rocket scientist to detect that this hermeneutical approach is a skewed one reflecting the warped minds of those who wish to read white supremacy into the Scriptures.
Are we then, expected to rejoice in the fact that slavery has been abolished while white supremacy continues to be perpetuated? Hell no! Anything that continues to divide people from each other along the lines of class, ethnicity/race, or gender, runs contrary to the grain of Scripture and theology. While historical Western theology has maintained in very insidious ways the notions of white supremacy, Liberation Theology, emerging from the so-called "Third World" countries, deconstructs this lunacy and ethno-centric self-delusion. As long as this notion of white supremacy continues to exist, even if sub-consciously, and unintentionally, we have the theological task to dismantle any biblical hermeneutic which seeks to perpetuate racist attitudes and systems.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Racism in a Biblical and Theological Perspective-The Civil War
This essay is designed to focus on that major conflict which came as a result of among other things, the issue of slavery. There were issues of economics and social class in this war. The relationship between racism and slavery was very clear. By the time of the Civil War, both issues went hand in hand.
The election of Abraham Lincoln, the Republican Party's presidential candidate in 1860, was greeted with horror by the Southern slaveholders. For the Southern ruling class, a Republican presidency was a "revolution" threatening to "destroy their social system," above all slavery (James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988, p. 245).
Rather than submit to Republican rule, they decided to secede from the Union. In February 1861, a convention of slave owners established the Confederate States of America (CSA), and elected a provisional government. The secession of eleven slave states precipitated a crisis that led to the outbreak of war between North and South (Ahmed Shawki, Black Liberation and Socialism, p. 52).
The Civil War was a titanic four-year struggle that had a profound effect on the United States. Often described as "the first modern war," it completed the bourgeois revolution of 1776. The war abolished slavery and as a continuation of the bourgeois revolution begun during the Revolution/founding period, swept away those obstacles to pure market relations in the North and West, and established the dominance of the cash nexus in social relations, making this perhaps the most purely bourgeois of all countries (Michael Goldfield, The Color of Politics: Race and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York: New Press, 1997, p.70).
The revolutionary nature of the war stemmed from the increasingly irreconcilable co-existence of Southern slave labor and an expanding Northern capitalism based on free wage labor. Karl Marx wrote, "The present struggle between the North and the South after the outbreak of war is nothing but a struggle between two social systems, the system of slavery and the system of free labor. The struggle has broken out because the two systems can no longer live peacefully side by side on the North American continent. It can only be ended by the victory of one system or the other (Karl Marx, The Civil War in the United States," in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, vol. 19. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1984, p. 150)
A cursory reading of American history will lead readers to believe that Lincoln had a moral problem with slavery and that this was the major reason for the Civil War. However, any in-depth and rigorous study will reveal that his real issue was the preservation of the Union, i.e. keeping the country as one, rather than having a divided nation. It will also be apparent to the reader that Lincoln did not believe in full equality between black and white people.
How do we approach the issue of the Civil War from a biblical and theological perspective? Both Scripture and theology seek to get to the root of the issue, i.e. the immorality of social injustice. The Civil War was carried out to maintain intact a social-economic system that thrived on the exploitation of the working class. This economic system, would by its very nature, widen the gap between "the haves and the have nots." Scripture and theology do not seek to appeal to expediency and convenience. Scripture and theology seek to call attention to all human forms of exploitation and injustice. From a biblical and theological standpoint, the Civil War was a "half-baked" measure in dealing with the issue of racism. The war just addressed the symptoms of the problem. Theology seeks to get to the root of the problem. The Civil War was carried out to avoid "rocking the boat." Theology seeks to "sink the boat" and replace it with another viable one. In other words, both Scripture and theology call for a radical overhaul of the economic, social, and political structures that oppress humankind in different ways.
True religion calls not only for the eradication of the system of chattel slavery, but also for the elimination of an oppressive economic, political and social system. May we be moved to respond to the clarion call of the Gospel for radical transformation.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Please feel free to respond to this essay and state your own perspectives.
The election of Abraham Lincoln, the Republican Party's presidential candidate in 1860, was greeted with horror by the Southern slaveholders. For the Southern ruling class, a Republican presidency was a "revolution" threatening to "destroy their social system," above all slavery (James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988, p. 245).
Rather than submit to Republican rule, they decided to secede from the Union. In February 1861, a convention of slave owners established the Confederate States of America (CSA), and elected a provisional government. The secession of eleven slave states precipitated a crisis that led to the outbreak of war between North and South (Ahmed Shawki, Black Liberation and Socialism, p. 52).
The Civil War was a titanic four-year struggle that had a profound effect on the United States. Often described as "the first modern war," it completed the bourgeois revolution of 1776. The war abolished slavery and as a continuation of the bourgeois revolution begun during the Revolution/founding period, swept away those obstacles to pure market relations in the North and West, and established the dominance of the cash nexus in social relations, making this perhaps the most purely bourgeois of all countries (Michael Goldfield, The Color of Politics: Race and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York: New Press, 1997, p.70).
The revolutionary nature of the war stemmed from the increasingly irreconcilable co-existence of Southern slave labor and an expanding Northern capitalism based on free wage labor. Karl Marx wrote, "The present struggle between the North and the South after the outbreak of war is nothing but a struggle between two social systems, the system of slavery and the system of free labor. The struggle has broken out because the two systems can no longer live peacefully side by side on the North American continent. It can only be ended by the victory of one system or the other (Karl Marx, The Civil War in the United States," in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, vol. 19. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1984, p. 150)
A cursory reading of American history will lead readers to believe that Lincoln had a moral problem with slavery and that this was the major reason for the Civil War. However, any in-depth and rigorous study will reveal that his real issue was the preservation of the Union, i.e. keeping the country as one, rather than having a divided nation. It will also be apparent to the reader that Lincoln did not believe in full equality between black and white people.
How do we approach the issue of the Civil War from a biblical and theological perspective? Both Scripture and theology seek to get to the root of the issue, i.e. the immorality of social injustice. The Civil War was carried out to maintain intact a social-economic system that thrived on the exploitation of the working class. This economic system, would by its very nature, widen the gap between "the haves and the have nots." Scripture and theology do not seek to appeal to expediency and convenience. Scripture and theology seek to call attention to all human forms of exploitation and injustice. From a biblical and theological standpoint, the Civil War was a "half-baked" measure in dealing with the issue of racism. The war just addressed the symptoms of the problem. Theology seeks to get to the root of the problem. The Civil War was carried out to avoid "rocking the boat." Theology seeks to "sink the boat" and replace it with another viable one. In other words, both Scripture and theology call for a radical overhaul of the economic, social, and political structures that oppress humankind in different ways.
True religion calls not only for the eradication of the system of chattel slavery, but also for the elimination of an oppressive economic, political and social system. May we be moved to respond to the clarion call of the Gospel for radical transformation.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Please feel free to respond to this essay and state your own perspectives.
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
The Voice of God and the Voice of the Church: Are They One and the Same?
One of the various issues which exist in faith communities is the issue of whether the voice of the community (especially the leadership) is the same as the voice of the one they seek to serve and worship, i.e. God. In the Jewish community, the prophetic word was considered the same as "the word of the Lord." The written witness to the prophetic word, i.e. the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), and the commentaries which came afterwards, i.e. the Talmud and other writings, were also considered to be "the word of God" in written form. In the Islamic (Muslim) community, the oral word of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and the subsequent written document, i,e, the Holy Qu'aran, we considered to be the word of Allah speaking to the community.
In the Christian community, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are considered to be "the Word of God" in written form. But a question which arises often time among Christians is whether the Church and its leadership can be considered the oracle of God, i.e. mouthpiece through which the word and will of God are made manifest. That is a very difficult question to answer, since different churches have different views and practices concerning that. The Catholic Church believes itself with its leadership (magisterium) to be the "depository" of divine revelation. They also believe that when its main leader, the Pope speaks on matters of faith and morals, that he is speaking infallibly. They believe that the Pope is the Vicar (substitute) of Christ on earth. The Orthodox Church believes that God speaks through the Scriptures and the Traditions from which the Scriptures emerged. The Protestant churches believe that God speaks primarily, if not exclusively through the Scriptures.
There is some difficulty with the Protestant position. While most, of not all, Protestant churches believe that the Bible is the primary or exclusive source of faith and practice, they differ with each other as to the interpretation and meaning of "what the Bible says." They also differ with each other as to the correct policy of interpretation regarding leadership, style of government, and policy.
If we believe that the existing leadership in our churches is "placed by God," do we not then, have a moral obligation and responsibility to "follow the leader?" If the leadership of the Church is divinely appointed, should we not take their word to be "the word of the Lord"?
In an individualistically oriented society such as the one we live in (USA), it is very difficult to equate the voice of the Church with the voice of God. We are given to so many divergent views and perspectives. Many people have the attitude that "I believe in God but not in the Church." Many people disassociate themselves from "organized religion," because they believe that it is corrupt. They prefer to go the route of having an individual "pipeline" to heaven. In essence, this position opens up the door for "do your thing, do what you like to do, I can't tell you who to sock it to." Such persons believe that "organized religion," twists and corrupts God's intentions for humanity.
This writer humbly and respectfully submits that while there may be corruption and danger in "organized religion," there is as much danger in individualism. Each person believes and practices that which is "right" in their own eyes. They hold on to the view of "let a thousand flowers bloom." The biggest danger is when they have the attitude of "everybody thinks they're right, but I KNOW they're wrong.
I also humbly and respectfully reject the notion of "I believe in the Bible, but not in the Church." This position is contradictory in that the Bible was written by the Church, both Jewish and Christian. To set aside the voice of God which comes to us through the Scriptures, the Traditions, and the Church, and replace it with our own individual "voices" that we each hear, is to open up the doors for individualized and privatistic religion.
This type of "lone ranger" spirituality lends itself to arrogance and presumptuousness.
Please share with us your view as to whether the voice of God and the voice of the Church are one and the same, or are they two different voices.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
In the Christian community, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are considered to be "the Word of God" in written form. But a question which arises often time among Christians is whether the Church and its leadership can be considered the oracle of God, i.e. mouthpiece through which the word and will of God are made manifest. That is a very difficult question to answer, since different churches have different views and practices concerning that. The Catholic Church believes itself with its leadership (magisterium) to be the "depository" of divine revelation. They also believe that when its main leader, the Pope speaks on matters of faith and morals, that he is speaking infallibly. They believe that the Pope is the Vicar (substitute) of Christ on earth. The Orthodox Church believes that God speaks through the Scriptures and the Traditions from which the Scriptures emerged. The Protestant churches believe that God speaks primarily, if not exclusively through the Scriptures.
There is some difficulty with the Protestant position. While most, of not all, Protestant churches believe that the Bible is the primary or exclusive source of faith and practice, they differ with each other as to the interpretation and meaning of "what the Bible says." They also differ with each other as to the correct policy of interpretation regarding leadership, style of government, and policy.
If we believe that the existing leadership in our churches is "placed by God," do we not then, have a moral obligation and responsibility to "follow the leader?" If the leadership of the Church is divinely appointed, should we not take their word to be "the word of the Lord"?
In an individualistically oriented society such as the one we live in (USA), it is very difficult to equate the voice of the Church with the voice of God. We are given to so many divergent views and perspectives. Many people have the attitude that "I believe in God but not in the Church." Many people disassociate themselves from "organized religion," because they believe that it is corrupt. They prefer to go the route of having an individual "pipeline" to heaven. In essence, this position opens up the door for "do your thing, do what you like to do, I can't tell you who to sock it to." Such persons believe that "organized religion," twists and corrupts God's intentions for humanity.
This writer humbly and respectfully submits that while there may be corruption and danger in "organized religion," there is as much danger in individualism. Each person believes and practices that which is "right" in their own eyes. They hold on to the view of "let a thousand flowers bloom." The biggest danger is when they have the attitude of "everybody thinks they're right, but I KNOW they're wrong.
I also humbly and respectfully reject the notion of "I believe in the Bible, but not in the Church." This position is contradictory in that the Bible was written by the Church, both Jewish and Christian. To set aside the voice of God which comes to us through the Scriptures, the Traditions, and the Church, and replace it with our own individual "voices" that we each hear, is to open up the doors for individualized and privatistic religion.
This type of "lone ranger" spirituality lends itself to arrogance and presumptuousness.
Please share with us your view as to whether the voice of God and the voice of the Church are one and the same, or are they two different voices.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Sunday, October 4, 2015
Racism in a Biblical and Theological Perspective- Abolitionism
In this essay, I would like to address the issue of the abolition of the institution of chattel slavery in relation to the attempt of abolishing and totally eliminating racist attitudes and beliefs. On the surface, the issue of reducing or eliminating racism seems like wishful thinking. One can then ask if eliminating racist attitudes and beliefs is a prerequisite for eliminating racist structures and systems, or is it the other way around?
One can argue that history has shown us that racist structures have to be eliminated in order to eradicate the racist attitudes and beliefs. Many of those who believe this will point to the elimination of the institution of slavery as evidence. However, the mere fact that institutional, structural, and systemic racism remain intact, is a witness to the fallacy of this naive myth.
The three decades leading to the Civil War saw the birth and growth of a mass social movement for the abolition of slavery. The abolitionist movement became a significant force in U.S. politics; it involved tens of thousands of active members, and mobilized and influenced even greater numbers. The abolitionist movement remains one of the most important movements in this country (Ahmed Shawki: Black Liberation and Socialism, p.37).
The key features of this movement are the following: its explosive growth from a marginal movement to one involving tens of thousands; its political diversity as illustrated in the debates and competing approaches within the movement; and its points of intersection and divergence within the currents of Black separatism and radicalism both before and after the Civil War (Shawki, p. 37).
In its early years, the abolitionist movement was marginalized, ridiculed, and attacked. As Michael Goldfield notes: " At first, abolitionists were denounced throughout the country, especially in New England. They were stoned, had their meetings broken up, were arrested, and were threatened to death (Michael Goldfield, The Color of Politics: Race and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York: New Press, 1997, p. 70)."
Herbert Atheker argues: "The most avid opponents of of abolitionism were the rich-slave owners and their lackeys, the merchants, and their servitors, the dominant figures in politics, the press, the churches, and the schools (Herbert Atheker, Abolitionism, A Revolutionary Movement. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1989, p.41)."
As I stated earlier, my purpose in covering abolitionism in this essay is to link it with the quest for the eradication of racism. Racism takes on different forms, i.e. individual attitudes, collective structures and systems, social policies, etc.
Can racism be abolished? This writer believes that it can, but that it is a long historical process which requires a massive movement of people who are committed to overhaul racist structures and systems. As a Christian minister and theologian, I can easily fall back on the notion that a personal encounter with Jesus the Christ will eliminate racism. However, the history of Christianity does not demonstrate that. The first century Church had its own problems with ethnic discrimination as demonstrated by the issue of the Gentile widows of the Church not being as well provided for as the Jewish widows of the Church. The Apostle Peter, who followed Jesus around for three years, and was one of the main, if not the main leader of the Church in its inception, had to be shown a vision by God in order to enable him to come to grips with his own negative attitude towards and stereotypes of the Gentiles.
I believe that we can start by acknowledging that there is racism within the Church itself, both in individual attitudes, and in our corporate ecclesiastical policies. How many people "of color" are included in the top leadership of the predominantly Caucasian middle-class denominations and individual congregations? How many theological institutions reflect a significant number of African-American and Hispanic members of their faculties? How much of the theological curriculum reflects the needs and concerns of the community "of color?" Why is that 11 A.M. on Sunday mornings is still the most segregated hour in America?
The abolition of racism requires both a political and a theological will. As stated before, it also requires a massive movement of people (Christians and non-Christians alike) who are committed to the task of overhauling racist structures and systems. This task requires going over and beyond rhetorical noise and "bla, bla, bla." It requires more than cliches and slogans. It requires much more than settling for a smile from a white person to a non-white person. It requires doing away with platitudes and paternalistic condescension. We need to go over and beyond singing "Jesus Loves the Little Children." This massive movement of people needs to say "hell no" in no uncertain terms to racism. The Church is called to repent of its own racism, and to enter the struggle for the total elimination of racism in all its forms.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Feel free to share your own comments
One can argue that history has shown us that racist structures have to be eliminated in order to eradicate the racist attitudes and beliefs. Many of those who believe this will point to the elimination of the institution of slavery as evidence. However, the mere fact that institutional, structural, and systemic racism remain intact, is a witness to the fallacy of this naive myth.
The three decades leading to the Civil War saw the birth and growth of a mass social movement for the abolition of slavery. The abolitionist movement became a significant force in U.S. politics; it involved tens of thousands of active members, and mobilized and influenced even greater numbers. The abolitionist movement remains one of the most important movements in this country (Ahmed Shawki: Black Liberation and Socialism, p.37).
The key features of this movement are the following: its explosive growth from a marginal movement to one involving tens of thousands; its political diversity as illustrated in the debates and competing approaches within the movement; and its points of intersection and divergence within the currents of Black separatism and radicalism both before and after the Civil War (Shawki, p. 37).
In its early years, the abolitionist movement was marginalized, ridiculed, and attacked. As Michael Goldfield notes: " At first, abolitionists were denounced throughout the country, especially in New England. They were stoned, had their meetings broken up, were arrested, and were threatened to death (Michael Goldfield, The Color of Politics: Race and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York: New Press, 1997, p. 70)."
Herbert Atheker argues: "The most avid opponents of of abolitionism were the rich-slave owners and their lackeys, the merchants, and their servitors, the dominant figures in politics, the press, the churches, and the schools (Herbert Atheker, Abolitionism, A Revolutionary Movement. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1989, p.41)."
As I stated earlier, my purpose in covering abolitionism in this essay is to link it with the quest for the eradication of racism. Racism takes on different forms, i.e. individual attitudes, collective structures and systems, social policies, etc.
Can racism be abolished? This writer believes that it can, but that it is a long historical process which requires a massive movement of people who are committed to overhaul racist structures and systems. As a Christian minister and theologian, I can easily fall back on the notion that a personal encounter with Jesus the Christ will eliminate racism. However, the history of Christianity does not demonstrate that. The first century Church had its own problems with ethnic discrimination as demonstrated by the issue of the Gentile widows of the Church not being as well provided for as the Jewish widows of the Church. The Apostle Peter, who followed Jesus around for three years, and was one of the main, if not the main leader of the Church in its inception, had to be shown a vision by God in order to enable him to come to grips with his own negative attitude towards and stereotypes of the Gentiles.
I believe that we can start by acknowledging that there is racism within the Church itself, both in individual attitudes, and in our corporate ecclesiastical policies. How many people "of color" are included in the top leadership of the predominantly Caucasian middle-class denominations and individual congregations? How many theological institutions reflect a significant number of African-American and Hispanic members of their faculties? How much of the theological curriculum reflects the needs and concerns of the community "of color?" Why is that 11 A.M. on Sunday mornings is still the most segregated hour in America?
The abolition of racism requires both a political and a theological will. As stated before, it also requires a massive movement of people (Christians and non-Christians alike) who are committed to the task of overhauling racist structures and systems. This task requires going over and beyond rhetorical noise and "bla, bla, bla." It requires more than cliches and slogans. It requires much more than settling for a smile from a white person to a non-white person. It requires doing away with platitudes and paternalistic condescension. We need to go over and beyond singing "Jesus Loves the Little Children." This massive movement of people needs to say "hell no" in no uncertain terms to racism. The Church is called to repent of its own racism, and to enter the struggle for the total elimination of racism in all its forms.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Feel free to share your own comments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)