"No white theologian has ever taken the oppression of blacks as a point of departure for analyzing God's activity in contemporary America." (A Black Theology of Liberation 9)
Is it just me? This assertion knocked my socks off. In twenty-five years of attending church, I can't think of one instance where the pastor addresses the racism of American white Christianity.
In fact, whenever I try to discuss the "issue of racism," I am met with an immediate affirmation of "colorlessness" in Christianity and whites go on to compare the disadvantages of being black to those experienced as an overweight person, or someone with economic disadvantage or even being rejected on the basis of Christian faith. There is no willingness to yield to the possibility that we have been (may still be) a part of a system that was fundamentally evil—that our current social location as white middle class Americans was bought for us on the backs of 350 years of slavery and oppression of enslaved Africans.
Worse, those years of slavery were often justified within the confines of white Christian theology. And if slavery was not justified in northern white churches, Cone rightly asks, "Why was there no passion to overturn the injustice being endorsed and supported in the white southern churches?" He declares that there is no such thing as a "Christian church" that supported racism, slavery or segregation.
That we 21st century white Christians are so quick to identify ourselves with the miniscule number of white Quakers who supported the Underground Railroad, or the white liberals who followed Dr. King during the sixties, when we are in churches and communities that were deeply racist in those eras, continues to astound me. It would be interesting to look at the roots of our particular denominations in America and deal squarely with the implications of the denomination's stand on race during the years of oppression. How has the church "repented in sackcloth and ashes"? Or has it quietly adjusted and gone on?
"Because white theology has consistently preserved the integrity of the community of oppressors, I conclude that it is not Christian theology at all." (9)
And this is the crux of the black theological challenge to whites. We whites don't want to be wrong, we don't want to face our complicity, we don't want to invalidate our denominational heritage. We ask, "Can't we all get along? Doesn't God forgive sins? Even bad sins?" Yet have we even probed the depths of a theology that would endorse and support the evil of slavery? To what are we blind today that is endorsed by a theology we consider pure? How do we continue to perpetuate our superiority as a race without even knowing it?
7 comments:
Good questions. Hard questions. Two of my kids are reading "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo. It is not for the die-hard Lincoln fan that believes Lincoln was outraged at the "sin" of slavery. It is not for those that believe the Civil War was fought about slavery. Lincoln had other motives for the Civil War, according to DiLorenzo. I find myself wanting to defend Lincoln. Supposedly, though the North fought against slavery, they didn't welcome the freed slaves. Yes, DiLorenzo has documents that seem to prove Lincoln wasn't such an "honest Abe" but there are documents that prove him to be honest. What to believe? Is it worth it to go back (what can we say and do now to make amends)or is it better to go forward living a life that does respect each man as being equal?
But back to your point about white theologians silence. I don't remember any sermons about slavery either. I do remember growing up Southern Baptist in a completely white church. I knew there were black churches and just assumed the blacks wanted to worship together. Even now,40 years later, my Bible Church has very few blacks in attendance. Is it different in the north or west? What was the breakdown at the Vineyard? How would I be embraced if I went to a black church? Would I be comfortable? Rhetorical questions brought up by your post.
Susan
Thanks for such an honest and thought-provoking response.
One of the interesting ideas that I had never heard before reading James Cone is that the black power movement (Malcolm X, for instance) and black theology did not seek integration as their objective. Priod to the black power movement, white liberals and those who followed King had integration as their objective for blacks. But as they moved forward in the Civil Rights movement, it became increasingly clear that integration meant assimilation and loss of black distinctiveness. It meant a repudiation of African heritage and black culture. It also meant that rather than hold whites accountable, they were set up to forgive and behave non-violently.
Never mind that the white controlling powers at the time used vilence against blacks: police dogs and fire hydrant hoses to subdue peaceful resisters at demonstrations.
So the answer to the question of why there aren't more blacks in white churches? They are sick of us. They want to have their own communities that are free of the condescencion and the subtle pressure to "forgive and forget" that whites exert.
Black theology sees liberation of the oppressed as the key definition of the gospel and as a result, feel that their role is to challenge (be prophetic toward) the white church, calling them to wake up from their sins.
It's quite confrontational to read. Just like what you're reading about Lincoln. Really does a number on one's sense of justice, doesn't it?
Julie
Hi Julie,
I like that you raise this issue, but I don't have much to add except "amen."
The denial and deflection about racism you observe in white churches, unfortunately, seems to be characteristic of the response one gets on other issues, from theological to political to cultural, where if the opinions are challenged or drawn into the discomfort zone, it seems like desperate measures are called for in order to avoid dealing with the substance of the problem. I don't know an easy way around this. For all the willingness that these churches have to burrow into certain areas of people's private lives, they sure don't seem all that cooperative when others want to dig into their own past.
Dave, maybe here or on pomoxian someone can explain to me what it means to create "systemic change." I keep hearing that buzz phrase but honestly don't know what it means (unless it means sustaining social programs through more taxes). Is that all it is?
How does the progressive movement see itself helping inner cities? I hear lots of discussion about what the problem is but I hear little of how it could be solved (especially, how I can be a meaningful part). And it is this issue that I think keeps blacks and whites a part on these points. We just don't see their problems, don't know them, don't see that we would be able to make a difference if we did *see* them.
Julie
"Systemic change" is indeed a noble but elusive goal. You have put your finger on one of the disappointments I've encountered in my alignment with the progressive movement, which is that most of us are more idealistic than practical and few if any have much leverage when it comes to moving the money, legislation or even popular sentiment that it takes to get big things done.
Which leads me to believe that a lot of the grassroots progressivism out there is being driven by the (relatively speaking) "have-nots" of our society. That's pretty much the case with my local group, the Institute for Global Education. I like what we stand for and what we do, but I am honest enough to recognize that we don't have much political clout, nor do we represent a constituency that many politicians are going to cater to, at least not around here. Some of us may be moderately affluent on a personal level, but not many have the kind of serious connections that are likely to lead to long-term systemic change, at least not by the power of attraction that comes with money and other resources.
IGE does happen to be located in a mostly African-American neighborhood, and we have cordial relationships with our neighbors on the street. But our membership is almost entirely white. The non-violent peace and justice message has not caught on very well in the black community of Grand Rapids, it seems, despite our embrace of Martin Luther King, Jr. as one of our most admired teachers and role models.
On a professional level, I do spend a lot of time working with African-American youth and I try diligently to both understand their culture and help these kids understand more about the broader "white" society that they will interact with as they get older. I'm also involved in the diversity and anti-racism efforts that our agency sponsors for our employees' benefit. I have been involved in numerous conversations over the years where I'm challenging white colleagues and co-workers to closely examine their racist presuppositions and habits, so probably that would be the area where I've done the most actual work myself.
I still think a lot of what needs to happen revolves around having constructive dialogue and promoting stronger mutual understanding and shared appreciation of the respective points of view that white and black communities have developed and inherited from past generations. On a spiritual and cultural level, joint worship services and other efforts to pursue a more genuine form of integration that is "organic" rather than contrived are welcome. I think we also have to look for the positives in our broader pop culture, even in phenomena like hip hop music, movies, etc. That's one arena where people, especially the young, really do seem to mix more freely across ethnic boundaries than they did in past generations, even if it doesn't always move in directions that make the white middle class feel very comfortable.
Thank you so much for giving me a broader understanding of what you see and do.
You mentioned something I've been wondering about. One of the distinctives of the black power movement was the realization that integration might actually be a means of assimilating and extinguishing black culture and heritage. My professor said that the success of the Civil Rights movement was largely due to the partnership of the liberal white community in the sixties.
But the Civil Rights movement led to a change in law which has made most white people feel that there is no more to do. The progressives have not successfully regrouped or addressed the problems some of their policies have created. To only talk about redistribution of wealth ad the solution to the continued marginalization of inner city blacks seems to me to miss the larger culture.
I actually do see that there are needs for a change in the system (why is it, for instance, that not one NYC police officer has been found guilty for the wrongful death of a black man in 100 years? Is it really possible that every single act was just?).
But I don't see any solutions being suggested that I could get behind. I even ask my friends, my professors, I listen to leftwing radio and I have yet to hear anything I can latch onto.
The only issue I can see working for is a better distribution of funding for education. I think the current system (excusse my French) sucks. There is no way for inner city kids to get the education that my kids get and it's all due to the way the taxes are distributed.
But the cities are seen as wastelands of criminal activity. I don't think your average white suburbanite is wanting to see their money sent to the city when it could be used for their own kids.
Grrr.
Frustrating. I am appreciating the agenda of the left at a deeper level, but still feel like it's vague and hard to execute.
Julie
Post a Comment