Graduate 106: "The Greatest Single Failure of Christianity?"
Provocative titles are interesting. They make me wonder what must go through the head of my readers when they first see the heading.
A friend of mine recently posted a short blog entry entitled, "The Greatest Single Failure of Christianity?" In that entry, she posed a question about the history of Christianity and I offered a (rather extended) response. In this entry, I will post both her question along with a revised version of my response. My background on Malcolm X and the Civil Rights Movement, generally, is very weak so I need to be careful about making very specific claims about either biography or history. (That's the mistake I made in the first version of my response.) So here's something to think about.
--
Original posting:
One of my goals for 2007 was to read some black literature. So, I find myself plowing through the Autobiography of Malcom X, and I needed a highlighter, it was so thick with really engaging food-for-thought.
Today I came across this, and I'm curious what others have to say about it:
Malcolm X said that he believed that close at hand is the end of Christianity. He talked about the flaws of the "turn the other cheek" philosophy, and how white Christians have used Christianity as a tool of oppression, using violence, but then encouraging humble subjugation from their oppressed. He cited the Crusades, the Native Americans, the colonial era.
He goes on to say, "the greatest single reason for this Christian church's failure? It is its failure to combat racism." (425)
Do you agree? Do you think Christianity's failures are best summed up this way?
Tell me what you think :)
--
Here's my response:
Part of Malcolm's argument recalls claims made by Friedrich Nietzsche in his "Genealogy of Morals". Once upon a time, says Nietzsche, there were the strong and there were the weak. The strong were, naturally, in control, but the weak did not like being controlled. So the weak developed a system of morality in which the values of the weak were held up as ideals--turn the other cheek, if a man forces you to walk one mile then go with him two, the last shall be first, submit to the governing authority. Slowly the weak came to dominance and set in place a system where the strong could not be truly strong and the weak "morality" defined right and wrong. Of course, the "weak" morality that Nietzsche criticizes just is Christian morality. In others of his works, Nietzsche sets up as his ideal the ubermensch--the superior man who would rise above conventional Christian morality, who would be driven by the will to power, and be free and strong after the ancient (pre-Christian) pattern.
[1. I won't go into an extensive critique of Nietzsche at this point, but bring this material into dialogue with what you've written on Malcolm X. Of course, I don't know whether Malcolm X was influenced by Nietzsche at all; so I will try to make sure that nothing of what follows hangs on that.]
One way to bring Nietzsche and Malcolm into fruitful dialogue is to ask, "Would Nietzsche have been an advocate of Civil Rights?" After all, he was opposed to Christianity on similar grounds to those of Malcolm--that it was an oppressive religious/moral system. Would Nietzsche have been an advocate of Civil Rights like Malcolm? The answer, I think, is "No." Nietzsche advocated the expression of power by the strong--which might very well involve asserting dominance over the weak. For Nietzsche, the person who is right is the person who comes out on top. Might does make right.
How interesting that Nietzsche would criticize Christianity in the same way that Malcolm does and yet come to the polar opposite conclusion about civil rights. How do we account for this?
I think part of what Malcolm fails to recognize, in his analysis and critique, is the way in which the values of the Civil Rights movement are informed BY and grounded IN Christianity. Consider if one was raised in parts of Asia where the caste system (even today) is still strong. Growing up in that environment, would he have ever gotten the idea that all people ought to be treated equally. Probably not. Again, even today, there are people who are deemed "untouchable" by their society, because of their birth. Who is pushing for change in these areas?--Christians. Christians are reaching out to the "untouchables" and saying to them, "You are precious and valued because you, too, are created in the image of God and loved by Him."
You will, no doubt, appreciate and remember what Dr. Baloian (Azusa Pacific University) says on this point. The Bible teaches that people are not dirt. That's why the Jews were always so difficult to subjugate. They were a problem for the Egyptians, for the Philistines, for the Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans. They would not go quietly because they knew, through God's revelation, that they were precious and valuable and were to be slaves to no one. It makes sense that those people who have been shaped by the Bible should come to similar conclusions.
But this leaves us in an interesting place. Now we have one version of Christianity that strongly advocates equality and civil rights and another version of Christianity that is strongly opposed to equality and civil rights. (And we do need to take seriously that there were segments of the Christian population that opposed the movement of civil rights; I am reminded of King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail".) Is this a contradiction? How are we to resolve it?
Malcolm seems to make the mistake of thinking that "oppression" is an essential part of "Christianity". So he chooses to reject Christianity altogether; but that is a serious mistake, I think. If one rejects Christianity ALTOGETHER, then one loses oppressive Christianity, yes, but one ALSO loses the Christianity that grounded and anchored the civil rights movement. And if one loses THAT Christianity, where will one get the idea that all people ought to be treated equally? Not from Nietzsche. Not from Caste-system cultures.
[2. By the way, this is, I think, a big problem with our current culture. People want to push religion out of the picture because they see it as oppressive. But by rejecting religion, they also undercut the very values that they are trying to defend; they rip the foundation right out from under their own feet.]
Instead of throwing out Christianity altogether, we need to appreciate the dangers that arise whenever genuine relationship with God gets reduced to a merely religious system. Consider the case of the Jews, again. These people, who knew and understood that they were precious and valued in the sight of God, treated the Samaritans with contempt; they also looked down on Gentiles. Those who were genuinely interacting with God prophesied that the Messiah would be a light for revelation to the Gentiles. But when Jesus talked about preaching to the Gentiles in Luke 4 (my Life-and-Teachings Baloian paper topic), the people of Nazareth tried to kill him. Why did they try to kill him?--because they had turned genuine relationship with God into merely human religion.
That same pattern is what we have seen in history. Did Jesus advocate a religious system? No. Rather, he brought the life and Spirit of God into the midst of the people. He brought transformative power and grace and love to a people who were starved for it. And when people saw the action and activity and presence of God in their midst, they were transformed. That is what is so remarkable about the beginnings of Christianity. It was not a violent take-over. Instead, even in the midst of violent persecution, the message of Jesus was so powerful and the presence of God was so manifestly real that people, by the thousands, were choosing to follow Christianity even if it meant their own torturous death.
But then, over time, as happened in the case of the Jewish people, genuine relationship with God gave way to merely human religion. And how does one protect and propagate a merely human religious system?--by violence. And how does one ensure that a merely human religious system stays in power?--by oppression. But throughout history there have been revivals of genuine Christianity and there have always been those who, in the midst of a merely human Christian system, have been able to connect genuinely with God.
So we need to understand and appreciate how the two "types" of Christianity are distinct, but also how they are related. Even though there were Christians who defended slavery and worked against civil rights, we also have to understand that the whole idea of equality and civil rights comes from Christianity. Even though the Christianity of the mid-twentieth century was very much watered down, it still contained the seeds of truth that bore fruit in the civil rights movement.
So there is nothing wrong with the "turn the other cheek" philosophy. After all, those words come from Jesus' own mouth. "Turn the other cheek," when properly connected to the grace and power and life of God, changes lives for the good. "Turn the other cheek," when connected to a merely human religious system does yield oppression and subjugation.
"Christianity separated from the life and Spirit of God"--that is the greatest failing of Christianity; and ONE of its fruits is a Christianity that is unable or unwilling to combat the evil of racism. The only solution, is for Christians to turn back to God.
As for the idea that the end of Christianity is close at hand; well, Nietzsche said something very similar to that too. He pronounced that "God is dead." By that, he meant that God had ceased to make a real difference in the lives of people; Christians were trying to be basically decent people just like all the non-Christians. In effect, he was saying that, in Christianity, there was no genuine relationship with God--only merely human religion. Indeed, many people, today, seem to be rejecting Christianity ALTOGETHER. They are, mistakenly, throwing out the good with the bad because they are not taking seriously the distinction between genuine relationship with God and merely human religion. Will that be the end of Christianity? Certainly not. It may be the end of one kind of Christianity, but there will always be people who genuinely connect with God. God will always preserve a remnant for Himself (to borrow an Old Testament image), and it may just be that as more of the 'fake' Christianity falls by the wayside, the genuine article will shine out that much more brightly in a world of darkness that is so desperately starved for genuine love and hope and peace and joy and life.
--
One additional comment: Some may wish to point out that there were other cultural and ideological factors that contributed to the rise of the Civil Rights Movement besides Christianity. The above material should not be read as a denial of that claim. However, I would like to reiterate the point made in the second bracketed comment. Many people seem to take it for granted that all people ought to be treated equally; but that is just what we cannot do. We need to understand that this particular value is grounded in a particular philosophical outlook that has competitors. Someone may wish to ground Civil Rights in some value system other than Christianity; such a value system must be tested for coherence and veracity (as must Christianity). The point, however, is that it must be grounded in something and cannot stand on its own as self-evident.
--
God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.
A friend of mine recently posted a short blog entry entitled, "The Greatest Single Failure of Christianity?" In that entry, she posed a question about the history of Christianity and I offered a (rather extended) response. In this entry, I will post both her question along with a revised version of my response. My background on Malcolm X and the Civil Rights Movement, generally, is very weak so I need to be careful about making very specific claims about either biography or history. (That's the mistake I made in the first version of my response.) So here's something to think about.
--
Original posting:
One of my goals for 2007 was to read some black literature. So, I find myself plowing through the Autobiography of Malcom X, and I needed a highlighter, it was so thick with really engaging food-for-thought.
Today I came across this, and I'm curious what others have to say about it:
Malcolm X said that he believed that close at hand is the end of Christianity. He talked about the flaws of the "turn the other cheek" philosophy, and how white Christians have used Christianity as a tool of oppression, using violence, but then encouraging humble subjugation from their oppressed. He cited the Crusades, the Native Americans, the colonial era.
He goes on to say, "the greatest single reason for this Christian church's failure? It is its failure to combat racism." (425)
Do you agree? Do you think Christianity's failures are best summed up this way?
Tell me what you think :)
--
Here's my response:
Part of Malcolm's argument recalls claims made by Friedrich Nietzsche in his "Genealogy of Morals". Once upon a time, says Nietzsche, there were the strong and there were the weak. The strong were, naturally, in control, but the weak did not like being controlled. So the weak developed a system of morality in which the values of the weak were held up as ideals--turn the other cheek, if a man forces you to walk one mile then go with him two, the last shall be first, submit to the governing authority. Slowly the weak came to dominance and set in place a system where the strong could not be truly strong and the weak "morality" defined right and wrong. Of course, the "weak" morality that Nietzsche criticizes just is Christian morality. In others of his works, Nietzsche sets up as his ideal the ubermensch--the superior man who would rise above conventional Christian morality, who would be driven by the will to power, and be free and strong after the ancient (pre-Christian) pattern.
[1. I won't go into an extensive critique of Nietzsche at this point, but bring this material into dialogue with what you've written on Malcolm X. Of course, I don't know whether Malcolm X was influenced by Nietzsche at all; so I will try to make sure that nothing of what follows hangs on that.]
One way to bring Nietzsche and Malcolm into fruitful dialogue is to ask, "Would Nietzsche have been an advocate of Civil Rights?" After all, he was opposed to Christianity on similar grounds to those of Malcolm--that it was an oppressive religious/moral system. Would Nietzsche have been an advocate of Civil Rights like Malcolm? The answer, I think, is "No." Nietzsche advocated the expression of power by the strong--which might very well involve asserting dominance over the weak. For Nietzsche, the person who is right is the person who comes out on top. Might does make right.
How interesting that Nietzsche would criticize Christianity in the same way that Malcolm does and yet come to the polar opposite conclusion about civil rights. How do we account for this?
I think part of what Malcolm fails to recognize, in his analysis and critique, is the way in which the values of the Civil Rights movement are informed BY and grounded IN Christianity. Consider if one was raised in parts of Asia where the caste system (even today) is still strong. Growing up in that environment, would he have ever gotten the idea that all people ought to be treated equally. Probably not. Again, even today, there are people who are deemed "untouchable" by their society, because of their birth. Who is pushing for change in these areas?--Christians. Christians are reaching out to the "untouchables" and saying to them, "You are precious and valued because you, too, are created in the image of God and loved by Him."
You will, no doubt, appreciate and remember what Dr. Baloian (Azusa Pacific University) says on this point. The Bible teaches that people are not dirt. That's why the Jews were always so difficult to subjugate. They were a problem for the Egyptians, for the Philistines, for the Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans. They would not go quietly because they knew, through God's revelation, that they were precious and valuable and were to be slaves to no one. It makes sense that those people who have been shaped by the Bible should come to similar conclusions.
But this leaves us in an interesting place. Now we have one version of Christianity that strongly advocates equality and civil rights and another version of Christianity that is strongly opposed to equality and civil rights. (And we do need to take seriously that there were segments of the Christian population that opposed the movement of civil rights; I am reminded of King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail".) Is this a contradiction? How are we to resolve it?
Malcolm seems to make the mistake of thinking that "oppression" is an essential part of "Christianity". So he chooses to reject Christianity altogether; but that is a serious mistake, I think. If one rejects Christianity ALTOGETHER, then one loses oppressive Christianity, yes, but one ALSO loses the Christianity that grounded and anchored the civil rights movement. And if one loses THAT Christianity, where will one get the idea that all people ought to be treated equally? Not from Nietzsche. Not from Caste-system cultures.
[2. By the way, this is, I think, a big problem with our current culture. People want to push religion out of the picture because they see it as oppressive. But by rejecting religion, they also undercut the very values that they are trying to defend; they rip the foundation right out from under their own feet.]
Instead of throwing out Christianity altogether, we need to appreciate the dangers that arise whenever genuine relationship with God gets reduced to a merely religious system. Consider the case of the Jews, again. These people, who knew and understood that they were precious and valued in the sight of God, treated the Samaritans with contempt; they also looked down on Gentiles. Those who were genuinely interacting with God prophesied that the Messiah would be a light for revelation to the Gentiles. But when Jesus talked about preaching to the Gentiles in Luke 4 (my Life-and-Teachings Baloian paper topic), the people of Nazareth tried to kill him. Why did they try to kill him?--because they had turned genuine relationship with God into merely human religion.
That same pattern is what we have seen in history. Did Jesus advocate a religious system? No. Rather, he brought the life and Spirit of God into the midst of the people. He brought transformative power and grace and love to a people who were starved for it. And when people saw the action and activity and presence of God in their midst, they were transformed. That is what is so remarkable about the beginnings of Christianity. It was not a violent take-over. Instead, even in the midst of violent persecution, the message of Jesus was so powerful and the presence of God was so manifestly real that people, by the thousands, were choosing to follow Christianity even if it meant their own torturous death.
But then, over time, as happened in the case of the Jewish people, genuine relationship with God gave way to merely human religion. And how does one protect and propagate a merely human religious system?--by violence. And how does one ensure that a merely human religious system stays in power?--by oppression. But throughout history there have been revivals of genuine Christianity and there have always been those who, in the midst of a merely human Christian system, have been able to connect genuinely with God.
So we need to understand and appreciate how the two "types" of Christianity are distinct, but also how they are related. Even though there were Christians who defended slavery and worked against civil rights, we also have to understand that the whole idea of equality and civil rights comes from Christianity. Even though the Christianity of the mid-twentieth century was very much watered down, it still contained the seeds of truth that bore fruit in the civil rights movement.
So there is nothing wrong with the "turn the other cheek" philosophy. After all, those words come from Jesus' own mouth. "Turn the other cheek," when properly connected to the grace and power and life of God, changes lives for the good. "Turn the other cheek," when connected to a merely human religious system does yield oppression and subjugation.
"Christianity separated from the life and Spirit of God"--that is the greatest failing of Christianity; and ONE of its fruits is a Christianity that is unable or unwilling to combat the evil of racism. The only solution, is for Christians to turn back to God.
As for the idea that the end of Christianity is close at hand; well, Nietzsche said something very similar to that too. He pronounced that "God is dead." By that, he meant that God had ceased to make a real difference in the lives of people; Christians were trying to be basically decent people just like all the non-Christians. In effect, he was saying that, in Christianity, there was no genuine relationship with God--only merely human religion. Indeed, many people, today, seem to be rejecting Christianity ALTOGETHER. They are, mistakenly, throwing out the good with the bad because they are not taking seriously the distinction between genuine relationship with God and merely human religion. Will that be the end of Christianity? Certainly not. It may be the end of one kind of Christianity, but there will always be people who genuinely connect with God. God will always preserve a remnant for Himself (to borrow an Old Testament image), and it may just be that as more of the 'fake' Christianity falls by the wayside, the genuine article will shine out that much more brightly in a world of darkness that is so desperately starved for genuine love and hope and peace and joy and life.
--
One additional comment: Some may wish to point out that there were other cultural and ideological factors that contributed to the rise of the Civil Rights Movement besides Christianity. The above material should not be read as a denial of that claim. However, I would like to reiterate the point made in the second bracketed comment. Many people seem to take it for granted that all people ought to be treated equally; but that is just what we cannot do. We need to understand that this particular value is grounded in a particular philosophical outlook that has competitors. Someone may wish to ground Civil Rights in some value system other than Christianity; such a value system must be tested for coherence and veracity (as must Christianity). The point, however, is that it must be grounded in something and cannot stand on its own as self-evident.
--
God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.
posted by Metaphysician_delta | 10:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home