I begin this discussion of the oppression of black women by looking at the issue through the eyes of Johnnetta Cole and Beverly Guy-Sheftall. Cole and Sheftall (Gender Talk: The Struggle for Women's Equality in African American Communities, 2003) write from both a lifetime of personal experience and from a lifetime of scholarship. They carry some personal scars from the battle between the Afro American sexes. Some scholars, such as Elsie Washington (1996), believe that war is an apt term to describe "the discord which has reached crisis proportions."
Calvin Herton (1987), an Afro American male, "underwent profound shifts in his thinking about gender matters and asserts that white racism isn't the only culprit":
"In the name of white supremacy, every imaginable act of human atrocity was perpetrated against blacks. Now, in an all-black situation, we witness a chillingly similar type of oppression, we see sundry acts of inhumanity leveled against black females . . . the centuries of slavery and racism, and the struggle to overcome them, have not informed the humanity of black men when it comes to black women . . . the oppressive experiences of black men have not deterred them from being oppressors themselves."
There is spirited discussion within the Afro American community about who has been/is most oppressed---the male or the female. Historical information and sociological data can be marshaled to argue that the Afro male has been most oppressed; therefore, racial oppression is more serious than gender oppression. But it can also be argued that the Afro female has been doubly oppressed on the basis of both race and gender, thus making her oppression the worst. These are not just philosophical points in an ideological debate; these different perspectives are deeply and emotionally felt. Males are accused of exploiting and abusing females; females are accused of running a matriarchy that dominates males.
In their book, Cole and Sheftall argue that both Afro men and women have been terribly oppressed, and in addition, Afro females have been oppressed by Afro males. Writing our of their own "intensely painful and humiliating" experiences, the authors comment:
"What we learned is that every woman is a potential victim of abuse and betrayal, regardless of her class status, level of maturity, or the care with which she chooses a particular partner. We also learned that despite our familiarity with theories about male aggression and control, . . . understanding these issues theoretically is very different from dealing with them on a personal level. . . . One of the most painful lessons Beverly learned is how deeply entrenched is the notion that violent behavior by a man is inevitably provoked by something a female is doing. . . . Without our gender politics, we may well have fallen into the trap that ensnares so many women and girls who are victims of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse---namely, blaming the victim."
Baptist preacher and scholar, Michael Dyson, believes that gender oppression is largely unacknowledged by Afro males:
"Gender is at the heart of the Black male preoccupation with their own self-expression. Whether we're talking about hip-hop culture, the Black church or Black institutions of higher learning, the gender issue is front and center. But Black men don't see their gender in the same ways that white men don't see they have a race." Gary Lemons (1998) states: "Is our attainment of patriarchal power through the oppression of women any less insidious than white people's perpetuation of a system of racial oppression to dehumanize us?"
This debate has a long history going back to the 1870s and the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution:
"This contentious discussion over granting suffrage to Black men and not to Black women precipitated a major split within the women's movement and rancorous debate within the Black community as well."
Even Fredrick Douglass "argued for the greater urgency of race over gender . . . women's rights could wait."
Orlando Patterson, historical sociologist at Harvard and author of Rituals of Blood (1998), engages in a lengthy discussion of the Afro American gender relations crisis in his fine book; Patterson claims that:
"There is a crisis in nearly all aspects of gender relations among all classes of Afro-Americans, and it is getting worse . . . Afro-Americans have the lowest marriage rate in the nation, and those getting married have the highest divorce rate of any major ethnic group. The result is that most Afro-Americans, especially women, will go through most of their adult lives as single people."
Then Patterson pens a most tragic paragraph which reflects the enormous damage that oppression does to individuals and families:
"The simple, sad truth is that Afro-Americans are today the loneliest of all Americans---lonely and isolated as [an ethnic] group; lonely and isolated in their neighborhoods, through which they are often too terrified to walk; lonely as households headed by women sick and tired of being 'the strong black woman'; lonely as single men fearful of commitment; lonely as single women wary of a 'love and trouble' tradition that has always been more trouble than love."
American church, where are you?
Friday, July 4, 2014
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Chapter 6: Types of Social Evil: Biblical and Modern: Ethnocentrism, Racism, Classism, Sexism
This chapter will identify four social evils/negative cultural values and briefly discuss each of them; they are ethnocentrism, racism, classism and sexism. Each social evil will be examined both biblically and in modern American society. Each of these social evils structure supposed superior/inferior relationships in society---Jew over Gentile, white over black, rich over poor and male over female. These social evils are more than personal attitudes; they are also cultural values and they usually lead to acts of oppression. Understanding these social evils is a key part of creating a theology of society.
ETHNOCENTRISM
Ethnocentrism (own-culture-centered) comes from the Greek word ethnos meaning people, nation, heathen or Gentile with an emphasis on culture or nationality, not race (physical characteristics such as skin color).
For the Hebrews humankind outside of the chosen people of Israel were called the ethne, the nations or the Gentiles. In Jewish eyes, the Gentiles were given to idolatry and therefore were supposedly unclean and inferior. The concept of ethnocentrism can be drawn directly from the use of ethnos in the Scriptures even though the word ethnocentrism is not found in the Bible.
The word ethnos occurs 162 times in the New Testament; 43 times in Acts and 54 times in Paul's letters. Many times ethnos is literally translated as Gentile. In New Testament times, a sharp distinction was made between Jew and Gentile creating an immense barrier between them. Separation or segregation was comprehensive with many rules and regulations to reduce contact. Even Jews who became Christians often found it difficult to associate with or witness to Gentiles. Luke 4:25-30 and 9:51-56 are examples of a religiously based ethnocentrism which came perilously close to the death of Jesus and the total destruction of a Samaritan village by Jesus' disciples. In addition, we find ethnocentrism cutting the nerve of evangelism to the Gentiles and Samaritans until the eighth chapter of Acts, attempting to limit God's love and grace, dividing the body of Christ and legitimating oppression.
In U.S. history, we find this same type of religiously legitimated ethnocentrism. This religio-cultural ethnocentrism preceded racism historically, and I believe that even today it underlies and supports racism; it is a greater problem than racism is.
When and where did this ethnocentrism take root? At least as far back as the century before (1500s) the English colonization of America. Ronald Takaki, author of A Different Mirror, makes a direct link between the way the British treated the Irish and the way British colonists treated Native Americans; early on, the colonists even called Indians, Irish, a very derogatory nickname.
In the 1500s, the British were engaged in the brutal conquest and colonization of Ireland. Sir Francis Drake and Sir Walter Raleigh were involved. The British saw themselves as civilized and superior; they saw the Irish as savage and inferior. And the Protestant English despised the Catholic Irish. In their conquest of the Irish, the English had a strong sense that they were doing God's will; their religio-cultural ethnocentrism fueled their oppression. In my judgment, the British were as brutal and were Hitler and Stalin.
The British brought their religio-cultural ethnocentrism with them as they invaded and colonized America; English ethnocentrism and systems of oppression were imported lock-stock-and-barrel along with their Bibles. The Puritans added a sense of chosenness to this perverse mix---later called Manifest Destiny. Supposedly, it was God's will to conquer and colonize this new land---this New England---and set up a Christian nation. Any people who stood in the way were like the Canaanites---to be destroyed, if necessary. Puritan religion combined with an Anglo-Saxon culture/civilization fueled a dangerous ethnocentrism which led to brutal acts of oppression again and again.
All of this was in place before the idea of race/racism came to the fore in these United States. Racism began around 1660 to justify slavery in Virginia and became full-blown between 1800-1850. Racism did not replace religio-cultural ethnocentrism; it was simply added to an already evil mix. This demonic mix legitimated the oppression of Mexicans, Japanese, Hawaiians, Filipinos and others. The Klan was driven by ethnocentrism as much as by racism. So are evangelicals in the late 1990s, according to Michael Emerson's sociological research.
Generally, the American pulpit is silent about the social evils of ethnocentrism and oppression, even though these are major biblical themes.
For documentation, see A Different Mirror by Ronald Takaki; Race and Manifest Destiny by Reginald Horsman.
RACISM
The concept of race is not a biblical concept. The Bible addresses nations, languages and cultures, but not races as we think of them today. For example, rabbis have told me again and again that Jews are not a race; they are a religio-ethnic group. But most American non-Jews classify Jews as a race of people. We read our deep-seated ideas of race into situations where they do not belong.
Most social scientists today assert that race as a concept is too imprecise to be valid. Which set of physical characteristics should be used to categorize races? There are endless variations of skin color. Though the concept of race is imprecise, inaccurate and invalid, the social meaning assigned to race---racism---is real and powerful and destructive.
According to sociologists Michael Emerson and Joe Feagin, racism is alive and well in modern America. Based on 1990s data, Emerson, in Divided by Faith, shows that American society as a whole and white evangelicals in particular still tolerate or participate in the continuing of racism. Joe Feagin, in Living with Racism, shows that middle class Afro Americans still battle with systemic racism. Jerome Miller, author of Search and Destroy, makes a devastating critique of the criminal justice system for targeting Afro American males. Glenn Loury, author of The Anatomy of Racial Inequality, has many charts documenting a continuing racial gap in almost every area of life.
Joe Feagin, a sociologist who studies race and gender, has published 50 books and 190 research articles on these topics; he has documented the historical roots of American systemic racism in his book Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations (2000); the third edition was released in 2014. Feagin takes a hard look at our founding fathers and the racism/slavery that pervaded our nation at the time and how systemic racism pervades our society even down to this present time.
Fifty-five wealthy men gathered in 1787 to write a constitution for this newly democratic nation. Forty percent owned slaves or had owned slaves and "a significant portion of the others profit to some degree as merchants, shippers, lawyers and bankers from the trade in slaves, commerce in slave-produced agricultural products, or supplying provision to slaveholders and slave-traders." In 1700, Wall Street was "one of the first large colonial markets" for slaves. Half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were either slaveholders or slave traders.
George Washington was one of the richest men in the colonies; he owned around 300 slaves. Thomas Jefferson owned around 260 slaves. "We, the People" did not include one-fifth of the population who were slaves; it was an elitist constitution which left out not only Afro Americans and Native Americans, but also women and the poor. It does not sound like a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." "Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, and Sam Houston enslaved black Americans. Ten U.S. presidents (Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Johnson, and Grant) owned slaves."
To keep current on accurate information about American racism, check out the website by Feagin, Racism Review.
CLASSISM
Classism (economic segregation, socioeconomic inequality or in lay terms, the wide and growing gap between the rich and poor) was the number one topic of Luke's gospel. A corrupt religio-politico-economic elite ran Jewish society and they even turned the Temple into a system of oppression. Jesus was scathing in his denunciation of the corrupt and oppressive system.
According to economist Paul Krugman, political analyst Kevin Phillips, sociologist William Julius Wilson, and sociologist Robert Bellah, growing class divisions have destroyed any semblance of American equality and they are undermining the very foundations of American democracy. Paul Krugman (2002) states:
"We are now living in a New Gilded Age. . . . an astonishing concentration of income and wealth in just a few hands. . . . the United States . . . has more poverty and lower life expectancy than any other advanced nation. . . . The 13,000 richest families in America now have almost as much income as the 20,000,000 poor. And those 13,000 families have incomes 300 times that of average families."
Little of the recent economic growth has trickled down to ordinary families. This money is being used to buy political and intellectual influence. Federal economic policies have increased socioeconomic inequality. Ray Boshara writes about wealth inequality in the Jan/Feb, 2003, Atlantic Monthly. He states: "The U.S. is more unequal than at any other time since the dawn of the New Deal---indeed, it is the most unequal society in the advanced democratic world."
For more documentation, see two books by Kevin Phillips: The Politics of Rich and Poor (1990), and Wealth and Democracy (2002). Also When Work Disappears by William Julius Wilson, and Habits of the Heart by Robert Bellah. For excellent, accurate information on the extreme racial wealth gap, read Thomas Shapiro's The Hidden Cost of Being African American and Black Wealth/White Wealth. To keep current on the racial wealth gap, google the Institute on Assets and Social Policy, Brandeis University which Shapiro directs. To keep current on the wealth gap in general, read Sam Pizzigati's weekly online, Too Much, Excess and Inequality.
SEXISM
This section is on sexism or male dominance.
In creation, male and female are equal as persons; Genesis 1:27:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
In redemption, men and women are equal as persons; Galatians 3:26:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
In Spirit-filling, men and women are equal as persons; Acts 2:18:
Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.
Persons and persons in relationship governed by love are primary. Person in roles, such as husband and wife, are secondary. If persons in roles are made primary, then a woman can dwindle into a wife. An overemphasis on husband as head and wife as submissive can damage the unique personhood of an individual; it can open the door to sin, abuse and oppression.
The punishment for Eve's sin was:
He [husband] will rule over you. Or he will be your master.
The punishment for the wife is dominance by the husband. This dominance is the result of the fall, not a principle as a result of the creation. Among Christians, this sinful dominance should be replaced by sacrificial love (Eph. 5:25) and honor and respect (I Peter 3:7). Unless the husband is reminded repeatedly about what his new Christian role is, he is likely to slip back into his old cultural role---enforced submission.
According to Ephesians 5, the husband is not told to "Assert your headship; be the boss of your home; enforce submission by your wife." Instead, he is told to love, cherish and sacrifice.
His gift to his wife is love; her gift to her husband is submission. This priority is important; only in a relationship bathed by love is it safe to submit. The husband should be exhorted to love ten times as often as the wife is told to submit, but often it seems that the opposite is the case. In reality, both should submit to each other. Only if the partners are giving these gifts to each other will the marriage work as God designed it to work. Without the emphasis of persons in relationship giving gifts to each other, the marriage can dwindle into rigid roles and then into a battle for dominance.
Steven Tracy, in an article in Christianity Today (Feb., 2007) entitled, "Headship with a Heart," tells about his 15 years of counseling in his pastoral ministry. Again and again, he has heard husbands "use male headship to justify abuse." His wife, a family therapist, "hears horrific stories of male authority turned malignant virtually every day."
Battered into Submission (1998) documents that "pastors fail to take the husband's violence seriously and simple encourage wives to be submissive."
"Unfortunately, secular society and even the Christian church consistently fail to protect women, and often blame women for physical or sexual violence perpetrated upon them. . . . Violence against women is as serious a cause of death and incapacity among women of reproductive age as cancer."
Tracy concludes that churches "must pursue all means possible to protect vulnerable women, and teach that male headship means protection, not domination."
Recommended further reading: I Married You by Walter Trobisch; Gender and Grace by Mary Stewart Van Leuween.
In conclusion, I will try to summarize social evil by referring to three versions of the American trinity:
Martin Luther King's trinity of capitalism, racism and militarism.
My trinity of hyperindividualism, hypermaterialism and hyperethnocentrism.
Another trinity: sexism, American exceptionalism and perverted Protestantism.
Summary statement: If the American church neglects justice, the love of God and the love of its ethnic neighbors, as the Pharisees did, any talk of justice will be a joke. And injustice/oppression will be widespread---unchecked and unchallenged---today in 2014 at it was in 1776.
ETHNOCENTRISM
Ethnocentrism (own-culture-centered) comes from the Greek word ethnos meaning people, nation, heathen or Gentile with an emphasis on culture or nationality, not race (physical characteristics such as skin color).
For the Hebrews humankind outside of the chosen people of Israel were called the ethne, the nations or the Gentiles. In Jewish eyes, the Gentiles were given to idolatry and therefore were supposedly unclean and inferior. The concept of ethnocentrism can be drawn directly from the use of ethnos in the Scriptures even though the word ethnocentrism is not found in the Bible.
The word ethnos occurs 162 times in the New Testament; 43 times in Acts and 54 times in Paul's letters. Many times ethnos is literally translated as Gentile. In New Testament times, a sharp distinction was made between Jew and Gentile creating an immense barrier between them. Separation or segregation was comprehensive with many rules and regulations to reduce contact. Even Jews who became Christians often found it difficult to associate with or witness to Gentiles. Luke 4:25-30 and 9:51-56 are examples of a religiously based ethnocentrism which came perilously close to the death of Jesus and the total destruction of a Samaritan village by Jesus' disciples. In addition, we find ethnocentrism cutting the nerve of evangelism to the Gentiles and Samaritans until the eighth chapter of Acts, attempting to limit God's love and grace, dividing the body of Christ and legitimating oppression.
In U.S. history, we find this same type of religiously legitimated ethnocentrism. This religio-cultural ethnocentrism preceded racism historically, and I believe that even today it underlies and supports racism; it is a greater problem than racism is.
When and where did this ethnocentrism take root? At least as far back as the century before (1500s) the English colonization of America. Ronald Takaki, author of A Different Mirror, makes a direct link between the way the British treated the Irish and the way British colonists treated Native Americans; early on, the colonists even called Indians, Irish, a very derogatory nickname.
In the 1500s, the British were engaged in the brutal conquest and colonization of Ireland. Sir Francis Drake and Sir Walter Raleigh were involved. The British saw themselves as civilized and superior; they saw the Irish as savage and inferior. And the Protestant English despised the Catholic Irish. In their conquest of the Irish, the English had a strong sense that they were doing God's will; their religio-cultural ethnocentrism fueled their oppression. In my judgment, the British were as brutal and were Hitler and Stalin.
The British brought their religio-cultural ethnocentrism with them as they invaded and colonized America; English ethnocentrism and systems of oppression were imported lock-stock-and-barrel along with their Bibles. The Puritans added a sense of chosenness to this perverse mix---later called Manifest Destiny. Supposedly, it was God's will to conquer and colonize this new land---this New England---and set up a Christian nation. Any people who stood in the way were like the Canaanites---to be destroyed, if necessary. Puritan religion combined with an Anglo-Saxon culture/civilization fueled a dangerous ethnocentrism which led to brutal acts of oppression again and again.
All of this was in place before the idea of race/racism came to the fore in these United States. Racism began around 1660 to justify slavery in Virginia and became full-blown between 1800-1850. Racism did not replace religio-cultural ethnocentrism; it was simply added to an already evil mix. This demonic mix legitimated the oppression of Mexicans, Japanese, Hawaiians, Filipinos and others. The Klan was driven by ethnocentrism as much as by racism. So are evangelicals in the late 1990s, according to Michael Emerson's sociological research.
Generally, the American pulpit is silent about the social evils of ethnocentrism and oppression, even though these are major biblical themes.
For documentation, see A Different Mirror by Ronald Takaki; Race and Manifest Destiny by Reginald Horsman.
RACISM
The concept of race is not a biblical concept. The Bible addresses nations, languages and cultures, but not races as we think of them today. For example, rabbis have told me again and again that Jews are not a race; they are a religio-ethnic group. But most American non-Jews classify Jews as a race of people. We read our deep-seated ideas of race into situations where they do not belong.
Most social scientists today assert that race as a concept is too imprecise to be valid. Which set of physical characteristics should be used to categorize races? There are endless variations of skin color. Though the concept of race is imprecise, inaccurate and invalid, the social meaning assigned to race---racism---is real and powerful and destructive.
According to sociologists Michael Emerson and Joe Feagin, racism is alive and well in modern America. Based on 1990s data, Emerson, in Divided by Faith, shows that American society as a whole and white evangelicals in particular still tolerate or participate in the continuing of racism. Joe Feagin, in Living with Racism, shows that middle class Afro Americans still battle with systemic racism. Jerome Miller, author of Search and Destroy, makes a devastating critique of the criminal justice system for targeting Afro American males. Glenn Loury, author of The Anatomy of Racial Inequality, has many charts documenting a continuing racial gap in almost every area of life.
Joe Feagin, a sociologist who studies race and gender, has published 50 books and 190 research articles on these topics; he has documented the historical roots of American systemic racism in his book Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations (2000); the third edition was released in 2014. Feagin takes a hard look at our founding fathers and the racism/slavery that pervaded our nation at the time and how systemic racism pervades our society even down to this present time.
Fifty-five wealthy men gathered in 1787 to write a constitution for this newly democratic nation. Forty percent owned slaves or had owned slaves and "a significant portion of the others profit to some degree as merchants, shippers, lawyers and bankers from the trade in slaves, commerce in slave-produced agricultural products, or supplying provision to slaveholders and slave-traders." In 1700, Wall Street was "one of the first large colonial markets" for slaves. Half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were either slaveholders or slave traders.
George Washington was one of the richest men in the colonies; he owned around 300 slaves. Thomas Jefferson owned around 260 slaves. "We, the People" did not include one-fifth of the population who were slaves; it was an elitist constitution which left out not only Afro Americans and Native Americans, but also women and the poor. It does not sound like a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." "Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, and Sam Houston enslaved black Americans. Ten U.S. presidents (Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Johnson, and Grant) owned slaves."
To keep current on accurate information about American racism, check out the website by Feagin, Racism Review.
CLASSISM
Classism (economic segregation, socioeconomic inequality or in lay terms, the wide and growing gap between the rich and poor) was the number one topic of Luke's gospel. A corrupt religio-politico-economic elite ran Jewish society and they even turned the Temple into a system of oppression. Jesus was scathing in his denunciation of the corrupt and oppressive system.
According to economist Paul Krugman, political analyst Kevin Phillips, sociologist William Julius Wilson, and sociologist Robert Bellah, growing class divisions have destroyed any semblance of American equality and they are undermining the very foundations of American democracy. Paul Krugman (2002) states:
"We are now living in a New Gilded Age. . . . an astonishing concentration of income and wealth in just a few hands. . . . the United States . . . has more poverty and lower life expectancy than any other advanced nation. . . . The 13,000 richest families in America now have almost as much income as the 20,000,000 poor. And those 13,000 families have incomes 300 times that of average families."
Little of the recent economic growth has trickled down to ordinary families. This money is being used to buy political and intellectual influence. Federal economic policies have increased socioeconomic inequality. Ray Boshara writes about wealth inequality in the Jan/Feb, 2003, Atlantic Monthly. He states: "The U.S. is more unequal than at any other time since the dawn of the New Deal---indeed, it is the most unequal society in the advanced democratic world."
For more documentation, see two books by Kevin Phillips: The Politics of Rich and Poor (1990), and Wealth and Democracy (2002). Also When Work Disappears by William Julius Wilson, and Habits of the Heart by Robert Bellah. For excellent, accurate information on the extreme racial wealth gap, read Thomas Shapiro's The Hidden Cost of Being African American and Black Wealth/White Wealth. To keep current on the racial wealth gap, google the Institute on Assets and Social Policy, Brandeis University which Shapiro directs. To keep current on the wealth gap in general, read Sam Pizzigati's weekly online, Too Much, Excess and Inequality.
SEXISM
This section is on sexism or male dominance.
In creation, male and female are equal as persons; Genesis 1:27:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
In redemption, men and women are equal as persons; Galatians 3:26:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
In Spirit-filling, men and women are equal as persons; Acts 2:18:
Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.
Persons and persons in relationship governed by love are primary. Person in roles, such as husband and wife, are secondary. If persons in roles are made primary, then a woman can dwindle into a wife. An overemphasis on husband as head and wife as submissive can damage the unique personhood of an individual; it can open the door to sin, abuse and oppression.
The punishment for Eve's sin was:
He [husband] will rule over you. Or he will be your master.
The punishment for the wife is dominance by the husband. This dominance is the result of the fall, not a principle as a result of the creation. Among Christians, this sinful dominance should be replaced by sacrificial love (Eph. 5:25) and honor and respect (I Peter 3:7). Unless the husband is reminded repeatedly about what his new Christian role is, he is likely to slip back into his old cultural role---enforced submission.
According to Ephesians 5, the husband is not told to "Assert your headship; be the boss of your home; enforce submission by your wife." Instead, he is told to love, cherish and sacrifice.
His gift to his wife is love; her gift to her husband is submission. This priority is important; only in a relationship bathed by love is it safe to submit. The husband should be exhorted to love ten times as often as the wife is told to submit, but often it seems that the opposite is the case. In reality, both should submit to each other. Only if the partners are giving these gifts to each other will the marriage work as God designed it to work. Without the emphasis of persons in relationship giving gifts to each other, the marriage can dwindle into rigid roles and then into a battle for dominance.
Steven Tracy, in an article in Christianity Today (Feb., 2007) entitled, "Headship with a Heart," tells about his 15 years of counseling in his pastoral ministry. Again and again, he has heard husbands "use male headship to justify abuse." His wife, a family therapist, "hears horrific stories of male authority turned malignant virtually every day."
Battered into Submission (1998) documents that "pastors fail to take the husband's violence seriously and simple encourage wives to be submissive."
"Unfortunately, secular society and even the Christian church consistently fail to protect women, and often blame women for physical or sexual violence perpetrated upon them. . . . Violence against women is as serious a cause of death and incapacity among women of reproductive age as cancer."
Tracy concludes that churches "must pursue all means possible to protect vulnerable women, and teach that male headship means protection, not domination."
Recommended further reading: I Married You by Walter Trobisch; Gender and Grace by Mary Stewart Van Leuween.
In conclusion, I will try to summarize social evil by referring to three versions of the American trinity:
Martin Luther King's trinity of capitalism, racism and militarism.
My trinity of hyperindividualism, hypermaterialism and hyperethnocentrism.
Another trinity: sexism, American exceptionalism and perverted Protestantism.
Summary statement: If the American church neglects justice, the love of God and the love of its ethnic neighbors, as the Pharisees did, any talk of justice will be a joke. And injustice/oppression will be widespread---unchecked and unchallenged---today in 2014 at it was in 1776.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Chapter 5: Rejusticizing the Sermon on the Mount (revised)
Rejusticing the Sermon on the Mount (and the New Testament): Passionately Pursuing Kingdom of God Justice (Revised, March 2014)
Introduction
For me, the key verse in the Sermon on the Mount is Mt. 6:33 (NEB): "Seek first God's kingdom and his justice. . . ." The twin themes of the Sermon are the kingdom of God and justice. A supporting verse, 5:17, Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets; the Law and the Prophets were built on love (Mt. 22:39) and justice. Note 5:43-48 Be perfect in love. The Pharisees, supposedly strict followers of the Law, were criticized by Jesus for neglecting "justice and the love of God." (Luke 11:42). All the rest of the Sermon should be interpreted through the love, justice, kingdom of God framework.
Nicholas Wolterstorff, highly regarded Reformed philosopher-theologian, asserts that English translations of the NT and English-speaking theologians have "dejusticized" the New Testament---a very serious charge. The result is a spirituality divorced from justice---a heretical stance represented by the Pharisees, the gnostics and many white American evangelicals. This essay is my attempt to "rejusticize" (reunite personal righteousness and social justice) the NT gospel through a fresh interpretation of a key NT passage---the Sermon on the Mount.
Nicholas Wolterstorff (Justice), Joseph Grassi (Informing the Future), and Thomas Hanks (The Subversive Gospel) and the New English Bible all agree that dikaiosune should be translated in Mt. 6:33 as justice---"Seek first God's kingdom and his justice. . . . " Grassi calls Matthew "the gospel of justice"; he asserts that all through the Sermon dikaiosune should be translated "justice" instead of "righteousness" as is done in most English translations. Hanks prefers to translate dikaiosune as "liberating justice."
A reader of the NT in Spanish, French or Latin would discover the word justice approximately 100 times versus 16 times in the English NIV. I would suggest to readers of English translations that we use justice or justice-righteousness to capture both the personal character and the social justice (Jubilee justice) meanings of dikaiosune.
Joseph Grassi declares that there are two basic themes in the Sermon on the Mount: the kingdom of God/heaven and justice. The Sermon sets high standards for personal character/righteousness and for being a citizen of the kingdom of God in terms of doing justice for the poor and oppressed. From personal character should flow generous works or acts of justice. Personal righteousness and Jubilee justice must be tightly tied together like Siamese twins. A good Hebrew who claimed to be personally righteous had to also be socially just; see the example of Job, chapter 29. If she/he were not socially just, that would invalidate the claim to be personally righteous.
Poor in Spirit: the humble or the humbled?
Matthew is the only place in the NT where this rather puzzling phrase "poor in spirit" is used. The proper interpretation of this phrase has been the matter of some debate. A common interpretation is that it refers to the humble---the ones who recognize their need of God in contrast to those who are proud in spirit. This interpretation is useful in some ways, but I would like to suggest a different interpretation which takes into consideration a larger scriptural context.
In Luke's version of the Sermon, we do not find the phrase "poor in spirit" but only the word "poor". Ptchos means dirt poor, desperately poor, destitute, poor-poor; this is a description of abysmal poverty, a state of poverty. The next question is : Why are the poor poor? Are they victims of misfortune such as being born blind or a famine? Are they lazy? Are they poor because of oppression? All three causes are true at times, but the scriptures emphasize oppression as the primary cause.
In Isaiah 61:1, we find the phrase "good news to the poor." In the NRSV and the CEV translations, the Hebrew is translated as "oppressed" instead of "poor." The fullest translation might be "good news to the oppressed poor." In Isaiah 61:3, these oppressed poor are described as having a "spirit of despair." Thomas Hanks in his excellent study of the OT teaching on oppression (God So Loved the Third World in which he claims there are 555 references to oppression), asserts that "oppression smashes the body and crushes the spirit."
In Exodus, chapter six, the Hebrew slaves are described as so "broken in spirit" (RSV) by cruel bondage (a system of oppression) that they could not hear/believe Moses who reported to them that God had just told him that He was going to free them from slavery pronto.
Based on this larger scriptural teaching, the phrase "poor in spirit" might be best understood as broken in spirit, humbled in spirit or having a spirit of despair. Note how Jesus goes out of his way to include the concept of oppression in Luke 4:18; to "release the oppressed" is not found in the original Isaiah 61 passage in most translations. Jesus adds this phrase from Isaiah 58:6. Apparently Jesus wanted to make it crystal clear that oppression was the primary cause of poverty.
If some poor persons are so badly broken and crushed by oppression that they cannot believe God, do we have a hopeless situation on our hands? Almost, unless some person or some church steps up and initiates justice on their behalf to relieve them from their hopeless state of oppression. An historical example: abolitionists trying to abolish slavery.
Justice for the Oppressed Poor
Soon after Mt. 5:3, we find the answer for those broken in spirit---the call to "hunger and thirst for justice." Those who follow Christ are urged to passionately pursue justice---kingdom of God justice, Jubilee justice, social justice. There is no other answer; charity alone is not enough; love alone is not adequate; justice must be front and center.
What will happen if we passionately pursue justice for the oppressed poor? If we confront the rich and powerful oppressors, all hell may break loose. But Jesus strangely warns and reassures us (5:10), that persecution may be our lot.
Yes, if we seek first (diligently, urgently), kingdom of God justice, persecution may come our way. But if we persist, Romans 14:17 assures us that sooner or later peace/shalom will follow justice. My paraphrase of Romans 14:17 is: "The kingdom of God is justice (NEB), shalom and joy in the Holy Spirit. . . ." Acts chapter four records both persecution and justice, shalom and the Holy Spirit; 4:1-22, persecution; 4:23-31, the Holy Spirit; 4:32-37, the rich sharing so generously that there were no poor among them!
Fulfilling the Law and the Prophets
After the beautitudes, follows an exhortation to be salt and light, to do good works. Good character alone is not enough; out of character must flow an abundance of good works. Out of love, justice should flow. This emphasis fits perfectly with the following verses about Jesus coming to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. The Law and the Prophets were built upon two principles---love and justice. When Israel failed to practice love and justice, and instead engaged in idolatry and oppression, the prophets called for radical change, repentance. Israel failed to repent so judgment followed.
A key sentence in this passage: "unless your justice/righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you certainly will not enter the kingdom of heaven." Doing justice/righteousness, doing Jubilee justice is the key to being a good citizen in the kingdom of God. Loving your neighbor assumes doing justice on behalf of your neighbor, especially if your neighbor is poor and oppressed. Or, to put it another way, a Jubilee style justice puts the kingdom of God first, the needs of the oppressed poor first.
To sum up 5:13-20, I believe a person, a church is salt and light in a community when they do good works:
* good works are works of love and justice
* works of love and justice bring glory to God
* works of love and justice fulfill the Law and Prophets
* works of love and justice bless the poor, those humbled by oppression
* works of love and justice incarnate the kingdom of God here on earth
Even beautiful music is only noise if not accompanied by the harmonies of love and justice; the church is to take love and justice into the streets, among the poor. From the stained glass windows of the church building to the tear stained faces of the oppressed.
The Lord's Prayer
The first item in the Lord's prayer is the kingdom of God and the call to incarnate it here on earth. Justice for the poor is not specifically mentioned in the prayer, but the previous teaching on the poor and justice should inform a person's understanding of "Thy kingdom come."
God and Money
Soon after the Lord's prayer section, Jesus bluntly states that: "You cannot serve both God and Money." When Money becomes your idol, greed will often drive you to engage in oppression; often the most vulnerable such as powerless widows and orphans are exploited. This is why James (1:26-7) warns against worthless religion, religion with no justice, and calls for pure religion, a religion that puts afflicted/oppressed widows and orphans first. James warns the church not to honor the rich and dishonor the poor. Why? Hey, stupid, "Is it not the rich who are exploiting/oppressing you?"
Conclusion
The rhythm of life in the Sermon on the Mount is built around personal character and a Jubilee type justice. Both are required of citizens of the kingdom; neither are optional choices. The Sermon on the Mount begins with personal character and ends with doing---doing justice. Combine 7:21-23 and 24-7. Those seemingly deeply religious folk who are not also doers of love and justice are, in realiity, evil doers---doers of injustice. Be a wise doer of justice, not a foolish doer of injustice/oppression. Don't let religious piety, worship, even miracles, substitute for DOING the will of God (loving your neighbor by doing justice). Choose justice and live; choose justice and bless the poor.
Application
May the church of Jesus Christ flood the communities of this great land with the beautiful melodies of love and justice.
May the kingdom of God that is hovering just over the horizon be brought nigh by the church to replace the centuries of oppression that have crushed America's ethnic poor.
May America heed Pastor/Pope Francis' exhortation:
* from the sanctuary to the streets---relocation
* from exclusion to inclusion---reconciliation
* with liberty and Jubilee justice for all---redistribution
Holy Spirit, flow and blow from coast to coast so we can fulfill our divine destiny---bring your just kingdom here on earth. Our manifest destiny is kingdoming, not conquering.
The Spirit-anointed American church can, if it will renounce the American Trinity, incarnate kingdom of God love and justice in oppressed ethnic communities, using the Sermon on the Mount as the blueprint for action.
Introduction
For me, the key verse in the Sermon on the Mount is Mt. 6:33 (NEB): "Seek first God's kingdom and his justice. . . ." The twin themes of the Sermon are the kingdom of God and justice. A supporting verse, 5:17, Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets; the Law and the Prophets were built on love (Mt. 22:39) and justice. Note 5:43-48 Be perfect in love. The Pharisees, supposedly strict followers of the Law, were criticized by Jesus for neglecting "justice and the love of God." (Luke 11:42). All the rest of the Sermon should be interpreted through the love, justice, kingdom of God framework.
Nicholas Wolterstorff, highly regarded Reformed philosopher-theologian, asserts that English translations of the NT and English-speaking theologians have "dejusticized" the New Testament---a very serious charge. The result is a spirituality divorced from justice---a heretical stance represented by the Pharisees, the gnostics and many white American evangelicals. This essay is my attempt to "rejusticize" (reunite personal righteousness and social justice) the NT gospel through a fresh interpretation of a key NT passage---the Sermon on the Mount.
Nicholas Wolterstorff (Justice), Joseph Grassi (Informing the Future), and Thomas Hanks (The Subversive Gospel) and the New English Bible all agree that dikaiosune should be translated in Mt. 6:33 as justice---"Seek first God's kingdom and his justice. . . . " Grassi calls Matthew "the gospel of justice"; he asserts that all through the Sermon dikaiosune should be translated "justice" instead of "righteousness" as is done in most English translations. Hanks prefers to translate dikaiosune as "liberating justice."
A reader of the NT in Spanish, French or Latin would discover the word justice approximately 100 times versus 16 times in the English NIV. I would suggest to readers of English translations that we use justice or justice-righteousness to capture both the personal character and the social justice (Jubilee justice) meanings of dikaiosune.
Joseph Grassi declares that there are two basic themes in the Sermon on the Mount: the kingdom of God/heaven and justice. The Sermon sets high standards for personal character/righteousness and for being a citizen of the kingdom of God in terms of doing justice for the poor and oppressed. From personal character should flow generous works or acts of justice. Personal righteousness and Jubilee justice must be tightly tied together like Siamese twins. A good Hebrew who claimed to be personally righteous had to also be socially just; see the example of Job, chapter 29. If she/he were not socially just, that would invalidate the claim to be personally righteous.
Poor in Spirit: the humble or the humbled?
Matthew is the only place in the NT where this rather puzzling phrase "poor in spirit" is used. The proper interpretation of this phrase has been the matter of some debate. A common interpretation is that it refers to the humble---the ones who recognize their need of God in contrast to those who are proud in spirit. This interpretation is useful in some ways, but I would like to suggest a different interpretation which takes into consideration a larger scriptural context.
In Luke's version of the Sermon, we do not find the phrase "poor in spirit" but only the word "poor". Ptchos means dirt poor, desperately poor, destitute, poor-poor; this is a description of abysmal poverty, a state of poverty. The next question is : Why are the poor poor? Are they victims of misfortune such as being born blind or a famine? Are they lazy? Are they poor because of oppression? All three causes are true at times, but the scriptures emphasize oppression as the primary cause.
In Isaiah 61:1, we find the phrase "good news to the poor." In the NRSV and the CEV translations, the Hebrew is translated as "oppressed" instead of "poor." The fullest translation might be "good news to the oppressed poor." In Isaiah 61:3, these oppressed poor are described as having a "spirit of despair." Thomas Hanks in his excellent study of the OT teaching on oppression (God So Loved the Third World in which he claims there are 555 references to oppression), asserts that "oppression smashes the body and crushes the spirit."
In Exodus, chapter six, the Hebrew slaves are described as so "broken in spirit" (RSV) by cruel bondage (a system of oppression) that they could not hear/believe Moses who reported to them that God had just told him that He was going to free them from slavery pronto.
Based on this larger scriptural teaching, the phrase "poor in spirit" might be best understood as broken in spirit, humbled in spirit or having a spirit of despair. Note how Jesus goes out of his way to include the concept of oppression in Luke 4:18; to "release the oppressed" is not found in the original Isaiah 61 passage in most translations. Jesus adds this phrase from Isaiah 58:6. Apparently Jesus wanted to make it crystal clear that oppression was the primary cause of poverty.
If some poor persons are so badly broken and crushed by oppression that they cannot believe God, do we have a hopeless situation on our hands? Almost, unless some person or some church steps up and initiates justice on their behalf to relieve them from their hopeless state of oppression. An historical example: abolitionists trying to abolish slavery.
Justice for the Oppressed Poor
Soon after Mt. 5:3, we find the answer for those broken in spirit---the call to "hunger and thirst for justice." Those who follow Christ are urged to passionately pursue justice---kingdom of God justice, Jubilee justice, social justice. There is no other answer; charity alone is not enough; love alone is not adequate; justice must be front and center.
What will happen if we passionately pursue justice for the oppressed poor? If we confront the rich and powerful oppressors, all hell may break loose. But Jesus strangely warns and reassures us (5:10), that persecution may be our lot.
Yes, if we seek first (diligently, urgently), kingdom of God justice, persecution may come our way. But if we persist, Romans 14:17 assures us that sooner or later peace/shalom will follow justice. My paraphrase of Romans 14:17 is: "The kingdom of God is justice (NEB), shalom and joy in the Holy Spirit. . . ." Acts chapter four records both persecution and justice, shalom and the Holy Spirit; 4:1-22, persecution; 4:23-31, the Holy Spirit; 4:32-37, the rich sharing so generously that there were no poor among them!
Fulfilling the Law and the Prophets
After the beautitudes, follows an exhortation to be salt and light, to do good works. Good character alone is not enough; out of character must flow an abundance of good works. Out of love, justice should flow. This emphasis fits perfectly with the following verses about Jesus coming to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. The Law and the Prophets were built upon two principles---love and justice. When Israel failed to practice love and justice, and instead engaged in idolatry and oppression, the prophets called for radical change, repentance. Israel failed to repent so judgment followed.
A key sentence in this passage: "unless your justice/righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you certainly will not enter the kingdom of heaven." Doing justice/righteousness, doing Jubilee justice is the key to being a good citizen in the kingdom of God. Loving your neighbor assumes doing justice on behalf of your neighbor, especially if your neighbor is poor and oppressed. Or, to put it another way, a Jubilee style justice puts the kingdom of God first, the needs of the oppressed poor first.
To sum up 5:13-20, I believe a person, a church is salt and light in a community when they do good works:
* good works are works of love and justice
* works of love and justice bring glory to God
* works of love and justice fulfill the Law and Prophets
* works of love and justice bless the poor, those humbled by oppression
* works of love and justice incarnate the kingdom of God here on earth
Even beautiful music is only noise if not accompanied by the harmonies of love and justice; the church is to take love and justice into the streets, among the poor. From the stained glass windows of the church building to the tear stained faces of the oppressed.
The Lord's Prayer
The first item in the Lord's prayer is the kingdom of God and the call to incarnate it here on earth. Justice for the poor is not specifically mentioned in the prayer, but the previous teaching on the poor and justice should inform a person's understanding of "Thy kingdom come."
God and Money
Soon after the Lord's prayer section, Jesus bluntly states that: "You cannot serve both God and Money." When Money becomes your idol, greed will often drive you to engage in oppression; often the most vulnerable such as powerless widows and orphans are exploited. This is why James (1:26-7) warns against worthless religion, religion with no justice, and calls for pure religion, a religion that puts afflicted/oppressed widows and orphans first. James warns the church not to honor the rich and dishonor the poor. Why? Hey, stupid, "Is it not the rich who are exploiting/oppressing you?"
Conclusion
The rhythm of life in the Sermon on the Mount is built around personal character and a Jubilee type justice. Both are required of citizens of the kingdom; neither are optional choices. The Sermon on the Mount begins with personal character and ends with doing---doing justice. Combine 7:21-23 and 24-7. Those seemingly deeply religious folk who are not also doers of love and justice are, in realiity, evil doers---doers of injustice. Be a wise doer of justice, not a foolish doer of injustice/oppression. Don't let religious piety, worship, even miracles, substitute for DOING the will of God (loving your neighbor by doing justice). Choose justice and live; choose justice and bless the poor.
Application
May the church of Jesus Christ flood the communities of this great land with the beautiful melodies of love and justice.
May the kingdom of God that is hovering just over the horizon be brought nigh by the church to replace the centuries of oppression that have crushed America's ethnic poor.
May America heed Pastor/Pope Francis' exhortation:
* from the sanctuary to the streets---relocation
* from exclusion to inclusion---reconciliation
* with liberty and Jubilee justice for all---redistribution
Holy Spirit, flow and blow from coast to coast so we can fulfill our divine destiny---bring your just kingdom here on earth. Our manifest destiny is kingdoming, not conquering.
The Spirit-anointed American church can, if it will renounce the American Trinity, incarnate kingdom of God love and justice in oppressed ethnic communities, using the Sermon on the Mount as the blueprint for action.
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Chapter 4: Oppression in the Old and New Testaments
Why do most secular Jews have a keener sense of social justice than do most theistic evangelicals? Why did secular Jews in large numbers (600 out of 1000) volunteer for the Freedom Summer (1964) in Mississippi while few white evangelical college students volunteered?
Thesis statement: Unless a person understands the horror of oppression, one is unlikely to develop a strong passion for justice.
Karen Lebacqz in her doctoral dissertation at Harvard essentially concluded that none of the great westerner scholars on justice really knew what they were talking about. This is a rather bold, brash assertion that provokes the question, Why? Because they did not begin with injustice, their conclusion about justice were flawed. See her book, Justice in an Unjust World.
But then Lebacqz makes the same mistake; she ignores the extensive biblical teaching on oppression. She does explore injustice experientialy---culturally and historically, but not biblically. Two of the best current Christian writers on justice, Timothy Keller and Ken Wytsma, are also flawed and incomplete because they essentially ignore the important biblical teaching on oppression; they too don't begin with injustice. The single best American Christian scholar on justice is Nicholas Wolterstorff; he was taught about injustice by black South Africans and Palestinians in searing face-to-face encounters. But though he is very thorough in his biblical analysis of justice, for some strange reason, Wolterstorff never did a similar thorough biblical analysis of oppression/injustice. All of the above scholars are white.
Strangely, the same thing may be said about some black Christians such as John Perkins. Living in Mississippi, Perkins had a thorough experiential understanding of oppression. But, to my knowledge, he never developed a theology of oppression based on the Scriptures. So his many disciples, some of whom never personally experienced oppression, never understand this extensive biblical teaching. In my opinion, this is one reason why many of his first generation disciples are justice light in their ministries. I am worried about the third generation disciples; will they lose the oppression/justice message as a priority?
Nothing of significance on oppression can be found in white American theology evangelical theology. Fortunately, some Latin American evangelical literature is available, but it has been largely ignored in American theological circles. In 1970, Thomas Hank's Latin American seminary students hounded him for biblical answers to the burning issues of poverty and oppression. None existed in the theological literature. Fortunately, Hanks was a Hebrew scholar so finally he decide to do his own original research which can be found in God So Loved the Third World. About the same time, his colleague Elsa Tamez wrote Bible of the Oppressed. Both books focus on the Old Testament. Combined with Perry Yoder's Shalom, these three books will quickly get the reader on a solid foundation.
But nothing similar exists for the New Testament. Bit and pieces here and there with a focus on Roman oppression, but little on internal Jewish oppression where, according to Jesus, the heart of the problem lay. According to Thomas Hanks, there are 555 references to oppression in the Old Testament. But in the New Testament, the word oppression almost disappears with three or four references, depending on the English translation. If the Greek word thilpsis is translated oppression instead of afflicted, as Hanks asserts, the number of references would increase by a least a half a dozen. For example, in James 1:27, the Scriptures would read "the oppressed widows and orphans" not just the afflicted ones.
In the New Testament, the operative word is the rich or the religious rich, not oppression. The rich, far too often, the religious rich are identified as the oppressors (James 2:5). Once a person is sensitized to oppression in the Old Testament, she should bring this understanding of the concept of oppression and systems of oppression into the New Testament. Then a person will see that oppression is as widespread in the New Testament as it is in the Old Testament. Also one should become aware of the crucial need to rejusticize the New Testament.
Had the church always been up to speed on the extensive biblical teaching on oppression and justice, Karl Marx would never needed to be invented. After all, the Bible is far superior to Marx on oppression and justice. But, to the church's shame, God had to call an atheist with a Jewish background to highlight the nature and seriousness of oppression. The Word of Truth and the Spirit of Truth was already available, but sadly unused.
A small but significant example of how we still neglect oppression; the current, third edition of the IVP Bible Dictionary has no entry on oppression.
Twenty years or so ago I attended a conference on black evangelicals. One of the speakers was a black theology professor from Moody Bible Institute. He was frustrated because evangelical theology had no answers to the social problems of the urban community. Out of this deep frustration, he had turned to Marx for sociological answers. How could he not see that the very Bible he so deeply treasured and taught already had better answers than Marx did.
Bruce Fields in 2001 wrote Introducing Black Theology: Three Crucial Questions for the Evangelical Church. I was expecting some solid biblical answers to the questions black theology was legitimately raising; instead, I was disappointed, even angry. What could have and should have been a great book, a desperately needed book, a groundbreaking book for American evangelicalism, turned out to be incomplete, too theological, not biblical enough. Many theologians were quoted, but there was not much original biblical analysis.
There were some tantalizing statements which led me to believe that this would be great book because the author was aware of the crucial issues:
* "As a symbol of oppression, the concept of blackness allows for fruitful theological reflection." p. 13.
* "Second, I will address the need for the church to adopt a more prophetic stance on the specific matters of racism and the potential tolerance of systemic sin." p. 46.
* "The church, however, is not totally unlike its societal surroundings. We are still in days of racial tension and division, and it is sheer naivete to believe that a follower of Jesus Christ and ministering in this present setting is automatically and completely immune to such influences." p. 47.
* "Racism is a faith. It is a form of idolatry." p. 47.
These statements reveal the author's personal sensitivity to oppression/justice issues, but there a major omissions in his biblical analysis. Michael Emerson and Christian Smith in Divided by Faith (2000) had already documented the failure of evangelicals to engage racial oppression responsibly. So here was a golden opportunity for an Afro American evangelical to chart the biblical way to stop oppression and do justice. Fields toyed with the concepts/issues, but he essentially failed his assignment. What an enormous tragedy!!
Bruce Fields is a solid, card-carrying member of American evangelicalism who teaches at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He is sound in doctrine and he is deeply concerned about racial oppression and social justice. But strangely though he raises experientially the issue of oppression and justice, he never grounds his discussion of oppression and justice in the Scriptures, except superficially. If oppression and justice are central concerns of black theology, and if oppression and justice are central failures in the white evangelical church, then a bible-believing evangelical must engage in depth the Scriptures at these points. Fields does not do so.
There are 555 references to oppression in the Hebrew Old Testament; around 125 references in an English translation of the Old Testament. Fields might have shown that God hates oppression almost as much as he does idolatry. Or that oppression is a biblical category that is missing from most evangelical theology.
Neither does Fields engage in a systematic discussion of what the Bible teaches about justice---a major biblical omission. Another major biblical theme that is ignored is the kingdom of God, especially the present and social nature of the kingdom here on earth.
So Fields engages black liberation theology largely from a rational American orthodoxy. He is more concerned about not watering down this type of orthodoxy than he is in seriously engaging black theology from a biblical perspective. He is better at orthodoxy than he is at orthopraxy; he fails to adequately relate the two.
The above ignorance of the biblical teaching on oppression highlights the desperate need for a serious look at the scriptural teaching.
Normally, to start your exploration of the biblical teaching on oppression, I would suggest that you begin by reading two Latin American books: God So Loved the Third World: The Biblical Vocabulary on Oppression; also Bible of the Oppressed by Elsa Tamez. These books have been ignored by North American evangelicals. If you are a typical arrogant, ethnocentric white American evangelical who refuses to learn from inferior non-American scholars, I suggest another approach; learn Hebrew; then identify the 20 Hebrew roots and 555 references to oppression and its synonyms; then analyze these 555 references in their context. Now you are ready to write your own book on oppression.
Now compare your scholarship with Hanks and Tamez.
There is a second possible approach. Use a NIV concordance to identify the 125 references to oppression in the English Bible. Analyze each verse in context. Now write your book on the Old Testament teaching on oppression. By the way, this book will be your own scholarship, because there are no such books in English. North American theologians must have cut out all such verses from their Bibles so they could easily ignore them. If you want to cheat a little bit, try reading the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia's article on oppression.
Tamez states that "There is an almost complete absence of the theme of oppression in European and North American biblical theology."
Hanks asserts:
"Anyone who has read much in the theological classics (Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Barth, Berkouwer et al.) will recognize that the theme of oppression has received little or no attention there. One might think that the Bible says little about oppression. Furthermore, one searches in vain for the theme in Bible dictionaries, encyclopedias, and the like. However, when we strike the rock of a complete Bible concordance, to our great surprise we hit a gusher of texts and terms that deal with oppression! In short, we find a basic structural category of biblical theology."
After a thorough study of the Hebrew roots for oppression, Hanks concludes: "Oppression is a fundamental structural category of biblical theology, as is evidenced by the large number of Hebrew roots denoting it (10 basic roots; 20 in all); the frequency of their occurrence 555 times); the basic theological character of many texts that speak of it (Gen. 15; Exodus. 1-5; Ps. 72, 103, 146; Isa. 8-9, 42, 53, 58 etc.); and the significance of oppression in Israel's great creedal confession. (Deut. 26:5-9)."
From Hanks, I created this statement of what oppression does: "Oppression crushes, humiliates, animalizes, impoverishes, enslaves, and kills persons created in the image of God."
Next, a brief look at the New Testament teaching on oppression.
Again, there is very little theological literature on oppression in the New Testament; what little there is usually focuses on Roman oppression of the Jews. Jesus, however, said nothing much about Roman oppression; his emphasis was upon internal Jewish oppression of fellow Jews. The Temple, the dominant social institution in Palestine, was operated by a religio-politico-economic elite; Jesus described the Temple as "a den of robbers," or, to paraphrase it, a religiously legitimated system of oppression. In summary, the rich oppressed the poor.
Originally, God chose the people of Israel to be a servant people. Through them, God planned to bring the Messiah into the world to bless both Jew and Gentile. Somewhere along the way, the Jews strayed from their original high calling. They began to see themselves as a superior people and the heathen Gentiles as an inferior people. By New Testament times, the Jewish religio-politico-economic elite became ethnocentric and greedy. This was the basis of oppression in the New Testament. The gospel of Luke and the book of James describe the rich, usually the religious rich, as the primary oppressors along with a generous assist from the agricultural landlords. Read the following passages from the gospel of Luke and then write a paper on oppression in the New Testament:
Luke 4:18-19 "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor. . . .
to release the oppressed [a phrase from Isa. 58:6]
to proclaim Jubilee justice for the poor" [Noble paraphrase].
Luke 6:20, 24 "Blessed are you who are poor. . . .
Woe to you who are rich."
Luke 11:39-42 "Pharisees . . . you are full of greed and wickedness. . . .
you neglect justice and the love of God."
Luke 16:13-14 "You cannot serve both God and Money.
The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all of this and sneered at Jesus."
Luke 18:22-24 "Sell everything you have and give it to the poor. . . .
When he heard this, he became very sad,
because he was a man of great wealth. . . .
How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God."
Luke 19:45-46 "Then he entered the temple area and began driving out those who were selling . . .
you have made my house a den of robbers."
Luke 19:8 "Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor."
See also Luke 1:53; 3:10-14; 8:14; 12:13-34.
In addition to its religious function, the Temple was also a economic institution, a treasury. A French scholar claimed that the Temple played the combined roles of the Federal Reserve System, Wall Street and the U.S. Treasury. Enormous amounts of tithes and offerings flowed into the Temple coffers, especially from the estimated 2,000,000 Jews scattered around the Roman Empire. There was so much gold in the Temple when the Romans sacked and destroyed it in 70 A.D. that the price of gold dropped 50 percent in nearby Syria as the Romans circulated the gold.
For background reading, I highly recommend Kraybill's The Upside-Down Kingdom.
Thesis statement: Unless a person understands the horror of oppression, one is unlikely to develop a strong passion for justice.
Karen Lebacqz in her doctoral dissertation at Harvard essentially concluded that none of the great westerner scholars on justice really knew what they were talking about. This is a rather bold, brash assertion that provokes the question, Why? Because they did not begin with injustice, their conclusion about justice were flawed. See her book, Justice in an Unjust World.
But then Lebacqz makes the same mistake; she ignores the extensive biblical teaching on oppression. She does explore injustice experientialy---culturally and historically, but not biblically. Two of the best current Christian writers on justice, Timothy Keller and Ken Wytsma, are also flawed and incomplete because they essentially ignore the important biblical teaching on oppression; they too don't begin with injustice. The single best American Christian scholar on justice is Nicholas Wolterstorff; he was taught about injustice by black South Africans and Palestinians in searing face-to-face encounters. But though he is very thorough in his biblical analysis of justice, for some strange reason, Wolterstorff never did a similar thorough biblical analysis of oppression/injustice. All of the above scholars are white.
Strangely, the same thing may be said about some black Christians such as John Perkins. Living in Mississippi, Perkins had a thorough experiential understanding of oppression. But, to my knowledge, he never developed a theology of oppression based on the Scriptures. So his many disciples, some of whom never personally experienced oppression, never understand this extensive biblical teaching. In my opinion, this is one reason why many of his first generation disciples are justice light in their ministries. I am worried about the third generation disciples; will they lose the oppression/justice message as a priority?
Nothing of significance on oppression can be found in white American theology evangelical theology. Fortunately, some Latin American evangelical literature is available, but it has been largely ignored in American theological circles. In 1970, Thomas Hank's Latin American seminary students hounded him for biblical answers to the burning issues of poverty and oppression. None existed in the theological literature. Fortunately, Hanks was a Hebrew scholar so finally he decide to do his own original research which can be found in God So Loved the Third World. About the same time, his colleague Elsa Tamez wrote Bible of the Oppressed. Both books focus on the Old Testament. Combined with Perry Yoder's Shalom, these three books will quickly get the reader on a solid foundation.
But nothing similar exists for the New Testament. Bit and pieces here and there with a focus on Roman oppression, but little on internal Jewish oppression where, according to Jesus, the heart of the problem lay. According to Thomas Hanks, there are 555 references to oppression in the Old Testament. But in the New Testament, the word oppression almost disappears with three or four references, depending on the English translation. If the Greek word thilpsis is translated oppression instead of afflicted, as Hanks asserts, the number of references would increase by a least a half a dozen. For example, in James 1:27, the Scriptures would read "the oppressed widows and orphans" not just the afflicted ones.
In the New Testament, the operative word is the rich or the religious rich, not oppression. The rich, far too often, the religious rich are identified as the oppressors (James 2:5). Once a person is sensitized to oppression in the Old Testament, she should bring this understanding of the concept of oppression and systems of oppression into the New Testament. Then a person will see that oppression is as widespread in the New Testament as it is in the Old Testament. Also one should become aware of the crucial need to rejusticize the New Testament.
Had the church always been up to speed on the extensive biblical teaching on oppression and justice, Karl Marx would never needed to be invented. After all, the Bible is far superior to Marx on oppression and justice. But, to the church's shame, God had to call an atheist with a Jewish background to highlight the nature and seriousness of oppression. The Word of Truth and the Spirit of Truth was already available, but sadly unused.
A small but significant example of how we still neglect oppression; the current, third edition of the IVP Bible Dictionary has no entry on oppression.
Twenty years or so ago I attended a conference on black evangelicals. One of the speakers was a black theology professor from Moody Bible Institute. He was frustrated because evangelical theology had no answers to the social problems of the urban community. Out of this deep frustration, he had turned to Marx for sociological answers. How could he not see that the very Bible he so deeply treasured and taught already had better answers than Marx did.
Bruce Fields in 2001 wrote Introducing Black Theology: Three Crucial Questions for the Evangelical Church. I was expecting some solid biblical answers to the questions black theology was legitimately raising; instead, I was disappointed, even angry. What could have and should have been a great book, a desperately needed book, a groundbreaking book for American evangelicalism, turned out to be incomplete, too theological, not biblical enough. Many theologians were quoted, but there was not much original biblical analysis.
There were some tantalizing statements which led me to believe that this would be great book because the author was aware of the crucial issues:
* "As a symbol of oppression, the concept of blackness allows for fruitful theological reflection." p. 13.
* "Second, I will address the need for the church to adopt a more prophetic stance on the specific matters of racism and the potential tolerance of systemic sin." p. 46.
* "The church, however, is not totally unlike its societal surroundings. We are still in days of racial tension and division, and it is sheer naivete to believe that a follower of Jesus Christ and ministering in this present setting is automatically and completely immune to such influences." p. 47.
* "Racism is a faith. It is a form of idolatry." p. 47.
These statements reveal the author's personal sensitivity to oppression/justice issues, but there a major omissions in his biblical analysis. Michael Emerson and Christian Smith in Divided by Faith (2000) had already documented the failure of evangelicals to engage racial oppression responsibly. So here was a golden opportunity for an Afro American evangelical to chart the biblical way to stop oppression and do justice. Fields toyed with the concepts/issues, but he essentially failed his assignment. What an enormous tragedy!!
Bruce Fields is a solid, card-carrying member of American evangelicalism who teaches at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He is sound in doctrine and he is deeply concerned about racial oppression and social justice. But strangely though he raises experientially the issue of oppression and justice, he never grounds his discussion of oppression and justice in the Scriptures, except superficially. If oppression and justice are central concerns of black theology, and if oppression and justice are central failures in the white evangelical church, then a bible-believing evangelical must engage in depth the Scriptures at these points. Fields does not do so.
There are 555 references to oppression in the Hebrew Old Testament; around 125 references in an English translation of the Old Testament. Fields might have shown that God hates oppression almost as much as he does idolatry. Or that oppression is a biblical category that is missing from most evangelical theology.
Neither does Fields engage in a systematic discussion of what the Bible teaches about justice---a major biblical omission. Another major biblical theme that is ignored is the kingdom of God, especially the present and social nature of the kingdom here on earth.
So Fields engages black liberation theology largely from a rational American orthodoxy. He is more concerned about not watering down this type of orthodoxy than he is in seriously engaging black theology from a biblical perspective. He is better at orthodoxy than he is at orthopraxy; he fails to adequately relate the two.
The above ignorance of the biblical teaching on oppression highlights the desperate need for a serious look at the scriptural teaching.
Normally, to start your exploration of the biblical teaching on oppression, I would suggest that you begin by reading two Latin American books: God So Loved the Third World: The Biblical Vocabulary on Oppression; also Bible of the Oppressed by Elsa Tamez. These books have been ignored by North American evangelicals. If you are a typical arrogant, ethnocentric white American evangelical who refuses to learn from inferior non-American scholars, I suggest another approach; learn Hebrew; then identify the 20 Hebrew roots and 555 references to oppression and its synonyms; then analyze these 555 references in their context. Now you are ready to write your own book on oppression.
Now compare your scholarship with Hanks and Tamez.
There is a second possible approach. Use a NIV concordance to identify the 125 references to oppression in the English Bible. Analyze each verse in context. Now write your book on the Old Testament teaching on oppression. By the way, this book will be your own scholarship, because there are no such books in English. North American theologians must have cut out all such verses from their Bibles so they could easily ignore them. If you want to cheat a little bit, try reading the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia's article on oppression.
Tamez states that "There is an almost complete absence of the theme of oppression in European and North American biblical theology."
Hanks asserts:
"Anyone who has read much in the theological classics (Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Barth, Berkouwer et al.) will recognize that the theme of oppression has received little or no attention there. One might think that the Bible says little about oppression. Furthermore, one searches in vain for the theme in Bible dictionaries, encyclopedias, and the like. However, when we strike the rock of a complete Bible concordance, to our great surprise we hit a gusher of texts and terms that deal with oppression! In short, we find a basic structural category of biblical theology."
After a thorough study of the Hebrew roots for oppression, Hanks concludes: "Oppression is a fundamental structural category of biblical theology, as is evidenced by the large number of Hebrew roots denoting it (10 basic roots; 20 in all); the frequency of their occurrence 555 times); the basic theological character of many texts that speak of it (Gen. 15; Exodus. 1-5; Ps. 72, 103, 146; Isa. 8-9, 42, 53, 58 etc.); and the significance of oppression in Israel's great creedal confession. (Deut. 26:5-9)."
From Hanks, I created this statement of what oppression does: "Oppression crushes, humiliates, animalizes, impoverishes, enslaves, and kills persons created in the image of God."
Next, a brief look at the New Testament teaching on oppression.
Again, there is very little theological literature on oppression in the New Testament; what little there is usually focuses on Roman oppression of the Jews. Jesus, however, said nothing much about Roman oppression; his emphasis was upon internal Jewish oppression of fellow Jews. The Temple, the dominant social institution in Palestine, was operated by a religio-politico-economic elite; Jesus described the Temple as "a den of robbers," or, to paraphrase it, a religiously legitimated system of oppression. In summary, the rich oppressed the poor.
Originally, God chose the people of Israel to be a servant people. Through them, God planned to bring the Messiah into the world to bless both Jew and Gentile. Somewhere along the way, the Jews strayed from their original high calling. They began to see themselves as a superior people and the heathen Gentiles as an inferior people. By New Testament times, the Jewish religio-politico-economic elite became ethnocentric and greedy. This was the basis of oppression in the New Testament. The gospel of Luke and the book of James describe the rich, usually the religious rich, as the primary oppressors along with a generous assist from the agricultural landlords. Read the following passages from the gospel of Luke and then write a paper on oppression in the New Testament:
Luke 4:18-19 "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor. . . .
to release the oppressed [a phrase from Isa. 58:6]
to proclaim Jubilee justice for the poor" [Noble paraphrase].
Luke 6:20, 24 "Blessed are you who are poor. . . .
Woe to you who are rich."
Luke 11:39-42 "Pharisees . . . you are full of greed and wickedness. . . .
you neglect justice and the love of God."
Luke 16:13-14 "You cannot serve both God and Money.
The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all of this and sneered at Jesus."
Luke 18:22-24 "Sell everything you have and give it to the poor. . . .
When he heard this, he became very sad,
because he was a man of great wealth. . . .
How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God."
Luke 19:45-46 "Then he entered the temple area and began driving out those who were selling . . .
you have made my house a den of robbers."
Luke 19:8 "Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor."
See also Luke 1:53; 3:10-14; 8:14; 12:13-34.
In addition to its religious function, the Temple was also a economic institution, a treasury. A French scholar claimed that the Temple played the combined roles of the Federal Reserve System, Wall Street and the U.S. Treasury. Enormous amounts of tithes and offerings flowed into the Temple coffers, especially from the estimated 2,000,000 Jews scattered around the Roman Empire. There was so much gold in the Temple when the Romans sacked and destroyed it in 70 A.D. that the price of gold dropped 50 percent in nearby Syria as the Romans circulated the gold.
For background reading, I highly recommend Kraybill's The Upside-Down Kingdom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)