Christianity’s Teachings about Racism
Christians have not always had a very good record in the history of racism, for example slavery. Many of the slave owners were prominent members of the Christian church. They justified their actions by saying that black people were not really human, so that Christian teaching about treating other people equally did not apply. Jesus made the church "a house of prayer for all peoples" (Mark 11:17), showing that everybody can go to church, and therefore everybody is equal. "There is no distinction between Jew and Greek, the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him" (Romans 10:12). This shows that the Lord looks upon everybody equally, and will look after all those who ask for help.
The Bible shows that the beliefs of the slave traders were contrary to Christian teaching. Racial prejudice has always been a way in which people have attempted to gain power over others, slave trading being one of these ways. Some people try to justify their selfishness on the grounds that people from other ethnic groups are not as important as them. However, the argument to this is that Christians are committed to the belief that all people, black and white, are equal in the sight of God. No race can be the intellectual, physical or spiritual superior of another.
Everyone has been created by God and so must be equal, and distinctions based on colour, class or gender do not apply. That is the clear teaching of Paul in Galatians 3.28. Another example of when Christians have displayed racist behaviour is colonialism. This was when Europeans built empires by going into faraway countries, taking them over and stealing their wealth. They thought that these ‘barbaric’ countries needed to be civilised, and attempted to destroy the customs of the people, converting them to Christianity and imposing Western ideas on them. Most of these empire builders felt they were doing the right thing, as European customs were '‘obviously’ better than the ways of people in other countries. They were called ‘savages’ and ‘heathens.’
The Bible counteracts this belief, “love thy neighbour” indicating that we should love our neighbours - i.e. the people in the faraway countries, as themselves, we should love them as they are and help them rather than hinder them. In the New Testament the parables of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10: 25-37) and the Centurion’s Servant (Luke 7: 1-10) both reflect Jesus’ teachings that all people are equal regardless of race and colour. The Good Samaritan teaches that we should look after our neighbour no matter who they are – in the parable Jesus tells of a Jew who is beaten up by robbers and left lying in the road, a priest and a Levite passed by on the other side of the road yet a Samaritan stops to help the man. The Samaritans and Jews were at enmity with one another on the basis of religion. A Samaritan was for a Jew a man unclean and despicable. But the Samaritan knows better that in the performance of works of mercy there is no distinction between men.
Another issue relating to this topic is Apartheid. Racial segregation and the supremacy of whites had been traditionally accepted in South Africa before 1948, but in the general election of that year, Daniel F. Malan officially included the policy of apartheid in the Afrikaner Nationalist party platform, bringing his party to power for the first time. Although most whites benefited from this, there was bitter strife over the degree of its effect. The purpose of apartheid was separation of the races: not only of whites from nonwhites, but also of nonwhites from each other, and, among the Africans of one group from another. In addition to the Africans, who make up about 75% of the total population, those regarded as non-white include those people known in the country as Coloured (people of mixed black, Malayan, and white descent) and Asian (mainly of Indian ancestry) populations.
In 1960 black protests against apartheid reached a peak when in an incident called the Sharpeville massacre, police killed 69 people. Many people were killed during the Apartheid in the protests. The Bible’s teaching is that ‘life is sacred’ Psalm 8.5, how could an event like that have taken anybody’s life into consideration?
Christian groups have sometimes upset others by choosing to add to or disregard instructions given in the Bible. An example of this is a group called the DRC (Dutch Reformed Church.) The Dutch Reformed Church is a of based on the teachings of . It is the oldest Reformed church in the Netherlands and formerly enjoyed status as the state church. It was founded in 1618 and became the state religion in 1651, with 2.3 million members and 1350 churches.The DRC are responsible for misusing Biblical quotes to their own advantage and also actively supported Apartheid in South Africa. They believed that the apartheid laws in South Africa were God’s will and argued that white people were made to be superior to black people.
The Bible counteracts the belief that white people are superior to black people. The Apostle Paul banned all discrimination based on race, social status, etc. among Christians, “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (NIV, Galatians 3:26-28)
Part B
Objective One
Christian Beliefs in Action
Christians believe that fighting against racism and injustice are important because racist ideas disagree with the most important theories in Christian culture, for example that every human being possesses free will, and is not simply the product of his genetics or any other physical force. Another Christian belief is that every human being is made in the image and likeness of God, of unique and unlimited worth; and because of these facts, every human being is entitled to political freedom.
The Bible tells Christians that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Because of this, Christians see racism as a way people act in a derogatory way towards one another, due to reasons that people have no control over. They can see that this is unacceptable behaviour and does not support the idea that all humans should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood, and therefore want to fight racism to restore peace between all races.
Ways Christians have Fought against Racism
For many years Christians have been fighting against racism, trying to overcome the wrongs that the Christians of the past and the present have committed, such as slavery, colonialism and Apartheid.
One of the most well known ways a Christian has fought against racism was by organising a bus boycott, which eventually led to Alabama's state and local laws declaring that segregation on buses was illegal. The Christian that did this was Martin Luther King.
Another Christian who fought against racism was Corrie ten Boom. She did this by hiding fugitives and those hunted by the Nazis. By protecting these people, Corrie and her father and sister risked their own lives.
Bishop Trevor Huddleston helped found Britain's Anti-Apartheid Movement in 1959 and led its campaigns for sanctions against the white-led government. He was knighted this year for his work against apartheid. South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a friend for more than 50 years, said Bishop Huddleston ''made sure that apartheid got on to the world agenda and stayed there.'' ''If you could say that anybody single-handedly made apartheid a world issue, then that person was Trevor Huddleston,'' said Tutu in a BBC radio interview.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu led the churches in opposition to the racial segregation brought about by government policies of apartheid. Apartheid had been introduced by the Nationalist party that had taken power in 1948, the objective of the party being to maintain the control of 4.5 million whites over 23 million blacks. Desmond Tutu refused to carry "the pass" and spoke out against the policies. He followed a strict belief in non-violence. When in other countries, Desmond Tutu called for economic sanctions against South Africa.
Objective 2
Further details on two of these Christians
I have chosen to explore deeper into the lives and works of Martin Luther King and Corrie ten Boom.
Martin Luther King
Life's most persistent and urgent question is: What are you doing for others?
--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Martin Luther King was born on January 15, 1929, in Atlanta, Georgia. He experienced racial prejudice early on in life, which he reflected upon in his I Have A Dream speech in 1963, “"I have a dream my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.” This reveals how he wishes that his children do not suffer the same prejudice he suffered in his life, he felt that he was always judged by his appearance not by his character. I can see that this is wrong, that everyone should be treated equally and make judgements based upon the inner person, not simply the shell that contains who a person actually is, yet I understand the frustration felt by King in that so few people were prepared to work to advance the position of black people.
Throughout his education, King was exposed to powers which related Christian religion to the struggles of exploited peoples. At Morehouse, Crozer, and Boston University, King learnt the teachings on non-violent protest of Indian leader Mohandas Gandhi. King also read and heard the sermons of white Protestant ministers who preached against American racism. Benjamin E. Mays, president of Morehouse and a leader in the national community of racially liberal clergymen, was particularly important in shaping King's religious progress. King learnt from his studies that the only way forward was to use not-violent protests, one of which was the very famous Montgomery Bus Boycott.
Montgomery's black society had age-old complaints about the ill-treatment of blacks on city buses. Many white bus drivers treated blacks impolitely, often cursing them and embarrassing them by enforcing the city's segregation laws, which forced black riders to sit in the back of buses and give up their seats to white passengers on crowded buses. By the early 1950s Montgomery's blacks had discussed boycotting the buses in an attempt to achieve better treatment—but not essentially to finish segregation.
On December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks was ordered by a bus driver to give up her seat to a white passenger. When she refused, she was arrested and taken to jail. Local leaders of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People) especially Edgar D. Nixon, recognized that the arrest of popular and highly respected Parks was the event that could bring together local blacks to a bus protest.
Nixon also believed that a citywide protest should be led by someone who could unite the community. Unlike Nixon and other leaders in Montgomery's black community, the recently arrived King had no enemies. Moreover, Nixon saw King's public-speaking gifts as great assets in the fight for black civil rights in Montgomery. King was soon chosen as president of the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA), the organization that directed the bus boycott.
The Montgomery bus boycott lasted for more than a year, representing a new spirit of protest among Southern blacks. King's serious manner and steady appeal to Christian brotherhood and American idealism made a positive feeling on whites outside the South. Incidents of violent behaviour against black activists, including the bombing of King's home, focused media attention on Montgomery.
The bus boycott was finally brought to an end when In February 1956 a lawyer for the MIA (Montgomery Improvement Association) filed a lawsuit in federal court looking for a restriction against Montgomery's segregated seating practices. The federal court ruled in favour of the MIA, ordering the city's buses to be desegregated, but the city government appealed the verdict to the United States Supreme Court. By the time the Supreme Court upheld the lower court decision in November 1956, King was a national figure.
Throughout the bus boycott King demonstrated that non-violence must remain the central tactic of the civil-rights movement.
`Corrie ten Boom
"There is no pit so deep that God’s love is not deeper still"--Corrie Ten Boom
Corrie ten Boom was born in 1892 in the Netherlands. Corrie was living with her older sister and her father in Haarlem when Holland surrendered to the Nazis. She was 48, unmarried and worked as a watchmaker in the shop that her grandfather had started in 1837. Her family were devoted members of the Dutch Reformed Church.
Corrie's involvement with the Dutch underground began with her acts of compassion in giving provisional refuge to her Jewish neighbours who were being driven out of their homes. She found places for them to stay in the Dutch countryside. This non-violent resistance against the Nazi-oppressors was the Ten Boom's way of living out their Christian faith. This faith led them to hide Jews, students who refused to cooperate with the Nazis, and members of the Dutch "underground" resistance movement. Soon the news spread, and many more people came to her home for protection. As quickly as she would find places for them, more would arrive. She had a false wall constructed in her bedroom which people could hide behind.
After a year and a half, her home developed into the centre of an underground ring that reached throughout Holland. Daily, dozens of reports, appeals, and people came in and out of their watch shop. Corrie found herself dealing with hundreds of stolen ration cards each month to feed the Jews that were hiding in underground homes all over Holland. Corrie was prepared to risk her own life to protect these people, yet soon she was found out. On February 28, 1944, a man came into their shop and asked Corrie to help him. He stated that he and his wife had been hiding Jews and that she had been arrested. He needed six hundred gilders to bribe a policeman for her freedom. Corrie promised to help. She found out later that he was a quisling, an informant that had worked with the Nazis from the first day of the occupation. He turned their family in to the Gestapo. Later that day, her home was raided, and Corrie and her family were arrested. From then on Corrie and her family were put into concentration camps. Corrie and Betsie spent 10 months in three different prisons, the last being the infamous Ravensbruck concentration camp located near Berlin, Germany. Life in the camp was almost unbearable, but Corrie and Betsie spent their time sharing Jesus' love with their fellow prisoners. This was where Corrie and her sister Betsie really did have an effect on others around them. Although for many people, the concentration camp would have been the end of their work, for Corrie and Betsie the months they spent in Ravensbruck became "their finest hour." In her book, Corrie described how she struggled with and overcame the hate that she had for the man who betrayed her family and how she and Betsie gave comfort to other inmates.
Corrie describes a typical evening in which they would use their secreted Bible to hold worship services: "At first Betsie and I called these meetings with great timidity. But as night after night went by and no guard ever came near us, we grew bolder. So many now wanted to join us that we held a second service after evening roll call. . .” which reveals that even in the most dreadful situation, Corrie kept her faith alive, sharing it with others and making life that little bit more bearable.
Objective 3 – What the Christian Church is doing to combat Racism
Racism in the Catholic Church – an action plan
These conditions are that Christian church leaders
1) Have a deeper understanding of racism: the historical context, its scale & virulence in Britain, its relationship to capitalism;
2) acknowledge that Western Europe is run by the market, not Christian values;
3) are fully aware that racial minorities are severely marginalized by the state, politicians and the media and feel alienated.
Also, some issues church leaders are discussing at the moment are that the power structure remains firmly in white hands. Centuries of white privilege and uncontrolled capitalist values seem to have blunted the capacity of the bishops to relate to non-white people and empathise with the oppressed. “Combating racism must entail a redistribution of social, economic, political and cultural power to the powerless.” (World Council of Churches, 1969)
This is the Plan to Induce Stronger involvement by the church against Racial Injustices
- At the moment the church is so committed to a democratic Christianity it will have to challenge against the capitalist system which is devoted to inequality, individualism and competition.
- The Church has never been in the forefront in the struggle against racial injustices. It seems unenthusiastic to confront racism or to reprimand the politicians and the rightwing media for stirring racial hatred. The church’s campaign against racism must change from timid appeals through press releases or pamphlets to the confrontation of power.
- In race matters, any press release or reports must be prepared in consultation with ethnic representatives. These representatives should also accompany clerics meeting with state or media officials on controversial matters.
- Bishops & senior clerics must express solidarity with the victims of racism by publicly condoling with their families and attending funerals of victims of racist murders or police brutality.
That is the plan of the Catholic Church to combat racism.
There are nine different churches; the group is called Churches Uniting in Christ. These churches are the African Methodist Episcopal Church, African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, Episcopal Church, International Council of Community Churches, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ, and United Methodist Church. Together these churches have committed their efforts to combat racism. They plan to do this by creating a new relationship which will be based on eight marks of unity and will include a number of commitments; none is thought to be more important than the shared resolve to combat racism. The churches have been divided by small differences, and these are important; the deepest and most painful separations are believed to have stemmed from the experience of slavery and racism. The churches agree that they must pay primary attention to this reality.
As a result, one of the marks of unity the churches tie themselves to is "intentional commitment to promote unity with wholeness and to oppose all marginalization and exclusion in church and society based upon such things as race ...” it is believed that combating racism will be a hallmark of Churches uniting in Christ.
Part C
My opinion on the Violent Response to Racism
Why pacifist strategies can give across as strong a message as violence can
There are many people throughout history who have demonstrated that non-violence can work very effectively, those I have mentioned before are Martin Luther King, Corrie ten Boom and Bishop Trevor Huddleston. The question is, have other people in similar situations used violence as or more effectively as an alternative to non-violence? I would like to begin this study by informing you of a group of people called the Quakers.
Quakers all share common roots in a Christian movement that arose in England in the middle of the 17th Century. Today, it is generally true that Friends still hold on to certain essential principles, firstly a belief in the possibility of direct, unmediated communion with the Divine (historically expressed by George Fox in the statement, "Christ is come to teach his people himself"); and a commitment to living lives that outwardly attest to this inward experience. Also importantly, Quakers are pacifists. "Quakers respect the creative power of God in every human being and in the world around us. We work through quiet processes for a world where peaceful means bring about just settlements." Through this statement I can see that Quakers work through conflict using peaceful means to bring about fair resolutions.
Pacifism is different to non-violence. Where pacifism is defined as “the belief that disputes should be settled by peaceful means and that war and violence are unjustifiable”, non-violence is not as specific. Pacifists see violence as being unforgivable whereas people who use non violence do often seek wars, but do not use violence themselves. You see neither I don’t believe that Gandhi, nor Martin Luther King, nor were the anti-war protestors of the 1960s non-violent. They were skilled initiators of violence by others. The fact that their opponents were usually slow enough to oblige them doesn't make the tactics any less manipulative; indeed, often the answer to a controlled opposition was an increase in conflict in order to create violence. Where these people did not themselves use non-violence, they did cause violence between other people and a pacifist would never do this.
I believe that pacifist strategies can sometimes get across as strong a message as violence. Some ideas I have behind this reasoning are that theoretically, agreements that are reached through negotiation are thought to last longer. The majority of the time, war does not solve anything, as the people who really suffer are the general public, not the politicians and leaders who decided to go to war. There is also a puzzling aspect in all of this, as Jesus states quite clearly in Matthew 5 that we should love our enemies, and there seems to be many examples of God against war and violence. Despite this, throughout the Old Testament there are frequent examples supporting acts of extreme violence and destruction, seeming contradictory.
Many other people believe differently to me, the reasoning behind this could be because the pacifist view does have a number of weaknesses. A lot of people believe that if we do not fight for what is right, we run the risk of being bullied. As stated by Rev. George Herbert, “he that makes a good war makes a good peace”, which shows that war can sometimes bring peace. Passive resistance does not work in the face of true evil, as for example, who knows what genocide would have continued to happen had no one stood up to and fought Hitler’s forces? In theory, world pacifism would stop a lot of suffering, but it is thought to be impossible in the ‘real world’ where violence is a fact of life. Also, many people consider the idea that being a pacifist, would it be morally right to stand by and watch passively while their families or the weak suffered?
I believe that pacifism cannot always get across as strong a message as violence can, many people have achieved good using violent means, for instance Malcolm X. Malcolm X was a black man who was described by his opponents as "violent," "fascist," and "racist." He used violent means to try to change the world that he had grown up in which was so full of racism and hatred. Although Malcolm X left no real institutional legacy, he did exert a notable impact on the Civil Rights Movement in the last year of his life.
Taking a pacifist stance, I believe it would be the lesser of two evils to help somebody in need by using violence than sticking to my principles. If somebody was being hurt through no fault of their own, and I ignored the situation, I feel that I would be in the wrong, and disregarding the situation would be helping the person who was originally in the wrong by allowing them to continue what they were doing. Although I would never initiate violence, I believe that stopping violence is very important, even if this involves using brutality. If the situation could be overcome by negotiation then of course this would be the better choice of method, yet if I thought I would be able to overcome the aggressor myself then I would attempt to, whereas if I thought this would put me in unnecessary danger I would not attempt to and would think of an alternate manner to handle the situation, which could involve finding backup to subdue the assailant.
The Bible could back up this point of view by using the quote “love thy neighbour” as the person who was being attacked could be seen as a neighbour, and leaving them without helping them would not be seen as a loving thing to do, counteracting the pacifist belief.
Bibliography
- Websites
- http://www.psc.uc.edu/sh/SH_ Racism.htm
- http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~cale/cs201/apartheid.hist.html
- http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/BiblicalMorality/Racism.shtml
- http://www.stjohndc.org/stjohndc/English/Parables/9411.htm
- http://www.twopaths.com/faq_interracialMarriage.htm
- http://www.africana.com/specials/packages/packagemlk_20030117.asp
- http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/pcjpracm.htm
- http://greenpartyreview.ca/GPR/1-1/article5.php
- http://www.corrietenboom.com/history.htm
-
-
Policing, Race and Racism (Policing & Society S.)
-
New Ethnicities, Old Racisms (Foreword), (Editor)
- The Words of Martin Luther King Coretta King,
-
; Paperback ~ Louis E. Lomax
-
; Paperback ~ Kevin Verney
-
; Paperback ~ Booker T. Washington