Social realities and persecution
|
John, with respect to persecution, I’m afraid that another social reality is that we, as Christians have been the biggest persecutors of modern times, with state sponsored persecution in most European countries well into the 19th century. Through the hypocrisy of our recent parents in the faith, we have been robbed of any power in dealing with this problem. Any attempt on the part of westerners to prevent persecution smacks of the cultural if not actual imperialism that most of these countries have suffered. In fact, some of the persecution is exactly because Christianity is seen as an imperialist Western faith. To a large extent, we are the direct cause of much of the persecution of Christians in the world. I don’t know if any doctrine of ‘rescue’ applies to us, instead maybe we should view this in an atonement framework. Minority Christianity, though created by us, is now suffering for our sins. Maybe part of us accepting Jesus’ suffering on our behalf is that we can accept others’ suffering on our behalf also. Maybe we should look for ways in which we can take that suffering back on ourselves, choosing to suffer under their persecutors rather than using more imperial force to prevent those persecutions from happening. I don’t know what we can do politically to prevent the persecution that will not simply store up more persecution in the future. Maybe if Western Christians were not currently exhibiting massive Islamophobia leading to renewed state sponsored persecution of Muslims we could ask for forgiveness. Until then I see only more suffering as other countries tell us to take the log out of our own eye. |
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Comments
Re: Social realities and persecution
Hello Richard
I will confess that I find myself staggered by the complacency towards fellow believers in parts of the world where the exercise of their faith entails a threat to their lives, which is revealed by the comments below, which you specifically directed towards me, in response to my post(s). Even allowing for some of the historical inferences you make as having a basis in fact, it is the manner in which the argument is packaged and presented as a fate accomplis with which I primarily take issue. You wrote:
I’m afraid that another social reality is that we, as Christians have been the biggest persecutors of modern times, with state sponsored persecution in most European countries well into the 19th century.
I’m not sure what ‘detail’ you are employing to build up this novel narrative and no doubt you can point to others only too ready to buy into this kind of conscience-searing confusion but to raise this as an indictment of the continuation of a compassionate interest in those who are our spiritual brothers is quite misplaced.
The answer to abuse – of the Christian faith, in the ways you suggest have taken place – is not non-use, it is right use.
Through the hypocrisy of our recent parents in the faith, we have been robbed of any power in dealing with this problem.
No, we have not been robbed of power; we have been robbed of courage. Fear and anxiety are close cousins of hypocrisy and it’s natural offspring. Complacency breeds acceptance of the status quo and in turn inaction. Judging from the first part of your post, I’m not sure you’d want to ally with such things, but they appear to be both the antecedents and the concomitants of your arguments.
Any attempt on the part of westerners to prevent persecution smacks of the cultural if not actual imperialism that most of these countries have suffered.
Again, I’m unsure what sort of particulars you may be thinking about here, but your use of terms like "any attempt" makes me particular uncomfortable regarding your understanding / motive. There may well be methods that are unacceptable, undesirable BUT to spurn any and every attempt suggests either a hidden agenda or simple ignorance of the work that the few (see below) are carrying out on behalf of the many (the sort of work the first part of your post, Richard, suggested you would want to find worthy of respect?)
In fact, some of the persecution is exactly because Christianity is seen as an imperialist Western faith. To a large extent, we are the direct cause of much of the persecution of Christians in the world.
There will, of course, always be those political masters who wish to use the same tar and brush which you so readily employ, but we ought not to be taken in so readily by their rhetoric. After all, they have a lot to hide. The simple fact is that being westerners doesn’t get us off the hook regarding the need to be involved in doing justice.
The extraordinary story of Open Doors, as just one example, their long ministry to the persecuted church and their superb testimony and unceasing appeal for assistance, along with Christian Solidarity Worldwide and other related organizations, doing extraordinary work with great courage, in the face of danger to both themselves and those whom they assist in willing and very welcome partnership, ought to make those who have or who are ready to consider buying into the kind of false, hand-wringing angst that Richard’s "ghost of imperialism" viewpoint promotes, concerning the involvement of westerners in issues that concern the - our - international Christian community, think again very deeply.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: No agendas or hand-wringing
ok, thanks for your response, Richard.
I did try to make clear, in my deliberately provocative post, that I located complacency within the particular comments and the argument presented by them, rather than in you as an individual; I thought you might not wish to be wholly represented by them once viewed from another standpoint.
I’ve also read through the other posts which you’ve added below. You’ve clearly got a strong point of view yourself and I’m not at all sure that the essence of it is at odds with my own view.
Nevertheless, I think you are on a sticky wicket with a great deal of what you are saying, mainly because your views are considerably one-sided in condemnation of the / a whole raft of the Christian community. You are taking on complex issues that would frankly be worthy of a PhD and I don’t think you are doinig them, or yourself, justice, Richard.
If you really want to engage a broad element of the Christian community in restorative service, you will need to be prepared to listen as hard as you condemn; to be prepared to do the work of seperating real guilt from false guilt; to speak out of deep conviction, rather than mirroring the skewed speech of political miscreants, militants and dictators; of seperating the creeds of colonialism from Christianity.
To ask the whole today’s western Christian community to acknowledge the sins of our forebears is quite reasonable; allowing for others to see it differently, it is still emminently reasonable to ask us to dissociate from those actions and methods - if clearly articulated. But to ask us all to be tarred and feathered and to be afraid to take initiatives that are unwelcome in the eyes of some, while welcome in the eyes of others, because of politics is not reasonable.
Moreover, we owe it to those who did faithfully represent Christ in so many lands and situations, many standing against the excesses of colonialism, to continue representing Christ as he really is. In other words, our goal today is to identify with Him, rather than to beset ourselves with an identification with colonialism of the past, which was a product of it’s time and not as wholly bad as you and many wish to paint it today, though that is not to deny its faults, failures and excesses.
Frankly, it’s a minefield of argument that you are taking on with some of your huge brush strokes, Richard, as far as I am concerned. It seems to me that when Jesus wanted to make a point, he didn’t do it by taking on the whole establishment in condemnation and argument, rather he looked for a victim of the establishment and demonstrated by his actions that they were worthy of support and love and, in this way, he heaped "coals upon the heads of his enemies," showing them up for what they are. Hence, my defense of vital actors upon the persecution stage.
Your own suggestions about practical ways to counter some of the realities which you feel so sharply are imaginative. For most of us though, it is not our job to find ways for the whole body to repent and repair; rather to find someone to love and go and do that.
I wish you well in your journey and hope our exchange has been helpful.
Shalom! - John
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: No agendas or hand-wringing
I’m sure you didn’t intend this… you are (not) responding to any of my points, but are instead dismissing them because of lack of detail
On the contrary, Richard, I meant entirely that. There are so many broad brush strokes in your discourse agains the West and the Christian church, that need a much deeper understanding than I can provide or respond to at short notice and, I suspect, a much deeper understanding than that which you presently have. I am unconvinced by your prosaic condemnations, but I am not prepared to do the work of taking on your argument further than I have already. For the time being, like you, I shall have to largely shoot from the hip.
As much as you may wish to disassociate yourself from the actions of your fellow Christians, I don’t see what difference it makes
We tend to see what we want to see, at times, Richard and you’re personalising of the issue of disassociation is not helpful or relevant. Like Rowan Williams, I am acutely aware of the commonality of our relationship with the weak and the persecuted, that is in part the motive for my involvement with you in this discussion. Perhaps, for the sake of grace, we might assume this is, in fact, our shared interest, whilst we yet disagree about the way forward in addressing the relationship?
The Jesus in my Bible did both, as I am hoping to do. You may also like to read the prophets in the Old Testament.
You sound as though you think I am reading a different Bible to you, Richard - and your invitation to read the prophets is unspecific (something you pulled me up on, just a few paragraphs before, remember!) and bordering upon being simply rude: the implicatioon being, apparently, that I ought to be as familiar with the tone, the content, the message and the modern-day interpretation and application of the OT prophets as you consider yourself to be? Hmmm. So, you are "hoping to do both." Good for you and I wish you well, but you can’t practice on me!
Look seriously, Richard, I accept you’ve got the bit between the teeth and I accept that I took your original argument to you in a provocative way, but if you are really genuine about wanting to be constructive then I need to say that you’ve a long way to go to convince me that you are serious and that you are as informed as you ought and need to be to besmirch the entire Christian community, as well as the British and American democracies to boot, in the way that you seem keen to do in your efforts to promote a wider harmony with disgruntled people groups. If you and I were to seriously engage in constructive dialogue, we will both need to stop overwhelming the argument with our verbose opinions and to take one bit at a time.
Meanwhile, I will clarify my viewpoint regarding agendas and who is promoting them: there are today many people who are clearly angry at America / President Bush and Christians too. Such people take every opportunity to decry one or the other with invective (useful word, thank you, though I think you are stretching yet another point in suggesting I used toward you personally, as opposed to your argument) and to muddy the waters regarding the nature of Christianity and whether it ought to have a place within Western society. Yet they lack balance; they have nothing good to say about either and clearly have their own agendas.
You seem happy with that kind of analysis, Richard. I find it slap-dash and unbelievable. These voices raise themselves loud and have pervaded the western cultural worldview with revisionist and selective history being used to further their selfish agendas, yet these people rarely have a record of compassionate interest in the peoples they claim to support. Now you may not be aware of that and the way it all gets mixed up with the utterances of despots and dictators who defend cultures that provide little freedom for their own people, but I am and it makes me suspicious of the kind of agenda you arguments uphold and promote.
Your naive comments about North Korea are a prime example. To try to lay all the blame for all the ills of the North Korean Christians at the feet of President Bush… I simply can’t take that seriously. Perhaps they did move from number two, in the Open Doors persecution index, to number one at the time you mention, but "Hello!?" things were dreadful beyond belief before that, which is why President Bush said some of the things he did. Speaking out against dictators may appear to have little impact upon them - though I wouldn’t expect ignoring them to be much better - but it does have an effect upon those who hear it: it heightens our awareness and provokes our conscience to the costly work of caring and of intervention
(While we on the subject of NK and remembering the offence you took regarding my invoking the "skewed speech of political miscreants, militants and dictators” in connection with your argument, I note that you had no problem imagining - and defending - the motives behind Kim Jung-Il’s persecution of the Christian minorities in his country.)
There we are, Richard. Since you have set us off on the trend of recommending reading, perhaps I can recommend someone to you who has in times past been dear to both the British and the Americans and most of the Free World (though I am not sure you’d be comfortable with such a phrase?), Winston Churchill, who for the record, wasn’t a practising Christian but was in the practice of confronting and dismantling the political agendas of those who were so determined to "see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil" that they tended to deny the nature of the world around them.
To start you off, I’ll provide one quote from Mr Churchill that suggests there may be another side to Western "Christian" culture, as compared to the dreadful, oppressive one you so seem to so readily see and portray:
We cannot be blind to the fact that the liberties enjoyed by individual citizens throughout the British Empire are not valid in a considerable number of countries, some of which are very powerful. In these States control is enforced upon the common people by various kinds of all-embracing police governments. The power of the State is exercised without restraint, either by dictators or by compact oligarchies operating through a privileged party and a political police.
It is not our duty at this time when difficulties are so numerous to interfere forcibly in the internal affairs of countries which we have not conquered in war. But we must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.
All this means that the people of any country have the right, and should have the power by constitutional action, by free unfettered elections, with secret ballot, to choose or change the character or form of government under which they dwell; that freedom of speech and thought should reign; that courts of justice, independent of the executive, unbiased by any party, should administer laws which have received the broad assent of large majorities or are consecrated by time and custom. Here are the title deeds of freedom which should lie in every cottage home. Here is the message of the British and American peoples to mankind.
For those ready to decry the views of one who was not only a great man but also a great historian, remember it is because of those freedoms that we can communicate freely in the way we do. It may not be politically correct to compare cultures in a post-modern world, but we ought not be shy, as Churchill declares, in recognising these freedoms and the lack of them enjoyed by others.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: No agendas or hand-wringing
It feels like you are reading an entirely different post from the one I wrote. Please do not attribute speech by anyone else to me. I speak only for myself, and no one else speaks for me. You have, after 3 posts, failed to address a single point of discussion, but have instead dismissed my attempts at engaging you constructively.
I think the gentleman protesteth too much!
I can assure you, Richard, it is your post to which I am responding and no other attribution is accorded. Moreover, if you care to look beyond the parts of my posts which provoke you to your own form of rhetoric, you will find that I have responded to a number of your original points.
What I have dismissed, Richard, is grand, uncoroborrated statements which draw their conclusions from too narrow a band of evidence, which demonstrate too great a willingness to ignore mitigating evidence:
Christians have been the biggest persecutors of modern times
Any attempt on the part of westerners to prevent persecution smacks of the cultural if not actual imperialism
To a large extent, we are the direct cause of much of the persecution of Christians in the world
rest of the church needs gets its act together and do something about our guilt in this matter
Until we accept our own guilt, I fear that our attempts at helping will only worsen the situation
I maintain that these conclusions are unspecific, too general to be of much use in addressing anyone or any situations and, in part, innacurate. In your last post you have been specific about the slavery issue. A good example of the principle upon which I am challenging: the evidence indeed broadly upholds your view of the role of "Christian" nations in the debacle of slave-trading. However, it ignores the parallel tradition within the Christian community of being against slavery; protesting against slavery; of Christians within British parliament who acted courageously to outlaw slavery; it ignores the Christian conviction of Abraham Lincoln who led the US into a civil war rather than placate slavery; and it ignores the tradition of Christian faith amongst the slaves. In other words, your conclusion identifies Christianity too strongly with one set of actors - the political leaders of nominally Christian nations; the Church leaders who betrayed their faith in upholding slavery; hypocritical aristocracy etc. - at the expense of other actors within the same story.
I suggest this is something you have done with a number of the conclusions that I have pointed to. This is why I suggested that the level of complexity to some of these issues is worthy of a PhD. My suggestion was not that you ought to complete one before commenting on these issues, simply that the approach to complex issues ought to demonstrate a humility that is open to understand others point of view. I am certain, in principle, this is where you would like to be. If these challenges have helped you get there, well and good. If you were there, in your heart, from the start, I accept that; but I don’t think your earlier posts reflected that.
On the other hand you have said a number of things with which elements of my post have broadly concurred:
If we wish to dissociate ourselves we must show that we are genuine in wanting to undo some of the harm that has been caused.
I would simply point out that a number of (minor) traditions and parts of the Lord’s wider body, even within the West, have always disocciated themselves in this kind of way - another reason why wholesale association is not appropriate. Better to come right out and be clear about which Christian traditions have been complicit and, if you, or I, or another, finds themselves a part of that tradition, they might indeed feel these things more acutely. Others may well be entitled to feel it less so. I would take issue with your wholesale appropriation of guilt to the entire Western Christian community, but I also understand the principle towards which you point and am not unsympathetic toward it.
At one point, Richard, you said this:
Clearly articulated argument makes no difference; actions speak louder than words
This is the essence of our disagreement, I think, Richard. Clearly articulated argument is, for better or worse, the basis of the Western world’s democracy - it also has a considerable place within the Hebrew worldview, the soil out of which Christianity grew - and the Freedom’s to which I have already referred in quoting Churchill. Whilst the platitude of "actions speaking louder than words" is an axiom we can all concur with, it is not an basis for dismissing correctly articulated and argued conclusions, on the basis of accurate and balanced evidence, which remanins the best way to ensure action taken is the appropriate one.
So, there we are. I wonder, are we yet close enough in spirit to begin addressing some of the core issues, with appropriate openness and humility, which promoted our original involvement in this discussion?
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: Persecution by Christians
Hello Richard
I am going to need to bow out of this discussion fairly soon; I just lost over an hours-worth work when my in-depth response to your post got lost in the submission process. The summary below has been squeezed off the top of my head in fifteen minutes instead. First off, let me state that I admire your persistence and I think you have made a stronger case this time around, with suitable detail.
You’ve specifically invited me to address your understanding - as presented within your argument / thesis and that is what I’m doing. I trust you will not take it personally.
Nevertheless, I do take issue with most of your use of that detail. It may be a linguistic problem in some cases. If you were to say, for example, that "Christians have been among the most significant persecutors" etc. then it would be an improvement and would not nullify your thesis on the basis of an overstretched scope, as you presently do. You might remember that Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot killed about 80 million people last century and were all rooted in humanistic secularist philosophies when using terms like "the greatest persecutors." That’s free advice, if you are really serious about critiquing the establishment, as you suggested. Take it or leave it time.
My other main contention is that you contrive to confuse "Christian nations" with "Christians" to suit your argument. I think you should develop a thesis about one or the other and stop confusing the two. Otherwise I think you will nearly always lose your audience before you begin. Within this faultline, you intimation that Nazism is a Christian issue is way wide of the mark, though if you wished to trace it’s roots into Lutheranism, that might be an interesting thread.
I think you do minimize Christian persecution when you use phrases like "few isolated individuals." What other point were you making? Again, free advice, if you don’t want to isolate yourself from an intended audience, you have to introduce evidence like that with a clear point otherwise you intimate something else.
Many missionaries suffered at the hands of colonial powers and companies such as the nefarious Dutch and British East India trading companies. As in the case with Rwanda (which is incidentally outside the scope of your thesis) you need to give weight to the "little tradition" within Christianity which almost always acccompanies the "greater tradtion" which is the transgressor in your worldview. If you do this, you might start to get your point across better.
You haven’t offended me yet, Richar - it’s correct argument I’m interested in, not ego-boosting.
The Islamic situation is another very complex issue. Dr Patrick Sookhdeo produces some well researched, balanced briefings on this subject, even if the conclusions won’t suit everyone, the issues are defined well and worth being aware of. Incidentally, within Palestine, Christian persecution is rife.
So what is left? As far as I can tell, it’s the ages long strife between Protestant and Catholic which is well documented as being a political struggle which hijacks religious affiliation as a way or garnering support. It offers little useful information for a wider indictment of the Christian tradition as being unsuitable and lacking in power to address persecution of minorities in overseas situations.
Shalom! - John
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Healing, creative thinking... or pedantic argument?
Well done, Richard!
I got all the way down to "politics vs. religion" without any sense of needing to disagree; I believed you when you wrote that you were only concerned with "honest engagement towards a creative outcome"; I was even inclined to provide a cyber round of applause.
Then, from "politics vs. religion" onwards, your post brought us back down to earth, back into the pedantic mode that several of us on this site are at home with. It’s so hard for us to resist. My point is that the first part of your post truly had "healing in its wings" - the sense of which was completely lost by the second half. As a consequence I find myself unsure where you want to go.
Perhaps, now may be a helpful moment to affirm that in all my work in insisting you be accurate in your "brush strokes," I am actually much on the same side of the fence as yourself in terms of restorative actions I would like to see taking place. What initially was a taking to task over what I still consider to have been grand, overstated and, consequently, innacurate and unhelpfully framed statements, has developed into a concern to assist you in framing your thesis proper, which I do hold to be a worthwhile one: that the grand tradition of Christianity be aware of it’s past complicity with persecution and war and other forms of violence.
Nevertheless, I can’t find any way to constructively affirm you in the second half of your post, other than to go on finding fault with the rush you are in to indict… who exactly? A tradition? the Western Christian nations? I’m still not sure who your intended audience is, Richard? I.e., whom are your addressing?
Perhaps you need to come out and claim, for the purposes of your thesis, a bias to view that you are presenting: this is how it looks from the point of view of oppressed nations. How you properly qualify yourself to speak for them is up to you and I have no comment if that is your goal. My contention is, rather, that if you are speaking to Christians, you need to be more accurate in your aim, more specific with your confrontation, more particular in suggesting whom you want to act and in what way - or no-one will take you seriously. For example, on the issue of Christian nations: in your rhetoric, Christians are indicted on the basis of the history of (nominally) Christian states, yet Christians today are also reminded constantly about keeping religion out of politics, seperation of church and state etc. and faced with marginalisation from politics and culture. I do wonder if you have really thought through what you are broadly asking for and from whom, Richard.
Meanwhile, for the record, pedant that I am, I will take particular issue with these statements you have made / issues you have raised:
"I am not confusing my characterisation of Christians and Christian nations to suit my argument, but to fit the persepective of other cultures"
I believe you have and do, at times, Richard, and that you have only latterly added that you were speaking from that "other" perspective when challenged about innacurate statements
I reiterate my points above on the wisdom of attempting to speak from such a perspective; I wonder if it is not better to listen to those who speak directly and for themselves from that place in the scheme of things; as I see it that is what is commendable about Open Doors and people like it
(and having quoted from them as a source, may I take it that you now withdraw your contention that westerners acting through OD are pocket imperialists?)
on slavery: I don’t see that we deserve any medals for stopping taking slaves
you’ve demeaned my contention on this issue completely and sidestepped the challenge I gave your regarding over-reliance upon one set of actors
I know you wish to dissociate yourself with clearly articulated argument… If we are talking to other cultures, I’m afraid your protests will fall on deaf ears.
My own association is up for grabs, Richard, to whomever makes a strong case - including you. I have no wish to disassociate myself from truth, only from distortions of it.
I wish to resist the use of past failures that may or may not be associated with Christianity by individuals who have not really decided whom they want to address, on whose behalf they are speaking, which perspective they speak from and who have little or no sympathy toward the actual audience they are so anxious to address.
I do not believe you to be such a person, at all Richard, (that is clear from that peace-making first half to your post…) but I do associate some of the statements you’ve made with those kind of scenarios.
As for "deaf ears," it’s surprising how much information they pick up and such posturing ought not stop us from wanting to be accurate about our best traditions, whilst owning up to complicity with our worst
US FBI recorded over 9,000 victims of persecution (hate-crimes) in 2004 including 5 martyrs
that’s a very significant balancing point to make: in the "Christian" nations, as you describe them, laws are used to ensure freedom of religion and to punish law-breakers; you will be aware that these realities do not exist within a great many Islamic and Communist nations
you point out that a great many people in such nations are compassionate and reasonable; this reiterates the point that there is a world of difference between state apparatus and the faith and behaviour of individuals and communities; a distinction you are highly reluctant to recognise within "Christian" nations
ISIC… (I) have found their neutrality to be wanting at times
is this when you are viewing from the perspective of the other cultures? or as a Christian?
are you as ready to listen to their viewpoint as others who are included in this debate?
Or are their views to be labelled intolerant and denied a voice?
I am not suggesting this is your response, but I think these questions have a place in the debate, as do the issues raised by ISIC
On Hitler and Christianity
the site you quote, writes, in its opening paragraph:
one only has to read from his own writings to appreciate that Hitler’s God equals the same God of the Christian Bible. Hitler held many hysterical beliefs which not only include, God and Providence but also Fate, Social Darwinism, and ideological politics
I maintain that the two statements in this opening sentence are simply not compatible and are the most obvious indication of the prior agenda of the writer;
Honestly, Richard, if you are intending to speak on behalf of Christians, I maintain that many will not take you seriously whilst you go for targets like Hitler and Nazism in an attempt to ascribe Christian complicity to persecution.
I certainly don’t think many Jews - since you wish to speak from the viewpoint of the persecuted - would today be interested in that kind of equation and if you are not interesting in recognising the hijacking of Christian words and themes, in a situation like that, you must count me - and many others - out of an argument with you. I think you are very wide of the mark, as I said, but if you are determined, then I have neither time nor inclination to tackle your mis-aimed fire.
I hope, in time, you will consider withdrawing that from your arsenal and recognise yourself misguided in having included it. Frankly, it does you and your argument no credit; in this it stands in contrast to practically everything else you have written, towards which, whilst I take issue with the scope of your statements, I am broadly sympathetic.
On Communists, Fascists and numbers
No, it’s neither a numbers game, nor any other kind of game, Richard. These are ugly issues which I take no pleasure in bandying around;
Nevertheless, I must point out that you have, once more, neatly sidestepped my point, which I think you ought to have recognised, instead of thanking me for my patience… which is running out… that these dictators eclipsed anything close to what you are attributing to Christians;
As an example of your misuse of notions: you willingly (and rightly) include slavery as a form of persecution, yet you intentionally omit death by starvation, under Stalin etc;
For me, then, Richard, to quote a famous football commentator in our land, "it was a game of two halves." I’m still not sure which one represents the real Richard: peacemaker or purveyor of grand statements? Do let me know.
Shalom! - John
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
From the wings ...
Dear Richard and John
Thank you both for your stimulating discussion about a very important topic. I don’t feel able to contribute anything substantial, but I would like to make a few minor comments.
My perception of the situation in North Korea, China, Vietnam, and Myanmar is that Christians are being persecuted there because either (a) they refuse to render unconditional allegiance to the totalitarian government since that would be a denial of Jesus as their Lord, or (b) the Christians happen to be concentrated among certain racial minority groups who are being targetted on racial grounds (e.g. the Karen tribe in Myanmar and the Hmong tribe in Vietnam). I cannot see how their persecution is a reaction against western imperialism.
In a Judeo-Christian culture, an apology is usually regarded as a noble act that paves the way for expiation and reconciliation. But I have heard that in an Islamic culture, an apology tends to be perceived as a sign of contemptible weakness and as an acknowledgement of Islam’s superiority. Thus I would think it is likely to exacerbate the problem of anti-Christian persecution in those countries.
With the notable exception of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and a few others with him, the evangelical church in Germany tended to go along with Hitler’s anti-Jewish policies during the 1930’s for the sake of not rocking the boat. I’m not saying I would have had the same courage as Dietrich Bonhoeffer in that situation to swim against the tide, but I don’t think the German evangelical church as a whole did as much as it might have done to protect the Jews from persecution.
Sorry if any of this is tangential.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
healing in the wings...
Hello Phil
Thank you so much for your encouragement and comments. On the one hand I don’t think they are tangential at all - they represent a highly relevant and a helpful input - on the other hand, I think we could do with something a little tangential: Richard and I have locked horns for some little time over the semantics of this issue. I’m going to try and draw an end to that with this post and then try to creatively respond instead to the heart of Richard’s posts below regarding how to we might respond to the history of Christian complicity with religious and other forms of persecution.
First my attempt at stemming the semantic difficulties Richard and I have been thrashing out. Richard began this thread with the following paragraph:
John, with respect to persecution, I’m afraid that another social reality is that we, as Christians have been the biggest persecutors of modern times, with state sponsored persecution in most European countries well into the 19th century. Through the hypocrisy of our recent parents in the faith, we have been robbed of any power in dealing with this problem. Any attempt on the part of westerners to prevent persecution smacks of the cultural if not actual imperialism that most of these countries have suffered. In fact, some of the persecution is exactly because Christianity is seen as an imperialist Western faith. To a large extent, we are the direct cause of much of the persecution of Christians in the world.
Below is my attempt at representing the thrust of Richard’s argument in that paragraph, without some of the language which I have argued is too general to be accurate, too inflamatory to be helpful. Unfortunately, I know Richard is away on holiday, so it will be up to others to confirm or critique this as a helpful alternative, at least until he returns (that is, assuming everyone else hasn’t given up on this verbose thread…). Here’s how I would prefer these important issues to be set out:
"John, with respect to persecution, I’m concerned that, in order to properly take our place in combatting worldwide persecution of Christian minorities, we must first - or, at the very least, in parallel - face up to our own complicity with persecution - of Jews, of dissenting Christians and of Muslims, in particular.
I feel that we have been a part of this history primarily through the cultural phenomenon known as Christendom; a historical phenomena, principally within Europe, during which the Christian’s churches enjoyed an explicit relationship with the state apparatus of "Empire" (including British, French (?)German / Nazi, and, in earlier periods, Spanish and Portuguese). To my mind this is a veil covering a highly significant period of history during which terrible crimes against humanity - I am thinking in particular of slavery and of the Holocaust, though other people might wish to promote other events to the foreground - were committed by nations who were, by their own admission, Christian.
We should recognise minority Christian traditions which rejected and resisted slavery - represented by such as the post-conversion John Newton - and those who became victims themselves because of their stand against these crimes - Christians such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, to name but one individual as a type - but we must do so in the context of the involvement of major Christian Churches and traditions.
Unless we are prepared to properly examine these histories - from our own viewpoint and from that of persecuted and enslaved peoples too - I feel that we will lack not only the courage, but also the power which God provides to make effective restitution: the kind of restitution which - being devoid of the tarnishing impact of cultural imperialism, because it smacks instead of genuine love - might, in fact, hold significant keys to lessening the persecution of Christian minorities in non-Christian nations, some of whom, both rationally and unrationally, at times, raise the spectre of Western Imperialism and it’s crimes as both a weapon of defense and evasion, regarding their own human rights abuses.
There we are. Before progressing to "ways we might respond / fix it" one or two further clarifications are probably in order.
For any of you who followed the strong dislike I took to Richard’s citing of Hitler and Nazism as examples of Christian persecution, I think an escape route from further controversy is offered by Richard’s own words,
Even if we don’t own Hitler, I think we should own the fact that it was carried out and tolerated by Christians in several largely Christian countries. The minority tradition in those countries is essential to the redemption of the tragedy, but we still have to own the greater tradition.
Phil’s point about Evangelical’s within Germany and a (four page pdf) document from the wonderful, but dreadful, Yad Veshem museum confirms this suggestion that, while their is little evidence to present Nazism as an essentially Christian phenomena - which is what I was reacting against - undoubtably the complicity of European Christian communities (with notable exceptions) - is involved, in particular within the widespread conspiracy of targetting and handing over Jews, or at the very least, standing by and allowing it to happen, as well as the servility and consequent impotence of state Christian churches, and that is something which, even sixty years later, we have not yet fully confronted.
In beginning to consider "how might we respond" I do think the Holocaust has a great deal to teach us. On a slightly different tack, I think Phil’s point about how
in an Islamic culture, an apology tends to be perceived as a sign of contemptible weakness and as an acknowledgement of Islam’s superiority
is also a vital issue to grapple with, otherwise our attempts at promoting "love" may prove naive to the point of being dangerous. Perhaps an emergent theology can find a way, where a more traditional, modern response would not. But I think that, for me at least, must now wait for another day…
shalom! - john- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: healing in the wings... - my last post before holiday.
Along with his final post, Richard also sent the comments below to me in a personal message, allowing me to post them on his behalf if I felt that they helped to bring the discussion to a suitable conjuncture. I do think they can serve that purpose and have included them in their entirety, even though, to some extent, elements are eclipsed by our other comments.
For those who have followed our robust discussion - and particularly for any who may have been concerned by the somewhat provacative and personal polemic which I and Richard ocassionally indulged in, this post confirms that we have shared a sense of connection and collaboration that bouyed us in our battle to uncover an agreeable formulation on the issue of persecution.
Richard’s interesting take on the creative process of arriving at an understanding of and formulation of "truth" is interesting and explains a lot of the tension between our posts. "Communication, truth and feeling a way forward" might be a theme to take up if we get past persecution and slavery.
I want to appologise to John for the difficulty in discussing with me. My first post was an off the cuff commented tacked on to the end of this post. It did not express my position at all well, which is why I apologised and followed up with my more detailed posts. Removing that original post would make some of John’s comments seem out of context, but it needs to be read in the light of the more detailed posts rather than visa-versa.
An explanation regarding my technique for coming to truth my explain some of the contradictions that you feel are in my posts. I feel the truth, then I work to understand what I feel. I regard discussion partners as my colaborators in this process. During our open discussion I have both broadened and refined my knowledge, and I now understand much more of what I feel. Hence, your difficulty in pinning down what may at times have seemed like a moving target, especially as regards which “”voice” I am speaking with, though I hope my previous explanation of “spiritual responsibility also helps explain this difficulty.
I want to emphasise that my purpose in this discussion has not been coercive, or even pursuasive. I have no desire to speak on behalf of anyone, or to anyone in particular at this time. I would use another forum for any of these tasks. I have tried to keep my purpose creative, in that I simply want to figure out in a collaborative way the consequences of persecution. Towards that end, I don’t want anyone to take any particular point that I make seriously. Perhaps I should have stated this explicitly. The creative process should never be taken too seriously; the imposition of existing norms and understandings undermines creativity (eg. what if we pretend that the speed of light doesn’t change, and instead imagine that it is time that changes - bizarre). Hopefully the creative process will produce something that can, in the end, be taken seriously, but this changing of mode should not be taken prematurely. I am a long way from getting to a product that I would take seriously myself.
These are the last comments I will make about Hitler. Regarding the references of Hitler’s claims to Christianity (which I said before I think were a pursuasive device rather than a held faith), I did mention that the site was not neutral, just as I said that the ISIC is sometimes not neutral. However, he makes a point of referencing all of the evidence that he uses to come to his conclusions, and Hitler’s words are open to each of us to make our own judgement. My concern is not really with the preacher, but with many of the people he was preaching to, who seem to be Christian, and who were ultimately the willing hands and feet of the holocaust.
I believe the ease with which their faith was perverted can be found by looking at the seeds planted, unwittingly, by previous Christian leaders including Luther, though from what I know of Luther in particular, he would have placed himself solidly beside Bonhoeffer when faced with the evil of Fascism. Just as I do not identify modern science, humanism, capitalism, or socialism with Christianity, neither do I identify Naziism with Christianity, though I do trace all of their lineages through Christianity. I often feel aggrieved when non-Christians try to place the children against the parent, and refuse Christianity at least part credit for most of the good we see in the world, especially when the above mentioned traditions were participated in by Christians. I am really trying to balance this in my on mind by taking credit for some of the not so good things we see in the world that come from some of these Christian derivatives.
As for the numbers debate, which I will not refernce again as it is too dehumanising to the victims, I was simply wanting to provide a basis of comparison for intentional persecution, as opposed to neglect or mismanagement. I would contend that the effect on Africa of each slave taken is tantamount to murder. I never wanted a numbers debate, and I apologise for entering into it.
I never intended to imply that the Open Doors people are pocket imperialists. Rather, I meant that coercive actions by the West to stop persecution may appear similar to other coercive activity that was detrimental to that culture. This could have negative long-term consequences for future persecution, by even more strongly identifying that group of people with Western intervention. John I think accurately describes this as
some [non-Christian nations], both rationally and unrationally, at times, raise the spectre of Western Imperialism and it’s crimes as both a weapon of defense and evasion, regarding their own human rights abuses.
A word about ISIC. I’m afraid that ISIC’s characterisation of Islam has little point of contact with the Muslims I know personally, or with the Islamic areas in which I have lived, in the same way as the extremes of Evangelical rhetoric do not apply to any Christians I personally know. I mean, who actually takes Pat Robertson as representative of Christianity when he advocates the assassination of foreign leaders! I have more to say on what I think is a more appropriate model of interaction with Islam than the current dominant model which is based on competition and fear, but I’m going now! Bye!
There we are; I look foward to seeing whether we can pick up the useful, creative threads upon Richard’s return. I wonder where he’s holidaying. It must be more inviting that wet and windy Wales where I am…
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Hitler, Christianity and the Shoah
Richard wrote,
These are the last comments I will make about Hitler. Regarding the references of Hitler’s claims to Christianity … Hitler’s words are open to each of us to make our own judgement. My concern is not really with the preacher, but with many of the people he was preaching to, who seem to be Christian, and who were ultimately the willing hands and feet of the holocaust.
Whilst I wrote, on the issue of equating Nazism with Christianity:
I certainly don’t think many Jews - since you wish to speak from the viewpoint of the persecuted - would today be interested in that kind of equation
I took some time to investigate this issue further and received the following warm, insightful response from Andrew Mathis PhD, a member of the informative Holocaust History Project:
Dear Mr. Clements,
I am one of the volunteers who answers questions submitted to the Holocaust History Project. You wrote a bunch of very good questions, and I’ll do my best to answer them in the order asked.
You wrote:
"I am wondering if you can assist me in discovering to what extend, if any, you would wish to recognise the complicity of Christians with the Holocaust?
"I understand that
- Hitler used certain Christian / Biblical phrases to justify his hatred of Jewish people; "
Certainly Hitler capitalized on large anti-Semitic feeling in the pre-Vatican II Catholic church, particularly among Slavic peoples, and the overwhelming anti-Semitism felt by Orthodox Christians. However, even though he was a baptised Catholic, Hitler was far from observant, had personal issues with the Pope (Pius XII), and envisioned a struggle with Germany’s churches once his issues with the Jews and the war were "resolved."
So, yes, among other things, Hitler said that he was "doing God’s work" in fighting the Jews, but he didn’t really mean it.
that Reformation patriarch Martin Luther incited hatred of Jews later in his life (after earlier efforts to convert them largely failed);"
This is true. Luther’s late writings on the Jews (see "On the Jews and Their Lies," which is available in English broadly on the Internet) are virulently and murderously anti-Semitic.
However, no Lutheran synod that I know of in the world has not distanced itself from Luther’s personal hatred of Jews. Furthermore, it was the Lutheran nations of the world (Denmark and Sweden, in particular, as well as dissidents in Germany’s Lutheran Church) that did the most, comparably speaking, to save Jews during the war. This must speak to some aspect of Lutheranism or Lutheran cultures that was absent elsewhere.
This task would have fallen to the British or Americans, who did in fact bomb the rail lines at one point, though to little effect and only to disrupt the war industries going on at Auschwitz.
- many of the nominally Christian European (Allied) nations failed to take greater action, such as bombing the train lines carrying the Jewish people to the camps"
That nominally Christian Europe essentially fiddled while Rome burned can’t be plausibly denied. But, at the same time, many, many remarkable persons of Christian faith — either out of their faith or out of their own humanity based in something else — saved Jewish lives. This includes the Pope himself, who hid thousands of Jews in the Vatican when the Nazis occupied Rome.
Particularly Catholic Lithuania and Orthodox Ukraine, yes. These are nations with national identities strongly rooted in their churches. However, again, Catholic Poland had the highest number of "Righteous Gentiles," i.e., saviors of Jews during the war, than any other nation. And Catholicism is essential to Polish national identity, as much as it is to, say, Ireland.
- many of the people who co-operated with the Holocaust beyond Germany were in nominally Christian nations"
"In the light of these and other related facts, I am interested to know whether these are viewed as primarily issues related to these actors nationalist fervour (partic. Germans), pure anti-semitism, political expediency…"
All of the above.
"or whether, there is a sense that a Christian impetus was in some profound manner attached to the Holocaust?"
That’s the toughest question of all. Certainly latent and sometimes overt anti-Semitism in Europe’s largest Christian organizations didn’t help, nor did a history of violent anti-Semitism based in religious prejudice. But this was also a post-Enlightenment Europe and a Europe in which the Protestant churches largely did not care about the "Jewish Question," because their churches tended to view the older church as larger "enemies," for lack of a better word.
And certainly Christians in large numbers failed in terms of remembering that the darkest places in Hell, it is said, is reserved for those who stood by and did nothing.
But when we stand back and consider what really drove exterminationist anti-Semitism among the Nazis, the deciding factor was not religion but "race." And this is why I think a religious basis for the Holocaust cannot be upheld. Surely Christians, including clergy, were complicit, but far too many Christians helped Jews for it to have been an historical consequence of some deep moral failing inherent to Christianity.
I highly suggest the book *The Holocaust and the Christian World*, edited by Carol Rittner et al. for further reading on the topic.
shalom! - john
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: Hitler, Christianity and the Shoah
Hello Richard
Sorry the holiday didn’t provide better weather. Yes, there is a growing film industry here in Wales and that kind of link between here and there (NZ) has been noted before.
John (or anyone else), would you like to discuss what you see as possible responses to persecution, or do you want to have a rest
I’m not sure that I’ve got much more to say at this point Richard. The main defence I was making was that westerners should be involved, not lack courage because of past failures, not give up on the persecuted and should expect God’s power to accompany such a holy struggle. I believe that a case for that has been made; your boundary lines to that struggle have been elucidated, primarily in terms, as far as I can understand, of not going about it in a culturally imperialist manner - something I’d never thought about before and never associated with this struggle. Thus, ultimately, a fruitful creative engagement.
As for strategies, I think I only have one real strategy to suggest (and I’m not being glib), which flows out of my personal experience: CARE.
I believe mission (action, in co-operation with God) begins when we care about someone or something that we have seen, at least to some degree, from God’s point of view. Almost inevitably we then have to discover the end of our own power, before we discover access to God’s power to do things we could never do on our own. I appreciate that not everyone would be comfortable with that ‘jargon’ or interpretation, but I suspect it’s a pervasive pattern for most of us, whether we recognise it as such or not.
For most of us, the opportunities to care specifically about the internationally persecuted are limited to interaction with bodies like Open Doors who are already active. For those exposed more directly an even more vital (by which I mean more life-giving, as opposed to more urgent) opportunity is provided. Ultimately, whatever we do, it will stem from what we choose to care about and to care for…
shalom! - john
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Other content
- Introduction to Open Source Theology
- What is the ‘emerging church’?
- View all recent posts
- Selected posts from the past
- Synopsis of NT Wright’s Christian Origins
- Tom Wright’s talks from the Future of the People of God conference 2004 (mp3)
- Christian Associates Thinklings papers
- TREK conversation in Portland on the prophetic church
User login
Featured posts from the past
Emerging church/theology/p.ost feed
- THE EMERGING CHURCH CREATING FUNCTIONAL AGNOSTICS : Apprising ... Tatusko is by no means a big name within the neo-liberal cult of the Emergent Church; however, he is hooked into the Emerging Church network...
- No Thanks, But, No, Thanks The emergence of emergent ‘theology’ in Baptist life is no more welcome than the discovery of a cancer in a limb or lung. Emergent...
- The Nazarenes and the Emerging Church « Holiness Reeducation As a Nazarene pastor and someone who has participated for the better part of the last ten years in the emerging church conversation, I was really...
- MISSIONARY OR MISSIONAL: THE MISSION OF THE EMERGING CHURCH ... The following is excerpted by permissionfrom The Emergent Church Redefining Christianity anexcellent book from pastor Bob DeWaay ofCritical Issues...
- An emergent view: Rob Bell's thoughts on Jesus/Peter walking on water Here is an excellant resource on emerging theology: Monergism :: Emerging Church. James PCA Jacksonville, FL. Digg this Post! Add Post to del.icio.us...
- christiannonduality.com Blog » Blog Archive » 10 Emerging Church ... I think in my journey of emerging theology I have always looked for something that sparked the human mind heart and soul…something filled with...
- Post-Emerging Post-Church Post-Missionary Alan Hirsch On Post ... This just in: It’s now official; missional, futurist, emerging church-planting missiologists have waaaaaaaaaaay too much time on their hands....
- Missionary or Missional: the Mission of the Emerging church movement MISSIONARY OR MISSIONAL: THE MISSION OF THE EMERGING CHURCH By Ken Silva pastor-teacher on Mar 9, 2010 in Current Issues, Emergence Christianity,
- EMERGING CHURCH LEADER BRIAN MCLAREN REJECTS ORIGINAL SIN ... While assessing The Narrative Question of “What Is The Overarching Story Line of the Bible,” in A New Lind of Christianity by Emerging Church leader...
- MISSIONARY OR MISSIONAL: THE MISSION OF THE EMERGING CHURCH ... The following is excerpted by permission from The Emergent Church: Redefining Christianity, an excellent book from pastor Bob DeWaay of Critical...
|
Content licensed under a Creative Commons License |
A non-believer's lament...
The Lost World of Genesis One - John H. Walton