July 6
To R. Scott Clark and his article on the importance of one's ethnicity to the Christian. This appeared in the Heidelblog.
In a world of oppressor vs oppressed and of both the privileged and marginalized, we need to add to the above. For what is written above about the relationship between Christians and ethnicities is very good, it doesn't cover how Christians should want different ethnic groups be treated in society.
For example, just as white Christians should welcome blacks to their churches, white Christians should want blacks to be treated well in society. And we should work with those groups that are working toward that end.
So in a world of oppressor vs the oppressed and of both the privileged and marginalized, Christians should not just welcome those from oppressed races and ethnicities to their churches, they should work for their equality in society and the end of their marginalization. And one way to do that is to regard the different races and ethnicities in our current world as the Bible tells us to regard the wealthy and the poor. There is no doubt that the wealthy enjoy status and a privileged place in society. Though not always the case, many of the wealthy have arrived at their place in life by oppressing others and exercising their financially gained privileges. In the New Testament's war against pride, James 1 says that those who are lowly should boast of their high position in Christ while the rich should take pride in their own humiliation. Isaiah 40 has a similar message.
To apply that principle to races and ethnic groups in society, those from races and ethnic groups that are privileged in society should focus on the shortcomings of those in their own race and/or ethnicity while those from races and ethnic groups that are marginalized should celebrate not just their accomplishments, but their equality with those from privileged races and ethnic groups. Of course, those that are privileged can be relative to one's location.
Thus, here in America. whites have been the privileged race since European settlers have arrived here. Therefore, shouldn't Christians work to have whites commemorate the sins and failures of their ancestors while have those who are people of color celebrate what they and their ancestors have accomplished? And if that is a Biblical parallel to the rich taking pride in their humiliation and the poor taking pride in their high position, shouldn't Christians be more amenable to those theories that promote such principles in society?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Jerry Salyer and his article arguing for the merits of patriotism. In fact, he regards call of patriotism as a natural law. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.]
Salyer's case for patriotism being part of natural law is rather weak. He bases his claim on the longevity of its existence. There are many human practices that have even a greater longevity than group belonging and yet we don't consider them to be part of natural law. Sin is perhaps the longest practiced behavior and yet no one goes around saying that natural law demands that we sin. Fallen nature does, but natural law does not.
The warnings of the danger of oikophobia also do not bolster the case for patriotism. We can think of Abraham leaving home for a promise which he never received. Jacob's family moved down to Egypt in order to survive a famine. Or we can think of the prostitute Rahab and how she aided the Hebrews as they were invading her own city.
But most of all, we can think of the Apostle Paul who, in Galatians 3:28, abolished the divisions between Greek and Jew in the family of God. Or we can think of his laying aside any significance of his Jewish heritage in order to gain significance only from belonging to Christ in Philippians 3. Or we can think of him leaving home for good in order to preach the Gospel.
We can think of one of the other apostles who chastises us for giving the wealthy favored treatment Showing such partisanship was sin to that Apostle. So how is it that showing preferential treatment to believers who are a given nationality is significantly different from showing preferential treatment because of wealth. Or there is the book of Hebrews which states that we have no home on earth or Peter who describes Christians as being in exile in this world.
Another problem with this article on patriotism is that there is no precise working definition of the term given in the article. So, from my past, I have come to define the word 'patriotism' by how it was exhibited in parades on Independence Day. It was described as having a deep love of country. But that also allows for patriotism to be the opiate for nationalism, which is nothing more than another kind of tribalism. A post Cold War sociological definition of tribalism is where one has a high degree of loyalty toward a group. And so in the context of the Cold War, the degree of loyalty to one's nation is so high that it enables a person to allow his loyalty to his nation to trump his commitment to principles and morals. The end game of such a loyalty is adherence to a relative moralism that says what is right or wrong depends on who does what to whom. For a strong enough loyalty to one's group will condone anything a group does for its own welfare and condemn any action taken against it.
We should note something else about tribalism. It becomes a practice in group authoritarianism. And in the end, it seems to me that authoritarianism is what is being most promoted by the above article.
No comments:
Post a Comment