One of the debates Christians need to participate in is whether Christian Theology contributes to racism. Many current religiously conservative Christian leaders cite theology and Bible passages to show that from the very beginning Christianity was antiracist.
Unfortunately, Church History begs to differ seeing how many Christians who first settled in this country believed in white supremacy. Some of them practiced and/or promoted slavery while others did the same for Jim Crow. Of course there are lists of past Christian theologians that are presented as being on one or the other side of the issue. But I wonder whether the times have helped shaped the views of some current Theologians to read the Scriptures recognizing the immorality of racism.
Now a theology doesn't have to be talking about racism for it to promote or protect racism. One such theology deals with our relationship with the state and the New Testament commands telling us to submit to all in authority.
One such theologian who taught about our need, as Christians, to submit to those in authority was the late R. C. Sproul (click here for a bio). Two of his very short works that we will consider here is an article of his that tries to reflect the New Testament teachings on submission to authority (click here for the article) and a podcast where Sproul talks about civil disobedience (click here for the podcast). The latter is necessary here because the subject of civil disobedience is what connects our obligations to our governing authorities to the battle against racism. For many, both believers and unbelievers, practiced civil disobedience in the 1950s and 1960s to battle racism.
Sproul's teaching on submitting to our governing authorities is rather clear. We owe the government almost complete obedience to their laws and demands. The almost is in there in case what the government asked us to do goes against what God tells us to do in the Scriptures.
There are a couple of concerns, according to Sproul, that are involved in why God tells us to almost completely submit to the government. BTW, the Scriptures that Sproul uses here are I Peter 2:11-16 (click here for the passage) and Romans 13 (click here for that passage).
The concerns Sproul saw were that Christians should be aware of their witness for Christ. That is that our behavior should be honorable so that we are bringing prestige, rather than shame on, to the Gospel. And our submission to the government is part of that. The second concern is that since God has placed those people in government to exercise governmental authority, to disobey those whom God has put into government is to disobey God.
The overall reason why the command to submit to governing authorities comes up, according to Sproul, is because people's main problem is lawlessness. And thus, we need to submit to our governing authorities to battle lawlessness and promote the law.
Sproul allows for exceptions to submitting to what the government ells us to do. One is when those in authority tell us to do something that is contrary to what God has told us to do or refrain from doing in the Scriptures. One example that was given was the place mentioned in the book of Acts where the leaders told a couple of Apostles, if memory serves, that they were forbidden to preach the Gospel. That goes directly against God's commanding us to preach and teach the Gospel.
Another exception, provided by Sproul, was civil disobedience under certain conditions. Though Sproul doesn't spell out those conditions, he references them by giving Martin Luther King Jr and the civil rights movement as an example. According to Sproul, King's way of practicing civil disobedience was acceptable because it was an attempt to overturn local and state laws that violated federal law. And thus, according to Sproul, King was still practicing the general principle of submitting to governing authorities.
However, there are some flies in Sproul's teaching ointment of submitting to our governing authorities. The first is to note that not all of the actions taken by those in the Civil Rights movement which had King's approval were done with following federal law in mind. The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the lunch counter sit-ins targeted businesses even though only the latter employed civil disobedience. The Freedom Rides targeted the Interstate Commerce Commission. In addition, according to King, those initial actions along with the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were undertaken to gain dignity, not 'genuine equality' for Blacks.
In addition, King's view of what Romans 13 said about submitting to those in government differed significantly from Sproul's. King thought that it was our duty as citizens to protest and even practice civil disobedience against immoral laws, immoral because they failed to recognize the dignity of people, regardless of what federal law said. For he believed that peaceful disobedience to those laws showed more respect for the law than the enforcement of immoral laws. The submission to governing authorities for King in response to immoral laws was not seen in the submission to those laws, but in the willingness to peaceably suffer the consequences of one's disobedience.
But the issue at hand is whether Sproul's interpretation of what the New Testament says about submitting to the governing authorities infringes on antiracism efforts. And we can focus more on that issue if we eliminate the provision that Sproul allowed for the Civil Rights movement which was that civil disobedience was being used to get the state and local laws in line with federal law.
But suppose we didn't have those parts of The Constitution that promised equality for all of America's citizens? What we have then was America during the days of the Underground Railroad. And though we can no longer ask Sproul to share his thoughts on that movement, what is, and might be unintentionally, implied by the justification Sproul gave King's practice of civil disobedience is that the Underground Railroad was not in keeping with Romans 13 or the passage shared from I Peter 2. So for that period of time, we see how Sproul's teachings on obeying the civil authorities infringes on equality and antiracism.
So how about today? Does Sproul's teaching on obeying the government still infringe on antiracism? Does such a literal application of Romans 13 interfere with undoing racism today? Here we should remember that concerns that passages like I Peter 2 and Romans 13 bring up. The first concern was with the reputation of the Gospel and the second was honoring those in authority whom God has honored. And if we take just that first concern, we could easily ask if God is honored if his people, out of support for and submission to the government, do not speak out loudly, even to the point of civil disobedience, against racism. That is because when one calls themselves a Christian, everything that person does or does not do, says or does not say can affect the reputation of the Gospel for good or bad. So if Christians are not speaking out against racism in all of its manifestations--in personal prejudice, systemic racism, and in social perceptions and attitudes--then not opposing racism is associated with the Gospel. And does such an association help or hurt the reputation of the Gospel?
Did Peter and Paul share that specific concern about speaking out against legal but immoral practices by the government? We don't know. It seems that Sproul offers no real encouragement for doing so. One reason for that is that Sproul does not really provide a significantly deep enough comparison of the contexts of Peter and Paul compared with that of today. For whereas the context Sproul offers is a general description of tyranny, there are other significant differences to consider. For example, the Gospel was not widely known in the days of Peter and Paul; it is know practically worldwide now. Making the Gospel known to the world was one of the chief concerns of both Peter and Paul. In addition, many Christians now live in democracies where citizen participation in government, even loudly speaking out, is part of living in those nations. So unlike the times of Peter and Paul, where such levels of participation in government did not exist, the opposite is true in the here and now. So our silence and inactivity in the face of immorality have a different effect on the reputation of the Gospel today than it did during the times of Peter and Paul.
This inadequate recognition of the different historical contexts between the 1st century Christians and Christians today causes many sincere Christians to become literalists when literalism is not just no longer necessary, it is no longer appropriate. In addition, the inadequate recognition of those different contexts encourage lazy thinking among many Christians. That is because rather than distinguishing when to use imitation or to use wisdom to apply more abstract Biblical concepts, those who recognize no significant differences between the two contexts will only see the need to imitate. They feel called to only imitate those who did not have to respond to many of today's issues. Regardless of the context of their situation, they only know to imitate what was done in the 1st century. And by doing so, their sincere efforts to bring honor to the Gospel become counterproductive.
So what do you think? Does Sproul's approach to Bible passages that command us to submit to government authorities interfere with antiracism?
No comments:
Post a Comment