I have a question. Do you think Black Lives Matter (hereafter BLM) is a trend or a movement? Here is how I’m using those terms: By a ‘trend’ I do not mean ‘unserious’ or ‘faddish,’ but something that we consider to have temporary attention and/or seriousness. And by ‘movement’ I mean something that we consider to have lastingattention and/or seriousness. So, to call something a ‘trend’ is not to demean its importance but to see it as contained within a particular time, a specific zeitgeist, whereas a ‘movement’ would have more profound effects, at least time-wise.
So, my question: Is BLM is a trend, pertinent to our particular moment; or a movement, which deserves our attention and will re-direct our course for a long time? Let me flesh that out with a few examples. Should a Presbyterian Seminary have required courses in “Reformed Theology,” requiring readings of Augustine, Calvin, Schleiermacher, and Barth; then elective courses in “De-Colonizing Reformed Theology” where non-western and feminist voices are represented? Should the required “Introduction to the Bible” class teach exegesis using Greek or Hebrew and introduce critical studies regarding form, history, and redaction; while an elective class could be “Reading the Bible through Third World Eyes”? These were actually the ‘required’ v. ‘elective’ classes I took in Seminary, so I’m not making these examples up. If the big downtown church hired an “Associate Pastor for Pastoral Care,” would there be any pushback? What if they hired an “Associate Pastor for Anti-Racism”? Should a Ph.D program in theology require German and French proficiency (like mine did), but not Spanish or Korean?
These examples show that we have a set of expectations as to what constitutes Christianity as a movement and what we regard as trends within the Christianity. But why should Gustavo Gutiérrez’ theology be optional while Karl Barth’s is required? My sense is that we assume Christianity is – at its core and as a movement – a western, white phenomenon. Most of the art, Bibles, educational materials, and hymnody of the church reflects that part of the tradition when 93% Christians were from the Europe or the Americas (1910). Back then, the Global North (commonly defined as North America, Europe, Australia, Japan and New Zealand) contained more than four times as many Christians as the Global South (the rest of the world). Today, more than 1.3 billion Christians live in the Global South (61%), compared with about 860 million in the Global North (39%).[1]
So, here’s why the question of whether BLM is a trend or a movement is important to me: If BLM is a trend (again, that does not trivialize the significance), then readings by people of color will likely remain in the ‘elective’ course, strongly encouraged but not likely to be part of the core curriculum in ten years; while Barth will continue to be required. But, if BLM is a movement, even our most standard texts should be open to critical reconsideration, especially if they have been instrumental in legitimizing racism over the years.[2] If BLM is a trend, our work of protesting, organizing, educating, and praying about anti-racism is here for now and anyone who disagrees can just roll their eyes and wait it out until we get back to normal. But, if BLM is a movement, then someone who disagrees might face the options of being transformed by it or going elsewhere because the attention will not pass.
We’re not the first to ask this kind of question. The early Christian movement caused a lot of consternation to established religious leaders in the Book of Acts, when a particularly wise leader named Gamaliel put the matter into bold relief. After citing a few other failed messianic attempts, he said this to the Council: “If this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God!” That, to me, is the question. If BLM and anti-racism more generally is the work that God is doing in the church and society today, then we cannot treat it as something ancillary to our calling, but must lean into it as precisely what we are about. And that would require moving anti-racist work from the elective to the required categories of our priorities.
Mark of St. Mark
[1] https://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/ accessed 080620.
[2] I am not suggesting that Karl Barth’s writings legitimized racism. I am only using him as an example, because his work is so widely read in Presbyterian seminaries.
No comments:
Post a Comment