I’m sure you’ve been in a fast food restaurant before. If not, you’ve at least seen advertisements. Have you ever noticed the presentation of a burger in an advertisement or on a menu? My gosh, the presentation is PRISTINE. That burger is spotless. In practice, I don’t think I’ve ever been served a burger that looked anything even remotely close to what I see on an advertisement. Yet and still, we see those ads, knowing all too well that our (actual) burger will fall short. This is, perhaps, a situation where we expect what we’re sold to dramatically exceed the flattened, smushed burger we’ll receive from the fast food establishment.
While the above experience is a bit facetious, in all seriousness, similar occurrences manifest in our day to day, too. During my undergrad at the business school at the University of Pittsburgh, Skype interviews, for scholarships, internships, awards, selective programs, etc. were quite common. My classmates and I would regularly joke about Skype interviews where we’d only dress up halfway. No shoes. No pants. Or we’d interview in our pajamas, or perhaps even our draws. On camera, our top half would look great. In practice, we weren’t quite as put together. The person interviewing us would never know the difference, but we certainly did. We wanted to give ourselves the best odds, in an otherwise competitive situation. In this case, we put them under the impression we were far more polished and dressed up than we actually were. The internship usually doesn’t go to the kid who interviews in their draws.
The church, as a whole, can function the same way at times. I think we like to present a well put together image to people on the outside. Part of that is natural, I think. That’s what most organizations and institutions do, after all. You try to put your best foot forward. The reality, though, is that the truth isn’t always pretty. In fact, frequently it’s inconvenient, messy, unpleasant, or just downright offputting. That doesn’t make it any less truthful though. And this is really important, because I think with each passing day, people outside the church are starting to do a better and better job of seeing through the façade we try and put up sometimes. People want us to cut the nonsense and be honest with them. This isn’t the 80’s anymore, guys. People will legit fact check you in the middle of your conversation with them, and call you on your nonsense. To that end, and in the interest of winning people over with the truth, here are 5 realities on race that the church needs to come to terms with (Well, 3 here, and the remainder in part 2). Can I be honest?
**For the sake of brevity, this will be very, very condensed, but I encourage you to read up on your own.**
European Colonizers used Christianity to Advance the Agenda of Slavery
I’ll start with the conclusion: Colonialism, Christianity, and the Transatlantic Slave Trade went hand in hand. It’s part of why the slave trade persisted for as long as it did, 300+ years. In the 1400’s, Europe was hypercompetitive and still had much, much room for growth. In colonialism, the superpowers of Europe had an outstanding opportunity to seal their legacy (ie. The British empire included 50+ different countries. That’s a BIG legacy.), further develop their economies, and advance the Christian faith, as the economic leaders of the world, while doing so. Suffice to say there were several conflicts of interest, with such an overt attempt to advance the church (Christianity) and state (ie. Great Britain, France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain as the chief players in colonization) on the same mission.
To be fair, there was good that came from some of that colonization.
The missionaries established some schools, hospitals, and other community services. Was the tradeoff worth 300+ years of exploitation, abuse, and disenfranchisement? Or being kidnapped and forced to work as a slave hundreds of miles from home? Not a chance.
What would I have to do in 2018 to earn someone’s trust? If I offered to put your child through school, would that win you over? What if I told you I would teach them a highly important language of the future, perhaps Chinese? If they were sick and I covered their hospital expenses, would that establish a deeper level of trust? It certainly seems like I have a lot to offer in a relationship with you. This is one of the things that makes this highly complex and one of the reasons that the church is still dealing with the repercussions. The reality is there are things the missionaries did that were incredibly helpful. Education and healthcare are absolutely critical for any community. That’s not even a question.
The question is, was the primary motive concern for your fellow man or control, power, and economic gain? Of course, they couldn’t know this back in the 1400’s, but in hindsight, we see many parallels between colonialism and white supremacy. 500+ years later, the church still has to deal with a black community that can be very suspicious of authority, church included. Many black/African men and women hear the message from the pulpit and read verses in the Bible but are incredibly suspicious of underlying motives. And to be fair, Christianity has been used as a system of control, at many different points in its history, including but not limited to the abuse of black and brown people. It seems like the church has a lot to offer, but this interaction just seems all too familiar. It’s one of the things that happens when you mix the good with the bad. It’s not exclusive to religion, but it’s where the consequences are maybe the most pronounced, because the stakes are so high.
In my opinion, the most troubling part of all this is how the European missionaries, and slave masters, preached to the Africans and subsequent slaves. A message that held whites as superior and blacks as inferior. A message that viewed Africans as deserving their abuse, exploitation, and enslavement. A message that blacks could not and would not go to heaven without working, presumably as slaves, in order to get there. A message that being kidnapped, abused, and mistreated are beneficial for those who are enslaved. A message that white people were more like God and black people were more like Satan. A message that you should never question authority, accept colonial rule as ordained by God, and be content with abuse and enslavement (perhaps a misapplication of Philippians 4:12 or I Timothy 6:6?). It’s not a pretty truth, but it’s the truth nonetheless.
Can I be honest? Slavery was advanced using the Bible… my Bible… the one I read every morning.
[At Some Point] European Enlightenment Became Code for Assimilating to Conform to White Culture
There’s much to say here. The 16th century and 17th century Colonial era for Europe was simply the precursor to European Enlightenment. That is, the 1500’s and 1600’s were marked by European conquest of Africa, the Caribbean, South America, and parts of Asia. The formula was simple. Step 1: Go to a foreign land. Step 2: Introduce them to our language, culture, and religion. Step 3: Show them our way of life is superior. Step 4: Devise and implement a plan in the economic interest of the homeland. Step 5 (optional): Overt exploitation, including but not limited to stealing, kidnap, and slavery. Let me be very clear: I think Christianity is a WONDERFUL thing. But I also think it got mixed in with some not so good stuff here.
When someone converts, to Christianity or any religion, there are 2 basic elements: 1). You need to change and 2). Your new lifestyle will be better than your old. Makes sense… you have to convince people that they’re better off with something than they are without it. In the case of Christianity though, it’s a bit deeper than that. Not only do you need to change, but your old lifestyle is bad. On the other hand, your new, Christian lifestyle is good. You need to come out of the darkness and into the light. This goes back to the point on Christianity being used to advance the agenda of slavery. There is absolutely, 100%, a correct application of these ideas. There is bad and good. There is darkness and light. Nobody should be confused about that! Unfortunately, during Enlightenment and colonization, these ideas were probably extended beyond their correct and intended spiritual application.
The result was lifestyles that didn’t really embody or reflect European ideals were seen as inferior, or perhaps even morally corrupt.
Missionaries made the pitch that African culture as a whole was bad and European culture was good. African culture was inferior and European culture was superior. Africans needed to come out of the darkness and into the light. Not only was this manipulative, but again, this has clear parallels to white supremacy, even as early as the 1500’s. As I mentioned, there is absolutely, 100% a correct application of these ideas, but this application was a bit farfetched. Not only that, but in assimilating to European Enlightenment, these Africans were forfeiting aspects of their identity and culture, and this was primarily so that the colonizers felt more comfortable in the land they were colonizing. A colony, by definition, is intended to be an extension of the homeland, so in essence, they showed up on the shores of Africa and were telling the Africans to be less African and more European, presumably to feel more comfortable in their new colony and seal their legacy as the most prominent and esteemed nations in the world. I could make similar arguments for the other destinations, too, Latin America, the Caribbean, and some parts of Asia.
Enlightenment as a euphemism for assimilating to conform to white culture has very important implications, particularly in the black community. After all, it’s no coincidence Christianity has been coined as “The White Man’s Religion”. In the past, European Enlightenment, including but not limited to Christianity, was used to reinforce white supremacy and control/abuse the black community. You’ll have to forgive black people if they’re still a tad bit skeptical 500+ years later. While I don’t agree with the conclusion, I can understand how they may have reached the conclusion that they did. When the Christian community is unwilling to acknowledge this unflattering aspect of church history, or minimizes it, we exacerbate and justify their feelings. In fact, it comes off as another attempt at control and exploitation, even to the extent of misrepresenting 300 years (three centuries) of history. The truth isn’t always pretty, but we do much more harm than good when we don’t acknowledge simple realities.
Can I be honest? 500 years later, we’re still living with a handful of bad decisions the church got tied in with. But we need to own that. We dropped the ball in a spectacular way.
Let’s take this one step further.
The Secular Humanists in The Union had to Rescue Slaves from their Christian Slave Masters in The Confederacy.
So, I need to be careful with this one. There were several reasons for the Civil War, and contrary to popular belief, The Union had several motivations, beyond just slavery, for being opposed to succession of the Confederate states (huge tariffs imposed on Southern states, control of western territories, rising sociopolitical tension, control over key resources in the south, etc.). So, I don’t mean to imply that The Union was more noble because they led the charge of opposition, but come on, you have to admit this is just a tad bit ironic. The southern states had a very strong Christian heritage. Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, and other denominations. Even at this point in the early days of America, Christianity was deeply rooted in Southern culture, much more so than the Union. In the Union’s case, they believed much more in secular humanism… in other words, they prescribed to the notion that all problems can be solved by human ingenuity and effective government. The Confederacy, on the other hand, had good ol’ Christian values.
The reason why this is ironic is because these atheists and agnostics who don’t even believe in God had to intervene and come to the rescue of these slaves who were being abused, oppressed, and mistreated by their Christian slave masters. The church was complicit in this. Many white Christians were not of the school of thought that American liberties applied to black people. Many white Christians were not of the school of thought that loving your neighbor applied to black people. Many white Christians were not of the school of thought that the promises of the Bible were extended to black people.
The oppression and racism was so ubiquitous that it was rampant even in the church, an institution that’s supposed to combat oppression. The atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists had to come to the rescue, because men and women of faith allowed their views to be perverted by politics, money, and culture. This seems to echo and still ring strong today. Many men and women of color want nothing to do with the church, because they feel it’s complicit in the wrongs of America. From marginalizing/dismissing unpopular views like Black Lives Matter, to supporting questionable political candidates, to remaining silent on key social developments that affect communities of color, many black people just feel like history is rewriting itself and the church, again, is in a very compromising position. Unfortunately, the church does have a documented history of racist undertones, and people, both black and white, won’t soon forget that. Fact.
Can I be honest? Just because you’re a religious institution doesn’t mean you get a pass when your behavior is mad, mad suspect. EVERYBODY needs accountability… and sometimes it comes in ways we’re not expecting or looking for.
Wait, don’t leave yet.
It’s only fair I answer the question of why exactly I’m a Christian, in spite of knowing all of the ways in which the church has exploited, abused, and oppressed people like me. Admittedly, I should probably write a completely separate post on that, but for now, this will have to do. Guys, I’m not a secular humanist. Honestly, I don’t have that much faith in people, and I don’t have that much faith in institutions. Here me out: those things are perfectly fine, but divorced from spirituality, I think they’re quite, quite limited. Maybe an example will help.
I cook and bake quite a bit. A year or so ago, I was using a new cashew chicken recipe. At the close of cooking, I realized the recipe called for way too much soy sauce. It literally RUINED the recipe. It was the only thing I tasted. It was probably, otherwise, a decent recipe. But the soy sauce completely bungled everything. More than anything else about the recipe, all I remember was how the soy sauce ruined everything. I had something similar happen with a pancake recipe I tried. I added way too much cinnamon. It made the pancakes bitter. The recipe was probably fine, otherwise, but the cinnamon completely ruined it.
That’s how I tend to feel about Christianity. Yes, there have been many, many things throughout the history of the church that have absolutely perverted it. But I’m not throwing an entire recipe out because a few bad ingredients ruined the end product. Take out the white supremacy. Get rid of the abuse, slavery, and exploitation. Remove the dehumanization and manipulative tactics. Those absolutely RUIN the Gospel. They wrecked so many people and families, and the damage is irreparable. In the absence of those things though, I absolutely believe this is a great recipe for changing the world. Forgive me if this metaphor is in bad taste. I don’t mean to compare the pain and suffering of a myriad of people to a recipe that went bad… but, I’m doing the best I can.
There’s much more to say on that, but I’ll close with a simple thought. The Bible says the truth will set you free (John 8:31). Can I be honest? Don’t you want people to be set free? It’s almost like we’d prefer to tiptoe around the truth. And then we have people in the world upset with us, because they feel like we’re misrepresenting history, or at least minimizing it. Nobody comes unless they’re drawn by the Father (John 6:44). Nobody. What does it say about me if I feel the need to withhold information to further advance my argument? The Bible doesn’t say no man comes unless I misrepresent church history. Or no man comes unless I withhold information that paints the church in a poor light. Tell the truth. Shame the devil. And let God do His thing. I think in 2018, people will be far more flattered by the honesty and humility of the church than they will with cookie-cutter responses to thoughtful observations on church history.
I’ll be sharing part 2 in a bit. Part 1 focused a great deal more on history, but part 2 will have more content that’s relevant from a sociocultural perspective. Stay tuned. Until then, feedback welcome.
Nnamdi