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.
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 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.
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.
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?)
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.
No agendas or hand-wringing
Before I say anything else, in response to:
I would like to say that I only have the greatest respect for the compassionate interest of people who care about persecution. I presented my argument in a way that was not respectful of your strong feelings in this area, and for that I apologise.
When I said that:
What I meant is that this is the way that they take it, not what I think about it. Politically, it is how they take it that is the important issue and that determines how effective the action is in the long term.
The issue I am trying to raise is the methods that we seek to use and to emphasise our own guilt in the current persecution. It is this guilt, if nothing else, that should motivate us do something about the persecution, but in a way that does not demonise the persecutors (I’m not suggesting that you do this), and that maybe goes some way towards apologising or making up for our past wrong doing. Until we accept our own guilt, I fear that our attempts at helping will only worsen the situation.
You said:
I have lived in an Islamic country, 50 miles away from a church that was boarded up and burned, so I don’t think my attitude is due to complacency, but I’m afraid that I do regard persecution as the inevitable result of many factors. This doesn’t mean that we are let off the hook, and I would like to discuss what our reaction should be.
To stop persecution we can either bring pressure on the persecutors to stop or we can remove the factors that are causing it.
Can we use coercive or political techniques to prevent the persecution?
If we (as the church) want to prevent persecution of people then the first place progress needs to be made is in our own back yards. When we have been so guilty of offending, and continue to be guilty of offending, we have no power to stop others doing the same offending. This is a spiritual law that is discussed in the Bible, even apart from the political reality that our attempts to protect people will be interpreted in the light of our previous and accompanying actions.
This does not mean that the groups trying to do something about persecution of Christians should stop, not at all. But the rest of the church needs gets its act together and do something about our guilt in this matter. Until we deal with the log in our own eyes we are in fact working against those groups trying to prevent the persecution of Christians.
So what are our remaining options …
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
Re: No agendas or hand-wringing
John, you say that:
Although I’m sure you didn’t intend this, I find it hard to reply to your post, as it does not seem that you are responding to any of my points, but are instead dismissing them because of lack of detail. This is a huge subject, as tends to be the case in a synthetic rather than analytic analysis. Unfortunately, I don’t know how open Andrew would be to my posting of a 100,000 word essay on this site or what my wife and kids would think of my spending 3 years writing it! However, even though it may be difficult to do well, I think avoiding it because of difficulty is only going to perpetuate previous mistakes.
We are one body with the Christian persecutors of the past
You keep on refering to ” skewed speech of political miscreants, militants and dictators” and suchlike. I’m afraid I’m unaware of the speech of these ne’er-do-wells, so I don’t think I am mirroring them. Instead, I am speaking as one who has lived in countries with cultures destroyed by slavery, which was the basis of much of Christian European economic growth, and kept there by the self serving interference of Christian Western and Communist powers. As much as you may wish to dismiss this, these are matters of public record, and I’m unaware of any serious argument on the issue. Please, if you wish to disagree with any point, feel free. But please refrain from lumping me together with a group of anonymous bad people as an implied rebuttal. Invective is not argument.
As much as you may wish to disassociate yourself from the actions of your fellow Christians, I don’t see what difference it makes. The people who have suffered still associate us with those actions. If we want to change what people in these countries are doing, we must take into account their perception of reality, not impose our own, questionable, version of it. 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. Clearly articulated argument makes no difference; actions speak louder than words.
You may also like to consider the words Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. I’ve only just found this speech, and I haven’t read it all, but it seems to make a couple of the points that I made in previous posts, though in much nicer language :-). I found this passage to be particularly pertinent to our discussion:
Big picture and individual love
You also say:
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. Some of their broad brush strokes make mine look wimpy. This is the nature of prophecy which is an integrative endeavour. Although the victims for whom I have a heart are different to the ones that are on yours, hopefully we can work together to produce something that is honouring to both loves.
To show you that I am serious I will increase the detail on one point, and am happy to increase detail on any point you wish to discuss seriously. I have not previously explored this issue in any detail until now, but am beginning to feel that it may be a crucial one for foreign missions. I expect that my views will be modified in the process, as any true discussion is a search for truth, not the exposition of already obtained Truth. Maybe out of this we will have something of interest to others in the emerging church as we extend our mission to the persecuted in other countries.
A little more detail on why I believe fear and crisis of identity is the basis of persecution.
Although I know that the details of persecution differ in each country, I have noticed a pattern. I checked the Open Doors site you referenced. Exactly what time was it that North Korea became the top persecuting nation of evangelical Christians? Is it just a coincidence that it was right after the commander-in-chief of the worlds largest nuclear arsenal named N.Korea public enemy number 2? The same public figure that identifies himself as a Christian and owes his political survival to a Christian voting block? Wouldn’t you be a little frightened by this and concerned about the possible loyalties of Christians in your country?
A discussion of the rationales for persecution in Islamic states takes different routes, but I believe some can be adapted from Karen Armstrong’s analyses of fundamentalism in The Battle for God. A possible rationale adapted from her work was described in my previous post. In Indonesia the issue is slightly different, as its underlying cause is, as I understand it, the economic domination of Chinese Christians over the original population.
I could go on, but I hope this is enough for a prima facie case that persecution is caused by feeling dominated and a fear of greater subjugation in the future. I think it all boils down to threatened identity, especially cutural identity, and fear. I would even suggest that in most cases the fear is quite reasonable. Whether the reaction is over-the-top or not depends on the limts you set when people think they are fighting for the survival of everything they value.
Please keep in mind that I am not justifying persecution in this, I am only trying to gain an understanding of it so that I can address the whole reality of persecution that can infuse the self identity of a culture rather than just the most conspicuous incidents of persecution.
I am open to being shown errors in my facts or reasoning, so please feel free to show me where I can improve my understanding in this situation.
Re: No agendas or hand-wringing
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.
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?
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:
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.
Re: No agendas or hand-wringing
John,
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. However, for the record, I will one last time set to right the misrepresentations that you are making of my posts.
As already stated, I think the gospel of Jesus is the only hope for the world. I am extremely proud of my Western heritage in so far as it has attempted torealise that hope, and am regretful of the areas in which it hs failed. The times that we have failed are because of a mix of ignorance and self-interest. I have no interest in trying to condemn the motives of my fathers, or for that matter to make them all saints. Their contributions have been great and will be respected for centuries to come. However, their failures in certain areas have had massive consequences, and we need to deal with these consequences.
The situation on the slave coast and other parts of Africa is a matter of public record. Please explain how my refering to those facts makes me a puppet of people with evil agendas. Apart from the role of slavery in destroying parts of Africa, and the west’s profit from this, an understanding of the role debt has played in keeping Africa in poverty is now commonly accepted. I’m proud that many of our political leaders now have the courage to do something about it. This only came about through an honest reflection on what we have done in Africa. Similarly the role of developed nations in sponsoring civil wars is well understood, and some steps have been taken in response to this, for example in the boycotting of conflict diamonds. This change has also come about through honest reflection, not rhetoric. As you obviously have a massively different persepctive on this, I would appreciate it if you would help me by articulating your alternative understanding of the situation rather than simply belittling my ignorance.
I did not say President Bush should not have taken a stand against N.Korea. However, I hoped to show that the increased persecution was always going to be a likely consequence of the way he articulated his stand. From what I know, I think that Kim Jung-Il is probably an evil man. The persecution of Christians in N.Korea is an evil act. To say so does not mean that we can not try to understand why they are doing it and to see if we had a hand in the causal chain that brought it about. If we can identify the causality, then maybe we can work to prevent it. I’m sorry if I misunderstood, but I thought that that was the whole point of this conversation!
However, if it is more important to you to maintain that our fathers have had no hand in any of the ills that the world has seen, then we are talking at cross purposes and living in different realities.
If we are trying to work constructively in the world, rather than to simply engage in damning rhetoric, we need to understand others as human beings, capable of great evil, but on the flip side capable of great good. If we can understand under what circumstances we and others are more likely to do good than evil, then maybe with the help of God we can make the world a better place. If we seek to understanding each other and constructive interact with all people, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then our prayers that God will bring his kindom to earth are not just empty words.
Re: No agendas or hand-wringing
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 situationI 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 wordsThis 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?
Persecution by Christians
John,
Thank you very much for your most recent post. I think now we have the basis for some discussion. I think the best way forward is if we discuss the points you raised, one at a time. I am not presenting the following as a proof, but as a prima facie case to support my position. I am open for you to show me the faults in my understanding of history or my reasoning.
This is not because of any special moral defect on the part of Christians, simply that Christian nations have been the most powerful for several hundred years, hence giving them the most opportunity to exercise persecution.
I would briefly refer to the persecution of Catholics and Protestants by each other all over Europe, and even through to a few years ago in N.Ireland, the persecution of colonised cultures all over the world (including in my country of New Zealand where the truth about the effects of our treatment of the Maori is only recently becoming generally accepted), the persecution of Gypsies and near extermination of Jews in Europe (yes, they were Christian countries, carried out by Christian solidiers, supported by the anti-Semetic Christian population, and allowed by the Christian leaders in those countries with few notable exceptions). More recently we have seen the persecution of Muslims in Eastern Europe, the persecution of Palestinians with the vocal, political, and material support of Christians, the Tutsi by the Hutu in Rwanda (yes, Christians again, generally supported, at least initially, by the Clergy ).
These are only off the top of my head, and only in modern times (we have done even worse in the past), and I have purposely left out some examples that may offend you. I also accept that, especially in the last three examples, there are two sides to every story (mitigating factors?), but I think you would agree that the current persecutions listed on Open Doors, though serious, pales in comparison to the atrocities that have been carried out by Christians in modern times.
Looking at the top ten list of persecuting nations, only a few governments seem to be guilty of actually killing Christians (I’m not minimising the persecution, just making an observation); in most counties the muders are the work of a few isolated individuals. The rest of the top 10 seem to arrest Christians, especially for proselytising, and make death threats. Others, lower down on the list include countries where social exclusion etc. is the result of converting. I’m not minimising, but defining for the purposes of comparison with what happens in western countries.
I do not want to offend you again, and understand that I am not wishing to minimise the good in our modern democracies, but try to understand what our actions looks like to muslims. There have been attacks on mosks in Western nations, even in New Zealand (we think of ourselves as a peaceful nation, but we have our share of extremests too). Hate-crimes appear to have become more prevalent throughout the western world (or is that just my perception?). The FBI records 5 hate-crime murders (motivation not listed) and over 150 incidents of anti-Islamic hate crimes in 2004 alone. (For some reason, the FBI does not seperately list Middle-Eastern race/ethnicity in their hate-crime statistics - are they Blacks or Asians?)
Muslims in the Western world report wide spread low-level persecution. Some are not allowed to practice their religion as they understand it, from regular prayers through to female attire . Others believe that they face social consequences for observing their faith. In New Zealand, some Muslims support hate-speech legislation because of their perceived persecution, but this is being vocally opposed by the Evangelical community.
Some Evangelical churches distribute rediculous anti-Islamic propoganda, and encourage their members to be on the look out for encroaches of Islam. I know, I’ve been in them. Apart from the generic murderous intent of Muslim leaders, I’ve read how Muslims purposely buy houses in expensive areas, trash them and let their kids run wild in the neighbourhood, bringing down the house prices of the neighbourhood, so that the rest of the neighbourhood sells up in a fire sale and the houses are picked up at bargain prices by the rest of the Muslim group. This was reported as a premeditated and wide-spread tactic. This was a Christian publication.
To keep this out of politics, I am not going to make any comments about recent official persecution except to say that many Muslims in the west report that they are being targeted for their faith, exemplified by the detention of the singer Cat Stevens (now known as Yusuf Islam since his conversion)!
Western perscution of Muslims, along with the persecutions in N.Ireland (by both sides, with massive material support from Christians outside the N.Ireland), shows that Christians persecuting others out of sheer bloody mindedness is not a thing relegated to the Crusades and Inquisition. It seems to be still part of our culture that we have not been totally healed from yet.
With all of the above, keep in mind I am not asking you to identify yourself with any of these crimes. I am simply speaking to the single point quoted.
Just as an added point, I think the muddied waters of the persecutions in Eastern Europe, Palestine, and Rwanda emphasise my contention that in the persecutions of Christians there are also muddied waters, and it is often us in the west that have been reponsible for exacerbating the situation. We will discuss this point later when we come up to it if you wish to.
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
Who's perspective? Our goal should be Healing
John, thank you for your very patient and kind response. I very much appreciate your posts, and from what I can see, we probably agree on most points (I will explain later), though not yet on what we would want to do with them? Thank you for sticking with the discussion, dispite the large amounts of time it is taking from you. I do value your time, and value the correcting input you can provide. Don’t be worried about me taking things personally, I’m not even concerned about correct argument (who gets to define this?), just honest engagement towards a creative outcome.
I think the biggest issue is one of persepective. I understand that from a Christian, and probably even a more general Western persepective, your analysis is probably largely correct. From our perspective, Christians acting as Christians are not directly or intentionally responsible for the persecution, at least these days (with some notable exceptions). But can we honestly try to seek after a single authoritative perspective of history these days. Even before postmodernism became popular, historians realised that history is very dependent on who writes the history books. Namely us. Hence our emphasis on the good things Christianity has done (which are substantial) and general lack of acceptance of Christianity’s role in the ills in this world. I want to be open to history as others see it. This does not involve fanciful reconstructions, but does at least involve the reworking of categories. Hence your accurate observation that to us, using our categories to define ourselves, we are not responsible for the ills of Western society, even during the time that it was largely Christian. People from other cultures will not agree; history on the wrong side of the gun looks very different. We might ask them to reflect on the minority traditions in Christianity, but those suffering under the “greater tradition” have little time for such niceties.
I am very aware of the fact that minority Christian views often suffered just as much, if not more, at the hand of the greater tradition than the non-Christian targets of persecution ( and examining some of the rhetoric aimed at the emergent church shows that this custom is still alive and well). It is this minority tradition that tends to be the basis of the continual redemption of the Christian faith. No matter how much the greater tradition seeks to stamp out God’s truth as seen in the minor traditions, it has been resilient over 2 millennia. This is testimony to the truth in the gospel that transcends the creeds and church structure.
I think this is similar to Jesus suffering at the hands of his own people, the people who should have recognised him their redeemer. Maybe this is the power of Christianity: that we can take on the full brunt of evil dished out to us by other Christians, yet not dissociate ourselves from this evil (or its consequences on others), but accept the evil as part of ourselves and work it for redemption. Maybe this is part of what it means to be the body of Christ in the world. I would not be surprised if a thorough analysis shows that in most significant cases of persecution by Christians, minority Christians were also persecuted. This is a theory that I am going to try to develop in another thread in a few days (I’m on holiday from tomorrow, and I don’t think my wife my wants me to spend the whole time on theology … women just don’t understand!)
In short, our association with the Christians that persecuted is God’s tool of redemption. Complete dissociation from the greater tradition takes us out of God’s enduring, catholic (small ‘c’) church. We also need to be ready to reengage the greater tradition whenever it allows us, and to bring healing to the hurt it has caused.
politics vs religion
I am not confusing my characterisation of Christians and Christian nations to suit my argument, but to fit the persepective of other cultures. You would like to identify much of the persecution by Christians as a “political struggle which hijacks religious affiliation.” I would agree. However, I would also suggest that the difference between politics and religion is more of an issue in modern secular societies than it was in Reformation Europe or is in modern Islamic societies. Defining separate categories makes little sense in those contexts. In fact, if you look at the political debate in the US and increasingly in other parts of the western world (in New Zealand at least) the destinction between the two is already breaking down, after only an historically short period of secularism. I wonder if the strict secular/religious divide is part of a modernist analysis that postmodern faiths will have problems fitting into.
I know you wish to dissociate yourself with clearly articulated argument in the context of a Western democratic tradition, to define “which Christian traditions have been complicit” and therefore which are innocent. If we are talking to other cultures, I’m afraid your protests will fall on deaf ears. Real demonstrations of love is the only trans-cultural language that we have to argue with. Also, as we are all of the same body, I find the tendency towards dissociation with those not quite like us as anti-Biblical and undermining to the process of redemption.
Africa
Regarding our specific dissociation with slavery, I don’t see that we deserve any medals for stopping taking slaves. Only a severely abused person is grateful when they meet someone who doesn’t beat them! What does that say about us when we expect thanks for not taking slaves! We will be thanked when we bring about true redemption, not when we emulate Bart Simpson and say “I didn’t do it”.
We have a long way to go, generations of work in fact, before Africa can once again stand as a peer in the world. The persecution of Africans over hundreds of years by Christians is not undone because we decided to stop the brutalisation. In fact, abolishing slavey did not even end abuse by the largely Christian west, so redemption is going to be costly. But the challenge has been taken up by many Christians. Our God is a God of costly redemptions, and we have the priviledge of being his tool.
Western vs. Communist and Muslim persecution
I refered to a “a few isolated individuals” when sb.od.org claims that in Somalia “Three converts were killed by fundamentalist Muslims because of their beliefs” and in Afghanistan “five Afghan Christian converts were killed for abandoning Islam and spreading their new faith”. I am open to more information, but these were the only deaths mentioned in those countries, and they were not linked to the government. I’m sorry if I didn’t make it clear, but I was trying to establish a meaningful frame of reference in which to understand our own persecution of minorities. As I have lived in two of the countries listed as persecuting countries, I automatically react against grand statements characterising the people that live in those countries, especially when the murder figures are that small.
The US FBI recorded over 9,000 victims of persecution (hate-crimes) in 2004 including 5 martyrs (murder victims). I know for a fact that at least some people in the US are quite decent people, and that the country as a whole should not be characterised by that persecution! You see, it is very much a matter of perspective, and the demonising of whole groups (I have seen it done, though not by you) based on the sins of the few does not seem to help matters. Which is not to ignore the genuine difficulties Christians in these countries suffer, or to say that they don’t need our prayer and support. I just think we should remember that their societies have a range of people from compassionate to intolerant, just like ours, and that we are instructed to love and pray for the persecutors, both in our countries and others.
I hope this explanation and motivation satisfies you, in this very sensitive subject, and I do understand how you could have taken it a different way.
My general thesis - fear and threat to identity
I am familiar with the ISIC and have found their neutrality to be wanting at times. Instead, I found a short analysis at the Open Doors that largely supports my explanation. He lists the four reasons for persecution as 1. Religious nationalism – for the sake of national purity, 2. Islamic extremism – for the sake of glory, 3. Totalitarian insecurity - out of fear, 4. Illiberal pluralism - out of arrogance
I think we can safely ignore his claim that (4) illiberal pluralism is currently persecution, as he sites the example of a church not being allowed to use public money for evangelism as persecution…
The remaining three are obviously fear and identity issues, as described in my previous posts. I find that his characterisation of the basic motivation for persecution in Islamic countries is a little shallow and is at odds with what that I have read (particularly Armstrong’s Battle for God) or what they admit themselves. I also find it particularly interesting that he identifies fear as the major factor in N.Korea’s persecution, in direct agreement with my previous analysis.
Apart from our other disagreements, do we now agree on the base motivations for persecution?
Our sticking point? How do we prevent persecution
Do we generally agree on the causes of persecution? If so, can we now agree on some ways of getting rid of it? I personally think the best way to deal with fear is to show overwhelming love and not to “press the buttons” of the fearful group. In contrast, I have at times heard of suggestions that Christiansin these countries be bold in their faith. Although this sounds good, and is the choice of the individual, it also would seem to inevitably increase the persecution and manufacture more martyrs (I know this is a grossly offensive characterisation, but I also find encouraging people to run into martrydom offensive).
I do not think Christians should be silent about their faith, but I think we in the west need to do more to make it safe for them. We are often the reason those countries are afraid, so the actions that I listed in a previous post should go some way towards allaying fears and decreasing persecution. This, coincidentally, will also go some way towards redeeming any harm that we have caused (or that we choose to admit to? :-) ).
p.s. Communists, Fascists and numbers, just out of interest
Just as an aside, I think most humanists would disagree with the characterisastion of Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot as humanists, unless, you want to compare theists to atheists, and then we have to own all the persecution by Muslims! Humanism as I understand it has been more of an ally in getting rid of persecution. It is useful in gaining consensus, though it ultimately lacks the redemptive power of Christianity.
I really don’t think you can group Hitler with Stalin! Its sounds like you are aware that Luther wrote On the Jews and their lies. Are you also aware that Hitler referred to his Christian faith (though I hope it was only to influence the Christian population), and referred repeatedly to the influence of Christianity on his thinking, especially in Mein Kampf. This is not a neutral site but contains full references. From the FBI records again, Judaism is still the most persecuted faith in the US, at 6 times the level of anti-Islamic persecution. 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.
It’s not a numbers game, but I’ve just done a quick check, and I’ve got Stalin’s purge at up to 1,000,000, Pol Pot at up to 2,000,000, Mao at up to 2,000,000. Of course this don’t compare with Hitler at 11,000,000. Maybe you included deaths due to war and starvation etc. rather than just persecution? I have slavery at 12,000,000 and colonisation will also be massive (60% of indigenous population in NZ alone, though this includes other factors). So I have commies at 5,000,000 which is eclipsed by any single major Christian influenced-persecution.
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 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?) you’ve demeaned my contention on this issue completely and sidestepped the challenge I gave your regarding over-reliance upon one set of actors 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 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 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 the site you quote, writes, in its opening paragraph: 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. 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
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.
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:
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:
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,
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
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! - johnRe: healing in the wings... - my last post before holiday.
Hi John (and Phil),
Thanks very much for your discussion. I have found it very useful in figuring out the implications of persecution in my theology.
John, thank you especially for your most recent post. I think Johns characterisation of my position is well worded and very fair and generous and can serve as the basis of further discussion.
I have sent John an email with an explanation of my position on the points raised in this post. In light of his more recent post, I don’t feel the need to explain what I actually meant publicly, and it also means he does not need to respond to any more badly worded explanations. :-)
Redemption and reconciliation, not just restoration
The only thing that I would add is that I think that I’m not sure if restoration captures my heart-felt desire. I would like redemption and reconciliation, which integrates the previous harm into a new reality that transcends the situation before the harm occured. I don’t think this comes about through just understanding, but neither does it come through a legal perspective, which can only provide restoration. The legal perspective is tied up with guilt - but who is he that condemns? (Romans 8:34) Christ’s work does not change the fact that we have harmed people, and that we need to fix it, but we don’t need to be worried about guilt. We need freedom from guilt, as achieved through Christ, to work towards true redemption. (I apologise that sometimes my method of expression has sounded like a desire to indict, but I can assure you I hold no such agenda).
I am trying to develop an understanding of spiritual (as opposed to legal) responsibility, (deep breath) which may involve causality but more importantly involves an ability to identify with both the oppressor and the victim, which enables us to accept the whole situation within ourselves, and results in the ability to respond by working out a new redeemed reality through the power of God that is unleashed in this situation (you survived!). In this way I believe the cross, though in some sense a completed event, also serves as the prototype for the continuing redemption and reconciliation of the world to God through the church which is also the Body of Christ. Jesus had to identify with our sin (“be sin for us” - 2 Corinthians 5:21 KJV or NRSV - some versions differ) so that his work of redemption and reconciliation could take place. Redemption cannot happen when we are tied to guilt, but neither can it happen without taking on ourselves the role of the oppressor and developing a true empathy for the victim. This is what I want to discuss when I get back from holiday.
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.
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…
Hitler, Christianity and the Shoah
Richard wrote,
Whilst I wrote, on the issue of equating Nazism with Christianity:
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:
shalom! - john
Re: Hitler, Christianity and the Shoah
Hi John,
Holiday and weather
The weather was miserable where I was too, but there was a wedding so that made it worthwhile. I went to probably the only part of New Zealand that has not been turned into a movie yet in Lord of the Rings, The Whale Rider, The Last Samurai, The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, The Fastest Indian, King Kong… . I think the reason is that even in summer it has poor weather. The River Queen (soon to be released) was set not far away, and I think the producers wished it was set somewhere else because they had large delays due to the weather and a Maori curse.
I understand some of the scenery from Harry Potter is in Wales, so your weather can’t be bad all the time, but since it is now Winter for you, I guess now is not the time they do lots of filming?
Shoah and redemption
That certainly was a wide ranging description of Christianity and the Shoah. Many thanks for eliciting it for us, John. It shows the extent of the debt that we owe to those who represented true Christianity. It also goes to show that the heart of Christianity is not a denominational issue, as it seems Christians from all traditions failed, while many Christians from many traditions succeeded in representing God.
I would agree when you say that “the Holocaust has a great deal to teach us”. It has been a massive learning curve for us, but Christianity and the West has tried to meet the challenge, though sometimes not very consistently. I look forward to the day when Jews can generally live in peace and justice anywhere in the Western world and in Israel. Only then will I be satisfied with our efforts at redemption. I think we have come a long way, but we have some work to do yet. And I thought we were getting better at it until I saw the recent anti-Islamic rhetoric (see my new thread).
I wonder what our response to the Shoah can teach us about how we should respond to other mistakes. The US created Liberia as a response to slavery, which created a great tension between the natives and “immigrants”. This has been a massive destabilising influence in the whole region, with a neighbouring county that I lived in being largely destroyed as the continual Liberian civil war migrated across the border. It also did not improve the lot of the slaves that stayed in the US. At least the situation of Jews in the West is now generally positive. We still have much to learn about how to redeem things.
It seems that the way we have tried to fix things has generally been in the same pattern that we messed it up, so we often just make things worse. That is, until we find a new pattern, which is the job of the church.
Other things to discuss
Before I discuss my more general thesis of spiritual responsibility, I would like to see what people think about appropriate realtionships of between Islam and Christianity, so I’m starting a new thread on that.
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’ve stated my position in general terms, so I would like to see others if you are up to it.
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.
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
What is the real problem?
We are left with the following:
We need to get rid of some of the causal factors of this persecution.
Well, what are the causes. I take it we don’t fall for the ‘they hate us because we are free’ rhetoric. Lets look at ourselves first. What has caused fundamentalist Christians to persecute minorities, and commit murder. From what I understand, the American culture wars (which fundamentalists are now trying to export to other western countries), were caused because fundamentalists were afraid of having their culture overwhelmed by secular humanism.
The resulting counter cultural movement often interacted violently with society in attempts protect itself. Elements of the movement supported the persecution of blacks during the civil rights debate and committed murders during the abortion debate. Death threats and omens of immanent judgement are now par for the course when any issue important to fundamentalists comes up for debate. Can real Christians do such things? Yes, if they are afraid. I don’t wish to excuse the evil actions of fundamentalism, but I believe liberal elements of American society should take some responsibility for it. Even being right is no excuse for not respecting other cultures and forcing them into such extreme reactions.
I believe that much of the world is terrified by Christianity and the West (they are the same in their minds), an order of magnitude more afraid of us than American fundamentalism is afraid of secular humanism. I don’t think many of us really understand how frightening it is to be so dominated by another culture that we can see all our culture, heritage, and values, not to mention ancestral land, disappearing. Humanism dominating Christianity does not even come close, as Humanism really grew out of Christianity and Christians are not economically displaced by Humanism.
As followers of the pacifist Jesus have justified murder in the American culture wars, it is not surprising that other frightened cultures have resorted to the same practices in making what they may think of as their last stand against the final destruction of their culture and conquest of their country. This is by no means to excuse their horrific acts, but any action we take needs to work in the long term in this context, not just in the short term.
How do we fix it?
So lets recap. People hate us for what we have done to them and are frightened that they will lose their culture and country. Because of this hate and fear they are persecuting Christians. How can we get rid of that hate and fear?
1) Hows about we set an example and stop persecuting minority cultures in our own countries, including the recent state sponsored persecution. I know we feel afraid of other cultures too, but in no stretch of the imagination are we under any short-term threat of being overwhelmed by them. I’ve particularly seen the rise in anti-Islamic hysteria in Christian circles over several decades. Lets stop it before we start any more imaginary wars or propose any final solutions.
2) How about the church start supporting threatened cultures rather than just evangelising them. Don’t get me wrong, the culture needs evangelising, but there is a time for everything under the sun. While they hate Christianity, they are hardly open to what it has to offer. We even encourage persecution when we regard minority Christians as front-line evangelists. If they try to evangelise a threatened culture, of course that culture is going to fight for its life!
We need to first put effort into supporting their culture and traditions so that they see there is nothing to be afraid of. Instead of just pushing the Christian story, lets work to preserve and build their stories. Instead of translating and distributing Bibles, lets write down their local stories and songs to preserve their culture and the dignity of the culture bearing elders. We can be patrons to local artists rather than just to local pastors. We can support touring performers rather than just touring evangelists.
Before you complain about the cost, consider how many developing-world artists, writers, and musicians can be supported for the cost of one touring symphony orchestra. Also imagine how much richer our own cultural environment would be if we supported threatened cultures rather than simply cloning 200 year old music (which I happen to enjoy) and supporting mass produced pop culture.
Unfortunately, even as I write this, my suggestions seem ridiculous. It just shows how far away I am from understanding in my heart the way that God would have us work in the world. But I do know that this is God’s way of getting rid of the persecution, by respecting others, and meeting them at their needs. Maybe it will even go some way towards making amends for what we have done in the past. It is only by sacrificial love that their fear can be removed. If we had not been so infected with modern individualism and our own cultural superiority, maybe we would have seen that destroying their cultures was a dead end. It is only through working with the culture to redeem it that God’s work can be done.
3) Of course, economic development is also required and an entirely different model of government aid. God’s model is to provide each family group the means of production required to support itself. Government aid currently consists of giving consumer goods and services, simply providing a new market for western production. I know there are many issues of local government, but maybe if our governments start providing aid in ways that respect