Emergency Post: A Religion Critic's response to Ferguson

Normally I spend days on the editing process on one of my posts alone. But this will not be nearly as heavily edited. Because of its importance, I want to post it quickly. It is my hope that the questions I ask in this post will be contemplated whether you hear the questions from me or elsewhere. One reasonably might ask what 'A Religion Critic' could possibly contribute to the discussion of Ferguson, but in saying this you would also have to ask what Al Sharpton, a minister, can contribute. Religion has a place in these discussions and religion will be used by all sides. The legacy of MLK Jr. has already been cropping up. The aforementioned Al Sharpton will be having a press conference on the topic of Ferguson in less than an hour from the publishing of this post. If I can't contribute quickly and intelligently to Ferguson, then I am not worth of the title that I have chosen for myself. In short the no indictment and rioting in Ferguson is an event that takes precedence over my project. (I also think of my main project as important for facilitating peace). Sticking to my role as a religion critic I am going to talk about slavery, civil rights, and its relationship to religion in America historically.

According to Mark Noll's The Civil War as a Theological Crisis, the first major theological dispute between Christians over how to read the Bible in America was a direct result of slavery. BOTH sides were Christian, that is they both read the Bible and both typically went to church. The Bible was read by the pro-slavery movement more literally than the abolitionists. The abolitionists started ignoring direct passages that seem to approve of slavery. Instead they focused on the love of Jesus and to love your neighbor, which included slaves. (Yes, you can argue that, in the Bible, slavery did not mean race based slavery, but by and large this was not an argument being made in antebellum America). This dispute was not resolved by theological argument. Rather it was resolved by the North winning the civil war. But, what's the point? Why would I bring this up in a modern day context? The point is even if you are a Bible believing Christian there are important disputes that often cannot always be resolved by looking at the plain text in the Bible. In fact, the pro-slavery movement was more inclined to look at the plain text of the Bible than the abolitionists. Remember this as it applies to current civil rights abuses; two people can both be Bible believing Christians and disagree!

Even more directly David L. Chappell's Stone of Hope deals with the origins of the civil rights movement. Who was it that led the civil right's movements? It wasn't white liberals who trusted in reason and enlightenment ideals to change the world. It was primarily African American ministers and religious leaders who borrowed the prophetic language from the Old Testament who were able to enact change. In short, they found a theology or philosophy that motivated action. Just as importantly the Southern white churches and religious leaders were less active in supporting anti-civil rights legislation and causes than would be expected. Especially considering the religious support of slavery in the antebellum period. One possibility is that there was not nearly as much Biblical support for segregation as there was slavery. The Bible just doesn't command or permit someone to cut themselves off from those who look different than you. In fact there should be a community of believers that doesn't take into account race or position. (Yes, I know the lack of awareness of social distinctions is color blindness, but I am relaying this conception in the context of outright segregation). Thus, the segregationists could not very well rely on the Bible to support their cause.

But what's the bottom line here? We need philosophies or theologies (depending on your preference) that support calls to action. There shouldn't be a large number of philosophies or theologies because unity is also important. But perhaps we can develop or reuse a few good ones, perhaps even prophetic religion. Prophetic religion a la King (and many many' others), was a great rallying point. In any case, one of the most critical questions that we can ask ourselves is: "What philosophies or theologies can we use or develop to help us take actions to end systematic racism and in the long run peace?" Secondly, "What actions should we take?" Of course, the philosophies or theologies we use to call us to action will in part determine which actions we take. But the reverse should also be true. We should judge the philosophies and theologies, in part, on what actions they can feasibly support. At this point, these are the most critical questions I can develop in regards to the no indictment decision in Ferguson and the systematic racism that led to this situation. Riots do not simply happen after a single incident, but the shooting of the unarmed Michael Brown was the straw that broke the camel's back. And this systematic racism is what we need to address with both our questions and our actions. We should also spend time developing further questions. I am A religion critic not THE religion critic. I always hope that others will join in conversation with me and that I will be welcome to join in the conversation with others.