Author's note: This is a long discussion and it puts a lot of references to the Bible in place. My intention is to put on paper an acknowledgement that the blending of right wing poitics with the Christian nationalism and conservative literalism of most Evangelical Christian churches is standing against the Christian gospel in its anti-woke agenda. For whatever that's worth, whether it convinces a few Christians that their rignt wing politics and being "anti-woke" are out of step with their professed faith, or it affirms for some Christians that it is possible to be a practicing Christian , have strong faith, believe that the Bible is a truthful record of the gospel of Jesus and still be a Democrat, the author will have achieved his purpose. Being "woke" is consistent with the Christian gospel and especially with Jesus' interpretation and application of the whole spectrum of Judao-Christian philosophy.
This only scratches the surface, and is a small representation of the places where a correctly interpreted New Testament supports what conservatives, in their current definition of terms, call being "woke." As you read along, you will see the purpose for my comments. There's enough for a whole series on this subject, which the author is working on as time permits.
Many among the conservative, Evangelical branch of Christianity in the United States are fond of claiming that a person's Christian faith depends not on the grace of God as the scripture says it does, but on believing a set of doctrines they often refer to as "fundamentals of the faith." They'll tell you that you can't be Christian if you believe something different than these fundamentals, which are based on their interpretation of the Bible, not on a recognized, historically correct interpretation of it. I would never say that a person's sincerity of faith depends on whether they accept or reject a particular philosophy of life whether it is consistent with the Christian gospel or not, but I would say that being anti-woke is an inconsistent position to take by someone who claims belief in the Christian gospel.
"Woke" has its Definition in both African-American Vernacular English and now, in a Conservative Distortion
The term "woke" has, in a very short period of time, come to define a sense of awareness of bigotry and prejudice aimed at people who are racial, ethnic, social, religious, economic or cultural minorities among the population at large. It is an adjective, derived from African American vernacular English, meaning "aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues, especially issues of racial and social justice."
That definition has expanded and is used by right wing political extremists to define "politically liberal, as in matters of social or racial justice, in a way that is considered unreasonable or extreme." And so it has worked its way into right wing political criticism of anything or anyone that exhibits such an awareness and is active in promoting any kind of social or racial justice.
So, if we take this definition and use of the term to its logical and reasonable conclusion, the far political right is opposed to any form of justice and any form of equality. They're the ones who have said that, in so many words, and affirmed it by their actions, including support for political candidates who are identified with that position. They are unequivocally opposed to social justice and racial and ethnic equality and that is a fact, provable with the evidence that is coming out of various presidential campaigns, their members of Congress. Play a few news reports of Trump speeches, or those of Desantis or any of the other Republicans running for anything.
The Biggest Problem for Anti-Woke Republicans is Holding a Position Which Contradicts the Christian Gospel
It's really difficult for me to understand how a political party and a conservative branch of the Christian church can be so tightly wound up together that political positions are almost indistinguishable from religious beliefs, and still be anti-woke. Either the Evangelicals who are politically engaged in Republican politics don't really understand that their religious convictions have an objective basis and are more than just a label, or they are completely ignorant of much of the content of the Bible which they claim to believe is inerrant and infallible in its original manuscripts, and have no idea about how to interpret it in context.
For those Christians who are reading this, and who hold the general belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, I am including specific references to the scripture as evidence that the Christian gospel supports what conservatives now call, with intentional derision, being "woke." Using a correct hermeneutical approach to interpreting the ancient text in its historical and cultural context, the case for being woke is made by Jesus Christ and by the Apostles who wrote to interpret his govpel message as they led the early church.
Being anti-woke is virtually point-by-point denial of the core teachings and principles of the Christian gospel, starting with those things that Jesus taught and modeled for living, and then, moving through the works of the Apostles that are preserved in the New Testament. They introduced the idea of human equality, including racial, ethnic, political, and social equality, into a culture that knew nothing of it. So it would be incredibly inconsistent with Christian values to support a political party that is promoting what has become the prejudiced status quo of society, or worse, to continue to interject ideology that is deliberate and willful in its racist bigotry and its economic prejudice.
Jesus himself separated the Christian conversion experience from any other ideological, political or social requirement. His words, recorded in John 3:16-18 make this clear.
Right after that passage, in John 4, the apostle relates an experience which illistrates this principle. In leaving Jerusalem and going back to Galilee, Jesus led his disciples to travel through Samaria, a province whose people were despised by the Jews because of their mixed ethnicity and their pagan religion. Most Jews, travelling from Jerusalem to Galilee, took a longer route west of the Jordan River that bypassed Samaria but Jesus went straight through the country. He had a specific purpose in mind for doing so.
In this account, he breaks down two barriers, one racist, one sexist. He engages a woman in a conversation as he sits by a well, asking her to draw water for him and talking to her about her life, focusing the conversation on her, not on himself. This broke the strict social and racial barriers that existed in the culture, and in the Jewish religion, at the time. Then, the women returned to her nearby village, and came back with most of the rest of the population because of her having related the account of her encounter and conversation with Jesus. Many of those who heared the Christian gospel from Jesus became Christians. Jesus reached out and broke down a social barrier related to gender discrimination, as well as one related to race, with Samaritans being among the earliest converts to Christianity. It would be something his critics would cite as justification for his crucifixion.
If we just changed the time period, such an event would be considered "woke" by modern day conservative political definition. Anyone who ignores social, ethnic and religious prejudice and offers people on the other side of those barriers the same opportunity as the "privileged" already have is labelled "woke," and that is what politically conservative right wingers are fighting to stop.
It is legitimate and fair, then, to compare modern day religious, political conservatives to the Pharisees who agitated for Jesus' crucifixion because of his wokeness.
The Apostle Paul affirms this principle in all of his church epistles. To the church in Rome, where the ethnic and racial distinctions that existed in the Roman Empire were brought together, and mattered in every aspect of life, Paul said, "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. For, everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." [Romans 10:12-13, NRSV] The use of the term "Greek," or "gentile" in some translations, identifies all non-Jewish persons and is particularly significant, given the ethnic makeup of the population of Rome at the time. This was also a message to the Romans, who thought of themselves as superior to the ethnic and religious minorities that they had conquered.
To churches in the Roman province of Galatia, Paul makes a similar proclamation.
"There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise." Galatians 3:28-19 NRSV
That is a very remarkable statement for the period of time in which it was written, and far, far more progressive for its day than the racial justice and political unity we seek in our day. Judaism's religious leaders guarded the promise of Abraham jealously, and under the rule of pagan empires since the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 587 B.C. was the only point around which their nationalistic hope and cultural identity was wrapped. So if the term had been in use in those days as it is now, that perspective would have been very "woke."
To the small Christian church in Colossae, a town in a beautiful valley in the southwestern part of the Anatolian peninsula, Paul clarified the unity in which people who believed in the Christian gospel were brought together, setting aside all of the various kinds of barriers that divided them.
"In that renewal [a reference to the churches] there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free, but Christ is all, and is in all." Colossians 3:11, NRSV
Both of the leading Apostles of the early church, Peter and Paul, had personal experiences which they describe as being moved by the Spirit of God to understand and accept the equality of humanity, and the record of their experiences is part of the New Testament narrative. Peter had some difficulty accepting the religious principles which extended equality to all regardless of their ethnicity or racial ancestry and had to be corrected publicly by Paul. Paul is sometimes criticized for patriarchy and even misogyny, but those criticisms are based on isolated examples pertaining specifically to local cultural restrictions. In fact, there were multiple women whom Paul recognized as leaders of local churches and whom he trusted as associates in his apostolic ministry.
So it is accurate to say, using modern-day vernacular, that the Apostles of the early Christian church, who wrote the New Testament, were "woke" by the American conservative definition and use of the term.
Anti-Wokeness Comes from a "Root of Bitterness" which Defiles People, Making Them Immoral and Godless
"Let mutual love continue," says the writer of the book of Hebrews, written to Jewish converts to Christianity. "Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers [referring to those who were of different ethnic and language groups, and who may have been immigrants or refugees from other parts ot the Empire, or slaves transported away from their homes] for by doing that, some have entertained angels unawares." Hebrews 13:1-2 NRSV
This is really a recognition of what the conquered people of the Roman Empire had in common. And in this particular epistle to a church that was identified by its former religious and current ethnic and racial culture, the writer is bridging the gaps of former prejudices, biases and religious differences with a spiritual unity, recognizing that people may have been living among them whose life circumstances offered them no other choice. Some of them were fleeing oppression in other places, or trying to escape from some kind of tyranny which was one of the ways the Romans dealt with the diverse ethnic and religious populations over which they ruled.
Even the old Jewish covenant recognized the need, produced by political upheaval and tyrannical rulers, for refuge and safety to be provided to people who were literally fleeing for their lives. Their own experience led to a complete understanding of the need for this. Circumstances, such as they were, produced wokeness. The parallels we see here that are related to asylum seekers from Latin America attempting to enter America are very similar and this passage from Hebrews, correctly interpreted, can be applied to the attitudes and actions aimed at helping these people experience some kind of humanity and peace in their struggle to be free from whatever tyranny they are escaping. That's at the core of who we are as Americans. Anti-woke Republicans, standing against that, are also anti-American.
So the draconian measures our previous Presidential administration imposed on those who were trying to escape, the lack of genuine hospitality and indeed, the hostility they faced at the border, and still do, is very much in complete opposition to this Christian principle, outlined in the scriptures. Do we get this now? I haven't even begun to scratch the surface when it comes to the fact that, point by point, that an anti-woke position is completely and totally inconsistent with the Christian gospel.
"Remember those who are in prison, as though you were in prison with them; those who are being tortured as though you yourselves were being tortured." Hebrews 13:3, NRSV
I cannot read this passage without thinking of the images of parents and children being separated at the border, of their being crowded into fenced-off areas of whatever buildings were available for use, wondering whether there was any provision made for providing meals or how uncomfortable and miserable it must have been to try and sleep, to be forced to sit there for days, treated in such an inhumane manner. Does that sound like a political party and presidential administration sympathetic to or influenced by Christian principles?
The fact that such cruelty is still being advocated, in fact, celebrated as a political campaign platform plank, a position some candidates think with earn them votes, is clear evidence of the complete incompatibility of anti-wokeness with the Christian gospel. The explanation for the anger, hatred and bigotry that those who take this position express toward refugees and asylum seekers is a "root of bitterness" [Hebrews 12:15-16] which defiles people and makes them immoral and godless. That's the only way to describe the kind of cruel heartlessness and inhumanity that some people want to inflict on refugees seeing the peace and safety of our country.
Where, in the Anti-Woke Agenda, are These Christian Values Visible?
In the opening narrative of what is known as Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, which is more than likely a compilation of multiple "sermons" he preached as he went from place to place teaching and preaching, a set of virtues are described. These are known as the "Beatitudes," and they are a description of the character produced by the set of life principles of the Christian spiritual conversion experience known as salvation. The beatitudes describe who we are, not so much what we are about. In these eight virtues, Jesus praises the kind of people his followers, Christians, will be.
Those who are "poor in spirit," is a description of personal humility, in whatever way being humble can be a virtue, the absence of arrogance, and the willingness to be dependent on the strength of other human beings, and on God, in recognizing our own weaknesses. "Those who mourn," is a recognition of the problems inherent in human existence, a measure of depravity which underlines human nature as characteristically unable to save itself without some kind of motivation toward aspiring to be better than we are and achieve what we are capable of being. In a Christian context, this is the recognition of the nature of humanity as inherently sinful, in need of the creator God's redemptive power.
Meekness is also a virtue that allows us to embrace each other for who we are, understanding that we are unique, and that the diversity created by unique cirumstances is a strength of humanity, not a weakness. It goes hand in hand with those who seek after righteousness, which is not a set of do's and don'ts, a list of rules stating this is right or wrong, but it is the recognition that acceptance of the differences and uniqueness of each human being is acknowledgement of the sanctity of life.
Being pure in heart is a virtue which is the opposite of the characteristic of selfishness. Understanding that desiring what is best for others is also a benefit to ourselves. Lifting other people up, and helping them achieve their potential also helps us achieve our own as a member of a community that helps each other, respects each other and works together in unity.
The highest virtue among the beatitudes is that of peacemaking. Violence and hostility are produced by selfish ambition and evil intentions. It leads to the destruction of the unity of humanity. Peacemaking brings people together, something that Jesus clearly intended for his gospel to do. Jesus reserved the highest honor of being called "children of God" for those who were peacemakers.
Being a peacemaker, and seeking the peace of the community generates hostility and violence toward the peacemakers from those whose selfish ambitions are driven by evil intentions. Jesus himself was crucified, not because he had done anything wrong, but because he had angered those whose personal position in life, and whose own prosperity was threatened by the kind of peace and unity that Jesus preached and taught. Jesus turned the status quo upside down with his statements, "You have heard that it was said...but I say to you." Those who profited from disunity and chaos were the ones who conspired to have him crucified.
By the way, one of the key interpretive statements of the whole Bible is found just after this passage in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus says, recorded in Matthew 5:17-18, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished."
What it means is that Jesus and his gospel, his preaching and his teaching, and the written references recording it in the New Testament, are the criteria by which all of the rest of the Bible is to be interpreted. Jesus claimed to fulfil the law and the prophets, and in this passage, begins to appply his unique interpretation to it. The law always existed, and would continue to exist until all is accomplished. When he was being executed on the cross, Jesus declared all to have been accomplished by stating, "It is finished."
In the vernacular we are using in this discussion, Jesus was woke. He was crucified by those who weren't.
Where, in the right wing political movement that claims its agenda and platform is "anti-wokeness" do you see any of the virtues and values of Jesus' beatitudes, or of his gospel exhibited? If, as many right wing religious and political conservatives claim, America was founded on Christian principles, then doesn't that make politicians who stand against those principles, which can be clearly defined as being "woke," anti-American?
I think it does.
No comments:
Post a Comment