Gmail - Race & Faith 1960-2000 - jacobthanni@gmail.com

Gmail - Race & Faith 1960-2000 - jacobthanni@gmail.com

George Demetrion

__________________________________________________________________________________________________



Afro-Centrist Theology and the Civil Rights Movement



The civil rights movement of the early 1960s was a major galvanizing force among mainline theologians, clergy, and congregations. At the center was the poignant rhetoric of Martin Luther King Jr., capsulated most fully in his "I Have a Dream" speech of 1963. King's inspiring vision of radical equality built on the twin foundations of the Declaration of Independence and the New Testament vision that in Christ we are all God's children regardless of race and other pernicious distinctions that separate groups from one another as a result of hatred and fear. The civil rights movement under King's leadership embodied a rhetorical and cultural force of major proportions which continues to resonate with the highest of national ideals some 40 years after his tragic assassination.



With King's death, "the new liberal consensus" (Dorrien, 1995), already shaky with race riots and protests over U.S. involvement in Vietnam, no longer held, as what became referred to as "identity politics" came more and more to the fore in the 1970s. With the advocates of black power, King, too, stressed the importance of economic justice, even as an unswerving commitment to non-resistance and the vision of a fully integrated society remained central planks in his program. The indubitable reality of "de facto" segregation in the urban north, arguably ever much egregious as legal segregation in the south, drew stark attention to the enduring reality of black poverty and the long legacy of slavery which was far from overcome with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. The quest for racial equality has continued to permeate the mainline social conscience and corresponding sense of prophetic biblical justice.



As the initial enthusiasm of the early civil rights era faded, the sense of dynamic vision that carried the mainline imagination in the early 1960s no longer possessed by the end of the 20th century, anywhere near the imaginative force it once had as a galvanizing source of congregational or theological direction. King's vision of racial equality holds in mainline congregations, a version of which has been appropriated in more recent times into current conservative political and religious thought and consequently re-defined. Nonetheless, the militant black theology of James Cone, however much it spoke "truth to power" from the symbolic voice of the racially "oppressed," could not provide a platform that would galvanize primarily declining, aging, and mostly Caucasian suburban-based mainline denominations. There were more moderating black theological voices than that of Cone's in the iconography of the conservative/progressive culture wars of the post-King era. Cone's voice, however, had a potent symbolic power in sharpening issues and polarizing sides in which any semblance of consensus upon which King sought to build was severely tested. The logic of Cone's economic, racial, and theological analysis appealed to the more progressive sectors within the mainline denominations. It was much less favorably received by those less predisposed whether or not they would directly speak out against whatever liberal orthodoxies prevailed among their denominational leadership. As the conservative movement became increasingly visible by the 1980s an articulated counter discourse arose which gave populist voice to such hot button topics as busing, affirmative action, quotas, and welfare reform against the professed claims of black "victimology."



Even if the shaper tones of this conservative discourse only modestly seeped into the mainline denominations, it nonetheless provided a language through which a formal opposition to the political culture and "relativism" of the progressive 60s could be mounted. By the end of the 20th century within much of American Protestantism, evangelical as well as mainline, a practical consensus stabilized around King's vision on the importance of character. The crowning achievement of this consensus was the widespread acceptance of the inviolability of formal equality as an unequivocal birthright of a democratic political culture and the plain teachings of Christian social ethics. So, too, was a broad understanding of the persistence of urban poverty and even the acknowledgement that the legacy of slavery continues to have, at the least, some lingering negative influence. However, the degree to which the impact is still pervasive, and therefore relevant has generated much debate, as reflected, for example, over the contentious issue of reparations for the injustice and inhumanity of slavery. Both conservative and progressive Protestants recognize that there is additional work to do and a broad range of practical steps that can be taken through various service projects and longer-range missions work in the inner city. Nonetheless, ideology remains a sticking point in which for mainline progressive Christians, King's "I Have Dream" speech was a starting point, whereas for conservatives it was the consummation and crowning achievement of the civil rights movement.



Thus, on the conservative reading, slavery was "a mistake." It was a singular blight that the nation corrected in the inevitable progress toward the trajectory of its fulfillment in human terms in the growth of American democracy as "the last best hope for mankind" as expressed in the evocative language of Lincolnian rhetoric. This was underlain by a continuous messianic strand within much of Protestant thought, building on the Puritan vision of a City on a Hill which interprets America as a Christian nation called to fulfill its destiny in bringing not only liberty, but God's own light to a needy world. With the correction course in place in the abolition of slavery and legal segregation, African-Americans could join the mainstream of American life in which they too could embrace the upward trajectory of the American Dream and concentrate on the core values of moral rectitude and individual salvation. This, in turn, would enable them, also to participate in missions and good works as the natural fruit of such character reformation.



In focusing more on the pressing reality of institutional racism, various advocates of a more progressive vein viewed things in a considerably different light. Such problems as teenage pregnancy, drugs, illiteracy, excessively high dropout rates, crime, and gang violence were not the result of a dysfunctional family as sometimes claimed by conservative commentators. Rather, as agued by liberals and progressives, these need to be viewed as symptoms of a broader structural problem rooted in urban poverty and the persisting endurance of de facto segregation. At issue was the availability of resources so that equal opportunity could become a live option, in which government could be viewed as a major, but far from only source of support. Thusly conceived, the federal budget was a major focal point, which telegraphed the true heart of the nation's commitment to the poor and oppressed. Advocacy in such areas as equal education, adequate housing, and job training represented more than simply "leftist" political polemics, as conservatives charged. Rather, progressive Christians viewed such commitment to the poor through the deployment of governmental resources as a core gospel mandate, a faithful application of the prophetic tradition in the contemporary setting. On this interpretation substantial social problems could never be resolved by voluntary associations, however important they remained as the echo of the nation's conscious and as a contributing resource in conjunction with more stabilizing sources of influence. In this respect there is clear lineage between contemporary political theology of the mainline denominations and the social gospel heritage of the early 20th century.



In the quest for relevance, mainline denominations often downplay the biblical and theological significance of this view of social missions, which makes it difficult for them to distinguish their objectives from those of other social and religious groups. Inter-group and inter-religious collaboration on the critical issues of the day is both essential and desirable in a pluralistic society. It would be extremely churlish even to equivocate about this Simply put, it is an act of humility, to say nothing of civility and common sense to draw support from a wide variety of sources in the difficult and proximate work of enhancing the social capital of the more marginalized sectors of the society. It is equally important for mainline Protestants to sharply articulate the biblical and theological rationale that grounds their social missions, at the least in terms of what Walter Brueggemann (1991) refers to as "behind the wall" conversation, that is within the life of the church itself and arguably as well in the broader public square (pp. 41-68).



This is essential for the very important purpose of establishing a strong and coherent Christian identity within the mainline denominations among the membership itself, and for articulating fully and without apology the theological basis upon which mainline social ethic is grounded. Justice is not an add-on to a strongly grounded biblical faith, but as Jim Wallis ably argues, a core component. This is a case that needs to be made within the context of a fully orbed biblical theology as a reflection of evangelical intent as well as missions, a position that mainline denominations should not shy away from both in terms of addressing their own house as well as speaking in an avowedly prophetic voice to the wider culture. Such speech requires humility, yet boldness as well and a firm acceptance of a comprehensive Christian orthodoxy (a generous one, to be sure) as the ultimate vocabulary upon which such claims are issued.



Given its crucial importance within the history of the United States, a biblically-based political theology which substantially addresses the issue of race can serve as a powerful organizing center to ground a broad range of social and political issues related to poverty, oppression, gender inequality, and the marginality of the socially outcast. Such work requires solid Christologies from "above" as well as those from "below." It is in this trinitarian nexus that the Suffering Servant knows and takes on our pain within the pressing realities of our daily lives, and participates in the struggle for social justice (Luke 4: 18-19) in a world turned upside down by Kingdom values. In short, a biblical theology that unequivocally addresses the challenging topic of race with God's grace, could be an important instrument in helping to unify an evangelical quest for the Kingdom of God in which "the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs" (Rom 8: 22). To the extent that it is acted upon as an imaginative and potent theo-political vision with consequences in the real world, "justice [itself will] run down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream" (Amos 5: 24).



Such a vision will not come easy and may be fraught with considerable controversy, but one, if well constructed on solid biblical principles, could, as one of its pivotal linchpins, provide the mainline denominations with a degree of authenticity and authority that it currently lacks. Such a construction would require a great degree of theological acumen as well as political courage. Yet, it is one that brings together the fundamental tenets of the social gospel and the traditional biblical faith in God transcendent and richly immanent; of a God who participates in the joys and struggles of the daily existence of the marginalized and all who struggle with and for a kingdom view of reality.