Skip to main content

Christendom IS White Supremacy

I read a lot of books about how Christian churches should radically change, embrace the postmodern reality, get back to biblical principles, abandon old models. A lot of these books will criticise the old models under the label of "Christendom" - that European and colonial idea where power, culture, and religion are all aligned. In Christendom everyone is assumed to be Christian by virtue of being in a "Christian country" and the church is in the centre of power, resulting in, in some cases, state churches such as the Church of England. 

I agree with these criticism, but I feel like the whiteness of so many of these writers blinds them to the true sins of Christendom. It is not simply that Christendom is an old model, and we need to move on to something more relevant. I feel like sometimes that's what these writers are saying. Sometimes it feels like the criticism doesn't add up to anything more than "this isn't fashionable anymore". 

But it's much worse than that. When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire it became corrupted to such an extent that its values were effectively reversed: from nonviolence to violence, from power-from-below, to power-from-above, from good news to the poor to good news to the rich. As the Empire crumbled but Imperial Christianity remained holding together European society these values were further embedded. Christianity, instead of following the humble way of Jesus became an expression of superiority and supremacy. "Christian" became a label for a race, a people, defined over and against others. 

The Crusades were the first violent expression of this Christian-as-race ideology. But then came European colonialism, a project that depended on a belief in the Christian-race superiority over other races. So what later evolved into white supremacy, was first Christian supremacy, and depended on that theological backing to justify the enslavement and subjugation of other peoples. 

White supremacy is the child of Christian supremacy, which is a fundamental expression of Christendom.

So when white writers today talk about moving beyond Christendom I want to say to them: yes, but this isn't just about church in a cafe being cool and church in a big old stone building being uncool. It's much more foundational than that. It's about recognising that Christendom fundamentally reversed the very nature of Christian faith from a decolonising movement to a colonising movement, and in doing so laid the groundwork for white supremacy in all its forms. Rejecting Christendom isn't just about what form the church takes, it's about repenting of the Christian-white-supremacy ideology and identifying Christian faith once again as a decolonising movement, led by a radical prophet resisting occupation in his homeland. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

From liberalism to radicalism

I've been reflecting recently on the journey I've been making from liberalism to radicalism, and how I'm beginning to see it as a necessary evolution if you're not going to get stuck in a kind of immature liberalism that fails to serve both you and the world. By liberalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise personal freedom and not being restricted by the patterns of the past. By radicalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise justice, solidarity, and liberation from oppression. Yes, I'm using broad categories here. Let me give an example. Let's talk about sexual liberation in a Western context for example. We can talk about women getting more agency over their bodies; gay and bi people being able to have sex with one another and marry one another; we can talk about the work of overcoming shame around sexuality. All of that is liberalism. It's good stuff. It's still ongoing. So we might ask the question "where next for sexu

Am I an activist?

  I remember being at some protest outside the Senedd once, and someone introduced me to someone else, and said, "Stephen is an activist." I remember thinking - am I? I don't know. What does it mean to be an activist? Who gets to use that title? Am I an activist because I turn up at a few protests? Or do I have to be one them organising the protest to be an activist? Do I have to lead? Do I have to do the organisational work to be an activist? Because the truth is that since I moved to Cardiff I have kept myself at the periphery of a lot of activist groups. I go to meetings, I hear about things, I turn up at protests, but I have rarely got really fully involved. Why is that? It's not for the reason that I don't have time. I do, in fact. But often I sit in these meetings and protests and think "Is this effective? Is it worthwhile? Is it going to produce something at the end of it all that is worth the effort?" I suppose, coming from the world of church I

LOST and theology: who are the good guys?

***Spoiler alert*** I'm continuing some theological/philosophical reflections while re-watching the series LOST. One of the recurring themes in LOST is the idea of the "good guys" and the "bad guys." We start the series assuming the survivors (who are the main characters) are the "good guys" and the mysterious "Others" are definitely bad guys. But at the end of series 2 one of the main characters asks the Others, "Who are  you people?" and they answer, in an extremely disturbing way, "We're the good guys." The series develops with a number of different factions appearing, "the people from the freighter" "the DHARMA initiative" as well as divisions among the original survivors. The question remains among all these complicated happenings "who really are the good guys?" I think one of the most significant lines in the series is an episode when Hurley is having a conversation with