| By ,
on 18-07-2002 22:28
|
Views : 1541  |
Favoured : 53 |
Published in : , Articles |
If our peoples Christianity is not a White mans creation, then what is it?
SHERMAN NUNN ABDUR-RAZZAQ
I have recently read an Internet based article by Mr. Charles Gilmer entitled, The Truth About Jesus: Is Christianity a White Mans Religion? The title captured my attention and enticed me to read on. To my disappointment, what initially promised to discuss an analytical perspective of the so-called "Afrikan-American Christian" turned out to be a recap of the much dated rhetoric that has been worn over decades by Negro Preachers. I use the term "Negro Preacher" not as a means of disrespect, but rather to capture the full essence of the mentality that is present in such a mode of thought. The article by Mr. Gilmer even goes as far as to subtly blame Islamic influences for the runaway social problems that plague the Afrikan-American Community today, while presenting the same "Christianity" that has been there for decades as the cure for them. The author clearly played on Afrikan-Americans general misunderstandings (and possibly those of his own) concerning Nation of Islam doctrine versus the true teachings of Islam while discussing certain points. As an Afrikan-American and a Muslim, I could not let these issues go unchallenged with a clear conscience.
Overall, the best way to overstand (in contrast to understanding) any truths about Jesus (Peace be upon him) is to worship the one true God, just as he himself did. This form of worship does not give God a face and thus influence the direct or indirect worship of any man that is assumed to "bear his likeness". Evidence of this issues importance is brought forth in Mr. Gilmers article at various points. There are times, such as when he apparently cites Whites opposition of slavery as justification for its acceptance by Afrikan-Americans, that the big picture begins to develop. To any degree, the ultimate question is not only concerned with the "truth" about "Jesus", but also with the affect of so-called Christianity on the mind of the Afrikan-American and his responses towards himself and others because of it.
Do you see what I see? Do you hear what I hear?
The Truth About Jesus opens with an extremely relevant question; "When you hear the name Jesus, what images and thoughts come to mind?". No Afrikan-American can deny that the first image coming to mind is often that of a long and straight haired Caucasian who possesses all of the other classic physical traits of that group. If we are going to assume that this person is the creator of all that exists, then we need to ask ourselves, "How will this affect our relationships with Caucasians that we see everyday?" It is accepted as a general rule in psychology that certain objects, images, or anything else that appeals to our senses can produce alternate mental responses. This is known as association.
In the wake of the Los Angeles riots that resulted from the infamous Rodney King Verdict, there was a young, white motorist named Reginald Denny that was unjustifiably attacked a group of Afrikan-American rioters. Another group of "Afrikan-American Christians" saw this on television and got up to leave their homes and go to the site of this attack. ( see 2000 Commencement Address for Columbia University by Reverend Jesse. L. Jackson ) There, they risked their own well being for Reginald Denny, citing that "it was the Christian thing to do".
Very interestingly, Mr. Denny was a Caucasian who had long, straight hair with a moustache with a beard. This is not to say that these Christians were wrong in their defense of him, but what drove them to such extreme measures of leaving the safety of their own home to travel some distance for the sake of a complete stranger? This was no doubt, a noble and courageous thing to do, but could it have been rooted in the theories of association, revealing the extreme affects on the Afrikan-Americans mind by Europeans version of Christianity?
A good point from which to begin in pondering this question is considering whether or not these people would have done the same for one of their own people. L.A.P.D is notorious for their atrocities against so-called "minority groups", but what actions are taken by these groups in defense of their own people? Just as the Afrikan-Americans rushed to the defense of Mr. Denny, we should be concerned with how active they were in regards to the injustices against Rodney King and like issues.
The European influence on many Afrikan-Americans distorted perception of Jesus goes even farther than the artwork of European Renaissance artists, which is the origin of the popular but false image of him. The name "Jesus" for instance, has something in common with all names mentioned in the Christian Bible, being that they have all been anglicanized. In any dictionary that details the etymology (origins) of its words, such as the American Heritage Collegiate Dictionary, it can be seen how so-called Biblical names are derived from their true Hebrew forms. "Jesus" is not excluded from these citations as the AHCD clearly notes that this name comes from the Hebrew name "Yahoshua" or "Yahshua". If Europeans have so strongly influenced the very basics of our perception of Jesus, whose version of the religion is being practiced? No, Christianity cannot be claimed by anyone in particular, but undeniably, the European had developed his own version of it.
Devoted to "Jesus"
Mr. Gilmer mentions in his article that "devotion to Jesus has been a large part of the Afrikan-American experience", but the ever-burning question of WHY still remains to be avoided and not fully contemplated. If Afrikans did not come to North America as Christians, then how did this "great sense of devotion" come to be? Who were we devoted to before Jesus? Who ultimately benefited from our change in devotion? Mr. Gilmer observed that Christianity existed in Afrika before the European slave trade began which is indeed true, but was it the same version that the Afrikans enslaved by Europeans were forced to observe? Most likely the answer is no.
It is no secret that the Roman Catholic Papal Office is guilty of removing several books from scripture for many reasons. One such book was the Gospel of Barnabas (see Gospel of Barnabas) which told of the original Christians who did not worship Jesus, but instead followed his teachings and worshipped the one true God as their teacher did. The same Vatican is solely responsible for declaring that Jesus and God were "of the same substance" at the Council of Nicea in Rome. ( see The Nicene Creed ) Once again, this brings us to the burning question of whose version of Christianity is truly being practiced?
Christianity was never dominant in Sub-Saharan Afrika, but was prominent in the North for geographical reasons. This area was closest to Portugal and Rome, who among other Christian powers wanted very desperately to be a part of the lucrative trade in the East. Christianity was only valued in this instance as a means to make allies among Afrikan rulers by "converting" them, and thus taking control of Eastern trade. ( see The Truth About the Crusades ) These events lead to the spread of Christianity by holding the religion in one hand and a sword in the other.
It should also be asked that if Christianity was so dominant throughout Afrika, what was the purpose of the many hordes of missionaries that sought to "civilize" the backwards, wild Afrikans" with their Christianity? Is it not ironic that these missionaries set out to do their work immediately before the slave trade began? If Christianity was such a "rock" for our people, why were we allowed to practice it during slavery but not allowed under any circumstances to practice our native religions and customs? Let us also note another interesting parallel. We see how get European Christian powers used their Christianity and Black Christian leaders to obtain their wishes throughout the past centuries. Has anything changed? Obtaining the answer to this question is a simple as watching todays socio-political arena and seeing who jumps through whose hoops at the crack of political whip.
"Pillar" or "pillow" of the community?
In his article, Charles Gilmer declares that "the Black-Church continues to be a powerful force in the Afrikan-American community, but many are questioning the propriety of Afrikan-Americans following Jesus." This is the same as saying that we are on the most powerful, most efficient ship ever built but most passengers are worried that it will sink. If the "Black-Church" is so powerful and effective, what is the root of these second thoughts? One does not often question the purity of water when thirsty if it is clear water. When there is some cloudiness to that water, the questions begin. Could it be that Afrikan-Americans are beginning to "wake-up" from years of spiritual slumber?
If the Black-Church has been such a cornerstone of the community, why have conditions changed very little if at all over the last couple of centuries? The church has surely been a political force, but to whos advantage? There is not a recognized Christian minister that is not ultimately ordained (authorized) by "the State". I say that these individuals are ultimately ordained by the state for many reasons. Their primary ordinations may come from a particular "church", but the educational certifications (theology degrees, etc.,) are what is legally observed. Furthermore, a church is looked upon by the government as a non-for profit business. ( ). Also, certain functions such as marriages cannot be performed by ministers without adherence to local laws. Politicians make no delay in hastening to the Black-Church at campaign time because they know that if the ministers that they ordained advocate them, their "flocks" will follow suit in the fashion of "Marys little lamb" with votes.
Once in Chicago, the Bulls Basketball team had won one of their numerous championships. It was reported in a local newspaper that city politicians told Christian ministers to request their congregations to "celebrate peacefully" and not damage city property. A THINKING man would have to ask himself "what else do these people command the ministers to dictate to the masses?" This is in the tradition of the Negro-slave preacher being the mouthpiece of the slave master. The preacher conveyed messages that were to the masters benefit while withholding information that was not, such as the story of Moses leading the Hebrews to freedom. Anyone familiar with Biblical text knows why that account was to be avoided at all costs.
We wuz in dat dere Bible too, Boss!
I agree with the author of The Truth About Jesus when he says, "the Bible is not a European book that has nothing to do with our people", but with stern limitations. After all, has not the Bible that we hold so dear been authorized by King James, an English king? In its original form, the scriptures were of Hebrew writing and recording. The Hebrews were of no questioning an Afrikan people and did not resemble Charleton Heston, who portrayed Moses (Peace be upon him) in the Hollywood production The Ten Commandments. Whether you wish to look at it geographically or historically, the facts reveal that the Afrikan had practically everything to do with the Bible!
Mr. Gilmers exact wording was, "Black people were referred to and appear on the stage of Biblical history many times." For him and so many others to say that Afrikans had a mere "presence" in the bible is to say that water has a "presence" in the ocean! These events took place in Afrika and the so-called Middle East (which is actually a part of Afrika - just observe a map), where most people do not look at all like Charleton Heston, Elizabeth Taylor or any of the British actors who have portrayed Jesus. If they do not look like that now for the greater part, after centuries of intermarrying with outside groups, what should we expect them to have looked like during Biblical times? Mr. Gilmer credits his people by acknowledging that Moses wife Zipporah was black, but was not Moses himself a Black man? How else could his hand turn white as a sign of the Lord and be noticed? How else could he have "passed" for being an Egyptian for so long? Of course, the Egyptians of the Bible were Black people as well, discrediting more of Hollywoods lies. Perhaps the truth of Jesus and other Biblical characters should be sought from sources other than the network movie of the week.
Them Moslems did it too!
I believe that I speak for many other Afrikan-American Muslims in saying that I am weary of so many "Christian scholars" justifying the European enslavement of Afrikans by citing the "Arab or Muslim Slave Trade". The response is most certainly a collective so what? Even if this is an issue worth the effort of writing or speaking on, does it really make the leather of the European masters boots taste any better to the modern day Negro?
First of all, lets observe that there is a difference between Arab culture and Islamic culture. All early Arabs were not Muslims, and Islam was never a means of making slaves as was the case of Christianity. If one would care to study the relation of Islam to continental Afrika, he or she will find that the religion was largely accepted freely by its exposure during trade, not by force. Let us also review slavery in the Afrikan tradition of servitude in comparison with European induced slavery. If carefully and sincerely examined, history will show that most who endured servitude in the East were prisoners of war or worked to pay off a debt of some sort. In no way was the humanity of these individuals violated. In Islam, servants were commanded to be respected and honored by direct command of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) himself. This more perfectly coincides with the Afrikan tradition of unpaid servitude. ( see Slavery Was Not Condoned by Islam )
Even Afrikans who were sold to Europeans by other Afrikans that "Negro Scholars" cry over in defense of the European were prisoners of wars and "tribal" feuds. There has hardly been an instance that can begin to rival the sheer barbaric, beastly nature of the European slave trade. Afrikans were not even considered to be human by the European, so this is an excellent point to begin from for overstanding the nature of the trade and the people who were responsible for it. ( see Monumentality, Scriptocentrism and Other Mismeasures of Man )
Watchdog Barking
Anyone familiar with guard dogs knows that they will go to most any length to defend their master. In the tradition of the "Classic Negro", his modern day counterpart continues to defend the descendants of his master in the same fashion. Strangely and characteristically, a defense of Christianity is often accompanied by a defending of Europeans and their culture. In his article, Charles Gilmer included this paragraph:
In contradiction to this perception stands the life of a white Englishman named William Wilberforce. He led the fight against the slave trade in Parliament because of his commitment to Jesus Christ. His is an incredible story of sacrifice and dedication to truth and justice for African people. While it took his entire life to win this victory, win he did.
Preceding this passage was the discussion of how "Arab Muslims" introduced slavery to Sub-Saharan Afrika, NOT the European. The passage went on to express how European slave traders did not profess to be devout men, but came from "Christian Nations". Undeniably, it was courageous and also inspiring for a European to stand against physical slavery at that time, but let us not forget that the mighty government that he stood up to also professed Christianity. How can we observe one half of the matter and not the other? It may be argued that Mr. Wilberforce was a "real" Christian, but that does not serve as and cannot be used as evidence in defense of Europeans as a whole. If it is wrong to incriminate them as a whole, then by logic, they cannot be defended as a whole. Likewise, a white man opposing slavery cannot be used to justify the Afrikan-American embracing of his form of Christianity. One bad apple does not spoil the whole bunch, but one good one does not mean that it is "pie-time" either. This is by no means to say that all Europeans were or are bad apples, but truth is truth and what it is what it is.
Good for business
At one crucial point in The Truth About Jesus, the author states that "missionary efforts were allowed among the slaves because owners assumed that Christianity would make slaves better workers." Actually, I could end my analysis right here as the author has answered his own questions concerning the truth about "Jesus" in relation to Afrikan-Americans. This one statement strikes down any other point that he could make in defense of European slave masters and their forced version of Christianity. Fairly speaking, Mr. Gilmer does go on to say that slaves noticed a difference in what was said and what was practiced, and this point alone answers other questions as to why Afrikan-Americans are now beginning to question Christianitys s significance to their existence.
Passages from St. Pauls Biblical writings are a huge source of all the confusion. Pauls writings are simply letters that he wrote to various parties while incarcerated, with them not having any true bond to God or Jesus message whatsoever. The only link is that the Church considered these writings to be "divinely inspired". In due fairness, countless books, plays, songs and movies can fall under the category of being divinely "inspired", but none carry any significance beyond that point. Mr. Gilmer cites Pauls teaching of slaves obeying their masters with respect and fear (a teaching that was very good for the slavery business), which is a direct contradiction to Jesuss own teachings. Jesus himself said in the Book of Matthew, Chapter 6: Verse 24 "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.
In Islam, the Holy Quran in many places instructs Muslims to "fear God ONLY", just as many Christians now claim to be "God-fearing". Also, the very nature of Islam demands that man is a slave only to God, seeing that a true slave has a completely surrendered will that favors his master. Mr. Gilmer did include the Biblical passage that instructs masters to treat slaves "in the same way" since the Master of both was in Heaven and has no favoritism. The problem with this comes from one having common sense. There can never be equality within a slave/slave master relationship. If there is, who is the master and who is the slave? The answer would be neither on both accounts, for one of the essences of slavery is inequality.
To be or not to be
Let us observe the two following passages from The Truth about Jesus:
1) The liberating dynamic of the Bible caused the Southern states to place restrictions on missionary activities among the slaves, forbidding reading instruction and limiting preaching by slave preachers. They also began to put restrictions on slave worship services.
2) The slaves who turned to Jesus knew the difference between some of the versions of Christianity they were seeing practiced and the Christianity they were hearing described in the Bible.
The difference between these passages is comparable to night and day, for it is definitely an issue of light and darkness. On one hand, we see the absolute control of information that masters had over Biblical/religious issues of slaves. In the next instance, we see slaves "turning to Jesus" and miraculously concluding that what they were hearing was not related to what they were seeing. How could such deep comprehension develop from absolute illiteracy and having limited and controlled information? How could one miss the taste of meat if he has had nothing to eat but bread crumbs all of his life?
When the slave saw his master, his minds eye saw God in the flesh, so how much wrong could the master do? No doubt, some other slaves rejected this blasphemy, but how could they reject the master but accept his message that told them to be happy as slaves and love their master? One cannot curse a painting while praising its artist. The slaves could not read the Biblical information for themselves and each word of the slave-preacher was hot off of the tongue of the master, therefore there is an imbalance between the authors perceptions of the slave masters restrictive measures and the cognitive abilities of most slaves.
Whos the man?
For certain, the Black-Church has helped to give birth to many other black institutions, most notably being Black Colleges. Let us remember that church ministers are ordained by the State, so we should question how far the State was and is involved in church related affairs. Some Black colleges began as the vision of a church for building Christian principles in young people, but eventually wound up being "State Universities". Jackson State University is one example of this, as we see how it began as Natchez Seminary and was established by the American Baptist Home Mission Society. ( see Jackson State University History ) The N.A.A.C.P has had close affiliations with the black Church, but this organization was ironically begun in part by wealthy whites (Mary White Ovington, Dr. Henry Moscowitz, etc,.) who funded it ( see Jewish Funded Organizations ). We should note that just like true capitalistic tradition, "he who funds also controls". I have no intention of discrediting the sincerity of any European-American who helped to form the N.A.A.C.P, but we must be aware that a great part of true independence is financial independence.
Fire and water
Just as The Truth About Jesus states, the Black clergy has indeed offered leadership figures for the community, but who was and is controlling them? Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is a prime example of the leadership spawned by Christianity, but did he and his followers not eventually begin to question the effectiveness of "moderacy" ? ( see MLK - Moderate or Radical? ) Whites aligned with him because he was the lesser of two discomforts in the wake of so-called "militancy" among Afrikan-Americans, and they felt more in control with his situation.
This so-called militancy drove home the point of "enough is enough", just as Dr. Kings more moderate techniques alluded to. Case and point - In Dr. Kings lifetime, Congress was extremely reluctant to provide civil rights legislation, but in the wake of his murder, they rushed to legislate further to save any more of The U.S. from being burned to the ground. I say this not necessarily to advocate physically hostile measures but for sure, in order to communicate effectively the speaker must use a language that the listener understands and/or is willing to listen to. A bully may not quite overstand "stop", but his own blood from his own lip can magically do wonders for his comprehension abilities.
Mr. Gilmers article also mentions that "Faith in Jesus Christ has not created passivity, but rather activism in thousands of Afrikan-Americans." I agree that they were "active", but as a means to what ends? They "actively" stood by and watched as they were murdered, raped, robbed tortured, lied to, hosed down, chewed up by dogs, and suffered most any other kind of injustice that one can dare or bear to imagine. Today, they are still "actively" standing by watching police murder their brothers and sisters and walk free while Politicians continue to manipulate the Afrikan-American and take back what little "gains" we have been tossed. Fanny Lou Hamer said it best when she said "if the White man "gives" you, anything, when he gets ready, he will take it right back" ( see Afrikan-American Quotes ). Most of this "cheek turning" has been "in the name of Jesus", but when one turns the other cheek and that one is slapped too, what cheeks are slapped next?
It has been proven many times that water, which can be "gentle natured" like Christianity, is useful in fighting fires, but one would still resemble a fool while fighting a raging fire with a water gun. In past instances of which Afrikan-Americans "caught afire", the authorities surely did not use water guns on us. They used water hoses, with the same force and pressure that is used to stop a literal blaze. Perhaps we can learn something useful from that example.
The Question of Morality
And the popular notion that Jesus has nothing to offer created a vacuum of moral authority. No longer do we look to God as the one to whom we are accountable. We are our own authority. Some even teach that "The black man is God." If this is so, then we can define our own morality, establish our own standards of behavior, and sit in judgment of everyone else. But we have failed because we are not God. No wonder drug trade is seen as an understandable and too often an acceptable career choice. No wonder teenage pregnancy continues to rise and sexually transmitted diseases are approaching epidemic proportions.
The above passage is one of a few offered by Charles Gilmer that indirectly indicts Islamic teachings as a culprit of Afrikan-American problems. As far as Afrikan-Americans questioning Jesus relevancy to themselves, I ask what they ask; "What was responsible for the moral vacuum before this point?" "Was not Christianity present then as well?" Inquiring minds definitely want to know.
The behavior of many Afrikan-Americans today is terrifyingly identical to that which is detailed to have existed during physical slavery. As the author has repeatedly pointed out, the slaves had Christianity too, so what was the excuse for the fornication, murder, stealing etc. that took place on plantations? At least the slaves had an excuse because they had no choice but to do these things under many circumstances. Today, we have a far greater ability to choose, so what is stopping us from choosing the correct paths now? Afrikan-Americans still have the same Christianity and yet, many are still acting the same way.
The author opens a whole new package when referring to the Nation of Islams original teaching that "the Blackman is God" and saying "no wonder our community faces things such as drugs, teen pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases." I am not a member of the Nation of Islam but yet, as a Muslim I can attest to the ignorance behind such a statement. I have never known any N.O.I youth or any other Muslim youth being involved with drugs, illicit sexual activity, teen pregnancy or suffering from STDs. I have as an ex-Christian however, seen crosses hanging from "many-a-neck" that falls under these and other less than remarkable categories.
In the Black-Church, how many unwed mothers do we see? How many teens leave the congregation due to pregnancy? How many church members have died from AIDS related complications? How many are known to be homosexuals? How many members have lost children due to gang activity and/or drug related incidents? How many are known fornicators or adulterers? This list could on for quite some time, but anyone who is honest with him or herself can clearly see the point that is made. I am with hopes that the author is not using the questionable beliefs of the N.O.I to strategically dissuade his brothers and sisters away from Islam altogether. If he is truly unaware of the difference between N.O.I doctrine and the true teachings of Islam, I extend my hand in a sincere effort to assist with his education on the subject.
Continued... Part 2
Last update : 18-07-2002 22:28
|
|
|
(0 vote)
