Eugene F. Rivers 3d, a Sojourners contributing
editor, is pastor of the Azusa Christian Community in
Dorchester, Massachusetts, a pentecostal base Christian
Community founded by African-American students from Harvard
University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and
co-chair of the National Ten-Point Leadership Foundation. For
more than 10 years, Azusa has committed itself to working
among the poor in the urban context.
Rivers addressed the 1996 conference "The Legacy
of William Stringfellow" at the Washington and Lee
University School of Law in Lexington, Virginia, adapting
Stringfellow’s framework of powers and principalities to
look at the current racial climate in the United States. In
his remarks, from which this article is adapted, Rivers
argues that the demonic ideology of white supremacy is the
dominant principle governing American culture. And he
challenges "white people"—a category he
believes to be false at its core—to make a
choice...between their God and their whiteness. —The
Editors
I met William Stringfellow in 1973, at Princeton
Theological Seminary at a conference discussing the
integration of biblical faith and a new political vision.
Then a refugee from a mainline black pentecostal church in
North Philadelphia, I jumped at the opportunity to attend.
Stringfellow said something there that has stuck with me for
the last 25 years, and has been confirmed in my own practical
work: Speaking in tongues is a political act of resistance.
At the time, pentecostalism was viewed by the
sophisticated, upper-middle-class, elite activists as a
religious expression of people who dragged their knuckles on
the ground. But beneath the surface, and beyond the eyes of
these sophisticates, God was doing something among the
pentecostal poor.
Bill Stringfellow moved in politically progressive, Left,
religious circles—not the stomping ground of the
pentecostals. But he was able to discern that something was
happening. Without necessarily speaking in tongues,
Stringfellow was in a deep sense a pentecostal; he understood
the importance of the demonic and the political dimensions of
the charismata.
In 1964, Stringfellow wrote an article titled "Race
as a Principality in the Church." He said, "To no
principality, unless it be to those of commerce and finance,
which are often allied and committed to racism, have the
American churches been more notoriously and scandalously and
complacently accommodating than to the principality of
racism."
I want to expand this notion to include not simply
racism—which today can mean virtually anything—but
white supremacy, as the dominant principality of
America. White identity splits the country in two and is now
poised to generate civil war in the United States. This is
also true, with minor historical variations, for Spanish- and
Portuguese-speaking whites. Where did this construction come
from, and how did it assume the force of an essential
biological property?
And what is happening now? This politically and
historically constructed
ideological concept is no longer delivering the goods to
the workers who were fed it 200 years ago. Then, a person was
Irish or Welsh or German or Scottish. But at some point in
the process of political development, these people were sold
a bill of goods that they were not simply Irish but white.
Irish culture, German culture, Scottish culture can be
examined and discussed. But there is no white culture. This
ideological construction was demonically inspired. It sold
out poor whites who are Scottish, Irish, German.
From independence forward, these folks became politically
incorporated into the white nation, which was theologically
sanctified by Jonathan Edwards and others like him as America
became the City on a Hill. This corner of hell for black and
brown folk was "defined" as a City on the Hill,
where God’s providence is realized as defenseless women
and children are murdered in the name of the white warrior
God called Jesus. Today we see rebellion everywhere, because
that white-identity ideology has collapsed on itself. The
"crackers" are saying, "You all told me if I
was a white man, there would be a chicken in every pot and a
car in every garage. Well, there’s no chicken and my car
is broken. I’m mad and I’m ready to fight!"
These white boys voice a level of fury that’s scary.
But I empathize with them, because they’ve been lied to.
They’re not wrong. They might be doing illegal things,
but they have a case.
And because they’ve been told, explicitly and
implicitly, that they have one foot—their
whiteness—in the camp of the elite, they continue to
identify with the ideology of the powers. Even more
insidious, others—people of color, who share a similar
experience of the principality—become the object of
their scorn.
A WHOLE NEW BODY of labor historiography provides an
analysis of race that is incredibly radical. This critique
clarifies the issues involved in and the interests behind the
perpetuation of the ideology of white identity.
Comparative social policy analysts now say that it is
precisely because of the racial character of the American
experience that we are where we are. White-supremacist
ideology retards, at every institutional level, the
nation’s ability to develop progressive social policies,
even when they’re more cost effective.
White racism, the concrete expression of the idol of white
supremacy, is demonically entrenched. It generates an
irrational allegiance to an idolatrous conception of the
white race and prevents us from establishing rational
policies and programs to alleviate suffering.
However, just by talking about white supremacy as a
principality of America, we’ve grabbed the lion by the
tail. We’ve spent 300 years developing this idolatry,
and it is now deeply entrenched in the cultural psychology of
the nation and the church. Only a radical conversion to
biblical faith frees us from the burden of this demonic
spirit that binds us and renders us unable to live as
rational human beings.
A deep level of intercessory prayer will be required to
confront the idolatry of white supremacy. It is violent and
it can only be dealt with in the most discerning way. God
gives the church the power to discern how to exorcise a
demon, and this is a demon that generates a level of violence
and irrationality that is causing this country to cave in on
itself.
In terms of Stringfellow’s tradition, what is
suggested is that we, the people of God, must begin with a
project of study, contemplation, and reflection, first, to
discern the implication of this demonic spirit, and then to
develop wise strategies for communicating to the larger
public the source of our dilemma. Average white Americans are
getting skewered by institutionalized, demonic forces that
have given them an identity that is killing them. Some labor
historians, in trying to figure out the last 15 years of
disjunction between race and class, are claiming that the
dichotomy is false: Class is mediated through the lens of
race, they say. Only when we understand this can we
comprehend the contradictions of the labor movement. Why is
it that labor would be so motivated to do things that are
antithetical to its own interest?
Thomas Byrne Edsall and Mary D. Edsall, in their book Chain
Reaction (Norton, 1991), write that they used to apply a
leftist class analysis, but now they conclude that every
domestic policy issue is rooted in race: Welfare reform,
abortion—all issues come down to race. There are also
class issues, but they are mediated conti-
ually through the lens of white racism, as the identity of
poor working-class whites collides against what are perceived
to be the intrusions of the other.
Several recent books (see "As Long as You
Think...," page 28)—Alexander Saxton’s The
Rise and Fall of the White Republic, David
Roediger’s The Wages of Whiteness, Theodore
Allen’s The Invention of a White Race: Volume One
(all Verso publications), Noel Ignatiev’s How the
Irish Became White (Routledge)—suggest that 200
years ago, a need arose for some ideological justification to
offer the European tribes in order to get them to move west
and officially eliminate everybody else. An ideological
construction for integrating the European groups was
necessary once it was clear that the major obstacle to U.S.
expansion was not Europeans. This construct also justified
having the non-Europeans build the country.
Girded with what were then new scriptural interpretations
identifying America with the New Israel (and often peoples of
color as the antagonists to God’s chosen), many poor
immigrant church people found their Manifest Destiny in
further migration westward, or in the comfort that, no matter
how bad their situation, at least they weren’t black.
The name of God was invoked to justify white idols; the
principalities and powers were given religious
sanctification.
THE CHURCH IS THUS uniquely positioned to confront this
situation. Secular liberals can’t do it because they
have no cogent ideology to offer in its place. The Right has
a political agenda, and they recognize the importance of
white supremacy ideology to make their agenda succeed. Those
who use the label "religious progressive," or are
part of the confessional community of the church, are the
only safe space where there can be a dialogue that
doesn’t cause a race war. There is no other place.
Stringfellow, the Keeper of the Word, understood this. The
new labor historiography that I have referred to simply
documents and gives the additional details and footnotes for
a very deep theological understanding of the principalities
and powers. In a period of economic decline, fooling around
with identities that are fragile— because people’s
life circumstances are fragile—requires a high level of
discernment. If we are to move forward, white people must
make a decision about where their spiritual allegiances are.
The church must be the place in which white supremacy is
analyzed and deconstructed. For those of us who love the
church, this is redemptive. The church has an opportunity to
introduce an analysis that explains the apparent anomalies in
American political culture: Why is everything breaking down?
What is it about the American experience that makes it so
completely crazy? How can a country with such a high level of
industrial development have such ugly, aggressive social
policies in contrast to Western Europe?
The church has been no less divided about white
supremacist ideology than society. The blood of Christ was
not heavy enough, not deep enough, to bridge the chasm as the
ideology developed.
But now the church is in a unique position to be the
church of Jesus Christ for the first time. Church people,
especially white church people, are going to have to choose
between being the church or being white. If you’re going
to be apostate, you are going to usher in apartheid America!
It’s going to be war. Blood’s going to run in the
streets for real.
Think about the irony. Sin has caught us now. The white
militia is coming hard on one side, and Louis Farrakhan is on
the other side. Both of these phenomena could be seen as
poetic justice: White religiosity is getting what it
deserves, an inevitable outcome.
Farrakhan has flipped that Christianity on its head.
He’s hoisting white Christians with their own petard.
Although Farrakhan represents much that is repugnant, one
cannot be too hard on him.
When Farrakhan speaks, he highlights the hypocrisy of the
church. He says, "They say they got a church in the
United States, but those white folks are just as racist as
they can be. They’re not thinking about God. If you took
the total investment portfolio of all these white churches
and see what percentage goes to the poor—I rest my
case."
Farrakhan can credibly assert, "There is no
Christianity in America. It’s the old white tribal
religion where the white warrior God and the white women and
the white men are the same thing. Now, Gadhafi, give me half
a million dollars, and I’ll evangelize for you."
Then he goes to Iran and says, "We can demonstrate the
superiority of Islam by demonstrating a level of koinonia
on the Islamic side that white racist Christians in America
will never perform with their black brothers and
sisters."
This creates a dangerous place, an idolatrous place. This
white racist ideology is the most pernicious form of sin
because it’s based on pride.
God can deal with a thief, with a liar, with David and
Bathsheba, but don’t get arrogant, proud, and
idolatrous. Pride is a sin that comes straight from hell
itself. Pride is an ideology and a concept of identity that
is against God in its essence. It is atheistic. It is
demonic. And so the challenge now is, Will we be white or
will we be the church?
THE AZUSA CHRISTIAN Community began as a student
fellowship, formed at Harvard in the early 1980s, largely
influenced by the tradition of William Stringfellow and his
concept of the indivisibility of the political and the
spiritual. His notion of Babylon as an appropriate political
metaphor to explain the American experience was very powerful
for us.
As young black Christian intellectuals and activists at
Harvard and MIT, we believed we must put some flesh on the
Word that we preach. So we elected to struggle with what
class suicide, downward mobility, and living and working
among the poor would mean for us.
Out of the crucible of this struggle, we have prayed to
figure out a vision of new politics. The black secular
professional elite, as a political group, has collapsed. The
black community is in complete disarray.
To me, Farrakhan exists as a judgment against the sins of
the black church. We in the black church have failed to do
what God has called us to do and God let a false prophet, in
my view, be lifted up to call us out, to embarrass us. So
when a million brothers marched in Washington, D.C., 600,000
of them were black churchmen.
On the other side of the equation, God has used Farrakhan
to chasten the white church. Farrakhan said, "The white
church is an apostate institution. It’s more committed
to whiteness, to a white warrior God who was born in sin and
has the innocent blood of the brown people and the slaves
dripping from the hand, this very day." This is so
indisputably obvious.
This country is split down the middle over the issue of
the experience of slavery. We need to discern and exorcise
the principality, the demonic spirit, that divides the
church. Reading from the 10th chapter of the book of Daniel:
I, Daniel, was the only one who saw the vision; the
people with me did not see it, but such terror overwhelmed
them that they fled and hid themselves. So I was left alone,
gazing at this great vision; I had no strength left, my face
turned deathly pale and I was helpless. Then I heard him
speaking, and as I listened to him, I fell into a deep sleep,
my face to the ground.
A hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and
knees. He said, "Daniel, you who are highly esteemed,
consider carefully the words I am about to speak to you, and
stand up, for I have now been sent to you." And when he
said this to me, I stood up trembling.
Then he continued, "Do not be afraid, Daniel.
Since the first day that you set your mind to gain
understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your
words were heard, and I have come in response to them. But
the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me 21 days. Then
Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I
was detained there with the king of Persia. Now I have come
to explain to you what will happen to your people in the
future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come. —
Daniel 10:7-14
At Azusa, we pray and wrestle with how to discern what the
Spirit of God, what this kairos moment, is about.
Reading in Daniel, it occurred to us: That’s it! In
America, the principality of white supremacy is blocking the
prayers of the church! That ideology is the demonic prince
that keeps Daniel’s prayers from getting through. The
prayers are being detained by this demonic thing that
overshadows the entire national experience—white
identity.
God is calling us to be the people of God. We’re
being called, as Stringfellow argued throughout his entire
professional career, to turn our backs on the idols, to turn
our backs on any concept of reality that would elevate the
creature over the Creator. If we are to do justice to the
theological, spiritual, and political tradition that William
Stringfellow represents, we must pray—as he insisted we
should—as a political act of resistance and
transcendence that God will give us the courage to accept
this challenge.
Read other articles by:
Rivers III, Eugene F.
|
Subscribe to Sojourners today at a special introductory price and save $10 off the basic rate! Click here for details.
WE WANT TO HEAR from you! Click here to share your views. Or write to "Letters," Sojourners, 3333 14th St. NW, Suite 200, Washington DC 20010; fax (202) 328-8757. Please include your name, address, and daytime phone number. Letters may be edited for space and clarity.
|
|
