Western Religions and
Racism:
Foundations for Racial
Equality and Racial Liberation[1]
Rick Allbee
In this
paper I will suggest and support the thesis that the three major Western religions
(Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) have the foundations within their respective
set of beliefs to rise above any historical incidents of racism which have
marred their record to a position of, and consequently, hopefully, consistent
practice of, racial equality. In doing so I will examine these Western
religion’s major classical and authoritative texts (Jewish Bible, Christian
Bible, and Koran) and identify from each of these three major foundations
(ontological, social/moral, and ethical/responsible) for racial equality. These
foundations are specifically their doctrines of: creation, social moral law, and judgment.
Finally, I will note some historical instances where the rhetoric and
sociological practices of these religions have been racist (from rationalizing
and seeking to legitimize racial attitudes and practices to marginalizing
racism as an issue) in order to make the point that merely being a member of a
particular religious tradition is not in itself sufficient to keep one from
practicing racism. Rather, one must adhere to the foundational counter racist
principles of that tradition.
Before
examining the three above mentioned doctrines and their racial implications, a
word needs to be said about the significance of identifying them as “foundational”
doctrines. By “foundational” I mean to indicate that the doctrines chosen are
of a foundational type, and function at a foundational level by virtue of their
universality and general applicability.[2] As
such they are more basic and foundational to these religions than many other
particular statements that these belief systems contain. This is crucial to
understand because it entails that any other particular counter statements or
examples which may exist in these belief systems, as well as any other
particular divergent historical practices, should be brought into harmony with
these foundational beliefs rather than vice versa, or rather than them standing
opposed on an equal level.[3]
That
the doctrines of creation and judgment are foundational I can summarily
support. The doctrine of creation proclaims something fundamental about human
being’s nature, equality, and value. That it is a universal statement which
applies to each human being is also readily apparent. Likewise, the doctrine of judgment is
foundational in two ways. First it presupposes that each person has a measure
of ethical responsibility. And, second, it is universal in that according to
these Western religious traditions it applies to all human beings. The social
moral doctrines which I have identified as foundational will require more
demonstration and therefore I will address them in the appropriate section
below.
Creation
The
classical texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all explicitly affirm a
doctrine of creation, including the creation of humankind.[4] I
shall look at each in its turn and draw some implications from this doctrine
for countering racism.
The
book of Genesis, the first book of the Jewish Bible, begins with the statement,
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...”[5] It
goes on the say in 1:27 that, “God created man in His own Image, In the Image
of God He created him, Male and female He created them.”[6] Two implications can immediately be drawn
form these texts which are relevant to the issue of racism. First, this
doctrine implies that all humans have a fundamental equality by virtue of their
equality of origin and nature. Second, by virtue of the statement that
humankind is made in the image of God something fundamental is being asserted
about a human being’s basic value (see also Gen 9:6 where the punishment for
murder is explicitly tied to a human being’s value as created in God’s image).
Racism is not consistent with humankind’s fundamental equality, value, or
dignity.[7]
All of
what has been said about the Jewish doctrine of creation and its racial
implications can also be said of Christianity. For, as is well known,
Christianity adopts in total the Jewish Bible (which Christianity refers to as
the “Old Testament”) as part of its cannon of authoritative scripture. In addition, however, Christianity also
closely identifies Jesus with the act of creation in the first chapter of the
Gospel of John: “In the beginning was the Word, ... All things were made through
Him, and without Him was not anything made which was made” (see also Heb 1:2,
Finally,
Islam in the Koran also presents a doctrine of a created universe (Surahs
6:1-3, 7:54, 16:3,), and a special creation of human beings that includes
statements of their high value and status (Surahs 6:2, 2:30-34, 7:189). These
texts serve as foundational constraints against racism.
Social Moral Law
The
foundational statement that I have identified for providing a counter to racism
in the Jewish tradition is the commandment, “you shall love your neighbor as
yourself” found in the book of Leviticus chapter 19, verse 18.
That
this is a foundational social ethical statement can be ascertained from the
fact that both in structure and content this love of neighbor command provides
the foundation for, and unifies all the preceding social/economic prohibitions
found in the self- contained passage (Lev 19:11-18) which it concludes. Wenham
has demonstrated that the love of neighbor command “forms a literary as well as
a theological climax to the whole passage,” by graphing the “different words
for neighbor” found throughout this passage:[8]
|
11-12 |
fellow
citizen |
I
am the Lord. |
|
13-14 |
neighbor |
I
am the Lord. |
|
15-16
|
fellow
citizen, people, neighbor |
I
am the Lord. |
|
17-18 |
brother,
fellow citizen, people, neighbor |
I
am the Lord. |
This graph
helps one to see that the command, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself”
provides the foundation for precluding the doing of certain things which would
be to the detriment of the neighbor, which is the individual import of these
specific laws and the common concern of all of them.[9] As
for specific content, this passage addresses an impressive array of social
relationships. The relationships and
prohibitions detailed include: economic relations-prohibitions against all
manner of theft and fraud (Lev 19:11-12); social/economic relations-prohibition
against robbery, and forms of oppression, including economic oppression (Lev
19:13-14);[10]
judicial relationships-directives for just and impartial judicial practice (Lev
19:15-16); and even personal relationships (Lev 19:17-18a). Since the practice
of racism in all its forms is also to the detriment of the neighbor, and also
can lead to the practices prohibited above (e.g. judicial unfairness), it would
naturally also be precluded by this love of neighbor command.
As with
the doctrine of creation, Christianity adopts the love of neighbor ethic from
the “Old Testament” as well. Also, Jesus will explicitly identified this love
of neighbor command as a foundational statement and thereby explicitly reveal
its extended foundational scope when He says in Matt 22:40, “On these two
commandments hang all the law and Prophets.” The love of neighbor is the
fundamental moral basis of all the social moral laws. The specific moral laws
either prohibit action which is detrimental to the neighbor and therefore
contrary to the love of neighbor, or they give positive mandate and direction
to love. Likewise, the Prophets (who
presupposed the tradition of the Law)[11]
cry out against human relations which are selfishly conceived, not concerned
for the others welfare, or detrimental to the victim.[12]
In short, the law and Prophets, recalling the law, sought either to prohibit
behavior which is contrary to the norm and rule of love or provide directives
to establish it. Racism is clearly contrary to the norm and rule of love.
Like
Jesus, Paul the Apostle affirms the foundational nature and scope of the love
of neighbor in Rom 13:9 and Gal 5:14 when he says that the love of neighbor
commandment “sums up” (Rom 13:9) and “fulfills” (Rom 13:8b, 10; Gal 5:14) the
law. In Rom 13:9 Paul lists four prohibitive commandments from the social moral
commands of the Ten Commandments (which themselves are a set of general moral
commands that are the basis of some of the more specific social moral commands
of the O.T. law codes--, which are developed case and statutory law stemming
from them) and says that these commandments and others are “summed up” by the
one commandment, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Paul made this
statement in order to support his assertion in Rom 13:8b that the one who loves
the other has, as a result, fulfilled the law.
The fact that the law can be “summed up” by the love of neighbor command
shows that the commandments have a relationship to love and that love is capable
of fulfilling the law. Since, minimally, “love works no harm to the neighbor”
(Rom 10:13a), love produces that behavior which the law requires for its
fulfillment. “Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom 13:10b). Likewise, in Gal 5:14 Paul says that, “the
whole law in one word is fulfilled, in this, ‘you shall love your neighbor as
yourself.’” It is only possible for the requirements of the law to be satisfied
by observance of the one rule of love because the love of neighbor has a foundational
and unifying relationship with the other specific social moral laws. Clearly,
the practice of racism works harm to the neighbor, violates the principle of
love, and leads to the breaking of (or the construction of unjust) social moral
law.
Before
turning to Islam, I shall note a couple of additional aspects about this love
of neighbor command because of their racial importance. First, “you shall love
your neighbor as yourself” has a positive practical mandate (note the form of
the command), and an emotional component (by virtue of the semantic range
of “ahabh”--the Hebrew word translated
as “love”).[13] And,
second, the sense of the phrase “as yourself” is that one cares about one’s
neighbor just like one cares about oneself; that is, one is concerned about
their neighbor’s welfare just as one is concerned about one’s own welfare.
Obviously one can not be unconcerned about another’s welfare because they are
of a different race nor harbor hatred for someone because they are of a
different race and fulfill this command or affirm this social value.
With
Islam I have not been able to identify one summary foundational social
statement such as that above, but there are statements in the Koran which oppose:
racial superiority of one person over another (Surah 49:11-13), economic
inequalities (Surahs 30:38-39; 59:7-8; 70:24-25; 4:2-3, 8; 2:275-276), a lack
of concern for the needs of the less fortunate (Surahs 2:3; 17:27, 34;
89:18-20, 24; 107:1-7), and partiality in justice, (Surah 4:105, 135; 5:8).
Furthermore, Rhaman points out that the Koran is not just an Islamic law book
but the religious source of Islamic law.[14]
Therefore, it is appropriate to be aware of the more foundational values and
presuppositions of racial equality, equity, and impartiality that these
specific laws seem to reflect, and which they seemingly were attempting to
institute in their specific historical context. The practice of racism is
inconsistent with these values and can lead to these unjust practices.
Judgment
In the
interest of space, I will only make a couple of points with respect to the
Western religions’ doctrines of judgment. First, as noted above, the doctrine
of judgment is foundational in its universality, and in the fact that it
presupposes that each person is in some measure responsible for their ethical
behavior. Second, the doctrine suggests that the wrongs perpetrated against
another, the values rejected, and the disregard shown for another’s welfare are
taken seriously in these traditions because these wrong behaviors are
considered significant enough to warrant judgment. In these Western religious
traditions human beings are held accountable for their words and their deeds
(For Judaism see Eccl 12:13-14; for Christianity see Matt 25:31-46, Rom 2:5-6,
II Cor 5:10, Rev 22:12; and for Islam see Surahs 45:26-35, 51:1-19, 69:15-35,
101:5-9, and passim). Finally, and
more directly related to the thesis of this paper, in large measure (as several
texts indicate)[15] the wrongs
in view and the value choices made which are to be judged are the very moral
violations and social values which were specified above. Racial equality is too
great of value, and the practice of
racism to great a violation and detriment to its victims not to be taken
seriously.
Historical Practices of Racism
In this
last section my only concern is to very briefly point out some historical
incidents of racist practices in order to give an example of the fact that merely
belonging to one of the Western religions (or any religion, ideology, etc for
that matter) is not in itself a sufficient condition for not being a
racist.
Unfortunately
one needs to look no further than our own American history and its racial blights
of slavery and segregation for an example of how racism and racist practices
were rationalized and legitimized by people who claimed to be members of a
Western religion, in this case Christianity.[16]
There
is abundant record on the subject but in the interest of brevity a few examples
and single quotes must serve here as representative.[17]
As for racism and slavery, one early critic of slavery, the Congregational
minister Samuel Hopkins, noted of his Christian and other contemporaries that,
“White people... regarded Negroes as ‘fit for nothing but slaves.’, ... (and,
further, Negroes were not regarded by them) ‘in any degree on a level’ with
themselves.[18] These
prejudices and the practice of slavery were also backed up with proof texts
from the Bible such as the often (and erroneously) quoted “curse of Ham.”[19]
As for
the practice of segregation, although not all were as blunt as the Southern
Lutheran Synod of Tennessee which said in 1866 (after emancipation) that:
“owing to the plainly marked distinctions which God has made between us and
them (i. e. Negroes) ... there ought to be separate places of worship, and,
also separate ecclesiastical organizations, so that every one could worship God
with the least possible embarrassment,”[20]
most all the major Southern Christian denominations expressed, supported , and
practiced segregation.[21]
One
can see then from these representative historical examples that racism was used
to rationalize and legitimate slavery and segregation and proof texts were
found in order to rationalize and legitimate these practices, as well as
marginalize their importance. And hence the point is made that merely belonging
to one of the Western religious traditions is not enough to stop racism. Rather, it is only when one accepts as
normative the foundational counter racist principles and values of these
traditions and puts them into consistent practice that progress against racism
can be made.
Click
here to return to home page index.htm
[1] This paper was
originally presented at the Racism and Religion Conference: Common Ground,
[2] “Foundational” is not
being used here in the sense of Foundationalism. This latter term denotes a
particular epistemological perspective, whereas the metaphor “foundational”
suggests a level that other more specific relationships would build from
(Krausz, Michael. “Relativism and Foundationalism: Some Distinctions and
Strategies,” The Monist 67.3 (1984): 398).
[3] As the metaphor
foundational (foundation) implies these are the beliefs upon which others
rests. Or, to change the idiom from
metaphor to a logical and philosophical expression, these statements are more
universal and are the ones which many other particular beliefs can be deduced
from. Also, these foundational beliefs are
the ones in which other particular beliefs within the belief system should be
interpreted in light of. See further,
Hiebert, Paul. “The Missiological Implications of an Epistemological Shift.” TSF
Bulletin 8 no. 5 (1985): 12-18, for a discussion of and chart depicting the
different levels of beliefs in any belief or knowledge system, and their
interrelationships.
[4] I should note that,
given the prevalence of the theory of evolution, modern religious
understandings, etc, even if one were to regard these creation texts as mere
myth, since myths partially function to embody and communicate a tradition's
fundamental values, within these religious traditions they still would hold as
foundational statements affirming the basic racial equality and fundamental
value of humankind. Incidentally, for a
collection of essays which argue for the compatibility of modified forms of the
theories of creation and evolution (a position sometimes referred to as
theistic evolution) see MacMullin, Ernan. Ed.
Creation and Evolution.
Notre Dame University Press, 1985. Also, see Jaki, Stanely. God and the Cosmologists. Gateway
Regencey, 1989. Finally, for a survey article of the paradigmatic changes in
the theory of evolution itself see Kelly, Kevin. “Deep Evolution, the Emergence
of Post-Darwinism.” Whole Earth Review (Fall 1992): 4-20.
[5] This is an absolute
origin statement and at once gives Judaism its beginning and foundational
doctrine for both a created world and a transcendent God. As an absolute origin
statement it stands unique among all the other creation myth literature of the
Ancient Near East (for a comparison of other Ancient Near Eastern creation
myths with that of Genesis see Walton, John. Ancient Israelite Literature in
its Cultural Context.
[6] Other classical Jewish
texts which affirm the doctrine of creation include: Psalms 33, 104; Job 38,
42; etc.
[7] Although sexism is not
our immediate concern, I should also point out that the poetic structure of the
absolute origin statement of Gen 1:27 makes it clear that both man and woman
are created in God’s image and therefore have equal worth.
[8] Wenham, p. 267, In his The
Book of Leviticus. New International Commentary on the Old Testament.
[9] The famous first
century Rabbi Hillel said of this command that it is the great principle in the
law, the rest is commentary.
[10] The scope of economic
oppression addressed included economic structures such as the charging of
excessive interest on loans (see further Allbee, Richard A. The Commandment
‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’ and the Biblical Social Moral laws.
Thesis.
[11] See Lofthouse, W.F.
“The Social Teaching of the Law.” Expositor Ser 7, vol. 5 (1908):
449-469; and von Waldo. “Social Responsibility and Social Structure in Early
[12] See Gerstenberger,
Erhard. “The Woe-Oracles of the Prophets.” Journal of Biblical Literature
81 (1962): 249-263; and Mays, James Luther. “Justice: Perspectives From the
Prophetic Tradition.” Interpretation 37 (1983): 5-17.
[13] See Wallis, G.;
Bergman, J.; and Halder, A.D. “‘ahabh.’” Theological Dictionary of the Old
Testament (1977) 1: 99-118.
[14] Rhaman, Fazlur. Major
Themes of the Qur’an, Chicago: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1980, p. 47.
[15] See several of the
references pertaining to judgment according to words and deeds cited
immediately above in the paper. Also, for the Jewish and Christian traditions,
since the Prophets often warned of judgment because of social moral violations
see the articles by Gerstenberger and Mays cited in note # 12 above. Finally,
since the doctrine of the last judgment partially developed in the literature
of the Intertestamental period for the Jewish and Christian traditions see Abraham
Cronbach, “The Social Ideals of the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha,” Hebrew
Union College Annual 18 (1944): 119-155.
[16] Since I have cited only
the Christian religion for a negative example, in the interest of fairness I
should also point out that people of the Christian tradition have also fought
diligently against racial prejudices and racial practices including the
practice of slavery. See for example: Essig, James D. The Bonds of Wickedness: American
Evangelicals Against Slavery, 1770-1808.
[17] Several good books and
articles exist on the subject: Smith, H. Skelton. In His Image, But...Racism
in Southern Religion, 1770-1910.
[18] Smith, H Sheklton, In
His Image, p. 19.
[19] The allusion was
erroneous because, as the Genesis text clearly indicates, the curse of slavery was
not on Ham but on his son
[20] Smith, In His Image,
p. 245.
[21] See further: Smith In
His Image, chapter 5; Cook, The Segregationist, chapter 6; and the
relevant articles among those listed above in note # 17 above.