Posted by Rachel on: 04.17.2008 /
“Between the Christianity of this land and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference - so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked…I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial, and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity.”
- Frederick Douglass, 1845
Leave a Reply
Comment by: benjamin ady
1 04/17/08 4:38 PM | Comment Link |Rachel,
… (Can’t believe I’m saying this) It seems a bit harsh to me. Frederick (did he go by “Frederick”?) is doing exactly what we don’t want to do–he’s homogenizing the out group. “The Christianity of this land” is a false, homogenous behemoth he has built up, like a straw man, so he can easily knock it down.
Which is to say he seems to be externalizing evil: “*I* love … (fill in the blank with whatever synonym you want for “good stuff”), but *they* (that evil homogenous outgroup) are …. (fill in the blank with unkind words like “corrupt”, “cradle-plundering” etc.)
Which is to say Mr. Douglass strikes me as thoroughly modern (and of course, why shouldn’t he be, considering when and where he lived?) and … into a bit of massive oversimplification.
Or something.
Of course *I* *never* oversimplify, but am rather always able to appreciate the nuance and subtle complex shades of gray in any situation. (heh) =)
Comment by: David H
2 04/17/08 11:43 PM | Comment Link |I understand why we shouldn’t homogenize, yet I recognize in the statement of Frederick Douglass the “Christianity” in which I was raised. I was taught it was the true faith and all others were such poor imitators as to not be Christian at all. I find remarkable that he recognized such falseness more than 100 years before I was born. Perhaps applying it as an us vs. them thing is wrong. But I grew up with the women-whipping, partial and hypocritical faith that was told as that of my fathers and theirs before them. It was given to me as the faith of this land and I hear so many who still decry what is happening in this country (grace, forgiveness, acceptance of difference) as a failure of everything that was right. Perhaps Mr. Douglass over-generalized, but I help but see myself in what he says. And I feel ashamed.
Comment by: Benjamin
3 04/18/08 8:34 AM | Comment Link |David,
Your reaction is more honest than mine.
I kind of cop out by rejecting the very Christianity Frederick speaks of–in a sense doing what he does, even though, like you, I was raised in it.
But probably easier it was for him to see it, since he was on the out-group of that Christianity, right?
I mean in a sense he’s naming, isn’t he? He’s saying “I name true Christianity to be something beautiful to everyone, not just white males, and thus anything that’s *not* beautiful to everyone *isn’t* Christianity.”
Dan Allender says it’s easy for us prophets to see and decry the lie, but a hell of a lot harder for us to search out and proclaim the beautiful truth. Where is the beautiful truth in Frederick’s words? He does my prophet thing, and (over?) concentrates on decrying the ugly lie. Of course it’s just one quote. =)
Comment by: Rachel
4 04/18/08 8:35 AM | Comment Link |Benjamin, I see your point. But remember that it was not Frederick Douglass who created this division. It was the “Christian nation” in which he lived which declared the in group to be fully human and the out group to be only 3/5th’s human. Frederick was a prophet, and like the Hebrew prophets before him, he spoke out about institutional sin. When injustice and idolatry became systemic in a society, the Hebrew prophets brought a message to the entire society.
Also Frederick drew a distinction between the false “Christianity of this land” and the authentic “Christianity of Christ.” But he isn’t saying that every Anglo-American in the entire country is automatically in the Christianity of this land group. No doubt Frederick considered the many Anglo-American Christians who participated in the Underground Railroad and in the abolitionist movement to be true followers of the peaceable Christ.
But he is drawing a line in the sand as prophets do. He is saying that if you are complicit in this slave-holding, cradle-robbing, women-whipping, religion-blessed system (John the Revelator might have called it “Babylon, the mother of harlots”), then your Christianity is false and wicked. Frederick does not leave his hearers trapped in a particular in group or out group. He in essence says, “You decide. To which Christianity will you give your allegiance?”
Comment by: Rachel
5 04/18/08 8:56 AM | Comment Link |The beautiful truth in Frederick’s words is that his hearers can repent — stop what they are doing and go in a different direction, make a complete transfer of allegiance. The beautiful truth is that the violence and greed-justifying civil religion of the empire is NOT all that exists. Another choice IS available. The gospel of Christ is real and authentic and can bring peace and unity. The beautiful truth for Frederick’s original audience, and for us today, is that we are not without hope.
Comment by: David H
6 04/18/08 11:32 AM | Comment Link |I think Rachel has nailed the issue here. Frederick Douglass could have stuck out his hand, curled under three fingers while extending one and said: _____________ (put name here) is a member of this false Christianity. That might have been wrong. But the false faith was obvious in the nation; it’s characteristics could be named without condemning specific practitioners. By naming the characteristics of that faith he forced people to decide whether that was what they practiced. But he also offered them an alternative.
I understand the need to not over-generalize. I also know it is important to not overly humanize some thing. If I put somebody else’s name on something that I may be condemning in the very manner that Jesus said I should avoid.
However, if I become so politically correct as to not clearly identify a problem am I not allowing almost everyone to simply ignore the issue? If you are not a cradle robber or a woman whipper or a slave holder, does this mean you can ignore this because he isn’t asking you to make a choice?
Truth is a difficult commodity. One thing occurred to me this week while listening to our president’s latest gutless response to the energy and environmental woes facing this nation and planet. It struck me that the problem may not be that it is true but that it is so often inconvenient. To be properly accepted truth almost always requires a response, an action, something that moves not just the mind but the body (and maybe soul) from the place it currently occupies toward something else. Douglass offered an inconvenient truth to the people of his day. Whether beauty could be found in it depended a lot on where it moved those who accepted it.
Comment by: Eliza
7 04/20/08 7:05 PM | Comment Link |He was a slave from his birth in 1818 until he finally escaped to freedom in 1838 (having tried but failed to escape at least twice before). His viewpoint is flavored by his having undoubtedly been owned by, sold by, sold to, punished by…and perhaps preached to by…”Christians of this land.” I can’t find any fault with his take on the situation.