www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Is Christianity a White Man's Religion?

According to Wiki,

Dear Friends,

The Orthodox Christianity of Rus' has a great tradition of Crimean Tatar Saints and also of Mongolian Orthodox Saints.

It was the Kyivan Prince St Theodore of Smolensk who befriended the Mongolian Khan who allowed him to marry his daughter.

His daughter not only became an Orthodox Christian but St Theodore's Father-in-law allowed Orthodox missionaries and even churches to be set up in his empire.

St Theodore's two half-Mongolian sons, also Orthodox saints, assisted their father in promoting Christianity among the Mongols and other peoples.

Then there are the Siberian Saints, especially St Basil of Mangazea, whose cult was avidly promoted in Kyiv and elsewhere by St Paul Koniuskevich of Tobolsk and St Philotheus of Irkutsk . . .

Then there are the Chinese Orthodox New Martyrs of the Orthodoxy of St John Maximovych, Metropolitan of Siberia and his later descendant, St John Maximovych, Archbishop of Shanghai and San Francisco . . .

I remember seeing an encounter between an Ethiopian and Russian Orthodox priests during a blessing of an icon of the Romanov Saints.

The Ethiopian priest explained to the ROCOR priest about the tradition of their hand-held Crosses.

"What a beautiful practice!" exclaimed the ROCOR priest.

Smiles all around!

Cheers,

Alex

Hello,

I don't think the title of the thread meant that the Church is whites only, because we all know that there are many races within the Church.

However, it's the cultural identity is what I think the title of the thread really meant.

For instance, in majority of Western Churches (Roman Church and High Church Protestants) have rigid and anglosaxon mannerism and mentality. There's not much clapping and praising in there like in most African Churches.

I think that Coptic and Ethopian Churches are more compatitible with Africans (Black), because it's culturally compatible. So, I don't know why not many African Catholics aren't exploring that Church (rite).

The Roman Church is indeed a white man's Church in CULTURAL and IDENTIFY aspect. So, I feel bad for the African Roman Catholics, because I know that they should clap and sing praises the way they truly are, they are people of joy and happiness. Singing songs, dancing, clapping and praising G-d.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

PS, I hope I didn't offend anyone, as I do NOT intend to. Apologies in advance.

Dear brother in Christ, SP,

You have not been offensive at all in your post. Infact, it was quite perceptive.

I also wonder if the cultural surroundings and serious form of worship of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are compatable with every other culture--(ofcourse there will be exceptions to the rule).

Our cultures can define us in many unique ways.

In Christ,
Alice

Dear Alice,

I am sorry for the confussion of my post. I really was making light of it. I have always found it interesting that we and many others in our Church were refered to as whites. Say if a Lebonese man marries a woman from the UK of European decent, more often than not, he would say I married a white woman. I have no idea of where it comes from.

Spundas,

There are many beautiful African traditions in the Roman Catholic Church. They are the only ones in the RC Church, allowed to use liturgical dancing. Of course that wonderful praise and worship, in with their Gospel Music becuase that is part of their tradition.

If you ever get the opportunity to hear Fr. Judy, do so, he is an RC African Priest that literaly sings his homily as the Holy Spirit moves him, in a sort of swaying dance. His homilies are so powerful. It is very different to 'white folks', but a very beautiful way of preaching.

We had a freind many years ago, that was a missionary brother in Africa. He brought a video home of a Mass there. It was beautiful to the see the liturgical dance of the people done with these huge ostrich plumes. It was so cool. The native dress for the feast was just awesome. I have never seen or imagined anything like it since.

So like us, as Eastern Catholics, because it is part of their 'traditions' it is allowed.

Pani Rose

Hi Pani Rose,

Thanks for your response!

Actually, it is quite curious, however, it may be a translation of something which the Lebanese say in their language which makes sense in their culture, but doesn't quite translate into English the same way.

Fondest regards,
Alice

I take Pani's statement to mean that the Lebanese she has encountered do not lump themselves together with Caucasians, perhaps viewing "white people" as those of English/Irish/Scottish descent while viewing Lebanese as a different cultural group? I understood her to mean that they are not identifying themselves by race, but by culture.

To give my usual input here, (as I always tend to do, hopefully not to everyone's chagrin), I believe the Ethiopian Church was one of the first Christian Churches. They are black! Hey, and they still exist! They haven't become Muslims.

Also as for slavery, it has existed ever since some warriors decided not to kill their enemies, but rather to use them. It started, it seems to me, as a more humane and productive institution...at least in comparison to killing one's enemies. Or so I think!

Then again, the name 'Slav' came from slave. It seems the slaves of old came from Russia. No doubt caught and sold by the Turks. I believe that slavery was common in Europe up to at least the 17th century. I have a print by Dali of the city of Venus, and in it is a women with a black boy holding her train. Interestingly it also has a woman being carried in a litter... which was also quite common in the English colonies.

I recall seeing a litter, (I think that's the name), for sale in a shop in Manhattan, and it's weight was unbelievable. I don't know what kind of wood it was made of, but it appeared as heavy as iron. It also seems that it was carried by two, rather than four men, and whoever was in it would be added to the weight. Pity them!

The institution of slavery was probably abolished because of the Puritanical ethics that came about during the reformation. (At least that's what I believe). If it continued in the American South, it was probably due to the climate, which was much hotter then than now, making it impossible for white men to work in that heat.

Zenovia

I have quite a bit of experience with Catholics of the Ibo tribe from Nigeria (the tribe of Cardinal Arinze), and I do not find that their attitudes towards the mass, christianity, or catholicism match your preconceived notions at all.
Litugical dance is reserved exclusively for introit and offertory processions, as well as paraliurgical celebrations such as benediction services. Mass among the Ibo is a profound and sollemn affair, preceded by recitation of all 20 myteries of the rosary (thats 20 Our Fathers, 20 slavas, and 200 Hail Mary's!) Use of Latin is very popular in the Mass, and even the classical Roman Rite is making a comeback in Nigeria, drawign crowds of thousands who walk miles, and having no kneelers simply prostrate themselves during the canon. My Nigerian friends genrally have a low opinion of the reverence level of most RC masses in America, and an even lower opinion of the Haugen/Haas music, they refer either their native songs, or classical hymnody (everyone seems to love Ave Maria). This is in no way to deny the unique forms and piety of the Ibo, but simply to point out that these expressions are culturally conditioned, stunned awe at the glory of the liturgy is not culturally conditioned, it is human.

Sorry Zenovia, I am not going to let this pass. Protestantlism, which unmoored fiath from authority and bound it tightly to majority opinion (a.k.a. Wikiality) and effectively unified temporal and religous authority entriely within the state had NOTHING to do with the decline and end of slavery. Slavery died out in th elate Roman Empire within the parts of Europe under control of the Roman Church (albeit replaced by serfdom, but still an improvement), whereas slavery continued in the East, eventually becoming a strategic boom for Mohammed, who, in a brilliant marketing ploy offered freedom to all slaved who became muslims (everyone from the Dar al harb, OTOH, was out of luck), causing enourmous defections within the Byzantine Empire.
The intellectual and moral underpinnings for the end of slavery were entirely Catholic
See
Bartholomew De Las Casas [acton.org]
Francisco Marroqu�n [acton.org]
Luis de Molina [acton.org]
But then, what do a bunch of western scholastics know?

If the slave trade was started by the Portugese and Spanish, it was only becuase they were first in the Exploration of the world. At the same time, the Spanish and portugese (and French) at least let Native peoples generally live and also formed creole and Mestizo communities. On the other hand, the default setting for protestants seems to have been old-testament style extermination, (See Indians in the US, or heck, Irishmen in Ireland) or really brutal suppression with a religous fervor(Afikaaners in South Afrika).
Finally Lets look at the record, slavery was ended peacefully without war in the following countries
Argentina 1813, Columbia 1814, Chile 1823, Central America 1824, Mexico 1829, Bolivia 1831, Uruguay 1842, French and Danish Colonies 1848, Ecuador 1851, Peru 1854, Venzuela 1854.
What do these all have in common? The emancipation happended peacefully and DECADES before the US.

BTW, the climate in the south was COOLER then than now. (Residue of 13th century mini ice age) Sorry.

This thread is starting to take an ugly turn to it - part of which is caused by ignoring the underlying premise of the perception espoused by Malcolm X, part of which is the absolute need to be able to look askance and say with horrorified looks of righteousness "not us!". Malcolm X's premise may have been wrong but the circumstances that prompted it occurred, well-intended but self-righteous denials to the contrary. And, whether perception is reality or not is an arguable point - in the eyes of the beholder, it is rarely easily dismissed. The record of Christians in America, Catholics and otherwise, in their individual and institutional response to slavery was, at best, a very mixed bag.

Experience has long taught me that when any one group - religious, cultural, ethnic, or otherwise - pontificates about their unique ethos and how it saved the rest of humanity from some evil, further investigation inevitably reveals that, prior to becoming enlightened, they too contributed to that evil and it's rare that they were the only ones to have suddenly discovered that it wasn't "right".

Slavery was rampant world-wide for centuries in countries that were under the leadership of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and virtually every other faith. Eastern and Oriental Christians, Catholic and Orthodox, have no high ground to claim in this regard. Since there were so comparatively few of our Church's peoples in the US during this particular chapter of American history and, thus, there is no ready historical record on which to reflect, we can assert blamelessness. What we cannot know is whether we would have behaved any differently than those of other Christian faiths did - and the likely answer is that our record would have been as mixed.

Some reading of interest:

Resolution No. 1 - On Racial Reconciliation [sbc.net] is the text of an apology adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention for its role and attitude toward slavery

United Methodist Church and Slavery [gbgm-umc.org] details briefly the split that occurred in the UMC over slave-holding

Resolution A123 - Slavery and Racial Reconciliation [gc2006.org] is the text of the apology adopted by the Episcopal Church, 2 months ago, for its participation in slavery

Apology by the Southern Province of the Moravian Church [news-record.com] for its participation in slavery, adopted 4 months ago

Apology by the Northern Province of the Moravian Church [myrtlebeachonline.com] for its role in slavery, adopted 2 months ago

Slavery and the Church [orestesbrownson.com] is an excellent discussion of the schizophrenia regarding slavery which was prevalent in American Catholicism during the years leading up to the Civil War. Its author, Orestes Brownson, was one of the foremost American Catholic intellectuals of the mid to late 19th century.

Catholics and the Negro [docsouth.unc.edu] is a detailed summary of Catholic documents and positions relative to slavery that Joseph Butsch wrote in the early 20th century for the Journal of Negro History

Position of Denominations on Slavery [northcoast.com] a brief summary by John McKivigan, a professor at W.Va. University, who has researched and written extensively on slavery issues

A close reading of the above and myriad other writings on the topic will readily demonstrate that however much individual Churches, Catholic or otherwise, felt slavery to be abhorrent, their responses to it were frequently luke-warm at best when push came to shove.

They feared schism, as certainly came to pass among some of those which took a firm stance (the UMC is an excellent example). Such a concern was certainly a factor in the absence of a unified stance by the American Catholic hierarchy.

A fear of disturbing the social order, encouraging anarchy, also factored into the unwillingness of many religious leaders to step up to the plate (or pulpit) and denounce the institution or call for its abolition. Among Catholics, there was also the concern that speaking against slavery would also bring further discrimination, already rampant in many quarters, against their own kind.

That none of the Churches were able to enforce an across-the-board rejection of slavery by their adherents is evident from even a cursory review of the literature and, as regards Catholics, is further emphasized by the fact that Catholic religious orders owned slaves. (I thought that there was an old thread on this topic elsewhere on the forum, but the search function fails to reveal it, so it may have been on a different site, perhaps CAF.)

Quakers, United Brethren, Mennonites, Amish, and other "peace Churches", together with the Unitarians, probably had the best overall record as regards slavery, but even those are not totally unsmirched and acceptance of indentured servitude - not always easily distinguished from "benevolent slavery" - was not uncommonly observed among those bodies.

Unfortunately, even when slavery was rejected, there was still a rampant willingness to accept and even support the accordance of second-class citizenry and status to Blacks and other minorities - both in the US and elsewhere. The myriad religious orders that maintained a second level of membership - often including separate congregations - for "native" religious is a less than proud testament to the truth of that. Among non-Catholics, the establishment of separate conferences, dioceses, etc., for the "colored" is a parallel example; Catholics, too, supported "colored parishes".

The saddest aspect of the whole sordid history is that those who supported or tolerated slavery were often peoples whose own ancestors had been the object of just such dehumanizing treatment at the hands of others in their native lands.

There are heroes in all this - but they are not confined to any one Church or faith - and to suggest that Catholics brought an end to slavery in America is a short-sighted and bigoted outlook in itself that ignores the contributions of the multitude of Protestant clergymen and laypersons who devoted themselves to doing so.

If we of the East want to take pride in our own contributions toward the attainment of racial equality, we need to look to more modern times, to the likes of His Eminence Archbishop Iakovos and His Excellency Archbishop (then Father Archmandrite) Joseph Raya, both of whom proudly and courageously marched with Doctor Martin Luther King, all of blessed memory.

Many years,

Neil

The Faith transcends race and culture. And liturgy can be adapted to culture. I have an old phonograph album called Missa Luba. It's the Latin Mass sung by West Africans in their own unique rhythms and harmonies, accompanied by drums. The Sanctus is reverent and very beautiful, and the Gloria is wonderfully exuberant but no less beautiful.

The Gospel, as preached by the Apostles, did not require people to abandon their culture except insofar as they renounced idolatry and embraced Christian morality vis-a-vis chastity, non-violence, etc. That's why we wound up with as many different Churches within the Catholic Faith as we have today.

People of all cultures have embraced the Faith, not to mention died for it -- from Asia and Africa as well as the Americas. The Faith is universal and can accommodate everyone. I think that whether an African-American is more comfortable in an inner-city Roman Catholic Church where the preaching is punctuated by Hallelujahs from the congregation or a traditional Byzantine Church is more a matter of their spirituality than culture.

Sophia

Dear Neil,

Excellent post!

In Christ,
Alice, Moderator

Something that is often forgotten when discussing slavery, is that not all slaves were products of "raids" by white people. On the contrary, many if not most were sold to the white slave traders by black tribes. They were often slaves already. Of course this encouraged some tribes to raid others because they knew they could sell the captives, but it is wrong to see it as an exclusively black v. white issue.
There are also some funny stories about european slave ships that ventured just a little too far into the dark continent, wherupon they were all taken captive and enslaved themselves.

It is important to know our history, but the most important thing is to rejoice in the fact that all Christian faiths have rejected slavery as evil. It may have been acceptible at one time, but we have fortunately evolved past that stage.

Going back to the main question, it's hard to look at these images and claim that the christianity is a white man's religion: http://www.cnewa.org/source-images/mag-images/magimages-32-3/ethiopiaMay06/ethiopiaMay06.html

Since we are on the subject, what is the status of the Zairian rite? I have heard about it but have not gathered if it is officially sanctioned or not. Does anybody know?

This is rather a cultural stereotype. I remember talking with an elderly black Catholic lady in my old Roman parish and asked her how she liked the Gospel music Masses at a local parish and she emphatically told me "that's Baptist! I was raised with the Latin Mass!"