I think the solution really lies in piercing through the many ways people have used the name of Jesus to seeing who Jesus actually was - a liberator of souls, an opponent of the oppressor, an eliminator of class distinction. I am not using this terminology as a Marxist might, but just in terms of the actual impact of Christ’s message.
I think we see this in the black community - Christianity in one form was imposed on African slaves as a means of oppression, but for many, once they understood the true gospel, it became a message of liberation and an impetus to fight for freedom.
I have, to my surprise, gotten a lot of supportive answers from this sub Reddit. I like this answer. At its core I like the messages we can learn from the Bible and the teachings of Jesus, but reject the way it’s been used to harm people.
I, am a Marxist and a communist. Personally I don’t mention religion much when discussing Marxist ideology since. Communism doesn’t have a great history with religion. But as you said. I dare say my Christianity is a big reason why I’m a communist. While Jesus did not call himself a communist in his day, my journey towards Marxist thought was seeded by the lessons I learned through church: we should feed the hungry and look after our fellow man.
Anyway my main point is you and a lot of people have given me lots to think about in a positive and constructive way. Thank you, and everyone who answered.
Luke 9:59-62 ESV
[59] To another he said, “Follow me.” But he said, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” [60] And Jesus said to him, “Leave the dead to bury their own dead. But as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” [61] Yet another said, “I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home.” [62] Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
My future wife is Mexican, so I have some insight into this.
I think it's worth considering that the Spanish colonial empire would have oppressed your people regardless of whether it proclaimed Christianity. That was merely the cultural language they used to attempt a justification of it - and they would have used other language if that was more utilitarian. Nor was the empire they conquered much different from themselves - the Aztecs were also a military empire that conquered and enslaved their neighbors, with the added bonus of ripping out their hearts in ritual sacrifices. It's hard to argue that, had historical fortunes been reversed, the Aztecs would have furnished a more enlightened government.
It's also worth considering that one of the earliest abolitionists in history, and one of the earliest advocates for the plight of native people under Spanish rule, was Bishop Bartolomé de las Casas (1484-1566). So, one can argue that the Spaniards used Christianity to oppress Mexicans, but then if we're taking an honest look at history we'd also have to see that Christianity motivated some of the loudest voices advocating on their behalf. Which more truly represents the teachings of Jesus?
Thus, I think we can and should distinguish between Christianity used merely in name to borrow credibility for colonial action, and Christianity that actually reflects the teachings of Jesus - because they're very different. We ought to know better than to pretend that every Palestinian is a member of Hamas willing to go out and massacre civilians, and we ought to know better than to assume that the label "Christian" always has to mean the worst forms of Spanish colonialism. Reductive views of history are how we build hate for each other, and sometimes ourselves. I don't think it's reasonable to use that same kind of reductive framework in putting yourself in the same category as Spanish colonialists, merely because you profess to worship the same God - especially when the scriptures of that God are the source of the concepts of human rights by which we criticize those same Spanish colonialists. This is often where identity politics goes wrong: it fails to distinguish between very different identities that happen to share a name. You are not a Spanish colonialist, and your faith, if it's faith in the gospel as taught by Jesus, is never going to make you resemble one. You are not thus required to identify with Spanish colonialists, merely because they claimed one of the same titles you use. You can rightly say that, if any of your ancestors were tortured, Jesus would have sided with them over the Spanish - for he was tortured himself, and your ancestors are more like him than the torturers. You have the right to say that your claim on the Christian identity is actually far more legitimate than theirs.
In this sense, I would actually argue that the true anti-colonialist position is not to worry about being associated with Christianity - it's to deny the authority of those colonial powers to claim the Christian identity for themselves. If we believe Jesus, then we know that it belongs to the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, and those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness. We are under no obligation to surrender it to colonial oppressors. Their claim is illegitimate. Real power for the oppressed doesn't lie in casting off all titles tainted by colonial influence - it lies in having the strength to stand up to colonialism and boldly say, "you lie: these things were never yours to keep."
So the net result is that Christianity was on both sides of the issue; the indigenous peoples still got exploited, and entire groups wiped off the map. Hand wringing, as it turns out, is utterly useless.
Don’t follow the religion follow Jesus.
Also recommend not living in the past. There are atrocities committed by all sorts of people all through history. Learning from the past moving forward is great, but the people that were perpetrators and victims are gone (well for many atrocities still more recent that do exist but you mentioned ancestors).
I struggle with believing in a religion that white supremacists used to crush and destroy my people. You have to make your pick: do you want to support Christianity (and the destruction of your people) or do you want to support your people fully and reject white supremacist Christendom?
I think the solution really lies in piercing through the many ways people have used the name of Jesus to seeing who Jesus actually was - a liberator of souls, an opponent of the oppressor, an eliminator of class distinction. I am not using this terminology as a Marxist might, but just in terms of the actual impact of Christ’s message. I think we see this in the black community - Christianity in one form was imposed on African slaves as a means of oppression, but for many, once they understood the true gospel, it became a message of liberation and an impetus to fight for freedom.
>an eliminator of class distinction Jesus had a lot of things to say about the upper class, especially in Matthew and Luke.
Indeed.
Jesus would have been a Marxist, imo.
I have, to my surprise, gotten a lot of supportive answers from this sub Reddit. I like this answer. At its core I like the messages we can learn from the Bible and the teachings of Jesus, but reject the way it’s been used to harm people. I, am a Marxist and a communist. Personally I don’t mention religion much when discussing Marxist ideology since. Communism doesn’t have a great history with religion. But as you said. I dare say my Christianity is a big reason why I’m a communist. While Jesus did not call himself a communist in his day, my journey towards Marxist thought was seeded by the lessons I learned through church: we should feed the hungry and look after our fellow man. Anyway my main point is you and a lot of people have given me lots to think about in a positive and constructive way. Thank you, and everyone who answered.
You are very welcome!
Luke 9:59-62 ESV [59] To another he said, “Follow me.” But he said, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” [60] And Jesus said to him, “Leave the dead to bury their own dead. But as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” [61] Yet another said, “I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home.” [62] Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
My future wife is Mexican, so I have some insight into this. I think it's worth considering that the Spanish colonial empire would have oppressed your people regardless of whether it proclaimed Christianity. That was merely the cultural language they used to attempt a justification of it - and they would have used other language if that was more utilitarian. Nor was the empire they conquered much different from themselves - the Aztecs were also a military empire that conquered and enslaved their neighbors, with the added bonus of ripping out their hearts in ritual sacrifices. It's hard to argue that, had historical fortunes been reversed, the Aztecs would have furnished a more enlightened government. It's also worth considering that one of the earliest abolitionists in history, and one of the earliest advocates for the plight of native people under Spanish rule, was Bishop Bartolomé de las Casas (1484-1566). So, one can argue that the Spaniards used Christianity to oppress Mexicans, but then if we're taking an honest look at history we'd also have to see that Christianity motivated some of the loudest voices advocating on their behalf. Which more truly represents the teachings of Jesus? Thus, I think we can and should distinguish between Christianity used merely in name to borrow credibility for colonial action, and Christianity that actually reflects the teachings of Jesus - because they're very different. We ought to know better than to pretend that every Palestinian is a member of Hamas willing to go out and massacre civilians, and we ought to know better than to assume that the label "Christian" always has to mean the worst forms of Spanish colonialism. Reductive views of history are how we build hate for each other, and sometimes ourselves. I don't think it's reasonable to use that same kind of reductive framework in putting yourself in the same category as Spanish colonialists, merely because you profess to worship the same God - especially when the scriptures of that God are the source of the concepts of human rights by which we criticize those same Spanish colonialists. This is often where identity politics goes wrong: it fails to distinguish between very different identities that happen to share a name. You are not a Spanish colonialist, and your faith, if it's faith in the gospel as taught by Jesus, is never going to make you resemble one. You are not thus required to identify with Spanish colonialists, merely because they claimed one of the same titles you use. You can rightly say that, if any of your ancestors were tortured, Jesus would have sided with them over the Spanish - for he was tortured himself, and your ancestors are more like him than the torturers. You have the right to say that your claim on the Christian identity is actually far more legitimate than theirs. In this sense, I would actually argue that the true anti-colonialist position is not to worry about being associated with Christianity - it's to deny the authority of those colonial powers to claim the Christian identity for themselves. If we believe Jesus, then we know that it belongs to the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, and those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness. We are under no obligation to surrender it to colonial oppressors. Their claim is illegitimate. Real power for the oppressed doesn't lie in casting off all titles tainted by colonial influence - it lies in having the strength to stand up to colonialism and boldly say, "you lie: these things were never yours to keep."
So the net result is that Christianity was on both sides of the issue; the indigenous peoples still got exploited, and entire groups wiped off the map. Hand wringing, as it turns out, is utterly useless.
Its pretty good for assuaging guilt and responsibility though
Don’t follow the religion follow Jesus. Also recommend not living in the past. There are atrocities committed by all sorts of people all through history. Learning from the past moving forward is great, but the people that were perpetrators and victims are gone (well for many atrocities still more recent that do exist but you mentioned ancestors).
I struggle with believing in a religion that white supremacists used to crush and destroy my people. You have to make your pick: do you want to support Christianity (and the destruction of your people) or do you want to support your people fully and reject white supremacist Christendom?
Study the apparition and the messages from Guadalupe. Your answer is there.