WWJD? BKBTRPAOTD

One of the most hollow forms of resistance to peacemaking by Evangelical Friends is also the most enduring. I'm not suggesting that all Evangelical Friends have dismissed peacemaking- only that one particular way Evangelical Friends who have is especially empty. But ironically, for its emptiness it rests solidly as the foundation of some of our worst behaviors.

It is the belief that personal holiness or one's own relationship to Jesus is the best and only way to pursue peace. I don't take issue with that conceptually. In fact, I would say that sincere and devoted disciples of Jesus would be incredibly committed to peacemaking and that people who are committed to peacemaking are following a Jesus-like example. Where it becomes hollow and perhaps duplicitous is under the shadow of a Modern Grahamsian* political philosophy that deceptively compartmentalizes the religious from the political. I say deceptively because there is no way of being that is not political, but the ideological genius of the Grahamsian school is to convince its adherents that they are not political.

For example, in the Grahamsian School, integration and civil rights concerns of the mid 20th century US were deemed too political an issue to address critically through institutional or organizational avenues. It was not the kind of thing about which an evangelist should speak because it was the kind of thing Jesus would fix when he got here. So one was off the hook; the job was to evangelize not to prophesy. How convenient that the two could be separated in such a way that maintained the status quo.** Can I use the word hegemony or does that make it too wonky? Maybe. So I'll say that the Grahamsian assumption that politics and religion can be separated supports and justifies (that's really important) the acts and values of... of... oh I have to write it... the acts and values of the bourgeoisie. Uck. Sorry, but that's what it is.

So it isn't that Grahamsians are not political. It's that their politics can be hidden in plain sight. Their politics are the fodder for the politics of domination, however it's fodder disguised in the landscape. That Billy Graham, for example, could advocate the destruction of people's drinking and irrigation water in North Viet Nam and be apolitical is borne by his commitment to being political in a way that supported the dominating politics. I know that line is anachronistic- I don't think Billy Graham would have thought of the North Viet Namese as "people" at the time. The point is, nothing is apolitical, and the pretense of being apolitical is a politics of domination. We act politically when we say teaching poor people Christian vocabulary is acceptable- necessary even, but challenging our justification of political and economic institutions that depend on there being poor people is boat-rockingly dangerous, praying for the quick end to a war or violent conflict is good, challenging our support of a culture of violence is too controversial.

Practically, I have heard more than once from more than one person in response to some hippy Jesus idea of mine or other that we'd do more for peace by learning to forgive people in our families than challenging our support of militarism and nationalism. That the two could be mutually exclusive or prioritized thusly is firmly nailed to Grahamsian politics. In a Grahamsian scheme, we easily identify conservative American (hey, I didn't say bourgeoisie) values with the holiness that comes from being a Christian and that is no mere coincidence. No coincidence, rather a hollow but consequential deception.


* This word is hilarious. Find out why.
** Really. Find out why it so hilariously appropriate that I call it Grahamsian.