On the inspiring
activist who defines the best of what Christianity has meant in America.
At the height of the mid-19th
century debates over slavery in the United States, some of the most vocal
partisans on both sides (and just to be very clear, I’m not trying by any means
to equate the two sides in a “fair and balanced” sort of way, simply to
highlight a shared rhetorical device) appealed directly to Christianity, and
even more directly to particular passages in the Bible, in order to make their
case. William Lloyd Garrison, Henry Ward Beecher, and Harriet Beecher Stowe,
three of the most prominent and central voices in the abolitionist movement,
all credited Presbyterian
minister John Rankin and his Scriptural opposition to slavery with greatly
influencing their views on and work for that cause. On the other side, Richard Furman, the
President of the South Carolina Baptist Convention, argued that “the right of
holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept
and example”; future President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis went even
further, thundering that slavery “was established by decree of Almighty God,”
and “is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to
Revelation.” There’s plenty that can be said about the issue of religion and
slavery in America, but my point here is a more simple one: the Bible can be,
and most definitely has been, used to justify any social or political position,
even the most diametrically opposed ones.
On virtually every relevant
issue, then, the question of What Would Jesus Do? is generally short-hand for
What Would I Like Some Irrefutable Backing For In Order to Feel Better About
Doing Myself (not an acronym that would work as well on bumper stickers, of
course)? But if there’s one social issue for which the use of Jesus’s and
Christian philosophies would seem, to my mind, most appropriate and as close to
genuinely irrefutable as we’re likely to get, it’s poverty. As cited in the Gospels of both Matthew and Luke, Jesus answered a question
from his disciples about how to achieve perfection by replying, “If you want to
be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor [“give alms” is the
King James translation, but same difference], and you will have treasure in
heaven. Then come, follow me.” Leaving aside whether such actions are truly
possible—or the even more complex question of what would then happen to those
who have sold all they have, given to the poor, and thus become impoverished
themselves—the larger message of this advice, as of a great many of Christ’s
pronouncements, is that an individual’s and a community’s spirituality and
perfection are directly connected to, even dependent on, their willingness to
take care of the least fortunate among them. And by that measure, no American
life and legacy are more truly Christian than those of Dorothy
Day (1897-1980).
Day was by her teens in the 1910s
and remained for most of her life thereafter a self-proclaimed and proud
socialist and Christian anarchist, and so by her final decades, with the Cold
War having pushed socialism and Christianity into explicitly opposed boxes, she
was a hugely controversial and divisive figure. Her own (Christ-like, one might
say) willingness to admit her weaknesses and shortcomings and mistakes, as when
she wrote of her common-law marriage and abortion in the autobiographical novel
The Eleventh
Virgin (1924) or her spiritual struggles and doubts in the more overtly
autobiographical The
Long Loneliness (1952), no doubt contributed as well to those mixed
responses. But Day’s most significant work and legacy, her 1933 founding (along
with fellow
activist Peter Maurin) of and lifelong commitment to the Catholic Worker movement,
represents one of our nation’s most impressive and influential (in her own life
and down to the our present moment) efforts on behalf of the most impoverished
and marginalized Americans, and as such we cannot allow it to be overshadowed
by those mixed responses. “Our rule,” Day wrote of the movement, “is the works
of mercy,” and no figure or movement have better emblematized Shakespeare’s
evocative idea (from The Merchant of
Venice) that “the quality of mercy is not strained.” It is no coincidence
that the movement was founded at the height of the Depression and began its
efforts with a no-questions-asked soup kitchen in New York City—like Day
herself, the movement has always taken the fight on poverty and hunger and
injustice of all kinds into the heart of our most embattled communities,
leaving the debates over theology or politics to be hashed out by those less
busy helping their fellow Americans.
Religious faith is a profoundly
personal matter, making it one of the American Studies topics into which I
tread most hesitantly. But as with any of the central elements of individual
and communal identity, it has also been a hugely influential social factor
throughout our history, making it impossible to analyze American lives and
texts and culture without including it in our purview. And whatever we say
about Day’s personal faith (and she had plenty to say herself about it, which
would be the place to start), I feel very confident in saying that her social
contributions to American life embody the best and most inspiring version of
what Christianity can be and mean here.
August Recap
this weekend,
Ben
PS.
What do you think? Someone you’d nominate for the Hall?
Page 6: Study Guide for Beyond Religion book by the Dalai Lama:
ReplyDeleteIn Beyond Religion: Ethics for a Whole World, The Dalai Lama further develops his lifelong body of work on the critical need for universal ethics and values. The book’s basic premise is that:
“In today’s secular world religion alone is no longer adequate as a basis for
ethics…What we need today is an approach to ethics which makes no
recourse to religion and can be equally acceptable to those with faith and
those without: a secular ethics.” (Beyond Religion book by the Dalai Lama pp. xiii-xiv)
This is a remarkable stand indeed for the leader of a major world religion.
------------------------------------------------
Dear Ben,
I wanted to say that I agree that one's religious faith is a profoundly personal matter.
One of main reasons my weekly book study group I've been telling you about switched from the Dalai Lama's book (see above) to something else is: The Dalai Lama wants to develop a set of 'universal ethics' by first stripping people of their religious ethics.
Kind of hypocritical stand for the His Holiness to take, in my opinion. He should be asking himself how different his life would have been (different in a bad way) if he was told earlier in life he had to give up his religion permanently.
But that's exactly what he is asking others to do. All others.
He's saying, in a sense: Don't look to your religious beliefs for ethical guidance... Look to me, instead.
Just because some world religions can clash on this or that issue, I don't think that it logically follows that we all should throw religion out the window.
Something to think about. Our newest Study Circle book is entitled It's Your Time; by Joel Osteen.
Roland A. Gibson, Jr.
FSU IDIS Major