Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Go and learn what this means — the bad-faith ‘biblical’ defense of injustice (part 3)

Go and learn what this means — the bad-faith ‘biblical’ defense of injustice (part 3)

Last updated on: January 11, 2017 at 6:15 pm by Fred Clark

Go and learn what this means — the bad-faith ‘biblical’ defense of injustice (part 3) 2017-01-11T18:15:50-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In part 2 we looked at a passage from Frederick Douglass’ address “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” Let’s repeat that again and add a bit more for context and for general awesomeness:

The fact that the church of our country, (with fractional exceptions), does not esteem “the Fugitive Slave Law” as a declaration of war against religious liberty, implies that that church regards religion simply as a form of worship, an empty ceremony, and not a vital principle, requiring active benevolence, justice, love and good will towards man. It esteems sacrifice above mercy; psalm-singing above right doing; solemn meetings above practical righteousness. A worship that can be conducted by persons who refuse to give shelter to the houseless, to give bread to the hungry, clothing to the naked, and who enjoin obedience to a law forbidding these acts of mercy, is a curse, not a blessing to mankind. The Bible addresses all such persons as “scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites, who pay tithe of mint, anise, and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith.”

But the church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors. It has made itself the bulwark of American slavery, and the shield of American slave-hunters. Many of its most eloquent Divines. who stand as the very lights of the church, have shamelessly given the sanction of religion and the Bible to the whole slave system. They have taught that man may, properly, be a slave; that the relation of master and slave is ordained of God; that to send back an escaped bondman to his master is clearly the duty of all the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ; and this horrible blasphemy is palmed off upon the world for Christianity.

For my part, I would say, welcome infidelity! welcome atheism! welcome anything! in preference to the gospel, as preached by those Divines! They convert the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny, and barbarous cruelty, and serve to confirm more infidels, in this age, than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Bolingbroke, put together, have done! These ministers make religion a cold and flinty-hearted thing, having neither principles of right action, nor bowels of compassion. They strip the love of God of its beauty, and leave the throng of religion a huge, horrible, repulsive form. It is a religion for oppressors, tyrants, man-stealers, and thugs. It is not that “pure and undefiled religion” which is from above, and which is “first pure, then peaceable, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.” But a religion which favors the rich against the poor; which exalts the proud above the humble; which divides mankind into two classes, tyrants and slaves; which says to the man in chains, stay there; and to the oppressor, oppress on; it is a religion which may be professed and enjoyed by all the robbers and enslavers of mankind; it makes God a respecter of persons, denies his fatherhood of the race, and tramples in the dust the great truth of the brotherhood of man. All this we affirm to be true of the popular church, and the popular worship of our land and nation — a religion, a church, and a worship which, on the authority of inspired wisdom, we pronounce to be an abomination in the sight of God. In the language of Isaiah, the American church might be well addressed, “Bring no more vain ablations; incense is an abomination unto me: the new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth. They are a trouble to me; I am weary to bear them; and when ye spread forth your hands I will hide mine eyes from you. Yea! when ye make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood; cease to do evil, learn to do well; seek judgment; relieve the oppressed; judge for the fatherless; plead for the widow.”

Here — almost always — the response involves a tunnel vision that focuses, laser-like, on the rhetorical impiety: “welcome infidelity! welcome atheism! welcome anything! in preference to the gospel.”

Gasp! Yes, that clips the quote to distort what he actually said — “in preference to the gospel as preached by those Divines.” But willful distortion is the whole point of this response.

See? they say. He’s jettisoning the scriptures — elevating some personal political cause “in preference to the gospel.” Pearls and handkerchiefs will be clutched in an unconvincing imitation of horror and “concern” over how such inflammatory, impious rhetoric is sure to be perceived. This is why “liberals” like Douglass are perceived to “religion problem.” It is why they fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. It is why they are always told “Would you argue more, and denounce less, would you persuade more, and rebuke less, your cause would be much more likely to succeed.”

The italicized bits there, by the way, are also quoted from Douglass’ speech — which anticipates, and immolates, such objections. Douglass heard such disingenuous hand-wringing throughout his lifetime and had little patience for it. By 1852 he’d long since exhausted every attempt to extend a generous benefit of the doubt to this line of argument.

The problem for those attempting to argue that Douglass’ rhetoric was anti-Bible is that his supposedly anti-Bible rhetoric is taken directly from the Bible. It is — in both style and substance — explicitly and utterly biblical. He is imitating, emulating and directly quoting from the Bible itself.

The harshest condemnation of religion that Douglass presents is, in fact, a direct quotation. It is, emphatically, “in the language of Isaiah.” Douglass is quoting from the first chapter of Isaiah, a passage in which the prophet speaks words so hostile to conservative religious orthodoxy that they would make Paine, Voltaire and Bolingbroke blush. Yet Isaiah attributes those words directly to God:

What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?
says the Lord;
I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
and the fat of fed beasts;
I do not delight in the blood of bulls,
or of lambs, or of goats.
When you come to appear before me,
who asked this from your hand?
Trample my courts no more;
bringing offerings is futile;
incense is an abomination to me.
New moon and sabbath and calling of convocation—
I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity.
Your new moons and your appointed festivals
my soul hates;
they have become a burden to me,
I am weary of bearing them.
When you stretch out your hands,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even though you make many prayers,
I will not listen;
your hands are full of blood.
Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
remove the evil of your doings
from before my eyes;
cease to do evil,
learn to do good;
seek justice,
rescue the oppressed,
defend the orphan,
plead for the widow.

That’s from Isaiah 1:11-17, so it is quite specifically “the language of Isaiah.” But it’s also quite generally “the language of Isaiah,” in that the entire book is suffused with variations on this theme. Here, for example, is Isaiah 58. This again, according to the prophet, is the very voice of God — the bitingly sarcastic, social-justice-warrior voice of God:

Day after day they seek me
and delight to know my ways,
as if they were a nation that practiced righteousness
and did not forsake the ordinance of their God;
they ask of me righteous judgments,
they delight to draw near to God.
“Why do we fast, but you do not see?
Why humble ourselves, but you do not notice?”
Look, you serve your own interest on your fast day,
and oppress all your workers.
Look, you fast only to quarrel and to fight
and to strike with a wicked fist.
Such fasting as you do today
will not make your voice heard on high.
Is such the fast that I choose,
a day to humble oneself?
Is it to bow down the head like a bulrush,
and to lie in sackcloth and ashes?
Will you call this a fast,
a day acceptable to the Lord?
Is not this the fast that I choose:
to loose the bonds of injustice,
to undo the thongs of the yoke,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to break every yoke?
Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,
and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover them,
and not to hide yourself from your own kin?
Then your light shall break forth like the dawn,
and your healing shall spring up quickly;
your vindicator shall go before you,
the glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard.
Then you shall call, and the Lord will answer;
you shall cry for help, and he will say, Here I am.
If you remove the yoke from among you,
the pointing of the finger, the speaking of evil,
if you offer your food to the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the afflicted,
then your light shall rise in the darkness
and your gloom be like the noonday.

And it’s not just Isaiah. You can find similar “anti-religious” rants throughout the Bible. “I hate, I despise your festivals,” the prophet Amos reports as the words of God. The Almighty goes on to express divine contempt for church-going and prayer and hymn-singing. Why? Because of injustice. Because workers are exploited and the poor are turned away.

That’s the voice of God expressing God’s willingness to “jettison the Bible if the Bible was construed as legitimating slavery.” That’s God favoring justice in place of religion itself.

It’s no wonder that the slave-owners and slavery interests who ran the Southern auxiliaries of the American Bible Society were terrified of the prospect of allowing enslaved persons to read those words. They knew that would be a disaster for them. “Loose the bonds of injustice, undo the thongs of the yoke, let the oppressed go free and break every yoke” is not the kind of thing they’d want the people they were treating as property to be reading.

Meereen

It was fine to support the Bible society’s efforts to distribute Bibles to every white family throughout the South. No worries there. White American Christians had all been carefully trained, for more than two centuries by this point, to read the Bible selectively. They could read the whole thing, cover to cover, and never even notice passages like the ones Douglass was quoting. Such passages were — and still are — invisible for most white American readers.

Those white readers were simply unable to see, understand or acknowledge anything beyond the carefully curated clobber-texts Concordanced out of context. They could be trusted to read the language of Isaiah without ever registering a single word of it, going right back to their feasts and their solemn assemblies, serving their own interests on their fast days and never imagining that God cared in the least if they oppressed all their workers.

And that’s largely still true. Just look at that passage from Isaiah that Douglass quotes. I don’t remember ever hearing those verses read or preached upon in any of the white evangelical settings I grew up in, and I’ll bet you’ve never heard that passage preached or expounded upon in any of the white evangelical settings you’ve been to either.

The very next verse, though, will be more familiar. Isaiah 1:18 is a beloved favorite passage that we hear all the time and are encouraged to commit to memory. “Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”

That’s a favorite verse because it reminds white evangelicals that all we need to do is to pray in Jesus’ name and ask for our sins to be forgiven. It’s often paired up with 1 John 1:9: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

But that’s not what Isaiah 1:18 says. Read the preceding verses. It’s not about divine forgiveness for our sins, but about “Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean … cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow. …” and then “though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow.” (Oh, and that’s not a contradiction of 1 John 1:9 — unless you think that chapters 2-4 of 1 John contradict 1 John 1:9.)

We recite Isaiah 1:18 and we always get it wrong because we ignore Isaiah 1:1-17. We’ve been so thoroughly trained — for more than four centuries now — that everything in that chapter before verse 18 becomes invisible.

It’s worse than that, really. If someone cites the rest of that chapter, if they quote it to us, directly, reciting the Bible itself, we’ve been trained to recoil in horror at such a vicious attack on the authority of the holy scriptures.

Previous Post

January 10, 2017

Go and learn what this means -- the bad-faith 'biblical' defense of injustice (part 2)

Next Post

January 12, 2017 Go and learn what this means -- the bad-faith 'biblical' defense of injustice (part 4)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How many times did Elijah pray for rain?

Select your answer to see how you score.

9 5 3 7