The Resistance Way of Christ

Joerg Rieger tells us that Bartolomé de Las Casas was a man of his own time. He was a victim of a pervasive colonial system which would have been nearly (if not absolutely) impossible for him to have overcome entirely during his own lifetime. Even so, there is a Christological surplus in his work which offers us a prospect for resistance against the imperial patterns of the sixteenth century. An important aspect of Las Casas thought was his emphasis on Christ’s praxis. He believed that what Christ did was more important than what Christ said, and that in evangelization deeds were to precede words. He stressed deeds in order to avoid the separation of words and deeds that was characteristic of the theology of conquest (also typical of top-down theologies on the whole). Christ modeled an alternative way of life for the Spanish missionaries. Though He could have obtained control through power and might, He instead led a lowly, poor, kind and peaceable life at the margins. He showed respect, charity, and did no harm to others, nor did He desire their wealth or power over them as a result of His preaching.

In view of Matthew chapter 25, Las Casas identified Christ in the suffering Amerindians, saw that the suffering of Christ was repeated in their suffering, and understood it to be his duty to do anything and everything that he could to prevent that suffering. While he certainly failed to identify the suffering of the Amerindians with the active work of Christ (as a step of resistance) he did progressively begin to view the world from the perspective of the dispossessed Amerindians; concurrently stripping away his natural sense of superiority over them. This development perhaps unveils to us (in seed form) the foundations of anticolonialism in Las Casas’ work. Anticipating postcolonial criticism, which has taught us that neutral and innocent perspectives are non-existent, Las Casas was determined to see the world from the viewpoint of the victims of history (specifically the Amerindians). He was willing to reinterpret traditional theological resources, including the scriptures. He was also open to some level of hybridity with Amerindian theology and culture, and was even prepared to change his mind in relation to their theological and cultural perspective. He sought to defend the indigenous peoples against slander which was regularly used to justify the conquest, and moreover (recognizing that all people have some knowledge of God, even if that knowledge is somewhat confused) he attempted to point out similarities between Spanish and Amerindian customs and religion.

Additionally, Las Casas challenged the common Spanish and Christian support of war. He claimed that Christ did not need warfare, for He was peaceful and good, and had revealed His power exclusively by means of mercy and compassion. He referred to the conquest as a crime and as an abuse of power, all the while insisting that those who had consented to the conquest had been complicit in criminal activity and cover-up. Las Casas furthermore disputed colonial conceptions of the doctrine of salvation, which stated that non-Christians would inevitably suffer in the fire of eternal conscious torment (this position has often been used as a justification for evangelism at all costs, up to and including war). Flipping this viewpoint around (again with Matthew 25 in sight) Las Casas declared that non-Christians (even the Amerindians) who loved their neighbor would go to heaven, while many Christians (supporters of the conquest) would not. Finally, Las Casas argued that it is impossible for the love of God to exist without the love of neighbor. He desired that the Spanish missionaries would come to realize that their love for the Amerindians was a direct expression of their love for God. He was not interested (merely) in a love that cares for others and refuses to kill, but all the more, a love which manifests the kind of respect which can form the basis for a truly mutual relationship, capable of overcoming the world’s omnipresent power differentials.

The Colonial Way of Christ

Bartolomé de Las Casas’ book “The Only Way” was the fruit of a conversion in his life from one understanding of Christ to another. Having once been part of the majority who took no issue with the Spanish conquest of the Americas or the encomienda system (basically a form of slavery where the Spaniards promised to protect the Amerindians and to teach them Christianity in exchange for tribute in the form of things such as gold or labor) Las Casas shifted to a new understanding of Christ which challenged the beliefs and actions of the church and Spain. Ever since it was written, “The Only Way” has had an enormous impact upon missionary theory and practice all throughout the world. This has had both positive and negative effects. Negatively, uncritical readings of Las Casas writings have generated the assumption that he was comprehensively anticolonialist. This in turn has served to mask those aspects of his work that (though less obvious than the violent methods employed by the conquistas) were undeniably influenced by and modeled after the existing imperial structures of his day.

The primary focus of “The Only Way” was the evangelization of the Amerindians. As far as Las Casas was concerned, the strategies of violence and bloodshed utilized by the conquistas were both contrary and inferior to the gentle, peaceable and inviting way of Christ; which was the approach that he was suggesting (at least with regard to the Amerindians; the Muslims were a different story altogether). He believed that the Amerindians should have been granted the freedom to choose whether or not they would convert to Christianity and subject themselves to the Spanish crown. Trusting that the words of Christ were both attractive and effective, and recognizing that Christ had forced no one to follow him, Las Casas supposed that tender persuasion through acts of love, kindness and selfless generosity, coupled with reasonable words, would draw people more quickly and more fully to the moral life that Christ had intended than would forcible conversions. Las Casas’ techniques were undoubtedly an alternative to the more brutal forms of colonialism practiced by his contemporaries, but they remained a variety of colonialism nonetheless. In fact, his persuasive methodology produced incredibly long-lasting effects, and led to a more profound and powerful assimilation of the indigenous American peoples into the Spanish-Christian world than could ever have been accomplished by means of fire and sword.

Rieger notes that the fundamental problem with Las Casas’ approach was that it blended out power differentials. There was clearly not an equal partnership between the Amerindians and the Spanish. The former were always fully cognoscente of the fact that the latter possessed all power in the relationship. This meant that the Spaniards were free to drive through their own agenda at any time. Las Casas (who presupposed the inherent superiority of the Christians to the indigenous peoples, saw it as the duty of the colonialists to raise them up to meet Spanish levels of human potential, and lacked no assurance that they would in time convert to the Christian faith and submit to the king of Spain) operated on the basis of a covert power; the effectiveness of his persuasion relied heavily upon the established imperial muscle of Spain. This power (which was in some sense equated with Christ) guaranteed success without undue force; but the attraction of the Amerindians to Christ was probably due to their sensed need to align themselves with the powerful gods who protected and empowered the Spaniards. Where this power differential was not present (i.e. with the Muslims) persuasion was far less effective and thus war became a serious option for Las Casas. Ultimately, he viewed the Amerindians as an inferior people, and although he identified them with Christ, this indigenous Christ was passive, and therefore had no authority to challenge the Christ of Spain.

The Theology of Early Colonialism: Stronger and Softer Versions

Bartolomé de Las Casas was a Spanish theologian who lived during the Spanish conquest of the Americas. His Christology is frequently recognized as a forerunner of Latin American liberation theology. His Christological viewpoint is chocked full of positive features which have contributed to the cause of imperial resistance. He did much more than any of his contemporaries to oppose the most gross expressions of empire that were current during his lifetime. Nonetheless, in spite of all of Las Casas’ constructive insights and actions, it still appears that in the formation of his Christology he relied heavily upon an imperial hierarchical framework. Rieger’s goal is not to downplay the importance or the valuable aspects of Las Casas’ work, but rather to expose the reality that even those theologians with the best of intentions are not immune to the subtle seductions of empire. Rieger believes that we will be better equipped to identify the clever ways in which imperial presuppositions have permeated Christology, as well as those aspects which are not quite as easily co-opted by the empire, through this examination.

In the Spanish and Portuguese conquest of the Americas (sixteenth century) the sword and the cross were inseparable; the conquistador and the missionary were (metaphorically speaking) joined at the hip. While theology itself did not wield the sword, it usually served as a guide for military action, and it regularly provided justification for and an endorsement of Spain’s war against the Amerindians. Las Casas was not a pacifist, but he did place heavy restrictions upon the definition of what exactly constituted a just war, and in fact, he condemned the war against the Amerindians as mindless, wrong and evil. He overturned the conventional method of colonialization which (following the model of both the medieval crusades and the Arab empire) began with military occupation, was followed by the institution of a government, and then rounded off with the conversion of the natives to the religion of the occupying force. Las Casas (instead) emphasized the primacy of religious power by arguing that political and economic success would result from the preaching of the gospel. He advanced a peaceful alternative to military conquest. Yet we must not fail to observe that Las Casas’ Christology was a new form of colonialism, a different approach for empire, and not an absolute rejection of the imperial blueprint. Actually, he went so far as to declare that the Spanish/Amerindian colonial relationship was established by God in order that the Amerindians might be converted to Christianity.

A great many Spaniards lacked an accurate understanding of Amerindian religion and practice. They defamed the native peoples, labeled them idolatrous savages, and considered them less-than-human. These misconceptions often served to justify the Spanish conquest of the Americas. Las Casas (on the other hand) sought to comprehend the Amerindians’ indigenous habits, producing early prototypes of sociological and anthropological study along the way. He affirmed the full humanity of the Amerindians, and argued desperately for their absolute equality. That said, in arguing for these things, Las Casas continued to refer to the indigenous peoples as our Indians; a term signifying possession and ownership. In addition, the equality of the Amerindians was based not upon their actual achievements but instead upon their potential as humans to develop and grow. He judged the Spanish self to have been the ideal for humanity, and considered it the duty of the Spaniards to raise the Amerindians up to meet it. This naturally facilitated their assimilation. Las Casas was definitely interested in assisting and protecting the Amerindians, however we must not ignore the harmful aspects of his approach. It turns out that by insisting on equality, Las Casas was effectively furthering the colonialist cause. The maturing of the Amerindians (especially with regard to their conversion to the Christian faith) became a source of motivation for the colonial project.