Resisting Prophet, Priest, and King

Having observed a few of the ways in which Schleiermacher’s Christology lent support to and was affirming of nineteenth century colonialism, we now proceed to examine aspects of his work which might supply us with a challenge to imperialist structures. Interestingly, Schleiermacher did not promote the rugged individualism that was typical of modern colonialism, early capitalism, and the pioneer spirit of the expanding United States. His stress upon relatedness and community was surely a step in the right direction, but there was still no place for suffering and little concern for the outsider in his model. However, his hope for a universal salvation, when tied to his understanding of Christ as high priest, allows for the possible expansion of this community. For Schleiermacher, no person was to be rejected, and nobody could claim that salvation was entirely (or even mostly) for the colonizers, the Europeans, or the Christians. All that said, he can still be read in support of empire. Rieger suggests that an explicitly anticolonial Christ, or an understanding of colonialism as worldly, might enable us to overcome the ambivalence.

Schleiermacher considered Christianity to have been polemical through and through; even within its own borders. He viewed it as a higher form of religion which had as its goal to expose the world’s pervasive Godlessness. In addition, he believed that the infinite could be seen in all finite things, which opened up the possibility of locating God in unexpected areas; even unexpected areas within the colonial enterprise. Together, these insights could provide a potential surplus. Rieger asks, what if colonial Christianity were not the foremost stage of religion? Conceivably, the impoverished and those oppressed by and within the colonial system could issue a legitimate challenge against colonial Christianity. Perhaps Christianity would experience a rebirth of sorts as a result of this critique, and (emerging out of the corruptions of colonialism) consequently develop in to a much stronger and more beautiful form of religion? Another aspect of his thought that might challenge colonialism was his awareness of Christ as the common root of theology and ethics. Christological statements (i.e. “Jesus is Lord” and “Jesus is redeemer”) can be used in order to shore up imperial hierarchies if they are not understood as inherently ethical or if the ethics implied by the declarations are not clearly defined. An understanding of Christ which refuses to ignore attributes such as His Jewishness and His solidarity with the poor might be the initial step on the pathway of resistance.

Rieger identifies a relationship between the three offices of Christ and the three categories of action which structure Schleiermacher’s “Christian Ethics”; each of which puts forward a critique of empire. In each one of these actions, the equality, the freedom of judgment and expression, and the participatory role of every individual within the church (regardless of class) was recognized which hence broadened the power base across more democratic lines. Furthermore, these three actions operated on the basis of attraction rather than brute force. The purifying action (priest) began with the supposition that the church was imperfect, and therefore allowed for the possibility of progress (both theologically and ethically) within it. Related to this was the broadening action (prophet) which centered upon Christian mission and expansionism. Here, the prospect for progress within the church was also duly noted, and beyond this, the prospective value of the contributions of those who were less educated in the ways of western civilization was also taken into account. The third and final category was the representational action (king) which stressed the extent of Christ’s rule. At this point, even non-Christians were included due to the fact that the difference between outsiders and insiders was merely temporal; they had not-yet received the Spirit. Schleiermacher did not wholly transcend the colonial mindset, nevertheless he did leave us with some prospect for resistance.

Prophet, Priest, and King, Colonial Style

The writings of Friedrich Schleiermacher will be of significant interest to us in our study. There is no doubt that he resisted the most violent and overpowering techniques and constructs of nineteenth century colonialism. Still, it is apparent that the characteristic colonial assumptions of his day were at work in the deep recesses of his mind, profoundly contributing to the formation of his Christology. Rieger is persuaded that the colonial dynamics that were at work behind Schleiermacher’s theology, though certainly less brutal, actually ended up generating a much more potent brand of colonialism. In order that we might catch a glimpse of Schleiermacher’s underlying colonial presuppositions, Rieger has determined to lead us through an investigation of his interpretation of the classical Reformed doctrine of the three offices of Christ. While his writings do provide us with potential avenues of resistance, we must not fail to recognize that the colonial impulses inherent within his Christology are also very strong. In this section, our stress will be upon those aspects of his theology which are affirming of the imperial status quo.

Schleiermacher understood Christ to have been both the climax and the end of all three offices. He considered European Christianity to have been far closer to Christ than the rest of the world, and he also presumed that Christ was overwhelmingly supportive of European colonial Christianity. In fact, he judged the Protestantism of Europe to have been the intermediary between Christ and the world. As prophet, the challenge of Christ came in the form of European colonial Christianity, and was directed at those whom he viewed as less powerful and less civilized. In addition, he believed that the power and civilization of the European Christian culture provided the substantiating evidence which authenticated its claim to prophetic authority. As priest, Christ supplied comfort and security to the European Christians by confirming them in their colonial enterprise, by justifying their neglect of voluntary suffering, and by authorizing their ambitions for self-preservation. Furthermore, European Christendom (itself indistinguishable from Christ) became the ideal to which humanity was destined to attain, as well as the mediator between God and the world (as the priest is to the laity). Finally, as King, the power of Christ was exercised through European Christianity. It was limitless, irresistibly attractive, and effective towards the goal of moving people on to higher stages of humanity (specifically the universal ideal of Christ, manifested most fully in European Protestantism).

Following right along with modernity’s universalizing propensity, Schleiermacher described Christ as the completion of the creation of a generalized humanity (which had been abstracted from any and all signifiers including race, gender, and social location). To put it a different way, Christ was the quintessential representative of a universal human nature. This despite the fact that universal humanity is never truly universal, and in fact only exists in the minds of those in power. The void that was created by Schleiermacher’s lack of specified definition for this universalized humanity was conveniently filled in by the up-and-coming middle class of German-Prussia (those who were most able with regard to intellectual and economic affairs). These were deemed to have been the closest to universal humanity, as well as ambassadors of the superior civilization and power that the European Christians possessed over colonized non-Christian people groups. Schleiermacher also presumed that the rest of humanity needed to adjust and (in due course) evolve in the direction of the middle class Protestants of Prussia. By and large, for him, Christ’s redemptive work did not present a challenge to or a critique against the softer colonialist mentality of Europe. Rather, the work of Christ supplied a source of encouragement for the colonial minded Europeans as they set out to enlighten underdeveloped (and thus sinful!) non-European, non-Christian cultures around the world.

The Colonial Character of Modern Theology

We will now move on to a discussion of the Christology of the man who is known as the father of modern liberalism, German theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and particularly his handling of the three offices of Christ: prophet, priest and king. In the modern colonial context of the nineteenth century, these titles were evidently ambivalent; meaning that they had the potential to be employed either in support of or in resistance to imperial structures. There were times when Schleiermacher used these three offices to speak approvingly of the colonial projects of the so-called Christian nations, yet he also set out to redefine the power of Christ in terms of attraction rather than coercion. While this redefinition might be understood as having been a critique of colonialism, it is more likely that his emphasis on attraction represented a transformation of imperial strategy and a new approach to the exercising of top-down power. If we are seeking to locate a Christological surplus in Schleiermacher, we will first have to take note of the historical context in which he constructed his theology.

Germany was not yet a colonial power in Schleiermacher’s day. Truth be told, Germany as a nation did not even exist yet. Technically he lived in what was called Prussia. Prussia had recently expanded its territory eastward, and the colonial spirit was rushing swiftly throughout the land. The fact that Prussia was not actively participating in colonialization at this time actually served to strengthen the colonial discourse which was occurring in the area. Along with the colonizing nations of Europe, the Germans affirmed their own superiority and value over and against the colonized other, and even took a step beyond this assertion to declare their own moral superiority over those European nations (especially the Spanish) who were already participating in colonialization projects. Thus the cultural situation in which Schleiermacher constructed his theology was one which was permeated with colonial fantasies. This time period also featured the commencement of a shift in power from the older feudalistic aristocracies to the up-and-coming middle class (which was erected on the backs of the lower classes both at home and abroad). The transfer was the result of emerging capitalist relations, industrialization in the European homeland, and colonial relationships overseas. For Schleiermacher, the context of this emerging modern middle class was of central concern, and it was also the environment in which his theology was produced.

Schleiermacher himself had a colonial mentality. In his descriptions of New South Wales, he was primarily concerned with highlighting the ways in which the land could provide beneficial resources which would assist the British in their colonial aspirations. His depictions of the Aboriginals in Australia are even more revealing. He described them as uncivilized and barely human (with black skin and wooly hair, however lacking the peculiarly repulsive facial features of the African negro). While he did campaign for a peaceful co-existence with them, he did so because he believed that there was absolutely no use for them (not even as a labor force) in the colonial system. Hierarchical tendencies are apparent as well. His attractive power of Christ (in opposition to the coercive power of stronger forms of colonialism) was entirely reliant upon his presupposing of a natural order which resembled the top to bottom hierarchy of empire. He considered the European culture and Protestantism of the colonizers to have been far superior to that of the colonized, and perceived the colonizing nations to have been representatives of the attractive power of Christ. As far as he was concerned, the only rational option for the colonized would have been to gladly submit to the religion and culture of the colonizers. He appears to have been wholly ignorant of the fact that this attractive power only worked as a result of colonial power differentials.

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.