 |
| Book cover for "The Kingdom of Children" |
I've been reading The Kingdom of Children: A Liberation Theology by R. L. Stollar. This book is great; I'm so excited about it.
I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I want to write down some of my thoughts about what I've read so far. And there will be more blog posts about this book, so stay tuned for that.
---
What is liberation theology?
The book defines "liberation theology" like this (p 5-6):
American Christians have all sorts of opinions about liberation theology. Some love it; some hate it; many have no idea what it is. The easiest, shortest definition of liberation theology is this: it is a theology of self-determinism. Liberation theology is about equipping and empowering groups of people to discover and speak about God on their own terms and with their own language.
There are many types of liberation theology. There are liberation theologies for Black people, for women, for Pakistani Christians, for Native American Christians, for LGBTQIA Christians, and so forth. Each specific liberation theology revolves around a central image and issue that is deeply important to the group the theology aims to liberate. Each is "really an attempt to rediscover the liberation that Christ has already accomplished and of which we should be aware."
At its heart, liberation theology is a call to realize both that our ideas impact the world and that the world impacts our ideas. It is a reminder that what we believe can really make a difference in people's lives-- for good or for evil. It is also a reminder that what makes a difference in people's lives should influence what we decide to believe. Since Jesus calls us to love our neighbors as ourselves, we should make sure that our love for our neighbors is the foundation of how we construct our theology and that we evaluate our theology according to whether or not it empowers us to better love our neighbors. That is liberation theology in a nutshell.
Every liberation theology is also unique. Every liberation theology "is a way of speaking prophetically and contextually to a particular situation." And the theology I want to talk about in this book is similarly unique and context-driven. At the same time, it has a few areas in common with the other liberation theologies-- after all, those shared common areas are what make it "liberation" theology and not some other type.
Speaking generally, liberation theology-- in all of its various forms-- involves five themes. These themes are: (1) theology needs to be practical, applicable to the here and now; (2) theology is at its best when the people doing the theology are empowered to do it on their own terms and for their own sake; (3) theology should highlight and value everyday, personal experiences; (4) theology should focus on the human community that is created by knowing and loving God; and (5) the theological ideas of sin and injustice are best understood as keeping our neighbor at arm's length-- when we fail to obey God's command to love our neighbors as ourselves.
From what I understand of liberation theology, I would define it like this: It is using Christianity to support liberation for a marginalized group. Each marginalized group can have its own version of liberation theology.
I am so into this. This is my Christianity.
I think it's important to emphasize that, for Christians who believe in liberation theology, the highest ideal is liberation/justice, and we only believe in Christianity to the extent that it is in service to that liberation. So, for example, if you read the bible and it talks about slavery like it's fine and just a normal part of society, you don't approach it with the attitude "well, I'm a Christian, so I believe the bible, so I have to believe this." No, you say "this is obviously wrong"- you start from "this is obviously wrong" because your conscience tells you that- and then, optionally, you could talk about how other parts of the bible oppose slavery, or about how the pro-slavery bible passages are a useful illustration of how people in power oppress others, and we can learn from that and apply it to our own modern context. (That's optional, though- you can totally just say "this is wrong" and leave it at that. We don't need to do all this bible study. We can just say slavery is wrong.)
I emphasize this because, from an evangelical perspective, it's so wrong. It's so wrong, that it's unthinkable that there would be Christians who truly do view Christianity this way- but I think you can't really understand liberation theology if you don't *get* this. Yes, I am a Christian, but if some aspect of Christianity conflicts with justice for marginalized people, then I take the side of justice, not Christianity.
The evangelical approach is, instead, to frame it like, we believe the bible, so whatever the bible says, we have to believe. If the bible says something that sounds bad, we have to work very hard to come up with an interpretation which is less bad- see, then we believe in this less-bad interpretation, and so we can still say we "believe the bible" because this less-bad interpretation is what the bible "really means." And when I first encountered feminist Christianity and liberation theologies, this is what I expected it to be. I expected it would be like, we believe the bible, and so of course we believe these passages that are normally read as putting restrictions on women, but we did a lot of careful study into what they actually meant to the original audience, and you see, they were actually meant to support a more progressive view of women's rights, so we believe that interpretation, so yes, we believe the bible, just like evangelicalism says we're supposed to.
That's important work. There's a place for that. But it's *not* how I do Christianity. And I think maybe people don't want to admit that out loud, because it makes it sound like we don't really believe in Christianity- indeed, from an evangelical perspective, if someone admits there is something else more important to them than Christianity, some external concept that puts limits on how they believe in Christianity, wow that's slam-dunk case-closed, they're not a Christian.
And so I think some progressive Christians might take issue with my statement "if some aspect of Christianity conflicts with justice for marginalized people, then I take the side of justice, not Christianity"- they would say Christianity never truly conflicts with justice, and if it appears to conflict, it's because you're not interpreting one side or the other correctly. Ugh, I'm not into this, I don't want to be bound to the words of the bible, getting lost in the weeds of "well I must have some kind of logical error somewhere, let's go over this again and figure out where it is, figure out an interpretation where Christianity does not conflict with justice"- that's a waste of time, I just want to love my neighbor as myself, and to the extent that Christianity opposes that, Christianity is wrong.
You can quote me on that. "Christianity is wrong." - Perfect Number. I don't even care, I don't want to play those games.
Christians who believe in liberation theology could make the argument that the bible says every commandment can be summed up as "love your neighbor as yourself." And that the two greatest commandments are "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." So you see, when we use "love your neighbor" as the lens to judge what parts of the bible to accept or reject, we actually are following the bible. I'm not really into this argument either. If the bible didn't say "love your neighbor," would I then *not* use "love your neighbor" as my criteria for judging Christianity? No, I still would. I believe "love your neighbor" is the most important thing because my conscience says so, not because I got that from Christianity. I believe in "love your neighbor" more than I believe in Christianity.
I'm so done with this proof-texting bible-verse-arms-race evangelical style of debating. Just love your neighbor as yourself, and if the bible tells you otherwise, the bible is wrong. Let's move on from debates about whether the bible is true, and talk about liberation and justice instead.
(No idea if Stollar would agree with what I've said here. But that's what I want to say about Christianity.)
---
Anti-child world
Stollar says we live in an anti-child world. His own background is in the Christian homeschooling world, where leaders teach that children are naturally sinful and need to be controlled and punished. And there have been child sex abuse scandals in conservative religious environments like this.
But, there is anti-child hate from progressives too. There are some child-free people who are very proud to tell everyone that they hate children. What on earth. (Most child-free people are not like this, but there is definitely a vocal minority who is.)
---
Reading the bible with children
Stollar says we should read the bible with children. Not just reading the bible to children- though that's great too, you should read to your kids, it helps with literacy- but with them. This means we don't just tell them what the bible stories mean, but we participate with them together in finding meaning in the bible, as equal partners. We listen to their insights and interpretations.
---
Abraham and Isaac
Okay, let's talk about some of the child-centered readings of the bible, from "The Kingdom of Children." First we have the story of the binding of Isaac.
This story is found in Genesis 22. Here's a summary: God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac. So Abraham takes Isaac up to the top of a mountain, ties him up, and picks up a knife to kill him- but then an angel stops him and says not to kill Isaac, and that God will bless Abraham because he was willing to obey God, even to the point of sacrificing his son.
The interpretation I've always heard, in evangelical contexts, goes like this: Abraham did the right thing by obeying God. We should also do whatever God tells us to, even if it's something really horrific like this. Sometimes children are even told in church that their parents should love God more than they love them- that their parents should be ready to kill them if God says so. I have heard of parents of LGBTQ children who believe that God wants them to kick their kids out- they believe they are like Abraham in this story, and the right thing to do is to give up their kids.
But in "The Kingdom of Children," we have this reading: This is a cautionary tale about the dangers of adults valuing their faith more than they value children. Abraham should not have tied up Isaac and picked up a knife to kill him- this is child abuse, my god.
Let me put some quotes here, from page 45-46:
As religious scholar Carol Delaney asks about this passage, "Why is the willingness to sacrifice rather than the protection of the child the model of faith in these traditions?"
...
This is why I read the binding of Isaac as a cautionary tale about parents who value their faith over and against their children's lives.
...
If Abraham's lonely descent from the mountain and implied later distance from Isaac indicates anything, it is that faith without love and relationship is dead. Extreme faith kills people, sometimes literally. I cannot help but think of parents who believe fidelity to God means they must throw their own LGBTQIA children out on the streets. Or parents who allow their children to die because of their commitment to faith healing instead of allowing medical intervention. Or parents who beat their children because of their myopic interpretation of Proverbs 13:24 ("Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them"). Surely their religious fervor is astounding, but they entirely miss the point of faith: to better love both God and neighbor. This is why Jesus said loving one's neighbor is "like" loving God (Matt. 22:34-40). The gospel is found in relationship, in loving one's neighbor and seeing one's neighbor as a fellow subject before God, not as an object to sacrifice in the name of purity. When one sacrifices one's neighbor in the name of faith, one loses the very heart of the gospel.
---
Lot and his daughters
The ideas in this section are very similar to a blog post that Stollar wrote years ago, The Lot of the Abused: How We Shift the Blame Onto Victims, which inspired this post from me in 2018: The Bible Lied About Lot's Daughters. This is extremely good, I highly recommend reading Stollar's post.
---
Elisha and the bears
2 Kings 2:23-25 has a bizarre story where a group of children insult the prophet Elisha, so Elisha curses them, and then 2 bears come out and maul 42 of them.
What on earth?
In "The Kingdom of Children," Stollar talks about the "adultification" in how evangelicals often interpret this story. From an evangelical perspective, everything God did in the bible must be right, so if God sent bears to attack these children, they must have deserved it. They must not have been innocent little children. They must have been a gang of teenagers, threatening Elisha's life. The bible does not say anything like that- people make up these fan theories, blaming the victims.
Stollar says that these interpretations use the same tropes that white people use to excuse police brutality against Black children. Black children are viewed as being dangerous, not as innocent little children. Christians have used words like "gangs", "hoodlums", and "ghetto" to explain why Elisha was justified in sending bears to attack these children. I guess Elisha "felt threatened," like a police officer who shoots an unarmed Black child.
So in Stollar's interpretation, this story warns us about treating children in this way. Warns us about this kind of racism, "adultification," treating children as dangerous and responding to them with violence, rather than teaching them in developmentally-appropriate ways.
---
Miriam
Miriam was Moses's sister. In the bible, the story we have of Miriam as a child comes from Exodus 2. The Israelites were in slavery in Egypt, and the Pharaoh gave an order that all baby boys born among the Israelites should be killed. Baby Moses's mother put him in a basket and floated it on the Nile river, where Pharaoh's daughter found him and decided to keep him. His sister Miriam was watching, and she offered to find someone to nurse the baby. Pharaoh's daughter agreed, and Miriam got Moses's mother to nurse him. Miriam's bravery and care for baby Moses saved his life and allowed his mother to continue to take care of him.
There is also some ancient Jewish fanfiction about Miriam, which I hadn't heard about, but "The Kingdom of Children" talks about it. In this story, after Pharaoh says that all baby boys should be killed, Miriam's father instructs all the Israelite men to divorce their wives, so they will not have any new pregnancies or babies. Miriam takes a stand and tells her father that this is wrong. She is a prophet, even as a child. It was a big deal for her to speak up and challenge her father in this patriarchal society- and her father then agreed that she was right.
---
Samuel
In 1 Samuel 1, we find the story of Hannah, who was childless and really upset about it. She made a vow that if God would give her a son, she would dedicate him to God. Then, she does give birth to a son, Samuel, and she takes him to the temple to live there under the care of Eli the priest.
In 1 Samuel 3, the voice of God calls to Samuel, even though he is still a child, and says that God will punish Eli and his family for their corruption. Eli then asks Samuel what God said to him. In "The Kingdom of Children," Stollar talks about how terrifying this must have been for Samuel, delivering this bad news to Eli, the powerful authority figure who was in charge of Samuel's life.
The story of Samuel is an example of a child bravely speaking out against the sins of his own family and his own culture.
---
Naaman's slave girl
2 Kings 5 tells us the story of Naaman's slave girl. Naaman was an army commander in one of the nations that was fighting against Israel, and he took an Israelite girl captive. Later, when Naaman had leprosy, the girl said that he should go to the prophet Elisha to be cured. (Yeah the same Elisha as in the bear story.) To make a long story short, he does this and Elisha does cure him of leprosy.
She was a slave, a victim of injustice, but she responded with compassion towards Naaman and wanted to help him. Also, she had great faith- see this quote from page 73-74:
Make no mistake, it is faith that drove the young child to stick her neck out and suggest that Naaman consult with Elisha, "the prophet who is in Samaria" (2 Kings 5:3). The girl believed Elisha "would cure him of his leprosy" (5:3), but the text omits an important and relevant fact: Elisha had never healed anyone of leprosy up to that point. Jesus revealed this centuries later in Luke 4:27: "There were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed-- only Naaman the Syrian."
In other words, the little girl had so much faith in Elisha's God that she believed God could empower Elisha to do something he had never done before: heal someone with leprosy. She had so much faith that she risked her own life in suggesting healing was a possibility. One can only imagine the horrors the little girl would face if Elisha failed to heal Naaman.
So, Stollar is impressed with this girl's faith, and believes she is a good example we should emulate, but I'm like... is it actually a good thing to have faith like that? Elisha had never healed anyone of leprosy, but the girl assumes that he's totally going to do it anyway. This seems... bad? Should we just go around randomly assuming God's going to do all sorts of things, when there's no evidence for it? Don't you think what usually happens is that God *doesn't* do the wild miraculous things we dream of Them doing? This story about Naaman is the exception.
Maybe the key here is not about confidently believing it's definitely going to happen, but believing that it's at least worth a try- while also being realistic and not staking everything on this miracle. That's not what the little girl in the story did, though.
Anyway, personally, I don't really think it's a good thing to have faith like that.
---
Maybe I want to do a "reading" myself
I enjoyed all the child-centered readings of bible stories in this book, and it makes me think I want to do some kind of "reading" myself. I've been a feminist for a long time, and I've seen a lot of "feminist readings of [whatever media]" and I always felt like you have to have some kind of Official Feminist Credentials if you want to write down your opinions on something and call it "a feminist reading."
Am I allowed to do that? Well, maybe I am.
Actually, I have written lots of blog posts that could be described as some kind of progressive "reading" of some story. (But I didn't use that terminology because I don't know where I'm supposed to get the Official Feminist Credentials.)
- reading "The parable of the talents" through the lens of minimum-wage work
- an ex-evangelical reading of "Guardians of the Galaxy 2"
- an immigrant-centered reading of "The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special"
- reading the story of Mary the mother of Jesus through a pro-choice lens
- a #BlackLivesMatter reading of the story of Nadab and Abihu
(I want to do a follow-up post on this, called "What is a queer reading?" so stay tuned for that.)
---
God's pronouns
The book uses they/them pronouns for God, and he/him for Jesus. !!! I love this so much! Finally someone besides me using they/them pronouns for God.
---
For some of these bible characters, I don't think they were children...?
At some points in the book, where it brings up an example of a bible story about children, I'm like "... I don't think these characters would have been children at the time of this story." Like Cain and Abel. When Cain killed Abel, were they children? I always interpreted them as being adults. The bible doesn't say one way or the other, but I think if you read the story, you get the impression they are adults.
Perhaps Stollar isn't saying that the characters in this story *were* children, in the original meaning of the story, but that if you imagine them to be children, if you interpret them as children, not because the text says it but just because you want to, then you can do a meaningful child-centered "reading" of the story.
The way the book talks about these stories, it's like it's self-evident that these characters are children, and I'm raising my eyebrows at that. So I'm hypothesizing that maybe Stollar's view is more like, the key thing isn't what the story originally meant, but how we can use the story as a tool to communicate something important about children's liberation. Because I've seen other cases where people are like "let's do a feminist reading of [whatever]" or "let's do a queer reading of [whatever]" and it's about "what if we imagine this character was [whatever identity label], even though the text doesn't say they were."
---
Conclusion
This book is great. I very much recommend it if you like the bible and want to read it in new, progressive ways. Or if you grew up in a conservative Christian subculture which taught that children are sinful and must be controlled, and you're interested in a better perspective than that.
I'm very excited about it, and I will write more blog posts on it.
---
Related:
Why Does the Kingdom of Heaven Belong to Children?
"Parenting Forward": A Book About Valuing Children For Who They Are
No comments:
Post a Comment