Monday, June 01, 2020

The Divine Right of Kings


On 2nd June 2020 news sources in the USA reported that a peaceful protest outside the White House was dispersed with tear gas, flash grenades and rubber bullets. The President walked across Lafayette park to stand outside St. John’s Episcopal church where he held aloft a Bible. “It’s a Bible” he can be heard telling one journalist.

People are responding with various shades of bafflement but church leaders in the US seem united in denouncing the action. The Bishop responsible for the diocese “was not given even a courtesy call, that they would be clearing [the area] with tear gas so they could use one of our churches as a prop.” She said: “We align ourselves with those seeking justice for the death of George Floyd and countless others. And I just can’t believe what my eyes have seen.”

The USA has always had a complicated relationship with Christian religion. While many of the earliest settlers understood themselves as inhabiting the “new Jerusalem” of scripture, the founding fathers saw themselves as the architects of a “new Rome”. You don’t have to flick too far in the New Testament to find out why this dual inheritance might be a recipe for confusion. The political subversion of scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, is that those in power are not there because they are favoured by the gods. The God of Scripture hears the cry of the oppressed. God rescues a slave race from under the boot of supremacy. Empires, be it Rome or Babylon, are presented as hideous mutant beasts - human societies created by God for good, but twisted beyond recognition. Jerusalem and Babylon become symbols for two ways of being – God’s way or our way. But the grand drama that unfolds is not as a simple as a battle between goodies and baddies - God’s people and other people. In the middle of the story of Jerusalem’s glory days comes this statement of cold fact: This is the account of the forced labour which King Solomon levied to build the house of the Lord. (1 Kings 9:15). It’s a nauseating indicator of how far God’s people have come. From being set free from slavery to live as a radical new human society, to begging for a king to be “like the other nations”, to now being slave owners themselves – indeed, using slave labour to build a temple to God. It’s a reminder that any nation, any system, no matter its founding principles, no matter its outward religious piety, can become a beast.

So what are we to make of the President’s Bible-toting photo-op? Just like in Northern Ireland a hopeful political candidate in the US can garner huge support by even hinting at a personal faith or church connection. Is the president simply reminding an electoral base that he belongs to their tribe? The tribe who like both the Bible and guns? Is he aiming to paint those protesting the death of George Floyd, an unarmed black man, as the enemies of the foundational values of the USA? Or is it a deliberately ambiguous act of propaganda – a sort of visual word salad? Whatever it was and whatever it was meant to achieve, church leaders of all colours were quick to condemn it. Father James Martin, a Jesuit Priest, tweeted: “This is revolting. The Bible is not a prop. A church is not a photo op. Religion is not a political tool. God is not your plaything.” No one is particularly too surprised that this president would use the symbols of Christian Religion so callously, so perhaps we shouldn’t be too angry either. As I was once reminded at a night of blasphemy-based comedy from Stewart Lee – “If a symbol goes out into the world, into places where it’s perhaps not understood or wanted or valued, you shouldn’t be too upset if it then takes on a shape you don’t recognise as your own.” Though Church leaders should definitely be speaking out a corrective message about what Christianity stands for the fact is our symbols are free to be used and abused. You can decide which of those has happened here.

“Nobody reads the Bible more than me” this president once claimed. Just as, within moments of the rubber bullets, he described himself as “an ally of all peaceful protesters”. We can hope and pray that both these things become true.

No comments: