Rastafari vs Christianity

Rev Clinton Chisholm, Contributor

Historians, sociologists, cultural anthropologists and some soft-headed Christians, are to be blamed for the now popular but suspect or meaningless notion that Rastafarianism is the most indigenous religious expression that Jamaica has known.

This kind of argument is usually advanced with an implied (or expressed) criticism of Christianity as being an alien religion.

Let me indulge an aside. Notice how Rastafarianism and African religious retentions are lauded in academia, yet none of these religious expressions find expression in the lives of many who laud them? This is a phenomenon similar to that of intellectuals who praise life in communist countries (from the security of life in capitalist countries) with not even a hint of desire to take up residence in one of the communist 'heavens' on earth!

The all too facile argument for the complimentary indigeneity of Rastafarianism and the negative 'foreignness' of Christianity, is the result of careless research and faulty reasoning.

If by indigenous one means 'native to' (whatever that really means) or homespun (whatever that really means), then the term indigenous need not be complimentary. There are things 'native to' Jamaica and definitely homespun that are not really praiseworthy. So if the term 'indigenous' is not to be taken in a neutral sense, one would have to show why it deserves complimentary connotations.

It ought to be said, as well, that which is not 'native to' or homespun is not necessarily something that is not praiseworthy. Again, arguments would have to be advanced for the rejection.

With reference to Rastafarianism as a religion, the dubious best that can be said about it are the words of Dr Leachim Semaj, that Rastafarianism is "one of the few products of our imagination, creativity and intellect". That is true, but it does not constitute a compliment for Rastafarianism.

It takes quite a bit of imagination and creativity (and thus intellect), to see Haile Selassie as a black icon and as god of a better-than-Christian religion. Quite a bit of imagination, I say, because Emperor Haile Selassie was not black (i.e. not a Negro), and he professed to be a Christian, indeed the Defender of the Christian Faith in Ethiopia!

If the argument for Rastafaria-nism's superior indigeneity has to do with the mere fact of being started here in Jamaica, then other groups share that distinction (such as the City Mission Church and even the short-lived religion of Bedwardism).

What I think has been the line of reasoning is the Garveyan notion of seeing God through Ethiopian eyes. Thus, the argument (which preceded Rastafarianism) boils down to another of the dubious kind "being of Africa, thus more appropriate for us than what is from or in Europe or elsewhere than Africa".

Worthless argument

This is a worthless argument when one recalls that Christianity originated in the Middle East, not in Europe, and was in Meroe (modern Sudan) from the first century of this era and was the official religion in Ethiopia since the fourth century of this era.

There are some hard facts that anti-Christian Garveyites and Rastas need to grapple with. The essence of Garveyism and of Rastafarianism is the notion of the black man's essential worth and dignity, and his equality with members of all other people groups.

That, let it not be forgotten, has no more defensible grounding than the Judaeo-Christian doctrine of "creation by and in the image of God". The essence of Garveyism and Rastafarianism then, borrows credibility, plausibility and defensibility from Christianity!

Additionally, Rastafarianism as a religion, is contingent on a foreign 'Christian' icon, Haile Selassie of Ethiopia. Ethiopia, the land mass par excellence for Rastas (and for Garvey, somewhat) has been a Christian empire since the 4th century AD.

It is beyond controversy that the more commendable societal/cultural values of Ethiopia (prior to Mengistu Haile Maryam who deposed Haile Selassie) have been shaped by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church - one of the oldest Christian churches in the world.

If it is hip to copy things that are or were in Africa, why then the seeming aversion to Christianity, when it was in Africa long before it entered or settled in some of the countries with which Christianity is now linked in a derogatory way?

Implications

By the way, those who are clamouring for repatriation to Ethiopia should realise the implications of that desire. Are they suggesting that any slaves came here via the slave trade from Ethiopia? Then they must face the possibility (at least) that such slaves were Christians, not animists or polytheists, not cannibals or whatever!

It must not be forgotten that Christianity predates Rastafarianism in Jamaica and that it has been a religion in Africa for close to 2,000 years now.

If that which is akin (not alien) to us is that which simply has been with us for a long time, Christianity qualifies. If that which is akin to us is that which simply has roots in Africa, Christianity qualifies again.

As I have said elsewhere, if an artefact, a value, a custom or an outlook is to be retained by a people, such must have some intrinsic worth in addition to being from a particular country.

Who would readily extol the virtues of wife-beating, cannibalism, eating maggot-infested meat, trickery and deceit as tribal norms, simply because each had (and some still do have) a place in some African society? The intrinsic value of a set of values or a thing is a more defensible reason for its acceptance than simply its point of origin.

(Excerpted from 'Revelations on Ras Tafari', 2008, 38-40)

The Rev Clinton Chisholm is the former senior pastor at the Phillippo Baptist Circuit of Churches. He may be reached at clintchis@hotmail.com. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.