Read on Twitter
Figured worth taking a stab at this idea that the real solidarity with the underclass is affirming Christian orthodoxy against the privileged critiques of academic liberals, who regard religion in general and Christian belief as primitive relics, or some such thing. (Long thread)
The idea seems to be as follows: in privileged circles like the academy (and much of the mainline gets covered in this too), people are disconnected from the world of those for whom God lives. They can easily dismiss offhand any vestige of *actual* belief from their comfort.
Folks living under economic oppression, meanwhile, don't have this luxury, but in fact need their faith to sustain them. In this, God is actually present for those that the world has chewed out.
This then gets patterned onto critiques of Christian orthodoxy from, e.g., decolonial and black studies perspectives. Those making the critiques are a new iteration of academic privilege who just think it unreflective to *believe* in the Trinity or the resurrection.
Honest to goodness belief in the tenets of orthodoxy, meanwhile, is closer in solidarity to those the liberal academy claims to be speaking for—those who live through hardship in the belief in faith the Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, died for them.
Right. If this is a decent rendering of the position I'm attacking, there's clearly a degree of truth to aspects of it. Especially from the 1800s to present, Religious Studies has had a substantial air of 'you don't actually *believe* any of this nonsense?' etc.
And this air has quite frequently been generated by a total disconnection from the worlds in which religion actually lives, or is lived, including this one where faith is an integral part of surviving imposed economic hardship.
When it comes to the kind of critiques being subsumed into this picture yesterday, however, I call bullshit. Rest of the thread goes into why.
Point 1: 'the underclass' is, in my experience at least, is likely to have an incredibly strong religious faith. Folks are also more likely to be intensely heterodox in their faith as well.
In the four years I spent working with disinherited families, then w. folks suffering homelessness—years I don't often refer to in argument, because four years was long enough for me to realize I had no place of authority from which to speak—I met folks of incredible faith.
And practically none of them, from those born and raised Roman Catholic to those who found faith on streets, evinced anything close to an 'orthodox' view. No *problem* believing in the resurrection, sure; it wasn't 'rationality' or 'plausibility that was the problem.
Their faith was just bound up in a set of concerns that made the question of orthodoxy entirely pointless, and formed by influences completely alien to the mainline churches I'd existed in (liberal skepticism and reactions to it).
Sure, some would fit the bill. But if you're going to argue that orthodoxy is in solidarity with 'the underclass' because they believe, you're going to have to reckon with the fact that a great deal of this belief isn't orthodox, and has no desire to be.
(Going to mention here that there were also iterations of religious belief here that were intensely destructive and caused a great deal of harm to people I knew. There's no room for romanticizing.)
The point here is not that therefore no-one living under economic oppression finds strength in orthodox Christian beliefs. They do. It's that this doesn't mean that 'orthodoxy' is in solidarity with the underclass—there's far too wide a world of 'religion' to be that simple.
Point 2: the critiques being leveled against Christianity (in this case, specifically its orthodox iterations) which are relevant here are typically being leveled from a perspective which isn't contemptuous of religious belief in and of itself.
In most of the decolonial stuff I've read, for example, the idea that religion is a primitive vestige of times now past is an obviously colonizing one. And practically no-one in these fields, that I know of, has any problem with the rationality of believing in resurrection.
The arguments are more pointed, and not premised on rejection of 'religious faith' per se (for want of a better term). They are directed at Christian orthodoxy *in particular* because of the fruit that this orthodoxy has borne.
What I think tends to happen is that folks who have mainly been exposed to the mainline-academic version of condescension hear these critiques in the same voice, and react as they do in mainline contexts—haughtily, defensively, and with a presumption of greater knowledge.
Point 3: I'm sure there are folks in this who fit the 'liberal academic' social-type. I am absolutely one—a creature of extreme privilege who has retreated to an ivory tower. To label those making these critiques as all just another iteration of that, however, is ridiculous.
Sure, the academy produces 'liberal' subjects. And each theory world has its own hierarchies, its own ways of creating distinction. But the reason they're becoming more influential is not that they're becoming trendy (though this might be why universities now fund them).
It's because folks from ' the underclass' have broken into a made their own use of the academy's resources. Not bastions of privilege and wealth, but folks who are breaking down that liberal hold on academic production (perhaps not always successfully, but nonetheless).
To characterize this as just another iteration of the academic elite thinking themselves to good for religion is a massive category mistake. Folks I know covered by this believe some much weirder shit than I typically see on 'weird' Christian twitters.
Again, there's no problem with 'reason,' or 'religion' in particular. It is Christianity *as Christianity* which is the object of these arguments. To deflect them by patterning them onto another rhythm of discourse is just obfuscation.
TL;DR—the 'isn't the real solidarity sticking with orthodoxy Christianity against the attacks of these academic elites' claim doesn't hold up. Religious believers in 'the underclass' needn't be and often aren't 'orthodox.' The critics aren't dismissing 'religion.'
