There is a piece circulating social media, attributed to Erna Kim Hackett, which claims certain Christians suffer from “Disney Princess theology.” It reads:
White Christianity suffers from a bad case of Disney Princess theology. As each individual reads Scripture, they see themselves as the princess in every story. They are Esther, never Xerxes or Haman. They are Peter, but never Judas. They are the woman anointing Jesus, never the Pharisees. They are the Jews escaping slavery, never Egypt. For citizens of the most powerful country in the world, who enslaved both Native and Black people, to see itself as Israel and not Egypt when studying Scripture is a perfect example of Disney princess theology. And it means that as people in power, they have no lens for locating themselves righly in Scripture or society—and it has made them blind and utterly ill-equipped to engage issues of power and injustice.[1]
While Erna Kim Hackett is an intelligent and thoughtful writer, her comments here reveal a gross misunderstanding of Christianity, the Bible, and even of history itself. By misrepresenting both Christians and Scripture to fit her ideological worldview, she has twisted and misused God’s word to everyone’s detriment. There are several reasons why her comments are misguided and detrimental:
First, the most obvious mistake that the writer makes is that she misses the metanarrative of Scripture. The metanarrative of Scripture begins with a world that was good and beautiful in God’s sight (Gen 1-2). But the goodness and beauty of God’s creation were lost at the Fall when Adam and Eve sinned (Gen 3). Yet even in their disobedience, God shows mercy and grace. While the world must endure a curse as the result of sin, God promises a Deliverer who will rescue the world from the curse (cf. Gen 3:15). The rest of the Old Testament is build-up to God’s Deliverer. Erna Kim Hackett claims that White Christians see themselves as Esther, not Xerxes; as Israel, not Egypt. When she makes this claim, she misses the point of the redemption analogy which is inherent in those stories: Esther and the Jews were delivered by God’s providence; Israel, likewise, was delivered out of the bondage of slavery through God’s mighty hand. Those stories, and many others in the Old Testament, are evangelical in nature—they show that salvation only comes through the grace of God and not by man’s efforts. Consider that before we are saved, we are in bondage to sin and we cannot escape it, but by God’s grace, he sets us free (cf. Eph 2:1-10). These stories are not racial in nature, they are evangelical in nature. Erna Kim Hackett claims White Christians have misread these stories but it is she who has misread the powerful narrative which these stories are telling.
Second, by removing the personal redemptive analogy in Scripture, she portrays God’s interaction with mankind, e.g. redemption and salvation, largely in human development terms. Consider her rhetoric of slavery, power, and injustice instead of holiness, righteousness, and glory. This is the outcome whenever the goal of personal righteousness before God is exchanged for societal goodness. Ironically, there can be no societal goodness in the absence of personal and individual righteousness. Erna Kim Hackett is promoting a type of liberation theology that makes Jesus an example of societal reform rather than a savior of sinners.
Third, the writer conveniently ignores the many Scriptures to which Christians also adhere that teach the individual about the very real consequences of sin. Over and over in Scripture, God warns his people to stop sinning and return to Him. And many times, God’s call falls on deaf ears. These are passages that Christians read, regardless of skin color, and make note of. For instance, God repeatedly warned the Northern Kingdom of Israel until they finally were overrun by the Assyrian army. Likewise, the Southern Kingdom was also warned and at times heeded God’s call. But they, too, stubbornly chose sin and the Lord sent the Babylonians to conquer Jerusalem. The lessons for today are obvious. These stories exist for our instruction (2 Tim 3:15-16) no matter the skin color.
Fourth, the writer conveniently ignores God’s story of his interaction among the nations. The people of Israel were meant to be His witnesses to the surrounding nations. Unfortunately, they often failed. The story of Jonah is a prime example of God’s concern for the nations and even a prophet’s reluctance to obey, yet the story ends with a beautiful display of God’s grace for those who turn to Him. Christians also find themselves in this story. The Bible is not a racist storyline that prefers one skin color over another. Rather, it is the entire message of God’s interaction with mankind, showing the consequences of sin and rebellion—and also showing the depths of God’s grace and mercy. When Erna Kim Hackett misuses Scripture to promote a racial understanding of God’s message, she does a disservice to all her readers.
Fifth, the writer claims that “White Christianity” [sic] are the ones who see themselves as the people whom God has redeemed. Later, she equates White Christianity as “citizens of the most powerful country” and “people in power.” What she has done here is a logical non-sequitur; she has tried to bridge a religious identification with a cultural and political one. Do not born-again Christians of all colors see themselves as the objects of God’s grace and mercy? Should Christians not read Esther and not identify the spiritual deliverance that God has rendered in their own hearts? Erna Kim Hackett claims “white” Christians see themselves as the beneficiaries of God’s grace, but is it not every born-again Christian who ought to see himself as the beneficiary of God’s goodness and mercy? It is common hermeneutical practice to read Esther as both historical fact and spiritual analogy, something both Jews and Christians have practiced for centuries. The case of the Exodus is even more clear: the writer of Hebrews shows us how God foreshadowed the Gospel in the Old Testament (cf. Hebrews 3 and Hebrews 11-12). Is it only “white” Christians who, when they read about Israel’s rebellion and the consequent serpents in the wilderness, immediately see the correlation between their own sins and the need to look to the only Remedy that God has provided (John 3:14)? No, through and through, the Bible demands not a racial understanding but an understanding that looks at one’s heart.
Perhaps Erna Kim Hackett’s comments are meant for those who are cultural Christians rather than born-again believers. If so, she needs to clarify her language. By assuming that if one is white, he must be a Christian is as incorrect as assuming that a non-white person must not be a Christian. Have some Christians who were white found themselves supporting policies that were harmful to others? Undoubtedly, that has happened, just as it happens in every culture when men and women fail to renew their minds by the word of God. But her arguments also ignore the important coalition that Christians (who happened to be primarily of European descent) formed to oppose things such as slavery and mistreatment of indigenous peoples. In fact, in nearly every case, it has been Bible-believing Christians who were often the only ones to fervently defend the rights of the poor, the oppressed, and the disenfranchised. Perhaps they did so because they are the ones who truly value the worth of every individual just as God has done by sending his son Jesus Christ to die that sinners might be saved, no matter their skin color.
Do some people believe a Disney Princess theology that ignores injustice and is primarily anthropocentric? Probably. But it is incorrect to make a blanket statement on all Christians of a particular race that they suffer from that sort of thinking and it misuses Scripture to imply that God is more concerned with societal reform than with personal reform. My experience around the world has shown me that most Bible-believing Christians, regardless of culture, take the words of the Apostle to heart when he says, “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves” (Phil 2:3). Furthermore, we are all the more cognizant of the fact that without Christ we are nothing and, so, we echo Paul’s statement in Romans 7:24, “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” Therefore, we say in unison with Paul, “But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith…” (Phil 3:7-9). This is not Disney Princess theology, it heartfelt gratitude to our Savior. Sadly, by seeing Scripture only through a lens of color and social oppression, it is Erna Kim Hackett who is blind and utterly ill-equipped to engage the issues of power and injustice. It is my hope that we might learn from her unfortunate example, that we might recommit ourselves to God’s agenda so clearly outlined in Scriptures, and that we might extol and magnify the name of Christ to a world that is lost and in desperate need of redemption.
[1] For an example, see: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2020/06/white-christianity-and-disney-princess-theology.html [Accessed 29 June 2020.]
