“Whiteness”: The origins and evolution of “whiteness” in the West

This picture will make more sense at the end of this post.

Recently headline news (namely Kony 2012 and Trayvon Martin) have made me think a lot about race and race relationships in the U.S. I quickly found that one question that needs to be answered if someone is going to enter into this conversation in a meaningful way is, “What does it mean to be white?” On the surface this question appears deceptively simple.  Broadly and generally speaking white-skinned Caucasians are “white” and other people are not “white.” Whatever white-skinned Caucasians value can be thought of as “white values” and their culture could be considered is “white culture.”

Growing up in a bi-racial home (my mother is Dutch and my father is Filipino) the definition of “whiteness” was visually clear but not as clear cut in reality. Taken purely as a label related to skin color my Dutch side is white, and my Filipino side is not white. However, my father values many of the things my mother’s family does.  Did he adopt white values or are Filipino values and white values one and the same?  Growing up I have occasionally been referred to as a “coconut”  by other minorities, meaning I am  someone who is “brown” on the outside but “white” on the inside. While this might have been rude it is also true. In terms of skin color I am certainly not white-skinned, but many of my values, beliefs and my approach to life as a whole all have been traditionally associated with people of white-skin color.

When I started thinking and reading about this concept more recently I found I was entering as a layman into conversations that have been going on for decades.  I quickly realized that the answer to the question “What does it mean to be white” is actually a lot more complex. I encountered many scholars and historians arguing for a non-traditional definition of “whiteness” as a social construct that had changed over time. While new to me, this this understanding actually made a lot of sense when it is applied to the broader conversation about race relationships in the U.S. and my own experiences.

In this post I will do my best in this post to succinctly present this “new to me” understanding of “whiteness.”

A bit of a disclaimer: I will be writing about “whiteness” in a way that will be foreign to many of you. I will continue putting “whiteness” in quotation marks to highlight this fact. This is a broader way of talking about “whiteness” that involves much more than just skin-color. I am talking about things in larger cultural terms and realize there will be individual exceptions. I am not talking about what a white skinned person must think or do to be a “real white man/woman.”  I am not suggesting every white-skinned person agrees with, embodies or is uncritical of some of the values and power structures that have been associated with “whiteness.” If you are offended at something that I present, first check yourself to make sure you are tracking with what I am presenting.  If you are still offended, as usual, please feel free to comment.

The short version…

The briefest summary of the definition of “whiteness” as a socially constructed reality that I can manage is this:

Race was a concept that was invented for a variety of theological and pragmatic reasons during the 16^th century.  It developed first to explain problems European Christians had with the Jewish people living in their various nations that for some reason refuse to assimilate to the dominant culture and religion even after centuries of exposure.  It was suggested that there must be something in their blood and lineage that marked them as different from the rest of the Europeans; they were a race separate from the rest of humanity.  This concept was later applied to indigenous people encountered around the world and a belief in the inherent racial inferiority of indigenous people and the inherent racial superiority of white-skinned Europeans were both used to justify the exploitative and oppressive practices in colonialism.

“Whiteness” was created during this same time. “Whiteness” was originally a socially constructed reality invented by the white-skinned rich/European elite. It was a social status with benefits that was conferred upon poor white-skinned people by rich white-skinned people. It would be part of what we would know today as class warfare. The invention and use of “whiteness” was an effort to “divide and conquer” the poor who they were exploiting. The rich white-skinned elite were attempting to prevent an interracial uprising of poor/indentured/enslaved people against themselves by pitting the poor against each other along skin color lines.They elevated the white-skinned poor just enough to make them think they were participants and beneficiaries in a system of European power instead of victims of it. In this time “whiteness” was explicitly tied to the white-skin color. However, there were exceptions and the social status of “whiteness” and its benefits were also conferred upon non-white skinned people who obeyed the systems of power and adhered to certain values.

Over time “whiteness” has become a social status irrespective of skin color that has become synonymous with loyalty and obedience to the power structures of a society that has been and is predominantly shaped and controlled by “White”/Western/European culture and persons (especially the rich) and adherence to the values that have traditionally been “White”/Western/European values. The benefits of “whiteness” have become automatic for those that are obedient to the right power structures and adhere to the right values. While it continues to exist, “Whiteness” as a distinct social status is no longer talked about or named and it has become an unnamed invisible reality impacting race relationships in the U.S. and elsewhere.

The rest of this post will explain this short summary in more detail.  In many ways, this will represent the tracing of the evolution of “whiteness” over time.

The theological origins of race…

While various white-skinned Caucasian people have obviously existed for centuries, the concept of race in general and the concept of a “white race” are a relatively recent invention. Previous to the 16^th century no on talked about “being white” or thought of white-skinned Europeans as a separate race distinct from all others. While they may have looked similar white-skinned Europeans were divided amongst themselves by a variety of geographical, cultural, linguistic, political and religious differences. While they may have had some commonalities they were not a unified group that identified with one another and in fact they often hated and warred with each other for a variety of reasons.

The concept of dividing human beings into distinct “races/ethnicities” based on physical characteristics and bloodline was created in 16^th century for a variety of theological, cultural and practical reasons that all blended in together.

The theological origins developed as the dominant Christian societies of Western Europe began to wrestle with Jews, who were not assimilating to the dominant culture or religion that helped form their cultural and national identities. As previously mentioned European nations were divided by rather clear linguistic, cultural and religious factors.  However, many European nations had Jews in them and the Jews often did not fit this mold exactly. The Jews rejected Christianity, spoke whatever language they grew up with, and had been maintaining their own culture, religion and practices for centuries. These realities, mixed with anti-semitic rumors (such as the blood libel), led to the Jews being seen as a threat or problem that needed to be sorted out.

In addition to this, the Christians of Western Europe had to wrestle with the fact that the Jews had been exposed to Christianity for centuries and most had not converted. Those that had converted were suspected of doing so for pragmatic reasons. It was suggested that there must be some reason why the Jews were not accepting the truth of the Gospel, which was ostensibly plainly evident and true to everyone else. It was suggested that there must be something in their blood, something that went to their very nature, something that made them fundamentally different from other Europeans, that prevented them from converting to Christianity. This “blood myth” became accepted, it led predictably to what would be known today as ethnic cleansing (as nations attempted to purge themselves of these “others”) and is the theological origins of our concept of race/ethnicity or setting people apart from one another not on political, linguistic, or cultural differences but on something regarding their blood lineage as a people.

(Sidenote: For more on the theological origins of the concept of race, read Willie Jenning’s book The Christian Imagination: The Theological Origins of Race.)

The evolution and extended application of the concept of race during colonialism…

Later, as Europeans encountered a variety of indigenous people in the Americas and Africa, the concept that people could be wholly different in their nature was extended to account for these new people groups. Indigenous people came to be seen as fundamentally less than and different than Europeans. They became seen as other races. Africans and Native Americans were seen as sub-human, or at least sub-European, an attitude that persists to this day in many ways. In many ways this appeared a natural extension.  Just as the Jews did not fit some of the neat categories of divisions in Europe, so the indigenous people were remarkably foreign, they did not organize themselves like Europeans did, and they did not follow Christianity, and it was easy to think of them as other races entirely distinct from Europeans.

During this time of colonialism Europeans saw and scripted themselves quite naturally as the better race civilizing the other races.  As Noam Chomsky said the psychology behind this is quite transparent and, “When you’ve got your boot on someone’s neck and you’re crushing them you cannot say to yourself that ‘I’m a son of a bitch and I’m doing it for my own benefit.’ So what you have to do is figure out some way of saying that I am doing it for their benefit and this is the natural position to take when you are beating someone with a club.” The concept of races, the inherent racial superiority white-skinned Europeans, and the inherent racial inferiority of other races all developed out of European colonialism and as a justification for it.

When was “Whiteness” created and why was it created?

The development of the concept of a “white race” and “whiteness” were parallel to these developments concerning race.  While all white-skinned Europeans agreed that they were all better than Jews and indigenous peoples they were by no means a unified “white race.” White-skinned Europeans were still very divided by a variety of political, cultural and linguistic factors.  While the British and French  might have both agreed that the indigenous people were subhuman and in need of European help, they still hated each other, and been in deep competition for the scramble for resources and land in Africa and the Americas. So where did “Whiteness” come from?

Simply put, “whiteness” was created in the Colonial era by the European elite for very practical reasons in what would be known today as class warfare. But what do I mean by this?

The strategy of “divide and conquer” regularly used by colonial powers. In many ways it was a tactic of necessity. A unified indigenous people being exploited under colonization could successfully revolt against a relatively small number of European oppressors, even with all of the technological advances of the Europeans. Therefore, the colonial powers played on existing cultural, linguistic and tribal tensions and differences amongst the indigenous people in order to keep those being oppressed at each other’s throats instead of recognizing their common interest and banding together against the colonial powers. The Belgians, for example, played the Hutsis against the Tutsis in Rwanda and which served their purposes well but it also set the stage for the 1994 massacre.

The creation of “whiteness” was an extension of this and indeed a legal differentiation between “blacks” and “whites” can be traced to colonial governments. The problem faced by the European elite was that in the colonial U.S. and elsewhere there were many white-skinned Europeans who had come over as indentured servants. The plight and position of these poor white-skinned Europeans in the early colonies was exactly the same as indigenous slaves. The upper class feared an interracial revolt by the poor so they resorted again to the tactic of divide and conquer.

This time instead of playing on pre-existing tensions and conflicts (which obviously did not exist) they elevated the status of poor white-skinned Europeans in very small economic and social ways. And they did so making it known that these new benefits came because they too, while poor, were still white-skinned.  The benefits have been called the “psychological wages of whiteness” because they were benefits or “wages” that were “paid” to poor white-skinned Europeans just for being white-skinned. While these “wages” did little to change the economic situation of poor whites, they had a great effect on personal treatment and deference shown to them. Indentured servitude was done away with for white-skinned Europeans, they were allowed to attend “white only” events (even with whites of higher social classes), the police were drawn from their ranks, they were given leniency in the court system, favorable treatment in the local news and were given a position of power as they were relied upon to keep the non-white skinned slaves in line and “in their place.”

This was all done so that the poor white-skinned Europeans would identify with the rich white-skinned Europeans, even though their social positions were vastly different and the poor white-skinned Europeans were still being exploited by the rich white-skinned Europeans. In many ways this was an ingenious way to prevent revolt in rather turbulent times. In past times strong cultural bonds and loyalties to king, country and religion would maintain stability and guard against internal revolt no matter how oppressed the poor were.  However, in the turbulent times of colonialism, a time of revolution, of mass immigration, of religious schisms and new opportunities, these old loyalties were unstable. Something new was needed and “whiteness” increasingly became the locus of loyalty that protected against revolt, especially in the American colonies.

This worked wonderfully, to the point where many poor whites who had never owned a slave, and in fact had depressed wages because slavery still existed, fought and died fighting for the south in the Civil War. This continues to work wonderfully.

(Sidenote: If my writing at this point has not clearly explained how “whiteness” was created and used in this way, or how this continues to be used today, it may be helpful for some to watch this video of Tim Wise explaining it.  I think he does a better job, though he does not mention the theological origins of race.)  

The evolution of “Whiteness” in U.S. history…

In U.S. history from slavery to segregation “whiteness” was a socially constructed social status with benefits that was very clearly tied to skin color.  However, even during this period this social status and some of its benefits were at times been conferred on non-white skinned individuals who had shown themselves to be loyal or obedient to the social order. (This would be the Native Americans who owned black slaves. This would be the “Uncle Toms” of slavery.)

Since segregation, it is argued that “whiteness” has evolved in at least two ways.

First, “whiteness,” and the process by which someone was conferred this social status and its benefits has in many ways collapsed and synthesized in on itself. “Whiteness” is now synonymous with participation and loyalty to “White”/Western/European power structures and synonymous with “White”/Western/European values, both of which, where obeyed and/or adhered to in contemporary society, automatically confer their benefits.

In many ways this was the natural trajectory for its development. Originally “whiteness” was a social status (and related benefits) that were conferred upon people who had white-skin who participated in a certain system of power and held to certain values. Then it became conferrable to non-white-skinned people who obeyed the system of power and adhered to the values, though this was the exception to the normal skin-color requirement. Now “whiteness” is loyalty and obedience to white/Western/European power structures and white/Western/European values. These can and are achieved without any reference to skin color. This has become so entrenched in Western society that in the past a poor white-skinned European or a non-white-skinned person had to wait to be conferred the social status by their betters in order to enjoy the privileges of it, but now, if one obeys the right power structures and values the right things, the benefits quite naturally flow to you.

The systems of power of “whiteness” are the systems of power that are the accepted status quo in Western society, a society with deep roots in Western European thought and politics, a society that has historically been and continues to be dominated by white-skinned people, and a society that continues to be run by the rich white-skinned people.

The values of “whiteness” are a set of values and beliefs that are distinctly Western European and values that have traditionally been held by white-skinned people.  These values are effectively synonymous with middle-class American values. “Whiteness” is valuing a certain type of education (White/Western education) in a certain way (as means to gainful employment, technological advancement, military research), it is valuing a certain type of family (the White/Western nuclear family), it is a belief about how and when it is appropriate to express emotion (the White/Western grid of understanding appropriate emotional expression), it is a valuing economic independence in a certain way (where home ownership is a prime hallmark of having made it.) etc. etc. etc.

Second, in a closely related move, “whiteness” has gone through a process of ex-nomination. Ex-nomination is a concept that explains how certain realities become incredibly powerful by no longer being named or talked about.  They become “just the way things are” and fade into the back ground of our shared reality. In this they become incredibly powerful because they are passively reinforced in the culture and are effectively above critique or criticisms.

For example, ex-nomination can be seen in how we talk about culture in the U.S.A. This is why we talk about the “American Dream” or “American Values” or the “American Way” and not the “White Dream” or “White Values” or the “White Way.” The latter statements would offend our politically correct sensibilities but would be more accurate because in reality what we are referencing these things we are referencing values and beliefs that used to be primarily if not exclusively located in white-skinned Europeans.

For example, ex-nomination can be seen in the fact that when people encouraged me to “go to college” what they were really encouraging me do was to pursue a specific type of education in a specific type of educational institution to attain a specific kind of lifestyle and function in a specific kind of society…all shaped primarily by the “white”/Western/European power structures and values.

Thoughts?

What do you make of all of this?  Does this make sense to you (my readers)?  Would there be things you would add or question about this?
While I am still critically evaluating a lot of this argument it makes sense of so many tensions I have seen and experienced.  This understanding of “whiteness” will be referenced in some of my subsequent posts on  race related issues.

Invisible Children and Kony 2012

Not even to think, to learn about history, or to consider valid criticisms?

Several weeks back Kony 2012 hit my news feed.  For the past several weeks I have been thinking about it and a variety of wider issues related to it. Before turning to those wider issues in other posts I want to post my thoughts on Kony 2012.

Invisible Children and Kony 2012: A brief overview…

Invisible Children (IC) http://www.invisiblechildren.com/ is a non-profit based in San Diego that hopes to help the country of Uganda through awareness, advocacy, and development. The primary issue IC is concerned with is Joseph Kony, his rebel group known as the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), and their war crimes in Northern Uganda. Kony and the LRA have mutilated children as an intimidation tactic and have abducted young children to use as sex slaves and child soldiers.

IC’s first video (which is available in a six part series on Youtube starting here) was based off of the experiences of their original members of IC quite literally stumbling into this issue as they came face to face with the reality of thousands of young boys who were forced to flee their homes in an effort to escape the LRA. IC’s efforts have produced development projects in Uganda and led to President Obama sending in 100 U.S. military advisors to train the Ugandan army, primarily for the purpose of capturing or killing Kony.

Kony 2012 is IC’s most recent endeavor. It is an awareness campaign that is aimed at making Kony and his crimes famous through viral videos, posters, T-shirts and wristbands to encourage activism, primarily among the youth.  The overall goal is to maintain awareness and interest in capturing Kony, especially among celebrities and policy makers, so the U.S. does not withdraw the advisors and military support it has sent to Uganda.

Here is the central Kony 2012 video:

I would encourage anyone who has not watched it to watch it before continuing with this post.  I am not endorsing it, but it is only fair to IC to watch what they put out instead of forming opinions about it second or third hand.

Reactions to Kony 2012: Idealism, Criticism and Cynicism…

When this video went viral millions of people watched it in record breaking time.  It was also hit by intense criticism from a variety of sources. IC has been accused of not being financially forthright, of financially supporting the Ugandan army (itself guilty of war crimes), of being used (intentionally or unintentionally) as propaganda for establishing U.S. military bases and presence in Africa to exploit its natural resources…

(Sidenote: That last one might sound incredibly paranoid but watch this video…

…and then read a history book. Empires are driven by national self-interest and the natural resources of the African continent have always been appealing and needed by countries that consume resources at unsustainable rates.)

…of over-simplifying the complex situation of Uganda, of presenting activism as easy and encouraging “slacktivism,” of wasting money on “awareness” instead of investing in sustainable development in Uganda, of soaking up finances and attention that would otherwise go to other agencies that are providing direct needs and services to people, of reinforcing the concept that Africans are helpless and need white Westerners to save them, of containing and perpetuating neo-colonial attitudes, of continuing and perpetuating the “white savior complex” and the contemporary incarnation of the concept of “The White Man’s Burden,” etc., etc. ,etc.

The criticism was so intense that IC released a video responding to the criticisms and has defended themselves in a variety of interviews, articles, statements and guest appearances.

Jason Russell, the CEO of IC and narrator of the Kony 2012 film, suffered what was apparently a mental break down and acted wildly inappropriately on the streets of San Diego. This was attributed to the intense criticism of his person and his life’s work. Russell was taken to a mental hospital for observation and was not charged with anything.

Just to be clear…

Before I go any further I would just like to note a few things.  I am not against IC or Jason Russell.  Whatever their motivations or flaws, the people that make up IC know more about Uganda than I do, have helped more Ugandans than I ever will, and I believe they are going about helping people in what they believe is the best way possible. Whatever the fruit of their work or the ideological basis of it, more people are talking about Kony than they were a year ago. I think some of the criticisms of Kony 2012 were unnecessarily personal and some went over the top.  I do not think Russell’s breakdown was fueled by drugs or alcohol but truly was a mental breakdown as the result of intense criticism. I do not think he is a bad person and I’m sure if someone videotaped my worst day and put it on TMZ I would not look so great either. I do think what Kony has done is evil. I would like to see him, and all mass-murderers, experience justice in this life  I would like to see him, and all who use violence as an intimidation tactic, stopped. I do think non-Ugandans can be helpful to Ugandans as they rebuild and repair their society in the wake of colonialism, dictators, and neo-colonialism.

That being said…

Many of the criticisms of Kony 2012 are valid, even some that were delivered in rather merciless ways, and any reasonable person or organization should be willing to admit mistakes, engage with criticism and grow from it, even if it comes from the vicious attack from an enemy.

IC and their defenders cannot dodge these criticisms by labeling their critics as cynics. Just because someone pointed out a glaring issue in your organization does not mean they are “just being cynical” and therefore you can ignore them and the issues they point out.

Likewise, having good intentions are also not an adequate defense for IC and their practices. While it is admirable that IC and their supporters want to help people in Uganda, their good hearts often impair their ability to think through the issue critically.

Teju Cole wrote a brilliant piece for The Atlantic that touched on this issue.  He suggested that the emotional desire to help can impair their ability to “think constellationally.” People see the dire need and they understandably want to help. However, all they can think about is how to resolve the need instead of connecting the dots between the underlying issues behind the need. In this case, the incredibly complex historical issues that have given rise to Kony, the LRA and the incredibly intricate and much larger geo-political concerns at play in Uganda do not appear to have been considered or at least presented in this video.

Nolan Watson recent shared in a TED talk that I linked previously but I should share it again.

His message echoes that of Cole’s almost exactly. Sentimentality and compassion can get in the way of taking and making actual substantive long-term change. Acting purely out of sentimentality and compassion can even be counter-productive to doing good.

Simply put, idealism, compassion and sincerity are not an overriding virtues that disqualifies all other concerns. Harm, even harm done with the best of intentions, is still harm.

On the next page I will move onto my personal criticisms and thoughts surrounding Kony 2012.

Pages: 1 2

The White Western hegemony of the Gospel and how that is ending.

A picture of Amerigo Vespucci, bringing civilization and Christianity to a savage new (to Europeans) world. (Sidenote: This did not end well for the Native Americans.)

Recently the first WeekFOUR event took place.  WeekFOUR is the student group I started with Matt Schuler as a platform for student voices at Fuller Theological Seminary to be heard and as a space for the incredibly diverse and experience-rich Fuller student body to impact, shape and challenge each other more intentionally.

My motivation for starting this group came after I watched a panel discussion hosted at Fuller and some elements of this discussion were actually found in the WeekFOUR talk that I gave (it will be uploaded and available soon).

As a prelude to a much larger post on race that should be coming out in a couple of weeks I wanted to write on something that I have been thinking about for some time: the White Western hegemony of the Gospel.

First, you may want to watch their talk here:

To begin I must explain my belief that the Gospel is always transmitted through and expressed by a culture. But what do I mean by this?

In regards to the Gospel being transmitted by a culture…

Whenever God has interacted with humans, God has done so in understandable terms.  God did not speak to Abraham in English or Italian, nor did Jesus use parables that had to do with industrialization or computers.  God meets people in their culture in their time and space in history. People then retell the stories and record them in some fashion in an effort to transmit these encounters and their meaning to other people or future generations.

Throughout this entire process culture plays an important role.  Cultural values, views, understandings, idioms, language, expectations, social conventions, etc. color this process both in what was originally received from God and in how it is transmitted. This is why people from another culture can often fail to understand the stories or parables of another culture. This is why we must study the original culture, the ancient social and political context, and the ancient languages the Bible was written in to really figure out what is going on. 

The Gospel (by this I mean the sum total of the Biblical witness, the story of the Creation of the world, the covenants made by God, the history of the people of Israel, the fulfillment of these covenants in Jesus, the redemption of humanity through Jesus and the future fate of the world and humanity) has always been and continues to be transmitted through culture. Jews explained it a certain way to Jews, Romans explained it a certain way to Romans, Europeans explained it a certain way to Europeans, etc.

In regards to the Gospel being expressed in a culture…

Hand in hand with the fact that the Gospel is always transmitted by a culture is the fact that the Gospel is always expressed in a culture. Whenever humans respond to God or respond to the Gospel we do so in ways that make sense to us. A Spanish-speaking Christian does not pray to God in English or Swahili. A culture that has a robust value on embodied expression of emotion in dancing and singing does not naturally worship God, expressing emotions such as gratitude and happiness, by standing completely still and reading in unison from a hymnal. The specific practices, theology and daily life of any given Christian community will be the Gospel as understood and expressed by that culture. What we actually see, think and do as Christians is not the Gospel per se but ways our specific culture has seen fit to express the Gospel as we understand it to the world and embody that Gospel as people and individuals.

Two grave and persistent dangers: forgetting and assuming.

Problems arise when we mistake the cultural expression of the Gospel from a culture to be the Gospel. This often happens naturally over time as the stable Christian community transmits the Gospel to the next generation. The next generation is raised in a cultural expression of the Gospel and knows nothing else.  They naturally assume what they experience is the one right way the Gospel should be expressed and responded to. They assume what they know is Christianity, with any alterations being heresy or sub-standard. They assume what they know is Christianity, with any alterations being heresy or sub-standard.

As the generations roll on we come to think, consciously or unconsciously, that how the Gospel has been expressed in our culture is how it should be expressed in all cultures. When we do this, whether we realize it or not, we forget the distinction between the Gospel and our culture. We then show up on the missions field in another culture and do not just tell them to believe in Jesus, we tell them that to believe in Jesus they have to look like us. This is a situation that some might call cultural or theological imperialism/colonialism.

But why do I bring this up?

Phyllis Tickle has suggested in her book The Great Emergence and at the panel discussion at Fuller that Christianity goes through an identity crisis and dramatic changes every five hundred years or so.  This happened first in the Dark Ages, second during the Great Schism in 1057 (where the Western and Eastern Church divided), third during the Reformation in the 1500’s and now in what she would call the Great Emergence.

At least since the Reformation, and most likely for several centuries before that, the Gospel has been in a state of captivity to White Western culture and the White Western imagination and understanding of faith. What I mean by that is the cultural expression of the Gospel within White Western culture has had a hegemony on how the Gospel should be expressed. In other words, the “Christianity” many are familiar with is actually the Gospel as it is has been understood and expressed within White Western culture. As the Gospel has spread throughout the centuries everyone has been expected to understand, express and respond to the Gospel in the ways White Westerners have understood, expressed and responded to the Gospel.

Evidence of this hegemony and part of the reason this hegemony has been so complete and powerful is that White Westerners have had an near monopoly when it comes to holding positions of power, authority and influence in Christianity. Across the various Christian churches, denominations, sects and communions, for centuries the most prominent and influential theologians, leaders, speakers and Christian communities have been White Westerners, most of them male.

This is not just an assumption but a fair assessment of history. All of the titans of the Reformation, all of their peers, and all of the leaders of new and old expressions of Christianity that went out from Western Europe into the Americas, Africa and parts of Asia have been for White Western Europeans, again most of them male. This trend has continued rather consistently throughout the last several hundred years. Surveying all of the “big names” (or as I like to call them, “super-apostles”) in the contemporary Christian culture in the the United States and in Western Europe, one can see that they are almost exclusively White Westerners. Shane Claiborne, Rick Warren, Mark Driscoll, Bill Johnson, Jim Wallis, John Piper, Pat Robertson, the late Jerry Falwell, Donald Miller, James Dobson, Tim Keller, Randy Clark, N.T. Wright, Tony Campolo, John and Carol Arnott, Brian McLaren, Rowan Williams, Heidi Baker, Michael Horton, Mike Bickle, Kevin DeYoung, Rob Bell, the late Billy Graham, Bill Hybels, Joel Olsteen, and others are just some of the household names that represent a variety of expressions, movements and theological streams that are prominent in the U.S. right now…and they are all White Westerners. Beyond Protestant circles, while the U.S. has finally seen a black President, the Roman Catholic Church has still not seen a non-White Pope even though the Catholic church has existed and thrived in many non-White contexts for centuries.

The consequences of this have often been that what it means to be Christian has become blurred what it means to be a White Westerner and many of our past missionary endeavors and our current missionary practices have been thoroughly guilty of cultural and theological imperialism.  We think we are communicating the Gospel but we are really communicating our cultures understanding and expression of the Gospel. In this we are not just presenting a pure Gospel and trusting the local followers of Jesus to respond to it, but we are forcibly remaking them into our image.

Only in the last hundred years or so in the West have we seen non-white Western theologians, pastors and leaders come to prominence, though they have still been heavily marginalized and are still the minority. Black, Latin American, Asian, and female theologians, leaders and speakers have indeed been gaining traction very slowly but arguably some have only risen to places of influence by adopting the Gospel as it has been expressed in the White Western culture.

Why this hegemony is about to end.

One of the greatest areas of risk and opportunity in the Great Emergence is that Christianity is breaking free from this cultural hegemony of the Gospel. The balance of power is shifting away from White Western Christians to non-Western and non-White cultures in Latin America, Africa and Asia. Numerically, especially with the rise of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement, the balance is shifting drastically even as Christianity in Europe is seen as culture more than an actual faith and Christianity in the U.S. is in decline, division and disarray. Soon, theological prominence will shift as a rising tide of leaders and theologians who grew up outside of White Western culture, will attend non-Western seminaries, and begin producing and disseminating their works that will be instantly available to the global village. This is in some senses already happening as many Christians are now increasingly aware that non-Western and non-White churches have existed, they are coming into contact with them, and coming into contact with their thought and theology through the internet. I would suggest the interest in the Eastern Orthodox Church is just one example of this.

The loss of control over Christianity and the prospect of large changes in Christianity frightens some White Western Christians. Used to their cultural expression of the Gospel being privileged above all others they are quick to accuse and label others expressions as poor misunderstandings of the Gospel, misreadings of the Bible or even heresy. In the Fuller discussion, Tony Jones very transparently admitted that this was his own reaction in regard to the rise of Pentecostal Christianity in the Global South. However, even many White Western Christians are beginning to recognize this cultural hegemony, the problems with it and the need for change.

This may be a very good thing and a very bad thing for the Gospel and the Christian Church as a whole.

On one hand, I want this cultural hegemony to be broken. It is culturally and theologically imperialistic.  It also has limited our understanding of God, the Gospel and what it means to be a follower of Jesus in this world.  I expect the diversification and proliferation of thought and leadership to other cultures to bring greater depth to our understanding of God. I think Christians from other cultures will be able to see the many problems with our cultural expression of faith that we are blind to, and will eventually have equal footing from which to speak those truths into our lives. I think Malawian Christians and Vietnamese Christians and Chinese Christians and Iranian Christians and Mexican Christians, etc. will also have a lot to teach us from how they come to understand, express and respond to the Gospel from their own culture, not replicate or adopt the ways White Westerners have done so (or how these understanding will be given a voice). If the Gospel is understood to be a diamond, for the last several hundred years we have only been looking at one side of it, and to see the true beauty and majesty of the Gospel, we need to look at the other facets as well.

On the other hand, White Western Christianity is by no means monolithic.  The story of Western Christianity in the last five hundred years has been a story of endless schism and we now have over 30,000 different Protestant denominations.  Will breaking free from the cultural hegemony of White Western culture produce 30,000 more different denominations in the African Church and the Latin American church as well?  In the Reformation people broke away from the Catholic Church and refused to accept it as authoritative so the Reformers really could not stop people breaking away from their teachings or refusing to accept their authority.  After all, if the Roman Catholic Church could be wrong, so could Luther or Calvin. In the same way, will we see endless fractures as people break from the hegemony of the White Western culture find they too are unable to stop people breaking away from them?  Probably.

In this time of great change no one can predict the future, but several hundred years from now I think what it means to be a Christian will probably be very different than what we think it means now and we will be better for it.

Did I just walk by the next Trayvon?

Trayvon Martin

As I was walking on Fuller campus the other afternoon a young black man in a hoodie was walking by. I had never seen him before and assumed he was just on his way through to Colorado, the main street near campus.

I noticed the pang of racism and bias in me that would profile him as a youth up to no good just because of his race and clothes. I fought it and managed to look him in the eyes and smile as we passed.

I was happy for about two seconds.

After I got past him I noticed the white armed security guard that was casually shadowing the young man.

Hundreds of people walk through campus every day of all different shapes, sizes, races, genders and levels of wealth and poverty. At least fifty or so we in the immediate vicinity.

Apparently being black and being dressed in a hoodie was all that was necessary to single him out as most likely to be up to no good and therefore in need of shadowing.

All I could think in the moment was, “Did I just walk by the next Trayvon?”

The brief scene was for me symbolic of the larger issue as a whole.  By being black and wearing clothes that are the hallmarks of a certain type of sub-culture this young man had done enough to set off prejudice in both myself and in the security guard, representatives of personal prejudice and the judicial prejudice in our society.

I have two questions surrounding this whole issue:

• How do we as a society combat racial profiling and systemic racism both in ourselves and in our society?
• Does the celebration of violence, criminality and misogyny in certain aspects of Hip-Hop culture feed racial profiling? In other words, is BlogXilla right to invite black culture to introspection over this issue?

Thoughts?

Three thoughts regarding Western aid and non-profits…

This is the happiest picture of Zizek I could find. "He who increases knowledge, increases sorrow."

Recently Invisible Children’s “Kony 2012″ campaign has been met with a lot of arguments and criticisms. Rachel Held Evans has compiled a series of links that summarize the arguments for and against this most recent initiative by Invisible Children.

This is part of  a much larger trend to think more critically about Western non-profits, aid and activism in general. While much has been said I thought I would offer three thoughts on this larger topic for discussion.

First: I am incredibly skeptical and pessimistic about current Western non-profits and aid programs because they are run primarily by Westerners who are still very paternalistic and imperialistic in their attitudes. 

Several centuries ago Westerners (mostly Caucasians) went around the world destroying, raping, and exploiting everything they touched.  In their minds they were “civilizing” the world by bringing (Western) education, medicine, technology and practices. Many of the world’s problems today, from environmental destruction to genocides and wars, are a direct result of the expansion of Western culture.

Now a new generation of Westerners (mostly Caucasians) are going around the world and attempting to fix the very problems their predecessors created. In their minds, they are “helping” the world by bringing (Western) development strategies, money, experts and practices.  It has been said by many others, but I too fear that the same paternalistic and imperialistic attitudes that fueled colonialism now fuels the new hip social activism and in this Western aid is simply an extension and evolution of “The White Man’s Burden” which caused most of the problems in the world in the first place.

Even in more progressive strategies, such as those that focus on development, we are still going into a country that is not our own and telling them what is best for them. How arrogant.

Second: I fear that much of this “self-less” giving is actually thinly veiled self-centered altruism. Much of our Western aid is about us; it helps us feel good about ourselves and alleviate our guilt at having destroyed the world.

I agree with Zizek. Pay special attention to his discussion of Toms and fair trade coffee at Starbucks.

I am especially skeptical of non-profits started by my peers (Christians in their 20′s and 30s) because many of us were raised with the infantile notion that by participating in short-term poverty tourism (a.k.a short-term missions trips) we were being God’s gift to the world.

Speakfaithfully Public Service Announcement:  All short-term missions trips are incredibly wasteful and for the most part pointless. We do them because they give us “warm-fuzzies,” and because the exotic stories they generate help us pretend we are better Christians than we actually are. However, they do little if anything to help the people we are going to serve and the money, time and resources could be much better spent in other ways. 

Third: I think the best thing we can do is to as thoroughly as possible stop exploiting other countries, stop bombing them and stop destroying the earth. 

Many indigenous communities were self-sustaining and living within the limits of their environment. Westerners came in, destroyed their way of live, and then remade them into our image.  Our cultural imperialism is going to bite us in the ass incredibly hard when other countries with higher populations begin consuming and wasting resources at the rate the U.S. does.

In one of the greatest jokes in history, the Westerners who are recognizing that our entire way of life is unsustainable are now advocating for practices that indigenous communities exhibited before we destroyed them, often as if these practices are novel innovations put forth by the incredibly wise and insightful Westerners, again here to save the day.

Thoughts?

P.S. Some additional food for thought…

An interview with Kenyan economist James Shikwati who famously said, “For God’s sake, please stop the aid!”

An article by Tad Delay regarding the Kony 2012 campaign.

Another blog about the Kony 2012 campaign.

 

Worth Reading: H. Richard Niebuhr and the Church Against The World

As part of my church history I have been reading a lot of writings from other Christians.  Some of these are gems and I wanted to share them with some Worth Reading posts.  They are further proof that I believe the sum total of humanity is having the same arguments over and over and over…

In a time of great crisis H. Richard Niebuhr wrote profoundly on the state of the church and asked what the church needed to do in order to be true to itself. He wrote about how the church goes through a predictable cycle that leads towards compromise with culture.  One thing that struck me was his words regarding the church’s captivity to capitalism, which is a conversation I think we need to have more as we ride out a global economic crisis.  (Or should I say I think we need to have this conversation again as he wrote these words in 1935.)

…The church is in bondage to capitalism. Capitalism in its contemporary form is more than a system of ownership and distribution of economic goods. It is a faith and a way of life. It is faith in wealth as the source of all life’s blessings and as the savior of man from his deepest misery. It is the doctrine that man’s most important activity is the production of economic goods and that all other things are dependent upon this. On the basis of this initial idolatry it develops a morality in which economic worth becomes the standard by which to measure all other values and the economic virtues take precedence over courage, temperance, wisdom and justice, over charity, humility and fidelity. Hence nature, love, life, truth, beauty and justice are exploited or made the servants of the high economic good. Everything, including the lives of workers, is made a utility, is desecrated and ultimately destroyed. Capitalism develops a discipline of its own but in the long run makes for the overthrow of all discipline since the service of its god demands the encouragement of unlimited desire for that which promises — but must fail — to satisfy the lust of the flesh and the pride of life…

I really appreciated how Niebuhr highlighted how morality and ethics become based on financial bottom lines.  This is why in our society the elderly, the handicapped and children are incredibly undervalued because they cannot produce goods and services. It is like the only people time that you matter are between the ages of eighteen until you retire.

It also has forced me to ask a number of questions. How has the Christian Church’s complicity in the idolatrous capitalist system contributed to the global economic meltdown and all the injustices associated with it? How many of our new non-profits and justice ventures are simply trying to clean up the unintentional consequences and by-product of the lives we have led and for the most part continue to lead?

The full document is worth reading and can be found here.

Forty days without…

This week marks the beginning of Lent.  Lent will be from Ash Wednesday, February 22^nd, to Holy Saturday, April 7^th.   This forty day season is a season of fasting that draws us closer to God and commemorates the forty days of fasting and tempting Jesus endured after His baptism and before His ministry.

I am going to be fasting during this time and am encouraging anyone who is up for it to join me. What you fast from is up to you. I encourage everyone to consider doing an actual food fast, such as a juice fast, a Daniel fast, or a fast from one or more of your daily meals. These types of fast are more serious, will seriously disrupt your regular life, and you will be physically weak by the end of it.  These factors tend to heighten your awareness of your fast and your dependency on God. Some of you may want to fast from other things, such as Facebook, sweets, music, video-games, etc.  However, whatever you do, I encourage you to take this seriously and ask God what He would like you to fast from.

I myself am going to be doing a very different fast.

Around two years ago Dr. Dale Ryan shared how his wife Juanita fasted from shame during Lent.  The rationale was simple if unorthodox.  Why not give up something that steals joy from your life rather than something that gives joy?

Around that same time I gave up music for Lent. I listen to music all the time so those forty days were deafeningly quiet. However, at the end of that time I felt God say to me, “That was nice but what I really need you to give up is fear.”

God’s call for me to give up fear makes perfect sense. Fear and I are old friends. While I have done some fun and amazing things that other people would be too scared to attempt fear has always been an underlying thread throughout my life. Fear has limited and at times crippled my life. Over the years fear has held me back from many life-giving opportunities, experiences, and relationships.  It has taken many forms and hid under many disguises but the bottom line is this…

Fear has held me back from my destiny.

One simple example of this is in regards to worship.  While I have helped lead worship in the past, for the last several years I have adamantly refused to lead worship and only rarely performed music in front of other people.  Fear of performing in front of other people, fear of being prideful, fear of hypocritically leading worship to a God I feared hated me, fear of not measuring up to other worship leaders, fear of triggering old wounds tied up with performing in order to be loved and many other fears have been the root and rationale of this self-imposed limitation. This is all despite years of musical training on multiple instruments and countless people encouraging me and telling me I have a great singing voice.

Several months ago I started pushing myself to do the things I am scared of and as part of this push I recently auditioned and began helping lead worship at Pihop as a backup vocalist. This and similar experiences have encouraged me to go even farther.

So for this Lent I am taking the words of my professor and the words of God as literally as possible: I am going to attempt to live forty days without fear.

There are a few fears that I have identified that I will very intentionally engage with during this time.  Beyond this anytime I identify the feelings of fear or anxiety about something I will make myself do whatever it is I am afraid of.

However, the biggest fear I want to overcome and surrender to the Lord is this: the fear of success.

This might sound odd but when I was deeply marred by self-hatred I believed I did not deserve to have things work out for me. This led to me basically quit life and refuse to attempt things I was certain would simply fail. Over time several subtle self-imposed limitations, such as my refusal to lead worship, have been created. While the self-hatred is for the most part gone some of the old self-sabotaging patterns of fear still exist.  God has put gifts in me (just as He has put them in everyone) and many of my friends recognize them, but I am still not really using them because I am unsure of if I am allowed to be amazing.

I am certain I am not alone in this fear and I feel I should share the words of Nelson Mandela on the subject.  In his inaugural address in 1994 Mandela said…

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that frightens us most. We ask ourselves, ‘Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and famous?’ Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that people won’t feel insecure around you. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It’s not just in some of us; it’s in all of us. And when we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.

So fast with me. Go on a food fast or fill in your own blank to the phrase “Forty days without (blank).” Or pray for me. Or do both.  May my breakthroughs in this area bless others and free me to do what I was made to do. I will be posting regularly on Facebook a variety of thoughts, memes, quotations, and updates as I move forward starting on Ash Wednesday.

*Burial services for fears I have overcome in this season will happen the week following Easter and a memorial service will be held in the form of a community night with food and fellowship. I will be helping lead worship. Message me if you would like to help out.