Since entering into discussions about the upcoming Emergent Theological Conversation on “Creating Liberated Spaces in a Postcolonial World,” I’ve been intrigued by some of the responses I’ve encountered. There were the expected ones accusing the entire conversation of being socialist or Marxist or whatever, but then there were the more nuanced ones which in truth were even sadder. I am sure there must be people out there who have decent, well reasoned arguments for why Christians shouldn’t give a rip about postcolonialism, but so far I have yet to encounter them.
What I find more of are the (white) people who automatically get defensive when it is suggested that perhaps there might be something wrong with the colonial past and that it might be beneficial for Christians to listen to the voices of all the members of the body of Christ. Apparently by suggesting that there may have been ills in colonialism we are demonstrating that we are deluded by “white guilt” which invalidates everything we have to say. What a convenient excuse – for avoiding whatever this “white guilt” is has become a valid reason to avoid responsibility. The defensiveness then proceeds in one of two directions.
The first is for the objector to claim that they are color blind – they don’t see race, so how dare I be racist by saying that people of other races or ethnic groups should be listened to. The underlying argument is that if we are all one in Christ, then all voices should matter. So to them to have to stop listening to (all) white voices in favor of hearing the perspective of an African or an Asian (or a woman for that matter) is a promotion of racism against whites. They convince themselves that race shouldn’t matter, so that they can feel comfortable never interacting or learning from anyone who isn’t white. (please see Bruce Reyes-Chow’s recent piece on this whole issue)
The second common defensive response is for someone to give the, “how dare you imply that Christianity needs changing, it is heresy to abandon the established truths of the past!” While there may be a decent argument somewhere in there, what it generally implies is that the person thinks that the church has existed in stasis since the day Jesus floated up into the clouds. Any perspective that is other (different to what they know) must obviously be pagan or an attempt to corrupt timeless truth. Once again a very convenient way to avoid the truth of history or actually assuming responsibility for one’s theology.
But by far the most disturbing response I have encountered so far is the “why bother?” response. It will come as no surprise that registration for this year’s conference – where instead of hearing from some rock star white male theologian we are hearing from an African woman and a First Nations man – is significantly less than usual. Granted, some of this is to blame on the economy, people just don’t have the funds to travel to multiple conferences anymore. But I’ve heard over and over again that this conversation just isn’t important enough to “waste” limited conference funds on (I heard the same thing leading up to Christianity 21 last year with its all-female line-up). Sadly, listening to the voices of those questioning the theology our ancestors thrust on them to manipulate them with and who engage in dialogue regarding how the faith of those who claim that we are blessed to be a blessing can truly bless all the nations of the world just isn’t relevant enough to the American church.
Hearing those responses helped me see the narrow boundaries the American church permits for the conversation of race and reconciliation. It is fine to throw the emerging church under the bus for being for whites only, but when conservations start to occur where the goal is to simply listen to supposedly neglected voices – the passion around that issue disappears. It is fine to say we want diversity, but not to actually work for it. It made me wonder if much of that conversation stemmed from people who want to claim the token minority in their church as “diversity” but who aren’t willing to give up enough privilege to actually listen and learn from people with differing experiences. And I fully admit – I cling to my privilege in a million ways and have been guilty of tokenism more than I would care to admit. But, I have to wonder why people are so afraid to care and make changes where it would really matter.
It reminds me of a Delta Airlines ad I saw recently. It had a picture of a woman sleeping on an airplane with the caption “Sleep Shouldn’t Be a Perk.” The copy went on to explain that since sleep is a basic necessity that on a (very) select number of International flights (to places like Dubai or Sydney) Delta now provides fully horizontal beds – in their Business Elite cabin. So apparently if it is in First Class it is a perk, but if it is in Business class then it is a necessity. Those of us who can barely afford economy class will continue to be treated like crap and packed in like cattle. Privilege can be admitted and the playing field equalized, but only within certain very narrow boundaries.
I wonder if the same is ultimately true of the (white) church. We like to talk about overcoming racism and how much we love Martin Luther King Jr., but it seems like we are willing to accept others only if they are already almost exactly like us. We don’t want to do the dirty work of admitting privilege and how our theology has been used to oppress others. We will make a million excuses why we dislike the very conversation, but in the end I thing we are just afraid. Afraid of what is other, afraid of change, and afraid of having to give up some of the perks we hold so dear.