I decided to examine how race, power, and reconciliation play out at a Christian institution in the heart of Southern California, one of the most ethnically diverse areas in the world. I thought it would be interesting to see how a Christian university tackles the issue of ethnic diversity, since on one hand, it is a group of Christians led by Christians who, I assume, seek for God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. On the other hand, a college is also an earthly institution with a power structure and even politics of its own, led by fallible people. The school's heritage also stems from one particular Christian tradition – white American fundamentalism – out of many.
The following is a summary of an interview with GK, who has worked at the university for over a decade. After a few years in leadership over student activities, he and administrators recognized a growing need for a focus on multi-ethnic issues and the experiences of minority students. Interestingly, the idea did not originate with the leadership – GK called it a “true grassroots movement” of students who were passionate about Christian diversity. Today, his duties include much administrative work, but also teaching seminars and workshops, mentoring, counseling, and involvement with the Reconciliation Chapel series.
I was affirmed to hear that GK believes reconciliation to be “at the heart of what God is doing” in the world. He explained that when humankind sinned in Genesis 3, humans were not only separated from God but from one another: Adam blamed Eve, and the pair became ashamed before each other. The Old Testament is therefore a story of unceasing tension and conflict; but in the new covenant, we are given access not only to God but also to embracing one another once again. GK's spontaneous words matched almost exactly with the concepts I encountered time and again in my research for this topic. This shows me that such a theology of horizontal reconciliation is a key ingredient in people who care about racial reconciliation.
Talking with GK also brought insight into how multi-ethnic concerns play out in a Christian institution, especially the obstacles presented in the face of change. Although not a local church, a Christian university is an interesting and telling test-case for reconciliatory efforts.
One thing that is crucial to understand is that minority students here do face particular challenges in matriculating. According to GK (and university statistics), “[The university] reflects a white, middle-class, suburban reality.” Those students who do not come from such a background must undergo an orientation to this culture that those in the majority are unaware of, a process that can be stressful and disenchanting.
As a university, we often expect that all embrace the school's culture and get along. Many of us remain oblivious to the imprint of the prevailing culture on almost every aspect of student life: guest speakers, concerts and activities, residence life programming. Even alumni publications most often feature white middle-class alumni, leaving former students of color wondering where the people “who look like them” are.
For instance, one of the arenas where cultural and ethnic differences are seen most clearly is in one’s tradition of worship and spirituality. At a Christian college, this means university chapels. GK pointed out some features of the modern ‘white’ worship tradition that many of us have never stopped to think about: In chapel, as in our churches, the worship music often begins with an uptempo song, perhaps with hand-clapping, as a way to “release nervous energy.” As the set progresses, the songs become slower, more contemplative, and deeply personal in lyrical content.
In other ethnic worship settings, however, the opposite is the norm – as the Spirit takes over the worship service, the music becomes ever louder and more jubilant. Furthermore, in some African-American or Asian traditions for instance, many Christians have a far higher emphasis on the spiritual condition and history of the community, rather than the individual. The concept of “personal quiet time,” taken for granted by so many students as an integral part of spirituality, is foreign to many students of color when they first step on campus. Preaching themes also reflect different emphases; whereas university chapel speakers often bring linear three-point sermons that emphasize the cognitive, other ethnic groups are accustomed to a more cyclical, holistic, or emotional emphasis.
None of this is to say that one style is inherently better than another. In fact, GK took care to say that many things, like quiet times, are important and beneficial to introduce to those unfamiliar with the practice. On the other hand, white evangelicals can find much to learn from other ethnic traditions about the church as a community and the center of a Christian’s life. Mainly, what all of this tells me is that our differences simultaneously are much more subtle, yet also shallower, than what people seem to think. White and minority evangelical Christians share the same conservative doctrines and hold a high view of both God and scripture.
The other interesting aspect of this interview was that of current power structures as crucial to either maintaining or changing the status quo. Without my having to broach the topic, GK naturally and frequently mentioned what he saw as the key role of leadership in bringing more ethnic integration into the university. He acknowledged that racial reconciliation is “not always embraced” at the school as a whole, and that it poses a challenge for many people, perhaps even for everyone. He also admitted that interest in racial reconciliation fluctuates from year to year, because student leaders come and go. Awareness is growing, but there needs to be more implementation.
It is difficult to change the structure of an institution, and “people can’t do what they don’t know,” said GK, meaning that until administrators and those in power educate themselves and become passionate about diversity in the kingdom of God, things cannot change as much as we would like them to. Diversity on campus, according to him, must be leadership-driven. All-university chapels held in the gymnasium, for one, reflect the values of those in charge, which is why Reconciliation Chapels exist, to meet needs for “a more holistic Christianity” that are not being met otherwise. I suggested that a few years down the line, perhaps there will no longer be a need for this chapel series, because all chapels will include reconciliation efforts. GK simply advocated taking one day at a time, remarking, “We have a lot of work to do, obviously.”
18 April 2008
15 April 2008
Race and power: What do Jesus and the apostles say?
Jesus' ministry
It is undoubtedly true that Jesus’ earthly mission was first and foremost to the Jews over the Gentiles (Mt. 10:5-6, Mk. 7). Nevertheless, his ministry was not exclusively to Jews; we know of at least five times when he healed or ministered to Gentiles (Mt. 8; Mt. 12:10-21; Mk. 7:29; Lk. 17:16; Jn. 4), oftentimes commending their faith as greater than that of the Jews (see also Lk. 4:27). Likewise Jesus’ parable of the good Samaritan, his clearing of commerce from the Gentile court of the temple (Jn. 2:11ff), and other Messianic fulfillments and references to Gentile inclusion (Lk. 2:32, Jn. 2:1-10) show Jesus' intent to show love to all peoples and bring them into God’s kingdom (Mt. 12:17-21).
In exploring models of theological reconciliation, White explains one important current view (liberation theology) in which “Christ’s whole ministry,” including the incarnation itself, “is a continuous offer of reconciliation toward the sick, poor, sinful, outcasts, insane, underprivileged, Samaritans, Romans, and (by implication) other Gentiles.” Following in the Master’s footsteps, then, the church’s mission is to exist “not as a cozy fellowship of the likeminded but as an agency of unification, to go out into all the world with Christ’s reconciling message.” Ostensibly White is here thinking of the global church; yet if local congregations do not engage in this going-out, there will be nothing but many “cozy fellowships of the likeminded.”
Of course, other theologians and biblical scholars would question the unwavering emphasis of liberation theology on what they see as only one tenet of the Kingdom of God. I would count myself among these. Nevertheless, I can agree with White that
Acts of the apostles
The early church was from the beginning diverse, first comprised mainly of both Palestinian and Hellenistic Jews – linguistically and culturally distinct despite a common religion – and later of both Jews and all manner of Gentiles. It appears that even early on (Acts 6) there was a dispute that, legitimately or not, was partly blamed on cultural differences when the Hellenistic Jews complained to the Hebrews about the neglect of needy Hellenistic widows. Even in these early, idyllic days, divisions existed among the small group of believers. Yet the apostles dealt swiftly with this issue, and Hellenists and Hebrews had to continue to co-exist.
In Acts 10 and 11, Peter receives a dramatic vision from God that salvation has come to the Gentiles – and since it has, every right enjoyed by Jewish Christians is afforded the Gentiles as well. Peter even eats with a Gentile convert and his household, a symbol of intimate fellowship, and defends his actions before his colleagues until they understand the radical paradigm shift of this new covenant – the Spirit is given to all equally, and thus there is no excuse for the kind of segregation practiced by Old Testament Jews. Finally, in Acts 6 and 13:1 we see that leaders of many ethnic origins were appointed over the church and labored side by side for the gospel.
It is undoubtedly true that Jesus’ earthly mission was first and foremost to the Jews over the Gentiles (Mt. 10:5-6, Mk. 7). Nevertheless, his ministry was not exclusively to Jews; we know of at least five times when he healed or ministered to Gentiles (Mt. 8; Mt. 12:10-21; Mk. 7:29; Lk. 17:16; Jn. 4), oftentimes commending their faith as greater than that of the Jews (see also Lk. 4:27). Likewise Jesus’ parable of the good Samaritan, his clearing of commerce from the Gentile court of the temple (Jn. 2:11ff), and other Messianic fulfillments and references to Gentile inclusion (Lk. 2:32, Jn. 2:1-10) show Jesus' intent to show love to all peoples and bring them into God’s kingdom (Mt. 12:17-21).
In exploring models of theological reconciliation, White explains one important current view (liberation theology) in which “Christ’s whole ministry,” including the incarnation itself, “is a continuous offer of reconciliation toward the sick, poor, sinful, outcasts, insane, underprivileged, Samaritans, Romans, and (by implication) other Gentiles.” Following in the Master’s footsteps, then, the church’s mission is to exist “not as a cozy fellowship of the likeminded but as an agency of unification, to go out into all the world with Christ’s reconciling message.” Ostensibly White is here thinking of the global church; yet if local congregations do not engage in this going-out, there will be nothing but many “cozy fellowships of the likeminded.”
Of course, other theologians and biblical scholars would question the unwavering emphasis of liberation theology on what they see as only one tenet of the Kingdom of God. I would count myself among these. Nevertheless, I can agree with White that
“if [liberation theology’s view of reconciliation] should ultimately prove to be an overemphasis on partial truth, to the detriment of other equally valid truths and values, it nevertheless contains insights, and a challenge, that the church must not ignore.”
Acts of the apostles
The early church was from the beginning diverse, first comprised mainly of both Palestinian and Hellenistic Jews – linguistically and culturally distinct despite a common religion – and later of both Jews and all manner of Gentiles. It appears that even early on (Acts 6) there was a dispute that, legitimately or not, was partly blamed on cultural differences when the Hellenistic Jews complained to the Hebrews about the neglect of needy Hellenistic widows. Even in these early, idyllic days, divisions existed among the small group of believers. Yet the apostles dealt swiftly with this issue, and Hellenists and Hebrews had to continue to co-exist.
In Acts 10 and 11, Peter receives a dramatic vision from God that salvation has come to the Gentiles – and since it has, every right enjoyed by Jewish Christians is afforded the Gentiles as well. Peter even eats with a Gentile convert and his household, a symbol of intimate fellowship, and defends his actions before his colleagues until they understand the radical paradigm shift of this new covenant – the Spirit is given to all equally, and thus there is no excuse for the kind of segregation practiced by Old Testament Jews. Finally, in Acts 6 and 13:1 we see that leaders of many ethnic origins were appointed over the church and labored side by side for the gospel.
13 April 2008
Race and power: What does the OT say?
Genesis
In Genesis, common lineage of all human beings is explicitly affirmed from the beginning (3:20) in Adam and Eve. Likewise, post-flood there remains only one family from which we all descend, namely that of Noah and his sons (Gen. 6).
In the past, some commentators have concluded that Noah’s curse of Canaan in Genesis 9 is actually a curse on the future African race supposedly descended from Ham. However, Hays concludes, with a plethora of supporting evidence, that this division has “absolutely nothing to do with race.” The point of the table of nations (Gen. 10) was that all were acknowledged to have come from the same ancestor. Thabiti Anyabwile on this point exhorts Christians to speak more properly of "ethnicity" instead of "race," since race as a biological fact does not exist. We are all one in Adam, both spiritually and physically speaking.
Notably, the Abrahamic covenant provides for ‘outsiders’ from the outset. God allows and even demands all foreigners within Abraham and his offspring’s households to be circumcised and thus made part of the covenant people (Gen. 17:12), and declares that all nations of the earth will be blessed through Abraham’s line (18:18).
The Law
In the Law, there are numerous generous provisions for sojourners and foreigners who find themselves in Israel’s midst (Ex. 22:21, 23:9; Lev. 19:10,33,34; Deut. 27:19). The rationale nearly always given is that the Hebrews were foreigners themselves in Egypt, where they were subject to terrible oppression. Because God delivered them, they must not in turn become the oppressors. These laws not only show God’s concern for those outside his chosen race, but his disdain for racial oppression and abuse of power. Instead, in the Exodus, he models a righteous use of power. “Already in the Hebrew Bible the power of God liberates rather than subjugates. His use of power, then, is not a contradiction but an expression of his love.” After all, the Lord not only chose a people to give them spiritual salvation, but he delivered them from real physical suffering as well – and judged their oppressors. If this is not an insignificant aspect of salvation to God, neither should the people of God treat it lightly.
Over and over again, it is made clear that God did not choose Israel because of merit or superiority (Deut 7:6-7) but intended them to make him known to all peoples (Deut. 4:6-7, Jos. 4:23-24). Hays also agrees with many scholars that the “mixed crowd” that followed Israel out of Egypt shows that from its earliest existence, Israel was a multi-ethnic people. All were given the same Law and were part of the same community.
Historical books
The book of Ruth is the story of a Moabitess voluntarily joining herself to God’s covenant community, and the kindness of an Israelite man, Boaz, in redeeming and marrying her, much to Ruth’s humble surprise (Ruth 2:10,11). This interracial marriage, far from being condemned, would be the ancestors of David and eventually of the Messiah, Jesus Christ.
I Kings 8:41 and I Chronicles 16 both speak of a desire for foreigners to come to God through Israel’s witness, but we find few instances of this actually occurring in the OT. In Esther we finally see Israel’s mission to the nations being successful somewhere: “And many of the peoples of the country declared themselves Jews, for fear of the Jews had fallen on them” (8:17). For the most part, however, Israel has largely been disdainful of God’s call to bring other nations to him.
Psalms
The Psalms continually tell that God rules over all nations (47:2, 65:7, 77:14). Israel is exhorted repeatedly to tell of God’s works (9:11, 57:9, 96:3) and all nations are called to sing and shout praise to Yahweh (47:1,8-9, 66:8, 67:3). Overall, the psalms expect Israel to function as a sort of global worship leader, and demonstrate that God specifically desires diverse peoples to worship him. Even in Psalm 47, where Israel is said to rule over other nations, nations and kingdoms all worship together (47:8).
Psalm 102 also praises God as liberator, as peoples and kingdoms “gather together” to worship (102:18-22). Elsewhere, David sings of true fellowship as being with “anyone who obeys [God’s] commandments” (119:71), while Psalm 133 exults in “brothers” dwelling in harmony. This may refer to Israelite brothers, but in a New Testament context Paul (Phil. 2:22) and Jesus himself (Mk. 3:35) redefine the bonds of kinship from genetic to spiritual.
The prophets
Israel’s failure to reach the nations did not escape God’s attention. Isaiah repeatedly prophesies about a coming era not only of the Gentiles’ ascent to favored status with God (replacing Israel!) but also of unity and peace of all nations (Isaiah 2:1-4, 11:10, 25:6-9, 28:11-12, 56:3-8; 60; 61). Zechariah (8:19-23) tells of a time when “men from the nations of every tongue” will eagerly follow the Jews to their God. Daniel (7:13-14) and Micah (4:1-3) prophesy about future peace among nations and that “all peoples, nations, and languages should serve” (Dan. 7:14) the Ancient of Days.
Summary
In Genesis we are reminded that both human beings’ common ancestry and their diversity are meaningful realities. In the prophets, we also recognize the judgment that Israel faced for neglecting those realities. The Law, Psalms and the prophets all emphasize the duty of God’s people to reach out to all nations and God’s desire for a diversity of worshipers. They all also emphasize God’s role both as ruler and as liberator. This means not only that all power comes from God and is ultimately his, but that he uses his power (and therefore we must use ours) to relieve oppression, humble ourselves and reach out to all peoples. White churches especially would do well not to forget the role of God’s people as liberators of the body as well as the soul and to use their influence for these same ends, which might encourage both compassion and tangible aid toward their brothers and sisters in other ethnic communities. In the Psalms and Ruth, we see that any one of God’s followers ought to be capable of meaningful fellowship with another, regardless of race, status, or tradition.
In Genesis, common lineage of all human beings is explicitly affirmed from the beginning (3:20) in Adam and Eve. Likewise, post-flood there remains only one family from which we all descend, namely that of Noah and his sons (Gen. 6).
In the past, some commentators have concluded that Noah’s curse of Canaan in Genesis 9 is actually a curse on the future African race supposedly descended from Ham. However, Hays concludes, with a plethora of supporting evidence, that this division has “absolutely nothing to do with race.” The point of the table of nations (Gen. 10) was that all were acknowledged to have come from the same ancestor. Thabiti Anyabwile on this point exhorts Christians to speak more properly of "ethnicity" instead of "race," since race as a biological fact does not exist. We are all one in Adam, both spiritually and physically speaking.
Notably, the Abrahamic covenant provides for ‘outsiders’ from the outset. God allows and even demands all foreigners within Abraham and his offspring’s households to be circumcised and thus made part of the covenant people (Gen. 17:12), and declares that all nations of the earth will be blessed through Abraham’s line (18:18).
The Law
In the Law, there are numerous generous provisions for sojourners and foreigners who find themselves in Israel’s midst (Ex. 22:21, 23:9; Lev. 19:10,33,34; Deut. 27:19). The rationale nearly always given is that the Hebrews were foreigners themselves in Egypt, where they were subject to terrible oppression. Because God delivered them, they must not in turn become the oppressors. These laws not only show God’s concern for those outside his chosen race, but his disdain for racial oppression and abuse of power. Instead, in the Exodus, he models a righteous use of power. “Already in the Hebrew Bible the power of God liberates rather than subjugates. His use of power, then, is not a contradiction but an expression of his love.” After all, the Lord not only chose a people to give them spiritual salvation, but he delivered them from real physical suffering as well – and judged their oppressors. If this is not an insignificant aspect of salvation to God, neither should the people of God treat it lightly.
Over and over again, it is made clear that God did not choose Israel because of merit or superiority (Deut 7:6-7) but intended them to make him known to all peoples (Deut. 4:6-7, Jos. 4:23-24). Hays also agrees with many scholars that the “mixed crowd” that followed Israel out of Egypt shows that from its earliest existence, Israel was a multi-ethnic people. All were given the same Law and were part of the same community.
Historical books
The book of Ruth is the story of a Moabitess voluntarily joining herself to God’s covenant community, and the kindness of an Israelite man, Boaz, in redeeming and marrying her, much to Ruth’s humble surprise (Ruth 2:10,11). This interracial marriage, far from being condemned, would be the ancestors of David and eventually of the Messiah, Jesus Christ.
I Kings 8:41 and I Chronicles 16 both speak of a desire for foreigners to come to God through Israel’s witness, but we find few instances of this actually occurring in the OT. In Esther we finally see Israel’s mission to the nations being successful somewhere: “And many of the peoples of the country declared themselves Jews, for fear of the Jews had fallen on them” (8:17). For the most part, however, Israel has largely been disdainful of God’s call to bring other nations to him.
Psalms
The Psalms continually tell that God rules over all nations (47:2, 65:7, 77:14). Israel is exhorted repeatedly to tell of God’s works (9:11, 57:9, 96:3) and all nations are called to sing and shout praise to Yahweh (47:1,8-9, 66:8, 67:3). Overall, the psalms expect Israel to function as a sort of global worship leader, and demonstrate that God specifically desires diverse peoples to worship him. Even in Psalm 47, where Israel is said to rule over other nations, nations and kingdoms all worship together (47:8).
Psalm 102 also praises God as liberator, as peoples and kingdoms “gather together” to worship (102:18-22). Elsewhere, David sings of true fellowship as being with “anyone who obeys [God’s] commandments” (119:71), while Psalm 133 exults in “brothers” dwelling in harmony. This may refer to Israelite brothers, but in a New Testament context Paul (Phil. 2:22) and Jesus himself (Mk. 3:35) redefine the bonds of kinship from genetic to spiritual.
The prophets
Israel’s failure to reach the nations did not escape God’s attention. Isaiah repeatedly prophesies about a coming era not only of the Gentiles’ ascent to favored status with God (replacing Israel!) but also of unity and peace of all nations (Isaiah 2:1-4, 11:10, 25:6-9, 28:11-12, 56:3-8; 60; 61). Zechariah (8:19-23) tells of a time when “men from the nations of every tongue” will eagerly follow the Jews to their God. Daniel (7:13-14) and Micah (4:1-3) prophesy about future peace among nations and that “all peoples, nations, and languages should serve” (Dan. 7:14) the Ancient of Days.
Summary
In Genesis we are reminded that both human beings’ common ancestry and their diversity are meaningful realities. In the prophets, we also recognize the judgment that Israel faced for neglecting those realities. The Law, Psalms and the prophets all emphasize the duty of God’s people to reach out to all nations and God’s desire for a diversity of worshipers. They all also emphasize God’s role both as ruler and as liberator. This means not only that all power comes from God and is ultimately his, but that he uses his power (and therefore we must use ours) to relieve oppression, humble ourselves and reach out to all peoples. White churches especially would do well not to forget the role of God’s people as liberators of the body as well as the soul and to use their influence for these same ends, which might encourage both compassion and tangible aid toward their brothers and sisters in other ethnic communities. In the Psalms and Ruth, we see that any one of God’s followers ought to be capable of meaningful fellowship with another, regardless of race, status, or tradition.
10 April 2008
The coming of the Spirit and the healing of the nations.
Then [the LORD] brought me back to the door of the temple, and behold, water was issuing from below the threshold of the temple.... [It became] a river that I could not pass through, for the water had risen. It was deep enough to swim in, a river that could not be passed through. And he said to me, "Son of man, have you seen this?"
Then he led me back to the bank of the river. As I went back, I saw on the bank of the river very many trees on the one side and on the other. And he said to me, "This water flows toward the eastern region and goes down into the Arabah, and enters the sea; when the water flows into the sea, the water will become fresh. And wherever the river goes, every living creature that swarms will live, and there will be very many fish. For this water goes there, that the waters of the sea may become fresh; so everything will live where the river goes.... And on the banks, on both sides of the river, there will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves will not wither, nor their fruit fail, but they will bear fresh fruit every month, because the water for them flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for healing."
[Ezekiel the prophet, 6th c. B.C.E.]
Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever.
[John the Revelator, 1st c. C.E.]
25 June 2007
Evangelism with finesse
What might evangelism be like if we intentionally asked ourselves questions about God's requirements of love and justice in our actions? There would be a constant consciousness of what we ought to do under God's law, juxtaposed with what the person we are speaking to needs. What a tension.
Love and justice each reside within us and continually inform us in every decision, each advocating for their side. Remember that God acts in perfect love and justice always, and if that sounds complex - well, God is complex, and he calls his people to imitate him in that emotional complexity. We are well advised to "listen to both ambassadors [love and justice] and then arrive at a decision that will be most pleasing to their Master." So, okay. Our first object is not to please ourselves or even our audience; it's to please God. At the same time, part of pleasing God is being kind and sensitive to unbelievers.
I don't know if it's like this for anybody else, but to me it is incredibly daunting to realize, yet perfectly, maddeningly clear, that this sort of evangelism requires the utmost care, prayer, reliance on the Spirit, intelligence, and nuance. It's evangelism with finesse. And... I think that's exactly the example we are called to follow. I think that's true sensitivity - to God's requirements even more than man's preferences.
Love and justice each reside within us and continually inform us in every decision, each advocating for their side. Remember that God acts in perfect love and justice always, and if that sounds complex - well, God is complex, and he calls his people to imitate him in that emotional complexity. We are well advised to "listen to both ambassadors [love and justice] and then arrive at a decision that will be most pleasing to their Master." So, okay. Our first object is not to please ourselves or even our audience; it's to please God. At the same time, part of pleasing God is being kind and sensitive to unbelievers.
I don't know if it's like this for anybody else, but to me it is incredibly daunting to realize, yet perfectly, maddeningly clear, that this sort of evangelism requires the utmost care, prayer, reliance on the Spirit, intelligence, and nuance. It's evangelism with finesse. And... I think that's exactly the example we are called to follow. I think that's true sensitivity - to God's requirements even more than man's preferences.
"For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings."
_I Corinthians 9.19-23
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)