De-colonizing my faith

I'm still working out the implications of critical race theory, and will probably do so for quite some time, but I'm especially interested in how critical race theory and a related discipline, postcolonialism, would apply to North American evangelicalism.  

Despite struggles I've shared here, I still love the church and find the most compatibility with the evangelical version.  I've attempted to set aside my judgmentalism, because I find evangelicalism's core beliefs still valuable.  

Slacktivist points out that anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, anti-evolution, and anti-environmental views currently create the boundaries of North American evangelical identity, so for those reasons (plus evangelicals' pro-war attitude and acceptance of consumerism, sexism, and de facto racism), I tend to eschew the label "evangelical," or at least I attach many qualifiers to it.  

But I wholeheartedly embrace this very evangelical idea of a "good news," which should form a people who take this good news so seriously that it transforms their belief and practice into a political existence (a la David Fitch's The End of Evangelicalism).  I still believe that a man named Jesus literally existed, and that the Holy Spirit is here with us.  

So if I'm remaining in this tradition, I feel strongly about helping to de-colonize it.  "Colonization" is a reference to the way that European/White American thinkers have dominated theological discourse.  Post-colonial critics (similar to critical race theorists) examine how Western powers define and control discourse, while the global south is the object, the "other." 

All that is to say, I'm interested in viewpoints aside from those who have historically controlled evangelicalism (white, usually affluent males), as well as how we can move toward an expression of church and theology that is not exclusively dominated by white males.  

I've realized that one of the first steps in de-colonizing my faith is moving away from viewing people of color as "other."  Perhaps for white evangelical men, I could also add white women along with people of color.  This entails allowing the theological views of people of color to truly inform my very Western-focused beliefs.  I've tried to avoid viewing a belief or practice that is not traditionally white as "exotic" or something that I would simply add to my already-existing (white) faith tradition.  

Rather than making my distinctly Western faith the object and frame of reference for all other expressions of Christianity, I've made an effort to realize that I have blind spots, which could be exposed by my fellow Christians who are people of color.  I don't want my privilege to get in the way of following Jesus, who subverted the privileged political and religious groups of his day (not that I think a completely objective interpretation of Scripture is possible, either).

While looking around online for critical race discussions within the context of evangelicalism, I came across a 2009 essay by Steve Hu, The Task of the Postcolonial Theologian.  Hu's goal is to encourage his fellow evangelicals to stop viewing postcolonial theory as an "accessory of theology."  By "theology" I assume he means the version that is common among white North Americans.  Hu says:

When postcolonial theory is employed as a methodology in theological discourse, the resultant product is always categorized as “third-world” theology. Such categorization, Franz Wijsen notes, renders any theology that employs postcolonial theory as “exotic fruit” that merely supplements “traditional” European theology. This delineation only perpetuates colonialism in theological discourse and the dualistic categories of what’s normative and marginal. The theologian who employs Western categories is often blind to such colonialism, and the theologizing that he practices is all but irrelevant to the colonized.

He continues, "by delineating theological discourse, theologians are no longer theologians, but they become powerbrokers who mute the voice of those in the margins."  

To me, it seems like notions of "orthodoxy" and "heresy" are often used as powerful boundary markers that leave out what could otherwise be fruitful, constructively critical perspectives.  Other coded language, including the term "third world" itself, imposes a hierarchy and re-affirms the privilege of Western Europe and North America.

I'm not a part of the evangelical academy, so I don't know if the embedded Western-ness of North American evangelical theology has shown a genuinely welcoming attitude to "other" perspectives.  I can speak to my own personal observations and reactions though, and I often end up considering non-Western ideas as almost novelties that aren't truly allowed to inform my beliefs and practices.  Does anyone know of a good non-Western theologian to start with? 

Photo credit

Comments

[D]

Hello Natalie,

I think you are on the right track in terms of the role of women and racial equality, and opening up your perspective and genuinely considering non-Western ideas, etc., but I am a little concerned by how you frame your purpose.

You frame it as colonization vs. de-colonization, and white affluent males' perspectives vs. well, everybody else's, etc. with you apparently moving from one side to the other.

Is this the foundation of a search for truth and righteousness? Or is this a foundation for degrading and opposing colonial history and white affluent males past and present? Do you really want to define your direction based upon gender and race and wealth?

To be clear, I am not denying evil and failures past or present, and you seem to be moving in a roughly positive direction away from some harmful beliefs, but take great care in how you define your purpose, because that lens will dictate what you see, and a lens focused against a group is equally myopic as a lens focused for that group.

[Natalie]

Hi D,
I'm having a hard time seeing where I'm "against" white males. I have learned a lot from European/N. American male theologians and in my own life, have been ministered to by great men who happen to be white. The problem comes up when only this type of theology exclusively dominates. I think that non-Western theology could teach us a lot.

It's a delicate balance. I'm not expecting to follow Jesus in a cultural, language, economic, and gender-free vacuum. At the same time, I dont want to be one of those obnoxious (usually white liberal) folks who appropriate non-Western cultures in a misguided attempt to seem more understanding and global. That said, as a powerful, influential, wealthy white American, I feel a duty to make sure my faith doesn't only represent dominant thinking. Just as there was neither Greek nor Jew, I'm not comfortable knowing that one powerful group appears to be controlling the discourse and drawing the boundaries today.

[D]

Thanks for your response, Natalie. I roughly agree with your comment, but it is the way you frame your post as colonial vs. de-colonial, and white affluent males vs. others, and your picking the latter that suggested you were opposing colonial thought and white males in general. I'll see if I can identify other examples here.

To me, there being "neither Greek nor Jew" means non-discrimination under Christ. It doesn't mean that Jewish perspectives should adopt Greek perspectives and vice versa. It is not about giving perspectives equal time. It is about all perspectives being subject to Christ.

So, framing an argument as Greek vs. Jew and saying that because Greeks were dominant they should focus on Jewish perspectives misses the point. It should be Greek vs. Christ or Jew vs. Christ or better yet, each individual vs. Christ.

Of course, as you said, it is a delicate balance, and Greek Christians very well should have adopted some more Jewish perspectives, but NOT BECAUSE Greeks were dominant and Jews were a minority, but rather because Jesus was Jewish and to understand him we must understand his Jewish perspective.

Recognizing that the dominant thought you were taught may be wrong is very important. It always will be wrong at times. But my caution is for you to avoid framing your struggle as dominant vs. non-dominant thinking. Or white affluent males vs. others. By doing so, you only perpetuate discrimination based upon race and gender and affluence. You are just perpetuating it in a direction opposite your perception of "dominant thought".