We return to where we’ve always started from and where we always should have been.

Speak from your heart.  That means it’s ok to show pain, anger, and tears.  We were never meant to step away from or outside of ourselves.  Your emotions, and experiences are part of you, and therefore an undeniable part the Body.  The Church isn’t going to change because it objectively lost a civilized argument. The Church is going change because hears its members’ stories, their pain, their suffering, and truly understands that when one suffers, all suffer.

I’m going to pitch to you what I’d like to call a relevant tangent.  I promise, this will come back to the main trail, but there’s something I’d like to show you first.  In Matthew 22, the Sadducees ask Jesus about a series of brothers dying and the next one marrying the same woman, etc, ending in “at the resurrection, whose wife will she be?”  Jesus replied that there would be neither wives nor husbands in heaven, but all would be as the angels are.

Now, this passage always bothered me because I saw marriage as a good thing.  And it is.  But in the post-Fall context, marriage became a defensive arrangement.  A husband and wife share the most intimate of relationships.  They can reveal things about themselves to each other than are not safe to bring up outside of the marriage relationship.  And that is why it’s a defensive relationship.  Marriage clearly defines an inside “safe” group and an outside “unsafe” group.  I believe that, in heaven, we won’t need marriage relationships because relational intimacy will no longer require a defined “safe zone.”  All will be safe to share. We will be free to express our thoughts to all around us without fear of mockery, abuse, betrayal, blackmail or any of the other symptoms of the Fall.

Are we going to get to that kind of Heaven while on earth?  No, I don’t think so.  But here is where we get back to the trail.  Being able to share from your heart is a worthy, perhaps even heavenly aspiration.  You will not be able to share all, but if we are to go about growing the Kingdom here on earth, we must  be guided by its ideals rather than the opposite of those ideals.  The Kingdom is clearly built on degrees of relational intimacy, not separation followed by condemnation.

And so it is better to share than to isolate.  We share our own stories, in our own ways, from our own hearts.  We share each others sufferings as though they were our own.  We share in the struggle for equality within the Body because we are all the Body.  And one day, we will all share, together, in the joy of the resurrection and all that lies beyond it.

But we are not there yet.  The struggles of both women and men for equality within the Church are real. Women should speak their stories, because to remain silent would be to say “I am not part of the Body.”  Men should listen, because to remain deaf would be to say “I am not part of the body.”  The Church will only repent of the self-flagellation and sin that is patriarchy when it recognizes its own suffering.  And that can only happen when we unbind each other from the false premises of objectivity, find true civility, true empathy, true relationship, and dare to share each others’ hearts and care for each others’ pain.

This concludes a three part series called “Why the Church Can’t Hear You Scream” by Daniel Fan, See Part I on Objectivity and Part II on Civility.

When we talk about civility, we have to go back to the real-world pragmatic base of that word, which for most people is “civilization.”

Civilization in the American setting, as it turns out, has a rather perverted and totemized working definition, one that most people who claim it won’t admit to, but rely on implicitly.  I’ll throw down an example of contrast:

A planet is inhabited by two groups of people:  one is a hunter-gatherer society steeped in ritual and the other is a space-faring society.  The first uses herbal medicine, while the other is able to employ advanced medical, pharmacological, and surgical techniques.

Which one is more civilized?

The correct answer is: you don’t have enough information to come to a conclusion.  Why?  Because I didn’t tell you how members of either society relate to their fellow residents.  If you said the space-faring society, then you’re judging “civilization” purely on a technological level.  Despite the West’s humanistic idolization of technology, “civilized” behavior is still frequently and easily eludes our grasp.

Now, what if I said that factions within the space-fairing society have armed themselves with nuclear weapons, resolve conflict through war, and that the entire society dances at the edge of mutual destruction?  By contrast, the hunter-gatherers resolve issues peacefully at tribal councils and through mutually agreed processes of partnership and restitution?

Now who’s more civilized?

Put succinctly, the Western definition of civilization reflects an idolization of technology rather than  the strengthening of interdependent relationships.

If history is any indicator, simply possessing lasers, robotic surgery, or nuclear weapons does not make us more civilized.

The original root of civil is the Roman word civis, generally translated “citizen.”  Citizen is a relational term, not a technological one.  But because the West loves technology and individualism and was founded on a patriarchal base, we have chosen to define civilization along those lines.  The more like us you are, the more civilized you are.  How’s that for a framework that maintains the status quo?

Before America was conquered by whites, most American political structures were egalitarian or even mildly matriarchal.  Women had a say in both strategic and every day dealings.  As the story goes, these Americans were conquered by a technologically superior European expedition—one that did not allow women to vote at the time, and for many years after the initial invasion (Mississippi did not ratify the 19th Amendment till 1984).   The current colonial power structure still bears much European influence, particularly in the Church, where—in many instances—women are prohibited from serving in various leadership capacities and where wives are denied equal authority, even within their own households.

So, which society was more civilized?  The pre-1492 egalitarian one, or the colonial, post-1492 patriarchal one?  Strip away the technology, and look at how members of society treat each other.  Take away the guns.  Take away the internet.  Take away the cheez-whiz.  How can a society that oppresses its women make an argument for the continued subjugation of those women while simultaneously appealing to an ideal of civility?

So here we come to the pointy end of the spear. In my experience, when you bring truth to the table, there’s two ways the opposition counters you.  First, they deny that truth.  Second, they deny the manner in which you bring that truth:  it’s “too edgy,” “a little harsh,” “kind of extreme,” “people aren’t ready for that yet.”  This denial is based on some violation of their definition of civility, one which inherently attempts to maintain the status quo.

When you get to this point you can take one of two forks.  The first is that whipping out the civility card in order to stifle civilization inherently doesn’t work.  Furthering relationship is the purest definition of civility.  Freeing oppressed peoples shouldn’t take a backseat to the oppressor’s ideals of manners or timing.  An entity or structure that oppresses women is inherently uncivil and therefore cannot call upon civility as a means by which to silence voices calling for gender justice.

The second fork is even more harsh, but just as true.  It should really only be used in places where you feel like you’re not making headway and are willing to put the throttle to the wall.  The hardest nuts to crack are patriarchy advocates (elders, deacons, pastors, etc) who think you’re appearing before them because you need something that they’ve got.  They think they have the political power and that you are absolutely desperate for them to change their minds. Take that paradigm and reject it out of hand, because you have something even more powerful—God’s truth.  Therefore, you don’t need what they have.  They need what God has, and God is delivering that message through you.  When I get to this point, I’m up front with them: I tell them that I’m not there to affect change. I’m there to point out their sins.  Whether they repent and change their behavior is between them and God.  What I am there to do is take from them is their ability plead ignorance. “What you guys are doing is actually biblical in an ironic way: Pharaoh didn’t change either: you don’t have to listen, you don’t have to change, but you can’t tell God you never heard there is a better, more God-honoring way to live.”  You won’t win any friends while you’re in the room.  But sometimes people will take what you’ve said to heart, especially the part about answering to God.  If your audience harbors any doubt at all, cracks in a heart of stone, this can be the chisel that breaks the facade.

And before I get called “unloving” for exposing the truth: if I didn’t love, I’d be objective, “civilized,” and very much on the sidelines instead of trying to bring a message of equality before a hostile audience and using every tactic in my book to get them to listen.  I love Creator, my sisters, and the Body of Christ.  Not speaking up for them would be unloving.  Letting people continue in sin by oppressing others would be unloving, to both oppressor and oppressed.

So where do we go from here?  Surely we wouldn’t want to be uncivil? The good news is we don’t have to be: we work from the definition that civility is relational.  Use what language(s) and approaches are necessary to establish relationship or to break the ice in order to bring relationship back into focus. In the struggle for equality, this may mean that you have to demonstrate someone’s sin and privilege to them.  If  what someone needs is a timeout with God to reconsider their position before they continue to damage the Body, then the civil thing to do would be to point that out in whatever way is necessary to get the message across.  Only after that repentance, and possibly restitution, takes place, can relationship and true civility be restored.  Be as harsh as you have to be, in order to effectively act in love.

(Final Part III coming soon)

Being a country that prides itself on equality and opportunity for the hardworking or well deserving underdog, I think the same standards should apply to all people in the United States. Remember the good old days when the country was giving away free land? There were so many Government sponsored programs available to the illegal immigrants back then, one only had to decide which suited their situation best.

Besides state lotteries that existed, (who could forget that “wacky” Georgia Land lottery?), federal programs were all the buzz like land grants, land patents, the Land Act of 1804, the Military Tract of 1812, the Preemption Act of 1841, Donation Land Claim Act of 1850, the Homestead Act and the ever popular Boomer/Sooner Oklahoma Land Run. The array of programs offered in the past has been astounding. It is time they be resurrected!

And, just like before, we will need to convince the current occupants of (choose your own state or city) that they will be better off being sent to less inhabited places like the Alaskan bush, the Mojave desert, and the recently de-populated state of North Dakota. In these places these people can continue in the bliss of the culture they have always known without being affected by the cultures of the new immigrants. Surely they will miss their former suburbs, apartments and family farms but do they think that the newly arrived immigrants should have less a chance for prosperity than them? God forbid that the United States should treat some more unfairly than others when it comes to the possibility of acquiring the American Dream.

If we can just make room for these newcomers, just until they stop coming, I think we will all have at least some opportunity for happiness and as a nation, we can at least look at ourselves in the mirror once again. Sure, we have to have a few more years of “Big Government,” at least until everyone has the same chance as everyone else did in the past, but the states can also do their part, like they used to do, by clearing the land of the local inhabitants.

And, why should anyone being moved complain? But just in case, by way of a concession, I propose we give each family being relocated, a Chevy Aveo; an IBM Think Pad computer; and a Sony Erickson Vivaz cell phone. This should give the people who are fortunate enough to be resettled, a real “leg up on life.” Besides that, we can also supply housing for them with the FEMA trailers left over from Katrina and sign them up for the Federal Commodities Food program. With a deal like this, there should be no room left for anyone to complain.

It will be great one day when this program is complete and all the newly illegal immigrants can experience American life in its fullness in the same way as the older illegal immigrants have. No one will need to be sent back to where they came from or get in the back of the line. There remains only one problem yet to be resolved? Where should we begin?

A little about myself: I am a Chinese American, grew up in Southern California, and went to college in Wheaton, Illinois.  This school was, at the time, the stereotypical 92% white, midwestern, American, insular, Christian school. The school’s prevailing culture allowed for material aspirations, but only if those aspirations were consecrated by adding the adjective “missionary” in front. For example, you couldn’t just be a  businessman.  You had to be “missionary businessman.”  Neither could you aspire to be a successful surgeon; rather you had to be a “medical missionary.” This hypocrisy irritated me to no end, so when asked what I was going to do, I replied to the inquisitor:  “I’m going to be a missionary-mercenary.”  Well, God was listening, because today, I fight for the recognition and equality of colonized/indigenous peoples and women, of which I am neither.

I’m hoping to share some of the lessons I’ve learned from my tangles on the race side to help those who are beginning their trek with gender-justice understand why the deck so often seems stacked against them. Let’s say you’re part of a bowling league. One day, your team is invited to a match at a different alley.  When you get there, you find out that the lane you have to bowl in is actually built on a thirty-five degree incline. Well, that sucks doesn’t it? You’re probably going to lose if you play, but if you leave without playing, you’ll lose for sure. You’re not just playing against the other team, you’re playing against an artificially constructed environment—one that was designed to favor the other side.

The first thing you have to realize when you speak out against the Western Colonial/Patriarchal power structure is that you’re not just going up against your opponent’s arguments; you’re going up against an environment that is designed to defeat change and maintain the status quo. Your opposition is going to try to make you bowl on that lane with a thirty-five degree incline. The main way they are going to implement this is with a little word called “objectivity.” In their eyes, being dispassionate, distant, and un-invested lends credibility, and the lack thereof is cause for immediate dismissal of the opposing argument. Since you care enough to challenge the system by speaking out, you are already at a disadvantage, and heaven forbid if you ever speak out from your own personal experiences.  The fact that you care enough to show to have your say means you have already lost.  They might listen for a bit, but ultimately, the charge of being “not objective” will be leveled against you and at that point you will be dismissed.

Now let’s examine this concept of “objectivity.” The problem is, as much as the other side aspires to objectivity and “seeing both sides,” they can’t achieve it. In order to get there, one would have to be extra-terrestrially omniscient. We all share this earth together, so to say that we have no investment in the well-being of each other, or no stake in the limited resources of this planet is cosmologically impossible. As fellow human beings we’re certainly not above each other, looking down, understanding all sides. To claim this status would be, well, blasphemous.

The closest thing to a fully objective all-seeing entity is God, who does not depend on the Earth for life.  But even God chose to be involved in human affairs, to the point of incarnating as a human.   It’s through this incarnation that the redemption of humankind occurs.  The converse is also true.  Hell is often described as “judgment” and “separation from God.”  And yet some among us, driven by the false ideal of objectivity, aspire to separation and judgment.  If the Most High serves as any example, it is one where we judge each other from a point of relation, not separation.

When I said Western Colonial/Patriarchal power structure, I meant it. To my knowledge, nowhere else in the world is there this false idea of objectivity. It simply doesn’t exist in non-western indigenous cultures where credibility is built on shared respect, communal rapport, and most importantly: mutual investment in both parties, not mutual exclusion from the situation.

Even within areas that are considered beneath Western hegemony, objectivity is not a universally held ideal. In Black and White Styles in Conflict, Thomas Kochman talks about how African American argumentation stands in diametric opposition from the “White” style of objectivity by explicitly declaring an interest and appealing to the other party based on that interest. Simply, put: “You should care because I care; if you don’t care, why should I?” Attempting to force objectivity as a standard of discussion isn’t elevating the debate atop a universally-regarded ivory pillar; rather it’s forcing the debate to circle round a rather contrived western, ethnocentric toilet bowl: once you surrender to its current, the discussion can only go in one direction.

Jesus is our best proof that God eschews objectivity in favor of relation.  Objectivity requires separation, apartness.  In other words, everything that 1 Cor 12: 12-27 warns against.  In fact, (especially verses 21-26) the text indicates that objectivity is not possible within the Body of Christ. We are all part of the Body: “If one part suffers, every part suffers with it.” That doesn’t sound very objective does it?  Rather it sounds universally subjective: all are to partake in the same pains and joys.

If we don’t hear each others’ hurts, how can be truly react, protect, or function as the same Body?  If one part suffers, we all suffer.  What a shame it is when privileged parts of the body attack and colonize less privileged parts and then attempt to disown and ignore the resulting pain, all the while making patronizing judgments about the wounded parts.  Western machinations of “objectivity” too easily remove us from one another and create compartmentalization that distances us from each others’ pain. But, God’s design invokes mutual empathy. Verse 27 emphatically states: “Now you are: the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.”

Back to the bowling alley. What can you do? What you’re going to do is call the other team on their shenanigans. They can’t disqualify you for being “un-objective” any more than they can prove that they, themselves, are objective. Reject objectivity as a standard and remind them that if they want to be a part of Christ’s Body, then they have to act like it.  Call objectivity for what it is: a losing proposition–first one to propose it loses.

More to come…

Recently, The Newberg Graphic ran an ad in it’s classified section for “Thanksgiving Deadlines.” Peering out from behind the ad was a caricature of a turkey with a a Native American headband and feathers like one would display on what we often see as a typical caricature of Native Americans. I, and several other who I asked, saw this representation of a turkey as a Native American (or a Native American as a turkey) to be offensive.

I’m not “down on Thanksgiving” like so many of my friends.While we may argue over the many versions and revisions of the original Thanksgiving, I for one, actually like the fact that we can find something in history concerning indigenous Americans and the colonizing settlers representing positive feelings for one another. There appeared to be at least a short period of time of friendship and peace between the Wampanoags and the Plymouth separatist. I know, other accounts of history dispute the myth-but perhaps myths such as this can support a better future for us all together. Which brings me to my point.

Any form of caricaturization of Indians betrays any positive modicum of mutual respect that may be garnered from the Myth of the Original Thanksgiving. In light of the fact that during much of our mutual history together, White settlers and the colonizing institutions representing their governments have tried to wipe out Native Americans through genocidal practices and assimilationist policies. Your Native American Turkey is not what we should expect from a newspaper.

Some scholars have even gone so far as to say that the annual Thanksgiving ritual has a deeper religious meaning for the dominant culture. Whereby, the brown-skin turkey, representing America’s original inhabitants, is cut up and consumed in a ritualistic remembrance to celebrate perverted notions of American exceptionalism and having God on their side, while the “savage indigene” is dispensed and eaten by the settler. A sort of unconscious working out of the philosophy of Manifest Destiny. At any rate, given the genocidal implications in our history and the current racism still typified through stereo-typing Native Americans, we should be able to expect more from institutions serving the common good and the public square.

JFK, MLK, RFK, X, and Paul Wellstone seem to lend power to the adage, “only the good die young. In 2008 I sensed an excitement that I had not seen since 1968 prior to Robert F. Kennedy being killed. Seeing the young people occupying the streets is amazing but it also reminds me of the results of what happened afterwards that year. My concern is that we not just demand change but that we find hope. In an effort to revive my spirit I recently reviewed the movie “Bobby.”

Seeing “Bobby,” the movie, reminded me once again of my tender and hopeful attitude towards the world in 1968. While watching the myriad of great actors trying to recreate the room at the Ambassador Hotel, I detected several interesting things (beside how old I’m getting). Compared to most of the politicians today, I noticed how much content there was in RFK’s speeches. Not at all the political jargon and spin, which seems to typify every national debate, but real heartfelt talk. It was obvious that there was a different tone in the political conversation in 1968—at least from Kennedy

I also took notice of the people Bobby hung out with. Surrounded by minorities and visiting the poor, the disenfranchised and the youth—people who don’t usually pull a great deal of political sway. He spoke of the great nation and of us becoming great citizens through ending the war, reducing poverty, investing in the youth, healing the racial divides (I even saw a picture of Kennedy with a Native American elder and no one seems politically interested in us today-short of absconding Casino monies).

It all re-affirmed to me that Bobby really did believe in our ability to create the America we dreamed of. He really believed “the dream” could become reality. Today, we have become cynical, afraid to dream, at best we call it “tempered realism.” I believe hope is what we need so desperately today. The kind of hope that I think would get someone like Robert F. Kennedy elected today. I think it is the kind of hope that would get a leader—a real leader, re-elected or elected as our 45th President.

No one really knows if Robert F. Kennedy would have become the 37th President or how effective he might have been. But I do believe that if RFK were a young Senator right now, he would become the next President of the United States.

I was only 12 years old when “Bobby” was killed. In those days people’s thinking was amazingly different than today. As a pre-teen, I too was riding high on the crest of that national wave of expectant hope for a new, and better society. National leaders who could speak of a better day with integrity like King and the Kennedys, were to me and my contemporaries, rock stars. I can’t help but notice that there is something about those times that is missing, in these times. And for me, if there is any one-year in history where I can pinpoint the death of the dream—it was 1968.

After the death of King, then the death of Kennedy, came the escalation of the war in Viet Nam, Watergate, the oil crisis and a whole slew of other distractions. With the absence of men like Martin and Bobby, it wasn’t long before America’s dreams were completely clouded by more temporal realities.

In the past few years others have tried to step up to the plate. We lost a great hopeful with the death of Senator Paul Wellstone. I really shouldn’t make a list but I will say, Obama-America may still have its eyes on you, and we know there is a fine balance between reality and dreams, so if you are our dreamer, now is time to throw open the window of opportunity and seize the dream again. Don’t get me wrong—I understand the economic realities, I know we desperately need a realist, but reality without the hope of a better day is simply Hell. To me, Hell on earth is being a citizen without a voice or representation—especially if you are among the poorest of the poor and the most marginalized of the marginalized. That’s why Occupy Wall Street is so great. People have decided their voice matters and they are not giving up. But they are looking for a dreamer tough enough to renew the vision of the men I have mentioned heretofore.

I observed that “Bobby’s” director, Emilio Estevez had the genius to cast the part of Robert Kennedy to none other than, Robert Kennedy. Amazing that RFK could star in his own movie thirty-eight years after his death, and still be a hit! Go Bobby! I just wonder if there is a leader out there now, who might have integrity and the voice of hopeful reality, who would deserve to star in the sequel? If so, you have my vote.

Lookin’ for a Leader to bring our country home
Re-unite the red white and blue before it turns to stone
Lookin’ for somebody young enough to take it on
Clean up the corruption and make the country strong

Walkin’ among our people there’s someone who’s straight and strong
To lead us from desolation and a broken world gone wrong
Someone walks among us and I hope he hears the call
And maybe it’s a woman or a black man after all

-Neil Young, “Looking For A Leader” from (Living With War)

‎”As for the vast mainland…we are sure that our Spaniards, with their cruel and abominable acts, have devastated the land and exterminated the rational people who fully inhabited it. We can estimate very surely and truthfully that in the forty years that have passed, with the infernal actions of the Christians, there have been unjustly slain more than twelve million men, women, and children. In truth, I believe without trying to deceive myself that the number of the slain is more like fifteen million.” Bartolome’ De Las Casas, Devestation of the West Indies

An African American news moderator started his program this morning on MSNBC with the words  “Happy Columbus Day!” Then he said, “Of course we have to work today but that’s what Columbus would have wanted.” The irony is not lost on me-but unfortunately, I don’t think he was kidding. I don’t even think he was congnizant of the issues.

Yes, my brown friends, Columbus would want you to work today. His actions are  responsible for opening up the African slave trade after disease wiped out about 15 million of the American Indian slaves whom he subjected to digging out his, and other’s gold and silver mines. Columbus would also like to have you cook his food after working 12 hours a day in the mines with only the leftover food he discarded as your pay. He would also like you to supply his soldiers with your sisters, mothers, aunties and daughters so they could rape them daily. Yes, my friend, Columbus really would want you to work and celebrate his special day. Of course, if you refuse he might feed you to his dogs. So work, and do what Columbus would want you to do. Happy Columbus Day to you to too!

Today is the 43 year anniversary of the assassination of Dr. King.  As I was driving to work this morning I was listening to a show asking if President Obama is living up to the high rhetoric of the elections and if he is living up to the legacy of Dr. King that he drew on so often.

That is not what my note is about.  It is simply background.  The main focus of the conversation was what they called Dr. King’s terrible trifecta: Racism, Militarism, and Poverty. When they looked at the difference of President Obama vs. candidate Obama in this regard, the contrast was stark.

I have spent the day thinking about this terrible trifecta – Militarism, Racism, and Poverty.  Part of why this has grabbed me is that I have been reading a lot of Paulo Freire for class.  I wanted to pass along a section of an article from 1970.

So then, the more we get involved in action programs based on that illusory dream, the more we are playing the game of the power elites. Everything we do will be paternalistic. We will tend to promote assistential projects, to be “falsely generous,”… instead of working with men to transform the social reality that blocks them from being fully human, we will co-operate in maintaining that unjust reality by ineffectual actions that are no more helpful than aspirin pills. Obviously, the power elites will love us and praise us for doing what they want – and we will sleep on blithely, perhaps after having taken our little nip of Scotch whisky.

I look at our current budget process and wonder about our militarism and its odd connection to poverty.

I watch the news and listen to my neighbors and wince at race in America and our consumer culture’s odd fascination with charitable causes.

Dr. King was in Memphis when he was shot working on behalf of Sanitation Worker’s rights.  He had begun speaking about America’s military and wars. 43 years later I am in Los Angeles wondering how long a nation can take aspirin to dull the pain before we have to confront agian the terrible trifecta of militarism, race, and poverty.

I was looking forward to attending “The Justice Conference 2011” in Bend (here’s the trailer: http://vimeo.com/16400014) over the February 11th-12^th weekend.  As far as conferences go, it seemed logistically and technically very well planned and the location was beautiful.

Photo: Native America Thru the Rearview Mirror

I had hopes that conference speakers would address such issues as racism, colonialism, imperialism, indigenous land rights, and gender hierarchy.  In retrospect, there were a lot of signs that they wouldn’t:

• The solo speakers were all white men, except for one man from Africa.  The four female speakers (all but one were white) only appeared as panelists or in Q&A formats.
• The ratio of speakers was 9:4 in favor of men, whereas the ratio of attendees was about 5:3 in favor of women.
• The total conference attendance was 1,050; about 95% of whom were white.
• Eight out of sixteen pages of  the Justice Conference program contained photos that were clearly taken in Africa.  If you ignore advertising placements, 100% of the decorative photos featured scenes from Africa or easily attributable to Africans or dark-skinned peoples.
• Discounting a few seminaries and colleges, 91% of non-profits represented were entirely foreign focused.
• Nearly all the speakers obtained their “street cred” by going overseas (primarily Uganda or Rwanda).

I was still hopeful of a positive outcome until the exactly-one-question-long Q&A session following Adam Hochschild’s lecture on the historic African slave trade.  Celestin Musekura, president of African Leadership And Reconciliation Ministries asked Hochschild about the need for reparations for Africans harmed by the slave trade.  Hochschild ended a lengthy defense by saying something to the effect of  “I find it morally questionable to hold people today accountable for what happened hundreds of years ago; we need instead to work towards a more just world today.”

Alone, it would have been a bitter irony to hear an expert on the institution of slavery so quickly dismiss the legacies of  institutional evil.  But then 1,000 white people in the audience started clapping.

I would have run up to the mic and subsequently been escorted from the conference grounds, if had not  moderators closed the session and dismissed everybody on that high note.  I spoke with Celestin afterward and he told me that if he could have asked a second question, it would have been about reparations for Native Americans.

The simple truth is that no meaningful American Evangelical social justice movement can exist without a committed discussion of reparations for the displaced indigenous peoples under American hegemony (Native Americans, Alaskans, Hawaiians, et al.).

The majority of white church goers don’t want to acknowledge this for at least two reasons.  First, it happened a long time ago and when you’ve gotten away with something like murdering, displacing, and destroying the culture of millions of people for 200+ years, you somehow get to feeling like you deserve to get away with it.  Or at least, your descendants, who are the direct beneficiaries of those sins, deserve not only to continue benefiting, but also the right to blissfully ignore the origin of their pilfered gains.  It’s a pretty twisted “logic.”

Second, white people are reluctant to issue a blank check in terms of reparations because they are terrified of being taken to the cleaners by their victims.  But the offer of restitution has to happen, not the least reason for which is that white people already took Native Americans to the ethnic cleaners, and they didn’t go easy on the bleach.

If your neighbor stole your riding lawnmower, then rode it up on your property line and wanted to be friends again, would you ask for your lawnmower back?  What if he stole your lawnmower and your children?  Now would you ask for them back?  An entire generation of Native American children were forcibly taken from their homes and subjected, not only to re-education, but rampant mental, physical, and sexual abuse within the walls of government funded residential schools run mainly by ordained clergy.  This is in addition the the deprivation of lands and the massacres performed under the church-endorsed concept of “manifest destiny.”  If that’s not a debt the church owes to Native America in the name of social justice, then the concept of social justice is irreparably morally bankrupt.

Reconciliation on this scale is expensive, but only because the original sin that started it all has always been a bad deal for both parties (one just managed to force the transaction, then deferred payment). But there’s more to the act of issuing a blank check than any sum the victim might fill in.  It’s been long recognized that such a powerful device could be used either as an instrument of mass destruction or mass reconciliation.  Part of the requirement of this healing ceremony is that the offender give up the power to control which of the two, and place trust in the victim to chose wisely for both.  The faith necessary to issue such an instrument is more than symbolic.  The church must recognize that the choice to cash the check, and for what amount, has to be made by Native America–and then honor that choice.  Restitution at this level has always been about trust first, and repayment second.  Without that trust, reconciliation is simply an exercise in self-delusion.

Once the discussion of reparations was wiped off the table, the conference stopped being about  justice of any sort.  How could it be?  The very wealth the American church seeks to “generously” share with the world in condescending and not-so-condescending ways was stolen from Native America, Africa, and Asia.  Ironically, Africa and Asia are the same places we’re now trying to foist our questionable model of social justice upon.

To the American church, “Social Justice” is a domestically produced commodity, strictly intended for foreign consumption, with Africa being the current target of choice.  There’s a reason for it being Africa and not somewhere else:  Africa isn’t our fault, or at least that’s the perception.  Africans caused Africa’s problems, we’re just here to make things a little better.  Put simply: American churches don’t feel morally responsible for Africa.  That provides three outstanding benefits.  First, whoever goes can feel good about themselves because they’re not obligated to be there, rather they are choosing to serve altruistically.  Second, whatever “good” is done is not negated by any perception of debt to Africa (unlike it would be with Native America) so “every little bit counts” towards a net positive figure.  Finally, since we don’t feel morally indebted to Africans, we can disengage from them at any time and still feel good about whatever we’ve already done.

In the fifth chapter of Matthew, Jesus tells us to leave our gifts at the altar and make right with our brothers and sisters before offering to God.  I don’t see how we can go overseas and talk about bringing social justice to foreign lands when we have such a moral deficit at home, and one that the church is doing so little to address (or even discuss as in the case of the “Justice Conference”).  To go overseas in the name of “Social Justice” under these conditions would amount to nothing less than a new crusade of comically hypocritical proportions (probably with more than a little colonial flair mixed in).

The conference trailer advertised itself as “the largest, most meaningful justice conference taking place this year” Yet it failed to address social justice in America, preferring instead, to focus on easier, less embarrassing, less expensive problems overseas.  If this was the most meaningful justice conference this year, then truly, justice has little meaning.

You can’t rob Crazy Horse to pay Bishop Tutu and call it “Social Justice.”

P.S. (From RWoodley) For an additional “front view” in Native America please view: http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,2048598_2235610,00.html