I'm going to try and not ramble on this one.
See, we spent yesterday talking about intercultural transformation, of being able to listen to different people from different background and cultures. And, it showed in part today in our discussions about leadership transformation. It really was encouraging to hear around our table about how we can try and train leaders from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, about how we can make sure that we don't make leadership training difficult to obtain for those with limited financial means, about how we can accommodate different languages, different learning styles, etc. I think our discussions yesterday had a very good effect.
But here's the odd thing. The day before we talked about those intercultural relationships. We even had a Lutheran minister come in this week and talk about the reconciliation between the churches. We had a letter read by a bishop from the Eastern Orthodox church affirming the sharing of relatonships between the churches. These were great things. But to suggest that leadership training can include financial assistance for people to attend non Mennonite schools of higher learning. "Yeah, that's nice. Okay, back to talking about EMS and AMBS."
Really?
Here's something a wonderful woman shared with me today (okay, it's my wife): "You're getting a broader view of faith, stretching your ideas, opening your eyes to other faces of God in the world. If you only study what you already know, how could you call that growth?"
I've been a Mennonite for 38 years, I was born and raised in the church, I've been steeped in Anabaptist theology and I've read The Naked Anabaptist, Jesus Matters, and several essays by John Howard Yoder and other Anabaptist theologians. Do I really need to go to a university or seminary that will just teach me more of what I've already been immersed in? For that matter, does any Mennonite leader need that? If the leader does not have the history that I do, perhaps yes, so they can understand these people they are being called to lead. But why not establish funds, scholarships, etc., to send young Christian leaders to other Christian seminaries and institutions? Shouldn't we encourage growth wherever it can be found? We have wonderful institutions in the greater church full of excellent theologians and godly men and women that don't have the word "Mennonite" in their name. Maybe, as we look at being a more "missional" church, we should start looking at other "missional" churches and their institutions so that we can continue to learn together.
Just some thoughts.
Who came up with this crock? "Intercultural transformation?" MC USA is a systemically racist organization which now attempts to hide its inbred, long-time racist attitudes with some fancy language. It won't make any difference. Intercultural transformation, my patooty. That must be some Tobin Shearer-Miller baloney.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry that you feel that way. However, from the people of color who are here in the delegate session (and there are QUITE a few) and their comments at the open mic time, there was a lot of excellent affirmation of the efforts of the denomination to overcome that systemic problem.
ReplyDeleteThe thing about embracing "intercultural" instead of "antiracist" brings a more positive flavor to things. It's a lot less divisive to be "for" something than "against". Additionally, using the term "intercultural" recognizes that the systemic problems are more than just problems of race and ethnicity. There are people that look "black" but live in a more hispanic culture, or a more indonesian culture. Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese, for those who don't know any better, may all be lumped into one bundle, but they have distinctive cultural differences.
If you have facebook, I'd suggest you go to http://www.facebook.com/pages/Digital-Delegate/102486599838645?sk=app_160899627303689 and look at the Completed Events for the Day 2 Morning Chat... there's a saved video there showing what we talked about that morning.
Yet, there is a sense in which we should be suspicious of semantics. I noted with a hint of laughter that people still don't have a normative, working definition of "missional" and we've been talking about that for over a decade. I hear the same comments today that I heard 10 years ago. It's much easier to talk about which word is better "anti-racism" or "intercultural transformation" but in the end they are just words. What matters is what is happening on the ground in local church and neighborhoods. How does the discussion at Pittsburg actually equip the local church, at a grass roots level, to engage in "intercultural transformation"?
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, it's possible to look at Pittsburg 2011 (and most gatherings like this) as a gathering of insiders who want to affirm and celebrate their "insiderness" and pat themselves on the back for what they have done for those inside from their powerful insider positions.
It can same like one, big "celebrate the status-quo" fest while using language of openness and transformation. I submit that a little of Peter Rollins' pyro-theology would go a long way in the Mennonite Church. Are we what we say or what we do? I submit that we are always what we do.
Concerning "missional", that's why I'm at the seminary I'm at and NOT at a Mennonite seminary...because where I am they are actively engaging "missional" in teaching the theology and teaching the praxis of living out the church beyond the bounds of the 4 walls and certainly beyond the limits of "denomination".
ReplyDeleteBut I hear what you're saying concerning semantics. It does sound a lot like that, truthfully. But how else do we shift focus from being against racism to being for embracing different cultures and people?
See, I appreciate the viewpoint of some other folks in the world that so long as we keep on talking about race, about our differences, about how we celebrate our differences, the emphasis is ALWAYS then on what makes us different. Instead, I think we need more postive language like "intercultural" and "transformation" which carries with them the ideas of togetherness and building up, blending, merging, learning, etc.
It's semantics... but it's a start.
Does embracing language always lead to embracing change? I would say, NO. I would go a step further. Most of the time we embrace particular language to keep from changing.
ReplyDeleteThe reality is that white people (like me) benefit from the status quo. We thrive on the advantages we have as a racial majority with greater access to institutional power and privilege. And we feel VERY guilty about it (just review some of the comments from the delegate session).
What do we do? One option is to admit the injustice and get on with life as it is. That's not a very good option because we are enlightened folk. Another, better option, would be to actually do something concrete about it. Yet, that would involve sacrifice and surrendering the power and privilege that helps us along. That's going to be tough. Yet another option is to decry the injustice, adopt language that joins us in the fight to make it right, and then keep on living the way we always have. Which one do most people choose? The third one. They cant tolerate that they are racist in practice, so they become anti-racist in principle, which then lets them off the hook for being racist in practice. It's a game.
Unless we join concrete, tangible acts to our language of "anti-racism" or "intercultural transformation" either term will function in the same way. It will function as an ideological banner that we can gather around by being too vague and nebulous to require any actual change. (Zizek's political and cultural theory is helpful here.) Debating which term is better is like debating which color lipstick to put on the pig. Worse than that it gives the appearance that we are doing something while not actually having to do anything at all.
I think the best starting point would be for the church to give people of color the power to set the agenda for issues of race. To do this in a way that is not paternalistic, requiring people of color to gain the approval of white folk before it can come to be, is critical. Can white Mennonites in MC USA give up control and power on this issue to allow the minorities in our midst to call us to something concrete that will help?
The Phoenix decision would indicate that we can't.
I offer this, not as a cynic, but as someone who has great hope that rests in life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus. When we give up power God works and brings resurrection.