Imagine a big round table and each chair is made of the same plush material (Eurocentric boardroom metaphor – sorry). In front of each chair is a singular name plaque encrusted with a tongue, tribe and nation of the world proudly glinted on the surface for all to see. Each chair represents authority, responsibility and a voice. Many of the chairs are vacant, others have stout, overweight “men” sitting in them, some seat more discreet looking men with a few that hold women - some who have the look of a noble. All those seated send their voices forth to the center of the table in an attempt to discern which direction to go. Most are ignored and a few speak over the rest, with short interludes of listening.
Sound like the league of nations? Not so fast, this one happens to be better, though at times mismanaged and unorganized. The difference is that the now defunct "League of Nations" was made up of the winners, the biggest and the most important countries. They had many honorable pursuits to benefit the minorities of the world with their power but in the long haul - things didn't work out as well as they'd hoped.The league we are talking about is different because it is a hopeful league. This isn't the kind of hope that we "hope" for - it is hope that is actual yet hope that we still have to wait for. At this league's table, there is actually a chair and a plaque to recognize each and every nation, tribe and tongue whether they are there or not. The problem is that not all are able to be in their seat yet. There are some who have already taken their seats who have long past set traps, misdirected, sent invitations without directions, sent directions and the unnecessary need to have an invitation, outright killed or booby-trapped and at some points sent away most of the missing representatives.
Other representatives have not been met or discovered yet? Their empty seats confuse some but others who have been around long enough know that once in awhile an unknown representative shows up, not because they are late, but because they show up in their own time which is on time or we could say "in the fullness of time." Everyone is supposed to have a seat, but not everyone is supposed to show up at the same time. In real time, not all have the same voice, but in reality they all do have the same voice and so, all will one day (already-not-yet). There is an organic process going on, not because organic is best but just because that’s the way it is. Nature just has a way of correcting itself (but not always).
Another problem has been and continues to be, “Why are so many seats still vacated…and how can we fill the seats?” The first question is great, the second one is lacking, lacking in respect and is the dilemma that we’re faced with today. The dilemma is not how to fill the seats, it is how to stop filling the seats and allow the occupants to come to those seats in their own time and in their own way. They may have needed to be there long ago, but pushing them there is not the solution. So what can be done? It begins by clearing the path with appropriate and commensurate apologies. The vacants may be fettered by or buffeted away by the overt efforts to get them there. Sometimes they are really pushed away by "help." A track record has a way of following the pushers around. So a better second question would be, “how can we help to clear the littered path towards the cushioned seat, a path that we and others have historically littered upon and at times even set up road blocks upon. Road blocks have a funny way of reappearing though - in the opposite direction. Dominant societies are annoyed and feel unfairly tampered with when these roadblocks are set up by those who’ve “had enough.” What does this have to do with multiculturalism? Well let's turn to an example of how this works out in principle.
My uncle Steve, a native of New Orleans, discovered a universal principle about multiculturalism when working on a ship with an international crew. He was working with two shipmates from Africa and began to befriend them. As he interacted with them he began to notice that he couldn’t get past their hierarchical treatment of him. They weren't treating him as an equal but rather as a superior despite the fact that they shared the same status on-board. He tried and tried to undermine their overt treatment of him but to no avail. It became increasingly frustrating for him. An even greater problem commenced when they realized that he wanted to be equal. He didn’t want to be above them, something they were literally pushing on him, he wanted to equal. They immediately set to work to amend their efforts and began treating him different - but now they treated him as if he were lower in status than they. They had understood from my uncle that a shift needed to take place and the obvious 2nd choice of the only two choices for them was to rise above him. So in utter frustration, he went back to being "above" them and they went back to being "below" him.
What universal principle was this – “To keep the upper hand, you must never shake the ‘other’ hand.”
We are called to realize that one way to grow into one’s identity is to actually limit oneself to oneself. God has given each individual a deposit of glory. How does that work? How can human beings have glory? Isn't God the only one to be glorious? John 17 (The Message) teaches that the glory given to Christ by the Father has actually been passed on to us.
The New American Standard Bible says it like this in John 17: 22-23,
22"The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one;
23I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.
John 17: 20-23 in The Message translation renders it,
20-23I'm praying not only for them
But also for those who will believe in me
Because of them and their witness about me.
The goal is for all of them to become one heart and mind—
Just as you, Father, are in me and I in you,
So they might be one heart and mind with us.
Then the world might believe that you, in fact, sent me.
The same glory you gave me, I gave them,
So they'll be as unified and together as we are—
I in them and you in me.
Then they'll be mature in this oneness,
And give the godless world evidence
That you've sent me and loved them
In the same way you've loved me.
If the goal is to be of one heart and mind the Trinity, then the glory that is given to us - our unique and distinct identity - cannot be capitulated to anyone else and on the other side, we must not then accumulate the glory of the "other's" identity. Creating space and the time needed for those distinct identities to be formed, embraced, graced and esteemed and then given distinction apart from the identity of the "other" is absolutely necessary for the goal of unity that multiculturalism needs and wants. For us to be of one heart and mind the distinctions and borders of our unique identities need to be maintained, respected and esteemed. The only time that these distinctions should be more fluid and porous is when a child is growing and developing under the care of a parent, spiritually or in a familial environment, but with the goal of eventually helping the child to create identity boundaries that distinguish them from the parent. If the parent doesn't do this, the child either rebels and disassociates from the parent too much (though this may be necessary for emotional health) or the child capitulates to the parents' identity and never truly receives their own identity. For some parents, this is exactly what they want as it is a way of accumulating their child's identity/glory to placate their own insecurities. The healthy parent creates space for the child to "borrow" from the parent's identity until they are able to settle into their own identity through the process of maturation, education, social and sexual development and the resulting individual. The child leaves the dinner table of their parents in order to establish their own dinner table and once they have, they bring their own dinner table back to the family reunion and add it to the conglomerate puzzle of other "tables" that have now been received by their siblings. They all add their tables to the edges of their progenitor's (parents) table. Altogether, a larger and more fruitful table of plenty is created, but not without distinction of the individual tables, which have the ability to remove themselves whenever they want to, but they increasingly don't want to as long as the edges of their table are recognized, appreciated and given respect. Sometimes, other family members will turn into carpenters and will seek to miter the edges of the tables so that they can be glued and joined. It's an on-going struggle that never ends requiring each participating member at some points and to some degree to remind those at the table, that their tables has edges, sharp edges if necessary and though they would love to keep the tables together, they may need to take their table and go home if it is not respected. This may sound like taking one's ball and going home - but that may be necessary if your friends don't care that it's your ball, they throw at it your head and continually don't let you play with it when you bring it out to play with them. Sometimes taking your ball home is the only way for people understand that you aren't there to be relegated to a place of demoted indignity for their entertainment. Instead you are there to contribute, participate, compete and have fun. Taking your ball home because you're being selfish, narcissistic and manipulative is a different story.
While in Singapore, a clear example of rightly identifying with one's core identity while still capitulating to the identity of another reared up. I was visiting the historic Bugis Mall, a cosmopolitan center for the city of Singapore. One would think walking through this extravaganza of consumerism that this could be any mall anywhere in the U.S. or the U.K. All the same major labels, brands and stores were present with the exact same advertising and styles. It was sad that at the expense of their own cultural identity, the advertising models that portrayed these styles, donned the new clothes, and portrayed the good life of consumerism were predominantly "white." Blue eyes, blonde hair and translucent skin was everywhere on the placards. I remember seeing maybe one or two dark-skinned models while the rest were definitely Euro-American in the appearance. I looked around at the shoppers and my heart dropped because each of these beautiful Singapore women were being told that to be white and to wear these clothes was the "ideal" expression of style that was necessary to embrace. By allowing this to go on, they were degrading their own cultural and colored identity on some level.
Saddened, I walked out into the hallways and ventured upon some stand alone plaques that were strung out throughout the hallways accessing each store. On the plaques, historical explanations of the history and pride of the people of Singapore donned the interior of this ironic consumer experience. One such story explained that the well known "Bogeyman" was actually tied to this area of the world. When the British explorers happened onto the region surrounding Singapore, a tribal trading group who had navigated those seas for centuries was being pushed out by the dominating Dutch nautical trading industry. For a long time, the "Bugis pirates" (pronounced boo-gee), as they were known to the traders from Europe, had dominated the trading routes from Indonesia all the way to Australia. They were known for being fearless in their battle to establish trade routes among the islands South East Asia and thus established a pronounced reputation for being both fierce and industrious. As the British East India Company moved into this region, they soon realized that in order to compete with the Dutch, they had to form an alliance with the Bugis. The placard read that an alliance was formed and the port of Singapore was created to be a staging ground for their new found partnership that would then give the upper hand that they both needed against the Dutch. The irony, between these placards celebrating their indigenous identity in the center aisle of the mall, alongside the advertising placards of a culture so far removed from theirs was astonishing.
What does this tell us about embracing identity - that it's hard, it's complex and while many right appropriations of one's identity can be taking place, other aspects of one's identity can be lacking. This process of embracing identity is not easy and has many ironies but it is worth pursuing, even it is seems that the goal to be achieved requires an endless pursuit. That being said, the pursuit of "becoming" who you really are is most likely not supposed to end but it does have a healthy direction. That direction is what we're after in this post. So how do set our intention like flint in the right direction - by resisting the temptation to muster one's worth and identity based upon the worth and identity of the "other." Positively, it is to embrace your own identity thereby providing an environment for your God-given glory to flourish as well as the permission for others to do the same. Like Marianne Williamson once said, "We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same."
Sadly though, the temptation that continually presents itself to us, is the temptation to muster one’s worth by doing one of two things. Instead of the freedom of one's own embodied identity with it's consequent but healthy limitations, we either accumulate the glory of others or capitulate our own glory to the other. Ultimately, we gain an inauthentic identity and our core degenerates into self-hatred, which then is projected onto the other as hatred of the "other."
One will not give what one has not first received and conversely, one will give what one has received. If one has received self hatred, they will give away hatred of self. We feel like the only way to numb this reality is a dismal spiral into more capitulation or accumulation presented in detail with these two paths. Christ has presented a third way to rescue us from this deathly spiral, a way of affirmation, celebration, collaboration and dignity. We will get to that eventually.
1. The first path to gain an inauthentic identity is to overwhelm the “other” and appropriate them underneath you by demeaning them, enslaving them, dejecting them, using them, resisting their equality, etc… Basically the idea is that we feel better about ourselves (our self-affirmed identity) by putting down the others (their identity). So the way to go up is by pushing down, by stealing their glory or accepting it from them willingly. We also keep what’s already down down or even push them further down however we can do so. This isn't just an act of lowering the "other" but lowering them to a place that then pushes us up. Essentially we are using their God given embodied identity and dignity for our own use and our own sense of control over our own worth. By pushing them down we are actually pulling them close. By pushing ourselves up at their expense we are knitting a loop between our hearts and theirs.
we essentially are joining ourselves to them by pushing them down and the lines of distinction that make them them and us us are now more porous and less distinct.
Is this intersubjective interchange wrong? Of course not - it is God's design - it s the way of the shepherd - it is the becoming one of marriage - it is the relational space of parenting and the "becoming" of a child. This interchange of intertwining our heart with the "other" happens whether we like it or not but when it is done to dominate rather than to shepherd, when it is done to consume rather than consummate, when it is done tyrannically over against the the "other" rather than tirelessly on behalf of the other, it becomes imperialism rather than cooperation, it becomes usery rather than love, or it becomes tyranny rather than sacrificial benevolence. Though the act of domination has short term effectiveness, it actually works to destroy one’s own core identity as well as the identity of the "other." This is because it still avoids the nascent steps necessary to forming a healthy identity of one's own self. If I appropriate the effect that another’s identity, the weight that their own glory has - the effect it could have had on me or on others - for myself, I am circumventing the slow but necessary formation of my own identity. If I steal their glory – I may be lead away from the limitations of my own singular identity - the effectiveness of my own glory but I exchange my own 'real' self, with all of its healthy limitations, for the conflagration and accumulation of many selves from the “other” who surrounds me. I desire to accumulate the effects of their personal glory instead of allowing my own glorious identity to come to fruition, which requires perseverance, testing and difficulties that in my selfishness, I don't want to undergo. We can all do this to some degree. Governments do it, bullies at school do it, parents at home do it, manipulators do it, pastors do it, I do it, Fox News does it, CNN does it, my child does it, my boss does it, my co-worker does it, America does, Luxembourg does it, we all do it. We all at some point attempt to accumulate the glory that belongs to the "other" in order to control our insecurities and our inherent lack of self worth that comes with being a fallen human being.
2. The 2nd way to gain an inauthentic identity is to give away one’s identity to another who is famous, older, more respected, envied, one who willingly leads, one who gives security, a person, sect, group or gang who will give you an established identity and immediate respect in exchange for your unquestioned allegiance to them and their ideals, etc… This identity seeking method wants someone that is “more” to become responsible for you, who are “less.” In this method we accept that we are less so that they can be more. This promotes the same dynamic that the previous point made - that when you discontinue the distinction between you and the other either by dominating the "other" or by elevating and impersonating the dominator, you only receive an inauthentic identity. There are many reasons why we allow this to happen. Some allow the dominator to give them a sense of identity so that they don’t have to be as responsible for their own growth, issues, talents, calling, mistakes(aspects of identity). You name it - there are plenty of things in our lives we don't want to take responsibility for. We'd much rather have someone else do it for us - someone who has it all "together," someone who has proven themselves or has lead others or someone that we fear or want to fear. We give permission to the "more" people to be something for us, who are the "less" people, because we actually fear being who we are really supposed to be. We also want someone to blame for our mistakes other than ourselves. We project our issues our pathologies and our faults onto the leader of our choice so as to not face them down ourselves. We can only do this by allowing the "leader" in our lives to be more than just an example. We ignore their faults or look over them. They ultimately become more than what they are supposed to be in our lives, They begin to have access to the formation of our identity that can almost be akin to the dynamics of demonic possession. They think for us, speak for us, direct for us and we begin to integrate their anger, their opinions, their limited perspectives into most of our responses. We defend them to no end and attack those that attack our leader. We can sacrifice our own ethics and boundaries for their sake in order to preserve our allegiance to them, even if that allegiance requires that we diminish our own dignity, betray our own conscience and give away our own glory to them. Symbiotically, we acquire our own self designed security from them whilst they accumulate our portion of the glory and dignity that God has deposited in us. He, she or they then become our conscience, our ethic maker, our boundary marker, our creed creator, etc... We end up looking more like them than we look like ourselves, we end up sounding like them than sounding like ourselves and in the end their "image" is spread and their "glory" fills the earth rather than God's image and God's glory.
We not only want someone to take responsibility on our behalf - we also want someone to take the blame on our behalf - which is only possible when our heart and identity is intertwined with the person who is "more." We need someone to blame other than ourselves as it was with Eve, Adam and then Cain. Orchestrating a lifestyle by which we can circumvent responsibility in all of its capacities is at the core of this second path to an inauthentic identity. Both of these paths converge and form the wide path of idolatry. To become oneself, truly oneself, takes time, hard work and perseverance and it is scary at times. It also requires that we receive, truly receive, from Got only that which He wants to give - which will blow our minds if we give up on our own machinations. The process of truly becoming oneself does provide freedom but also uncomfortable limitations. We can fear both the freedom and the discomfort of those limitations, which is ultimately a fear of our true self.
In the film, Akeelah and the Bee (2006), Akeelah has this conversation with her professor about her own identity and ultimately the glory that God has put into her - her created and embodied identity,
Akeelah: [quoting Marianne Williamson] Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.
Dr. Larabee: Does that mean anything to you?
Akeelah: I don't know.
Dr. Larabee: It's written in plain English. What does it mean?
Akeelah: That I'm not supposed to be afraid?
Dr. Larabee: Afraid of what?
Akeelah: Afraid of... me?
(There are other ways that we ignore/lose our identity that could be discussed like doing so because of the shame associated with one's historic cultural or dysfunctional identity. We can also spite our own identity by embracing the identity of the 'other.' Many more descriptors could be presented as to why identity is never gained, rarely embraced, only half appreciated or just plain lost, but that isn't the focus for this topic so we'll move on. The point does need to be made that there are more paths to describe identity issues than what I've presented, but what I've presented is not an attempt to summarize and include every issue surrounding identity.)
The temptation is to shortchange this process of coming into one’s identity by either giving ourselves away for the sake of security which also provides "belonging" (giving away our God-given glory). The 2nd way discussed is by accumulating the identities (glory) of others for oneself and by giving them a place to belong in, but where they belong to the leader who is medicating his or her own insecurities. We gain this security by capitulating to a more established identity or by appropriating and accumulating the “other’s” identity to myself in order to amass their glory, their security for myself. These two directions of capitulation and accumulation end up marrying each other and go on for long periods of time in a co-dependent destructive relationship. Is anyone safe? No. From parenting to colonialism, from fashion mongering to pastoring, from over-priced education to school yard bullies, we all do it.
Hence, the way to be multi-cultural is not necessarily the quick fix of pushing people together. It is creating space for each identity to take their seat at the great table of dialogue. If we haven’t historically allowed that to happen by pushing people out of their seats or into their seats, by either making them sit on the ground or hiring them to serve the buffet while the real conversation happens by those sitting down, we really haven't done multi-culturalism. It is one of the most difficult plateaus of reality to achieve - but one of the most important in God's grand narrative of redemption. As we nurture and nourish the God-given glory of our identity and the identities of the "other", we will all flourish, and that flourishing is what glorifies God. It is the path of glorifying God. One of our beloved church fathers said it best,
"The glory of God is man fully alive." - St. Irenaeus
So how do we make space for each others' place at the table?
We do it...
1. By receiving our proper and limited space at the table,
2. By embracing yet limiting ourselves to our own path to the formation of our identity,
3. By knowing where we end and where the “other” begins
4. By taking only our seat instead of our seat and then the seat of so many "others.'
5. By knowing that God is glorified when our identity flourishes unto itself, yet interdependently within the community of the world.
5. By recognizing and honoring distinct identities (generationally, ethnically, geographically)among our common humanity.
6. By recognizing the that distinct identities are not just ethnic/racial - distinct identities can be epistemological, generational, religious, occupational, vocational, gendered, sexual, etc...
So what does this have to do with the predominantly white and suburban Emerging Church? We will discuss that in "The Mistakes of Multiculturalism Part 4." Weighing in will be Dave Gibbons, author of "The Monkey and the Fish: Liquid Leadership for a Third Culture Church"
Is spiritual "affirmative action" necessary as the best route in the body of Christ or is it more damaging in the long run? Is there a way that Christ has laid out for responsible and dignifying multi-culturalism to take place?
"The glory of God is man fully alive." - St. Irenaeus
So how do we make space for each others' place at the table?
We do it...
1. By receiving our proper and limited space at the table,
2. By embracing yet limiting ourselves to our own path to the formation of our identity,
3. By knowing where we end and where the “other” begins
4. By taking only our seat instead of our seat and then the seat of so many "others.'
5. By knowing that God is glorified when our identity flourishes unto itself, yet interdependently within the community of the world.
5. By recognizing and honoring distinct identities (generationally, ethnically, geographically)among our common humanity.
6. By recognizing the that distinct identities are not just ethnic/racial - distinct identities can be epistemological, generational, religious, occupational, vocational, gendered, sexual, etc...
So what does this have to do with the predominantly white and suburban Emerging Church? We will discuss that in "The Mistakes of Multiculturalism Part 4." Weighing in will be Dave Gibbons, author of "The Monkey and the Fish: Liquid Leadership for a Third Culture Church"
Is spiritual "affirmative action" necessary as the best route in the body of Christ or is it more damaging in the long run? Is there a way that Christ has laid out for responsible and dignifying multi-culturalism to take place?
No comments:
Post a Comment