UNideal Church Ideals (pt 2 of 3): Marginalizing Social Grievances

UNideal Church Ideals (pt 2 of 3): Marginalizing Social Grievances

This post is part 2 of 3 of the series on UNideal church ideals.  If you didn’t read part 1, I’d encourage you to check it out.  Without further ado, here’s another UNideal church ideal.

 “We’re Christians.  Why get so wrapped up in these social issues?  They aren’t that important.”

Hmmm, yes and no.  True, the Bible says my home is in heaven, which I wholeheartedly agree with.  But I probably have awhile before I get there, so I’d do well to observe what’s happening in the world around me.  People, including some of your Christian brothers and sisters, are having a legitimately tough time with some of the things unfolding in the world at large.  You and I don’t improve the situation by insisting the issues they face shouldn’t matter because they’re Christians.

That’s like approaching the Native Americans in the 1600’s and telling them, “It doesn’t matter that all your land is being stolen from you; your treasure is in heaven!”

Even though that’s true, that doesn’t come off as tactful.  In fact, it sounds a bit exploitative and opportunistic.  It makes light of their challenges.  Challenges, coincidentally, that you and I are considerably less affected by.  I’m sure there are parallels you could draw with privilege, but I’ll save that for another day (I recently finished a 16 page essay on privilege, so stay tuned).  Before continuing though, it is worth mentioning that the slave masters used notions like “heavenly treasure” to further marginalize slaves and convince them to be content with their abuse, oppression, and exploitation.  I digress.

Beyond having a tone that comes off as exploitative, there are other issues with this, too.  In church, to our detriment, don’t we tend to use a lot of double standards?  Forgive me if this is graphic, but if your daughter came home from school and told you she’s being molested, would you say, “It doesn’t matter, because your treasure is in heaven.”  Probably not.  Is there something about this situation that moves you in a different way?  Let’s try something less sensationalized.  What if you found out your son was being bullied?  He can’t even focus on learning at school because he’s being mistreated by some rowdy classmates.  Your first thought probably isn’t, “No worries, his home is in heaven, so his education isn’t that important anyways.”  Why not?  What about this situation moves you in a different way?

There’s an important principle we gather from this: we decide what’s worth caring about.  We do something about our daughter getting molested, because we think it warrants a response.  We do something about our son being bullied in school, because we think it warrants a response.  I don’t disagree.  I think that’s a perfectly reasonable conclusion.  It does warrant a response.  The question then becomes, “What criteria do we use to determine what events warrant a response?  And do we apply that criteria consistently across different situations?”  Here’s where we may diverge in our thinking.  I think the answer is “no”.  Absolutely not.  As I mentioned before, I think we use a number of double standards in the church, not all of which pertain to race, and (in my opinion) this is simply one instance of that.

There are a ridiculous number of variables that compromise and influence human judgement.  There are entire fields of research, in psychology, economics, finance, strategy, organizational behavior, and others, devoted to studying exactly that.

Your response to your son being bullied in school is influenced by your own feelings and emotions, your personality type, your own personal experiences with bullying, what’s most salient in your mind at the time (ie. maybe somebody bullied you at work that day), things you may have been exposed to (recently) in various forms of media (ie. several school related shootings recently that have occurred as a result of bullying), etc.  Your response could also depend on whether or not your son has a history of behaving or misbehaving, the gender/height/size/weight/race/religion of the person bullying him, whether or not the person who informed you of the bullying is a credible source, etc.  Still convinced you approach every situation the same way?  If so, you’re a far better human than I am.  In fact, decision making on that level would probably rival a computer algorithm of some sort.  My opinion: In church, I think we decide what’s worth caring about, and quite frequently, we don’t apply that criteria the same way to all situations. 

So, here’s where things get interesting.

We can extend the application of deciding what we want to care about.  We’ll fly all over the world for the rights of people in other countries, but for whatever reason, we take less interest in issues at home.  We’ll be really invested in animal cruelty, the environment, and other issues, but when it comes to race relations, “Your home is in heaven, so even if you’re being mistreated, don’t fret.”  To be fair, the race card has been abused [a lot] in the past [and present].  A lot of people tuned out of the discussion a while ago, and to some extent, it’s hard to blame them.  Still, you have to wonder if there’s anything else worth noting here.  It reminds me of the point I made earlier: It’s awfully convenient to be in a place where you tell people what does and doesn’t matter.  Coincidentally, many of the people insisting “your home is in heaven” aren’t directly affected by the plight of the black or brown community in America.  In the same way, statements like “I don’t see race,” can be used to dismiss race related issues because race doesn’t matter, the dismissal of social issues functions in a very similar way.  That is, in dismissing social issues, you’re telling someone that their plight/strife actually isn’t that important.

Why is this an UNideal church ideal?

Social issues frequently end up affecting those that are marginalized (perceived as less important), underrepresented (few seats at the table), and for whatever reason lacking in terms of power (few positions of influence or decision-making authority).  Issues that affect the mainstream are usually addressed much faster.  Because they effect most people.  And/or they effect the most important people.  In church or outside of church, being white increases the likelihood of your needs taking the limelight, because it makes you part of the American majority (61%).  Me being black, perhaps, does the exact opposite.  That is, I’m at risk of being marginalized, ie. being perceived as less important, because my problems probably aren’t most people’s problems.  I’m not in the majority.  I’m in the 13%.  In other words, my voice is likely to be drowned out by the majority group, ie. the 61% (indeed, this frequently happens with racial minorities).

While issues that affect 61% of the American general public are likely to be addressed relatively quickly, an issue that only affects 13% of Americans (the black community), or 18% of Americans (the Hispanic community), or 6% of Americans (the Asian community) may be addressed much slower, if it’s addressed at all.  By definition, that’s to be expected, based on what it means to be a minority.

It pays to be in the majority.  In general, me being a man operates in a similar way.  Particularly when it comes to key decisions, in church or otherwise, men tend to be overrepresented at the table and women tend to be underrepresented.  Not only that, but as you go higher and higher within various spheres of influence, business, education, politics, religion, etc., there are more and more men and fewer and fewer women.  As a man, if I’m in a position of power, I have the luxury of deciding what does and doesn’t matter and dismissing issues I don’t think are worth entertaining (fact).  Not only that, but because I’m part of the majority group, my perspective will likely be shared by other men, even to the detriment of many, many women.  In a similar way, Christians can reinforce a very similar notion when they dismiss race related issues, because you’re telling marginalized persons that issues that affect them aren’t important (even if you use scripture).

That’s like me telling a woman that female empowerment doesn’t matter, because heaven is our home.  Or pay equity doesn’t matter, because heaven is our home.  Or the right to vote doesn’t matter, because heaven is our home.  Or gender biases in the workplace don’t matter, because heaven is our home.  Or sexism and extrabiblical gender roles in the church don’t matter, because heaven is our home.

As a man, I benefit the most from that thinking, even if there are truthful elements to what I stated.  It is absolutely true that heaven is our home.  But I can also use that to marginalize the grievances that I don’t want to be bothered with.

Dismissing racial issues, and other social grievances, functions very similarly.  As is true for all of these UNideal church ideals, I think those in the majority group benefit from this thinking more than underrepresented minorities, whether it be racial minorities, women, or other types of minorities.  Of course, that’s assuming minority groups benefit at all, which is also debatable.

Again, I think it’s damaging, tasteless rhetoric.  Another UNideal church ideal.

Nnamdi