Saturday, May 28, 2011

Discussing Racism and Discovering The Chorus of Corporate Confession

Soong-Chan Rah's book The Next Evangelicalism has been an eye-opener.  I have become more aware of the culture that I have been blinded to.  More than that, the cultural sins that "we" are guilty of.  For all of my life I have been highly uncomfortable with saying or hearing the word, "Nigger."  Typing it makes me turn in my seat.  I have never really considered myself a racist, and have based such a judgment on the fact that many of my dearest friends just so happen to be black.

But I was not prepared for this comment from Rah.  It came on the heals of his discussion on individualism and materialism.  We have such materialistic goals along with a relentless desire to meet our own personal needs that we cannot see, and often neglect, the sins we have committed as a culture, as well as the injustices that are currently oppressing others.  This is why we are so prone to confess and address individual sins in our churches, but are less prone to confront and confess the sins of our society.  This is why pastors are often defrocked for sexual sin, while many all-white-middle-class congregations are oblivious to their inherent racism and narcissism.

Many of my personal definitions of cultural racism were blown out of the water with Rah's definition - the "comment" referred to above.  He writes: "It is too easy to dismiss and disavow individual culpability for the sin of racism.  But if we were to use the language of corporate sin then we are all complicit.  Anyone that has benefited from America's original sin [the stealing of land from American Indians and the stealing of labor from African Americans] is guilty of that sin and bears the corporate shame of that sin."

This is a huge statement; and a definition of cultural sin that, at first glance, I am struggling with.  Granted, he does go on to clarify and further elaborate; but he does not lessen the impact or the implications.  And, he doesn't leave his own people out.  At one point he tells of a talk that he presented to a number of Asian students in American graduate school.  He enlightens them that they too have taken part in "America's original sin" by benefitting from a school that was originally subsidized by the fruits of slave labor.

There is a quote from John Dawson later in the chapter that I am more inclined to lay hold of.  Dawson states: "If we have broken our covenants with God and violated our relationships with one another, the path to reconciliation must begin with the act of confession.  The greatest wounds in human history, the greatest injustices, have not happened through the acts of some individual perpetrator, rather through the institutions, systems, philosophies, cultures, religions, and governments of mankind.  Because of this, we as individuals, are tempted to absolve ourselves of all individual responsibility.  Unless somebody identifies themselves with corporate entities, such as the nation of our citizenship, or the subculture of our ancestors, the act of honest confession will never take place.  This leaves us in a world of injury and offense in which no corporate sin is ever acknowledged, reconciliation never begins and old hatreds deepen."

I guess the reason why I am writing and asking for discussion is that I believe that I am ready and willing to confess and repent of any racism that we are guilty of.  I long for the day when racism is considered ancient history.  I, like Dawson, believe that unless we are aware of our cultural sins, we will continue to absolve ourselves of all responsibility, as well as fostering an environment where reconciliation never begins and old hatreds deepen.

But I don't really know where to start.  And I am not sure if Rah's definition of America's original sin is something that I (and "we") know how to repent of.  Inability to fix what happened is no excuse not to confess involvement in what happened.  I understand this.  I hate our particular history of killing American Indians and enslaving African Americans.  If corporate confession is a way to heal racism, I want so badly to be a part of that chorus.  But what does the chorus sound like?  Can someone help me get there?

I am all ears. Please comment.



3 comments:

  1. As someone going into graduate school to study American history, I think his description of America's original sin is possibly over simplified. Those things definitely happened, and are definitely horrible, but from the quote it makes it sound like all of the American system, institution, philosophies, etc etc were all that there was to America. I think it's important to first inform ourselves of what things truly were. Like you say, we probably don't know how to repent of, and I would say that's partly because we don't know the history.

    I'm still unconvinced by either side of the question of whether future generations are as guilty, equally or lesser so, than the sin committers. I'll definitely agree that we are responsible for what happens now in America with race relations, but I'm unsure about the American legacy. It affects us, but I don't know how responsible we are for it. Maybe I should read the book?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Granted, I haven't read the book, but on reading your description above and the quote you listed, I disagree with Rah's description of corporate culpability. The definition of "Anyone who has benefited from America's original sin is guilty of that sin." breaks down logically and biblically.

    For example, Jews were protected by Roman rule. Therefore, the Jews benefited from Roman rule. The Romans committed several atrocities during their reign/rule. (You can bet land theft and forced slavery were among them. And those would be the tame ones.)

    Jesus was a Jew. Jesus was protected by Roman rule. Therefore, Jesus benefited from Roman rule. By Rah's definition (substituting American with Roman ruled Jew), you'd have to say Jesus "sinned" and needed to repent. I believe that Jesus was sinless, so Rah's definition appears to need changing.

    I am not saying that I don't agree with the author's conclusions. I don't even know them. Just thought I'd point out what seems to be a logical fallacy....

    I do not believe my country of origin mandates my culpability in that county's sin - particularly in sins of the past. I believe the proper biblical perspective would be to talk of generational sin. But the Bible speaks of that in terms of families. Through the various covenants of the Old Testament and eventually the New Covenant, the institution of family (with regards to God's chosen people) is carried through the church. So, the closest similarity I see from a biblical perspective would be talking about the church's sin. I think that would be an appropriate conversation. But, trying to converge the topics of "sin" and nation of origin seems to me to be a non sequitur.

    Thoughts??

    ReplyDelete
  3. One other thought on the subject: every government for all time seems to have been guilty of some crime or another. At the very least, every people group is guilty of a past communal sin. Does this mean that every people group needs to repent of their ancestor's previous crimes? I'd be surprised if the author thinks so.

    One example: at least a small part of my family is of German heritage. Do I need to repent of the sins of the Nazi regime? What if I also have Jewish heritage? Am I now exempt? Or, do I now need to repent of the crimes committed by Jewish authorities? If so, how far back to I go? Do I need to repent of the crimes that Jacob's sons committed revenging the rape of their sister, Dinah?

    Or, to really muddy the waters, I also have British and French heritage. Do I need to repent of the crimes committed by those governments? (The British massacred Scots and the French massacred their own during the French revolution). I could go on as I also have Native American and Irish heritage, and I'm sure at some point in history those groups committed at least one communal crime.

    I'm not trying to shirk the idea of communal sin. I am simply trying to make the point that 1) Rah's definition seems flawed, and 2) associating people groups with governments in a way that mandates generational, moral culpability leads to the need to confess/repent ad nauseam (so I'm not sure how helpful the discussion is)

    I'd love to hear your thoughts, Scott.

    ReplyDelete