Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Being White

After these things I looked, and here was an enormous crowd that no one could count, made up of persons from every nation, tribe, people, and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb dressed in long white robes, and with palm branches in their hands. They were shouting out in a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God, to the one seated on the throne, and to the Lamb!" (Revelation 7:9–10, NET)
I'm going to try to do something here that white people try to avoid: think, and think out loud, about what it means to be white. I'll get at why that can uncomfortable for us later on, but first, Why am I doing this?

I'm writing this because I've come to the conclusion, based on how John identifies the Great Multitude of the redeemed, that I'm going to be white in Heaven. Not that I'll have the phenotypical features of a Northern European in the sweet by and by; I don't know what kind(s) of skin, eyes, hair, etc. I, or anyone else, am going to have in Heaven. No, I mean that in Heaven the redeemed are able to be identified as being "from" the their world-historical people-groupings. And one of those categories—at least, for those of us living in the modern world, as I'll explain—is race.

In other words, what I've heard God saying to me here is that if, in Heaven, he were to take away the white, he'd be taking away part of what it means for me to be David Hamstra. Just as much as if he took away the German, Luther wouldn't be Luther; or if he took away the Aramean, Jacob wouldn't be Jacob (Deuteronomy 26:5); or if he took away the Jewish, the man from Galilee wouldn't be Jesus.

So if being white here means I'm going to be white in Heaven, the question isn't whether or not I should be thinking of myself as a white person. The real question is What does it mean for me to be white? And, especially, How I am to be white together with those who are not?

Conversation Partners

To get at the answers to those questions, I'm going to bring in two authors and their two books as conversation partners. Let me introduce Linda and Tim.

Linda Martín Alcoff is a philosopher. She's of Panamanian and white American descent. Raised partly in rural Panama and with poor whites in Florida, she joined campus radicals during the American Civil Rights struggle, which involved exposing herself to life-threatening danger. Her book is The Future of Whiteness. I'll be drawing on Linda to talk about how identity works in general and how it has played out in the history of white people in particular.

Timothy J. Lensmire, for our purposes, is an ethnographer. He conducted a series of interviews with his white friends and associates in his home town in the rural northern Midwest about how they view racial and ethnic minority groups in the United States. His book is White Folks: Race and Identity in Rural America. By critically reflecting on his own past, and that of his interviewees, Tim weaves a story about how coming into contact with other peoples changed his own and his subjects' whiteness in both conventional and unexpected ways.

[Note: This isn't a book review. I'm using these them as sources, not critiquing the authors views where I disagree with them. I'm also not attempting to summarize the books by touching on their major themes or arguments. They are worth reading in their own right for other valuable insights the authors have on this topic.]


But before going into what it means to be white, let's figure out what it means to "be" anything in this way. Linda offers some philosophical guidance on what it is to have this kind of un-chosen group identity.

First, identities are not the material stuff of human existence. This can be illustrated by the difference between being a male and being a man. One could say that any male with functional genitalia can procreate, but it takes a man to raise his children to be responsible adults.

Second, identities are socially constructed. They vary across cultures. They have a story; they change over time. The habits and attitudes that make a man in America are similar to but different than those of Angola. And what we consider manly in America of 2018 is similar to, but different than, what was considered manly in 1958, or 1758. (Powdered wigs, anyone?)

Third, the fact that identities are not material and are socially constructed does not mean they are arbitrary or infinitely malleable. They are governed by cultural rules about attitudes and habits that developed as ways to help people make sense of their material circumstances by being or becoming a certain kind of person. To the degree that those rules continue to provide an explanation for what it means to be that kind of person in those circumstances, the identity expressed by those rules will be stable. So, returning to our example, whatever else masculine identity might come to involve, as long as humans sexually reproduce, attitudes and habits on the part of males who have reproduced that support family life are likely to continue to be a part of what it means to be a man, because they offer a powerful explanation for how we are to bring in the next generation.

That's all to say that being white is not fundamentally about possessing a certain set of physical characteristics. It means having inherited or been adopted into a partial but satisfactory explanation for how you arrived at your place in the world and a set of cultural rules about the habits and attitudes that make sense of how to live in light of that explanation. 

Finally, Tim's interviews suggest that identity requires some kind of Other or counterpart, or else we can't be identified as such in the first place. There could be no such thing as a landlubber until the first sailor put out to sea. Whatever men are, they are not boys, or women. And whatever white people are, we are not—and we lack an elegant vocabulary for this—black, colored, something else?

The Story of White Identity

Time was when nobody thought of themselves as white. As recently as just over 100 years ago, when my great-great grandparents arrived in North Dakota, they thought of themselves primarily as Germans and Ukrainians. And, the story goes, my German great-grandparents were not to impressed that a Ukrainian boy (my grandfather) had taken a special interest in their daughter (my grandmother). But by the time I was old enough to learn about such things, those ethnic prejudices were long in the past. My grandfather was then an American, the kind who loved Western wear and proudly flew the US flag over his farm (typically, but not exclusively, white habits).

So in my family's history, white identity is something that was learned within living memory. Whiteness explained what you were in the New World, a place where the ethno-national rivalries of the Old didn't have to matter any more. And, as Linda points out, many European immigrants to these shores were forced out of their societies or otherwise had to leave under less than ideal circumstances. For these immigrants-of-necessity, whiteness afforded way of quickly shedding identities tied to shameful events of the past while simultaneously identifying with the American promise of a new start in life.

As the category of "white" in America expanded to include more and more ethnic groups (from Irish, to Italians, to Jews, to "white-Hispanics," etc.), it's power to explain trans-ethnic, and even trans-national affiliation not only increased, but was exported around the modern world. It has also continually bumped up against its limit, its Other: the person of color, whose phenotypical features cannot be plausibly associated with European ancestry so as to be physically indexed to white identity.

That is because the idea of a white person was invented by European elites who, following the Age of Discovery, realized that the divided, warring people-groups crammed onto the lands north and west of the Caucasus mountains had more in common than they themselves understood. But, as Linda reminds us, the idea that these groups were all white people was part of more than just an Enlightenment quest for a rational, pan-national, European brotherhood. It also positioned these newly christened "white" people at the vanguard of history, on a mission to civilize the world according to the dictates and disciplines of reason.

It doesn't take a cynical view of the intentions of those who formulated this vision of white supremacy to see how it was supremely susceptible to the depravity of the selfish human heart. Helping the locals put their resources to their best use (as if white people had the best understanding what "best" means) easily became colonial wealth extraction. Enslaving non-Christian blacks until such time as they should convert (as if that were a biblical way to evangelize) became keeping both them and their children as chattel slaves in perpetuity because of the "curse of Ham" once too many had converted.

White Vulnerability

And that's where being white is complicated. On the one hand, the vanguard vision retains its ability to elicit pride among white people for their part in ushering in an era of unprecedented prosperity, integration, and liberty for the peoples of the world, a project over which white people continue to preside to some extent. On the other, whiteness can equally be a source of deep shame for the abuse, exploitation, and degradation to which white people have subjected and continue to subject peoples of color, much of which was and continues to be justified as necessary to live in a modern world.

So I think we don't like to talk about being white, because a deep part of what it explains about us is morally conflicted. When it comes to the role of whiteness in the modern world, we don't know whether to respond to our white identity with pride or shame. Not that I feel being white is like being a Nazi, because being white explains a lot about me that isn't inextricably linked to attitudes and habits of oppression. If it were otherwise, white people could end the inner conflict by simply renouncing our whiteness or sublimating it into a newly constructed identity.

But neither is it exactly like being a Rotarian, because being white explains how we came to enjoy certain advantages in the modern world as direct or indirect results of white decisions to exploit of people of color because they were non-white. So we cannot speak to issues of race as white people without exposing ourselves to moral vulnerability according to our own standards of right and wrong derived from Christian religiosity and Enlightenment rationality. And so, returning now to Tim's ethnography, we white Americans have responded to that sense of vulnerability in what I think of as a typically white way: by creating a new set of civilizing rules that manage the moral conflict of our identity so that we can get on with the rest of our lives.

The biggest rule is, don't mention race, except to denounce racism. Because, if you don't bring up race, you cannot be accused of being a racist. And being a racist means you are uncivilized and should therefore be denied the benefits of the modern world. These rules have locked white people into a competition in which status is earned by appearing anti-racist. Failure to do so gives society reason to deprive you of employment and business opportunities, political office, friendships, and other venues of power and influence.

Of course, this does not mean race goes unmentioned. Where white people are willing to be vulnerable with each other (such as during the weekly men's poker game hosted by the interviewee who lays out this dynamic for Tim) white people feel free to speak about people of color as such, and in the most bigoted of terms. But in this space there can be no challenging of such perceptions, because to do so would introduce the anti-racist status competition of civilized life and destroy the trust that allows white people to voice the vulnerable side of their identity. In Tim's telling, many white people are stuck between a "high spaces," where white racial attitudes and habits are strictly controlled but white people can't talk about race, and a "low spaces," where white racial attitudes and habits are uncontrolled, but where they can talk about race.

How to Be White

So the problem of being white, as I've developed it with the help of Linda and Tim, is one of being morally conflicted with no venue in which to resolve that conflict. The story of whiteness lays bare the sources of that conflict in the white desire to transcend the racial categories we created and usher in a new, post-racial era via civilizing disciplines that enforce "colorblind" attitudes and habits. We are gambling with our consciences on a repeat of the same move that only partially succeeded at uniting the Europeans; only this time it's for all humanity.

But that homogenizing Babel project cannot succeed. Partly because it's imposed top-down via rules that suppress the conversation necessary for the explanatory power that comes from bottom-up identity formation to emerge. And partly because because we need an Other to define ourselves.

So, if resolving the conflict of white identity in the twenty-first century does not, or rather cannot mean sublimating it to an all consuming anti-racist project, how are we supposed to be white? What I took away from reading Linda on that question can be summarized thus: Being white isn't so special. Part of our moral problem is the we need to get over ourselves.

White people are not, and have never been, the vanguard of history. Jesus is the vanguard of history. That means we can afford to let go of power and control in society and in the church. That also means that we're not at the vanguard of an anti-racist civilizing project. God isn't waiting for his white people to be purified of all racism, as if only then could he finally save the world.

What is required of us white people is the same thing that was required of the Christian Jews when it came time for the fullness of the Gentiles to come into the Assembly. It started by giving up control of the food distribution to six Greek-speaking Jews and a Greek proselyte (Acts 6:5). We've become accustomed to a world and a church run "for us, by us," to borrow a phrase. White people who can't take their place beside, not before, all the other groups of people who have inhabited this world will find they are not suited to the worship of their Creator around the throne of Heaven.

That does not imply that there are not better or worse ways of being in the world before God. However, the fact that whiteness is just one of them means that it is not the standard by which the rest are to be judged. It also means that it does not have a privileged relationship to that standard. Whiteness is just one way, among many, by which God has lead people to make sense of their circumstances in ways that open them to knowledge of himself (Acts 17:26). To make it more or less than that is an idolatrous denial of God's uniqueness as the supreme agency in human history.

How to Be White With Others

If that is the case then how are we to go about being white with the Others. Linda points to examples of US Civil Rights era white uplift movements, seeking justice for poor whites, that coordinated with movements to promote justice for black Americans as well. In other words, white identity and white concerns are not inherently bound up with the oppression of people of color. In fact, they can be very much the opposite.

But what makes the difference? Here's where I think Tim's ethnography clarifies two ways people form their identity in distinction to the Other. Tim asked his white interview subjects to recall the first time they met a black person. For those who met black people as children, the reaction of the white adults around them was crucial. All the adults recalled a childish desire to form relationships with the black people they encountered. For those who were encouraged in this impulse by their adult authority figures, their initial encounter with black people was associated with feelings of joy, wonder, and contentment. They came to view racial difference as a potential source of personal acceptance, and, as adults, had a less morally compromised relationship with race and racism as a result.

The other group had experienced the same impulse toward connection, but picked up subtle or overt signals from adults they respected that this was a transgression of boundaries, a transgression for which they felt shame. Out of a strong childish desire to please the adults in their life, they began to be racially discriminating in their associations. As adults, they viewed people of color more as sources of fear and as scapegoats.

From these identity forming experiences, in which Tim's interviewees came to understand themselves as white, they inherited one of two very different ways of being white with Others. In one, to be white is the way to be human, a way which is threatened by corrupting associations with those who are human in distinctly deficient ways. In the other, to be white is a way to be human, a way that is affirmed by validating encounters with those who are human in distinctly different ways. We white people cannot choose which way of being white was passed down to us, but we can choose which way we will pass on to our children.

A Cross-shaped Way of Being White

I suspect that the choice to embrace or to exclude will hinge on a willingness to make amends where amends are due. In my own life, I expect to maintain a measure of prudent self protection between myself and those who have proven willing and capable of harming me, intentionally or inadvertently, until such time as amends are made. I can't expect it to be otherwise for people of color, on the individual and corporate levels, when it comes to their relationships with me as a white person. For, the benefits of group identity go along with the burdens of group accountability.

Again, that doesn't mean putting white people back into the driver's seat of history. It means we don't get special treatment when it comes to any contemporary or historical wrongs to the extent that we are implicated in them. It means we don't assume we have the best take on what's best for race relations, personally, socially, or in the church. And it means we will need to listen to the concerns of those with other racial and ethnic identities—concerns that come from ways of making sense of circumstances rather different than ours—to the same degree that we expect other groups to listen to concerns that come out of having a white identity.

I take this personally to be the racial side of what it means to hide myself behind the cross. Hiding self behind the cross doesn't mean that the components of my self-identity are annihilated by Christian conversation. It means that they are held relative to the self-sacrificing love of Christ, so that I now use for the purpose of laying my life down for others. I want to commit to God for his service those white habits and attitudes that enable me to love others in a cross-shaped way. As for those that get in the way of that love, I want them to stay hidden behind Jesus's sacrifice.
"I give you a new commandment—to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples—if you have love for one another." (John 13:34–35)

Sunday, February 18, 2018

Four Adventisms

The two central tensions, as I have come see them in Anglo-American Adventism, are between immanent and transcendent goods and between justifying and  sanctifying grace (or, as I will call them when referring to grace in the immanent mode, affirming and disciplining relationships).

Their historical roots are in the 1888 crisis (justifying vs. sanctifying) and the Kellogg crisis (immanent vs. transcendent).

That makes for four possible trajectories movements can take out of the center of Adventism, and I think we've got them all.
  1. Immanent/affirming = Recovery Adventism—reconciling the self to itself
  2. Transcendent/justifying = Evangelical Adventism—reconciling the self to God
  3. Immanent/disciplining  = Social justice Adventism—healing the body and society
  4. Transcendent/sanctifying = Apocalyptic Adventism—conforming the body and church to God's end-time purposes
Before I briefly develop each category, a couple of caveats: (1) I'm not going to name names because this isn't statistically validated. (2) What follows an intuitive interpretation of my faith community based on my experience of Anglo-American Adventism in relatively diverse church membership and ministry settings. I leave it to you to decide to what or whom these categories might apply and how valid they are in light of your own experience of the same.

1. The immanent/affirming option is the last trajectory to be explored and is the most marginal. It provides an answer to the question, how can I live with myself? Its deep roots are in the Wesleyan class method, which was practiced as the "social meeting" for a short time in early Adventism. It started again in the 1970s when Adventism first started to incorporate the techniques of therapy culture to treat drug addictions. Where it is associated with 12 Step culture (secularized Methodism), it can be properly called Recovery Adventism. But it can also have sources therapy/coaching culture, chaplaincy ministry, and the spiritual formation movement. Recovery Adventism aims at reconciling the self to itself with divine help via introspective practices combined with group affirmation. It is centered on areas with large numbers of Adventists where it is highly attractive to those who have failed to reconcile an affirmative sense of self to the self-denial required to practice one or more of the varieties of transcendent or sanctifying Adventism.

2. Transcendent/justifying Adventism conceives of the relationship of God's grace to the self as affirming, and aims at reconciling the self to God. It provides an answer to the question, how can God live with me? Its historical source in Adventism is in Jones and Wagoner's recovery of the Reformation teaching that the moral law of God is powerless to bring us into a saving relationship with him. It is acceptance God's unmerited favor that enables the self to transcend its sinful condition in relationship to God. The role of the moral law is primarily to show us our defects, which God forgives when we repent. Where this movement retains the apocalyptic transcendent focused on the second coming and Adventist sectarian distinctiveness in light of that, it can be associated with the theological consensus of institutional Adventism that emerged between the Evangelical conferences (1950s) and the Ford crisis (1980s). Where a movement on this trajectory has a Cross-oriented transcendent vision and emphasizes Adventism as a part of the broader Christian community, it can be properly labeled evangelical Adventism. Either way, these movements often also define themselves in opposition to transcendent/sanctifying Adventism.

3. Immanent/disciplining Adventism is what Kellogg advocated in The Living Temple: the discipline of self for the purpose of cooperating with God's restoration of creation. It continues to be centered around Adventist health and higher education institutions. But these are no longer organized to effect a radical reform of medical practice in accordance with natural laws of health. So the focus on God's saving work has shifted from the perfecting of the human body to perfecting of the body politic. Not that Kellogg was without his urban missions nor that social justice Adventism is devoid of alternative health practices. It's a matter of emphasis. The disciplines that were once applied to make the body whole have been transformed by a new set of disciplines aimed at healing the divisions of society by implanting the imperatives of justice. Either way, they provide an answer to the question, how can we live in the world? Although less radical than its predecessor in some ways, there is enough divergence from those who don't practice these disciplines, both within and without the church, to sustain a distinct Adventist identity. These movements may or may not have an affinity with other Adventist movements, depending on the consonance of their goals. But it encounters pushback when the transcendent Adventisms believe it is reducing Adventism to the concerns of this world, as with Kellogg's panentheistic immanentizing of God.

4. Transcendent/sanctifying Adventism provides an answer to the question, how can we live with God? It has its historical roots in Joseph Bates's Sabbatarian conversation based on the Seventh Day Baptist interpretation of God's moral law in Reformed theology. His subsequent theological moves held other doctrines relative to the Sabbath—including salvation, which became keeping the Law. For Bates, this was not exclusive to health and social justice activism, but his followers left that work to Kellogg. Their view of salvation was rejected by Ellen White in 1888, and consequently most transcendent/sanctifying Adventists are at least nominally tethered to transcendent/justifying theology. The sanctifying part comes in after justification, when the mode of God's relationship to the self demands discipline via empowering grace. The emphasis then switches to ordering the self through wholistic spiritual practices to become the kind of people who can withstand the final crisis. These apocalyptic movements are the most likely to view other movements as having gone beyond the limits of Adventism and often see themselves as the church's disciplinarian.

I think individuals or movements can be more or less inclined toward the ideal type of each trajectory. And while some could be moving away, others could be moving closer to the center.

But, because of human finitude, movements and individuals cannot deeply pursue each combination of the good how to achieve it simultaneously. Thus, the third axis of this analysis, not represented graphically, would be time.

On this analysis, an identity crisis hits Adventism when a major moment along one or another of the trajectories can no longer be explained as Adventist on the other groups' terms. The immanent goods of Adventism can be pursued with more or less openness to transcendent goods (and vice versa). Likewise, discipline can take place in a context of affirmation, and affirmation can ground the disciplining relationships. Or they can be seen as diametrically opposed.
I believe the center of Adventism is wherever movements and individuals maintain openness the other goods/graces and the other movements pursuing them. And I think you can read Ellen White herself as simultaneously correcting imbalances among them and growing herself in her understanding and practice of how to relate them.

So while I do not take these four Adventisms to be inherently mutually exclusive, they do define four dimensions across which movements in Adventism have excluded each other in the following ways.

1. Immanent/affirming Adventism's self-affirming mode is perceived as directly undermining the sanctification required by transcendent/sanctifying Adventists, especially when it doesn't care to explain itself in transcendent terms. Movements within recovery Adventism can also move outside what evangelical Adventists think of as Christianity when they start to deny transcendent dimensions to our relationship with God, like divine wrath or the need to accept Jesus as savior in order to go to Heaven. They exclude social justice Adventists when they affirm those whose politics and practices are contrary to the imperatives of justice.

2. Where transcendent/justifying Adventism embraces its natural affinity with the God-and-country mode of its Evangelical cousins, prioritizing a politics of piety and personal virtue, it can no longer be seen as authentically Adventist for immanent/disciplining Adventism. Where it sees no further need for the reconciliation with onesself after one has been reconciled to God, it excludes recovery Adventism. And where it makes the center of God's saving activity on the cross exclusive, it's soteriology is no longer intelligible in terms of apocalyptic Adventism's sanctuary typology.

3. Evangelical Adventism cannot exchange the free pardon of God for a view of sin as the absence of peace and salvation as social reconciliation, and it fears this is often the upshot of immanent/disciplining Adventism, especially where it has lost the conversionist impulse. And while apocalyptic Adventists and social justice Adventists can both advocate vegetarianism, for the former it is primarily to prepare the body to receive the Holy Spirit, and the later, where it is only to heal creation, excludes the former. Recovery Adventism parts ways with social justice Adventism when the imperatives of justice are seen to require overly adversarial modes of relating to others and to the self.

4. The self-denial required by transcendent/sanctifying Adventism is even less intelligible on immanent/affirming terms than the self-denial required by immanent/disciplining Adventism because transcendent/sanctifying Adventism isn't always able to offer a this-life explanation for why the discipline is necessary. And when apocalyptic Adventism isn't willing to talk about how its disciplines are consonant with being reconciled to ourselves and the world, it comes across to recovery and social justice Adventism as more sanctimonious than sanctifying. Apocalyptic Adventism also excludes evangelical Adventism when it becomes suspicious that any emphasis on the cross is an attempt to undermine a transcendent vision focused on the second coming.

I don't at all mean to suggest that these tensions explain everything important about Adventism or everyone's Adventist experience. I do think this analysis is grounded on profound philosophical tensions inherent in Adventist teaching and practice as it relates to the self, God, the body, and the world. Therefore, it likely explains a lot of what's been going on, but that would have to be demonstrated with further research.

As to the question of whether the center of Adventism holds, I guess that depends on whether we can maintain those tensions as generative of creative responses to challenges and opportunities. That would involve a number of other factors including our relationship to Scripture, Ellen White, spirituality, institutional intentionality, leadership capacity, etc.

In the meantime, I'm putting this half-baked thesis out here in the hopes it can at the least suggest some fundamental questions to bear in mind when you think about what it means to be an Adventist in the 21st century.