White Privilege, SJWs, and Missions

white-priviledge-card
Never leave home without it.

Every once and a while I come across a bizarre negative attitude towards the white western missionary. I’m not referring to atheists or multiculturalists criticizing western missions; that’s to be expected. Rather, I am talking about missionaries criticizing other missionaries.

I’ll read or hear terms such as “white privilege” and “cultural appropriation” being used by missionaries to criticize white missionaries and accuse them of things they are simply not guilty of: colonialism, white supremacy, and negative paternalism. They get upset at the fact that white missionaries will presume to teach, rather than learn, in non-western nations. They lament at how white missionaries don’t seek to empower the local peoples. In most cases, these accusations are are all unfounded.

Western missionaries have access to resources which non-western nations simply don’t have yet. Western Christianity is also older and more experienced. Of course westerners will come as teachers. That does not mean they don’t respect the native culture, are unwilling to learn, or are unwilling to empower local people.

The terms “white privilege” and “cultural appropriation” did not evolve in the common market of language and ideas. They come straight out of the minds of leftist, Marxist university professors. And they certainly have no place on the mission field.

I like this definition of “white privilege” from the Urban Dictionary:

The racist idea that simply being white benefits people in some unexplainable way, and that discriminating against white people is not only okay, but enlightened and necessary. The excuse some extremists use to justify pretty much any level of racism, as long as it is coming from people of color. A young American woman died because in college she was brainwashed into believing that her white privilege would protect her from being run over by a bulldozer.

I understand, and agree with, the idea that missions is not about introducing western culture into non-western nations. There are few things I dislike more that hearing Hillsong music being sung by locals in their own language, when there own native music is so much more beautiful. But, I’ve met many missionaries, and I’ve never met one who was trying to push western culture into their host nation. (In fact, when I do hear the Hillsong music, it’s because the youth in the church wanted it – Hey you guys! Stop trying to appropriate sub-standard Australian worship music!) Many new missionaries come with western ideas, which they try to implement, but they soon learn what doesn’t work and they adapt. This whole idea of “white privilege,” “white supremacy,” and neo-colonialism is, in most cases, not true. (By the way, western culture is indeed moving in on Asian nations, but it’s anything but the missionary’s fault. Blame Coca Cola, Pizza Hut, or Ariana Grande.)

So first, let’s address the “white privilege” claim. All who live in the west are privileged – the rich and the poor – the natives and the immigrants. No other culture in human history provides the opportunities, safety, and freedom that the west provides. And this privilege did not fall from the sky. It is the result of centuries of hard work by all the men and women who built the western nations. It is the result of Christianity (which is really the elephant in the room when it comes to white privilege). Historically, the western nations have been predominantly white, and although that’s still true, it is changing now.

I live in Cambodia, but spent most of my life in Canada. There are many races and cultures in Canada, and all of them are privileged to be there. Many first generation immigrants do very well for themselves. That’s true today and it’s true historically. Good culture creates privilege. It’s nothing negative and it’s nothing to feel guilty about. Yes, privileged people can use their advantages to oppress others, but is that what white missionaries are doing? Do western missionaries misunderstand the host culture simply because of their privilege? That’s strange reasoning. Is a doctor only fit to heal people if he himself has suffered their sickness?

Where you start in life is not necessarily where you’ll end up. The decisions you make today determine where you’ll be tomorrow. Snapshot views of cultures are meaningless if you ignore the past and the future. Missionaries, white and brown, enter into other cultures, and bring their privilege with them, to create new opportunities for the native peoples – opportunities which include both the spiritual and the physical. When Jesus said, “For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more,” was He trying to make His listeners feel guilty? Or, was He telling them to use their “privilege” to the benefit of others?

Western privilege is a direct result of Christianity. What would you expect to happen to a culture which adopts the Christian faith and submits to Jesus? Poverty and war? The missionary’s job is to expand that culture to the nations. Yes, some cultures really are better than others.

As for “cultural appropriation”, I’ll start by posting this video to show how stupid that idea is…

In the video the black girl is angry because the white guy has dreadlocks, which is a black hairstyle. It’s obviously stupid and the girl is just being a bully. This is an extreme example, but extreme examples best illustrate how stupid some ideas really are.

If I see a Cambodian wearing jeans and a t-shirt, should I be upset that he’s trying to appropriate western culture? If I learn the Khmer language and dress in Cambodian traditional clothes at a wedding, am I wrongfully trying to appropriate the culture? I though we were supposed to learn to understand the culture. What if I marry a Cambodian woman? I did, by the way. And have kids who are half white and half Asian? Which we did. Now I’m really confused.

Ideas like cultural appropriation only work to divide rather than unite. Just like calling racism where there is none. Just like labelling privilege as negative and something to feel guilty about. Like using broad meaningless terms such as “systemic racism” or “white supremacy”.

frostIf we are going to combat things like racism, we can’t just use broad terms like “systemic racism”. Which systems are racist? Who, in those systems, are making them racist?

Protestors often don’t have the answers to those questions. They just know that racism is everywhere, and it has to be stopped, and it is the result of white privilege. But when asked where specifically the racism is, they don’t know.

When I saw this picture, posted by Christian author Michael Frost on Facebook, someone in the comments posted a picture of the KKK in a church with a banner saying, “Jesus Saves,” in the background. So, a decades old photo of white racists is an example of systemic racism today? Can we have a more recent example? I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, but you can’t fight your enemy if you don’t know where he is.

I sincerely hope that the leftist, Marxist ideology which is corrupting much of western culture today doesn’t find a home in the mission field. We are above racial distinctions out here. Our racial differences are merely a background reality – it’s not a forefront issue. Don’t make it one. We work together, missionaries and locals, to build the kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven.

My article here is far from perfect, and as I think about the issue more, I’ll probably add more. For now I’ll just publish it as it is (no one reads this blog anyway).

August 27, 2016 ~ A Brief Addition…

Something else came to mind that I wanted to add.

I think it is apparent to all now that the center of Christianity is shifting away from the west and toward the south and the east. If you need statistical evidence of that you can read Philip Jenkins’ work The Next Christendom. Here’s a quote from the first couple of pages of that book:

We are currently living through one of the transforming moments in the history of religion worldwide. Over the last five centuries, the story of Christianity has been extricably bound up with that of Europe and Europe-derived civilizations overseas, above all in North America. Until recently, the overwhelming majority of Christians have lived in white nations, allowing some thinkers to speak of ‘European Christian’ civilization…

Over the last century, however, the center of gravity in the Christian world has shifted inexorably southward, to Africa and Latin America. Today, the largest Christian communities on the planet are to be found in those regions. If we want visualize a ‘typical’ contemporary Christian, we should think of a woman living in a village in Nigeria, or in a Brazilian favela. In parts of Asia too, churches are growing rapidly, in numbers and self-confidence. As Kenyan scholar John Mbiti has observed, ‘the centers of the church’s universality [are] no longer in Geneva, Rome, Athens, Paris, London, New York, but Kinshasa, Buenos Aires, Addis Ababa, and Manila.’ Whatever Europeans or North Americans may believe, Christianity is doing very well indeed in the global south — not just surviving but expanding.

This doesn’t mean that western Christianity is doomed to destruction; perhaps we’ll see a revival sooner than we think. But, I believe it’s safe to say that Christianity will grow much more in the south and east before it makes a comeback in the west.

Perhaps in the future, Asian missionaries will travel to the west and do the very same things western missionaries do today, but better. They will have matured in the Christian faith far beyond where we’re at today and they will be greater teachers as a result.

Deceptive Simplicity

equity-vs-equality

Sometimes we can use simple illustrations to explain more complex ideas. That is fine if the illustration is in fact used to explain the more complex idea. Often that’s not what happens – often we’re just shown the illustration, and because it’s simple, we think we understand the more complex situation automatically.

Take the picture above: On the left, they all have a box, but still the short guy can’t see. So, on the right, the tall guy gives him his box and all is well. That’s justice, see? Simple.

Well, if I were at a game watching over the fence and some guy needed my box to stand on, and I didn’t need it myself, of course I would give mine to him – I’m not a complete jerk. But of course, a baseball game is not what’s really the issue here. We’re talking about wealth, poverty, and social politics – much more complex issues.

How can we translate the simple illustration to the real complex problem?

We ask what each item in the illustration represents.

What do the boxes represent? Money? Power? Knowledge? All three? Something else? Why are there only three boxes? They can’t get more? Why do they all start off with one box each? Why is one guy taller than the other? Do these guys always stay the same height over the course of their lives? How is time illustrated in this picture, if at all?

What does the fence represent? Why is it the height it is? Is it shorter in other places where the short guy could see over with only one box? Why are all three guys standing right next to each other? In the real world, does the tall guy even know the short guy exists? Could the tall guy simple pass his box over to the short guy without someone else getting involved? What if the tall guy doesn’t want to give up his box? What if he’s going to need it to look over a taller section of fence further down?

What does the baseball game represent? Happiness? A house, car, and a flatscreen TV? Or just basic living needs? Who determines what poverty is? What’s being compared to what? Is the standard of living the same for all three guys? Is it essential to watch the game at all? Why don’t they buy tickets and watch inside?

These are just starter questions. As they’re answered more questions will come.

So, try answering all these questions and you’ll see that the situation is much more complicated than what the picture suggests.

Here’s a couple of other versions of the picture I found online…

frabz-16fc88

Ha! Okay, evil conservatives are the problem.

Equalisty-versus-equity-588x330

Chain link fences! Of course!

 

Blue

movie-logo

Blue (Blue Beats Green) Movie

For anyone interested in listening to a different perspective on the environmental issues we face today, watch the film.

 

  • Update December 11, 2015…

I guess no one was interested in listening to a different perspective.

blue shutdown

But, you can still watch it on Vimeo…

Men of Words

tb 001“The men of words are of diverse types. They can be priests, scribes, prophets, writers, artists, professors, students and intellectuals in general… Whatever the type, there is a deep-seated craving common to almost all men of words which determines their attitude to prevailing order. It is a craving for recognition; a craving for a clearly marked status above the common run of humanity.”

~Eric Hoffer

“Mass movements do not usually rise until the prevailing order has been discredited. The discrediting is not an automatic result of the blunders and abuses of those in power, but the deliberate work of men of words with a grievance. Where the articulate are absent or without a grievance, the prevailing dispensation, though incompetent and corrupt, may continue in power until it falls and crumbles of itself.” (“The True Believer”, by Eric Hoffer, HarperCollins Publishing, New York, pg. 130)

Here Hoffer is describing the climate of a society before a mass movement begins, but I think we can also apply this statement to a mass movement that has passed its “dynamic stage” but the original fanatical leadership has not yet stepped down, and is in fact doing damage to the movement. The men of words can rise up again at this stage in the movement, inspiring the masses to change the leadership to a practical man of action.

“The preliminary work of undermining existing institutions, of familiarizing the masses with the idea of change, and of creating receptivity to a new faith, can be done only by men who are, first and foremost, talkers or writers and are recognized as such by all. As long as the existing order functions in a more or less orderly fashion, the masses remain basically conservative. They can think of reform but not of total innovation. The fanatical extremist, no matter how eloquent, strikes them as dangerous, traitorous, or even insane. They will not listen to him…

“Things are different in the case of the typical man of words. The masses listen to him because they know that his words, however urgent, cannot have immediate results. The authorities either ignore him or use mild methods to muzzle him. Thus imperceptibly the man of words undermines established institutions, discredits those in power, weakens prevailing beliefs and loyalties, and sets the stage for the rise of a mass movement.” (pp. 130-131)

Again, even after the movement has begun and has been running for several years, the men of words can do the same thing to the established authority of whomever started the movement. As shown in my last article about Hoffer’s book, the most important people to the leadership of a mass movement are the lieutenants. It is these lieutenants that can and should be swayed by the man of words if one wants to see a change in leadership.

What is a man of words like?

“There is apparently an irremediable insecurity at the core of every intellectual (man of words), be he noncreative or creative. Even the most gifted and prolific seem to live a  life of eternal self-doubting and have to prove their worth anew each day.

“‘…he has much more vanity than ambition; and he prefers consideration to obedience, and the appearance of power to power itself. Consult him constantly, and then do just as you please. He will take more notice of your deference to him than of your actions.’ (Hoffer quotes Alexis de Tocqueville, Recollections [New York: Macmillan Company, 1896], pg. 331.)” (pp. 132-133)

The man of words is fickle, pledging loyalty to whomever will give him an ear.

“However much the protesting man of words sees himself as the champion of the downtrodden and injured, the grievance which animates him is, with very few exceptions, private and personal. His pity is usually hatched out of his hatred for the powers that be.” However, “When his superior status is suitably acknowledged by those in power, the man of words usually finds all kinds of lofty reasons for siding with the strong against the weak.” (pp. 133-134)

“It is easy to see how the faultfinding man of words, by persistent ridicule and denunciation, shakes prevailing beliefs and loyalties, and familiarizes the masses with the idea of change. What is not so obvious is the process by which the discrediting of existing beliefs and institutions makes possible the rise of a new fanatic faith.

“The genuine man of words himself can get along without faith in absolutes. He values the search for truth as much as truth itself. He delights in the clash of thought and in the give-and-take of controversy.” (pp. 139-140)

But, the future that the man of words hopes for, a society of free thinking people, is usually not what comes. Rather, what is created is a “corporate society that cherishes utmost unity and blind faith.” (pg. 139)

“The tragic figures in the history of a mass movement are often the intellectual precursors (the men of words) who live long enough to see the downfall of the old order by the action of the masses.” (pg. 141)

A Conflict of Visions (Book Overview)

a_conflict_of_visions

“A Conflict of Visions” was written by economist/philosopher Thomas Sowell.

Here is the description from Amazon:

In this classic work, Thomas Sowell analyzes the two competing visions that shape our debates about the nature of reason, justice, equality, and power: the “constrained” vision, which sees human nature as unchanging and selfish, and the “unconstrained” vision, in which human nature is malleable and perfectible. He describes how these two radically opposed views have manifested themselves in the political controversies of the past two centuries, including such contemporary issues as welfare reform, social justice, and crime.

Here are some of my notes on the book:

Part I ~ Patterns

  • Our visions shape our theories — visions can not be tested, they are presuppositional, and they tend to be simple.
  • Our theories can be tested by facts. Facts can not prove theories, but facts do cause us to disregard bad theories.

The Constrained Vision

  • There are realities about this world that can not be changed. Therefore, rather than wasting time and effort trying to change them, one needs to learn to work within them.
  • One needs to learn to make the most of the possibilities available within the constraints of reality.
  • The constrained vision deals in trade-offs — choosing the better option and accepting that there are no ideal options.
  • When there are people suffering in this world through poverty, war, etc., some would want you to continuously feel bad (or guilty) for those who are suffering — your guilt = their suffering. Thus you will be motivated to help them. The constrained vision says that it is useless for you to continuously “feel” their suffering (and it is unnatural as well) — better to embrace your natural inclination for self-improvement.
  • Facts = Reality
  • Virtue = the best possible trade-off/prudence
  • Your desire for self-improvement forces you to work with and for the benefit of others. Thus, as people work to improve their own lives, they end up working to improve the lives of others — the world becomes better for all people. This improvement is unintentional, but it does happen, and it happens without a human power to plan it.
  • The leaders need to be educated “down to” the level of the masses.
  • Self-interest is a better motivator than guilt and it has better results for the suffering too.
  • People’s selfish desire for self-improvement motivates them to get the job done — this is better than depending a person’s disposition for their motivation.
  • “Do right because it is in your best interest” rather than “Do right because you know it’s the right thing to do.”

The Unconstrained Vision

  • We can change the world for the better.
  • We can change human nature if only: The right people were in charge; The right institutions were created; People were educated properly; etc…
  • Whereas the Constrained Vision says that bad institutions are a result of flawed humanity, the Unconstrained Vision says that bad institutions are the cause of flawed humanity.
  • We can feel other people’s needs as well as our own (if not better).
  • Self-interest is the negative result of bad institutions.
  • There are individuals who are intelligent enough to know how to fix all our problems, and these individuals should be given the power to do so, even if it causes suffering and limited freedom for the masses.
  • The masses need to be educated “up to” the level of the leaders.
  • Idealism = Reality
  • Virtue = Final solutions to problems
  • An institution’s intentional benefits to society are the greatest virtue. Unintentional benefits to society are not acknowledged. We can always know what is good/bad for society and why that is so, and plan accordingly.

Note: The way in which Sowell uses the word vision, the word world-view could be used as well.

Note: Constrained Vision does not necessarily equal Conservative while Unconstrained Vision equals Liberal (although that seems to be the norm). One can be a Constrained Conservative or an Unconstrained. For example: a Constrained Conservative would not want to send troops into Iraq as the cost of human life and military resources would be too great for an unpredictable outcome, whereas an Unconstrained Conservative would want to send in troops believing that they could create a successful democracy in Iraq. Or, a Constrained Liberal, although wanting a large government, wants governmental power to be spread out through several government departments, whereas an Unconstrained Liberal wants an “all-knowing” leader to have sovereign control over the decisions affecting society.

Note: Nobody holds 100% to one vision and 0% to the other. There are various degrees between of course. Sowell himself clearly holds to the Constrained Vision.

Knowledge ~ The Constrained Vision

  • No one person, or small group of individuals, knows enough to make good decisions for society (or even for himself).
  • The collective knowledge of the culture and its history is best for making decisions.
  • Even if we don’t know why what is best is best, we can trust the experience of history and can still benefit.
  • We should be slow to criticize the cultural norms of our society as these norms are built on the experience of millions of people both in the past and in the present.
  • Defects in society are not in themselves reason for radical change — rational small adjustments over time will give us the best possible options for the future.

Knowledge ~ The Unconstrained Vision

  • Nothing is sacred just because its old.
  • Wisdom of the ages = ignorance of today
  • Old = untrustworthy
  • Reason and meditation is better than partially explained (or unexplained) historical collective wisdom.
  • People who hold to old traditional views need to be enlightened before any progress can be made in society.
  • If history’s collective wisdom is represented by a-x (x being today’s constrained generation; y being today’s unconstrained generation), x is ignorant because a-w is obsolete and irrelevant now.
  • Whereas with the Constrained Vision a-w is so ingrained into our minds we can’t always explain the wisdom or benefits of it, the Unconstrained Vision only considers y as having the proper knowledge to advance society.
  • y is the wisdom in the hands of a select few who must then lead society.

Knowledge ~ Reason and Rationality

  • There are two “kinds” of reason: A) cause and effect; scientific method — B) to justify one’s actions.
  • In the Constrained Vision A and B are far apart, whereas in the Unconstrained Vision, A and B are closer together.
  • Constrained Vision: We don’t always know why things are the way they are.
  • Unconstrained Vision: We know why things are the way they are and we should be able to specify those reasons.
  • Religion: God is unconstrained while humans are constrained.
  • Law: With the Constrained Vision laws are something passed down to us by previous generations, and with the Unconstrained Vision laws are seen as something to be invented afresh today.
  • Sowell quotes Hayek: “The most dangerous state in the growth of civilization may well be that in which man has come to regard all these (old) beliefs as superstitions and refuses to accept or to submit to anything which he does not rationally understand. The rationalist whose reason is not sufficient to teach him those limitations of the power of conscious reason, and who despises all the institutions and customs which have not been consciously designed, would thus become the destroyer of the civilization built upon them.” (F.A. Hayek, The Counter Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuses of Reason [Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1979], pp. 162-163.)

Knowledge ~ Social Policy

  • The Unconstrained Vision wishes to see more economic and social equality among the masses — even if the decision making process to produce that equality is itself unequal –> equality imposed by an unequal power structure.
  • The Constrained Vision is not so much concerned with societal inequality as it is with inequality in the power structure.
  • In regards to social planning, with the Constrained Vision, each individual sticks to what he is specialized in and allows the systemic process to determine social outcomes. When each person does his/her part (fulfills his/her role) the systemic process functions normally. If you’re a physicist, stick to physics. If you’re a carpenter, stick to carpentry. You will only corrupt the system if you get involved in areas in which you have no knowledge or experience.
  • In regards to social planning with the Unconstrained Vision, each person needs to act in ways which they feel will promote equality in all of society. If you’re a business owner, hire people who you feel are at a disadvantage. If you’re a teacher, bring up social issues in your class which you feel the students should be aware of, such as gender equality.
  • The Constrained Vision sees individuals, for example businessmen, as being unqualified to make decisions for the greater society. The businessman can best serve society by doing what he knows how to do for his own self-interest — the benefits to society will come through the systemic process. If he tries to “fix” society intentionally, he will only do damage.

Knowledge ~ Sincerity Vs. Fidelity

  • Sincerity is imperative in the Unconstrained Vision. Each individual must be sincere and sincerity = being right.
  • With the Constrained Vision, sincerity = believing what you’re doing is right. But you may not be right. (Hitler was very sincere.) With the Constrained Vision, fidelity is a virtue –> faithful commitment to one’s role in life within the sphere of one’s competence. Sincerity is not that important.
  • For example: A constrained judge is loyal to the existing law; an unconstrained judge sincerely wants to change the law for the “greater good”.
  • Because sincerity is held at such a high regard in the Unconstrained Vision, the sincerity of one who holds to the Constrained Vision is looked on suspiciously — “What are his real motives?” Whereas those who hold to the Constrained Vision are much less concerned with sincerity as the societal system is so complex that even the most sincere person can still be mistaken.
  • “The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.” (Joseph A. Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis [New York: Oxford University Press, 1954], pg. 96).

Knowledge ~ Youth and Age

  • Constrained: Wisdom is of the older. Prudence is of the wise.
  • Unconstrained: Youth are unstained by the past prejudices and therefore are more capable of embracing new and better ideas.

Social Processes

  • Order and design –> some processes are more ordered than others –> Like a wild growing of vegetation versus a planned garden.

Social Processes ~ The Constrained Vision

  • There is no designer, but yet the processes work.
  • Like language — A language can be created, but a created language will be no where near the complexity of an evolved language.
  • Dictionaries of “true” languages are written after the language has developed. While dictionaries of made-up languages are written before.
  • Language does change over time, but this is not done quickly or under the design of a “master planner”.
  • Individuals plan for themselves, but no authority plans for the masses.
  • Social processes, then, evolve on their own over time as millions of individuals make decisions throughout their lives and throughout  the generations.

Social Processes ~ The Unconstrained Vision

  • We can design, like an engineer, social processes which will work.
  • One starts engineering the social processes by figuring out society’s needs, then one assembles all the relative facts, and then solutions can be found and planned for.
  • We can predict the outcome of our plans like in science.
  • Properly educated people can/must make these plans.

Social Processes ~ Time

  • With the Unconstrained Vision, the social decisions (concerning liberty, government, law, etc.) of the past generations limit the benefits of the present and the future, therefore flexibility is most desired in the ability to change past commitments as new information becomes available. Each current social decision to be made must be approached as if for the first time. Past decisions/commitments for the same issue need not be considered as the information they had in the past was less than what exists today.
  • The Constrained Vision asks these questions: Just how much more information (knowledge, rationality) do we really have now than before? What is the cost to society when making “moment to moment” decisions?
  • Where the belief is held that knowledge increases greatly over time, people tend to want to change things more quickly. In contrast, where the belief is held that knowledge increases slowly over time (or not at all in regards to rationality or wisdom — a growth in scientific or technological knowledge does not mean a society is growing wiser) the people tend to resist change and stay committed to past decisions.
  • Elsewhere, Sowell give these three questions to ask when about to make a change: Compared to what? At what cost? What is your hard evidence? He says that most liberal arguments are dispelled by these three questions.
  • Constrained Vision: Society runs better when there are rules applied to everyone, which everyone knows, and were decided on over time.
  • Unconstrained Vision: Rules are decided upon as relative issues come up based on their merit right now.
  • Constrained Vision: Right or wrong/for better or for worse, I am a citizen of my country first.
  • Unconstrained Vision: I am a citizen of the world first, country second.
  • Constrained Vision: A nation evolves slowly over time — to take it apart destroys it — it can not be put back together again in a different way.
  • Unconstrained Vision: We can build a nation how we want — take apart the building blocks — and put them together another way.
  • From the book: With the Constrained Vision, “…the incremental gain in individual knowledge by avoiding commitments is trivial, compared to the accumulated experience of the society.” (pg. 82)

** I’m not going to finish overviewing this book. It’s too much. Just buy it and read it yourself.**

***