Radical Sanctification and Resisting White Supremacy

This article is from a forthcoming series in the Moody Center magazine. To learn more about the magazine and Moody Center, subscribe to their newsletter.

We fight the power of sin by the power of the Holy Spirit. This simple and uncontroversial claim at the heart of the Christian doctrine of sanctification contains radical power, since the Spirit also accomplishes the most radical human transformation—from death to life. Furthermore, scripture’s commands to walk by the Spirit imply that the Christian is to live a life marked by this radical transformation. It is in this demand—of radical transformation—that this simple claim finds its complexity, its challenge, and its resistance even among the most pious.

This article makes another deceptively simple claim—white supremacy is sin. This claim is, like the first, apparently uncontroversial. Most Christians would not hesitate to affirm it. However, many Christians would be hard pressed to accurately define white supremacy, locate its historical or present manifestations, or trace its effects in their own lives. Worse yet, some have so limited the scope of the problem of white supremacy that it is hardly discernible after the U.S. Civil Rights Movement apart from the most explicit instances. Under such conditions, the claim that white supremacy is sin becomes an almost meaningless platitude, a theological answer in search of a question. 

If the above premises are true--that we fight sin by the power of the Holy Spirit and that white supremacy is sin--then white supremacy should be radically resisted in the lives of Christians by the power of the Holy Spirit. But precisely how do we fight sin by the Spirit’s power? What does it mean to call white supremacy sin? And what might it look like to radically resist white supremacy in our lives? Before attempting to address these important questions, however, it is necessary to define what I mean by white supremacy.[1] This article understands white supremacy to be a globally expressed racialized social system, within which those deemed “white” generally enjoy disproportionate material and social privileges in relation to those deemed “non-white.”[2] In what follows, I take this definition for granted and explore some of its features as they support my argument that white supremacy is sin and should be radically resisted by the power of the Holy Spirit.

How the Spirit Reveals Sin

Part of the Spirit’s power for fighting sin is the Spirit’s role in identifying it. The Spirit helps us to identify sin through at least three means: scripture, circumstance, and community. In scripture we find a standard of personal and social goodness in Christ and in the kingdom of God to which we have never lived up. We also find various examples of social and individual evil by which we can evaluate our own shortcomings. For example, when the epistle writer says “you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court?” (James 2:6, NASB), we should ask ourselves critical questions about how sin has infected our understanding of wealth, poverty, and the ways our decisions serve to dishonor the poor and elevate the rich.

The Spirit also reveals sin through circumstance or, in other words, through history. If, as we saw above, the Spirit reveals the sins of partiality and oppression of the poor through scripture, historical circumstance teaches us that wealth, poverty, and oppression of the poor exist today along explicitly racial lines.[3] Colonialism, slavery, apartheid, and imperialism were and are racial projects as much as they are economic ones. Globally, many of the countries considered “third world” (or worse) are filled with people deemed “non-white” by the Anglo empires who have exploited them and their resources for centuries. Therefore, one of the features of this racialized social system which the Spirit reveals to us as sin is the historical reality that it was accomplished and is maintained through exploitation, through the oppression of the poor.

The Spirit also reveals sin through community. In scripture it was most often the voice of the prophets urging God’s people toward repentance for sin. In our own day, the Black Church has long provided a prophetic voice in opposition to the sins of white supremacist society. Take for example, Frederick Douglass’s recognition of the incompatibility of slaveholding piety with the Christianity of Christ, James Cone’s reflections on the practice of lynching and the lynching of Jesus, or Kelly Brown Douglas’s call to action regarding the racialized implications of “stand your ground” laws.[4] Regrettably, these and many other cries of oppressed humanity have been largely ignored under the spell of white supremacy. Instead of graciously receiving correction and repenting of sin, many Christians have grieved the Spirit by dismissing the cries of the oppressed as exaggerated or untrue. In this way, white supremacy has silently flourished in the hearts, minds, and hands of countless Christians.

The Kinds of Sin the Spirit Reveals

If we have spent any amount of effort resisting sin in our lives we know that there are levels to this. On the surface, there are behaviors which we should discontinue. On another level there are impulses and motivations underlying our behaviors which also need to be interrogated and transformed by the renewing of our minds. Jesus communicated this truth in his sermon on the mount when he raised the standard for holy living from the level of action to the level of the impulses and motivations of the heart (Matt. 5:21—48). We can say, then, that the Spirit reveals both overt and covert sins—the outward expressions of sin as well as the sins working quietly below the surface.

This dynamic is also true of white supremacy. Many today only discern white supremacy in examples like the murder of the Emanuel Nine or the El Paso mass shooting when the assailants explicitly claim white supremacy as their motivating ideology. But these incidents, along with other explicitly racist activity in our society are examples of the white supremacist sin that sits overtly on the surface. In addition to these, the Spirit is revealing the deeper, covert layers of white supremacist sin. As one example, while the apartheid Jim Crow policies of the last century enforced de jure segregation in the U.S., the post-Civil Rights era has seen de facto racial segregation across the country. Some have noted how “current residential segregation has roots going back at least to the Great Depression” through means such as federal redlining practices, restrictive covenants enforced by neighborhood associations and realtors, and even mob violence.[5] When we consider the fact that where one lives in our society determines the quality of education, medical care, and daily nourishment one will receive, the racial configuration of our neighborhoods takes on a more sinister character. Furthermore, where one lives determines the kind of police surveillance one will experience on a daily basis and one’s criminal history (over)determines one’s economic and social prospects.[6] In this way, racial segregation has far-reaching effects which disproportionately harm those deemed “non-white” in our society. The insidious nature of white supremacist sin takes this reality a step further by attempting to justify this situation by ceaselessly blaming “non-white” communities for their own disenfranchisement. In this example (and through many others) we can see how the realities of covert white supremacist sin may lurk just beneath the surface of our actions. However, through the voices of the oppressed and through the work of pastors, theologians, historians, philosophers, and many others, the Spirit is revealing just how prevalent the insidious sins of white supremacy are in our world.

The Spirit and Radical Transformation

So, how does the Spirit call us to address the sins of white supremacy in our lives? The same way we are called to address all sin—through radical transformation, even daily death. The Spirit enables us to plumb the depths of our actions, impulses and motivations, even the ones that are infected with the insidious evil of white supremacy, and to walk in newness of life and liberation. Concretely, this means that we must (1) rely on the Spirit to reveal white supremacy in our lives through scripture, circumstance, and community, we must (2) rely on the Spirit to show us not only our overt sins but to dig deeper to find the covert workings of white supremacy in our own lives and communities, and we must (3) rely on the Spirit’s help to radically root out the sins of white supremacy from our lives by dying to ourselves daily and living into the new life that the Spirit makes possible.

About Michael Yorke

Michael Yorke completed a bachelor's degree in Urban Ministry from Moody Bible Institute and a master's degree in Historical Theology from Wheaton College Graduate School. He is currently enrolled in the Master of Theological Studies program at Emory University's Candler School of Theology. He is interested in race, pneumatology, and theologies of liberation. In his (hypothetical) free time, Michael is either working on a new playlist, watching a movie, or trying to remember how to play basketball. He is married to Chelsea and their first child, Jay, was born in December.

---

Further Reading

Lopez, Ian Haney. “The Social Construction of Race: Some Observations on Illusion, Fabrication, and Choice.”

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. Racism Without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America.

Jennings, Willie James. The Christian Imagination: Theology and the Origins of Race.

Thurman, Howard. Jesus and the Disinherited.

Raboteau, Albert J. A Fire in the Bones: Reflections on African-American Religious History

Comblin, José. The Holy Spirit and Liberation.

Zahl, Simeon. The Holy Spirit and Christian Experience

---

Footnotes

[1] It is important to note also that white supremacy does not exist in a historical vacuum; a long history of social, political, and theological factors have resulted in its current configurations. For more on this, see the recommended reading list at the end of this article.

[2] My definition here relies heavily on Eduardo Bonilla-Silva’s Racism Without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America. Bonilla-Silva writes: “When race emerged in human history, it formed a social structure ( a racialized social system) that awarded systemic privileges to Europeans (the peoples who became ‘white’) over non-Europeans (the peoples who became ‘non-white’). Racialized social systems, or white supremacy for short, became global and affected all societies where Europeans extended their reach. I therefore conceive a society’s racial structure as the totality of the social relations and practices that reinforce white privilege.”

[3] This is likely to be the most contested premise of this article; however, this claim cannot be sufficiently defended in the space allotted here. See the following resources for evidence supporting this claim: Mehrsa Baradaran’s The Color of Money: Black Banks and the Racial Wealth Gap (2017); Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (2010); Imani Perry’s More Beautiful and More Terrible: The Embrace and Transcendence of Race in America (2011); Eddie S. Glaude Jr.’s Democracy in Black: How Race Still Enslaves the American Soul (2016); Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor’s Race for Profit: How Banks and the Real Estate Industry Undermined Black Homeownership (2019)

[4] See Frederick Douglass’s Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: An American Slave; James Cone’s The Cross and the Lynching Tree; and Kelly Brown Douglass’s Stand Your Ground: Black Bodies and the Justice of God.

[5] See Jemar Tisby’s The Color of Compromise: The Truth about the American Church’s Complicity in Racism.

[6] See Dominique DuBois Gilliard’s Rethinking Incarceration: Advocating for Justice that Restores

---

Articles like this one are made possible by the support of readers like you. Donate today and help us continue to produce resources for the mestizo church.

God's More

This article is from the forthcoming Moody Center magazine, set to publish spring 2022. To learn more about the magazine and Moody Center, subscribe to their newsletter.

One side of my family originates from the Philippines. The other side originates from the rugged desert regions of the Southwest, the borderlands. Water buffalo, rice terraces staggered across hills, the dialects of Cebuano and Tagalog, jungle foliage, and the city of Manila, once the Spanish empire’s trading capital of Asia; the arid droughts of Texas, the linguistic conflict of Spanish and English, living between and across a not-yet militarized border, and a midday sun ascending into the Southwest skies – these are the worlds my family came from, the worlds they carry in their bodies, and the worlds that touch upon my own. But they are different from my world. I am familiar with Chicagoland: freshly mown lawn, quick and slang-filled English, single-family homes, coffee shops, super stores, the aroma of asphalt on summer days, and neighborhoods largely segregated by race and class.

I inhabit what literary theorist Homi Bhabha describes as a “hybrid” space, a metaphor meant to signify how the history of European colonial expansion and an increasingly interconnected global economy have brought once separate worlds into proximity. In my family, the trading routes of merchant marines brought my father to the docks of Texas, where he then took a flight to Chicago in search of work. There, he met my mother, whose family moved from Texas to Missouri and finally to Illinois for farm work. Their marriage gave birth to not only me and my brothers, but to a hybridity in our family life: waking up to my mother and grandmother speaking Spanish but being unable to understand them, eating eggs and chorizo for breakfast, eating chicken adobo for dinner, hearing my parents argue over whether home was in the Philippines or home was here in Chicagoland, and living within largely white suburban communities that were indifferent or hostile to the hybridity in their midst.

Being raised in the church, I have tried to take seriously that God — who journeyed with Israel and is revealed in Jesus of Nazareth — is somehow present in everyday life. So, I have always wondered: How is God present within my “hybrid” life? Who is the God that abides in the presence of multiple communities as they struggle to survive and live amidst this hybrid context?

Biblically speaking, there is good reason to think about God’s relationship to those who are living in hybrid situations as my own. In the Hebrew Scriptures, Exodus specifically, the biblical text tells us that a “mixed crowd” journeyed alongside the Israelite community after God’s Passover and Israel’s liberation from the violence of Pharaoh. The Hebrew Bible scholar Terrence Fretheim suggests that this passage on the mixed crowd implies two things: (i) that Israel herself is mixed, “consisting of more than the descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob”; and (ii) that God’s liberation of Israel had a kind of burgeoning effect. As Fretheim writes, “the benefits of freedom have a fallout effect on all those whom [Israel] comes in contact, whether they are people of faith or not.”[1] Exodus, then, tells us that God looked directly upon the nightmare of oppression experienced not only by the Israelites, but non-Israelites as well. Seeing this nightmare, God acted for their salvation, and in one sweeping act created a new community of a liberated mixed crowd.

In the New Testament, Jesus acted in consonance with God’s liberation of the mixed crowd in Exodus. In other words, his ministry was also hybrid oriented, in the sense that Jesus’s mission to the Israelites flowed into and upon the lives of non-Israelites. This is seen in Jesus’s conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well, in his celebration of the Syrophoenician woman’s faith while dining, and in his healing of gentiles such as the Roman centurion’s son. Such actions are part of what Willie Jenning’s describes as Jesus’s “reorientation” of Israel’s “kinship network” to include non-Israelites.[2] By acting for the well-being of not just Israel, but non-Israelites as well, God opens up a fellowship between Jewish and non-Jewish peoples. This expansive kinship of Jesus is on display during Pentecost, when God’s Spirit fell upon Jesus’s disciples and enabled them to speak in the languages of other peoples. Describing this Pentecostal beginning, Jennings says that “the Spirit creates joining” through immersing the disciples in the “mother tongues” of others. And by being immersed in the language of others, the disciples take on a Spirit-filled hybridity. As Jennings suggests, they are joined to the “voice, memory, sound, body, land, and place” of others.[3] Whoever the disciples are called to be, they must now consider their faith in relationship to the cultures, languages, and histories in which they were baptized.

These brief scriptural meditations suggest that God works in the material realities of multiple peoples. So, what could this mean today that God is acting among and for the salvation and liberation of multiple peoples? I want to answer this question by turning to my family history.

My family’s migration to Chicago is connected to a painful history of US colonization. Fifteen years after the end of US colonization of the Philippines, my father was born. Economic instability from World War II, the murder of his father for petty cash, and after working some time as a merchant marine, he decided to settle stateside.[4] Growing up, my father described this resettlement as a kind of choice, the will of the individual to secure the American dream. Really, the truth is more complicated. He settled mostly because a history of colonization, war, occupation, and consequently impoverished social conditions unsettled him. My mother’s story is one of more stability, but nonetheless contains the roots of an imperially induced migratory epic. From what I’ve been able to discern between her and my grandmother, my grandparents were migrant farmers who managed to secure farming land in rural northwest Illinois. From there, they raised their children, spoke Spanish and English, and worked regularly with seasonal migrant farmers and white farm owners. How they managed to secure this land while other migrant workers continued to travel for low- paying labor could be the result of their handle of the English language, English being an access point to dominant White communities and the language they encouraged their children to learn. I am not sure. At root my parents are what journalist Juan Gonzalez describes as the “harvest of empire.”[5] They were farmers within an imperial regime whose political ambitions stretched across the Pacific and US Midwest, the result being my family’s victim to colonial domination, their struggle over their heritages, the loss of languages among my brothers and I, and continual wreckoning with what it means to be mixed.

But within this history of US empire as it touches immediately upon my family, one confronts the relevance of the good news in the Hebrew Scriptures and the Gospel. God is not indifferent to today’s regimes of violence that continue to oppress many peoples. This God was active in the liberation of a mixed crowd in Egypt, was active in the creation of a mixed crowd speaking the languages of many peoples during Pentecost, and this same God is active today in those communities who are joined together by the wide grip of the empire. In the hybrid space of my family, this God sustained my father, who farmed on land his family did not own; this God sustained my mother, a little girl who was encouraged to speak English over her Spanish.[6] The presence of a God who liberates a mixed crowd is a divine affirmation of the cultural hybridity of my family and a prophet denouncement of all claims of political, economic, and cultural domination.

About Colton Bernasol

Colton is from Plainfield Illinois, a Southwest suburb in the Chicagoland area. He is a graduate from Wheaton College with a bachelor’s degree in Philosophy and Biblical and Theological studies. Currently, he is a student at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary where he is pursuing a Masters in Theological Studies with a concentration in Theology and Ethics. He is interested in questions at the intersection of theology, race, and colonialism.

---

Further Reading

Homi Bhabha, The Locations of Culture.

Mariana Ortega, In-Between: Latina Feminist Phenomenology, Multiplicity, and the Self

Willie Jennings, The Christian Imagination: Theologies and the Origins of Race.

Willie Jennings, Acts.

Brian Bantum, Redeeming Mulatto.

Jon Sobrino, Jesus the Liberator.

footnotes

[1] Terrance Fretheim, Exodus, 143.

[2] Willie Jennings, The Christian Imagination: Theology and the Origins of Race, 265.

[3] Jennings, Acts, 28-29.

[4] Erika Lee, The Making of Asian America, 175.

[5] Juan Gonzalez, Harvest of Empire: A History of Latinos in America. Kindle Addition.

[6] Jon Sobrino, Jesus the Liberator, 84.

---

Articles like this one are made possible by the support of readers like you. Donate today and help us continue to produce resources for the mestizo church.

Reclaiming Spiritual Formation for the Mestiza Body

This article is from the forthcoming Moody Center magazine, set to publish spring 2022. To learn more about the magazine and Moody Center, subscribe to their newsletter.

Whether we realize it or not, we all exist at the intersections of differing realities. For me, I exist as a Second-generation American-Filipinx, heteronormative female, and this is hardly an exhaustive picture of who I am and what constitutes who I am becoming. All the elements of who I am, come together in my body in a way that reminds me that I straddle various realities always at once. I am Mestiza. The same is true of several bodies today. With the rise of globalization, the internet, and other sweeping factors that are beyond any singular person’s control, we all find ourselves straddling the lines of various realities, a world of mestizaje, not by race or by blood, but by history and by experience. Many of us hold this mestizaje in our bodies, and while mestizaje by blood might manifest itself by the mixed color of skin, that which we inherit by history and experience is far more subtle, but nonetheless significant.

As a Filipina woman growing up in America, I was made ignorant to my people’s subjugation first by the Spanish and then by the US. Especially since the history I was learning was disseminated by our conquerors. However, even despite such ignorance, there still existed in my body a trauma for which I could not account. I moved about my space as though it didn’t belong to me, and no affirmation of inclusion could quell the voice that whispered: “You don’t belong.” It wasn’t just the lack of brown faces in the crowd that taught me this, nor was it solely the micro-aggressions I suffered at the hands of well-intended people—although these did not help. No, that voice came from something deeper; something like my very DNA (the stuff that made me me) seemed to communicate this. My body didn’t fit the world it was born into, or at least the world it was born into did not make space to fit my body.

As it turns out, trauma can be passed down from generation to generation. Recent psychological advancements have found that trauma can intricately affect the DNA of future generations. Thus, the particulars of my mestizaje brings with it not just difficulties in the present, but traumas of the past as well. As an Asian American woman, I am affected by the centuries of sexualizing the “exoticized” Asian female body. As a Filipina, I am impacted by the lifetimes of colonization. The older I get, the more I believe the historic trauma of subjugation, violent misogyny and racism affect my very body. They accumulate and bear what at times feels like actual weight on my body. I feel it in my shoulders. It is hard to form a person spiritually, when the body feels burdened physically. I was in need of a spiritual formation that involved and included my body.

For this reason, as a member of the church, I often find myself asking: What does spiritual formation look like when it includes my body? This question is now a key lens for how I listen to a sermon, take spiritual direction, and participate in church community. I would argue that this was a key lens for me, even before I could articulate it. Whether we realize it or not, since we are products of a violent history, we will eventually seek out a spiritual formation that heals all of who we are.

Being that we are mestizas in our own respective ways, a good question to ask is what does it look like to involve the reality of our mestizaje in our ministries? Most assume spiritual formation is an individual’s concern, and they treat it as a task of personal work that must be done by each Christian. However, I would caution the minister from absolving herself from responsibility for the spiritual formation of her community. In my personal experience, I would not know to look into my communities shared traumatic history, had it not been for visiting preachers of various backgrounds, considering book recommendations from mentors, and penetrating questions from my friends. My spiritual formation was and is complemented by thoughtful ministers.

In this way, I implore ministers to be aware of the possibility of their role in a mestiza’s spiritual formation, and in the same meticulous way she brings thought to her exegesis and hermeneutics, space can be made to explore the wide range of spirituality and spiritual teaching that exists in the greater body of Christ. The church is in need of a communal consciousness that recognizes its reality as a mixed people. Who better to awaken this consciousness than the ministers who provide our spiritual guidance? For this reason, ministers must begin to engage deeply the diverse breath of scholarship and voices that exist on the topics of race, gender and diversity (to name a few). Engaging this diversity within a ministry might begin to spark the curiosity of her congregants and begin the important work of discovering the intersections of their reality.

Moreover, learning to ask the right questions also aids in holistic spiritual formation. How do we invite this sort of inquiry into our ministries? Where in your body do you hold trauma? Where do you hold pain? What parts of your given reality do you feel like the pain stems from? These are good questions to begin asking yourself, and as you become more acquainted with your own histories you will learn better the questions that help encounter fellow mestizas. We begin the work of learning what the right questions are by letting ourselves be self-critical, knowing that we have probably asked many of the wrong questions. The right questions begin in introspective humility.

These are simply starting points to reclaiming spiritual formation for the mestiza body, and it cannot end here. If it is true that we hold our given realities in our bodies, then it must be true that any spiritual formation must include the body. What does this look like in the church setting? If we are to be honest about who belongs in our church, then our pulpits and stage must reflect this. The body as it presents itself looks to what’s similar to follow and to belong. If there are congregants in your seats that cannot find anyone on the stage that even remotely resembles themselves or their journeys, they might be hard-pressed to feel like they belong. The voice that has followed me my whole life might haunt many of your congregants as well. Perhaps it is time to invite other voices and other faces to the pulpit to preach, to read scripture, and to share. Reclaiming spiritual formation for the mestizo Body must include the whole of the Church Body.

As you look to the ways of introducing the intersecting realities of your congregations and ministries, know that you are not alone. Your particular body cannot be all things to all people at all times. There are limitations that our bodies put on us. It is good, then, that our Body extends beyond our singular selves. It is thus a question not just of our own humility but also our spiritual agility. There is a whole cloud of witnesses, mestizo people, whom we can learn from and lean on and invite. There is no time like the present to begin this important work.

I still remember the first time I encountered a minister who looked like me. It was pivotal, not just because I could then perceive myself in ministry, but because I knew there was someone in ministry who might understand and see in some part my particular experience of mestizaje. For the first time my Filipina American body could rest in the belief that I belonged. This began a journey of spiritual formation that sought to grasp all of who I am as crucial to the Body of Christ. For this reason, I am convinced that the invitation of another and of someone different is how we begin to reclaim spiritual formation for the mestizo Body.

About Jelyn Leyva

A Second-generation Filipina born in Tampa, FL, Jelyn Leyva graduated Moody Bible Institute in Chicago on May 2017 with a Bachelor’s degree in Women in Ministry and an Interdisciplinary in Theology. She is currently in Los Angeles, CA pursuing an MDiv at Fuller Theological Seminary with her emphasis in Christian Ethics. Having lived in various places in the US, Jelyn’s interest lie in the complex history and multi-ethnic life of the Protestant Church in the US. Her hope is to serve this church and its many colors with the consideration of traditional and contemporary theological scholarship.

---

Articles like this one are made possible by the support of readers like you. Donate today and help us continue to produce resources for the mestizo church.

White Jesus and Brown Mouths: A Colonized Communion

This Spring we are featuring three pieces by student writers who are engaging theologically as bi-cultural leaders. We are thrilled to give platform to these up and coming voices who will surely shape the trajectory of the mestizo church. -The Editors

As a child, my family did not go to mass or recite the rosario often. Instead, cooking was our liturgy. The tortillas we made were coupled with frijoles that satisfied any unmet craving. When we did attend mass, the incense penetrated our senses as the priests’ hands presented the eucharist like a flag of victory waiving over a pueblo that didn’t feel mine. The white wafers communicated what Christ’s body is, and this body was not like that of the brown bodies in the pews. 

Years later, I converted to a White protestant tradition, and as a Chicano, whose home contained white American and New Mexican culture, my mestizaje was accepted. Still, assimilation to a kind of white culture was implied. Mexican cuisine was a source of spiritual nutrition in the home—all was well with a tortilla on the comal. Tortilla-making primed me to experience God. Yet, the protestant church that I attended worshiped outside of my cultural context, and the Christ presented to me viewed the world unlike me. The celebration of the Eucharist was less of an experience with God, rather, it was an intellectual exercise to simply “remember” Christ’s death and resurrection.  

At the height of COVID, church service was online. One time, worshiping in my living room, the congregation was invited to break bread and drink wine (juice for us). I was disappointed that all we had in the pantry were corn tortillas. “We eat this in memory of you,” the pastor said as I split a tortilla in my hands. With tortilla in hand, worship was now in my context instead of one that valued an essentialized form of communion over others.

Centuries of theological developments on the eucharist provoked an embodied fear against deviations from tradition. The white wafers I had become accustomed to were made foreign over a slight change from the norm—from wheat to maíz—and I was unsure if my act of communion was valid. Did eating a corn tortilla count as eating the body of Christ? Whiteness deeply formed my perception of the eucharist, so that instead of being fed the body of Jesucristo, I was being fed a colonizer’s “Christ.” Jesus could never be like a tortilla, nor could he be like me—this Jesus was white. The cognitive and physical experiences stood divorced from the mestizo body and replaced with a pervasive colonial imagination of the eucharist.[1] This alienation was what I came to understand as the long-lasting projection of “superior” bodies upon the elements and the degeneration of ‘other’ bodies. Colonization consecrated the sacrament to Eurocentrism at the cost of Black and Brown bodies, but as the church operates today in multicultural contexts, the perceptions of sacramental elements must be reimagined to create an inclusive partaking of Christ’s body.

The Arrival of “White Jesus”

When the Spanish arrived at the shores of Abya Yala, awestruck, they noticed first the people, then their food. The Spanish utilized the association between diet and body to identify the people they encountered as “savages.” This issued moral categories for maíz, yuca, and other foods: considering the diet of “savage” bodies reprehensible[2]. Simply put, those who ate these things, especially maíz, were considered no different from animals. Consequently, unsuccessful attempts to make indigenous cuisine disappear expected the “uncivilized” to exclusively eat Spanish cuisine. To this day, tortillas de harina (flour tortillas) are viewed in contrast to those of maíz. In some instances, they are viewed as a “treat” in comparison to the old familiar corn tortilla.

This culinary colonization was an attempt to make indigenous pueblos transfigure into Spanish bodies.[3] Their preference for Castilian bread and wine for the eucharist was a confirmation of eurocentrism and, by proxy, a Western Jesus. Moreover, preachers communicated the expectation of proper elements by appropriating the closest Nahuatl word for bread, castellan tlaxcalli or Castilian tortillas—their tongue was mastered not to understand but to conquer.[4] The strong disapproval of indigenous cuisine led to what Jeffrey Pilcher calls the propagation of a “gospel of wheat” that served as a “symbol and sustenance of Christianity.”[5] The Spanish projected their bodies upon that of Christ, a homogenous perception of the gospel.            

Rebecca Earle recounts an instance when an indigenous man mimicked Catholic mass with tortillas, anti-bread, which was later met with severe punishment.[6] Two fears grew from the faithful deviance from the “gospel of wheat”; (1) that Jesus would become foreign to the European and (2) that their European bodies would then follow suit to become animalistic.[7] This created further distance between the target population of the gospel and the Jesus behind it. Whiteness presented a gospel limited to elements never dictated by Scripture. Despite not always having access to wheat in the New World, it was standardized that it was virtually impossible to commune with Christ until inferior brown bodies folded under the kneading of Eurocentric assimilation. Because this intense folding was often followed by cruelty the indigenous had no other option but to view Christ’s body as fuel for cruelty.

Paula E. Morton’s Tortillas: A Cultural History,  introduces a woman’s childhood in Mexico, describing the relationship between maíz, the working father, and the mother who learned the art of nixtamalización (a laborious process to make maíz nutritious).[8] Tortillas were inherent to familial life, bearing a likeness to that of the sacraments. Corn itself is not nutritious like wheat until it has undergone a vigorous process to become life-giving. The work behind making corn nutritious communicates the labor needed to save the starving, to then prosper them with maíz. Christ’s life and final work on the cross can be understood in this way—he labored to not only save but to continuously nurture his people.

El Pan de Jesucristo

In the “Bread of Life Discourse” found in the gospel of John, Jesus makes extravagant claims. He reminds the crowd of their ancestors’ time in the desert when “He gave them bread [manna] from heaven to eat” (Jn. 6:31). Jesus clarifies further that the provider of the bread was the Father who wanted to “give life” (vv. 32-33). What is then revealed is that He [Christ] is the bread of life sent from heaven to give salvation.[9] The manna in the desert was the foreshadowing of Christ, the bread of heaven, that would eternally sustain the people of God.

From a deeply Jewish context, bread represented the life-giving power of Christ’s passion and resurrection. With echoes of the Jewish people’s connection with bread, God entered into their rich culture to not only communicate with his people but to commune with them. Like me, a Chicano who loves tortillas, Jesus as a Jewish man, would have a similar love for his culture’s “tortillas”. As Jesucristo spoke of bread throughout the gospels, memories of his mother kneading dough, jest conversations over the dinner table, tears, and the many Shabbat dinners were inevitably attached to his public discourse and speech at the Last Supper. Culture is deeply connected to human nature, to which YHWH has always been attentive.

Yet, as Whiteness permeated the church, this connection was forcefully replaced with eurocentric idealism. Whiteness taught the indigenous, later generations of pastors, theologians, and abuelitas that relation to God could only come from a Western perception of “bread”. Ultimately excluding Black and Brown bodies from relation to God through familiar comidas representing manna; maíz could not be our manna but their manna had to be ours.

A Blessed Proclamation

“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (1 Cor 11:26).

When he speaks of this bread, St. Paul is not speaking of elemental specificities, rather, he is speaking of theological ones. The function of the eucharist, according to Paul, is to “proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”[10] However, traditionalism created false theological gates around the host, perpetuating eurocentrism. Involuntarily syncretizing Whiteness with theology, the host can fail to proclaim the Lord’s death free of colonial regalia, oftentimes ignoring the needs of the people.

Some sectors of the RCC staunchly maintain a wheat eucharist despite gluten allergies and limited access to such materials. In instances where believers have no access to wheat or wine: pastors and theologians must acknowledge that they are withholding a communal relationship between creature and Creator by limiting the possibilities for the host.

As the church expands, touching new soil with new comidas, we risk promoting a neo-colonial mission. One where human bodies—their preferences and needs—are diminished for the elevation of others that have deemed themselves or their traditions to be more important. Therefore, leaders of the church must prayerfully consider how Christ is presented when caring for the diverse needs of the people.

A Redeemed Communion

What I hoped for in writing this was not to condemn the way people participate in the sacrament or to inappropriately displace the host. However, the essentializing of wheat for the host mimics the way of the colonizer which has little patience for diversity. Assessing the past and the Scriptures latinamente espouses a liberative vantage point of the sacraments–freeing the oppressed and the oppressor from heterogeneous ways of being.[11]

There is no returning to 1492 to prevent the manipulation of Christian images and practices, but we can dream of a world anew. In a similar fashion to Colton Bernasol’s verbal essay on Christian symbols, la iglesia can be honest about their history with the eucharist and formulate a “liberating meaning”. This task requires a teologia en conjunto approach joined with prayerful discernment and critical reconsiderations for the future.

Three possibilities exist as a result of considering the oppressive uses of the host. The Church can reject and ignore what has happened to Black and Brown communities by the “gospel of wheat”—doing what “has always been done”. Another, as a Christian community, they can strictly adhere to a eucharist reflective of their immediate culinary contexts, deprioritizing wheat. Or lastly, a community can recognize the latter and, as a unified Body, decide to use wheat in a liberating and redeemed fashion.

Though I am a part of a tradition that prefers a wheat eucharist, I favor the second and third options as both express liberation in multiethnic contexts. I pray that the Church not only reviews its past role in the making of the “gospel of wheat” but also looks forward to an integrated approach that is inclusive of Black and Brown bodies. More specifically, inclusive of the foods adored by those communities so that Jesucristo can do what he has always done—liberate and nurture su gente out of the desert. Which will we choose, and how will we seek a redeemed perception of Christ through the host?

About Christian Silva

A biracial Chicano raised in a New Mexican home in Colorado, Christian integrates theology, biblical theology, and history to advance the Church. He is a full time student of theology at a bible college in the Chicagoland area. Christian’s family were some of the first Chicanos in the South West post “Treaty of Guadalupe”. Constantly living between two cultures, his approach to post-colonial thought, race, and ethics stem from his cultural upbringing. He hopes to further his work in graduate school to continue his studies in Latinx theologies and histories pa’ la gente. Christian is equally fascinated by the history of the South West and what Latinidad looks for him as a diaspora-Chicano navigating theological spaces. He loves drinking coffee with friends and perfecting his abuelita’s recipes.

---

Footnotes

[1]Angel F Mendez-Montoya., The Theology of Food: Eating and the Eucharist (Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2012), 46. Montoya discusses in chapter 2, the relationship between sabor y saber as it pertains to our bodies’ experience and our minds’ cognition between our relationship with food and our bodies—leading to a holistic experience with the eucharist.

[2]Rebecca Earle, The Body of the Conquistador: Food, Race, and the Colonial Experience (Cambrdige: Cambridge University, 2012), 119-124. Disgust was the hermeneutic of reading the indigenous’ bodies.

[3]Ibid, 65. “Bread, wine and olive oil were thus markers of a Christian identity, and Spanish bread, wine and oil helped make men Spanish”.

[4]Dominicos, Doctrina Cristiana en lengua español y mexicana (Tecnólogo de Monterrey, 1550), 209. Credit is due to Earle in Body of the Conquistador (151) for directing me to the document for my analysis.  The adjective “Castilian” seems to be used to lay specificities despite the apparent consequences of indigenous perceptions.

[5]Jeffrey M. Pilcher, Planet Taco: A Global History of Mexican Food (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 22.

[6]Rebecca Earle, The Body of the Conquistador, 152-53.

[7]The term “gospel of wheat” is used differently from Pilcher to express the culinary colonization through the supremacy of wheat.

[8]Paula E. Morton, Tortillas: A Cultural History (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press 2014), xiii-xxiii.

[9] John 6:35, 38, and 40b.

[10]Eucharistic theology encapsulates many theological nuances in various traditions. However, Paul here is speaking to a disunified audience. Paul is intending to “set the record straight”. The eating of the host proclaims a very distinct reality–Christ’s salvific work. In light of this proclamation unity should grow because they are unanimously proclaiming their shared salvation.

[11]Doing theology latinamente is to do theology in a “Latin American way”. Here latinamente means to do theology from a perspective of criticism in light of colonialism, culture, language, and our Latin@ realities. In this way we disrupt traditional theologies that deemphasize liberation. 

---

Articles like this one are made possible by the support of readers like you. Donate today and help us continue to produce resources for the mestizo church.

A Biblical Rebuke of Femicide

This article is part of a Learning Center course called, Reading the Bible as a Mujerista Evangelica set to release on March 8th. To learn more about WOS online courses, visit learn.worldoutspoken.com.

We have to be better readers. We have to learn how to read. And we must learn how to tell stories. To know when to raise our voice and when to lower it. When to pull the people in with a whisper, and when to increase our volume!

My professor and mentor has told me this before, and now to the countless others he has taught. His love for Charles Dickens and Don Quijote seeps into the way he reads and writes, even in his academics.[1] It makes his writing interesting to read, but only because he knows that a good reader makes a good writer. It’s the reason why I am intentional about my own reading. I regularly rotate fiction and poetry books into my repertoire. I, too, believe that a good writer learns the art by being a good reader. You communicate to others by noticing the ways that best communicate to you.

The biblical authors know this too. The Old Testament narratives have this way of drawing in the reader. These writers quickly shift from artful prose to well-developed poetry, even within the stories of the historical narratives (like Deborah’s victory song in Judges 5). These stories aren’t just dry attempts to narrate without a purpose; no, these stories are meant to convey something deeper about the condition of life and add to what we already know about God. I invite you to look at Judges 19 with me, a story so grotesque that maybe you’ve skipped it over, but a story so carefully crafted that the narrator is undeniably attempting to communicate something to the readers on the other side of the page.

(Trigger warning: Rape, domestic violence, and murder. Please feel free to skip over this article.)

Judges 19[2]

In those days, when there was no king in Israel, a certain Levite, residing in the remote parts of the hill country of Ephraim, took to himself a concubine from Bethlehem in Judah. But his concubine became angry with him, and she went away from him to her father’s house at Bethlehem in Judah, and was there some four months. Then her husband set out after her, to speak tenderly to her and bring her back. He had with him his servant and a couple of donkeys. When he reached her father’s house, the girl’s father saw him and came with joy to meet him. His father-in-law, the girl’s father, made him stay, and he remained with him three days; so they ate and drank, and he stayed there.

“In those days, when there was no king in Israel…” Already the narrator sets the scene for us. Knowing the period of Judges as a time where “everyone did what was right in their own eyes” (Judg 17:6), this statement already stirs up fear for the reader. What will happen in this narrative, during a dark time of chaos and free reign?

We read that a concubine becomes angry at her Levite husband. In her anger, she decides to set out to her father’s house for a long four months. What I find interesting about this story is not what it says, but what it doesn’t say. As a Levite, this man had a higher status and honored place in society.[3] The concubine, who in contrast has a lower status in the ancient Near Eastern world as legal property of her master, does not speak. We have no clue as to why she became angry. We have no clue if her father welcomed her with open arms, but we do know that he opened his arms to his son-in-law. The narrative states the Levite’s intent to “speak tenderly” to his concubine, almost in an attempt to see him in a positive light, but then the reader begins to wonder: Why did it take four months for him to come find her? And the story states that he stayed to eat and drink, but there is no mention of the Levite actually speaking to the concubine—the very reason he came to his father-in-law’s home. In actuality, it stirs up even more uncertainty. Pay attention to how your body feels, to what remains unsaid, and to how your attitude toward the Levite shifts.[4]

On the fourth day they got up early in the morning, and he prepared to go; but the girl’s father said to his son-in-law, “Fortify yourself with a bit of food, and after that you may go.” So the two men sat and ate and drank together; and the girl’s father said to the man, “Why not spend the night and enjoy yourself?” When the man got up to go, his father-in-law kept urging him until he spent the night there again. On the fifth day he got up early in the morning to leave; and the girl’s father said, “Fortify yourself.” So they lingered until the day declined, and the two of them ate and drank. When the man with his concubine and his servant got up to leave, his father-in-law, the girl’s father, said to him, “Look, the day has worn on until it is almost evening. Spend the night. See, the day has drawn to a close. Spend the night here and enjoy yourself. Tomorrow you can get up early in the morning for your journey, and go home.” But the man would not spend the night; he got up and departed, and arrived opposite Jebus (that is, Jerusalem).

He had with him a couple of saddled donkeys, and his concubine was with him. When they were near Jebus, the day was far spent, and the servant said to his master, “Come now, let us turn aside to this city of the Jebusites, and spend the night in it.” But his master said to him, “We will not turn aside into a city of foreigners, who do not belong to the people of Israel; but we will continue on to Gibeah.” Then he said to his servant, “Come, let us try to reach one of these places, and spend the night at Gibeah or at Ramah.” So they passed on and went their way; and the sun went down on them near Gibeah, which belongs to Benjamin. They turned aside there, to go in and spend the night at Gibeah.

Here the narrator drops another hint. We know now that the Levite is traveling not only with his concubine, but with one of his servants. His title has now been changed to “his master,” almost as if the narrator is detaching the Levite from the concubine and shifting focus onto the servant. His servant makes a suggestion: to spend the night in a city of foreigners. The master says, “No thank you!” He refuses to be part of a community that does “not belong to the people of Israel.” We remember too that his association as a Levite meant that in theory, he practiced the law of the LORD. However, the reader wonders if his disdain toward foreigners disregards a law that states to love the foreigner—not tolerate, but love (Lev 19:34). He dismisses his servant’s suggestion and does what is right in his own eyes.

He went in and sat down in the open square of the city, but no one took them in to spend the night. Then at evening there was an old man coming from his work in the field. The man was from the hill country of Ephraim, and he was residing in Gibeah. (The people of the place were Benjaminites.) When the old man looked up and saw the wayfarer in the open square of the city, he said, “Where are you going and where do you come from?” He answered him, “We are passing from Bethlehem in Judah to the remote parts of the hill country of Ephraim, from which I come. I went to Bethlehem in Judah; and I am going to my home. Nobody has offered to take me in. We your servants have straw and fodder for our donkeys, with bread and wine for me and the woman and the young man along with us. We need nothing more.” The old man said, “Peace be to you. I will care for all your wants; only do not spend the night in the square.” So he brought him into his house, and fed the donkeys; they washed their feet, and ate and drank.  

The woman has still been largely absent up to this point. Was she not intended to be the focal point of this entire narrative, the reason the Levite man even went out in the first place, and now the reason they are traveling back? The reader begins to wonder why the narrative feels empty, and it is the lack of focus on the woman that contributes to this emptiness. The Levite even tells this man, “Nobody has offered to take me in” instead of “Nobody has offered to take us in” (italics mine).[5] The narrator continues to drop clues about the Levite man’s character and the blatant disregard for his servant and his concubine.

While they were enjoying themselves, the men of the city, a perverse lot, surrounded the house, and started pounding on the door. They said to the old man, the master of the house, “Bring out the man who came into your house, so that we may have intercourse with him.” And the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, “No, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Since this man is my guest, do not do this vile thing. Here are my virgin daughter and his concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do whatever you want to them; but against this man do not do such a vile thing.” But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine, and put her out to them. They wantonly raped her, and abused her all through the night until the morning. And as the dawn began to break, they let her go.

As morning appeared, the woman came and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her master was, until it was light. In the morning her master got up, opened the doors of the house, and when he went out to go on his way, there was his concubine lying at the door of the house, with her hands on the threshold. “Get up,” he said to her, “we are going.” But there was no answer. Then he put her on the donkey; and the man set out for his home.

Still as the story begins to close, the woman does not speak. And now, as the Levite demands her to “get up” because they should be on their way, we as readers do not know if she is alive. It confirms all of our suspicions picked up throughout the narrative—that the Levite’s character is less than exemplary.

When he had entered his house, he took a knife, and grasping his concubine he cut her into twelve pieces, limb by limb, and sent her throughout all the territory of Israel. Then he commanded the men whom he sent, saying, “Thus shall you say to all the Israelites, ‘Has such a thing ever happened since the day that the Israelites came up from the land of Egypt until this day? Consider it, take counsel, and speak out.’”

The story still never tells you if the concubine was alive or not. Her silence lingers until the very end. Instead, the Levite man takes control of the situation by gruesomely dismembering her. And, instead of taking responsibility for his actions and their outcome, he has the audacity to point fingers at the Israelites! As everyone did what was right in their own eyes, he blamed the dark and preventable death of his concubine on the state of society. Maybe if people spoke out, then the men wouldn’t have come to rape them, and then perhaps this “thing” would not have “ever happened.” We know that the Levite man’s complacency in the systemic sin found in the period of Judges contributes to this abomination just as much as the wickedness of the men did.

Being on the other side of the story, even more questions arise. Did the concubine have good reason to leave in the first place, considering the outcome of her story? Would this violence have been averted if the servant’s suggestion was followed, or was this bound to happen due to the Levite’s less-than-holy character? And finally, what is the narrator trying to convey with a story so brutal, one that begins with a woman afforded no agency or words and ends with her rape and death?

When we read stories like this, our minds always shift to ask how something like this could be included in our Old Testament Scriptures. It is important to acknowledge the implications of such a text. First, like many of the Old Testament stories, this story is not meant to be prescriptive but descriptive. After careful analysis, readers see that the narrator’s craftsmanship of the story shows that they were never on the side of the Levite. Thus, a theological, real-life lesson can be extracted. Second, the Old Testament does not shy away from acknowledging the hurts of this world. Although we hate encountering stories like this, we know that our fallen world is scattered with situations that read just like this one. And for those who have experienced these situations, it gives us words that describe something that we may not have even processed ourselves.

As Phylllis Trible puts it, this story “depicts the horrors of male power, brutality, and triumphalism; of female helplessness, abuse, and annihilation.”[6] The moment the Levite decided to mistreat his concubine, everything went downhill. If you continue on to read Judges 20, you see that things continue to spiral downward as an effect of the woman’s death. The flourishing of women, or lack thereof, is directly correlated to the health of this society. This society is indeed in need of a savior. The mistreatment of the oppressed and marginalized, specifically women here, can only result in a society that perpetuates even more oppression and marginalization.

About Michelle Navarrete

My passions stem from within the Old Testament, focusing on biblical themes and social ethics through an interdisciplinary approach. As a second-generation Latina who lives in between the Mexican and American cultures, my faith inevitably intersects with my culture and experiences. I use storytelling in my academics as a way to engage my audience and cultivate connection. People are part of my passion and I want my work to reflect that. Currently located within the Latino community of West Chicago, I am pursuing my master’s in Old Testament Biblical Exegesis at Wheaton College, and I intend to pursue doctoral studies after my time at Wheaton. During my time at World Outspoken, I hope that my contributions will renew faith perspectives in a way that mobilizes restoring change within communities.

---

Footnotes

[1] Dr. M. Daniel Caroll R. intertwines his love for narrative and storytelling, and even contextualizing from the Latina/o perspective, through the prophetic voice in his new book The Lord Roars: Recovering the Prophetic Voice for Today. Shameless plug.

[2] I invite you to read this without the verses marked, like a story. For your reference, this is the NRSV translation, and the entirety of chapter 19 of Judges.

[3] Phyllis Trible, Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives, 66.

[4] For a more comprehensive treatment of the narrator’s possible intentions, see Jacqueline E. Lapsley’s work, “A Gentle Guide: Attending to the Narrator’s Perspective in Judges 19-21.”

[5] Lapsley, 43.

[6] Trible, 65.

---

Articles like this one are made possible by the support of readers like you. Donate today and help us continue to produce resources for the mestizo church.

Neighbor Love and Reading CRT

This article is from a forthcoming series in the Moody Center magazine. To learn more about the magazine and Moody Center, subscribe to their newsletter.

When we attend to the cries of suffering people, we reflect God—not Pharaoh.

Buckling under the weight of generational systematic subjugation, Israel cried out to God and God listened. “And the people of Israel groaned under their bondage, and cried out for help, and their cry under bondage came up to God. And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant…And God saw the people of Israel, and God knew their condition” (Ex. 2:23-25). When God called Moses, God emphasized hearing Israel’s cries: “I have seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and have heard their cry because of their taskmasters; I know their sufferings, and I have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians…And now, behold, the cry of the people of Israel has come to me, and I have seen the oppression with which the Egyptians oppress them. Come, I will send you” (Ex. 3:9-10). Exodus contrasts this attentive divine listening to Pharaoh’s callous indifference. When God brings Israel’s cries to Pharaoh through Moses, Pharaoh increases Israel’s labors and suffering. Israel responds by crying out to Pharaoh, not God. But Pharaoh again entrenches in injustice (Ex. 5:15-19).

In the New Testament, Jesus and the Apostles also stress the paramount importance of listening to the cries of suffering, subjugated people. Consider, for example, Jesus’s parables of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10) or the rich man and Lazarus (Lk. 16). Or recall James’s declaration that “religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world” (Jm. 1:27). Godliness requires listening to and caring for suffering people in their affliction. Worldly defilement does not; it fosters entrenchment in unjust sins of commission and omission—like Pharaoh’s worsening Israel’s plight and ignoring their cries.  

Impediments to Godly Hearing when We Read

Godly attentive listening follows from love. In Exodus, God’s love for the people of Israel and their covenant ancestors motivates God to liberate them from physical, political, and spiritual bondage. Jesus’s parables and James’s declaration about pure religion reflect the biblical vision of how neighbor-love motivates godlike attentive listening. Sometimes this love-infused listening is literal; we hear the cries of those suffering around us. Other times this listening is metaphorical; when we read about the suffering of others, we “hear” them through the page. Therefore, when we hear people’s suffering through reading, we imitate God.

But, as with physical hearing, impediments often obscure our ability to hear suffering people’s cries when we read. One impediment is applying the wrong kind of reading practice to a text. C.S. Lewis, for example, distinguishes between reading practices that use a text from those that receive a text. When we use a text, we treat it as a means to information or distraction. This is fine when reading a menu or a joke; it is inappropriate when reading a love letter, petition, or religious text. These works require we read to receive—that we humbly approach the texts with a willingness to let them confront and change us.     

C.S. Lewis notes another obstacle to hearing suffering through a text: We are socially located readers and thinkers socialized to hear and see some things and not others. Lewis writes: “Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing [and hearing] certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes.” James Cone makes a similar point. “There is no place we can stand that will remove us from the limitations of history and thus enable us to tell the whole truth without the risk of ideological distortion.” To minimize or avoid these social and ideological limitations, Cone instructs us to “listen to others outside of our own time and situation.” Likewise, Lewis encourages us to read “the old books,” because they help us recognize and adjust for “the characteristic mistakes of our own period.” 

Sadly, Lewis’s and Cone’s proposals cannot guarantee that we hear the suffering voices around us when we read. Sometimes the old books are silent about or obscure our current challenges. The Bible says nothing about the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act or its continued impacts on China and the United States. Moreover, many older histories lie about the United States.

Reflecting on the rise of intentionally false narratives about U.S. Reconstruction (1865–1877), W.E.B. Du Bois writes:

I stand at the end of [ writing Black Reconstruction in America], literally aghast at what American historians have done to this field…[these histories are] useless as science and misleading as ethics… [and they show] that with sufficient general agreement and determination among the dominant classes, the truth of history may be utterly distorted and contradicted and changed to any convenient fairy tale that the master of men wish.

What Du Bois chastised in Reconstruction histories, Leon Litwick, president of the Organization of American Historians, applied generally to U.S. historians: “No group of scholars was more deeply implicated in the miseducation of American youth and did more to shape the thinking of Americans about race and blacks than historians.” Most in the U.S. continue to inherit these false histories and their accompanying ideologies. We suffer these injustices. Moreover, receiving these unjust histories obstructs our abilities to hear the stories of how our neighbors and we suffer from white supremacy. This impediment is especially dangerous, for as Cone observed, “When people can no longer listen to other people’s stories, they become enclosed within their own social context, treating their distorted visions of reality as the whole truth.”

Hearing Our CRT Neighbors

Enter critical race theorists. Scholars such as Derrick Bell, Richard Delgado, Robert A. Williams, Jr. (Lumbee), Gary Peller, Mari Matsuda, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Imani Perry, and Laura E. Gómez write essays aimed at helping us see how U.S. law and legal institutions have maintained and perpetuated white supremacy and hear the cries of non-white and white communities and individuals suffering from these racist evils. CRT scholars do not claim to stand-in for these communities or individuals. Like Ada María Isasi-Díaz, they would say, “Though I do not speak for them, I speak with them and on behalf of them.”

As they speak, CRT scholars remind us of legal decisions like these:

Power, war, conquest, give rights, which, after possess, are conceded by the world, and which can never be controverted by those on whom they descended. –Chief Justice John Marshall, Worcester v. Georgia (1832) [This is still official U.S. Federal Indian law]

In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument. –Chief Justice Roger Taney, Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)

All people under U.S. jurisdiction have the same right to make contracts and pursue business opportunities “as is enjoyed by white citizens.”—1866 Civil Rights Act [This is still official U.S. law]

There is a race so different from our own that we do not permit those belonging to it to become citizens of the US...I allude to the Chinese race.—Justice John Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) referencing the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act

Most of us are unfamiliar with these quotations and the painful, subjugating roles they have played in shaping communities and individuals. We do well, then, to engage CRT texts, working to receive rather than use them, in order to hear these truths and the cries they amplify. These practices will help us imitate God, not Pharaoh. They will help us heal from injustice. And they will help us care for Jesus and our neighbors (Mt. 25).

About Nathan Cartagena

A son of the US South (Mom) and Puerto Rico (Dad), Dr. Nathan Luis Cartagena is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Wheaton College (IL), where he teaches courses on race, justice, and political philosophy, and is a fellow in The Wheaton Center for Early Christian Studies. He serves as the faculty advisor for Unidad Cristiana, a student group working to enhance Christian unity and celebrate Latina/o cultures, a scholar-in-residence for World Outspoken, and a co-host for the forthcoming podcast From the Underside.  He’s also writing a book on Critical Race Theory with IVP Academic. For more about hermano Nathan, visit his website.

---

Articles like this one are made possible by the support of readers like you. Donate today and help us continue to produce resources for the mestizo church.

Forming Just Reading Communities

This article is from a forthcoming series in the Moody Center magazine. To learn more about the magazine and Moody Center, subscribe to their newsletter.

Does not wisdom call, and understanding raise her voice? -Proverbs 8:1

The past year has taught us that understanding the problems we face is not as easy as one would hope. We are stuck in the irony of having more information available to us than ever before but not knowing who to trust. This past year begs the questions, “how do we best love our neighbor,” and “what is just?” To complicate matters further the pressure has revealed deep disunities in our homes.

We need to invite people to understand more—to heed the call of wisdom. But how does one begin? One way is by creating space where we can slow down, focus more deeply on engaging resources that have studied the issues, and process questions together.

What follows is what I have gleaned from participating in and leading reading groups. I offer a theological framework of the goals and practices of these groups as being an exercise in biblical wisdom. For it is within the practice of wisdom that we will find our first steps in justice. First, I overview certain aspects of wisdom that form the method and goal of our reading communities. Second, I show how these aspects of wisdom are best exercised by reading in community. I conclude with how these practices differ in approaching justice than our broader social context. For justice is wisdom moving towards love.

Reading for Wisdom

To know wisdom and instruction, to discern the sayings of understanding, to receive instruction in wise behavior, righteousness, justice, and integrity. Proverbs 1:2-3

Wisdom is the understanding by which the Lord has ordered creation. The personification of wisdom in Proverbs chapter 8 tells us that she was beside God “as a master workman.” Scripture presents us with an invitation into wisdom by revealing who God is and what God has done. In this revelation, wisdom is shown to be God’s gift to us. God graciously reveals Godself and God’s purposes to invite us to enter in. In recognizing that wisdom is a gift from God we understand that our practices to enter wisdom are not acts of positive contribution to our own improvement but a withdrawal to allow the triune God to begin, progress, and accomplish the work within us.

Our invitation into God’s wisdom is to recognize our relation to that which the Lord has made. The fear of the Lord as the beginning of wisdom is to rightly understand this relation to the Lord and the rest of his creation. It is a recognition of the way of life that God has set before us to cultivate shalom in a fallen world, in other words to know justice. This recognition is a humble locating ourselves as the aids, not the originators, of bringing peace into the world. It is recognizing our finitude and the immense complexity that challenge the peace of the kingdom of God today.

Recognizing our finitude should lead us into constant formation of wisdom instead of chasing the illusion of mastering these issues. This means that we are constantly cultivating questions. We ask questions, seek out the answers, and then ask better questions. This process resists settling for simple answers to complex problems. I believe this is displayed in Proverbs 26:4-5. In these verses we are given two apparently contradictory responses to similar situations. Wisdom is not found in knowing the responses but in the ability to discern when to employ them.

From these above points-- understanding wisdom as God’s gift to us, recognizing our relation to God and creation, and leaning into our finitude amongst complexity-- we should recognize that wisdom shapes us primarily to be excellent listeners and secondarily as speakers. God calls his people to listen to his statues and cherish his law (Deut 4:1, Ps 119). James 1 advises us to be quick to hear and slow to speak. Proverbs repeatedly asks the reader to listen. Jesus constantly ends lessons with “those who have ears, let them hear.” It is only in listening that we begin to understand the complexity of our contexts and be better equipped to participate in God’s shalom. 

Reading in Community 

Iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another. Proverbs 27:17

Reading in community helps cultivate these aspects of wisdom in practical ways. The presence of another person changes the way in which we interact with a text. The three things I want to highlight are how reading together forces us to find and enhance our questions, encourages us to internalize the process of our thinking so we can communicate clearly, and exercises our ability to share the space to think.

Whenever our group begins a book, we always start with a set of questions. We start with basic questions; why do we want to read this book? Why did the author think it was important to write about this topic? This prepares the group to look for certain things. We can come back to those questions and start to answer them. We can modify the questions to be more specific and to reflect how we are progressing in our understanding. Why does Augustine stress the indivisibility of the trinitarian persons in God’s economic actions? Why does Willie James Jennings stress a people’s relation to land in trying to understand race? The questions propel us forward and remind us of our place as learners-- recognizing how we do not yet fully understand.

Not everyone in the group will have the same experience with reading texts or thinking through certain problems. This is a benefit to everyone in the group. Encouraging and prioritizing questions should help everyone feel free to pause the discussion and ask for clarification. It forces the group to slow down and find another way to communicate the argument. This helps us further internalize the concepts and find meaningful ways to communicate to help people understand. It forces us to focus our listening so that we can better aid our neighbors in their process of understanding.

When we read in a group we are also sharing the space to think. One person can certainly monopolize the group’s time with their thoughts. Reading in a group helps us exercise an ability to think with as opposed to for one another. We consider each other’s questions. We hear how each other processes and makes sense of a topic. We practice disagreement in a way that shows we respect and love the other person. When we fail to do so, we have a space to also repent and continue the work.

Cultivating Wisdom toward Love

At this point, you may be wondering how this understanding of wisdom and these practices of reading in groups helps us become more just. I take it to be obvious that in our time of social media and the commercialization of information in our news sources that practices contrary to wisdom are being cultivated. Complex issues are reduced into simple binary options in order to mobilize political bodies to expediency. We receive positive reinforcement for our speaking on any given issue and thus want to speak more and more. These things are not bad in themselves but when left unchecked they do not foster the type of wisdom that is reflected in Scriptures.

The above practices force us to slow down and listen to our neighbors, especially when we disagree with them. We ask questions when we recognize we do not understand. We are forced to find better ways to communicate that which we do understand. We allow issues to be complex and we find better ways of engaging in the ways that we can. This is what we do with those we love-- we continue the conversation because we care about the other and are trying to understand the ways in which shalom is broken. This is a small part of justice. This is a small part of growing in wisdom-- understanding to love our neighbor.

About Sam Keithley

Sam Keithley is a husband and father of two. He is located in Des Moines, IA where he leads a theological reading group. He has an MA in Systematic Theology from Wheaton College and hopes to pursue further academic work researching pneumatology, philosophy of language, and the doctrine of Scripture.

---

For further reading

Daniel J. Treier, Virtue and the Voice of God: Toward Theology as Wisdom

John Webster, The Domain of the Word: Scripture and Theological Reason

Matthew Lee Anderson, The End of our Exploring: A Book about Questioning and the Confidence of Faith

---

Articles like this one are made possible by the support of readers like you. Donate today and help us continue to produce resources for the mestizo church.

A Gospel of Friendship

“I would like to be known as a good friend.” The words came out as I processed with my spiritual director how I felt perceived by others. I have been called intelligent, a good preacher, teacher, and even theologian (I am an amateur at best). But even if I enjoyed being on the receiving end of those compliments (I’ll spare you the not-so-positive ones), I realized the one thing I really wanted to be known for was being a good friend.

What I didn’t see at that point was that friendship is more than a nice personal trait, but that it has everything to do with the gospel, with our life of faith, and even with our theology. As it usually happens to me, a good book would enlighten me.

In La porfía de la resurrección (2008), Dra. Nancy Bedford writes several important corrections to ministry and theology: the importance of reading the Bible through the lens of women (both in its stories and the rest of history), the dangers of a toxic Christology (especially toward women), and the place of disloyalty as faithfulness to Christ. But when I read her chapter on friendship, everything changed.

As soon as I read these words: “I can’t imagine the process of ‘doing theology’ without the encouragement of the conversation with friends…especially with those people with whom we share our lives over time”, I felt this was for me. I felt this was for me.

I’ve had the privilege of studying theology at Seminary level, attending conferences, listening to hundreds of sermons, and reading books from some of the best theologians out there. However, I would argue that my best theological insights come from informal conversations with friends. Like Bedford says, especially those with whom I’ve shared my life over time. The ones that have been through thick and thin, en las buenas y en las malas.

Inspired by her words, here is my new approach to life and theology through three ideas of friendships: My life of faith as friendship with God and others, the work of theology as God-talk among friends, and the sharing of our faith as extending friendship (ours and God’s) to the world.

My life of faith as friendship with God and others

“I have called you friends,” Jesus said to his disciples (John 15:15). The gospel is not just about being saved from hell and for heaven. It is not just about our sins being forgiven and being given a second chance. The gospel is about being reconciled to God and to one another. That means we can define our life of faith as friendship with God. All because of Jesus.

Paraphrasing the church fathers, Bedford puts it like this: “the Son became our friend so that we could become friends of God”. “Jesus is the friend whose love gives life to the beloved providing intimacy with God that can be called friendship with God”, she also says.

She warns against the danger of privatizing or individualizing our friendship with Jesus. “His words are not to be taken as invitation to a privatized or individual friendship, but to express the context of a community of friends that also relate among themselves with Jesus”. This means our shared friendship with him allows for us the potential of being friends. To belong to a community of friends.

When Paul talks about the ministry of reconciliation, he binds being reconciled with God with being reconciled with one another. Just as Jesus reaffirmed the relationship between loving God and loving our neighbor.

In his book, He Calls Me Friend, author and activist John Perkins reflects on the role of friendship in his life and its potential to change the world. It all begins with a God who, from the beginning, shows us the way. Looking back at his experience of reading the Bible, he says: “I read about a God who would be a friend”. He also relates our creation as a product of that relationship in the Godhead: “I’m pretty sure we were birthed out of the friendship of the Trinity.”

In that sense, we could say God exists in friendship, creates out of friendship, and invites us into friendship (one that is everlasting). In Perkins's words: “Friendship is discipleship in action.” That’s our life of faith.

The work of theology as God-talk among friends

If we consider our life of faith as friendship with God, “What does it mean for theology?” Bedford asks.  She immediately answers: “Theology can be seen as an exercise in gratitude for God’s friendship, carried out in friendship with others.”

In other words, theology is possible because of our friendship with God, and it becomes articulate in the context of friendships with others. Theology is not for the isolated intellectual in a closed room full of books.

If theology happens only in a textbook or in a seminary class, then it is exclusively for those who have access to those resources (a vast minority). But if theology happens in the conversations between friends, then it’s part of lo cotidiano, the everyday lives of people of every background, race, gender, and generation.

The book of Job rarely comes up in conversations about friendship. If it does, it is usually to talk about the poor choices Job had made in his circle of friends. But a careful reading of the story reveals something else.

As the story goes (Job 2:11-13), as soon as Job’s friends heard about his tragedy, they traveled, and then sat in silence for seven days at his side. Friendship is more about presence than about words, and sometimes sitting in silence is the best thing a friend can do.

As Bedford says:

“Meaningful conversations with friends likewise allows an embodiment of our ideas, as we gesticulate and articulate, giving voice to what otherwise would remain silent. Even sitting in silence together does not allow for a disembodied silence: we breathe, exchange glances, feel each other’s company, and come away from the encounter subtly changed.”

Job’s friends didn’t stay silent, and many believe that was a mistake. “Calladito te ves más bonito,” some would say. But even if we can agree that they didn’t speak well (God settles that clearly in the text), they were doing theology. And doing theology is not always just about being right, but about the struggle to understand the mystery of the divine.

We could argue that they were wrong in some of their assumptions and conclusions, but still they showed up and wrestled with the situation with the knowledge and tools they had. They were present. I would even argue that Job needed that interaction, even if painful, to process his own pain and his understanding of God. In other words, it was precisely through his listening to their arguments, and his struggles with his own thoughts, that he was able to articulate his own ideas and questions, and in doing so, he met God like never before.

But it all started with a group of friends talking about God. For Job and his friends (and for many of us), theology is not an abstract study. It is about real life, right here, right now. It is doing theology con los pies en la tierra.

Sharing our faith as extending friendship (ours and God’s) to the world

Finally, we get to the idea of sharing our faith as inviting the world to friendship, with God and us. If we truly believe that we have been sent to the world, just as Jesus was sent by the Father (John 20:21); and if we understand Jesus’ saving work as becoming our friend so that we could become friends of God; then it would make sense that our proclamation of the good news is wrapped in an invitation to friendship.

In a way, loving our neighbors translates to being a friend to those around us. That’s what the “good Samaritan” does in the widely known story told by Jesus (Luke 10). The Samaritan did nothing else than treat the other as a friend. And we are called to do the same. His ‘goodness’ comes as friendship. He treated this stranger the way he would’ve treated a friend. He was a good friend. So we could say that when Jesus calls us to love our neighbors, he’s actually saying, “be a friend”.

Even going back to the Old Testament, where we see a lot more strict rules about relationships with other nations, Jeremiah reminds the people in exile of the plans God has to prosper them (29:11), and they are instructed to settle down in Babylon, build houses, plant gardens, and even marry! I don’t think it would be a stretch to say God was giving them permission, and even calling them to befriend the Babylonians.

In Jesus, God settled once and for all his plan to become our friend. Now he calls us to do the same.

To think that our friendship with others could lead to their own friendship with God is nothing short of a miracle. And if Jesus becoming our friend had the power to change the course of history, what could our befriending others still do today?

About Oscar García

Oscar is a Puerto Rican pastor and international worker with the Christian & Missionary Alliance. He earned a Master of Divinity from Alliance Theological Seminary in New York. Currently, Oscar serves as professor and Academic Director for SeTAU, a theological seminary in Uruguay. He is passionate about learning to read and interpret the Bible with the global church. Oscar enjoys drinking coffee, reading theological books, doing jigsaw puzzles, and playing basketball. He is married to Charlotte and has two daughters, Sofía and Sara. They live in Montevideo, Uruguay. 

---

Articles like this one are made possible by the support of readers like you. Donate today and help us continue to produce resources for the mestizo church.