Amahoro is a conference about postcolonial church in Africa, exploring the consequences for the church now that colonialism (in its classic sense) has ended. We're interested in how Christianity enmeshed with the colonial project of Europe, so that the civilised White Man could bring the light of the Gospel to the Dark Continent of Africa, so that the savages could be introduced to Jesus, Civilisation, and Title Deeds.
When the white man came, we had the land and they had the Bible. They said, "Let us pray." When we opened our eyes, we had the Bible and they had the land.
Of course, we look back now and view colonisation as a failed project, for although Europe brought much good to the rest of the world, it also cast itself as the dominant story around which all other stories should orient themselves. The civilised view is the White Man's view, and the world is an adventure waiting to be conquered by the brave. The "New World" was waiting.
South Africa was discovered in 1652 by Jan van Riebeeck. Or at least, that's how my history classes in school taught it to me. Sure, they mentioned a little bit about the people before then - uncivilised, tribal, uneducated, superstitious, un-Christians who lived their primitive lives, before the White Man came to bring all that good stuff that White People bring.
This meta-narrative is the direct consequence of the totalizing force of the Enlightenment, a project which pursued Reason (with a capital R) above all else. Some people are still so enmeshed in that story that it filters and colours all information and experience to fit in with that story.
Still today we deal with the cultural hangover which says that white people are superior, and everyone else is inferior.
An Indian friend of mine (who has lived most of her life after the fall of Apartheid) tells the story of how she would put cream on her body which she hoped would lighten her skin, so she would be less dark and more white. Anecdotal, yes. Generally true - what do you think?
My friend Trevor Ntola says that Apartheid is like a wall which is invisible from one side and very, very obvious from another. The white generation before me tells me that "The wool was pulled over our eyes" when it came to Apartheid. They simply didn't know what was happening.
Jesus was used by the colonisers to serve their lust for power. Jesus was used by the architects of Apartheid for an ideological underpinning for an evil system. White, western theology has done very little to un-enmesh (that's not a word, I know) the Gospel from a Totalizing Project, and very little to ensure that we don't continue to recast Jesus in our own image so that we can continue dominating others for our own ends (and even worse, when this is done because that's what we think Christianity calls for - it's not. What Christianity calls for is its own deconstruction, but that's for another post).
Technorati Tags: 
Roger Saner's blog: Journey
Graeme Codrington: Regeneration
Comments
Interesting post Rog, but
Interesting post Rog, but just wasn't sure about the last sentence... kinda left it hanging too much (deliberately?).
You could have ended with a diplomatic, "Although Jesus was used by colonizers and architects of Apartheid, once we've deconstructed these previous misunderstandings, we should then be able to construct a more sound theology of the Jesus who came to unite, restore, heal, save ...etc"
I like it!
I like that - I should use it! You know, end on a positive note :) I guess what I'm trying to get across in this post is exactly that uncomfortable ending. I think we move too quickly onto the "good" stuff without understanding what the hell went wrong in the first place.
How did Christianity embrace a hermeneutic which allowed it to re-cast Jesus to support un-Christian ends? How did it re-read and abuse Scripture?
Until we have an answer to these questions we dare not move on, otherwise we run the risk of using a different vision of Jesus to accomplish the same ends. The solution is to become aware of and question our pre-suppositions, which is what deconstruction is all about.
Fair point! But without
Fair point! But without aiming towards the "good stuff" we just end up deconstructing deconstructed deconstructions (if you get what I'm getting at getting at) :-)
Balance
Yes, you're right - the point of deconstruction isn't destruction, but reconstruction. The point isn't to do the hard work of understanding our pre-suppositions and biases and power-leanings - and then stop. Deconstruction is done with love, and with an eye on justice, and on rebuilding something better than was before (in that sense deconstruction is messianic, for it always opens the way to welcoming in something better than was before).
My fear is that we ("we" being the white South African church) too quickly gloss over the bad, and so when we get to the good, it's not grounded enough to be transformative.
Colonialism
At one level it is easy to say what went wrong (in South Africa, at least). What went wrong was idolatry. The Message to the people of South Africa, published 40 years ago, put it in a nutshell. Whites went running to a false gospel of salvation by race, not grace. And they could put an oh so pious, holier than thou face on it too.
There has been a fair bit of deconstruction of that in South Africa, but not so much in other parts of the continent. For example the Mau Mau in Kenya were painted (in Brit propaganda) as evil, barbarous bloodthirsty killers, given to dark and diabolical pagan rites involving secret oaths and the like. What they don't tell you is that, in the name of fighting the "Mau Mau menace" most of the Orthodox Churches in Kenya were closed, and most of the clergy were put in concentration camps -- the Brit Gulag.
It is important to desconstruct the false narratives of the past, but one reason for doing so is to avoid similar mistakes in future. Looking at the evils of the past, people say "Never again", but sometimes make the mistake of taking that as a statement of fact rather than an expression of resolve. It can, and will happen again.
Sources?
Agreed Steve, what went wrong in South Africa was idolatry, and this permeated all levels of society. Undoing that is going to take time, and needs a personal critique, a community critique and a systemic critique. I've seen a little personal critique of this - can you point me towards some other deconstructions which I can read? I've heard John de Gruchy is a good source?
I like the distinction you draw between saying "Never again" as a statement of fact (i.e. we'll never let the that holocaust happen again, between Germans and Jews, in the 1940's) versus a statement of resolve (i.e. we'll never let the holocaust happen again because we understand how small exclusionary statements lead to 'othering', how grasping the Absolute Truth leads to us thinking we have Absolute Power and can therefore colonise others; and so we watch out for the ways in which we 'other' others and claim Truth (with a capital "I'm right and you're wrong") - and continually deconstruct those practices and claims). Which is the gift which the postmodern critique gives us.
Never again
Closer to home, Nelson Mandela said "Never again" at his inauguration. It was a statement of resolve -- we must never let these things happen again. Albert Nolan made similar statements a few years earlier -- these things can't happen again, because we are the liberators and not the oppressors, and so this liberation is permanent. A rather strange statement for a Dominican, since it seems to be a denial of human sin.
Confusing liberation and oppression
What wants to be an oppressor? No-one! Who wants to be a liberator? Everyone! What white South Africans need to come to terms with is that because we were part of an oppressive system, merely by being white puts us on the side of the oppressions. Let's not too quickly side with being 'liberators' - because that too easily lets us off the hook of necessary personal (and structural) re-examination...and does nothing to prevent the "Never again."
Biko wrote more about the relationship between being white and being an oppressor, and I'll post more about that in the next few days.
Where else Christianity has been used to abuse others
Brian McLaren is currently in Canada, meeting with Native Peoples/First Nations, discussing, among other things, the ways the Christian message was warped and distorted to justify atrocities committed against the original Americans. Brian writes, "Similar distortions are happening every day ... often against immigrants, Muslims, gay people, and others ... and often supported by Bible verses wrenched from their context."
Scary, indeed. Does Christianity support violence - and does it lead to violence? Brian again: "If you haven't read Franky Schaeffer's powerful piece on how religion - including Christianity - contributes to violence (albeit unintentionally), please catch it here. This is a time for soul-searching and fresh thinking for all of us. It truly is the time for a new kind of Christianity."
I could quote chunks from my
I could quote chunks from my thesis on what happened in Alaska, but they'd probably be too long for comments.
Turns out you did!
Turns out you put some of your thesis online anyway, Steve :)
Thesis on line
Yes, but not as a comment, rather as a separate post. I thought it was too long for a comment.
Amahoro Proceedings
Hi again Roger, I have now listened to Kelly Nikondeha's short presentation which I found very useful in describing the essential purpose of Amahoro Gatherings.
I just really loved listening to Kelly's voice first and foremost. I don't know her but she came across as a very sensitive and loving person. I was also moved by her introduction of her husband, Claude and her obvious deep respect and support for what he is doing. I sensed a gentle spirit full of love and power in her words.
I also listened to Claude's presentation. I cheated a bit here because I read his presentation yesterday on his blog. I was very struck by his eloquence & intelligence. I don't think I have ever heard of this principle of transfiguration before and I felt that He did a wonderful job of setting out the principle in a way that really helped me understand African tribal cultures better.
He also asked some very thought provoking questions. I could not imagine myself sitting in a church gathering in Canada having this same kind of presentation and ensuing questions/discussions. I could only imagine how people felt there because truly "conversational space" to speak what is in one's heart must be permeated by an atmosphere of trust, support and love. Thoughts about some of the thorny and sensitive issues Claude raised, issues over which there must be dialogue and healing if we are to co-exist in unity as Christ expects.
Bravo to the Amahoro leaders and to the South Africans for embracing this dialogue. My guess is that many of the pastors from villages on the African continent will not often have an opportunity to dialogue with others about these issues, especially in a space of support. They are too busy trying to survive and deal with the needs on the ground. Even if the dialogue is a short one, it is clear that there has been a beginning and every journey, long or short requires a step forward.
In conclusion, I have heard the presentations made by Edward, Kelly and Claude. I can say I am blown away by the analytical thinking that they have done, by their obvious passion for what they are doing, and their God given talents. I am inspired by each of them and they have evoked some emotions within me as I have listened to their heartfelt words.
God bless you all. I pray you achieve what you set out to achieve.
Post new comment