Could it be that your discomfort with the thought of attending black church was actually caused by your anti-racism training rather than revealed by it? I once brought a group of white people (high school students and their parents) from my church in Escalon (not much different than Lyndon) to a black church in Compton during a mission trip. It was so fun. We were welcomed with open arms. Literally, they hugged us and squeezed us into their packed sanctuary. We weren't black or white. We were just a bunch of Christians worshipping our king. Could it be that anti-racism training actually makes one racist.
I'm sorry, Kent. I apologize for not knowing what to call the process you described. I was referring to what you wrote above about "moving from ignorance to awareness." I wonder if you've considered the possibility that your process created the thing you discovered within yourself rather than it revealed it. I know it would be a complete paradigm shift to think about it that way. But try it on. See if it fits. I don't think any of my students and their parents I took on that mission trip to Compton were self-conscious at all about being at a black church. They loved it. And that church loved us. I know that's anecdotal, but for me it's evidence that maybe we should focus on what we have in common with black Christians more than our differences.
Moving from ignorance to awareness was simply that: being ignorant of a problem to becoming aware of it. Something was not on my radar; then it was. There's really no deeper meaning to that statement.
"I wonder if you've considered the possibility that your process created the thing you discovered within yourself rather than it revealed it." I'm not quite sure how to answer this other than with a simple "no." There's not really a master process here, other than trying to understand something about how and why a group of people at our church is struggling. The challenge came from a conversation I was having with a person of color.
"maybe we should focus on what we have in common with black Christians more than our differences." I thought this is what I communicated? E.g. image of God, reconciliation, reaching across, etc. It's certainly what I believe to be true.
"Could it be that anti-racism training actually makes one racist." It seems unlikely that it would (I don't even understand how that would work), at least not more racist than not thinking about anti-racism. If trying to understand the plight of someone suffering makes me more likely to want to harm that person, that seems really twisted and sadistic.
I admit that I'm struggling with this comment thread and find some of these questions and comments really odd. My sense is there are some background assumptions you have about what I said that I'm just not detecting. Or we're just talking past each other and I'm completely missing what you're saying.
Have you come upon disagreements at the theoretical level in your group, and if so, how were they addressed? I'm thinking, e.g., a conversation with someone who rejects the critical theoretical structure underlying -- or at least giving teeth to -- concepts regarding privilege, systemic racism, and the like. That's not very clear. Sorry about that. I'll try again.
First, I should preface by saying that this is surely an unfair question, given how broad and intractable it seems to be, but it's something I've been trying to work through on my own over the last decade or so, and haven't made heads or tails of it. I worry that the emotional and political nature of the central concerns make for very difficult waters. The question is this:
How do we adjudicate between competing hermeneutical or theoretical approaches to this question? It's difficult enough in other, less charged, fields, but people make attempts. I'm thinking, e.g., about metaethical criticisms of consequentialism that quantifying happiness, suffering, pleasure, etc., is conceptually impossible. The attempt is to show that consequentialism fails on its own grounds, which, if true, gives some reason to consider whether one should adopt it. I've read interesting pieces with similar approaches to originalism in law.
Are there similar discussions happening here? If not, then I worry that we've got (at least) two sides, each begging the question at the theoretical level, talking past one another about very real issues with very real consequences. I'm hoping you've had some experience with this in your group, which seems at least possible given the diversity you mention it enjoys above.
Could it be that your discomfort with the thought of attending black church was actually caused by your anti-racism training rather than revealed by it? I once brought a group of white people (high school students and their parents) from my church in Escalon (not much different than Lyndon) to a black church in Compton during a mission trip. It was so fun. We were welcomed with open arms. Literally, they hugged us and squeezed us into their packed sanctuary. We weren't black or white. We were just a bunch of Christians worshipping our king. Could it be that anti-racism training actually makes one racist.
Patrick, I've never taken any anti-racist training, so I'm not quite sure how to answer this.
I'm sorry, Kent. I apologize for not knowing what to call the process you described. I was referring to what you wrote above about "moving from ignorance to awareness." I wonder if you've considered the possibility that your process created the thing you discovered within yourself rather than it revealed it. I know it would be a complete paradigm shift to think about it that way. But try it on. See if it fits. I don't think any of my students and their parents I took on that mission trip to Compton were self-conscious at all about being at a black church. They loved it. And that church loved us. I know that's anecdotal, but for me it's evidence that maybe we should focus on what we have in common with black Christians more than our differences.
Moving from ignorance to awareness was simply that: being ignorant of a problem to becoming aware of it. Something was not on my radar; then it was. There's really no deeper meaning to that statement.
"I wonder if you've considered the possibility that your process created the thing you discovered within yourself rather than it revealed it." I'm not quite sure how to answer this other than with a simple "no." There's not really a master process here, other than trying to understand something about how and why a group of people at our church is struggling. The challenge came from a conversation I was having with a person of color.
"maybe we should focus on what we have in common with black Christians more than our differences." I thought this is what I communicated? E.g. image of God, reconciliation, reaching across, etc. It's certainly what I believe to be true.
"Could it be that anti-racism training actually makes one racist." It seems unlikely that it would (I don't even understand how that would work), at least not more racist than not thinking about anti-racism. If trying to understand the plight of someone suffering makes me more likely to want to harm that person, that seems really twisted and sadistic.
I admit that I'm struggling with this comment thread and find some of these questions and comments really odd. My sense is there are some background assumptions you have about what I said that I'm just not detecting. Or we're just talking past each other and I'm completely missing what you're saying.
Have you come upon disagreements at the theoretical level in your group, and if so, how were they addressed? I'm thinking, e.g., a conversation with someone who rejects the critical theoretical structure underlying -- or at least giving teeth to -- concepts regarding privilege, systemic racism, and the like. That's not very clear. Sorry about that. I'll try again.
First, I should preface by saying that this is surely an unfair question, given how broad and intractable it seems to be, but it's something I've been trying to work through on my own over the last decade or so, and haven't made heads or tails of it. I worry that the emotional and political nature of the central concerns make for very difficult waters. The question is this:
How do we adjudicate between competing hermeneutical or theoretical approaches to this question? It's difficult enough in other, less charged, fields, but people make attempts. I'm thinking, e.g., about metaethical criticisms of consequentialism that quantifying happiness, suffering, pleasure, etc., is conceptually impossible. The attempt is to show that consequentialism fails on its own grounds, which, if true, gives some reason to consider whether one should adopt it. I've read interesting pieces with similar approaches to originalism in law.
Are there similar discussions happening here? If not, then I worry that we've got (at least) two sides, each begging the question at the theoretical level, talking past one another about very real issues with very real consequences. I'm hoping you've had some experience with this in your group, which seems at least possible given the diversity you mention it enjoys above.