Gentrification and Colonialism

Let me preface this entry with the acknowledgment that I really don't know what I'm talking about.  I am neither a historian nor a sociologist.  I'm simply thinking a lot these days about certain conversations taking place in our culture - and wondering where they come from.  I expect this hypothesis has already been explored in depth by those far more qualified than I to do so.  And I humbly request that those more knowledgeable about these matters will offer corrections and recommendations in the comments.

Also, I am aware that I use exclusively the male pronoun below.  It is not an accident.

==========================

The neighborhood where I perform my ministry has recently provided me with quite an education on human behavior and motivations.  Our neighborhood was built by rich whites at the turn of the 20th century as the first "suburb" of Richmond (it was called a "streetcar suburb," because the city built a streetcar line to ferry the wealthy residents back-and-forth between their grand houses and the merchants in the city).  After the war, Richmond's vibrant upper- and middle-class black community began moving into this area -- which of course occasioned massive white flight.  When a Presbyterian church in the neighborhood took up and headed out to the (new) suburbs, the local presbytery and Presbyterian seminary together founded in its place the first integrated congregation in the City of Richmond.  This congregation flourished for several decades, and maintained its unique character.  However, its fortunes mirrored those of the neighborhood, and with the 1980's and '90's came a general economic downturn, along with an increasing loss of diversity.  By 2010, both the congregation and the neighborhood were almost completely bereft of white people.

In the past few years, however, the neighborhood has begun to experience gentrification, and that trend has accelerated rapidly in the past year.  At the same time, there has been a revival of community organizations, with a concomitant increased engagement in civic issues affecting our specific neighborhoods.  City services, real estate development, crime, and parking issues are all frequent topics on an electronic bulletin board I subscribe to.  Mixed in with these are fairly regular announcements of organization meetings, local events, and generally upbeat comments about the direction the community is taking.  Membership on this bulletin board is heavily skewed in favor of recent arrivals, many of whom are young and tech-savvy (and white).  One comment in particular has stuck with me because of the frequency of its appearance, and the lack of any comment in response to it.  That comment is one that opines, in some way or another, "We [i.e., the new arrivals] are going to make this a great community!"

Which has gotten me thinking about colonialism.

As I've been thinking about it, it seems to me that colonialism is distinctive by the philosophy which underlies its exercise of power.  Peoples and rulers have fought for power and dominion since the beginning of time.  But colonialism seems to have a unique character.  It adds to the common appetite for power an insidious ingredient of "betterment" -- the idea (always uncritically accepted by the colonist) that the exercise of their power is fundamentally "good for" those being colonized.

I'm not aware of any ancient conquests predicated on this aim.  It seems to me that this philosophical framework appears only in the wake of the Enlightenment.  And this would make some sense, since it was the Enlightenment (I think) that robustly developed the understanding of 1) the individual 2) apart from the divine 3) who had the power to improve himself - and, by extension, those around him.  (In other words, the Enlightenment is why Barnes and Noble is able to devote so many shelves to "self-help" books.)

This notion of "betterment" exceedingly complicates the phenomenon of colonialism, simply because the exercise of dominion is no longer understood as simply the deserts of a stronger power.  Rather, colonization is unique because the conqueror sincerely believes that the exercise of his power is virtuous -- even helpful.  And, to complicate matters even more, this belief is often vindicated through endeavors like education, health care, farming methods - even an occasional brokering of peace between warring indigenous peoples.

Yet these admitted improvements are never accomplished by themselves.  They are inevitably the handmaidens to the colonizing power that truly (if disingenuously) sees itself as Savior.  It is this fundamental assumption that poisons every action of the powerful, because it uncritically labels all aspects of the natives' life as inferior, and all aspects of its own as superior.  Such is the character of the Messiah Complex.

The inevitable consequence of this dynamic, of course, is that any criticism of the colonist is immediately met with protestations that point (exclusively) to the colonist's most clearly humanitarian endeavors, buttressed by an "all-or-nothing" mentality.  Because colonialism is un-self-critical, it is inescapably immature.  It refuses to allow for the possibility that its motivation for any particular endeavor (however humanitarian its appearance) may actually spring from a subconscious awareness that the endeavor in question actually benefits the colonist as much as - if not more than - the colonized.

This selective blindness can affect both sides (although the colonist, exercising power, is far more culpable). Those colonized may refuse to acknowledge whatever actual improvements colonists may have brought, translating to an indiscriminate and wholesale indictment.  Consequently, the colonist hears not a criticism of particular practices, but of the "noble vision" (however erroneous) at the root of his "benevolent" colonizing efforts.   By the same token, because the colonist is unwilling to acknowledge that the changes he has brought are not universally and equally beneficial, he views the colonized as ingrates and savages - who, of course, therefore need more colonization.

It all comes back to the fundamental premise of colonialism - that the colonists' efforts are based on (or at least are significantly characterized by) an altruistic motive for improvement, and that its consequent actions are therefore beyond reproach.  The problem, of course, is that even the purest and noblest of human efforts will always be stained with self-interest (cf. Is. 64:6b).

Which brings up the final thought-tangent: I'm reminded of the clever and unique practice of the Deceiver.  People frequently characterize him as completely evil, and his works as completely evil.  This is actually to his advantage, because all he need do is Not Appear Evil, and people will therefore conclude that he cannot be the Deceiver.  And so this is his modus operandi: if you examine scripture's depiction of the Deceiver, you will see that he never tempts with unadulterated sin (because we humans are far too virtuous to fall for something so venal).  Instead, the Deceiver always mixes actual Truth into his ploys.  He accurately tells Eve that she and Adam will know good and evil after eating the fruit, and he accurately quotes holy scripture in his attempts to tempt Jesus in the wilderness.  That is what makes his deceptions so insidious: no matter how evil, they always contain some goodness.

*cf. also, "We're from the government.  We're here to help."

=================

Please let me say again that what I've written above is no more than 1) a rough draft of 2) personal musings.  It needs significant editing, but the driveway is waiting to be shoveled and I have other responsibilities.  I do not mean for this to be received as authoritative in any way.  Rather, they are just my thoughts, and I covet your thoughtful response and engagement. 

Another hopeful drop in the bucket...

 Before posting this, I need to acknowledge my complicity in gratuitously posting "shameful" and "outrageous" things on Facebook.  Far too often have I stumbled across something that irks my conscience (or that easily lends itself to ridicule, condemnation or judgment - at least from my cultural perspective) and thoughtlessly chosen to share it with others.  Obviously I suffer from the common sin of deriving some hidden and perverse gratification in pointing out the sins of others (cf. Luke 18:11-12 -- I expect this was one of the things Paul had in mind when writing Ephesians, esp. 4:8).  For that I am truly sorry, and ask your forgiveness.  I am grateful to the Lord for revealing this to me, and repent of that unhelpful practice.

That said, I honestly believe this post (and others like it) is of a different character.  As far as I can tell, this post elicits in me no spiritual smugness, no personal sense of ethical superiority; it seeks not the affirmation of friends with "likes" and complementary outrage.  I post this (and other similar posts) not out of a juvenile desire to be part of a moralistic "pile on"; rather, I share this out of a much deeper conviction that the particular racism that is peculiar to our country and endemic in our culture thrives in a context of ignorance and denial - particularly when that context is largely white and privileged - i.e., like myself, and many of my friends.

Some of you may be tempted to categorize this post as "the confessions of a bleeding heart liberal." OTOH, many of you would never even consider using the adjective "liberal" to describe me.  ;-)  Understand that I post this not as a "call to action," nor as a disingenuous plea to whites to exhibit greater politeness and consideration towards people of color.  I post it simply because, in my personal experience, the cultural context of most white Americans' daily lives admits little to no consideration of the context in which so many black and brown Americans live.  (And to be clear, their context is DOMINATED -- with all the connotations that word brings -- by white culture).  This is not a condemnation so much as it is simply an observation.  There are only so many hours in every day, and they are so easily filled to overflowing by a multitude of cares and worries, media and hype, calendars and activities, that many important things are simply left unattended to.

This is one of those important things.  And I believe it to be of supreme importance for the Church.  God's Incarnation in Jesus - Emmanuel - was the paradigmatic manifestation of holy and perfect love, in that God left behind the glories of heaven in order to be with us, to dwell among us, to be our neighbor (cf. John 1:14, "The Message" translation).  However, most whites in the US are neither domestic nor occupational neighbors with people of color (again, not a judgment, just an observation of a fact, a fact that derives from a multitude of factors, some of them quite innocent).  Consequently, many white folk are unaware that the Damoclean sword of unprovoked, unexpected, and completely random murder -- because of one's skin color -- utterly dominates the daily thoughts of many of our brothers and sisters of color.

That horrible truth will not be changed with one post, or with a thousand posts.  It will only be changed when we, in love, choose to "be with" our brothers and sisters whose lives are thus dominated.  But when circumstance militates against that physical, incarnational "withness," God can use even the internet -- even Facebook and blog posts -- to bring their voices into our lives.  And when our lives are lived with others, then, I pray, our lives -- our choices, our words, our decisions, our actions -- will bear more faithful witness to the whole of God's kingdom.  With this post, I hope to contribute one small drop to that bucket of hope.

God and Mammon

I recently opened an email from a trusted source, only to find an advertisement from a company hawking en electronic giving technology for churches.  The tagline is, 

"Finally. A simple, easy and affordable giving solution for your church."

Which got me thinking.  

“Finally”??? 

Have Presbyterians all over the country been flooding the GA with overtures demanding relief from the arduous task of putting cash or a check in an offering plate?? 

Have parishioners been petitioning church treasurers to please spend more of the church’s money to obtain the offerings that the congregation has hitherto been giving the church for free?

Has the Goliath of Silicon Valley failed time and again over the last twenty years to satisfy the raging consumer demand for a “simple, easy and affordable giving solution” with regards to church gifts, tithes and offerings, only now to be beaten by the David of this vendor?

Who in heaven’s name decided that the church has a “giving problem” that requires the marketplace to deliver a “giving solution”?  Furthermore, who concluded that such a solution was to be found not in any teaching, discussion or study about the theology of giving (and more importantly, the theology of God’s generosity and faithfulness), but rather in computer-based technology that dangles promises of greater revenue in exchange for an open-ended commitment of parishioner’s offerings to using this technology?

Any practice that persuades and invites Christians to remove the spiritual discipline of tithing from the act of worship in community, and relocate it somewhere else in the building, away from worship – however financially profitable it may be in the short term – will surely corrode and erode the church’s engagement with the profound practices of tithing, offering, worshipping, and faith.  One does not “encourage a culture of generosity” by making the “experience” accessible and simple.  If that were true, every streetcorner panhandler would be a millionaire, since it is clearly simpler and quicker to pull money out of one’s pocket than it is to stand in front of an electronic kiosk (perhaps maybe even in line) and type in one’s identifying information, the amount to be given, the “confirmation” button, etc.  No, one encourages a culture of generosity by bearing sustained and joyful witness to a God Whose generosity and overwhelming love transforms people’s lives.  One encourages a culture of generosity by having members of the community tell stories of how God has upheld them through the direst of financial crises in their lives, and how 10% of what we receive from God is barely a token to return to Him in gratitude for His unfailing love.  People don’t want to give money because "it’s easy."  People want to give money when they learn, through acts of faith, how utterly faithful God is, and are thereby freed from their psychological and spiritual dependence upon Mammon. 

How can a Christian possibly characterize pressing buttons on an electronic screen as “user-friendly,” implicitly in contrast to physically surrendering actual money to God in the midst of worship as an act of trust and generosity?  Maybe next we should encourage members to stay home Sunday morning and watch the video stream of the service, since that’s clearly much “simpler” and more “user-friendly” than having to get dressed, load the kids into the car, find a parking spot, and get everyone where they’re supposed to be – only to turn around a little more than an hour later and “reverse” the whole sequence (but now with kids that are whiny and/or pumped up on cookies and kool-aid).

I realize that churches are going to do what churches are going to do, and I have no power to stop them.  I also realize that publications need money, and advertisements can be a helpful and lucrative source.  But that fact in itself does not thereby bless a practice of inviting a wolf into the sheepfold, even when the wolf is spouting promises of fatter sheep.  Every church that purchases a system like this chooses to assume a fixed expense (of monthly subscription and transaction fees to this vendor) in the sole hope  - but without any guarantee whatsoever - of increasing revenue.  Put another way, such a church chooses to surrender real, actual money ONLY because it hopes that, by doing so, it will receive even more money in return - even though it has absolutely no control or influence over the results.  

Which, when I stop to think about it, is a pretty accurate definition of “gambling.”