The mention of that nation turns our attention to one of those features in the Christian story which is repulsive to the modern mind. To be quite frank, we do not at all like the idea of a ‘chosen people’. Democrats by birth and education, we should prefer to think that all nations and individuals start level in the search for God, or even that all religions are equally true. It must be admitted at once that Christianity makes no concessions to this point of view. It does not tell of a human search for God at all, but of something done by God for, to, and about, Man. And the way in which it is done is selective, undemocratic, to the highest degree. After the knowledge of God had been universally lost or obscured, one man from the whole earth (Abraham) is picked out. He is separated (miserably enough, we may suppose) from his natural surroundings, sent into a strange country, and made the ancestor of a nation who are to carry the knowledge of the true God. Within this nation there is further selection: some die in the desert, some remain behind in Babylon. There is further selection still. The process grows narrower and narrower, sharpens at last into one small bright point like the head of a spear. It is a Jewish girl at her prayers. All humanity (so far as concerns its redemption) has narrowed to that.
Such a process is very unlike what modern feeling demands: but it is startlingly like what Nature habitually does. Selectiveness, and with it (we must allow) enormous wastage, is her method. Out of enormous space a very small portion is occupied by matter at all. Of all the stars, perhaps very few, perhaps only one, have planets. Of the planets in our own system probably only one supports organic life. In the transmission of organic life, countless seeds and spermatozoa are emitted: some few are selected for the distinction of fertility. Among the species only one is rational. Within that species only a few attain excellence of beauty, strength or intelligence.
At this point we come perilously near the argument of Butler’s famous Analogy. I say ‘perilously’ because the argument of that book very nearly admits parodying in the form ‘You say that the behaviour attributed to the Christian God is both wicked and foolish: but it is no less likely to be true on that account for I can show that Nature (which He created) behaves just as badly.’ To which the atheist will answer—and the nearer he is to Christ in his heart, the more certainly he will do so—‘If there is a God like that I despise and defy Him.’ But I am not saying that Nature, as we now know her, is good; that is a point we must return to in a moment. Nor am I saying that a God whose actions were no better than Nature’s would be a proper object of worship for any honest man. The point is a little finer than that. This selective or undemocratic quality in Nature, at least in so far as it affects human life, is neither good nor evil. According as spirit exploits or fails to exploit this Natural situation, it gives rise to one or the other. It permits, on the one hand, ruthless competition, arrogance, and envy: it permits on the other, modesty and (one of our greatest pleasures) admiration. A world in which I was really (and not merely by a useful legal fiction) ‘as good as everyone else’, in which I never looked up to anyone wiser or cleverer or braver or more learned than I, would be insufferable. The very ‘fans’ of the cinema stars and the famous footballers know better than to desire that! What the Christian story does is not to instate on the Divine level a cruelty and wastefulness which have already disgusted us on the Natural, but to show us in God’s act, working neither cruelly nor wastefully, the same principle which is in Nature also, though down there it works sometimes in one way and sometimes in the other. It illuminates the Natural scene by suggesting that a principle which at first looked meaningless may yet be derived from a principle which is good and fair, may indeed be a depraved and blurred copy of it—the pathological form which it would take in a spoiled Nature.
For when we look into the Selectiveness which the Christians attribute to God we find in it none of that ‘favouritism’ which we were afraid of. The ‘chosen’ people are chosen not for their own sake (certainly not for their own honour or pleasure) but for the sake of the unchosen. Abraham is told that ‘in his seed’ (the chosen nation) ‘all nations shall be blest’. That nation has been chosen to bear a heavy burden. Their sufferings are great: but, as Isaiah recognised, their sufferings heal others. On the finally selected Woman falls the utmost depth of maternal anguish. Her Son, the incarnate God, is a ‘man of sorrows’; the one Man into whom Deity descended, the one Man who can be lawfully adored, is pre-eminent for suffering.
But, you will ask, does this much mend matters? Is not this still injustice, though now the other way round? Where, at the first glance, we accused God of undue favour to His ‘chosen’, we are now tempted to accuse Him of undue disfavour. (The attempt to keep up both charges at the same time had better be dropped.) And certainly we have here come to a principle very deep-rooted in Christianity: what may be called the principle of Vicariousness. The Sinless Man suffers for the sinful, and, in their degree, all good men for all bad men. And this Vicariousness—no less than Death and Rebirth or Selectiveness—is also a characteristic of Nature. Self-sufficiency, living on one’s own resources, is a thing impossible in her realm. Everything is indebted to everything else, sacrificed to everything else, dependent on everything else. And here too we must recognise that the principle is in itself neither good nor bad. The cat lives on the mouse in a way I think bad: the bees and the flowers live on one another in a more pleasing manner. The parasite lives on its ‘host’: but so also the unborn child on its mother. In social life without Vicariousness there would be no exploitation or oppression; but also no kindness or gratitude. It is a fountain both of love and hatred, both of misery and happiness. When we have understood this we shall no longer think that the depraved examples of Vicariousness in Nature forbid us to suppose that the principle itself is of divine origin.
Lewis, C. S. (2001). Miracles: A Preliminary Study (pp. 187–191). New York: HarperOne.
White Privilege, Intersectionality, Slavery, Oppression and Moral-record-keeping. We are all Gehazi, white as snow
White Privilege
“White Privilege” can be a helpful meme but a dangerous filter.
Because of when, where and how I grew up I was never under the impression that skin color didn’t matter in America. I always knew you could be pulled over if you were black for driving in the wrong neighborhood. There are many many ways to illustrate racial inequality that endures in the United States when it comes to wealth, access to jobs and treatment by law enforcement. When I first heard the term “white privilege” and saw it being used I thought “yeah, that’s a very quick and easy way of naming a dynamic that is enduring, real and pervasive in our culture.” That’s pretty much the definition of a “meme“.
By virtue of where and how I grew up and have spent most of my adult life I also knew that “white privilege” was contextual.
Just like my black elders of Northside Chapel in the 70s might be pulled over visiting their white brothers and sisters in Christ for church meetings in North Haledon, I also knew that my white biological sister could be pulled over in our own neighborhood in Paterson in the 80s by the police under the suspicion of looking for crack.
I knew what it felt like to be a racial minority in a racially charged context both in US inner city and the black, brown and white tensions of a place like Haitian communities in the Dominican Republic.
While binary filters bring some dynamics into stark relief they also tend to obscure the greater complexities that are common to humanity. As human beings there are many many hierarchies beyond skin color by which human beings derive, maintain and defend status and inequalities.
From “White Privilege” to Intersectionality
Just like we’ve recently developed a meme (“white privilege”) to snapshot racial status in America we’ve now got one that tries to snapshot the reality of multiple hierarchies in conversation and sometimes competition with one another. That meme is called “intersectionality”.
It recognizes that race is not the only game in play in terms of status, there is also wealth, beauty, weight, attractiveness, sex, hair color and type, and so much more. Because human beings have such complex social interactions and value systems there are many many aspect by which we achieve and identify status between us. Because these status systems do not live in isolation from each other they form incredibly complex and powerful forces within our relationships and societal structures. If your goal is equality there are a near limitless numbers of threat to that by virtue of all these hierarchy systems and games.
This is in fact not difficult to illustrate. While many of my black friends who have money and status and can dress and speak well easily participate in the social and economic communities that surround me in Sacramento my homeless or mentally ill friends who bear some physical aspects similar to the homeless but who are white males, supposedly bearing that “privilege” can’t sit in a coffee shop and enjoy a legally purchased cup of coffee without being harassed by a security guard or kicked out. In other words there are no more “whites only” signs up but there are plenty of barriers up for many people beyond race.
Race of course doesn’t disappear in these dynamics. A security guard in Starbucks might kick out a disabled white man who looks homeless more quickly than he would a black woman because given our memes and conversations on race he might feel pressured to avoid the stigma or an accusation of racism.
Continue reading →