What Would Jesus Do: racial justice as a remit of church ministry.
Around 31% of the global population identify as Christian. This is a significant number who should be positively impacting racial justice and adjacent conversation
[Please note: I wrote this essay in March 2019 for a specific call, long before Pastor Ben Lindsay’s book, We Need To Talk About Race: Understanding the Black Experience in White Majority Churches, was published. The essay below is the original draft that was finalized on 30th March, 2019. I would encourage everyone to read Pastor Lindsay’s book- I certainly will. There is only strength to be gained from attaining knowledge and views from different perspectives of the Black diaspora.]
When the beaten and battered Jesus of Nazareth was on the path to crucifixion, three of the four canonical gospels note a significant happening: the Roman soldiers encounter a man whom they force to carry the cross on which Jesus would be crucified. Why this particular man- Simon of Cyrene? There is valid reason to believe Simon was Black, and thus physically stood out in such a large crowd of onlookers. As pointed out by Reverend Jeania Ree V. Moore, this experience highlights social hostility towards Black bodies, literally in the presence of the Christ.
If the Christ’s teachings are to be followed, racial injustice is simply not something that his followers can afford to ignore.
The history of the spread of Christianity is one filled with violence and colonisation. Jun and colleagues centre the white-washing of the person of Jesus (through empire, racism, colourism, religion and education) and its distorted by-product as the cause of significant epistemic and physical violence. Very unfortunately till date, many atrocities have been committed in the name of the Christian religion. This goes against the very tenets in the teachings of the Christ- who himself kept company or associated with tax collectors, sex workers, adulterers, and those whom society deemed unworthy.
A prophet and healer of humble beginnings, Jesus of Nazareth was a man who lived with a deep sense of social justice. We get glimpses of this through the way he interacted with those who had physical and mental disability, and those who lived in poverty. Further, in his ministry that relied heavily upon his close friendship with women. In addition, his dedication to speaking about equality.
The power in Jesus’ social justice ministry can be harnessed by the modern church and used as a blueprint for speaking about and enacting racial justice, globally and locally. The strength in this model lies in the fact that the 31% of the global population who are Christians have overlapping influence in several different social circles- both in and out of the workplace.
The modern church is no monolith.
However, whether Catholic, Anglican or any of the number of Protestant communities it is usually structured so that there is a head church with branches in numerous cities worldwide. This structure, which in the past has been taken advantage of for the spread of harm, can now be used to further catalyse the conversation of racial justice and what it looks like both globally and locally. This is because the church often operates head-to-branch and branch-to-head communications. I posit that these communication channels will form a good tool for knowledge exchange on race and racism, with global and local conversations running in parallel. Conversation at the local level will ensure that communities have the freedom to speak openly about how historical and contemporary racist systems have caused them harm.
Further, community-specific recommendations for reparative action can be raised. With the same protocol that is used to transmit all other church-specific information, there should be an intentional transmission of unadulterated information gleaned from community discussions. This system will be mirrored when receiving information about the discussions held in head churches.
A noteworthy caveat is the burdensome expectation placed on people of colour to partake in this unpaid emotional labour.
Consequently, such a model should not be implemented in a heavy-handed manner which can only serve to echo past abuse and trigger unhealed trauma. Rather, at each level of the church the leadership teams and participants must grant their consent to participate in the conversation.
It is crucial that such discussions delineate race and ethnicity, respect the intricacies of the society and land they are happening on, operate open spaces for honest conversation, and document identified action points. Different methods can be used such as focus groups, open meetings, committee formation, surveys and questionnaires. It is imperative that participants feel valued, and not pressured to fit their community-specific needs into molds that suit the larger church. After all, even within one particular race different global communities may identify very different needs. This nuance has been killed in the past, and the effort with which the church should seek to make amendments needs to be commensurate.
‘Operating under grace’, which is a well-known concept in most Christian circles, does not exempt the church from righting wrongs.
In the age of social media, head figures of churches are often easily accessible. Even if not, appropriate measures can be taken to reach them and invite them to engage in this action plan. A fully outlined protocol for engagement can be created by head churches, explicitly stating short-, mid- and long-term goals. An open access website can also be created and regularly updated with information and action points collected by the global and local churches. This will ensure that any individual has access to online resources and frameworks they can use in their own discussions on racial equality.
The global church has the power, privilege and access to make a meaningful impact on how we discuss racial injustice and dismantle it.
