Grovelling Christianity

I’m a Christian, but I’m also a white person (and not ashamed of it), and as such, I’m becoming increasingly nauseated with grovelling before politically-correct minority groups. In the secular realm, the government of Trudeaupia (formerly Canada) is one of the worst offenders in this regard. The current Prime Minister, Stephen "The Great Groveller" Harper and his errand boy Jason Kenney (Minister of Citizenship, Immigration, and Multiculturalism) can’t seem to find enough groups to apologize to.

I took great offense when The Great Groveller apologized to the Chinese in Canada in 2006 because early in the 20th Century Canada had charged a head tax to Chinese workers entering the country, and eventually enacted immigration laws that barred further immigration from China. It would probably come as a shock to Messrs. Harper and Kenney that white Canadians of an earlier era would themselves have been shocked to be accused of doing anything that merited an apology. I think "chronological arrogance" is the term that Joseph Sobran used when referring to the criticism of those from earlier times because they didn’t see things as people in our time see them. To Canadians of the early 20th Century, the idea of a "multicultural" nation would have been suicidal, and an oxymoron: to the people of those days, a nation was mainly an identifiable people group that had important things in common, such as ethnicity, language, and religion (indeed, the New Testament Greek words for "nation" are ethnos, genos, and allophulos; all of them refer to a race or people, rather than a political entity). Canadians viewed their country as one of white Europeans (mainly English-speaking, with a loyalty to Britain and British institutions, and a belief in some form of Christianity), with one mainly French-speaking province (also composed of white people of European descent, mostly Roman Catholic). The people of Canada thought it was necessary for the nation to be as homogeneous as possible; to change the racial makeup of the population would be to change the country for the worse, and they didn’t want the country to be changed. That’s why they charged the head tax to Chinese coming to work in Canada--if they couldn’t discourage these people from entering Canada, they would at least make them pay for the privilege.

As for the Chinese, they weren’t brought here as slaves, and they weren’t held as prisoners. They agreed to the terms of employment, which were better than anything they would have had at home, and ended up better off than if they’d stayed in China. Although they weren’t paid as much as white workers, they were free to take their earnings back to China, where those earnings were regarded as a small fortune. The Edmonton Journal of June 27, 2006 published an obituary of Fong Ping Mah, whose husband was one of those workers who came from China to Canada and paid the head tax. He made several trips back to China, where the money he had earned in Canada enabled his family to be regarded as wealthy capitalists. Why should these people receive an apology?

A similar apology was issued to Canadians of Indian descent (from India, that is) in 2008 for the incident in 1914 when the Japanese ship Komagata Maru, carrying 376 passengers from Punjab (mostly Sikhs, with smaller numbers of Muslims and Hindus) was prevented from docking at Vancouver, and was sent back to India. By 1914 Canada, as a Dominion, had control over her own immigration, and was increasingly enacting laws and regulations restricting non-white immigration. Those on the Komagata Maru were deliberately trying to force their way into a country where they knew they wouldn’t be welcome. The government of the province of British Columbia and the government of Canada both made it clear that these passengers (except for 24 who had complied with the regulations) weren’t welcome. Far from apologizing for the incident, I applaud the B.C. and Canadian governments of 1914 for standing up for the interests of the country; given the way that some Sikhs have behaved since they were allowed into Canada, I think the governments of the early 20th Century showed unusual wisdom. For those white people of a politically-correct persuasion who think such a view is horribly racist, consider the results of unrestricted Chinese and Indian immigration. Just on numbers alone, it would be only a matter of time until whites would become a minority in their own country; if you think this would produce a harmonious nation, look at the effect that Muslim immigration is having on western Europe today. The millions of Mexicans illegally pouring across the border into the United States are having an extremely negative effect on that country. As Mark Steyn says, diversity is great for the world, but not for a country.

I’m just as nauseated by professing Christians who think that the best way to reach some people groups is by grovelling before them, confessing sins (usually in the past, and usually committed by others) which may be real, but may also be imaginary. The target groups are often quite happy to exploit the guilt feelings for their own benefit. I don’t see any of this grovelling Christianity in the New Testament.

I have no problem with apologies being made and compensation paid to actual victims of injustice, but I’m sick and tired of white people, especially white Christians, allowing themselves to be played for suckers. In the Christian realm, we see this in the case of Indian (i.e., First Nations, Native, Aboriginal, or whatever such term you prefer) residential schools, where actual sins were committed; those sins have been confessed and repented of, and restitution has been made (as an aside, the residential schools situation is an example of the dangers of "faith-based initiatives," where churches carry out the social agenda of the state). Some professing Christians insist on confessing and repenting on behalf of others, even if the sins were committed by those who falsely claimed to be Christians. This makes the professional repenters look very pious, and there are those among the victim group(s) who are happy to encourage the guilt feelings of the repenters. An example of this can be found in the Response to the Prime Minister’s Apology to Aboriginal Peoples by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada’s Aboriginal Ministries Council. The response (an abridged version of which may be found here (on page 10)) was written by Ray Aldred, Assistant Professor of Theology at Ambrose University College, and Chair of the EFC’s Aboriginal Ministries Council. Below are some quotes from Dr. Aldred’s statement, followed by my comments.

I hope that when Canadians heard their government’s apology there were not those who said, "It wasn’t me, I don’t need to apologize."

Well, I’m one Canadian who says, "It wasn’t me, I don’t need to apologize." I’m perfectly willing to confess and repent of my own sins, but I resent being called on to confess and repent of sins that were committed by others, especially when those sins were committed before I was born (I can’t verify the accuracy of the list of residential schools as it appears in Wikipedia, but I found only one school on that list that opened after I was born, and almost all the schools had closed before I reached the age of 20). This is where identificational repentance comes in (see previous post). Certain professing Christians (especially those of the Charismaniac/Dominionist ilk) are of the view that if there is spiritual darkness or resistance to the Gospel in a particular area, it’s because there is a curse handed down from previous generations because of a sin or sins that occurred. It’s then necessary to conduct an investigation of the spiritual history of the area to determine when and how the area came under a curse. If and when the sin is identified, it must be confessed and repented of in order for the curse to be broken and reconciliation to take place.

This is contrary to scripture: The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Ezekiel 18:20

In addition to the pagan nature of the spiritual warfare worldview with which IR is associated (see previous post), a problem I have with identificational repentance is the arrogance of those who presume to repent on behalf of people who: (a) may not have wanted to repent; (b) may not have thought they did anything requiring repentance; and (c) may have been right about (b) (e.g., the immigration issues cited above).

Let me suggest the theme of restorative justice. An attempt at reconciliation which might help us to think through what has happened in the apology because what has happened in Canada is not primarily a breakdown in law, but a breakdown in relationship. We need restorative justice because it is aimed at repairing relationship. Thus, when trying to walk in the theme of restorative justice there are three large tasks, according to Rev. Dr. Pierre Allard: Tell the truth; really listen; come up with a shared plan to repair the damage.

Let me suggest three tasks that Canadian evangelicals need to take in order to be better agents of reconciliation and that might help Canada in the continuation of walking toward restorative justice.

Task #1 A universalism of intention, not pretension (walking in the light of 1 John; the one who says they are without sin is a liar and the truth is not in him): Tell the truth.

When it came to residential schools the country and often the evangelical Church denied the truth by not acknowledging their responsibility for residential schools. But everyone was implicated by the residential schools, either because they ran residential schools or they stood by and did nothing to attempt to stop them.

In fact, it isn’t a denial of truth for evangelical churches not to acknowledge responsibility for residential schools. It wasn’t the evangelical churches that were operating these schools (I found one Baptist school and a few non-denominational ones on the Wikipedia list), but the mainline churches. More than half were run by the Roman Catholic church, and almost all the rest by the Anglican and United (and before they united, Methodist and Presbyterian) churches. Get your apologies from them, Dr. Aldred. And if you’re going to hold everyone guilty because they "did nothing to attempt to stop them," you may as well make similar accusations against the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles because they didn’t do anything to stop slavery in their society.

Task #3 Reconciliation, repentance, restoration (How can two walk together unless they both agree?): Come up with a shared plan.

I wonder if we will be ready in the years ahead to come up with a real plan to repair the damage. We must not let ourselves stop short of this.

Let’s see now: there’s already been an official apology from the federal government; a settlement agreement paying compensation to all victims has been implemented (and those victims who chose to opt out of the agreement were able to apply for compensation through other means); a Truth and Reconciliation Commission has been formed as part of the settlement agreement; and healing funds have been available from the government and churches for the last decade. I think most Canadians would say that justice has now been served, and the debt has now been paid. If people such as Dr. Aldred continue to belabour their grievances, it will show that the issue is no longer one of "restorative justice," but about exploiting white guilt feelings in order to keep extorting as much money as possible. This won’t result in reconciliation, but in resentment. I’m reminded of the episode of M*A*S*H where Corporal Klinger was injured while saving Major Winchester’s life, and Major Winchester felt obligated to do good works for Corporal Klinger while he recuperated. Corporal Klinger took advantage of this to the point where Major Winchester said, "Max, there is a fine line between good Samaritan and abused toady--and I am teetering on the precipice!"

I’ve noticed two things about the "reconciliation movement:" (1) It’s always a one-way street, with white people, especially white Christians, doing all the confessing and repenting (an 18th Century Canadian ancestor of mine had his ears cut off by Indians, but I have yet to hear any apology from Indians for that act--although I don't hold today's Canadian Indians responsible for it); (2) It seems to be a perpetual process of confessing and repenting that never seems to arrive at a point where the aggrieved group will say that final reconciliation has taken place.

May 30, 2012 update: Something I should have posted a few weeks ago: That last paragraph has been proven wrong, at least in one recent example. As reported by Nick Martin in the Winnipeg Free Press, April 16, 2012:

There were sweetgrass and tobacco, solemn tradition intermingling with laughter, unspeakable memories and hope for the future, dancing and a feast, cultures coming together.

Archdiocese of Winnipeg Archbishop James Weisgerber was the central figure at Thunderbird House Saturday, still humbled and trying to come to grips with the generosity of spirit that would allow aboriginal people to show forgiveness for the church's role in residential schools.

Weisgerber was adopted Saturday as a brother by Bert and Phil Fontaine, and elders Fred Kelly and Tobasonakwut Kinew, the first such traditional Naabaagoodiwin ceremony celebrated as an act of reconciliation.

"I was very honoured. I was blown away," said Weisgerber, dressed in his traditional black robes and a pair of moccasins. "I've never had a brother. Now I've got four."

Weisgerber spoke repeatedly about the generosity of aboriginal people. "They're the ones who've been hurt.

"As colonials, we're the ones who made the error 125 years ago," said Weisgerber, who acknowledged the damage his church had done to aboriginal people and their culture.

All Manitobans must make the commitment to reconciliation, the archbishop said. "All of us have to do this.

"The heart of reconciliation is forgiveness. There has to be a change of heart. There's a lot of racism on both sides of the divide," he said. "I believe we have a very long way to go, but it's a road worth travelling."

Former Assembly of First Nations national chief Phil Fontaine issued his own apology -- to the Catholics who had shown goodness, but whom he had for years "tarred with the same brush" in "indiscriminately" expressing his bitterness and anger at his treatment as a child in the residential schools.

"That was unfair," Fontaine said. "I've been thinking about this for a long time. It's been a struggle to find some balance in this tragic history."

Fontaine said there were long discussions among the four men before the adoption proposal was put to Weisgerber.

"The community had to be willing to adopt Archbishop Weisgerber," he said.

It was Weisgerber who three years ago asked Pope Benedict XVI to meet with residential school survivors, Fontaine pointed out.

That wasn't a universally popular idea in the Catholic Church, said Weisgerber, "But once the Pope said yes...." Weisgerber said he has been receiving emails from clergy across the country since word broke about the adoption.

Grand Chief Derek Nepinak of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs said he has not contacted other aboriginal leaders about the adoption ceremony.

"This is an initiative led by individuals. It's not a political initiative," Nepinak said. "I'm honoured to be here. This is an historic event. My mom went to residential schools, her mom went, and her mom's mum went."

Nepinak said Saturday's ceremony was a combination of the "relatively recent arrival of the Roman Catholic Church and its ceremonies" and ages-old aboriginal ceremonies.

Kinew told the community gathering "the ceremony means we are now prepared to move ahead... I want to leave residential schools behind me because I want to live my life in a good way."

This is a refreshing change, which does come as a surprise to this blogger; let's hope that this isn't an isolated example, and that things move in the direction of true reconciliation.