In the grand narrative of human progress, a false narrative has taken hold – that the ravages of colonialism are a relic of the past, a chapter closed in the annals of history. But the truth is far more complicated. As recent events have starkly illustrated, the colonial project’s legacy persists, seeping into the very fabric of our societies, often in insidious and unacknowledged ways.
In a recent editorial, The Christian Century posits that we are not, in fact, living in a postcolonial world. This provocative claim challenges the conventional wisdom that colonialism’s destructive power has been vanquished, replaced by a new era of global cooperation and equality. Instead, the publication argues that colonialism’s ghostly presence continues to shape our politics, economies, and cultures, perpetuating cycles of oppression and exploitation that demand our attention and action.
Unpacking the Legacy of Colonialism
A daughter’s question and the struggle to pray
My college-aged daughter’s question, “If God really cares about expressing solidarity with the least powerful, most oppressed people in the world, why didn’t Jesus come as a woman?” sparked a introspection on the power of language in shaping our reality. This inquiry led me to confront the male-dominated God-language that has been perpetuated in the church, and its far-reaching consequences.
The power of language in shaping our reality
Growing up, I was exposed to an exclusively male God, which had a profound impact on my perception of God and my place in the church. The language used to describe God was male-centric, and this had real-world consequences. The church’s male-centeredness led to a lack of female clergy, women in church leadership, and a collective will to fight on behalf of suffering girls and women at home and abroad. This language also contributed to the shame women internalized around their bodies, sexualities, and spiritualities.
The Church’s Male-Centeredness and its Consequences
No female clergy, no women in church leadership
The church’s male-centeredness has led to a lack of representation and empowerment of women. I didn’t know until recently that ruach, the God-Spirit who hovers over the unformed earth in Genesis 1:2, is feminine. I didn’t know about Sophia (Prov. 8:22), or God panting in childbirth (Isa. 42:14), or God the ferocious she-bear (Hosea 13:8), or God the midwife (Ps. 22:9–10), or Jesus the mother hen (Matt. 23:37). These discoveries have been instrumental in my understanding of God and my place in the church.
The impact on women’s bodies, sexualities, and spiritualities
The church’s male-centeredness has had a profound impact on women’s bodies, sexualities, and spiritualities. Women have internalized shame and experienced marginalization due to the lack of representation and empowerment. The language used to describe God has contributed to this marginalization, and it is essential to challenge and transform this language to create a more inclusive and empowering environment.
Challenging the Status Quo
Beyond Male-Dominated God-Language
Discovering feminine imagery in scripture
My discovery of feminine imagery in scripture has been instrumental in my understanding of God and my place in the church. The recognition of God as a female figure has provided a sense of recognition, mirroring, and belonging. This imagery has challenged the traditional male-dominated God-language and has empowered me to reimagine my relationship with God.
The longing for recognition, mirroring, and belonging
The church’s male-centeredness has led to a lack of recognition, mirroring, and belonging for women. The use of feminine imagery in scripture has provided a sense of validation and empowerment. This imagery has enabled me to see myself in God and has challenged the traditional male-dominated God-language.
The Limits of Gender-Neutral Language
Debates in progressive churches and their implications
The debate around gender-neutral language in progressive churches is complex and multifaceted. While neutrality may provide a sense of inclusivity, it may also lack the robustness and love that feminine imagery can provide. It is essential to challenge and transform the language used to describe God to create a more inclusive and empowering environment.
Rethinking Mission and Identity
As an American Protestant living in an uncertain time, it is not uncertain because God is absent or disinterested. I do not for a moment believe that. It is uncertain because American Protestants are uncertain about who they are and why they are here.
When I became an evangelical Christian forty-seven years ago and started living overseas, I became aware of a criticism leveled against people like me. We were arrogant, ethnocentric people, exporting American Christian culture. We were missionaries of Americana, of capitalism, of militarism, of coercion, trammeling the cultural identities of everyone we met.
We forced our way onto the poor and the needy. There is probably truth in the perception, though I think the charges were often overblown and unfair. The one thing right about the perception is the sense of confidence that undergirded American Christianity in the late twentieth century.
To say the least, things changed. They had to. Western Christianity took a backseat to the growth of the church outside of the West—in South America, but most especially in Africa and Asia. We no longer represented the majority. Our thinking also changed. Phenomena such as Asian or African theology, liberation theology, perceived orientalism, and so on offered non-Western versions of Christianity.
Christianity (and Christian missions) began to see itself increasingly through diverse lenses provided by surging social science. Anthropology, psychology, and linguistics took on directive rather than descriptive roles. The social scientific turn meant that the emphasis shifted from the proclamation of biblical, covenantal, propositional doctrine that confronted culture to the contextualization of a supracultural, often nonconfrontational message that could be customized for each global context.
The shift to the social was shattering in its consequence. It moved the center of gravity in missions and church planting from revelation to human construct. Let me clarify what I mean.
I assume that most of the people reading this short article are professed Christians. They affirm the Bible as having come from God. They believe that their eternal future depends on God’s saving love for them. They, in other words, do not believe that God is make-believe or that genuine faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ is principally psychological.
While I think that many professing evangelicals are moving in that direction, they are not there yet. For the broad but diminished expanse of evangelical Christians in America, the triumph of the social works in subtler ways.
The Social Scientific Turn in Missions
In this book, Rieff demonstrated how Christianity’s mutual confrontation by and accommodation to modernism, particularly psychology, forced Christianity to redefine what it did and offered.
People came to believe that what troubled them most were conditions to be treated rather than sins to be confronted. Similar accommodations were taking place in many other fields as well.
As modernism morphed into postmodernism (or liquid modernism, as I prefer), the objective gave way to the subjective in linguistics and interpretation. What an audience needed to hear was more important than what an author meant to say.
The study of culture began to dominate the study of God. God became a cultural construct, a projection of human desires and fears. In this view, God was no longer the Creator who spoke, nor the Redeemer who acted, but a product of human imagination.
This is not the place to rehearse the debates around the social scientific turn in missions. I will not rehearse the criticisms of the triumph of the therapeutic or the loss of a robust gospel. I will not rehearse the debates around the credibility of Christian truth claims in a postmodern world.
Instead, I want to focus on the implications of this shift for our understanding of the nature of God, the authority of Scripture, and the mission of the church.
Implications and Practicalities
Beyond Accommodation to Confrontation
The need for a prophetic voice in the church is more pressing now than ever. The church must once again become a place where the Word of God is preached, where the authority of Scripture is acknowledged, and where the mission of the church is clarified.
The importance of contextualization and cultural sensitivity cannot be overstated. But so too is the importance of confrontation, of speaking truth to power, of proclaiming the gospel in all its relevance and power.
We must not confuse the two. We must not think that contextualization and cultural sensitivity mean that we should never speak truth to power, that we should never confront the status quo.
Towards a More Inclusive and Empowering Church
Recognizing and celebrating diverse identities and experiences is essential for the health and vitality of the church. The church must become a place where everyone feels welcome, where everyone feels valued, and where everyone feels empowered to use their gifts and talents.
The role of the church in promoting justice and belonging is crucial. The church must become a place where the marginalized and oppressed are lifted up, where the poor and the needy are served, and where the voiceless are heard.
Conclusion
The article “We are not living in a postcolonial world” by The Christian Century challenges the notion that we have transcended the colonial legacy that has shaped our global society. The key points highlighted in the article emphasize that colonialism’s impact persists, manifesting in power imbalances, cultural erasure, and systemic inequalities. The authors argue that the imposition of Western values and institutions has created a legacy of oppression, which continues to influence our economic, social, and cultural structures.
The significance of this discussion lies in its implications for global solidarity, justice, and equitable development. If we fail to acknowledge and confront the ongoing effects of colonialism, we risk perpetuating the very systems that have caused harm and inequality. The article’s central argument underscores the need for a more nuanced understanding of our global context, one that recognizes the complex web of historical and ongoing relationships between colonizers and the colonized. This understanding can inform more effective strategies for promoting justice, reconciliation, and sustainable development.
As we move forward, it is imperative that we continue to engage with the legacies of colonialism and address the systemic inequalities that have been perpetuated. This requires a commitment to critical self-reflection, dialogue, and collaboration between scholars, activists, and policymakers. By doing so, we can work towards a more just and equitable global society, one that acknowledges and addresses the ongoing impact of colonialism on our world. As we strive for a more compassionate and inclusive future, we must confront the uncomfortable truth that our world is still very much shaped by the ghosts of colonialism, and it is only by facing these ghosts head-on that we can begin to heal and move forward.