By Juliany González Nieves Building a Longer Table: Decentering Whiteness in Our (Re)Conciliation Conversations

Juliany Gonzáles Nieves is an evangélica Puerto Rican born and raised on the island. In 2019, she graduated with a Master of Divinity -so presumptuous!- from TEDS. She is a founding editor of the Mosaic Bulletin. You can follow her on social media and read her blog at glocaltheology.com.

I am an outsider, a Spanish-speaking Caribbean woman whose people have historically being described by the U.S. Supreme Court as “foreign in a domestic sense.” 1 I am an island girl raised in a barrio in the northeast of Puerto Rico by the hands of her abuela, tías, mami, and those people we call familia without sharing a bloodline. Throughout my life, I have been described as a trigueña, taína, india, and criolla with Afro features. I seemed to successfully retell in my skin, hair, lips, and big eyes the complicated history of our island. But when you cross the ocean in this direction and get off the plane, with every step you take, you are stripped of your identity. You are “deformed and reformed” by the social narratives and often dehumanizing stereotypes disseminated by those in power in the metropolis. 2 Narratives that inevitably spill into Christian spaces. I no longer embody the richness of my Puerto Rican island culture. I am now thrown into a one-size-better-fits-all box that homogenizes the multi-lingual, multi-ethnic, and multi-racial realities of Latin America and the Spanish-speaking Caribbean. I am given the label of Latina and asked to enter Christian spaces of dialogue about racial and gender (re)conciliation. But when I sit at the table, my “hair [is] too kinky for [the whites], too wavy for

dreadlocks.” 3 So, I am then left in a taxing limbo where solidarity is rarely reciprocated. The table is not long enough to welcome this liminality, this in-betweenness. So, I walk around and stay long enough to realize that there is a difference between cheap and true (re)conciliation. Too often, the former looks like people of color being invited to “share their stories” at tables controlled by the interests and under the terms of Christian majority culture so that some can appease their consciences and give each other a pat in the back. There is no true hospitality, no standing in solidarity, and no mutuality. With luck –or should I say providence?- there might be a commitment to an individual of a particular community, who often happens to be somewhat palatable to the white Christian institution, ministry or organization. Nonetheless, that rarely translates into a commitment to the communities the individual represents. For, as pastor Sandra Maria Van Opstal writes, there is a difference between controlling one’s table and building a more inclusive one – a longer one. 4 But no longer table will be built until we are honest about the ways in which whiteness and maleness often seem to lord over even the most well-intentioned (re) conciliation dialogue spaces. And the latter is true not only for primarily white Christian circles but also minority ones. Because there are tables and then, there are tables. So, what I am arguing is true (re)conciliation requires the decentering of whiteness and maleness as the epitome of Christian godliness, and with it the creation of a longer table, built upon the church’s confession of its catholicity – the acknowledgement that the church is universal and global. 1. https://history.house. gov/Exhibitions-andPublications/HAIC/ Historical-Essays/ForeignDomestic/ 2. The phrase in quotes is from Elizabeth Acevedo’s poem “Afro-Latina.” 3. Elizabeth Acevedo, “Afro-Latina.” 4. Ibid, 63 But no longer table will be built until we are honest about the ways in which whiteness and maleness often seem to lord over even the most well-intentioned (re)conciliation dialogue spaces. True (re)conciliation requires the decentering of whiteness and maleness as the epitome of Christian godliness, and with it the creation of a longer table, built upon the church’s confession of its catholicity – the acknowledgement that the church is universal and global.

Of Tables and Tables

Some communities and individuals operate under the assumption that there is only one table of dialogue within USian Christianity. That is, the expensive and exclusive one owned by white middle-class Christian men and a number of white women in both the conservative and progressive aisles. Some might claim these are two different tables but I disagree. Paternalism is the menu served by both. While white conservatives are often suspicious about our “orthodoxy” –right belief-, white progressives are excited to “center” our voices until we dare to disagree with them. However, not often we hear about the tables we own, those created at our local churches, neighborhoods, community centers, barrios, stoops, cookouts, and abuelas houses. We know about the official ones, often dominated by the men. But then, there are the “unofficial” tables, those sustained by our women and always in session while cooking together, drinking café con leche, and doing our hair. So, when I call for the creation of a longer table, I am not just challenging that expensive and elitist table owned by the gatekeepers of white USian Christianity. I am also challenging and encouraging minority communities to extend our tables, welcome the global church to them, and renounce the discourses that elevate whiteness as the standard for Christian holiness. So, no. This is not just an essay for white Christians. Hopefully, it is an essay for all of us.

Decentering Whiteness: Defining Terms

Whiteness is a sociological construct, and it is at the core of what Dr. Christina Edmondson calls the mythology of race, which “assigns some a value of inferiority and others a heresy of the divine.” Whiteness preaches in word and deed the presumed (g)od-given superiority of EuroAmerican aesthetics, theologies, cultures, and ways of life and thinking, locating everything and everyone in a spectrum that grants degrees of privilege based upon their proximity to the baptized idol of the white man. The mythology of race with its heresies of white supremacy and patriarchy (the belief that men are intrinsically superior to women) have become the cornerstone upon which many nations and institutions –including Christian ones- have been built. And that is a heritage that shapes the way (re)conciliation initiatives and dialogues are designed and approached. Hence, I call for a decentering of whiteness. That is, to move away from ideas and practices that prioritize Euro-American cultures and their concerns, while moving towards a truly catholic approach, which is multi-sectorial, multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-lingual, and inevitably intersectional (i. e. considers the intersections between socioeconomic class, gender, race/ethnicity, etc.).

White-Centered Tables It is important to remind ourselves that whiteness is not an abstraction. It is embodied in the words and deeds of individuals and entire communities. It shapes policies at national and local levels that directly affect the lives of millions of people. It is a life or death matter for entire people groups, and when Christian spaces center it, they sacrifice the bodies of brothers and sisters in the altar of political parties, racism, and misogyny. When whiteness is centered in our (re)conciliation conversations, there are key indicators of its lordship over the table. For instance, consider the expectation often put on minorities to continually educate majority culture people on demand and at no cost but at the expense of the their spiritual, mental, and physical health. A reality that for women of color has a higher cost in a society where misogyny and xenophobia are rampant. This dynamic of positioning people of color in nonrespected teaching roles is the inevitable It is important to remind ourselves that whiteness is not an abstraction. It is embodied in the words and deeds of individuals and entire communities. It shapes policies at national and local levels that directly affect the lives of millions of people. It is a life or death matter for entire people groups, and when Christian spaces center it, they sacrifice the bodies of brothers and sisters in the altar of political parties, racism, and misogyny. result of majority culture people’s passivelearning. That is, the posture of repeatedly coming to the table without having invested any time and energy in doing any work, such as reading books, doing research (meaning using actual Google instead of treating minorities as Google), cultivating a historical conscience from the underside of history, and consulting several trusted national and international news outlets and sources, among other things.

A second indicator of the centering of whiteness is what topics are and are not discussed, and who gets a seat at the table. It is no secret that (re)conciliation conversations in the U.S.A. mainland are mostly structured around the white-black binary. A structure that is occasionally disrupted by organizers when that one white Latino is invited to speak on the apparently sole Latinx issue: immigration, or when Asian Americans make it to the

guests list. And although this binary has a historical reason of being, the need to move beyond it has theological, historical, and sociological reasons. For instance, historically, this need emerges from remembering that present day California, Texas, and the land in

between was originally Mexico. 5 It originates from acknowledging the histories and presence of indigenous communities. It arises from not forgetting that in 1882 the Chinese Exclusion Act

was passed by Congress, and that during World War II, Japanese internment camps were established. Sadly, rarely would you see a Native American, a Palestinian, or even a dark skin black Latin American present at the table. The reason for the latter might be a combination of historical forgetfulness or ignorance, and an intentional reductionism of the issues. The white-black binary leads our dialogues on justice to focus on just one aspect of the murderous history of this country. This results in the appeasing of the white conscience while avoiding to call individuals and communities to confess and repent for the whole empire of death unleashed on the land and all its residents. Hence, when whiteness is centered, there are no conversations about the doctrine of discovery; the legacy of boarding schools; femicide of indigenous and Latin American immigrant women; Afro-Latinidad and those who live at the intersection of being black, women, Hispanic, and undocumented; immigration as an international reality; and colorism, anti-blackness, and anti-indigenous sentiments within minority communities. The binary with its occasional Latinx guest doesn’t only center whiteness and perpetuate the exclusion of sisters and brothers from the tables, but it also renders our efforts at reconciliation infructuous. True (re)conciliation requires the decentering of whiteness and maleness as the epitome of Christian godliness. It is only then that a longer table will be authentically created, built upon the church’s confession of its catholicity – the acknowledgement that the church is universal and global.

Practical Ways to Decenter Whiteness & Build a Longer Table

5. https://www.history.com/topics/ mexican-american-war/treatyof-guadalupe-hidalgo

To confess the catholicity of the church is to also understand ourselves as members of a larger global family. This confession and understanding requires us to embody a certain kind of ecclesiology, missiology, and ethic. One that doesn’t allow us to sacrifice our brothers and sisters in the altar of racism, misogyny, and political parties. One that is in alignment with the kingdom of the God of life, and which reveals and destroys the heresies and idols we make for ourselves, including white and male supremacy.

For that reason, I believe embracing the catholicity of the church is the first step towards decentering whiteness and maleness from our (re)conciliation initiatives. It is the first step towards building a longer table where we are ultimately able to stand in solidarity with one another, especially as minorities.

But you might ask, “What are some practical ways in which we can embrace the catholicity of the church and decenter the idol of the white man from our (re)conciliation dialogue tables?” Well, I am so glad you asked.

6. Comment addressed to the author on the fall semester of 2016 by a pastor and seminarian.

Towards a Catholic Theologizing

To confess the catholicity of the church is to also understand ourselves as members of a larger global family.This confession and understanding requires us to embody a certain kind of ecclesiology, missiology, and ethic: one that doesn’t allow us to sacrifice our brothers and sisters in the altar of racism, misogyny, and political parties. The first thing we need to do is to identify the kind of theological

discourses that govern our tables. For a long time, there have been misogynous and racist Christian narratives, baptized as orthodoxy, leading the way. That is the kind of “orthodoxy” that keeps women and minorities at a distance and make comments such as, “We (as in white Europeans and Americans) are the heirs of the Reformation. Your country hasn’t even been well evangelized.” 6 That is the orthodoxy that deems our theologizing as “contextual” and treats us with suspicion. And that is the very orthodoxy that has even socialized us as minorities to regard Euro-American theology as superior and more biblical. Until our tables are characterized by the understanding that “all cultures [are] capable of reflecting biblical faith” and that women, especially women of color, are not second-class theologians, we will not progress. ARTICLES | ART | VOICES FROM THE COMMUNITY | MOSAIC SPOTLIGHT

Centering Minorities: Adding Chairs

Can someone explain to me how we are having (re)conciliation conversations without listening and learning from our Native American brothers and sisters at the table? How is it that the voices of Palestinian Christians are ignored? Why aren’t black Latin Americans being included in the conversation? Are we inviting immigrant churches into the dialogue? There is no true embrace of catholicity and no inclusive table without adding more chairs. And this is not an indictment solely to White USian Christianity. It is an indictment to the tables within our communities of color, which often neglect inter-minority community solidarity.

Centering Dialogues between and within Minority Communities

Lastly, in order to decenter whiteness from our (re)conciliation dialogues, we need to start centering dialogues between and within minority communities. Too often these (re)conciliation initiatives revolve around Majority culture and their interests, at the expense of Christian people of color. Whiteness is not the center. Hence, it is important that we start to have conversations about colorism, antiblackness, anti-indigenous sentiments, and embodied solidarity among minority communities. We need to welcome each other to the table and stand in solidarity with one another because we need one another.

Conclusion: The Decentering and Re-Centering Nature of the Gospel

At this point, anyone could ask “But what about the gospel?” Well, the gospel is good news to whom? Good news for when? Good news for where? When the gospel is the gospel, it is good news –and bad news too- for everybody. When the gospel is the gospel, it is good news not only for life after death but also for life in this life. When the gospel is the gospel, there is a reconfiguration of the values we live by in society as fellow image bearers. There is a reversal, a decentering and rejection of ideas and practices that “half-affirm” the dignity of people based on racial constructs, gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, etc. In The Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55), Mary sings about the God who “has scattered the proud because of the thoughts of their hearts;” the God who “has toppled the mighty from their thrones and exalted the lowly;” the God who has “satisfied

the hungry with good things and sent the rich away empty.” There is a reversal, a decentering and a re-centering. The gospel liberates, dignifies, and challenges us as followers of Christ to embody the values of the Kingdom of God in the presence of the Anti-kingdom. Our (re)conciliation dialogue tables should be shaped by the eschatological vision of Revelation: all the nations gathering together at the table of the Lamb.

Our (re)conciliation dialogue tables should be shaped by the eschatological vision of Revelation: all the nations gathering together at the table of the Lamb.