Burying White Privilege: Resurrecting a Badass Christianity

by Miguel A. de la Torre

When I write white Christianity, you might think that I am generalizing and essentializing a broad Euro-American demographic group based solely on the pigment of their skin. However, ontological whiteness has nothing to do with skin pigmentation. This is important, so I will say it again: the word white in my usage has nothing to do with the color of one’s skin. Instead, it has to do with worldview, a way of being, thinking, and reasoning morally. A white Christian can be black, Latinx, Muslim, or atheist. While it might be easier for those with whiter skin to embrace white Christianity, those of us who would never be considered white by our physical appearance have also had our minds so colonized that it is difficult to break free from this white, Christian milieu.

The Jesus narratives, at their core, are anticolonial literature about a native resident displaced by the invading imperial power. The Gospel narratives depict a careful dance between Rome, the colonizer, and Jesus, the colonized. Not far from the story-telling surface is the real-world dynamic of experiencing the consequences of empire. We see it throughout Jesus’s everyday life and how he responded to the circumstances brought about by the economic and political occupation of Judea.

Jesus does more than simply show empathy for the poor and oppressed. He does more than simply express some paternalistic concern. Jesus is the poor and oppressed. “Inasmuch as you did it to one of these, the least of my people, you did it to me” (Matt. 25:40).8

Christianity did not die because of Donald Trump’s election. Any Christianity that could so readily ally itself with such a candidate and such policies was already gravely ill.

White Christians may insist that racism was not a primary motivation for casting their votes for Trump and that their votes came from “forgotten Americans” who were economically struggling. But I reject such analysis. The causes are not a simple matter of either-or. They felt forgotten because they believed “those damned aliens” were taking their jobs and, thanks to affirmative action, undeserving welfare queens and young bucks were draining the system. Every vote cast for the Dreamers’ nightmare, every vote cast for the proctor of religious tests to exclude Muslims, every vote cast for one to whom black lives never mattered was a vote for racism using economics as an excuse.

I learned, however, that converting to this form of Christianity meant that I needed to convert, more or less, to the white dominant culture. If I wanted to belong to this group of Christians and make this church my home, I needed the self-discipline to put on whiteface if I desired to remain consistent with my church’s conservative worldviews and theology. In effect, I learned to define my faith and myself through the eyes of white supremacy, regardless as to how loving and sincere the oppressors appeared.

Am I, a person of color, expected to meekly approach the master’s table and politely discuss the nature of which particular scraps that have fallen to the floor might be available for me to gratefully devour? Yet in the face of policies designed to eradicate us, I am expected to be nice, mild, loving, and encouraging.

I (and all people of color) am forced to be fluent in Eurocentric philosophy and theology. To reject the worldview of those who excluded the colonized, attempting to construct my theological view on my own cultural context, is to risk being dismissed as unscholarly or exotic. No institution of higher education within the United States would have granted me a PhD if I were not fluent in Hegel, Heidegger, or Habermas. And yet my white colleagues are deemed rigorous scholars without ever having to read Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, José Martí, or Miguel de Unamuno. I must be fluent in Eurocentric thought and knowledgeable about the contributions made by scholars relegated to the underside of the academy. While this double-consciousness gives me a broader and more rigorous grasp of reality than my white colleagues have, still a large number of those colleagues insist that affirmative action was responsible for my professorship.

A 2018 sociological study showed that voting for Trump was, for many, a symbolic act in defense of some type of Christian heritage. The best predictor of who would vote for Trump was strong adherence to a Christian nationalist ideology—even after controlling for racism, sexism, Islamophobia, or political identity.

Those lacking economic privilege, as my colleague John Raines reminds us, are taught to “dream up and blame down.”

Historically, white Euro-Americans have shed the blood of darker bodies so they might have life and have it more abundantly. The marginalized are offered up as living sacrifices to the God of white Christianity. Quite frankly, the rise of the United States had less to do with God’s favor or the superior intellect of white people than the fact that the United States’ wealth, global power, and place in the world as the greatest empire ever known, are due to those who have been crucified in her name. America’s greatness would never have risen to its present level if not for the stolen land of indigenous people, the free slave labor of black bodies, and the twentieth-century invasions into countries of Latinxs’ origins to steal their land, their raw materials, and their cheap labor. America was made great through the exploitation and subjugation of those who fell short of the white ideal, an exploitation and subjugation masked as God’s favor toward God’s new chosen people.

Most communities of color feel a chill running up their collective spine whenever white folk, ignorant of their own history, chant the need to “Make America Great Again” because those of us who carry the stigmata of United States’ history know all too well how the grinding of our forebear’s lives and the crushing of their bones into dust was the price paid for America’s greatness.

Christianity has a problem with “what you do” because of its focus on “how you believe.” A mental decision to accept Jesus Christ as one’s Lord and savior trumps using Jesus Christ as the paradigm for how to live one’s life.

The Eurocentric modernity project, the so-called Age of Enlightenment, of replacing God with science and reason, has succeeded in giving birth to a God created in its own image, a God who became foundational in the rationalization of necessary murderous and oppressive acts required for the establishment of the global empire of the United States. Such a God has been used to justify what Nietzsche called “master morality,” practiced today by nationalist Euro-American Christians because it encourages power, freedom, and strength. From this God followed an ethical discourse that might challenge humanity to be compassionate (recall George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism), yet seldom challenges the structures that caused inhumane conditions, for such a challenge would threaten the privileged space of those who embrace guts, guns, and God. We embrace patriotic sentiments of supporting our troops or ensuring no child is left behind even while passing massive tax cuts, which assure that the wealthiest segments of society are enriched at the expense of our moral rhetoric and proclamations. Yes, we have killed God, but obviously the wrong God.

Questioning the goodness of the United States can be deplorable and unpatriotic. But whenever patriotism replaces justice, we are in mortal danger of idolatry. If we believe the United States can be a force for good in the world, then the ultimate act of patriotism is to confront and challenge the country’s current grievous race-based sins by demanding it lives up to the rhetoric it avows. True patriotism is proved by the tangible, transformative actions its citizens take to bring forth a justice-based social order.

well-meaning white Christians do envision building the beloved community of which King dreamed, but they find it a difficult proposition because many whites in the United States continue to cling to institutionalized racism and ethnic discrimination. This does not mean such Christians are excluded from working toward the dream. It means that if they hope to be allies, they must participate in killing the God of white Christianity.

Take for example, the great modern-day theologian Steven Colbert of the former The Colbert Report, who once satirically accepted applications in hopes of finding his very own “black friend.” Realizing the importance of political correctness, Colbert thought it crucial to find a black friend he could display just in case he ever was accused of being a racist. He was so committed to the cause that he had to ask someone else to point out those who were black because, after all, he was “colorblind.” Colbert made his point. All too often, white Christianity tries to follow Colbert’s facetious lead in how to racially and ethnically diversify the church, taking similar shortcuts to make the segregated Sunday morning hour seem more inclusive. The hope of diversification has more to do with political correctness than creating the beloved community.

for many, their approach attempts to include faces of color without necessarily hearing voices of color. All too often, when white Christians wrestle with issues of inclusiveness, they simply publish a multicultural website containing token faces of color for the sake of political correctness. And if need be, such faces can always be Photoshopped. All are welcomed, as long as white Christian power structures remain intact. The underlying meaning of political correctness is inclusiveness as long as people of color first convert to whiteness and respond appreciatively to the varied translations of their respective cultures.

Even the most faithful to God can revert back to the prejudices lurking in their hearts as exemplified by Peter, who refused to break bread with these Gentiles. This is the same Peter who was once criticized for visiting the home of the Gentile Cornelius, a Roman centurion. But while Peter was in Antioch, when certain men of Jerusalem arrived to insist Gentiles must first be circumcised before being saved, Peter did what so many whites do when threatened with being traitors to their race, he remained silent and did not stand in solidarity with the marginalized by sitting down and eating with the uncircumcised Gentiles.

Today, the Euro-American church demands not to physically cut off the foreskin of men but rather to force communities of color, both men and women, to cut off the foreskin of their identity, their culture, and the symbols by which they perceive the physical and metaphysical world. To become Christian, those whom this brand of the Christian tradition oppressed and repressed must first become white.

Unless those within Euro-American Christianity begin to deal honestly and seriously with their white supremacy and class privilege, it is unlikely believers of color will ignore the realities outside the church building and just join them. I contend that nationalist Christianity and its white theology rooted in Eurocentric philosophy are simply beyond reform, because this is what we people of color see and live every day. Rejecting this form of Christianity is, frankly, crucial to our own mental health, not to mention our physical and societal well-being.

But how does one reconcile white Christianity with the rhetoric of “for all”? White Christians are not hypocritical because they spew liberty and justice rhetoric; instead, they are deceived by embracing a philosophically and spiritually constructed worldview that justifies oppression through freedom-based language. White Christians understand their faith in abstract terms; at the same time, their faith is devoid and dismissive of acts of social justice. This attitude enables them to obscure the violence of disinheriting, disempowering, and dispossessing nonwhites while embracing religious sentiments.

Colonized minds relieve the anxieties of those whom society privileges from what those falling short of the white ideal might do. Carter G. Woodson, son of African slaves and among the first to study the black experience within the United States, probably said it best, “If you make a man feel that he is inferior, you do not have to compel him to accept an inferior status, for he will seek it for himself. If you make a man think that he is justly an outcast, you do not have to order him to the back door, he will go without being told; and if there is no back door, his very nature will demand one.”1 The tragedy of faith is when brown and black bodies demand that back doors be built at white churches so they can enter on bended knees to worship the white Jesus of Euro-American Christianity. No person can serve two masters,

There is a difference here in the type of call from some similar reconcilers. He is not calling to love or forgive but to decolonize our theology and lives.

Attempting to interpret Christianity through Eurocentric philosophical and theological paradigms is akin to putting their white Jesus in blackface. For Christianity to experience resurrection, Eurocentric Christianity in its nationalist garb must first be crucified.

all too often, the oppressed cast their votes for the emperor or empress who, at the end of the day, will cause the least amount of misery and oppression for the world’s disenfranchised.

The voice of the powerless is permitted to be heard only if it is expressed as a token squeak, in deference to the privileged. Although the white Christian’s foot is on the neck of the marginalized, the oppressed must meekly ask, Good afternoon, Sir, sorry to bother you Sir. May I kindly bring it to your attention that our group is not advancing due to the foot you unintentionally placed upon our neck? Do you have a moment to discuss what we perceive to be an unfortunate situation? We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss your foot in a manner which provides you with a positive and uplifting self-understanding and enlightenment. If not, then perhaps we could schedule an appointment at your earliest convenience. White Christianity prefers to remain ignorant or silent rather than explore how their faith is but a political ideology detrimental to the vast majority of disenfranchised communities.

Simply stated, Christianity in the United States will not save the marginalized, mainly because they remain invisible and ignored. Euro-American Christianity is not for them, but it has fooled them into believing it is. For Christianity to be liberating, to be badass, it must move beyond the decent Christianity of the empire. Why? Because the prevalent Christianity of the United States was established on providing justification for the prevailing structures of oppression detrimental to people of color. The failure of Euro-American Christianity to address oppressive structures means we are left with no other choice but to envision new paradigms for marginalized communities, paradigms rooted within their context. Those who benefit from the power and privilege accorded by the dominant culture are incapable of fashioning an objective faith-based response because their standing within society is protected by the prevailing social structures. Whites who chose to become liberated must also move away from their white Christianity and join in solidarity with marginalized communities in order to participate in liberating praxis—that is, they must take actions rooted in the social location of the marginalized.

If you are a white Christian, your salvation depends on nailing your whiteness to the cross. If you are a Christian of color, your salvation depends on nailing your white-colonized mind to the cross. Both acts are badass.