Not a Speech I Would Give

Thanks to ElderJ for drawing my attention to this speech given by Stephen Webb to an incoming class of freshmen in 2008 entitled, “Christ Against the Multiculturalists.” In his speech Webb takes on the challenge of cultural pluralism, laments the loss of the pursuits of Western cultural achievements in education, and instructs students to shun social constructions of reality.  He gives the following prediction of what will take place in their classes:

Here is how the game is played: They [Professors] will first try to convince you that you are a racist, a sexist, and an enemy of social justice. Then they will argue that the victims of racism, sexism, and cultural elitism have a privileged view of these issues. It is as if the victim of the crime were to be given the first, last, and only word in a trial, with no cross-examination and no other witnesses called. Your job as a student in the multicultural classroom is to grant unquestioned authority to those who come from underprivileged or marginalized backgrounds. You have to do this because, you will learn, because Western culture has exploited every other culture, and your experiences are so shaped by Western culture that you cannot question those who criticize you. And thus you will become a good cultural leftist (which is the shape liberalism takes in the academy), or, if you are not convinced by these arguments, you will learn how to fake it for the sake of getting a good grade.

I find this prediction quite troubling because my guess is that this is an unfair caricature of what takes place in college classrooms. I was an English major at UCLA and the only anti-Western sentiment expressed in my classes was my prof’s disdain for Rush Limbaugh if that even qualifies.  I have colleagues who introduce students to the systemic issues of racism or sexism in our society but they don’t try to convince you that you are rac/sexist.  Now I’ve heard students say that they’ve questioned if they are rac/sexist but that is not due to the professor’s coercion but because of their own personal interactions with the course material.  Some of them may feel that their professor is trying convince them that they are racist or sexist.  But if you asked the professor s/he would say that s/he is trying to teach skills of cultural competence, one of them being the ability to distinguish systemic injustice from personal prejudice.

I have my students do an assignment where they read an interpretation of a bible passage from 2/3 world theologian or ethnic minority in N. America and compare it to an interpretation of the same passage by a revered theologian of the Western church.  By no means do I always favor what I call the “social-cultural” reading of the text over the “traditional” reading.  Sometimes I do; sometimes I don’t.  If I were a colleague of Webb’s I would be quite upset knowing that my students would assume that I would automatically favor the “social-cultural” reading based upon his speech.

Perhaps Webb’s prediction is taking place in classes at Wabash, which is a Christian College.  Perhaps there is a greater emphasis on exposing systemic injustice in Christian colleges than in secular universities due to the fact that Christian colleges and those attending them have historically done a poorer job in engaging culture.  I have a friend who teaches at a Christian university where the President has recently decided to revoke the study of any other history other than Western civilization and refuses to acknowledge or celebrate MLK Jr’s birthday.  I find such actions anti-intellectual and unChristian.

Now Webb grounds his rejection of social constructions of reality based upon the following theological logic (I’ve numbered his assertions):

1. Christians believe that God became human in Jesus Christ. 2.  If so, it follows that there is something called humanity. 3.  That is, humans have a nature, a shared or common nature. 4.  Human nature is not just a social construction. Human nature is real. 5.  And if it is real, then it is the same everywhere and at every time. It is, in a word, universal.

I’m in agreement with 1-3.  But beginning with #4 I’m just left scratching my head.  Why are social constructions not real?  Was Jesus’ human identity developed completely devoid of social factors?  Because of #4 then Webb can then deny that social conditions are “real” in #5.  Then he goes on to argue that the universal human nature is best exemplified in Western culture.  Yes Jesus is the ideal human.  But is is difficult to assess the role of social conditioning in his life when we know so little of his life pre-baptism.  Post baptism we have a human so consumed with his Messianic vocation and submission to the Father’s will that the Gospels ignore any other influence in his life.  Jesus is our ideal.  But Jesus and the Gospels do not provide us the ideal example to assess the effect of social influences in our lives.  Does that mean that the Scriptures are silent about the role of social factors?  I think not.  Consider Paul:

Phil 3:4-7   4 even though I, too, have reason for confidence in the flesh. If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more:  5 circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee;  6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.  7 Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ.

In Christ Paul’s social conditioning is not inconsequential.  In Christ it is redeemed.