Tribalism can take various forms;
the dividing of people into groups and the dynamics involved are varied. If we think of tribal warfare, we usually
think of one tribe dominating another through strength. However, Western tribalism often—not always—works
very differently. Instead of using
strength as the powerful weapon, it has used victimhood as the powerful weapon. This works where perceptions matter. It would not work, for example, in northern
Nigeria today, where Muslim terrorist groups kill, kidnap, and persecute
Christians on a regular basis. It does
work in America, however, where those identified as victims receive the
accolades and control the agenda. In
such a context, control of the narrative is crucial: one has to determine which
group gets to claim the treasured status of victimhood, for there the power in
the culture lies.
There is a canonical narrative of
victimhood. Christians do not get to
claim victimhood but Muslims do. Blacks
get to claim victimhood, whereas whites have white privilege and need to repent
(not once, but remain in a continuous mode of repentance). Women also have and tell a story of
victimhood. Some stories of victimhood
are more privileged than others, and ‘intersectionality’ has taught us that the
winner is the one who can claim to be where the greatest number of such stories
intersect. A black woman’s narrative of
victimhood trumps a black man’s, for example.
Tribalism in the form of
victimhood leads to a very different concept of justice than some notion of
justice based on equality. One thing we are witnessing every day now is
how 'victims' are not only those who are victims of injustice but are people
who identify with a 'victim tribe', and we are seeing how that plays out in
areas of justice. It means 'you should not play by the rules, because the
rules are unjust' and it means 'take from others because their gain is unjust'
and 'until you identify with my pain and suffering, I will make you suffer pain
(through the loss of your business and violence in the streets, e.g.).'
The French Revolution was bad enough because of its underlying rejection of God and the Church, but the somewhat valuable (at least in theory--not as lived out in France) social values of equality, fraternity, and liberty are absent in this victimhood revolution. We seem to have a tribal identity defined in terms of a power struggle (victimhood vs. oppressors), social classification (intersectionality vs. equality), and redefinition of justice (defined around the group and individual vs. blind justice that is 'for all'). The French might have said, 'All lives matter, and so we have to kill the king and queen' (whose lives were so disconnected and indifferent to the citizens). The tribal victimhood society says, 'Black lives matter, and so oppressors must be killed (especially the police), and persons with so-called ‘white privilege’ must be forced to repent and grovel.'
Victimhood believes that there
needs to be a preference for the (whether perceived or real) marginalized
(blacks, homosexuals, Muslims, non-citizens, etc.), and so 'justice' comes to
mean that 'rioting, destruction, and theft are righteous acts for
victims'. The shop owner pleads for ‘tribal justice’ by putting up a sign
saying, ‘This is a minority business,’ hoping rioters will not pillage his or
her property. The implication is, ‘I
will accept your pillaging my white neighbour’s property.’ Tribal victimhood calls for a restructuring
of society to suppress and humiliate 'the deplorables' (Hillary Clinton’s
contribution to the English language), reparations for past wrongs (land
redistribution, tearing down statues and perceived symbols of oppression,
monetary payments), and privileging of those not given access to privileges
(non-citizens [hence doing away with borders], sanctuary cities, the release of prisoners, job advancement based on identity and not qualifications, reverse
discrimination all the way from equal opportunities through equal outcomes and
rewards). Justice does not require facts (as in the case of the false
accusations against President Trump about collusion with the Russians or dealing (quid
pro quo) with Ukraine when the Democrats were actually the ones who did all
this quite openly). The new 'justice' only requires conformity to the
constructed narrative of oppressed vs. oppressors (as in the infamous accusations
against Justice Kavanaugh during his senate hearings, when his accuser’s claims
were considered 'her truth' and therefore valid despite the lack of any
corroborating evidence or testimony). And it understands 'injustice' not
simply in regard to acts but also association.
Tribalism is decidedly not Christian,
although it is common for Christians to race to confession for crimes they do
not quite understand but for which they are willing to do penance. Instead of saying that witnessing a crime
does not make the witness complicit in the crime, they willingly repent. So much of society, including many
Christians, are willing to accept the narrative that there is institutional
racism in the country without asking what that actually means and whether there
is solid evidence to that effect. Tribal
justice is not blindfolded; it lifts the head and determines guilt based on
identity.
Tribalism is also decidedly not
Christian in that there is no room for forgiveness, grace, and reconciliation. Identity matters: once you admit to the crime
of ‘white privilege,’ you will not be forgiven.
You will begin a lifelong sentence of self-flagellation for your
whiteness. Once you repent of being
male, you will remain shamed for life, unless you adopt a transgender identity
and project yourself into a higher status of intersectionality than women hold.
When Paul wrote the Roman church
about how Christians were to relate to the larger society and to the state, his
words were against tribalism and against tribal victimhood. Paul writes in about AD 57, and he encourages
the Christians to leave vengeance for any wrongs suffered to God. He further
suggests that God’s purpose for government is to see to justice. Thus, Christians should not take justice into
their own hands. He says,
Romans 12:17-19 Repay
no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of
all.18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but
leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will
repay, says the Lord.”
Victimhood justice wants revenge
and reparation and will not settle for God’s justice. Christians, on the other hand, were told to
repay their enemies with kindness. Paul
continues,
Rom. 12:20-21 To
the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him
something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome
evil with good.
The mob violence on today’s
streets is precisely the opposite of what Paul calls for from Christians. Paul is not endorsing particular governments,
which often need a prophetic voice of challenge for injustices they
perpetrate. He is, however, insisting
that the first century Christians’ minority status did not give them a right to
reject government authority. He says,
Rom. 13:1-4 Let
every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority
except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore
whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who
resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but
to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is
good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your
good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.
For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the
wrongdoer.
Moreover, Paul even says that
Christians should pay their taxes. He
says,
Rom. 13:6 For
because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God,
attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to
all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue
is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
Christians could not opt out of society
just because it was not utopian, or even just.
The Romans themselves were not impressed with the mis-governance of
their emperors in recent times. The
infamous Caligula, who ruled from AD 37 – 41, had so squandered state funds
that he imposed taxes on the population and confiscated properties. Like Caligula, the emperor Nero, who ruled
from AD 54-68, funded his extravagant building programmes—a way to try to gain
renown—by raising taxes. If Paul wrote
Romans in AD 57 or a little earlier, he wrote in a period that was building
towards Nero’s decision in AD 58 to abolish taxes. The Roman citizens were suffering under his
tax policies, and yet Paul calls on the Christian minority to pay the
taxes. The logic for this is not
attached to the good use of those taxes but to a Christian posture towards the
world that will not admit tribal victimhood.
Earlier than passages already cited—and so giving more context—Paul wrote,
Rom. 12:14-16 Bless
those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with
those who weep. 16 Live in harmony with
one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight.
There is a ‘mood’ in society and
in certain Christian circles calling people to submit to the new narrative of
tribal victimhood. We need to realize
that allowing justice to be seen through tribal lenses is a very dangerous move
with many negative ramifications. Let us
assume, for argument’s sake, that there is a structural racism in America. We then need to ask, ‘Is X or Y just or unjust
because it is right or wrong or because it is done to a particular group?’ Laws need to work the same for all—otherwise Lady
Justice has removed her blindfold. If
Christians believe that there is racial injustice, they need to call for an equal
justice. Murder is not wrong because it
is done by a white policeman to a black man; it is wrong because no person
(including policemen) of any colour (including whites) should murder a man (of any colour). Moreover, justice is, as
Paul argues, done through government, not through street rioting and vengeance
that benefits the ‘tribe’—the privileged group.
Whether there really is structural
racism in America (or elsewhere) is another matter. There has been in the past, to be sure, and
so there is no reason to rule out the possibility of it being present now or
surfacing again. It may be that the
structural racism resides in a different place from what is claimed, or will
soon do so, since, by definition, tribal victimhood will define justice along
the lines of privileging persons with victim status and suppressing their enemies. And it may be that what some consider racism
is more a matter of urban mis-governance over decades. If so, it is right for those suffering from
this to speak out, but if they do so by speaking out against ‘racism’, the result may be that the actual
issues will never be addressed. If the
same problems exist, for example, in Nairobi as in New York, perhaps the issue is
not racism but urban governance. In a
tribal victimhood perspective, however, such a possibility cannot even be
entertained, and no facts to the contrary will be of interest, explored, or
powerful enough to overthrow the narrative of victimhood.
To be sure, the present situation
in the US is more complicated. There is
more than tribal victimhood at play.
There is also an anti-authority and an anti-naturalism at play that has
created a climate of constructed identities and power-grabs. What we see on the streets is a sloppy though
powerful alliance of postmodern, tribal victimhood and anarchy. As long as both want to overthrow ruling
authorities of one sort or another, the alliance will hold. Yet tribal victimhood wants access to and
control of the authorities, whereas anarchists want to destroy authority (although,
of course, they would likely seize it were they able to destroy it).
Christians, however, should not
buy into any of this. They should not
play along with tribal identities and the privileging of one group over another. They should not repent for identities but for
sin—and call all to repentance, for all have sinned and fallen short of the
glory of God (Romans 3.23). If there is
racism, the problems that need to be addressed are far deeper than attitudes
regarding race or just racial issues. They are issues such as education, job
opportunities, family dynamics, and the influence of crime and drugs in urban
settings. When we succumb to the social
narrative of Western culture, we make ourselves a part of the problem rather
than God’s solution for humanity.
Comments