tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1211649849121736848.post3922013201582372545..comments2018-12-22T01:31:31.330-05:00Comments on Faith and World: Race--Black and White in AmericaFred Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05157454281976433984noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1211649849121736848.post-49998801361092381782010-04-27T13:14:58.372-04:002010-04-27T13:14:58.372-04:00Emily,
You have not "entirely" missed m...Emily, <br />You have not "entirely" missed my point, but you have missed one point. Also, I want to comment on some other points you've made.<br /><br />First the comments: <br /><br />You said: At the same time, I have a couple clarifying points. First, in regard to the theologians of the Great Tradition, I do think preference should be given to those whose ideas have been deemed worthy of repetition and study. At the same time, I don't want to be naive about the issues of power that have had some (note, I say "some") part to play in who has been deemed an authoritative or "great" voice. . . . I think a Christian view of sin suggests that we must be aware of "power plays" in church history<br /><br />Yes, you are right but we need to thing these things through just a little further. If preference should be given to those theologians of the "great tradition" whose work is worthy of repetition, etc. then it follows that they have said something worthwhile, even if they got their position due to church politics or powerplays. In other words, in no field more than academics ("letters") is merit more important to long term survival. Ideas that don't pass muster under critical examination just don't survive. Certainly many who have taught and written in ways that have shaped our theology "got there" because of influential friends, etc. (We can even agree that historically, worthy women have been passed over for less worthy men.) However, in the end, a mediocre theologian or scholar, who gets his position by back room dealing, is forgotten within a generation. Their work just does not survive. The "great tradition" survives because it is 1) engaging 2) theologically sound--mostly 3) helpful in udnerstanding both the history of the church and the biblical/theological ideas that are treated. <br /><br />Certainly it is tragic that some worthy men--and women--have been passed by and never got to be heard. However, let us not too easily dismiss excellent theology and biblical studies simply because church politics was involved. Truth and Politics may interfere with each other and sometimes politics squelches truth--however, in the end, the two are different things and truth that is published survives even as politics moves on to other people and other issues. <br /><br />Second, while a Chrisitan view of sin must make us aware of power-plays in church history, at the same time a Christian view of the soveriegnty of God must make us aware that by His intention, we have a Great Tradition at all. Let us assume that, despite the wickedness of men, the inevitable suppression of ideas by different factions at times in history, and despite the seeming haphazzardness of the process, in the end we have the theology, the tradition that God intends for us to wrestle with. <br /><br />I will not dismiss a Martin Luther, simply because there is no comparable woman theologian of the same era--or African, or. . . or. . . or. . . . . I will thank God for Martin Luther (and for Augustine, Abelard, etc. etc. etc.) and carry on with my theologizing trusting God that I have what He intends and that nothing is left out, in His good grace and mercy. <br /><br />I want to respond to a couple of other points and will do so soon.Fred Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05157454281976433984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1211649849121736848.post-73651333745645451842010-04-24T09:24:15.226-04:002010-04-24T09:24:15.226-04:00Dr. Smith,
I agree with almost everything you say...Dr. Smith,<br /><br />I agree with almost everything you say. Certainly, there's a definite limit to the weight that should be given "other voices." I'm not a proponent of re-hashing debates over heresies or major doctrinal issues that have been generally settled for hundreds of years. And, definitely, I think that Augustine, Abelard, Luther, etc. are worthy of the respect due anyone who's study of the faith has endured for so long. <br /><br />At the same time, I have a couple clarifying points. First, in regard to the theologians of the Great Tradition, I do think preference should be given to those whose ideas have been deemed worthy of repetition and study. At the same time, I don't want to be naive about the issues of power that have had some (note, I say "some") part to play in who has been deemed an authoritative or "great" voice. I'm not into conspiracy theories or Marxist interpretations of history, but I think a Christian view of sin suggests that we must be aware of "power plays" in church history.<br /><br />For example, the 20th century has witnessed the re-discovery of a great number of manuscripts written by educated women mystics/theologians that were purposefully suppressed during the Middle Ages. Investigation has shown that from very early on, these writings were translated, copied, and distributed as important works (usually by Dominicans and Franciscans) for some time. But, when concern arose over the "unregulated" nature of the women's communities out of which the writings came, the religious authorities, backed by the Pope, began a widespread squashing.<br /><br />This is <em>not</em> to say that just because these writings were squashed we should now privilege them over Augustine or Luther or whoever. But, I do think that due to the sinful tendencies of the church in all ages, we should always be discerning as to where truly great voices may have been overlooked or silenced for reasons other than orthodox theology. In the case of the women mystics I cite above, many of them were deeply critical of the church hierarchy, which was, in many ways, corrupt. No wonder the Pope didn't appreciate their writings!<br /><br />Second, in regard to the "faith once for all delivered to the saints," you said that we must remember that it "never changes, and transcends cultures." I would say that the Word, Jesus Christ, never changes, and his normative status transcends cultures. But, I think that "the faith," as it is expressed in time and space never entirely transcends culture. In my opinion, this is because the faith is always incarnational--there is no non-cultured expression of the faith to be found. <br /><br />So, for example, when Paul is working out the social implications of the Gospel within the earliest churches, he makes use of the rhetorical forms of his day (though, admittedly, with some significant changes). In this way, even the scripture evidences "culture." And, when the earliest churches were living out their faith in the Roman world, they adopted forms of life that were specific to their culture. So, refusing to serve in the military may have had more to do with not worshiping Caesar than it did any ethical proscriptions against Christians being soldiers. I think we would be mistaken to look at the early church and say, "See, they refused to serve in the military. This means that the faith always teaches not serving in the military because the faith transcends culture." (I know you're not saying this, but some do.)<br /><br />We could even carry this over and talk about the earliest creeds and formulations of the faith. I, for one, am not looking to trade in Nicea or Chalcedon, but I think we have to recognize that our Christology and doctrine of the Trinity is in no way a-cultural. <br /><br />Have I entirely missed your point, Dr. Smith? Or, are we talking about the same things?Emily Hunter McGowinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14754380286794296228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1211649849121736848.post-74679086529871844492010-04-23T15:02:20.140-04:002010-04-23T15:02:20.140-04:00Emily, you are right about expanding the range of ...Emily, you are right about expanding the range of our "hearing." We need to hear from many different perspectives as we grown in knowledge of God's Word. <br /><br /> Let us remember, however, that the "faith once for all delivered to the saints" never changes, and transcends cultures. The problem that hearing other voices may help solve is that 1) I am probably missing parts of the truth of the Bible and 2) hearing others' experience of it may help me (a) contextualize the gospel better (b) understand my own relationship with Christ more fully and (c) be better able to teach the faith to the next generation of Christians.<br /><br />However, we cannot hear "everyone." For one thing, one lifetime is too short, and for another, not "everyone" has as much to say as certain people. (That is, there are people who articulate the faith better than others, people who honestly know it better and who have thought about it more deeply. These then are people whose knowledge and experience is more valid than others'. This is why, for example, you use scholarly sources when writing a paper--not shallow popular treatments of a topic--the scholarly sources are actually worth more, objectively speaking, because the writers often know the faith better than lay people. No one seriously argues that every non-specialist ought to be "heard" equally, alongside Millard Erickson or Stanley Hauerwas)<br /><br />One danger of even trying to hear "every voice" is that we may decide in our hearts that, since we don't know what every Christian has to say about the faith, we know nothing about the faith. I honestly believe that, in terms of the important matters of the Christian faith, it is likely that Augustine, Peter Abelard, Martin Luther and Balthazar Hubmaier knew as much or more than I do, even with my supposed "advantages." The truths of the faith are settled--the major voices out there, from different perspectives help us to understand aspects of them better than we would have otherwise. Those who have reflected deeply on the faith have more to say than those who have not--whether Black or White, or Asian or men or women. <br /><br />Hearing "every voice" is an ideal. And no "voice" should be excluded on the basis of race, gender, nationality, etc. <br /><br />Also we have to trust that our apprehension of the truths of the Bible is sufficient that we can know it even if we have missed some "voices" out there. I fear that sometimes we focus on perspective that others bring, rather than on how that perspective helps us understand the truth of God's Word. There are a million perpsectives, but only one Bible. We must keep our focus on the Word of God, and recognize that we share enough of a common humanity that we can all bascially understand it, if we reflect on it deeply enough, and that we can be helped in this mainly by those who have already reflected on it longer than we.Fred Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05157454281976433984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1211649849121736848.post-77260158176925132392010-04-21T20:57:16.042-04:002010-04-21T20:57:16.042-04:00I think your reflections are spot on. Really, I co...I think your reflections are spot on. Really, I couldn't agree more. I think the truth that Christ is Lord over his entire church should compel us to listen carefully to the stories of "others." There is much to learn.<br /><br />Also, I think we can take this sensitivity and awareness of "the other"--their different story, especially--to a global level, as well. For example, the experience of people groups who have lived through the (sometimes poisonous) combo of Christian mission work and Western colonization. Christians in China, India, etc, have a very different story, as well, one that is rather ambivalent about the role of Western Christians in their society. (We could even complicate matters further and talk about the stories told by the Christian women or peasants within these societies, which will, in many cases, differ considerably from that of the men and social elites.)<br /><br />I don't see this as an embrace of "diversity" for diversity's sake, though. Jesus Christ is Lord and his Spirit is moving in his Church all over the world. So, in my opinion, we refuse to listen to the voices of our brothers and sisters at our peril. It doesn't mean we'll always agree--many times I imagine we won't. But, we're united in the agreement that there is no more important discussion/argument than what faithfulness to Christ means in our day, in our context.Emily Hunter McGowinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14754380286794296228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1211649849121736848.post-83282026106407624102010-04-21T11:08:48.953-04:002010-04-21T11:08:48.953-04:00Good observations, Fred. An implied point you make...Good observations, Fred. An implied point you make is that Caucasian American Christians tend to be more outcome-oriented, while African American Christians focus more on process. - CatherineAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com