black theology and the emergent conversation
The March 4th post on postmodern negro raised some pretty important questions. I'll only take time to deal with one right now. The issue at hand is the continual use of white theologians and white theological terms in conversations about around the emerging church community. It raises a couple of very important questions:
First, can the emergent conversation exist in the terms of black theology? Maybe a better way of phrasing that is can black theological concepts be integrated with emerging theology (if there is such a thing). The issue of exposure comes into question. I was only introduced to black theology here at SFTS and mostly by white professors (with good intentions and great hearts). The problem with much of it, at least as represented by the figures such as James Cone is the exclusivity of some of the language (I.e. "God is black") That's difficult verbage to get used to without considering the intentionality that came along with Cone's making that statement. How much are white theological students (or even "armchair theologians" ) exposed to the writings of black theology? The post makes the comment that people of color are invited to the emergent conversation provided that they use the lexicon of white theologians. Isn't that another form of power and control? Certainly, though the vast majority of published and renowned theologians are white, theologians of color have vital things to say to and for the church.
Here's my second question: can a gathering of people that is primarily white, educated, and affluent use the language of liberation theology with any kind of integrity? I expand my conversation now to the likes of Gustavo Gutierrez, a latin american theologian who wrote in the midst of political strife. I guess a better wording is should the emerging church movement use the language of theologians of color when people of color are underrepresented in the movement's ranks?
I'm interested in opening up the conversation about the multiculturalness (or lack thereof) of the emerging church. I commented on John Creasy's blog that I believe that the number of non-white Christians in the emerging movement is small because it happened as a response/reaction to modernity and we approach modernity from different vantage points. As african americans, we did not reap the benefits of modernity. That is a reality that missional/emerging churches will have to come to terms with.
First, can the emergent conversation exist in the terms of black theology? Maybe a better way of phrasing that is can black theological concepts be integrated with emerging theology (if there is such a thing). The issue of exposure comes into question. I was only introduced to black theology here at SFTS and mostly by white professors (with good intentions and great hearts). The problem with much of it, at least as represented by the figures such as James Cone is the exclusivity of some of the language (I.e. "God is black") That's difficult verbage to get used to without considering the intentionality that came along with Cone's making that statement. How much are white theological students (or even "armchair theologians" ) exposed to the writings of black theology? The post makes the comment that people of color are invited to the emergent conversation provided that they use the lexicon of white theologians. Isn't that another form of power and control? Certainly, though the vast majority of published and renowned theologians are white, theologians of color have vital things to say to and for the church.
Here's my second question: can a gathering of people that is primarily white, educated, and affluent use the language of liberation theology with any kind of integrity? I expand my conversation now to the likes of Gustavo Gutierrez, a latin american theologian who wrote in the midst of political strife. I guess a better wording is should the emerging church movement use the language of theologians of color when people of color are underrepresented in the movement's ranks?
I'm interested in opening up the conversation about the multiculturalness (or lack thereof) of the emerging church. I commented on John Creasy's blog that I believe that the number of non-white Christians in the emerging movement is small because it happened as a response/reaction to modernity and we approach modernity from different vantage points. As african americans, we did not reap the benefits of modernity. That is a reality that missional/emerging churches will have to come to terms with.
What if black churches already have something that white emergents are looking for? I imagine that would change the conversation quite a lot. What would be that "something"? I don't know, but my guess would be RELEVANCE. I'm sure I am over-generalizing, but relevance is something I see in emergent churches and black churches, but it is not something I personally experience in traditional main-line churches. And as far as I know, black churches have been making the gospel relevant to the lives of the congregation for many, many years. I long to see this done in a way that fosters multiple cultures worshipping together. To me, this is the question of the day.
Posted by
Anonymous |
9:19 AM
I totally agree! The strength of black churches and black theology have been that they are addressed to the people's physical location. I think Emergent is trying to do that. I worry though that it might be moving towards abstract, headiness and way from social realities. We'll see...
Thanks for posting sweetheart!
Posted by
dlweston |
9:01 AM