To R. Scott Clark and this blogpost denouncing ethnically-based theologies such as Black Theology. This appeared in Heidelblog.
Despite some of the good things that were written in the above article, there is one problem that was glossed over. That problem was whether there is a need for such identity-group based theologies. Because of the tremendous ethnic-based, and we can include class-based, oppressions and persecutions from the past and present, the need for such identity-group based theologies becomes legitimate. And that is especially true since Christians are seen as either having supported are participated with the oppressors. So while one could judge the merits and faults of Cone's Black Theology, one must be open to whether theologies that address specific hardships that groups of people face is legitimate. And here, we need to investigate by asking people from different marginalized groups whether their needs caused by systemic injustice are fully met by the identity-group, generic theologies of the past. To reject the need to investigate from an apriori perspective is to assume that the confessions and standards from the past are sufficient in addressing today's needs. And such an assumption seems to come from arrogance rather than a concern for the Gospel.
One should only point to history to help determine whether the need for identity group theologies is legitimate. We should note that during the Civil Rights movement in this nation, many who opposed the movement were Christians who held to the revered confessions from the past but had their own Identity-group based theology as well. And even before that movement, there were prominent Christian leaders who claimed to have submitted to those confessions who also supported and even promoted white supremacy and that included slavery. Acknowledgments of that those grave sins are directly acknowledged by resolutions of apologies and regrets issued by both the PCA and SBC.
We could also point to other cases from the past where the Church supported and promoted systemic injustices in both the US and the rest of the world. The dominant branch of the Church supported those with wealth and power during the pre-revolutionary times of France, Russia, and Spain. That siding with wealth and power not only promoted systemic injustices, class-based injustices in those instances, it brought unnecessary persecution and shame onto the Gospel. We should note here that the dominant branch of the Church in America, conservative Protestantism, currently supports and promotes those with wealth and power in this country. And there are many other corporate sins that the American conservative Church has supported and promoted. We might even include the Pilgrims, whom Clark mentions, because of their ethnically-based sins committed against Native Americans. In fact, those who came from Amsterdam showed the same ethnic and cultural concerns for themselves that Blacks and other groups have today.
The following quote from the above article shows the fault in Clark's reasoning:
Under the New Testament, after the death of Christ, for Christians, those old distinctions remained important as sociological and historical realities but not as religious realities. Those Gentiles to whom God graciously gave new life (regeneration) and true faith, remained Gentiles and Jews who received those same benefits of Christ remained Jews but their Jewish identity lost its religious significance. Paul calls the Old Testament laws that distinguished Jew and Gentile a “dividing wall” (Eph 2:14) which has been “torn down” in the death of Christ.
Acknowledging that the 'old distinctions' continue to be important in terms of our 'sociological and historical realities' is a cause for the continuance of systemic injustices that fuel the need for identity-group based theologies. And that to totally reject today's identity-group based theologies indicates that one belongs to those who are privileged, rather than to those who are marginalized.
It is one thing to correct the errors expressed in today's identity-group based theologies. But to deny the need for such theologies shows an ignorance of or dismissive attitude toward what it means to be marginalized. Such are not Biblical practices when we consider what the OT prophets and James had to say about injustice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his blogpost listing 5 facts about 9/11. This appeared in the Acton blog.
Two other facts about 9/11 should be mentioned. First, the 9/11 attacks were not first strikes. Rather they were responses to US foreign policies including the UN sanctions forced on Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait--those sanctions were pushed through the UN and implemented by the US and Great Britain. Those sanctions were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children let alone the deaths of many adults. In addition, US carte blanche support for Israel and its brutal occupation against the Palestinians was another cause for the attacks.
Second, the attacks on the US on 9/11 of 2001 were not the first significant attacks on 9/11. Those belonged to a US supported military coup that overthrew the democratically elected President of Chilé, Salvador Allende and installed the brutal military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet was later indicted for crimes against humanity in his own nation but he died before any trial could take place.
The atrocities that occurred on both 9/11s were without excuse. But that doesn't meant that they randomly took place or were without cause. The question becomes which 9/11 attacks are more understandable though without excuse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Bradley Birzer and his blogpost praising President Andrew Jackson as a ‘true American republican.’ This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
To say that Jackson was an honorable man because of his frontier ethics forgets that the presence of frontier ethics challenged Native Americans for ownership of the land. And to say that Andrew Jackson was honorable because his policies sought to protect Native Americans from disaster provides a tremendously huge indictment against his fellow Americans including those who lived on the frontier for their regard and desired treatment of Native Americans.
Also, the question about the Trail of Tears is not as much about under whose Presidency did it occur, it is about whose Presidencies helped cause that tragic event. So it seems that Jackson really didn't oppose the rampant hatred of Native Americans during his time to point of resistance. Rather, at best, he tried to mitigate the effects of the hatred Americans had for Native Americans and the desire such Americans had for Native American lands. But that is at best and beginning research tells me that that is not the case.
BTW, how many Native Americans were forcibly removed from their homelands during Jackson's Presidency? Or we could also ask whether Jackson fought in any wars against the Native Americans. In either case, we find that Jackson was not as honorable as the above article indicated. And that says something about true American republicans since the author declared that Jackson was such a person..
No comments:
Post a Comment