What are post-colonial approaches?

R.S. Sugirtharajah, in his introduction to Voices from the Margin, defines a post-colonial reader as “the real and actual reader/hearer…these flesh-and-bone readers—minjung, dalits, indigenous people, male and female, professional and lay, standing within their own social location—oppressive, caste-ridden, patriarchal, multi-religious, and trying to make sense of their context and the texts” (3). This is also a Third World theology, from peoples who are from previously colonized areas, and who are now trying to break down the oppressive systems that still control aspects of their lives.

The hermeneutics a post-colonial interpreter utilizes will be different depending on his or her situation. For example, “a hermeneutics of liberation which is envisaged for an African women’s struggle will be at once a human, African and feminist hermeneutic of liberation” (Mosala, 173). Whatever forms of oppression in their lives, post-colonial interpreters will use theologies to struggle against them.

This approach is so open to addressing everyone’s struggle, and recognizing that each person will have a different experience and context out of which they read and interpret the Bible. This allows for richness in interpretations and more ways of discovering meaning from the Biblical text. I like this approach because of its “attempts to address the issues of struggle, marginality, and colonialism” (Sugirtharajah 1). Trying to break down systems of oppression, and allowing everyone a chance to use their lives as a way of interpreting scripture is inspiring and meaningful.

What are canonical approaches?

Canonical criticism is a faith-based approach. It involves the Bible as sacred scripture, which means that the Bible has special authority and a special role in the community of faith. These communities of faith try to think of the text as a whole, they do not fragment what they read. They see the voices in one part of the text as having meaning in another part. This means people who use the canonical approach cannot justify just throwing out a certain section of scripture because it may not agree with their situation. The Bible is the authority to hear and discern God’s will. If you throw out a part of it, then you could be stifling what God wants for your life.

Since the Bible has such authority for canonical approaches, it has special expectations. The Bible is to help with faith, to edify and/or correct a person’s way of living. Since the Bible is to aid in faith, then communities of faith are the best suited to interpret scripture.

This approach is more than just studying the Bible closely. It has to do with revelation, and trying to discern God’s will. “The dependence of Christian theology on the alleged revelation of God in Jesus Christ is the key to its close relationship with the Bible” (Barton 115). There are so many different ways God chooses to reveal Godself to us. This can include tradition, experience, creation, and also the Bible. They are all important ways of seeing God work in the world. The Bible should be the basis of the revelations though. In the case of the Reformations, Luther saw in the Bible that indulgences were nowhere to be found. He challenged the traditions of the church based on scripture. It was a new interpretation, through a canonical approach, based on the fact that the Bible is a sacred scripture, and as such, it can reveal God’s will for our lives, if only we listen.

What is Liberationist Theology?

Liberationist theologies come out of South America, mostly from poor communities. It grew out of Bible studies that base groups were having where they studied the Bible in-depth together. These communities that were intensely studying the Bible together noticed that Jesus cared about the liberation of the poor. They understood that God prefers the poor and will deliver them, as seen in the Exodus in the Old Testament. God reveals Godself through this act. This is how we know God. In George V. Pixley and Clodovis Boff’s essay, A Latin American Perspective: The Option for the Poor in the Old Testament, they state, “The Hebrews who came out of Egypt understood that their success had been due to Yahweh, their God, being with them….the clans gradually came to accept Yahweh as their God” (220). “Yahweh had presented himself as a God of the poor, promising their liberation” (226). God loves the poor and wants them to be free. These thoughts prompted the marginalized societies to become more conscious of their social situation. They became activists and became more politically involved.

Just as Womanist Theology grew out of Black Theology, so Mujerista grew out of Liberationist Theology. Latin American women saw themselves as being doubly oppressed. Mujerista grows out of a macho culture, where there is a definite separation between men and women, and their roles. Since these Latin American women were poor and females, society worked against them in two ways. These women work for justice and peace, not just for equality, but to change the oppressive society they live in. Personal and political ethics need to be combined. When they are separated, they breed oppression, which is what Liberationist theologies try to work against.

What is Womanist Theology?

Womanist Theology is a mixture of Black Theology and Feminist Theology. Since the African-American woman is always the ‘other’ in the Bible, they created a space to share their voice when reading and interpreting scripture. They cannot choose between their two identities, being Black and a woman; they need them both.

Womanist Theology treats everyone equally. There is no difference between races, gender, etc. Jesus died for every person, regardless of what color their skin is or whether they are a man or a woman. Community is a source of strength, and a very important aspect of Womanist Theology. Relying on woman’s wisdom and a mentor is also important. Delores S. Williams, in her essay Womanist Theology: Black Women’s Voices, says, “Black mothers have passed on wisdom for survival—in the white world, in the black community, and with men—for as long as anyone can remember” (78). Traditions of life are remembered in this manner.

Encounters with the Spirit are important in Womanist Theology. “The importance of this emphasis on the spirit is that it allows Christian womanist theologians, in their use of the Bible, to identify and reflect upon those biblical stories in which poor oppressed women had a special encounter with the divine emissaries of God, like the spirit” (Williams 85). This can affect their political action, and the manner in which they seek justice. The Spirit can be always with them, which places God with them also. God will make a way if there seems to be none.

Womanist Theology will always be changing and growing. As long as “black women come together and connect piece with piece” the “God-content” of Womanist Theology will continue to be created, until one day it will come together and “reflect the divine spirit that connects us all” (Williams 86).

What is Feminist Theology?

Feminist theology is concerned with restoring humanity to all peoples, not just women. “Feminist interpretation proceeds, however, on the assumption that all stand to gain by it, not just women” (Barton 82). It aims to resist the systems of patriarchy in the world, so that everyone can experience humanity fully, without being dominated by someone else. There is an attention to female perspectives, so people need to be open to looking at a view besides their own and the rest of society’s. “A feminist will seek change for the better in terms of justice for women, and this requires detailed, unremitting attention to women’s perspectives” (Barton 81).

An aspect of Feminist Theology is inclusive language for God. A reader cannot just use masculine images for God. Male and female were created in God’s image, so God has what we have deemed male and female characteristics. Some of the characteristics we have come from God, yet this does not make God male or female. “God is ultimately incomprehensible, it could be said that the mystery of the divine being positively demands a variety of names” (Barton 84). Just using one form or the other for describing God limits God in many ways.

Feminist Theology recognizes that the Bible was written by men, from the perspective of men, and mostly about men. This takes away a voice from about half of society. Women do not need to just follow these traditions and accept what they hear preached by men, if it contradicts other passages of the Bible. “Women as church may claim Jesus and the praxis of the earliest church as a prototype of their own history, open to future transformation” (Barton 89). Letters that were written to specific churches can give an idea of how to be a follower of Christ, but they are not legalistic. Jesus’ ministry involved women, and since following Jesus is central to what it means to be a Christian, then a Feminist Interpretation would follow Jesus’ example, and not necessarily the commands of a single man.

What is Black Theology?

Black Theology is part of the postconstructuralist and postmodern ways of interpreting the Bible. Since postmodernism is very pluralistic and anti-oppression, Black Theology now has a place and a voice to interpret the Bible. I think it is important to note though that even though it has a place because of postmodernism, the ideas are not very postmodern, at least in the respect that there is only black and white, and no room for multiple ideas.

James Cone illustrates Black Theology in his essay “God is Black.” Essentially, God is Black because God sides with the oppressed. God cannot side with both the oppressor and the oppressed. “Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism” (Cone 105). There is not much room for salvation for the oppressor in Black Theology. If there was space for that, then the notion that God is a God of justice would be gone. How could God be trusted if God loved both sides equally?

Sometimes in Cone’s essay it is hard to distinguish Black from blackness, and White from whiteness. Black and White are skin tones, while blackness and whiteness are representative of the oppressed and the oppressor, respectively. Viewing his ideas as blackness and whiteness, I can agree more quickly, because I do not think that people should be oppressed, and I would put myself on the side of God and the oppressed rather than on the oppressor. If I view his ideas as Black and White, as skin tones, I realize that I have to face all the structures that are in place that I benefit from because I am white. I am not racist myself, but because of my skin color, I am contributing to oppression. Thinking of it this way, I do not like the idea that God is against the oppressor. These ideas butt heads with my own theology, that God is a God of love and mercy. I believe that God is just also, but I think love is at the core of God, and justice and mercy flow together.

Cone does not believe that a person can just help Blacks, and in doing so become on the side of God and the oppressed. “Those who want to know who God is and what God is doing must know who Black persons are and what they are doing. This does not mean lending a helping hand to the poor and unfortunate Blacks in society. It does not mean joining the war on poverty! Such acts are sin offerings that represent a white way of assuring themselves that they are basically ‘good’ persons” (Cone 106). As I understand it, a White person cannot give of their gifts, and share what they have from the benefits of the structures in place. They cannot even try to take down those structures. That it is only trying to prove to themselves that they are good people. Yet Cone says later that “to receive God’s revelation is to become Black with God by joining God in the work of liberation” (Cone 107). If we ask God to be a part of this new society, what God’s Kingdom is meant to look like, then we will join in the work of liberation, which I think means trying to take down the structures of racism. Yet Cone says Whites cannot do this because it will not be sincere or true. I think this is where the lines between blackness and whiteness and Black and White become dim.

Black Theology is a great voice for those who have not previously had a voice, but some of the ideas are very anti-postmodern in a postmodern society, so it can be hard to handle at times. To open up the category of the oppressed to more than just Blacks and the category of the oppressors to more than just White would be more applicable to our society today, even though the structures from this Black v. White society are still in place.

What is the importance of postmodernism?

Postmodernism is a new way of reading the Bible through a postconstructuralist lens. Some of the tenants of postmodernism are an awareness of pluralism, where there can be two elements of reality. There also isn’t one way to Truth. There can’t be any foundational belief because not everyone believes it. If everyone could agree on something, then it could be true. Postmodernism is inclusive and diverse, so there aims to be no oppression. Authority rests within the individual or the community.

There is usefulness in these ideas. This way of thinking could lead to a more peaceful world. If people accepted others’ interpretations of scripture, and agreed that both sides had some good in it, then that could create peace among people. Another positive of postmodernism is that people are more open-minded. There is more willingness to hear others’ ideas and opinions and learn from them rather than rejecting opposition right away. “Everybody’s point of view must be respected and acknowledged as equal to everybody else’s point of view” (Barton 61). Another reason why postmodern interpretations are good is that it gives people confidence in what they know even when others disagree. In order to have confidence, you have to know what you believe in, because if you don’t and someone challenges you, your foundation can be shaken, or even shattered. Postmodernism forces you to know your beliefs and be able to back them up, which I think is positive, because then you don’t have people who just accept what others are telling them without knowing exactly why they believe what they believe.

I think postmodernism, and postmodern ways of interpreting the Bible, are needed because it allows people to have a voice who have not had a chance before. It tries to tear down walls and open up interpretation to everyone. “The future will be a paradise of different readings with none privileged and all equally valid: the modernistic lion will lie down with the postmodernist lamb, the Marxist bear will eat straw with the capitalist goat, the pre/postmodernist fundamentalist sheep will safely trade biblical proof-texts with the modernist wolf and the ecclesiastical dove will dwell in peace with the academic serpent” (Barton 62).