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.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
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.
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).
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).
What is Literary Criticism?
Literary criticism is a way of reading and interpreting the Bible by focusing on synchronic methods, which is evaluating the text as if it is a finished product. This can include looking at genre and rhetoric, among others. It is a way to find meaning within the text and try to see what it means as a literary work.
Genre is looked at in literary criticism. Whether the passage you are reading is a narrative or poetry, or some other genre, can affect how it is interpreted. With narrative criticism, one might try to “analyze the text with respect to thematic lines, plot, character development, point of view, or other appropriate features of narratives” (Gorman 196). By focusing on these key facts, one can discover many interesting things about the text. Unfortunately, sometimes these facts are not made applicable to the life of the church today, so it becomes just a story.
Rhetoric is another synchronic criticism. With this view, “texts exist to have an effect on the hearer/reader, and biblical writings exhibit ancient, modern, and universal rhetorical devices and forms” (Gorman 197). How is the text communicating, and is it communicating effectively? Depending on the form of rhetoric, different passages could have different meanings and effects on the reader. Because a text was written a certain way, was the author trying to communicate something different than is explicitly stated? Was this form effective or not?
Literary criticism is an overarching category that can include linguistic analysis also. This is focusing more on vocabulary, semantics, and grammar. Depending on how words are arranged and translated can have an effect on the meaning of a passage. This can go pretty in depth into linguistic analysis to figure out what words mean what and what their arrangement means. Again, these findings can be interesting, but sometimes are not applicable to life today. An interpreter can also get so wrapped up in these technicalities that he or she can miss the main message of the passage.
Genre is looked at in literary criticism. Whether the passage you are reading is a narrative or poetry, or some other genre, can affect how it is interpreted. With narrative criticism, one might try to “analyze the text with respect to thematic lines, plot, character development, point of view, or other appropriate features of narratives” (Gorman 196). By focusing on these key facts, one can discover many interesting things about the text. Unfortunately, sometimes these facts are not made applicable to the life of the church today, so it becomes just a story.
Rhetoric is another synchronic criticism. With this view, “texts exist to have an effect on the hearer/reader, and biblical writings exhibit ancient, modern, and universal rhetorical devices and forms” (Gorman 197). How is the text communicating, and is it communicating effectively? Depending on the form of rhetoric, different passages could have different meanings and effects on the reader. Because a text was written a certain way, was the author trying to communicate something different than is explicitly stated? Was this form effective or not?
Literary criticism is an overarching category that can include linguistic analysis also. This is focusing more on vocabulary, semantics, and grammar. Depending on how words are arranged and translated can have an effect on the meaning of a passage. This can go pretty in depth into linguistic analysis to figure out what words mean what and what their arrangement means. Again, these findings can be interesting, but sometimes are not applicable to life today. An interpreter can also get so wrapped up in these technicalities that he or she can miss the main message of the passage.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
