The Decline of African American Theology
by
Ted Slater
on Mar 13, 2008 at 4:45 PM
When I saw the title of a book that Boundless author Thabiti Anyabwile recently published, "The Decline of African American Theology," I knew it was something our readers would find interesting.
It's an awkward issue: evaluating the strengths -- and weaknesses -- of a theology brought about through an experience that include slavery, oppression, segregation and lingering racism.
Certainly there are strengths. A passion for a God who liberates, an enthusiasm for community, an awareness of the Lord's practical daily provision, and so on.
But, according to Anyabwile, an African American himself, there are some serious failings in contemporary African American theology. Failings that hinder true faith in Christ while promoting, as he says, "materialism and black nationalism masquerading as Christology."
The good news: By identifying weaknesses in one's theology, one may then go on to address those weaknesses.
Thabiti provides clear and convincing arguments in his article, and I think it -- and the book from which the article is excerpted -- has the potential to impact Christendom for good. Some may find such a topic inherently racist, and dismiss discussion of it altogether. But others may find it a refreshing challenge to explore such a mine-field in hopes of fostering a stronger, truer faith in Christ.
I'd be in that latter group.
1. Jess had the following to say on Mar 13 at 5:29 PM:
What is "African American Theology?" This article and the discussion you hope to initiate here rely on the assumption that there is some collective black church whose failings must be addressed. My first difficulty, of many, with Anyabwile's article is that underlying assumption. Are not black Americans involved in countless diverse denominations, each with their own theology?
I'm assuming that the full book has numerous primary sources to back up the author's assertions about historical movements among black Christians, but given the complete lack of sources in the article, I find myself unable to separate fact from the author's opinion or conjecture. I don't even know what specific populations he's referring to. It is a difficult ground upon which to begin a discussion, as it is all very vague and unsupported.
I would also put forth that materialism and nationalism are a symptom of American theology in general, race notwithstanding.
I also happen to think that a discussion about a community's need for improvement is best initiated within that community. For whatever that's worth.
2. Ted Slater had the following to say on Mar 13 at 5:41 PM:
Jess -- I think the article does a decent job introducing the concept of "African American Theology." Did you not get a better understanding of it by reading the article?
Yes, Thabiti references numerous primary sources. Most pages include multiple footnotes. The bibliography is five pages long. It's a well-documented book.
You're right, this excerpt is just a glimpse of his full argument; the full text of his book would provide a lot more to comment on....
You mention that "a community's need for improvement is best initiated within that community." I agree. Thabiti is within that community, and is doing just that.
3. Amir Larijani had the following to say on Mar 13 at 6:10 PM:
Anyabwile indentifies a problem:
Not only is he absolutely correct, but that dynamic is also prevalent outside the black community.
Christian conservatives--and I say this as one myself although with the exception of abortion (on which I am pro-life all the way) my politics are very libertarian--run the risk of substituting patriotic reconstruction with real Christianity. I've seen it go on among my fellow pro-lifers. I've seen it go on among many folks who support traditional values.
When political activism starts taking the place of discipleship, that is a good sign that materialism and nationalism are masquerading as Christology.
When a preacher spends more time preaching about the antics of gay rights groups and radical feminists than about the blood of Jesus Christ, that is a good sign that materialism and nationalism are masquerading as Christology.
When a preacher spends more time lobbying for political causes than about preaching the Gospel, that is a sign that materialism and nationalism are masquerading as Christology.
4. Stephanie had the following to say on Mar 13 at 6:28 PM:
I've seen this type of theology before, and it isn't limited to African American groups. It also resembles the liberation theology of Latin America, and similar ideas are also very popular among Palestinian Christians. I think part of the problem is (and "white" Christians are also quite guilty of it) ripping the Bible out of its own historical - geographical context and squeezing it into ours. For example, some of the more liberal Arab Christians living in the Galilee area of the West Bank call Jesus a fellow "Palestinian" in an attempt to align him with their side against the Jews -- all the while forgetting that Jesus was actually ... a Jew! The tendency is to view the Bible in the context of our culture (or sub-culture) and overly-apply it to the extent that we forget (in the case of liberation theology) what the Bible is really about.
5. Jess had the following to say on Mar 13 at 8:37 PM:
Well, I know it's just an excerpt, as we already discussed, but no, I don't feel that an accurate definition of black theology is put forth. Is he talking about specific historically-black denominations? Just protestants? Individual theology or church doctrine? Common characteristics that he sees in the descendants of slaves who practiced Christianity? I see him making assertions that may apply to certain groups of Black Christians, but I don't know how far he's casting his net; to what groups is he applying his thesis? Again, I'm sure much of this is a reflection of the brevity of the excerpt, but I find it difficult to accept these generalizations and begin the conversation from there... my natural inclination as a scientist is to question his underlying assumptions and/or assertions.
He discusses the "The new Christology of [Marcus] Garvey, [Howard] Thurman, [and] [James] Cone" but this is not equivalent to black theology. Certainly, the theology of these 3 historical figures does not encapsulate the range of theology in modern Black communities.
Here's one concrete example of what I believe the author is talking about: Having grown up in a predominantly black church, I have heard several people make the claim that "Jesus was black!" Now, besides being inaccurate, I think this demonstrated that the people in question were more focused on racial empowerment than on sound theology. This is concerning. However, I think it is largely a response to the pervasive Jesus-depicted-as-blue-eyed-white-man image that is equally inaccurate. But truthfully, this statement has been made by only a tiny minority of black Christians I know or have encountered, and I've never heard it presented as part of official church doctrine. So, what I wonder, then, is how the author is defining black theology, and whether he is reflecting on doctrine of specific religious institutions or churches, or whether his evidence is more-anecdotal or based on the opinions of individual Christians?
6. Ted Slater had the following to say on Mar 13 at 10:19 PM:
For those interested in seeing an example of a church that promotes "African American Theology," Also, check out their "About Us" page. That's what Thabiti is addressing, I believe, not African Americans who happen to be members of orthodox Christian churches.
7. Bene had the following to say on Mar 13 at 10:37 PM:
"It's an awkward issue: evaluating the strengths -- and weaknesses -- of a theology brought about through an experience that include slavery, oppression, segregation and lingering racism."
I agree that it is awkward, but I think that it is more awkward (and actually problematic) when we conflate race and theology and do not consider either fairly. There are multiple strains of so-called "African American theology". The one which Mr. Anyabwile seems to seek to address is really just liberation theology, no? But, by calling it "African American" he not only marginalizes all of the orthodox African American theology, he also ignores the actual place and developmental context of black liberation theology which is closely aligned with South American. Or am I to assume that Cone simply ignores his colleagues at Union?
I happen to believe that "Jesus was on the side of the poor and oppressed and that liberation was his work" *while* believing that Jesus was not only the Son of God but God incarnate. I know that this is the view of many who espouse "African American theology". I am concerned that posting things such as Mr. Anyabwile's very short argument simply provides an opportunity for Boundless readers to think that they know something about African American theology when they really do not. For instance, Mr. Anyabwile asserts that "while Jesus was a Jew, and Jerusalem was controlled by the Roman Empire, Jesus never acted in a way that suggested a political liberation for his contemporaries — to the consternation and disappointment of many would-be followers of his time and ours". This is of course true, and supports his point. But the problem is that we do not have a representative of the other side explaining the full argument- with discussion of Moses etc.
I don't know much theology, but I know enough to know that this article conflates a *lot* and that most readers (including myself) probably aren't up for the most useful discussion on the topic. I hope that I am wrong.
8. Bene had the following to say on Mar 13 at 10:56 PM:
Stephanie (comment 4),
I think that you are entirely correct that "The tendency is to view the Bible in the context of our culture (or sub-culture) and overly-apply it to the extent that we forget (in the case of liberation theology) what the Bible is really about". But maybe we're only inclined to ignorantly attack all such theologies because *our* culture is that of modern liberalism which is all about individualism and how Jesus just works with me?
One of the key arguments of liberation theology is that Christ did not preach himself. He preached the Kingdom of God. Check out the Gospels, these people aren't crazy. They further insist that the kingdom of God can't be reduced to an individualistic private spiritual party. The spiritual liberation always implies a change in the way we live as complete persons and thus politically.
Maybe they haven't forgotten what the Bible is all about, and we only think so because we're busy with our "superior knowledge" correcting those who approach the scripture differently...
Do we really know enough to assume that such large groups are just wrong?
9. John had the following to say on Mar 14 at 7:23 AM:
"I think that nobody should talk about anything unless they present every single minute detail about it and fit it into a nice neat box making sure to not miss any loop hole because you can stretch out words to cover such a wide base of ideas and besides you could apply specifics to the general and the general to the specific and..."
Oh, for crying out loud. Why does everyone complain so much? There IS in fact a particular strand of theology that is peculiar to the "African-American" culture! It may have some things in common with other theologies, BUT it is still peculiar to "African-Americans". Yes, "African-American" can mean a lot of things to a lot of people, but how about we use are brains and recognize that there are churches, many, that are 100% black that espouse a type of theology very similar to liberation theology. And let's see how we can go about helping move individuals away from it AND towards Christ!
10. Leah had the following to say on Mar 14 at 7:29 AM:
Jess, you said "I also happen to think that a discussion about a community's need for improvement is best initiated within that community."
Well, Thabiti is within that community... so I'm not entirely sure what your problem is.
And guys, calling something "African American theology" does not mean all African Americans adhere to that theology. Nobody is saying that. It just means that the theology in question was developed by African Americans. It's like saying Nazism was a german theory- that doesn't mean all germans are Nazis, it just means it was developed by a german.
Also, in response to Jess, I don't believe the blue-eyed-blond-Jesus is "pervasive" anymore. I haven't seen that image of Jesus in anything published since the 80s.
In response to the original post: I hate it when people take something which includes the concept of race and immediately damn it as racism. People can't seem to accept the fact that generally, certain races do certain things well and certain things not so well. Or perhaps just do things a certain way. It's like saying Australians generally include a lot of bagging-out in their friendly humour- it's not racist, it's a fact. It's also like saying most Nazis were German- it's not racist, it's a fact. Nobody is saying ALL Australians bag out their friends in humour, or that ALL germans are Nazis. That would be racism. In the same vein, to say that African Americans have a theology that has certain weaknesses is not racist- to say that ALL African Americans adhere to that faulty theology would be racist.
And it is good that people- especially African Americans- can look at it and be critical and pick out the good and bad bits. Nobody is saying it's bad because African Americans started it. It's not the race which makes it good or bad. It's the theory itself which is good or bad. The race itself isn't the issue. That's just peripheral to the problems of that theology. It's definitely not racist.
11. Carrie (the original) had the following to say on Mar 14 at 7:51 AM:
I'll have to admit that the title had me a little worried before I read the article. All of the Line writers are white. James Dobson is white. I think it's safe to assume most the employees at FOTF are white.
I'm white. I went to a pre-dominantly white high school. My conservative, Christian college was also pre-dominantly white. I go to a church that's pre-dominantly white. I can indentify with the website http://www.stuffwhitepeoplelike.com a little too much.
I enter into cultural debates with a lump in my throat because I know my perspective is a little skewed.
I see just 7 comments and already people are accusing Ted of being close-minded in his judgement call.
I think the current "African American Theology" that Ted referenced is a by-product of the overarching sin of materialism that the modern church struggles with. However, as invidual sub-cultures are wont to do, African-Americans struggle with this in a unique way. Yes, there are exceptions. I know of several reformed, black, presbyterians. However, it would behoove readers to remember that Ted knows that we are all human and fallen. Just because he is white doesn't mean he is wrong in his observations.
Bill Cosby was accused of selling out because he ranted on his fellow African-American men for not taking responsibility for their actions. Numbers don't lie and there are a large amount of African-American men who don't take responsibility and ownership. They want "deliverance", but many of them refuse to actually be delivered. If this weren't true, the numbers would be different.
12. Saidah had the following to say on Mar 14 at 8:26 AM:
I agree; these theological views are something every culture (or subculture) applies to their worldview. However, I think the point was that African Americans tend to do so vehmently. I mean, some African Americans seem to think that God is on their side because their black, for heaven's sake. The phenomenon magnifies itself in the way it's broadcast; TV evangelsits, rappers, businessmen, etc; flaunt their success (reverently or irreverently) and without fail say "God gave me this..." What they mean is "God gave me this because I'm black, and because my great, great grandfather was terribly prejudiced against. Jesus (who HAD to have been something other than white, since white people already have too much) thought I deserved it." Frankly, I don't think African American theology (well, culturally African American theology) has much to do with God at all. I think it's a widespread mentality of a group of people who are using their ancestors' experiences as an excuse not to be real with themselves, others, and God.
Yah, I'm black, and yah, I grew up rather "cultured," so yah, I've got my opinions AND my hang ups, obviously.
13. Matt had the following to say on Mar 14 at 8:33 AM:
We need a little Galatians 3:28 up in here.
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
14. Mike Theemling had the following to say on Mar 14 at 9:37 AM:
Carrie (the original) you said,
"All of the Line writers are white"
Um, what about Denise Morris?
15. Rachael had the following to say on Mar 14 at 10:02 AM:
I honestly don't know too much about liberation theology or examples of typical theological views that might be held within predominately African American churches. It would be neat to learn more about that topic. I'm also curious about common theological views in African countries and how culture plays a part in that. Just last night a couple authors were suggested to me -- I'll have to ask him again about those names. I am curious about how Christianity is played out across cultures. While there should be room for cultural variations within Christianity, I'd be curious to see to what extent those take place around the country and around the world.
As Ted wrote, "By identifying weaknesses in one's theology, one may then go on to address those weaknesses." That's important. Even if it's "awkward." But it's important to not only look 'out' and identify weaknesses in other theologies, but it's crucial to look inward and evaluate our own beliefs. What 'outside the Bible' or 'not exactly Scripturally spelled out' beliefs and ideologies are held by those highly esteemed within the church or within what one deems to be highly respectable or 'Biblically sound' denominations?
Popular views can just subtly creep up. Everything needs to be held under the light of Scripture. Everything.
16. Stephanie had the following to say on Mar 14 at 10:39 AM:
Bene,
Good point. ;-)
17. Jess had the following to say on Mar 14 at 12:01 PM:
Leah, you said "Well, Thabiti is within that community... so I'm not entirely sure what your problem is."
Actually, I was just sort of curious to see how the discussion played out on Boundless, given that, from my impression, its creators, contributors, and audience are mostly on-black.
Carrie said it beautifully: "I'll have to admit that the title had me a little worried before I read the article. All of the Line writers are white. James Dobson is white. I think it's safe to assume most the employees at FOTF are white. I'm white. I went to a pre-dominantly white high school. My conservative, Christian college was also pre-dominantly white. I go to a church that's pre-dominantly white. I can indentify with the website http://www.stuffwhitepeoplelike.com a little too much. I enter into cultural debates with a lump in my throat because I know my perspective is a little skewed."
Leah, you also said "And guys, calling something "African American theology" does not mean all African Americans adhere to that theology. Nobody is saying that. It just means that the theology in question was developed by African Americans."
Ok, yes, I get that. But there is more than one theology generated by black Americans... I have personally attended historically black churches my entire life and never really encountered the kind of theology that this article describes. Wouldn't it sound silly to you to read a discussion or critique of White American theology? I'm sure you'd be wondering what exactly that means. Well, when I hear "African American theology," I am similarly confused by that phrase.
You also said, "Also, in response to Jess, I don't believe the blue-eyed-blond-Jesus is "pervasive" anymore. I haven't seen that image of Jesus in anything published since the 80s."
Well, the last time I heard those "Jesus is black" comments, it was the 90s... the example I gave as from a time when that was still relevant.
Finally, I would point out that no one thus far, myself included, has called the article, the author, or Ted racist.
Leah, your comparison to Australians and Germans falls a little flat to me; those would be nationalities, not ethnic groups, and not races. I don't think Ted said anything offensive, but I I'm a bit taken aback by your assertion that "People can't seem to accept the fact that generally, certain races do certain things well and certain things not so well. Or perhaps just do things a certain way." Are you talking about cultural traditions? About similarities within cultures or ethnic groups? Or are you talking about race? There is a difference, and I'm not entirely sure how to interpret your above statement.
18. Sara had the following to say on Mar 14 at 12:24 PM:
If I'd been drinking water just now, a mouthful of it'd be spewed across the computer screen: "materialism and black nationalism masquerading as Christology"?
Are you kidding? Take away the 'black' and you've got "materialism and nationalism masquerading as Christology", which is *exactly* what people outside of American see in big subburban megachurches talking more about [Re]publicans than sinners!
Talk about a lack of self-awareness. Unbelievable.
19. patricia had the following to say on Mar 14 at 12:46 PM:
Sara-that's exactly what I was thinking.
20. Sara had the following to say on Mar 14 at 1:00 PM:
More about the article, the author seems completely ignorant of the many, many variations in Christian belief that existed in the first centuries of Christianity, that make the present differences among denominations look like peanuts. There were Christians who believed in many Gods; Christians that believed Jesus was human; that Jesus was part evil; that Christians had to be Jews first; and Christians who believed that one gospel was holy, or no gospels, or gospels that aren't currently in the canon, and on and on... Who is *he* to decree orthodoxy??
21. Denise Morris had the following to say on Mar 14 at 1:08 PM:
Yeah, I'm only half-white! :-)
Also, I think part of this discussion (whether relating to blacks or whites) has to do with the self-esteem movement. Like I blogged about before, I've been reading a book called Generation Me and it talks about how we've all been taught to think we're wonderful, the best, etc. The book mentions the specific attention that was given to minorities. Because they've historically been treated poorly in the United States, minorities were thought to need the most self-esteem help. This idea was pushed forward, and now in tests, black children have the highest self esteem. That could be part of what some are seeing in certain black churches. Just a thought.
22. Carrie (the original) had the following to say on Mar 14 at 1:27 PM:
Mike Theemling: my bad. I kinda forgot. I was just going by the picture the Boundless homepage (all white writers). Obviously, Denise is not pictured. I apologize.
23. Judy had the following to say on Mar 14 at 1:45 PM:
This is for the Boundless staff::
How dare you post an article that pretends to know the full experience of African Americans historically inside and outside the church? You think just because the author is an educated African American, he is the authority on the shortcomings of African American theology, which as mentioned in previous blog entries, are shortcomings of the church as a whole.
Reminder- African Americans are not a monolithic group of peoople. I know its difficult to comprehend but all Blacks do not believe the same. Christians really need to get into the modern times and get it together. The world has surpassed us in this.
I am an African American Christian conservative myself who grew up on Focus on the Family and the teaching of Dr. Dobson- I love this ministry and the knowledge it has provided to Christians and non Christians alike about dealing with life's issues from a biblical perspective.
When I read this article title in my email I knew we were in for quite a ride.
First of all, growing up in a predominately white Christian setting, I have seen the blatant misunderstanding and turning of the head concerning issues and belief systems in the black community. There is normally one token Black person on staff whom most whites deem as an authority on Black issues as a whole.
The ideas and attitudes are just as long as you are a compliant black who doesn't challenge the system, you are OK. As soon as you question discrimination you are seen as divisive and not promoting unity.
Granted, Boundless has published articles about African American issues but most of them are negative and try to downplay the frustration African Americans feel today concerning institutionalized discrimination. An example of this is seen in the article, I'm Not Attracted to Her Part I, which was written in response to a black female writer's frustration about black women not being seen as beautiful in society. Funny thing, this article was written by a white male- and and while he made valid biblical points about true beauty, he ignored the core issue of Black women being seen as beautiful and desirable in this culture.
http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001640.cfm
My point is, the church in general needs to make an effort to be more culturally understanding and not so close minded about why Christians are so different. Different cultures = different emphases on Christianity. Now there are set doctrines in the Word that these beliefs need to be measured against- no doubt about it. But the Western church needs to get over themselves and the idea that all churches will think and act like them.
Boundless, I can't see the pictures of your contributors or your staff, but I wonder how many African Americans do you have on staff from diverse backgrounds? I do see the ad for Boundless show, but I don't see my face there. The more DIVERSE input you get from African American Christians, the more educated you will become about the black experience in America- secular and spiritual.
24. Ted Slater had the following to say on Mar 14 at 2:55 PM:
"Black Theology" is a term used within black churches that hold to "Black Theology." It's a term they themselves use.
Again, check out this church to get a sense of what such a church believes, and how it promotes a skewed understanding of faith and a skewed understanding of Jesus.
Here are some things such a church believes:
"The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology."
"Black theology is one of the many theologies in the Americas that became popular during the liberation theology movement. They include Hispanic theology, Native American theology, Asian theology and Womanist theology."
For what it's worth, we will not be publishing any comments that reference particular members of this particular church. I don't want to go there in this discussion.
25. Thabiti Anyabwile had the following to say on Mar 14 at 3:09 PM:
Thanks to all for the spirited discussion and exchange. There's a lot here in this strand of comments. I've been moved with various reactions, so maybe the best thing to do is try a few clarifications and comments that'll hopefully be helpful.
1. I don't think we should at all accept the premise that critique is only legitimate if it comes from members within the community being critiqued. Certainly, there needs to be sensitivity when "outsiders" critique something happening with "insiders." But it seems to me that to prohibit cross-group (ethnicity, gender, class, etc.) is a recipe for group think, staleness, and limited mutual understanding. I'm critical of "white" movements and ideas of various sorts, and I think I have a right to be. I need to be fair and accurate, but I have the right to reflect and comment. Similarly, my white, Asian, and Hispanic brethren can help me if they are appropriately critical of things they see in me/my community that I may in fact be blind to. So, all are welcome to the table.
2. As for the section from the book (Ted, thank you for printing the excerpt and sharing with your readers), it comes from a concluding section in the Christology chapter. The book's chapters deal with the major topics of a systematic theology (revelation, God, man, Christ, salvation, etc) and then traces from the late 1700s to the present a wide range of works and figures from the African American Christian experience. Each chapter sets the doctrine in the wider context of church history and counsels, and the chapters dip in and out of similar movements/ideas from non-Black movements. In short, what the body of the book tries to do is put African Americans in dialogue with the longer history of the church and with some influences and ideas outside African-America. I hope that readers will find this a historically wide-ranging and helpful book. It's by that same history that the standard for "orthodox" is set (not just me dubbing myself the "orthodoxy police," though every Christian has that responsibility).
3. Which brings me to the question of "African American theology." Personally, there are two kinds of theology--sound and unsound. I use the term "African American theology" to reflect (a) that the book is about the theology of African Americans; (b) to distinguish it from the technical field of "black theology" (which as many have pointed out is a liberation theology not representative of all African American theology); and (c) to demonstrate how African American thought has drifted from its historical roots, which were far more orthodox than most things seen today (hence the book's subtitle, "from Biblical Faith to Cultural Captivity").
4. Finally, it should be said that my great heart and passion is for the proclamation of Christ and the health of His church. I hope the book sparks discussion that excites that same passion in others. Ideas have consequences. And what the book attempts to show (especially the concluding sections like that excerpted) is that (a) most African American Christians once held to better ideas with better consequences for African Americans, and (b) the plethora of heterodox and heretical ideas that can be found among Christians today (African American, white, Caribbean, African, European, etc.) are actually doing great harm. In that sense, the book is more than a work of history. It's a pastor sounding an alarm regarding the consequences of ideas, many of which blind, distort, and pervert, distracting people from the saving gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Enjoying the discussion!
Thabiti
26. Leah had the following to say on Mar 14 at 6:18 PM:
Jess, I think you're being pedantic and trying to detract from the actual point of my comment when you say Leah, your comparison to Australians and Germans falls a little flat to me; those would be nationalities, not ethnic groups, and not races.
The point is, to make a generalised comment about Germans and say that's how ALL germans act is still a racist comment, whether it's technically a race or ethnic group or nationality or whatever. It's still the same (wrong) attitude.
And of COURSE there is more than one theology within the African American community. I SAID that. Nobody is saying ALL African Americans adhere to this theology Ted's talking about. I would be willing to wager the churches you've been to use theology developed by a NON-African American- probably a European! Ted is simply talking about a theology developed by African Americans, and generally unique to them.
YOUR comparison to white American theology is faulty. The fact of the matter is, most African Americans would be descended from slaves, where that original "african american theology" has its roots. You can't say white Americans descended from any particular group of people which may have developed a certain theology. I feel reasonably confident that there would be far more different descendant groups within white Americans than African-Americans.
You also said Leah, you said "Well, Thabiti is within that community... so I'm not entirely sure what your problem is."
Actually, I was just sort of curious to see how the discussion played out on Boundless, given that, from my impression, its creators, contributors, and audience are mostly on-black. Well, you said you felt these sorts of discussions should be initiated within the particular community, not completely played out. Thabiti is an african american, so therefore the discussion WAS intiated within the community... that doens't exclude other people from joining in.
I also don't know why you were taken aback by "People can't seem to accept the fact that generally, certain races do certain things well and certain things not so well. Or perhaps just do things a certain way." Again, it doesn't matter whether it's race, culture, ethnicity, whatever. The same thing applies to all those groups. When it comes to race, Africans tend to be much better runners than Asians or Europeans. When it comes to culture, Italians tend to be better when it comes to making food than the English. The distinction you keep making between race/culture/nationality is not really necessary, because my points still stand.
27. Christopher Lake had the following to say on Mar 14 at 7:07 PM:
Sara, there have never been actual Christians who "believed in many Gods" or who "believed that Jesus was part evil." Heretics may believe those things, but a Christian cannot hold to such beliefs without contradicting what he/she claims to be. There is a Biblically-based and historic definition of Christian orthodoxy. It is the Nicene Creed-- and to believe that there are many Gods, or that Jesus was/is evil, contradicts the Nicene Creed and puts one outside the bounds of Biblical Christianity.
Hi, Thabiti! God's blessings to you and your family! Hearing you preach at CHBC was a serious gift to me and to all of the brothers and sisters there. I know that you're blessing the congregation greatly in Grand Cayman! Preach on, Brother! :-)
28. Jess had the following to say on Mar 14 at 9:22 PM:
Hi Leah, I wanted to address some of the points you made.
You accuse me of being "pedantic" in making the distinction between race, ethnicity, and nationality. I, however, am merely trying to be clear. I have had a lot of experience working on opening up dialogue about cross-cultural interactions and diversity within communities, and the first rule of the game is always to clarify our language. I think it's an important step. Because, honestly, look: nationality, ethnicity, and race are very different things. I found your examples faulty because while Germans, for instance, may share some culture or history, German is not a race. Therefore, prejudice directed against them is not racism. When it comes to discussing race and racism, words matter very much. I don't want to get off topic here, but I was being earnest in my point about terminology, not trying to be pedantic. You are free to disagree, of course, but there is a real distinction there between those terms; they are not synonymous, and using them as such is inaccurate. But let's get back on topic.
You also said "And of COURSE there is more than one theology within the African American community. I SAID that. Nobody is saying ALL African Americans adhere to this theology Ted's talking about. I would be willing to wager the churches you've been to use theology developed by a NON-African American- probably a European! Ted is simply talking about a theology developed by African Americans, and generally unique to them."
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I agree with you that there is more than on theology among African Americas. I was honestly asking what was meant by "African American Theology" because I had never heard this phrase as such, and was trying to understand who the author was talking about. I have a better understanding of that now, but I still have not seen it personally. Your wager about my religious background is incorrect. Perhaps you should ask and not assume.
"YOUR comparison to white American theology is faulty. The fact of the matter is, most African Americans would be descended from slaves, where that original "african american theology" has its roots. You can't say white Americans descended from any particular group of people which may have developed a certain theology. I feel reasonably confident that there would be far more different descendant groups within white Americans than African-Americans."
Point taken. My example was also imperfect.
You also said, "Thabiti is an african american, so therefore the discussion WAS intiated within the community... that doens't exclude other people from joining in."
Besides the fact that one black person does not constitute a community, I would like to point out that I never tried to exclude anyone from joining in the discussion. I merely admitted that it made me wary. Perhaps if you have had the experience of being part of a minority group whose failings as a community have been self-righteously enumerated by the majority, you may understand my wariness.
You also said, "I also don't know why you were taken aback by "People can't seem to accept the fact that generally, certain races do certain things well and certain things not so well. Or perhaps just do things a certain way." Again, it doesn't matter whether it's race, culture, ethnicity, whatever. The same thing applies to all those groups. When it comes to race, Africans tend to be much better runners than Asians or Europeans. When it comes to culture, Italians tend to be better when it comes to making food than the English. The distinction you keep making between race/culture/nationality is not really necessary, because my points still stand."
The more stereotypes you provide, the more taken aback I am. You may not understand why, but you are making assertions about groups that are not founded in fact. Italians cook better than the English? That would be merely your opinion.
I don't want to detract further from the central topic here, though of course you are welcome to respond to me. But you expressed some things that make me uncomfortable and I didn't want to let them pass without addressing them.
29. Jess had the following to say on Mar 14 at 11:12 PM:
Ted, thank you for providing a specific example of the kind of theology we're talking about. Might I ask why you chose that particular church?
30. cn had the following to say on Mar 15 at 8:38 PM:
I looked at the website that Ted suggested and I agree that this is a prime example of a church that abides by the theological issues addressed by Thabiti Anyabwile. Whether or not they live out the love of the Lord daily is something we could never tell by the website (although your theology will affect how you live!). Anyhow, my point is not to critique a body of believers that I don't know. However, in comparison to the website Ted suggested, I'd like to suggest checking out this one: http://www.willfordministries.org/ Will Ford is an African American with a rich heritage of praying believers in his family. He often testifies to this with an old pot that's been passed down the line to remember their roots of faithful devotion to the Lord, and the power of prayer. He is a pro life freedom fighter who believes the rightful heirs to the civil rights movement are the unborn. I point him out because the theology he preaches is true to the bible, and in opposition to the materialism and nationalism present in the theology described by Anyabwile. Will Ford's ministry, in my opinion, is an excellent example of how the truth of Jesus and Kingdom living can be truly liberating in its humility. I thought looking at some of his views might be a good addition to this discussion. He's a brave man proclaiming love and freedom within true biblical framework. Be discerning about how this looks different than the theology discussed in this blog. I present this as a means of backing Anyabwile's argument. :)
31. Tracy had the following to say on Mar 16 at 1:51 AM:
I'd be most interested in Mr. Anyabwile's take on this -- but based on my read of the excerpt (I haven't purchased the book yet but I absolutely intend to. I bought his other book “The Faithful Preacher”) -- it is not clear to me that the African-American Theology he is addressing is necessarily or uniquely the "theology" of the church Ted referred to in posts #2 and #24. Is it?
Nonetheless, as an African-American, I am very interested in Mr. Anyabwile's book because I have encountered difficulty finding African-American churches that teach sound, substantive doctrine. In my personal experience, the doctrinal content is either watered down and overly elementary, or fundamentally flawed theologically.
Please do not misunderstand me , there are predominately African-American churches that do teach sound, substantive bible-grounded doctrine -- but they do seem to be in the minority, and I have long wondered why. In some churches, I attributed doctrinal errors and/or lack of theological depth to the pastor’s limited opportunities for formal theological training, particularly among some of the older congregations, but there seem to be many complex factors at play. So I appreciate Mr. Anyabwile's attempt to provide a historical explanation – though I confess that I did think that Boundless was a strange place to find this post and topic
Mr. Anyabwile, I don't know if you address this in your book, but some have suggested that many African-American churches and/or denominations were “derailed” doctrinally around the time of the civil rights movement, because the “black church” was so central to the movement. The basic argument is that during and after the movement, many churches moved away from the pure gospel to more of a “social gospel”. The shift is understandable, but problematic nonetheless. Interestingly, also, many of the "social gospel" churches are very vocal against the more recent "prosperity gospel" churches.
32. Bene had the following to say on Mar 16 at 6:09 PM:
Ted, "Black Theology" /= "African American Theology", no?. Yes, "Black Theology" is a meaningful term (especially when paired with a specific theologian's name a la Cone). But you posted about "African American Theology" which, so far as I know, only means theology of African Americans. So, posting an example of "Black Theology" doesn't seem to answer questions about the original post.
I guess this is a part of my problem with this post.. who even knows enough to tell when you mean Black Theology, when you mean theologies developed within the African American Experience, when you mean liberation theology, when you mean womanist theology, or anything else? Contrary to the view of one of the above commenters, I'm not saying that we can't discuss these things, but I don't see how we're supposed to have a meaningful discussion if we can't differentiate terms at all. If you mean to criticize the Christology of Black theology, then why don't you explicitly do so, rather than discussing "African American" theology in general?
33. Leah had the following to say on Mar 16 at 8:44 PM:
Jess,
You really are missing my point. I was purposely making generalisations that are not necessarily true, but can be said in GENERAL. I wasn't saying Italians are better cooks than the English- I was saying they generally make better food which, while being opinion, is an opinion many people hold. And it is fact that Africans tend to be very good long distance runners. But those comments were not my point- my point was that you can make generalised comments about a race OR a nationality and have it still classed as racism. I know that technically making a negative generalisation about a nationality is not racism, but in common language it is still referred to as racism, so I'm sticking to how the average person would speak.
For example: I once heard a 14 yr old palestinian girl say "I hate Israelis. They are all racist." Now, the average Joe Bloggs in the street would call her comment racist, wouldn't he? Although, technically, Israeli is a nationality, not a race. But people would still call the comment racist. The point is, you still understand what Joe is saying about the comment, whether it is technically racist or not, so there is no point in arguing over the semantics of whether it really is racist or not. You still understand what Joe is saying about the comment.
I was also making the point that you can validly make certain generalisations about races/nationalities/ethnicities. And people shouldn't get uptight and offended over it. For example, what I said about Africans generally being better runners than Asians, or that Asians are generally shorter than Africans. Those are all reasonably accurate generalisations about a people group, but nobody is saying that generalisation applies to EVERYONE within that people group.
I also never claimed Thabiti WAS the community. You said you felt those conversations should be intiated by someone within the community... and I said Thabiti is within the african american community, so it is quite acceptable for him to be initiating such a conversation. That's all.
Also, if you were simply asking what is this "african american theology" Ted was talking about, why didn't you just go and read the article he was talking about? One would assume any further questions in these comments would be on top of having read the article.
34. Jess had the following to say on Mar 17 at 3:23 PM:
Leah, thank you for clarifying that you were using words incorrectly, just because everyone else does. Now, I understand. Seriously, I really do understand your point. I simply still disagree with much of what you've said. Even as a generalization, comments like "Africans tend to be good long distance runners" is not a fact Leah. It is a stereotype that you have heard and internalized and taken as truth. And now you repeat it as though of course everyone knows that Africans run well. What does it matter that Africa is an entire continent full of an incredibly diverse range of people? I don't know why I'm even bothering to continue this conversation, except that I have a hard time walking away from opportunities to educate people who are clearly ignorant on issues, and yet appear to be good people who might be open to discussion. Maybe?
Also, I did read the article. Twice. And I still had questions. Nothing wrong with asking questions.
Tracy, I think your question about a shift in the 1950s/60s is a good one. It makes sense to me that the centrality of black churches to the Civil Rights Movement could have had a major impact on the focus of such churches.
35. Leah had the following to say on Mar 17 at 8:46 PM:
Jess, I know generalisations are not true about everyone. They are generalisations for a reason. Of course Africa is a very diverse continent, my fiance is from Africa. But it honestly is true that if you compared Africans to, say, Japanese, the Africans would tend to beat the Japanese in a race. Their bodies TEND to be more suited for it. Certainly, not all are suited for it. And please, don't go talking about stereotypes and generalisations as if they're the same thing, because they're not. A stereotype is an image someone automatically puts onto everyone of a particular group. A generalisation understands that the image does not apply to everyone in the group.
Judging by the way you're talking, I'm guessing you don't believe in generalisations at all. I think however that they do have some merit, provided people realise (which I think most do) that a generalisation is not true about everybody in the group being discussed. I certainly didn't say it as if everyone should know Africans run well. I only said it as an example to a point I was trying to make.
I'm not "ignorant" about anything. I just think generalisations can be used, and you think they can't.
36. Sara had the following to say on Mar 18 at 10:33 AM:
Christopher wrote,
"Sara, there have never been actual Christians who "believed in many Gods" or who "believed that Jesus was part evil." Heretics may believe those things, but a Christian cannot hold to such beliefs without contradicting what he/she claims to be. There is a Biblically-based and historic definition of Christian orthodoxy. It is the Nicene Creed-- and to believe that there are many Gods, or that Jesus was/is evil, contradicts the Nicene Creed and puts one outside the bounds of Biblical Christianity."
I was talking about the earliest Christians, way before the Nicene Creed was ever thought of, and long before there was only one Christian Bible--Gnostics, Ebionites, Marcionites, and others...It's only now that the 'proto-orthodox' strand of Christianity became mainstream that it can turn around and call those other Christians heretics.
37. Lady Akofa had the following to say on Mar 18 at 11:55 AM:
Well, I'm an African-Ghanaian living in Ghana and this is my first comment and I hope my last comment on this blog. I just couldn't sit on the sidelines any longer. :)
The point is not African-American theology, or Latin-Amercia theology, etc... but embracing God's thoughts and ways without the "added problematic theologies." Get it? At least, that's what I inferred from Thabiti's article.
There are no white, black, yellow, pink, blue theologies in Christendom... it's all Christ-theology.:) I don't think we should miss that point... it's all about Him.
38. Nicole had the following to say on Mar 18 at 6:14 PM:
Forgive me--I have not read through the discussion, so my comments may be redundant.
This article's timing is not lost on me (or anyone else). I think it's very unfair of us to analyze TUMC at this time. They are frankly in defensive mode, and in a crisis. Their arguments of defense are necessarily focused more on race and oppression and less on Christ because of the nature of the arguments of late. The question about them is not whether or not they are Christian, but whether or not they're a bunch of bigots and if their most famous member is a bigot, too.
I read through their statement in the "about us" section of the website (created before the recent drama). I don't have a problem with what they say at all. Although their emphasis on race seems very intense, Christ is first and central to their identity expression.
Personally, I'm only interested in theology developed "on the ground"--perspectives and studies of Christology centralized in the church as opposed to those created in the proverbial ivory tower by persons who may or may not actually be Christian. My perception of "African American theology" in that respect comes from the black churches themselves.
Much of African American Christian theology and practice is rooted in our experience with discrimination. With the exception of the Church of God in Christ (COGIC), black denominations were founded based on the discrimination they faced in their original churches. African Methodist Episcopal (AME), Christian Methodist Episcopal (CME), African Methodist Episcopal Zion (AME-Zion)all emphasize Christ, yet minister from a position of empowerment to African Americans.
Black theology is birthed in and finds expression in these churches, none of which can be fairly accused of putting race before Christ. While historically these churches have had emphasis on liberation, education, and on creating productive members of society, their purpose has been to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ and to enable parishoners to live lives changed as a result of genuine conversion and faith.
This quote is helpful in characterizing what's really happening in black churches and among those who help to develop and express "African American theology":
--------------------------------------
"Our concern is for the whole person," says Bishop Cecil Bishop, the (retired former) senior bishop of the AME Zion Church. "We have a holistic approach and a holistic gospel. We don't feel that we live in a kind of compartmentalized sense, but that life is a complete whole. So we have to be concerned about all of those amenities of life that help make up wholeness in an individual."
The outward person is important, but the primary focus of the AME Zion Church remains spirituality and "sharing the good news of the gospel," says the former senior bishop.
------------------------------------
That to me is not an over-emphasis on race as compared to the emphasis on Christ, but an acknowledgement of the realities of hurting African Americans who need Jesus just like everyone else.
Lastly, I want to say that just because an African American person has a perspective about African Americans doesn't mean it's "the gospel." I'm surprised that FOTF/Boundless seems to think otherwise.
39. Al had the following to say on Mar 18 at 10:17 PM:
Sara, Paul was busy addressing Gnostic and Jewish heresies from the start, and the early church was fighting these heterodox ideas from the outset. Some of John's epistles were seemingly written to directly address Gnostic heresies, and Peter used the term "destructive heresies" as well, so from the get go, those closest to Jesus were already battling erroneous teaching and doing the very thing you take issue with in mainline Christianity-- except often with harsher words.
I suppose we can use academic revisionism to redefine "Early Christianity" as any myriad of divergent and competing belief systems related to Christ, but this was not the Christianity of Paul, of the apostles, or of Jesus according to what we see in the canonized Gospels and epistles. Whether one believes them to be geniune is another matter, but "Proto-orthodox" Christianity didn't co-exist with the other brands and then upon gaining acceptance, turn around and excise them as heresies as you seem to suggest. Rather, the other strains were deemed heresies at their prime, and many of the Creeds were in *response* to these divergent beliefs. The scripture authors central to what you call the "proto-orthodox" movement did not mince words about those they considered false teachers of a different gospel, and this has been the character of the (now mainline) Church from the beginning.
When we talk about "orthodox" and "heresies", it is in view with this mainline "strain" of Christianity that we are concerned with.
I know it may sound like religious bullying for Anyabwile to declare what is orthodox and what isn't. But it isn't him that's making these distinctions-- rather he is holding these theologies up to the Christian scriptures in their literal and historical contexts, with proper exigesis, because he believes them to be true.
So ultimately, your question isn't who is Anyabwile to be judge over what's orthodox and what isn't-- but it's who are Christians to believe in the scriptures and writings that we know now as the bible, and who are they to actually take its words and the Christ-centered gospel it describes seriously.
This brand of Christianity has always been voracious in exposing and confronting competing and contradictory truth claims. It wasn't just a feature after a council, a creed, or a consensus was established. It's nature was the exact reason why these creeds and clarifications took place. It's understandable that some might have issues with this sort of exclusive Christianity that remains uncompromising on the most important issues regarding the nature of God, the nature of men, and its ultimate implications, however.
40. Christopher Lake had the following to say on Mar 19 at 7:54 AM:
Sara, the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed were based on what the earliest Christians believed-- going back to the apostles themselves, who were taught by Jesus Himself. A question-- from where do you understand that the doctrine of Jesus's deity originated?
41. Tracy had the following to say on Mar 19 at 1:26 PM:
Nicole Comment #38,
Well said. It is worth repeating that many African-American denominations, congregations and organizations began only after it's founders attempted (unsuccessfully) to join white congregations/organizations.
Regarding the particular church that was posted by Ted. I am from Chicago and once attended that church. I have friends who are still members there. On a given Sunday their services and sermons are not much different from other Christian churches.
Nicole, I too believe that the "talking points" posted on the web site were a response to media charges that the church is a "Black supremacist" organization rather than a statement of their views on Christ and faith. The other objectives which were posted merely reflect the fact that they are situated in the midst of a black community facing a number of challenges, and that they are committed to helping that community.
On any given Sunday the pastor would give a "traditional" Christian sermon. Sporadically, however, if he was angry about current events, or a particular news story, he would vent about it from the pulpit. My personal opinion is that his personal opinions did not belong in the sermons -- and ultimately that was one of my reasons for discontinuing attendance. For what it's worth, I know that many congregants disagree with his personal opinions, but remain because they love the work of the church and because they have strong bonds with other members there.
It is also worth noting that TUCC is a black congregation within a predominately white denomination -- and their fundamental theology and beliefs are in line with those of their parent denomination. This is one of the reasons that I questioned in an earlier post whether Mr. Anyabwile's treatise was necessarily addressing the theology of this particular church.
Nonetheless, I am very interested in Mr. Anyabwile's analysis of "African-American Theology". I have recommended his book to my friends -- and I would love to see a reformation in the theology of those churches (African-American or not) who have fallen prey to doctrinal error.
42. Sara had the following to say on Mar 19 at 3:28 PM:
Al,
I think I agree with most of what you say.... yes, Paul and others were battling what they saw as heretic teachings (just as Paul's own teachings were condemned, too: witness his peaceful death); yes, you're right that my issue isn't really with Anyabwile, but more with Christians who believe in unverifiable orthodoxies in general... But, you wrote,
"I suppose we can use academic revisionism to redefine "Early Christianity" as any myriad of divergent and competing belief systems related to Christ, but this was not the Christianity of Paul, of the apostles, or of Jesus according to what we see in the canonized Gospels and epistles. "
Yes, it is: make that 'Early Christianities", and Paul's was one of many. I'm not saying there was a unified group that had such varying beliefs, I'm saying there were a bunch--plural--of believing communities who claimed to be following Jesus. You wrote,
"Proto-orthodox" Christianity didn't co-exist with the other brands and then upon gaining acceptance, turn around and excise them as heresies as you seem to suggest. Rather, the other strains were deemed heresies at their prime, and many of the Creeds were in *response* to these divergent beliefs."
The two aren't mutally exclusive; both are true: proto-orthodoxy co-existed with other brands, all brands claimed other brands were heretics or at least wrong somehow; all had creeds or letters or gospels or whatever responding to other brands"
(I like your use of 'brand'. Instead of asking what denomination a person was, my Grandpa used to say, "Oh, yeah, and what flavour are they?")
Christopher,
just to mention, there were lots of other people making similar claims to Jesus' in the first century: there was even another one named Jesus--see Jesus Barabbas of the Nazarenes; he's in the history books, too. The doctrine of the deity of Jesus wasn't anything too special. It was just that his sect 'won out' in numbers (and if that helps prove its validity to you, OK.).
All Christian groups--all religious groups--tend to claim to be "based on what the earliest [Christians] believed". Eastern Orthodox Christians strongly believe that they hold the unbroken tradition; and so Roman Catholics; and similarly, Protestants believe that they have a purified back-to-the-Bible belief system. The fame of a creed doesn't mean it's true. Also, your post assumes that what the Bible says about Jesus is all true. Even restricting oneself to what's written in the Bible, the writer of Luke in Luke 1:2 says that he wasn't an eyewitness to the events he wrote about; he's recording stories he heard at least second-hand. (And about the Holy Spirit protecting tradition, see the March 4th 'Which way do your gears turn' blog entry here
About your question, I think the doctrine of Jesus' deity originated among early Christians. I don't think it came from Jesus himself: apart from in John (by decades the latest Gospel), Jesus doesn't claim to be God in Matthew, Mark, or in Luke, that I know of.
43. Al had the following to say on Mar 19 at 6:49 PM:
Sara, what I meant by "co-exist" was peaceful co-existance and acceptance. The early Pauline church confronted heresies vigorously, and did not only do so upon gaining power and formulating creeds like you previously suggested.
And for what it's worth, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestant Christianity all hold uncompromisingly to the central tenets of Christian faith-- that of Jesus's divinity, atonement for sin, and salvation through faith. Now each might have its own particular interpretations, understandings/misunderstandings, and particular emphasis-- for better or worse-- but all would have *much* more in common with Pauline Christianity than any of the other sects and heresies you mention. So your examples actually *do* all rise from the early church. They did develop in somewhat diverging directions, but all still hold to the "Mere Christianity" C.S. Lewis describes.
Sure, a fame of a creed doesn't make it true, but the opposite should be said as well-- a creed's truth might not lie only with its fame, which appears to be the assumption you (must) make as an atheist.
The validities and persuasiveness of ideas and beliefs don't lie in their popularity alone. Saying that something became orthodox simply because it was popular attempts to explain away and dismiss whole belief systems without addressing *why* it became dominant-- and fails to examine the actual particulars of the beliefs, its contexts, its meanings, validities, and possible truth. Of course it's easy to do once one's already determined that those beliefs are false or irrelevant.
It also makes the post-modern error that all non-empirical ideas are equally valid (or invalid), and that beliefs are compelling only because they're popular-- without conceding that some beliefs are popular because they are compelling. I fail to see where the other competing "Christian" theologies excel beyond orthodox Christianity when it comes to writings, elborations and accounts authored by those who were closest to Jesus. Gnostic Christianity, for instance, simply does not have the pedigree "orthodox" Christianity does.
"you're right that my issue isn't really with Anyabwile, but more with Christians who believe in unverifiable orthodoxies in general"
Maybe it would be helpful for us to redefine our terms. Orthodox simply means the established and accepted tradition of a faith, or if you would prefer, a brand of faith. I think we can verify whether certain beliefs are orthodox to New Testament Christianity by tracing them through church history and the scriptures. Yes, we can argue on some level about what's orthodox and what isn't, and orthodoxy has not always remained constant as errors were made and as errors were corrected, but where we stand, Anyabwile is perfectly accurate in saying Black Theology that embraces a social gospel is not orthodox to Pauline Christianity-- or Christianity as it matters to us. I'm not even sure he's the one actually using the term "unorthodox", but it's not the dirty word you make it out to be, and it's not really "rigid truth (delivered only by the blunt hammer of popularity)" you take it to mean.
But if you judge the orthodoxy of Christian doctrines (that we care about) to be unverifiable and dismiss how compelling the evidence might be to Christians themselves, you would pretty much include all Christians who hold to a Pauline theology and actually defend their beliefs and examine contradictory claims by their world view. So I hope I'm not being too off-base in taking it an appropriate step farther. You wouldn't really have a problem with singular Christians making claims of "orthodoxy". You may actually have a problem with Christianity in the tradition of Paul and the New Testament, and those who would dare to assert its truth and examine other beliefs against it. That's all that Anyabwile appears to be doing.
And you would have a problem with most here, and well, me. =)
I have to say it seems curious that as a non-believer, you seem to have strong ideas about how Christians should assert their beliefs, when they assert them only because they *actually* seriously believe them.
44. IMO had the following to say on Mar 20 at 7:08 AM:
Sara, I like reading your opposing viewpoints and all. They are actually quite interesting. But what do you get from visiting this blog? What brings you here? Why are you "hanging" out with Christians? Just curious. [In case you can't read my tone of voice in my comment: I'm not being sarcastic or trying to be rude].
45. Sara had the following to say on Mar 25 at 9:41 AM:
IMO, just a cut and paste from a previous thread: "I guess I visit this website because I miss discussing things within a Christian framework; because this discussion board is really well run; because I'm a procrastinator and its SO easy to click over to Boundless and waste time in what's usually a really interesting way; because I like being able to think about things from an atheist and christian perspective, and probably other reasons."
I'd add that I can get overwhelmed at times with all the different ways of thinking about things... this is going to sound insulting, but do you remember computer games like SimAnt and Civilization? Returning to discuss things from a Christian perspective is sort of relaxing it that you enter into a small, limited world where EVERYTHING has to have a corresponding verse in one single book, and it's sort of like a game seeing how much flexibility you can get for yourself while still keeping within the strict boundaries. I don't actually like these extra-biblical discussions as much--talking about the origins of Christianity and such, even though I think they're more important--because there aren't any limitations. I liked the conversation we all had about adoption much more, because that was all within Biblical boundaries.
Al,
Again, I think I agree with most of what you say..
I get your use of 'co-exist' now; I think it only underlines the point that there was never one pure and unified church, detailed in Acts, to which we should all aspire: again, there were lots of christianities. And I don't think that 'proto-orthodoxy' was always cohesive, with new Christians converting to one brand and sticking with it and never reading other gospels, for instance. I agree that all prominant present-day Christianities came from it. (or I guess we can now for the most part just say 'Christianity', although some Catholics don't believe that there's salvation outside the Roman church, and so on)
You think the only reason I think Christianity isn't true is because it's popular? Come on... I have lots of other reasons having to do with redaction criticism of the bible, psychology, history, and so on. But I do think that Christians can in a sense only believe Christianity because it's popular, within their families and communities: the biggest factor determining what religion you'll be in what religion your parents are. Once they hit 20 or so, people who've stayed Christians claim to have fully investigated their beliefs, but it too often means just reading more C.S. Lewis and maybe a quick scan of the Quran, not actually making a point of giving other religions and atheism as fair a go as they've given Christianity.
About all the 'whys' of why Christianity became popular, that's a whole other set of topics. I was just making the point that the present orthodoxy (coincidentally or not) gained popularity the further away it became from the events it refers to, and that 2000 years have obscured the early origins, and that a lot of present-day Christians, again, have the idea that the early church was more unified than it is today.
If you mean 'orthodox' to be "the established and accepted tradition of a faith", that's fine. If it's just a tradition set in a time and geography, and not a belief that's referencing some universal timeless truth, people shouldn't preach about it. If the writer is simply saying that African American theology isn't matching what's more mainstream, OK, I get that.
I do actually have a problem with with the content of 'singular Christians making claims of "orthodoxy"'. I'm an atheist! But you're right, I shouldn't have a problem with people making strong assertions, period, of course. I'm just saying, again, that Christians so often unreflectively hold other Christians to the standards of certain creeds without thinking of the origins of those creeds, and following that, the origins of the Bible canon, and on and on. I think more Christians should be history students. People just default to 'well, I know because the Holy Spirit speaks to me'. Well, the idea of it being possible to be enlightened by the Holy Spirit through faith has a history, too: what makes people think what they feel they know about the Holy Spirit is true?
46. Sara had the following to say on Mar 25 at 9:43 AM:
Oh, and also of course because people are very nice here--and the people who aren't nice are at least interesting!
47. IMO had the following to say on Mar 25 at 1:18 PM:
Thanks Sara!
PS I thought it was uncool now for one to consider him/herself an atheist. I thought, agnostic was in. ;-)
48. Sara had the following to say on Mar 25 at 4:18 PM:
Well, that was true in postmodern times, but we are post-post now. Haven't you heard? :)
But no, my reasoning goes that if, as an agnostic, you aren't doing little things like going to Mass every once in awhile or praying now and then, 'just in case', you might as well just say 'atheist'. I'm also tired of all the "it's all relative/ but how can we really KNOW?" conversations, however important they may be.
49. John had the following to say on Mar 27 at 6:31 AM:
Black theology is birthed in and finds expression in these churches, none of which can be fairly accused of putting race before Christ. While historically these churches have had emphasis on liberation, education, and on creating productive members of society, their purpose has been to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ and to enable parishoners to live lives changed as a result of genuine conversion and faith.""
Yes, right, of course, that's why we read so much about all the black missionaries. Most black "christians" I know are racist and political. Their last thought is about evangelizing! Or they're concerned with the prosperity gospel. But "spreading the "true" gospel" is not a priority for them.
Anyway, here is a very relevant article:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AlbertMohler/2008/03/27/is_jeremiah_wright_mainstream
50. a sassy sister had the following to say on Mar 27 at 9:27 AM:
ok, john:
While the Black Christians you've met seem racist and political, please avoid the danger of classifying all African American Christians as such. We do a great disservice to our ability to share our faith if we put Christians in boxes according to race and culture.
51. John had the following to say on Mar 27 at 2:07 PM:
ok, sassy sister, I said "most," okay?
52. Al had the following to say on Apr 2 at 1:53 PM:
Sara, I had a long response typed up but somehow the Interwebs ate it.
But I still want to clarify that I didn't mean to say that you think Christianity untrue only because it's popular-- I know you have legitimate issues, many of which I can relate to. What I was taking issue with is your assertion that it's "true", or is compelling *only* because it's popular.
Most folks I know of don't hold a Christian world view, and neither of my parents are believers-- so even though I had some exposure to Christianity at an early age, I wasn't actually raised in that environment.
You also cannot simultaneously note that Pauline Christianity was but a miniority school in a doctrinally chaotic landscape in order to undermine its self-identity, and turn around and claim that Christianity can be believed only because it is popular. How it became popular is not just a tangental issue-- I'm sure you will cite church abuses and doctrinal surpression, much of which did occur-- but it does not eliminate the possibility that these teachings were compelling and convicting on their own to many, even if you don't find them so.
We also seem to have some semantic differences. You define "early church" as the collection of all heterodox Christological communities, while mainline Christians are concerned only with the apostolic Pauline churches and do not consider those communties legitimate Christian churches that they identify with. I feel it a bit unfair when you pit a conveniently redefined "early Christianity" against modern Christianity in order to pull the rug out from the self-identity of the faith as it currently stands.
It would be a little like me telling Theravada Buddhists that their claims of being the most pure form of Buddhism are invalid and suspect simply because early Buddhism (as I define it) splintered into 20 different schools based on doctrinal differences. Yes, there was early disagreement regarding Guatama's teachings-- but it still remains that Theravada Buddhism is possibly the one that most accurately encompasses Guatama's tenets.
And yes, I agree that many Christians leave their faith unexamined. I think humans in general are intellectually lazy creatures. I've also observed atheists who also comfort themselves with gross misunderstandings and mocking mischaracterizations of the faiths they attack without attempts to understand the faith on its own terms, even as they disagree.
You're obviously not one of these people. And even though you appear to disparage him offhandedly, C.S. Lewis was not one of those you describe either. Regardless of whether one agrees with his conclusions, it's hard to deny that he's a capable thinker. He had been an ardent atheist, committed to materialism with all his falculties, until he found that he could not maintain faith in atheism. I think it's fair to say that those like Lewis have examined atheism at least as thoroughly as you have examined the Christian faith.
Wow, and this is the slightly shorter (and more poorly worded) version of the post I'd lost. =P