Daily Archives: May 7, 2009

Theology and Race

The Princeton Theological Review has issued a call for papers for their upcoming issue, the focus of which is on theology and race. In particular they are looking for articles engaging J. Kameron Carter’s recent (and excellent) book, Race: A Theological Account. A worthy endeavor indeed, as I think this is one of the most important books to come out last year and will totally change the landscape of black theology and any theological approach to racial issues. Here are a couple paragraphs from my own review of the book, which appeared in Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie in the regular review column on British and American theology that Paul Metzger and I write together every year:

What lies behind the modern problem of race is what Carter identifies as the theological problem of whiteness. What he means by this has nothing inherently to do with pigmentation, but rather with the structure of supremacy that was built into the fabric of Western culture under the conditions of the modern racial imagination. What the theological problem of whiteness fundamentally names is the way in which the Oriental other (figured archetypally as the Jew) came to be racialized over-against the givenness of Occidental Christian reality. Carter makes this particularly clear in his discussion of the racial theory of Kant (pp. 89-95). In his taxonomy of races, it becomes fundamentally clear that white Europeans, while technically a race, are for Kant truly the specimens of humanity-as-such. The racialized others are only human insofar as they are, in varying degrees, connected to white humanity.

This racial imagination yields understandably heretical theological conclusions, especially in regard to the Jewishness of Christ. As Carter shows, must Western theological imagination came to cast Christ precisely not as Jewish but as a figure of the Occident, whose proclaimed salvation is precisely deliverance from the sort of mucky particularity that characterizes the Jewish race over against the universal and rational religion of Western Christianity. And here we come to the crux of the issue at play in Carter’s account: the modern racial imagination is at its core a christological heresy that seeks to establish the universality of whiteness over against all other forms of racialized flesh. This is also where certain elements of Black liberation theology have failed to go far enough according to Carter. For programs like those of James Cone, the problem is that in their attempts to exposit the theological importance of blackness, the theological structure of whiteness is simply left in its place (pp. 191–93). The proper response to this situation is, for Carter, a return to certain classical Christological sources and theological sources within the Afro-Christian tradition which offer a distinctly non-racial way of reading Christ’s Jewish particularity. As Cater notes, Christ’s Jewish flesh is fundamentally not racial flesh at all, for biblical Israel is not a race, but God’s covenant people. Christ’s flesh is not racial but irreducibly covenantal (pp. 30–31). As such, salvation as given in Christ is precisely salvation from whiteness, from a theological structure of antagonism that reduces our interhumanity to the polarities of hegemony and counter-hegemony.

Cross Talk

As I’ve been blogging through Mike Gorman’s excellent new book, Inhabiting the Cruciform God, I thought it might be good to mention that Mike is himself now actively blogging. His blog includes a great series on theological interpretation among other things. Definitely worth a look.

The Monstrosity of Milbank

Adam Kotsko has a lengthy and helpful rumination on Milbank’s contribution to the new Milbank-Žižek book, The Monstrosity of Christ. Here’s a bit:

The more serious point, however, is that despite the capaciousness of Milbank’s Catholicism, it seems to be unable to “account for” one thing — precisely Christ. Everything seems to work just fine without him, and the attempts to shoehorn the Incarnation into the system strike me as afterthoughts for the most part. The Neoplatonism is where Milbank’s heart really is, and he’s into his idealized version of “Catholicism” because that’s been the primary historical carrier of Neoplatonism in his part of the world. (Presumably an Iranian Milbank would’ve been a Muslim who believed himself to be providing the Ayatollah with some intellectual “wiggle room,” and an Indian Milbank would be wondering aloud if the caste system hasn’t gotten a bad rap due to poor implementation.) For all his talk about history and thick contingency, he doesn’t seem to me to have any serious sense of the contingent historical event that should be central to all his reflections. And so for me, Milbank’s argument suffers from a problem much worse than being an unconvincing argument for Christianity — it’s unclear to me that what it’s arguing for even is Christianity.

This is like, pretty much exactly what I think. Spot on.

Does Television Diminish our Capacity to Love?

According to Mark Shiffman at the Front Porch Republic, it sure seems to:

The attention that constitutes love – love of others and love of the beauty of nature – requires patience and a kind of active receptivity. While a person, or a plant, animal, stream or valley is in front of us, we cannot take it all in at once. There is looking and listening to do, and this involves a real effort on our part, both to direct our attention and to quiet our distractions. We have to let it sink in, and reflect along the way on what is actually there before us and how it all fits together.

By habituating us to follow along impatiently and passively, to filter and frame the world before we’ve had the chance to see anything, television damages our capacity to love well, to love others and the natural world for what they are rather than for what they can do for us. Television is, after all, one of the great tools and purveyors of consumer culture. The culture of consumption and exploitation has every interest in encouraging our self-centered and unreflective egoism and our oblivion to the loveliness of the natural world. Why should we be surprised if the medium that is its most powerful tool encourages the same vices?

Good point. However, to bag on television is starting to become anachronistic. As I mentioned in my post on acedia and visual media, this is a point I take to be extremely important. But personally, I never really watch much actual TV. I do however spend hours watching the seemingly limitless TV shows that are available online. You don’t need a TV to get sucked in. All you need now is a laptop. And generally, I find that watching one’s media entertainment via computer is far more solitary and alienating than traditional TV. At least when I watch TV I tend to do it with other people from my household.

Switch to our mobile site