Let my people go so that they may (not) Worship the (un)god! (original) (raw)
Chief Albert Luthuli’s Autobiography 'Let My People Go' As Political-Theological Critique
Journal of Theology for Southern Africa, 2021
Drawing upon the notion that autobiographies or life narratives contain and perform rhetorical acts, combined with the insights of narrative theologians that narratives are crucial for self-understanding and orienting oneself, the article focuses upon Chief Luthuli's 'Let My People Go'. Reading it as an autobiography, the article outlines, chiefly, the rhetorical acts performed in the text, considering their deployment within the narrative as a critique of the political-theological arrangements during the apartheid era.
Worship from the Nations: A Response to Scott Aniol
2015
Glenn Stallsmith responds to Scott Aniol's report on the ethnodoxology movement, which was originally published in Artistic Theologian (Vol. 3, 2015). Stallsmith fills in some of the history of ethnodoxology, connecting the development of ethnodoxology to the Society for Ethnomusicology and the Contemporary Christian Music movement. He then suggests different interpretations of the biblical passages Aniol cited in his original article. Taken together, these two articles by Aniol and Stallsmith provide an excellent overview of the development of ethnodoxology, as well as challenges for the future.
The Divine People, 2023
The rise of right-wing “populist” parties the world over has generated considerable anxiety about the future of liberal democracy. In fact, many of these parties explicitly endorse what Hungary’s Victor Orban termed ‘illiberal democracy’ – meaning a political system in which certain procedural elements of democracy (e.g. elections) remain but the laws and courts no longer aim to deliver equal treatment or protect basic human rights. In practice, illiberal democracy offers a way for nationalist movements to claim democratic credentials while legally discriminating against their purported external and internal enemies – all in the name of national preservation. While these trends are evident in countries around the globe, they are particularly present in contemporary Israel. Seeking to better understand these movements, the authors of this report set out to study the political-theological dimensions of illiberal democracy or ‘post-liberalism’ as it is often called. Of particular interest is the way that post-liberals understand three fundamental political concepts: the law, the state, and the people, all of which exist as theological categories within Western religious traditions. As a political theory, liberalism carefully distinguished among the three concepts and their associated institutions; this was particularly the case with the liberal ideal of law as disinterested and universal. In contrast, we argue that post-liberal political movements tend to collapse the theoretical and practical distinctions between these categories: the law becomes whatever serves the interests of “the people” (a rhetorical concept that need not correspond with an actual popular majority), with the state charged with securing its implementation. In undertaking this analysis, our study builds on the German jurist Carl Schmitt’s contention that modern political concepts are secularized theological ones, an idea expressed, for instance, in the notion of king-as-lawgiver. Every historical era has a corresponding political theology. Most recently, liberalism advanced the ideal of an impartial law that would be equally applicable to all, enforced by a disinterested sovereign bound to serve and protect the people. This too reflects a familiar theological scheme however adamantly its champions proclaim their secularist credentials. With this frame of reference in mind, we can interrogate the political-theological concepts that accompany the post-liberal project. This is all the more crucial because—however ironically given the avowed nationalism expressed by its champions—post-liberalism is a global political project that involves coordination by reactionary forces in countries ranging from India and Turkey to Israel, Hungary, Brazil, and the United States. The ideologues of these movements proffer an alternative vision of the proper relationship between the law, the state, and the people than prevailed under liberal democracy. By way of example our report examines two of these thinkers: the American political theorist Patrick Deneen and the Israeli-American scholar Yoram Hazony, who offer different, albeit overlapping, visions for twenty-first century political and social life. These figures voice familiar critiques of globalization, multiculturalism, and ‘woke’ corporations, but also break with many tenets of faith that defined twentieth-century conservatism – from rejecting individual liberties and (some) free market principles to turning away from the small government ideal. Both scholars advance political-theological visions relating to “the people,” either as manifestations of the “voice of God” (Deneen) or of a divine order supposedly built around the nation-state as its primary unit. However “the people” or “the nation” do not necessarily correspond to a demographic majority in either the United States or Israel, which is one reason why the ‘populist’ label is somewhat misleading. Rather—and here too we can see a fissure with last century’s conservative principles—both Deneen and Hazony believe a strong state is required to uphold and actively cultivate the sort of “traditional” moral values they hold dear. At present the idealized national community–made up of strong patriarchal families and tight-knit religious congregations, with social bonds coerced rather than freely chosen–only exists in small enclaves. Nor can these idealized communities become actualized under prevailing economic conditions, characterized as they are by two-income households, wage stagnation, and a miniscule social safety net. Far from representing a threat to liberty as imagined by Milton Friedman, the state apparatus is absolutely crucial to engineering the ‘traditional’ family and national community. It is important to note that Deneen and Hazony differ from one another in fundamental ways, notably with regard to their assessment of neoliberal economic principles. Moreover, Hazony grounds the sanctity of the nation in the Hebrew Bible while Dennen’s idea of ‘civic virtue’ is rooted, he argues, in a proper understanding of Christian liberty. Yet both men are noteworthy for rejecting the idea of individual liberty, long central not merely to liberal political models but conservative ones as well. They critique individual freedom from two directions. For Deneen, individual liberty comes at the expense of the common good, with self-interested individuals endlessly fixated on cultivating their authentic selves to the detriment of the communal whole. Government protections—for LGBTQ+ people, for instance—merely coddle this egoistic social order. Hazony, for his part, views individual freedom as inherently inferior to the collective freedom one supposedly enjoys as part of a “sacred nation” (goy kadosh). He has been particularly vocal in criticizing anything that would restrain the will of the people – from international conventions to the Israeli Supreme Court. This argument is all the more important to note in light of Israel’s rapidly unfolding judicial ‘reform’ push—led by the Tikvah-funded Kohelet Policy Forum—which aims not only to undermine the Supreme Court’s already limited authority to protect individual rights, but more profoundly, to curtail its independence by overhauling the process of judicial appointment. We argue that the common thread running through these two visions of the post-liberal political order is a renewed focus on constraint: just as people should submit to ‘natural’ social relations and processes—be they an unwanted pregnancy or heterosexual marriage—they should exercise loyalty and restraint when interacting with their political leaders, provided that the latter act in the national interest. The vision, from the family to the state house, is decidedly patriarchal and authoritarian. Sitting on the precipice of a major constitutional crisis in Israel–not to mention significant moves toward West Bank annexation–as well as ongoing political turmoil in the United States, our report underscores that the imperatives of nationalism and those of democracy pull in contradictory directions. In particular, laws and state institutions that operate on a discriminatory basis in the name of protecting ‘the people’ deserve wholehearted rejection regardless of where they occur. Liberalism’s ideal of equal protection under the law may have never existed in fact, but we contend that whatever replaces it will likely be much worse – both for marginalized populations deemed ‘outsiders’ to the nation or for those stigmatized as ‘traitors’ within.
Our Beloved GODS: 'Our GODS: The Hindrance to the Genuine One
2012
There is an urgency to reflect whether the GODs we love and serve leave us impoverished or give us life. We are overfed by numerous images of God today. Some of these GODs defend inhuman and exploiting approaches instead of liberating the vulnerable. These disfigured faces of God are laid upon us when we are helpless, or we buy them when we want to hide. Since these masks of god possess exploiting capacity, and dehumanise their worshippers they have no place in the kingdom of justice and freedom. All these GODs bring along some essential qualities to our own person and society. Their ultimate evil lies in the fact that they feed on the poor, the unemployed, the helpless, the disappointed, the abused. In a world of victims, it is imperative to know in which GOD one is led to believe!
Gnana Robinson. Whither the Indian Church? Delhi: ISPCK/Peace Trust Kanyakumari, 2016. 346 pp
The Ecumenical Review, 2017
Building on his prior book, The Lotus and the Sun, Preman Niles continues his exploration of what he terms the "social biography" of Asian theology in Is God Christian? Christian Identity and Public Theology: An Asian Contribution. His books seek to articulate distinctively Asian theological voices that will be able to effectively address vital issues in their societies. He says, citing his colleague and friend Felix Wilfred, that public theology (at least in Asia) is more "public" than theology-that is, it addresses Asian issues in a distinctly relevant and effective Asian manner. Niles draws on his vast knowledge and long relationships with pioneers in Asian theology who have sought methods and approaches to reconcile the "two stories" that they carry-as Asians and as Christians. Traditional Christian theological language and biblical teachings are often seen in Asia as "Western," entangled in complex colonial histories. If there is a separate Christian God, then that God is often seen as incompatible with Asian deities and traditions; the Christian God is a Western deity that denigrates or misunderstands Asian cultures and realities.
The voice of God and the voice of the State: The ambivalence of obedience
Pharos Journal of Theology
When the government in South Africa announced restrictions on the number of people that could meet in the wake of COVID-19, churches started implementing those measures in order to comply. This happened during the build-up to Easter celebrations. Even over the radio, Christians started to pronounce measures that would address such restrictions during Easter celebrations. Those pronouncements carried with them insinuations on how even the government should not encroach on the churches’ mandate to hold these celebrations. As it turned out, the restrictions were short-lived as they were immediately followed by lockdown. The rhetoric of criticising the government’s encroachment to the territory that belonged to the church was replaced by silent obedience. Faceless meetings erupted as congregants were organised into virtual groups complete with leaders and followers. At the same time, the criticism that had been placed on congregants who attended church on television ceased as many gradu...
Dis-Re-Membered Bodies – Multicultural Bodies Worshiping God
TEAR ONLINE, 2018
This article is a commented sermon I preached at my last worship service at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. The sermon was based on Matthew 12:22-32. The parts in italic are the comments on the sermon. 22 Then they brought to him a demoniac who was blind and mute; and he cured him, so that the one who had been mute could speak and see. 23 All the crowds were amazed and said, 'Can this be the Son of David?' 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, 'It is only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons, that this fellow casts out the demons.' 25 He knew what they were thinking and said to them, 'Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? 27 If I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your own exorcists cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you. 29 Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his property, without first tying up the strong man? Then indeed the house can be plundered. 30 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. 31 Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. May the peace of Christ be with you. Our gospel text today talks about issues of power, authority, authenticity, who belongs where and the ways we try to portray one another. It is not an easy text, and I am still trying to grasp its possibilities. Let us see. At the beginning of this chapter we see Pharisees checking on Jesus about his disciple's behavior. They were doing unlawful things during the Sabbath and that was clearly against the law. Jesus replied to them remembering that David had also done unlawful things like going into the house of God with his friends and eating the bread they were not supposed to eat. The logic of Jesus was grounded in the fact that the temple, bread, and Sabbath were to serve people and not the other way around. Jesus told them that there
As the largest peninsula of the world, India is the land of religious pluralism. From the time immemorial, all religions have preached the eternal values and virtues of the universal brotherhood of man. peace, love and compassion. But in the real life, the broken relationships between humankinds on the basis of colour, caste and religion has been evident and it is in its zenith in the beginning of the twenty-first century. There is much truth even today in what Jonathan Swift had said more than a century ago that, "we have enough religions to make us hate. hut not enough to make us love one another." , In a democratic country like India, people are aware of the' consequences of the religious fundamentalism which happened in the last few years. For instance, the problem of 'Ramajanmabhoomi-Babri Masjit' affected not only Indians; but it has a worldwide effect. In the same manner, the atrocities emerged against Christians throughout the country damaged the status of Indians before others. For the eradication of these problems, India is eagerly waiting for a relevant message of 'peace'.